[ZEBuilder]

Media article mentioning Stage 2 to Cambridge. Relevant parts to LRT bolded below.

Cambridge council raises concern about LRT and transit service gaps

Starting in July, people who qualify will get a 55 per cent discount through the Affordable Transit Program.

www.cambridgetimes.ca

I will say a lot of this is Cambridge shooting themselves in the foot. The Region has been pushing it for years but Cambridge keeps finding ways to delay it. For example the preferred route was in place and the Region was ready to do a business case, then when it came time the Mayor didn't like where it ended and wanted some absolutely stupid changes to the terminus (middle of suburbia instead of downtown). Hence they did a whole study to back up what the Region already was doing which delayed the process.

Cambridge is also extremely anti transit their mayor's and councillors have seemingly done everything in their power to keep delaying the entire project, their former mayor Doug Craig was and still is vehemently against LRT, instead wanting more busses. He was part of the crowd wanting to cancel the first phase of the LRT. They've completely opposed the preferred route before. Jan Liggett also seemingly does everything in her power to delay it, she's complained about lane reductions for the LRT, complained about the route. Didn't like changes to planning documents to make building TOD possible (everything goes to the OLT right now).

Long story short much of the issue is Cambridge NIMBY behavior constantly delaying it.

 

[Vortex112]

Sounds like they’re soft launching the news that there won’t be a LRT extension and we’re stuck with busses to Cambridge.

 

[ShonTron]

Sounds like they’re soft launching the news that there won’t be a LRT extension and we’re stuck with busses to Cambridge.

A shame. But GRT at least runs a pretty good BRT-lite service between Fairway and Ainslie Terminal. Unless Cambridge was really committed to.building up the Hespeler Road corridor, it’s fine in the medium term.

 

[ZEBuilder]

The one thing to remember for phase 2 is the Region as they reconstruct roads along the corridor will be putting in the LRT right of way allowing conversion in the future. The Region is doing this along the King St corridor in Kitchener, then when Hespeler Rd comes up (its a Regional road) for reconstruction the Region will make the LRT right of way, so it may not be happening soon but its likely LRT will be coming one way or another whether Cambridge likes it or not.

We may see pieces operational first for logistical and financing purposes all of which will be discussed in the business case. For example Hespeler to Galt is a relatively straightforward section to do, there's nothing too difficult construction wise. The Hespeler to Fairway stretch has 2 river crossings, 3 freight crossings, and 1 bridge for topography which is magnitudes more difficult to construct than the Hespeler to Galt section.

 

[Sunnyside]

The one thing to remember for phase 2 is the Region as they reconstruct roads along the corridor will be putting in the LRT right of way allowing conversion in the future. The Region is doing this along the King St corridor in Kitchener, then when Hespeler Rd comes up (its a Regional road) for reconstruction the Region will make the LRT right of way, so it may not be happening soon but its likely LRT will be coming one way or another whether Cambridge likes it or not.

We may see pieces operational first for logistical and financing purposes all of which will be discussed in the business case. For example Hespeler to Galt is a relatively straightforward section to do, there's nothing too difficult construction wise. The Hespeler to Fairway stretch has 2 river crossings, 3 freight crossings, and 1 bridge for topography which is magnitudes more difficult to construct than the Hespeler to Galt section.

I still think a local LRT connecting the 3 towns of Cambridge which is later connected to the ‘main’ corridor is a better idea than one continuous through-service. Given the cost of bridging to Cambridge, and with the Hespeler road alignment being more of a development generator than an actually effective transit link, the current plan might die on its hill without a more pragmatic approach to supplant it…

This would be cheaper, better serve Cambridge, and could/would retain the ‘BRT’ Express 302 as the regional connector in the medium term. Fully connecting the two lines could be done later as a more manageable project, which doesn’t pit all of Cambridge against a costly bottleneck.

This also opens the door to revisit the 301 as a whole when it’s to be properly extended. Perhaps with improvements to make it faster overall, so we aren’t constructing a regional trunk that takes 2hrs to ride. That’s what’s really on the table right now, and I don’t really buy the business case in that light.

 

[ownthesky]

Light rail transit provides greatest economic benefit

Waterloo Region - An evaluation of different options for Stage 2 Rapid Transit to Cambridge reveals that light rail transit (LRT) will provide the greatest economic benefit for Waterloo Region. The pr...

www.regionofwaterloo.ca

Waterloo Region – An evaluation of different options for Stage 2 Rapid Transit to Cambridge reveals that light rail transit (LRT) will provide the greatest economic benefit for Waterloo Region. The project will spur economic development and connect residents to jobs, services, housing options and recreation.

The Initial Business Case (IBC) looks at various routes and vehicle types and compares the benefits, costs and potential ridership of these options for the delivery of rapid transit to Cambridge. It evaluates them on the strategic benefits; economic benefits; capital cost estimates; and operating and maintenance cost estimates. The IBC will be a key document supporting requests for full funding from the provincial and federal governments.

The results of the IBC show light rail transit from Downtown Cambridge to Fairway Station and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) from Downtown Cambridge to Fairway Station are the strongest of the five options being evaluated.

“The Region of Waterloo is committed to completing the Region’s initial vision for rapid transit to seamlessly connect the region,” said Regional Chair Karen Redman. “This transformational project will provide economic and social benefits to residents across the community for generations to come.”

Compared to BRT, LRT has the highest capital, operating and maintenance costs, but delivers more economic benefit and achieves all the project’s strategic goals.

Staff will continue to collect public and stakeholder feedback on the data and the project through to the end of October. For details, visit engageWR.ca/stage2ion.

In November, staff will bring a recommendation to Council on how to advance to the design and pre-construction phase.

 

[DirectionNorth]

Light rail transit provides greatest economic benefit

Waterloo Region - An evaluation of different options for Stage 2 Rapid Transit to Cambridge reveals that light rail transit (LRT) will provide the greatest economic benefit for Waterloo Region. The pr...

www.regionofwaterloo.ca

Thanks for posting this.

There are a few reports coming at an RMoW meeting next week, docs found here. I thought I'd bring forwards some interesting pieces. (I have spoilered the images as to not take up massive amounts of space on the thread)

First, a reminder of the options being considered ... a full-build of the LRT from Fairway to Downtown Cambridge/Galt, a Fairway-Pinebush line which would not serve Galt, a Fairway-Delta line which would stop just short of Galt, a Preston-Galt line which would operate independently from Stage 1 of ION, and a BRT along the full-build length. Oh, and a map of the line, for those who have forgotten ...

Spoiler: Maps

Ridership figures ... the full build option would have the highest ridership at 22.3k riders daily. BRT and Fairway-Delta are very similar, 20.6k and 20.5k riders respectively. Skipping downtown Cambridge only loses 1800 riders/day ...

Spoiler: Ridership

Cost estimates ... there is an estimate in 2025 dollars and in 2033 dollars. I will use 2025 dollars for this.

The lowest cost estimate is the BRT option, at $2.2 billion (for 17 km of BRT, that's $130 million/km for BRT. That might be the world's most expensive BRT line, sigh.) The two severely truncated LRT lines cost similar amounts, while full-build and Fairway-Delta sit on either side of $3 billion, give-or-take nine digits. That is $185 million/km for ION Stage 2, compared to about $45 million/km on Stage 1 in 2010s dollars (and is admittedly a simpler project).

Spoiler: Cost

"Economic benefit," defined in a vague way that no one can question (totally not sandbagged. Me? Suggest the idea? Never ...)

Spoiler: Economic Benefits

And the BCR, which is low for all of the options. The cost of these projects is total madness.

My own chart with cost-per-rider of each of the alternatives (I'm still suspicious of the BRT cost estimates and overall ridership projections)

Spoiler: Cost per rider

Is this being set up to be watered down?

Not really ... I suspect that BRT cost was manipulated (you can run on-street without full dedicated lanes and on a cheaper alignment) for the cost to be so high ... the text itself pushes the full buildout as being the best on delivering benefits, which benefits I couldn't say. That said, with the economy the way it is, I think we either see full-build or no-build, and the alternatives are just there to look pretty (does anyone really think they'll build LRT to Pinebush?).

Thoughts?

 

[Northern Light]

Thoughts?

My first thought is that this is an excellent post on your part, which I greatly appreciate and a reminder to everyone that you should post more often!

My second thought is the costs on every variation of this read as excessive by any reasonable measure. There are others here w/more real world construction experience or design experience on contracts of this size....and type...
But I'm not w/o some knowledge and I have trouble getting the numbers this high.

That genuinely bothers me.....I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation for the cost inflation.

****

In that vein, I'm loath to deny K-W more substantial transit improvement, apparent costs notwithstanding.

But I would really like to see 2 points of comparison brought forward.

1) How much can be done here with mostly conventional bus service, just more of it, more frequently, with some transit-priority improvements, turn restrictions, and transit stop amenities?

2) For the same sums, how much could be achieved in the way of an E-W LRT corridor in K-W? What does the net new ridership per capital dollar look like? That might not be the best politics, but its at least worth considering.

 

[ZEBuilder]

Phase 1 is way simpler than phase 2 so the cost makes enough sense. Just to get to Hespeler Road from Fairway you need to bridge over the CP tracks 3 different times (Fairway, Eagle, and the tracks behind Cambridge Asphalt), the Grand River, the Speed River, and the Hwy 8 ramp. The most difficult part of phase 1 was the King St grade separation for comparison.

Knowing people who work for the Region (not on this particular project but involved with many of the transport projects) they generally use the increase in property taxes from higher land valuations in economic benefits and if what happened in KW happens along Hespeler or even in Preston it makes some sense.

Now to respond to Northern Light's questions more can certainly be done with conventional busses, Hespeler Road can easily be switched to have dedicated bus lanes or even just more frequency, the problem that will inevitably develop is how are you getting between Kitchener and Cambridge? This is the geographic nightmare that a phase 2 has to contend with thanks to the Speed and Grand Rivers.

The 401/8 interchange (even with the widening to 10 lanes) where busses would run if no dedicated right of way is built is no different than present where the existing aBRT gets stuck in that and delayed, it also runs every 10 minutes if I'm remembering correctly. Eagle/Fountain has capacity but if the 401 falls apart through Cambridge which happens often enough, Eagle/Fountain effectively becomes the EDR and then you get the same issue as the 401 right now. If you push down to Homer Watson you get the same issue (the ramp backs up to the Grand River), then your other option is taking King through Sportsworld but even then you're taking Eagle to King, or Hespeler to Maple Grove to King which both carry significant vehicle volumes and just have congestion to a point where busses aren't all that useful for most people without there being a dedicated right of way.

Arguably yes the cost is insane but Cambridge needs some other way to get to Kitchener because the existing vehicular routes are bearable but in no way should it be taking 40 minutes to drive from Hespeler/Pinebush to Fairway (it took this long yesterday and isn't an abnormal occurrence).

Now for an E-W LRT, the Region has plans for one along Ottawa St (Sunrise Centre to YKF), ROPA 6 and Kitchener 2051 are both planning for it. It's easier in some aspects you still have to bridge the Grand River, then you have to deal with the connection to phase 1 so how is that being dealt with? You'll need to grade seperate at Mill/Ottawa because of CN which makes any connection to phase 1 tricky. Then how are you crossing Hwy 7 and Hwy 7/8, you could take lanes away it wouldn't be too bad, but then how are you crossing 3 roundabouts including one that is 3 lanes?

Arguably it's tricky but it makes way more sense than fighting geography to get to Cambridge from Fairway. With that said if Cambridge doesn't get Phase 2 and they build an E-W line first it is political suicide. Cambridge is as NIMBY as one could imagine and they've been fighting the LRT for years thanks to Doug Craig and Jan Liggett but if they don't get an LRT it is not going to go over well.

 

[Bureaucromancer]

Concur on the BRT costs being pushed up. If you read between the lines on their option development it's pretty clear that the shortened LRT options were never meant to be very serious, and appears that the BRT is predicated on using basically the approved corridor, not the highway lanes + Hespeler Road reframe that could save real money.

As far as the cost, go look at the design plates. They're high, but not wildly so for what's actually being built; this isn't a street tram, has multiple major bridges and is a lot more 'rapid transit' than anything stage 1 did outside the waterloo spur right of way. All in ways that leave any highway expansion alternative more costly mind you. End of the day there are major geographic barriers between Cambridge and Kitchener that need to be crossed by ANYTHING.

 

[jordanmkasla2009]

The most difficult part of phase 1 was the King St grade separation for comparison.

it was the most difficult and in the end that part of the project ended up being almost entirely funded by Metrolinx.

 

[jordanmkasla2009]

My first thought is that this is an excellent post on your part, which I greatly appreciate and a reminder to everyone that you should post more often!

My second thought is the costs on every variation of this read as excessive by any reasonable measure. There are others here w/more real world construction experience or design experience on contracts of this size....and type...
But I'm not w/o some knowledge and I have trouble getting the numbers this high.

That genuinely bothers me.....I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation for the cost inflation.

****

In that vein, I'm loath to deny K-W more substantial transit improvement, apparent costs notwithstanding.

But I would really like to see 2 points of comparison brought forward.

1) How much can be done here with mostly conventional bus service, just more of it, more frequently, with some transit-priority improvements, turn restrictions, and transit stop amenities?

2) For the same sums, how much could be achieved in the way of an E-W LRT corridor in K-W? What does the net new ridership per capital dollar look like? That might not be the best politics, but its at least worth considering.

A lot of the cost in this phase has to do with the number of bridges that have to be built:

1. From Fairway Station over Fairway Road and the CPKC Waterloo Sub to the River Road extension.
2. From where it exits the River Road extension over geographic features to a hillside ROW parallel to HWY 8 that will be cut through the hill.
3. From that hillside over the Grand River (using no bridge piers in the river), continuing to parallel HWY 8, over the HWY 8 off ramp to King St where the ROW will become a centre median. (This elevated section is the longest and most technically challenging)
4. From Shantz Hill Road over the Speed River and into a ROW that crosses Chopin Drive on approach to Preston Station.
5. From where it diverges from siderunning along Eagle Street over the CPKC Waterloo Sub to the long decommissioned CPKC Hespeler Spur.
6. From where it diverges from from the former CPKC Hespeler Spur over the CN Fergus spur to a ROW parallelling the CN Galt Industrial Spur.

and a lot of grade smoothing work and retaining wall structures that will need to be built along the ROW.

 

[Northern Light]

Thanks to all above for the info.

While aware of the project to be sure, I have not followed the discussion/debate around the route options here, and the associated technical challenges.

Question, why was the route via Hespeler Rd. chosen?

Just looking at the map, where I would imagine you wanted the line to serve, I would have thought King/Coronation/Water/Main I don't think I would have bothered w/the rail ROW. Its a much shorter route. I imagine there were compelling reasons to route as they have, but it seems they added a great deal of cost as well.

 

[Bureaucromancer]

Thanks to all above for the info.

While aware of the project to be sure, I have not followed the discussion/debate around the route options here, and the associated technical challenges.

Question, why was the route via Hespeler Rd. chosen?

Just looking at the map, where I would imagine you wanted the line to serve, I would have thought King/Coronation/Water/Main I don't think I would have bothered w/the rail ROW. Its a much shorter route. I imagine there were compelling reasons to route as they have, but it seems they added a great deal of cost as well.

King/Coronation are basically stable low density, high value, residential communities (and Water has a pile of floodplain issues). Hespeler Road is a growth corridor. King in Preston also would need some combination of streetcar style ops and directing through traffic onto basically residential alternate routes or demoing a LOT of residential, some of it new, to widen the railway corridor enough to squeeze it in.

Honestly, I'd put it out there that the real lesson of stage 2 is that the corridor should have been designed as a whole, and had we done that there is so much grade separation involved in the whole that light metro might actually have been a reasonable conversation... Which more usefully brings us back to my usual point that 5.5 billion for the totality of the corridor is a better framing than 4.5 for Cambridge specifically.

 

[kalis0490]

King/Coronation are basically stable low density, high value, residential communities (and Water has a pile of floodplain issues). Hespeler Road is a growth corridor. King in Preston also would need some combination of streetcar style ops and directing through traffic onto basically residential alternate routes or demoing a LOT of residential, some of it new, to widen the railway corridor enough to squeeze it in.

Honestly, I'd put it out there that the real lesson of stage 2 is that the corridor should have been designed as a whole, and had we done that there is so much grade separation involved in the whole that light metro might actually have been a reasonable conversation... Which more usefully brings us back to my usual point that 5.5 billion for the totality of the corridor is a better framing than 4.5 for Cambridge specifically.

According to the document shared earlier, the projected travel time from Fairway to Downtown Cambridge is 29 minutes, which given a distance of 17 km, means a projected travel speed of 34km/h - as fast as B-D (line 2).

Local Waterloo Region Transit advocacy group Tritag, known for their monthly in-depth transportation update newsletters (https://tritag.ca/blog/2025/09/15/news-roundup/), has launched the IonizeWR campaign (https://ionizewr.ca/) to encourage support for the extension. I'd encourage people interested in the extension to support the campaign.

Thanks to all above for the info.

While aware of the project to be sure, I have not followed the discussion/debate around the route options here, and the associated technical challenges.

Question, why was the route via Hespeler Rd. chosen?

Just looking at the map, where I would imagine you wanted the line to serve, I would have thought King/Coronation/Water/Main I don't think I would have bothered w/the rail ROW. Its a much shorter route. I imagine there were compelling reasons to route as they have, but it seems they added a great deal of cost as well.

The goal is to redevelop and turn hespeler rd into the new cambridge city downtown. Heres a great article explaining the hespeler rd vision: https://www.cambridgetoday.ca/local...tage-to-reshape-key-parts-of-the-city-6214764