General Road and Highway Discussion

[the_conestoga_guy]

All the talk of potential LRT routes inspired me to take a look at the Region's capital plans to see if any hints could be gleaned. I didn't find anything particularly interesting related to the LRT, but I did see "05709 Fischer‐Hallman Rd, HWY 7/8 to Columbia St Bus Lane Study" with funding earmarked for this year and the next two.

Page 29: https://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/regio...t_Book.pdf

If phase 3 of the ION were to terminate at the Sunrise Centre, then having a BRT leg in this place would be a brilliant connecting feature. Though, the same could be said if the ION were to travel down Victoria or Highland. Regardless, I'm excited to see the Region thinking ahead.

[danbrotherston]

That section of Victoria? No, I don't think so. It will never get an LRT so long as the other section is only 2 lanes wide. They won't even run an iXpress bus down the road.

My guess is that staff just don't even think about it. The concept of narrowing a road is alien to most regional engineers. I'm guessing that unless they are instructed by superiors to do this--to them--bizarre and unusual thing, they won't even consider it.

But that's just me desperately trying to fit Hanlon's razor into this....because the alternative....and I do consider this malice, is that regional staff haven't actually given up on widening Victoria St to 4 lanes the whole way. While they claim to believe that such a project will never actually be done, maybe they still secretly believe they'll one day be allowed to plow 3 more lanes through a whole bunch of living rooms.

That being said, in that case, they're still short sighted and...bluntly....stupid. This isn't going to be a project in the 10 year timeframe, maybe 25-30 years, and by then, the incremental cost of re-widening that section of Victoria, will be tiny compared with the cost of acquiring a few dozen homes and front yards and cutting of century old trees.

In either case, the result remains the same, waste of lives, waste of money.

Okay, but WHAT IF instead of widening Victoria to make space for the LRT where there's only two lanes, we tunnel the LRT for that section between Walnut and Lawrence??

I honestly can't tell if you're being serious lol...but just in case you aren't:

Then we will quickly be not building another LRT because the cost is unreasonable.

In any case, there are many surface routes that would be fine for LRT, or even rerouting + traffic calming and just make it a shared section.

Fortunately we don't even have to worry about this for a few decades given the situation in Cambridge.

Edit: I am just reading the rest of the replies and I am astonished at the denial of induced demand. Removing capacity could make traffic better....removing car capacity to add 10x the transit capacity will make traffic better with near certainty. I expect this from our transit planners (which is a shocking indictment of their field), I didn't expect it from folks here lol.

[plam]

Okay, but WHAT IF instead of widening Victoria to make space for the LRT where there's only two lanes, we tunnel the LRT for that section between Walnut and Lawrence??

Hmmmm ... if you just did it as an open cut (rather than tunneling), with no underground stations, that might not be ridiculously expensive!

Decarie Expressway in Montreal!

[SF22]

Okay, but WHAT IF instead of widening Victoria to make space for the LRT where there's only two lanes, we tunnel the LRT for that section between Walnut and Lawrence??

I honestly can't tell if you're being serious lol...but just in case you aren't:

Then we will quickly be not building another LRT because the cost is unreasonable.

In any case, there are many surface routes that would be fine for LRT, or even rerouting + traffic calming and just make it a shared section.

Fortunately we don't even have to worry about this for a few decades given the situation in Cambridge.

Edit: I am just reading the rest of the replies and I am astonished at the denial of induced demand. Removing capacity could make traffic better....removing car capacity to add 10x the transit capacity will make traffic better with near certainty. I expect this from our transit planners (which is a shocking indictment of their field), I didn't expect it from folks here lol.

Only half-joking. You'd think that people in the residential areas would prefer a tunnelled LRT instead of an elevated one with all the noise and visual clutter, but it totally is more expensive. (Also I just really like the metro, and kind of wish we had one, even though I know that nobody would approve that expense).

I would personally never want any portion of the LRT to be shared with vehicle traffic, though. The beauty of our system is that it ALWAYS arrives on time, and putting 1km of shared road in the middle would wreak havoc on scheduling reliability. I think you'd be more likely to see the region buy up the properties on one side of Victoria St to create the necessary space to route the trains/cars separately, much like the Weber St houses between Wellington and Guelph were torn down to make space for 2 extra lanes back in 2014.

[danbrotherston]

I honestly can't tell if you're being serious lol...but just in case you aren't:

Then we will quickly be not building another LRT because the cost is unreasonable.

In any case, there are many surface routes that would be fine for LRT, or even rerouting + traffic calming and just make it a shared section.

Fortunately we don't even have to worry about this for a few decades given the situation in Cambridge.

Edit: I am just reading the rest of the replies and I am astonished at the denial of induced demand. Removing capacity could make traffic better....removing car capacity to add 10x the transit capacity will make traffic better with near certainty. I expect this from our transit planners (which is a shocking indictment of their field), I didn't expect it from folks here lol.

Only half-joking. You'd think that people in the residential areas would prefer a tunnelled LRT instead of an elevated one with all the noise and visual clutter, but it totally is more expensive. (Also I just really like the metro, and kind of wish we had one, even though I know that nobody would approve that expense).

I would personally never want any portion of the LRT to be shared with vehicle traffic, though. The beauty of our system is that it ALWAYS arrives on time, and putting 1km of shared road in the middle would wreak havoc on scheduling reliability. I think you'd be more likely to see the region buy up the properties on one side of Victoria St to create the necessary space to route the trains/cars separately, much like the Weber St houses between Wellington and Guelph were torn down to make space for 2 extra lanes back in 2014.

I mean, metros are cool, but I generally think LRTs are better in most of our less dense cities...we have the space so our density (even optimistically what we can achieve) doesn't justify tunnelling. And plus, LRTs are lower friction for riders than metros are, and as long as they come frequently enough, equally comfortable.

As for sharing with cars...you're right and wrong at the same time. Politically and institutionally sharing traffic with cars in Canada would be a problem....but technically there is no reason that it cannot work. The problem is in our unwillingness to restrict cars. Making Victoria St. open to cars, but only for local traffic would work fine. The local traffic wouldn't delay the trains a meaningful amount, and it would allow the residents to maintain access to their properties.

The problem comes from our unwillingness to enforce those rules (I'd say we've made progress in that we're willing to make those rules now, which we weren't before). Like, it's not complicated, use a trap, or an automated bollard, or a camera system anything to heavily punish drivers who drive straight through a clearly marked no straight intersection, and it wouldn't be an issue. But we're just not willing to do that...because the idea of punishing bad driving is uncomfortable for politicians and the general public...hmmm.

But it is a shame because this would be the best/most cost effective way to achieve these goals...of course, somehow our "fiscal conservatives" are entirely unwilling to entertain solutions like this....but I digress.

Realistically, I don't think it matters anyway....any LRT along that corridor is at least 25 years in the future...a lot changes in a quarter century. And even if it doesn't, there are alternatives, like running through the greenway between Victoria and Highland or running up Victoria to West and then down to Highland.

[Bytor]

It would be nice, but I doubt they'd be willing to spend the money to do that.

But isn't Ottawa the preferred street to use for a third line anyways?

I believe that Ottawa and Victoria/Highland are both earmarked as possible places for a future LRT line (I can't remember which official document shows this, but it's definitely been mapped out before), but Ottawa has the benefit of being able to extend across the Grand River to connect to Breslau and the proposed future GO station that's meant to go there, since Ottawa St has been left open-ended on the Kitchener side with the intention that they'll make a new bridge connection here someday. I think the only other road noted for an LRT line is the King/University combo that connects Conestoga Mall down King, and then onto University to go past both Laurier and UW, then out towards Ira Needles.

No. The Ottawa St. extension to Breslau was marked on a map as a potential future transit corridor, but that is all. No specific mention has ever been made of an LRT out that way.

[Bytor]

Only half-joking. You'd think that people in the residential areas would prefer a tunnelled LRT instead of an elevated one with all the noise and visual clutter

LRTs are much quieter than buses or vehicle traffic of any kind.

As for "visual clutter", what is a nigh unending stream of traffic?