Road design, transportation and walkability

[jamincan]

They also use them les soften, too, at an average of 13,000km yearly compared 20k in Canada. That's because many of those car owners are taking public transit or cycling or walking for a lot of things.


Here's something ask - why do transit and cycling infrastructure projects need business cases but roads do not? Even though it is well known and document that added transit service creates big jumps in transit usage, it still has to be justified but road widenings never are?


That is just false. Transit can be used by anybody who has a bus stop within a 5 minute walk of the start and end points. Locally, that covers 85% of all residences in Kitchener, Waterloo, and Cambridge.


False. I see people cycling all winter long. Especially the last 10 years because of the constant warm spells thanks to global warming.


They happen less often than accidents on the 401. BTW, can I use covid-19 to say that recent 401 widening from Kitchener to Cambridge was obviously not needed?


That's not a reason to no start tolling, it's a reason add better transit service along such corridors, like our iXpress network has been doing. None of those other things you mention are barriers to transit, either. There's no reason why elderly people can't use out modern, low-floor busses. I see them doing so all the time on GRT.

BTW, your anecdote about helping an elderly relative to a medical appointment via transit? I've had enough visits to New York and used the busses and metro there for a week at a time to know that I could accomplish what you describe in under and hour even if I lived in Brooklyn and worked in Manhattan. I'm also fairly certain given my experiences using transit in Atlanta, Chicago, Washington D.C. and Dublin that I could do the same in those places. How often have you use transit systems elsewhere? In those places it very easily replaces private transportation as an option.

Dan is quite right to say that you appear to assume that just because GRT isn't the best that nowhere has good transit.


Then please tell the car drivers to stop hating transit. There's far more of them, and as a greater percentage of all car drivers, too, that want no increases in public transit service or even to get rid of it entirely, than whatever anti-car type you seem to think Dan is.

You brought up that in The Netherlands that people drive an average of 13,000 km - per year. Canada is 20,000 km.  Go take a look at a map, and tell me how that 13,000 figure is great for a country that is super tiny compared to Canada - and a fraction of the size of southern Ontario. The small country size is a benefit to them. Yet, even then, they still do a lot of driving. Actually, considering the advantages the Holland has over Canada, I am surprised they do as much driving as they do. Shocked actually. I thought for sure the numbers would be closer to 5,000K per year. Damn, that’s more driving that what I do, and I have friends and family all over Ontario.

But obviously if they still need to drive as much as they do, their system isn’t great for as many of the people as some think.

As for how they decide to make decisions regarding transportation — in my area, the money has been spent widening the road (in one case) to add bike lanes, and in the other case, removing driving lanes to add bike lanes. No complaints from me. For transit, they did a business study when they started to build the Ion, and a decision was made to remove bus services in my area, and the closest spot was reduced from 7 days to 6, and removed early services and late services.

You mention that 85% of people are within 5 minutes walk of a bus stop. What percent of those 85% are able-bodied enough to do so? Not just anybody can do a 5 minute walk. Factor in summer construction, factor in reduced ‘summer’ services, that 5 minute walks is now 10 minutes or 20 minutes. If you live on a mainline, and have quick access to the Ion, sure, those people can easily use it.

Problem here is: No one is bringing up examples where transit is used by everyone. You bring up that you see people cycling year round, fine. How many people can do it? What numbers do we have to support that winter cycling is a good option for everyone? Global warming or not, we still have cold winters. We still have snow. We still have cold. For this past winter, we had 9 days out of 91 where the temperatures stayed a freezing or higher. You and Dan might be a-okay with a 30 minute bike ride to work in the winter. I am not. And I don’t know of any that actually does this.

As for the ‘anecdote’, how the hell do you compare KWC to New York City? 5 minutes to get to Manhattan to Brooklyn using transit. Done it. Getting from one side of Brooklyn to the other side of Manhattan? Different story. But since you said you could leave work, pick up an elderly, take them to a doctors appointment, then back home in under an hour, I have to call BS on that unless each is 1 or 2 subway stop from each other, and work, elderly, doctors office on same line. If that’s the case, it’s a unique situation and certainly wouldn’t apply to most people.

And whenever I go to Toronto, I usually use their transit, if I am going DT Toronto. Park at the 407ETR and take the 45 minute ride to Union station and a 25 minute walk to wherever, unless going to BMO Field, then take the 25 minute LRT ride. It is quicker by car most times, but I rather not deal with the frustration for the occasional time I got to DT Toronto.

BTW: I haven’t seen any car drivers moan and complain about bike lanes and transit. I don’t doubt they exist. But I would argue there are more car haters than transit/bike haters.

My reason for not using transit is because, 1) when I was on normal shift work, we had no bus services for all time (starting work at 6 am or earlier of OT, or finishing work at 12 or later if OT, not to mention weekend work) so transit is useless for 9 days out fo 20. 2) Even when transit is available, my 8 minute commute increases to over an hour to get to work on time, and an extra 45 minutes back home. No thanks. I have a disabled daughter and elderly mother to take care of, I don’t have the almost extra 10 hours a week to spare commuting just to work, nor the finances to take time off of work to do appointments. 

Cycling is just not an option for me, especially during cool weather (under 5ºC ) due to my asthma. Winter isn’t an option, but I am happy for anyone that can do it.

You guys keep bring up tolling — how is this helpful? The corridors are expensive to live on. Sorry — they just are. Transit is next to nothing — make it free, but you don’t need to toll cars to do so. It’s a poor business decisions that would hurt the city, not help.

Whether or not transit is practical for you specifically is largely irrelevant. Maybe in your particular instance a car is appropriate. That does not mean, however, that we can't work to make our cities more sustainable and shift other trips on Hwy 7 to transit. We need to recognize that in the face of climate change we have no other choice but to try to move in a direction that is not dependent on cars. Given that, what can we do to make our cities less car dependent, and does a new expressway between Guelph and KW meet those policy objectives? I'd argue no, and it therefore should be a non-starter.

[ijmorlan]

I don’t know how many people have been following the reconstruction of Mill St. between Stirling and Borden Parkway, but the curbs are now in. It appears that the new road will be noticeably narrower than it was before, although I’m guessing still wide enough for a parking lane; also work underway today makes it appear the gap in the sidewalk on the east side will be filled in. I don’t know about bicycle infrastructure, although Mill is a street that should be slow enough that bicycles don’t need to be separated in the same way we like to see on major roads. I’m interested to see what happens when they do the stretch from Borden Parkway down to Ottawa; almost the entire east side is currently without a sidewalk.

[panamaniac]

I’ve always found the sidewalk gaps along Mill St to be a curiosity - seventy years after the area was developed, it still carries evidence of the country lane that it once was (and one of the oldest roads in the city).

[danbrotherston]

I don’t know how many people have been following the reconstruction of Mill St. between Stirling and Borden Parkway, but the curbs are now in. It appears that the new road will be noticeably narrower than it was before, although I’m guessing still wide enough for a parking lane; also work underway today makes it appear the gap in the sidewalk on the east side will be filled in. I don’t know about bicycle infrastructure, although Mill is a street that should be slow enough that bicycles don’t need to be separated in the same way we like to see on major roads. I’m interested to see what happens when they do the stretch from Borden Parkway down to Ottawa; almost the entire east side is currently without a sidewalk.

I believe the plan is to fill in the sidewalks in the reconstructed areas.

Also, I believe there will be bike lanes, which I feel are justified. The road isn't particularly high traffic, but the traffic speeds are not that low.

[ijmorlan]

I believe the plan is to fill in the sidewalks in the reconstructed areas.

Also, I believe there will be bike lanes, which I feel are justified. The road isn't particularly high traffic, but the traffic speeds are not that low.

Thanks, I’m glad to hear both of those. It’s a bit hard to tell exactly how wide it will really feel from just seeing the curbs from a distance. I just wish they would build the bike lanes a bit more separated; sometimes I feel like the extra width for bike lanes adds to the perceived width of the street and therefore increases speeds. Mill definitely doesn’t need high speeds.

[danbrotherston]

I believe the plan is to fill in the sidewalks in the reconstructed areas.

Also, I believe there will be bike lanes, which I feel are justified. The road isn't particularly high traffic, but the traffic speeds are not that low.

Thanks, I’m glad to hear both of those. It’s a bit hard to tell exactly how wide it will really feel from just seeing the curbs from a distance. I just wish they would build the bike lanes a bit more separated; sometimes I feel like the extra width for bike lanes adds to the perceived width of the street and therefore increases speeds. Mill definitely doesn’t need high speeds.

I tend to agree, making roads wider is almost always bad...

But our new city guideline should help with that, but I don't know if they were in force when this was planned.

[jeffster]

Whether or not transit is practical for you specifically is largely irrelevant. Maybe in your particular instance a car is appropriate. That does not mean, however, that we can't work to make our cities more sustainable and shift other trips on Hwy 7 to transit. We need to recognize that in the face of climate change we have no other choice but to try to move in a direction that is not dependent on cars. Given that, what can we do to make our cities less car dependent, and does a new expressway between Guelph and KW meet those policy objectives? I'd argue no, and it therefore should be a non-starter.

Ok, but it transit practical for the majority of the population? That is relevant. Forget me. I’d argue that transit isn’t practical, and likely never will be.

I look at my own neighbourhood, we lost our transit due to the LRT (trying to save money). Closest stop is a 5 - 15 minute walk, depending on where you live. That past 4 summers though, due to construction, the GRT has been re-routed. So it’s not even close for anyone. I wanted my son to take the bus to his high school, since he didn’t like the walk (exactly 3,180 m, just 20 meters short of school bussing), but we realized that between mid-April and mid-December, there is no service. This affect the entire area. And we’re not the only neighbourhood having these sorts of problems.

For transit to be good for people, it needs to have consistent service. It needs to be quick. We need to be able to get to our “places” (be it work, doctors appointments, etc) in a timely fashion. For the majority, this isn’t the case. This is especially true for those with families. How much time does one want to spend outside the home, going to and from work, and other places, when they have a family to take care of. The majority of people would rather spend 15 minutes in their car getting to and from work, for example, rather than 90 minutes on a bus, both ways.

Transit also needs to be reliable. Currently, it is not. It also needs to be 100% safe for the user, and it is not. And when things like a pandemic come up, we can’t rely on transit. When strikes occurs (like this did last year), we can’t rely on transit.

As for climate change, I already said it once, and will say it again: cars will be electric in the future. Some vehicles might still be gas, but that will be reserved mostly for transport trucks, transit busses, etc.

As for the highway between Kitchener and Guelph, I’d also argue that it will be more beneficial for the environment than other options. Simply because, going onto a roadway with no stops and high speed, gas usage in cars drop. Though by the time it’s done, I think more cars will be electric, so it might be a moot point.

[tomh009]

I look at my own neighbourhood, we lost our transit due to the LRT (trying to save money). Closest stop is a 5 - 15 minute walk, depending on where you live. That past 4 summers though, due to construction, the GRT has been re-routed. So it’s not even close for anyone. I wanted my son to take the bus to his high school, since he didn’t like the walk (exactly 3,180 m, just 20 meters short of school bussing), but we realized that between mid-April and mid-December, there is no service. This affect the entire area. And we’re not the only neighbourhood having these sorts of problems.

For transit to be good for people, it needs to have consistent service. It needs to be quick. We need to be able to get to our “places” (be it work, doctors appointments, etc) in a timely fashion. For the majority, this isn’t the case. This is especially true for those with families. How much time does one want to spend outside the home, going to and from work, and other places, when they have a family to take care of. The majority of people would rather spend 15 minutes in their car getting to and from work, for example, rather than 90 minutes on a bus, both ways.

Transit also needs to be reliable. Currently, it is not. It also needs to be 100% safe for the user, and it is not. And when things like a pandemic come up, we can’t rely on transit. When strikes occurs (like this did last year), we can’t rely on transit.

Personally, for a young, healthy high school student, 3 km is a quick bicycle ride (from April to December) or a not-too-onerous walk. And 10 minutes' walk to a bus stop is not far. But that's just my opinion. When I was young, we walked 20 km to school, barefoot, in a blizzard every day, uphill in both directions ...

Why do you say transit is not reliable and not safe? I don't think we should use a once-in-100 years pandemic as a criterion for reliability.

[dtkvictim]

Ok, but it transit practical for the majority of the population? That is relevant. Forget me. I’d argue that transit isn’t practical, and likely never will be.

I'm confused by your argument. Our transit sucks (relative to driving) specifically because it has under-prioritized, not because transit inherently sucks. You also seem to be stuck in the mindset that it's all or nothing, that 100% of your trips have to been taken with the same mode of transportation.

And for what it's worth, there was that Toronto post going around recently saying about 50% of trips (perhaps it was commutes) are made by transit. So even in a city with mediocre transit on the world stage, the majority can find it the most practical option.

Why do you say transit is not reliable and not safe? I don't think we should use a once-in-100 years pandemic as a criterion for reliability.

In regards to safety outside of the pandemic, my partner has made us leave buses/trains because she felt unsafe. Many times riding on my own I would not have left, but certainly felt very uncomfortable. Since we live downtown, these experiences aren't unique to transit, but driving would let us avoid a lot of these situations and I understand why people would make that decision. You might argue that transit is still quite safe despite how we feel, but I think feeling safe is nearly as important as actually being safe.

[danbrotherston]

Whether or not transit is practical for you specifically is largely irrelevant. Maybe in your particular instance a car is appropriate. That does not mean, however, that we can't work to make our cities more sustainable and shift other trips on Hwy 7 to transit. We need to recognize that in the face of climate change we have no other choice but to try to move in a direction that is not dependent on cars. Given that, what can we do to make our cities less car dependent, and does a new expressway between Guelph and KW meet those policy objectives? I'd argue no, and it therefore should be a non-starter.

Ok, but it transit practical for the majority of the population? That is relevant. Forget me. I’d argue that transit isn’t practical, and likely never will be.

I look at my own neighbourhood, we lost our transit due to the LRT (trying to save money). Closest stop is a 5 - 15 minute walk, depending on where you live. That past 4 summers though, due to construction, the GRT has been re-routed. So it’s not even close for anyone. I wanted my son to take the bus to his high school, since he didn’t like the walk (exactly 3,180 m, just 20 meters short of school bussing), but we realized that between mid-April and mid-December, there is no service. This affect the entire area. And we’re not the only neighbourhood having these sorts of problems.

For transit to be good for people, it needs to have consistent service. It needs to be quick. We need to be able to get to our “places” (be it work, doctors appointments, etc) in a timely fashion. For the majority, this isn’t the case. This is especially true for those with families. How much time does one want to spend outside the home, going to and from work, and other places, when they have a family to take care of. The majority of people would rather spend 15 minutes in their car getting to and from work, for example, rather than 90 minutes on a bus, both ways.

Transit also needs to be reliable. Currently, it is not. It also needs to be 100% safe for the user, and it is not. And when things like a pandemic come up, we can’t rely on transit. When strikes occurs (like this did last year), we can’t rely on transit.

As for climate change, I already said it once, and will say it again: cars will be electric in the future. Some vehicles might still be gas, but that will be reserved mostly for transport trucks, transit busses, etc.

As for the highway between Kitchener and Guelph, I’d also argue that it will be more beneficial for the environment than other options. Simply because, going onto a roadway with no stops and high speed, gas usage in cars drop. Though by the time it’s done, I think more cars will be electric, so it might be a moot point.

We have already had this conversation a number of times, but ironically, your statements here are even more disprovable.  Yes, transit is absolutely practical for the majority of the population, the majority live in places that are easy to serve with transit. Yes, plenty of folks live in far flung cul-de-sacs that will never see good transit, but not the majority, the majority live in dense areas and dense buildings because those areas are dense and have more people.  Now, the majority of those folks do not choose transit for a number of reasons, but that does not mean it isn't a practical choice.

I don't think anyone here would disagree about transit being convenient, and fast, but transit, including GRT often is, the majority of people who live in denser areas near main routes, could easily be served by high frequency fast service, that's why transit is practical for the majority. The far flung suburbs are a problem only if the goal is 100% riding transit, which it isn't (and bicycles solve the last mile problem there very well anyway).

As for climate change, EVs will not solve climate change. They are better than gas cars, but they are still so incredibly impactful that switching to them does NOT solve climate change. It ONLY solves it for us, by forcing other countries to fail. Our numbers look good, because as usual, we are shifting our burden elsewhere. EVs are not a path to climate stability.

As a side note, I find it interesting you suggest that trucks and transit will still be gas, those are among the first vehicles being converted to EVs. Aside from EVs simply being cheaper for freight operators, local deliver and transit buses benefit immensely from electrification because their current driving pattern is near pessimal for internal combustion engines.

The highway to Guelph is a clear environmental loss. Vehicles use more energy traveling faster, they only do poorly in stop and go traffic, with extensive idling, highway 7 doesn't experience that much, and in return at all other times vehicles will travel faster and consume far more (it's a square power) energy doing so.

[plam]

The highway to Guelph is a clear environmental loss. Vehicles use more energy traveling faster, they only do poorly in stop and go traffic, with extensive idling, highway 7 doesn't experience that much, and in return at all other times vehicles will travel faster and consume far more (it's a square power) energy doing so.

Also more cars will be induced to take the highway.

[ijmorlan]

Also more cars will be induced to take the highway.

And in case anybody is still suspicious of this concept of induced demand, it’s just an example of perfectly respectable ECON 101 concepts. If you have a service and you make it better and cheaper, then ceteris paribus more people will use it.

A faster highway (both due to being designed for and legally allowing higher speeds, and due to having more spare capacity than the predecessor road, at least at first) is both a better service and cheaper to use (not price, but the overall cost of the road to the user, which includes time spent).

So it’s not the slightest bit surprising that expanded roads usually lead to more traffic.

This doesn’t mean it’s never appropriate to expand roads (or any transportation service), but it does mean that any argument that a new highway will “reduce congestion” is usually naive.

[dtkvictim]

I thought you might all appreciate (in a sense of the word) this town I came across in Australia on geoguessr. And be thankful we don't seem to be doing quite this bad here in Canada.

Parking on both sides of the road, and down the middle. Center parking flanked by massive lanes. There were multiple parallel roads identical to this one.






And I really like this sign, "I don't know how fast you're going, but it's too fast!":

[danbrotherston]

I thought you might all appreciate (in a sense of the word) this town I came across in Australia on geoguessr. And be thankful we don't seem to be doing quite this bad here in Canada.

Parking on both sides of the road, and down the middle. Center parking flanked by massive lanes. There were multiple parallel roads identical to this one.






And I really like this sign, "I don't know how fast you're going, but it's too fast!":

Pavement must be free in Austrailia or something.

There isn't even anything around to justify the parking....very strange.

[plam]

Pavement must be free in Austrailia or something.

There isn't even anything around to justify the parking....very strange.

Australia must be hogging all the pavement, I don't think Wellington ever has 3m-wide lanes.