General Road and Highway Discussion

[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?

[danbrotherston]

So I did finally get a reply from staff about my comments on the Victoria St. segment:

Good morning Daniel,

Thanks for your email and interest in the Victoria Street Improvements project. We have included your comments in the feedback we’ve received through the public consultation process. The Region is currently reviewing feedback from the community and staff have tentatively scheduled to take a report to Planning and Works Committee on June 4th. Once confirmed, a public notice letter regarding this report will be delivered to local residents, stakeholders and those who have expressed interest in the Victoria Street Improvements project.

Your comments were also brought up by other members of the public. Council approved the design concept for Victoria Street, between Fisher-Hallman and Lawrence Ave, in 2018.  Once we received approval, we started on the detailed design for the road. The revised design includes reducing the width of road lanes and boulevard space to convert on-road buffered bike lanes to raised cycling facilities between Westmount Road and Lawrence Avenue.

Future plans from the 2018 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) recommended the establishment of a transit corridor along Victoria. When putting in transit lanes on a four-lane roadway, existing curb lanes are often used. However, a future study on the Victoria Street corridor will establish the best use of the space for all users.

Regards,

I mean, I guess that's the answer: staff are still pretending that they will be widening Victoria St. west of West Ave...ironic given that they have basically offered to narrow Victoria St. east of King... (something that was on hold since the new highway to Guelph was on hold).

It's ironic that despite having a TMP they still have barely co-ordinated any plans...although I think possibly the start of the project for Victoria St. in the area (6 years ago) *might* predate the latest TMP or at least coincided with it.

But the fact that this project was "decided" 6 years ago, is another issue altogether.

[the_conestoga_guy]

So I did finally get a reply from staff about my comments on the Victoria St. segment:

Good morning Daniel,

Thanks for your email and interest in the Victoria Street Improvements project. We have included your comments in the feedback we’ve received through the public consultation process. The Region is currently reviewing feedback from the community and staff have tentatively scheduled to take a report to Planning and Works Committee on June 4th. Once confirmed, a public notice letter regarding this report will be delivered to local residents, stakeholders and those who have expressed interest in the Victoria Street Improvements project.

Your comments were also brought up by other members of the public. Council approved the design concept for Victoria Street, between Fisher-Hallman and Lawrence Ave, in 2018.  Once we received approval, we started on the detailed design for the road. The revised design includes reducing the width of road lanes and boulevard space to convert on-road buffered bike lanes to raised cycling facilities between Westmount Road and Lawrence Avenue.

Future plans from the 2018 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) recommended the establishment of a transit corridor along Victoria. When putting in transit lanes on a four-lane roadway, existing curb lanes are often used. However, a future study on the Victoria Street corridor will establish the best use of the space for all users.

Regards,

I mean, I guess that's the answer: staff are still pretending that they will be widening Victoria St. west of West Ave...ironic given that they have basically offered to narrow Victoria St. east of King... (something that was on hold since the new highway to Guelph was on hold).

It's ironic that despite having a TMP they still have barely co-ordinated any plans...although I think possibly the start of the project for Victoria St. in the area (6 years ago) *might* predate the latest TMP or at least coincided with it.

But the fact that this project was "decided" 6 years ago, is another issue altogether.

The way I interpret it, the Region eventually hopes to have 2 lanes of car traffic and 2 transit lanes (LRT, BRT) along much of the length of Victoria. In this case, Victoria would see a "road diet" while also adding the transit lanes. In the mean time, they don't want to reduce lanes west of Laurence just to dig them up again in the medium term for transit lanes. It seems to be a bit of a patchwork solution, and is dependent on the construction of a mythical highway, but I can understand their rationale.

It does make me wonder how many properties between Laurence and West will need to be expropriated to make this happen, though.

[danbrotherston]

So I did finally get a reply from staff about my comments on the Victoria St. segment:


I mean, I guess that's the answer: staff are still pretending that they will be widening Victoria St. west of West Ave...ironic given that they have basically offered to narrow Victoria St. east of King... (something that was on hold since the new highway to Guelph was on hold).

It's ironic that despite having a TMP they still have barely co-ordinated any plans...although I think possibly the start of the project for Victoria St. in the area (6 years ago) *might* predate the latest TMP or at least coincided with it.

But the fact that this project was "decided" 6 years ago, is another issue altogether.

The way I interpret it, the Region eventually hopes to have 2 lanes of car traffic and 2 transit lanes (LRT, BRT) along much of the length of Victoria. In this case, Victoria would see a "road diet" while also adding the transit lanes. In the mean time, they don't want to reduce lanes west of Laurence just to dig them up again in the medium term for transit lanes. It seems to be a bit of a patchwork solution, and is dependent on the construction of a mythical highway, but I can understand their rationale.

It does make me wonder how many properties between Laurence and West will need to be expropriated to make this happen, though.

All of the houses on one side of the road....roughly 60 houses.

This basically guarantees that this will never happen, and staff even acknowledged this in the previous TMP.

But even if by some miracle they were able to make this happen in 20-30s for a rapid transit line, it still wouldn't matter...they could just widen the corridor they are building now, that would literally be the easy part, and it would need to be reconstructed in order to support the BRT/LRT infra anyway.

The real reason here is that regional staff do not believe in 2 lane roads...even if they managed to make this a four lane road they wouldn't actually convert it to a BRT/LRT corridor, because they don't have another 4 lane corridor across the city--this is a source of major frustration among planners.

But in 20 years, all those planners will be retired and maybe better people will be running the show...but again, there's no reason to waste millions of dollars, and literally dozens of lives in all that time for no gain, just because in 30 years there might be an LRT there.

[neonjoe]

Aren't these the same planners that did narrow regional Roads like King between Victoria and William and Charles between Queen and Ottawa for LRT. They can do it, but they are reluctant to do it.

[ac3r]

They are and they actually do know what they're doing most of the time, despite what some extremely nihilistic people who aren't planners believe.

[bravado]

They are and they actually do know what they're doing most of the time, despite what some extremely nihilistic people who aren't planners believe.

They know what the manual says you should do and what short sighted regional councillors insist that you should do, which is almost the same

[ijmorlan]

They are and they actually do know what they're doing most of the time, despite what some extremely nihilistic people who aren't planners believe.

They do many obviously idiotic things. We are right to be skeptical of their expertise.

[SF22]

East Ave between Frederick and Krug is about ready to start road reconstruction. Equipment and materials have been dropped on the boulevards, and the overhead power lines are all strung with orange flags. I've been looking forward to this one - they're separating out the cycle tracks, and putting huge curb bumpouts at Chapel that appear to be paired with the 'continuous sidewalk' model they've implemented on Highland. They've marked out on the drawings which trees will need to come out, but also where they propose to plant new trees, and it looks like they're doing full replacement with primarily native tree species.

https://www.engagewr.ca/eastavenue

[KevinL]

Strasburg got some basic traffic calming installed very recently