Highway 7 - Kitchener to Guelph

[bravado]

Because high vehicle speed and local neighbourhood safety are fully incompatible with each other. Trying to do both is how we got the status quo.

[Bjays93]

Because high vehicle speed and local neighbourhood safety are fully incompatible with each other. Trying to do both is how we got the status quo.

This is why I think building a grade separated highway is actually still a good idea. It allows Victoria to be redesigned in a way that majorly slows down traffic, while separating the high speed traffic from suburbs and pedestrian areas.

[KevinL]

I still think a full expressway is overkill; upgrading Shirley/Bingeman Centre to be the arterial, and merging it into Victoria just before the river, could serve fine and require no new ramps at the 85 interchange. The existing road through the townships could be upgraded to 4 lanes. Then Victoria could be downgraded to a lower speed standard and intensification encouraged.

[Bjays93]

I still think a full expressway is overkill; upgrading Shirley/Bingeman Centre to be the arterial, and merging it into Victoria just before the river, could serve fine and require no new ramps at the 85 interchange. The existing road through the townships could be upgraded to 4 lanes. Then Victoria could be downgraded to a lower speed standard and intensification encouraged.

This doesn't solve the issue of Victoria effectively being a suburban road well past the river now. It is/will be city at least to Greenhouse Rd.

[sevenman]

Maybe a highway shouldn’t be built but something needs to be done because what we have right now is both horribly unsafe and killing people and also a nightmare to drive. With the expansion of Breslau the existing road is insufficient, full stop.

Don’t build the highway, that’s fine. But it’s been what? 40 years of inaction?

At least 50 years.

[ac3r]

I still think a full expressway is overkill

Why? This is one of the fastest growing regions in one of the fastest growing countries on this entire planet. We absolutely need to build all the infrastructure we need now, while also future proofing things. We are projected to have something like just under 1'000'000 people living in Waterloo Region by the 2040s, although we are probably going to blow right past that sooner if past projections offer any suggestion what it'll be like. We are going to need a high capacity road (more specifically, a "road-of-way") into, through and out of the core (Kitchener) of Waterloo Region on the main Eastish-Westish corridor.

As a general question to the forum (not specifically KevinL but since I know everyone here hates roads) do you think great cities could exist without them? Without urban highways? Do you think Toronto would be Toronto without the Gardiner? Amsterdam without A4/5/10? Montréal without Autoroute 40? London without M25? Tokyo without Gaikan? Of course not. These cities obviously knew that you need a high capacity route both through and around the area, so they built it. They also always modify and improve them, too.

Too many people on this forum really need to look at the long term macro prospectus...

[taylortbb]

Do you think Toronto would be Toronto without the Gardiner?

No, I think Toronto would be so much better without the Gardiner. If you look at the stats for how people arrive into downtown Toronto it's responsible for such a small fraction, but it divides downtown Toronto in two and cuts it off from the waterfront. Downtown Toronto could be so much more walkable if we got rid of the Gardiner.

Only about 25% of commuters into downtown Toronto arrive by car, and the vast majority of them arrive via city streets. The Gardiner may be a highway, but there's only one. There's dozens, probably 100+, lanes of city streets into downtown Toronto. So that means the Gardiner is responsible for what, 5% of trips into downtown Toronto? Probably even less, but I'll give you 5%. Are you seriously suggesting that if those 5% of people couldn't drive on a highway into downtown Toronto that "Toronto wouldn't be Toronto"? I'd like some evidence that there's something so critical about that 5%, nevermind that many of them would just switch to GO rather than not visiting at all.

There's also plenty of counterexamples to your list. San Francisco demolished the Embarcadero Freeway in 1991 (after partial collapse from an earthquake admittedly), and the city has been far better for it. Did San Francisco stop being a desirable city in 1991? Of course not, it became one of the most in-demand cities in the world for the following 30 years (Covid changed things a bit).

[SammyOES]

It feels like the biggest problems are ones where highways divided existing neighbourhoods or were built without appropriate connections between those neighborhoods.

The new highway 7 doesn’t feel like it would be like that. Development between Guelph and Kitchener should stay south of it and have regular connections. It feels like it would facilitate better neighbourhoods in these areas (mixture of low/medium/high density residential with amenities).

Right now every attempt to build anything denser than a townhouse is met with NIMBYs who scream about traffic, parking, and lack of transit. Which we’ll never get as long as we keep building massive sprawled single detached home subdivisions.

It also feels like the new highway 7 avoids another terrible creation of a 4 land “high-speed” connecting road between cities that also tries to double as a local road for businesses and residents.

[bravado]

We clearly need a good road connection to Guelph, but it’s important to not make more bad, unproductive, wasteful neighbourhoods in the process. It’s more complex than just roads = good, safety = socialism.

[Bjays93]

We clearly need a good road connection to Guelph, but it’s important to not make more bad, unproductive, wasteful neighbourhoods in the process. It’s more complex than just roads = good, safety = socialism.

Agree with so much of this discussion. Toronto would be so much better without the Gardiner, but a Guelph to Kitchener highway connection is very different, since for the most part it’s not going through city or dividing existing communities, and is instead offering a much needed, high speed corridor between two rapidly growing cities that already have high volumes of commuter traffic between the two.

It’s important not to forget that highway 7 is also apart of a broader vision which includes slowly upgrading Hanlon until it’s also fully grade separated, leaving you with a concrete highway network between Kitchener, Guelph and the 401 which is much needed.

[danbrotherston]

It feels like the biggest problems are ones where highways divided existing neighbourhoods or were built without appropriate connections between those neighborhoods.

The new highway 7 doesn’t feel like it would be like that.  Development between Guelph and Kitchener should stay south of it and have regular connections.  It feels like it would facilitate better neighbourhoods in these areas (mixture of low/medium/high density residential with amenities). 

Right now every attempt to build anything denser than a townhouse is met with NIMBYs who scream about traffic, parking, and lack of transit.  Which we’ll never get as long as we keep building massive sprawled single detached home subdivisions.

It also feels like the new highway 7 avoids another terrible creation of a 4 land “high-speed” connecting road between cities that also tries to double as a local road for businesses and residents.

I'm confused why anyone would think that a highway would encourage a dense, car light, mixed use neighbourhoods. Highways are in fact the primary enablers of sprawl. A highway will create MORE NIMBYs not less.

As for whether a highway is a good thing or not, there is currently effectively zero transit between the cities with no real plan to implement any meaningful transit. Maybe go transit will be an option at some point, but for two cities so close there isn't even a bus.

So the idea that we should build a second highway before building even a single other option, is the problem.

Yeah, maybe a highway makes sense at some point, but improving highway 7 and adding a frequent bus connection would be a far more fiscally responsible (even conservative) option. But it's also one that questions the status quo.

[ijmorlan]

Do you think Toronto would be Toronto without the Gardiner?

No, I think Toronto would be so much better without the Gardiner. If you look at the stats for how people arrive into downtown Toronto it's responsible for such a small fraction, but it divides downtown Toronto in two and cuts it off from the waterfront. Downtown Toronto could be so much more walkable if we got rid of the Gardiner.

I agree the Gardiner is not a good poster child for “we need roads”. As you point out, the tiny amount of traffic on the Gardiner in no way justifies the expense or the effect on the surrounding areas of the city.

It would be a better argument to refer to the suburban freeway network. As it stands, trucking and therefore logistics and supply chains would collapse if the 4xx highways disappeared. Even there, we’re arguing about what could be, and what could be is a lot more freight rail, and electrified for an even better result. But at least those highways are actually essential to the current way the economy operates. The Gardiner is not.

[ijmorlan]

We clearly need a good road connection to Guelph, but it’s important to not make more bad, unproductive, wasteful neighbourhoods in the process. It’s more complex than just roads = good, safety = socialism.

Indeed, the way we do things right now, roads = socialism (except for the 407).

[KevinT]

It would be a better argument to refer to the suburban freeway network. As it stands, trucking and therefore logistics and supply chains would collapse if the 4xx highways disappeared. Even there, we’re arguing about what could be, and what could be is a lot more freight rail, and electrified for an even better result. But at least those highways are actually essential to the current way the economy operates. The Gardiner is not.

I don't foresee commerce ever going back to freight railroads instead of trucks. Capitalism went whole hog switching to just-in-time delivery in the aughties for the short term accounting high of eliminating inventory and warehousing costs, and freight rail is simply too slow at getting small inventory lots from place to place to ever put that genie back in the bottle.

[cherrypark]

I think there is a very good case for why, even just on a safety basis, a new better separated Highway 7 is a good idea and could contribute to a better urban landscape than we have now, though the comments on induced demand hazards are completely reasonable given history. I think the highway itself doesn't imply suburban sprawl, it's just that it makes it more feasible. As others said, rural highways linking denser cities are different than urban freeways.

I also think that it's usually a zero-sum evaluation where building the highway means less investment in transit connections between the cities. Partly because it is in a finite tax base and faster car trips means a bigger hill to climb for transit to be convenient. It is possible to do both and for both to be important to facilitate growth and employment.

Building a Highway 7 link that facilitates more frequent and improved intercity buses would be a huge improvement and even more so if building it meant a re-imagining of Victoria St. was done to reduce the car orientation and provide the framework to redevelop those strip mall and light industrial lands into something denser and suitable to active transport.