Road design, transportation and walkability

[KevinL]

It will connect, via Goodrich, to the River extension and is considered part of the overall project. I don't know how willing they would be to defer this.

[danbrotherston]

It will connect, via Goodrich, to the River extension and is considered part of the overall project. I don't know how willing they would be to defer this.

Oh, I'm sure they're not willing at all...

I think that's the point. I don't actually forsee them making cuts to the road program to solve our budgetary issues.  Nor police.

As usual we will make stupid cuts instead....</cynical>

[tomh009]

I think the first question will be the amount of support provided by the federal and provincial governments. After that the local governments will need to figure out how to address the remaining budget gaps.

[danbrotherston]

I think the first question will be the amount of support provided by the federal and provincial governments. After that the local governments will need to figure out how to address the remaining budget gaps.

Cutting a project like this would single handedly solve our budget problems.

Fiscal conservatives should be all over this.

[tomh009]

I think the first question will be the amount of support provided by the federal and provincial governments. After that the local governments will need to figure out how to address the remaining budget gaps.

Cutting a project like this would single handedly solve our budget problems.

Fiscal conservatives should be all over this.

Fiscal conservatives aren't necessarily anti-active transportation.

That said, there are no fiscally conservative political parties in Canada today.

[ijmorlan]

Cutting a project like this would single handedly solve our budget problems.

Fiscal conservatives should be all over this.

Fiscal conservatives aren't necessarily anti-active transportation.

That said, there are no fiscally conservative political parties in Canada today.

I think his point is that not building the bridge would save a ton of money, but that the idea of not building a road bridge is essentially inconceivable to the people who could make that decision.

If I understand correctly, the planned bridge will actually have pretty good bicycle infrastructure (although probably not as good as it should be), but about 90% of the cost is probably due to the road part.

[ijmorlan]

From an Equity and social lens I would argue that not everyone can afford (or wants) to live in downtown Guelph or Kitchener in the walkable "desirable" neighbourhoods.  A lot of people live in kitchener but work at the auto factories in guelph. As much as I wish transit was a viable option to travel everywhere, it is not. What will take them 10-15mins by car would take 1-2hrs by transit to the manufacturing neighborhoods of guelph and vice versa.

Nobody is saying everyone can or should live in downtown Guelph or Kitchener, but forcing people to own a car is an equity problem, it is unaffordable for many people, yet, in most places, it is a requirement as you explain. We should be seeking to allow people everywhere to live car free, not increasing the car dependence by building car exclusive highways. The fact that I am wealthy enough to live in an area where I can live car free is kind of the point.

Those neighbourhoods are expensive due to a combination of high demand (the neighbourhoods are desireable) and low supply (it is illegal to build them). So the fact that walkable neighbourhoods are expensive is a reason to build more, not a reason not to build more.

I will admit that some of the attractiveness is not readily copied; for people who like a 100 year old house, a new house that looks like a 100 year old house won’t necessarily have the same feeling, even if it’s basically a replica. And in most cities there is a downtown which has certain features that are found only in one place in any given city. But most of what is good about those old neighbourhoods could perfectly well be built anywhere. And for that to happen, we need to (1) allow it and (2) support it by building transit lines and active transportation first, not as an afterthought.

Tests don’t cause disease but roads do cause car dependence.

[jeffster]

I will add, that IMO it would be nice if we could have a thread on updates for the highway that doesn't end up in the same debate every time.  It's a fine/valid debate, it would just be nice if it didn't have to be in the same place as updates get posted because its a bit tired to me.

Good point. This is about the new highway 7 between Kitchener and Guelph — not running the Ion from Kitchener to Guelph, or better bus service, etc.

This will be good for the local economy, and indeed for the province. It was needed 30 years ago, and should have been addressed years ago.

I imagine at some point this highway will extend to the ETR. Though likely decades away.

[danbrotherston]

I will add, that IMO it would be nice if we could have a thread on updates for the highway that doesn't end up in the same debate every time.  It's a fine/valid debate, it would just be nice if it didn't have to be in the same place as updates get posted because its a bit tired to me.

Good point. This is about the new highway 7 between Kitchener and Guelph — not running the Ion from Kitchener to Guelph, or better bus service, etc.

This will be good for the local economy, and indeed for the province. It was needed 30 years ago, and should have been addressed years ago.

I imagine at some point this highway will extend to the ETR. Though likely decades away.

That's an utter disaster...it's a proposed project that the liberals actually cancelled thank goodness.

This kind of idea basically says that you'd like infinite urban sprawl, and continued car dependence, mixed with a guaranteed climate disaster.

There is no scenario where we built that highway decades from now, but also solve climate change.

Honestly, it's so frustrating that people are still advocating for this...do you not want your children or your friends children to have a future? We are all smart people here, we know this is true.

[westwardloo]

Those neighbourhoods are expensive due to a combination of high demand (the neighbourhoods are desireable) and low supply (it is illegal to build them). So the fact that walkable neighbourhoods are expensive is a reason to build more, not a reason not to build more.

I will admit that some of the attractiveness is not readily copied; for people who like a 100 year old house, a new house that looks like a 100 year old house won’t necessarily have the same feeling, even if it’s basically a replica. And in most cities there is a downtown which has certain features that are found only in one place in any given city. But most of what is good about those old neighbourhoods could perfectly well be built anywhere. And for that to happen, we need to (1) allow it and (2) support it by building transit lines and active transportation first, not as an afterthought.

Tests don’t cause disease but roads do cause car dependence.

Off topic but completely agree. Cities used to actually plan out roads and nieghbourhoods. Now they just zone large swathes of land and let the Mattamy of the development world decide our street grid. IMO this is one of the biggest issues we face with sprawl. Unfortunately our cities are surrounded by nieghbourhoods with meandering roads and cul-de-sacs which can never be fixed. Cities need to step up to the plate for future sprawl and develop properly planned grid networked subdivisions with mixed use "town Centres" that aren't just strip malls with a sea of parking. Which brings up another good point. Parking minimums need to be abolished as soon as possible if we want these areas to be walkable. All of this can be discussed on the Urban issues or urban design forum.

Although I am a complete urbanist and am lucky to live in a neighbourhood close to DT I am in favor of the HWY. This is also about moving goods as a lot of the manufacturing in both regions are interconnected.

[danbrotherston]

Those neighbourhoods are expensive due to a combination of high demand (the neighbourhoods are desireable) and low supply (it is illegal to build them). So the fact that walkable neighbourhoods are expensive is a reason to build more, not a reason not to build more.

I will admit that some of the attractiveness is not readily copied; for people who like a 100 year old house, a new house that looks like a 100 year old house won’t necessarily have the same feeling, even if it’s basically a replica. And in most cities there is a downtown which has certain features that are found only in one place in any given city. But most of what is good about those old neighbourhoods could perfectly well be built anywhere. And for that to happen, we need to (1) allow it and (2) support it by building transit lines and active transportation first, not as an afterthought.

Tests don’t cause disease but roads do cause car dependence.

Off topic but completely agree. Cities used to actually plan out roads and nieghbourhoods. Now they just zone large swathes of land and let the Mattamy of the development world decide our street grid. IMO this is one of the biggest issues we face with sprawl. Unfortunately our cities are surrounded by nieghbourhoods with meandering roads and cul-de-sacs which can never be fixed. Cities need to step up to the plate for future sprawl and develop properly planned grid networked subdivisions with mixed use "town Centres" that aren't just strip malls with a sea of parking. Which brings up another good point. Parking minimums need to be abolished as soon as possible if we want these areas to be walkable. All of this can be discussed on the Urban issues or urban design forum.

Although I am a complete urbanist and am lucky to live in a neighbourhood close to DT I am in favor of the HWY. This is also about moving goods as a lot of the manufacturing in both regions are interconnected.

I mean, this is kind of an existential issue...but sure, we can disagree on it.

I might be less vehemently opposed if the proposal included ANY other transportation options, transit, cycling, etc.  Or if it was for a more fiscally restrained project (widening and improving the existing highway, again combined with cycling/transit), but instead it's a business as usual roads project, I see extremely poor value for this project, and I know none of the alternatives have at all been evaluated.

On the other hand we have transit projects which are put under a microscope and must prove themselves economically viable before any investments are even considered...and not only that, but are compared with multiple different options to choose the best one.

We never do that for roads, we just widen and build and never even consider the harm.

As for sprawl, I don't disagree, but I do think you are wrong to blame entirely developers, the city does wield a lot of influence, definitely with parking minimums, but with many other aspects, like neighbourhood design, road design, etc., and they direct developers towards these broken patterns. There have been tiny improvements in this area--kitchener just passed the complete streets guide which should save us from any more 6 lane wide residential streets--but it's very slow progress...we are still planning (not even yet building, but planning) entirely unsustainable sprawling neighbourhoods...

[jeffster]

Honestly, it's so frustrating that people are still advocating for this...do you not want your children or your friends children to have a future?  We are all smart people here, we know this is true.

I know this is a huge concern for many people. Myself, I have always forgone some of the luxuries and buy a vehicles that is a little more environmentally friendly, and I avoid unnecessary travel.

That said, I do believe within 20 years fossil fuel vehicles will be a thing of the past. And I know that we are all smart enough to go in that direction.

I also understand though, that cycling and transit isn't an answer for everyone, and probably not even the majority. Cycling for most people is limited to favourable weather. I do believe it will become more common as power-assisted bikes become the norm. But they'll still be limited to certain types of commutes (perhaps biking to work), and obviously not for hauling large things, or transporting family members to doctors appointments or wherever.

Same with transit. While we have a beautiful LRT now, it's only useful for people who work and live on that route, and/or perhaps live close enough to a bus route that can take them to an LRT station. But for most people, a car is still a much better option. If going to work is a 15 minute drive, a transit ride will triple at a minimum. In my case, my car commute is slightly less than 10 minutes (as I take the expressway), but my transit commute includes 15 minutes of walking, a transfer, and two bus rides for a total time of about 62 minutes -- this doesn't includes having to leave at a time so I get to work in time, so that add 30 minutes, plus waiting 25 minutes after work for a 62 minute ride.

Now I realize that not everyone would have the same problem as I, but I can think of a lot of things I can do by not waisting about 3 hours to get to work and back home because I use transit.

Maybe one day we'll have a fleet of autonomous vehecies...who knows. That would be good public transit.

[jamincan]

The problem with an investment in a highway like that is that it's not just a neutral intervention that speeds up travelling time between Guelph and KW. It will, at least for a time. But it won't only do that. It changes the equation for how people and businesses will naturally distribute within the region. Some of that is beneficial, it allows greater economic integration between Guelph and KW, for example. But it will also, inevitably, lead to intense pressure to develop the countryside between Guelph and KW. Waterloo Region has some protection, but how durable would it be in the face of pressure to redevelop?

Maybe all of this is okay, and can be done in a way that is not overly detrimental to the environment and devastating to our surrounding agricultural land. But whatever the outcome is, once we build a road like this, we can't reevaluate the decision in 15 years and decide that on the whole, it wasn't a good investment and reverse it. This is a permanent change with very significant implications for our community and the environment. I'd argue that something like this ought to be very carefully scrutinized and studied, but has the MTO really done that? I personally don't think so.

[jeffster]

The problem with an investment in a highway like that is that it's not just a neutral intervention that speeds up travelling time between Guelph and KW. It will, at least for a time. But it won't only do that. It changes the equation for how people and businesses will naturally distribute within the region. Some of that is beneficial, it allows greater economic integration between Guelph and KW, for example. But it will also, inevitably, lead to intense pressure to develop the countryside between Guelph and KW. Waterloo Region has some protection, but how durable would it be in the face of pressure to redevelop?

Maybe all of this is okay, and can be done in a way that is not overly detrimental to the environment and devastating to our surrounding agricultural land. But whatever the outcome is, once we build a road like this, we can't reevaluate the decision in 15 years and decide that on the whole, it wasn't a good investment and reverse it. This is a permanent change with very significant implications for our community and the environment. I'd argue that something like this ought to be very carefully scrutinized and studied, but has the MTO really done that? I personally don't think so.

It might spur some development -- though if it does, I would hope it would be employment lands. Kitchener and Guelph at still a pretty far apart, so I don't think we'll see in our lifetimes, nor our kids or grandkids lifetime, that type of development.

I think potentially, 60 years from now, governments might murmur about the 4 cities combining into one large city. But Kitchener could be 400,000, Cambridge could be 250,000, Guelph could be 250,000 and Waterloo could be 200,000. That gives the area, minus townships, a population of 1,150,000. We'll get our Ikea finally.

[danbrotherston]

Honestly, it's so frustrating that people are still advocating for this...do you not want your children or your friends children to have a future?  We are all smart people here, we know this is true.

I know this is a huge concern for many people. Myself, I have always forgone some of the luxuries and buy a vehicles that is a little more environmentally friendly, and I avoid unnecessary travel.

That said, I do believe within 20 years fossil fuel vehicles will be a thing of the past. And I know that we are all smart enough to go in that direction.

I also understand though, that cycling and transit isn't an answer for everyone, and probably not even the majority. Cycling for most people is limited to favourable weather. I do believe it will become more common as power-assisted bikes become the norm. But they'll still be limited to certain types of commutes (perhaps biking to work), and obviously not for hauling large things, or transporting family members to doctors appointments or wherever.

Same with transit. While we have a beautiful LRT now, it's only useful for people who work and live on that route, and/or perhaps live close enough to a bus route that can take them to an LRT station. But for most people, a car is still a much better option. If going to work is a 15 minute drive, a transit ride will triple at a minimum. In my case, my car commute is slightly less than 10 minutes (as I take the expressway), but my transit commute includes 15 minutes of walking, a transfer, and two bus rides for a total time of about 62 minutes -- this doesn't includes having to leave at a time so I get to work in time, so that add 30 minutes, plus waiting 25 minutes after work for a 62 minute ride.

Now I realize that not everyone would have the same problem as I, but I can think of a lot of things I can do by not waisting about 3 hours to get to work and back home because I use transit.

Maybe one day we'll have a fleet of autonomous vehecies...who knows. That would be good public transit.

Two things I think are important to point out here.  EVs do not solve climate change.  This isn't controversial. They reduce OUR climate emissions, and have lower overall emissions, but they still induce enormous emissions on other countries. Even with EVs our car dependent lifestyles are not sustainable, and while *WE* might be able to meet our climate goals with EVs, we only do so by forcing other countries to fail at theirs. But we are all on the same planet, we either all succeed together, or all lose.

The other part is a question of perspective. I am not arguing for cars to be banned. You will still be able to drive to work. What I am suggesting is that we stop forcing new people to drive. We created car dependent suburbs in the past, we cannot change that, we can change what we do in the future.  Building MORE NEW car infrastructure like this highway and resulting suburbs simply INCREASES the problem.