Road design, transportation and walkability

[danbrotherston]

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.

First of all, I'm not sure how long you expect your grandkids to live, but optimistically, mine are 25-30 years away from being born, so if they are murmering something in 60 years, my grandkids will live to see it.  Second of all, if population growth numbers hold, the region will hit 1.1 million in 30-40 years, not 60.

But in any case, this is wildly optimistic. In every single case highways have spurred development, there are few protections on the Guelph side of the border, if this highway is built I have zero doubt that in 30 years, there will be suburbs merging the two cities.  We're half way there right now...

Frankly, I don't even think not building the highway would stop this, but what we could do INSTEAD is build transit and build developments which are car light and transit friendly. It isn't difficult, other countries have figured this out...we already have a rail line to centre on.

[westwardloo]

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.

This thing has been planned for 30+ years I think they have done enough the studies. It has received multiply environmental assessment and traffic studies over the decades. It this not enough? should it be stalled another decade to be debated and studied again?

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...

The thing is they have proposed other transportation options. They are currently building a multi-use trail along Victoria. They are "Planning/Building" 2 way all day go between the cities downtown.

This project literally was put under a microscope and put on hold after construction was already started. It has been under a microscope for decades.

I Will agree that Cycling infrastructure seems like always is just a pilot project. When it cost like 800,000 to implement. I hope it is just a strategy to get the car lovers used to the reduced lane or no parking and just make it permanent quietly.

The region is currently reviewing it road designs and is calling for less/ smaller wide lanes on ERB, Bridgeport, University and hopefully more. King St in waterloo has been reduced from 4 to 2 lanes with separated bike lanes. Erb street reduced 1 lane into separated bike lanes. Columbia reduced a lane for a separated bike lane. on street parking was taken off Belmont for a separated bike lane. The region is going through another COVID experiment to create more bike lanes. One is Fredrick reduced from 4 to 2 for "separated bike lanes". The Cities and the Region is working on alternative forms of transportation.

Lets just chalk this one up to you are against it I am for it. We both have our reasons.

The city designs the artillery roads. Developers decide that they don't want to pave a full road and they can sell a house for more if its not a through road. I am not going to get into suburban design discussion on this forum though. I will happy to do so over on Urban issues/ design.

[danbrotherston]

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.

This thing has been planned for 30+ years I think they have done enough the studies. It has received multiply environmental assessment and traffic studies over the decades. It this not enough? should it be stalled another decade to be debated and studied again?

They have no doubt done traffic studies, and environmental studies, but I guarantee you that in 30 years they have done zero business cases, nor compared this project with a single alternative that wasn't a similar road project, and with 100% certainty this project has never been evaluated from a GHG perpsective. It's a systemic issue, in our government, transit projects must prove a business case, and be compared with other projects, road projects do not. The MTO doesn't have to justify anything beyond "traffic".

We are talking about the provincial government here, not either regional government. This is the same province which is failing to invest in the only transit option between the cities right now.

[tomh009]

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.

(...)

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

In 20 years, sales of gasoline/diesel-powered cars will be in the minority, but they will not have disappeared entirely. There are too many use cases (long distances, remote communities etc) that won't be easily supported by battery-powered (or even fuel cell) vehicles that getting to 100% will take much longer.

Autonomous vehicles as such are no better for public transit than taxis or Uber: they would still be inefficient (albeit with no drivers needed), cause congestion and need road capacity. Maybe larger, shared autonomous vehicles, say, the size of a bus ... ?

[ijmorlan]

Autonomous vehicles as such are no better for public transit than taxis or Uber: they would still be inefficient (albeit with no drivers needed), cause congestion and need road capacity. Maybe larger, shared autonomous vehicles, say, the size of a bus ... ?

That depends on the application. Autonomous vehicles would hypothetically be great for low-volume public transit. For example, getting from St. Agatha to Plattsville. They have no place substituting for any rail service or even a busy bus line.

[tomh009]

Autonomous vehicles as such are no better for public transit than taxis or Uber: they would still be inefficient (albeit with no drivers needed), cause congestion and need road capacity. Maybe larger, shared autonomous vehicles, say, the size of a bus ... ?

That depends on the application. Autonomous vehicles would hypothetically be great for low-volume public transit. For example, getting from St. Agatha to Plattsville. They have no place substituting for any rail service or even a busy bus line.

Are you envisioning a scheduled, shared service, or an on-demand service?

[jeffster]

Frankly, I don't even think not building the highway would stop this, but what we could do INSTEAD is build transit and build developments which are car light and transit friendly. It isn't difficult, other countries have figured this out...we already have a rail line to centre on.

I have to ask: which countries? As far as I can tell, all ‘1st world nations’ are car dependant, having at least 1 car per household. Most ‘alpha’ and ‘beta’ cities have good public transit system, though they still rely on cars, a lot.

As for KWC, we’re not even considered a ‘sufficiency’ level city (Sufficiency -> Gamma -> Beta -> Alpha). We have a long ways to go to populate the corridor and have a amenities along that corridor to make it useful. Even then, transit will never be a great option for the majority.

No going to argue that we need to improve transit, though I would say we have spent a lot on it over the past 10 years. But I can’t envision this city, or really, any city, that can give up the car for the majority of people. In Canada, it makes it even tougher. We are huge geographically, which makes relying on good transit hard.

If you have a family and/or take care of anyone, transit really isn’t a great option. It’s time consuming, and gets expensive quickly if you need to leave town. And transit, as we have seen with strikes and Covid, is less than 100% reliable. And that is huge factor.

[jeffster]

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.

(...)

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

In 20 years, sales of gasoline/diesel-powered cars will be in the minority, but they will not have disappeared entirely. There are too many use cases (long distances, remote communities etc) that won't be easily supported by battery-powered (or even fuel cell) vehicles that getting to 100% will take much longer.

Autonomous vehicles as such are no better for public transit than taxis or Uber: they would still be inefficient (albeit with no drivers needed), cause congestion and need road capacity. Maybe larger, shared autonomous vehicles, say, the size of a bus ... ?

You’re right, for many purposes gas will still need to be used. As you mentioned, remote communities, or any sort of long distance travel (especially if it’s not served by some sort of transit).

As for autonomous vehicle’s, though, I think it could be an option. Smart software would allow such a vehicle to pick up extra people who are going in the same direction (though you could have transfer points as well). And it might give people a second thought before doing a midnight snack run. But I think we’re a long ways away from that.

[danbrotherston]

Frankly, I don't even think not building the highway would stop this, but what we could do INSTEAD is build transit and build developments which are car light and transit friendly. It isn't difficult, other countries have figured this out...we already have a rail line to centre on.

I have to ask: which countries? As far as I can tell, all ‘1st world nations’ are car dependant, having at least 1 car per household. Most ‘alpha’ and ‘beta’ cities have good public transit system, though they still rely on cars, a lot.

As for KWC, we’re not even considered a ‘sufficiency’ level city (Sufficiency -> Gamma -> Beta -> Alpha). We have a long ways to go to populate the corridor and have a amenities along that corridor to make it useful. Even then, transit will never be a great option for the majority.

No going to argue that we need to improve transit, though I would say we have spent a lot on it over the past 10 years. But I can’t envision this city, or really, any city, that can give up the car for the majority of people. In Canada, it makes it even tougher. We are huge geographically, which makes relying on good transit hard.

If you have a family and/or take care of anyone, transit really isn’t a great option. It’s time consuming, and gets expensive quickly if you need to leave town. And transit, as we have seen with strikes and Covid, is less than 100% reliable. And that is huge factor.

I don't understand why you think this.  The world is what we choose to make it...if we wanted transit to be a great option for the majority, we could make it so. Instead we're building highways, which ensures that transit isn't a great option.

We've been through this before, all of the problems with transit you list are choices.  If we cars a toll per passenger, and transit was free and communities were designed transit first, and cars last (basically the opposite situation we have today) you've be arguing building a highway is stupid because it doesn't work for most people.

But that is exactly what I am saying, instead of building an unusustainble car first sprawling suburb, build a transit first complete community.  As for what other countries, the one I'm most familiar with is the Netherlands, basically all of their new cities (and they do have new cities, some are just new, some are built on land that didn't exist before 60 years ago), are centred on a central train station with frequent trains to nearby major cities, and have ubiquitous bike infrastructure. In most cases driving is more expensive and slower than biking + transit, and their mobility is better than ours.  And for those who do like to drive...the Netherlands is reliably rated as better to drive in than our country.  We should be building that here, it's better in every way.

[Spokes]

Is this even about highway 7 anymore? Haha

[ijmorlan]

That depends on the application. Autonomous vehicles would hypothetically be great for low-volume public transit. For example, getting from St. Agatha to Plattsville. They have no place substituting for any rail service or even a busy bus line.

Are you envisioning a scheduled, shared service, or an on-demand service?

I was just making a random Internet comment, but that’s a good question

I think I was thinking like a taxi, but without the labour expense. So on-demand. That’s not to say that autonomous vehicles couldn’t do scheduled services, but part of the point of transit vehicles and especially larger ones like articulated or double-decker buses and LRT vehicles or trains is to have one driver drive many people. If we’re talking about a small vehicle, it probably makes more sense for it to go where it is requested.

[ijmorlan]

We've been through this before, all of the problems with transit you list are choices.  If we cars a toll per passenger, and transit was free and communities were designed transit first, and cars last (basically the opposite situation we have today) you've be arguing building a highway is stupid because it doesn't work for most people.

A lot of good points. I just want to pick on one particular point: I can’t see any justification for tolling per passenger. The impact of the car on the road and on others is not affected by how many people it is carrying, unless you count the trivial difference in wear resulting from different amount of weight (and if that is the basis for the charge, it should be per unit weight, including vehicle, goods, and occupants).

[danbrotherston]

We've been through this before, all of the problems with transit you list are choices.  If we cars a toll per passenger, and transit was free and communities were designed transit first, and cars last (basically the opposite situation we have today) you've be arguing building a highway is stupid because it doesn't work for most people.

A lot of good points. I just want to pick on one particular point: I can’t see any justification for tolling per passenger. The impact of the car on the road and on others is not affected by how many people it is carrying, unless you count the trivial difference in wear resulting from different amount of weight (and if that is the basis for the charge, it should be per unit weight, including vehicle, goods, and occupants).

Doesn't have to make sense, for that matter, it could simply to create an equivalence to transit, that's why I pointed it out here.

Frankly though, I'd take any automobile pricing right now, but to solve the family cost, transit pricing structures should be rethought.

[tomh009]

Are you envisioning a scheduled, shared service, or an on-demand service?

I was just making a random Internet comment, but that’s a good question

I think I was thinking like a taxi, but without the labour expense. So on-demand. That’s not to say that autonomous vehicles couldn’t do scheduled services, but part of the point of transit vehicles and especially larger ones like articulated or double-decker buses and LRT vehicles or trains is to have one driver drive many people. If we’re talking about a small vehicle, it probably makes more sense for it to go where it is requested.

Given unlimited road capacity and parking availability, I agree. But as those are constrained, the problem with the taxi model is that AV taxis potentially consume just as much parking space and road capacity as private cars. And the energy they consume is not free, either, even if they are built as energy-efficient.

[jeffster]

I don't understand why you think this.  The world is what we choose to make it...if we wanted transit to be a great option for the majority, we could make it so. Instead we're building highways, which ensures that transit isn't a great option.

We've been through this before, all of the problems with transit you list are choices.  If we cars a toll per passenger, and transit was free and communities were designed transit first, and cars last (basically the opposite situation we have today) you've be arguing building a highway is stupid because it doesn't work for most people.

But that is exactly what I am saying, instead of building an unusustainble car first sprawling suburb, build a transit first complete community.  As for what other countries, the one I'm most familiar with is the Netherlands, basically all of their new cities (and they do have new cities, some are just new, some are built on land that didn't exist before 60 years ago), are centred on a central train station with frequent trains to nearby major cities, and have ubiquitous bike infrastructure. In most cases driving is more expensive and slower than biking + transit, and their mobility is better than ours.  And for those who do like to drive...the Netherlands is reliably rated as better to drive in than our country.  We should be building that here, it's better in every way.

Dan, nowhere in this world has great transit. It just doesn't happen. It can be a good choice for some, but for most, it just isn't. Many people value their time. And I'll give you an example:

I take care of my 80 year old mom. She needed to go in today for a shot. I was finished work at 4 -- I was able to get her, take her to the doctors office which was on the other side of the city (they used to be closer, but they moved), afterward, she also needed to run an errand, then she got some food. I was able to do all this in about 70 minutes. Now, had I had to use transit, I would have had to leave work 3 hours early, this would get me home within 90 minutes, and 2 hours to get to her doctors office. We'll have to skip the errand and getting food, and another 2 hours to get back home. That's 5.5 hours dedicated to getting her to the doctors office and back home. Whether or not she could have even did all the walking (about 2 km to the closest bus stop, due to water main work, otherwise, 750 meters, but this is summer construction and another 750 meters from the bus stop to her doctors office) is another factor.

No matter how much money we put into transit, it will never replace private transportation as a practical alternative.

I don't disagree that we should be building along the corridors, and we're doing that. But to suggest we toll cars and give out free transit is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. I get it. You hate cars but you love transit. It works well for you. That's great. Good for you. I am happy for you. But for the other 85% of us, it just doesn't work. Not all of us have the time to wait around for transit to get us from point A to point B.

As for The Netherlands, that's good they can do what they do. But they're a different country. They can have robust transit from city to city because it's a small country, only 42,000 km2 - compare this to Southern Ontario, 140,000 km2. Weather wise it's favourable for them to bike year round. While not warm in the winter, it does stay above freezing, unlike here, where are morning lows mid December to mid March is typically between -8 and - 20.

And as I pointed out before, when stuff like strikes and what's going on with covid-19, that makes mass transit a poor choice for many. I won't risk the health of elderly or immune compromised friends and family.

I'll also mention that once things return to 'normal' and my work hours are no longer 8-4, M-F, transit is also 100% useless to me, and many that I know. KWC and G are so tiny, they'll never spend the funds to run transit 24/7 to make us usable for everyone. This highway 7 announcement is great. You may not like it, but those that use it are happy.