General Urban Kitchener Updates and Rumours

[ijmorlan]

I'm not talking about Westmount, in fact I'm specifically not talking about Westmount pre- or post-covid...I agree, it should have 3 lanes in the future. I'm talking in general, many two lane roads never carry more traffic than Westmount does today, I'd even venture a guess that given our regions obsession with widening roads, most two lane roads never carry more traffic than Westmount does today, and today Westmount is functioning well without turn lanes. That's the point, turn lanes aren't always necessary for maintaining the flow of traffic, on higher speed roads they may improve safety, but for a low speed road like Queen (where this conversation did originate), even if turns are permitted, chances are good the only value turn lanes provide is in improving travel times, not reducing congestion or improving safety. This is doubly the case when traffic is moving slow on a road like Queen because turning left becomes easier and safer. This is already demonstrated at King/Queen intersection which has no turn lanes, yet Queen operates fine.

I agree that lots of non-busy streets and roads don’t need turn lanes. I’m talking about busy streets and roads, like Westmount and Queen. Unless you somehow disagree that Queen is a busy street?

As to the intersection of King and Queen, you might want to check on your facts, because you just made my point. At that intersection, left turns off of Queen are forbidden; left turns off of King are forbidden southbound most of the time, and are enabled northbound by an advance green arrow. So that’s why the two streets flow reasonably smoothly. If those measures were not in effect, the whole intersection would jam up hopelessly as soon as somebody needed to turn left. Now if you want to propose simply closing one or both of those streets entirely, that’s fine and in that location is actually worth serious consideration. But just designing the intersection so that even moderate levels of traffic will jam up makes no sense: you still devote just as much real estate to moving cars, except you do it in a way that doesn’t actually move cars. If you’re not going to move cars, use the real estate for something else.

Actually that last sentence is key to my approach to traffic planning. I’m totally on-board with reducing dramatically the amount of space dedicated to moving cars; but whatever space is devoted to cars should be designed to do so efficiently. To do otherwise is just bad engineering, regardless of the ideology of the designer; you pay the price but don’t get the benefit. So either don’t pay the price or re-design to get the benefit.

Empty asphault is an argument against roads frankly....but in terms of what drivers will do, I do not believe that the few angry aggressive drivers should dictate how we build our roads, and further, there shouldn't be a wide open swath of asphalt to encourage speeding anyway, and on Queen, there isn't, past the intersection with Charles, it is still very tight, and drivers would have to drive calmly.

Right, the cars should be flowing smoothly along, eliminating the alternation of large empty stretches of asphalt with congested intersections. In busy areas the whole system would be approximately uniformly congested and therefore would move at a consistent reasonable speed.

[danbrotherston]

I'm not talking about Westmount, in fact I'm specifically not talking about Westmount pre- or post-covid...I agree, it should have 3 lanes in the future. I'm talking in general, many two lane roads never carry more traffic than Westmount does today, I'd even venture a guess that given our regions obsession with widening roads, most two lane roads never carry more traffic than Westmount does today, and today Westmount is functioning well without turn lanes. That's the point, turn lanes aren't always necessary for maintaining the flow of traffic, on higher speed roads they may improve safety, but for a low speed road like Queen (where this conversation did originate), even if turns are permitted, chances are good the only value turn lanes provide is in improving travel times, not reducing congestion or improving safety. This is doubly the case when traffic is moving slow on a road like Queen because turning left becomes easier and safer. This is already demonstrated at King/Queen intersection which has no turn lanes, yet Queen operates fine.

I agree that lots of non-busy streets and roads don’t need turn lanes. I’m talking about busy streets and roads, like Westmount and Queen. Unless you somehow disagree that Queen is a busy street?

As to the intersection of King and Queen, you might want to check on your facts, because you just made my point. At that intersection, left turns off of Queen are forbidden; left turns off of King are forbidden southbound most of the time, and are enabled northbound by an advance green arrow. So that’s why the two streets flow reasonably smoothly. If those measures were not in effect, the whole intersection would jam up hopelessly as soon as somebody needed to turn left. Now if you want to propose simply closing one or both of those streets entirely, that’s fine and in that location is actually worth serious consideration. But just designing the intersection so that even moderate levels of traffic will jam up makes no sense: you still devote just as much real estate to moving cars, except you do it in a way that doesn’t actually move cars. If you’re not going to move cars, use the real estate for something else.

Actually that last sentence is key to my approach to traffic planning. I’m totally on-board with reducing dramatically the amount of space dedicated to moving cars; but whatever space is devoted to cars should be designed to do so efficiently. To do otherwise is just bad engineering, regardless of the ideology of the designer; you pay the price but don’t get the benefit. So either don’t pay the price or re-design to get the benefit.

Empty asphault is an argument against roads frankly....but in terms of what drivers will do, I do not believe that the few angry aggressive drivers should dictate how we build our roads, and further, there shouldn't be a wide open swath of asphalt to encourage speeding anyway, and on Queen, there isn't, past the intersection with Charles, it is still very tight, and drivers would have to drive calmly.

Right, the cars should be flowing smoothly along, eliminating the alternation of large empty stretches of asphalt with congested intersections. In busy areas the whole system would be approximately uniformly congested and therefore would move at a consistent reasonable speed.

Yes, I think we disagree about how busy Queen is.  The section that was reconstructed carries between a third and a tenth the traffic of Westmount Rd according to regional and city data.

Now I know that traffic on Westmount is not a third of what it was last year, yet it is functioning well without turn lanes. So I am telling you, that roads with no turn lanes can handle more traffic than you believe. I too was surprised by this. I assumed it would be more problematic, but based on my rush hour observations, the main effect on Westmount, seems to be to slow down traffic rather than cause congestion.

Efficiency should only be the goal when moving as much traffic as possible is the goal...this isn't the goal everywhere, and I don't believe it should be the goal in our downtown core. Frankly, empty pavement in downtown is a good thing, and it is those very gaps in traffic which allow turns to proceed without turn lanes.

[ijmorlan]

Yes, I think we disagree about how busy Queen is.  The section that was reconstructed carries between a third and a tenth the traffic of Westmount Rd according to regional and city data.

Now I know that traffic on Westmount is not a third of what it was last year, yet it is functioning well without turn lanes.  So I am telling you, that roads with no turn lanes can handle more traffic than you believe. I too was surprised by this. I assumed it would be more problematic, but based on my rush hour observations, the main effect on Westmount, seems to be to slow down traffic rather than cause congestion.

Efficiency should only be the goal when moving as much traffic as possible is the goal...this isn't the goal everywhere, and I don't believe it should be the goal in our downtown core. Frankly, empty pavement in downtown is a good thing, and it is those very gaps in traffic which allow turns to proceed without turn lanes.

Thanks for the traffic level update. I didn’t realize Queen had such a low level of traffic (although I’m not surprised to hear it’s significantly less than Westmount). I agree that if waiting for turning cars just slows down vehicles, that’s fine in a place like Downtown. I just object to having to wait for multiple cycles of a traffic light not due to overall high traffic levels but just due to one or two people wanting to turn. It sounds like that would be unlikely to be a problem on Queen.

[panamaniac]

Yes, I think we disagree about how busy Queen is.  The section that was reconstructed carries between a third and a tenth the traffic of Westmount Rd according to regional and city data.

Now I know that traffic on Westmount is not a third of what it was last year, yet it is functioning well without turn lanes.  So I am telling you, that roads with no turn lanes can handle more traffic than you believe. I too was surprised by this. I assumed it would be more problematic, but based on my rush hour observations, the main effect on Westmount, seems to be to slow down traffic rather than cause congestion.

Efficiency should only be the goal when moving as much traffic as possible is the goal...this isn't the goal everywhere, and I don't believe it should be the goal in our downtown core. Frankly, empty pavement in downtown is a good thing, and it is those very gaps in traffic which allow turns to proceed without turn lanes.

Thanks for the traffic level update. I didn’t realize Queen had such a low level of traffic (although I’m not surprised to hear it’s significantly less than Westmount). I agree that if waiting for turning cars just slows down vehicles, that’s fine in a place like Downtown. I just object to having to wait for multiple cycles of a traffic light not due to overall high traffic levels but just due to one or two people wanting to turn. It sounds like that would be unlikely to be a problem on Queen.

It would likely be a huge problem on Queen, with traffic backed up for blocks.  If you had no turn lanes, you'd have to ban all left turns off Queen, at a minimum, and probably right turns as well from Charles to Duke.  Actually the idea of a two-lane, no turns Queen St through the downtown core could have some appeal.

[danbrotherston]

Thanks for the traffic level update. I didn’t realize Queen had such a low level of traffic (although I’m not surprised to hear it’s significantly less than Westmount). I agree that if waiting for turning cars just slows down vehicles, that’s fine in a place like Downtown. I just object to having to wait for multiple cycles of a traffic light not due to overall high traffic levels but just due to one or two people wanting to turn. It sounds like that would be unlikely to be a problem on Queen.

It would likely be a huge problem on Queen, with traffic backed up for blocks.  If you had no turn lanes, you'd have to ban all left turns off Queen, at a minimum, and probably right turns as well from Charles to Duke.  Actually the idea of a two-lane, no turns Queen St through the downtown core could have some appeal.

....Why do you think this? Traffic congestion isn't magical...Queen carries very little traffic between Joseph and Duke, the rest doesn't carry much either.  So do you have any models that show that removing turn lanes in that section would cause any congestion? Or just your intuition.  Because it was my intuition that said Westmount would also be backed up for blocks...it isn't...I was wrong then, and it's because my views are still skewed by the historical planning biases in the region.

I think slow streets like Queen would operate just fine, and I have at least as much evidence to back my beliefs as you have for yours.

[panamaniac]

Interesting bit in the e-Record about Vive wanting to put 10 apartment units in the church at 206 Duke E. I think we've had discussion of the site before, but this is the first plan of which I've heard mention.

[Spokes]

Is the church currently vacant?

[panamaniac]

Their website says that the church closed on July 5th.

[BruceAshe]

Interesting bit in the e-Record about Vive wanting to put 10 apartment units in the church at 206 Duke E.  I think we've had discussion of the site before, but this is the first plan of which I've heard mention.

I was sent the notice about the rezoning and plan to convert the church to 10 apartments pre-covid. I had started to wonder if it was even going to happen. I have a feeling this will eventually be part of a bigger plan for the property. When it was listed for sale it was the two properties on Duke and two properties on Madison. The two on Madison have been empty for almost a year are they are adjacent to a driveway that goes to the back parking area of the church. Under the rezoning of King East these properties would be able to be developed into an 8 storey building, so it looks like they are applying to have the future King E zoning applied now.

[tomh009]

That makes sense. Vive has their plate full with other projects under way and planned, though, so doing a mid-term apartment conversion probably makes the most sense for them.

[BruceAshe]

That makes sense. Vive has their plate full with other projects under way and planned, though, so doing a mid-term apartment conversion probably makes the most sense for them.

That's what I'm hoping for. Don't get me wrong, I like the rejuvenation happening on the area, but it doesn't all need to happen at the exact same time. Spread out the construction chaos a little.

[panamaniac]

I don't know that converting a church to ten apartments really constitutes "chaos".

[BruceAshe]

I don't know that converting a church to ten apartments really constitutes "chaos".

I didn't mean converting the church to ten apartments would be chaos. I meant if the possible larger scale project went through now on top of Drewlo, Market Flats and the possible upcoming new home of B&T. We also appear to finally be finished with the roadwork on Weber St that has been happening for the last few summers. 

I watched the meeting today when they discussed the rezoning (which was passed) and it seems that the two properties haven't actually been sold yet to Vive yet. Early 2019 these two properties as well as the two on Madison were listed for sale as one listing. In September and October of 2019 the residents of the two properties on Madison moved out after being evicted. I always assumed it was because the properties were sold, but it appears to not be the case. Maybe the owner decided it was better to wait until the new zoning went into effect? I am still very curious what is happening with the Madison St properties since they are still empty and it would make sense for them to be part of a larger project. Guess I'll just have to continue to wait and hope those two houses don't fall apart from neglect.

[taylortbb]

New small project at 293 King St E, https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-...paces.html

3 floors with ground floor retail, and 8 truly tiny apartments above (250 to 300 sq ft). No parking. Fills in a longstanding gap in the King St E streetwall.

[jwilliamson]

New small project at 293 King St E, https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-...paces.html

3 floors with ground floor retail, and 8 truly tiny apartments above (250 to 300 sq ft). No parking. Fills in a longstanding gap in the King St E streetwall.

That's a nice little building.