R+T is very suburban?

[ijmorlan]

On a personal note, I think that UW missed a big opportunity in not convincing Mike Laziridis to plant the Quantum-Nano Centre on the north campus as a new starting point for the Engineering, Science and Math faculties. It would have given those faculties space to grow while allowing the other faculties to expand into the former Engineering faculties. But alas, I am neither a billionaire nor someone who pulls the levers of power at the University.

I don’t think Lazaridis’ funding for QNC had anything to do with its location. UW put it where UW wanted it.

I think the notion of putting academic buildings north of Columbia is very questionable. If we start doing that it will be a very long time before things are filled in and the buildings can be linked into the existing buildings, and even if properly linked the distances will still be too long for moving between classes. There are enough low rise buildings on main campus that a huge amount of new space could be built within the ring road; additionally there are spaces immediately outside of the ring road which are just parking lots now.

Optometry is north of Columbia of course, which I consider slightly unfortunate, but it is one of those programs, similar to Architecture, which operates almost entirely separately from the rest of the institution. As a result the downsides of being way up there are significantly reduced.

Note that the current M4 proposal was shifted from next to BMH, on the other side of ERC from the existing Math buildings, to a location between the existing Math buildings. I believe this was done primarily for convenient movement between the buildings. Putting a Math building north of Columbia is just not on, and I believe the same considerations would apply within the Faculty of Science.

[kalis0490]

I'm writing a letter to Mike Peirira the one whos responsible for the park about this issue.

Does someone want to help me
we need to stop evolve 2 built as a 2/3 storey building

[KevinL]

If they want to expand the academic campus they should start to the south - first on the parking lot between Ring Road and University Ave (south of Hagey Hall) and then south of University itself (adapting the bridge to Engineering, and adding one or two more).

[danbrotherston]

If they want to expand the academic campus they should start to the south - first on the parking lot between Ring Road and University Ave (south of Hagey Hall) and then south of University itself (adapting the bridge to Engineering, and adding one or two more).

Actually, I think they should develop on the parking lots at the north end first, the two inside Ring Rd. could be two very large buildings, or several smaller ones.

The two parking lots outside Ring Rd. can be parking garage to take up the extra parking (and charge COST for the parking). The entrances for those garages can be off Hagey Blvd. Then Ring Rd. can be closed to everything except delivery and service vehicles.

And since Ring Rd. no longer needs to be continuous or as wide, I'm sure we can even fit some more buildings ON Ring Rd. After that.

But I think the sentiment is mostly the same.  A similar argument/plan could be made for the swaths of surface parking on East Campus, which is very accessible to the LRT station (modulo the correctable but utterly ridiculous failure to actually build a pedestrian connection).

[ijmorlan]

The two parking lots outside Ring Rd. can be parking garage to take up the extra parking (and charge COST for the parking). The entrances for those garages can be off Hagey Blvd. Then Ring Rd. can be closed to everything except delivery and service vehicles.

How do people with low mobility get dropped off at buildings inside Ring Road?

[danbrotherston]

The two parking lots outside Ring Rd. can be parking garage to take up the extra parking (and charge COST for the parking). The entrances for those garages can be off Hagey Blvd. Then Ring Rd. can be closed to everything except delivery and service vehicles.

How do people with low mobility get dropped off at buildings inside Ring Road?

They would be dropped off by service vehicles, same as they can be now.

[ijmorlan]

They would be dropped off by service vehicles, same as they can be now.

That’s fine for people taking transit, and maybe even for people in taxis (do taxis count as service vehicles?).

It’s not fine for somebody being dropped off in a private vehicle or who is moving a box in or out of their office.

I agree that re-working Ring Road to discourage the speeds we sometimes see on it is a good idea. Closing it entirely is a non-starter, and frankly it makes you look unserious to continue to deny the need for some people to be dropped off/picked up close to the buildings.

I’m not sure exactly what should be done with Ring Road. Clearly, bicycle and pedestrian routes need to remain as direct as they can be, which suggests that the sidewalks (multi-use trails) should not change much. For vehicles, I think it would be fine for the route to zigzag enough that nobody would ever use it to pass through campus; but I’m not sure how that would be fit in around the existing buildings. One possibility might be to narrow it significantly. It could be one-way, or there could be single lane chokepoints which alternate directions using traffic signals, or it could just be narrow enough that it’s not comfortable to pass oncoming traffic. It could be broken up so that half of campus is accessible from the north and half from the south. There are probably other ideas that could be helpful as well.

[jamincan]

I think with the location of the lrt station, that focusing more on developing east campus makes a lot of sense.

[danbrotherston]

They would be dropped off by service vehicles, same as they can be now.

That’s fine for people taking transit, and maybe even for people in taxis (do taxis count as service vehicles?).

It’s not fine for somebody being dropped off in a private vehicle or who is moving a box in or out of their office.

I agree that re-working Ring Road to discourage the speeds we sometimes see on it is a good idea. Closing it entirely is a non-starter, and frankly it makes you look unserious to continue to deny the need for some people to be dropped off/picked up close to the buildings.

I’m not sure exactly what should be done with Ring Road. Clearly, bicycle and pedestrian routes need to remain as direct as they can be, which suggests that the sidewalks (multi-use trails) should not change much. For vehicles, I think it would be fine for the route to zigzag enough that nobody would ever use it to pass through campus; but I’m not sure how that would be fit in around the existing buildings. One possibility might be to narrow it significantly. It could be one-way, or there could be single lane chokepoints which alternate directions using traffic signals, or it could just be narrow enough that it’s not comfortable to pass oncoming traffic. It could be broken up so that half of campus is accessible from the north and half from the south. There are probably other ideas that could be helpful as well.

*shrugs*...we can agree to disagree.

I'm not suggesting that everything is exactly the same with Ring Rd. closed to private vehicles, but there are already many buildings on campus which have no direct access by private vehicles today, this just makes more buildings in that particular circumstance. There are already systems in place to address those buildings, it can address the rest.

Further, there are private-car free places all over the world that manage to function just fine, many places with much stronger accessibility laws than here, I'm talking, virtually every city centre in every Dutch town and city. Bigger places like Mackinac and Govenors Islands, even the Toronto Harbor Island.

I think it's a little insulting to call me "unserious". In return, I could argue that your position is unambitious and fearful.

If you want to have a serious discussion on it, you could and did correctly point out, that there are a number of shorter measures that could be taken that would be easier to implement and meet with less (but certainly not no) resistance. And you could do that without calling my position "unserious".

[KevinL]

On the Ring Road issue, perhaps restrict access to service vehicles and transit shuttles using drop arms/rising bollards; if someone needs to move something large then they can get a day pass for their vehicle.

[Tony_Plow]

The R&T Park is a complete failure in urban planning, and there's no easy way to fix it.  I know this is a pipe dream, but IMO all parking lots should be moved behind the buildings and away from the main streets (Hagey Blvd. and Wed Graham Way).  Next, mixed-use developments should be built along Hagey, with ground level retail and condos/apartments.  Double-width car lanes should be reduced to one lane so that they can add on-street parking.  No idea why there are roundabouts in the R&T Park.  Roundabouts are not nearly as safe for pedestrians as traditional intersections - and during non-COVID times, apart from the evening commute, there is very little traffic in the R&T Park.  I agree that there should be a moratorium placed on all new developments in the R&T Park until they develop a proper development plan.  Such a shame that eVolv1 was just recently built (and right beside the LRT station no less).  Have we learned nothing from our past mistakes?!

[danbrotherston]

The R&T Park is a complete failure in urban planning, and there's no easy way to fix it.  I know this is a pipe dream, but IMO all parking lots should be moved behind the buildings and away from the main streets (Hagey Blvd. and Wed Graham Way).  Next, mixed-use developments should be built along Hagey, with ground level retail and condos/apartments.  Double-width car lanes should be reduced to one lane so that they can add on-street parking.  No idea why there are roundabouts in the R&T Park.  Roundabouts are not nearly as safe for pedestrians as traditional intersections - and during non-COVID times, apart from the evening commute, there is very little traffic in the R&T Park.  I agree that there should be a moratorium placed on all new developments in the R&T Park until they develop a proper development plan.  Such a shame that eVolv1 was just recently built (and right beside the LRT station no less).  Have we learned nothing from our past mistakes?!

A resounding no here.

But learning is a process. We see there is a problem, we know what we did wrong, right now we are stuck on the making a change step (at the best, many are still stuck in earlier steps--plenty of ... a certain demographic ... does not even acknowlege there is a problem).

[ijmorlan]

I'm not suggesting that everything is exactly the same with Ring Rd. closed to private vehicles, but there are already many buildings on campus which have no direct access by private vehicles today, this just makes more buildings in that particular circumstance. There are already systems in place to address those buildings, it can address the rest.

Further, there are private-car free places all over the world that manage to function just fine, many places with much stronger accessibility laws than here, I'm talking, virtually every city centre in every Dutch town and city. Bigger places like Mackinac and Govenors Islands, even the Toronto Harbor Island.

I think it's a little insulting to call me "unserious". In return, I could argue that your position is unambitious and fearful.

If you want to have a serious discussion on it, you could and did correctly point out, that there are a number of shorter measures that could be taken that would be easier to implement and meet with less (but certainly not no) resistance. And you could do that without calling my position "unserious".

I’m not sure which buildings you are thinking of. The only ones I can find are LIB, AL, and GH, and even those are pretty close to the TC dropoff zone.

The islands you mention are all tourist/recreation/park areas; nobody has to go there, and especially nobody has to go there for short visits or errands. Additionally, they tend to have various local options such as horse carriages on Mackinac Island.

The “unserious” is not meant to be an insult. I just think it’s unserious to propose closing Ring Road to traffic, for the reasons I’ve given, and makes you look like a zealot (which you are not; just passionate about the issue and willing to propose significant changes from the status quo).

South Campus is already effectively a car free zone, with the exception of some excessive speed, mostly on Ring Road, from some drivers. Ring Road is a 2-lane road with no turn lanes; yet how often do you see a traffic jam? Even at a busy class change I can’t recall seeing anything that qualifies. Other than Ring Road, there are only dead-end driveways which I don’t much think about but actually reach almost everywhere without bringing traffic with them. I think the fact they are dead-end is crucial; nobody uses them to get anywhere except the buildings they are built to reach.

We don’t need more bureaucracy where to do a simple errand I have to pre-register and get a permit just to enter campus. We just need to use known techniques to slow down the small amount of remaining traffic (which will also cause the remaining cut through traffic to disappear to Phillip St. and Westmount Rd.).

[danbrotherston]

I'm not suggesting that everything is exactly the same with Ring Rd. closed to private vehicles, but there are already many buildings on campus which have no direct access by private vehicles today, this just makes more buildings in that particular circumstance. There are already systems in place to address those buildings, it can address the rest.

Further, there are private-car free places all over the world that manage to function just fine, many places with much stronger accessibility laws than here, I'm talking, virtually every city centre in every Dutch town and city. Bigger places like Mackinac and Govenors Islands, even the Toronto Harbor Island.

I think it's a little insulting to call me "unserious". In return, I could argue that your position is unambitious and fearful.

If you want to have a serious discussion on it, you could and did correctly point out, that there are a number of shorter measures that could be taken that would be easier to implement and meet with less (but certainly not no) resistance. And you could do that without calling my position "unserious".

I’m not sure which buildings you are thinking of. The only ones I can find are LIB, AL, and GH, and even those are pretty close to the TC dropoff zone.

The islands you mention are all tourist/recreation/park areas; nobody has to go there, and especially nobody has to go there for short visits or errands. Additionally, they tend to have various local options such as horse carriages on Mackinac Island.

The “unserious” is not meant to be an insult. I just think it’s unserious to propose closing Ring Road to traffic, for the reasons I’ve given, and makes you look like a zealot (which you are not; just passionate about the issue and willing to propose significant changes from the status quo).

South Campus is already effectively a car free zone, with the exception of some excessive speed, mostly on Ring Road, from some drivers. Ring Road is a 2-lane road with no turn lanes; yet how often do you see a traffic jam? Even at a busy class change I can’t recall seeing anything that qualifies. Other than Ring Road, there are only dead-end driveways which I don’t much think about but actually reach almost everywhere without bringing traffic with them. I think the fact they are dead-end is crucial; nobody uses them to get anywhere except the buildings they are built to reach.

We don’t need more bureaucracy where to do a simple errand I have to pre-register and get a permit just to enter campus. We just need to use known techniques to slow down the small amount of remaining traffic (which will also cause the remaining cut through traffic to disappear to Phillip St. and Westmount Rd.).

Also, RCH, I think 4 should qualify as many.

The islands I mention may be tourist destinations, but there are also permanent residents, many hundreds on Mackinac Island and Toronto Harbor Islands, and thousands on Govenors Island.  Yes, they have local solutions, as campus also has even today.

I know that you did not intend an insult by calling it "unserious", but it is none the less dismissive.

I know YOU don't want bureaucracy for your errands, just the same as every person wants more access for their personal vehicular errands. But creating obstacles is what helps deter people driving where abd when they don't need to. If you have the need, then as long as there is an accessible process in place, I don't see a problem.

You too are talking about creating obstacles, just different ones, if I was taking something from one office to another and had to drive around on Westmount, that's an obstacle, and maybe I'd just walk instead. If you feel that your plan is sufficient, that's fine, but don't call it 'unserious' to have a bolder vision.

By the way, I have a similar vision for other parts of the city, Uptown, Downtown, maybe even Belmont Village. Not today, not as a first step, but long term, I want the idea that you have unfettered access to every part of every city by private automobile to be considered a bizarre and destructive belief.

[timc]

The R&T Park is a complete failure in urban planning, and there's no easy way to fix it.  I know this is a pipe dream, but IMO all parking lots should be moved behind the buildings and away from the main streets (Hagey Blvd. and Wed Graham Way).  Next, mixed-use developments should be built along Hagey, with ground level retail and condos/apartments. 

Why would the University want condos built on its land?