10-18-2021, 02:43 PM
(10-17-2021, 11:54 PM)ac3r Wrote: Absolutely. Butttt...that's my main problem with this region. Development won't just take place within the downtown cores, it'll take place wherever there is major infrastructure - whether that means high capacity arterial roads, highway exits, light rail stations or major bus hubs. It's planning 101. The Region of Waterloo and all 3 cities have done all sorts of projections but I can guarantee none of them are going to accurately predict the level of intensification that'll take place in this city in 20, 40 or even 60 years from now. The most recent population projection, for example was done in something like 2015 and predicted ROW would hit 630'000 by 2030 - yet it's 2021 and we're well past that. We are the fastest growing region in the entire country and while that will definitely not always be true, we'll still continue to grow as a major city/region. Our economy is enough to write that into stone (assuming somehow our tech companies/reputation fail, which is unlikely). I hope our planners are wise enough to take that into account going forward. However, most politicians - who are austerity minded - are not. We're going to rapidly outgrow our infrastructure and planned infrastructure before we know it - and I don't even need an expensive neural network/AI computer model and team of 500 planners to determine that...I can confidently say that whilst writing a forum post on a Sunday evening.
I'm not sure what you're talking about, but the Region of Waterloo is mandated by the province to following population projections as set out under Places to Grow for planning purposes. The current growth plan projects 742k by 2031 and 835k by 2041. As a point of reference, Statistics Canada estimates our current population at 605,232, with growth of 87,506 over the previous 10 years. That would suggest that the growth estimates are on the conservative side (ie. projecting more growth than we would likely actually receive).
You've complained about planners not doing due diligence with LRT in the past, but you have not supported your arguments and have been shown repeatedly that you are incorrect on a number of basic historic facts that can be easily verified.