[Bureaucromancer]

A question for you and others here more familiar w/ K-W than I...........

The existing ION is a north-south spine of Rapid Transit for the area, broadly in line w/how the community (ies) are shaped by the Grand.

That said, do you (or anyone else) think there is case for any kind of East-West spine, above and beyond GO?

If so, where would one put that to serve existing/future density/jobs?

I looked at a few spots on aerial (Victoria, Queen, etc.) but couldn't settle on a clear candidate and whether its even a worthwhile idea in the medium term.

The only kind of E/W spine that seems to make sense to me is using the existing corridors. Urban frequency rail service from Guelph to Galt and to at least the Ira Needle/ Boardwalk area, if not out to New Hamburg, would have a lot going for it, but doesn't fit nicely into any of the existing governmental structures...

Which leads into my other big structural thought, which is that the re amalgamation an "Upper Tier Municipality without Planning Authority" may well be the right approach, but if it is Wellington (and Guelph) should be brough in and some of the township boundaries changed (maybe call the whole thing Grand River and a new amalgamated lower tier between KW/Cambridge and Guelph Breslau?)

 

[ericmacm]

A question for you and others here more familiar w/ K-W than I...........

The existing ION is a north-south spine of Rapid Transit for the area, broadly in line w/how the community (ies) are shaped by the Grand.

That said, do you (or anyone else) think there is case for any kind of East-West spine, above and beyond GO?

If so, where would one put that to serve existing/future density/jobs?

I looked at a few spots on aerial (Victoria, Queen, etc.) but couldn't settle on a clear candidate and whether it’s even a worthwhile idea in the medium term.

Here’s a rough idea of what future RT could look like in the region, from the 2018 Planning and Works Committee Report. There is a plan for a loop and westward extension through Waterloo, an eastward extension/westward extension and/or loop through Kitchener along the GO corridor, as well as a number of additional iXpress BRT routes throughout the region. iON Stage 3 appeared on MTO’s 2051 Transit Plan.

It also shows two potential GO spurs, one is the much-discussed Cambridge spur, as well as a potential spur into the Waterloo Regional Airport.

 

[Bureaucromancer]

I'll add that

1. that Airport spur has been given no context beyond it's inclusion on that map, and appears to approach the airport from the wrong end to serve anything but the middle of a runway; and
2. Cambridge GO by way of Milton is officially not the preferred option. Stage 2 of the Dillon / RoW / Metrolinx study firmly committed to using Fergus.

My perspective would be that reserving a ROW for some kind of airport link might not be a bad idea, but well into the foreseeable long term the airport would be more than properly served by a high quality bus service on Fountain Street. Once ION is in place, redirecting iXpress 206 up Fountain to the Kossuth / Fairway roundabout then west to Fairway Station would be a really good support for an already designated greenfield area. With an expansion of the on demand area down to roundabout this really would be plenty short term.

Longer (more like medium) term extending the 206 direct to the airport then onto Breslau GO , with a new Airport iXpress from Fairway, ideally extending on to Guelph, would make a lot more sense than a strange heavy rail spur.

What I believe is going to eventually happen is that the feds are going to end up funding a large portion of its cost, like how the feds are paying for half of the Hamilton LRT. However, I don’t believe that these discussions will happen until Cambridge shows interest in and signs a Housing Accelerator Fund agreement to end exclusionary zoning.

I like the suggestion, and do think that Federal money is reasonably inevitable, but how familiar with the Cambridge zoning by-law are you? It's already got universal triplexes (not that Bill 23 left much choice)... How much less exclusionary do you picture the feds demanding? Fourplexes everywhere? No control on built form?

From the direction I've taken on the last couple posts I don't think anyone will be terribly surprised that I more or less support letting Waterloo Region grow into Guelph. Frankly, it's not necessarily IDEAL, but as far as giant patches of green field go its a lot less offensive than most other places it could go (like, say, along the 413 corridor). Moreover though, I think it's inevitable whether one thinks it SHOULD happen, and given that we'd be a lot better off ensuring this is built as a reasonably sustainable actual expansion of the urban area(s) rather than a patchy exurban mess of sprawl.

PS: I didn't address the RoW's take on stage 3 Ion (being that King / University / Erb / Ira Needles / Victoria thing). I like the Waterloo part, but really think that there SHOULD be that crosstown rail service rather than full xRT (an even more tram like LRT might be worth consideration, but I really have a hard time picturing this actually being built as anything but BRT) on Victoria. I'd most likely suggest stage 3 ending at the Boardwalk (and ideally an associated GO station), and taking Stage 4 west on Highland, south on Fisher-Hallman and East to Block Line station with consideration for continuing on to Conestoga College via Manitou and Homer Watson.

PPS: I also didn't mention the other big project I have in mind for the area. I wholeheartedly agree that Fergus is far better than extending the Milton Line to Cambridge, but am quite fond of idea of extending it up the Guelph Junction Railway with a station in Campbellville. I could be convinced either way as to whether that station should be before or after the junction with GJR, but at a glance the idea of passenger trains through Waterdown to Hamilton is attractive enough it seems slightly preferable to put a station in a position it could serve such a branch as well.

 

[ericmacm]

I like the suggestion, and do think that Federal money is reasonably inevitable, but how familiar with the Cambridge zoning by-law are you? It's already got universal triplexes (not that Bill 23 left much choice)... How much less exclusionary do you picture the feds demanding? Fourplexes everywhere? No control on built form?

I agree that four-plexes vs three-plexes doesn’t make a huge difference, and I know that’s been the main media talking point because it impacts SFH neighbourhoods. However, HAF agreements have shown to do much more. For example, the HAF signed by Hamilton recently was larger in dollar value than what most other cities got, but it also came with additional as-of-right zoning changes for high-density development along the future LRT.

An HAF deal with Cambridge could bring in similar kinds of ToD zoning around the future LRT corridor, and could also potentially be linked with a federal funding agreement for the Stage 2 LRT as well.

 

[allengeorge]

I’ll also point out that ‘legalizing’ triplexes, and actually making them viable to build or create via conversion are two very different things. I don’t know how well the tri-cities have done on the latter front.

For example, TO Planning has tried to execute on the latter by removing *plex-only constraints in their latest planning changes. Prior to that, there were all kind of random FSI, setback rules and more limiting multiple units on a lot.

 

[chrisw]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1718084324832981126

From the 2024 Waterloo Region Budget Review (Budget is not finalized yet),

Some optimization of LRT service by "rebalancing" frequencies. Overall, they may still add 1,900 hours of LRT service in 2024 (not necessarily a lot).

* Frequency increased to 10 min from 7am to 8pm in the summer
* Frequency increased to 8 min from 7am to 8pm during non-summer
* Frequency decreased from 15 min to 30 min from 5am to 7am and 8pm to midnight.

While, it's great that they're adding some net service, 30min frequency is horrible for the LRT. They need to maintain a reasonable level of service even if there's not as much ridership.

They also use the explanation of Bus Route #7 complementing the frequency during this off peak time, when they don't need the capacity. How reasonable is this explanation?

Public Input Meeting #2 - Nov 1, 2023
Public Input Meeting #3 - Nov 29, 2023

Budget and Financial Statements

The Region of Waterloo's annual budget material is available online. This includes budget books, issue papers, agendas, minutes and presentations. Also annual Regional financial statements.

www.regionofwaterloo.ca

The transit portion starts at 2:13:00

https://www.youtube.com/live/3g8EhYtZ6fE?t=7980

 

[ShonTron]

Route 7 is not an option for the top trip generator: University of Waterloo. What an absolutely stupid idea to cut service to every 30 minutes after 8 pm.

 

[Northern Light]

[While, it's great that they're adding some net service, 30min frequency is horrible for the LRT. They need to maintain a reasonable level of service even if there's not as much ridership.

They also use the explanation of Bus Route #7 complementing the frequency during this off peak time, when they don't need the capacity. How reasonable is this explanation?

Public Input Meeting #2 - Nov 1, 2023
Public Input Meeting #3 - Nov 29, 2023

Budget and Financial Statements

The Region of Waterloo's annual budget material is available online. This includes budget books, issue papers, agendas, minutes and presentations. Also annual Regional financial statements.

www.regionofwaterloo.ca

The transit portion starts at 2:13:00

Strategic Plan & Budget Committee - October 18, 2023

The meeting agenda can be found here https://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/regional-government/council-calendar_escribe.aspx

www.youtube.com

Re the bolded: Its not reasonable, at all, in any way, shape or form.

People need to oppose this loudly and clearly. Make sure and flag this to the University Student Associations, and the Universities themselves.

 

[sixrings]

Re the bolded: Its not reasonable, at all, in any way, shape or form.

People need to oppose this loudly and clearly. Make sure and flag this to the University Student Associations, and the Universities themselves.

I grew up with 30 minute headways in Scarborough. Which would have had been much more urban and dense than these areas. I just don’t get it. I think people are asking for a lot. I would have been super happy with a lrt and technology especially with apps that told me when the train was going to arrive.

 

[Northern Light]

I grew up with 30 minute headways in Scarborough. Which would have had been much more urban and dense than these areas. I just don’t get it. I think people are asking for a lot. I would have been super happy with a lrt and technology especially with apps that told me when the train was going to arrive.

As always, you are contrarian for its own sake.

30 minute service is abysmal.

There was very little of that when you grew up in Scarborough (your memory is faulty); regardless, to the extent some routes off-peak were like that, it wasn't ok then and there and isn't now.

 

[nfitz]

Route 7 is not an option for the top trip generator: University of Waterloo. What an absolutely stupid idea to cut service to every 30 minutes after 8 pm.

Unless you use the historic routings through UW.

 

[sixrings]

As always, you are contrarian for its own sake.

30 minute service is abysmal.

There was very little of that when you group up in Scarborough (your memory is faulty); regardless, to the extent some routes off-peak were like that, it wasn't ok then and there and isn't now.

just because you don’t agree with everythigg doesn’t mean you are going out of the way to think differently or are trying to pick fights. Is this supposed to be an echo chamber?

Listen I know we got into it over appropriation which we totally disagreed with. Fine. But I’m not throwing around labels.

I promise you I grew up at midland and finch. The midland bus was once every thirty minutes. I would get off the midland rt stop. If I could see the bus had passed I would simply walk home from there as a late teen.

Also I went to a church west of arletta on sheppard west in the early 2010s and that service was every 20 minutes on Sundays.

 

[Northern Light]

just because you don’t agree with everythigg doesn’t mean you are going out of the way to think differently or are trying to pick fights. Is this supposed to be an echo chamber?

I promise you I grew up at midland and finch. The midland bus was once every thirty minutes. I would get off the midland rt stop. If I could see the bus had passed I would simply walk home from there as a late teen.

So, as someone who did not have children, or a full-time job, who was able-bodied, at his physical peak, and not in a rush to go anywhere, you found 30M acceptable.

Good for you.

The ridership on the Midland bus showed a different story.

The contrast is the much higher volume on the Finch bus which comes much more frequently.

****

You're welcome to your contrarian preferences. And no, this need not be an echo chamber. But in matters that go beyond aesthetic or esoteric preferences, I would prefer to see discussion that is based on facts.

In this case, those facts are that most people view 30 minute service poorly and that everywhere its in place ridership is poor vs 15M or better service.

For further clarity that ridership is per vehicle or per seat, not just more vehicles more riders.

 

[sixrings]

So, as someone who did not have children, or a full-time job, who able-bodied, at his physical peak, and not in a rush to go anywhere, you found 30M acceptable.

Good for you.

The ridership on the Midland bus showed a different story.

The contrast is the much higher volume on the Finch bus which comes much more frequently.

****

You're welcome to your contrarian preferences. And no, this need not be an echo chamber. But in matters that go beyond aesthetic or esoteric preferences, I would prefer to see discussion that is based on facts.

In this case, those facts are that most people view 30 minute service poorly and that everywhere its in place ridership is poor vs 15M or better service.

For further clarity that ridership is per vehicle or per seat, not just more vehicles more riders.

Frequency decreased from 15 min to 30 min from 5am to 7am and 8pm to midnight.

So 7 hours of not so great service. 70% of the time good to great service.

It’s not all day. My goodness. For the record I went to university in Calgary in the early 2000s. That ctrain ran through the city off leak at once every 20-30 mins in minus 30 weather.

All my point is that the ctrain still worked. Sheppard west worked on Sundays. And midland worked. Was it optimal. No. But it serviced the people who used it.

We can’t even get full day service on the Milton go line and you’re making it sound like it’s an attack on transit users getting full day worse case scenario 30 minute service.

 

[Northern Light]

Frequency decreased from 15 min to 30 min from 5am to 7am and 8pm to midnight.

It’s not all day. My goodness. For the record I went to university in Calgary in the early 2000s. That ctrain ran through the city off leak at once every 20-30 mins in minus 30 weather.

All my point is that the ctrain still worked. Sheppard west worked on Sundays. And midland worked. Was it optimal. No. But it serviced the people who used it.

My point is that most of those services had poor ridership at times they ran such low frequencies.

You will drive riders away whenever you reduce service. We have ample hard evidence for that.

I did not suggest it was the apocalypse. I stated as fact that its poor, and that it will drive away ridership. You don't have to care. But please don't defend bad policy choices.