[ssiguy2]

No matter what KWC does I would love to be a fly on the wall when London comes a calling for it's $300 million for it's planned BRT and the province says it has run out of money.

 

[doady]

No matter what KWC does I would love to be a fly on the wall when London comes a calling for it's $300 million for it's planned BRT and the province says it has run out of money.

London is planning a BRT that will cost $900 million? Wow, it must be one heck of a BRT...

 

[Mapleson]

The thing is, gweed, that it's not just the downtowns that are on the line, both the universities, the major hospital, the two major malls and some big private employers like RIM and Manulife (and the Tech Park) are on there, too; most, if not all, of the condo development that has taken place in the twin cities has been along this route as well - even before the construction of higher order transit. KW is not so much a city of two downtowns as it is a linear city that, by either good luck or good planning, has been highly concentrated along a thin line. In this circumstance, LRT is more effective than BRT, which is very useful at funneling multiple suburban lines into a trunk, and very good in suburban environments where wide medians and passing lanes can be provided, but not in a 'string of pearls' situation as it is here - especially because over half of the line trundles through a pre-war area with narrow rights of way. Even if BRT was built, the money saved would not be useful for KWers, since this is the only rapid transit line that is feasible for the region in the forseeable future. It's not as if there were competing transit visions that the money was being taken away from.

The other reason I support LRT here is because I think that the LRT will become a symbol and a point of pride for a midsize city that is starting to mature from a provincial bedroom community into a Canadian city on the same playing field as Winnipeg, Edmonton or Quebec City. Having left former rivals like Windsor in the dust, I think that KW is seriously in the running to become Ontario's third city, not just in population but in feel. When a city grows, it needs a symbol or a collective icon of civic building - and LRT, for all its expense, may serve as a very latent visual symbol for a place like KW that is in desperate need of one. "The smallest city in North America with a rail transit system" could be a good tagline; the idea of the light rail serving as the connecting element of all the disparate, yet linear, attractions of this city might be another. I am not trying to promote rail due to its 'chicness', but I think in rare circumstances in a city's growth, flashier things whose elevated costs are not necessarily in line with elevated ridership estimates may sometimes be needed.

St. Mary's is as big a regional hospital as Grand River, but it's not service by the LRT. The condo development in the tri-city area has not been mostly along this corridor. In Waterloo, it's along Columbia and King Streets. In Kitchener, it's along Queen and Highland. KW is not concentrated along the King Street corridor, look at population and employment distribution maps and it'll give you a east-west smear for population with higher density areas around the universities and artially roads. If GRT were planning on funneling multiple suburban lines into a trunk LRT, I wouldn't be so against this plan, but they are intending to keep the same Mall-to-Mall type bus routes, not convert to a feeder grid.

Toronto, Ottawa, and Mississagua have pretty firm hold on the top three cities in Canada. Which do you think Kitchener will pass? Waterloo Region is more likely completing with London, Hamilton, Brampton, or Vaughan. As Vaughan is getting subway service and is smaller than Kitchener, "The smallest city in North America with a rail transit system" seems a bit hollow of a title. I'd rather live in "The City with Transit that makes Sense/Cents".

 

[mpd618]

St. Mary's is as big a regional hospital as Grand River, but it's not service by the LRT. The condo development in the tri-city area has not been mostly along this corridor. In Waterloo, it's along Columbia and King Streets. In Kitchener, it's along Queen and Highland. KW is not concentrated along the King Street corridor, look at population and employment distribution maps and it'll give you a east-west smear for population with higher density areas around the universities and artially roads. If GRT were planning on funneling multiple suburban lines into a trunk LRT, I wouldn't be so against this plan, but they are intending to keep the same Mall-to-Mall type bus routes, not convert to a feeder grid.

You're wrong. GRT is fully planning on changing the bus network to feed into the light rail line, and reducing the focus on hubs. I've talked with the planning staff, and this will be the focus of local route redesigns in the next few years. Also, with the newly approved Regional Transportation Master Plan, five new express bus routes will be introduced in the next five years, and these will connect other major corridors to the light rail line. Of those, the "Highland-Victoria express" will get within a block of St. Mary's and the "Coronation express" will connect Cambridge Memorial Hospital as well.

I don't know whether the light rail route has most of the new condos, but certainly major residential development is in the works for this corridor: a 19-story tower (144 Park) and the Barrel Yards in Uptown Waterloo, and Centre Block and Arrow Lofts in downtown Kitchener. More importantly, the light rail will guide future development to occur along it (and the new Regional Official Plan will force the cities to place more development there).

 

[nfitz]

I haven't lived in KW for a few years now. When did St. Mary's get as big Grand River? It used to be less than half the size of KGH! I've seen a lot of construction at KGH when I've been driving past lately ... but I haven't driven past St. Mary's for years. I assume there has been significant growth at St. Mary's?

 

[dunkalunk]

^There hasn't. While St. Mary's may have the best airway and coronary units in KW, GRH including recent expansions is 3 or 4 times the size.

 

[Urban_Enthusiast86]

St. Mary's is as big a regional hospital as Grand River, but it's not service by the LRT. The condo development in the tri-city area has not been mostly along this corridor. In Waterloo, it's along Columbia and King Streets. In Kitchener, it's along Queen and Highland. KW is not concentrated along the King Street corridor, look at population and employment distribution maps and it'll give you a east-west smear for population with higher density areas around the universities and artially roads. If GRT were planning on funneling multiple suburban lines into a trunk LRT, I wouldn't be so against this plan, but they are intending to keep the same Mall-to-Mall type bus routes, not convert to a feeder grid.

Toronto, Ottawa, and Mississagua have pretty firm hold on the top three cities in Canada. Which do you think Kitchener will pass? Waterloo Region is more likely completing with London, Hamilton, Brampton, or Vaughan. As Vaughan is getting subway service and is smaller than Kitchener, "The smallest city in North America with a rail transit system" seems a bit hollow of a title. I'd rather live in "The City with Transit that makes Sense/Cents".

As someone who's from the area, there are a few problems with what you're saying.

1) The buildings going up around the universities are primarily rental accomodations, not condos.

2) There are only 2 new developments finishing up within a 5 minute walk of Queen and Highland streets. 560 Queen street (apartment building) and a townhouse development called 'intowns'. All the other recently completed (intensification) developments, projects under construction, and proposals are right downtown, on the fringes of downtown, or a 5 minute walk to downtown. They are definitely along the central transit corridor. Though you are correct about St. Mary's being off the beaten path.

3) Even if we were to suppose that the majority of intensification was taking place near the universities (and it certainly is substantial), both universities will have their own LRT station, so this is not a problem.

4) The way you're talking about city size should really be clarified. You're talking about the size of the municipality, when really we should be comparing metropolitan areas to each other. There may not be a big difference between Kitchener and Vaughan in city size, but Vaughan is part of the Greater Toronto Area. The subway Vaughan is getting is coming from Toronto. Brampton and Mississauga are also part of the GTA. The metropolitan areas Waterloo is competing with include places like London, Halifax, Victoria, Hamilton, Winnipeg, etc.

5) When attending the rapid transit open houses, I talked to planners from the Region about feeder routes. They all said that GRT is planning to reroute their system to include direct west-east feeders, improving access to the future LRT sstations. I personally think the bus system needs an overhaul as is, but no, they don't have any intention of keeping all feeder routes as they are now.

Semantics aside, the most important reason this initiative is being taken is to guide future development patterns. The centralized core area may not be strong now, but it certainly won't get any stronger by investing all our infrastructure money into roads.

Also, consider how an employer decides where they want to put a new office. One of the most critical factors affecting that decision is accessibility. In a car-dependent city like KW, accessibility is determined by proximity to highway exits and the supply of free parking. In a city like Toronto, office space is at a premium downtown because it can be accessed by a network of subways and GO-trains that are capable of moving vast numbers of commuters. Suppose one day that it was decided that the GO-trains and subways would shut down for good. I guarantee that the value of office space in Toronto's CBD would drop substantially in relation to the suburbs.

Given that the Region of Waterloo is expected to grow to about 750,000 by 2031, there is definitely a 'build it and they will come' aspect to all of this, especially compared to other similar-sized metro areas with a slower growth rate. It would be unwise to allow KW to continue developing in the same sprawling pattern that it has been doing for a long time. There is a better way.

 

[Mapleson]

You're wrong. GRT is fully planning on changing the bus network to feed into the light rail line, and reducing the focus on hubs. I've talked with the planning staff, and this will be the focus of local route redesigns in the next few years. Also, with the newly approved Regional Transportation Master Plan, five new express bus routes will be introduced in the next five years, and these will connect other major corridors to the light rail line. Of those, the "Highland-Victoria express" will get within a block of St. Mary's and the "Coronation express" will connect Cambridge Memorial Hospital as well.

I don't know whether the light rail route has most of the new condos, but certainly major residential development is in the works for this corridor: a 19-story tower (144 Park) and the Barrel Yards in Uptown Waterloo, and Centre Block and Arrow Lofts in downtown Kitchener. More importantly, the light rail will guide future development to occur along it (and the new Regional Official Plan will force the cities to place more development there).

I'm glad I'm wrong then, but why isn't this incorporated into the LRT or a Regional Transportation Plan that people without inside information can know what the planning staff are planning? Or am I wrong again and it is available, but I haven't looked in the right spots? I'd have to re-analyse the King Street LRT if there is some cohesive whole that they are working towards that has new express bus corridors and feeder bus routes. The King Street corridor would intensive by Regional employement and housing density targets without relying on transit services to "stimulate it". Really, that is just an excuse why developers would build one place and not another. You could accomplish as much revising density zoning laws.

I haven't lived in KW for a few years now. When did St. Mary's get as big Grand River? It used to be less than half the size of KGH! I've seen a lot of construction at KGH when I've been driving past lately ... but I haven't driven past St. Mary's for years. I assume there has been significant growth at St. Mary's?

Sorry, I should have said as important, not as big. For the last decade they've worked towards building specialities for St. Mary's and GRH, so now St. Mary's has the live-birthing facilities, Cardiac Rehabilitation Centre, Weight Management Centre, and other long-term adult problems. GRH has focused more on emergency care. If you are going to visit someone at the hospital regularly, chances are you are going to St. Mary's.

As someone who's from the area, there are a few problems with what you're saying.

Waterloo was my main Canadian base from 1999 to 2009. I've worked and lived elsewhere in that period, but Canada meant 'Waterloo' and Waterloo meant 'home'.

1) The buildings going up around the universities are primarily rental accomodations, not condos.

And do people that rent count less for transit than people that buy?

2) There are only 2 new developments finishing up within a 5 minute walk of Queen and Highland streets. 560 Queen street (apartment building) and a townhouse development called 'intowns'. All the other recently completed (intensification) developments, projects under construction, and proposals are right downtown, on the fringes of downtown, or a 5 minute walk to downtown. They are definitely along the central transit corridor. Though you are correct about St. Mary's being off the beaten path.

I admit I'm less familiar with what's gone up in Kitchener over the last five years, but is it fair to say that residential development is mainly taking place west of King Street?

3) Even if we were to suppose that the majority of intensification was taking place near the universities (and it certainly is substantial), both universities will have their own LRT station, so this is not a problem.

What intensification is going to happen at the Laurier stop? It has UW land to the North and West and City park to South. The UW stop is surrounded by UW lands and isn't that convience for Art students compared to a University Ave stop (Math and Engineers get almost door service). The intensification that's happened over the last decade is counter to spreading the student population amongst the Cities.

4) The way you're talking about city size should really be clarified. You're talking about the size of the municipality, when really we should be comparing metropolitan areas to each other. There may not be a big difference between Kitchener and Vaughan in city size, but Vaughan is part of the Greater Toronto Area. The subway Vaughan is getting is coming from Toronto. Brampton and Mississauga are also part of the GTA. The metropolitan areas Waterloo is competing with include places like London, Halifax, Victoria, Hamilton, Winnipeg, etc.

Cambridge is now being included as the Western most part of the GTA and Newcastle the Eastern most. What is wrong with comparing Mississauga with Winnipeg or Ottawa? If you are comparing Metro areas, then Waterloo Region is also completing against the likes of Edmonton, Ottawa, Quebec City, and the Niagara Peninsula, as well as the ones you named.

5) When attending the rapid transit open houses, I talked to planners from the Region about feeder routes. They all said that GRT is planning to reroute their system to include direct west-east feeders, improving access to the future LRT sstations. I personally think the bus system needs an overhaul as is, but no, they don't have any intention of keeping all feeder routes as they are now.

Did they give any documentation of this or just what the planners see as sensible?

Semantics aside, the most important reason this initiative is being taken is to guide future development patterns. The centralized core area may not be strong now, but it certainly won't get any stronger by investing all our infrastructure money into roads.

I just don't think you need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to intensify the core. Transit should go where it'll be most used, not where it might stimulate development. Development will follow whatever makes the most sense.

Also, consider how an employer decides where they want to put a new office. One of the most critical factors affecting that decision is accessibility. In a car-dependent city like KW, accessibility is determined by proximity to highway exits and the supply of free parking. In a city like Toronto, office space is at a premium downtown because it can be accessed by a network of subways and GO-trains that are capable of moving vast numbers of commuters. Suppose one day that it was decided that the GO-trains and subways would shut down for good. I guarantee that the value of office space in Toronto's CBD would drop substantially in relation to the suburbs.

Fair enough.

Given that the Region of Waterloo is expected to grow to about 750,000 by 2031, there is definitely a 'build it and they will come' aspect to all of this, especially compared to other similar-sized metro areas with a slower growth rate. It would be unwise to allow KW to continue developing in the same sprawling pattern that it has been doing for a long time. There is a better way.

The Urban sprawl was arrested in 2007 when they came out with the Places to Grow urban and rural density targets. So long as it's a holistic picture, I won't quibble too much over the details.

 

[nfitz]

The Urban sprawl was arrested in 2007 when they came out with the Places to Grow urban and rural density targets. So long as it's a holistic picture, I won't quibble too much over the details.

Places to Grow still calls for huge amounts of new urban sprawl. For example, look at Durham:

Everything in green is Moraine or greenbelt. Everything in white is developed or developable. There's a lot of farmland that can still be developed! And Durham is one of the more constrained. If you look at the entire plan area:

Again, it's only the green area that is limited. If you look most of Simcoe County, Wellington County, Region of Waterloo, Region of Niagara, etc. isn't constrained.

 

[dunkalunk]

Again, it's only the green area that is limited. If you look most of Simcoe County, Wellington County, Region of Waterloo, Region of Niagara, etc. isn't constrained.

Waterloo region has approved a Regional Growth management strategy which solidifies a countryside line. The region is almost out of developable land within Kitchener, Waterloo, and Cambridge, and is planning for more infill development as a result.

There's a map on page 12 of this PDF

As an aside, I hope that this countryside line becomes officially part of Places to Grow.

 

[nfitz]

... which a future council can eliminate with a stroke of a pen. Still, there's lot of place for development still on the east side of the Grand ... and doesn't Wellington's plan allow for the development of pretty much everything between Guelph and the Waterloo Region border?

It's a start ... but if Waterloo was serious, they'd have applied to the Province to add this to the green belt ... and I haven't heard that they've done that.

 

[dunkalunk]

Mapleson, for your viewing pleasure, here is the regional transportation master plan:

http://www.movingforward2031.ca/

Here are a bunch of reports including the draft plan approved by regional council:
http://www.movingforward2031.ca/doc_reports.htm

I recommend you take a glance at the April 2010 summary report. Modified alternative C was approved by regional council. This plan proposes a high frequency, low transfer network to be gradually implemented in conjunction with the first phase of rapid transit.

 

[Urban_Enthusiast86]

And do people that rent count less for transit than people that buy?

Not at all. In fact, low-income people and renters are more likely to take transit...especially students.

I admit I'm less familiar with what's gone up in Kitchener over the last five years, but is it fair to say that residential development is mainly taking place west of King Street?

What type? Single detached housing is sprouting up on all sides of the city. Residential intensification is mostly happening within a few blocks of King street, so it doesn't matter whether it's east or west.

What intensification is going to happen at the Laurier stop? It has UW land to the North and West and City park to South. The UW stop is surrounded by UW lands and isn't that convience for Art students compared to a University Ave stop (Math and Engineers get almost door service). The intensification that's happened over the last decade is counter to spreading the student population amongst the Cities.

Presumably, most of these students would be able to walk to west-east connector routes that would either run on University Ave, Columbia St, or both. The key is making sure transfers are seamless, which is something GRT needs to work on.

Spreading the student population around the cities is starting to happen, but only through satellite campuses (i.e. UW's Pharmacy campus in DT Kitchener, UW's Architecture campus in DT Cambridge (Galt), and WLU's social work campus in DT Kitchener). Not to mention the Balsillie School of International Affairs in uptown Waterloo, Trios college expansion in Market Square (DT Kitchener), and the huge Conestoga College expansion onto the other side of hwy 401 in Cambridge.

Cambridge is now being included as the Western most part of the GTA and Newcastle the Eastern most.

Wait a minute...since when is Cambridge considered part of the GTA? Under what definition? If they're willing to go that far, I'm wondering why they stopped there and KW isn't included into this refined definition. Newcastle makes sense, since it's in Durham region and much much closer to Toronto, distance-wise and via commuting patterns.

What is wrong with comparing Mississauga with Winnipeg or Ottawa?

Well, we could compare Vancouver to Hamilton, but we both know they're not really the same size.

Did they give any documentation of this or just what the planners see as sensible?

Not documented, but they said that that was under serious discussion. Hopefully it's made official sooner rather than later.

I just don't think you need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to intensify the core. Transit should go where it'll be most used, not where it might stimulate development. Development will follow whatever makes the most sense.

And you're right. But transportation systems determine accessibility, which largely determines land values, which determines land use (in tandem with zoning). Los Angeles invests in freeways, Los Angeles gets sprawl in return. Besides, intensification is even happening along the central transit corridor without the necessary transit infrastructure. We still run on high frequency (at least down king street) deisel busses, which aren't very attractive to choice riders (i.e. people working professional jobs and living in condos).

 

[Rowe]

The transit system here is used heavily, its just such a crappy service. UW at 2-4pm ish is crazy. The ixpress gets filled and WLU has to wait for the next one because there is no room (which is always fun to laugh at). Waterloo Region is one of the fastest growing cities in Canada, why settle for something that isn't a long term investment?

LRT.

 

[Urban_Enthusiast86]

... which a future council can eliminate with a stroke of a pen. Still, there's lot of place for development still on the east side of the Grand ... and doesn't Wellington's plan allow for the development of pretty much everything between Guelph and the Waterloo Region border?

This, if I recall, is the difference between how a county operates and how a regional municipality operates within the province of Ontario. Regionality Municipalities have authority over their constituent local municipalities, such as the cities and townships within them. Kitchener, Waterloo, and Cambridge, along with the 4 surrounding townships, have to conform with the Regional Growth Management Strategy.

Guelph is not part of a regional municipality, but is surrounded by Wellington County, which itself is made up of different rural/exurban townships. Guelph has no authority over Wellington County and Wellington County has no authority over Guelph. As a result, you have townships like Puslinch who go their own way, building large lot subdivisions (heard of Aberfoyle?), cottages, and gated communities in the middle of nowhere. It's very problematic because places like Puslinch, while having a rural facade, actually house a lot of people who work in Waterloo Region, Guelph, and the western GTA. It could end up being a real mess of the worst kind of large lot sprawl if the province doesn't step in.