[doady]

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

Yes, there is no better indication of crappy transit service than high ridership.

 

[Mapleson]

... 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.

Okay, The Municipal Region of Waterloo's 2003 Regional Growth Management Strategy was adjusted to fit the 2007 Ontario’s Places to Grow Growth Plan and designated Waterloo, Kitchener, and Cambridge "Urban Growth Centres" and urban sprawl, as the Places to Grow framework set out, was arrested in the Region of Waterloo. As I recall the population and employment density targets for the purple are 100 per hectare and no new developments in the pink. The build boundaries have been ratified by the provincial government, it can't just be turned over by the next Region Chair.

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

I was responding to the comment that the development on King and University is rentals not condos, so it doesn't need better transit.

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.

We we speaking of higher density. The Cities are filled will low density neighbourhoods, so the few areas of higher density are where transit is needed. "Within a few blocks" isn't very detailed planning, and there isn't a lot of high-density development being serviced on King Street outside downtown Kitchener. How much farther is the average walking distance for developments for a Charles St. alignment?

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.

That's fragmenting the university campuses, not the student population. The pharmists live in Cambridge and the engineers live in Waterloo.

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.

I was suprised to see it myself. I was looking at a couple New Homes/House Resale glossies, and right next to Hamilton it had Cambridge as one of the areas. But with GO Bus service to Waterloo Region and studies on commuter rail service to Kitchener and Cambridge on seperate lines, Cambridge is crossing the line before Guelph and KW because of it's proximity to the 401.

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

We could compare Bombay to Toronto, but what's the point? If you are looking at Waterloo Region to have 750,000 people in the near-term future, why is comparing to Edmonton with 752,412 in 2008 such a strech? KW is among the top 15 cities in Canada, but they have a way to go to be top 3 in Ontario or top 8 in Canada. Just comparing to lower growth or smaller population centres isn't going to give a fair depicition of KW.

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).

I was so annoyed when they cancelled their green bus pilot program. I completely agree transportation systems determine accessibility, but development happens because people need somewhere to live and work, not because we build BRT or LRT. We should build transit for transit purposes, not development management. There are lots of tools in a City Planners arsenal, no need to use transit to a blunt instrument.

 

[dunkalunk]

I completely agree transportation systems determine accessibility, but development happens because people need somewhere to live and work, not because we build BRT or LRT. We should build transit for transit purposes, not development management. There are lots of tools in a City Planners arsenal, no need to use transit to a blunt instrument.

If the system were being designed just for transportation purposes, BRT would be sufficient for 20 years, at which point it would need to be replaced with something higher capacity. It is far less costly to build this system now than it is to replace and disrupt an overloaded transportation system down the road. We do not want to use Ottawa as an example of what the region should be doing in terms of transit planing.

Regardless of whether or not Rapid Transit in the Region of Waterloo happens or not, the Region of Waterloo will continue to see development. People have to live somewhere. But its the type of development that is seen that will be an issue.

In order for developers to be attracted to an area, they need to know that they will make a profit. Both developers and municipalities would rather not have to build parking, but if transit is not seen as a reasonable alternative to driving, then prospective tenants won't want to move in if there is not adequate parking. It is often the construction of parking structure or provision of spaces that is the difference between profit and loss for a developer. And if the developer can't make a profit they will move elsewhere. LRT is needed to support this type of intensification. The city of Kitchener is already rezoning stretches of roads for medium to high density mixed use. But exiisting land-uses will stay unless developers see a potential demand.

The alternative to higher densities along the central transit corridor is to have slightly higher densities scattered across the region, reliant on cars and widened arterial roads for their transportation needs.

 

[Mapleson]

If the system were being designed just for transportation purposes, BRT would be sufficient for 20 years, at which point it would need to be replaced with something higher capacity. It is far less costly to build this system now than it is to replace and disrupt an overloaded transportation system down the road. We do not want to use Ottawa as an example of what the region should be doing in terms of transit planing.

When you speak of BRT, are you refering to Express Bus, like iXpress, or proper fully segregated busway? Do you not feel that maybe this specific transit development plan may contribute to disruption and stressing the private transport transportation system? All those right-turn bans won't increase the pressure on subsequent intersections?

Regardless of whether or not Rapid Transit in the Region of Waterloo happens or not, the Region of Waterloo will continue to see development. People have to live somewhere. But its the type of development that is seen that will be an issue.

Don't get me wrong, I am a big fan of transit development. I'm just not a big fan of this specific plan, because it does things like add several kilometers of new rail to service Conestoga Mall, which is necessary because it deviates west from King Street in Waterloo.

In order for developers to be attracted to an area, they need to know that they will make a profit. Both developers and municipalities would rather not have to build parking, but if transit is not seen as a reasonable alternative to driving, then prospective tenants won't want to move in if there is not adequate parking. It is often the construction of parking structure or provision of spaces that is the difference between profit and loss for a developer. And if the developer can't make a profit they will move elsewhere. LRT is needed to support this type of intensification. The city of Kitchener is already rezoning stretches of roads for medium to high density mixed use. But exiisting land-uses will stay unless developers see a potential demand.

Parking is as an important part of transportation systems as transit. LRT does not have any special features that support intensification than other transit modes, if you had a new Express Bus route that ran up, say, Ira Needles Blvd then developers would see the potential there. With limited greenfield sites left, intensification is the natural consequence for developers to make money. If you build more transit than you need and say 'we need it to stimulate development', you'll end up with the same situation as along the Sheppard spur subway. Development will follow, but it won't be rushed just because you spent more money then you needed.

The alternative to higher densities along the central transit corridor is to have slightly higher densities scattered across the region, reliant on cars and widened arterial roads for their transportation needs.

So there is no possible transit plan that would preserve the existing scattering of higher density areas in uptown Waterloo, downtown Kitchener, and Preston without developing a signular north/south corridor? Too bad, I was hoping that decent service might actually reach the places like RIM park in the east side or Mount Trashmore and the Municipal landfill on the west side. Maybe my interpretation of the Tri-City area is wrong and people do all live in the central corridor and Northfield, Columbia, University, Erb, Weber, Victoria, Queen, Ottawa, Fairway, and Concession aren't busy or deserving of legitimate service. Legitimate service meaning it's not faster to walk or bike to your destination than to wait for the next bus after the first bus didn't stop for you plus travel time.

BTW, thanks for new link to the Regional Plan, but unforetunately they don't have the full report (only Appendix A of A-D included), so it's just two half page pictures to go on, and the report assumed this LRT as a starting point, so it's not really a legitimate "This is the best system for KWC" report, it's a "This is the best system with King LRT" report.

 

[Urban_Enthusiast86]

I was responding to the comment that the development on King and University is rentals not condos, so it doesn't need better transit.

I didn't mean to imply that renters weren't worthy of transit access. Just a statement that they were apartments, not condo developments. Sorry about the misunderstanding.

We we speaking of higher density. The Cities are filled will low density neighbourhoods, so the few areas of higher density are where transit is needed. "Within a few blocks" isn't very detailed planning, and there isn't a lot of high-density development being serviced on King Street outside downtown Kitchener. How much farther is the average walking distance for developments for a Charles St. alignment?

Charles street is one block southwest, running parallel from King. Duke street is parallel to King, one block to the northeast. The plan is that there will be a split from King to Charles and Duke streets, converging back into King again on the other side. Again, most high-density developments are within less than a 5 minute walk of where the stations will be.

I was suprised to see it myself. I was looking at a couple New Homes/House Resale glossies, and right next to Hamilton it had Cambridge as one of the areas. But with GO Bus service to Waterloo Region and studies on commuter rail service to Kitchener and Cambridge on seperate lines, Cambridge is crossing the line before Guelph and KW because of it's proximity to the 401.

GTA commuters have lived in Waterloo Region and Guelph long before the GO bus came here. But I've never really heard of it ever being considered the GTA. I've seen ads for housing developments in the Sun and Star, advertising subdivisions in North Cambridge (especially near Townline and 401) and South Kitchener as "only 35 minutes to Mississauga". In reality, it's a little more now because of all the traffic that loads onto the 401 in Milton. Hamilton is even closer to the GTA, being right on Burlington's doorstep. But it's a little like saying Stratford and Woodstock are bedroom communities/suburbs to KWC...it's not really true. People do commute from those places, but not a high enough % of the labour force to include it as part of the metropolitan area (Statistics Canada has very specific ways of determining this). Technically, Halton region is the westernmost regional municipality in the GTA.

We could compare Bombay to Toronto, but what's the point? If you are looking at Waterloo Region to have 750,000 people in the near-term future, why is comparing to Edmonton with 752,412 in 2008 such a strech?

Apples and oranges. The city of Edmonton might have had that many people in 2008, but the census metropolitan area is over a million people now...it's one of the big 6 in Canada to join the million+ club. Waterloo Region may be in the 540-550k range right now, but the city of Kitchener is only about 230k, if you want to compare apples to apples.

However, it's interesting to note that Edmonton built it's LRT when it was around the same size as Waterloo Region is now, back in the 1970s. I'm sure there were a lot of people at the time who said it was too expensive/not feasible/etc.

KW is among the top 15 cities in Canada, but they have a way to go to be top 3 in Ontario or top 8 in Canada. Just comparing to lower growth or smaller population centres isn't going to give a fair depicition of KW.

You're right. Context is important. In some ways, an LRT would be a better investment in KW than it would be in Winnipeg, because of the higher growth potential...despite Winnipeg's current built form being more amenable to LRT at the moment.

 

[dunkalunk]

Mapleson, before you say that the suburbs aren't going to be getting decent service, I recommend you look at page 39 of the draft regional transportation master plan summary report. Included are 5 express bus routes that are not in the central transit corridor, 3 of which are to be implemented before LRT is finished. Improved express bus service is also planned in Cambridge with priority lighting in place before LRT is finished construction. This is just a sample. For full details read the document. Waterloo Region is getting a comprehensive transit system, not just a "signular north/south corridor".

Also concerning your statement that LRT has no special features compared to other transit modes, here are a few that light rail has over buses.
-Higher capacity per vehicle; less labour/energy per passenger
-Narrower right of way needed to operate
-Produces less noise than a bus (Note, modern light rail vehicles are not streetcars)
-A quieter, smoother ride than buses
-Less negative stigma than buses; better opportunity to attract riders

 

[Urban_Enthusiast86]

Mapleson,

To give you a contextual background on density, it might come in handy to view some of these photos that were posted on www.wonderfulwaterloo.com from Ryan Hadley's Flickr account:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryanhadley/sets/72157622275193244/

This is where you can see how the "string of pearls" analogy comes into play. Though the "smear" of density you were talking about is applicable more around the universities. Although omitted from the photos, there is also a significant closer of highrise apartments and townhouse complexes behind the Fairview Park Mall, which will have a station.

Keep in mind that these photos are from 2008. There have been new buildings built since and many more cranes are now up in this corridor.

Kitchener-Waterloo

Uptown (foreground), University Of Waterloo (midground), and R&T Park (background)

Kitchener-Waterloo (low density sprawl on the left - central transit corridor on the right)

Waterloo (big vacant piece of land uptown (on the left) is now starting construction on a hotel, over 1000 residential units, and two 11 storey office buildings with base retail, in a development called Barrelyards)

Downtown Kitchener ... This is the area of downtown where most high density development is happening. It's all in walking distance to where transit stations are proposed in the future.

Uptown Waterloo (Barrelyards site in the middle)

Laurier Node, UW Node, and the Research And Technology Park

 

[BMO]

those are some great photos Urban_Enthusiast86.

 

[Rowe]

Sprawl is going to slow down in the Region because Wilmot has blocked development for 20 years (East Kitchener and Waterloo). Kitchener and Waterloo are both investing heavily in their cores because they know people want to invest here. This rail will help Kitchener and Waterloo grow in a better direction. One great example is the king street redevelopment in downtown Kitchener. Although the bollards look cheap...they are doing a good job and a lot of the businesses have improved their facades to help increase how great Downtown Kitchener looks.

The biggest issue this region has from my standpoint is keeping the university students here..after they graduate. I've been here for 20 years, and sadly I'm ready to move on.

 

[Mapleson]

Mapleson, before you say that the suburbs aren't going to be getting decent service, I recommend you look at page 39 of the draft regional transportation master plan summary report. Included are 5 express bus routes that are not in the central transit corridor, 3 of which are to be implemented before LRT is finished. Improved express bus service is also planned in Cambridge with priority lighting in place before LRT is finished construction. This is just a sample. For full details read the document. Waterloo Region is getting a comprehensive transit system, not just a "signular north/south corridor".

The report in the link ends at page 38, so I'm not sure what Page 39 you are refering to. If it's "Attachment B" it labels a few bus corridors for the one system option, which gives a bit clearer picture than the two images in the report, but not really something you can judge the level of service provided from. Are they all-day service or peak service? Are they 60-, 30-, 20-, 15-, 7-minute headways? What was considered high transfer average 2-3 for the longest trip? What was considered low transfer average 0-1 transfers? Was this judged by total trip time or that "transfers are undesirable" mentality?

The report is about a what the rest of the transit system should look like with a King LRT, no?

Also concerning your statement that LRT has no special features compared to other transit modes, here are a few that light rail has over buses.
1)Higher capacity per vehicle; less labour/energy per passenger
2)Narrower right of way needed to operate
3)Produces less noise than a bus (Note, modern light rail vehicles are not streetcars)
4)A quieter, smoother ride than buses
-Less negative stigma than buses; better opportunity to attract riders

1) Higher capacity relies on vehicle size. If you have higher capacity per vehicle, you either have less vehicles and greater headways or you have an excess in capacity with trains running emptier than buses.
2) I believe standard track gauge is 4.27m and lateral clearance requirements are 1.00m either side, so that's 6.27m per track, unless they are using skinner units with less seating. What is the width of a vehicle lane? Are the curbing for a LRT different than the curbing for a BRT?
3) An electric train produces less noise than an electric bus? A deisel train produces less noise than a deisel bus? I'll support this if you compare like-to-like, but not apples-to-oranges.
4) What about a train provides better suspension than a bus? Smoothness of ride depends on surface varibility and sprung mass versus unsprung mass.

You can put the same design concepts into a train as a bus. The difference between a train and a bus is a train has steel wheels and runs on a steel road and a bus has rubber wheels and runs on an asphalt road. Everything else is down to how you design the system.

Edit: To be clear I'm not in favour of bus service over train service, but I don't mistake design features with techology features.

 

[waterloowarrior]

Those are some great aerials!
Standard track gauge is 1.435 metres.
Functional design report uses 7-8 metre corridors (two-way)

 

[dunkalunk]

The report in the link ends at page 38, so I'm not sure what Page 39 you are refering to. If it's "Attachment B" it labels a few bus corridors for the one system option, which gives a bit clearer picture than the two images in the report, but not really something you can judge the level of service provided from. Are they all-day service or peak service? Are they 60-, 30-, 20-, 15-, 7-minute headways? What was considered high transfer average 2-3 for the longest trip? What was considered low transfer average 0-1 transfers? Was this judged by total trip time or that "transfers are undesirable" mentality?

You found the information that I was referring to yes? Good

These are questions that I don't have the answers to. If you are really this curious you should contact the people who are writing these reports.

1) Higher capacity relies on vehicle size. If you have higher capacity per vehicle, you either have less vehicles and greater headways or you have an excess in capacity with trains running emptier than buses.

I'd rather have some excess capacity now than a completely overburdened transit system 20 years from now. See the transitway.

2) I believe standard track gauge is 4.27m and lateral clearance requirements are 1.00m either side, so that's 6.27m per track, unless they are using skinner units with less seating. What is the width of a vehicle lane? Are the curbing for a LRT different than the curbing for a BRT?

See Waterloo Warrior's post. Because trains have a fixed guideway, they can pass eachother at a closer distance than buses could. Driver error is removed, which can then allow a narrower right of way for a similarly sized vehicle.

3) An electric train produces less noise than an electric bus? A deisel train produces less noise than a deisel bus? I'll support this if you compare like-to-like, but not apples-to-oranges.

I am comparing like-to-like. The region of Waterloo is either getting electric trains or diesel buses, hybrid or not. They are not getting trolley buses because the economics simply aren't there. It's also not likely that we'd be getting diesel trams either. Electric trains or diesel buses are the two technologies being considered for rapid transit due to economics, this is how they are alike.

But if this isn't enough, let's isolate the one thing that doesn't change regardless of propulsion technology; the wheels. Rubber on asphalt has much more surface area and more friction than steel on steel. This increase in surface area creates more noise. Rubber tires are also textured to deal with rain and snow, producing even more friction. When the travelling surface is wet, that added surface area of a tire compared to a steel wheel splashes around quite a bit of slush and water.

While I'm on the topic, light rail vehicles require less maintenance and last longer than a bus due to the surface conditions they have to ride on.

4) What about a train provides better suspension than a bus? Smoothness of ride depends on surface varibility and sprung mass versus unsprung mass.

Trains don't need as much suspension as a bus because of the nature of the path they travel on. Rail is designed to provide a smooth ride, with a smooth surface, and gentler grades, and does not deteriorate at the rate that asphalt does. This is especially true in Canada, where our roads have to deal with salt corrosion and frozen water. Asphalt will almost certainly have more surface variability, necessitating shocks, and causing a bumpier ride.

You can put the same design concepts into a train as a bus. The difference between a train and a bus is a train has steel wheels and runs on a steel road and a bus has rubber wheels and runs on an asphalt road. Everything else is down to how you design the system.

You said it. Trains and Buses are different. And while many design concepts can be transferred, not all can.

Edit: To be clear I'm not in favour of bus service over train service, but I don't mistake design features with techology features,

We agree, neither do I. I only mentioned it because you brought it up.

It's clear that you have your issues with the rapid transit plan, and that's perfectly OK. If you want to get more informed on the transit plan, I suggest you contact the people working on it.

 

[Mapleson]

The economics aren't there for a lot of this project. Looking just at the suplimental bus network, for example, a 3-3.5% annual cost increase was estimated to attract a 17% mode-share, but when the costs were unrealistic, they cut it to a 1% annual cost increase while still assuming it'd give a 17% mode-split.

I would hate to see in 20 years that adequate protection for transit wasn't made, but I hate as much paying increasing fare and taxes to subsidize an oversized, ill-fitting, politically motivated transit system that never lives up to the hype.

 

[mpd618]

The economics aren't there for a lot of this project. Looking just at the suplimental bus network, for example, a 3-3.5% annual cost increase was estimated to attract a 17% mode-share, but when the costs were unrealistic, they cut it to a 1% annual cost increase while still assuming it'd give a 17% mode-split.

That's an incorrect characterization of the Regional Transportation Master Plan (RTMP).

The initial recommendation did call for 3% annual increases in property tax to fund transit -- in the first five years -- followed by a lower rate for the next 15. Instead, they decided to achieve the same overall spending rate on transit at the twenty-year horizon, but through stable increases throughout. So the per-capita funding for transit is still going to triple in twenty years. One of the reasons for the stable increases rather than the front-loaded option was that Grand River Transit would have structural difficulties expanding that rapidly. Obviously another one is that 3% tax hikes are politically hazardous.

 

[Mapleson]

That's an incorrect characterization of the Regional Transportation Master Plan (RTMP).

The initial recommendation did call for 3% annual increases in property tax to fund transit -- in the first five years -- followed by a lower rate for the next 15. Instead, they decided to achieve the same overall spending rate on transit at the twenty-year horizon, but through stable increases throughout. So the per-capita funding for transit is still going to triple in twenty years. One of the reasons for the stable increases rather than the front-loaded option was that Grand River Transit would have structural difficulties expanding that rapidly. Obviously another one is that 3% tax hikes are politically hazardous.

Would the lower rate for Years 6-15 be less than 1%? If not, then why is it that the "modified" plan can achieve the same number of annual passenger trips with less money than the "original" option?

There obviously will be less transit use in the intervening years, which doesn't show with the pretty statistics used, like horizon year usage.