Waterloo Region Connected

(10-26-2020, 03:12 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]Hopefully ~7M is closer to the actual number.  But I still stand by the point, 7M buys the entire downtown grid. For cycling, there are more cost effective (and frankly, in most ways better) alternatives, but those alternatives do not meet GRTs goals. This will still get described as a cycling project.

However ... that's $7M from the regional budget, and they would not be funding a cycling infrastructure in DTK, apart from the few regional roads. So, as long as this doesn't impact the city's plans, it still looks like a net win.

(10-26-2020, 02:48 PM)creative Wrote: [ -> ]Did a quick internet search. All of the articles that I came across, including this one from 2017, reference 7.6 M. https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-...hener.html

Tangential to the main discussion, I'd be curious to see how often the local media puts the price tag in the headline for cycling and transit spending versus road spending. With a quick Google search the first few road widening/extension articles I clicked on did not include the price in the headline, even though the dollar values in the article absolutely dwarfed all the headline worthy price tags for cycling infrastructure.

The letters to the editors that showed up in my quick search about bike lanes were also very saddening...

(10-26-2020, 03:15 PM)tomh009 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-26-2020, 03:12 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]Hopefully ~7M is closer to the actual number.  But I still stand by the point, 7M buys the entire downtown grid. For cycling, there are more cost effective (and frankly, in most ways better) alternatives, but those alternatives do not meet GRTs goals. This will still get described as a cycling project.

However ... that's $7M from the regional budget, and they would not be funding a cycling infrastructure in DTK, apart from the few regional roads. So, as long as this doesn't impact the city's plans, it still looks like a net win.

Actually, that isn't entirely true, while the city is paying for some (most) of the downtown grid, the region is expected to reconstruct several roads, such as Benton and Frederick which would come out of the region's budget.

The region still does still build cycling infra. Even if it didn't though, it will play into people's perceptions.

(10-26-2020, 03:12 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-26-2020, 02:48 PM)creative Wrote: [ -> ]Did a quick internet search. All of the articles that I came across, including this one from 2017, reference 7.6 M. https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-...hener.html

Well that is good, perhaps MTO relaxed the requirement for the span to clear 8 lanes.

I don’t think that can be the explanation. The absolute minimum length for the bridge to clear the existing 6 lanes is 37.5m (distance from barrier to barrier measured in Google Maps); adding space for 2 more lanes, assuming the same width as the existing ones, would only add 7.5m or about 20% to the length of the bridge; and of course the approach structures would be substantially identical regardless. I don’t see provision for highway widening as being related to a large difference in cost, more than maybe 10%.

Quote:The number I heard was an in person number from a staff presentation at ATAC.

Hopefully ~7M is closer to the actual number.  But I still stand by the point, 7M buys the entire downtown grid. For cycling, there are more cost effective (and frankly, in most ways better) alternatives, but those alternatives do not meet GRTs goals. This will still get described as a cycling project.

I should have mentioned, your point is well taken. If the same money was spent on related projects in the area, not including a bridge, it would go pretty far. One can imagine a high-quality path (maybe even separate pedestrian/cyclist carriageways, as in Waterloo Park, parallel to Homer Watson, from Stirling down to Ottawa and Alpine. Also connect Avalon Pl. to Homer Watson and to Westmount with high-quality paths, and parallel to Westmount under and near the expressway. It might have a bigger impact than this one bridge.

(10-26-2020, 03:23 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-26-2020, 03:15 PM)tomh009 Wrote: [ -> ]However ... that's $7M from the regional budget, and they would not be funding a cycling infrastructure in DTK, apart from the few regional roads. So, as long as this doesn't impact the city's plans, it still looks like a net win.

Actually, that isn't entirely true, while the city is paying for some (most) of the downtown grid, the region is expected to reconstruct several roads, such as Benton and Frederick which would come out of the region's budget.

The region still does still build cycling infra. Even if it didn't though, it will play into people's perceptions.

Yes, I did mention "the few regional roads" above. They don't amount to much of a grid in themselves, in my opinion. And, in any case, they are still planned to be rebuilt, even if this bridge is going ahead.

Does anyone know if there used to be a street running through the south part of Bechtel Park? A bit of research suggests that there used to be a relatively large mill pond east of Shirk Pl. in Bridgeport. I was riding down an informal trail that connects Shirk Pl. to Bechtel Park and it seemed like a street might once have ran up through their (old bits of asphalt, concrete etc.) with some heavy concrete structures that kind of look like potentially footings for a bridge. This is well passed where structures related to a mill would have been, so I didn't think it would be related to that. Maps from the early 60s when they were planning the parkway don't seem to indicate much but the pond in that area.





The photos were taken immediately south of the dog park in Bechtel Park where the creek bends to the south.

Highly anticipated road in Waterloo now open: https://www.kitchenertoday.com/local-new...en-3198721

It would be nice if they build a MUT along the hydro ROW parallel to here and continue south, ideally to where the trails start near Highview in Kitchener.

(12-19-2020, 06:20 PM)ac3r Wrote: [ -> ]Highly anticipated road in Waterloo now open: https://www.kitchenertoday.com/local-new...en-3198721

Waterloo is taking a very different approach from Kitchener for commercial real estate development, building another suburban business park while Kitchener is focused on the development of its downtown.

Quote:With the new 126-acre business park set to launch in 2021, City of Waterloo Executive Director of Economic Development Justin McFadden adds that Platinum Drive will provide an efficient route through and to the future park, which is expected to bring thousands of new jobs, and provide opportunities for Waterloo to grow its employment base.

(12-19-2020, 09:04 PM)tomh009 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-19-2020, 06:20 PM)ac3r Wrote: [ -> ]Highly anticipated road in Waterloo now open: https://www.kitchenertoday.com/local-new...en-3198721

Waterloo is taking a very different approach from Kitchener for commercial real estate development, building another suburban business park while Kitchener is focused on the development of its downtown.

Quote:With the new 126-acre business park set to launch in 2021, City of Waterloo Executive Director of Economic Development Justin McFadden adds that Platinum Drive will provide an efficient route through and to the future park, which is expected to bring thousands of new jobs, and provide opportunities for Waterloo to grow its employment base.

Yup, and with a turbo roundabout in a residential area to boot. Real shame they aren’t taking the climate emergency seriously.

(12-19-2020, 09:26 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]Yup, and with a turbo roundabout in a residential area to boot. Real shame they aren’t taking the climate emergency seriously.

I’m a bit unclear on what is wrong with the turbo roundabout. My impression is that they are an improved design that is safer and more efficient without taking up more space. Is there a downside I’m missing?

(12-19-2020, 10:58 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-19-2020, 09:26 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]Yup, and with a turbo roundabout in a residential area to boot. Real shame they aren’t taking the climate emergency seriously.

I’m a bit unclear on what is wrong with the turbo roundabout. My impression is that they are an improved design that is safer and more efficient without taking up more space. Is there a downside I’m missing?

They definitely take up more space, and they are designed to move cars faster, not safer (or at least faster without being less safe for those cars). Ultimately though they are bad for pedestrians and cyclists, if this was a smaller lower speed roundabout traffic would have to slow down more and it would be safer for everyone.

Given that it's a one lane roundabout, it is going to be orders of magnitude safer than the monstrosities that the region builds, but that doesn't change the fact that in the middle of a residential neighbourhood they build an intersection designed to facilitate high speed traffic at the expense of pedestrian and cyclist safety---this is why people drive.

Edit: It is really interesting to look at the size of roundabouts. Much like turning radii in the last 20 years, they seem to be growing constantly...I feel like this is an issue that should get raised before it becomes a more pervasive problem. Just look at Laurelwood Dr. It is a two lane road all the way along, but the roundabout at Beavercreek Dr. which is significantly older, is only 28 meters wide. Whereas the new section of Laurlwood Dr. to Westmount Rd. is over 40 meters wide. The smaller roundabout functions just fine...and it's regularly used by buses and garbage trucks which have no difficulty navigating it. So aside from just being incredibly wasteful in land and resources to pave a bigger circle, it's also less safe. Why are we building worse roads for more money?!

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.4722095,-...a=!3m1!1e3

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.4753387,-...a=!3m1!1e3

I cannot measure the new traffic circle because I have no Google Maps satelite photo of it yet but I'm guessing it's going to be at least as big as the new ones on Laurelwood Dr., and that's leaving aside the different geometry (what I'm calling a turbo roundabout) which enables drivers to pass through it even faster.

(12-20-2020, 12:15 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]Given that it's a one lane roundabout, it is going to be orders of magnitude safer than the monstrosities that the region builds, but that doesn't change the fact that in the middle of a residential neighbourhood they build an intersection designed to facilitate high speed traffic at the expense of pedestrian and cyclist safety---this is why people drive.

[…]

I cannot measure the new traffic circle because I have no Google Maps satelite photo of it yet but I'm guessing it's going to be at least as big as the new ones on Laurelwood Dr., and that's leaving aside the different geometry (what I'm calling a turbo roundabout) which enables drivers to pass through it even faster.

Thanks. What I found on “turbo” roundabouts seemed to imply that they are multi-lane roundabouts:

http://www.turboroundabout.com/turbo-roundabout.html

I think that’s a different usage.

I agree that in the middle of a residential neighbourhood is not a place where we need an oversized roundabout. It’s perfectly fine if large trucks have to navigate carefully to get through — leave the wide-open spaces to the main highways.

I’ll have to get out to the new road to see what it’s like. It doesn’t yet appear on Google Maps, and of course it isn’t visible in the overhead photography yet so I’m not even clear on its exact route.

The thought just occurred to me that the repressive zoning rules don’t carry over into traffic design. One could imagine a world in which industrial areas were designed with large truck-friendly vehicle infrastructure while residential areas were designed with narrow pedestrian-friendly streets; but instead (almost) everything is designed for fast vehicle traffic.

(12-19-2020, 09:04 PM)tomh009 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-19-2020, 06:20 PM)ac3r Wrote: [ -> ]Highly anticipated road in Waterloo now open: https://www.kitchenertoday.com/local-new...en-3198721

Waterloo is taking a very different approach from Kitchener for commercial real estate development, building another suburban business park while Kitchener is focused on the development of its downtown.

Quote:With the new 126-acre business park set to launch in 2021, City of Waterloo Executive Director of Economic Development Justin McFadden adds that Platinum Drive will provide an efficient route through and to the future park, which is expected to bring thousands of new jobs, and provide opportunities for Waterloo to grow its employment base.

Just another reason we should be looking for amalgamation at least between our two cities. Kitchener takes one step forward and Waterloo takes too steps backwards when it comes to encouraging commercial real estate development in the core.  Waterloo for the past 2 decades has consistently encouraged development of suburban office parks (Black Berry, David Johnson Park, Platinum Drive, and to a certain extent Boardwalk) that encourages driving, strip malls, a poor built environment and drive large corporations away from our downtowns.  Not saying Kitchener is perfect with its zoning policies, but I think our cities would have a much more cohesive urban development strategy if we were speaking with one voice.