+- Waterloo Region Connected (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com)
+-- Forum: Waterloo Region Works (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Forum: Transportation and Infrastructure (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=25)
+--- Thread: General Road and Highway Discussion (/showthread.php?tid=335)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - westwardloo - 02-18-2021
Not sure if anyone has seen the University Ave report posted on EngageWR. Looks like a pretty interesting concept. Obviously would have to be done in phases, but I feel like it has the potential to transform that road into a unique part of the region. I would not be surprised if there is a lot of push back though as they are proposing to get rid of turning lanes at the major intersections. Rezoning existing commercial properties into mix-use seems like the biggest goal of this project, which I hope happens.
The record article talking about it stated that burying the utilities is an unrealistic, which i don't understand. Getting rid of the overhead lines would make a huge difference on its own. The report also mention a pedestrian multi-use bridge over the hwy to connect university to Bechtel park, which would be great, but city staff have already stated that is also unrealistic. Couldn't possibly provide pedestrian easy access to one of the largest parks in the region that would be crazy. The project also has little to no funding though, so I would hazard a guess that this vision will never come be. Oh well nice dream of how the city could enhance the existing built environment.
https://www.engagewr.ca/university-avenue-gateway/widgets/43468/documents
RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - danbrotherston - 02-18-2021
(02-18-2021, 06:48 PM)westwardloo Wrote: Not sure if anyone has seen the University Ave report posted on EngageWR. Looks like a pretty interesting concept. Obviously would have to be done in phases, but I feel like it has the potential to transform that road into a unique part of the region. I would not be surprised if there is a lot of push back though as they are proposing to get rid of turning lanes at the major intersections. Rezoning existing commercial properties into mix-use seems like the biggest goal of this project, which I hope happens.
The record article talking about it stated that burying the utilities is an unrealistic, which i don't understand. Getting rid of the overhead lines would make a huge difference on its own. The report also mention a pedestrian multi-use bridge over the hwy to connect university to Bechtel park, which would be great, but city staff have already stated that is also unrealistic. Couldn't possibly provide pedestrian easy access to one of the largest parks in the region that would be crazy. The project also has little to no funding though, so I would hazard a guess that this vision will never come be. Oh well nice dream of how the city could enhance the existing built environment.
https://www.engagewr.ca/university-avenue-gateway/widgets/43468/documents
I certainly share your cynacism. Do you have a link to the record article? I read the entire 160 page report (well, not EVERY page, but the vision statement is a bit dry) and am compiling my notes and will submit.
Ultimately, it's more ambitious than I thought, but the primary obstacle will be the Region of Waterloo. I do think though, there are more realistic ideas they could work on. Buring the utilities is a great idea, and utilities are an everpresent obstacle (or maybe, a useful obstacle that some wouldn't want to get rid of), but I have no real idea about the cost to bury, we seem to manage to do so in residential neighbourhoods, so how can it be that expensive. I would however, like to hear that cost compared with the cost of expropriating a 1m slice of every abutting property.
RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - jamincan - 02-18-2021
I wish there was some way to connect Breithaupt Park to Bechtel Park, but even I can't really envision that happening. The best case scenario would probably be if they improved the interchange on Bridgeport by removing the slip lanes and narrowing Bridgeport.
RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - danbrotherston - 02-18-2021
(02-18-2021, 07:19 PM)jamincan Wrote: I wish there was some way to connect Breithaupt Park to Bechtel Park, but even I can't really envision that happening. The best case scenario would probably be if they improved the interchange on Bridgeport by removing the slip lanes and narrowing Bridgeport.
I mean, they are like a third of a KM apart, this isn't exactly a short distance to cover, and right through a highway, utterly miserable place to walk. I don't really think connecting them is a high priority.
But an AT connection along University should be a priority. Not exactly possible for it to be safe, without millions of dollars and a big detour, for bridges, OR simply closing couple of slip lanes, which the MTO will never do, so, probably a pipe dream.
But on writing the reply to this, I was absolutely shocked as I always am at the vast vast amounts of land ..... wasted.... on gigantic interchanges for city streets. Shockingly University Ave. and Bridgeport Rd. interchanges take up over 100 acres of land combined, to say nothing of the highway in between. What is the value of that, how much would 100 acres of land sell for, even in that relatively suburban area. Don't worry, I'm sure the 417 will go better.
RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - jamincan - 02-18-2021
(02-18-2021, 08:17 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Don't worry, I'm sure the 417 will go better.
The 417?
RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - Acitta - 02-18-2021
Civic vision aims to bring ‘wow’ factor to University Avenue in Waterloo
RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - danbrotherston - 02-18-2021
(02-18-2021, 08:29 PM)jamincan Wrote:(02-18-2021, 08:17 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Don't worry, I'm sure the 417 will go better.
The 417?
Sorry, I meant 413, the GTA West bullshit that Ford has restarted.
RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - ijmorlan - 02-19-2021
(02-18-2021, 08:17 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: But an AT connection along University should be a priority. Not exactly possible for it to be safe, without millions of dollars and a big detour, for bridges, OR simply closing couple of slip lanes, which the MTO will never do, so, probably a pipe dream.
But on writing the reply to this, I was absolutely shocked as I always am at the vast vast amounts of land ..... wasted.... on gigantic interchanges for city streets. Shockingly University Ave. and Bridgeport Rd. interchanges take up over 100 acres of land combined, to say nothing of the highway in between. What is the value of that, how much would 100 acres of land sell for, even in that relatively suburban area. Don't worry, I'm sure the 417 will go better.
Those interchanges would probably work well as diverging diamonds. That can significantly reduce the space requirements, make the turns more like turning a corner, and provide a way to thread a safe multi-use trail across the highway without building a separate bridge.
That being said, one function of those interchanges is to provide green space, although that is significantly undermined by the fact that it’s mostly just grass which isn’t much better than concrete as habitat. If there were more bushes and marshes in the spaces between the various routes then an interchange could act as a significant amount of habitat for non-human plants and animals (although not larger animals obviously; I’m thinking of insects and rodents).
I should also add that as I looked through the report, I kept thinking that what I was reading would be nice, but the roads department (let’s be honest) would never in a million years allow it. Things like narrowing lanes (not even to really narrow, just to less than Le Mans standards) and reconsidering turn radii.
RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - danbrotherston - 02-19-2021
(02-19-2021, 01:33 AM)ijmorlan Wrote:(02-18-2021, 08:17 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: But an AT connection along University should be a priority. Not exactly possible for it to be safe, without millions of dollars and a big detour, for bridges, OR simply closing couple of slip lanes, which the MTO will never do, so, probably a pipe dream.
But on writing the reply to this, I was absolutely shocked as I always am at the vast vast amounts of land ..... wasted.... on gigantic interchanges for city streets. Shockingly University Ave. and Bridgeport Rd. interchanges take up over 100 acres of land combined, to say nothing of the highway in between. What is the value of that, how much would 100 acres of land sell for, even in that relatively suburban area. Don't worry, I'm sure the 417 will go better.
Those interchanges would probably work well as diverging diamonds. That can significantly reduce the space requirements, make the turns more like turning a corner, and provide a way to thread a safe multi-use trail across the highway without building a separate bridge.
That being said, one function of those interchanges is to provide green space, although that is significantly undermined by the fact that it’s mostly just grass which isn’t much better than concrete as habitat. If there were more bushes and marshes in the spaces between the various routes then an interchange could act as a significant amount of habitat for non-human plants and animals (although not larger animals obviously; I’m thinking of insects and rodents).
I should also add that as I looked through the report, I kept thinking that what I was reading would be nice, but the roads department (let’s be honest) would never in a million years allow it. Things like narrowing lanes (not even to really narrow, just to less than Le Mans standards) and reconsidering turn radii.
Who says that a function of the interchange is to provide greenspace? I find that an incredibly dishonest claim. The space is not usable by humans, and contributes nothing to ecological biodiversity either. The only thing it really achieves is not being a hard surface, which is a pretty low bar.
As for the proposal, you will find plenty of folks at the city who support these goals. The primary obstacle will be the Regional engineers, and unfortunately it is a regional road. That being said, this is a plan for the future, which I guess isn't a bad thing, but by the time it comes around (in 10-30 years) it might actually be the case that the region is ready to fix these problems.
Whether the short term fixes have any value, I have no idea, I don't think so.
RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - ijmorlan - 02-19-2021
(02-19-2021, 09:35 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: Who says that a function of the interchange is to provide greenspace? I find that an incredibly dishonest claim. The space is not usable by humans, and contributes nothing to ecological biodiversity either. The only thing it really achieves is not being a hard surface, which is a pretty low bar.
As for the proposal, you will find plenty of folks at the city who support these goals. The primary obstacle will be the Regional engineers, and unfortunately it is a regional road. That being said, this is a plan for the future, which I guess isn't a bad thing, but by the time it comes around (in 10-30 years) it might actually be the case that the region is ready to fix these problems.
By “greenspace” I don’t mean parkland for human use; I mean habitat for non-human life.
I agree that it depends a lot on how the interchanges are landscaped. Some have trees and marshes in the spaces between the roads, and standards for mowing vary considerably. Ours are mostly just barren grassy areas, not that different from pavement ecologically.
Another good use for interchange space is stormwater ponds. These have to go somewhere.
Overall, what I’m suggesting is that while I agree slimmer interchanges would be a good idea (my proposal would be diverging diamond), the space may not be completely wasted, or at least doesn’t have to be completely wasted.
RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - plam - 02-19-2021
Wild grasslands can actually be better than forests ecologically in some contexts. This isn't one of them. Just wanted to point it out though, because grass doesn't get enough support in general. The mechanism is roots, which can capture carbon more durably than trees.
RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - danbrotherston - 02-19-2021
(02-19-2021, 02:43 PM)plam Wrote: Wild grasslands can actually be better than forests ecologically in some contexts. This isn't one of them. Just wanted to point it out though, because grass doesn't get enough support in general. The mechanism is roots, which can capture carbon more durably than trees.
I mean, yes, wild grasslands are really important ecologically, but the only relationship between our manicured monoculture lawns and grasslands is the word "grass".
I mean, grasslands might not get enough support, but grass gets far too much support.
RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - ijmorlan - 02-19-2021
(02-19-2021, 04:28 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: I mean, grasslands might not get enough support, but grass gets far too much support.
Well said. As to the interchanges, if it were up to me I would do only the minimal cutting/pruning to keep plant growth from being a hazard to the highway. This would soon enough result in grasses (not just the kind on our lawns), bushes, and even trees growing up, although any trees near the roads would presumably be maintained as fairly small.
RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - plam - 02-19-2021
(02-19-2021, 05:41 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:(02-19-2021, 04:28 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: I mean, grasslands might not get enough support, but grass gets far too much support.
Well said. As to the interchanges, if it were up to me I would do only the minimal cutting/pruning to keep plant growth from being a hazard to the highway. This would soon enough result in grasses (not just the kind on our lawns), bushes, and even trees growing up, although any trees near the roads would presumably be maintained as fairly small.
I'd endorse that. Why are we not doing that?
One exception is that ragweed does need to be removed.
RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - ijmorlan - 02-19-2021
(02-19-2021, 07:54 PM)plam Wrote:(02-19-2021, 05:41 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: Well said. As to the interchanges, if it were up to me I would do only the minimal cutting/pruning to keep plant growth from being a hazard to the highway. This would soon enough result in grasses (not just the kind on our lawns), bushes, and even trees growing up, although any trees near the roads would presumably be maintained as fairly small.
I'd endorse that. Why are we not doing that?
One exception is that ragweed does need to be removed.
I don’t know. But in other possibly related news, I distinctly remember the University of Waterloo making a big deal some years ago — probably around 20 by now — about stopping grass mowing in some areas. As a result many areas grew up into brush over several years. In the last few years, I’ve noticed that, with no fanfare, they’ve started mowing again. Completely incomprehensible to me. Sometimes you save money by simply stopping doing stuff that isn’t actually useful.