General Urban Waterloo Updates and Rumours

[notmyfriends]

I'd always hoped with time Erb up to Westmount would be the natural progression of Uptown with CIGI, PI, Sole/Remax, Delta/Proof as a decent start - storefronts/mixed use etc. up to en eventual redo of Westmount Place, and even the apartments at Westmount and University to round it back to UW and the development there; Waterloo Park acting as the centre of the Downtown in a way. This is incredibly long term thinking I know, but it would be better to set a precedent on Erb Street now rather than get another King/Columbia situation going.

[tomh009]

I don't think the King/Columbia scenario will happen on Erb by accident; that was driven by the demand for higher intensity of student housing and the zoning the city council assigned those streets. Erb doesn't have that kind of zoning, and also there isn't much student demand.

But it would be interesting to know what the city's long-term vision for Erb is. Realistically it's the next-best option for intensification in Waterloo after the King St corridor.

[MidTowner]

I've thought that Erb and Bridgeport to the east would be the natural growth of Uptown (besides King Street) because of expressway access and the fact that those streets are no longer suited to the single-family homes located there now. There was the small condo development on Dutton near Erb, and a few lots for sale on Erb and Bridgeport billing the potential for ten- or twelve-story developments.

notmyfriends' explanation of development one day looping up around Waterloo Park sounds pretty neat, though.

[mpd618]

But it would be interesting to know what the city's long-term vision for Erb is.  Realistically it's the next-best option for intensification in Waterloo after the King St corridor.

They have no real concept of intensification along Erb St, or else they would be having a conversation about making it two-way again. It's assumed to be a road for cars (and maybe other modes) and not much else.

[notmyfriends]

Which is why the portion towards Westmount makes a lot of sense for proper development.

[MidTowner]

They have no real concept of intensification along Erb St, or else they would be having a conversation about making it two-way again. It's assumed to be a road for cars (and maybe other modes) and not much else.

Say it, brother. Erb and Bridgeport are being held back by their current configuration.

[mpd618]

They have no real concept of intensification along Erb St, or else they would be having a conversation about making it two-way again. It's assumed to be a road for cars (and maybe other modes) and not much else.

Say it, brother. Erb and Bridgeport are being held back by their current configuration.

I do literally mean that they don't have the concept of Erb St intensification - not even that they're against the idea, just that it isn't on their radar. Talk to your councillors (city and regional) about this, they need to hear it.

[MidTowner]

I do literally mean that they don't have the concept of Erb St intensification - not even that they're against the idea, just that it isn't on their radar. Talk to your councillors (city and regional) about this, they need to hear it.

Good advice- though I don’t live in Waterloo, so the former doesn’t apply.

Out of curiosity, do you live near Erb or Bridgeport? I only ask because you’ve brought up the benefits to the adjacent neighbourhoods if they were converted back to two-way. That’s not an opinion I hear often.

I don’t live very close to either so I’m not personally impacted, but I’ve lived near terrible one-way streets in the past and know the drawbacks. I wonder if the people who live nearby (and who have the biggest stake) are strongly in favour of conversion or even generally realize it’s a possibility. I’ve rarely read anyone making the argument.

[BuildingScout]

Out of curiosity, do you live near Erb or Bridgeport? I only ask because you’ve brought up the benefits to the adjacent neighbourhoods if they were converted back to two-way. That’s not an opinion I hear often.

Yeah because two-way Erb St W. is so much better than Erb St. E.

[MidTowner]

Depending how far out on Erb West you mean, I would say it is better. I would not say it’s good. Of course we should aspire for our city streets to be friendlier than Erb West.

You can have bad two-way streets and relatively good one-way streets. Erb and Bridgeport aren’t especially bad examples of one-way streets, and you could come up with an endless list of streets that are worse that happen to be two-way. But that doesn’t mean they wouldn’t be better with two-way traffic.

[jwilliamson]

I think much would depend on whether Erb and Bridgeport were expanded to 4 lanes, shrunk to 2 lanes, or kept as 3 lanes.

As a pedestrian in that area, I think 4 lanes on each would be a step back from what we have now. They would be much harder to cross, and the small separation between sidewalk and road would probably shrink.

At two lanes each, there would be enough space for separated bike lanes. That would encourage cycling, tie in nicely with the Bridgeport/Albert/Erb improvement and increase separation between cars and pedestrians.

3 lanes would be strange, but would allow 2-way flow on each street without losing any lanes, while also not requiring any expansion.

I can't imagine businesses would be happy losing 50% of the lanes coming from the highway, and I'm not sure 3 lanes would be worth the trouble and 4 would hurt walkability. How would you see a 2-way conversion?

[MidTowner]

The best bet for them would be one lane in each direction with a centre turning lane. The traffic volume would suggest that. With narrower lanes, I bet there would be enough room to accommodate a bicycle lane.

I agree that converting them and widening them at the same time would likely be a step backward.

[plam]

At two lanes each, there would be enough space for separated bike lanes. That would encourage cycling, tie in nicely with the Bridgeport/Albert/Erb improvement and increase separation between cars and pedestrians.

3 lanes would be strange, but would allow 2-way flow on each street without losing any lanes, while also not requiring any expansion.

I can't imagine businesses would be happy losing 50% of the lanes coming from the highway, and I'm not sure 3 lanes would be worth the trouble and 4 would hurt walkability. How would you see a 2-way conversion?

I've biked many times a week in the late evening on Erb and Bridgeport (although not this year). Of course, as we all know, they are also a major way for cars to get to the expressway.

These streets aren't super friendly for biking but the worst part is around the expressway. Continuing on Erb when cars are merging onto the expressway is probably the trickiest part of that bike ride. (Because I come back late enough, cars coming from the expressway aren't as much of an issue for me, but of course there's the thing where you've been driving at, say, 90 and now are supposed to drive at 50. Being two-way would help there.)

I'm always in favour of separated bike lanes but I'm not sure what they would do in this particular case. If you had asked me to prioritize, I would've preferred such lanes on Weber. Spur Line changes that calculation a bit now, although I'm not sure whether it is too much of a detour. Weber is faster, of course. And separated bike lanes are tricky in the vicinity of the expressway.

So, how many lanes should there be? Well, I guess that depends on the character of the traffic. I think most of it should be through traffic. In that case I'm not sure a left turn lane would be that helpful: not so many cars are turning left. Me, I'd be fine with two lanes + separated bike lanes. I suppose you wouldn't need bike lanes on both of these streets. I would love to see facts about traffic though.

[mpd618]

Out of curiosity, do you live near Erb or Bridgeport? I only ask because you’ve brought up the benefits to the adjacent neighbourhoods if they were converted back to two-way. That’s not an opinion I hear often.

I don't. And I mean more about the future potential of these streets for intensification within uptown Waterloo itself than about the adjacent neighbourhoods.

In Hamilton, Raise the Hammer (e.g. 1 2) is a good resource for why wide one-way arterials through a downtown is not such a great idea for good neighbourhoods or much of anything else.

[BuildingScout]

In Hamilton, Raise the Hammer (e.g. 1 2) is a good resource for why wide one-way arterials through a downtown is not such a great idea for good neighbourhoods or much of anything else.

They are good for letting traffic move, something that Bridgeport/Erb definitely do. We should keep those streets to a minimum for the reasons outlined by Raise the Hammer, but having none leads to traffic chaos, like in Toronto, and is equally undesirable.