Posts: 2,402
Threads: 7
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
48
(09-26-2016, 01:30 PM)SammyOES2 Wrote: By this logic we should never invest anything in making driving better because it "reinforces the cycle".
I think you’re defeating a straw man there. We know that highway expansion creates expensive sprawl, and that induced demand means that the highway expansion will become congested. Nevertheless, I don’t think there’s many people who would argue that we should try to do away with highways. That’s probably not going to happen, and it would be silly to think so. Politically, it’s possible to build a new highway between KW and Guelph, but probably impossible to invest in good transit between the two.
We could build good transit between the two, and it would avoid yet more urban sprawl, which is a predictable outcome of a highway expansion project like this. But, unfortunately, in our current landscape that's pretty unlikely.
Posts: 281
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2016
Reputation:
31
09-26-2016, 03:23 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-26-2016, 03:29 PM by SammyOES2.)
dan, "It *is* more convenient because we've *made* it so. But investing in roads, and *not* transit for the past 70 years."
No, its inherently more convenient in many use cases. Especially in a country like Canada. It's also significantly more efficient (including when looking at environmental cost) in a lot of situations. A small vehicle that you can take almost anywhere you want to go will always be more efficient for certain use cases than mass transit that requires a large fixed infrastructure.
And I'm not saying there shouldn't be a public transit option between KW and Guelph. Regular buses and improved GO service would be pretty good starts and meet a large portion of the need for transit.
As for not needing the new highway 7 - that doesn't match with what I see.
Edit: It's been awhile since I've looked at numbers. I'm certainly open to seeing them and hearing the argument for why we don't need the new highway.
Posts: 281
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2016
Reputation:
31
(09-26-2016, 02:58 PM)MidTowner Wrote: (09-26-2016, 01:30 PM)SammyOES2 Wrote: By this logic we should never invest anything in making driving better because it "reinforces the cycle".
I think you’re defeating a straw man there. We know that highway expansion creates expensive sprawl, and that induced demand means that the highway expansion will become congested. Nevertheless, I don’t think there’s many people who would argue that we should try to do away with highways. That’s probably not going to happen, and it would be silly to think so. Politically, it’s possible to build a new highway between KW and Guelph, but probably impossible to invest in good transit between the two.
We could build good transit between the two, and it would avoid yet more urban sprawl, which is a predictable outcome of a highway expansion project like this. But, unfortunately, in our current landscape that's pretty unlikely.
My point wasn't to defeat a straw man. It was just that just because a new highway "reinforces the cycle" doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.
I also don't think its a foregone conclusion that the "induced demand means that the highway expansion will become congested". Although, its certainly a possibility. But the point is that its the only reasonable solution for the current problem (imo). And it doesn't need to be a forever solution where we're stuck continuously expanding it until its a 24 lane monstrosity.
I would also hope that in 25 years we have a very strong regional rail service (GO, or some alternative) that provides regular and fast access between Guelph and KW.
Posts: 6,905
Threads: 32
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
224
Posts: 10,281
Threads: 65
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
296
(09-26-2016, 02:54 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Nobody's suggesting we ignore that need, but dismissing an LRT line as "not suitable" because it doesn't fit every use case. Yes, an LRT won't work for everybody, but right now the choices of Guelph to KW is 1) Drive it. That's it. No other option.
Not quite. There is GO. Limited schedule, but it does exist.
Given the cost of LRT infrastucture (and the lack of population in between the two cities that might also be able to use it), a subsidized (express?) bus with good service would make the best start. Ideally align stops with local transit in both cities. Of course this is just my opinion.
Longer term, when we have all-day GO service, things will look different anyway, and we should re-evaluate.
Posts: 10,281
Threads: 65
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
296
(09-26-2016, 02:58 PM)MidTowner Wrote: We know that highway expansion creates expensive sprawl (...)
It certainly has in the past. But at least in Waterloo Region (don't know about Guelph) the region, the cities and the townships are controlling the suburban growth/sprawl, and directing additional demand to urban intensification. In today's world, sprawl doesn't just "happen" as local/regional zoning has to permit it.
Posts: 281
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2016
Reputation:
31
The other thing to realize is that we're going to have 'sprawl'. We can't just do intensification. So we still need to have areas for growth to happen and to make sure those areas have the infrastructure they need.
Posts: 1,709
Threads: 2
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
34
What's important is to make sure sprawl doesn't handicap a region. The decisions about roads in many cities make public transit a nightmare to plan and implement, often because we try to give to those who drive everywhere a home that is impenetrable and unusable to all but their cars. Crescents, Courts, and winding roads are all great easy ways to drive the first nail in the coffin of non-car options when you start to "sprawl." Growing into new areas doesn't necessitate making these choices, but we seemingly spend orders of magnitude more time debating what the exterior of a single lot looks like when it's downtown, compared to the city-shaping effects of entire new subdivisions.
Posts: 2,163
Threads: 17
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
76
I'd really settle for a regular, sane bus transit connection between the two first.
Posts: 6,905
Threads: 32
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
224
Bus is a great idea, I think, as a "build ridership" type thing. I could even imagine the new Highway 7 having the shoulder as a "Bus Only" priority lane, like it is on 8 (but never used!).
After that, and by that time, the Kitchener Line should be electrified by GO; and then if GO's service isn't yet at half-hour frequency or something (!), we could look at having a separately branded service with EMU's.
Posts: 10,281
Threads: 65
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
296
(09-26-2016, 04:04 PM)Canard Wrote: Bus is a great idea, I think, as a "build ridership" type thing. I could even imagine the new Highway 7 having the shoulder as a "Bus Only" priority lane, like it is on 8 (but never used!).
After that, and by that time, the Kitchener Line should be electrified by GO; and then if GO's service isn't yet at half-hour frequency or something (!), we could look at having a separately branded service with EMU's.
Right. This is what I was thinking, too. Add decent bus service, subsidize it if necessary, and then consider adding train service in the future if GO doesn't provide sufficient frequency.
Posts: 6,905
Threads: 32
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
224
We could even call it the...
...wait for it...
WR Connector 
Posts: 2,865
Threads: 3
Joined: Mar 2015
Reputation:
95
(09-26-2016, 03:31 PM)tomh009 Wrote: (09-26-2016, 02:54 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Nobody's suggesting we ignore that need, but dismissing an LRT line as "not suitable" because it doesn't fit every use case. Yes, an LRT won't work for everybody, but right now the choices of Guelph to KW is 1) Drive it. That's it. No other option.
Not quite. There is GO. Limited schedule, but it does exist.
Given the cost of LRT infrastucture (and the lack of population in between the two cities that might also be able to use it), a subsidized (express?) bus with good service would make the best start. Ideally align stops with local transit in both cities. Of course this is just my opinion.
Longer term, when we have all-day GO service, things will look different anyway, and we should re-evaluate.
I wonder though, what the cost of an LRT out to Guelph would be, if they used the existing infrastructure? How much of the LRT cost has been studies and reworking the "piping" and electrical so that if some road work needs to be done (burst pipe in the winter most likely) it wouldn't affect the LRT. The LRT itself is being built not cheaply, something that you might be able to do out to Guelph.
Would be be a simple matter of laying down tracks by the current route, or twinning them?
Posts: 6,905
Threads: 32
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
224
Why do you guys keep calling it LRT? LRT is typically a designation for intraurban transport, not interurban.
Electrified interurban transit typically uses EMU's. Sure, it could be LRV's (and there are a handful of European places where they do this as an extension of an existing tramway), but hardly anyone does that. Intercity is heavy rail.
...and this is why I keep saying "Wait for the line to be electrified by GO/Metrolinx" - because once it is, boom, it's all done. You just need to buy a couple more trains.
Posts: 7,584
Threads: 36
Joined: Jun 2016
Reputation:
196
(09-26-2016, 02:43 PM)Canard Wrote: And one thing people without a car never seem to understand is that a lot of people have a car because they like to travel and they actually do stuff outside of their own city. This attitude of "we're reinforcing a bad habit" or whatever seems to equate driving with smoking, and it's really annoying. Obviously it'd be great if I could take a train everywhere I want to go. I'd love that! I love trains. But I can't. This isn't Japan. It doesn't go to the Dryden Tract. Or my parents place in rural Ontario. Or theme parks in the middle of nowhere in the US.
Sorry, I've wanted to vent that for a while but resisted, but people keep bringing up this "we should screw over cars" thing.
This isn't an argument for a new highway 7 though. This is an argument that we should have area's which transit can't feasibly serve be connected by roads, which nobody is arguing against.
Yes, there are plenty of places where driving will always make sense. We aren't talking about that, we're talking about places where transit could make sense but we're choosing not to make it a priority.
As someone without ownership of a car, I know very well what it takes to travel outside of town, I do so frequently. And it usually involves renting a car. Going to Dryden, sure, I will most likely always need a car for that.
But why does going to Guelph require that? And why are we spending umpteen millions of dollars building a new highway before even providing the option of transit?
|
