GO Transit

[the_conestoga_guy]

The future of this intersection (Victoria/Lancaster/train tracks) is wildly interesting to me going forward, since there's so many competing interests.

We know that the main interchange for the future Highway 7 will be on Wellington, so traffic will likely need to be diverted off of Victoria Street. We also know that the Region is considering* a road diet for Victoria between Park Street and Highway 7 once the new highway is constructed. In my correspondence with Regional planners, I also know that they hope to include cycling facilities along this road as part of the diet. Lastly, we know that Metrolinx and CN would both love to have the railway grade separated.

I personally like the idea of closing this crossing to cars and maybe installing a pedestrian bridge to maintain an active transportation link. But I'm not sure if the fact that the adjacent fire station complicates matters, as that would lead to somewhat longer response times.

*considering =/= implementing. https://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/livin...-04-24.PDF

[nms]

I don't think CN owns the yard anymore, but they have running rights over it.  Metrolinx owns it, which is why they are indicted in the TSB ruling.

The CBC KW story from February 9 provides a little more detail of how that crossing operates.

Through its investigation, the TSB found Metrolinx installed two east-facing cameras focusing on the gates in June 2020. Officials reviewed footage taken between June 23 and June 29 during 4 a.m. and 11 p.m., and found the crossing's warning devices were triggered 195 times, of which 129 were done by CN freight trains or switching assignments.

Of those 129 times, during 17 occurrences, vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists were delayed more than five minutes, which goes against Grade Crossing Regulations, said the TSB. On three occasions, delays were longer than 10 minutes, with 18 minutes recorded as the longest delay.

I can understand why pedestrians in particular would be frustrated waiting more than 10 minutes for the crossing to clear, especially if the train itself appeared to not be moving.

[westwardloo]

The future of this intersection (Victoria/Lancaster/train tracks) is wildly interesting to me going forward, since there's so many competing interests.

We know that the main interchange for the future Highway 7 will be on Wellington, so traffic will likely need to be diverted off of Victoria Street. We also know that the Region is considering* a road diet for Victoria between Park Street and Highway 7 once the new highway is constructed. In my correspondence with Regional planners, I also know that they hope to include cycling facilities along this road as part of the diet. Lastly, we know that Metrolinx and CN would both love to have the railway grade separated.

I personally like the idea of closing this crossing to cars and maybe installing a pedestrian bridge to maintain an active transportation link. But I'm not sure if the fact that the adjacent fire station complicates matters, as that would lead to somewhat longer response times.

*considering =/= implementing. https://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/livin...-04-24.PDF

My question is, why not build a grade separated crossing similar to Margaret Ave? Lancaster at Victoria St is already higher than the rail crossing and could be built up easily. It would require remove access to the one garage property and the shell station, then some regrading to all Breithaupt meet Lancaster on the other side of the crossing. Lancaster is a major throughway, it may not seem like it compared to the suburban streets. Even after HWY 7 is built Lancaster will serve as a major connection for Bridgeport and Lancaster residents to get Downtown.  I think it would be a mistake for the region to close this crossing to car traffic, I do think it need to be grade separated so GO/ VIA trains can travel faster through that section. St. Leger st could be closed with a pedestrian bridge built though.

[bravado]

Because it’s cheaper to blame “crazy” pedestrians instead of building appropriate infrastructure and controls.

Somehow this hazard management is illegal for employers but totally fine for civil engineers/planners.

[danbrotherston]

The future of this intersection (Victoria/Lancaster/train tracks) is wildly interesting to me going forward, since there's so many competing interests.

We know that the main interchange for the future Highway 7 will be on Wellington, so traffic will likely need to be diverted off of Victoria Street. We also know that the Region is considering* a road diet for Victoria between Park Street and Highway 7 once the new highway is constructed. In my correspondence with Regional planners, I also know that they hope to include cycling facilities along this road as part of the diet. Lastly, we know that Metrolinx and CN would both love to have the railway grade separated.

I personally like the idea of closing this crossing to cars and maybe installing a pedestrian bridge to maintain an active transportation link. But I'm not sure if the fact that the adjacent fire station complicates matters, as that would lead to somewhat longer response times.

*considering =/= implementing. https://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/livin...-04-24.PDF

My question is, why not build a grade separated crossing similar to Margaret Ave? Lancaster at Victoria St is already higher than the rail crossing and could be built up easily. It would require remove access to the one garage property and the shell station, then some regrading to all Breithaupt meet Lancaster on the other side of the crossing. Lancaster is a major throughway, it may not seem like it compared to the suburban streets. Even after HWY 7 is built Lancaster will serve as a major connection for Bridgeport and Lancaster residents to get Downtown.  I think it would be a mistake for the region to close this crossing to car traffic, I do think it need to be grade separated so GO/ VIA trains can travel faster through that section. St. Leger st could be closed with a pedestrian bridge built though.

For the same reason I don't want the highway widened. Many of us believe we should stop expanding roads and start reducing or restricting traffic in the city.

Whether this is the right crossing for that, I am not sure, but it doesn't really matter, it's all academic, the region will not consider doing it. Not only do they not have a goal of reducing VMT, the idea of closing a region road is literally confusing to the engineers, it's like trying to explain water to a fish.

[westwardloo]

My question is, why not build a grade separated crossing similar to Margaret Ave? Lancaster at Victoria St is already higher than the rail crossing and could be built up easily. It would require remove access to the one garage property and the shell station, then some regrading to all Breithaupt meet Lancaster on the other side of the crossing. Lancaster is a major throughway, it may not seem like it compared to the suburban streets. Even after HWY 7 is built Lancaster will serve as a major connection for Bridgeport and Lancaster residents to get Downtown.  I think it would be a mistake for the region to close this crossing to car traffic, I do think it need to be grade separated so GO/ VIA trains can travel faster through that section. St. Leger st could be closed with a pedestrian bridge built though.

For the same reason I don't want the highway widened. Many of us believe we should stop expanding roads and start reducing or restricting traffic in the city.

Whether this is the right crossing for that, I am not sure, but it doesn't really matter, it's all academic, the region will not consider doing it. Not only do they not have a goal of reducing VMT, the idea of closing a region road is literally confusing to the engineers, it's like trying to explain water to a fish.

While living in the Netherlands did you happen noticed any HWY's ? or for that matter any grade separated vehicular rail crossings?  Your all or nothing approach to transportation infrastructure is ridiculous, even the most pedestrian/ public transit friendly countries in Europe don't plan with that approach. Utrecht a city similar to the size of KW has HWY's to 6 different urban centres from it. You can invest in all forms of transit. 

https://www.google.ca/maps/@52.0948993,5....77z?hl=en 

A HWY between two large cities in Ontario is not irresponsible planning, nor is it necessarily a strictly dystopian car only approach to planning as you continuously spout. HWY 7 will make way for the City of kitchener or the Region to reimagine Victoria street, transforming it from its current state as STROUD to something more pedestrian friendly. I would also argue that the boardwalk/ west kitchener could have been a more pedestrian friendly neighborhood had the Region decided to with the Ring Road HWY as opposed to the STROUD with roundabouts approach.

I know you would love to see the Billion Dollars only be used for bike lanes, but I can't help but notice that neither kitchener nor Guelph has received any money from the Ontario Government for active transportation projects as a result of the government delaying HWY 7?  I admit that it seems like North America seemed to only invest in  car infrastructure for the past 6 decades, but there has been some significant improvements in that regards in the last decade or so, especially in our Region.  W

[ijmorlan]

A HWY between two large cities in Ontario is not irresponsible planning, nor is it necessarily a strictly dystopian car only approach to planning as you continuously spout. HWY 7 will make way for the City of kitchener or the Region to reimagine Victoria street, transforming it from its current state as STROUD to something more pedestrian friendly. I would also argue that the boardwalk/ west kitchener could have been a more pedestrian friendly neighborhood had the Region decided to with the Ring Road HWY as opposed to the STROUD with roundabouts approach.

With the climate situation we are in, any planning that assumes continued increases in motor vehicle traffic is ill considered.

But mostly I want to focus on the part I bolded. In fact, building a superhighway has no connection at all to making Victoria St. better. All that is needed to get the traffic off Victoria St. is to make slight adjustments near the intersection of Shirley Dr. with Victoria St., and near the intersection of Shirley Dr. with Bingeman’s Centre Dr.; Widen Shirley Dr. to 4 lanes between these intersections, and widen Highway 7 to 4 lanes all the way to Guelph. Install a centre median and roundabouts. Re-work the freeway interchange at Wellington St.

Yes, there is a cost to existing addresses on the highway. You don’t build an entire superhighway just to avoid impacts on a couple of dozen or so properties.

This gives you a continuous 4-lane road from Guelph to the expressway, all north of the railway track. Victoria St. would now end in a T-junction with the combined route more or less where Shirley Dr. ends at Victoria now. The existing Victoria St. bridge over the Grand River would continue to serve the improved Highway 7.

The new road would be designed to move traffic, while Victoria St. could be re-planned as an urban street with low traffic speeds and only one lane in each direction. This plan would save most of the cost of the new freeway and while expanding the road to Guelph to 4 lanes would be an expansion in road capacity, it wouldn’t have the same negative effect as building a superhighway. The difference could be used to put in place excellent rail transit between KW and Guelph.

The most frustrating thing for me about the superhighway discussion is that essentially nobody has even mentioned the possibility of improving the existing road. It’s basically superhighway or nothing when we all know that even if one takes as a given that roads need to be improved there is a lot of space between a 2 lane road and an actual superhighway, and the difference is a huge amount of money.

[ijmorlan]

My question is, why not build a grade separated crossing similar to Margaret Ave? Lancaster at Victoria St is already higher than the rail crossing and could be built up easily. It would require remove access to the one garage property and the shell station, then some regrading to all Breithaupt meet Lancaster on the other side of the crossing. Lancaster is a major throughway, it may not seem like it compared to the suburban streets. Even after HWY 7 is built Lancaster will serve as a major connection for Bridgeport and Lancaster residents to get Downtown.  I think it would be a mistake for the region to close this crossing to car traffic, I do think it need to be grade separated so GO/ VIA trains can travel faster through that section. St. Leger st could be closed with a pedestrian bridge built though.

Because it is expensive and not needed.

Keep in mind that the Highway 7 project includes connecting roads that join Wellington St. at the highway ramps to Bruce St. and Edna St., crossing under the rail line and Victoria St.

Once these are built, a driver who now uses Lancaster St. would have a choice of using the link roads on either side of the expressway, or the Margaret St. bridge or even the St. Leger crossing which I believe is far enough away from the yard not to be subject to the extensive switching delays. If you look at where they might actually be going, these reroutings are for almost all trips not a problem. It’s not that somebody would come down Lancaster, detour along Wellington to the expressway, then down the link road, up Edna, and back along Victoria to Lancaster; rather, they would take an alternate route entirely. For example, from Lancaster & Guelph to Lancaster & Frederick; instead of heading down Lancaster, take Guelph to Margaret and down Margaret to Frederick. Other trips would be even less affected. Somebody who gets off the expressway at Lancaster could just get off at Wellington and use the new link road. This is part of the reason why there is discussion of closing the Lancaster ramps; they are similarly not needed. Essentially, Lancaster is a poor choice as a through route and should be re-imagined as a neighbourhood street. Direct connections to the expressway and the ability for cars to use it to cross the railway are not needed.

[danbrotherston]

For the same reason I don't want the highway widened. Many of us believe we should stop expanding roads and start reducing or restricting traffic in the city.

Whether this is the right crossing for that, I am not sure, but it doesn't really matter, it's all academic, the region will not consider doing it. Not only do they not have a goal of reducing VMT, the idea of closing a region road is literally confusing to the engineers, it's like trying to explain water to a fish.

While living in the Netherlands did you happen noticed any HWY's ? or for that matter any grade separated vehicular rail crossings?  Your all or nothing approach to transportation infrastructure is ridiculous, even the most pedestrian/ public transit friendly countries in Europe don't plan with that approach. Utrecht a city similar to the size of KW has HWY's to 6 different urban centres from it. You can invest in all forms of transit. 

https://www.google.ca/maps/@52.0948993,5....77z?hl=en 

A HWY between two large cities in Ontario is not irresponsible planning, nor is it necessarily a strictly dystopian car only approach to planning as you continuously spout. HWY 7 will make way for the City of kitchener or the Region to reimagine Victoria street, transforming it from its current state as STROUD to something more pedestrian friendly. I would also argue that the boardwalk/ west kitchener could have been a more pedestrian friendly neighborhood had the Region decided to with the Ring Road HWY as opposed to the STROUD with roundabouts approach.

I know you would love to see the Billion Dollars only be used for bike lanes, but I can't help but notice that neither kitchener nor Guelph has received any money from the Ontario Government for active transportation projects as a result of the government delaying HWY 7?  I admit that it seems like North America seemed to only invest in  car infrastructure for the past 6 decades, but there has been some significant improvements in that regards in the last decade or so, especially in our Region.  W

Why yes, I live ON a rail line. There's many crossings, one right next to me. Of course, the next one towards the city is 1.7 kms away.

I am not and nowhere have I ever suggested that I want to have no roads anywhere in our city. But we have too many roads in Canada and we prioritize free movement of cars above all else in our city. The next railway underpass from Lexington is 500 meters away. So if Dutch drivers (and most of my neighbours are drivers) can drive 1.7 kms out of their way to get across the railway why is it "ridiculous" to suggest that Kitchener drivers can go 500 meters out of their way?

One of the things about here that is great is that it is much easier to get around by bike, the routes are more direct (the nearest bicycle underpass of the railway is only 0.7 kms away) and cars are forced to take a longer router. It is that de-prioritization and restriction on free movement of cars that makes cars less popular for short trips and makes this city a better place to live. And this is in one of the more car friendly places in the Netherlands.

This is the "ridiculousness" that I want in Canada.

Building roads creates more traffic. That is an indisputable fact. If the region had built a highway ring road, aside from our budget being in a very different place from where it is, there would be more driving than there is today. Building a new highway 7 when there is no meaningful transit option in existence is an intentional policy choice that isn't an improvement over the past 60 years of planning.

And no, our current provincial government is very pro-car...same as the past 60 years. I don't expect to get money for active transportation from the province. But I have no idea what that has to do with this discussion?

[the_conestoga_guy]

A HWY between two large cities in Ontario is not irresponsible planning, nor is it necessarily a strictly dystopian car only approach to planning as you continuously spout. HWY 7 will make way for the City of kitchener or the Region to reimagine Victoria street, transforming it from its current state as STROUD to something more pedestrian friendly. I would also argue that the boardwalk/ west kitchener could have been a more pedestrian friendly neighborhood had the Region decided to with the Ring Road HWY as opposed to the STROUD with roundabouts approach.

With the climate situation we are in, any planning that assumes continued increases in motor vehicle traffic is ill considered.

But mostly I want to focus on the part I bolded. In fact, building a superhighway has no connection at all to making Victoria St. better. All that is needed to get the traffic off Victoria St. is to make slight adjustments near the intersection of Shirley Dr. with Victoria St., and near the intersection of Shirley Dr. with Bingeman’s Centre Dr.; Widen Shirley Dr. to 4 lanes between these intersections, and widen Highway 7 to 4 lanes all the way to Guelph. Install a centre median and roundabouts. Re-work the freeway interchange at Wellington St.

Yes, there is a cost to existing addresses on the highway. You don’t build an entire superhighway just to avoid impacts on a couple of dozen or so properties.

This gives you a continuous 4-lane road from Guelph to the expressway, all north of the railway track. Victoria St. would now end in a T-junction with the combined route more or less where Shirley Dr. ends at Victoria now. The existing Victoria St. bridge over the Grand River would continue to serve the improved Highway 7.

The new road would be designed to move traffic, while Victoria St. could be re-planned as an urban street with low traffic speeds and only one lane in each direction. This plan would save most of the cost of the new freeway and while expanding the road to Guelph to 4 lanes would be an expansion in road capacity, it wouldn’t have the same negative effect as building a superhighway. The difference could be used to put in place excellent rail transit between KW and Guelph.

The most frustrating thing for me about the superhighway discussion is that essentially nobody has even mentioned the possibility of improving the existing road. It’s basically superhighway or nothing when we all know that even if one takes as a given that roads need to be improved there is a lot of space between a 2 lane road and an actual superhighway, and the difference is a huge amount of money.

You've basically summed up my exact thoughts on this, too. This entire proposal would likely cost about the same as just the interchange and Grand River bridge of the original design. Creating an effective bypass using Shirley Ave and urbanizing Victoria St N would serve everyone's best interests.

I'd add that the highway at the Guelph end could still divert around the North of Guelph and link up with the Hanlon expressway. 

Considering this superhighway project has been dead for years, this might be a good and cheap way for the province to "get it over with."

[KevinL]

So the somewhat honor-system based method of free transfer from GRT to a GO train is being phased out at the end of the month. By the description here, there's now a validator for EasyGo cards at the train station which refunds your GRT trip if departing on GO, or discounts the upcoming trip if arriving on it.

I presume it's possible for someone who didn't take the train to take advantage, but as the card needs to be registered for that I imagine they track it closely.

[SF22]

A HWY between two large cities in Ontario is not irresponsible planning, nor is it necessarily a strictly dystopian car only approach to planning as you continuously spout. HWY 7 will make way for the City of kitchener or the Region to reimagine Victoria street, transforming it from its current state as STROUD to something more pedestrian friendly. I would also argue that the boardwalk/ west kitchener could have been a more pedestrian friendly neighborhood had the Region decided to with the Ring Road HWY as opposed to the STROUD with roundabouts approach.

With the climate situation we are in, any planning that assumes continued increases in motor vehicle traffic is ill considered.

But mostly I want to focus on the part I bolded. In fact, building a superhighway has no connection at all to making Victoria St. better. All that is needed to get the traffic off Victoria St. is to make slight adjustments near the intersection of Shirley Dr. with Victoria St., and near the intersection of Shirley Dr. with Bingeman’s Centre Dr.; Widen Shirley Dr. to 4 lanes between these intersections, and widen Highway 7 to 4 lanes all the way to Guelph. Install a centre median and roundabouts. Re-work the freeway interchange at Wellington St.

Yes, there is a cost to existing addresses on the highway. You don’t build an entire superhighway just to avoid impacts on a couple of dozen or so properties.

This gives you a continuous 4-lane road from Guelph to the expressway, all north of the railway track. Victoria St. would now end in a T-junction with the combined route more or less where Shirley Dr. ends at Victoria now. The existing Victoria St. bridge over the Grand River would continue to serve the improved Highway 7.

The new road would be designed to move traffic, while Victoria St. could be re-planned as an urban street with low traffic speeds and only one lane in each direction. This plan would save most of the cost of the new freeway and while expanding the road to Guelph to 4 lanes would be an expansion in road capacity, it wouldn’t have the same negative effect as building a superhighway. The difference could be used to put in place excellent rail transit between KW and Guelph.

The most frustrating thing for me about the superhighway discussion is that essentially nobody has even mentioned the possibility of improving the existing road. It’s basically superhighway or nothing when we all know that even if one takes as a given that roads need to be improved there is a lot of space between a 2 lane road and an actual superhighway, and the difference is a huge amount of money.

I'm not convinced that this wouldn't just create a new stroad on Bingeman Centre Drive. It's already wide and fast, and I can just see more sprawling businesses popping up along the length of it. Is that really a net positive?

In somewhat related news, the old David's Fries building is demolished now. I was driving and didn't have the chance to slow down and look, but did Joseph & Company get removed from this space as well? Their driveway pops out literally right next to the tracks, so I wouldn't be surprised if something changes there as well.

If the scrapyard does get removed, I'd love to see the space reclaimed to make a bike/pedestrian connection between Wellington/Breithaupt/Patrick Streets (on Google Maps, you can see how this used to be where the spur line branched off to go towards Woodside Park), with a bridge over the tracks to connect with Victoria. That would give active transportation users a connection that's separate from the Lancaster crossing. Pair that with a signalized pedestrian crossing on Victoria halfway between Lancaster and Edna (at Locust or Filbert), and suddenly you've got a nice little link made that could hook up with the upcoming Lancaster St bike lanes, which will start at Wellington when built. Maybe a MUT could follow the old rail line up across Wellington (repurpose the old train bridge into a cool pedestrian space) to connect with Guelph St at Maple. Opportunities!

[ijmorlan]

The new road would be designed to move traffic, while Victoria St. could be re-planned as an urban street with low traffic speeds and only one lane in each direction. This plan would save most of the cost of the new freeway and while expanding the road to Guelph to 4 lanes would be an expansion in road capacity, it wouldn’t have the same negative effect as building a superhighway. The difference could be used to put in place excellent rail transit between KW and Guelph.

The most frustrating thing for me about the superhighway discussion is that essentially nobody has even mentioned the possibility of improving the existing road. It’s basically superhighway or nothing when we all know that even if one takes as a given that roads need to be improved there is a lot of space between a 2 lane road and an actual superhighway, and the difference is a huge amount of money.

I'm not convinced that this wouldn't just create a new stroad on Bingeman Centre Drive. It's already wide and fast, and I can just see more sprawling businesses popping up along the length of it. Is that really a net positive?

It would create a new road on Bingeman Centre Drive. The idea is to have a route that is meant to move motor vehicle traffic, without incurring the absurd expense of a totally unnecessary superhighway. The existing land uses along there are big industrial and commercial ones which don’t benefit nearly as much from being an urban pedestrian environment as other uses do. Meanwhile over on Victoria St., it’s right beside residential areas so converting it to be a more pleasant urban environment that de-prioritizes motor vehicles would be a huge improvement.

[SF22]

I'm not convinced that this wouldn't just create a new stroad on Bingeman Centre Drive. It's already wide and fast, and I can just see more sprawling businesses popping up along the length of it. Is that really a net positive?

It would create a new road on Bingeman Centre Drive. The idea is to have a route that is meant to move motor vehicle traffic, without incurring the absurd expense of a totally unnecessary superhighway. The existing land uses along there are big industrial and commercial ones which don’t benefit nearly as much from being an urban pedestrian environment as other uses do. Meanwhile over on Victoria St., it’s right beside residential areas so converting it to be a more pleasant urban environment that de-prioritizes motor vehicles would be a huge improvement.

I think that only works as long as the city doesn't allow new businesses to get built along that stretch, particularly on the Bingemans/river side. That said, there is a bus route along Bingemans Centre Drive, and yet very little sidewalk along vast swaths of it. I never understood why you'd have one and not the other. "Here's your stop, it's a concrete pad that goes absolutely nowhere, enjoy not getting run over at 70km/h."

[bravado]

There’s nothing more miserable than seeing people waiting for the bus in a ditch in an industrial park.

Council and planners make their contempt for factory workers pretty clear every day that goes by without basic sidewalks, concrete pads, and shelters.