Highway 7

[UrbanWaterloo]

Highway 7
Kitchener to Guelph

http://media.guelphmercury.topscms.com/images/90/5d/8b385a484bffb9f9062dbe2f2e5b.jpeg
http://news.guelphmercury.com/article/245487

[UrbanWaterloo]

New Highway 7 Between Kitchener And Guelph Moves Forward
Provincial Budget Includes Commitment To Kitchener-Waterloo Transit Corridor
http://ogov.newswire.ca/ontario/GPOE/2007/03/23/c5864.html?lmatch=&lang=_e.html

KITCHENER, ON, March 23 /CNW/ - The Ministry of Transportation announced today that it is moving forward with plans to build a new, four-lane highway between Kitchener and Guelph to reduce traffic congestion, improve safety and accommodate growth. Having received environmental approval, work to design the new highway can begin and land acquisition can now be completed. Construction can begin once this process has finished.
"Our government recognizes how important it is to support growing communities in Waterloo Region and Guelph," said Transportation Minister Donna Cansfield. "Better roads will improve safety, create jobs, encourage economic growth and keep this community strong."
"Waterloo Region requires a comprehensive transportation network. Today's news about Highway 7 as well as the transit initiative demonstrate the McGuinty government's commitment to the continuing prosperity of our community," said John Milloy, MPP for Kitchener Centre.
"This is great news for my constituents who depend on Highway 7 every day," added Guelph-Wellington MPP Liz Sandals. "A new, four-lane highway will improve safety for the more than 21,000 drivers who travel between Kitchener and Guelph daily."
In yesterday's provincial Budget, the government also committed to working with its municipal, regional and federal partners to complete technical studies and an environmental assessment for the Kitchener-Waterloo transit project and support the cost of one-third of the project. Creating a transit system to run through the urban cores of Cambridge, Kitchener and Waterloo will keep people moving quickly and efficiently throughout the region.
Since 2003 the McGuinty government has invested $4.5 billion in Ontario's highways, roads and bridges and $3.6 billion in public transit. This year, Ontario will invest over $681 million in transit systems across the province and $1.2 billion in highways.
For up-to-date road condition information on major highways in the area, visit www.roadinfo.mto.gov.on.ca or call the ministry's road information line at (416) 235-4686, or toll-free at 1-800-268-4686.
www.mto.gov.on.ca
-30-


Highway 7 expansion to four lanes announced
Friday, March 23, 2007 | Updated at 2:13 PM EDT
By JEFF OUTHIT - RECORD STAFF - WATERLOO REGION

The provincial government is moving forward with a long-awaited four-lane Highway 7 from Kitchener to Guelph.

The divided highway, 18 kilometres long, will cost more than $250 million. At least eight years will pass before it is completed.

But the Liberal government says it will happen, after decades of uncertainty and years of planning.

“We are going to build this highway,” transportation minister Donna Cansfield announced at a news conference Friday afternoon at regional headquarters in Kitchener.

Cansfield cited congestion, safety concerns, and economic development as reasons to build the new highway.

It will run just north of the current Highway 7, a two-lane commuting route long plagued by congestion and some terrible collisions.

Area politicians and business leaders beamed as the new highway was announced in Kitchener.

Replacing Highway 7 has long been considered a leading transportation concern. Successive provincial governments have been lobbied hard and long to move forward on a much-studied proposal.

It will be at least three years before there’s a shovel in the ground.

The province will use these years to finalize the design, acquire property and consult with the public about the final design. After that, construction would take at least five years to complete.

Officials said the new highway could open in phases, with the middle, rural section opening first.

The new highway will be 18 kilometres long, two lanes in each direction separated by a 22-metre grass median. It includes three major water crossings, 25 other structures over roads and water and seven interchanges.

Today’s construction costs are estimated at $250 million. This will rise with inflation, and excludes costs to buy property for the route.



http://therecord.metrolandwest.com/images/assets/310843_4.JPG
Series Website: http://news.therecord.com/specialsections/section/highwayseven

Series starts Saturday
An in-depth series of articles on the highway that links Guelph to Kitchener begins Saturday in the Record and the Guelph Mercury. Watch this space for stories and exclusive content.

Video "On the road with commuter P.A. Luxton": http://therecord.com/media/commute/commute.html

[UrbanWaterloo]

http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa262/AndrewEH/2007Sep29-A01Image.jpg

http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa262/AndrewEH/2007Sep29-A08Image.jpg
Wetlands map, showing the approved new route, current Highway 7 and wetlands

http://therecord.metrolandwest.com/images/assets/314085_3.JPG
Legend for wetlands map

http://therecord.metrolandwest.com/images/assets/314081_3.JPG
HERE'S WHERE 25% OF THE COST OF THE NEW HIGHWAY WILL GO

http://therecord.metrolandwest.com/images/assets/314082_3.JPG
The Ministry of Transportation considered upgrading these back roads, to the north and south of Highway 7. This was ruled out because alternative routes are indirect, particularly in the south. Back roads would still be overwhelmed by traffic, even after upgrades. An expensive new crossing of the Grand would be required at Ottawa Street. And residents who live on the back roads would be even more constrained by traffic.

http://therecord.metrolandwest.com/images/assets/314084_3.JPG
Cathy Wiebe works in Guelph, but lives in Kitchener and has commuted between the two cities for nine years. She says the drive is frustrating most of the time.


The cost of a new Highway 7 between Kitchener and Guelph has soared to $300 million, and may exceed $400 million by the time it's completed.

After 19 years of planning, this year the Ontario government approved the four-lane freeway to end bumper-to-bumper traffic and improve safety.

"It's been put off for too damn long," Transportation Minister Donna Cansfield said. "You can rest assured. That highway will be built."

The new road -- 18 kilometres long -- will cut a 100-metre swath through the countryside, north of the current two-lane highway.

It will displace five businesses and 11 homes. It will span the Grand River, bisect a wetland, and consume 144 hectares of farmland, affecting more than a dozen farms.

The new highway will serve more than 19,000 people who commute daily between Kitchener and Guelph.

Commuters have helped overwhelm the current highway, which carries at least 1,300 more vehicles per day than it can practically handle.

Estimated costs have soared since planning began in 1989.

A new Highway 7 would have cost just $89 million, if built in 1992. By 2002, the cost for the approved route was estimated at $160 million.

This year, the estimated cost reached $294 million, the Ministry of Transportation says. This includes construction, land acquisition and planning costs to date.

At this escalating pace, costs could exceed $400 million by 2014, the earliest projected completion date.

"That's ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous," said critic Elizabeth Wharton of the Westmount Environment Group in Waterloo.

"For less than 10 minutes of travel time, and to put in a new highway?" Wharton said.

"All they would have to do is widen that existing highway. And that's all that's necessary, for a fraction of that cost."

Cansfield would not predict a final Highway 7 bill.

A new road is needed to meet future transportation needs, she contends, and to ease the economic cost of traffic congestion.

"The cost of not doing it is far greater than the cost of doing it," Cansfield said.

"We have to deal with the congestion and the gridlock and the economic impact that is having in this jurisdiction. And deal with it we will."

The province blames soaring costs on construction prices that are rising almost 12 per cent a year.

"There have been substantial increases over the past few years to pavement and bridges, which are a major part of this project," said Ministry of Transportation spokesperson Bob Nichols.

Construction costs for the new highway have soared from $147 million in 2002 to $256 million today. That's up 74 per cent in five years.

Costs for reinforced concrete, up 83 per cent over five years, have added $49 million to the bill.

Estimated costs to buy land have more than tripled, from $11 million in 2002 to $36 million today. Land acquisition is underway.

Highway planners have rejected calls to widen the current two-lane road. They contend traffic between the cities is so great, it would overwhelm such a road by 2011.

"It was determined that only a freeway would accommodate the predicted traffic demand beyond 2028," Nichols said. "Widening the current highway would have significant impacts to businesses, and disruption to properties."

Here's what you'll get when the freeway is finished, planners predict.

You'll be able to drive 18 kilometres between Kitchener and Guelph in under 11 minutes, without a traffic light to slow you down.

Cars will no longer back up at intersections for several green lights, in stop-and-go traffic.

The new highway will not see congestion until well past 2028. The current highway, now overwhelmed during rush hours, will also open up as traffic shifts to the new highway.

Planners say the new highway will be safer than the current highway, which claims on average one life per year. That's because drivers will face no bothersome driveways, and there will be less risk of colliding with an opposing vehicle.

The speed limit will be 100 km/h and the freeway will include four lanes, divided by a grassy median 22 metres wide. If expansion to six lanes is ever needed, extra lanes would be built in this median.

In Kitchener, the new highway will be dominated by a massive freeway-to-freeway interchange, soaring above Wellington Street.

Beneath it, a remodelled local interchange will provide access to the Conestoga Parkway, after consuming some businesses and industrial lands bordering the parkway today.

It will be the biggest interchange in this part of Ontario, a tower of concrete and motion that will stack four levels of traffic.

"For guys that love building bridges, that's a dream come true," said Malcolm Matheson, president of Steed and Evans, a highway construction firm. "That would be very technically difficult, very challenging to do."

It's estimated the Kitchener interchange, costing $64 million today, will consume 25 per cent of highway construction costs.

There will be six other interchanges on the way to Guelph, where the new Highway 7 will meet the Hanlon Expressway. Reaching Guelph will require spanning the Grand River, Hopewell Creek, Ellis Creek, and 11 smaller watercourses.

The most costly section of the new highway is where it spans the Grand River, between Wellington Street and Ebycrest Road. This portion, to cost $78 million today, is estimated at 30 per cent of highway costs.

The new highway will include 27 structures, including ramps, bridges, overpasses and underpasses.

The government has said construction will not start before 2010, and will take at least five years.

Cansfield hopes the new highway will be completed before 2014, the earliest projected date.

"We're actually fast-tracking a lot of activities on this particular project," she said.

HIGHWAY BUILDING ON A MASSIVE SCALE

Graders will have to move 3.6 million cubic metres of earth to lay the foundation for a new highway linking Kitchener and Guelph.

That's enough dirt to fill the Rogers Centre in Toronto two times, with some left over.

The highway base and shoulders will consume almost 1.2 million tonnes of gravel. This will fill more than 52,000 regular-size dump trucks.

Paving the highway will consume 329,000 tonnes of asphalt. This is more than four times the asphalt used each year by Waterloo regional government on major local roads.

Building 27 structures such as bridges and flyovers will consume 49,000 cubic metres of formed concrete, reinforced by steel bars. This is the biggest part of highway costs, at $108 million today.

It would take Waterloo regional government 100 years to use this much concrete on local roads.

The huge quantities involved in building a new highway are no surprise to Malcolm Matheson, president of Steed and Evans, a Kitchener construction firm.

"This is the first major, new piece of highway in this area, I believe, since the expressway," he said, referring to the Conestoga Parkway built by Kitchener and Waterloo in the 1960s.

Matheson expects his company will bid for Highway 7 work.

A planning study recommends the new highway open in three stages. This has not been finalized.

The construction timeline has also not been finalized. It would not begin before 2010 at the earliest, the Ministry of Transportation has said.

The government says it needs at least three more years to finalize designs and acquire land.

Completing the new highway would take at least five years. If stages are not built concurrently, completion could take as long as 10 years. This puts the earliest completion at 2014.

The approved highway planning study recommended that:


The central stage be opened first, between Ebycrest Road and Guelph's Elmira Road. This stage could take two to three years to complete. The estimated cost is $95 million in 2007.
The western stage, between Wellington Street in Kitchener and Ebycrest Road, would take four to five years to complete. The estimated cost today is $142 million.
The eastern stage, between Elmira Road to Highway 6 in Guelph, would take two years to complete. The estimated cost today is $19 million.


DRIVING COSTS FOR HIGHWAY 7

If built in 2007, the new highway would cost:

$256 million for construction
$36 million to acquire land
$2 million for planning (to date)0


Here's how construction costs break down per section:

The Wellington Street interchange in Kitchener would cost $64 million.
Wellington Street to Ebycrest Road, including new bridges over the Grand River, would cost $78 million.
Ebycrest Road to Shantz Station Road would cost $35 million.
Shantz Station Road to Elmira Road in Guelph would cost $60 million.
Elmira Road to Woodlawn Road in Guelph would cost $19 million.


Here's how construction costs break down per component:

Concrete structures: $108 million
Engineering costs: $35 million
Asphalt: $30 million
Minor items: $26 million
Earth-moving: $23 million
Contingencies: $18 million
Gravel: $12 million
Culverts: $2 million
Stormwater basins: $1 million

[UrbanWaterloo]

NO MAGIC SHORTCUT EXISTS BUT CONGESTION PUSHES DRIVERS TO THE SIDE ROADS


http://therecord.metrolandwest.com/images/assets/314128_3.JPG
P.A. Luxton sits on her car at the shoulder of Highway 7. Luxton commutes to Guelph every day, but takes back roads to avoid highway congestion.

Traffic is so bad on Highway 7 it scares drivers away.

Country roads between Kitchener and Guelph are filled with motorists fleeing gridlock. They speed on rural roads and on gravel roads, seeking the holy grail of commuting -- a miraculous backdoor route between the cities.

It does not exist.

But this does not stop them from searching. Because at least the search keeps you moving.

This feels better to many commuters than idling in traffic, staring at the bumper ahead, gripping the wheel in frustration, or in fear.

P.A. Luxton has been driving from her Kitchener home to her Guelph job for 32 years. It used to take 22 minutes, but now takes up to 40.

"You just have to gear back everything," she says. "That can be frustrating, if you're needing to be somewhere."

A few years ago, Luxton switched to back roads, to avoid new traffic signals at Highway 7 intersections.

"I'm not saying they're not needed," she says. "But it slowed it dramatically, the minute those lights went in."

Now, her favoured route to Guelph takes her through Bridgeport, Maryhill and Marden.

This helps her avoid drivers who, once in a while, try to pass long lines of Highway 7 traffic. "It's a very dangerous highway," she says.

Cathy Wiebe has been commuting from her Kitchener home to her job in Guelph for nine years.

"Most of the time I'm frustrated," she says. "I'm trying to relax, and know that this is just the reality."

She drives Highway 7 part way, but switches to back roads closer to Guelph. "I just know, turn left here, turn right here, and I can jog my way around," she says.

Wiebe is not persuaded that driving back roads speeds her commute. But she finds it hard to sit in traffic.

"I'd much rather be driving than sitting and fretting about, 'How long is this going to take?' "

Most days she spends an hour commuting in her car. She listens to radio traffic reports, and needs to leave work in a hurry, to avoid the worst traffic.

A faster, easier commute would soothe her frustration with heavy traffic. It would make it easier for her to stay later at work, but would also free up more time to spend with her family.

"I have kids at home. So the more time I could spend with them, that would be a benefit," Wiebe says.

Sandra Hanmer often takes back roads to avoid Highway 7 congestion between her Waterloo home and Guelph job. "You keep moving," she says. "I don't like standing still. I do like to know that I'm moving."

She's persuaded it's a bad idea for the government to let commuters stew in heavy traffic. "We need something that will carry the amount of traffic," she says.

"People are making choices to either live and work in various locations, and we should be encouraging that, as we can. It helps the economies of both areas."

Consider yourself lucky, if you live in Guelph and commute to Waterloo Region. You're on the lighter side of the Highway 7 traffic flow.

Sometimes, traffic going the other way is bumper-to-bumper between the cities in rush hour.

"I would not want to be doing that," says Doug Campbell of Guelph. "It's brutal."

"I just keep thanking my lucky stars I'm not in that lineup, going the other way," says Angela Davis, of Guelph.

The 2001 census found 11,500 people commuting into Guelph from Waterloo Region, and 7,600 commuting into the region from Guelph.

Commuter traffic has helped overwhelm the highway, which carries at least 1,300 more vehicles per day than it can practically handle, between Kitchener and Guelph.

Campbell has been commuting to Kitchener for 15 years, Davis for 17 years, and Kathie Lamie for five years.

All say they sometimes drive back roads, to get off Highway 7 for at least part of the way.

"You move steadily and it's quite beautiful, to go through the country roads," says Lamie, who lives east of Guelph. "You feel like you're getting to your destination, instead of sitting and waiting."

Davis remembers when Highway 7 felt different years ago.

"Originally, it just seemed like a not bad drive out in the country, between two cities," she says.

"Now, it's definitely got that sort of anxiety of a commute to it. Just that tension, that there's lots of cars around you, that it's just car after car after car, and people just focused on getting where they are going. And I notice people doing all kinds of crazy things."

Campbell and Lamie say they can live with the current highway. But they understand why people commuting from Kitchener are clamouring for a better road.

"There's no question it needs to be improved or widened," Campbell says.

Davis agrees. "There has to be a better flow of traffic between the two cities," she says.

"It really is way too dangerous. And it uses up way too much of people's time, sitting there like that."

On average, Highway 7 claims one life per year between the borders of Guelph and Kitchener, and injures 27 more, according to the Ministry of Transportation.

It's a grim human toll, but not a surprising outcome. This is about the expected collision rate for a two-lane rural highway with its level of traffic, provincial figures show.

Government officials contend the new highway will be safer. That's because on average, collisions fall 25 per cent on freeways where there are no driveways and opposing traffic is separated.

"There have been collisions on that highway, and some of them have resulted in deaths," Transportation Minister Donna Cansfield said.

"Have there been an extraordinary number? No, not in comparison to some other parts of the province.

"But having said that, I always think one collision that results in any fatality is one too many. And we need to be able to do what we can."

Police say the approved freeway will be better for officers to patrol and commuters to drive. "It will be a huge improvement, safety-wise and for the flow of traffic," said Const. Mark Cloes, of the Wellington OPP.

Commuters say most drivers have figured out how to drive Highway 7 safely.

"I think most people who regularly travel 7, know where it slows down, know where it's going to speed up, and have developed a patience with it," Sandra Hanmer says.

The biggest threat is when someone tries to pass a long line of cars without the space to do so. "People will do that. They will take those chances," Cathy Wiebe says. "I wouldn't do that myself. It's not worth the risk."

Passing often gains no advantage. "You end up stopping at a light somewhere, and they're beside you," Angela Davis says. "So, how much farther ahead did they really get?"

Fred Wagner, a Maryhill farmer, often gets the middle-finger salute from irked motorists, when he takes his slow-moving farm equipment onto the highway. "I'm sick of that, quite frankly," he says.

Occasionally, an impatient driver will even pass him on the inside, one wheel on gravel, one wheel in the ditch.

"They're lucky there's no mail box in the way and they make it," he says. "But I mean, this is totally, totally ridiculous, how people try to kill themselves basically to go to work every day."

Breslau provides a tricky spot, where Highway 7 narrows to one lane, heading east out of Kitchener.

"Everyone will race, to the point where it merges into one lane," Doug Campbell says. "They're going breakneck. And they'll run the road right till it ends, almost. It's still a little disconcerting when it happens."

Angela Davis breathes easier when she gets past this tricky merge.

"That one is really dangerous," she says. "You see cars cutting each other off, and trying to pass trucks."

She sticks to the middle. "I'm very thankful when I get through that spot," she says.

You may think the solution to Highway 7 congestion is to let commuters flee to the back roads. Highway neighbours disagree.

Their peace and quiet is disrupted by motorists whizzing by on roads never built to handle the traffic.

"Commuters are probably the worst drivers," Wagner says. "They drive 120 on the township roads. That's not what those roads were built for. . .

"We have kids standing out there waiting for the school buses, or getting off-loaded. We have farm equipment on the road. We have local traffic. We have people walking on the streets for their exercises," he said. "All that stuff is a safety concern."

Years ago, Al Cassidy would see maybe 10 cars a day drive past his house on Spitzig Road. "Now it's a constant stream," he says. "There's a lot more traffic. You talk to anybody that lives there. And faster traffic.

"People are frustrated when they come off the highway, and they're trying to make time up."

In east Kitchener, it's estimated Bridgeport sees up to 7,000 vehicles a day that are fleeing Highway 7.

This has helped build a major bottleneck at the overwhelmed intersection of Bridge and Lancaster streets. Traffic is so heavy in rush hours that planners have capped Bridgeport growth for more than a decade.

When a new highway is built, it's estimated Bridgeport will shed 35 per cent of its bothersome traffic.

If built today, the new Highway 7 would cost $300 million. It may cost $400-million-plus when completed.

Luxton opposes the new road, even though she avoids the current highway. "It's a bad idea, bad concept, bad thinking," she says. "I do not agree with all the farmland being ripped to shreds."

She proposes widening the current highway to four lanes, plus a turning lane in the middle. "I think it could fit in there, without wrecking homes or buildings that have been there for years," she said.

The Ministry of Transportation has rejected this option. Traffic is already so heavy, a wider Highway 7 would be overwhelmed by 2011, planners contend.

"I think that's their argument to make people feel as though they're incorrect," Luxton says.

Wiebe wonders too if a highway widening might be best. "I would prefer to see the least amount of impact on the environment as possible," she says.

However, she's not deterred by the cost of a new highway.

"I think that's a scary price tag," she says. But if building a new highway makes the road safer for everybody, and handles heavy traffic that's only going to get worse, she can see how everyone would benefit.

"I think they just need to make a decision and go," she says. "Get it done."

If a new road is shown to be the best solution, to support traffic today and in the future, Sandra Hanmer can see it as a bill worth paying.

"The infrastructure always needs to, in my mind, be ahead of the growth, so that you can be growing into your infrastructure, rather than trying to catch up," she says.

Angela Davis can also see herself supporting a new highway.

"Certainly, safety is uppermost," she says. "Giving people access to get to their place of work is important. I just think we have to bite the bullet."

Commuters doubt better transit between the cities is a leading solution.

Davis has on occasion taken a bus between the cities, on days when she had car trouble. She has been happy to get her car back.

"I like having my car," she says. "I like having my convenience of going where I want to after work, and not being tied into somebody else's schedule."

Some people would switch to better transit, Davis figures. "I think there would be just as many people, like me, by myself in my car, doing my commute," she says. "I'm not that enthusiastic about riding the bus."

[UrbanWaterloo]

Highway will feed development
October 01, 2007
MAGDA KONIECZNA, Guelph Mercury - GUELPH
http://news.therecord.com/article/249721

Few people know the frustration of Highway 7 like Peter Armbruster.

The Waterloo-area developer has been waiting years to build hundreds of homes in the east end of Waterloo Region. And he's ready to wait years more.

"There would be demand tomorrow if it opened up," Armbruster said.

Activa Group, where Armbruster is a vice president, built 300 homes near Bridge and Lancaster streets -- just north of Breslau, in the former town of Bridgeport -- about five years ago. But apart from that subdivision and others approved years before, development in parts of the area has been frozen since 1996 when the region determined the intersection couldn't handle any more traffic.

A large portion of the cars passing through there are people avoiding the congestion where Highway 7 enters Kitchener -- about 30 per cent, according to Shahzad Rahman, a regional engineer working on improving traffic flow through Bridge and Lancaster.

According to the most recent figures, gathered in February, about 2,000 cars pass through the intersection every hour in the morning rush, and almost 3,000 in the afternoon.

Despite the development cap, continued growth of surrounding areas and a swell in commuters between Guelph and Waterloo Region means traffic has kept growing.

The new highway will open a swath of land for potential development in Waterloo Region. Development of the so-called eastside lands, about 3,700 hectares in the area of the airport, likely won't happen for decades. But the highway will provide essential access for development by the time the region has outgrown its current footprint, said Kevin Curtis, a planner with Waterloo Region.

"If there's no new highway, you couldn't accommodate the same level of development," Curtis said. "Without it, you couldn't use the area to its fullest extent."

The eastside lands lie south of the new highway, between the Grand River and Shantz Station Road.

Planning for that development is very preliminary -- the region is determining roughly where employment lands and homes should go.

And it's all a long way off.

"In the present plan, the lands will remain rural until there's a need -- for 30 or 40 or 50 years," said John Scarfone, a senior planner for Woolwich Township.

Even then, the land north of the new highway would remain agricultural, he added.

Growth is already happening in Breslau, where some of 900 approved housing units are being built. And areas along Shantz Station are being commercialized.

"Anything outside that will remain rural for the foreseeable future," Scarfone said.

It's a different story on the eastern end of the highway, in Guelph and Wellington County. The area is surrounded by industrial land and unlikely to see much residential development. But when the new highway joins up with the Hanlon Expressway, it will create opportunity for more industry and employment lands, said Lyle McNair, president of the Guelph and District Real Estate Board.

The area most affected by the eastern end of the new highway is in Wellington County, and county politicians say they're not expecting much change.

But the planned highway is already having ripples in the area. The Guelph Golf Academy, a nine-hole course on the northeast corner of the existing highway and Townline Road in Guelph-Eramosa Township, has been discussed for years.

It was on hold until the province finalized the highway alignment. When that happened in March, the golf course got the green light.

Experience has shown it's unlikely rural lands around the highway will remain undeveloped, said David Douglas, a planning professor at the University of Guelph.

"There will be enormous pressure" to develop along the new highway, he said.

"If a decision has been made (to build a new highway), then putting in appropriate land-use controls will be imperative -- that the highway is just for highway purposes, not the wedge for strip development from Guelph to Waterloo."


Wetlands, farms paved over
Ministry redrew route to reduce the destruction of sensitive areas
October 01, 2007
JEFF OUTHIT, RECORD STAFF
http://news.therecord.com/article/249720

http://media.therecord.topscms.com/images/0c/8f/b054f5f74d34a8a64d35eee02e27.jpeg
Ed Koch, owner of the Troika horse farm, holds Claudia Cardinale with trainer, Vivian Millard. Ed stands on a berm he is building beside where the new Highway 7 will go though his property, eating up a chunk of his land. He may lose more land to build a laneway to give access to a neighbouring property.

http://media.therecord.topscms.com/images/90/81/58d4e98444caafbd4f6ddbef6cd9.jpeg
Archeologists have found projectile points like these all along the route.

The next Highway 7 will chew through farms, homes, businesses and swamps, between Kitchener and Guelph.

Critics say the cost to agriculture and the natural environment is too high, even after planners altered the route to reduce the impact on sensitive wetlands.

"It's still bad," complains Cynthia Folzer, of the Guelph Field Naturalists. "It still goes through a number of wetlands, especially as you get closer to Guelph."

Wetland areas "are still going to be impacted," said Elizabeth Wharton, of the Westmount Environment Group, in Kitchener and Waterloo. "And if they don't have to do it, why do it?"

Some farmers are upset about threatened farmland.

But other farmers say building a new highway makes sense, even if it costs taxpayers more than $300 million and disrupts their lives.

"For the long run, for the good of this neighbourhood, it's the best way to go," said Maryhill farmer Fred Wagner, a director with the Waterloo Federation of Agriculture. "The volume of traffic on Highway 7 is beyond what should be happening."

On the approved new route:

More than a dozen farms will lose 144 hectares of agricultural land.

Five businesses, on 13 hectares, will be displaced in Kitchener, to make way for a new interchange and its connector roads.

The new highway will span the Grand River, two creeks and 11 other watercourses. It will consume eight hectares of wetland, skirting several wetlands and fragmenting one near Guelph.

This is less environmental damage than feared. The highway as originally planned would have consumed up to 20 hectares of wetlands.

Facing outcry, planners shifted the approved route, to avoid a wetland north of Bridge Street in Kitchener, to skirt rather than bisect other wetlands, and to streamline the crossing of Hopewell Creek.

The new route causes "minimal" damage to the environment, Transportation Minister Donna Cansfield contends.

"It actually reduces the number of crossings along the creeks, and it reduces the impact on the Grand River as a whole," she said.

"If there's further modifications we could make that would actually impact it less, we're open to that."

Environmentalists are unimpressed. They note that wetlands are important natural areas that help recharge underground water supplies, while supporting wildlife.

"They are also places for special animals, like frogs and all kinds of amphibians that live in the wetlands, and birds that are partial to the wetlands," Folzer said.

Critics cite lost farmland as a major concern. "We need our agricultural land," Wharton said. "We want to eat locally. And how are we going to eat locally if we keep chewing up our farmland?"

Affected landowners react differently to the new highway plan.

Al Cassidy has already sold his three-hectare hobby farm on Spitzig Road to the province, because it's in the way of the new highway.

Negotiating the land sale, and dealing with years of highway uncertainty, has taken its toll. "It's been an exhaustive process," he said.

However, he has seen enough of the current highway to know that it is overwhelmed. Building a new highway strikes him as the best solution, to meet community transportation needs over the long term.

"It's a necessity," Cassidy said. "We have no sour grapes over it, having to lose our house. Somebody has to."

Wagner is poised to lose 13 hectares of rented land that he farms between Spitzig and Shantz Station roads. The new highway will also saddle him with pie-shaped lots that will be more difficult to farm than square parcels.

However, he figures a new road will reduce traffic on the current highway, making it safer for farm equipment to travel. He also expects it will keep commuters off local roads, which are filled with drivers fleeing Highway 7.

"It's one of those investments that should have been made long ago, in infrastructure, and would have been probably worthwhile for the whole neighbourhood," Wagner said.

Horse farmer Ed Koch expects the new highway will require up to three hectares of his property on Shantz Station Road.

He's mostly concerned about a proposal to also build a new laneway through his farm. It's meant to access a neighbouring property that will be left landlocked by the new road.

Koch worries the laneway will be a safety hazard, because it will pass too close to unpredictable horses.

"I will fight that if I have to go to the Supreme Court," Koch said.

Koch has been bothered for years by uncertainty about Highway 7 plans. "It's frustrating," he said. "How can you run a business if you don't know if you have to tear down some buildings, possibly?"

He doubts a new road is the solution to gridlock. "Common sense tells me, add another two lanes to the existing one," Koch said.

The province contends a widened highway would be overwhelmed by traffic by 2011.

On Elmira Road, near Guelph, Trevor Vanderpol is tired of fighting the province over his threatened farm. "It's been going on a long time already" he said.

Vanderpol owns 31 hectares that his brother uses to grow wheat, soy and corn. He figures the new highway may take up to a quarter of the farm he grew up on.

Vanderpol contends planners have underestimated the environmental diversity of the Marden wetland behind his house. It will be fragmented by the new road.

He's also upset the highway route was changed after 1997, to come much closer to his house.

This was done, he contends, to increase industrial acreage on the Guelph side of the new highway, and to appease businesses that lobbied against widening the current highway.

"They're going to be just left peachy, and everyone else takes a hit," Vanderpol said. "I get all the negatives."

The government has yet to make an offer for his land.

Vanderpol says he's lodged complaints with various government agencies but has been rebuffed.

Now, he does not know if he should invest in the repair and maintenance of his property. "It just brings so much uncertainty," he says.

The Ministry of Transportation estimates the government will spend $36 million to buy the land it needs for the new highway.

Cansfield contends the route strikes a balance, limiting damage to farms and the environment, while meeting transportation needs.

"We don't take people's lands. We pay fair market value for that land," she said. "It's not like we're taking that land and they're left with nothing."

Environmentalists Folzer and Wharton contend the better solution is to widen the current highway, even though the province claims this will not work.

"I know the old Highway 7 is not too safe the way it is," Folzer said. "But I think they could have just widened that highway and made it safe."

"That's a whole lot cheaper than putting in a brand-new highway, and chewing up wetlands and farmlands," Wharton said.


Hwy 7 plans could face Six Nations oppostion
Province is legally required to consult with local natives
October 01, 2007
JEFF OUTHIT, RECORD STAFF
http://news.therecord.com/article/249626

The new Highway 7 could still be derailed by Six Nations opposition.

"We have not formally received any application from the province to permit them to go through with it," said Aaron Detlor, spokesperson for a new planning department created by traditional chiefs. "We'd have to take a hard look at it."

The people of the Six Nations are interested in the new Highway 7 because:

The elected council lays claim to the Grand River, which would be spanned by the new highway.

Traditional chiefs say development on both sides of the Grand River has to be approved by them.

Natives claim kinship with aboriginals who occupied the route for almost 10,000 years.

"We've been here since the Ice Age," said Paul General, manager of a Six Nations ecology centre.

"I firmly believe that we are genetically tied to that river, we've been here so long."

Ontario is required by law to consult with Six Nations, based on a reserve near Brantford, because a new highway may affect their Grand River claim.

The province has also talked to the Mississaugas of the New Credit, near Brantford.

"We'll continue to work with them and address any additional concerns," Transportation Minister Donna Cansfield said.

Consultations with natives stalled Highway 7 planning for more than a year, after 2005.

The province has not attached a cost to this delay. However, a calculation shows that each year's delay adds $27 million in highway costs.

General, employed by the elected Six Nations council, sees no reason for further delays, if native concerns continue to be addressed.

"Personally, I don't see any difficulty right now, but it's early in the process," he said.

General identified native concerns as sustaining the Grand River claim, protecting traditional plants and medicines, and ensuring highway construction is done in an environmentally sound manner.

"We believe we've addressed those environmental concerns," Cansfield said.

Detlor, speaking for the traditional Six Nations council, is more cautious about Highway 7.

"Generally speaking, we would have to take a very hard and close look at any attempt to put more people into the land, and put more pressure on the environment," Cansfield added.

The people of the Six Nations came here in 1784.

The British granted them lands on the Grand River, grateful for their support during the U.S. War of Independence.

Mohawk Chief Joseph Brant sold highway-area lands in 1798.

Before the Six Nations arrived, the highway route had been occupied for almost 10,000 years.

This ancient activity was revealed in 2003, when archeologists hired by the Transportation Ministry walked the 18-kilometre route.

ARTIFACTS FOUND ON LAND

They found 186 ancient artifacts, at 53 sites to be consumed by the new road, including remnants of stone tools, projectile points, and pieces of ceramic.

Most artifacts were found on the surface, in plowed fields.

"It was not really a surprise to us," archeologist Philip Woodley said.

"Most prehistoric sites are within a couple of hundred metres of watercourses in southern Ontario, and there's a lot of watercourses going through there."

The oldest discovery was a projectile point believed to date back to between 6,900 and 7,700 BC.

It was found in Woolwich Township.

"Obviously, it demonstrates that the settlement of the watershed which happened in 1784 and later is fairly recent, in the grand scheme of things," General said.

"The whole area along the Grand River is one big archeological site," he added.

Woodley said nomadic hunters and gatherers lived along the Highway 7 route before 1,000 BC.

"They would have been out gathering roots and berries, and things like that, for subsistence, as well as hunting," he said.

By the end of the 16th century, Iroquoian farmers had settled in southern Ontario, building large villages.

Woodley doubts there's a native village on the highway route.

"I think we would have found it," he said.

[UrbanWaterloo]

Is there another way?
October 2, 2007 - GUELPH


http://therecord.metrolandwest.com/images/assets/316394_3.JPG
Traffic races along Highway 7 between Guelph and Kitchener while some experts are looking at alternatives to building new highways, such as mass transit systems.

It's 2017. Traffic on Highway 7 moves briskly.

The road is no longer swamped with cars. Instead, people travel easily from their homes in Guelph to workplaces in Kitchener and vice versa on a modern, integrated transit system.

Back in 2007 -- when, for a time, there had been plans for a new Highway 7 costing hundreds of millions of dollars -- about 20,000 commuters travelled Highway 7 daily. But even as the area has continued to grow, that number has dropped.

Thousands of people a day in Guelph and Waterloo Region are getting up around 7:30 a.m. and having a leisurely breakfast before heading out the door. There's no need to check a bus schedule -- a short walk from home, a bus arrives every 15 minutes and whizzes them to the train station downtown.

There, an individual, diesel-propelled rail car awaits them. Because these cars are small, seating 80 or 90 passengers, they're able to run often -- every 15 minutes or so. And the ride takes just long enough to have a coffee -- sold on board -- read the morning's news or fire off a few e-mails.

On the other end, commuters wait no more than 15 minutes for a connecting bus or train that takes them near their workplace.

They get to work unfrazzled by the stress of automobile traffic, without having to worry about parking or the fluctuating price of gas.

And there are plenty of other incentives to take transit. It's cheap -- in fact the whole thing was free for the first month or two, to give people a chance to try it out.

A single ticket gets them from home to work. Advertising is aggressive -- schedules are posted around the downtown and appear regularly in the newspaper.

That world seems far away. But it's the type of scenario envisioned by public transit advocate Paul Langan.

A 2006 study spearheaded by cities between London and Toronto -- including Guelph and Waterloo Region -- said that for a startup cost of less than $80 million, train service between London and Union Station in Toronto could be bumped up to seven peak-direction trains a day -- four more than currently run along that route.

Running that service would cost $3.5 million a year -- an amount more than offset by revenues projected between $5 million and $10 million.

It would be set up in stages, with the Toronto-to-Breslau piece put in within the first five or 10 years at a cost of nearly $20 million, and the rest to follow.

That service would mean fewer cars on the road -- including Highway 7. But it's not enough to get commuters efficiently between Guelph and Kitchener because traffic on that corridor moves in both directions.

Determining how much a commuter service would cost is a difficult proposition. Price tags vary significantly depending on things like the sort of technology that's used and the lay of the land.

Ten years ago, a consultant hired by the province dismissed the idea of rail transit between Guelph and Kitchener as too expensive and unlikely to attract enough passengers to significantly decrease congestion on the highway.

At the time, provincial experts figured a new Highway 7 would cost about $90 million, compared to $140 million to $160 million for rail. The idea of bus transit wasn't even considered, with consultants arguing that because the buses would travel on the same congested road as cars, they wouldn't attract enough riders.

But now that the new road has a price tag of something like $300 million -- which could grow to $400 million by the time it's built -- perhaps it's time to go shopping again.

The province's study of Highway 7 focused on the rail option.

Bus rapid transit is another common mode -- one that was dismissed by the province. But dedicated transit lanes have been built in municipalities around the country.

Bus projects are cheaper to build, but often more expensive to run because they require more drivers and transport fewer people, says Jeff Casello, a civil engineering professor at the University of Waterloo. Bus projects are also easily adjusted to demand -- it's just a matter of running buses more or less frequently. And there are more options to how it can run -- anything from permanent bus-only lanes, lanes that are bus-only during peak periods, to lanes that merge with regular traffic in less congested areas.

Bus service is generally established in new markets, and later upgraded to rail if demand is high enough, said Daniel Francey, acting manager of planning and development for GO Transit, one of the province's biggest providers of commuter transit.

Those services generally start on regular highway lanes, and move to specialized lanes only when there's too much congestion on the highway.

Some of the most efficient bus transit systems exist in Curitiba, Brazil, where a bus system transports 1.3 million passengers a day, and Bogota, Colombia, where the buses take 45,000 people an hour in each direction during rush periods.

But there are functioning bus rapid transit systems in York Region, Los Angeles, Vancouver, Ottawa and Montreal.

Costs of various transit systems are hard to compare -- depending on things like whether new roads need to be built, how fast the buses can travel and what kind of buses are needed. A rapid bus service generally costs about half of light rail.

Waterloo Region is currently pondering rapid transit options. Based on the region's estimates, the overhead for a commuter bus service along the length of Highway 7 would be between $12 million and $530 million -- depending largely on whether buses run in a dedicated lane -- plus roughly $10 million for buses.

That's compared to the region's estimate of between $500 and $850 million for light rail -- a number that eclipses the $300 million expected cost of the new Highway 7. The same report suggests the cost of transit advocate Langan's idea of single, self-propelled diesel rail cars would cost in the range of $300 to $840 million.

Casello argues potential savings are to be had on rail. Running trains on the existing freight lines could reduce the price of light rail between the two cities by more than $100 million. That, though, would limit how often trains can run, and could make them less reliable.

Langan argues transit systems are often set up to fail.

"We have to look at transit as a significant concern and the problem of moving people from A to B instead of building a giant highway and throwing on a few buses," he said.

He said the problem begins with people talking about transit losing money.

"With sewers, you don't say 'Am I losing money?' How much does the road lose?"

Making transit work is going to take a big conceptual shift to overcome decades of road building, he said, calling the building of big freeways like Highway 401 "the biggest failed experiment ever."



HANLON HOPES

http://therecord.metrolandwest.com/images/assets/316395_3.JPG
HANLON IMPROVEMENTS LEGEND
Black circle - Existing full interchange
Red circle - Full interchange
Half red circle - Partial interchange (to/from South)
Red lines - flyover
Red x - Intersection to be closed after adjacent interchange is in place

A new Highway 7 will likely act as an alternate route to Highway 401 for people living in Waterloo Region. City of Guelph staff hope the Hanlon Expressway, which connects Highway 7 with the 401, will be upgraded before the new Highway 7 opens.

Woodlawn Road and Speedvale Avenue will get new interchanges as part of the new Highway 7.

Willow Road will become a bridge over the Hanlon.

Westwood Road, which now travels over the Hanlon, will not change.

Paisley Road will get an interchange.

The Wellington Road interchange won't change.

College Avenue will get a bridge over the Hanlon.

Stone Road will get an interchange.

Kortright Road will get a partial interchange.

The Laird Road interchange is expected to be done by 2011.

Clair Road will stop at the Hanlon.

Maltby Road will stop at the Hanlon -- wetlands prevent the building of an interchange there.

There will be a new interchange between Maltby Road and Wellington Road 34.

Wellington Road 34 will have a bridge over the Hanlon.

The 401 interchange will be redone and Highway 6 south will be rebuilt west of Morriston.

The cost of the Laird Road interchange is being shared by the province and the City of Guelph. The province is expected to pay for all other interchanges, the City of Guelph says.

An environmental assessment is ongoing for interchanges south of the river to the 401.



ONTARIO ELECTION OUTCOME COULD ALTER HIGHWAY 7 PLANS

The provincial Liberals talk about the new highway as if it were a done deal. But with an election looming, anything is possible. Besides, plenty of highways have been promised and then not delivered. Others have been on the table for years, with no road yet to show for it.

County Road 124 from Guelph to Cambridge: Ministry of Transportation spokesperson Bob Nichols points out this is not a provincial highway. But it used to be, until the Mike Harris government downloaded responsibilities for the road to Wellington County in 1996. Before that, discussions of expansion went on for years. In 1992, the province started a study of costs and impacts of building a four-lane highway, and said construction could begin within five to 10 years. Project manager Jim Horton said at the time that parts of the road have twice the number of accidents as similar roads, and argued the expansion is long overdue. In 1993, the province chose a route, and little else happened until the road was downloaded. In the process, the province gave Wellington County the environmental assessment on the expansion, along with an estimated $40-million price tag -- in early 1990s dollars -- for building a new road.

Highway 24 from Brantford to Cambridge: As far back as 2004, local mayors were discussing the need for a better highway link between Brantford and Cambridge. There was discussion of putting in a 400-style highway. A preliminary plan exists to widen the road to four lanes and improve transit and rail connections with the GTA and Hamilton. The area is under study, and the province expects that study to be done in a year and a half.

Proposed expansion to Highway 401 through Waterloo Region: discussion on this started at least in 2000. The plan is to widen the road from Highway 8 to Highway 24, and expand the Townline Road and Homer-Watson bridges to allow for 10 lanes.



Most candidates support highway plan
October 02, 2007
JEFF OUTHIT AND MAGDA KONIECZNA
RECORD AND MERCURY STAFF

Provincial candidates and business leaders support a new Highway 7 despite its soaring cost.

"It's not only a good idea, it's a good idea that's 19 years overdue," said Rick Moffitt, New Democrat candidate in Kitchener Centre.

"We've studied it to death," said Michael Harris, Progressive Conservative candidate in Kitchener-Conestoga. "Let's get on with it."

The new highway "will reduce our stress levels, which is a good thing for all of us," said Leeanna Pendergast, Liberal candidate in Kitchener-Conestoga.

Only the Green Party opposes a new highway heading into the Oct. 10 provincial election.

"It's the stupidest thing I've ever heard," said Judy Greenwood-Speers, Green candidate in Kitchener-Waterloo. "To build a new highway, through the wetlands and the agricultural land, is a foolish waste of money, and does not meet our transportation needs."

Ben Polley, Green candidate in Guelph, agrees. "We must stop spending public tax money on private transportation," he said. "This means no new highways, period."

The provincial government approved a four-lane freeway this year, to end traffic congestion, improve safety and conclude 19 years of planning that began in 1989.

It will run 18 kilometres between Kitchener and Guelph, north of the current two-lane highway.

The cost has soared to $300 million according to the current estimate. It's estimated the final cost could exceed $400 million by 2014, the earliest projected completion date.

Moffitt blames soaring costs on politicians who "dithered too long" before approving the new highway.

"This isn't rocket science stuff," he said. "We've built highways before, and we're at the stage where it needs to be built."

Harris said traffic on the current highway stunts economic growth by making it harder to get employees and goods in and out of the region.

"We need this highway," said John Milloy, Liberal MPP for Kitchener Centre. "In order to continue to grow, and continue with our prosperity, we need a good transportation infrastructure."

Milloy is not dissuaded by rising costs. "I think to put if off because of costs would make no sense," he said.

"This highway has been a necessity now for a number of years," agrees Elizabeth Witmer, Progressive Conservative MPP for Kitchener-Waterloo.

"It's a matter of safety, and it's a matter of making sure that it contributes to the flow of traffic and the growth of the economy," she said.

"If we don't go ahead now, the cost will continue to escalate."

Mark Cairns, New Democrat candidate in Kitchener-Conestoga, said the approved route will do the least damage to the environment.

Cairns and Moffitt favour more public transit between the cities as well. "You can get from Paris to Moscow with public transit," Cairns said. "You can't even go from city to city in Ontario."

Greenwood-Speers, who commutes on Highway 7 to her job in Guelph, also favours better rail transit, to get commuters out of their cars.

She wants the current highway widened, not replaced.

The Ministry of Transportation has rejected widening the current highway, saying traffic would overwhelm it by 2011.

Business leaders say a Highway 7 freeway is needed to support economic growth and improve safety.

"We have strong economic integration between the two communities, and we see that growing," said Todd Letts, president of the Greater Kitchener Waterloo Chamber of Commerce.

Letts has been involved in just one collision in three decades of driving, and it was on Highway 7. "It's a major quality-of-life risk, the risk that businesspeople and employees and the general public are taking on that road, on a regular basis," he said.

The current highway claims one life per year, on average, and injures 27 more. Its collision rate is about average for a highway of its kind.

The freeway is expected to be safer because freeways suffer 25 per cent fewer collisions, on average, than two-lane rural highways.

Linamar Corporation, which makes auto parts in Guelph, expects a new Highway 7 to improve the "very unpleasant" commute endured by many employees who live in Kitchener and Waterloo. "Easier passage will help our existing KW employees experience a safer, more pleasant commute, and also possibly attract additional talent to Linamar previously unwilling to make the journey each day," said Linda Hasenfratz, chief executive officer.

Ian Smith, president of the Guelph Chamber of Commerce, wonders if widening the current highway makes more sense. "I'm not convinced that a brand-new 400-series highway is needed, necessarily," Smith said.

"For $300 million, we could do a lot," he said. "We could get the Hanlon (Expressway) fixed, and widen the existing Highway 7 to four lanes, and kill two birds with one stone, for the same price tag."

All municipal councils on the route have endorsed the new highway.

"We needed it a long time ago," Kitchener Mayor Carl Zehr said. "It's not just a matter of convenience for people being able to get between the two cities in a shorter period of time. It's unsafe."

Guelph MPP Liz Sandals is pleased her government has committed to the new road. "It hasn't progressed so far that a different government couldn't cancel it," she warned.

Some candidates see the promise of a new highway as a political move by the Liberal government.

"I wonder if it really will happen," said Polley of the Green Party in Guelph. "It sounds like politicking just prior to an election."

Transportation Minister Donna Cansfield said she understands why people might be skeptical, after 19 years of planning. "I would be just as skeptical," she said. "We have a firm commitment to this highway to get it completed. And it will be completed."

Sandals said the government had to delay approval for at least a year, to consult with native groups. The timing of Highway 7 approval this year "had nothing to do with provincial elections, trust me," she said.

[UrbanWaterloo]

Highway between Kitchener, Guelph becoming the road more travelled
September 20, 2008
JEFF OUTHIT, RECORD STAFF
http://news.therecord.com/article/417854

There are almost 3,000 more road warriors among us, travelling to jobs outside Waterloo Region.

New data from the 2006 census shows 30,300 residents commuting to outside jobs, up from 27,470 cross-border commuters in 2001.

Guelph is the top commuter destination by far.

There are now 12,480 residents who travel to Wellington County for work. This exceeds all commuters to Toronto and to the regions of Peel, Halton and York.

Since 1996, commuting to Wellington has soared 54 per cent. If you add the reverse commute (Wellington residents heading to jobs here), there are 21,945 people travelling between the communities every working day.

Many drive Highway 7 between Kitchener and Guelph, which at rush hour is more like a parking lot. Others flee the overwhelmed highway for country roads that were never designed to carry them.

As commuter traffic grows, it's galling that Ontario is taking forever to replace Highway 7.

A new freeway, studied since 1989, finally got the green light last year. Detailed design work is underway, but construction is not expected before 2010.

The new freeway will take at least five years to build, costing at least $300 million and possibly more than $400 million by completion.

There's another notable revelation about commuters in the 2006 census. The long drive into the Greater Toronto Area on Highway 401 has flatlined.

The latest census found 10,665 residents heading to jobs in Peel, Toronto, Halton and York. That's up from 10,345 commuters in 2001, a minor increase of just three per cent.

Many local politicians don't want this region to become a bedroom community for greater Toronto. This does not seem to be happening with any vigour.

The local economy, it appears, has been providing jobs to keep residents at home. In fact, it's luring more outsiders.

The 2006 census found 5,155 residents of the Greater Toronto Area who commute to jobs here. While this is just half the flow from here to there, it's up 55 per cent since 2001.

There's now a better balance to the commuter flow between this region and greater Toronto.

Keep in mind, these numbers are two years old and the economy has struggled since. But what happened to commuting patterns between 2001 and 2006 is good news.

[UrbanWaterloo]

Highway 7 gets carpool lot, new pavement
August 22, 2009
http://news.therecord.com/article/588555

It’s a baby step worth trying. A carpool parking lot will be built at the site of the former Breslau hotel, 300 metres south of Highway 7.

The small gravel lot, just east of Kitchener, may open by next month. It will have space for 25 cars. The idea, proposed by regional Coun. Jim Wideman, is that commuters to Guelph can park there and share rides.

The lot will be lit. It will be plowed in the winter. It will have a sign. There will be no other services, and no special security.

The lot is in the middle of the Breslau neighbourhood, at 41 Woolwich St. S. Planners say cars will be visible from the street.

It’s not known how many Highway 7 commuters will use the lot, if any. But there’s a large potential market. A 2006 survey found 3,700 residents of Kitchener, Waterloo, Wellesley and Woolwich who commute to Guelph jobs.

Waterloo regional council plans to operate the lot for a year, then decide if it’s worth continuing.

Taxpayers will spend about $55,000 to prepare it, mostly to install lights. It may cost $7,000 a year to maintain, mostly to clear snow.

That’s not chump change. But it won’t drain public coffers.

The publicly-owned lot is too small to ease Highway 7 traffic. But a few commuters might find it useful. If it’s popular, planners can look for a bigger, better site. If not, it was worth trying.

The hope is that if commuters use it, the province can later be persuaded to add a carpool lot to the new Highway 7 that’s been approved, but not built, between Kitchener and Guelph. The new highway is planned to run just north of the current highway.

As for the current Highway 7, it’s being resurfaced in Kitchener, for more than four kilometres between Frederick and Fountain streets. That’s your stimulus dollars at work, over $4 million worth.

Paving is done only in the evenings, to limit traffic impacts. But curb repairs must be done during the day, the project manager says. This means closing curb lanes, outside the morning and afternoon rush hours.

Expect frustrating delays. Warning signs are up on the edges and on two major crossroads. Curb repairs may be completed within two weeks. Paving may continue into October.

Highway 7 will be in better shape when the work is done. But the road will still be overwhelmed.

[Spokes]

New carpool lot open near Hwy 7 in Breslau

January 16, 2010
Record staff

Regional government has opened a 25-space carpool lot near Highway 7 in Breslau, east of Kitchener, to encourage commuters to share rides between Waterloo Region and Guelph.

The small parking lot is 500 metres from the highway at 41 Woolwich St. S. Politicians hope the lot will help tell them if there’s a greater demand for carpool parking on the busy commuter route. Its use is to be reviewed after one year.

http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/657504 (http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/657504)

[Spokes]

Province needs to firm up Highway 7 plans

March 12, 2010
By Jeff Outhit

Three years ago this month, Ontario pledged to replace Highway 7 between Kitchener and Guelph. We’re still waiting.

“This highway will be built,” then-transportation minister Donna Cansfield said in 2007. She even promised to fast-track it.

Today, Kathleen Wynne is transportation minister, Cansfield is out of the provincial cabinet, the province is broke and the government refuses to confirm construction funding.

Behind the scenes, the Ministry of Transportation is still designing the new highway and buying property. Wynne refused an interview, but her spokesperson said: “Our government remains committed to building the new highway.”

There’s much at stake. More than 19,000 people commute daily between Waterloo Region and Guelph. The current two-lane highway carries at least 1,300 more vehicles per day than it can practically handle.

This congestion forces motorists into bottlenecks, creates safety hazards when drivers make poor passing decisions, and nudges drivers onto back roads not meant to carry them. Collisions claim one life per year, on average, and injure 27 more.

Widening the highway would achieve little, governments agree, because it would be quickly overwhelmed as well.

The new Highway 7 will consume a 100-metre swath just north of the current highway. Four lanes will be divided by a grassy median. The estimated cost (in 2007) was $300 million.

It will be safer. Divided highways suffer 25 per cent fewer collisions, on average. When completed, you’ll be able to drive 18 kilometres between the cities in under 11 minutes. It will be without congestion until well past 2028.

The new highway will draw traffic from overwhelmed country roads and from Kitchener’s Bridgeport area, allowing for more homes to be built nearby.

Critics complain of environmental impacts. The route has been adjusted to avoid the heaviest damage. However, the new highway will span the Grand River, bisect a wetland and consume 144 hectares of farmland.

GO trains between the cities, approved but also unfunded, would not draw enough commuters to avoid a new highway.

This year, the province has three opportunities to confirm a construction launch. The government will soon unveil its 2010-2011 budget. A highway construction forecast for 2009-2013 is due out this month. It’s been delayed since August. A highway forecast looking ahead to 2014 is due this summer.

Replacing Highway 7 is overdue. The government needs to get on with it. Or it needs to tell the public that it intends to break its word.

http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/683507

[Shawn]

Highway has political support
MAGDA KONIECZNA, MERCURY STAFF
GUELPH
October 2, 2007
http://news.guelphmercury.com/printArticle/245487

http://media.guelphmercury.topscms.com/images/90/5d/8b385a484bffb9f9062dbe2f2e5b.jpeg

With a provincial election looming, almost all candidates support the plan to build a new Highway 7.

The Green Party is the only one against the plan.

"We must stop spending public tax money on private transportation," said Ben Polley, the party's Guelph candidate. "This means no new highways, period."

All other candidates for the two ridings most affected by the highway -- Guelph and Kitchener-Conestoga, where the highway begins and ends -- support the new highway, and many suggest the route also needs additional transit options.

Leeanna Pendergast, the Liberal candidate in Kitchener-Conestoga, argues the ability to easily get around is key to any community.

"(The new highway) will reduce our stress levels, which is a good thing for all of us."

Guelph MPP Liz Sandals remembers commuting along Highway 7 as a graduate student in the 1960s and '70s.

"You crawled over there in the morning and crawled back at dinner," she recalls. And so she's glad the Liberal government finally committed to the new road, though she says that with an upcoming provincial election, nothing is certain.

"It hasn't progressed so far that a different government couldn't cancel it," she said.

But with the polls showing the Liberals or Conservatives most likely to form the next government, Tory candidates in both ridings are fully behind the new road.

"We've studied it to death. Let's get on with it," said Michael Harris, the Conservative candidate for Kitchener-Conestoga. He argued traffic on the existing highway is a barrier to economic growth, making it tough for companies to get employees and goods in and out of the region.

That was echoed by Bob Senechal, Guelph's Conservative candidate, who called traffic along the current road "bumper to bumper."

The planned road takes into account concerns brought forward by all parties, said Karan Mann-Bowers, the NDP candidate in Guelph. But although she supports the new highway, she hopes commuters will be aware of the sacrifices those en route had to make.

"I'm hoping individuals accessing that road are at least aware of concerns of people in that area," she said.

Her counterpart in Kitchener-Conestoga, Mark Cairns, says years of study have minimized the effect on those who live between the two cities and have come up with a configuration that least harms the environment.

TRANSIT

Most candidates for the two affected ridings believe the new road must be accompanied by additional transit options.

The Green Party's Polley says because many commuters travel on the same route up and down Highway 7, there's a strong economic and environmental case to be made for transit, perhaps a designated bus corridor similar to Ottawa's bus rapid transit. The existing Greyhound service doesn't run buses frequently enough, he said.

The NDP's Cairns argued publicly funded transit is needed in addition to the private Greyhound buses on that route, because it would be cheaper.

"You can get from Paris to Moscow with public transit. You can't even go from city to city in Ontario," he said.

That sentiment was echoed by Guelph's Communist Party candidate, Drew Garvie. His party argues all transit should be public. "We don't feel companies should make a profit off riders, and riders should control their own transit."

It takes a lifestyle change to switch from driving to taking transit, so transit needs to be publicly funded so it can entice riders through low fares, he said.

That's precisely the wrong way to implement reasonable intercity transit, said David Driver, the Freedom Party candidate in Kitchener-Conestoga.

"Anybody who has the willingness should be able to set up transit," he said.

But Mann-Bowers of the NDP believes the existing transit options -- Greyhound buses and Via trains that run between downtown Kitchener and downtown Guelph -- are adequate.

"We know the existing highway is not working, but if commuters are content with being able to drive their own vehicles and access the Greyhound, do we need more transit?" she asked.

POLITICKING

Some candidates were quick to suggest the promise of a new highway is a political move.

"That highway has been announced a number of times," said the Green Party's Polley. "I wonder if it really will happen. It sounds like politicking just prior to an election."

John Gots, the Guelph candidate for the Family Coalition Party, echoed that view.

"I don't believe anything anymore," after so many years of discussing but not building the new highway, he said.

But Sandals said the timing of the announcement last March that the new highway would in fact go ahead was coincidental.

"Had it not been sent back for consultation with First Nations, the (environmental assessment) would've been done a year or two ago," she said. "It had nothing to do with provincial elections, trust me."

mkonieczna@guelphmercury.com

CANDIDATES SHARE THEIR OPINIONS ON A NEW HIGHWAY 7

GUELPH

Drew Garvie, Communist Party of Canada: build the highway, but put in lots of public, intercity transit

Bob Senechal, Conservative: build the highway and include transit, such as light rail, at the same time

John Gots, Family Coalition Party: the new highway is overdue, but frequent light rail should be put in as well

Ben Polley, Green Party: no new highways of any kind; focus on adding transit

Liz Sandals, Liberal (seeking re-election): the highway should be built as announced by the provincial Liberals. But she warns the project could be cancelled, depending on who wins the election.

Karan Mann-Bowers, NDP: the new highway is overdue. The current transit options -- Greyhound buses and Via Rail -- are adequate.

KITCHENER-CONESTOGA

Michael Harris, Conservative: build a new highway, and put in rapid transit along Highway 401.

Len Solomon, Family Coalition Party: build the new highway and invest gas taxes into affordable transit.

David Driver, Freedom Party: the new highway should be built, and transit should be deregulated so competing transit options could exist along the highway.

Leeanna Pendergast, Liberal: build the new highway, and push for rapid transit between Toronto, Guelph and Kitchener.

Mark Cairns, NDP: build the new highway, but put in public transit on the route.

WHAT IT WILL COST

Driving costs for Highway 7

If built in 2007, the new

highway would cost:

$256 million for construction.

$36 million to acquire land.

$2 million for planning (to date).

Here's how construction costs break down per section:

The Wellington Street interchange in Kitchener would cost $64 million.

Wellington Street to Ebycrest Road, including new bridges over the Grand River, would cost $78 million.

Ebycrest Road to Shantz Station Road would cost $35 million.

Shantz Station Road to Elmira Road in Guelph would cost $60 million.

Elmira Road to Woodlawn Road in Guelph would cost $19 million.

Here's how construction costs break down per component:

Concrete structures: $108 million

Engineering costs: $35 million

Asphalt: $30 million

Minor items: $26 million

Earth-moving: $23 million

Contingencies: $18 million

Gravel: $12 million

Stormwater basins: $1 million

Compiled by Mercury staff

[Waterlooer]

Does anyone know where I could find some maps for the planed highway 7 and wellington interchange?

[Duke-of-Waterloo]

Does anyone know where I could find some maps for the planed highway 7 and wellington interchange?

McCormick Rankin Corporation, the consultants doing the detailed design used to have a really old environmental assessment website that was live a couple of months ago, but was recently shut down. It had the full EA Terms of Reference showing the complex interchange with Highway 85. I do know that the interchange will be a 4-level stack, something not currently seen in Ontario outside of the GTA. The EA has long been complete though, so I'm guessing they no longer saw a need for the website. I will try to find something, and post it here if I do.

[Waterlooer]

McCormick Rankin Corporation, the consultants doing the detailed design used to have a really old environmental assessment website that was live a couple of months ago, but was recently shut down. It had the full EA Terms of Reference showing the complex interchange with Highway 85. I do know that the interchange will be a 4-level stack, something not currently seen in Ontario outside of the GTA. The EA has long been complete though, so I'm guessing they no longer saw a need for the website. I will try to find something, and post it here if I do.
DO you know where I could find the EA?

[Urbanomicon]

I do know that the interchange will be a 4-level stack, something not currently seen in Ontario outside of the GTA.

A 4-level stack would be very overkill for the amount of traffic highway 7 handles. I would really like to see the justification for such a high-capacity interchange.

[smably]

There is already a high-capacity interchange at Wellington, built with the expectation that there would be a Highway 7 connection there eventually. Why are they rebuilding it?

[Urbanomicon]

For reference (for anyone that doesn't know), this is what a four-level stack interchange looks like. It is the height of a 5-6 story building and is one of the highest-capacity interchanges possible. I do not see how this is justified at the highway 85 / 7 interchange.

http://members.cox.net/mkpl/interchange/4lv_62.jpg
http://www.texasfreeway.com/houston/photos/610w/images/610w_10.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/1/1b/20060214144224!Four-stack-interchange.png


http://www.texasfreeway.com/houston/photos/610w/images/610w_10.jpg
http://members.cox.net/mkpl/interchange/4lv_62.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/1/1b/20060214144224!Four-stack-interchange.png

[RangersFan]

Thanks for the pictures, I was not sure what a four layer stack was, looks like it would take a great deal of planning to put a design like that together.

[taylortbb]

The conclusion was that the current Wellington interchange would be overloaded within 20 or 30 years of construction, which is the forecasting timeframe for something expensive to replace like an interchange (road widenings are 10 years, easy to widen later). I also heard some justification relating to space constraints at that interchange. Maybe it's also related to the collector/express split used for Victoria and Wellington?

The interchange is certainly expensive, last I heard it alone represented 25% of the total price. This seems to be to be perfect for GO. They've studied it and said "transit wouldn't get enough users", but as long as we continue to build these gigantic highways while providing no transit service it doesn't take a genius to see it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Traffic congestion is one of the most effective ways of getting people on to transit. Frequent all-day two-way GO service should work great here.

I've also read some opinions that the problem could simply be solved with the Fairway road extension. Fairway will link to Kossuth, which goes over to Highway 24 and right up into Guelph. It would provide a faster route for a huge chunk of Kitchener's population (south Kitchener), so it should see a significant shift.

[mpd618]

If this is to be a four-level stack, I think there would be substantial momentum for a movement to prevent that kind of monstrosity from being built in this region. Enough is enough -- drivers don't need more road capacity, they need space on the road for their own car. We already have a fine highway system. But our highways are a scarce resource we're not metering, nor are we providing alternatives to them.

[Waterlooer]

Hello! I created a quick drawing using MS Paint to create what I think the highway 85/7/Wellington Street interchange might look like. I just posted it on a website I just created. Here is the link: http://transit.yolasite.com/picture-gallery.php
The yellow is road to highway ramps, orange is highway to highway ramps, blue is bridges, green is a bridge that's taller than the blue bridge, red is highway 7, and the goldish-brown colour is ramps/roads that should be demolished.

[Urbanomicon]

Hello! I created a quick drawing using MS Paint to create what I think the highway 85/7/Wellington Street interchange might look like. I just posted it on a website I just created. Here is the link: http://transit.yolasite.com/picture-gallery.php
The yellow is road to highway ramps, orange is highway to highway ramps, blue is bridges, green is a bridge that's taller than the blue bridge, red is highway 7, and the goldish-brown colour is ramps/roads that should be demolished.


Looks good, but they are appearantly planning to put a 4-level stack interchange in there (see previous posts). Although your proposal is much more reasonable in my opinion.

[neonjoe]

Hello! I created a quick drawing using MS Paint to create what I think the highway 85/7/Wellington Street interchange might look like. I just posted it on a website I just created. Here is the link: http://transit.yolasite.com/picture-gallery.php
The yellow is road to highway ramps, orange is highway to highway ramps, blue is bridges, green is a bridge that's taller than the blue bridge, red is highway 7, and the goldish-brown colour is ramps/roads that should be demolished.
Pretty cool, I can only see one pretty big problem with this proposal with two ramps entering the existing highway between wellington and victoria imagine how the weave for someone trying to get off at the slip ramps for victoria will be. I think the actual proposal has some sort of separation of those two as property is required between frederick and wellington for the new structures.

[Waterlooer]

Looks good, but they are appearantly planning to put a 4-level stack interchange in there (see previous posts). Although your proposal is much more reasonable in my opinion.

Thanks! I don't know how they could possibly put in a 4-level stack interchange... is it necessary?

[Waterlooer]

Pretty cool, I can only see one pretty big problem with this proposal with two ramps entering the existing highway between wellington and victoria imagine how the weave for someone trying to get off at the slip ramps for victoria will be. I think the actual proposal has some sort of separation of those two as property is required between frederick and wellington for the new structures.

OK, interesting. Thanks for letting me know.

[smably]

Thanks! I don't know how they could possibly put in a 4-level stack interchange... is it necessary?
Most of us think it's completely ridiculous, but the MTO gets off on overbuilt highway infrastructure, so that's what we're getting.

[TripleQ]

Ok, after much much much digging (this has been on my mind for awhile), I found the council agenda that had a copy of the proposed interchange. It's from 2002 so I'm not sure how relevant is it now, but it shows the proposed 4 level stack. (It's on the last page of the pdf)

Maybe someone can post this to scribd

http://www.region.waterloo.on.ca/WEB/Region.nsf/8f9c046037662cd985256af000711418/B3AAA4ABF7925AFF85256B5A00651D28/$file/APDXA-P-022.pdf?openelement

And here's the link to the council agenda with the EA (see section 13)

http://www.region.waterloo.on.ca/WEB/Region.nsf/8f9c046037662cd985256af000711418/b3aaa4abf7925aff85256b5a00651d28!OpenDocument

[Urbanomicon]

Done.

31679258&access_key=key-14e8vr325rheqfye5f83&page

[Urbanomicon]

I feel a little better now. It's only a half 4-level stack, heading towards Guelph only. In the other direction it is a folded diamond interchange with lights at Wellington Street. It's still overkill, but not completely rediculous.

Also, great find TripleQ!

[Waterlooer]

Thanks for finding that! I think it's unnecessary for it to be that big still.

[TripleQ]

Thanks for finding that! I think it's unnecessary for it to be that big still.

What's that in your avatar? ;)

[Waterlooer]

What's that in your avatar? ;)
Oh haha! I like the way it looks!

[jtouch]

TripleQ beat me to it, but here is a more detailed clipping from the EA pdf from the website that's since gone offline.


15
-----
http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/4449/kweinterchange.jpg

I agree that it's a bit overkill, but whoever mention there was already a "high capacity" interchange here is overlooking the fact that it only has "high" capacity to go westbound on Wellington. It's actually quite a poor interchange going eastbound, as it exists today with a tight NB->EB ramp and a left turn from SB->EB.

Aside from cost, I think the biggest drawback of this plan will be Victoria/Frederick st. accessibility. It will be a bit of a hike (+ multiple lights) to get from Frederick on to the expressway, especially to southbound KWE.

Not to worry. It'll be 10 years before ground is broken, if ever... I've never heard of any actual funding for this project.

[Spokes]

Thanks for posting that. And welcome to Wonderful Waterloo!

[Duke-of-Waterloo]

TripleQ beat me to it, but here is a more detailed clipping from the EA pdf from the website that's since gone offline.


If the website is offline, how did you find this? Was it saved on your computer? The EA website was running less than a year ago, but I don't think I saved the document (ESR) to my computer. Thanks for posting it by the way for those like me who were looking for it once again.

[isUsername]

Here's an overlay I made to give it some more context:

http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/782/googlemapsarielwhwy7pla.png

[neonjoe]

Looks like this will be delayed until beyond 2015.
http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/811432

Ontario stalls new Highway 7 while trains touted
By Jeff Outhit, Record staff
WATERLOO REGION — Ontario’s Liberal government has further stalled a new Highway 7 between Kitchener and Guelph, delaying it until 2015 or later.

“Right now, with the resources we have, we can’t go forward,” said John Milloy, Kitchener Centre MPP and member of the provincial cabinet. He blames the poor economy and a record provincial deficit reaching $19 billion.

However, his government appears poised to launch commuter trains to both cities. Government news releases say cabinet ministers will visit Guelph and Kitchener Nov. 12 for major public transit announcements about trains.

Milloy is making the Kitchener announcement but would not confirm that his government will extend GO Transit trains from Milton, an approved plan that lacks funding.

“We’ve taken a balanced approach,” Milloy said, asked if his government puts transit funding ahead of highways.

Today’s two-lane Highway 7 carries at least 1,300 more vehicles a day than it can practically handle between Kitchener and Guelph.

Chronic congestion forces motorists into bottlenecks, creates safety hazards when drivers make poor passing decisions, and pushes drivers onto country roads not meant to carry them.

Local politicians are dismayed by the latest delay. Expansion planning was launched 21 years ago.

“It’s just ridiculous,” Cambridge Mayor Doug Craig said. “Highway 7 is kind of the symbol of progress, in terms of getting roads done, and nothing has happened.”

Craig said the province needs to rethink how it builds highways or hand the job and money to local governments. “There’s no excuse for it, absolutely none,” he said.

“It’s disappointing but not unexpected, given the current economic climate,” Regional Chair Ken Seiling said.

The Liberal government approved a new Highway 7 in 2007 at the urging of local councils, business leaders and commuters. Then-transportation minister Donna Cansfield pledged to build it as soon as possible, saying it had been “put off for too damn long.”

“When we said that, we were in a much different financial situation,” Milloy said. “As soon as possible has taken on a different meaning, in terms of the financial situation we’re in.”

The province revealed its latest Highway 7 delay in its 2010-2014 construction forecast, recently released. The forecast assigns five local highway expansions to undetermined dates past 2014. Two highway expansions will conclude by 2013.

Milloy said the Ministry of Transportation continues to design the new Highway 7 and buy land. “They’ll be ready to go as soon as resources are available,” he said.

If built, the new Highway 7 will consume a 100-metre swath just north of the current highway. Four lanes will be divided by a grassy median.

The route was adjusted to avoid the heaviest environmental impacts. However, the new highway will span the Grand River, bisect a wetland and consume 144 hectares of farmland.

The 2006 census found 22,000 people commute daily between Waterloo Region and Wellington County, exceeding the commute between this region and the Greater Toronto Area.

Planners have rejected proposals to widen the existing highway, saying traffic would quickly overwhelm a wider but undivided highway.

Prior to 2007, collisions on Highway 7 claimed on average one life per year between the borders of Guelph and Kitchener, according to the Ministry of Transportation. Another 27 people were injured.

jouthit@therecord.com

[plam]

Looks like this will be delayed until beyond 2015.
http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/811432

“It’s just ridiculous,” Cambridge Mayor Doug Craig said. “Highway 7 is kind of the symbol of progress, in terms of getting roads done, and nothing has happened.”

Craig said the province needs to rethink how it builds highways or hand the job and money to local governments. “There’s no excuse for it, absolutely none,” he said.


Huh, I didn't know that Cambridge was between Guelph and Kitchener. Learn something new every day.

I also see that Doug Craig is very much into building highways!

[Galtonian]

I would think its safe to say that Mayor Doug Craig supports other initiatives in our neighbouring cities. IMO I think its partly because this new highway would help reduce congestion on highway 24 from the 401 Cambridge to Guelph as I would assume some people from south Kitchener would take the Cambridge route to Guelph for their jobs in Wellington County.

[zanate]

I would think its safe to say that Mayor Doug Craig supports other initiatives in our neighbouring cities. IMO I think its partly because this new highway would help reduce congestion on highway 24 from the 401 Cambridge to Guelph as I would assume some people from south Kitchener would take the Cambridge route to Guelph for their jobs in Wellington County.

Or maybe Outhit just has Craig on speed dial.

[Galtonian]

Or maybe Outhit just has Craig on speed dial.

That's very much a possibility ;-)

[smably]

I think Jeff is starting to get worried that maybe he won't get his precious highway after all. By 2015, GO trains will be well established and there may even be reverse-direction DMU service from Guelph to Kitchener. (Maybe there will even be talk of electrification and all-day GO service by then! I can dream.) There will probably be some connection between Guelph Transit and GRT. If we're lucky, a shiny new light rail system will have just opened. I doubt we will ever see traffic volumes on Highway 7 go down; but, in five years, growth in auto traffic may well be slowing. The price of gas will be higher, and the price of a new highway will too. Just saying...

[Duke-of-Waterloo]

Looks like this will be delayed until beyond 2015.


This is disappointing. :RpS_thumbdn:

[markster]

I think Jeff is starting to get worried that maybe he won't get his precious highway after all.
It will come in time.

I believe that the Highway 7 project will ultimately need to be built if only because there is a dearth of crossings of the Grand River and through roads to Guelph.
However, I also think that the scale of the project needs to be appropriate, and full stack interchange is overkill. Further, it needs to be balanced with funding for mass transit alternatives. If the road can get $250 million, then rails should also get a serious funding committment.

[dunkalunk]

We may find with improved transit alternatives, a new full controlled access highway may not be needed and we could get away with something like a divided highway with controlled intersections. Its good that the province is funding and looking at alternatives instead of defaulting on a new highway. The major thing that bothers me with the existing proposal is the 100m wide right of way for a highway which would not need expansion for half a century.

[Spokes]

Huh, I didn't know that Cambridge was between Guelph and Kitchener. Learn something new every day.

I also see that Doug Craig is very much into building highways!

No surprise there though, Craig seems to always find something that upsets him

[Spokes]

I think Jeff is starting to get worried that maybe he won't get his precious highway after all. By 2015, GO trains will be well established and there may even be reverse-direction DMU service from Guelph to Kitchener. (Maybe there will even be talk of electrification and all-day GO service by then! I can dream.) There will probably be some connection between Guelph Transit and GRT. If we're lucky, a shiny new light rail system will have just opened. I doubt we will ever see traffic volumes on Highway 7 go down; but, in five years, growth in auto traffic may well be slowing. The price of gas will be higher, and the price of a new highway will too. Just saying...

But if this highway doesn't get built, it means people are actually using public transit. What's Jeff going to write about then???

[KevinL]

We may find with improved transit alternatives, a new full controlled access highway may not be needed and we could get away with something like a divided highway with controlled intersections.

Agreed. Presumably that means we can use the Woolwich St interchange as built, and not go overboard with a massive upgrade.

[Urbanomicon]

Agreed. Presumably that means we can use the Woolwich St interchange as built, and not go overboard with a massive upgrade.

I think you mean Wellington Street.

[Waterlooer]

The highway 7 project
Apr 13, 2011 | 570 News | Link (http://www.570news.com/radio/570news/article/211571--the-highway-7-project)


Regional Councillors put the pedal to the metal to question an MTO engineer on why the Highway 7 project to Guelph is taking so long.

MTO Senior Project Engineer, Robert Bakalarczyk spoke to councillors during a committee meeting yesterday, but he and a colleague only had information on new plans for a handful of bridges and intersections between the Expressway and the edge of the Region's land.

Some councillors, however, questioned Bakalarczyk on why the project has been taking years, if not decades.

Bakalarczyk says only now are they getting to the point of really being able to start the necessary property acquisition along the highway, and that's going to take at least two and a half years to complete.

After that comes funding approval, final design decisions, and then at least five years of construction, he says -- that puts the project completion in the year 2020 at the earliest.

But even that depends on the project getting onto the province's five-year plan for funding first.

The end result will be a four-lane divided freeway from Kitchener to Guelph that will cost $400-million, including the property acquisition.

Bakalarczyk says given the fact they have to build forty-one structures and intersections within the 18-kilometre stretch, that cost is comparable to other highway projects.

And he adds, so is the timeline.

He says since the Environmental Assessment was approved in 2007, the MTO has done extensive foundation work, finished the design work, and bought some properties.

Councillor Sean Strickland asked Bakalarczyk if the MTO is aware the project has become a "laughing stock" in the eyes of the public.

Councillor Todd Cowan joked when the Highway 7 project first came up, the Leafs had just won the Stanley Cup.

[dunkalunk]

I've been sitting on this concept (http://goo.gl/maps/6jI2) for too long; time to share it.

http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=http:%2F%2Fmaps.google.ca%2Fmaps%2Fms%3Fie%3DUTF 8%26hl%3Den%26vps%3D2%26jsv%3D341a%26msa%3D0%26out put%3Dnl%26msid%3D203319728042495193153.0004a2f377 7fb585afef5&aq=&sll=43.470508,-80.449491&sspn=0.048773,0.077162&ie=UTF8&ll=43.462856,-80.471935&spn=0.012195,0.01929&t=h&z=165

Basically, the existing interchange between Highway 7 and the Conestoga Parkway would be modified slightly and Wellington Street would be extended to meet directly with Shirley Ave. Highway 7 would be rerouted to the mostly industrial Bingemans Centre Drive from Lackner Blvd to the Conestoga Parkway.

The new interchange and road segment (Christie Drive) also opens up the possibility for a park-and-ride intermodal hub to be built here for GO trains, Local GRT routes, and express bus routes on the Conestoga Parkway and Victoria.

The ramp realignment has the benefits of creating new developable plots of land, removing intercity traffic from what should be local sidestreets, and slightly improving trip time by car between Kitchener and Guelph.

Although it would not preclude the proposed Highway 7 Bypass and Bridge, it would ensure that something here would actually get built as opposed to nothing. Just consider it stage one of a three-stage project, in which stages 2 and 3 are never constructed, but instead supplanted by frequent, quick rail service. Once good rail service is in place, people will forget the need to have a highway here in the first place and instead just opt to widen and improve the safety of the existing Highway 7. It is my hope that the full highway 7 freeway never gets constructed.

[Crumsie]

Why can't the existing highway 7 be widened instead of building a whole separate highway?

[dunkalunk]

Because it wouldn't meet demand for whatever future screenline they came up with, i think it was 2035? In any case, very valid question.

[Waterlooer]

I think a highway is still the best option though. People want to get to Guelph or Kitchener fast, on an expressway. Also, they will eventually have to have 6 lanes (3 in each direction) to meet demand.

[Urbanomicon]

I think a highway is still the best option though. People want to get to Guelph or Kitchener fast, on an expressway. Also, they will eventually have to have 6 lanes (3 in each direction) to meet demand.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the proposed highway 7 essentially going to be a four lane rural highway with stop lights and no grade separated interchanges? I don't recall reading that the MTO was planning to build this highway to 400 series standards.

[mpd618]

I think a highway is still the best option though. People want to get to Guelph or Kitchener fast, on an expressway. Also, they will eventually have to have 6 lanes (3 in each direction) to meet demand.

It is not really possible to meet demand on a highway between two cities like this. Build a 400-series-level highway and you will get tons more people travelling between Kitchener and Guelph because suddenly they are "close" - especially considering population growth. And then you get calls for widening it further at a massive cost.

Everything else being equal, sure, a limited-access highway is better for an intercity trip than a 4-lane road. But everything else is not equal, most notably the price tag. At this point a limited-access Highway 7 would probably cost around $500 million, while just $100 million could probably pay for a widening of Highway 7 to include a median, four lanes, roundabouts, and a multi-use path. The money left over would be more than enough to buy the rail corridor between Kitchener and Guelph, double-track it, improve it for fast operation, electrify it, and start all day train service using EMUs -- and probably to do the same thing between Cambridge and Guelph. (For that matter, if we had that it's not clear that the widening would even be a good investment.)

[BigCityBoy]

[QUOTE=mpd618;34787] It is not really possible to meet demand on a highway between two cities like this. Build a 400-series-level highway and you will get tons more people travelling between Kitchener and Guelph because suddenly they are "close" - especially considering population growth. And then you get calls for widening it further at a massive cost.



I'm not sure what you mean here. I certainly don't think that people will simply use a highway because it is there - people generally drive on routes in directions that they need to go. There is over-demand for the current route between Guelph and Kitchener so logically there is a need for expansion? I suppose what you mean is had we never built the 401 there would be no one living in Brampton, Mississauga, or North York? I think not. The road expansion generally comes after the proven demand (given the cost). I do take your point that it would make it more attractive to travel between the two but it is hardly attractive now and yet there is still a heavy demand on this route.

And on a side note, let's not forget that roads are still the principle form of transportation for commerce. The easier it is to transport goods between communities increases productivity. I know that many feel that roads are anethema (or perhaps anethematic?) to the new 'green' revolution, but they do serve a very important purpose.

[Daev]

I am just here to add my two cents to this route.

I like Urbanomicon's suggestion of using part funding for widening and utilizing the remaining funds towards electrified trains between the two cities. While we do need to accompany more cars along here, it's the same problem that we see with every highway in this region.

Give people an alternative to driving to Guelph first. In my opinion it should be rapid transit that makes it's way there first before this road. We should be providing the incentives for people to get out of cars, not back in them. You will most likely see a lot of support behind it, especially given that Guelph is a very liberal minded community.

Once you have that line and still find cause for expansion of the 7, then we should go ahead with widening the road. Turning that highway into Limited-Access is probably about the worst thing you could do. As we have proven time and time again in this region, widening our roads only encourages more to drive and fill up those extra lanes. Turning Highway 7 into Limited-Access is going to start looking like Highway 8 all over again.

[metropolis]

I'm not sure what you mean here. I certainly don't think that people will simply use a highway because it is there - people generally drive on routes in directions that they need to go. There is over-demand for the current route between Guelph and Kitchener so logically there is a need for expansion? I suppose what you mean is had we never built the 401 there would be no one living in Brampton, Mississauga, or North York? I think not. The road expansion generally comes after the proven demand (given the cost). I do take your point that it would make it more attractive to travel between the two but it is hardly attractive now and yet there is still a heavy demand on this route.

To a degree you are right about roads being the primary way to get around but it does not need to be so nor is this the most cost effective or even efficient way to get around. What mpd618 is talking about is discontinuing the status quo and taking the money we continue to invest in roads and move some of it to alternative modes of transport.

There are dozens, if not hundreds of studies now that show road building and expansion creates demand. He is how: People make living decisions based on how easy it is to get somehwere. If a highway is built the percieved drive becomes easier and people make living decision based on this perception. i.e. I will buy a house in Guelph cause I like it there instead of Waterloo even though I work there. The problem becomes that thousands of others make the same decision and so you get gridlock. The city/province then expands the road/highway to again make the drive easier and again thousands make the decision based on perceive ease of access and again create gridlock.

This is a never ending cycle that at some point we need to stop and providing convenient and cost efficient alterntives is how we can try.
In short Brampton, Mississauga and North York would still probably exist but not the way they do today had we not built and continued to expand our highways.

[zanate]

I'm not sure what you mean here. I certainly don't think that people will simply use a highway because it is there - people generally drive on routes in directions that they need to go.

It's worth googling up "Induced Traffic". It has been shown repeatedly that more and wider roads lead to more traffic. People make trip decisions they would not have otherwise made.

This article is a good starting point on the subject, and specifically addresses the non-intuitiveness of it all: Why Building Roads Creates Traffic (http://www.infrastructurist.com/2011/06/06/why-building-roads-creates-traffic/). It is very likely that there's a lot of latent or potential demand for trips between Kitchener and Guelph-- the state of Hwy 7 and intercity transit inhibits a lot of trips. This may take the form of people who choose not to visit for leisure (if I had good non-vehicular access to downtown Guelph, you'd never pry me out of the Woolwich Arrow (http://www.woolwicharrow.ca/), for instance) or who won't take a job-- or will move closer to a job-- that is in the other city.

You're right that the existing route is pretty saturated, and it's overdue for expansion. We should ask the question about how to best serve that latent demand, though. If we splurge on a limited-access freeway, it will see a lot more traffic than a simply widened Highway 7. Could some of those trips be satisfied by inter-city transit? Would we have any money or justification to expand, say, GO between Kitchener and Guelph if we blow our wad on a freeway-sized highway?

If you really want to blow your mind, how about the induced traffic effect being responsible for improving traffic flow by removing a road (http://www.infrastructurist.com/2011/03/24/is-removing-a-major-road-really-a-good-idea/)?

[KLM]

I heard somewhere province had plans to upgrade Hwy#7 back in 1986.

[neonjoe]

I heard somewhere province had plans to upgrade Hwy#7 back in 1986.

I think the plans go back long before that, the interchange at Wellington St is built to 1960s freeway to freeway standards.

[KevinL]

I think the plans go back long before that, the interchange at Wellington St is built to 1960s freeway to freeway standards.

Yup, Wellington is way overbuilt and Victoria/Frederick underbuilt. Best laid plans, and all...

[BigCityBoy]

i think one of the greatest things that the K-W region has over similarly sized communities is the highway network of 86/8. It makes travelling around the city much faster than would otherwise be so - an example is London, Ont. To travel from southwest London, Ont. to northeast London can take up to over an hour on regular streets. in K-W, I can zip from west Waterloo, along Erb street (one way), to the expressway, and get into Cambridge in about 20 mins. Absolutely amazing!

If i need to get to Guelph, however, i get stuck along Bridgeport, Victoria Hwy 7, and then into Guelph's myriad of north-south-east-west streets. The Hanlon does provide some good north-soth speed but it is on the western edge of town.

Sure, public sytems may be good but ultimately you would still have to get off at a central station(s) and then potentially wait for a bus to get to the area you need to get to in Guelph.

We have to deal with progressive changes that are still relatively amenable and cost-effective. Sure, ideally, we would build mag-lev trains between each place and have little pods that join the system to deliver us to our destination (see Oxford-Cambridge study on pod travel systems). Unfortunately, we live in the real world where real, immediate solutions are the next best thing (albeit largely postponed and short of funding).

I'm not saying let's not shoot for the stars but let's get something going that we all know works and is practical for the car-driven communities that they are meant to serve. A rail link between Guelph and K-W would not be attractive to a user that can easily drive directly to his/her destination in the privacy of their own car, without queuing in a line and then having to hop on a bus to get to their work. I guess i mean, roads are great - not ideal, but great for where we are right now.

[mpd618]

Sure, public sytems may be good but ultimately you would still have to get off at a central station(s) and then potentially wait for a bus to get to the area you need to get to in Guelph.

We could have an intercity LRT route that would have many stops in Guelph instead of just one central station, and buses along perpendicular corridors could come frequently so you wouldn't need to wait long. This would get you around town pretty easily.


We have to deal with progressive changes that are still relatively amenable and cost-effective. ... Unfortunately, we live in the real world where real, immediate solutions are the next best thing (albeit largely postponed and short of funding). ... A rail link between Guelph and K-W would not be attractive to a user that can easily drive directly to his/her destination in the privacy of their own car, without queuing in a line and then having to hop on a bus to get to their work. I guess i mean, roads are great - not ideal, but great for where we are right now.

You dismiss transit solutions as impractical, yet consider a 400-series highway to be cost-effective? It is both more expensive and can carry fewer people than can a modern intercity rail link. And your comparison is silly - you compare a rail link (with a long bus queue?) to a hypothetical easy, private commute by car between K-W and Guelph. You mention yourself how much you get stuck in traffic when trying to make that drive, so it is not convincing to me that rail would not be competitive.

[metropolis]

i think one of the greatest things that the K-W region has over similarly sized communities is the highway network of 86/8. It makes travelling around the city much faster than would otherwise be so - an example is London, Ont. To travel from southwest London, Ont. to northeast London can take up to over an hour on regular streets. in K-W, I can zip from west Waterloo, along Erb street (one way), to the expressway, and get into Cambridge in about 20 mins. Absolutely amazing!

Consider this; i think one of the worst things that the K-W region has over similarly sized communities is the highway network of 86/8.

Firstly unless you are sitting in the comfort of your own car getting around the city is made more difficult because highway crossings are limited and feel dangerous. As say a cyclist you feel like there is a river flowing through this city with only a few bridges spanning it and its not theGrand, its the expressway. As a pedestrian winter cross winds buffet you as you walk down a three foot wide sidewalk clinging to a concrete railing with a 30+ foot drop on one end and a half foot curb on the other. Somehow this situation is acceptable because the sidewalk exists there in the first place. Suppose though a car loses control and you are standing there. It doesn’t take a whole lot of imagination before you say I’m not doing that again.

Secondly it can also be argued that the level of suburban sprawl in the Region is directly attributed to that expressway because the perceived ease you have of getting around by car. Would the Region perhaps house asimilar population size without covering the same square mileage, therefore reducing your need to drive down the highway everywhere because things would just be closer to where you live as a result of higher density? We will never know but its likely as London ON sure feels more compact than Waterloo Region does.

Lastly consider thisarticle (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/the-gravy-in-land-use-and-density/article2257214/) in this week's Globe and Mail states:


To understand where the wastefulness exists, consider the layout of 21st-century cities. The Golden Commission analyzed the cost of operating different forms of urban configuration and found that the extracost of operating a widespread, low-density city such as Toronto, compared witha more compact city such as Zurich or Vienna (to say nothing of Manhattan or Hong Kong), was an average of $1-billion annually over 20 years. And that was 1996!
Indeed, municipalities in which the predominant land use is that of single families or other low-density forms of accommodation find that real-estate taxes simply don’t meet the cost of providing hard (street lighting, garbage pickup etc.) and soft (libraries, parks etc.) services. To continue building cities in this way can only plunge municipalities even deeper into debt.

Meaning basically that the "efficient" highway people value so highlyis heavily subsidized and in reality quite inefficient because its real cost isnot sustainable. To reflect the highway's real cost those living in the lowestdensity suburbs of our city should have to pay dramatically higher propertytaxes in addition to hefty highway tolls for expressway users before this infrastructure begins to pay itself off.

This is not possible because the moment we begin to charge the true cost forour highways, use of them will plummet because people will make different driving decisions and steer towards public transit. Look only to London England as an example of what happened to their traffic levels and transit use downtown when road tolls were introduced. There are many other examples of this in places where government has been brave enough to introduce road tolling.

Basically we can spend ourselves into oblivion or begin to take steps now that will see us slowly emerging from this dark money sucking spiral we are in. Expanding the existing road to address the current demand issues as we try to fix the bigger infrastructure gap is a cost effective approach. Building another highway is not.

[zanate]

We could have an intercity LRT route that would have many stops in Guelph instead of just one central station, and buses along perpendicular corridors could come frequently so you wouldn't need to wait long. This would get you around town pretty easily.

We could have, but as solutions go, that is a long way off. Coordinating two local transit systems with an LRT crossing county lines is a tall order considering how the region is not showing much imagination dealing with routing for a little in-city LRT, let alone the fact nobody is even talking intercity rail outside of the context of GO.

So, it's much more likely that the core of intercity rail will be centre-to-centre GO on an expanded schedule, at which point BigCityBoy has a point with his concern about getting around another city without a car. You yourself have told me how Guelph's ridership demographic is different from KW (more than half students in Guelph, IIRC). So, in the meantime we have an overloaded 2 lane highway, no transit solution within reach in less than a decade timeframe. An expansion there is overdue.

But there is a big difference between a four-lane regular road and a limited access freeway. The latter would be a big mistake, too much money to overserve the demand-- at first, and then demand would climb as the new highway promotes sprawl and longer commutes until it too fills up.

We have a system of transportation where virtually every incremental advance or extension that makes sense *in isolation* tends to be more road for private cars. This is a good example. To allow effective movement from city to city by transit we need whole transit systems overhauled and new corridors established. Or we build just one more highway. Is it any wonder we are so far down the rabbit hole?

And yet we could strike a balance here. Recognize that blowing our wad on another big highway project guts both the finances and ridership we would need to drive expanded GO, and drive more sprawl that is impractical to tie into a transit network. But admit that we can't realistically turn all those extra KW-Guelph trips into rail trips.

Still, any road expansion is going to stretch tendrils of low intensity crap into the bucolic rolling farms and fields that still exist in that hinterland. That saddens me.

[Waterlooer]

I understand what everyone is saying, but we still need expressways (and I do understand how maybe we DON'T need one from Guelph to Kitchener... even though I still think we do). If there were no highways anywhere, it would be impossible to get anywhere without rail or plane. I do understand what everyone is saying, but I just am hoping you don't think expressways are totally evil (like having the 401... that is an example of a necessary highway, intercity expressways might not be such a good idea). So, 400-series highways are necessary in this day and age.

[BigCityBoy]

We could have an intercity LRT route that would have many stops in Guelph instead of just one central station, and buses along perpendicular corridors could come frequently so you wouldn't need to wait long. This would get you around town pretty easily.



You dismiss transit solutions as impractical, yet consider a 400-series highway to be cost-effective? It is both more expensive and can carry fewer people than can a modern intercity rail link. And your comparison is silly - you compare a rail link (with a long bus queue?) to a hypothetical easy, private commute by car between K-W and Guelph. You mention yourself how much you get stuck in traffic when trying to make that drive, so it is not convincing to me that rail would not be competitive.

First of all i don't dismiss rail as a practical solution but rather one that is far too limited and much more expensive than widening or expanding an existing road that is heavily used. Secondly, let's not forget that roads are also a transit medium, and therefore potentially a 'transit solution'. Last time i checked cars were the most widely used mode of transportation in the the Waterloo-Wellington area, and not something to be 'dimissed' as you say i do other forms of transit solutions. I get the impression that you are ignoring the role that cars and trucks play in our communities by not considering a widened road a potential 'solution'.

Trains are great, glad you like them. Planes are great, too. Just look at the ridership rates between hubs such as New York and Washington. Does that mean they don't need the I-95? I don't think so. One does not preclude the other.

As for silliness, well, not quite sure what to say to that. In a free economy supply and demand are the deterimining factors of any economic enterprise. If there is more demand for more roads than rail, are we 'silly' to use that demand in deciding whether to build more roads? Sure, trains can carry more people than passenger cars. Ships can carry more people than trains. Big deal. It's what people actually use and want to use that we have to try to accommodate, however 'silly' their preferences. If rail were competitive surely it would be on the table. If it was so cost-effective, where are the proposals?

[mpd618]

Secondly, let's not forget that roads are also a transit medium, and therefore potentially a 'transit solution'.

Sure. Would you be OK with widening Highway 7 to 4 lanes, with the two new lanes being transit-only? Seems good to me.


Last time i checked cars were the most widely used mode of transportation in the the Waterloo-Wellington area, and not something to be 'dimissed' as you say i do other forms of transit solutions. I get the impression that you are ignoring the role that cars and trucks play in our communities by not considering a widened road a potential 'solution'.

I understand the role just fine - we build roads and only stop building once we have generated so much demand for driving and such car-oriented places that we can't get around our cities anymore. Is that what it's going to take here? Accommodating existing traffic is fine, but I have little interest in building new capacity for driving. We already have a very good road network, and should focus on making the best use of it instead of building more roadways that we can't even afford to maintain, and which spur more driving. People want to drive less, and they want other ways to get around their cities. Making driving more competitive by building more places to drive on is going in the other direction.


As for silliness, well, not quite sure what to say to that. In a free economy supply and demand are the deterimining factors of any economic enterprise. If there is more demand for more roads than rail, are we 'silly' to use that demand in deciding whether to build more roads?

What does a free economy have to do with the provision of railways and highways in North America? It's really easy to come to the conclusion that there is more demand for X rather than Y, when X is the only thing that is offered. I should note that there is massive enthusiasm for GO trains from Kitchener to Toronto in the community, and little excitement about widening the 401 from 6 lanes to 10 lanes.


If rail were competitive surely it would be on the table. If it was so cost-effective, where are the proposals?

Neither rail nor bus nor highway is profitable, ever since governments decided to start building roads at public expense and drove private passenger transit out of business. Which leaves governments as the only source of transport projects. There's many answers about why they may not be proposing the most cost-effective (or effective, period) projects, and many come down to status quo in terms of mindset and in terms of politics.

[BuildingScout]

Consider this; i think one of the worst things that the K-W region has over similarly sized communities is the highway network of 86/8.


I simpathize with the sentiment, but I don't agree. Your argument is like saying "if only we hadn't built the Aud we would have the Louvre here".

You claim that 86/8 created sprawl. Well, look at London. It has as much sprawl as KW together with hour long traffic jams.
This is worst of both worlds outcome.


Firstly unless you are sitting in the comfort of your own car getting around the city is made more difficult because highway crossings are limited and feel dangerous. As say a cyclist you feel like there is a river flowing through this city with only a few bridges spanning it and its not theGrand, its the expressway. As a pedestrian winter cross winds buffet you as you walk down a three foot wide sidewalk clinging to a concrete railing with a 30+ foot drop on one end and a half foot curb on the other. Somehow this situation is acceptable because the sidewalk exists there in the first place. Suppose though a car loses control and you are standing there. It doesn’t take a whole lot of imagination before you say I’m not doing that again.


Second, crossing a few bridges is not a problem. In fact most cities in Europe have a real river running through it and they are very nice to live in.



Secondly it can also be argued that the level of suburban sprawl in the Region is directly attributed to that expressway because the perceived ease you have of getting around by car. Would the Region perhaps house asimilar population size without covering the same square mileage, therefore reducing your need to drive down the highway everywhere because things would just be closer to where you live as a result of higher density? We will never know but its likely as London ON sure feels more compact than Waterloo Region does.


I don't know where you get this London more compact than KW feel. Here are the figures for population per square mile:

People per square mile

London 2,170.2

Kitchener 3,872.6

Waterloo 3,938.6


Lastly consider thisarticle (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/the-gravy-in-land-use-and-density/article2257214/) in this week's Globe and Mail states:

Meaning basically that the "efficient" highway people value so highly is heavily subsidized and in reality quite inefficient because its real cost is not sustainable. To reflect the highway's real cost those living in the lowest density suburbs of our city should have to pay dramatically higher property taxes in addition to hefty highway tolls for expressway users before this infrastructure begins to pay itself off.


That article presumes that all highways are built simply to support suburbs. In fact the 86/8 is unique in that for the longest time its main use was not for in-town commuting as it didn't connect neighbourhoods with working locations within the city (it did support commuters to Cambridge and Toronto). It is simply a way to bring supplies to the city, ship exports out and connect to the rest of the world.

Regardless of how much public transit we might have we still need a road efficiently connecting to the city to the rest of the world.

[BigCityBoy]

Sure. Would you be OK with widening Highway 7 to 4 lanes, with the two new lanes being transit-only? Seems good to me.



I understand the role just fine - we build roads and only stop building once we have generated so much demand for driving and such car-oriented places that we can't get around our cities anymore. Is that what it's going to take here? Accommodating existing traffic is fine, but I have little interest in building new capacity for driving. We already have a very good road network, and should focus on making the best use of it instead of building more roadways that we can't even afford to maintain, and which spur more driving. People want to drive less, and they want other ways to get around their cities. Making driving more competitive by building more places to drive on is going in the other direction.



What does a free economy have to do with the provision of railways and highways in North America? It's really easy to come to the conclusion that there is more demand for X rather than Y, when X is the only thing that is offered. I should note that there is massive enthusiasm for GO trains from Kitchener to Toronto in the community, and little excitement about widening the 401 from 6 lanes to 10 lanes.



Neither rail nor bus nor highway is profitable, ever since governments decided to start building roads at public expense and drove private passenger transit out of business. Which leaves governments as the only source of transport projects. There's many answers about why they may not be proposing the most cost-effective (or effective, period) projects, and many come down to status quo in terms of mindset and in terms of politics.

Alright, clearly we may speaking at cross-purposes here. Who said anything about profitablility with regards to rail or highway? The only people that make profits off of 'transit routes' such as the 407 or other toll roads are largely large companies such as the Teacher's Pension Fund or such like.

Is there more demand for X rather than Y. Yes. clearly. People drive cars. They need roads. That's the way it is. Why are you being so reluctant to accept this? If they would take a train, why haven't more people been taking the VIA rail service to Toronto more often?
I guess my issue with this topic is that we live in a car-driven society and we need to accommodate this society. If changes are to be made, then great. We can go on ad nauseum about the need to get out of cars and onto more viable transit systems but alas, the Canadian people love their cars, big pick-up trucks, radio, Tim Horton's and whatever else it is. Not only Canadians, but every other developed nation in the world. Cars are a practical means of getting around instead of walking. Roads need to get bigger. Sure trains would be great.

I can't wait to freeze my ass off when i get off the train and have to take a buis to my job at Linamar when i could have driven to the parking lot for something like 50 cents a kilometer. Sure, we could use less cars and driving. But are we there yet? No. So you can drone on about ideal solution but ultimately the Waterloo-Wellington area could use a better connection between Guelph and Kitchener for cars and trucks.

[Waterlooer]

Alright, clearly we may speaking at cross-purposes here. Who said anything about profitablility with regards to rail or highway? the only people that make profits off of 'transit routes' such as the 407 or other toll roads are largely large companies such as the Teacher's Pension Fund or such like.

Is there more demand for X rather than Y. Yes. clearly. People drive cars. They need roads. That the way it is. Why are you being so reluctant to accept this? If they vould take a train, why haven't more people been taking the VIA rail service to Toronto more often?
I guess my issue with this topic is that we live in a car-driven society and we need to accommodate this society. If changes are to be made, then great. We can go on ad nauseum about the need to get out of cars and onto more viable transit systems but alas, the Canadian people love their cars, big pick-up trucks, radio, Tim Horton's and whatever else it is. Not only Canadians, but every other developed nation in the world. Cars are a practical means of getting around instead of walking. Roads need to get bigger. Sure trains would be great. I can't wait to freeze my ass off when i get off the train and have to take a buis to my job at Linamar when i could have driven to the parking lot for something like 50 cents a kilometer. Sure, we could use less cars and driving. But are we there yet? No. So you can drone on about ideal solution but ultimately the Waterloo-Wellington area could use a better connection between Guelph and Kitchener for cars and trucks.

I totally agree with you. I am 100% pro-rail, intercity public transit, etc, but the reality is North America is a car nation. We need highways and large roads to get around. In Europe, it is more compact and easy to get around by walking or by train, but it's about the size of eastern Canada. North America is very large and spread out with cities far and wide, so it's necessary to have big road routes.

[plam]

I totally agree with you. I am 100% pro-rail, intercity public transit, etc, but the reality is North America is a car nation. We need highways and large roads to get around. In Europe, it is more compact and easy to get around by walking or by train, but it's about the size of eastern Canada. North America is very large and spread out with cities far and wide, so it's necessary to have big road routes.

Fortunately, Waterloo is in Eastern Canada. (Actually, I'm currently in Berkeley, which is not in Eastern Canada, but still has lots of transit; in fact, I was biking past a lot of cars last night.)

BigCityBoy, I think that there's a difference in perspective here. Some of us believe that public spending can effectively shape peoples' transportation preferences, and that it's not the best thing to do to reflexively "accommodate" peoples' apparent desires to drive their cars everywhere. In fact, we might even say that, thinking ahead, private car usage has got to decline, due for instance to the rising cost of gas, and it would be great if Waterloo Region were forward-thinking enough to anticipate the potential consequences of that change.

Speaking of VIA service to Toronto: well, now there's GO service to Toronto anymore. I hope that between VIA and GO we'll see lots of people taking the train. People do take the Greyhound to Toronto quite a bit, perhaps because it runs more often.

I've tried to get to Guelph with public transport, and it currently really sucks. I hope that will get better. It might be unfair to say that no one wants to take transit to Guelph, because you can't really do that at all right now.

[mpd618]

Alright, clearly we may speaking at cross-purposes here. Who said anything about profitablility with regards to rail or highway?

You suggested that if it were rail were competitive / cost-effective, it would be on the table. There's all kinds of reasons governments may not be bringing the most cost-effective solutions to the table, some of them to do with entrenched policy.


Is there more demand for X rather than Y. Yes. clearly. People drive cars. They need roads. That's the way it is. Why are you being so reluctant to accept this? If they would take a train, why haven't more people been taking the VIA rail service to Toronto more often?

A big reason is because the train service sucks. Three trains a day, frequently delayed, and very expensive. It takes too long because the track is crap, there is no signalling, and the corridor (west of Bramalea) is owned by a freight company that has been fighting all attempts to improve the track. Do you really think more people wouldn't be taking the train if there was a train every hour to Toronto, and it took an hour to get there?


I guess my issue with this topic is that we live in a car-driven society and we need to accommodate this society. If changes are to be made, then great. ... Cars are a practical means of getting around instead of walking. Roads need to get bigger.

This is circular, and perpetual. We built roads, now we're a car-driven society and thus we need to build more roads? It does not end. When we build more roads, on average we all drive more and make longer trips. And then we need to build more roads.

Right now the chickens are coming home to roost. All of the road infrastructure that was built out in the 1950s and 1960s needs to be replaced before it crumbles, and that is proving to be really expensive. This is a major reason transportation departments in car-oriented cities are suddenly talking about "complete streets" and cycling and transit - it's not because of the environment, it's because they know they don't have the budget to build more road infrastructure given the costs of maintaining what already exists.

There is also the small matter of dependence on roads and driving, and that building more roads increases this dependence. Oil supplies are scarce, and oil demand is on the rise from India and China. With driving and oil dependence, our entire transport system and thus economy is in a very precarious position. We need serious non-driving transportation systems in place because the current system is financially unsustainable, to say nothing of environmental sustainability.


I totally agree with you. I am 100% pro-rail, intercity public transit, etc, but the reality is North America is a car nation. We need highways and large roads to get around. In Europe, it is more compact and easy to get around by walking or by train, but it's about the size of eastern Canada. North America is very large and spread out with cities far and wide, so it's necessary to have big road routes.

What you really mean isn't that the countries are spread out, but that the cities are sprawled out. Canada and the US are no larger than they were in the early 20th century, when their cities were just as compact and transit-oriented as any. Los Angeles, the prototypical sprawling metropolis, once had the world's largest streetcar system.

As for the claim that we "need highways and large roads to get around"... Well, yes. We built them and now we need them to get around. The roads came first, the car-oriented built form followed. If we want the future to be any different, we need to not keep doing more of the same.

[BigCityBoy]

You suggested that if it were rail were competitive / cost-effective, it would be on the table. There's all kinds of reasons governments may not be bringing the most cost-effective solutions to the table, some of them to do with entrenched policy.



A big reason is because the train service sucks. Three trains a day, frequently delayed, and very expensive. It takes too long because the track is crap, there is no signalling, and the corridor (west of Bramalea) is owned by a freight company that has been fighting all attempts to improve the track. Do you really think more people wouldn't be taking the train if there was a train every hour to Toronto, and it took an hour to get there?



This is circular, and perpetual. We built roads, now we're a car-driven society and thus we need to build more roads? It does not end. When we build more roads, on average we all drive more and make longer trips. And then we need to build more roads.

Right now the chickens are coming home to roost. All of the road infrastructure that was built out in the 1950s and 1960s needs to be replaced before it crumbles, and that is proving to be really expensive. This is a major reason transportation departments in car-oriented cities are suddenly talking about "complete streets" and cycling and transit - it's not because of the environment, it's because they know they don't have the budget to build more road infrastructure given the costs of maintaining what already exists.

There is also the small matter of dependence on roads and driving, and that building more roads increases this dependence. Oil supplies are scarce, and oil demand is on the rise from India and China. With driving and oil dependence, our entire transport system and thus economy is in a very precarious position. We need serious non-driving transportation systems in place because the current system is financially unsustainable, to say nothing of environmental sustainability.



What you really mean isn't that the countries are spread out, but that the cities are sprawled out. Canada and the US are no larger than they were in the early 20th century, when their cities were just as compact and transit-oriented as any. Los Angeles, the prototypical sprawling metropolis, once had the world's largest streetcar system.

As for the claim that we "need highways and large roads to get around"... Well, yes. We built them and now we need them to get around. The roads came first, the car-oriented built form followed. If we want the future to be any different, we need to to keep doing more of the same.

So, let's get a history lesson here. First, there were trails created by people and animals (like a deer run if you will). Next, there were roads that were consistently travelled by people and animals. Next, there were traffic rules applied to common routes that were applied when different types of traffic were found to be using the roads. And now, trains.? Is that right? Have i got the anthology of current transportation systems straight?


Please. America is the most advanced civiilzation known to man. I have tried to to read the study of History by Arnold J. Toynbee but it is rather heavy going.

I like your comment that the 'train service sucks.' Clearly an objective, well thought response. After all, at birth, we all 'suck' for a while.

Gettng back to business - here it is. A Study of History by Toynbee is far to much of a read for anyone to contemplate. What i really mean is that the book is too damn long!

Roads are the arteries of the boy of civilisation (see, i did read some), and we need bigger areteries, baby. Don't get chippy and say we'reall doomed to death, All we need here is a bigger road and i'm sure that cooler heads will prevail and we will get the bigger road. Ergo ipsofacto roads are the best amenity available to people like us. /

[BigCityBoy]

This is exactly my point. I'm certainly not against any good solution but at this time we need more access to the Guelph along Highway 7. I just don't see any community being forward-thinking enough to remove the basic necessity of transportation from the caar to the 'alternative'. Am i the only asshole here that sees that cars are used predominatley and we need to build for that fact? (Please, spare me the obvious answers).

[BigCityBoy]

Right now the chickens are coming home to roost. All of the road infrastructure that was built out in the 1950s and 1960s needs to be replaced before it crumbles, and that is proving to be really expensive. This is a major reason transportation departments in car-oriented cities are suddenly talking about "complete streets" and cycling and transit - it's not because of the environment, it's because they know they don't have the budget to build more road infrastructure given the costs of maintaining what already exists.


So all of sudden the roads and highways that have made this country one of the G-8 is out of touch and compelety without merit? All capital infrastructure has a design-life, and all of them need to be replaced everntually. Just like your furnace has a limted life; so does your fridge, your shoes, your car, your garbage, etc.

[BuildingScout]

Right now the chickens are coming home to roost. All of the road infrastructure that was built out in the 1950s and 1960s needs to be replaced before it crumbles, and that is proving to be really expensive.

Sorry to butt in, but is there any evidence of this taking place in Ontario? The US infrastructure is crumbling, but I have yet to see a crumbling overpass anywhere in Ontario the way you see them, say, in New Jersey.

I think this is one of these cases where people watch American news shows and think it is happening here, like violent crime, building prisons here to make us feel good about the crime wave down south.

[Daev]

So you can drone on about ideal solution but ultimately the Waterloo-Wellington area could use a better connection between Guelph and Kitchener for cars and trucks.

Sorry to interject, but I wondering why people in this forum aren't realizing that we already have this connection?...


85 > 8 > 401 > 6

All those roads are already maintained my the MTO and are being expanded at this very moment. So why is it again that we need yet another Limited-Access Highway through this corridor?

In my humble opinion, upping the current Highway 9 from 2-4 Lane, added roundabouts, etc. Should be way more than what's necessary. Especially when you consider that we now have 85 (almost) 4 lane each direction, 401 3 lane each direction (moving to 4), 8 now just converting to 4 in each direction, also a current plan to up the 6 from 2 lanes each direction to (not sure how many lanes).

So once again ... how is it we are justifying that we absolutely need yet another limited access highway?

[mpd618]

Sorry to butt in, but is there any evidence of this taking place in Ontario? The US infrastructure is crumbling, but I have yet to see a crumbling overpass anywhere in Ontario the way you see them, say, in New Jersey.

The jargon governments use is "infrastructure deficit", and we've got one for the same reasons as the US. We didn't build quite as much sprawl and highways as the US, so I agree that it is not quite as bad. Here's a paper (http://www.regionomics.com/infra/Draft-July03.pdf) (PDF) that as background discusses Canada's infrastructure deficit and its causes.

[BuildingScout]

Thanks for the reference. The report is from civil engineers, so you expect them to make a strong case for more money. Actual figures, particularly in the years after that report was released are actually quite encouraging:


708

Annual Federal Infrastructure spending


This matches my view that the problem here is mild, and not as much a pressing concern as in the USA.

[bcwessel]

Consider this; i think one of the worst things that the K-W region has over similarly sized communities is the highway network of 86/8. . .

Basically we can spend ourselves into oblivion or begin to take steps now that will see us slowly emerging from this dark money sucking spiral we are in. Expanding the existing road to address the current demand issues as we try to fix the bigger infrastructure gap is a cost effective approach. Building another highway is not.


This: A 45 mph world (http://newurbannetwork.com/news-opinion/blogs/charles-marohn/15601/45-mph-world).

[bcwessel]

I totally agree with you. I am 100% pro-rail, intercity public transit, etc, but the reality is North America is a car nation. We need highways and large roads to get around. In Europe, it is more compact and easy to get around by walking or by train, but it's about the size of eastern Canada. North America is very large and spread out with cities far and wide, so it's necessary to have big road routes.

There's no argument that more people drive than take transit in North America. That's a basic fact, supported by simple, uncontroversial statistics. But that doesn't help us understand why that is, if its a tenable situation, to whose benefit it is, and what the possible alternatives might be. And it certainly doesn't take into account the externalized costs of automobility: social, environmental, economic, and so on.

As for your argument about the spatial difficulties presented by North American geographies, I would be interested to see a list of European cites with populations near half a million located 100 kms away from cities with populations in the millions not served by fast, reliable, all-day two-way rail. The distance between Vancouver and Toronto is pretty irrelevant when you're talking about the 401.

[BigCityBoy]

This: A 45 mph world (http://newurbannetwork.com/news-opinion/blogs/charles-marohn/15601/45-mph-world).

looks like a good article. You're still not going to get me to stop liking the amenity that the expressway provides while i travel around K-W. And when i go to South Carolina and Florida this winter for some golf, trust me, i'll be using the I-75 and regional highways.

[bzmwillemsen]

The reason that the we hear of the US freeway system falling apart all the time is that the US has built up a lot more highways than Canada, and that most of these freeways are elevated freeways, which break down much faster thanks to water flowing faster over it, the rate that it changes temperature and that it has a much higher surface area to be attacked by wind.

As I'm sure you have all heard the DVP in Toronto is very expensive to maintain, and this is mainly because it is elevated.
A freeway that is not elevated is much cheaper to maintain because repair costs are much cheaper.
If you would like an example of a US city with a lot of freeways you only have to take a look at Detroit. Most of their freeways are elevated and most of their freeways are crumbling. Do not be surprised when Detroit starts to demolish some of their freeway system due to the high cost of repairing them.

It is also the one of the main reasons that highways use a cloverleaf design for interchanges, in a cloverleaf design there is no elevated structure, making it very cheap.

[BigCityBoy]

Yes, true, Also, remember that the initial inter-state highway system was originally produced as an economic impetus to bolster a flagging economy - a Federal incentive to put people at work and spur growth. The US uses concrete more often that asphalt in highway construction and that's principally why costs are so much higher (and durability gains largely mitigated over time in freeze-thaw cycles).

[bcwessel]

So, let's get a history lesson here. First, there were trails created by people and animals (like a deer run if you will). Next, there were roads that were consistently travelled by people and animals. Next, there were traffic rules applied to common routes that were applied when different types of traffic were found to be using the roads. And now, trains.? Is that right? Have i got the anthology of current transportation systems straight?

Please. America is the most advanced civiilzation known to man. I have tried to to read the study of History by Arnold J. Toynbee but it is rather heavy going.

I like your comment that the 'train service sucks.' Clearly an objective, well thought response. After all, at birth, we all 'suck' for a while.

Gettng back to business - here it is. A Study of History by Toynbee is far to much of a read for anyone to contemplate. What i really mean is that the book is too damn long!

Roads are the arteries of the boy of civilisation (see, i did read some), and we need bigger areteries, baby. Don't get chippy and say we'reall doomed to death, All we need here is a bigger road and i'm sure that cooler heads will prevail and we will get the bigger road. Ergo ipsofacto roads are the best amenity available to people like us. /

Try Richard Florida's The Great Reset, and David Harvey's The Enigma of Capital (both of which advance an understanding of capital absorption and spatial fixes as a way of understanding socio-geographic histories). They are both more accessible, and perhaps more relevant to the debate at hand than Toynbee's expansive A Study of History (which largely predates the effects of the massive highway building project of the last half-century that had only just begun in earnest by the time of the last volume of the work).

[BigCityBoy]

Thank you. Will do.

[bcwessel]

looks like a good article. You're still not going to get me to stop liking the amenity that the expressway provides while i travel around K-W. And when i go to South Carolina and Florida this winter for some golf, trust me, i'll be using the I-75 and regional highways.

Whether or not you like highways, or will use existing ones isn't really the point at all. The point is to start developing a reality-based transportation system which produces good transportation outcomes, treads as lightly as possible on others aspect of natural and built environments, and which we have reasonable expectations of being able to afford in the long term.

[bcwessel]

Yes, true, Also, remember that the initial inter-state highway system was originally produced as an economic impetus to bolster a flagging economy - a Federal incentive to put people at work and spur growth. The US uses concrete more often that asphalt in highway construction and that's principally why costs are so much higher (and durability gains largely mitigated over time in freeze-thaw cycles).

There were many social and political factors that informed the post-war highway project. Creating a massive new market to absorb the unprecedented capital accumulations of the war was a big factor, but certainly not the only one. And capital absorption always has social, political and geographic implications, making the idea of something being purely economic difficult to comprehend.

[BigCityBoy]

Good points.

[BigCityBoy]

henry Ford changed the way things are made - likened to a slave-driver by his own son. After the war, production of war machines was bound to re-align and move towards the most troubling of all human frailties - namely travelling across this great Earth. The automobile was a great invention by Mercedes.

The inter-state was developed as a way of increasing the 'inter' city commerce of the US. A purely economic endeavour, to my mind.

[bcwessel]

Here is Marohn's latest post on infrastructure, and conveniently he takes a rather in-depth look at a section of Missouri highway remarkably similar to our own Highway 7: Understanding Roads (http://newurbannetwork.com/news-opinion/blogs/charles-marohn/15662/understanding-roads). Marohn's work on the ASCE's report (http://newurbannetwork.com/news-opinion/blogs/charles-marohn/15121/asce-infrastructure-cult) on America's infrastructure deficit, and what he sees as the inherent problem with the ASCE's prescribed response to the problem (fix and widening old roads, and build lots of new ones) is also highly relevant to this debate.

Marohn isn't the only one making these arguments, but in my opinion he is making them better than anybody else. See also:
Strong Towns (http://www.strongtowns.org/) and New Urban Network (http://newurbannetwork.com/).

[bcwessel]

And then there's this (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/the-gravy-in-land-use-and-density/article2257214/):



To understand where the wastefulness exists, consider the layout of 21st-century cities. The Golden Commission analyzed the cost of operating different forms of urban configuration and found that the extracost of operating a widespread, low-density city such as Toronto, compared with a more compact city such as Zurich or Vienna (to say nothing of Manhattan or Hong Kong), was an average of $1-billion annually over 20 years. And that was 1996!

Indeed, municipalities in which the predominant land use is that of single families or other low-density forms of accommodation [i.e. that which is reinforced, and indeed even made possible, by increasing roadway capacity] find that real-estate taxes simply don’t meet the cost of providing hard (street lighting, garbage pickup etc.) and soft (libraries, parks etc.) services. To continue building cities in this way can only plunge municipalities even deeper into debt.

[bcwessel]

And this (http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2011/12/how-americans-really-react-to-high-gas-prices/616/):


Americans love to gripe about high gas prices, but they actually pay some of the lowest fuel costs in the world (http://www.gtz.de/en/themen/33729.htm) [PDF (http://www.gtz.de/de/dokumente/giz2011-international-fuel-prices-2010-2011-data-preview.pdf)]. Part of the reason for this hidden discount is that lawmakers have refused to raise the federal gasoline tax since 1993. In fact the tax has lost value over time, since it's not even indexed to inflation; it sits at a flat 18.4 cents per gallon. That's to say nothing of the unaccounted social costs of traffic or the environmental costs of pollution. If gasoline were priced fairly in the United States, one has to wonder whether or not America's love for driving would remain so bold.

That question is at the heart of a recent analysis conducted by Bradley Lane of the University of Texas at El Paso. Lane examined fluctuations in gas prices in 33 U.S. cities during a period stretching from January 2002 to March 2009. He then compared these changes to transit ridership patterns in the same cities over the same time. In all cities he looked at bus ridership, while in 21 places, including Los Angeles and Chicago and Washington, he considered rail travel as well.

All told, Lane found a pretty strong link between changes in gas prices and shifts in transit ridership. Every 10 percent increase in fuel costs led to an increase in bus ridership of up to 4 percent, and a spike in rail travel of up to 8 percent. These results suggest a "significant untapped potential" for transit ridership, Lane reports in an upcoming issue of the Journal of Transport Geography (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0966692311001578). In other words, a significant part of America's love for the automobile may only be its desire for inexpensive transportation.

[metropolis]

I simpathize with the sentiment, but I don't agree. Your argument is like saying "if only we hadn't built the Aud we would have the Louvre here".

You claim that 86/8 created sprawl. Well, look at London. It has as much sprawl as KW together with hour long traffic jams.
This is worst of both worlds outcome.

No actually the point I am trying to make is that had London built the 86 it would likely be more sprawled than it is and we would be less. Note though that I am not being absolute in my statements as neither you nor I can ever really know that outcome.


Second, crossing a few bridges is not a problem. In fact most cities in Europe have a real river running through it and they are very nice to live in.

You head on out this winter and try that see how "nice" it is crossing one of those highway overpasses. Those European bridges do not compare to the car centric ones built here. What's more the river example is an analogy meant to emphasize we did not have a river there impeding the movement of everything except the car like many cities do. We put the river there, which seem massively counterintuitive.


I don't know where you get this London more compact than KW feel. Here are the figures for population per square mile:

People per square mile

London 2,170.2

Kitchener 3,872.6

Waterloo 3,938.6


I tried briefly to find apples to apples stats but couldn't. I'd actually like to know where you found those.



That article presumes that all highways are built simply to support suburbs. In fact the 86/8 is unique in that for the longest time its main use was not for in-town commuting as it didn't connect neighbourhoods with working locations within the city (it did support commuters to Cambridge and Toronto). It is simply a way to bring supplies to the city, ship exports out and connect to the rest of the world.

Regardless of how much public transit we might have we still need a road efficiently connecting to the city to the rest of the world.

Unquestioningly we do but building another new highway without a convenient and efficient alternative is just crazy. Expansion of the existing road infrastructure could be accomplished at a lower cost. The money remaining could for example be used to imporve other forms of infrastructure like the rail connection between the two cities to make more frequent and faster trains possible.

[BuildingScout]

You head on out this winter and try that see how "nice" it is crossing one of those highway overpasses.

But that certainly calls for better bridges not less highways.


I'd actually like to know where you found those.

http://canada.bymap.org/


Unquestioningly we do but building another new highway without a convenient and efficient alternative is just crazy.

I'm not promoting another highway or even widening the current one. All I'm saying is that 86/6 is a "good" highway all things considered.

[bcwessel]

I'm not promoting another highway or even widening the current one. All I'm saying is that 86/6 is a "good" highway all things considered.

It doesn't really seem like you're considering "all things." It seems like you're considering one thing: the (ostensibly) fast and efficient movement of automobiles. There are many other, far more crucial, ultimate more productive things.

If all things were being considered, the notion of a highway (particularly an urban one) being "good" would be a logical aburdity: it can't pay for itself, the spatial geographies it produces can't pay for themselves, its impact on climate and ecology is untenable, its impact on the built environment saps value, and the work it actually does accomplish can be done by other, cheaper, more efficient, more sustainable infrastructure).

[BuildingScout]

It doesn't really seem like you're considering "all things." It seems like you're considering one thing: the (ostensibly) fast and efficient movement of automobiles. There are many other, far more crucial, ultimate more productive things.

Here's what I wrote:

"That article presumes that all highways are built simply to support suburbs. In fact the 86/8 is unique in that for the longest time its main use was not for in-town commuting as it didn't connect neighbourhoods with working locations within the city (it did support commuters to Cambridge and Toronto). It is simply a way to bring supplies to the city, ship exports out and connect to the rest of the world."

There is nothing much I can add to that, so I'm moving on from this discussion.

[dunkalunk]

So it appears that the Highway 7 EA site is still down. Did anyone happen to have a copies of any reports saved as a .pdf somewhere?

In the meantime however, there are a few things that could be done to improve traffic flow:

1) Connect Wellington Street to Shirley Drive and expand to 4 lanes.
2) Synchronize Lights on Victoria for Eastbound travel and on Wellington/Bingemans Centre Drive for Westbound travel, sign these routes as Highway 7.
3) Build a GO Park and Ride station on the former site of Kaufman Footwear. The excess capacity at this onramp may as well be used for something
4) Extend Bruce Street Northward to the Northbound ramps at Wellington Street, Build a new street directly connecting the southbound ramps; A visualization of which can be found here. (http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=203319728042495193153.0004b553d9ae15db5e02 8&msa=0&ll=43.463541,-80.470219&spn=0.009142,0.019805)

Obviously some of these ideas are more feasible than others, but if the funding isn't available to either buy the Guelph Subdivision for passenger use in 2018 when GEXR's lease is up or build a new highway river crossing and massive flyover ramps, small improvements can be made to the existing road network to fill that capacity gap until other alternatives get funding (hopefully the rail corridor in this instance).

[dunkalunk]

For those that missed the above, here is what it would look like:

819

The green areas are park and ride lots. An additional park and ride lot could fit inside the East loop ramp. The properties that would be required for the building of Park and Ride lots would be the same properties needed for the flyover ramps.

I should also note that the local roads could be built in such a way as to not preclude future flyover ramps if it is decided that that a full Highway 7 Bypass is needed at some point in the future.

Funding for any Highway 7 extension has been delayed past 2015, and if iXpress-style service becomes a reality between Guelph and Kitchener, then a park and ride stop here would be useful for people wanting to connect to that service, in addition to EMU/DMU service once the section of track between Kitchener and Guelph becomes doubled, electrified, and sees CTC.

I would hope that something like this would be seriously considered when the EA is updated before any construction on a new freeway begins. I personally think a station here could be up and running around 2020.

[HillDweller]

So it appears that the Highway 7 EA site is still down. Did anyone happen to have a copies of any reports saved as a .pdf somewhere?

In the meantime however, there are a few things that could be done to improve traffic flow:

1) Connect Wellington Street to Shirley Drive and expand to 4 lanes.
2) Synchronize Lights on Victoria for Eastbound travel and on Wellington/Bingemans Centre Drive for Westbound travel, sign these routes as Highway 7.
3) Build a GO Park and Ride station on the former site of Kaufman Footwear. The excess capacity at this onramp may as well be used for something
4) Extend Bruce Street Northward to the Northbound ramps at Wellington Street, Build a new street directly connecting the southbound ramps; A visualization of which can be found here. (http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=203319728042495193153.0004b553d9ae15db5e02 8&msa=0&ll=43.463541,-80.470219&spn=0.009142,0.019805)

Obviously some of these ideas are more feasible than others, but if the funding isn't available to either buy the Guelph Subdivision for passenger use in 2018 when GEXR's lease is up or build a new highway river crossing and massive flyover ramps, small improvements can be made to the existing road network to fill that capacity gap until other alternatives get funding (hopefully the rail corridor in this instance).

Why would they put a GO Park and Ride so relatively close to the intermodal Hub? The stations would be too close together. There would be no point to it.

[KevinL]

Why would they put a GO Park and Ride so relatively close to the intermodal Hub? The stations would be too close together. There would be no point to it.

Um, this would have ample parking just off the highway. The hub would be adjacent to LRT. Two different customer bases entirely.

[HillDweller]

The stations would be closer together than any others on the GO system...only a mile apart. It would be inefficient and defeat the purpose of the HUB. It will never happen. The HUB will have ample parking when it's developed.

[mpd618]

Why would they put a GO Park and Ride so relatively close to the intermodal Hub? The stations would be too close together. There would be no point to it.

Because of highway access. The access to downtown Kitchener is not nearly as good, especially for those that would park-and-ride, as is access to anywhere along Conestoga Parkway. Moreover, it is a shameful waste of space in the middle of the city to be using it to store cars of people that took the train to another city.

[Waterlooer]

I have to agree with HillDweller on this one. I understand the reasoning, but I think the station by the highway would ruin the purpose of the transit hub.

[bcwessel]

I have to agree with HillDweller on this one. I understand the reasoning, but I think the station by the highway would ruin the purpose of the transit hub.

The purpose of the transit hub is to deliver people to and from the central transit corridor, as well as to one of the biggest trip generators in the region, via a variety of transit modes. Since the storage of cars is anathema to vibrant urban districts, a highway-adjacent park-and-ride facility designed to direct as much automobile storage as possible away from Downtown would actually reinforce the purpose of a central transit hub. It would be difficult to say the same thing about a large parking lot or structure being located so close to where all the action is/will increasingly be.

[dunkalunk]

The stations would be closer together than any others on the GO system...only a mile apart. It would be inefficient and defeat the purpose of the HUB. It will never happen. The HUB will have ample parking when it's developed.

The stations would actually be 1.7mi (2.8km) apart. Yes, the stops are close, but I don't think a station whose purpose is for park and ride would at all diminish the effectiveness of the Transit Hub at Victoria, as the two stations will be serving two completely different markets.

Infill stations such as these will become more feasible as the line is electrified. Sections of the Kitchener line will be the first to be upgraded in the GO network due to the Union-Pearson Air-Rail Link. In its electrification study, GO showed a 14/18 (inbound/outbound) minute time savings for 12-car EMUs. Infill stations are also being considered at other places within the GO network such as Liberty Village and between Union and Main Street.

I see the main purpose of a station at the parkway as reducing the peak load on Victoria Street/Highway 7. The bridges over the Grand River are our bottlenecks and the more we can reduce the load on these bridges, the more likely we will not have to construct an overbuilt freeway bypass and 4-level Stack. A station here would primarily serve those travelling East from suburbia, those travelling west could still feasibly be dropped off at the hub.

Placing a park and ride lot next to the highway would also reduce the traffic load on 2-lane inner-city streets. With an additional station at the parkway, there will be less need to build mass amounts of underground parking at the hub.

[Bureaucromancer]

I agree that a Conestoga station would have something to be said for it post electrification and once we are looking at a minimum of hourly service, but in the mean time highway access to the Breslau Station is really not much worse than to one at Conestoga. The thing I do like about this station is that to me it looks to have some real potential to help encourage Guelph - Waterloo local traffic to use the GO trains; getting that kind of traffic is going to have to be a very significant part of justifying frequent and electrified service west of Brampton.