GO train in Hamilton. (Photo by Tom Flemming, via Flickr.)

About a year ago GO Transit completed its Environmental Assessment (EA) for a rail extension to Kitchener, and half a year ago the extension was approved. It still awaits funding for the necessary track improvements, though GO Transit has already been laying the groundwork for the planned Guelph station. Service at the start of operations (planned for 2011) would include four morning trains from Kitchener to Guelph and Toronto, and four afternoon and evening trains in the reverse direction. It would be able to add reverse-peak commuter trains if there is sufficient demand. However, it has been claimed that “GO trains will be slow trains”, and so it is important to give some context for the planned GO train travel time between Kitchener and Toronto.

Lisa Harmey writes that the University of Waterloo’s recruitment materials say (page 6): “Take the bus to Toronto for the weekend – it is only an hour away!”.* I’ve heard this sentiment elsewhere, and even believed it myself. But any way you slice it, the trip time between Kitchener-Waterloo and Toronto is closer to two hours.

By car, it’s a full 110 km from the Kitchener-Waterloo core to downtown Toronto. This trip includes many bottlenecks, such at the ramp from Highway 8 to Highway 401 and Highway 401 itself between Mississauga and Toronto. Then there’s getting to downtown, on congested roads or highways like the Gardiner. Once you get there, you have to find parking. You can avoid this by parking at a subway station near Highway 401, but then it’s still half an hour to get downtown. In rush hour the trip can take two hours by car, and I’ve had it take longer than that off-peak.

Greyhound’s fastest, most express buses are scheduled to take 1h 35m between downtown Kitchener and downtown Toronto; but many buses go through Guelph and take longer. GO Transit takes 2h 20m with a transfer at Mississauga, or 2h 15m with a transfer to the train in Milton on a couple of early morning weekday runs. Its direct express Friday afternoon buses from the University of Waterloo to Mississauga still result in a total scheduled trip time of 2h 25m between UW and Toronto. VIA Rail has three trains a day from Kitchener to Toronto, which are scheduled to take between 1h 35m and 1h 55m.

With that in mind, we can return to the subject of GO trains. The prototype schedule (see Appendix B of the EA) shows the trains taking 2h to travel the full 12 stations between downtown Kitchener and downtown Toronto, or less from the Breslau park-and-ride lot. Considering the congestion and hassle faced when commuting by car, and the bus/car trip times in the best circumstances, that’s not bad at all. When GO expands to all-day service it will prove quite competitive with Highway 401 for getting to downtown Toronto — unless, of course, Ontario spends hundreds of millions of dollars on Highway 401 widenings in a futile attempt to catch up with induced demand.

The north mainline track looks like it could use some investment. (Photo by Sylvan Mably, taken north of downtown Kitchener.)

Though I’m focusing here on the trip to Toronto, I should note that most of the commuters from Kitchener are not expected to go as far as Toronto — Guelph is expected to be the single biggest destination on the line from Kitchener-Waterloo. And lastly, it is a legitimate point that the trains will still be a lot slower than they could be. The track won’t allow for very high speeds and trains will have to deal with freight traffic. Increased investment in the line would allow for much faster — and perhaps electric — trains, that might actually be able to bring the trip down to the coveted hour from end to end.

For now, if we let go of the false notion that Toronto is only an hour away, a comfortable two-hour train ride starts to seem a lot more reasonable.

*Word is that the University of Waterloo will be referencing the distance to Toronto from now on.

If you’ve wanted something that works better on your mobile phone than EasyGO, that has a better user interface, and that provides more options for your trip — well, this may give you what you’re looking for. Below is a sample trip from east Kitchener to Preston.

View Larger Map

We believe Grand River Transit will be publishing their transit schedule data in a standard format within a matter of weeks, which will open up some exciting possibilities for app development.

Thanks to Kourtney Short for the post idea.

A schematic map by Duncan Clemens illustrating some of the transit
improvements specified in the RTMP. Click through to see a larger image.

The RTMP provides a framework for transit funding improvements for the next 20 years, with steady annual increases in the per-capita level of funding for transit. By 2031 funding for transit operations will have tripled over current levels, and the modal share for transit is expected to triple to 17%. The document includes a guide for planned service increases and improvements, which will be reviewed as each year’s plans are put into action.

Just in the first five years, the RTMP plans for five new iXpress-style limited-stop express routes, on Fischer-Hallman Rd, Erb St – University Ave – Bridge St, Highland Rd – Victoria St, Coronation Blvd, and Hespeler Rd. It also calls for better evening and weekend service and increased frequencies for the iXpress and in general. Among planned local service increases are a new Westmount Rd route, service on Ira Needles Blvd, service to the new Conestoga College campus, and new routes to the townships.

For 2010 Grand River Transit has a budget of $54 million (net of expected fare revenue). The first year’s funding increase will be almost $4 million, which gives you a sense of how serious the Region is about improving transit. The year after will be another $4 million, and so on each year until 2031. Other aspects of an improved transportation system — such as complete streets and better land-use policies — are addressed by the new Regional Official Plan and Transportation Corridor Guidelines. We’ll cover those documents in upcoming posts.

“The Province’s commitment has, unfortunately, fallen short of the Region’s request made last year and the repeated hints at two-thirds funding,” said Tim Mollison, a TriTAG founding member. “In falling short of the two-thirds funding convention provided to similar projects in the City of Toronto, the McGuinty Government has added much fuel to local controversy about whether this project has enough funding to move forward.”

TriTAG is inviting citizens of Waterloo Region to use its website to contact their representatives in Ottawa in support of the Region’s initiative. “We believe it is important to facilitate communication between people and their government, especially on issues of such importance,” said TriTAG founding member Taylor Byrnes.

“Despite the gap left by the province, we hope that the Federal Government can step up to bat and match the Province‘s contribution, as was done in the City of Ottawa,” said Mollison. “The Federal Minister of Transport’s office has said the Region will get its ‘fair share’ — it’s time to find out what that means to the Government of Canada.”

The Tri-Cities Transport Action Group is a citizens’ group dedicated to making Waterloo Region a more livable place through better transit and active transportation. For more information, please visit their website at http://tritag.ca

For media inquiries, please contact Tim Mollison at (519) 886-5339.

This post serves as a photo-document of a pedestrian trip from the northwest end of downtown Kitchener along King Street West to the Waterloo border. I live near this route and walk it frequently. This stretch of King Street is the first of Kitchener’s mixed-use corridor zoning areas, which aim to shape development to support higher-density, pedestrian friendly streets with a mix of complementary uses. Over the long term, Kitchener’s planners hope that the mixed-use zoning will help bring vitality to the street. In the short term, what is holding King Street West back? Let’s go for a walk and find out.

The walk starts well. There is a wide zebra crosswalk at Victoria Street, the only one on this route and one of the few in the region. On the far side of the intersection there is a fairly new sidewalk with attractive lampposts on the road side.

At the railway tracks, the concrete sidewalk ends and is replaced with uneven asphalt. The railway crossing gate blocks part of the sidewalk.

The concrete sidewalk is badly cracked. It probably hasn’t been replaced for decades. This may not be a barrier to most pedestrians, but it gives us the impression that we are unwelcome, that those responsible for maintaining the street are content to let its pedestrian infrastructure decay.

Here, the sidewalk is squeezed between a fast-moving lane of traffic and a concrete retaining wall. The width of the sidewalk could be nearly doubled by extending it to the edge of the road, but instead pedestrians must step into dirty patches of grass to pass a group of people or a wide stroller.

Because of the speed and proximity of traffic, you can’t help but feel a bit uneasy walking here. Low curbs don’t help. In many places, the sidewalk is only two or three inches above the surface of the roadway.

How many problems can you spot in this intersection? I’ll list a few. The wide lane and large corner radius encourage vehicles to make right turns at high speed. The crosswalk begins on the right, away from the road, where drivers are less likely to see a pedestrian beginning to cross. The direction of the crosswalk is not just unsafe — it actually encourages pedestrians to cross illegally by taking a shortcut. (The Ontario Highway Traffic Act specifies that pedestrians must cross the street within the lines of the nearest marked pedestrian crossing.)

A garbage can and advertising boxes block more than half the width of the sidewalk.

Here there is no curb at all. What purpose could this ramp up to the sidewalk possibly serve?

The sidewalk has fallen — rather literally — into a state of disrepair. It seems to be sinking under the road, and an ancient asphalt repair is rotting away.

The sidewalk by Central Fresh Market is pleasantly wide and well maintained. But why is that big blank wall facing the road? It could make a wonderful urban storefront.

Dirt and gravel are covering the sidewalk. When it rains, the sidewalk turns to mud.

This parking area seems to exend right onto the sidewalk. Is this a barrier to pedestrianism? No, not really. But like many of the situations I’ve highlighted in these photos, it makes a pedestrian feel vaguely uncomfortable, as if perhaps he or she is not really welcome here.

I hope these photos have succeeded in illustrating some of the ways a road can be unfriendly to pedestrians, even when equipped with sidewalks. Some of the problems I highlighted are small — but they add up to an uncomfortable (and sometimes unsafe) pedestrian experience. A true complete street should feel as if it is designed for pedestrians just as much as it is designed for motor vehicles, and King Street West fails badly in that regard.

Dear community and business leaders,

I am writing to you regarding Cadan, Inc.’s Lang Tannery project in Kitchener, specifically the planned demolition of four old industrial buildings in the block bounded by Victoria, Oak, and Joseph Streets to allow for a gravel parking lot and a future parking structure. This plan has been recently written about in The Record.

It seems to me that no one wants to see these reusable heritage buildings demolished to add another parking lot to downtown Kitchener. In an earlier Record article, Roland Rom Colthoff, the architect of the redevelopment, said that the parking requirements of the Tannery could be reduced if public transit improves. But at the same time that the Region of Waterloo is planning major transit improvements to attract people out of their cars, the Tannery plans to add new surface parking to the downtown.

I believe there is a better way, one that is better for Cadan, Inc., better for the community, and better for the environment.

I ask that you consider whether a transit solution can be found to immediately mitigate the need for more parking, and that a partnership be undertaken to finance such transit improvements. This is entirely feasible, because the very transit improvements that would make the Lang Tannery well served by transit are ones the Region of Waterloo will be making anyway in the next few years. If Cadan provided private investment to kick-start such transit improvement, I believe the City of Kitchener and the Region of Waterloo would be able to provide the funds in subsequent years to ensure that those improvements become permanent.

What do I mean by transit improvements? By my calculations, about one-tenth of the cost of a 640-space parking structure, or $2-3 million, would be sufficient to cover the one-year operating cost increase of doubling frequency on the iXpress bus route and adding night service. The iXpress is a very popular express bus route that travels the length of the Region along its Central Transit Corridor (future light rail route), but currently runs at only 15 minute frequency. With 7 minute frequency and a stop added at King & Victoria — which is planned anyway — this would bring schedule-free express bus service within one block of the Lang Tannery. (This improved service would, in turn, spur more use and hasten the arrival of light rail.) There are other possible routes for improvement, such as bus service along Victoria Street itself to the suburbs on the west side.

Helping to kick-start excellent transit service is beneficial to Cadan first of all because it reduces parking demand, and prevents the need for expensive demolition and garage construction. Those savings can be passed on to tenants, who may be more numerous and successful as a result. Cadan could make the most of limited parking by leasing parking space separately from loft space (unbundling), and encouraging tenants to offer employees the choice of parking or its cash value. Such “parking cash out” reliably decreases parking demand and would be particularly effective with excellent transit service. Accounting for such demand management, enough spots could be leased from the many surrounding lots to deal with any remaining mismatch of supply and demand.

Preventing the need for demolition also opens up new opportunities for Cadan in reusing some or all of the currently-doomed buildings, allowing it to reap the consequent financial rewards as well as good will from the community.

The community stands to benefit from the preservation and reuse of heritage structures, from the resulting extra pedestrian traffic due to those buildings and the higher use of transit to get to the Lang Tannery, and through preventing the public health impacts of more driving and more air pollution in downtown. The municipal governments stand to benefit from preventing further strain on road infrastructure and visibly accomplishing some of the goals of their official plans.

The environment is better off with fewer people choosing to drive and, as architect Carl Elefante has put it, the greenest building is one that is already built.

What is the catch? Here the situation is simple: there is none, because reducing economic inefficiency is its own reward. The inefficiency lies in the provision of more parking in addition to the planned provision of high-quality transit service, when the latter would suffice for the same purpose.

You have before you an opportunity to provide an outstanding model of using our limited existing resources to plan for a sustainable and liveable future community. I ask that all parties consider the full breadth of mutually-beneficial options available before you. A win-win-win solution for the Lang Tannery would turn a good project into a great one.

Sincerely yours,

Michael Druker
Tri-Cities Transport Action Group

—–

The Tri-Cities Transport Action Group (TriTAG) is dedicated to improving transit and active transportation in Kitchener, Waterloo and Cambridge. This open letter has been published at http://www.tritag.ca/blog/2010/04/14/win-win-win-solution-for-the-lang-tannery/

Staff have completed a feasibility study on a pedestrian/cyclist bridge over the 401 in Cambridge. Three locations were considered — just east of Hespeler Road, mid-way between Hespeler Road and Franklin Boulevard, and at Franklin Boulevard. The Franklin Boulevard location was recommended. They recommend that if the Province will go forward with planned widening of the 401 by 2015 and thus replace the Franklin Boulevard interchange, that the new bridge include pedestrian and cyclist facilities. Otherwise they recommend building a pedestrian/cyclist bridge directly adjacent to the current bridge. Cost estimates are $2.4M for a separate bridge, and $1.7M for integrating facilities into a new Franklin Boulevard interchange.

University of Waterloo graduate students have voted for a universal transit pass, and the U-Pass is coming up for official approval. The pass would become effective May 1, 2010, with students paying $50.42 for the first term, and $52.94 per subsequent term until August 31, 2011, when the agreement would come up for renewal. Pending negotiation with UW undergraduate students, fees starting in September will be the same for all UW and WLU students. The fees are designed so the change is revenue-neutral for GRT.

Currently Ontario has a Provincial Sales Tax (PST) exemption on bicycle sales under $1000 until the end of the year. Staff propose to request the Province to extend this to the roll-out of the Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) and past the end of the year. They also propose that the exemption apply to all human-powered cycles and to the first $1000 of such cycles. If the exemption is not extended, the request is that all HST revenues from the sale of cycles be directed to cycling infrastructure projects.

Staff report on Moving Forward 2031, the development of the Regional Transportation Master Plan (RTMP). The RTMP plans for investment in Rapid Transit, the bus network, and strategic road improvements, for changes to planning policy, and for travel demand management (TDM) initiatives — with the intention of increasing the modal share of transit from 5% to 17% by 2031. The recommendation is to fund necessary transit improvements with a yearly increase of 1% in the tax levy for operations and maintenance. Changes in the fare strategy and development charges are to also be considered. An additional road interchange with Highway 401 is recommended for the area west of the Grand River.

Draft design guidelines are presented for regional transportation corridors (and importantly, the emphasis is away from just “roads”). The guidelines propose a hierarchy of roads and establish recommendations for incorporating elements for transit priority, active transportation, and attractive boulevard design into road layouts.

Both the RTMP and the Regional Transportation Corridor Guidelines will be presented at upcoming public consultations, and feedback for the guidelines will be incorporated into a final version for June.

In light of current traffic and projections due to Rapid Transit along King Street, various options are being considered for removing the two-lane bottleneck on Weber Street in Kitchener by the spur line, and grade-separation is being proposed for the Weber Street crossing of the main line railway in Kitchener. Public consultations will be held later this month.

What these photos show is the absence of anything to indicate the presence of the Iron Horse Trail. Which is a problem. How can we expect motorists to be mindful of a major path crossing if they cannot see it? Pedestrian infrastructure for the crossings is needed in order for motorists to give due attention to trail users, for the safety and improved experience of those trail users, and for better awareness of the Iron Horse Trail itself.

The Iron Horse Trail warrants raised crossings that are visually distinct from the rest of the road, but at the very least it should have zebra crossings.

(This entry is cross-posted to my personal blog.)

The meeting will be at the main Kitchener Public Library in Meeting Room B, on Wednesday, January 27, at 7:00pm. (Details are also on Facebook.) We hope you will join us.

(This time has changed from the initial posting.)

But he’s written his screed against light rail, and it deserves a response, so I will provide one by considering his points one at a time.

“LRT ridership will be 50 per cent to 100 per cent more than the iXpress, or fewer than 20,000 LRT riders per day in 2031, not the 56,200 estimated by the region.”

This is a pretty silly way to start. As I wrote in my own Record column on the subject, iXpress ridership has grown dramatically as service has been increased, with ridership doubling twice in just four years of its existence. Right now average weekday ridership levels are around 8-10,000 or more, and that’s with service only every 15 minutes. It’s actually rather likely that with a service increase to every 7.5 minutes (the proposed light rail frequency), iXpress ridership will double to at least 20,000 by 2014, the time light rail is expected to be opened. (The local Route 7 mainline service has over 15,000 riders daily, of which many will be attracted by frequent express service.) The light rail will also provide faster, more reliable, and more comfortable service than the iXpress, and it will have several more stops. In addition, the bus network is being redesigned to have frequent cross-corridor service connecting to the line, in some cases using it in lieu of central terminals. So there will be substantially more riders on the LRT at opening day than the 20,000 we could expect from just the iXpress. As for 2031? The province is planning for 40% population growth in the region by then, with the new Regional Official Plan making clear that a large proportion of that growth must take place in the urban core and at transit nodes. In effect, that will double (or more) the population and employment along the light rail corridor. So the figure of 56,200 riders per day in 2031 looks eminently reasonable — without even factoring in peak oil.

“These larger “comparison” cities, have major sports stadiums, train stations, and convention centers on the LRT as well as large downtowns. The comparison cities are all much bigger. Waterloo region is much smaller, but with higher estimated LRT ridership.”

Mr. Shortreed believes that transit serves exactly two purposes: mobility for those who cannot drive, and commuting from the suburbs to a CBD (central business district). Incidentally, the latter transit purpose also happens to describe the overwhelming majority of transit lines built in North America in the last half century or more.

Of course, that’s not actually how transit is used in Waterloo Region. Most of the routes really are from the suburbs to a downtown. But most of the ridership is on the routes that go between multiple important destinations or along important corridors — iXpress and routes 7, 8, 12, and 52. The light rail system for Waterloo Region will actually be a better system than most out there, because it never goes out to the suburbs. Stations in the first phase will be located at (from north to south): a large mall (an important transit anchor), industrial employment lands and residential area, a large office employment node and residential area, a large university, a CBD, a large hospital and future mixed-use zone, an intermodal transit terminal and part of a CBD, a CBD centre, further part of CBD, an industrial and minor commercial area, a large residential area, and a large mall and transit hub. The line will serve a corridor that is already home to a large number of destinations of all kinds — not limited to employment at one end and residential at another.

It’s quite likely that the downtown Kitchener stations will be particularly busy, but Mr. Shortreed’s point is valid: the CBD isn’t all that huge. But the other side of the coin is that destinations are spread along the entire length of the line. It is worth considering the light rail as something of a modern version of the interurban Grand River Railway.

As for those comparisons with other cities: First, Canadian cities have higher transit use than American ones. Second, those lines are generally much shorter than the planned light rail. Lastly, planning policy is important to ensure that growth does occur near the line — which is being accomplished here by the Regional Official Plan, but which is absent from many prior North American systems.

“How can you compare Waterloo Region with cities 3.5 times larger?”

Who cares about the number of people living in suburban sprawl away from transit? What is important is how much is served by the line, and in Waterloo Region it will be a high proportion. Similarly, it matters not how many will ride such a line in other areas, but how many will ride it here. As a counterpoint to Mr. Shortreed’s comparisons, Calgary built its light rail when it was about the same size as Waterloo Region is now, and the C-Train now averages over 200,000 riders a day.

“I did a ridership survey on the iXpress from Fairview to Conestoga Mall and return at the 7:30 a.m. peak hour, on a fall weekday. My study found 9,000 daily riders, consistent with the region’s estimates. The majority of riders were students. There were very few choice riders.”

Perhaps at Mr. Shortreed’s age, more people look like students than actually are such. (Though students can also be choice riders.) My recent field report used a morning peak screenline on both the 7 and the iXpress, and while I found more going by bus from Kitchener to Waterloo (presumably towards the universities), the opposite direction actually had over 2/3 of that number and proportion of transit riders. Students are an unlikely explanation for trips from Waterloo to Kitchener in the morning weekday peak, and from the data it is clear that the appeal of the iXpress is not limited to students. As for that last bit about choice riders — I have to wonder if Mr. Shortreed thinks you can tell by sight.

“For example, few iXpress riders now go to the research and technology park, and since the proposed LRT station there will be five minutes further away than the iXpress station the low ridership will become less. Yet it is argued that LRT will support the high tech industry.”

The R&T Park is a suburban-style office park and not a transit-friendly destination. That said, it’s nowhere near fully built out, and once light rail starts construction new buildings will gravitate towards the station. But this misses a larger point, which is that this station would be very close to the (more dense) RIM campus and other employment on Phillip Street. So it’s probably a better location even in the short term.

“For example, while the LRT has one station in the 2.4 kilometres between downtown Kitchener and Waterloo stations. The existing bus system has 10 stations and provides much better service to entice offices, apartments, shops and other development to locate in the King Street Corridor.”

To break that down, that’s 1.2 km station spacing, or a maximum of 600 m to get to a station if you’re already on King Street. The stations are Uptown Waterloo, Grand River Hospital, and King & Victoria (which is not an iXpress stop). By “existing bus system” Mr. Shortreed means the Route 7 local service, which runs every 7 minutes or better during the day. According to his logic, no one should ride the iXpress, with its even wider station spacing, minimal time advantage over Route 7, and much worse frequency (every 15 minutes during the day). And yet, as my field report showed, the iXpress carried 40% of riders across the King Street screenline. It is clear that those riders do not agree with Mr. Shortreed about what constitutes better service, and I’m sure there would be more such riders with the iXpress at 7 minute frequencies, and certainly with the more comfortable and reliable light rail.

“By setting aside LRT, a ’suburban commuter’ transit solution then other more viable and cost effective ‘community building’ transit solutions will emerge.”

It’s fitting that Mr. Shortreed ends by showing his poor understanding of the light rail proposal and of the urban structure of Waterloo Region. This will not be a suburban commuter line, and it’s questionable whether the suburbs will be producing all that many transit commuters in this region any time soon. What the line will be is a frequent, fast, and comfortable transit option for travelling along the dense (and densifying) urban spine of Waterloo Region.