Here’s where you come in. We want to see what ideas people have for how to develop this parcel and make the Iron Horse Trail better at the same time — by bringing it back to its original alignment and taking out the current 90-degree turn. This is what I mean:

View Iron Horse Trail and Allen/Caroline in a larger map

Let us know in the comments or email us your depictions (or examples from elsewhere) of what could be done with that area, perhaps with some creative use of the space above the Iron Horse Trail. We don’t have much time to get this out to the developer and Waterloo City Hall, so e-mail us your ideas or examples to protectthetrail@tritag.ca . We’ll put up the submissions in a follow-up.

Stop by and bring your friends – we’ll be in the Harp Room at McCabe’s at King & Francis in downtown Kitchener. (If you like, join the Facebook event.)

Though the name of the project is daunting, the idea is both simple and rather important. The Rapid Transit / LRT project is designed to function as a regional transit spine and to attract and handle a large amount of development as urban infill along Waterloo Region’s central corridor instead of as sprawl. The CBS will set out the vision for land-use planning and street networks around stations.

LRT is already attracting development near station areas, but with the zoning currently in place and without a coherent strategy for LRT corridor development, those buildings may not be creating transit-oriented and human-scale places. The “Northfield Station” development is a likely example of a missed opportunity. It isn’t a given that LRT changes its station areas much by itself. For example, outside of Calgary’s downtown, its LRT appears to have primarily influenced the land-use around its stations through the copious provision of parking.

So that the line can create dense, urban, transit-oriented places along the line, the zoning needs to change so that it allows for density, so that it does not require off-street parking, and so it allows and encourages a built form that makes for pedestrian-oriented neighbourhoods. The attraction of a new light rail line is going to result in much development interest of various kinds along the entire line. The CBS should be a guiding mechanism to turn that interest into city-building along the LRT line.

It’s important stuff, and crucial to the Region’s reurbanization and growth management priorities. Attend the Tuesday workshop if you can, and if not, send your comments online or stop by the storefront the project will be opening soon in downtown Kitchener.

Currently, stations in the University area are planned at Seagram Drive and mid-block between University Avenue and Columbia Street:

Current station locations at Seagram and UW Davis Centre with 600m walking radius

The issue with the above setup is that it would divert cross-corridor routes off their corridors and into a terminal station in front of UW Davis Centre. Diverting trips from these corridors would result in longer cross-town travel times, and would reduce the amount of mixed-use development potential at the cross-corridors. Anyone who has travelled on Routes 7 and 8 through Charles Street Terminal knows the frustrating experience that even a minor route diversion can have on your overall travel time. Time wasted sitting at a terminal is time spent thinking about how much quicker it is to drive or even walk.

As such, TriTAG supports altering the University station locations to the following:

Modified station locations at University Ave and Columbia Street with 600m walking radius

Placing a station at the street provides many benefits over a station mid-block:

• Placing a rapid transit station and transfer point adjacent to a busy cross corridor will showcase to drivers that they have other options for getting around the region. In the same way that a new intermodal terminal at the busy crossroads of King and Victoria will provide a constant promotion for use of transit, placing a transit hub at the crossings of the rail line and Columbia and University will provide consistent, free advertising for the use of rapid transit. If rapid transit is expected to remove drivers from their vehicles, then stations need to be visible from those vehicles, not placed out-of-sight and out-of-mind from the general public.
• Stations at University and Columbia will promote further transit-oriented development along these corridors. There are numerous opportunities within 600m (a 10-minute walk) of the rapid transit station. This would turn the university district into more than just a destination for students, helping transform it into a place where everyone is welcome to live, work, shop, and play along a human-scale streetscape.
• These stations will promote the improvement of the pedestrian realm on University Ave and Columbia Street, partially through the incentive for mixed-use development, and partially through the increased pedestrian traffic on these streets.
• It will actually serve transit users better and increase operational efficiency by eliminating an otherwise arduous detour and layover at a UW Davis Centre terminal.
• Better coverage of the UW Campus, particularly of the southwest corner.

A vision of how a rapid transit hub at University Ave will look can be found within the University of Waterloo’s 2009 Master Plan.  The plan depicts the potential opportunity for a public-private partnership to redevelop the existing University Shops Plaza into an area which is well-integreated with transit and the surrounding area. A station at University would allow for a better integration of GO bus routes into a new transit and pedestrian oriented facilility.

Station location alternative from the University of Waterloo Master Plan (p. 104 in South Campus - B document from http://plantoperations.uwaterloo.ca/cmp/cmp.php)

Although moving the current intercity bus stop from UW Davis Centre to University Ave may not happen immediately, this shouldn’t become a reason not to build a rapid transit station here. Once a station location is finalized, it can be very difficult to get that station moved, and as discussed earlier, placing a station mid-block at Davis would entrench existing inefficiencies into the bus network which prevent people from getting where they want to go in a timely manner.

Concerning Seagram Drive

One of the main arguments for a station at Seagram Drive would be to serve Wilfrid Laurier University, however the location of this station is not ideal. The distance between the Seagram Station stop and the classrooms at the edge of the Laurier campus is roughly equal to the width of the campus. Many Laurier students, especially in the winter, will opt to transfer to frequent local bus service either at UW Davis or Uptown Waterloo. An origin-destination study of Laurier students should be considered when rationalizing such a stop.

As a student at Laurier, I would much rather be dropped off in front of campus instead of 700m from the closest classroom door entrance along a corridor with high exposure.

Despite the issues TriTAG has with the Seagram Drive stop, we believe that a stop here could still make sense as a special event or weekend stop as it was considered earlier in the Rapid Transit process. The stop could even be retained as a regular stop. Closer stop spacing like in Uptown Waterloo and Downtown Kitchener could be justified as the University/Technology Park area could be considered analogous to a CBD.

Looking Forward

University Ave currently sees 25-30 buses an hour in peak periods.  There are currently five conventional and two (soon to be three) 200-series routes which run through or near the intersection of University and the rail spur. With these kinds of numbers, there is plenty of opportunity to change schedules so a bus arrives at your footstep every 4 minutes between Westmount and Weber.

As the region continues its process of restructuring and rationalizing its routes through this corridor, University Ave will warrant some variety of dedicated transit infrastructure whether it be dedicated bus lanes or an eventual LRT line.

Stations at the intersections of University and Columbia would play a part in transforming existing developments into more walkable, livable mixed-use ones.

Rapid Transit will be a project whose impact on development and travel patterns will last for generations and as such, it is important that the line is able to reach is maximum potential for all areas on Day One.

That will bring us to pretty much all-day hourly scheduled bus service between Kitchener and Mississauga on weekdays and Saturdays. It’s less than hourly in the early morning, evening, and Sundays, but still pretty impressive for a service that doesn’t seem to get much media attention. Yet, GO is increasing the service likely because there is high demand for it.

Why would you want to go to Mississauga, apart from the city itself or the Square One mall? At the Square One terminal, there are regular buses to Toronto-Union station (Route 21), to York University (Routes 45, 46, 47), and mostly commuter runs to Yorkdale and North York (Route 19).

In addition, with a Presto card you can easily ride both GO buses and MiWay local buses without buying tickets (and with a transfer discount). MiWay routes 26, 3, and 20 will take you from Square One to Islington station on the TTC Bloor-Danforth subway line. Routes 107 (weekday only rapid) and 7 both go to Pearson Airport — the 7 goes directly to Terminal 1 and the 107 stops at the Viscount LINK train station. Apart from being dropped off and picked up at the airport, GO + MiWay is by far the cheapest way of getting to Pearson from Waterloo Region.

We’ll be in the Harp Room at McCabe’s at King & Francis in downtown Kitchener. There will be a digital projector set up for those who want to share something on a larger screen.

We hope to see many of you there!

Oh, and the perhaps also important position of LRT Project Director is now available (no listing). As is this interesting (and new?) position of “Coordinator, On-Street Passenger Amenities” for Grand River Transit.

(In terms of labels for these paths, my understanding is that the path between the University of Waterloo and uptown Waterloo is part of the Laurel Trail, while the Iron Horse Trail begins on Caroline Street.)

The Iron Horse Trail is an invaluable transportation corridor linking communities in Waterloo Region. Most of the Trail is a comfortably wide asphalt strip that follows the former railroad corridor. Hundreds (if not thousands) of commuters, walkers, cyclists, rollerbladers, and skateboarders use the Trail each day.

However, at various times during the year, the Iron Horse Trail from Perimeter Institute past the Waterloo Zoo is a wet, dirty, almost impenetrable mud fest. It is one of the few sections of the trail that is not paved. Yes, this year has been unseasonably wet and mild but it doesn’t take much rain or wet snow to make that part of the trail sloppy.

Today when I got home, my boots were soaked and muddy. The rain pants that I wore were splattered with dried muck. As much as I want to walk every day, at this time of the year it makes me want to drive to work just so my socks will be dry the rest of the day.

But it’s not really just about me. There are many other reasons for paving that section of the Trail:

• People in wheel chairs, rollerbladers, mothers with baby carriages could use the Trail all year long – they could not have navigated that section of the Trail today.
• It would be safer. The inevitable potholes and puddles that form are dangerous to walkers and bikers. The snow and ice that accumulate also melts more quickly on the black asphalt.
• It could end up being cheaper. The cost of grading and filling in pot holes could be avoided.

So, please, Waterloo, your section of the Iron Horse Trail is embarrassing! Please pave it in the interest of health, safety and environment.

We whole-heartedly agree, given how important a corridor Laurel Trail is for walking and cycling in Waterloo.

1. Increased hours. A 4 hour time slot (which includes set-up and tear-down) is far too brief to enjoy the diversity of events offered as part of Car Free Sunday. Last year, my wife and I found ourselves rushed to leave church, eat lunch (more on this later), and then find our way to Uptown by bike and participate in many of the activities before things were packed up and put away. Increasing the hours would allow more people to find time to enjoy these events.
2. Greater frequency. My wife and I tried to invite several friends to join us last year, and many had made other plans on these weekends. Kitchener’s single participation was spoiled by sweltering heat. Making Car Free Sunday more frequent and regular, to say, every one or two weeks, would give more opportunities for success. It would foster a greater sense of community to be able to see each other face to face out on the street more often, and hopefully inspire more cultural change. And nobody would be caught off guard or late for church if they could regularly expect King Street to be closed and plan their commutes accordingly.
3. Food! You can’t host an event that covers lunch hour and not have something to eat! It was a major oversight last year that there weren’t many food vendors brought in. Where were the chuck wagons that surround Columbia Lake every Canada Day? I would like to enjoy food from all cultures, not just from Uptown’s one hot dog cart. (Arguably a culture all unto itself!) Selling food permits would also be a great way for the cities to recoup some of the costs.
4. More participation from community groups and businesses. Clubs, churches, and other organizations often relish opportunities for exposure to their community. Many churches today are coming to grips with the fact that they sometimes need to sacrifice a few of their Sunday morning services to interact with those who’d never pass through the church’s doors on their own. It’s a good opportunity to connect with the community in a visible way.
   Businesses in Uptown could take greater advantage of the event with sidewalk sales and sponsorships. Care would need to be taken so that this isn’t overdone – it would harm the ‘do-it-yourself’ spirit of the event if it were to become overly commercialized. We should continue to invite local artisans to set up tables to promote their work.
5. Reduced police presence. One of the most expensive aspects of last year’s Car Free Sundays was the presence of a police officer at every intersection. We don’t post an officer on guard every time we close a street for construction. I’m sure motorists can figure out on their own not to drive down a barricaded street.
6. Promotion. A lot of friends we talked to had never heard about Car Free Sunday, but might have been inclined to go had they heard about it ahead of time. Perhaps put up road closure signs like they do for days or even weeks in advance of construction. This would also have the added benefit of alerting Sunday drivers to plan an alternate route or choose to bike instead.
7. Encouragement for our representatives who are investing in healthy lifestyles, community, and civic pride. Our governments invest hundreds of millions of dollars locally on car-centric infrastructure that isolates us from each other. There should be no stigma for investing a comparably paltry couple thousand on promoting and celebrating a healthier lifestyle and future. As citizens, we should be open about supporting and thanking representatives who have the courage and vision to make these investments, and urge them to complement these events with more permanent active transportation infrastructure.
8. Name changes if necessary, but only with good reasons. Arguing that “Car Free” isn’t inclusive is a bizarre twisting of reality. Clearing away the cars makes King Street a level playing field for everyone to enjoy equally. Contrast this with “Cruising on King,” where we exclude everyone from the street except those with pre-emissions standard automobiles. (Ironically, Cruising on King often gets held up as an example of how a successful event is run.) This isn’t to say that we might not want another name that promotes Car Free Sundays better. But we shouldn’t walk on eggshells, pretending that having King Street briefly free of cars is a bad thing.

I think last year’s Car Free Sundays were a fantastic start. But I want to see them be made better and become ingrained into our local social and cultural fabric. I want to be able to continue to enjoy Car Free Sunday for many years in the future, long after the canard of the “war on the car” has been put to rest.

However, he may be dismayed that we don’t agree with his conclusions. In fact, Shortreed unwittingly presents strong evidence which validates the LRT project.

He points out that a population shift is occurring right now, as condominium building has accelerated within our cores, and asserts that this trend makes LRT redundant as an intensifier. Unfortunately, he ignores the effect of LRT approval on this same process: now that plans are firm and station locations have been identified, development has picked up pace. The Red Condominiums, a second building proposal at 144 Park, a long awaited new “Waterloo Commons” development at the NCR property in North Waterloo and an accompanying development next to it– pointedly named Northfield Station– are just some of the developments unleashed now that LRT is in active planning.

It goes against common sense to view this as evidence that we don’t need LRT for intensification while ignoring the effect LRT is already having on them. But perhaps Shortreed has a point. Perhaps intensification is a natural force, driven by shifting demographics and the increasing cost of unsustainable sprawl, and rail transit’s proven effects on driving intensification are superfluous.

If so, we must plan for an urban form that will be well served by rail transit, and an aging population who will be increasingly unable (physically or financially) to get around by private automobile. We must also face the growing attractiveness of urban life to young professionals. These factors will continue to drive demand for transit.

Speaking of demand for transit, Shortreed also identifies rapid uptake of the iXpress system, as it continues to knock down ridership targets ahead of schedule. We agree with Shortreed that iXpress is an unmitigated success, but strongly disagree with his conclusion that it is sufficient for our future needs. This is like pointing at an increasingly busy highway and saying that all that traffic makes the highway a success, but we shouldn’t ever worry about widening it.

In fact, the success of transit in Waterloo Region and the shift in our urban form– driven both by demographics and the attractiveness of light rail along our densest corridor– translate into the kind of ridership numbers that won’t just validate LRT, they will demand it. iXpress in mixed traffic has some headroom left, but saturation is already in sight. It will be crushed under the weight of its own success. Higher-order transit is required.

Finally, we share Shortreed’s concerns about Waterloo Region census data and the economic difficulties ahead, though our still healthy growth rate is hardly a “Rust Belt”-like decline. Nor should we batten down the hatches in an exercise of damage control: we believe the communities that will weather this economic storm and come out on top will be those that invest in themselves to stay competitive and attractive to new growth, instead of being satisfied to wither away.

The case for Light Rail has never been so compelling.