Question: How do you propose to address the increasing traffic congestion due to growth? TriTAG's view: The Region's population is projected to increase by 200,000 people, and the Places to Grow initiative mandates that much of it takes the form of infill development. Continued growth will increase traffic. Instead of widening roads in the urban cores, we support transit in its own right-of-way (such as bus-only lanes on arterial roads and the proposed light rail system) as alternatives to congestion. Transportation demand management (TDM) strategies and shifts in land use can also reduce the economic impact of traffic congestion. Further reading: What does transit do about traffic congestion? | Robert Milligan:
Through my 2000+ hours of research and IDEAS generation, I have concluded that the present LRT system design is too costly, won't intensify well, and will do little | Ken Seiling:
With a population growth projected to be around 200,000 more people inthe next 20 years, the Region must address how it will handle this growth. It has adopted a new Regional Official Plan based on its growth management strategy.The Region has also adopted a new Transportation Master Plan which promotes a balanced approach of rapid transit, improved transit, road improvements, inter-city rail service, and TDM strategies. I obviously have voted to support this approach and I will continue to work for it. |
Question: Do you support the light rail transit system for managing the Region's growth over the next decades? TriTAG's view: Light rail is expensive, but in the context of continued growth there are also serious costs associated with building no new transportation infrastructure or insufficient infrastructure. | Robert Milligan:
Yes but only if a much more cost-effective LRT system design is created. | Ken Seiling:
I am firmly convinced that LRT is the best option for the future as has been shown in all of the studies to date and as has been experienced in many other North American cities. If we can afford to forge ahead, it would be far better to invest in a system that will produce the levels of investment and intensification required in our plans, attract the largest number of riders, operate consistently regardless of automobile traffic, and not have to be replaced in 15 years or so as would be the case with a BRT. |
Question: How would you improve inter-city transportation? In particular, would you push for joint routes between Guelph Transit and GRT? TriTAG's view: We are concerned with plans to build a limited-access highway between Kitchener and Guelph when there is no public transit connection. Guelph Transit has indicated a willingness to work with GRT to link our transit systems, and we would like to see links from Guelph to Kitchener and Cambridge as soon as possible. We hope our future regional government will continue to work with other levels of government to bring improved rail transit with Guelph and the GTA to our region. | Robert Milligan:
Yes. In fact I met with Guelph Council 2 years ago about their possible interconnections with WR -- both bus & rail. | Ken Seiling:
The new GO servivce will provide added opportiunities bettween Guelph and the Region as will expanded VIA service which we also hope will materialize with the improvements to the north Mainline. I would be open to discussing the issue with Guelph however if there is a competing need for dollars, our own system plus any sharing we have to do for the expanded GO service would be top priority. |
Question: Do you think transit should primarily serve those who cannot use other means of transportation, or do you think it should primarily serve those who have a choice? TriTAG's view: Some people see transit primarily as a social service or safety net. We see transit as a service that should be made useful for everyone, that can slow the growth of traffic congestion and shape a more sustainable urban form. | Robert Milligan:
I should serve both with fair subsidies for the needy and a much more cost-effective LRT system design to serve all well. This solution implies minimal transit times andsufficient length to attract the middle class out of their road-jamming cars. | Ken Seiling:
A functional and attractive transit system serves everyone. With urban intensification and the distribution of employment along the major corridors, I believe that it will become even more attractive to a wider range of people, especially as improvements are made to the balance of the system. |
Question: Will you support the construction of segregated bicycle infrastructure on wide urban roads and cycling infrastructure at intersections? TriTAG's view: Other progressive cities, such as Montreal, Vancouver, and Portland, are building physically separated cycling facilities on arterial roads. These cycle tracks improve safety and promote cycling. Further reading: Streetfilms: The Case for Physically Separated Bike Lanes | Robert Milligan:
Most certainly. But further, I am doing research on how to best interconnect trail segments so that we can have long-distance Tri-city commuting+ bicycle (& walking) trails. My preference is to maximize the separation between bikes and cars. | Ken Seiling:
Although there is a case that can be made for physically separated bike lanes, I would need to be convinced that they are affordable and workable given the nature of many of our roads. We certainly can do more with bike lanes but I am not sure separate lanes are the way to go at this time. |
Question: Will you support a regional bike-sharing system, such as the one Montreal has? TriTAG's view: Montreal's BIXI bike-sharing system has spread to cities around the world, including London, Minneapolis, Melbourne, and soon, Boston and Toronto. It is also used on the Research in Motion campus. We would like to see the Region of Waterloo taking the initiative to bring the program here. Further reading: BIXI | Robert Milligan:
Yes. Great IDEA. I'll be in Montreal for 2 days next and will check out their system. | Ken Seiling:
I do not have enough information to make such a commitment at this time. there is increasing competition for funds and we simply cannot fund every project. I would certainly be interested in working with groups to examine the project to see if it were viable and sustainable. |
Question: Many arterial and major roads are missing sidewalks, which are currently only added to streets during major reconstruction projects. Will you accelerate the construction of missing sidewalks? TriTAG's view: In 2006, regional staff estimated that 133 kilometres of necessary sidewalks were missing from regional roads. Their estimate was that those missing sidewalks on arterial roads could be built for $15.4 million, or less than half of 2010's budget for road widening and new roads. To meet basic standards of safety and walkability, we believe that sidewalk construction must be made a priority. Further reading: Report E-06-049, Sidewalks on Regional Roads | Robert Milligan:
I agree but the rate of realization would vary with the economy. Also, I would prefer if it were of a trail-like width to accommodate bicycles. | Ken Seiling:
Sidewalks are the repsonsibility of the area municipalities but a few years ago, the Reigon agreed to take over the construction of sidewalks along Regional roads. It was Council's intention to fill in the gaps when construction took place or when funds were available. It does not have the funds to go in and retrofit all roads in one fell swoop but will do it over a period of years. |
Question: Do you believe that municipal staff should be provided with free parking, but no subsidy for other modes of transportation? TriTAG's view: The cost of providing parking for staff is typically bundled in their salaries, making it appear to be free. Financial incentives such as parking cash-out could return that subsidy to staff who choose to use other modes of transportation, while satisfying contractual obligations. Further reading: TDM Encyclopedia article on "commuter financial incentives" | Robert Milligan:
Money bundled into salaries for parking should be made available as an incentive to not use a car or car pool. Specifics would have to be designed. | Ken Seiling:
Regional staff are currently reviewing the various options for worker transportation and I look forward to the suggestions they will bring forward. |
Question: How do you propose to address the increasing traffic congestion due to growth? TriTAG's view: The Region's population is projected to increase by 200,000 people, and the Places to Grow initiative mandates that much of it takes the form of infill development. Continued growth will increase traffic. Instead of widening roads in the urban cores, we support transit in its own right-of-way (such as bus-only lanes on arterial roads and the proposed light rail system) as alternatives to congestion. Transportation demand management (TDM) strategies and shifts in land use can also reduce the economic impact of traffic congestion. Further reading: What does transit do about traffic congestion? | Barbara da Silva:
1. Transportation. I am strongly opposed to the Light Rail because of the exorbitant cost, limited use (corridor runs only between the two malls), the design to have the rails above the level of the road, and the current system could be retooled to cover the whole of the Region for less money. We need to focus our Bus system to meet the needs of employment. Making our current system timed to the schedule of the industrial areas to ensure people can get to the available work with out the need to have a car. This would also encourage people to think Green long term. | Tom Galloway:
It is multi faceted comprehensive plan that is emerging in the Transportation Master Plan. Transit including rapid transit plays a major role not just in new routes and levels of service but alo in terms of transit friendly urban design.TDM initiatives give you more bang for your existing system. Roundabouts where appropriate provide 30% more intersection capacity. We need GO train service as well as improved VIA to relieve intra city congestion. We need to make the transportation system more bicycle and pedestrian friendly. We will need to selectively widen roads or improve intersections. But clearly the key elements in dealing with congestion related to growth is to maintain the Countryside Line to put outward restrictions on sprawl and the rapid transit intiative to cause infill development for at least half of the anticipated growth along the rapid transit corridor. | Jean Haalboom:
To accomplish the goals, aims, objectives and policies of the Region's Official Plan2010, we need to concentrate our limited tax dollars on an efficient transit service which includes reliable, accessible and frequent buses and LRT. We need to direct housing and business to the urban cores. There need to be good reasons for reducing urban sprawl; one of these reasons is a good transit system.Buses need their bus only lanes. Companies need to be strongly encouraged to look at Transportation Demand Management strategies for their workers such as carpooling, vanpooling, different working hours, live work accommodation by re-using and renovating old factory buildings and old vacated structures, including 2nd and 3rd storey floors of downtown buildings. | Jason Hammond:
Simply put, we have enough roads. It's time to make more effective use of our roads by providing compelling, excellent transit service across the region (such as the proposed LRT and a network of express bus corridors), thus reducing traffic demand by making transit and other green modes a feasible choice for every resident. We need to eliminate traffic congestion to allow the free flow of transit, emergency, and commercial vehicles through our cities. | Leszek Jankowski:
Road widening and expansion of public transit | Geoff Lorentz:
I believe we need a transit system in this Region that takes people where they want and need to go. We do not have that yet. I believe the municipalities in the Region of Waterloo and the Region itself need to speak as one voice and demand from the Provice that a Go Train line be established in our Region. Once this occurs then we should be assessing our transportation needs. | Kristen Porritt:
I beleive we should increase the numbers of car share sites and help to market the benefits and examples of how anyone can use them. I think we could invest in a bike share program as well - we are in a perfect community to do this. I just participated in the Amazing Race for Heartwood Place and I was personally surprised at how many places I could get to on my bike! On our highways, including 401 we should have a 2 or more express lane for rush hour traffice. Promotes car pooling. | Derek Satnik:
This question is much easier to ask than it is to answer, and the practical reality is that this item will need to be monitored closely over the next 20 years. I strongly support the need for a more robust public transit system that will necessarily include a rapid-transit component. I also expect that we will need increased coverage by existing GRT programs, including increased frequency of busses and increased routes. I foresee that we may need to have interesting discussions about city-level incentives for property owners to encourage carpooling, or perhaps even by-laws requiring carpooling parking spaces near handicap spaces at malls and significant scale employers... there will be a host of interesting measures to be implemented in the years to come, several of which have been captured and respected by your other questions below. | Martin Schell:
We will need further study but I believe strongly that the LRT is a vital piece of our future infrastructure. We need to increase ridership on the GRT and improve frequency of the routes making it a better alternative. | Jim Wideman:
I was an active member of the project team for the new RTMP. I fully support the new direction set by the RTMP, increasing the modal shift from cars to alternative transportation including walking and cycling.I beleive we must proceed with a Rapid Transit System now to solve or prevent traffic congestion in the future. Building the equivalant of twenty five Hespler Roads inside the current three municipalities is not an acceptable opition.Light Rail is still my preferred option but it has to be affordable.We need to go back to the drawing board and look at both a modified LRT option and a BRT option.We need to expand our efforts in TDM and encourage municipalties to change pol1cies in land use in order to reduce our need to travel. |
Question: Do you support the light rail transit system for managing the Region's growth over the next decades? TriTAG's view: Light rail is expensive, but in the context of continued growth there are also serious costs associated with building no new transportation infrastructure or insufficient infrastructure. | Barbara da Silva:
I believe that the current proposal is too expensive and does not meet the growing needs of our community now or longterm. We are not now, nor do I beleive will be, an urban community but we are and will be suburban community. We need to meet the transportation of the outlying community and service the under service areas with an eye to employment concerns and timing. | Tom Galloway:
I supported light rail through the entire EA process and will continue to do so if the first phase can be made affordable now that we know the senior governments commitments. We may need additional phases. It is clearly the best system to deal with our projected growth and related land use issues. I believe that Rapid Transit is a land use solution first. | Jean Haalboom:
Yes. Why? we need to present the big picture of how much roads cost- capital and maintenance costs and lifespan of roads. We need to focus on safety and look at the cost of personal injuries and deaths and property damage when compared with transit.We need to have clear measurements of environmental damage associated with road construction and road use by cars...salt and air quality. | Jason Hammond:
I absolutely support the use of light rail transit, according to the current plan. Over the long term, it is the most cost effective option, and we have gained more financial support from other levels of government than we would normally expect. We need a strong core service for our transit system, and our linear distribution of downtowns and employment centres is ideal for light rail transit. It will initially be walking distance from more than a third of jobs and 10% of homes, and will attract more riders and development than other options. | Leszek Jankowski:
Yes | Geoff Lorentz:
I support looking at alternative, less expensive options instead of investing heavily in an infastructure that I am not sure would be utilized to its fullest. | Kristen Porritt:
I was more in favour of the original Light Rapid Transit plan that linked the transportation system from Elmira all the way to south Cambridge. I envision our region to be completely connected by public transit. This will be very expensive of course but more expensive not to in the long run. The current plan of phasing in the LRT by merely connecting K-W from mall to mall will not accomplish the goals of the Transportation Master Plan. I believe that continuing with road expansions alone is not a realistic option. We need to promote public transit (trains), reurbanization and greater transportation choice. I think new council must carefully review the Moving Forward 2031,- it is a good plan. It addresses better ways to connect the cities of Kitchener, Waterloo and Cambridge, it promotes links to Grand River Transit and park & ride facilities and it ensures future connections to GO Transit services. It also addresses improvements in all means and methods of transportation such as walking, biking, driving and public transportation. | Derek Satnik:
I support transit, but not LRT, not yet. Other options like Aerobus are far more attractive to me: much lower cost, more convenient and accelerated installation, lower maintenance, increased flexibility, increased likelihood of attracting ridership, and much more. The study that concluded with LRT and Rapid Bus as this region's two preferable options has left me with serious concerns, and it needs to be revised. Thereafter, I would like to see the core priorities of that study form the basis of a new Request for Proposal which would be issued to industry players like Aerobus and others from across North American and Europe, to invite the industry to propose how best to resolve our transit needs. I'm sure this would help us find an appropriate option. | Martin Schell:
Yes this is vital. If it isn't done now we will have a serious probelm in the future | Jim Wideman:
Partially answered in the previous question. I beleive the LRT is the best overall option for the future, that is why I voted for it originally but it was conditional on financing from senior levels of Governement. In light of the funding we have received we need to relook at all options to bring forward a plan that is affordable for the local taxpayer, which should include a modified LRT plan, BRT plan and alternative financing plans like 3P plans. |
Question: How would you improve inter-city transportation? In particular, would you push for joint routes between Guelph Transit and GRT? TriTAG's view: We are concerned with plans to build a limited-access highway between Kitchener and Guelph when there is no public transit connection. Guelph Transit has indicated a willingness to work with GRT to link our transit systems, and we would like to see links from Guelph to Kitchener and Cambridge as soon as possible. We hope our future regional government will continue to work with other levels of government to bring improved rail transit with Guelph and the GTA to our region. | Barbara da Silva:
Light Rail between Guelph and the tri cities would be far more useful toward the future. Go transit and train plus Via need to be part of the plan if we want to sustain growth and reduce our carbon footprint and protect the watersheds in the region. | Tom Galloway:
If we can successfully deal with the provincial licensing issue I am very much in favour and would work towards it. But we will also need to get Woolwich Township taxpayers in particular to become area rated for GRT which they currently are not.In addition to this we need to expedite the GO train service to the Region for other destinations. | Jean Haalboom:
I support a rail and transit connection using GRT, VIA and Guelph Transit.A dialogue needs to start as soon as possible in order to bring about these connections:however, today's public wants to choose convenient times and convenient locations for boarding because the car is too easy a choice. We must be mindful that we don't become an exurb of the GTA. | Jason Hammond:
The upcoming improvements to the Georgetown rail corridor will allow for the introduction of GO Train service for inter-city trips, and for improved VIA Rail service to provide rapid access to Toronto. Locally, I do support better transit connections between Guelph and GRT. One solution would be a combined transit terminal for both local transit providers at Waterloo Region International Airport, enhancing our investment in this major facility, while allowing frequent trips between Waterloo Region and Guelph for the cost of two local fares. | Leszek Jankowski:
Yes | Geoff Lorentz:
I certainly would support exploring this initiative and also investigate connections to rural hubs like New Hamburg and Elmira. | Kristen Porritt:
Absolutley, it make so much sense to have a joint route between Gurelph Transit and GRT. I've worked in Guelph and the drive is one of the worst. | Derek Satnik:
I support collaboration on any level. Particularly in this instance, I strongly support the pursuit of rail interconnections with Guelph through GO and/or Via. I also support any efforts made to increase collaboration between Guelph Transit and GRT. | Martin Schell:
This is a great proposal. | Jim Wideman:
I was the only councillor on the current Reional Council who pushed for a park and ride lot in Breslau. It took over a year and a half to finally see results.It has been very sucsessful and I hope we can see more of them.I would support a transit link to Guelph.As a daily commuter to Guelph I see the congestion and accidents.I fully support both the north route trains from Georgetown to Kitchener and GO from Milton to Cambridge. |
Question: Do you think transit should primarily serve those who cannot use other means of transportation, or do you think it should primarily serve those who have a choice? TriTAG's view: Some people see transit primarily as a social service or safety net. We see transit as a service that should be made useful for everyone, that can slow the growth of traffic congestion and shape a more sustainable urban form. | Barbara da Silva:
I believe if we gear transit to employment needs and promote usage to everyone It will appeal to a more diverse ridership. When buses arrive at job site on time anare consitent in the schedules, people can then rely on the system and avail themselves of a more affordable ride to work. If you don't need a car to get to your job then a vehicle is not a priority. This is a common complaint currently for myany people I've spoken to. There are jobs but they can't get to them. The sunday schedule should be eliminated and full service for this day too. | Tom Galloway:
Fully agree with the latter statement. One of my most disappointing conversations with a constituent on rapid transit was with a retired person who said transit is for poor people. | Jean Haalboom:
Transit should be accessible, attractive , reliable and desired transportation for everyone. | Jason Hammond:
We have a history of providing transit as a basic social service for those residents who have no other option. As transit grows, it will continue to meet this need (and do so better), but we can attract riders from all walks of life. Taking transit should be a reasonable and desirable option for all. This is accomplished by using Light Rail vehicles and other rapid services to provide comfort, and integration with cycling, carpooling, carsharing, and other modes to provide real competition against driving alone. | Leszek Jankowski:
it should primarily serve everyone when it is possible, especially for communication to work and back | Geoff Lorentz:
I believe that a system that takes people where they want to go should be utilized by everyone. It works in Europe and it can work here over time. | Kristen Porritt:
I think it should be equally accessible and useful to everyone. If only made useful to people who don't have other means of transportation, the traffic congestion, air polution etc will never change. However, for those of us who have a choice there has to be concerted effort to change and a strategic marketing plan to get people (like me, I must admit) to take public transit when a car is so easy to hop into. This is not a quick or easy accomplishment and will have to have a mind and attitude shift. | Derek Satnik:
Both and more. Transit should ideally make automobile use unnecessary. Transit should be affordable to those who need it most, and physically accessible to as many as possible. | Martin Schell:
It should serve everyone. I have used transit for the past two winters( I like to bike during summer) and it needs some adjustments. Smaller buses on some routes and greater frequency. | Jim Wideman:
I beleive transit should be for everyone. The current system has severe limitations in that it simplly does not get people to where they want and need to go on time. I look forward to the results of the current study to migrate our routes to a grid system, which I beleive would improve service and increase ridership. |
Question: Will you support the construction of segregated bicycle infrastructure on wide urban roads and cycling infrastructure at intersections? TriTAG's view: Other progressive cities, such as Montreal, Vancouver, and Portland, are building physically separated cycling facilities on arterial roads. These cycle tracks improve safety and promote cycling. Further reading: Streetfilms: The Case for Physically Separated Bike Lanes | Barbara da Silva:
I feel this is important to the safety of cyclists and it also prevents cyclists from accidently movining into traffic. | Tom Galloway:
Cycling community has to get together on this. There are inconsistent standards being put forward. Once there is some consensus, then we can create appropriate design standards. I am not opposed to separated facilities on roads or at interchanges but there needs to be some consensus. | Jean Haalboom:
Yes! | Jason Hammond:
I was moved by the recent Critical Mass bike ride to honour the death of yet another cyclist in our community. He was riding in the designated bike lane, in daylight. We need a well connected network of cycling infrastructure, including trails, lanes, and segregated roadside routes along major corridors. Cycling is the most efficient mode of transportation ever invented (requiring even less energy than walking), is affordable, and improves our health. The risk to cyclists comes primarily from poor infrastructure, and we need to do more to facilitate cycling as an easy and safe choice. | Leszek Jankowski:
Cycling is the future and infrastructure will follow this trend. | Geoff Lorentz:
I will support this in fact this is one of my planks in my campaign. Dedicated physically separated bike lanes on Regional roads where at all possible, will not only encourage all year round use of cycling, but will save lives as well. | Kristen Porritt:
Yes I support a safe and integrated bicycle infrastructure. I think this story might be true for many people; when I was a young single person I would ride my bike everywhere, work etc - when I had children, we rode with them in a bike wagon, then with some in the wagon and some riding beside us (I have 4 children) Somewhere along the line it became easier to drive (and it felt unsafe to have young children following us on bikes) - plus there was always someone needing a lift to school, or picking them up half way through the day for a doctors appt etc. I'm am now back to not being responsible for carting children and feel again that using my bike makes sence. I think if, my children and I had access to roads designed for cycling I may have continued to use a bike for transportation and not just recreation during this transitional period in my life. | Derek Satnik:
In principle yes. In practice this will be a slow change. | Martin Schell:
Yes even with bike lanes it can be dangerous believe me I know. | Jim Wideman:
I have been a strong advocate for of road, seperated cycling paths. I beleive that good inter connected multi use paths, would not only improve safety but would increase the use of our cycle infrastructure.I will support this kind of construction wherever possible within available resources. |
Question: Will you support a regional bike-sharing system, such as the one Montreal has? TriTAG's view: Montreal's BIXI bike-sharing system has spread to cities around the world, including London, Minneapolis, Melbourne, and soon, Boston and Toronto. It is also used on the Research in Motion campus. We would like to see the Region of Waterloo taking the initiative to bring the program here. Further reading: BIXI | Barbara da Silva:
I will support any smart system that encourages bike use and cyclist safety in the region. | Tom Galloway:
I certainly support the concept. I understand there may be some commercial interest in such a system. As far as who runs it I am prepared to discuss this and if it is determined the Region is the best to organize it, I would certainly be supportive | Jean Haalboom:
I agree.I would like to see a 'white bike system' as used in Holland. | Jason Hammond:
I have been impressed with the BIXI system, and can imagine the many benefits available to our community when it is implemented here. This kind of infrastructure allows needs to be met with greater flexibility, such as cycling to a grocery store and using a bus or taxi to return with purchases. It also provides an active transportation option to extend our rapid transit system. Ideally, every residence in our city should be no more than a five minute walk from a bike-sharing station, and a five minute bike ride to a rapid transit station. | Leszek Jankowski:
Yes | Geoff Lorentz:
I would support this initivatve, I have witnessed it first hand in Boston, Toronto and Montreal and it should be tested in our Region as well. | Kristen Porritt:
Yes - I've been thinking about this for awhile now - and there is also one that stared this summer in Chicago. I think we have the perfect cities for this program - I would definitly help with this initiative.. | Derek Satnik:
Yes. | Martin Schell:
An interesting idea not sure how well it will work here. | Jim Wideman:
I think this is an exciting development and I would certainly look forward to a plan coming forward to the Region. I would need to see the budget implications before I could give a definitive answer to the question, however I could see us doing a pilot project to get this started in Waterloo Region. This project has merit and should be pursued. |
Question: Many arterial and major roads are missing sidewalks, which are currently only added to streets during major reconstruction projects. Will you accelerate the construction of missing sidewalks? TriTAG's view: In 2006, regional staff estimated that 133 kilometres of necessary sidewalks were missing from regional roads. Their estimate was that those missing sidewalks on arterial roads could be built for $15.4 million, or less than half of 2010's budget for road widening and new roads. To meet basic standards of safety and walkability, we believe that sidewalk construction must be made a priority. Further reading: Report E-06-049, Sidewalks on Regional Roads | Barbara da Silva:
I live where I have to cross four (4) lanes for traffic near the Concordia Club because of a missing sidewalk between Hoffman and Kehl on Ottawa. It is dangerous everytime I do it but I have no choice if I wish to run to the store on my own. There is no excuse for the lack of sidewalks particularly on a regional road. The other side is missing from Hoffman to Courtland. Mill Street is missing side walks fromCourtland to Just befor Heiman on the rightside heading downtown and from Heiman to Stirling on the left. That is just my neighbourhood. Walkability is hamper by this. | Tom Galloway:
This has already been pushed forward at Council to expedite the backlog. Keep in mind the Region only recently took over sidewalks from the cities. | Jean Haalboom:
Yes! | Jason Hammond:
Pedestrian activity is the most fundamental form of transportation, and is also the beginning and end of every transit trip. My priority would be to build immediately any missing sidewalks within 500 metres of a transit stop, school, or community facility. Within the few years thereafter, all pedestrians should be able to expect the necessary infrastructure to allow a safe walk through our community. | Leszek Jankowski:
I agree that sidewalks are very important part of our living environment and need more attention. | Geoff Lorentz:
Up until last year, the Region was not paying for installation of sidewalks on Regional roads. Up until that time the city of Kitchener paid for the installations in Kitchener. I certainly support sidewalk installation on new regional roads along with a bike path beside it, I also support attaching bike paths to current regional road sidewalks where feasible. Also I support having both maintained during winter months to encourage year round usage. | Kristen Porritt:
Yes. This goes back to feeling safe to walk, or bike anywhere in the city - especially with children and young people. | Derek Satnik:
Although I agree with the importance of sidewalks, I do not agree that all of the roads mentioned in this study are areas where sidewalks would be used. Walkability is defined usefully in LEED for Neighbourhood Development, and the concept of walkable streets requires more than a sidewalk. I support installing sidewalks where they will be used, but would otherwise prefer to see sidewalks be an important consideration in other re-urbanization projects, and not to add sidewalks simply for the sake of adding them. | Martin Schell:
I agree | Jim Wideman:
The Region has just recently approved the sidewalk policy on Regional roads. If we are going to have a walkable Region then we need to make this a priority.I will commit to making this a priorty and wherever possible have multiuse trails built instead of sidwalks. |
Question: Do you believe that municipal staff should be provided with free parking, but no subsidy for other modes of transportation? TriTAG's view: The cost of providing parking for staff is typically bundled in their salaries, making it appear to be free. Financial incentives such as parking cash-out could return that subsidy to staff who choose to use other modes of transportation, while satisfying contractual obligations. Further reading: TDM Encyclopedia article on "commuter financial incentives" | Barbara da Silva:
I beleive the opposite subsidies for transit use and higher fees for parking. | Tom Galloway:
I will be expecting that staff at the Region will be transitioning to a pay parking system. We must walk the talk. A budget issue paper will be included in the 2011 Budget process. There are currently no contractual obligations on parking at the Regionthat I am aware of. GRT passes are provided on a Corporate rate basis to staff and should be consistent with what other Corporate rate employers pay. | Jean Haalboom:
It is unfair to provide free parking to those staff members using cars and not provide the same support for those choosing other modes of transportation.Perhaps, to encourage greater use of other modes of transportation, subsidies should be given to those users rather than those with vehicles. | Jason Hammond:
I believe that municipal staff should be offered a general transportation benefit, and be given the choice to apply that to paid parking, or a less expensive option (transit pass, cycling, carsharing) that allows them to take the extra value home as a reward for reducing costs and pollution. | Leszek Jankowski:
I believe parking during working hours should be provided by employer. | Geoff Lorentz:
I believe that municipal staff should pay for personal parking and all municipalities should be looking at incentives for employees who use alternative modes of transportation to get to work. | Kristen Porritt:
I do not think that municipal staff should be provided with free parking. | Derek Satnik:
No. | Martin Schell:
If the transit is improved it would be better to encourage employees to use it. | Jim Wideman:
I beleive we need to walk the talk. Our current policy of providing free parking for staff is contradictory to our stated goals in TDM and encouraging alternative modes of transportation. I look forward to the staff report on this in early 2011 to look at this issue in the full context of our Regional Transportation Master Plan. I do respect that whatever we do must also be in the context of our contractual obligations and in the context of the practices of competing employers. |
Question: How do you propose to address the increasing traffic congestion due to growth? TriTAG's view: The Region's population is projected to increase by 200,000 people, and the Places to Grow initiative mandates that much of it takes the form of infill development. Continued growth will increase traffic. Instead of widening roads in the urban cores, we support transit in its own right-of-way (such as bus-only lanes on arterial roads and the proposed light rail system) as alternatives to congestion. Transportation demand management (TDM) strategies and shifts in land use can also reduce the economic impact of traffic congestion. Further reading: What does transit do about traffic congestion? | Frank Kulcsar:
Have GRT convert to the grid system and add more IXpress. | Don Pinnell:
No response. | Carl Zehr:
To avoid traffic congestion a city must have good urban planning. Many plans have been good in the past but urban planning must reinvent itself due to changing attitudes and environmental contraints.I am a strong proponent to intensified development within the built areas of the city. Any new suburban development should be "complete communities" that encourage the movement of people by means other than the automobile. Businesses need to be encouraged to participate in TDM strategies which, in the long term, will be more economical. |
Question: Do you support the light rail transit system for managing the Region's growth over the next decades? TriTAG's view: Light rail is expensive, but in the context of continued growth there are also serious costs associated with building no new transportation infrastructure or insufficient infrastructure. | Frank Kulcsar:
No... Our present system should work if fixed. | Don Pinnell:
No response. | Carl Zehr:
I have been and continue to be a supporter of the LRT proposals. We have one chance to get a new transportation system in place and we need to do it right and now.While the LRT costs are high, most people do not appreciate that the traditional road and transportations systems will be more expensive in the long run, even if we were to have the physical space to do so. Today's LRT system is yesterday's expressway around the cities of Kitchener and Waterloo. |
Question: How would you improve inter-city transportation? In particular, would you push for joint routes between Guelph Transit and GRT? TriTAG's view: We are concerned with plans to build a limited-access highway between Kitchener and Guelph when there is no public transit connection. Guelph Transit has indicated a willingness to work with GRT to link our transit systems, and we would like to see links from Guelph to Kitchener and Cambridge as soon as possible. We hope our future regional government will continue to work with other levels of government to bring improved rail transit with Guelph and the GTA to our region. | Frank Kulcsar:
Have no answer to this question. | Don Pinnell:
No response. | Carl Zehr:
The key to having a good public transit system is to make it integrated with as many other systems as is possible.I have been one of the champions for an improved north main rail line. This means improved VIA service and new GO rail service integrated with the GRT system and inter-city bus systems. I am prepared to discuss the potential of linking GRT and Guelph transit systems. While all of the above is vital, it is important to complete the new highway between Kitchener and Guelph. Both systems are required to offer choice. |
Question: Do you think transit should primarily serve those who cannot use other means of transportation, or do you think it should primarily serve those who have a choice? TriTAG's view: Some people see transit primarily as a social service or safety net. We see transit as a service that should be made useful for everyone, that can slow the growth of traffic congestion and shape a more sustainable urban form. | Frank Kulcsar:
Should be for bothe | Don Pinnell:
No response. | Carl Zehr:
I believe public transit systems are for everyone and should be designed accordingly. While it is a vital service for some people, it should be be seen as a planning tool, a social safety net and an envrionmental best practice. Without a 21st century transit system, traffic gridlock is sure to appear. We have no alternative but to pursue such a system in order to ensure consumer choice in the future. |
Question: Will you support the construction of segregated bicycle infrastructure on wide urban roads and cycling infrastructure at intersections? TriTAG's view: Other progressive cities, such as Montreal, Vancouver, and Portland, are building physically separated cycling facilities on arterial roads. These cycle tracks improve safety and promote cycling. Further reading: Streetfilms: The Case for Physically Separated Bike Lanes | Frank Kulcsar:
Whe the popularity increases then yes. | Don Pinnell:
No response. | Carl Zehr:
I support the use of segregated bicycle infrastructure where it is physically possbile to do so. I have encouraged our planners to investigate exactly this as it relates to the upgrades planned for Huron Road. |
Question: Will you support a regional bike-sharing system, such as the one Montreal has? TriTAG's view: Montreal's BIXI bike-sharing system has spread to cities around the world, including London, Minneapolis, Melbourne, and soon, Boston and Toronto. It is also used on the Research in Motion campus. We would like to see the Region of Waterloo taking the initiative to bring the program here. Further reading: BIXI | Frank Kulcsar:
No response. | Don Pinnell:
No response. | Carl Zehr:
I am prepared to support a pilot program of bike sharing in Waterloo Region. |
Question: Many arterial and major roads are missing sidewalks, which are currently only added to streets during major reconstruction projects. Will you accelerate the construction of missing sidewalks? TriTAG's view: In 2006, regional staff estimated that 133 kilometres of necessary sidewalks were missing from regional roads. Their estimate was that those missing sidewalks on arterial roads could be built for $15.4 million, or less than half of 2010's budget for road widening and new roads. To meet basic standards of safety and walkability, we believe that sidewalk construction must be made a priority. Further reading: Report E-06-049, Sidewalks on Regional Roads | Frank Kulcsar:
Kitchener is not pedestrian fiendly at this time, in knoww from experience. | Don Pinnell:
No response. | Carl Zehr:
I have requested more sidewalks be built on arterial and major roads in the past and will continue to push for it. |
Question: Do you support the city clearing snow from all sidewalks, bike lanes, and multi-use trails as it does for roads? TriTAG's view: Local bylaws specify that property owners must clear snow from adjacent sidewalks, but compliance is inconsistent. Icy sidewalks present a safety hazard, discourage walking, are inaccessible, and expose the city to significant liability damages (over $1.5 million since 2000). Other municipalities in Ontario, such as London, Guelph, and Peterborough handle snow removal. Further reading: Five good reasons for cities to plow public sidewalks | Frank Kulcsar:
Yes. | Don Pinnell:
No response. | Carl Zehr:
Ideally it would be best for the muncipalities to clear snow from all sidewalks. Currently the cost would be very significant to add to our already strained budgets. However, I am prepared to consider it as a long term goal. |
Question: Do you believe that developers should be required to provide more parking than they want to? TriTAG's view: Local zoning bylaws mandate that developers provide a certain number of parking spots, whether or not they need or want to provide them. This excessive supply of parking reduces its value (but not its true cost), providing an economic incentive to drive. Further reading: The Trouble with Minimum Parking Requirements | Frank Kulcsar:
Yes. | Don Pinnell:
No response. | Carl Zehr:
I believe we need to seriously consider changing our bylaws from a requirment for a minimum number of parking spaces to a maximum number of parking spaces. This will encourage or force new developments to seriously consider alternative methods of transportation for employees. |
Question: Do you believe that municipal staff should be provided with free parking, but no subsidy for other modes of transportation? TriTAG's view: The cost of providing parking for staff is typically bundled in their salaries, making it appear to be free. Financial incentives such as parking cash-out could return that subsidy to staff who choose to use other modes of transportation, while satisfying contractual obligations. Further reading: TDM Encyclopedia article on "commuter financial incentives" | Frank Kulcsar:
Yes for first part no for second part. | Don Pinnell:
No response. | Carl Zehr:
I believe that parking for municipal staff should not be free. The exception to this is for those who require a vehicle on a regular basis to fulfill their duties on the job. |
Question: Do you believe land adjacent to arterial roads should be zoned to allow and encourage transit-oriented development with a variety of uses and a lively street level? TriTAG's view: The built form along most arterials is currently predominantly single-use and car-oriented, with parking separating the buildings and the street. In part through adopting mixed-use zoning, as Kitchener is doing in several corridors, these streets could be made attractive for people and could encourage modes of transportation other than the car. Further reading: City of Kitchener: Mixed-Use Corridors | Frank Kulcsar:
No answer at this moment. | Don Pinnell:
No response. | Carl Zehr:
I am a proponent of mixed-use zoning along corridors within the city. Not only does the property have a better look and feel, it encourages the "complete community" concept of planning for neighbourhoods. |
Question: How do you propose to address the increasing traffic congestion due to growth? TriTAG's view: The Region's population is projected to increase by 200,000 people, and the Places to Grow initiative mandates that much of it takes the form of infill development. Continued growth will increase traffic. Instead of widening roads in the urban cores, we support transit in its own right-of-way (such as bus-only lanes on arterial roads and the proposed light rail system) as alternatives to congestion. Transportation demand management (TDM) strategies and shifts in land use can also reduce the economic impact of traffic congestion. Further reading: What does transit do about traffic congestion? | Joyce Palubiski:
I support bus lanes only in areas were it is feasible. How to do this might need an especially creative plan.By using a plan like this would in my opinion increase ridership, take more cars off the road, reduce gas emissions from congested traffic including buses that now have to wait a period of time to get back into the flow and continue on the route | Berry Vrbanovic:
Traffic and speeding concerns are probably two of the issues we most hear about as municipal councillors. While a strong road network will always be an important part of the system locally, future growth in the region must be addressed through a number of sustainability initiatives including walkability in new developments, an expanded cycling network, a comprehensive public transit solution for this region, transportation demand initiatives like car pooling and car sharing (which we are currently dealing with) and investigating things like the benefits of HOV lanes possibly on roads like the expressway and the 401 between here and Toronto. |
Question: Will you support the construction of segregated bicycle infrastructure on wide urban roads and cycling infrastructure at intersections? TriTAG's view: Other progressive cities, such as Montreal, Vancouver, and Portland, are building physically separated cycling facilities on arterial roads. These cycle tracks improve safety and promote cycling. Further reading: Streetfilms: The Case for Physically Separated Bike Lanes | Joyce Palubiski:
More study by myself is needed before I can comment in depth about this option put forward. | Berry Vrbanovic:
The City of Kitchener recently approved a new cycling master plan which included a number of recommendations around various improvements to cycling infrastructure within the City of Kitchener. Part of these recommendations included physically separated cycling facilities on certain roads. While the plan has been approved, the budgeting of it has been referred to the 2011 capital budget cycle. It would be my hope to investigate how we miay be able to fast-track some of the implemenation of this important plan. |
Question: Do you support the city clearing snow from all sidewalks, bike lanes, and multi-use trails as it does for roads? TriTAG's view: Local bylaws specify that property owners must clear snow from adjacent sidewalks, but compliance is inconsistent. Icy sidewalks present a safety hazard, discourage walking, are inaccessible, and expose the city to significant liability damages (over $1.5 million since 2000). Other municipalities in Ontario, such as London, Guelph, and Peterborough handle snow removal. Further reading: Five good reasons for cities to plow public sidewalks | Joyce Palubiski:
isupport the present bylaw but would have an option for those business and residential or private institutions that would like to buy the service from the city. | Berry Vrbanovic:
I would certainly be willing to investigate this and engage in a community dialogue to see how the community would potentially value this service and how they would see it paid for - either by changes to service levels or changes in levy's. This would have to be done in a manner that considered the broad range of opinions on the issue as well as the ability of the community to pay for a potential new service like this. |
Question: Do you believe that developers should be required to provide more parking than they want to? TriTAG's view: Local zoning bylaws mandate that developers provide a certain number of parking spots, whether or not they need or want to provide them. This excessive supply of parking reduces its value (but not its true cost), providing an economic incentive to drive. Further reading: The Trouble with Minimum Parking Requirements | Joyce Palubiski:
Depending on the use of property, parking in some new construction areas needs to be increased and parking in others could be reduced. For instance if a Senior/Retirement home is constructed many of the residents may no longer drive or they have downsized from a 2 or 3 car family to perhaps a one car or no car family.In other construction areas the developer is building with families that have 3 cars...mom, dad and teenager with room for only 2 cars (one in the garage and one in the driveway) thus creating an on street problem for the third car. | Berry Vrbanovic:
In Kitchener, downtown developers can pay a fee in lieu or parking. This fee is adjusted from time-to-time to reflect what the estimated cost of parking is. While historically this fee has been used to construct parking facilities, I have advocated that we also should be looking at how dollars used from these funds to build parking facilities in the downtown in the future could be used for alternative options like shuttling. This could be extended even further to using those dollars towards other transportation demand alternatives. Studying the work of Professor Shoup could also have us explore this issue further, but it would need to be done in a way that it doesn't benefit greenfield developments in suburbia at the expense of developments within the city centre. The City of Kitchener is also studying its parking operation and moving it over to being an enterprise, which would also gradually move it in the kind of direction that Professor Shoup is advocating. |
Question: Do you believe that municipal staff should be provided with free parking, but no subsidy for other modes of transportation? TriTAG's view: The cost of providing parking for staff is typically bundled in their salaries, making it appear to be free. Financial incentives such as parking cash-out could return that subsidy to staff who choose to use other modes of transportation, while satisfying contractual obligations. Further reading: TDM Encyclopedia article on "commuter financial incentives" | Joyce Palubiski:
I support that all staff pay for a partial parking fee and be subsidized by the City if Revenue Canada approves this idea. I would encourage the use of public transit by employees were it is convenient and that this be subsidized again according to Revenue Canada direction. | Berry Vrbanovic:
The City of Kitchener has recently eliminated free parking as a benefit for all staff working at our downtown locations. This was done for a number of reasons, including to encourage alternative transportation possibilities for staff where that is feasible. We are also in the midst of considering partnering with Waterloo Regional Car Share with a corporate membership for the city to see how we can dveelop a vehicle arrangement which is mutually beneficial for both organizations. |
Question: Do you believe land adjacent to arterial roads should be zoned to allow and encourage transit-oriented development with a variety of uses and a lively street level? TriTAG's view: The built form along most arterials is currently predominantly single-use and car-oriented, with parking separating the buildings and the street. In part through adopting mixed-use zoning, as Kitchener is doing in several corridors, these streets could be made attractive for people and could encourage modes of transportation other than the car. Further reading: City of Kitchener: Mixed-Use Corridors | Joyce Palubiski:
Whatever works to reduce congestion and traffic concerns as it now stands in some areas should be considered. The traffic congestion on Morrison Road at River, the traffic hazards on Fairway Road North at Lackner and again at Daimler and Old Chicopee and the traffic problems at River Road and Old King and Old King and Morrison are just a few of the many traffic concerns of the City. These new traffic concerns are escalating due to the subdivision development that increased cars, vans in the area trying to get to the Expressway. | Berry Vrbanovic:
Yes, I am a strong proponent of intensification along our central corridor, through more transit-oriented development. While it is important to continue to provide a variety of housing options of all types for residents in our community, Council must encourage this kind of development to meet both the intensification and the growth targets set for this region. |