[WaterlooInvestor]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

[WaterlooInvestor]

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Estimated costs have soared since planning began in 1989.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cansfield would not predict a final Highway 7 bill.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HIGHWAY BUILDING ON A MASSIVE SCALE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Matheson expects his company will bid for Highway 7 work.

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

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

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

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

The approved highway planning study recommended that:


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


DRIVING COSTS FOR HIGHWAY 7

If built in 2007, the new highway would cost:

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


Here's how construction costs break down per section:

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


Here's how construction costs break down per component:

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

[WaterlooInvestor]

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

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

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

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

It does not exist.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Davis remembers when Highway 7 felt different years ago.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Angela Davis can also see herself supporting a new highway.

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

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

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

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

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

[HAMRetrofit]

This is a useless highway route. Who honestly cares about commuters between Kitchener and Guelph? Another major misallocation of economic recourses that could have been used towards funding something useful.

[WaterlooInvestor]

This is a useless highway route. Who honestly cares about commuters between Kitchener and Guelph? Another major misallocation of economic recourses that could have been used towards funding something useful.

Have you been asleep for the past 50 years? Perhaps the fast-growing 700,000+ people in Waterloo and Wellington Counties care. Perhaps all the entrepreneurial companies in the area care. Companies like LINEMAR and Co-Operators in Guelph and RIM, Broil King, M&M Meat Shops, Economical Insurance and Equitable Life in KW. Perhaps it's the 3 universities in the area that share some resources.

These are two wealthy areas that deserve provincial funding.

Ignorant comments like this just give your city of Toronto a bad name.

[jeremy_haak]

HAMRetrofit, what do you suggest?

As it stands right now, I think widening will be sufficient, but population projections (we all know how accurate those are) predict more than a million people between the two regions by 2031 or so. I don't really agree that an expressway is always the best idea, but something has to be done. Other than Highway 7 between Kitchener and Guelph, and Highway 24 between Cambridge and Guelph, there is essentially no direct road connecting the two cities. All the back road require significant detours. (Seriously, whoever planned the concessions here were drunk out of their mind.) Building the bridge across the Grand River between Fairway Rd and Kossuth Rd would probably help quite a bit, but something else has to be done.

[HAMRetrofit]

Have you been asleep for the past 50 years? Perhaps the fast-growing 700,000+ people in Waterloo and Wellington Counties care.

The region has been successful for the past few years but not anything to get overly excited about. Mostly the region has benefited from proximity to and growth of the GTA. Maybe even the rebounding of tech to some degree. The 700,000 people in the region will not benefit from the highway’s construction only a small fraction probably a few thousand will. However the full 700,000 will be paying for it along with the rest of the province’s tax payers.

Perhaps all the entrepreneurial companies in the area care. Companies like LINEMAR and Co-Operators in Guelph and RIM, Broil King, M&M Meat Shops, Economical Insurance and Equitable Life in KW. Perhaps it's the 3 universities in the area that share some resources.

How is a commuter highway going benefit these companies at all? I could see if this was going to be a trade route that opened the region up connecting it to the 401. maybe. This highway is to open access for driving commuters who otherwise should be looking to alternative means of transportation, which are not available. The benefactors will be home builders and super center developers just like what has occurred in the GTA. My point is K/W has the opportunity to learn from the GTA's mistakes yet is choosing not to.

These are two wealthy areas that deserve provincial funding..

Who cares? There are many wealthy areas in Ontario that deserve provincial funding perhaps for something more useful than a commuter highway. If by investing into infrastructure more constructive things like improving border crossings or improving freight or passenger rail might be needed more urgently than a commuter highway? Things that actually benefit the economy on a larger scale than the few thousand commuters who travel between Kitchener and Guelph each day.

Ignorant comments like this just give your city of Toronto a bad name.

My city of Toronto will have a good name no matter what I say. My comments actually give my city a good name because they are right. :yes:

[ikerrin]

So, what are we crazy?

There is so much congestion that we need a divided highway, but we don't have enough density for inter-city passenger rail.

They should just increase rail travel between the two cities and restrict suburban development. When the trains are running at capacity then maybe turn the road into a freeway.

This road obsession we have drives me nuts.

[Cambridgite]

Is this supposed to be some kind of success story? Yay for more sprawl, car-dependency, and environmental destruction. Just watch. Once this highway is built, say goodbye to the Regional Growth Management Strategy. As you can see on that map, several interchanges are planned for roads that are out in the middle of nowhere. I guarantee you those interchanges will become magnets for more power centres, industrial parks, and monotonous subdivisions, courtesy of Reid's Heritage Homes.

I'm of the opinion that this highway is a terrible idea. Yes, it will be used, so it's not "useless". Is it the best option to deal with the problem? No. Thanks to political boundaries that don't represent true functional regions, there is no public transit between Waterloo Region and Guelph. The least that could be done is the two regions could operate 2 bus routes (one on highway 7, one on highway 24) as a joint partnership between Guelph Transit and Grand River Transit and a transfer can take place around the border of Waterloo and Wellington. Better yet, we could have the GO-train out here which would not only connect Waterloo and Wellington together, but also provide connections with the GTA. And of course the best option is to not commute, but live in the same city you work in. Of course, this is Ontario, so that idea is unpopular :rolleyes: .

[vid]

The worst part is the at-grade intersections. Having to stop every 900m is just a pain in the ass.

Why not create a transit system between Waterloo and Wellington? Terrace Bay and Schreiber share one, and they're as far apart as Waterloo and Guelph. (And have a combined population of 3,000)

[WaterlooInvestor]

The region has been successful for the past few years but not anything to get overly excited about. Mostly the region has benefited from proximity to and growth of the GTA. Maybe even the rebounding of tech to some degree.

Actually there's been A LOT to get overly excited about. Waterloo Region is not a GTA story, which is the biggest myth some people try to spread on here.

The 700,000 people in the region will not benefit from the highway’s construction only a small fraction probably a few thousand will.

"The new highway will serve more than 19,000 people who commute daily between Kitchener and Guelph." That's a census 2001 number. We'll have to wait a few more months until the 2006 numbers are out (Release no. 6: Tuesday, March 4, 2008) but unofficially, the number of commuters has increased. By the time the highway is finished, which is at least 5 years (2012) and more likely up to 10 years (2017) away, both cities and the number of commuters will have grown.

However the full 700,000 will be paying for it along with the rest of the province’s tax payers.

So when a GTA highway is built that obviously isn't used by all 5 million residents it makes no sense either? Also most people living and working in Waterloo and Guelph wouldn't use the 404, but does that mean it should never be funded? This is supposed to be a province where we work together - not every infrastructure project in every city will be used by all 12.8 million Ontarians.

Who cares? There are many wealthy areas in Ontario that deserve provincial funding perhaps for something more useful than a commuter highway. If by investing into infrastructure more constructive things like improving border crossings or improving freight or passenger rail might be needed more urgently than a commuter highway? Things that actually benefit the economy on a larger scale than the few thousand commuters who travel between Kitchener and Guelph each day.

We pay our taxes in this area as well. If many km's of highways can and have been built to support Toronto, I think Waterloo/Guelph has the right to deserve a relatively small 18 kilometres long highway.

My comments actually give my city a good name because they are right. :yes:

Actually, your comments give your city an arrogant attitude, such that Toronto is the centre of the universe and nothing exists beyond it's borders. Newsflash: there are 7 million Ontarians that live outside of the Toronto CMA. We all pay our taxes, and deserve infrastructure built in our cities too.

This highway is to open access for driving commuters who otherwise should be looking to alternative means of transportation, which are not available. The benefactors will be home builders and super center developers just like what has occurred in the GTA. My point is K/W has the opportunity to learn from the GTA's mistakes yet is choosing not to.

There is so much congestion that we need a divided highway, but we don't have enough density for inter-city passenger rail.
They should just increase rail travel between the two cities and restrict suburban development. When the trains are running at capacity then maybe turn the road into a freeway.
This road obsession we have drives me nuts.

I'm of the opinion that this highway is a terrible idea. Yes, it will be used, so it's not "useless". Is it the best option to deal with the problem? No. Thanks to political boundaries that don't represent true functional regions, there is no public transit between Waterloo Region and Guelph. The least that could be done is the two regions could operate 2 bus routes (one on highway 7, one on highway 24) as a joint partnership between Guelph Transit and Grand River Transit and a transfer can take place around the border of Waterloo and Wellington. Better yet, we could have the GO-train out here which would not only connect Waterloo and Wellington together, but also provide connections with the GTA. And of course the best option is to not commute, but live in the same city you work in. Of course, this is Ontario, so that idea is unpopular :rolleyes: .

I completely agree that there should be more transit options in the area: both the GO-train and inter-city transit is a must. That said, even in more transit friendly places like Europe or Toronto, there are still highways. My point being there will always be some people who drive. Since the population is growing rapidly in Waterloo/Guelph, it's not unusual that more highways need to be built. An area with 1 million people (where W&G are heading) is typically going to have more km's of highway than an area with only 500,000. Until I see the 401 down to 3 lanes in each direction - I think a large number of cars are here to stay. As such we need to plan accordingly and build this highway, but at the same time also improve transit in the area so that the next highway expansion can be delayed as long as possible.

Is this supposed to be some kind of success story? Yay for more sprawl, car-dependency, and environmental destruction. Just watch. Once this highway is built, say goodbye to the Regional Growth Management Strategy. As you can see on that map, several interchanges are planned for roads that are out in the middle of nowhere. I guarantee you those interchanges will become magnets for more power centres, industrial parks, and monotonous subdivisions, courtesy of Reid's Heritage Homes.

I'd say it is a success story because it helps to keep Waterloo and Guelph's infrastructure level on a par, per capita, with other areas. The highway connects two rapidly growing areas. I don't want sprawl either, but regardless in reality there will be some as the population grows. My realistic goal isn't to completely stop sprawl, but rather slow it's growth by focusing on reurbanization (that's where the LRT comes into play) and when suburbs are built trying to build them better.

In terms of the Regional Growth Management Strategy, I'm of the understanding the area south of the highway is supposed to be developed. I've heard that industrial parks are envisioned around the airport. Am I wrong? I don't think this will stop the reurbanization process in Waterloo Region, as I don't think it's realistic to expect all of the next 220,000 of population growth in to move into a condo/apartment downtown. I think if we could get even 40% to live in a reurbanized area we'd be doing incredibly well. However that still leaves 132,000 additional people that will be living in sprawl.

The worst part is the at-grade intersections. Having to stop every 900m is just a pain in the ass.

That's the old highway. For the new highway 7 "You'll be able to drive 18 kilometres between Kitchener and Guelph in under 11 minutes, without a traffic light to slow you down."

Why not create a transit system between Waterloo and Wellington? Terrace Bay and Schreiber share one, and they're as far apart as Waterloo and Guelph. (And have a combined population of 3,000)

I wouldn't go as far to merge GRT and Guelph Transit, but we should have more inter-city transit. I agree with Cambridgite, that the two agencies should set up a jointly operated route between both cities.

[vid]

Port Arthur and Fort William had joint operated routes in the 1890s, so I don't see why it wouldn't work there. Until about 1980, the way TBTransit was laid out, it looked like two systems with a route connecting them. They set it up having a PA Transit route going into the centre of Fort William and back, and an FW Transit route going into the centre of PA and back, so you have a route going in either direction every half hour at the time. KW could have a similar thing.

The route could leave Guelph, go to downtown Waterloo (At which point, another bus would leave Guelph), go down to downtown Kitchener, down to Cambridge, (At which point, another bus would leave from Guelph) and back. Have the route going in both directions, clockwise and counterclockwise, and that should be efficient.

[HAMRetrofit]

Actually there's been A LOT to get overly excited about. Waterloo Region is not a GTA story, which is the biggest myth some people try to spread on here.

For the most part it has, most of the upswing as occurred post 'Greenbelt' and 'Places to Grow'. K/W is a success story due to an outflow of GTA residents looking for value in the 'New Homes' suburban living arrangement. With this is the development of some business parks with tech companies and logistic warehouses where they can work a little closer to home. If this legislation were not made K/W would not be registering on the map for these new homes buyers and business park developers. They are willing to drive to the GTA for work to justify the 'value' of their home. K/W is following the same trend as Barrie and Milton and is not special in anyway.

"The new highway will serve more than 19,000 people who commute daily between Kitchener and Guelph." That's a census 2001 number. We'll have to wait a few more months until the 2006 numbers are out (Release no. 6: Tuesday, March 4, 2008) but unofficially, the number of commuters has increased. By the time the highway is finished, which is at least 5 years (2012) and more likely up to 10 years (2017) away, both cities and the number of commuters will have grown.

$400 million to serve 19,000 driving commuters? You have to be joking that you think this is a reasonable way to allocate this type of capital?

So when a GTA highway is built that obviously isn't used by all 5 million residents it makes no sense either? Also most people living and working in Waterloo and Guelph wouldn't use the 404, but does that mean it should never be funded? This is supposed to be a province where we work together - not every infrastructure project in every city will be used by all 12.8 million Ontarians.

Honestly what is your point here? You are justifying this spending $400 million on a commuter expressway on the basis that the GTA has built expressways in the past? From a fiscal perspective, it is better to maintain these expressways and to maximize their use than to build new ones that we don't really need.

Can we work together by investing into infrastructure projects that are going to benefit more than a small 19,000 people and do not even serve as a significant trade route? Why should Ontarians invest in infrastructure that is going to be used primarily for transporting commuters between one town and another so that they can live in the opposite town than they work?

Will this stretch of land between Kitchener and Cambridge be attractive for development if no expressway is built? No! This is the reason of its conception. The construction of expressways is the framework for decentralizing cities. This is not a new concept Jane Jacobs spoke about it the 60s. It is surprising that Kitchener has not heard about it yet.

We pay our taxes in this area as well. If many km's of highways can and have been built to support Toronto, I think Waterloo/Guelph has the right to deserve a relatively small 18 kilometres long highway.

This makes no sense the 401 and 407 were built as trade corridors to alleviate congestion for transporting goods between prominent cities like Chicago, Detroit, and Montreal. You have no right for anything on the basis that Toronto has already done it.

Actually, your comments give your city an arrogant attitude, such that Toronto is the centre of the universe and nothing exists beyond it's borders. Newsflash: there are 7 million Ontarians that live outside of the Toronto CMA. We all pay our taxes, and deserve infrastructure built in our cities too.

My voice does not represent the entire GTA populous of 5 million and I don't think Toronto is the center of the universe although you may. I have not lived here long. I have lived in cities in Europe and the States. This is just the typical perception that somehow the larger more prominent city owes your small city something back for its success. For example, this is the way that someone living in Rochester would view New York City. I am not denying the rest of Ontario does not deserve to undertake the construction of new infrastructure. I would state however this particular expressway project would rank incredibly low in terms of its usefulness in comparison to other projects that could be undertaken (just for comparison expanding GO service to Guelph and Kitchener or alleviating congestion at the Ambassador bridge). The commuter expressway construction bandwagon of the 1950's is over so why not innovate a better solution for this problem? Why is this so hard to comprehend from a place that claims to be the 'knowledge and innovation' capital of Canada? seems pretty backwards to me.

[Deez]

I could spit out a number of environmental and aesthetic reasons why this plan is stupid, but they've been thrown around so many times in this forum that they've become trite.

I will, however, point out that this is stupid from an operational standpoint. The articles state that counstruction would last around 5 years, finishing in 2015, and then congestion would start to hit around 2028...meaning that the project's construction period is 40% of it's acceptable service life. Nice investment. The best part is that the 2028 estimate is likely a few years too late. I'm familiar with the model that would have been used, and it does not take into account the influence that a highway has on influencing land use.

MTO should really change their name back to the Ministry of Highways...or even better, get somebody to lead the ministry in a manner that would fit their current name.

[1ajs]

aww why are people comunting from one city to another to work? isint that un economical why arnt they working where they live..........

[SlickFranky]

:previous:
seriously...one guy said he'd been making that commute for 30+ years

[vid]

I will, however, point out that this is stupid from an operational standpoint. The articles state that counstruction would last around 5 years, finishing in 2015, and then congestion would start to hit around 2028...meaning that the project's construction period is 40% of it's acceptable service life. Nice investment.

Our 13 kilometre two lane bypass took 15 years. :) The government will spend another 120 million to expand it around 2010.

And, thinking about that, it becomes obvious: The MTO doesn't know what the fuck it's doing.

[Goldfinger]

Actually there's been A LOT to get overly excited about. Waterloo Region is not a GTA story, which is the biggest myth some people try to spread on here.






So when a GTA highway is built that obviously isn't used by all 5 million residents it makes no sense either? Also most people living and working in Waterloo and Guelph wouldn't use the 404, but does that mean it should never be funded? This is supposed to be a province where we work together - not every infrastructure project in every city will be used by all 12.8 million Ontarians.



We pay our taxes in this area as well. If many km's of highways can and have been built to support Toronto, I think Waterloo/Guelph has the right to deserve a relatively small 18 kilometres long highway.



Actually, your comments give your city an arrogant attitude, such that Toronto is the centre of the universe and nothing exists beyond it's borders. Newsflash: there are 7 million Ontarians that live outside of the Toronto CMA. We all pay our taxes, and deserve infrastructure built in our cities too.







I completely agree that there should be more transit options in the area: both the GO-train and inter-city transit is a must. That said, even in more transit friendly places like Europe or Toronto, there are still highways. My point being there will always be some people who drive. Since the population is growing rapidly in Waterloo/Guelph, it's not unusual that more highways need to be built. An area with 1 million people (where W&G are heading) is typically going to have more km's of highway than an area with only 500,000. Until I see the 401 down to 3 lanes in each direction - I think a large number of cars are here to stay. As such we need to plan accordingly and build this highway, but at the same time also improve transit in the area so that the next highway expansion can be delayed as long as possible.



I'd say it is a success story because it helps to keep Waterloo and Guelph's infrastructure level on a par, per capita, with other areas. The highway connects two rapidly growing areas. I don't want sprawl either, but regardless in reality there will be some as the population grows. My realistic goal isn't to completely stop sprawl, but rather slow it's growth by focusing on reurbanization (that's where the LRT comes into play) and when suburbs are built trying to build them better.

In terms of the Regional Growth Management Strategy, I'm of the understanding the area south of the highway is supposed to be developed. I've heard that industrial parks are envisioned around the airport. Am I wrong? I don't think this will stop the reurbanization process in Waterloo Region, as I don't think it's realistic to expect all of the next 220,000 of population growth in to move into a condo/apartment downtown. I think if we could get even 40% to live in a reurbanized area we'd be doing incredibly well. However that still leaves 132,000 additional people that will be living in sprawl.



That's the old highway. For the new highway 7 "You'll be able to drive 18 kilometres between Kitchener and Guelph in under 11 minutes, without a traffic light to slow you down."



I wouldn't go as far to merge GRT and Guelph Transit, but we should have more inter-city transit. I agree with Cambridgite, that the two agencies should set up a jointly operated route between both cities.


Oh no, not this Moron again. Please stop your I love Waterloo prattle and go out on a date or something.:koko:

[Cambridgite]

For the most part it has, most of the upswing as occurred post 'Greenbelt' and 'Places to Grow'. K/W is a success story due to an outflow of GTA residents looking for value in the 'New Homes' suburban living arrangement. With this is the development of some business parks with tech companies and logistic warehouses where they can work a little closer to home. If this legislation were not made K/W would not be registering on the map for these new homes buyers and business park developers. They are willing to drive to the GTA for work to justify the 'value' of their home. K/W is following the same trend as Barrie and Milton and is not special in anyway.

Correlation does not equal causation. Yes, commuters do influence growth here. We've had them long before the greenbelt and places to grow, which are relatively new documents. The tech companies have little to do with commuters. The universities are the prime reason they are here. Logistics warehouses are here for the 401 and industrial land cheaper than the GTA. KW has been on the map for a long time. The greenbelt will just exacerbate it. If it's all about providing single family homes for Torontonians, please explain all the lofts and condos going up in Central KW. For that matter, let's see the development list for Milton and Barrie and see how urban it is.

Why should Ontarians invest in infrastructure that is going to be used primarily for transporting commuters between one town and another so that they can live in the opposite town than they work?

I agree.

Will this stretch of land between Kitchener and Cambridge be attractive for development if no expressway is built? No! This is the reason of its conception. The construction of expressways is the framework for decentralizing cities. This is not a new concept Jane Jacobs spoke about it the 60s. It is surprising that Kitchener has not heard about it yet.

I am familiar with this concept. I don't think you have any idea what's going on here though. You say that a highway won't attract development around Kitchener or Guelph. But tell that to the residents of New Hamburg and Baden, who have seen their villages take off in the past couple of years because they're close to highway 7 (aka Conestoga Pkwy), 10 minutes west of Kitchener's city limits. Quite far from the 401 I might add. Elmira is doing the same thing, north of Waterloo, on the 86. Breslau, just east of Kitchener, is essentially becoming part of the eastern suburbs right now, and this is without the highway! So what makes you think a new highway in that same direction wouldn't attract development? :koko:

This makes no sense the 401 and 407 were built as trade corridors to alleviate congestion for transporting goods between prominent cities like Chicago, Detroit, and Montreal. You have no right for anything on the basis that Toronto has already done it.

I agree. Those highways were much smarter investments. If any highway should be built here, it's one that connects to the 401 in Cambridge and extends north through the proposed employment lands in North Cambridge and future East Kitchener. At least those would play an important role in ensuring industry has a quick access to the 401, where most trucks would be heading to.

I would state however this particular expressway project would rank incredibly low in terms of its usefulness in comparison to other projects that could be undertaken (just for comparison expanding GO service to Guelph and Kitchener or alleviating congestion at the Ambassador bridge). The commuter expressway construction bandwagon of the 1950's is over so why not innovate a better solution for this problem? Why is this so hard to comprehend from a place that claims to be the 'knowledge and innovation' capital of Canada? seems pretty backwards to me.

I don't see how expanding GO-service to Guelph and Kitchener-Waterloo would benefit more people than highway 7 would. The 19,000 people who commute between KW and Guelph is far more than commute to downtown Toronto, all 3 cities combined.

[HAMRetrofit]

I am familiar with this concept. I don't think you have any idea what's going on here though. You say that a highway won't attract development around Kitchener or Guelph. But tell that to the residents of New Hamburg and Baden, who have seen their villages take off in the past couple of years because they're close to highway 7 (aka Conestoga Pkwy), 10 minutes west of Kitchener's city limits. Quite far from the 401 I might add. Elmira is doing the same thing, north of Waterloo, on the 86. Breslau, just east of Kitchener, is essentially becoming part of the eastern suburbs right now, and this is without the highway! So what makes you think a new highway in that same direction wouldn't attract development?

I know exactly what is going on there it is the same trend that has occurred across every growing city in North America. How would you describe the type of development that is occurring in these surrounding suburbs? Is is smart growth? or is it tract housing, crumby buisiness parks, and power centers just like every single municipality surrounding Toronto? I know that the highway 7 will attract new development. I just don't regard the type of development that it is going to attract as 'useful'.

[Cambridgite]

I know exactly what is going on there it is the same trend that has occurred across every growing city in North America. How would you describe the type of development that is occurring in these surrounding suburbs? Is is smart growth? or is it tract housing, crumby buisiness parks, and power centers just like every single municipality surrounding Toronto? I know that the highway 7 will attract new development. I just don't regard the type of development that it is going to attract as 'useful'.

I wouldn't categorize the type of development occuring in the surrounding suburbs as "smart growth", that's for sure. Yes, it's tract housing, crumby business parks, and power centres, just like every municipality surrounding Toronto. I agree that this is what highway 7 will attract. In terms of Elmira, New Hamburg, etc., it's mostly just tract housing. They're still small enough and close enough that most people drive to KW for major shopping and employment. If current trends continue though, they'll probably get those things. However, in your post, you made it sound like highway 7 wouldn't successfully attract ANY development, which I thought was a stupid suggestion. It will attract crappy development! :)

[HAMRetrofit]

^ I was suggesting that it would decentralize growth from the central cities to areas in close proximity of the new expressway thus subsidizing 'unsmart' & 'non-transit oriented' growth.

[Cambridgite]

^ I was suggesting that it would decentralize growth from the central cities to areas in close proximity of the new expressway thus subsidizing 'unsmart' & 'non-transit oriented' growth.

Then yes, that theory sounds pretty accurate to me.

[miketoronto]

This is a bad move. It is just going to make a region that is already way to car dependent, and full of sprawl, even more car dependent and full of more sprawl.
You want to fix the traffic problems between KW and Guelph. There is a more simple way to do it. Stop sprawl, make the central downtowns the real focus of the cities again, and run high speed transit between them.

You can't have it both ways. In one page KW and Guelph are talking about getting more people onto transit. And on the next page they want mega highways to encourage even more people to drive, and make more auto depandent sprawl.

[vid]

More the people use roads, mike.

[WaterlooInvestor]

Oh no, not this Moron again. Please stop your I love Waterloo prattle and go out on a date or something.:koko:

:haha: Aren't you the moron that said KW wasn't urbanizing? Perhaps you should check out our city lists and you'll see I have much more credibility than you. Waterloo: http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?cityID=317&type=all Kitchener: http://skyscraperpage.com/cities/?cityID=323&type=all

For the most part it has, most of the upswing as occurred post 'Greenbelt' and 'Places to Grow'. K/W is a success story due to an outflow of GTA residents looking for value in the 'New Homes' suburban living arrangement. With this is the development of some business parks with tech companies and logistic warehouses where they can work a little closer to home. If this legislation were not made K/W would not be registering on the map for these new homes buyers and business park developers. They are willing to drive to the GTA for work to justify the 'value' of their home. K/W is following the same trend as Barrie and Milton and is not special in anyway.

Stop right there. Let's agree on one thing: you know NOTHING about Kitchener-Waterloo. I'll repeat that: NOTHING (bolded and underlined). As such, I don't even think you should qualify to post in this thread regarding Waterloo's development. I know this is the internet, so you can say basically anything without backing it up, but let's for fun show how wrong your post was.

You said: For the most part it has, most of the upswing as occurred post 'Greenbelt' and 'Places to Grow'.

So the 'Greenbelt' and 'Places to Grow' were enacted in 2005. Here's Waterloo Region's growth footprint. To anyone with a brain out there, does our growth look like it's been post 'Places to Grow'? :koko:

http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa262/AndrewEH/InthePast.jpg

While I was out taking some pictures today to update our city's page on SSP, I also took some other photos. How many of Toronto's suburbs have buildings and houses like these?

Strange Street Factory
http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa262/AndrewEH/StrangeStreetFactory-1.jpg

Strange Street Factory
http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa262/AndrewEH/StrangeStreetFactory-3.jpg

Kaufman Lofts
http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa262/AndrewEH/KaufmanLofts-Sept302007.jpg

55 Albert Street
http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa262/AndrewEH/55AlbertStreet.jpg

71 Albert Street
http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa262/AndrewEH/71AlbertStreet.jpg

238 Albert Street
http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa262/AndrewEH/238AlbertStreet.jpg

Now before you go saying "oh anybody can post 6 pictures, this means nothing", I assure you, I could easily post hundreds of pictures to prove you wrong. Basically you're ill-informed about Waterloo Region, and your words shouldn't be taken seriously.

[vid]

Yes, that had everything to do with a highway. Bravo!

[WaterlooInvestor]

I will, however, point out that this is stupid from an operational standpoint. The articles state that counstruction would last around 5 years, finishing in 2015, and then congestion would start to hit around 2028...meaning that the project's construction period is 40% of it's acceptable service life. Nice investment. The best part is that the 2028 estimate is likely a few years too late. I'm familiar with the model that would have been used, and it does not take into account the influence that a highway has on influencing land use.

The current highway 7 is already congested. What would you propose doing instead?

This is a bad move. It is just going to make a region that is already way to car dependent, and full of sprawl, even more car dependent and full of more sprawl.
You want to fix the traffic problems between KW and Guelph. There is a more simple way to do it. Stop sprawl, make the central downtowns the real focus of the cities again, and run high speed transit between them.
You can't have it both ways. In one page KW and Guelph are talking about getting more people onto transit. And on the next page they want mega highways to encourage even more people to drive, and make more auto depandent sprawl.

How exactly do we stop sprawl outright? I'll say it again, 300,000 more people are going to be living in Waterloo and Guelph in 24 years. I'm as much for urbanization as the next guy, and I completely support all the new condos going up. I don't realistically expect the entire 300,000 additional people to live in a reubanized area. Is your expectation (and everyone else's) that Waterloo and Guelph will grow 100% through re-urbanization over the next 2 decades? If so, I believe that's completely unrealistic. 40% is a better target, maybe 50%, but 100%? Never going to happen. A 100% infill target is not going to happen in Toronto, it's not going to happen in Hamilton, or in Montreal, or in Ottawa, or in Vancouver, or in any other Canadian city. Why would Waterloo Region be any different?

[WaterlooInvestor]

For reference, here's a map of the area:

http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa262/AndrewEH/WaterlooRegionArea.jpg

[WaterlooInvestor]

Yes, that had everything to do with a highway. Bravo!

It had to do with our growth pattern, which he doesn't understand. He simply sees us as suburbs of Toronto, and therefore doesn't understand why we'd need a highway between our two cities.

[HAMRetrofit]

Stop right there. Let's agree on one thing: you know NOTHING about Kitchener-Waterloo. I'll repeat that: NOTHING (bolded and underlined). As such, I don't even think you should qualify to post in this thread regarding Waterloo's development. I know this is the internet, so you can say basically anything without backing it up, but let's for fun show how wrong your post was.

This is a bit overly defensive perhaps I have revealed a truth to you that you are not willing to admit. Never did I imply that Kitchener was a suburb of Toronto. I did however say that Kitchener has benefitted from its proximity to Toronto like Barrie and Milton.

Growth in the Kitchener area before the 'Greenbelt' legislation was 8.4%, growth after the 'Greenbelt' legislation is 8.9%. You are welcome to draw your own conclusions why this might be. My view is that it is the 'new homes' market that is driving this growth as GTA ex pats look for value outside of the city. New Canadian immigrants are not settling in Kitchener in a significant way so where else are these people coming from?

On a different note, I think it is at least worth attempting to run a bus route between the cities before investing in a $400 million dollar expressway. At least create the environment for public transit before making the leap into an investment that will subsidize more low density growth. Most of the central census tracts in the region are experiencing negative growth besides the downtowns of Kitchener and Waterloo. Constructing a new expressway will fuel growth in census tracts in the peripheral areas while central tracts are already in decline or stagnant.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1194/1466385490_b7d37c5b5e.jpg?v=0

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1424/1466385710_6328c7d307.jpg?v=0

[Cambridgite]

This is a bit overly defensive perhaps I have revealed a truth to you that you are not willing to admit. Never did I imply that Kitchener was a suburb of Toronto. I did however say that Kitchener has benefitted from its proximity to Toronto like Barrie and Milton.

Well, it's about the same distance from Toronto as Barrie. Kitchener is a lot more self-sufficient and much moreso a large/mid-sized metro in its own right. Milton is not a feasible comparison though. It's half the distance from downtown TO and is basically on the growing fringe of Mississauga.

Growth in the Kitchener area before the 'Greenbelt' legislation was 8.4%, growth after the 'Greenbelt' legislation is 8.9%. You are welcome to draw your own conclusions why this might be. My view is that it is the 'new homes' market that is driving this growth as GTA ex pats look for value outside of the city. New Canadian immigrants are not settling in Kitchener in a significant way so where else are these people coming from?

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I would hardly call an increase from 8.4% to 8.9% statistically significant. Besides, how do you know that's all about commuters and the greenbelt? What if Moncton's growth has gone up? Are they commuting to Toronto too? And perhaps you should think before stating that new Canadian immigrants aren't settling in Kitchener in any significant way. Quite a bit of our migration is international, much more than you'd think. Cultural diversity has risen sharply in the past few years. Go to any new subdivision in Cambridge along Can-Amera Pkwy, walk around on a nice sunny day and tell me how white the area is. Perhaps proximity to Toronto has something to do with it. Anyways, I know WaterlooInvestor has a chart kicking around, showing the migration patterns to and from each Canadian CMA. If I recall, Kitchener has about 60% of its net gain due to immigration, 40% intraprovincial, and a net loss of interprovincial (damn Alberta, lol). Perhaps he could confirm this for me.

On a different note, I think it is at least worth attempting to run a bus route between the cities before investing in a $400 million dollar expressway. At least create the environment for public transit before making the leap into an investment that will subsidize more low density growth. Most of the central census tracts in the region are experiencing negative growth besides the downtowns of Kitchener and Waterloo. Constructing a new expressway will fuel growth in census tracts in the peripheral areas while central tracts are already in decline or stagnant.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1194/1466385490_b7d37c5b5e.jpg?v=0

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1424/1466385710_6328c7d307.jpg?v=0

I agree with you that we should explore our transit options first before we hop on the highway bandwagon. The fact that no busses serve these 19,000people should be a real eye-opener.

A few things I'd like to address about those census tract maps. First, you'll notice that Uptown Waterloo and Downtown Kitchener are indeed growing, for one (suburban growth isn't hollowing them out). Also, for those tracts that are declining, these are mainly older suburbs that have little room for growth and aren't exactly hospitable to reurbanization. If you've done your research, you'd also know that the average household size is declining all across Canada. This means fewer people in most given homes. Of course there will be declines in places with little or no construction. Why don't you pull up a similar map for the Toronto CMA? We'll see just how many census tracts are declining in Etobicoke, North York, southern Mississauga, etc. One thing you'll notice about all these places is that you don't see abandonment. It's the same thing in KW.

[WaterlooInvestor]

This is a bit overly defensive perhaps I have revealed a truth to you that you are not willing to admit. Never did I imply that Kitchener was a suburb of Toronto. I did however say that Kitchener has benefitted from its proximity to Toronto like Barrie and Milton.

I've seen completely uninformed bullshit said about KW many times before. You're making some very uneducated comments. It gets extremely annoying after awhile. Two examples, but I easily find more:

07-25-2006, 09:31 PM
Yes, it’s all much, much, much better than Kitchener or Windsor, but the Kitchener downtown development scene is so absolutely abysmal as to make any comparison pointless. It’s like saying that a man in the hospital just learning to walk after a bad car wreck is really very healthy because the man in the hospital bed next to him is terminally ill. You have to compare it to somthing else truly healthy. Downtown Kitchener is in a death spiral in terms of new private developments.

10-05-2006, 11:19 PM
Downtown Kitchener is a decaying basket case.


Anyways, I know WaterlooInvestor has a chart kicking around, showing the migration patterns to and from each Canadian CMA. If I recall, Kitchener has about 60% of its net gain due to immigration, 40% intraprovincial, and a net loss of interprovincial (damn Alberta, lol). Perhaps he could confirm this for me.

Yes this is it: http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/91-214-XIE/2006000/ct004_en.gif
http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/91-214-XIE/2006000/ct004_en.htm

HAMRetrofit should note the only area listed acting strongly as a magnet for Torontonians is Oshawa. (Barrie isn't listed) Although Kitchener does have postive intraprovincial migration, it is hardly overwhelming. Also note, that although Kitchener doesn't have the highest international immigration in the country, it is still better than many.

Another point I'd like to make about the census tracts for Uptown Waterloo. Let's remember that students aren't counted in the census. With the growth of both UW and WLU there are many more students in the central areas that on paper create a negative growth rate for the area, but in reality students do still live there.

HAMRetrofit should note, that I also agree with transit improvements. There's an environmental assessment about to start on extending GO transit to the region. There's a group called the North Main Line Alliance made up of the municipalities from London to Guelph that are lobbying for increased funding for VIA rail. I support all these things. However, there does come a point though where new highways are needed due to population growth. That's just reality in Ontario.

[jeremy_haak]

Technically there is already some from of transit to and from Guelph; however, the ten Greyhound buses per day that travel there aren't really geared toward commuters. First, the timings are off, so that only one bus is really suited for people commuting to Guelph, and none for people commuting to Kitchener. Second, the transit systems are completely unintegrated, so that any person wishing to commute would have to own a pass in Kitchener and Guelph as well as tickets for the Greyhound bus.

The history of the two municipalities has always made me a little skeptical of any joint partnerships between them. In the 90s Guelph pulled out of the 'Canada's Technology Triangle' partnership and the Waterloo Regional Airport seemingly wishing to pursue a distinct direction from Waterloo and concerned about being swallowed into the larger Waterloo identity; however, it looks like things may be looking up with partnerships between the two cities, especially with regard to transit and commuting/housing issues. This article from July (http://www.techtriangle.com/viewnews.cfm?newsid=444) seems to indicate a desire on both sides to jointly address these issues, and transit is one that is specifically mentioned.

Piper said the two councils could work together on waste management, transit, managing urban growth or lobbying the province for infrastructure funds, to name a few examples.

Mayor Karen Farbridge has taken some first steps in re-opening the lines of communication between the two councils. Waterloo Regional Chair Ken Seiling said Farbridge contacted him by e-mail, and he plans to meet with her in August to discuss what can be done.

[HAMRetrofit]

You're making some very uneducated comments.

Your hostility only weakens your arguements.

Your chart only reinforces my point that almost 23% of Kitchener's growth is intraprovincial of which about 20% comes from the GTA. Again reinforcing my point that Kitchener benefits from its proximity to the GTA since it is within the 'commutershed'.

[Goldfinger]

I've seen completely uninformed bullshit said about KW many times before. You're making some very uneducated comments. It gets extremely annoying after awhile. Two examples, but I easily find more:

07-25-2006, 09:31 PM


10-05-2006, 11:19 PM





Yes this is it: http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/91-214-XIE/2006000/ct004_en.gif
http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/91-214-XIE/2006000/ct004_en.htm

HAMRetrofit should note the only area listed acting strongly as a magnet for Torontonians is Oshawa. (Barrie isn't listed) Although Kitchener does have postive intraprovincial migration, it is hardly overwhelming. Also note, that although Kitchener doesn't have the highest international immigration in the country, it is still better than many.

Another point I'd like to make about the census tracts for Uptown Waterloo. Let's remember that students aren't counted in the census. With the growth of both UW and WLU there are many more students in the central areas that on paper create a negative growth rate for the area, but in reality students do still live there.

HAMRetrofit should note, that I also agree with transit improvements. There's an environmental assessment about to start on extending GO transit to the region. There's a group called the North Main Line Alliance made up of the municipalities from London to Guelph that are lobbying for increased funding for VIA rail. I support all these things. However, there does come a point though where new highways are needed due to population growth. That's just reality in Ontario.

Oh boy look out, here comes the Waterloser scholar. I heard only special needs students can graduate from that program. :jester:

[Cambridgite]

Your hostility only weakens your arguements.

:yes:

Your chart only reinforces my point that almost 23% of Kitchener's growth is intraprovincial of which about 20% comes from the GTA. Again reinforcing my point that Kitchener benefits from its proximity to the GTA since it is within the 'commutershed'.

Yes, 23% or so is intraprovincial. Kitchener is not the only one with a net gain of intraprovincial either. However, where are you getting 20% from the GTA from? While it wouldn't surprise me, at least put up a reference if you're going to be taken seriously.

It does benefit from its proximity to the GTA and location in its commutershed. One would have to be foolish in assuming there's no relationship there. For example, in this report about the growth of high tech in Cambridge, Medshare cites "We were amazed by the caliber and number of people commuting to Toronto and actively looking for the opportunity to work closer to home." (page 4)
http://www.city.cambridge.on.ca/relatedDocs/2007%20mid-year%20news.pdf

To be fair, there are more factors than just proximity to Toronto (before WaterlooInvestor rips me to shreds, LOL). The universities play a very important role in fostering research and development, plus spin-off companies. There's 700,000 people within a very short drive, making it a large urban concentration even in its own right. However, the GTA is still a factor. It will become even moreso when Milton and Georgetown build out the greenbelt.

[Mister F]

Highway 7 should be four lanes, if not a full freeway than at least a divided highway with at grade intersections. Same with Hwy 24 connecting Guelph, Cambridge, and Brantford. The volumes justify it. But these projects should only go forward if two other things happen:

-provide enough protection for the countryside between the cities. The province should establish a greenbelt in the area to accomplish that. Highways don't have to be sprawl machines. A greenbelt should go along with the mid-peninsula highway through Hamilton and Niagara too.

-Establish regular, integrated transit between the cities. It's unbelievable that there's no transit between Waterloo Region and Guelph. Even Port Hope and Cobourg are linked by transit, and they have only 34,000 people combined. The province should take leadership on that and link Guelph to Kitchener and Cambridge with regional/light rail. And Cambridge should be linked to Brantford.

Somebody mentioned that the MTO's mandate should be changed to include regional transit, and I totally agree with that. It would need some serious shaking up though. I've worked there, it's a soul-sucking old boys club of road builders.

[waterloowarrior]

Highway will feed development

GUELPH
Few people know the frustration of Highway 7 like Peter Armbruster.
The Waterloo-area developer has been waiting years to build hundreds of homes in the east end of Waterloo Region. And he's ready to wait years more.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And it's all a long way off.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Wetlands, farms paved over



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

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

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

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

Some farmers are upset about threatened farmland.

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

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

On the approved new route:

More than a dozen farms will lose 144 hectares of agricultural land.
Five businesses, on 13 hectares, will be displaced in Kitchener, to make way for a new interchange and its connector roads.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Affected landowners react differently to the new highway plan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

jouthit@therecord.com (jouthit@therecord.com)


sprawlway!

[the dude]

aren't highways wonderous things?

[Deez]

The current highway 7 is already congested. What would you propose doing instead?



How exactly do we stop sprawl outright? I'll say it again, 300,000 more people are going to be living in Waterloo and Guelph in 24 years. I'm as much for urbanization as the next guy, and I completely support all the new condos going up. I don't realistically expect the entire 300,000 additional people to live in a reubanized area. Is your expectation (and everyone else's) that Waterloo and Guelph will grow 100% through re-urbanization over the next 2 decades? If so, I believe that's completely unrealistic. 40% is a better target, maybe 50%, but 100%? Never going to happen. A 100% infill target is not going to happen in Toronto, it's not going to happen in Hamilton, or in Montreal, or in Ottawa, or in Vancouver, or in any other Canadian city. Why would Waterloo Region be any different?

Easy answer: you can't stop sprawl. However, you can stop doing stupid things that enable it, such as this highway.

Vancouver is a perfect example of intentionally planning to mitigate sprawl. Your average traffic engineer would decry the gridlock and high housing prices...but talk to residents and you'll find it's not the first thing on their mind. Housing prices are high because there's high demand for high density housing (since there's virtually no highway network) which has fueled a huge condo boom, which is fueling the economy...etc. If you choose to build this highway in KW, you choose to enable a car-dependent lifestyle that will only encourage more sprawl (as shown in the article wloowarrior posted) and you'll be right back in the same mess we're in now in few years, except on a greater scale.

The only reasonable solution is to not build the highway and let the free market generate development that is more sustainable economically and environmentally.

[miketoronto]

Here is my idea.

--------

GUELPH-KW COMMUTER EXPRESS BUS ROUTE
The COMMUTER EXPRESS bus route will offer auto competative transit travel between the twin cities and Guelph, stopping only at the following stops.

-STONE ROAD MALL PARK AND RIDE

-UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH PARK AND RIDE

-DOWNTOWN GUELPH TRANSIT CENTRE

-ST JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL

-EDINBURGH AND WOODLAWN ROAD PARK AND RIDE

-LACKNER AND VICTORIA

-CONESTOGA PARKWAY VICTORIA PARK AND RIDE

-KITCHENER DOWNTOWN

-GRAND RIVER HOSPITAL

-CLARICA

-UPTOWN WATERLOO

-UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO PARK AND RIDE

Enjoy easy connections to connecting transit services at Stone Road Mall, Downtown Guelph, Downtown Kitchener, and Uptown Waterloo.
Buses will operate every 15min during weekday rush hour periods, and every 20-30min during non peak times.



U OF W-GUELPH FLYER SERVICE

THIS BRANCH WILL MAKE ALL GUELPH STOPS, AS WELL AS THE STOPS AT LACKNER ROAD AND CONESTOGA PARKWAY THEN OPERATE EXPRESS VIA CONESTOGA PARKWAY TO UPTOWN WATERLOO AND U OF W.
THE FLYER SERVICE WILL OPERATE BOTH WAYS DURING WEEKDAY RUSH HOUR PERIODS EVERY 15 MIN.

WHAT ABOUT TRAFFIC?

The Commuter Express will use special curb lane busways to bypass traffic congestion on Highway 7. Future improvments will see a dedicated busway built to serve transit service in the Highway 7 Corridor.

FARES
The commuter bus fare will be $2.50 each way for adults, with free transfers to connecting transit services.

The service will be operated together by Guelph Transit and Grand River Transit.

[WaterlooInvestor]

Your hostility only weakens your arguements.

When you're saying flat-out lies like "With this is the development of some business parks with tech companies and logistic warehouses where they can work a little closer to home." don't expect a warm welcome. Imagine if I went into the Hamilton thread and started saying: Stelco isn't a Hamilton company, it only moved there from the GTA. Do you think I'd get a handshake and hello? I think not. Perhaps if you took a few minutes to inform yourself of the topic you'd understand things: http://communitech.esolutionsgroup.ca/tech_community/success_stories.shtml .

Your chart only reinforces my point that almost 23% of Kitchener's growth is intraprovincial of which about 20% comes from the GTA. Again reinforcing my point that Kitchener benefits from its proximity to the GTA since it is within the 'commutershed'.

No, your point was "K/W is following the same trend as Barrie and Milton and is not special in anyway." I wouldn't be surprised if Milton's growth from the GTA was 50% or higher, which would be a large difference. KW has it's own strengths as it's own city.

Highway 7 should be four lanes, if not a full freeway than at least a divided highway with at grade intersections. Same with Hwy 24 connecting Guelph, Cambridge, and Brantford. The volumes justify it. But these projects should only go forward if two other things happen:
-provide enough protection for the countryside between the cities. The province should establish a greenbelt in the area to accomplish that. Highways don't have to be sprawl machines. A greenbelt should go along with the mid-peninsula highway through Hamilton and Niagara too.
-Establish regular, integrated transit between the cities. It's unbelievable that there's no transit between Waterloo Region and Guelph. Even Port Hope and Cobourg are linked by transit, and they have only 34,000 people combined. The province should take leadership on that and link Guelph to Kitchener and Cambridge with regional/light rail. And Cambridge should be linked to Brantford.
Somebody mentioned that the MTO's mandate should be changed to include regional transit, and I totally agree with that. It would need some serious shaking up though. I've worked there, it's a soul-sucking old boys club of road builders.

I can agree with both of those options. I'd even like to suggest two more options: put tolls on some highways (helping to reduce costs, and to reduce traffic which will delay expansion), increase the gas tax (also helps pay for the road, and reduce traffic which will delay expansion)

Easy answer: you can't stop sprawl. However, you can stop doing stupid things that enable it, such as this highway.
Vancouver is a perfect example of intentionally planning to mitigate sprawl. Your average traffic engineer would decry the gridlock and high housing prices...but talk to residents and you'll find it's not the first thing on their mind. Housing prices are high because there's high demand for high density housing (since there's virtually no highway network) which has fueled a huge condo boom, which is fueling the economy...etc. If you choose to build this highway in KW, you choose to enable a car-dependent lifestyle that will only encourage more sprawl (as shown in the article wloowarrior posted) and you'll be right back in the same mess we're in now in few years, except on a greater scale.
The only reasonable solution is to not build the highway and let the free market generate development that is more sustainable economically and environmentally.

First off, I like Vancouver and would love all those condo towers in Waterloo. However, I don't think KW is quite at that level yet. KW's Urban Area Footprint is: 313.85 square kilometres, Vancouver's is 1,135.61 square kilometers. If Waterloo Region doesn't increase it's footprint in a meaningful way (ie. more than 10%), yet still has to add 200,000 more people, it would have a higher density in 24 years than Vancouver does now. As much as I'd like that to happen, I just don't see it becoming reality. In fact, there's a good example down the 401 where the lack of a highway isn't preventing sprawl. What I think is more important are all the initiatives right above here, and a "smart sprawl" initiative. I remember seeing raisethehammer post pictures of suburbs in Portland, and they looked awesome - it's what I mean by smart sprawl. That's the same type of growth (along with condos on King Street) that I'd like to see here. Specifically targeted on the East Side of the Region around the airport (since the West side is more environmentally sensitive).

Here is my idea.

I like your idea to provide more transit services. I'd make a modification though. I don't think you need all those stops in Waterloo Region, the reason being due to the iXpress (and in the future LRT) which links UW, WLU, Uptown to Downtown. With the LRT, there's a proposed station at King and Victoria. I'd just run the buses straight from there out to Guelph.

The service will be operated together by Guelph Transit and Grand River Transit.

Once again, like this idea. GRT would probably be up for it since we've seen all their services improvements and Waterloo Region is making transit a priority. Guelph though? Remember your thread you posted with all their service cuts this year? Their actions say they aren't interested in making transit a priority. Perhaps we could get GO Transit to run the service.

[WaterlooInvestor]

Hwy 7 plans could face Six Nations oppostion
October 1, 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The people of the Six Nations came here in 1784.

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

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

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

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

ARTIFACTS FOUND ON LAND

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

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

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

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

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

It was found in Woolwich Township.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[WaterlooInvestor]

Is there another way?
October 2, 2007 - GUELPH

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Langan argues transit systems are often set up to fail.

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

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

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

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


HANLON HOPES

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

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

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

Willow Road will become a bridge over the Hanlon.

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

Paisley Road will get an interchange.

The Wellington Road interchange won't change.

College Avenue will get a bridge over the Hanlon.

Stone Road will get an interchange.

Kortright Road will get a partial interchange.

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

Clair Road will stop at the Hanlon.

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

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

Wellington Road 34 will have a bridge over the Hanlon.

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

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

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


ONTARIO ELECTION OUTCOME COULD ALTER HIGHWAY 7 PLANS

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

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

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

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

[WaterlooInvestor]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The cost has