The public input sessions regarding this proposal were only conducted in the immediate surrounding suburban area, so there was poor awareness of this project. Several of the presentations at the meeting were by the developers and associated people. One lady argued against the proposal because of its proximity to the landfill — her concern is that the development will be unusable and unsafe as a result, and that this will have unfortunate consequences for the landfill’s operation. Another argued that it will contribute to serious water contamination issues. My speech, reproduced below, was the only one against the very idea of the development. A number of people later came up to shake my hand for giving the speech.

Unfortunately, City Council disregarded their own misgivings as well as the concerns raised, and voted unanimously in favour of the development. In writeups about the ruling, the Record and the Waterloo Chronicle mentioned my comments with varying degrees of accuracy.

Mayor Halloran, Members of Council,

I am here to say that the emperor has no clothes. The development you are presently considering is utterly ridiculous. It is an enormous blow to ongoing efforts to make the City of Waterloo and the Region sustainable areas with strong urban cores and decreased car dependence.

There’s a lot of places I could start, but it may as well be size. I’m sure you all know that this is a large development. Take a look at the Preferred Development Concept; it doesn’t look that big, does it?

Let me put it into perspective: it is exactly the same size as the University of Waterloo’s main campus inside Ring Road. Just the parking lots cover a space the size of Wilfrid Laurier University. And what do you get for that space? A whole slew of minimum wage jobs in retail and 4000 parking spaces.

First and foremost, the development is big box retail. All of its buildings face inwards towards a sea of parking. The claimed pedestrian- and transit-friendliness is a farce.

Consider the pedestrian aspect. First of all, how does a sprawling suburban area produce pedestrians in any significant quantity? But let’s say that it does, and they wish to deposit their time and money into the development. To get there they will have to traverse roundabouts that will have enormous numbers of cars going at high speeds in and out of the mall. And then there’s the issue of the size of the development itself – which is over a kilometre across!

The plans describe the “internal capture” that keeps customers in the development for multiple purposes. But they won’t be pedestrians while doing it. Technically, people could drive to this mall, park, and then visit multiple parts of the complex on foot. But we all know this won’t happen. The distances in the development are far too large for this, and the dullness of crossing the endless parking would discourage anyone attempting to traverse it on foot. It is abundantly clear that for all of this “capture” of customers, people will get in their cars and drive to get from one part of the complex to another, and another. It’s even clear from the diagrams of the development — the tiny dots are cars parked as close as they can to their respective big boxes. The developer knows this place is so big that it really does matter how close you parked to your destination.

On to transit. The plans talk so little about parking, and so much about transit. Is having a bus stop there supposed to make it all okay? Anyone who gets off the bus — at the one stop planned within the site — becomes a pedestrian. And I already mentioned why this development is not pedestrian-friendly. A very small proportion of visitors would walk or use the bus to get there, much smaller than the kinds of developments we should be focusing on.

I believe it is clear that this is a very car-centric development. And it is a huge one at that. I don’t know how we are expected to believe that Ira Needles Boulevard or other arterial roads in the area will not be affected by the development. The reports claim that the road will have to be widened by 2013 anyway, and that subsequently the development won’t contribute much more traffic than the alternative. From what I can glean, this supposed alternative is not the lack of a development, but just a slightly smaller one. Common sense and Kitchener planning staff agree: the proposed development will be a huge contributor to traffic and will necessitate serious road expansion. The fact that sizeable traffic would also be caused by a reduced development is cold comfort. Consider that the development aims to be a success; knowing its car dependence and size, it is not difficult to picture the effect of that success on traffic and roads in that area.

The new Regional Official Plan almost certainly would not allow this project, for pretty much the same reasons that I am opposed to it. It is precisely the kind of car-oriented suburban sprawl-promoting development that we must avoid at all costs. Section 2.G.6 of the plan says that new Retail Commercial Centres will only be permitted within Urban Growth Centres, Major Transit Station Areas, or Major Local Nodes. Further, they must not adversely affect the planned function of any Urban Growth Centre or Major Transit Station Area.

While perhaps forcing bus service to outlying suburbs can make this development appear to be at a “Major Local Node” it is very clear that the development would have adverse impacts on the downtowns and the Central Transit Corridor. It will create a very large supply of jobs and retail away from the core, certainly funneling development and consumers away from the areas in which the province and the region mandate intensification.

Now, I don’t know whether the new Regional Official Plan applies to this development, but hopefully the plan will prevent future sprawling development. However, if you are about to go on a much-needed diet, gorging yourself in preparation defeats the purpose.

Perhaps it is too much to hope for that this development does not get built. If indeed that is the case, it is prudent to at least make a serious attempt to minimize the development’s impact on traffic and to maximize its transit friendliness. To that end, I suggest that this developer be required to contribute a sizable portion of the planning and construction cost of a streetcar line along University Avenue. Such a line would connect this end of Kitchener-Waterloo with the light rail line at the core, and provide a real — not token — way of getting to this development without a car. This is not a rhetorical example, and I hope you fully consider this possibility.

It is ironic how this project touts itself as being modern, sustainable, green, pedestrian-friendly, and transit-friendly when at its heart, it is nothing other than a power centre and a few strip malls put together. All the talk of “urban design” of this inherently suburban development is no more convincing than lipstick on a pig.

This development is clearly buzzword-friendly. However, it is not pedestrian-friendly, it is not transit-friendly, and it is not even traffic-friendly. Above all, it is not future-friendly. I ask you to take a firm stand against suburban sprawl and this development in particular.

]]> http://psystenance.com/2009/06/25/speech-against-ira-needles-development/feed/ 3 Michael D Ira Needles development size http://psystenance.com/2009/06/11/simplicity-light-rail-and-a-more-complete-transit-system/ http://psystenance.com/2009/06/11/simplicity-light-rail-and-a-more-complete-transit-system/#comments Thu, 11 Jun 2009 04:56:33 +0000 Michael Druker http://psystenance.com/?p=111 ]]> Last night I spoke at Waterloo Regional Council in support of the staff recommendation for a light rail system for the region. The speech incorporates and expands on my earlier draft and on my idea for a more complete transit system for the region. I had several people come up to me to express their support, so I want to share the speech:

I have travelled to many cities, both in North America and in Europe. And I can count on one hand the number of times I’ve had reason to ride buses in cities while travelling. On the other hand, I’ve ridden all manner of trains: streetcars, subways, light rail. (Many of those cities were travelled to by car, I might add.) This is because user-friendly bus systems are a rare species, if not fantasy.

I hope to give a bit of a reality-based perspective on transit planning, one that focuses on what transit users actually would do, as opposed to what they could do or what they should do.

First I will talk about the ease of use and simplicity of light rail, and then I will discuss how to implement light rail to obtain the easiest to use and most effective system we can.

To start, light rail and normal bus systems have quite different aims: the bus system needs to service an entire area comprehensively, and by definition is complicated. Bus routes may easily change from one season to the next, even those of rapid buses. It is very difficult to know a bus system well. I regularly use buses here, and I know only a few routes that get me around in a limited fashion. For other trips I have no choice but to drive.

A light rail system, on the other hand, is a permanent fixture of a city. This has huge economic implications, as potential businesses will know that the train will be exactly there, and won’t get moved. Same thing for people who decide to buy a condo, and consequently for those who build condos. To people and developers, bus routes are fleeting and intangible, while tracks are concrete and reassuringly permanent.

It is easy to understand a light rail system: there is a small number of distinct, named stations, and there are trains running regularly and often enough that you do not need a schedule. You walk to one stop, wait for a train in the right direction, get off at another stop, and walk to where you need to go. While I agree that there should be shuttles connecting to the light rail stations, be assured that a large proportion of the future LRT riders would not even consider riding buses.

There are clear advantages for any commuters or visitors to the area — they can park their car and use the train to get around. They will get off the GO train, or the high-speed train, and easily be able to get to the most important destinations. These visitors simply will not navigate a bus system if they can avoid it, and they will avoid it, either by driving or by just not coming to a place in which buses are the only way to get around. Many new residents will come to the area without a car, and find they don’t need one.

Of course, there are other reasons why light rail is superior to buses, and these help explain why many people with easy access to a car would use light rail, whereas buses are generally used by those who have no alternative. Modern light rail has a very smooth ride, is quieter than buses and even many cars, and releases no diesel fumes on riders and passers-by. There are many current drivers who would gladly give up commute-driving in exchange for a quiet ride where they can read or nap while not paying for gas or car upkeep. It is also far safer, of course, for them to take the train than the expressway. With an LRT line, the adamant drivers will need to share space with fewer other cars and the Region will have less danger of running out of space or funds for ever-expanding roads and highways.

I have focused on the simplicity of light rail, but there has to be simplicity in the plan itself. To that end, I very strongly urge Council and staff to reconsider the confusing and unjustified splitting of the route in downtown Kitchener and Uptown Waterloo. It does not drive development as well as a single corridor would and it would not be a comprehensible decision in 20 years. I know that businesses have been concerned about visibility. However, the proposal is not for a streetcar but for rapid light rail with few stops, and thus accessibility rather than direct visibility is the most important aspect for businesses. So I suggest two-way operation on Caroline in Waterloo and on Charles in Kitchener, leaving King Street free for festivals and possible pedestrian malls, and ensuring a coherent transit line and transit stations.

If the light rail line is to be built in stages, the bus stage for the Kitchener to Cambridge segment must be very temporary. There is little simplicity and even less ease-of-use in a line composed of both a light rail and a bus segment. The region must make a firm commitment — either in terms of year or ridership figures — to building the Kitchener to Cambridge light rail portion. This is not just a concession to Cambridge, but what needs to be done to ensure this project is the best long-term solution it can be for our region.

In discussion of this rapid transit line, we must take note that there is only so much growth that can occur in a linear corridor, and that many parts of our cities will remain away from the backbone light rail line. It is naive to believe that residents of these places will flock en masse to bus connections with the light rail line. I believe that we need to think ahead to a more complete transit system, and consider streetcar lines operating in mixed traffic to connect outlying areas with the central corridor in a way that buses never could. In addition to this transit link, streetcars would very directly build vibrant streets in areas they are most needed.

My map provides an example of what a more complete transit system might look like. A streetcar along University Avenue connects the two campuses, forming an interesting and thriving district and supplanting the current blight of student housing; it also connects outlying residential areas and the new development at Ira Needles with the core. Another streetcar goes along Highland and Victoria, connecting residential and commercial areas and forming a new urban corridor for Kitchener. In Cambridge, a streetcar would be complementary to the LRT, providing transit and development along the corridor the LRT passes over. A heritage trolley could run up the spur line from Northfield to St. Jacobs, perhaps even to Elmira; if you’ve been to the St. Jacobs Market on a Saturday, you know that the ridership is there. And the last line in my map connects Pioneer Park and Doon with Kitchener and Cambridge LRT stations. Conestoga College at Doon will have probably 7,000 full-time students with its expansion, plus many thousands more part-time students, so this is a very important connection, not to mention vital if we want residents to be able to have a fully transit-accessible region.

As you can also see from my map, I believe that both the King Street and the spur line routes should be built in Waterloo, with half of the Waterloo-bound trains going in each direction. The University Avenue streetcar should provide the connection between the campuses, so the King Street portion should return to King Street just past Uptown.

Now, a few short points about light rail. Light rail is easy to understand and use. Its visible permanence promotes development. It does not pollute the city with either fumes or noise. It provides a smooth ride with smooth, infrequent stops. It provides a more stable headway between vehicles, and is not prone to vehicle bunching. The trains are easy to get on, get off, and move around in. The named, infrequent stops allow riders to relax while on board. And finally, the trains will outlast several generations of buses, none of which will compare in terms of comfort.

By this point it should be clear how important it is to have a fixed-rail line connecting our cities and their major destinations. Of our possibilities, subways are too expensive, elevated systems are too intrusive, and buses are, of course, inherently impermanent. Above all, failing to build this system is the most expensive option we have, costing us at the very least several billion dollars in road expansion and millions of hours lost in traffic over the next 20 years. We must choose to build light rail to move this region forward.

I have travelled to many cities, both in North America and in Europe. And I can count on one hand the number of times I’ve had reason to ride buses in cities while travelling. On the other hand, I’ve ridden all manner of trains: streetcars, subways, light rail. (Many of those cities were travelled to by car, I might add.) This is because user-friendly bus systems are a rare species.

What I want to emphasize is the ease of use of light rail as compared with a normal bus system. These things have quite different aims: the bus system needs to service an entire area comprehensively, and by definition is complicated. Bus routes may easily change from one season to the next, even those of rapid buses. It is very difficult to know a bus system well. I regularly use buses here, and I know only a few routes that get me around in a limited fashion. For other trips I have no choice but to drive.

A light rail system is a permanent fixture of a city. This has huge economic implications, as potential businesses will know that the train will be exactly there, and won’t get moved. Same thing for people who decide to buy a condo, and consequently for those who build condos. Whatever assurances might be given (and they rarely are) that a bus route will stay fixed, they will never be good enough to actually convince people of the permanence of something so inherently of no fixed corridor.

It is easy to understand a light rail system: there is a small number of distinct, named stations, and there are trains running often enough that you do not need a schedule. You walk to one stop, wait for a train in the right direction, get off at another stop, and walk to where you need to go. There should definitely be shuttles connecting to the light rail stations, but be assured that there will be many more people that would have nothing to do with buses, but who would use the train.

There are clear advantages for any visitors to the area — they can park their car and use the train to get around. They will get off the GO train, or the high-speed train, and easily be able to get to the most important destinations. These visitors simply will not navigate a bus system if they can avoid it, and they will avoid it, either by driving or by just not coming to a place in which buses are the only way to get around.

Of course, there are other reasons why light rail is superior to buses, and these help explain why many people with easy access to a car would use light rail, whereas buses are generally used by those who have no alternative. Modern light rail has a very smooth ride, is quieter than buses and even many cars, and releases no diesel fumes on riders and passers-by. There are many current drivers who would gladly give up commute-driving in exchange for a quiet ride where they can read or nap while not paying for gas or car upkeep. It is also far safer, of course, for them to take the train than the expressway. With a light rail line, the adamant drivers will have fewer cars on the road and the Region will have less danger of running out of space or funds for ever-expanding roads and highways.

I have focused on the simplicity of light rail, but there has to be simplicity in the plan itself. To that end, I very strongly urge Council and staff to reconsider the confusing splitting of the route in downtown Kitchener and Uptown Waterloo. It does not drive development as well as a single corridor and it would not be a comprehensible decision in 20 years. Businesses have been concerned about visibility. However, the proposal is not for a streetcar but for rapid light rail with few stops, and thus accessibility rather than direct visibility is the most important aspect for businesses.

Let me mention one last, but very important issue. If the light rail line is to be staged, the bus stage for the Kitchener to Cambridge segment must be very temporary. There is little simplicity, and even less ease-of-use in a line composed of both a light rail and a bus segment. The region must make a firm commitment — either in terms of year or ridership — to building the Kitchener to Cambridge light rail portion. This is not just a concession to Cambridge, but what needs to be done to make this project the best long-term solution it can be for our region.

By this point it should be clear how important it is to have a fixed-rail line connecting our cities and their major destinations. Of the possibilities, subways are too expensive, elevated systems are too intrusive, and buses are inherently impermanent. We must choose to build light rail to move this region forward.