News   Aug 14, 2020
 1.6K     4 
News   Aug 14, 2020
 251     0 
News   Aug 14, 2020
 815     1 

Ion Light Rail (Kitchener-Waterloo) & King/Victoria Transit Terminal

Allandale25

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
4,699
Reaction score
4,247
Someone mentioned that the LRV will end up in the Lancaster Street Yard in Kitchener. I assume it'll be transferred between CP and CN at Lambton (after possibly going to Toronto Yard in Scarborough first) and then taken along the Weston-Halton-Guelph Subs?
 

nfitz

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 10, 2007
Messages
23,255
Reaction score
3,376
Location
Toronto
Someone mentioned that the LRV will end up in the Lancaster Street Yard in Kitchener. I assume it'll be transferred between CP and CN at Lambton (after possibly going to Toronto Yard in Scarborough first) and then taken along the Weston-Halton-Guelph Subs?
Who knows, perhaps they'll just transfer it to CN in Thunder Bay, and come through Winnipeg.
 

mpd618

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
420
Reaction score
41
Location
Kitchener
This is absolute nonsense. Direct routes are important! Imagine if the Yonge subway wowed out to Laird Drive before continuing North! They're trying break something that hasn't even been built yet. This action is violent towards transit users and is being done to pad the pockets of big box landlords. Absurd!
If a direct route is all that mattered, then the ION phase 2 extension wouldn't be worth building. The amount of transit demand in Preston and Galt today is nowhere near what would be needed to justify it. The only way this makes sense if the extension is about city-building. Preston has some redevelopment potential but would likely fight hard against their relatively narrow main street losing its on-street parking for LRT (and certainly against a residential side street alignment); Galt's core is in a flood plain and not easy to do much redevelopment in. Hespeler Road is a blank slate. Again, the Region of Waterloo is quite serious about urbanization, being ahead of provincial targets and having had to fight the OMB to prevent sprawl.

The current iXpress 200 route travels down Hespeler Road, and in my (limited) experience Cambridge Centre (mall and minor bus terminal) is perhaps as busy as the Ainslie Street Terminal in Galt. Pretty sure the route is busier than the 52, which travels along the direct corridor.

I mean, you can disagree with the reasoning, but assuming that this plan is "violent towards transit users" or that it's corrupt is just laughable.
 

Dandy Horse

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 22, 2010
Messages
273
Reaction score
1
Location
west of bathurst
If a direct route is all that mattered, then the ION phase 2 extension wouldn't be worth building. The amount of transit demand in Preston and Galt today is nowhere near what would be needed to justify it. The only way this makes sense if the extension is about city-building. Preston has some redevelopment potential but would likely fight hard against their relatively narrow main street losing its on-street parking for LRT (and certainly against a residential side street alignment); Galt's core is in a flood plain and not easy to do much redevelopment in. Hespeler Road is a blank slate. Again, the Region of Waterloo is quite serious about urbanization, being ahead of provincial targets and having had to fight the OMB to prevent sprawl.

The current iXpress 200 route travels down Hespeler Road, and in my (limited) experience Cambridge Centre (mall and minor bus terminal) is perhaps as busy as the Ainslie Street Terminal in Galt. Pretty sure the route is busier than the 52, which travels along the direct corridor.

I mean, you can disagree with the reasoning, but assuming that this plan is "violent towards transit users" or that it's corrupt is just laughable.
The point of transit is to get from point A to point B as fast as possible. "Citybuilding" is not the purpose of transit, it's a byproduct. Should the yonge subway have circled away from mount pleasant cemetery because it didn't have redevelopment possibilities? Why don't we just build one big ziggity zaggity all around town so everyone can be "urbanized" with transit that is slower than a pregnant dog? This plan was %100 made by someone that drives exclusively, and probably has ties to whoever owns the land in that awkward corner.
 

mpd618

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
420
Reaction score
41
Location
Kitchener
The point of transit is to get from point A to point B as fast as possible. "Citybuilding" is not the purpose of transit, it's a byproduct.
I'll ignore the more ridiculous parts of your comment, but will address this part. Rarely in transit systems is there a single pair of points A and B between which people travel; instead there is a mess of destinations and travel patterns that transit can try to connect in useful ways. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the "mall to mall" criticisms of ION phase 1, in which people who do not understand transit conceive of the line as something people travel end-to-end instead of as something primarily serving the destinations in between. (Of course, a real Conestoga-Mall-to-Fairview-Park-Mall line would travel a much more direct route, and be of little utility to anyone.)

Read up on streetcar suburbs - transit has been used for urban land-use goals for a long time.
 

micheal_can

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2016
Messages
1,931
Reaction score
1,160
The point of transit is to get from point A to point B as fast as possible. "Citybuilding" is not the purpose of transit, it's a byproduct. Should the yonge subway have circled away from mount pleasant cemetery because it didn't have redevelopment possibilities? Why don't we just build one big ziggity zaggity all around town so everyone can be "urbanized" with transit that is slower than a pregnant dog? This plan was %100 made by someone that drives exclusively, and probably has ties to whoever owns the land in that awkward corner.
BS. Transit builds cities. The Skytrain built Vancouver to what it is now. Same can be said about Montreal and Toronto.

Take a look at the Green Line in Boston. That shows how it built the city.
 

Dandy Horse

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 22, 2010
Messages
273
Reaction score
1
Location
west of bathurst
I'll ignore the more ridiculous parts of your comment, but will address this part. Rarely in transit systems is there a single pair of points A and B between which people travel; instead there is a mess of destinations and travel patterns that transit can try to connect in useful ways. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the "mall to mall" criticisms of ION phase 1, in which people who do not understand transit conceive of the line as something people travel end-to-end instead of as something primarily serving the destinations in between. (Of course, a real Conestoga-Mall-to-Fairview-Park-Mall line would travel a much more direct route, and be of little utility to anyone.)

Read up on streetcar suburbs - transit has been used for urban land-use goals for a long time.
I'm familiar. Show me a streetcar suburb that started out as a corporate wasteland with no housing nearby, no small lots for the investment to help actual people. Quite frankly if the hideous American corporation that owns Hespeler Road wants a streetcar they can build it them dam selves. The benefit of this transit project should be to the people who pay for it an live in the community. Not only will it cost millions of hours of life from the transit riders over the long run, the monetary benefit of our communal funds will be used to increase the value of an inanimate object. It's called corperate welfare and it should be illegal.
 

smably

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 26, 2009
Messages
1,213
Reaction score
2,700
I'm familiar. Show me a streetcar suburb that started out as a corporate wasteland with no housing nearby, no small lots for the investment to help actual people. Quite frankly if the hideous American corporation that owns Hespeler Road wants a streetcar they can build it them dam selves. The benefit of this transit project should be to the people who pay for it an live in the community. Not only will it cost millions of hours of life from the transit riders over the long run, the monetary benefit of our communal funds will be used to increase the value of an inanimate object. It's called corperate welfare and it should be illegal.
You obviously have some strong feelings about this subject, but I'll give this a try anyway. Waterloo Region is growing, gaining about 200,000 people in the next couple of decades. These new residents are going to have to live somewhere. Given a choice between building more sprawl and urbanizing a corridor with large amounts of open space and low-density land use, what do you do? Waterloo Region has chosen to focus on infill development, and Hespeler Road is ripe for it. If the region is successful in their efforts to urbanize the Hespeler Road corridor, the LRT will benefit many more residents than it would as a straight line from Preston to Galt.

You can argue about how successful they will be, but the idea certainly has merit, and has nothing to do with "corporate welfare".
 

muller877

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 14, 2011
Messages
1,689
Reaction score
760
I'm familiar. Show me a streetcar suburb that started out as a corporate wasteland with no housing nearby, no small lots for the investment to help actual people. Quite frankly if the hideous American corporation that owns Hespeler Road wants a streetcar they can build it them dam selves. The benefit of this transit project should be to the people who pay for it an live in the community. Not only will it cost millions of hours of life from the transit riders over the long run, the monetary benefit of our communal funds will be used to increase the value of an inanimate object. It's called corperate welfare and it should be illegal.
Growth on big lots is a lot easier than smaller lots (to a density that permits transit). LRT is not and should not be built near single family homes but a mix of mid and highrise condos, commercial and retail. Bigger lots permit developers to buy and build all of this (think of 6 condos plus a new Home Depot replacing the exisiting Home Depot). Smaller lots means you have to cobble together a bunch of properties which takes time. Plus the NIMBY push-back will restrict what you can build.

You may have some serious concerns about hideous US corporations but I don't. I'm ok with any nationality owning commercial or industrial or residential property. We all pay the same taxes. (your post almost sounded like a Trump nationalistic rant for a sec)

I'm also a bit confused at which properties you are concerned about. SmartCentres is Canadian. Cambridge Centre is owned by Morguard which is Canadian. The Tenants may be US based but a significant portion of the land is owned by Canadians. Maybe you can point to which property is owned by Americans?
 

robmausser

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 16, 2013
Messages
2,762
Reaction score
3,073
Its funny reading the report how using the CP corridor would have been beneficial in many ways, but CP simply doesn't want them using the corridor, or is not willing to assist in any way.

CP is the debbie downer of Canadian Passenger rail.
 

Dandy Horse

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 22, 2010
Messages
273
Reaction score
1
Location
west of bathurst
Growth on big lots is a lot easier than smaller lots (to a density that permits transit). LRT is not and should not be built near single family homes but a mix of mid and highrise condos, commercial and retail. Bigger lots permit developers to buy and build all of this (think of 6 condos plus a new Home Depot replacing the exisiting Home Depot). Smaller lots means you have to cobble together a bunch of properties which takes time. Plus the NIMBY push-back will restrict what you can build.

You may have some serious concerns about hideous US corporations but I don't. I'm ok with any nationality owning commercial or industrial or residential property. We all pay the same taxes. (your post almost sounded like a Trump nationalistic rant for a sec)

I'm also a bit confused at which properties you are concerned about. SmartCentres is Canadian. Cambridge Centre is owned by Morguard which is Canadian. The Tenants may be US based but a significant portion of the land is owned by Canadians. Maybe you can point to which property is owned by Americans?
why is large lot development preferred for you? Why divert our transit away from a beautiful downtown that could use an injection of life and modern amenities (after all, the streetcar used to go here). Galt has the architecture and natural heritage that brings people to it. Why divert the impending value increases to Suzie Sheirs and Applebees when it could go to a real existing neighbourhood? Nobody wants to take transit that's not direct. You're vouching for the system of development that has sprung up along the Shepard line in Toronto. Except even that goes in a straight line. Small scale and small lots are how actually nice cities are made. I've lived in large developments before, they're boring as heck, and all the money goes to the developer. As a result of diverting the train, you're making it less desirable to use and also funnelling the economic benefits into a single non-entitie's pocket. hespler road is unwalkable and not well connected to any surrounding area, and probably always will be. Dumping condos on it will leave you with an even worse version of bayview and Shepard. That intersection has the worst traffic congestion of all of Toronto, because not everyone ie trying to get o the Yonge line. Do you actually enjoy being in large lot developments? They're usually completely car dependant, and at Hespler they definitely will be. If you're ok funnelling time and money to that, and believe that living in a tower block on a suburban arterial with an indirect streetcar route is superior to living in a centrally located infill in a booming historic downtown with direct transit connections to heavy rail and cultural institutions, then there's Probably no point of this convo. I do question your connection to this project and the area in general, specifically why Hespler alignment benefits anyone, and who. If this goes through it will be a wasted opportunity to make Galt an actual place, and will rob their population of benefits while creating a Logan's run type scenario beside suzie sheirs and an endless industrial park. Putting in a core route and having a feeder system of buses has been proven to work. If this gets built it will have pitiful ridership for the first 70 years and inconvenience those who actually use it, while also messing up traffic on the actual road as well. It's a lose lose. The only money to be gained is by smartcentre or whoever else owns the monstrosities along this unfortunate stretch. (Edit:your/you're)
 
Last edited:

smably

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 26, 2009
Messages
1,213
Reaction score
2,700
I do question your connection to this project and the area in general, specifically why Hespler alignment benefits anyone, and who.
I like how you keep implicitly accusing any member willing to engage in discussion with you of having some financial conflict of interest, as if that's the only possible reason that someone could support that alignment. Maybe you just have an unpopular opinion. Sorry!
 

Dandy Horse

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 22, 2010
Messages
273
Reaction score
1
Location
west of bathurst
I like how you keep implicitly accusing any member willing to engage in discussion with you of having some financial conflict of interest, as if that's the only possible reason that someone could support that alignment. Maybe you just have an unpopular opinion. Sorry!
I believe that's the first time I mentioned that. But you can't possibly live on Hespler, because there aren't any houses there, or even within walking distance. So Why do you want people living in Cambridge to have crappy lives?
Anyway good job arguing anything important from my last comment.
 

jje1000

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
4,791
Reaction score
2,204
I thought there was a whole lot of complaints about the LRT requiring demolition of some streetwalls & houses in Waterloo?

Regardless, transit is balanced between existing ridership and future potential ridership & developmental value unlocked- hence the alignment on Hespeler I think was chosen for that reason.
 

Top