Fountain Street traffic project - E-05-004

UPDATES

[#3]   April 23/09  -- here we go! It is official! Today the Region held a public consultation centre to announce the start of the "Fountain and King Streets Class Environmental Assessment." "This study is intended to examine traffic congestion issues......" Bottom line, your tax dollars are now officially being spent on an expensive EA study. The project team will present their design concepts for further input in early 2010.
To see the project information package go to www.region.waterloo.on.ca/fountain-king

[#2.]  Evidently I am not the only critic of Cambridge Council's road building plans, or to be more exact, the lack thereof.
On Nov. 1/08 a column in THE RECORD stated that "There's a long tradition in Cambridge of planning roads that never get built.
Here's how it usually works. Critics cite environmental concerns, costs or neighbourhood impacts. Politicians back off. Road proposals falter. Drivers fume." (p. B1)

[#1]   On Sept. 21/08 a 'Cambridge solution' to severe local traffic congestion was undertaken at the intersection of Fountain St.
and Shantz Hill. After waiting decades for some 'action', the turning lane was widened to prevent transport trucks from getting stuck.
A wonderful first step after more than 30 years of inaction.
But why did the transport truck problem exist at this location ..... perhaps a problem created in part by Cambridge Council's non-decisions about traffic planning.
One positive outcome, I guess, is that from now on the daily rush hour traffic congestion will be just normal traffic flow .... not stuck trucks

.  

              Shantz Hill & Fountain intersection                                     Shantz Hill looking south to Fountain St.

Text of my presentation about proposed road widening and traffic congestion to the
Region of Waterloo 'Planning and Works Committee' on January 29, 2008

Good morning and thank you for this opportunity to comment on a proposed 2.5 million dollar road project: E-05-004.
Yes, I know that the project team has not yet met to consider design issues; and that in itself is a significant reason for today’s presentation.

But there is another reason. Several weeks ago, several Cambridge Councillors publicly criticized the Region for delaying their road projects. You should not be surprised to learn that not all residents agree with these negative criticisms. I am pleased with the delay of this specific project. In addition, I seriously question the unspoken but underlying assumption that “Cambridge road problems are the Region’s fault”.

My goal today is twofold:

·    First, to explain why you should not just delay, but instead remove one project from your to-do-list for a savings of $2,500,000.

·     A second goal is to present alternatives

 The comments are divided into 3 sections: the good, the bad, and the ugly.

THE GOOD:     or,  it is as good as it can be, so leave it alone.

Project E-05-004 is targeted at 3 segments of road that taken together comprise the historic primary transportation route through Cambridge Mills.  The route was shaped by rivers, fords, water powered mills and horse drawn vehicles.

     
      early King Street at Central Park            Cambridge Mill early 1800s                   early street cars at mill

And it is precisely because of this historic origin that both natural and built constraints face a project that seeks to create construct “widened roads” and “operational improvements”. DTNR states that ‘enhancements will achieve the goal of better managing the growth of traffic …. and will disperse traffic away from the most congested areas.”  

Sorry, but not likely possible this particular setting!

[A]   I would like to introduce the non-technical concepts of funnel and bottleneck to illustrate my viewpoint.
Project E-05-004 involves 4 roads that constitute bottlenecks and therefore prohibit any increased traffic volume in and out of the zone.
The narrowest point of the funnel determines traffic volume, not the input area.

Funnel example #1 ..... King Street south from Speed River bridge.

King Street is what it was --- one lane in each direction --- and you cannot funnel more cars along at peak hours.
And for the sake of the neighbourhood, why would you want to increase volume at peak hours?

The same issue of a constrained two lane road is also evident at other locations: Fountain Street, and at the start of Eagle St. N.

[B] Traffic congestion only occurs at peak hours?  Why would you want to widen this street?

Where is the problem?

Why attempt to widen roads and thus seek to increase volume through the constrained features presented by geography and historic settings? 
Can you state a single positive outcome for the neighbourhood that increased volume and widened roads will produce:
more smog, more congestion, more noise, and wider roads for pedestrians. 

The twice daily traffic congestion issue cannot be solved by Project E-05-004. The project can only damage that which is good …… and would that satisfy any goal of RGMS?

So, the GOOD consists of preserving the status quo. It may not be perfect, but the situation should certainly not be made worse.
Leave it alone ….. and look for alternatives.

THE BAD:    civic  plans that will produce increased congestion

In their criticism of the Region’s road construction delays, several Cambridge Councillors forgot to mention plans that will continue to increase traffic congestion issues in the King-Fountain-Shantz Hill corridor.

•      260 autos from the Kanmet residential intensification project ( 633 Margaret Street)
  200 autos from Lawrence Ave residential intensification project
   

•       - a possible Limerick Road residential project   500+ units x 1.3 autos = 650 autos

•      - ever increasing employment traffic to/from Cambridge Business Park as Council sells more industrial land

Imagine the cumulative daily traffic impact that these 4 nearby sources of increased traffic - 
One has to assume some of them will use this route?

 just to make the situation more interesting, consider the impact of a proposed $55 million  hotel-convention centre to be situated at King & Fountain: “the traffic situation up there is not suitable for what the project will bring.”

Remember what I said about not all residents necessarily agreeing with City Hall plans!

Not one fact that I have mentioned should  come as a surprise.
CARSS and DTNR data clearly outlined the traffic problem.
So also have decades from other traffic studies.

Cambridge traffic reality - 1996 - actual measurements

2016 traffic congestion network with status quo

Conclusions: [1]  the doubtful gains from project Project E-05-004 do not justify spending 2.5 million tax dollars …. 

·                 [2]  Leave it alone and seek alternatives. Spend the 2.5 million on helpful long term alternatives. 

·                 [3]  And that brings me to my last segment …. The Ugly

THE UGLY:   there in no long term comprehensive network plan so it will probably get worse before it gets better

You may or may not realize that in Cambridge, traffic network planning is a “full body contact sport”. And in the interests of full disclosure, I was a citizen appointee to the PAC committee of CARSS. In that capacity, I attended every public meeting and workshop sponsored by the CARSS process. I was also a member of the ‘expert’ panel at the GCI public meeting.

 There are 3 transportation planning realities that have to kept in mind:

1.  DTNR’s scope was limited to ‘transportation network opportunities for the near-term (2006) and medium-term (2011)."   - almost there.

2. DTNR “travel demand forecasts were first developed using land use projections supplied by the City of Cambridge”.  
Cambridge was also expected to make 3 OP changes to support DTNR plans. Changes not made!

3. At this time, no long term comprehensive transportation network plan currently exists for Cambridge.
There have, however, been many attempts.

And with that statement, you do not have to be very perceptive to realize that I have raised enough eyebrows to illustrate the fact
that there is no neutral position when it comes to roads and planning.

Finally, in the absence of an  long term comprehensive plan, let me offer some alternatives:

[1] Wait until the Fairway Road bridge is constructed. It will certainly alter Fountain Street traffic patterns, especially related to employment.

[2] Encourage the MTO to construct a new 401 interchange at Speedsville Road along with the proposed commuter/collector lanes. Both projects would alter traffic patterns to and from the northern business park. The Eagle St. N widening project could enhance these changes.

[3] Wait for the final decision about the Central Transit Corridor. It will certainly alter traffic flow patterns ….. otherwise, why build it? And I am willing to bet that the route does not come through the King-Fountain area.

[4] And finally, and in all sincerity, have relevant staff & Councillors meet at Cambridge Centre and use the huge floor map (and lego) for a planning session dealing with growth and development. The map’s sheer size and scope would encourage all parties to contribute to a scoped overview of the issues, consequences and solutions.

Thank you
Bob McMullen