Story of a Small City and a Rail Project

I usually put off blogging - there are by now some very good blogs out there and who wants to be cluttering up web space...

However along comes an issue that I cannot avoid. Local transit in an area where I have been dismayed at the level of intercity transportation, for years - but this is North America, Canada, Western Ontario. I have tried to start a conversation with local built environment professionals, but found few with the time or inclination to do so. In a relatively small city such issues rapidly become very political.

Just to add a bit of context for those who may be viewing this from abroad, perhaps, the project has been 2/3s funded by provincial & central government (there is a large if somewhat inaccessible tech sector and much is made of current & projected growth figures), with a third proposed to be funded by residents whose regional counsellors are about to vote for or against. The scheme is also linked to a programme called Move Ontario which proposed substantial investment, mysteriously, mostly in local transit schemes in, I believe, 2007. 

I went to a consultation lately, and as George Bechtel here: http://www.wonderfulwaterloo.com/showthread.php?t=219&page=1 

says, it does not seem that this system will be very expensive for residents (expenditure of large amounts of central funding is another matter), although that's hard to say especially when the buses that are a key component are included, but what's not to like?

Recently The Record commenting on the referendum proposal said this was a matter of democracy, and I cheered a little. Believe it or not Architects are very much motivated by concern for the public good. My feeling with regard to this project is that it may be a top down economic & city building device which has been deficient in its efforts to explain to the public or it may not be sustainable or justifiable at all. Importantly, it is also a fixed system which allows limited deviation from the plan - the key difference with buses, not mentioned on the Region website and in evidence in cities around the world, is that they are flexible and can adapt to growth wherever it occurs as it occurs.

But how can people understand or assess the proposal, apart from voting for options? Data representation has advanced dramatically in the past 10/20 years, as computing and modelling systems in the field have been further developed. This means that planners can visually plot existing residence and work and travel patterns and overlay this on any proposal. The City of Kitchener for example has won an award for GIS (Geographic Information Systems) use in its operations. Here is an example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6cyuRG7iZs&feature=player_embedded#at=48

Where is the data? In contemporary development, proposals are explained or justified on the basis of data, this is what ensures accountable representative building, and it is the language of development. One response, when I asked, held that planners are trying to change the existing pattern, another that there is no money (!), another that it does exist but we just haven't been shown it. Not good enough, data representation is key to democracy in development.

Disclosing the basis for the project would surely answer many questions and point in the right direction for sourcing additional funding, whether bonds issued to those who benefit directly or the resident tax base?

The key element which is being built out by this proposal, is the Regional Growth Management Strategy which is a formulated, "democratically" agreed projection of where future growth should occur (along a spine in the centre, much like the mixed use "nodes & corridors" plans, which leaves existing residential areas largely untouched), along the central transit corridor. So this looks like a future growth oriented plan, not based on existing patterns except for current minimal transit use which it seems not to challenge.

 
Planners will argue that the system will enable urban regeneration, the re-urbanising of areas deconstructed by laissez faire economics and car use. Sprawl in KW, may not be too bad, but the hole at the centre of the donut still exists and I think it is important to be realistic about re-building shapes that are barely recognisable in many cases.

The position of residents on the edges is not one I envy because future growth seems to leave them out in the cold (planning policy in Ontario often seems to be based on leaving existing residential areas untouched due to nimbyism). Property which is not served by transit may lose value in the future as gas prices rise and it’s not unreasonable for residents to expect transit improvements as transportation planners try to shift gears (!). They will get buses in theory at least and pay for growth in the center - a better city benefits everyone? 

Yours truly wonders, if sustainable growth including local organic growth has not got a role to play? If sprawl is not overwhelming and rural connections could not be better planned? Why plan for outer malls like those at Stanley park on Ottawa East as simply local use, there is nothing (except zoning) to stop a red hot restaurant or two and maybe a tech. office opening there and skewing growth plans accordingly? After all, people live there and the residents of a city are key to its success as they are the ones that give it life. Recently the city of Kitchener has seen an ugly clash of global and local interests with the addition of another surface lot downtown, it would be great to see a more productive use of people and places.

In the meantime, I would like to be able to get to Hamilton, Toronto, Guelph & Galt, regularly, swiftly, easily and comfortably...