We're updating the city's transportation master plan and we need your help!

A 40km/h speed limit on residential and low traffic streets is reasonable in my opinion, however making the speed limit as low as 30km/h on these same roads is ridiculous. Most side streets in Waterloo are designed for traffic to move at a comfortable speed of around 40 to 50km/h not 30km/h. As such, lowering the speed limit to 30km/h does not guarantee compliance as drivers will travel at whatever speed they feel is comfortable for the road and enforcement to force compliance is simply not feasible.

If the city wishes to lower the limit to 30km/h something must be done to prioritize traffic calming, otherwise it will be a waste of resources and money. At this current time the limit should remain at 40km/h and not be lowered further.

This is a top down approach to regional planning with a high density, public transport oriented policies and considering the health of our regional population.

This plan is comlletly out of tune with our present situation of the health Pandemic. These will increase in the future! By trying to forsung us in public transport, concentrate people in high rise apartments or multiple hight walk up density residential housing is prone to future more pandemic!
The whole plan was obviously written before the present pandemic and needs a MAJOR rewrite with proper consultation of the local population. Planning needs to follow human behaviour and desires and NOT by a few planners with a dictate inside. Al Hecht, PhD, Dr (h.c.)

Thank you for giving us the platform to share comments. I would like to comment on two items: 1. Minor collector streets located within neighbourhoods and 2. Traffic calming measures are not in the 2021 TMP as they were in the previous TMP.
1. Minor collector streets within neighbourhoods, such as William Street West in Uptown Waterloo need to be designed with pedestrians in mind and not just for increased traffic flow. The daily vehicle for minor collectors allows for up to 5,000 vehicles at a speed limit of 50 km/h. As this street is in the center of our neighbourhood, is a route that feeds into a few schools, and is in a neighbourhood with high active transportation use, it has high pedestrian traffic.
The TMP notes, “Studies have shown that a reduction in vehicle operating speeds from 50 km/h to 40 km/h increases the chance of survival from 15% to 70% for a vulnerable road user struck by a vehicle. This rate is further increased to 90% for operating speeds of 30 km/h.” To reduce the risk of fatalities, minor collectors within neighbourhoods need to have an active transportation, pedestrian first approach with “opportunities for innovation to develop safe and pedestrian friendly streets” and a reduced speed limit. I would like to suggest a design speed limit range for minor collectors to be 30km/h - 50 km/h to allow for minor collectors within neighbourhoods to have a lower speed limit. Better yet, change the status of William Street to a local street as it is located within a residential neighbourhood.
2. Traffic Calming measures only seem to be listed in when talking about eliminating center medians. If there is interest in lowering the speed of traffic, why not include a traffic calming policy as there was in the 2011 Transportation Master Plan?
Thank you, Uptown West resident

Thank you for the opportunity to comment:

1)            The combination of Shakespeare and Longfellow remain identified as minor collectors. It is unclear why these roads require this classification when others like the Roxton Drive / Branstone Drive / Clair Creek Boulevard area west of Fischer-Hallman has no minor collector system.  It is also unclear as to how Longfellow and Shakespeare meet the criteria of a minor collector road, especially with the upcoming changes to the road profile on Longfellow, which include the ROW being reduced from 9.0m to 7.0m.

2) Given Beechwood Park's topography, issues in the winter can affect access of emergency vehicles as has occurred recently on Algonquin Place. A priority should be given to ensuring such roads are cleared early on so safe access for fire, police and paramedics/ambulances can be maintained.

3) There should be a potential exception provided in the policy relating to maintenance of key elements of cultural heritage landscapes designated in the official plan and heritage conservation districts. As written, there are no exceptions for anything. Mohawk, Algonquin and Iroquois from Longfellow to Algonquin would require a sidewalk on at least one side of the road under the draft sidewalk policy.

4) The sidewalk policy should reference Woonerfs as exceptions to the policy. Woonerfs are not mentioned in the sidewalk policy and would appear to require sidewalks as currently written if they are through streets.

5) The reference to the 2005 sidewalk policy in Table 9.4 should be removed.

6) A neighbourhood bikeway is proposed for Shakespeare Dr. from Keatsway to a public path connecting Shakespeare Dr. to the multi-use trail through Clair Lake Park. This proposed bikeway provides further support for Shakespeare Dr. & Longfellow Dr. being re-categorized from minor collectors to a local streets.

7) The public path connecting Shakespeare Dr. to the multi-use trail through Clair Lake Park will be a severe pinch-point with a high risk of unsatisfactory interactions between various users. The path is narrow. It is well used by people of varying ages & abilities (wheelchairs, pedestrians, strollers, young children, dog walkers, families). The width barely accommodates pedestrians especially under social-distancing requirements. Not all cyclists respect other users & some travel at high rates of speed. This path has significant potential for accidents or unpleasant interactions with cyclists and ambulatory users & needs to be addressed when considering the implementation of a neighbourhood bikeway along Shakespeare Dr.

8) Lowering the speed limit on residential streets in the Beechwood Park neighbourhood will improve the experience for those living in the neighbourhood and for those alternative users of the streets (bikes, runners, pedestrians, wheelchairs, scooters, strollers).

Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the city's transportation master plan. I have two concerns:

1) The item "The public can ask the City to provide an alternative design if the community doesn't want a sidewalk." should be reinstated, not removed. It is important that communities have input and be given options.

2) Longfellow Drive and Shakespeare Drive should be re-designated to local roads instead of minor collectors. If the City wants to commit to making the streets more friendly to alternate forms of transit, Shakespeare and Longfellow shouldn't be classified as a by-pass route to move cars from Westmount to Keatsway.

Thank you for your attention to my concern.

Regarding Appendix B -Updated Sidewalk Policy - the public should be able to ask the City to provide an alternative design if the community doesn't want a sidewalk.
Regarding designating Longfellow & Shakespeare as minor collectors. These should be redesignated to "local". Shakespeare is a proposed bike route in the active transportation network, connecting to Craigleith via the trail beside Clair Lake. If the City wants to the streets to be more friendly to alternate forms of transit, Shakespeare & Longfellow shouldn't be classified as a by-pass route to move cars from Westmount to Keatsway. Longfellow is certainly not a minor collector as the majority of vehicles have turned off before they are even half-way up the street. Perhaps the fist block is a collector but that's it!

My apologies that I have not been able to read everything to the level of detail that I would have liked. This is a lot of information for a non-expert.

A few points:
1. It strikes me that our master plan does not focus enough on economic development. I'm all for active transportation, but the reality is that in a city this size cars will always play an important role as an efficient mode of transportation. For example, we have a lot folks commuting between Guelph and Waterloo daily, and if we care about economic efficiency (both in terms of people matching to the job that best suits them and people spending the minimum amount of time possible commuting) then we have an obligation to facilitate car traffic as well (ideally of the electric variety). There needs to be a highway between Waterloo and Guelph. There also needs to be fast transportation in and out of the core of the city. We should be widening Erb and Bridgeport, not narrowing them. Active transportation is great, but let's admit that it won't be the solution for everyone.
2. I live in Beechwood Park and have some comments about active transportation in this neighbourhood. We are a neighbourhood where there already is a lot of active transportation. Many of us (including myself) walk or bike to work. Here, people, not cares, own the street. My concern is that the city misunderstands what our neighbourhood needs to facilitate active transportation. Right now our streets function as a woonerf, and building more sidewalks will have the opposite of the desired effect. Right now the roads are effectively shared between pedestrians, bikers, and cars. If you start putting sidewalks and bike lanes everywhere, you effectively hand the road to cars and relegate everyone else to their respective lanes. When I go for my nightly walk with my family, I don't want to be relegated to the sidewalk where we cannot all walk side by side. Being enlightened with respect to active transportation does not mean implementing the same solution everywhere. It means understanding how different potential solutions would work in different settings and therefore which solution to deploy where.
3. There needs to be more input from locals as to what they want in their neighbourhood. Residents know best how their streets work (and don't work). The process should be more democratic - residents need to have a real voice. All too often city officials pretend to consult with residents but their attitude throughout is that they know best and hence they don't hear residents.
4. Shakespeare Dr. does not need a bike lane. Bikes can circulate perfectly safely sharing the road. Creating a bike lane or two will be counter productive.
5. The map on p130 indicates Longfellow & Shakespeare are minor collectors. These are not minor collectors but rather local streets for local traffic. My neighbors and I ask that they please be designated as such.
6. The transportation plan needs to take into account other competing factors like preserving heritage and natural landscapes.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments.

After reviewing the TMP draft, we submit these questions on behalf of our residents.
1 The 2011 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) increased the “vehicle per day” capacities of Minor Collector roads like William St. from 3,000 to 5,000 and of Local Streets from 1,000 to 2,000. The 2020 TMP maintains these increases. What was the rationale for these increases and what is their anticipated effect in Uptown West?
2 The Traffic Calming Policy currently on the City’s general website, notes that calming may be warranted if a Local Street has more than 900 cars a day or a Collector street has more than 2,000 cars a day. City residents need the assurance from City staff that active modes of transportation on local residential streets will be promoted and cut-through car traffic discouraged. The 2020 TMP does not contain any Traffic Calming Policy. May we assume that these 900 / 2,000 calming thresholds are continued?
3 There is not a Traffic Calming Policy in the body of or as an Appendix to the 2020 TMP, whereas the 2011 TMP did contain one (Appendix D). Why has this Policy not been made a part of the 2020 TMP?
4 As part of this Engagement process, could a copy of the latest, detailed version of the Traffic Calming Policy be disseminated to residents?
5 Neighbourhood speed limit reductions are a focal point of the 2020 TMP. Will the city commit to implementing Recommendation 36 of the 2020 TMP to “develop a comprehensive Speed Management Program focusing primarily on speed management for local and collector roads within its residential communities” to monitor and ensure compliance with the reduced speed limits, or will it be up to residents to request and monitor enforcement by the Waterloo Region Police?

I am very supportive of reducing speed limits universally on local roads in the city to 40 km/hr because of the resultant safety benefits (improved survival rates). I could not agree more that merely posting a 40 km sign on its own will prove ineffective. I would add studies have shown that speed reduction interventions used in Waterloo and other municipalities that rely primarily on enforcement to reduce speeds to the posted limits are ineffective and unsustainable, especially now given the limited policing capacity, the need to handle much higher priority crimes, and the potential de-funding of police budgets going forward. Studies also show that the primary speeding offenders typically are the local neighbourhood residents themselves. So I agree, modification of behaviour is a more more effective approach and I fully support the use of an ongoing Speed Management Program for local and collector roads within residential communities to help raise awareness and change the mindset of speeders. On a single lane roadway, you can only travel as fast as the person ahead of you so if neighbourhood residents travel at the 30 kph or 40 kph limit and mind the stop signs, the speeders will have to as well.

In addition to speed limits, as a resident of a low-density, Uptown residential neighbourhood, I have a few other specific concerns to raise after reading through the new draft Transportation Master Plan that are not captured in your somewhat constricting survey. They are listed below in order of importance.

1) Absence of Traffic Calming Policy. Where is the former Appendix D, Traffic Calming Policy that was an integral part of the 2011 Transportation Master Plan (“TMP”)?

I can find only a few general comments pertaining to Traffic Calming in the new draft TMP. Such an important, transportation-related document needs to be included for public scrutiny as part of the resident stakeholder engagement process. The traffic calming policy is likely more important to maintaining safety, promoting active transportation, and to increasing the overall liveability and walkability score of our neighbourhoods than the Updated Sidewalk policy that has been included for review.

The existing Traffic Calming Policy posted on the City’s web site contains a tool chest of interventions which meet provincial and urban planning standards and are triggered when certain prescribed warrants in terms of volume and speed are exceeded. Such tools are available to City Staff for use on residential streets when unintended consequences of urban planning occur related to population growth and excessive automobile traffic which detract from a neighbourhood’s walkability and liveability score.

In particular, older residential neighbourhoods in the Uptown designed with a grid road pattern face potential volume (not just speed) issues from increased cut-through traffic pressures as the urban core intensifies in accordance with the 2020 Official Plan for the next 20 years to 2041 and beyond. In the 2011 TMP, an increase in street capacity (volume) from the previous version was made from 1,000 vpd to 2,000 vpd for local roads and from 3,000 vpd to 5,000 vpd for minor collector roads. The current Traffic Calming Policy (last updated in 2009 and likely on the City’s radar and overdue for updating soon) sets thresholds for volume that are used by City staff to determine the need for a traffic study and/or traffic calming interventions. Such volume thresholds are currently set in the policy at 900 vpd for a local road and 2,000 vpd for a collector road which is reasonable given these numbers are based on historical traffic counts taken during at least two formal neighbourhood traffic studies in the Uptown over the last 20 years. The City also has significant amounts of detailed historical traffic data available from many intermittent traffic volume and speed counts taken over this time too. If volume stayed at or below those historical levels, we know that the volume is mostly related to the travel of local neighbourhood residents rather than to cut-through traffic from outside the neighbourhood.

My concern is that if the volume warrants are raised in the future to be more commensurate with the increased capacity now set for the roads through Uptown neighbourhoods, i.e., 2,000 vpd for local streets and 5,000 vpd for minor collectors, then the incremental volume of largely cut-through traffic will be deemed acceptable and not eligible under the increased threshold for consideration of any traffic calming interventions leaving residents to “live with” the problem. City residents need the assurance from City staff that active modes of transportation on local residential streets will be promoted and cut-through traffic discouraged. To do this, City staff needs some wording in the document that shows a commitment to retaining the volume warrants at the documented historical levels of 900 cars for local and 2,000 for minor collector roads in its Traffic Calming Policy.

2) Regional arterial road lane reductions. I am concerned about the narrowing of arterial roads surrounding Uptown neighbourhoods to a single lane in order to accommodate bike lanes even though I am supportive of the City’s overall active transportation approach which helps to move us away from our reliance on the automobile and is good environmentally. Continuance with arterial road lane reductions and the ensuing constriction of traffic will have the unintended consequence of encouraging cars to move off the regional arterial road network which has the historical design capacity to accommodate them and onto adjacent local residential streets. It would mean that traffic flow on major arterial roads through the Uptown will, to avoid the congestion, have the option to readily access the multiple north/south and east/west grid-pattered, low-density residential streets feeding off them which will only exacerbate the cut-through traffic and volume issue mentioned in my first point. This is all the more reason, if the bike lanes strategy is retained on regional roads, for the warrants for volume in the Traffic-calming Policy to remain where they are at 900 vpd and 2,000 vpd for local and minor collector roads respectively. Also why not promote the of use existing bike routes through the Uptown low density residential areas via its very accessible grid network or the Iron Horse Trail where there is much less car traffic and where it is much safer for cyclists and leave the cars on the the regional arterial roads that have been designed to handle such large volumes of car traffic at the expense of millions of taxpayer dollars. Bike traffic is the more appropriate, preferred and welcome mode of transportation in Uptown residential neighbourhoods, not cut-through car traffic which degrades the neighbourhood’s liveability.

3) On-street parking. With the intensification of the Uptown core in the Official Plan, and the associated and ensuing high-rise developments to come, there is and will be conflict between the two land uses. The low-density residential housing will lose the natural sunlight and green spaces, e.g., most recently, the proposed high-rise redevelopment in the Union St. E. and King St. area of the Mary-Allen neighbourhood. Added to this issue is the increase in parking pressures on local streets as variances from the bylaw parking requirements are readily given to developers of such projects who do not fully provide for on site parking on their own property which then spills onto neighbouring streets.

Keep bike lanes and side walks separate! Caroline's mixed used sidewalk is a safety hazard, especially if you are walking with another person trying to socially distance. Bikes come up flying along, often don't use their bikes and then speed past you. Several times I have almost been clipped by a bike that I did not hear coming that was trying to pass.

I am concerned as an uptown resident about the proposal to eliminate minimum parking requirements for new development, and fees for parking. Taller and taller buildings are being built with fewer parking spaces and I fear that the residents of these condos will spill over on to parking on residential streets. I see more people using active transportation here and there, but all of my neighbours still drive to work and have multiple cars. I need a car for my job, I cannot perform the day to day duties of my job without a car. As parking becomes more difficult to find in the core, this means my after work errands are happening out of the core, where I can find parking. It does not make sense after a full day of work, to drive home, park, then walk Uptown, shop, and back, when a quick stop where I can find parking gets these errands done in half the time. If we want to keep our Uptown thriving, we need to make it easy for all to access.

This is a comment about city buses on King St, along the same parts of King St. Where the LRT is running. Except where there are turning lanes at traffic lights, there is now only one lane for each way of traffic. If one gets "stuck" behind a city bus in this line, traffic is stopped at each bus stopping. If the LRT is along King St. why is it necessary for busses to be on King St? And there are several bus routes along King St. There must be some other efficient way to run these routes other than up and down King St.

Municipalities have a legal right to provide accessible communities to people with Disabilities and all active transportation users per the city's pedestrian charter. Current winter sidewalk clearing policies & practices alongside lack of enforcement mean a violation of these human rights. We need city-wide sidewalk clearing in order to provide consistent access to anyone with mobility challenges/physical disabilities, vision challenges/impairments, as well as for anyone using active transportation. When we plan our city for our most vulnerable, everyone benefits. Investing immediately in access will increase the safety for ALL active transportation users, reduce road users which ultimately save costs on road maintenance and makes our communities safer, and works toward reducing emissions.

There must be a commitment that restricting motor vehicles on major roads will not be allowed to cause cut-through car volumes to go up on neighbourhood streets. It would be irrational to make major roads more active transportation friendly by making neighbourhood streets less active transportation friendly.
I do not object to John St. and Allen St. West of King being designated as Collector roads between King St. and Park St. However, it should be specifically confirmed that such designations will never be extended west of Park St.
The 2011 Transportation Master Plan increased the vehicle-per-day capacity of Local Streets from 1,000 to 2,000 without any meaningful community notice or feedback. Why have these increases now become ingrained, as they would make neighbourhood traffic intolerable? It should be noted that these capacities trigger the City’s policies on Traffic Calming. Allowing these capacities to be approached would certainly defeat in neighbourhoods the 2020 TMP’s expressed de-prioritization of motor vehicles in favour of active transportation.
Reduced neighbourhood speed limits are welcome. I would like to hear specifics of plans for effective enforcement of the speed limits, though. As well, focus on speed limits without commitment to restricting neighbourhood traffic volumes would not be helpful, as noted above.
The sections on parking seem to forecast moving more parking to neighbourhood streets and charging for this street parking. It would be in order to outline specifically what you think this will look like.

I live on a residential street, with a K-8 school about 400m away. About 1 or 2 months ago, NEW signs for 50 km/h appeared on my street only a few hundred metres from the school. Cars already drive too fast. It's a quiet neighbourhood. Speed limit should be 40 max, even 30. At night, people walking or cycling are hard to see. People need to cross the street to get to their mail, or walk their dogs. 50 is much to fast. Please remove these signs. Pastern Trail (N of University)

I would second the many comments I have read here that wonder why the plan still favours the bike lanes on main roads. I watched in horror as I saw pedestrians walking the wrong way in the bike lane on Westmount Rd.; cyclists blowing through stop lights at pedestrian activated crossings on Bridgeport Rd.; cars turning right out of the bike lane @ Westmount & Erb; & the morning traffic backed up on Westmount at Erb to south of Lourdes . I note, that there is little mention of those in our city who are not able to bike anymore but might still want to walk safely. I feel the elderly have been forgotten in this plan. The bike lanes Uptown are placed so you must cross the bike lane to get to the bus stop. That is very dangerous! Intersections are more dangerous Uptown because of the position of the bike lane. Snow is a serious impediment to walking, especially when the pedestrian crossing is not cleared and in fact is often clogged with huge amounts of snow & ice left by the plows. The plows do not clear the parking lay-bys ( like the ones on Allen) and they are quickly transformed into ice covered slabs. Ironically some of theses bays are designated for disabled drivers. This is Canada we need to do better with snow.

When will the city of waterloo council understand that no means no to bike lanes on major arterial roads. You would have thought the active transportation strategy consultants would have gone back to the drawing board after the overwhelming rejection of the temporary bike lanes. The strategy is to be a forward looking. It is not. It does not take into account autonomous vehicles and electric cars. It is not future looking and just regurgitates a failed policy which has been roundly rejected. The phase 1 community engagement is a joke! Not one comment was against the bike lanes, when I know several of my neighbours were against this and sent e-mails. The statistics are skewed in favour of the bike lobby by asking 1.7% of the population what would you do make bicycling more useful. Is there any wonder, why the public has lost confidence in this council when they used a tragedy of COVID to ram through a policy that the majority does not support. The only thing I could support is the lower of speed limits on neighbourhood roads and school zones. Stop wasting money on this nonsense and paying consultants.

You would have thought after the negative feedback on the temporary bike lanes and COVID streets that the transportation plan would have been modified based on the feedback received. Ok, here is what I do support! I do support lowering speed limits to 40km/h in residential neighbourhoods. I do support lowering speed limits around schools to 30km/h when it is in session. I do support creating parent drop off zones at schools so that kids do not dart out from their parents parked cars where possible.

Now for the pedestrian safety issues, I do support red light cross walks on roads, I do support speed bumps in residential neighbourhoods, and I do support four-way stops in residential neighbourhoods. I do not support adopting a Swedish declaration on traffic rights that no one could object to in principal but could be interpreted anyway for this out of touch council who does not listen to its constituents to propose inane ideas. Do you have facts which support that people are being harmed at an alarming rate?

Now for the bike lanes, I do not support removing a traffic lane on a major arterial road and replacing it with a bike lane that is seldom used. I do not support plowing bike lanes first and leaving residential roads unplowed for days for bike lane users who rarely use them. I do support plowing the iron horse trail that is used. I do support mulit-use trails for walking, bikes, scooters and skate boards. I do support a network of trails which could use secondary streets. I like bike trails as I feel safe on them. A bunch of flowerpots on Albert and University avenue is not safe. I like the improvements to Laurel creek and other dedicated paths to be guilt. I do support a policy that when a major arterial road is repaved or upgraded, that a multi-use trail should be added as long as it does not take away a traffic lane.


I do support putting the businesses in the core of Waterloo first. They have had enough to deal with ION construction, COVID, bike lanes, and the reduction of parking and are fleeing the core! Waterloo square is empty. Suppliers are refusing to deliver to these businesses because of this. I do believe that electric vehicles are coming on-line which will not pollute and this new fact should be taken into account in the strategy. In addition, I believe we need to vote out office politicians who do not answer e-mails or phone calls, respond to their constituents, and lecture their constituents.

I am shocked and disappointed after the negative feedback on the temporary bike lanes and covid 19 streets that the active transportation strategy has not been revised. You would think after this uprising there would have been some revisions to the plans and strategy. FIrst of all, here is what I am agreement with I am in favour of reducing the speed limit on residential streets to 40 km/h. Around schools when school is in session, they should be reduced to 30 km/h. I am not in favour of reducing speeds on major roads with the exception of a school zone. Where possible, schools should have drop off locations so that kids do not run out from their parents cars who are dropping them off.

Now for the pedestrian safety issue, I would like to see speed bumps, red light cross walks and four stops. The motherhood statements by the adoption of the Swedish strategy is only motherhood and will cause inaction on these pedestrian safety issues.

Now last but not least the bike lanes. I do not support clearing snow from bike lanes and having residential streets not plowed for days and you need a four wheel drive vehicle to get out of your street to work. I do not support bike lanes on major arterial roads and taking away vehicle lane traffic and the bike lanes are seldom used. I do not support killing the down town businesses such as in down town Waterloo who have had to put up with years of construction. My friends who owns business says delivery drivers refuse to deliver their business because of the traffic mess created downtown.