Since the news of the chosen location for the new mega hospital was released, I have been perplexed by the decision from a transportation planning point of view. Having worked for the City of Windsor for nearly 10 years (2001 through 2011); specifically Transit Windsor, Public Works – Transportation Planning and ultimately the Planning Policy section, I feel that the choice to locate such a prominent piece of public infrastructure so far from the public that it would serve is a poor decision. While I can appreciate the regional aspect of this new hospital’s purpose, the decision to place this hospital to the disadvantage of so many Windsorites I feel is short sighted and ultimately will have a societal cost and long term capital cost that is unfair to taxpayers of the City of Windsor.
Firstly, from the standpoint of transit service, performing a site selection analysis such as this should not see transit as a box to be checked. Nor should other modes of transportation have been excluded, such as walking or cycling. Employees as well as those who will be using the services of the hospital both need to be accommodated in terms of transportation. While transit service can be extended virtually anywhere a road is present, truly useful and meaningful transit cannot merely be provisioned wherever a road exists. Other factors such as intersecting routes for transfers, density to drive demand and thus higher frequency and minimizing seat time all should play a role when evaluating a location for a major public transportation draw such as a new hospital.
In the proposed hospital location for example, while I agree, one can merely extend the Walkerville 8, or even add a long discussed part of the South Windsor 7, the interconnections and frequencies of those two routes are tied to the density and the areas that they can serve or currently serve. However, due to the relatively lower frequency of those routes, and lack of other destinations on the route, it is highly unlikely that the new hospital location will be served in a meaningful enough way to capture sufficient mode share. Add the increased seat time for any Windsor resident who chooses to use transit to access this hospital and the total commute may be as long as an hour for most people living anywhere along or North of Tecumseh Road. The cost to operate such a service will be high, since there are so few destinations near to the proposed hospital location and therefore likely few riders from which to get revenue from. Therefore adding frequent service (a bus every 20 minutes for example) would not be reasonable, nor would there be much uptake from the public due to seat time needed to get to the destination. The transit service therefore would be limited to perhaps a 30 minute or even 60 minute frequency.
Had a location been chosen that was within, along or proximate to a major East West Route such as a Transitway 1C even an Ottawa 4, the density for the most part is such that frequent (10, 15 or 20 minute service) convenient transit could have been easily provided.
Having said the above, one can reasonably understand that there are other variables involved in the selection of such a site, such as available property. However, based on the sites shown during the selection process, there were a number that were in fact more proximate to transit or could have been served more easily by transit with a much reduced seat time than the site ultimately chosen.
Beyond transit, the implications for transportation in general are significant. The shift in traffic generated by the two existing hospitals to other Arterial Roadways will be noticeable and the impact of that additional traffic will need to be mitigated in the form of significant road widenings. Of course, having an Environmental Assessment completed for the widening of Cabana/Division/Country Road 42 is one piece of the puzzle. But had the hospital been located elsewhere, where the roads were of sufficient capacity already, there would be little or no need to widen roads, thus reducing costs for City of Windsor taxpayers.
Widening Walker Road which has been ongoing, will no doubt help accommodate new traffic to the proposed hospital. However, at the various intersections such as Walker and Division, the change in the volumes of traffic turning to and from Walker to Division will likely require improvements, or queues of waiting cars may stack well beyond the available storage space and lead to significant peak hour congestion along both Division and Walker Road. Traffic coming from points South and West may have in the past used E.C. Row Expressway to either Dougall or Walker. Those travellers may now be using Cabana, Division or Walker. Some of course will use the new Lauzon Parkway extension. But for LaSalle and Amherstburg residents, this will not likely be the case.
Cycling is another aspect that does not seem to have been evaluating as part of the location analysis. Not everyone that is employed by a hospital will want to drive or ride a bus. Encouraging cycling is also a very important part of any site selection for a major employer such as a hospital. While I am sure bike lanes can be added to any of the arterial roads in question, the issue becomes who is going to want to ride well over an hour to get to work? Some people may choose to do so, but will those who currently ride their bicycles to either hospital be able to make the ride to this new location or will they then be forced to take transit or use a car?
The improvements proposed with respect to Lauzon Parkway and its extension from County Road 42 all the way to Highway 3 make logical sense from a regional transportation point of view regardless of where the hospital is located. This road is an important piece of infrastructure that will aid in reducing the volume of trucks using Walker Road to gain access to E.C. Row Expressway and I have long advocated for this link.
When I was last employed with the City of Windsor, I was a Planner in the Planning department. I was also the Team Leader for the Infrastructure section of Windsor’s Official Plan update which dealt significantly with transportation policies. I recall numerous discussions that took place between staff regarding the link between transportation and land use. As a result, specific language was placed in the Official Plan in terms of reducing trip length and locating large scale employers:
7.2.2.18 Council shall recognize the link between land use and transportation systems by:
(a) Focusing office development and high-density employment and high density residential in areas which have access to transit and pedestrian amenities;
(b) Encouraging commercial and employment uses within 400 metres to 800 metres of residential areas to promote the use of active transportation and to promote transit service.
7.2.2.20 Council shall support transit by planning for compact mixed-use, higher density residential, commercial and employment development within concentrated nodes and corridors that are adjacent to higher order transit corridors.
7.2.2.21 Council shall implement land use patterns that promote sustainable travel by locating land uses within reasonable walking or cycling distance by:
(a) Encouraging development that include an appropriate mix of residential, commercial and employment lands within reasonable walking distance of each other;
(b) Planning higher density developments in areas along major transportation corridors and nodes;
(c) Integrating land use and transportation planning decisions by ensuring each fit the context of each other’s specific needs.
From my point of view as a planner, I do not feel that the location of the proposed Hospital meets or exceeds the guidance of Windsor’s Official Plan.
Specifically, focusing in on Section 7.2.2.21, I cannot imagine that the Hospital’s location fits subsection c). Furthermore, I do not feel that this major employer is within 400 to 800 metres of residential areas. When one goes down the list of the above Official Plan Policies, I cannot tie any of them to the chosen location of the hospital. In my opinion I feel that the proposed chosen location is in direct conflict with Windsor’s very recently adopted Official Plan. Section 3 of Windsor’s Official Plan also had new language that encouraged focusing developments, particularly higher density developments within “nodes” and along “corridors” that could be served by more frequent transit or that facilitated reduced trip lengths for people choosing to walk, cycle or take transit between home and work.
In particular, Section 3.3.1.1 Growth Centres speaks to “serve as focal areas for investment in institutional and region wide public services, as well as commercial, recreational, cultural and entertainment uses;”. Since in this example, this Hospital is intended to be an institution of region wide focus and also a public service, I can see no valid planning reason why the decision to place the new Hospital at the periphery, nowhere near to such a “Growth Centre” was chosen.
Hospitals have a very long life. The decision to construct a new hospital at this location will stay with the Windsor Essex region for a long time. As a Professional Planner who spent a significant part of my career studying Windsor and providing guidance to decision makers on Transportation Planning Policy matters, I am deeply disappointed that a decision such as this has been made that is in such conflict with the guidance of Windsor’s Official Plan, and further is so contrary to accepted land use and transportation planning principles for an institution of this scale.
Stephen Kapusta MCIP, RPP
Firstly, from the standpoint of transit service, performing a site selection analysis such as this should not see transit as a box to be checked. Nor should other modes of transportation have been excluded, such as walking or cycling. Employees as well as those who will be using the services of the hospital both need to be accommodated in terms of transportation. While transit service can be extended virtually anywhere a road is present, truly useful and meaningful transit cannot merely be provisioned wherever a road exists. Other factors such as intersecting routes for transfers, density to drive demand and thus higher frequency and minimizing seat time all should play a role when evaluating a location for a major public transportation draw such as a new hospital.
In the proposed hospital location for example, while I agree, one can merely extend the Walkerville 8, or even add a long discussed part of the South Windsor 7, the interconnections and frequencies of those two routes are tied to the density and the areas that they can serve or currently serve. However, due to the relatively lower frequency of those routes, and lack of other destinations on the route, it is highly unlikely that the new hospital location will be served in a meaningful enough way to capture sufficient mode share. Add the increased seat time for any Windsor resident who chooses to use transit to access this hospital and the total commute may be as long as an hour for most people living anywhere along or North of Tecumseh Road. The cost to operate such a service will be high, since there are so few destinations near to the proposed hospital location and therefore likely few riders from which to get revenue from. Therefore adding frequent service (a bus every 20 minutes for example) would not be reasonable, nor would there be much uptake from the public due to seat time needed to get to the destination. The transit service therefore would be limited to perhaps a 30 minute or even 60 minute frequency.
Had a location been chosen that was within, along or proximate to a major East West Route such as a Transitway 1C even an Ottawa 4, the density for the most part is such that frequent (10, 15 or 20 minute service) convenient transit could have been easily provided.
Having said the above, one can reasonably understand that there are other variables involved in the selection of such a site, such as available property. However, based on the sites shown during the selection process, there were a number that were in fact more proximate to transit or could have been served more easily by transit with a much reduced seat time than the site ultimately chosen.
Beyond transit, the implications for transportation in general are significant. The shift in traffic generated by the two existing hospitals to other Arterial Roadways will be noticeable and the impact of that additional traffic will need to be mitigated in the form of significant road widenings. Of course, having an Environmental Assessment completed for the widening of Cabana/Division/Country Road 42 is one piece of the puzzle. But had the hospital been located elsewhere, where the roads were of sufficient capacity already, there would be little or no need to widen roads, thus reducing costs for City of Windsor taxpayers.
Widening Walker Road which has been ongoing, will no doubt help accommodate new traffic to the proposed hospital. However, at the various intersections such as Walker and Division, the change in the volumes of traffic turning to and from Walker to Division will likely require improvements, or queues of waiting cars may stack well beyond the available storage space and lead to significant peak hour congestion along both Division and Walker Road. Traffic coming from points South and West may have in the past used E.C. Row Expressway to either Dougall or Walker. Those travellers may now be using Cabana, Division or Walker. Some of course will use the new Lauzon Parkway extension. But for LaSalle and Amherstburg residents, this will not likely be the case.
Cycling is another aspect that does not seem to have been evaluating as part of the location analysis. Not everyone that is employed by a hospital will want to drive or ride a bus. Encouraging cycling is also a very important part of any site selection for a major employer such as a hospital. While I am sure bike lanes can be added to any of the arterial roads in question, the issue becomes who is going to want to ride well over an hour to get to work? Some people may choose to do so, but will those who currently ride their bicycles to either hospital be able to make the ride to this new location or will they then be forced to take transit or use a car?
The improvements proposed with respect to Lauzon Parkway and its extension from County Road 42 all the way to Highway 3 make logical sense from a regional transportation point of view regardless of where the hospital is located. This road is an important piece of infrastructure that will aid in reducing the volume of trucks using Walker Road to gain access to E.C. Row Expressway and I have long advocated for this link.
When I was last employed with the City of Windsor, I was a Planner in the Planning department. I was also the Team Leader for the Infrastructure section of Windsor’s Official Plan update which dealt significantly with transportation policies. I recall numerous discussions that took place between staff regarding the link between transportation and land use. As a result, specific language was placed in the Official Plan in terms of reducing trip length and locating large scale employers:
7.2.2.18 Council shall recognize the link between land use and transportation systems by:
(a) Focusing office development and high-density employment and high density residential in areas which have access to transit and pedestrian amenities;
(b) Encouraging commercial and employment uses within 400 metres to 800 metres of residential areas to promote the use of active transportation and to promote transit service.
7.2.2.20 Council shall support transit by planning for compact mixed-use, higher density residential, commercial and employment development within concentrated nodes and corridors that are adjacent to higher order transit corridors.
7.2.2.21 Council shall implement land use patterns that promote sustainable travel by locating land uses within reasonable walking or cycling distance by:
(a) Encouraging development that include an appropriate mix of residential, commercial and employment lands within reasonable walking distance of each other;
(b) Planning higher density developments in areas along major transportation corridors and nodes;
(c) Integrating land use and transportation planning decisions by ensuring each fit the context of each other’s specific needs.
From my point of view as a planner, I do not feel that the location of the proposed Hospital meets or exceeds the guidance of Windsor’s Official Plan.
Specifically, focusing in on Section 7.2.2.21, I cannot imagine that the Hospital’s location fits subsection c). Furthermore, I do not feel that this major employer is within 400 to 800 metres of residential areas. When one goes down the list of the above Official Plan Policies, I cannot tie any of them to the chosen location of the hospital. In my opinion I feel that the proposed chosen location is in direct conflict with Windsor’s very recently adopted Official Plan. Section 3 of Windsor’s Official Plan also had new language that encouraged focusing developments, particularly higher density developments within “nodes” and along “corridors” that could be served by more frequent transit or that facilitated reduced trip lengths for people choosing to walk, cycle or take transit between home and work.
In particular, Section 3.3.1.1 Growth Centres speaks to “serve as focal areas for investment in institutional and region wide public services, as well as commercial, recreational, cultural and entertainment uses;”. Since in this example, this Hospital is intended to be an institution of region wide focus and also a public service, I can see no valid planning reason why the decision to place the new Hospital at the periphery, nowhere near to such a “Growth Centre” was chosen.
Hospitals have a very long life. The decision to construct a new hospital at this location will stay with the Windsor Essex region for a long time. As a Professional Planner who spent a significant part of my career studying Windsor and providing guidance to decision makers on Transportation Planning Policy matters, I am deeply disappointed that a decision such as this has been made that is in such conflict with the guidance of Windsor’s Official Plan, and further is so contrary to accepted land use and transportation planning principles for an institution of this scale.
Stephen Kapusta MCIP, RPP
