+- Waterloo Region Connected (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com)
+-- Forum: Waterloo Region Works (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Forum: Transportation and Infrastructure (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=25)
+--- Thread: Grand River Transit (/showthread.php?tid=13)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
RE: Grand River Transit - danbrotherston - 08-12-2018
(08-12-2018, 04:09 PM)panamaniac Wrote: Indeed, since the site already fronts on three other streets, I can't see what difference it would make if Gaukel were pedestrianized.
Duh! Three, what am I thinking, I literally live on the third one.
RE: Grand River Transit - ijmorlan - 08-12-2018
(08-12-2018, 02:37 PM)Chicopee Wrote: Not to be 'that guy', but wouldn't it be prudent to wait and see what kind of development will take place at the existing terminal site before we consider closing roads?
Look at how Gaukel fits into the rest of the transportation network. Note that there are no left turn lanes at either end, except off of King to allow buses to get in to the terminal. It runs for two blocks, ending with a T-junction at each end. There are no driveways on Gaukel, except for a couple of parking lot entrances immediately next to Hall’s lane and of course the transit terminal. In short, it contributes almost nothing to motor vehicle connectivity, but would be a very wide and pleasant pedestrian connection if pedestrianized. As pointed out by others, the development at the terminal can use the adjacent streets on the other three sides of the site for motor vehicle access. There is no point in it connecting to Gaukel because the traffic would just have to turn off immediately onto one of 3 streets, 2 of which are adjacent to the site anyway.
I have to say, this is one case where I’m about 99.5% sure that closing it to motor vehicles is the right thing to do. There really is absolutely no downside.
RE: Grand River Transit - mpd618 - 08-12-2018
Connecting Victoria Park to the city's central public space with a pedestrianized street seems like a huge win. Yes please.
RE: Grand River Transit - Jonny - 08-12-2018
Hamilton is proposing a similar corridor on Hughson St, connecting the LRT at Gore Park to the GO Station. Not fully pedestrianized, but one way with streetscape treatments to create a pedestrian friendly space.
Here’s a link to the design documents: https://d3fpllf1m7bbt3.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/media/browser/2017-05-26/hamilton-lrt-environmental-pr-appendix-f-high-order-pedestrian-connection.pdf
I think a similar idea on Gaukel would really solidify the connection between downtown and the park. I’ll sign that petition.
RE: Grand River Transit - kitborn - 08-13-2018
My dad worked at the gas plant on Gaukel in the 50's. It looked completely different and was stinky with tar ponds and gas storage. It would look lovely as a pedestrian entrance to Victoria Park.
RE: Grand River Transit - tomh009 - 08-13-2018
I think this sounds really good. A pedestrian short, even if a fairly short one, without a significant automobile traffic impact (which in turn should make it easier to get approval). But it shouldn't be just a "park entrance", it should be an engaging pedestrian experience. To achieve that, the future plans for both sides of the lower block will be critical as the upper block has far fewer improvement options, between the hill and the existing/approved buildings.
RE: Grand River Transit - danbrotherston - 08-13-2018
(08-13-2018, 10:11 AM)tomh009 Wrote: I think this sounds really good. A pedestrian short, even if a fairly short one, without a significant automobile traffic impact (which in turn should make it easier to get approval). But it shouldn't be just a "park entrance", it should be an engaging pedestrian experience. To achieve that, the future plans for both sides of the lower block will be critical as the upper block has far fewer improvement options, between the hill and the existing/approved buildings.
This would definitely help make the space even better.
The biggest problem is the topology of the road, given the hill up to the square, they feel slightly disconnected, it would be good if we could do something to connect them, and making the space engaging would go a long way to achieving that.
RE: Grand River Transit - Viewfromthe42 - 08-13-2018
None of the presence between King and Charles will have any engagement, aside from perhaps public art.
RE: Grand River Transit - danbrotherston - 08-13-2018
(08-13-2018, 11:16 AM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: None of the presence between King and Charles will have any engagement, aside from perhaps public art.
Why not?
We have a near 20 meter right of way, not the biggest space, but only slightly narrower, and much longer than Vogelsang Green and Market Green. Plenty of room to do something engaging. It's amazing how much space there is when we remove the need for cars.
RE: Grand River Transit - Viewfromthe42 - 08-13-2018
I am probably still thinking in terms of roadway design where we usually have a roadway haha. I meant more in the context that Pizza Pizza/the old bank/Thalmic Labs/Charlie West all ignore Gaukel, and there is no chance any of them changes.
RE: Grand River Transit - tomh009 - 08-13-2018
(08-13-2018, 12:55 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:(08-13-2018, 11:16 AM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: None of the presence between King and Charles will have any engagement, aside from perhaps public art.
Why not?
We have a near 20 meter right of way, not the biggest space, but only slightly narrower, and much longer than Vogelsang Green and Market Green. Plenty of room to do something engaging. It's amazing how much space there is when we remove the need for cars.
Right. There is easily room for some green space and/or patios there. More options between Charles and Joseph, but this part is not a write-off, either.
RE: Grand River Transit - robdrimmie - 08-13-2018
There may be a small hitch with Heartwood Place (http://www.heartwoodplace.ca, 19 Gaukel, the nondescript apartment building beside Thalmic) and access for moving vehicles etc. The catch is only that Hall's Lane is one way (southeast only) between Water and Ontario. There seems to be enough room to change that restriction, however.
RE: Grand River Transit - tomh009 - 08-13-2018
(08-13-2018, 02:58 PM)robdrimmie Wrote: There may be a small hitch with Heartwood Place (http://www.heartwoodplace.ca, 19 Gaukel, the nondescript apartment building beside Thalmic) and access for moving vehicles etc. The catch is only that Hall's Lane is one way (southeast only) between Water and Ontario. There seems to be enough room to change that restriction, however.
What's the problem with being on a one-way street?
RE: Grand River Transit - robdrimmie - 08-13-2018
(08-13-2018, 03:53 PM)tomh009 Wrote: What's the problem with being on a one-way street?
My understanding of the notion being discussed is that it would close Gaukel to traffic between King and Joseph. Hall's Lane currently runs one way from Gaukel (between King and Charles) to Ontario. If you close Gaukel without changing Hall's Lane to two-way there is no (legal) way to enter it from Ontario. If it stays one way but the direction is reversed, there is no way to get out once you're in.
I looked into it because I was curious how folks in the apartments would access parking (though it doesn't look like there is any), or get large trucks close by to move in or out, and didn't really describe the situation well, I am sorry for being confusing. It's a very small change that would be required, but it's one that does need to be noted for our theoretical planning session.
RE: Grand River Transit - tomh009 - 08-13-2018
(08-13-2018, 04:16 PM)robdrimmie Wrote:(08-13-2018, 03:53 PM)tomh009 Wrote: What's the problem with being on a one-way street?
My understanding of the notion being discussed is that it would close Gaukel to traffic between King and Joseph. Hall's Lane currently runs one way from Gaukel (between King and Charles) to Ontario. If you close Gaukel without changing Hall's Lane to two-way there is no (legal) way to enter it from Ontario. If it stays one way but the direction is reversed, there is no way to get out once you're in.
I looked into it because I was curious how folks in the apartments would access parking (though it doesn't look like there is any), or get large trucks close by to move in or out, and didn't really describe the situation well, I am sorry for being confusing. It's a very small change that would be required, but it's one that does need to be noted for our theoretical planning session.
It continues from Gaukel St to Water St, so there would still be access, albeit only from one direction.
There is also some commercial parking on Hall's Lane.