Welcome Guest! In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away. Login or Create an Account
The map seems to suggest a great deal of the station will exist underneath the tracks. Given that, it makes sense that the pedestrian connection also goes under the tracks, putting users right in the thick of things. Were it to go in a bridge, it would likely wind up connecting on a third or even fourth floor above that underground level, very divorced from the likely only 2 levels of transit/public use.
Seemingly, one might think they feel safer being able to see outside on a bridge, but when you think of the surroundings, there will be no eyes between the elevator from the Waterloo-to-bridge elevator, along the bridge itself, through the bridge-to-Victoria elevator. Reminds me of how I feel at times about some of the less-frequented stairwell areas at Union station in Toronto, or at some OC Transpo stations in Ottawa. It'll be a tricky one, because while a bridge will be worse for construction/safety/cost/integration, it will still feel on first mention like the better idea, and be hard to shake.
Are the steps part of the heritage designation? Will the steps be maintained in the new structure? There is barely enough room to get by without widening the sidewalk or removing the steps.
Everyone move to the back of the bus and we all get home faster.
(05-18-2016, 09:36 PM)Pheidippides Wrote: Are the steps part of the heritage designation? Will the steps be maintained in the new structure? There is barely enough room to get by without widening the sidewalk or removing the steps.
Not sure about the heritage designation, but widening the sidewalk and reducing the roadway width seems like a pretty good idea! And it's not like there's four lanes of capacity further south on Victoria from this point.
I don't think you can just "narrow the lanes" though, can you? I mean, there's a design width for a lane, it's not like they just made them fatter here, did they?
05-18-2016, 11:26 PM (This post was last modified: 05-18-2016, 11:29 PM by YKF.)
(05-18-2016, 10:24 PM)Canard Wrote: I don't think you can just "narrow the lanes" though, can you? I mean, there's a design width for a lane, it's not like they just made them fatter here, did they?
You can, infact narrow the lanes. We've seen the Region do it for a number of road reconstruction projects, where they'll trim lane widths to make room for other things within the right-of-way (often times bike lanes). I know that the Region seems to be sticking to ~3.35m lane widths for their roads, while other municipalities are trying out lanes as narrow as 3.0m.
In this case though, widening the sidewalk would mean moving the curbs, which would mean moving catch basins, etc. This would probably only happen during a full reconstruction and I could see the Region spending the extra money in this location to achieve a more pedestrian friendly environment.
(05-17-2016, 04:44 AM)LesPio Wrote: Transit Hub Open House
Ya the Higher Density option is my choice for sure. I also hope for the retail space they have a big brand name there or something, like Zara or H&M or something.
Having used various transit systems, I worry a lot about Waterloo Street becoming an overpass. With people rushing to get to transit, if they have to ascend by 1-4 levels to get over the tracks and any potential HSR/electrification, and then descend that same height plus more (all non-GO/VIA transit will be below the height of Waterloo Street), it would be exhausting, present a lot of running on stairs, and create long delays and risks of injury. I recognize that some would be romanced by the idea of the overpass as a spot to take photos, but if this is meant as a commuter connection, it makes little sense to go for an overpass.
What I'm most worried about is that we're still thinking of this as a who-knows-how-dense-it-should-be site. GRT/ION/cycling/walking/intercity bus/VIA/GO/car, this site is about the most ideal location for every one of these transit modes. It is surrounded by largely non-low-density-residential built forms. It befits the highest density imaginable to take advantage of all these opportunities. If not 25-30 storeys here, why would we see fit to allow that height closer to heritage neighbourhoods, or ION stops without intercity connections? This should be the prime trip generator inbound and outbound, and I truly hope we get that right. If we carve out the heart of our twin cities, I don't even know what to think.
Quote:I don't think you can just "narrow the lanes" though, can you? I mean, there's a design width for a lane, it's not like they just made them fatter here, did they?
The design width used in many places, here included, is dangerous. Here is an article from CityLab that explains it pretty well. YKF is right that the Region has used 3.35 meters- three meters flat (~10 feet) is much safer, for all types of users.
I think wide lanes are dangerous, Lexington over the expressway feels like it has wide lanes and people happily fly by me going 70 while I'm riding by on a bike going 20...
I filled out the survey for the consultation since I can't make it to the public consultation. I certainly hope they do the smart thing and allow a 25-30 storey building there. I hope it's an amazing jewel too, this is too big of an opportunity to squander on something small and banal.
(05-19-2016, 09:32 AM)clasher Wrote: I think wide lanes are dangerous, Lexington over the expressway feels like it has wide lanes and people happily fly by me going 70 while I'm riding by on a bike going 20...
I filled out the survey for the consultation since I can't make it to the public consultation. I certainly hope they do the smart thing and allow a 25-30 storey building there. I hope it's an amazing jewel too, this is too big of an opportunity to squander on something small and banal.
The cynic in me thinks that the most likely outcome is large and banal.
(05-19-2016, 09:32 AM)clasher Wrote: I think wide lanes are dangerous, Lexington over the expressway feels like it has wide lanes and people happily fly by me going 70 while I'm riding by on a bike going 20...
I filled out the survey for the consultation since I can't make it to the public consultation. I certainly hope they do the smart thing and allow a 25-30 storey building there. I hope it's an amazing jewel too, this is too big of an opportunity to squander on something small and banal.
The cynic in me thinks that the most likely outcome is large and banal.
