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.
or Create an Account




Thread Rating:
  • 4 Vote(s) - 4.75 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Grand River Transit
(08-13-2018, 04:43 PM)tomh009 Wrote:
(08-13-2018, 04:16 PM)robdrimmie Wrote: 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.

That commercial parking could easily be accessible from Hall's Lane.

I assume you mean there would be access if the Laneway was made two way, currently it's one way.

Otherwise, you allow cars through the greenway, which is also an option, albeit probably not preferred, if not for traffic, then at least for the requirement of a clear space with a hard surface.
Reply


The parking garages for Manulife (King side of Charles) and Charlie West will both dump out onto Hall's lane, so there would be a decent amount of car traffic wanting needing to go towards Water if everything was closed on Gaukel.
Reply
(08-13-2018, 05:09 PM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: The parking garages for Manulife (King side of Charles) and Charlie West will both dump out onto Hall's lane, so there would be a decent amount of car traffic wanting needing to go towards Water if everything was closed on Gaukel.

Both Manulife garages have entrances off Charles St, do they not? However, if Charlie West garage entrance is off Hall's Lane, it does add some unavoidable traffic.  (If what you mean is that only the garage exit is on Hall's Lane, then I would suggest reversing the direction so that the traffic would go to Water St rather than across Gaukel and onto Ontario St.)

I would still keep Hall's Lane open across Gaukel, with stop signs and speed bumps. The amount of traffic should be quite acceptable, even with Charlie West.
Reply
Fall Schedules are up. http://www.grt.ca/en/schedules-maps/schedules.aspx
Reply
(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.

Hall’s Lane is not proposed to be closed (at least, not by me). It would (unless another proposal were also adopted) continue to run eastbound only. The only difference would be that you could not turn on or off it at Gaukel, just as King, Charles, and Joseph would continue to run through. Also those parking lots would have to be re-worked slightly to enter off Hall’s Lane. Alternately, a small stub of Gaukel St. running off Hall’s Lane could go just far enough to access the parking lots.
Reply
(08-13-2018, 06:39 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:
(08-13-2018, 04:16 PM)robdrimmie Wrote: 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.

Hall’s Lane is not proposed to be closed (at least, not by me). It would (unless another proposal were also adopted) continue to run eastbound only. The only difference would be that you could not turn on or off it at Gaukel, just as King, Charles, and Joseph would continue to run through. Also those parking lots would have to be re-worked slightly to enter off Hall’s Lane. Alternately, a small stub of Gaukel St. running off Hall’s Lane could go just far enough to access the parking lots.

I would argue that keeping a stub open defeats the point of a greenway to the park.

As for Halls Lane, at this point, it's practically a design detail, there are trade offs, closing it is better for the greenway, keeping it open is possibly better for drivers.
Reply
(08-13-2018, 06:31 PM)D40LF Wrote: Fall Schedules are up. http://www.grt.ca/en/schedules-maps/schedules.aspx

Anyone know where I can find a map of the expected flow through downtown once the terminal closes?
Reply


(08-13-2018, 06:53 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Anyone know where I can find a map of the expected flow through downtown once the terminal closes?

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid...77246&z=15

Or
http://www.grt.ca/en/about-grt/resources...212018.pdf

Both from
http://www.grt.ca/en/about-grt/2018-tran...twork.aspx
Reply
(08-13-2018, 06:51 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: I would argue that keeping a stub open defeats the point of a greenway to the park.

As for Halls Lane, at this point, it's practically a design detail, there are trade offs, closing it is better for the greenway, keeping it open is possibly better for drivers.

Not at all. The stub in question would extend from Hall’s Lane about 12m (literally, no exaggeration; I measured it on Google Maps) north towards (but not reaching) King St. The only traffic on it would be traffic directly to those two small parking lots, which have a total of no more than 20 parking spaces between them. So the traffic levels would be insignificant and would not noticeably detract from the pedestrian experience. Future redevelopment of the properties in question could be required to move their vehicular access directly to Hall’s Lane, eliminating even that small impact.

I think closing Hall’s Lane entirely is probably not workable due to the number of properties relying on it for access. But it is a single lane running in one direction with a low level of traffic so I don’t see it as a problem to have it cross the greenway.
Reply
Here I would expropriate the two small parking lots and use the land for patios or green space. Smile
Reply
(08-13-2018, 08:21 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:
(08-13-2018, 06:51 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: I would argue that keeping a stub open defeats the point of a greenway to the park.

As for Halls Lane, at this point, it's practically a design detail, there are trade offs, closing it is better for the greenway, keeping it open is possibly better for drivers.

Not at all. The stub in question would extend from Hall’s Lane about 12m (literally, no exaggeration; I measured it on Google Maps) north towards (but not reaching) King St. The only traffic on it would be traffic directly to those two small parking lots, which have a total of no more than 20 parking spaces between them. So the traffic levels would be insignificant and would not noticeably detract from the pedestrian experience. Future redevelopment of the properties in question could be required to move their vehicular access directly to Hall’s Lane, eliminating even that small impact.

I think closing Hall’s Lane entirely is probably not workable due to the number of properties relying on it for access. But it is a single lane running in one direction with a low level of traffic so I don’t see it as a problem to have it cross the greenway.

Sorry, I should clarify, I wasn't suggesting closing Hall's Lane entirely, just closing it at Gaukel, and making it two, dead end, two way streets, I agree closing it entirely isn't feasible, it's an important access, but it doesn't necessarily have to be continuous.  Whether or not it's worth the effort is a reasonable question, it's very low traffic, but it is still a negative IMO.  It would be worth evaluating both options.

As for a 12 meter stub, are you referring to the parking lots right at Halls Lane?  I'm not sure why it would be required, those parking lots directly abut Halls Lane, with not even so much as a curb separating them.  You could reconfigure them to access Halls lane with a hack saw and a can of paint.

I'd say if those properties were being redeveloped, the parking could be removed entirely in favour of a larger park, but that's another can of worms.
Reply
(08-13-2018, 08:41 PM)tomh009 Wrote: Here I would expropriate the two small parking lots and use the land for patios or green space. Smile

First step in the pedestrianization of Hall's Lane.  You've got my vote!
Reply
(08-13-2018, 08:48 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Sorry, I should clarify, I wasn't suggesting closing Hall's Lane entirely, just closing it at Gaukel, and making it two, dead end, two way streets, I agree closing it entirely isn't feasible, it's an important access, but it doesn't necessarily have to be continuous.  Whether or not it's worth the effort is a reasonable question, it's very low traffic, but it is still a negative IMO.  It would be worth evaluating both options.

As for a 12 meter stub, are you referring to the parking lots right at Halls Lane?  I'm not sure why it would be required, those parking lots directly abut Halls Lane, with not even so much as a curb separating them.  You could reconfigure them to access Halls lane with a hack saw and a can of paint.

I'd say if those properties were being redeveloped, the parking could be removed entirely in favour of a larger park, but that's another can of worms.

The greenway has to cross Charles and Joseph, neither of which I think is a candidate for closure, so adding one more crossing that has way less traffic than any other single lane of traffic isn’t going to make much difference to the feel. I would handle the Hall’s Lane crossing with no curbs, just bollards to keep the motor traffic on its course.

The 12m stub is to connect to those parking lots right there. I agree they probably could be reconfigured with more or less a bucket of paint but I want to avoid getting into a discussion of how feasible that is. It probably makes no difference but my sense is that whenever a discussion about something like this gets going with city planners they reveal themselves to have extremely inflexible minds and minimizing the number of discussion points feels like something that might help. Although if their response to my idea to install a pedestrian refuge on the Spur Line at Allen and at Union is any indication, there is no point in simplifying — they’ll bring in some diversionary irrelevance no matter how simple the discussion. And you’ll note that nothing has been done at either location — neither my idea nor their counter-proposal.

Sorry to be cynical, but I think it’s well-earned.

If those properties were re-developed, the parking would probably be built upon, along with the rest of the respective properties. Parking would likely move underground.

Does anybody know the status of that narrow strip of land immediately next to the Manulife HQ running from King back to Hall’s Lane? It occurs to me that could become a mini park. It won’t be very useful for anything else once the land next to it is built up.
Reply


(08-14-2018, 06:54 AM)ijmorlan Wrote:
(08-13-2018, 08:48 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Sorry, I should clarify, I wasn't suggesting closing Hall's Lane entirely, just closing it at Gaukel, and making it two, dead end, two way streets, I agree closing it entirely isn't feasible, it's an important access, but it doesn't necessarily have to be continuous.  Whether or not it's worth the effort is a reasonable question, it's very low traffic, but it is still a negative IMO.  It would be worth evaluating both options.

As for a 12 meter stub, are you referring to the parking lots right at Halls Lane?  I'm not sure why it would be required, those parking lots directly abut Halls Lane, with not even so much as a curb separating them.  You could reconfigure them to access Halls lane with a hack saw and a can of paint.

I'd say if those properties were being redeveloped, the parking could be removed entirely in favour of a larger park, but that's another can of worms.

The greenway has to cross Charles and Joseph, neither of which I think is a candidate for closure, so adding one more crossing that has way less traffic than any other single lane of traffic isn’t going to make much difference to the feel. I would handle the Hall’s Lane crossing with no curbs, just bollards to keep the motor traffic on its course.

The 12m stub is to connect to those parking lots right there. I agree they probably could be reconfigured with more or less a bucket of paint but I want to avoid getting into a discussion of how feasible that is. It probably makes no difference but my sense is that whenever a discussion about something like this gets going with city planners they reveal themselves to have extremely inflexible minds and minimizing the number of discussion points feels like something that might help. Although if their response to my idea to install a pedestrian refuge on the Spur Line at Allen and at Union is any indication, there is no point in simplifying — they’ll bring in some diversionary irrelevance no matter how simple the discussion. And you’ll note that nothing has been done at either location — neither my idea nor their counter-proposal.

Sorry to be cynical, but I think it’s well-earned.

If those properties were re-developed, the parking would probably be built upon, along with the rest of the respective properties. Parking would likely move underground.

Does anybody know the status of that narrow strip of land immediately next to the Manulife HQ running from King back to Hall’s Lane? It occurs to me that could become a mini park. It won’t be very useful for anything else once the land next to it is built up.

It's easy to be cynical these days. I have yet to hear any proposals made to Waterloo council on the spur line trail crossings, I know they did a study of them.  I have no idea what is taking so long on this, it was last year I think.

Yes, Charles definitely won't close.  Joseph on the other hand...I also think *could*...although I'd like to see one of Joseph or Jubilee closed, but probably not both.  These of course are far more controversial than Gaukel.

Is this the strip of land to which you refer?

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.4513503,-...312!8i6656

Didn't that used to be a building which was destroyed by, what some claim, was a suspicious fire.  In any case, it has been vacant as long as I have lived here, I think it's owned by someone though. I suspect zoning requirements make it difficult or impossible to put the original building back, and maybe the site is too small for a tower.  It is incredibly frustrating to see prime Realestate like that sit empty.  Same with the former Mayfair hotel site, which I'm glad finally has a plan.  The city has done a decent job of putting a bandaid over it.

It would be decent as a park location wise, although not ideal I think, given the grading of the site, and the imposing walls on both sides.
Reply
Interesting side note about the fare boxes I learned this morning. It appears the screens on them are analog and not digital like you would expect nowadays. The bus I was on this morning's screen had a lot of snow like the cable was loose and it was introducing interference.
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 11 Guest(s)

About Waterloo Region Connected

Launched in August 2014, Waterloo Region Connected is an online community that brings together all the things that make Waterloo Region great. Waterloo Region Connected provides user-driven content fueled by a lively discussion forum covering topics like urban development, transportation projects, heritage issues, businesses and other issues of interest to those in Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and the four Townships - North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot, and Woolwich.

              User Links