Grand River Transit

[tomh009]

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.

[ijmorlan]

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.

[danbrotherston]

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.

[danbrotherston]

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?

[KevinL]

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

[ijmorlan]

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.

[tomh009]

Here I would expropriate the two small parking lots and use the land for patios or green space.

[danbrotherston]

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.

[panamaniac]

Here I would expropriate the two small parking lots and use the land for patios or green space.

First step in the pedestrianization of Hall's Lane.  You've got my vote!

[ijmorlan]

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.

[danbrotherston]

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.

[bgb_ca]

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.

[ijmorlan]

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.

That is the strip of land, but the part I’m talking about is only the 6m or so closest to Manulife. My recollection is that somebody bought the rest but the property owner of that last narrow bit wouldn’t do a deal. So the rest may be re-developed; in that location I suspect 0 setback is in effect so it should be OK for redevelopment. But that will leave that 6m pretty much useless (although not totally useless; there are houses that are under 2m wide). On the overhead photo view, you can see what looks like a foundation wall or something running perpendicular to King; I think that is the border between the narrow strip I’m talking about and the rest of the property. Interestingly, in the streetview from Hall’s Lane the entire property has various equipment on it, possibly for exterior work on Manulife; I would be interested to know what sort of arrangement Manulife has for using that property for their building maintenance.

[neonjoe]

GRT Fall Service Changes
http://www.grt.ca/en/schedules-maps/fall...anges.aspx

It looks like one of the changes was pulled forward from iON launch. Route 33’s changes are being implemented in time for the school year. This includes servicing the Block Line iON station.

[tomh009]

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 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. (…) 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.

The larger parking lot is part of the PUC property, which I do believe is owned by the city, so there should not be any difficulty in reconfiguring it for access from Hall's Lane.

The smaller lot, on the E side of Gaukel, wouldn't work as well with access from Hall's Lane as it's a very narrow strip. But it's only four parking spaces, and two of them are designated for the PUC. I do believe the city would have the ability to move the entrance to Hall's Lane in this case.