Kraus Development (525-565 Conestogo Road) | 3-35 fl | Proposed

[SF22]

"Pedestrian bridge proposed over the Waterloo expressway dies before its time"
https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-...d472d.html

Excerpts:
The first blow came from the Ministry of Transportation, which operates the expressway and deemed the pedestrian bridge unnecessary in rejecting it.
The ministry concluded that people can use the current Northfield Drive bridge to reach the train station from the Kraus site. The current bridge provides sidewalks and cycling lanes above the expressway.
However, the current bridge also carries trains and traffic. A city hall report concluded that pedestrians and cyclists may be dissuaded from crossing on it, preferring a friendlier way to access transit.
[...]
In January the developer asked a provincial planning tribunal to overrule city-imposed conditions meant to “protect for a potential pedestrian bridge over the Conestoga Parkway,” according to lawyer Jennifer Meader, acting for Solowave.
That’s because the transportation ministry rejected the bridge and because “the city has recently suggested that (the developer) would be responsible for 50 per cent of the costs,” Meader wrote.
Solowave now intends to exclude lands from its housing project that would have been used for the expressway bridge.
[...]
The Kraus housing development could be home to more than 6,000 people. It’s currently planned at 3,353 units and it could take 15 years to complete, the developer says. Towers range from 18 to 35 storeys.

[timc]

"May be dissuaded". I think it's pretty obvious that pedestrians and cyclists are strongly dissuaded from crossing on the Northfield Bridge.

[SF22]

I've walked across the Northfield bridge a few times, and good lord is it bleak. I can't imagine having to walk it twice a day to catch the train. I definitely wouldn't bike this stretch; I think all the provincial reps and the Solowave designers who are making this decision should be forced to get out there and bike on the road at rush hour, because you know they haven't.

[ijmorlan]

The first blow came from the Ministry of Transportation, which operates the expressway and deemed the pedestrian bridge unnecessary in rejecting it.

Expertise is worthless if the expert is still an idiot.

Anyway, they shouldn’t have the right to reject based on something being “unnecessary”, only to impose reasonable conditions related to the fact that it crosses an expressway. For example, requiring ample clearance underneath, and a design which is safe and won’t shed bits of bridge onto the expressway below.

[the_conestoga_guy]

Honest question, how difficult would it be to modify the existing bridge to improve the pedestrian and cycling experience? If we just focused on the south side, for instance, we could raise the cycling lane to be even with the sidewalk and turn it into a MUT. Put in a concrete barrier (even one of those half-height ones) along the stretch and suddenly you have a really solid option for active transportation.

Installing a brand new bridge always felt a bit wasteful when compared against the option of fixing the existing bridge. It doesn't even take much of an imagination to work up a good solution. It has to be incredibly embarrassing for our city officials and engineers to see bridge proposals being put forward to "fix" the issues you created with your 10 year old bridge 50m away. I just hope they have the courage to recognize their mistakes and move forward with fixing them.

[bravado]

Honest question, how difficult would it be to modify the existing bridge to improve the pedestrian and cycling experience? If we just focused on the south side, for instance, we could raise the cycling lane to be even with the sidewalk and turn it into a MUT. Put in a concrete barrier (even one of those half-height ones) along the stretch and suddenly you have a really solid option for active transportation.

Installing a brand new bridge always felt a bit wasteful when compared against the option of fixing the existing bridge. It doesn't even take much of an imagination to work up a good solution. It has to be incredibly embarrassing for our city officials and engineers to see bridge proposals being put forward to "fix" the issues you created with your 10 year old bridge 50m away. I just hope they have the courage to recognize their mistakes and move forward with fixing them.

All the talk about building a new bridge only existed because everyone involved knew that the real solution: reducing existing vehicle lanes to make safe routes for others, was never going to happen. The MTO just confirmed something we all knew: vehicle throughput is officially more important than safety and equality.

[the_conestoga_guy]

Honest question, how difficult would it be to modify the existing bridge to improve the pedestrian and cycling experience? If we just focused on the south side, for instance, we could raise the cycling lane to be even with the sidewalk and turn it into a MUT. Put in a concrete barrier (even one of those half-height ones) along the stretch and suddenly you have a really solid option for active transportation.

Installing a brand new bridge always felt a bit wasteful when compared against the option of fixing the existing bridge. It doesn't even take much of an imagination to work up a good solution. It has to be incredibly embarrassing for our city officials and engineers to see bridge proposals being put forward to "fix" the issues you created with your 10 year old bridge 50m away. I just hope they have the courage to recognize their mistakes and move forward with fixing them.

All the talk about building a new bridge only existed because everyone involved knew that the real solution: reducing existing vehicle lanes to make safe routes for others, was never going to happen. The MTO just confirmed something we all knew: vehicle throughput is officially more important than safety and equality.

My solution doesn't even involve reducing the number of lanes! I'm just as baffled with this bridge now as the day it opened...

[cherrypark]

Honest question, how difficult would it be to modify the existing bridge to improve the pedestrian and cycling experience? If we just focused on the south side, for instance, we could raise the cycling lane to be even with the sidewalk and turn it into a MUT. Put in a concrete barrier (even one of those half-height ones) along the stretch and suddenly you have a really solid option for active transportation.

Installing a brand new bridge always felt a bit wasteful when compared against the option of fixing the existing bridge. It doesn't even take much of an imagination to work up a good solution. It has to be incredibly embarrassing for our city officials and engineers to see bridge proposals being put forward to "fix" the issues you created with your 10 year old bridge 50m away. I just hope they have the courage to recognize their mistakes and move forward with fixing them.

Maybe not difficult per se but the reality is that even the south side still has two awful slip lanes to navigate that the MTO would never accept having the service level reduced. Also wouldn't surprise me if there are design standards for the sidewalk and shoulder (its barely a bike lane) that dictate low height for snow storage in storm events or the like.

[ac3r]

The MoT probably realized that nobody who will live here will be walking or biking anyway, so almost nobody is gonna care about a bridge. I mean yeah it's a nice idea and the existing alternative sucks. But 99% of the people who are going to move into a vertical suburb like this are already driving anyway.