05-20-2016, 10:09 AM
(05-20-2016, 09:52 AM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: I'm curious what proponents of overpasses think of the height issue. Imagine you are on Waterloo, and treat this as if it were floor 1 of a building. intercity buses and ION are 1-2 floors below you, on either B1 or B2. To get over top of a GO train, you will need to go up to either floor 3 or 4 of a building. So an overpass would see you walk up the equivalent of 4 flights of stairs, and then down 6 flights of stairs to get to ION/GRT/intercity buses, so 10 flights of stairs used for the most time-sensitive use. An underpass would need to go down 1-2 floors to get under the tracks, meaning you would use 2 flights of stairs to wind up more quickly (and less exhausted) on your desired floor.
I think this is the right logic to use. The platforms are lower than the north side of Waterloo, so it doesn’t make sense to have people walk up a flight and then down two. We’re talking about people trying to catch a train here; the connection needs to be as quick as possible.
It needs to be comfortable, too, and the underpass would be, quite naturally, covered. If it’s an overpass, it should be enclosed. People in a hurry (who we want to take transit) shouldn’t be asked to climb up and down stairs exposed to the elements in August or January.