Grand River Transit

[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.