King-Victoria Transit Hub

[Canard]

It really felt like they we're just going through the motions of presenting "options", but very strongly saying "it has to be this" (overpass/stairs/elevator). Sort of like when it came to showing "options" for Phase 2 of ion to Cambridge - but making it pretty clear there was no chance in wavering from 24/Hespeler - they'd already made up their mind.

[tomh009]

It is exactly the problem - 4m is the widest the underpass would go. I didn't see the slide by my other half pointed out on our way home that it can't be the full 6m required because of the utility issue - which basically eliminated the underpass from being a possibility.

While Tokyo may say 4m is fine, here I guess there is a 6m minimum requirement.

Is the 6m width a hard requirement or just a recommendation?

EDIT: The presentation says "Metrolinx recommends an underpass width of six metres" (emphasis mine).  So this seems to be a feasible option, even if it doesn't meet the recommendation.

[Viewfromthe42]

I would always expect that there is a preferred option by the time it's being presented. All the things that would make them prefer an option will come out at one point or another, and it's great to be able to present that information to the public. I'd rather know ahead of time that a ramp would make certain vehicle movements impossible than get excited about that option, or know that some/all of an underpass would be 4m wide rather than think we could have it be a shops-lined Toronto-style PATH setup.

Regarding Hespeler LRT, sometimes changes still do come up. They're finding now that to get to Eagle/Hespeler, you have to cross a rail line twice. So in order to put a stop right there, rather than stops at Eagle and the rail line, and Hespeler and the rail line, it will cost 8-9 figures for each of those crossings. To do all that in order to have a stop just a bit closer to Eagle/Hespeler, might not be a good idea financially.

[dunkalunk]

It is exactly the problem - 4m is the widest the underpass would go. I didn't see the slide by my other half pointed out on our way home that it can't be the full 6m required because of the utility issue - which basically eliminated the underpass from being a possibility.

While Tokyo may say 4m is fine, here I guess there is a 6m minimum requirement.

Is the 6m width a hard requirement or just a recommendation?

EDIT: The presentation says "Metrolinx recommends an underpass width of six metres" (emphasis mine).  So this seems to be a feasible option, even if it doesn't meet the recommendation.

My understanding from the consultations that in order for Metrolinx to approve funding an underpass at a GO station, it needs to meet their standards for an underpass at a GO station. Otherwise the city/region would be on the hook.

[dunkalunk]

I also encourage those who have feedback on the project to submit it here!

There are practical concerns to how much a public overpass would actually be used by those who are not inside the Google building.

[tomh009]

Is the 6m width a hard requirement or just a recommendation?

EDIT: The presentation says "Metrolinx recommends an underpass width of six metres" (emphasis mine).  So this seems to be a feasible option, even if it doesn't meet the recommendation.

My understanding from the consultations that in order for Metrolinx to approve funding an underpass at a GO station, it needs to meet their standards for an underpass at a GO station. Otherwise the city/region would be on the hook.

If that's the situation, I would have expected the region's presentation to say "Metrolinx requires an underpass width of six metres".  Really, we have insufficient data once again.

[KevinL]

I have to wonder, how more flexible could the under/overpass plans have been had they not decided to put the TPSS there? That's not really helped things. :/

[rangersfan]

I did the online survey and as others have mentioned it is clear that the second option for Waterloo St is the preferred option from the view of the presentation designer.

[Pheidippides]

The utilities being in the way of the underpass are not the limitation, it is the potential cost of relocating them that is prohibitive. Similar to Jamincan's comment about the current ad-hoc approach to cycling infrastructure needing to have a network approach, this site needed to have the bigger picture in mind from the start on how and where it was going to connect to the rest of the city/region otherwise you get the situation we are in now. The underpass is probably the better solution for the users, but not likely what will be built because of the lack of consideration made in making other decisions.

[panamaniac]

I also encourage those who have feedback on the project to submit it here!

There are practical concerns to how much a public overpass would actually be used by those who are not inside the Google building.

Is that what is proposed?  I thought the bridge from the Breithaupt Block would just be linked to the public ramp coming up from Waterloo St.  You couldn't have a public access through the middle of an office building, could you?

I'm not sure what I was expecting of the public consultation at Regional HQ, but I found it pretty underwhelming - many of the panels were difficult to interpret and there didn't seem to be much that was new.  One thing I did see and like was the two story atrium/lobby for the bus terminal - a good public space their seems very positive to me.

[rangersfan]

I feel like the region has tried to collect information and provide forums for the public to provide information regarding their thoughts on connections to the transit hub.
With the active transportation consultation being one of those avenues. But I am not sure how much of the publics information is being used or can be used. But it does seem like some of the decisions are being rushed through.
Kinda crazy that there may not be anything substantial on the site until several years after Ion service begins.

[Pheidippides]

Is there any technological reason why a TPSS could not be integrated in to or on a larger building such as the hub?

[rangersfan]

A Request for qualifications is expected to go out this year with a plan to have a developer on board by mid 2018.
http://m.therecord.com/news-story/708149...ng-forward

[Viewfromthe42]

An interesting tidbit from that story is that the region hasn't released publicly information relating to estimates of development potential values (provided to aspiring developers) for the site at low, medium, and high density. There's also no indication that a decision has been made as to which of these types of development proceeds. I know that there were people at the last consultation I attended who felt the low density option was too dense and too tall, so I really hope council doesn't plant the high water mark for the region - because the intermodal hub and its neighbouring development sites really are the high water mark of what height and density in our region should be - at anything other than high density.

[Spokes]

Does a request for qualifications precede a request for proposals?