+- Waterloo Region Connected (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com)
+-- Forum: Waterloo Region Works (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Forum: Transportation and Infrastructure (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=25)
+--- Thread: King-Victoria Transit Hub (/showthread.php?tid=15)
RE: King and Victoria Intermodal Station - Canard - 05-20-2016
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.
RE: King and Victoria Intermodal Station - tomh009 - 05-20-2016
(05-20-2016, 10:35 AM)Canard Wrote: 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.
RE: King and Victoria Intermodal Station - Viewfromthe42 - 05-20-2016
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.
RE: King and Victoria Intermodal Station - dunkalunk - 05-20-2016
(05-20-2016, 11:04 AM)tomh009 Wrote:(05-20-2016, 10:35 AM)Canard Wrote: 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.
RE: King and Victoria Intermodal Station - dunkalunk - 05-20-2016
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.
RE: King and Victoria Intermodal Station - tomh009 - 05-20-2016
(05-20-2016, 02:47 PM)dunkalunk Wrote:(05-20-2016, 11:04 AM)tomh009 Wrote: 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.
RE: King and Victoria Intermodal Station - KevinL - 05-20-2016
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. :/
RE: King and Victoria Intermodal Station - rangersfan - 05-21-2016
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.
RE: King and Victoria Intermodal Station - Pheidippides - 05-21-2016
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.
RE: King and Victoria Intermodal Station - panamaniac - 05-21-2016
(05-20-2016, 02:52 PM)dunkalunk Wrote: 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.
RE: King and Victoria Intermodal Station - rangersfan - 05-21-2016
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.
RE: King and Victoria Intermodal Station - Pheidippides - 06-08-2016
Is there any technological reason why a TPSS could not be integrated in to or on a larger building such as the hub?
RE: King and Victoria Intermodal Station - rangersfan - 01-25-2017
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/7081494-transit-hub-project-slowly-moving-forward
RE: King and Victoria Intermodal Station - Viewfromthe42 - 01-25-2017
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.
RE: King and Victoria Intermodal Station - Spokes - 01-27-2017
Does a request for qualifications precede a request for proposals?