08-16-2017, 01:11 PM
(08-16-2017, 09:22 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: As for a trail along the railway, I think everyone, including staff, agree that it is the "right" option, just not feasible in the given timeframe for this project. Whether they will be less likely to pursue it in the long term with this trail being built, I don't really know. Not sure what you mean by the "east" side though? (I'm still thinking about Waterloo directions) . The north side definitely has a building conflict. South side would incur another railway crossing. It's a tough trade off.
Thanks for the response.
Yes, directions are a problem, even more so for this particular situation. My ultimate proposal would be two paths. At the transit hub, they would be on both sides of the main line. The north side path would run parallel to the main line over to the Iron Horse trail. This is the one that passes through empty lots and properties that are up for redevelopment, including the massive project at King and the tracks. The south side path would run next to the branch line on what could at various points be reasonably considered the south, east, or north side, since it curves from being more or less north-south (Waterloo directions) or west-east (Kitchener directions) to matching up with the main line. This path is now proposed for construction by the city as far as Park St., but I would continue it down to where the branch line crosses the Iron Horse trail. Neither of my proposed paths would cross any rail track.
Does that explain what I mean?