06-28-2021, 08:43 PM
I don’t understand the comment that connecting to Dutton Drive doesn’t do anything. True, there is “nothing” (not literally nothing, but I’ll stipulate to “not much”) actually on Dutton Drive, but the hypothetical connection links the Kraus site with the entire area near Albert and Weber. The alternative is Northfield — Parkside — Weber, including going up and over on Weber to cross the LRT line.
This is a pretty significant improvement to pedestrian connectivity in general, enough so that I submit it would encourage the development of more pedestrian-oriented facilities. For example, a hypothetical retail store on the Kraus site would be accessible to more people walking from near Albert/Weber. So as with many planning questions the current level of demand is irrelevant. Remember, if we used “current demand”, no more bridges across rivers would ever be built (some of the first ones would have been because people used to ford rivers or take a ferry; but now that it’s possible to take a bridge, no additional bridges are justified based on existing traffic across the river at a specific location).
Also I would just point out that any talk of tunnelling under the LRT facility is completely missing the point of what Dan is suggesting. As I said, I’m skeptical of tunnelling vs. bridging, even though he raises some interesting points, but a quick look at the map will instantly reveal that he cannot reasonably be interpreted to be proposing to tunnel under the LRT facility. The tunnel would be around 70m at most and due to the elevation of the highway vs. surrounding land the exit ramps at either end would be relatively short compared to what would be required for a bridge.
This is a pretty significant improvement to pedestrian connectivity in general, enough so that I submit it would encourage the development of more pedestrian-oriented facilities. For example, a hypothetical retail store on the Kraus site would be accessible to more people walking from near Albert/Weber. So as with many planning questions the current level of demand is irrelevant. Remember, if we used “current demand”, no more bridges across rivers would ever be built (some of the first ones would have been because people used to ford rivers or take a ferry; but now that it’s possible to take a bridge, no additional bridges are justified based on existing traffic across the river at a specific location).
Also I would just point out that any talk of tunnelling under the LRT facility is completely missing the point of what Dan is suggesting. As I said, I’m skeptical of tunnelling vs. bridging, even though he raises some interesting points, but a quick look at the map will instantly reveal that he cannot reasonably be interpreted to be proposing to tunnel under the LRT facility. The tunnel would be around 70m at most and due to the elevation of the highway vs. surrounding land the exit ramps at either end would be relatively short compared to what would be required for a bridge.