Kraus Development (525-565 Conestogo Road) | 3-35 fl | Proposed

[danbrotherston]

I am sorry, but a tunnel is a ridiculous idea. It would cost 2 to 3 times as much. You would still need a significant ramp down to get under freeway so you wouldn't save much space/distance. Also there are more concerns when it comes to safety.  I wouldn't hesitate to take an overpass at night, a tunnel I would think twice about.

First of all, you could use a bit more respect than calling it a "ridiculous idea".

Second of all, could you provide some citations showing that it would cost 2-3 times as much? Bridges over the freeway cost a fortune, and the causeway would also be an expensive project.

As for a "significant ramp"...the reason the overpass must be so high is because the highway carries large vehicles. A tunnel does not need to be nearly so large. Which aside from making it cheaper, also makes the access ramps shorter.  And if we wanted to spend 2-3 times as much, we could probably regrade the highway (which is already slightly above ground level because of super-elevation) and make the tunnel level.

As for social safety issues, they can be a problem for tunnels, but if the tunnels are well designed, it significantly mitigates that issue. It is also the case that there are social safety issues for a near 300 meter long bridge and causeway.  I know tunnels can be done well, because I have seen tunnels done well...not here of course, but in other places.

[danbrotherston]

The proposed causeway is enormous, almost 1/4 of a km long. Leaving aside the expense, such a long distance takes away the opportunity to make recreation space in the green area, as well as a direct connection to Dutton Dr.

A bridge must be significantly higher because double large trucks use the highway, where as even a high airy human sized tunnel would be significantly smaller.

Whatever technique the bridge uses to reach ground level towards Northfield Station, it or a branch of the bridge can do the same to reach towards Dutton Drive. And I don’t see what the presence of the bridge has to do with use of the space for most recreational purposes — just run a ground-level path over from where the bridge starts.

The height of the bridge above the road won’t make much difference. It’s just a matter of how long the posts have to be — maybe 5m. One 50m up or something would be way more expensive of course. Digging for a tunnel is always going to be very expensive, especially given how wide it would have to be to make people comfortable. The floor of a tunnel would have to be at least maybe 3m below grade (guess) so getting back up to the surface would be a significant distance unless the ground slopes downwards away from the expressway.

That will almost double the cost of the bridge to do so, by building two ramps.

And yes, you could run a trail back from the end of the bridge, but having the trail move THROUGH the green space at ground level, I believe would significantly improve the connection to it.

The height of the bridge is what is driving the length of the causeway. The ground slopes slightly away from the expressway because of superelevation around the turn, but the biggest difference would be the height of the tunnel. A 3 meter rise would only take 36 meters (for an ADA compliant ramp), where the bridge approach shown in the renders is approximately six times longer. That would put ground level well within the greenspace for the ramp.

[jamincan]

I'd favour a bridge as well, for the social safety reasons cited by others. As a general rule, I think tunnels should be the option of last resort for pedestrian or bike infrastructure. That said, I'm skeptical a bridge or tunnel is ever built unless the City makes the subdivision contingent on its construction. The Planning Justification Report says:

Figure 5 schematically illustrates the pedestrian overpass across the Parkway, creating significant opportunities for LRT ridership generated through the redevelopment. This overpass connection spans the Parkway to avoid conflicts with either existing or future Ministry of Transportation (the “MTO”) plans, contemplates the change in grade east and west of the Parkway, and utilizes Region lands and lands under easement by the City to access the Northfield Station. A partnership between the MTO and municipalities will be required to accomplish this important connection. Ultimately, it is anticipated that daily iON LRT ridership from the future population from this new neighbourhood could be over 3,500 trips per day.

Notably, it does not say "a partnership between the MTO, municipalities, and Northfield Properties LP & Northfield Properties (GP) Inc.", which I cynically interpret as "we want you to approve this subdivision within the context of a pedestrian link existing, because otherwise the plan has a much higher likelihood of not being approved, but any pedestrian link is your own responsibility. Good luck working with the MTO and scrounging up the funds for it, lol!"

[panamaniac]

I'd favour a bridge as well, for the social safety reasons cited by others. As a general rule, I think tunnels should be the option of last resort for pedestrian or bike infrastructure. That said, I'm skeptical a bridge or tunnel is ever built unless the City makes the subdivision contingent on its construction. The Planning Justification Report says:

Figure 5 schematically illustrates the pedestrian overpass across the Parkway, creating significant opportunities for LRT ridership generated through the redevelopment. This overpass connection spans the Parkway to avoid conflicts with either existing or future Ministry of Transportation (the “MTO”) plans, contemplates the change in grade east and west of the Parkway, and utilizes Region lands and lands under easement by the City to access the Northfield Station. A partnership between the MTO and municipalities will be required to accomplish this important connection. Ultimately, it is anticipated that daily iON LRT ridership from the future population from this new neighbourhood could be over 3,500 trips per day.

Notably, it does not say "a partnership between the MTO, municipalities, and Northfield Properties LP & Northfield Properties (GP) Inc.", which I cynically interpret as "we want you to approve this subdivision within the context of a pedestrian link existing, because otherwise the plan has a much higher likelihood of not being approved, but any pedestrian link is your own responsibility. Good luck working with the MTO and scrounging up the funds for it, lol!"

I would agree with your interpretation of that text.

[ijmorlan]

That will almost double the cost of the bridge to do so, by building two ramps.

And yes, you could run a trail back from the end of the bridge, but having the trail move THROUGH the green space at ground level, I believe would significantly improve the connection to it.

The height of the bridge is what is driving the length of the causeway. The ground slopes slightly away from the expressway because of superelevation around the turn, but the biggest difference would be the height of the tunnel. A 3 meter rise would only take 36 meters (for an ADA compliant ramp), where the bridge approach shown in the renders is approximately six times longer. That would put ground level well within the greenspace for the ramp.

I’m still skeptical. I would expect tunnelling to double the cost anyway, and I’m not sure you can resolve the safety concerns that would be raised. That being said, you raise a number of good points, especially about activation of the green space.

[ijmorlan]

Notably, it does not say "a partnership between the MTO, municipalities, and Northfield Properties LP & Northfield Properties (GP) Inc.", which I cynically interpret as "we want you to approve this subdivision within the context of a pedestrian link existing, because otherwise the plan has a much higher likelihood of not being approved, but any pedestrian link is your own responsibility. Good luck working with the MTO and scrounging up the funds for it, lol!"

Good catch. The bridge should either be deleted from the plan entirely and it considered on that basis or the whole rezoning be contingent on the bridge happening (not saying government shouldn’t help with the bridge, but the development shouldn’t proceed without it; enough vapour promises already).

[tomh009]

US$10M for this 50m tunnel. Looks fairly nice but not really super wide.
https://greensboro.com/news/uncg-pedestr...f6878.html

Pedestrian bridges in Cupertino; a double arch bridge supported at the median might be US$5M?
https://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=24397

[ac3r]

A tunnel is a terrible idea. Doesn't matter how many lights you stick in there, people always feel unsafe inside of them. It's a private developer so the cost doesn't matter, they can spend what they want on it.

[danbrotherston]

US$10M for this 50m tunnel. Looks fairly nice but not really super wide.
https://greensboro.com/news/uncg-pedestr...f6878.html

Pedestrian bridges in Cupertino; a double arch bridge supported at the median might be US$5M?
https://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=24397

Those seem highly misleading...the tunnel is extremely lavish...brickwork all around. The bridge on the other hand, appears to be spanning a small 2 lane road, without needing massive approach ramps.

We already know that building a bridge in the region over 7/8 costs at least 7 million, and that's likely with much smaller approach ramps due to the superelevation of the road.

[danbrotherston]

A tunnel is a terrible idea. Doesn't matter how many lights you stick in there, people always feel unsafe inside of them. It's a private developer so the cost doesn't matter, they can spend what they want on it.

I have no care of cost...I want the best experience. Bridges are not free from social safety issues. A narrow 3 meter wide bridge that is over 1/4 of a KM long has issues as well. The reason I am suggesting a tunnel is because I believe it can provide a better experience for users, given the apparently massive 1/4 km long bridge that would be required here.

As for tunnels, yes, there is no tunnel in the region which isn't terrible, but there are plenty of designs in the rest of the world that do not have those issues if we are willing to invest in them.

(For the record, a tiny, dark, dangerous looking culvert tunnel as we have used in this region would be dirt cheap to build, I hope that is not in question).

Edit:

Some sources. Leaving aside the Rijksmuseum tunnel, and the Amsterdam Centraal station tunnel, both of which are very pleasant and provide excellent social safety, but differ in context from where the tunnel would be. Instead, this underpass in Utrecht is a pretty reasonable comparison, I think: https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2020/...n-utrecht/

Features which make it feel safe:
- Wide enough that you can see the other side from the entrance (which is possible given each of the underpasses would be only 15m long).
- Walls are canted outwards so that the space feels less enclosed.
- And as you mentioned, well lit and with aesthetic features.

[Bytor]

I'm guessing that if we went to the Netherlands we could find a whole bunch of examples of overpasses/underpasses for pedestrians done right. ;-)

[tomh009]

The distance across the highway is about 50m (depending on the exact point of measurement). Are you expecting a 100m+ ramp on each side?

You are saying the bridge would be 3m wide. How wide would the tunnel be? The same?

[danbrotherston]

The distance across the highway is about 50m (depending on the exact point of measurement). Are you expecting a 100m+ ramp on each side?

You are saying the bridge would be 3m wide. How wide would the tunnel be? The same?

The ramp, as shown in the renderings, appears to be at least 200m long, plus the bridge, plus the ramp on the other side, this is why I would prefer a tunnel.

Yes, the distance across the highway is 50m, but if building tunnels, there is no need to tunnel through the middle, so only two 10 and 15 m tunnels are needed.

A tunnel could be much wider, again, this would add cost to the tunnel, but given that to widen the bridge, we'd be widening at least 1/4 of a km of bridge and causeway to do it, rather than two 10-15m long structures.

[neonjoe]

I doubt the MTO would allow the median to be left open for a tunnel. The highway at Northfield currently is a rural cross section. If it were to ever be upgraded to an urban cross section with an Ontario Tall Wall the centre median will be filled in. Tunnelling would also be far more disruptive to the traffic flow during construction which will cause Massive Outrage across the region.

[tomh009]

I doubt the MTO would allow the median to be left open for a tunnel. The highway at Northfield currently is a rural cross section. If it were to ever be upgraded to an urban cross section with an Ontario Tall Wall the centre median will be filled in. Tunnelling would also be far more disruptive to the traffic flow during construction which will cause Massive Outrage across the region.

I do agree here. Mind you, the part under the median could be an open dig with concrete walls and ceiling, for lower cost of that part.

I have no idea what MTO regulations or policies would say about the concrete tunnel being raised above the bottom of the median ditch. Likely some additional work would be required there to avoid a car driving into the median and hitting a concrete wall head-on. But that is admittedly pure speculation.