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

[westwardloo]

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.

I thought people would be happy a piece of pedestrian infrastructure like this is included in a potential proposal. Instead we went straight to a tunnel is better. 

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that a tunnel costs more than a bridge.  but here you go. https://wps.pearsoned.ca/ca_ab_faigley_p...index.html or https://www.pedbikeinfo.org/cms/download...ov2013.pdf or https://www.algonquin.org/egov/docs/1271...343597.pdf 

Not a civil engineer, so I don't know but I would assume a tunnel would need be a couple meters below the level of traffic, I guess they could construct a vehicle bridge over the pedestrian path. looking at google earth it does appear that the hwy is built up a bit so that would reduce the ramps down for a tunnel and increase the size of the ramp for a bridge. 

Still, I think we need to be realistic about what we should expect to be achieved. I am sure the developer and the city have come up with three potential options. Build a bridge, build a tunnel or do nothing. personally I see them doing nothing over building a tunnel.

[ac3r]

The only real merit of the tunnel that I could really see is that it would be better protect people from the elements whereas a bridge (unless covered on all sides) leaves you open to wind gusts, snow and rain. But apart from that, tunnels are a strange experience and don't make people feel that safe, even if they are. There is a psychological aspect to them that makes people tend to avoid using them. This is especially true for women who could easily experience sexual assault or rape inside of something where nobody can see but it's also much easier to rob someone inside of them. A good sucker punch from behind and someone can grab your wallet and phone then run off. Bucket Man often sits around the tunnels under Westmout Road (near Highland Road) and has assaulted people for no reason whatsoever. With a bridge, perhaps people don't have that good of a line of sight either but they're still much more exposed to anyone walking on it or who could view it from neighbouring buildings so they are both tangibly and psychologically safer experiences.

You would also need to spend more money on tunnel maintenance (light replacement, graffiti removal, cleaning...they always smell like piss, collect trash/leaves etc). It would also need to have adequate drainage to deal with rainfall and snowmelt that can pool up inside of it, driving up the costs even more...and that can be a tricky thing to achieve if the tunnel is deeper than the storm drain systems running under the streets.

[danbrotherston]

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.

The highway already uses separated bridge structures, so this wouldn't be unusual.

As for traffic disruption, it could be more disruptive, unless we spend tons more money. But I'd agree that would be an obstacle.

[danbrotherston]

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.

Generally the bridges just have parapet walls that prevent vehicles from driving off the edge.

[danbrotherston]

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.

I thought people would be happy a piece of pedestrian infrastructure like this is included in a potential proposal. Instead we went straight to a tunnel is better. 

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that a tunnel costs more than a bridge.  but here you go. https://wps.pearsoned.ca/ca_ab_faigley_p...index.html or https://www.pedbikeinfo.org/cms/download...ov2013.pdf or https://www.algonquin.org/egov/docs/1271...343597.pdf 

Not a civil engineer, so I don't know but I would assume a tunnel would need be a couple meters below the level of traffic, I guess they could construct a vehicle bridge over the pedestrian path. looking at google earth it does appear that the hwy is built up a bit so that would reduce the ramps down for a tunnel and increase the size of the ramp for a bridge. 

Still, I think we need to be realistic about what we should expect to be achieved. I am sure the developer and the city have come up with three potential options. Build a bridge, build a tunnel or do nothing. personally I see them doing nothing over building a tunnel.

Fair enough, I am glad there is something proposed, and ultimately, I don't think we're looking at any kind of final design...probably closer to a simcities level design.

As for cost, I'm not saying that a bridge is more expensive than an identical tunnel, I'm saying that the context of the design would make a tunnel cheaper because it is a much smaller structure. The specific context drives prices far more than the type of structure.

[danbrotherston]

The only real merit of the tunnel that I could really see is that it would be better protect people from the elements whereas a bridge (unless covered on all sides) leaves you open to wind gusts, snow and rain. But apart from that, tunnels are a strange experience and don't make people feel that safe, even if they are. There is a psychological aspect to them that makes people tend to avoid using them. This is especially true for women who could easily experience sexual assault or rape inside of something where nobody can see but it's also much easier to rob someone inside of them. A good sucker punch from behind and someone can grab your wallet and phone then run off. Bucket Man often sits around the tunnels under Westmout Road (near Highland Road) and has assaulted people for no reason whatsoever. With a bridge, perhaps people don't have that good of a line of sight either but they're still much more exposed to anyone walking on it or who could view it from neighbouring buildings so they are both tangibly and psychologically safer experiences.

You would also need to spend more money on tunnel maintenance (light replacement, graffiti removal, cleaning...they always smell like piss, collect trash/leaves etc). It would also need to have adequate drainage to deal with rainfall and snowmelt that can pool up inside of it, driving up the costs even more...and that can be a tricky thing to achieve if the tunnel is deeper than the storm drain systems running under the streets.

The tunnels under Westmount Rd. are utterly pessimal. They are literally storm drains. I am not suggesting that we have that as a tunnel.

But not all tunnels have to look that way, there are better tunnel designs. For example you say "This is especially true for women who could easily experience sexual assault or rape inside of something where nobody can see.", but as I said, one way in which you make tunnels more pleasant is by eliminating places that you cannot see, make them wide enough that you can see through them.

I fully understand the reasons why tunnels can are less socially safe, but in understanding that, I also understand how those issues can be mitigated, and I've seen those mitigations in person. I felt they were effective. I'm not sure if you'd agree, upon seeing such well designed tunnels, but at least keep an open mind.

As for merit, I'm surprised you see no other merits, connecting to an existing and currently entirely wasted green space is a major benefit, as would connecting more directly to Dutton Dr.

[tomh009]

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.

Generally the bridges just have parapet walls that prevent vehicles from driving off the edge.

I think I was not clear on this. What i mean is that if the (concrete walls of the) tunnel were exposed in the median ditch, that would present a concrete wall perpendicular to the direction of travel, which is, I expect, a greater hazard than an armco barrier (parallel to the direction of travel) on the side of the bridge.

I can't remember an instance of such a construction so I don't know what measures would need to be taken to mitigate a head-on collision risk.

[danbrotherston]

Generally the bridges just have parapet walls that prevent vehicles from driving off the edge.

I think I was not clear on this. What i mean is that if the (concrete walls of the) tunnel were exposed in the median ditch, that would present a concrete wall perpendicular to the direction of travel, which is, I expect, a greater hazard than an armco barrier (parallel to the direction of travel) on the side of the bridge.

I can't remember an instance of such a construction so I don't know what measures would need to be taken to mitigate a head-on collision risk.

Oh...I see.

Umm...presumably there would just be a metal guard rail preceding the obstruction in the median ditch.

I would assume a smaller scale version of this: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.4936631,...a=!3m1!1e3

[ac3r]

The tunnels under Westmount Rd. are utterly pessimal. They are literally storm drains. I am not suggesting that we have that as a tunnel.

But not all tunnels have to look that way, there are better tunnel designs. For example you say "This is especially true for women who could easily experience sexual assault or rape inside of something where nobody can see.", but as I said, one way in which you make tunnels more pleasant is by eliminating places that you cannot see, make them wide enough that you can see through them.

I fully understand the reasons why tunnels can are less socially safe, but in understanding that, I also understand how those issues can be mitigated, and I've seen those mitigations in person. I felt they were effective. I'm not sure if you'd agree, upon seeing such well designed tunnels, but at least keep an open mind.

As for merit, I'm surprised you see no other merits, connecting to an existing and currently entirely wasted green space is a major benefit, as would connecting more directly to Dutton Dr.

Well I know you can design a tunnel to be wider and better lit, but it's still an enclosed space and that makes people nervous. The wider you make it and the more lighting you put in, the more the costs go up to construct and maintain it. Private developers want to make money, so they'll go with the cheapest option.

I'd have no problem walking through one since I've lived in cities like Berlin where they are everywhere, but what about the experience for a 15 year old girl or young university student? Women feel nervous just walking down the street after dark these days due to how often they get harassed. It could very well end up being a waste of money if not that many people used it, which then increases how dilatated it ends up becoming. I'm sure the developer/architects considered a tunnel, but realized a bridge is a lot cheaper and arguably safer for people.

Also, I'm not sure what greenspace you're referring to around here. The little forest beside the ION facility is ROW property and fenced in as it's part of their property, likely for future expansion of the facility. Everything else belongs to private property owners or the MTO. I'm not sure why you'd want to connect to Dutton Drive either, there is nothing there. The bridge will provide direct access to Northfield Station which makes a lot more sense.

[danbrotherston]

The tunnels under Westmount Rd. are utterly pessimal. They are literally storm drains. I am not suggesting that we have that as a tunnel.

But not all tunnels have to look that way, there are better tunnel designs. For example you say "This is especially true for women who could easily experience sexual assault or rape inside of something where nobody can see.", but as I said, one way in which you make tunnels more pleasant is by eliminating places that you cannot see, make them wide enough that you can see through them.

I fully understand the reasons why tunnels can are less socially safe, but in understanding that, I also understand how those issues can be mitigated, and I've seen those mitigations in person. I felt they were effective. I'm not sure if you'd agree, upon seeing such well designed tunnels, but at least keep an open mind.

As for merit, I'm surprised you see no other merits, connecting to an existing and currently entirely wasted green space is a major benefit, as would connecting more directly to Dutton Dr.

Well I know you can design a tunnel to be wider and better lit, but it's still an enclosed space and that makes people nervous. The wider you make it and the more lighting you put in, the more the costs go up to construct and maintain it. Private developers want to make money, so they'll go with the cheapest option.

I'd have no problem walking through one since I've lived in cities like Berlin where they are everywhere, but what about the experience for a 15 year old girl or young university student? Women feel nervous just walking down the street after dark these days due to how often they get harassed. It could very well end up being a waste of money if not that many people used it, which then increases how dilatated it ends up becoming. I'm sure the developer/architects considered a tunnel, but realized a bridge is a lot cheaper and arguably safer for people.

Also, I'm not sure what greenspace you're referring to around here. The little forest beside the ION facility is ROW property and fenced in as it's part of their property, likely for future expansion of the facility. Everything else belongs to private property owners or the MTO. I'm not sure why you'd want to connect to Dutton Drive either, there is nothing there. The bridge will provide direct access to Northfield Station which makes a lot more sense.

A bridge is also an enclosed space, you cannot escape it, and a bridge would be orders of magnitude longer than a tunnel. Making the tunnel wider is more feasible because the tunnel is shorter.

Yes...I know the ROW owns the property, but the complaint was lack of green space, the developer should acquire the extra property to make a green space. It's already treed. And yes, developers want the cheapest option, which is why we should force them to go with the better option, even if it is more expensive.

As for what the developer/architect considered, this isn't a detailed design, this is a concept...I'm sure they considered what looked better or clearer in renders, not what makes sense in the context. The city can tell them what they should do (or pay for) to be built.

As for connecting to Dutton Dr., I'm suggesting that in addition to the Northfield station, which is obviously a necessary connection. Going to Dutton Dr. improves connectivity, I'm not sure why you say there is nothing there, there is a huge amount of housing at Albert and Weber, and a plaza at Albert and Hazel and connecting to Dutton Dr. would cut almost 2 km off a walk (i.e., an entirely unwalkable destination becomes easily walkable)--to say nothing of the pleasantness of walking in that area as opposed to over Northfield Dr. It would also make it significantly closer for biking to destinations nearby like the University and everything around.

[tomh009]

A bridge is also an enclosed space, you cannot escape it, and a bridge would be orders of magnitude longer than a tunnel. Making the tunnel wider is more feasible because the tunnel is shorter.

Pedantic nitpicking alert: "orders of magnitude longer" would imply at least two orders of magnitude, or 100x, longer. I expect that's not what you actually mean.

[ac3r]

What you're proposing is still way too much money for them to build. If that were not an issue then anything could be constructed, but that's not how things work. In a case like this, it's a bridge or nothing as they're not going to absorb the cost to connect to dig under the expressway to connect Dutton Drive and Northfield Station. While it's not accurate, using Google Maps, the bridge to Northfield Station appears to be about 330 meters including the sidewalk running up to the station. It wouldn't cost a lot to build that.

Now I'm not sure what your idea for a tunnel would be...something going under the highway, then splitting off to both Dutton Drive and Northfield Station? For one, digging the tunnel would cost a ton of money, not to mention the construction of the walls, roof, electrical, drainage and so on. There is also a small creek here so there would be a lot of water that would slowly deteriorate the concrete walls of the tunnel. They wouldn't be able to run it under the ION facility without digging an incredibly deep tunnel (to deal with that building foundation/basement/lowered maintenance bays) and they would need to because that forested area is owned by ROW so they can likely expand the facility in the future. This then creates issues with grading which you need to consider for accessibility (wheelchairs etc) whereas this bridge appears to be a pretty narrow grade.

The plaza at Albert and Hazel is way too far to justify a connection to Dutton Drive as well. And there's nothing significant there besides a beer store, dollarstore, water store, a niche Arab grocery etc...hardly destinations that would warrant millions of dollars in infrastructure. It'd be much easier for people to walk to the plazas at King and Northfield.

[danbrotherston]

A bridge is also an enclosed space, you cannot escape it, and a bridge would be orders of magnitude longer than a tunnel. Making the tunnel wider is more feasible because the tunnel is shorter.

Pedantic nitpicking alert: "orders of magnitude longer" would imply at least two orders of magnitude, or 100x, longer. I expect that's not what you actually mean.

Yes, I meant, an order of magnitude, which it is, a two tunnels would run a combined 25 meters or so, as compared with at least 250 m shown for a bridge and causeway.

[danbrotherston]

What you're proposing is still way too much money for them to build. If that were not an issue then anything could be constructed, but that's not how things work. In a case like this, it's a bridge or nothing as they're not going to absorb the cost to connect to dig under the expressway to connect Dutton Drive and Northfield Station. While it's not accurate, using Google Maps, the bridge to Northfield Station appears to be about 330 meters including the sidewalk running up to the station. It wouldn't cost a lot to build that.

Now I'm not sure what your idea for a tunnel would be...something going under the highway, then splitting off to both Dutton Drive and Northfield Station? For one, digging the tunnel would cost a ton of money, not to mention the construction of the walls, roof, electrical, drainage and so on. There is also a small creek here so there would be a lot of water that would slowly deteriorate the concrete walls of the tunnel. They wouldn't be able to run it under the ION facility without digging an incredibly deep tunnel (to deal with that building foundation/basement/lowered maintenance bays) and they would need to because that forested area is owned by ROW so they can likely expand the facility in the future. This then creates issues with grading which you need to consider for accessibility (wheelchairs etc) whereas this bridge appears to be a pretty narrow grade.

The plaza at Albert and Hazel is way too far to justify a connection to Dutton Drive as well. And there's nothing significant there besides a beer store, dollarstore, water store, a niche Arab grocery etc...hardly destinations that would warrant millions of dollars in infrastructure. It'd be much easier for people to walk to the plazas at King and Northfield.

Again, a bridge is also going to be massively expensive. The cheapest possible crossing being built at 7/8 and Strasburg is projected to cost 7 million. This is a significantly larger project, with ramps at least twice as large. So the idea that a tunnel would be too expensive, pretty much means there is never going to be a bridge either.

I am certainly not proposing a tunnel under the ION facility. We are talking a 10 meter long tunnel under the roadway only.  The bridge appears to be a standard grade, but because it is crossing a superelevated roadway carrying oversized vehicles it is going to be 7-9m above the level of the ground. Where as a tunnel only needs to be ~3m below the level of the roadway, which is already ~1 m above the ground due to superelevation. Therefore the access ramps would be minimal.

As for whether the amenities are worth providing access to...leaving aside the hundreds of units of housing that you ignored, I think it's entirely unreasonable for us to judge that a plaza isn't worth providing access to. Even if YOU don't like the stores there, others may, and those stores may also change. As for distance, it would be a 20 minute walk...which is a perfectly reasonable walk out to a restaurant for dinner (there's a second plaza as well with a restaurant, tims, etc).

[jamincan]

The tunnels under Westmount Rd. are utterly pessimal. They are literally storm drains. I am not suggesting that we have that as a tunnel.

But not all tunnels have to look that way, there are better tunnel designs. For example you say "This is especially true for women who could easily experience sexual assault or rape inside of something where nobody can see.", but as I said, one way in which you make tunnels more pleasant is by eliminating places that you cannot see, make them wide enough that you can see through them.

I fully understand the reasons why tunnels can are less socially safe, but in understanding that, I also understand how those issues can be mitigated, and I've seen those mitigations in person. I felt they were effective. I'm not sure if you'd agree, upon seeing such well designed tunnels, but at least keep an open mind.

As for merit, I'm surprised you see no other merits, connecting to an existing and currently entirely wasted green space is a major benefit, as would connecting more directly to Dutton Dr.

Well I know you can design a tunnel to be wider and better lit, but it's still an enclosed space and that makes people nervous. The wider you make it and the more lighting you put in, the more the costs go up to construct and maintain it. Private developers want to make money, so they'll go with the cheapest option.

I'd have no problem walking through one since I've lived in cities like Berlin where they are everywhere, but what about the experience for a 15 year old girl or young university student? Women feel nervous just walking down the street after dark these days due to how often they get harassed. It could very well end up being a waste of money if not that many people used it, which then increases how dilatated it ends up becoming. I'm sure the developer/architects considered a tunnel, but realized a bridge is a lot cheaper and arguably safer for people.

Also, I'm not sure what greenspace you're referring to around here. The little forest beside the ION facility is ROW property and fenced in as it's part of their property, likely for future expansion of the facility. Everything else belongs to private property owners or the MTO. I'm not sure why you'd want to connect to Dutton Drive either, there is nothing there. The bridge will provide direct access to Northfield Station which makes a lot more sense.

It would be nice if they could somehow connect the Laurel Trail to Northfield Station and the trail to St. Jacob's. The offices at the end of Dutton get in the way of this, unfortunately.