Posts: 1,221
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2015
Reputation:
40
(07-27-2016, 09:44 PM)Lens Wrote: I'm willing to bet the people that live in this neighbourhood will have holes in the fence within a week. Access to the Fairway strip is too essential to too many people and many don't have or don't rely on cars.
I agree with your assessment. And certainly the project planners must be expecting it, so what do they intend to do about it?
Posts: 4,482
Threads: 1
Joined: May 2015
Reputation:
212
(07-27-2016, 07:14 PM)KevinL Wrote: (07-27-2016, 06:18 PM)ert86 Wrote: Chain link fence is up in the Hydro corridor, and as far as i can see from my balcony there doesn't seam to be any crossings connecting the trail with the strip-malls/Fairway . Crossing fingers it's behind the trees that are obstructing my view.
I'm pretty sure you're hoping beyond what's possible, alas. The issue is that among those commercial properties there is no 'official' pedestrian access point - lots of holes in fences or gaps in bushes but no actual, sanctioned entry point. There would have to be one for a crossing to be built (they'd want lights and a lift arm), so without one there is no getting there.
Actually, there is a simple approach, which may or may not be possible now given where everything has been built (I’m not familiar with the exact layout including measurements): put trails on both sides of the tracks. Then a crossing can be built anywhere. In practice one would build the crossings to hook up to existing worn paths across the hydro corridor but officially they would just be here and there and wherever, connecting the two paths.
Posts: 744
Threads: 2
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
13
(07-27-2016, 11:49 PM)timc Wrote: (07-27-2016, 09:44 PM)Lens Wrote: I'm willing to bet the people that live in this neighbourhood will have holes in the fence within a week. Access to the Fairway strip is too essential to too many people and many don't have or don't rely on cars.
I agree with your assessment. And certainly the project planners must be expecting it, so what do they intend to do about it?
Nothing, they intend to do nothing about it. It's the job of the community not to let them get away with that.
Posts: 6,905
Threads: 32
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
224
Just guessing: but maybe the Region is going to wait until GrandLinq is done, then take care of adding a crossing on their own?
Asking them to rework the design and integrate a crossing at this point is a scope change and could open up a can of worms - giving GrandLinq and opportunity to delay their "Substantial Completion" date, increase their cost, etc - might be like the Waterloo Park fence thing (easier for the Region to just do it on their own afterward - obviously with integration to the VMS and everything since it'd need to have signal arms due to train speeds here).
Posts: 1,709
Threads: 2
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
35
Forms were being built on King in front of the Kaufman Lofts this morning, to surround the track from the end of the embedded curve on Francis around the corner onto King and up to the pedestrian crossing.
Posts: 419
Threads: 1
Joined: Jun 2015
Reputation:
32
No one considering a pedestrian overpass for the hydro corridor? Or does the grade make it untenable?
Posts: 8,014
Threads: 39
Joined: Jun 2016
Reputation:
215
(07-28-2016, 10:59 AM)chutten Wrote: No one considering a pedestrian overpass for the hydro corridor? Or does the grade make it untenable?
Why an overpass?
Posts: 2,163
Threads: 17
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
77
There's no real reason they can't add an at-grade crossing. There are countless (well, actually they're quite countable) crossings of the Waterloo Spur. An overpass would need long ramps for access, which just makes destinations that much further away.
There is a section, on the west, where the LRT is in a small cut as it goes through the park. You could put in a overpass there, but at that spot it wouldn't actually improve connectivity that much, as it's quite close to Courtland.
Posts: 6,693
Threads: 38
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
118
07-28-2016, 12:30 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-28-2016, 12:30 PM by panamaniac.)
A pedestrian overpass seems a completely unnecessary expense.
Posts: 4,600
Threads: 16
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
150
A pedestrian overpass would still require something we don't have - a parcel of public land on the Fairway side for the pathway to connect to the road. As it stands, that is a solid wall of privately-owned lots with no official way past - unless the Region purchases a small strip somewhere to make a proper, sanctioned pathway, I think all this discussion is moot.
Posts: 6,905
Threads: 32
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
224
That point alone kills it, I think. You're right Kevin.
I'm hearing that someone is tying keys to the construction fences. Has anyone seen this or heard this and know more?
Posts: 1,709
Threads: 2
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
35
Tying keys to the construction fences? What do you mean by that, keys to what?
I'm getting worried about the lack of security around Victoria and Waterloo. It's not just once that the gates have been left open and driven through on Victoria, with cars trying to get from the Waterloo side to the Joseph side of Victoria. They also wind up in the construction area where the old Momentum Developments showroom was, not sure how much danger or safety is there. The new one was last night when I saw a car all but crossing the tracks at Waterloo, since the gates were wide, wide open there. I know it's unlikely that the fences will ever be fully secure, and GrandLinq probably doesn't care about how many people lift the fences off their pegs and walk through, but in certain areas if they can do this and make it seem like a driveable passage, it's quite dangerous to the oblivious or frustrated motorist.
Posts: 6,905
Threads: 32
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
224
Re keys: sorry, that's all the info I was given. I said I'd ask around and see if anyone knew anything.
Posts: 8,014
Threads: 39
Joined: Jun 2016
Reputation:
215
(07-28-2016, 12:48 PM)KevinL Wrote: A pedestrian overpass would still require something we don't have - a parcel of public land on the Fairway side for the pathway to connect to the road. As it stands, that is a solid wall of privately-owned lots with no official way past - unless the Region purchases a small strip somewhere to make a proper, sanctioned pathway, I think all this discussion is moot.
I am curious as to this particular issue, first, I'm not sure why a parcel is needed. After all, a parcel is not needed for a driveway from a road to a parking lot at the front of these places. Presumably, the trail could just connect to the properties in the same way. I don't understand why a business would object to this either, would they not want to make their property more accessible to potential customers?
Posts: 1,709
Threads: 2
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
35
Some might. Others might see such an isolated structure as an attractor of loitering, crime, unwanted types, etc. It's like how every driver wants a highway accessible nearby, they just don't want to be next to it or the roads feeding it or the sound and traffic coming from either.
|