Toronto Queens Quay & Water's Edge Revitalization | ?m | ?s | Waterfront Toronto

The development of the Danforth happened in the time when it had streetcars (which appeared in 1912, even before the Prince Edward Viaduct). The subway was built considerably later (1966). Not to imply a causal connection, but areas of the Danforth that used to be lively in the time of streetcars are no longer (see recent Toronto Star articles about Greenwood area).
There will never be the ridership on Queen's Quay to justify more underground sections.
 
reaperexpress said:
I think there is some key information missing from the article. They can't just count stoplights and say the streetcar will be slow. Since Queens Quay is the southernmost street, and the tracks are on the south side, many stoplights will not affect streetcar operations, as they are T intersections to the north with two stage pedestrian crossings.
Click to expand...

Oh, I wish. Notwithstanding all the driveways, even if it was a T-intersection, the designers will most certainly add traffic lights to the streetcar tracks anyway in order to ensure the safety of crossing pedestrians.
 
M II A II R II K said:
Make more underground sections.
Click to expand...

Queens Quay is built on fill, or dumped dirt and escavation material and garbage. The real ground is below the lake level, which is why the streetcar subway at Queens Quay station has water always seeping in.

map1842.jpg
 
W. K. Lis said:
Queens Quay is built on fill, or dumped dirt and escavation material and garbage. The real ground is below the lake level, which is why the streetcar subway at Queens Quay station has water always seeping in.
Click to expand...

I'd think that most of the stations would be below the water table ... perhaps not in downtown, where it's been depressed by all the nearby basements of those big buildings with their pumps. The watertable in Toronto is generally not far below ground surface (something the designers of the new subway stations seemed ignorant of).

The former groundsurface being below lake level, isn't really the problem. Look at the new London Crossrail station in Canary wharf ... part of the station is actually underwater.

All it means is that the design and/or construction of the station was not done properly. Or that there has not been the proper maintenance if it's a new problem.

Or IS it a problem. Water is supposed to seep into underground construction; and then be pumped away. If you don't have seeps or drains somewhere, the head can damage the structure.
 
nfitz said:
I'd think that most of the stations would be below the water table ... perhaps not in downtown, where it's been depressed by all the nearby basements of those big buildings with their pumps. The watertable in Toronto is generally not far below ground surface (something the designers of the new subway stations seemed ignorant of).

The former groundsurface being below lake level, isn't really the problem. Look at the new London Crossrail station in Canary wharf ... part of the station is actually underwater.

All it means is that the design and/or construction of the station was not done properly. Or that there has not been the proper maintenance if it's a new problem.

Or IS it a problem. Water is supposed to seep into underground construction; and then be pumped away. If you don't have seeps or drains somewhere, the head can damage the structure.
Click to expand...

See this story at this link to see on what happened at Jarvis and Queens Quay last year:

 
Uh ... that's not groundwater ... or lake water. If you look at the date, it's March 29, 2009. If you look at the historical weather data, there was a 22 cm rainfall that day in about 5 hours. Nothing to do with it being constructed on lake fill (other than the lack of topography, which makes drainage more of a challenge).

They could design that so it could handle that type of storm. Clearly they've decided that for such storms, it's easier to let it flood.
 
nfitz said:
Uh ... that's not groundwater ... or lake water. If you look at the date, it's March 29, 2009. If you look at the historical weather data, there was a 22 cm rainfall that day in about 5 hours. Nothing to do with it being constructed on lake fill (other than the lack of topography, which makes drainage more of a challenge).

They could design that so it could handle that type of storm. Clearly they've decided that for such storms, it's easier to let it flood.
Click to expand...

Actually Loblaws have had several building permits since this 2009 flood to address the problem AND Waterfront Toronto are in the middle of installing new sewers on Queens Quay.
 
Interesting ...

... makes me wonder why engineers seems to have big screw ups, but the only ones constantly being disciplined are structural engineers.
 
DSC said:
Actually Loblaws have had several building permits since this 2009 flood to address the problem AND Waterfront Toronto are in the middle of installing new sewers on Queens Quay.
Click to expand...

Don't forget that pumps to get rid of storm and seepage water would require electricity to operate. Which means that should a storm knock off power, no pumps. Unless they have generators to take over. Hopefully, the new sewers will have more than enough capacity to hold storm water in case of outages.
 
I'm curious about the QQ revitatlization - but I think we all know that's gone. Secondly, the QQ LRT extention to the east. I think east bayfront is going ahead and doesn't need city money - it's a private development.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Part of the QQ revitalization (Spadina to York) is funded already. Cancelling it will require council to vote for it to be cancelled. I don't think Adam Vaughan is going to sit by watching the largest city project in his ward go down the drain.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
MetroMan said:
Part of the QQ revitalization (Spadina to York) is funded already. Cancelling it will require council to vote for it to be cancelled. I don't think Adam Vaughan is going to sit by watching the largest city project in his ward go down the drain.
Click to expand...

Well there's only 800m of QQ funding and I'm fairly sure that'll decrease once they finally realise the cost (by the time they start will have gone up).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TTC is supposed to start replacing the tracks this year, but most likely be push back to 2012. We will know later this year if this will happen at all since Ford wants no part of streetcars in the first place and this will allow him to replace the lost lanes of traffic under the current plan.

If Ford does this, we can kiss the Waterfront off as the car will run wild down there like they do today.

Those NIMBY at the Spadina Area are putting up a fight to stop the bridge and be prepared for Ford to step in to save the NIMBY folks.

The wavedecks were partly funded by the city.

The pace of the Waterfront project is at a stand still or a snail pace these days.


I see a lot of the West 8 design being water down in the coming years due to the lack of funding for it and that is a shame.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top