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

[EnviroTO]

or converted to LRT. Guess we will see when that committee comes back

Hopefully they come back that either Sheppard East LRT get built and the subway that exists remains. The other fiscally responsible possibility is a Finch East - McCowan LRT which works as a continuation of the Finch West LRT, serves Seneca, Bridletowne, and Woodside areas at a cost lower than a subway to SCC on Sheppard.

 

[Dan416]

And yet you expect us to bash our heads endlessly while you rattle off equally untenable ideas endlessly.

Please enlighten me as to which of my ideas is untenable?

 

[nfitz]

Please enlighten me as to which of my ideas is untenable?

Most of them, as far as I recall. However they are also eminently forgettable. But if you rattle a few of what you think are your better ideas off, I'll identify the untenable ones. Can you number them to make my response easier?

 

[Dan416]

Most of them, as far as I recall. However they are also eminently forgettable. But if you rattle a few of what you think are your better ideas off, I'll identify the untenable ones. Can you number them to make my response easier?

I won't number them, but I'll describe them sure

DRL East subway, Sheppard to Union, DRL West in a later phase
Eglinton, buried central portion, completely grade-separated outer portions, expansion to Airport in later phase
Sheppard subway to Victoria Park, to STC, to Downsview in a later phase
Finch LRT or BRT (East and West)
BD to STC, to Sherway in a later phase

 

[BMO]

Can someone please answer this one question that's been itching me for a while. I understand that the plan is to build QQ east LRT and the Cherry St tracks. But is there any timeframe for when they'll rebuild the railway underpass to allow the streetcars to connect from QQ east to Cherry St?

 

[DSCToronto]

Can someone please answer this one question that's been itching me for a while. I understand that the plan is to build QQ east LRT and the Cherry St tracks. But is there any timeframe for when they'll rebuild the railway underpass to allow the streetcars to connect from QQ east to Cherry St?

There is certainly a plan to build streetcar tracks on Cherry from King to the bridge - apparently the $$ are available and this line will be operational shortly after the Pan-Am Games. I am not sure if the track will actually be laid before the Games but .. There is more on this on WT website with details of the approved EA.

There is also a plan for an LRT/Streetcar on Queen's Quay East (details on WT website plus the approved EA) but no $$ yet. Last I heard the TTC will improve bus service to QQ but the developers on QQ East are complaining and reminding WT and the City that they bought land based on an LRT ("Transit First") so I suppose $$ may appear in due course. This line would, eventally go into the Port Lands. Personally, I doubt it will happen for 5-10 years as it's a big project and the major cost is rebuilding the Union Station streetcar loop and the tunnel.

Yes, there is an outline plan to link the QQ East and Cherry Street lines but nothing definite and no $$. There are outline plans to extend Cherry Street straight down to the Port Lands (as you know, it curves now) and I suspect a link will wait until this is settled. There are plans on WT website.

 

[BMO]

There is certainly a plan to build streetcar tracks on Cherry from King to the bridge - apparently the $$ are available and this line will be operational shortly after the Pan-Am Games. I am not sure if the track will actually be laid before the Games but .. There is more on this on WT website with details of the approved EA.

There is also a plan for an LRT/Streetcar on Queen's Quay East (details on WT website plus the approved EA) but no $$ yet. Last I heard the TTC will improve bus service to QQ but the developers on QQ East are complaining and reminding WT and the City that they bought land based on an LRT ("Transit First") so I suppose $$ may appear in due course. This line would, eventally go into the Port Lands. Personally, I doubt it will happen for 5-10 years as it's a big project and the major cost is rebuilding the Union Station streetcar loop and the tunnel.

Yes, there is an outline plan to link the QQ East and Cherry Street lines but nothing definite and no $$. There are outline plans to extend Cherry Street straight down to the Port Lands (as you know, it curves now) and I suspect a link will wait until this is settled. There are plans on WT website.

Thanks for clearing that up for me DSC.

Much appreciated!

 

[drum118]

WT has been bitching for years about not have new LRT since they were due in 2007, as they were a selling item for the redevelopment of the Waterfront. Same goes for the QQ and Cherry St lines now, due to lack of funding.

The Eastbay EA called for the QQ looping at Parliament St area until it was decided how QQ would connect to Cherry St as well the Lake Shore.

Based on current plans, a New Cherry St south of the rail corridor will run on the west side of the silos and buildings on Cherry St, about 500' from its current location to lineup with the existing Cherry to the north.

Until the Pan Am game surface, Cherry St was to see service in 2013 with limit service. It was said, every 3rd eastbound King car (514) would service Cherry St. There was a possibility that this car would also service Boardview Station as a U. At some future date once the QQ and Cherry connect, a new TTC route would run from Boardview Station to Union and the CNE. For security reasons, no Cherry St service until after the Pam Am games now. The last I heard and will find out next week for sure, track work was to take place in 13/14 as the road was being rebuilt.

There are 2 plans to take the Cherry St line south at a future date with the line looping at Shipping channel and connecting to QQ. Plan A would see holes punch on either side of the existing bridge for cycles and pedestrians. The Cherry line would run in mix traffic under the bridge. Plan B calls for a new bridge with a true ROW in the centre, bike lanes, single lane of traffic and wide sidewalks. There would be access from the street to a new Cherry St GO station.

Even before the QQ line can go east, the Bay portal has to be rebuilt 100% for a T connection to Union. At the same time, a major sewer line has to be relocated at Yonge St.

The big issue on the QQ lines is Union Station. I and others think TTC plan for expanding the loop is only good for today, not 20 years down the road.

To do the T and the loop, the QQ line will be out of service 2 years if things go well as plan.

Way things are going these day, you're looking at about 2020 at the earliest of getting the QQ line east of Bay.

What is funny about TTC plan for running buses along QQ from Union, TTC rule that around the block idea out at the very being of the EA process due all kinds of issues on Front as well Bay. We never saw it working at all either.

The only way TTC can get away trying this in Sept, is to run an extra Bay # bus; take the existing Bay buses further east and not use Jarvis St and this will increase run time as well reduce headway; loop a bus Yonge/Front/Bay or beef up the Sherbourne bus, let along the Parliament Bus Route.

TTC can only get away doing this until 2015, as that is went the next condo will come into service, if we are trying to reduce the need for cars on the waterfront. Based on ridership, artic's maybe use here once they show up.

As for rebuilding the existing bridge, this is a Metrolinx item and they have to see where this can fit into their capital budget, as it will cost $50m including the station.

Most of all, what the impact will be on the system as you will have to take 50% of the lines out of service. This well have an impact on getting into/out of the yard also.

It's possible that the bridge will be widen to allow more trackage to the south for the yard, lines as well the station.

There is no timeline for the station as well having one there.

Final note on the new bridge: There is a way of building a new bridge and replacing it on a long weekend and that's building the new bridge off site to the south and roll it in place. It would also mean that the Lake Shore would also be close also. GO would have to run buses from Union to the Danforth Station and have a few extra spare trains east of there encase one or 2 fail. VIA Rail will be impacted also.

If highway bridges weighting up to 1,000 ton can be done this way, there is no reason this cannot be done here. It would mean, GO may not have the lines open for the first day of full regular service, but would be on the 2nd day. Tracks and switches could be in place on the bridge before the move.

 

[allabootmatt]

WT has been bitching for years about not have new LRT since they were due in 2007, as they were a selling item for the redevelopment of the Waterfront. Same goes for the QQ and Cherry St lines now, due to lack of funding.

The Eastbay EA called for the QQ looping at Parliament St area until it was decided how QQ would connect to Cherry St as well the Lake Shore.

Based on current plans, a New Cherry St south of the rail corridor will run on the west side of the silos and buildings on Cherry St, about 500' from its current location to lineup with the existing Cherry to the north.

Until the Pan Am game surface, Cherry St was to see service in 2013 with limit service. It was said, every 3rd eastbound King car (514) would service Cherry St. There was a possibility that this car would also service Boardview Station as a U. At some future date once the QQ and Cherry connect, a new TTC route would run from Boardview Station to Union and the CNE. For security reasons, no Cherry St service until after the Pam Am games now. The last I heard and will find out next week for sure, track work was to take place in 13/14 as the road was being rebuilt.

There are 2 plans to take the Cherry St line south at a future date with the line looping at Shipping channel and connecting to QQ. Plan A would see holes punch on either side of the existing bridge for cycles and pedestrians. The Cherry line would run in mix traffic under the bridge. Plan B calls for a new bridge with a true ROW in the centre, bike lanes, single lane of traffic and wide sidewalks. There would be access from the street to a new Cherry St GO station.

Even before the QQ line can go east, the Bay portal has to be rebuilt 100% for a T connection to Union. At the same time, a major sewer line has to be relocated at Yonge St.

The big issue on the QQ lines is Union Station. I and others think TTC plan for expanding the loop is only good for today, not 20 years down the road.

To do the T and the loop, the QQ line will be out of service 2 years if things go well as plan.

Way things are going these day, you're looking at about 2020 at the earliest of getting the QQ line east of Bay.

What is funny about TTC plan for running buses along QQ from Union, TTC rule that around the block idea out at the very being of the EA process due all kinds of issues on Front as well Bay. We never saw it working at all either.

The only way TTC can get away trying this in Sept, is to run an extra Bay # bus; take the existing Bay buses further east and not use Jarvis St and this will increase run time as well reduce headway; loop a bus Yonge/Front/Bay or beef up the Sherbourne bus, let along the Parliament Bus Route.

TTC can only get away doing this until 2015, as that is went the next condo will come into service, if we are trying to reduce the need for cars on the waterfront. Based on ridership, artic's maybe use here once they show up.

As for rebuilding the existing bridge, this is a Metrolinx item and they have to see where this can fit into their capital budget, as it will cost $50m including the station.

Most of all, what the impact will be on the system as you will have to take 50% of the lines out of service. This well have an impact on getting into/out of the yard also.

It's possible that the bridge will be widen to allow more trackage to the south for the yard, lines as well the station.

There is no timeline for the station as well having one there.

Final note on the new bridge: There is a way of building a new bridge and replacing it on a long weekend and that's building the new bridge off site to the south and roll it in place. It would also mean that the Lake Shore would also be close also. GO would have to run buses from Union to the Danforth Station and have a few extra spare trains east of there encase one or 2 fail. VIA Rail will be impacted also.

If highway bridges weighting up to 1,000 ton can be done this way, there is no reason this cannot be done here. It would mean, GO may not have the lines open for the first day of full regular service, but would be on the 2nd day. Tracks and switches could be in place on the bridge before the move.

Thanks for this informative summary, Drum. So sounds like the top (King to rail berm) portion of Cherry is more-or-less good to go, whilst the QQ East and Cherry south (below the rail berm) plans are still over the horizon.

Getting the QQ East line into Union sounds devilishly complicated, though I can only assume that was anticipated and it's not *so* impossible--just needs money.

Forgive me if this was considered and rejected out of hand, but isn't there some way to bring the QQ East line into Union on the surface as an interim measure? There's so much re-alignment of the road network and construction planned in that area anyway, I wonder if this could be done relatively painlessly. Heck, once GO moves its bus operations from the existing terminal by the Esplanade, you'd even have a good spot for a loop.

 

[allabootmatt]

WT has been bitching for years about not have new LRT since they were due in 2007, as they were a selling item for the redevelopment of the Waterfront. Same goes for the QQ and Cherry St lines now, due to lack of funding.

The Eastbay EA called for the QQ looping at Parliament St area until it was decided how QQ would connect to Cherry St as well the Lake Shore.

Based on current plans, a New Cherry St south of the rail corridor will run on the west side of the silos and buildings on Cherry St, about 500' from its current location to lineup with the existing Cherry to the north.

Until the Pan Am game surface, Cherry St was to see service in 2013 with limit service. It was said, every 3rd eastbound King car (514) would service Cherry St. There was a possibility that this car would also service Boardview Station as a U. At some future date once the QQ and Cherry connect, a new TTC route would run from Boardview Station to Union and the CNE. For security reasons, no Cherry St service until after the Pam Am games now. The last I heard and will find out next week for sure, track work was to take place in 13/14 as the road was being rebuilt.

There are 2 plans to take the Cherry St line south at a future date with the line looping at Shipping channel and connecting to QQ. Plan A would see holes punch on either side of the existing bridge for cycles and pedestrians. The Cherry line would run in mix traffic under the bridge. Plan B calls for a new bridge with a true ROW in the centre, bike lanes, single lane of traffic and wide sidewalks. There would be access from the street to a new Cherry St GO station.

Even before the QQ line can go east, the Bay portal has to be rebuilt 100% for a T connection to Union. At the same time, a major sewer line has to be relocated at Yonge St.

The big issue on the QQ lines is Union Station. I and others think TTC plan for expanding the loop is only good for today, not 20 years down the road.

To do the T and the loop, the QQ line will be out of service 2 years if things go well as plan.

Way things are going these day, you're looking at about 2020 at the earliest of getting the QQ line east of Bay.

What is funny about TTC plan for running buses along QQ from Union, TTC rule that around the block idea out at the very being of the EA process due all kinds of issues on Front as well Bay. We never saw it working at all either.

The only way TTC can get away trying this in Sept, is to run an extra Bay # bus; take the existing Bay buses further east and not use Jarvis St and this will increase run time as well reduce headway; loop a bus Yonge/Front/Bay or beef up the Sherbourne bus, let along the Parliament Bus Route.

TTC can only get away doing this until 2015, as that is went the next condo will come into service, if we are trying to reduce the need for cars on the waterfront. Based on ridership, artic's maybe use here once they show up.

As for rebuilding the existing bridge, this is a Metrolinx item and they have to see where this can fit into their capital budget, as it will cost $50m including the station.

Most of all, what the impact will be on the system as you will have to take 50% of the lines out of service. This well have an impact on getting into/out of the yard also.

It's possible that the bridge will be widen to allow more trackage to the south for the yard, lines as well the station.

There is no timeline for the station as well having one there.

Final note on the new bridge: There is a way of building a new bridge and replacing it on a long weekend and that's building the new bridge off site to the south and roll it in place. It would also mean that the Lake Shore would also be close also. GO would have to run buses from Union to the Danforth Station and have a few extra spare trains east of there encase one or 2 fail. VIA Rail will be impacted also.

If highway bridges weighting up to 1,000 ton can be done this way, there is no reason this cannot be done here. It would mean, GO may not have the lines open for the first day of full regular service, but would be on the 2nd day. Tracks and switches could be in place on the bridge before the move.

Thanks for this informative summary, Drum. So sounds like the top (King to rail berm) portion of Cherry is more-or-less good to go, whilst the QQ East and Cherry south (below the rail berm) plans are still over the horizon.

Getting the QQ East line into Union sounds devilishly complicated, though I can only assume that was anticipated and it's not *so* impossible--just needs money.

Forgive me if this was considered and rejected out of hand, but isn't there some way to bring the QQ East line into Union on the surface as an interim measure? There's so much re-alignment of the road network and construction planned in that area anyway, I wonder if this could be done relatively painlessly. Heck, once GO moves its bus operations from the existing terminal by the Esplanade, you'd even have a good spot for a loop.

 

[allabootmatt]

WT has been bitching for years about not have new LRT since they were due in 2007, as they were a selling item for the redevelopment of the Waterfront. Same goes for the QQ and Cherry St lines now, due to lack of funding.

The Eastbay EA called for the QQ looping at Parliament St area until it was decided how QQ would connect to Cherry St as well the Lake Shore.

Based on current plans, a New Cherry St south of the rail corridor will run on the west side of the silos and buildings on Cherry St, about 500' from its current location to lineup with the existing Cherry to the north.

Until the Pan Am game surface, Cherry St was to see service in 2013 with limit service. It was said, every 3rd eastbound King car (514) would service Cherry St. There was a possibility that this car would also service Boardview Station as a U. At some future date once the QQ and Cherry connect, a new TTC route would run from Boardview Station to Union and the CNE. For security reasons, no Cherry St service until after the Pam Am games now. The last I heard and will find out next week for sure, track work was to take place in 13/14 as the road was being rebuilt.

There are 2 plans to take the Cherry St line south at a future date with the line looping at Shipping channel and connecting to QQ. Plan A would see holes punch on either side of the existing bridge for cycles and pedestrians. The Cherry line would run in mix traffic under the bridge. Plan B calls for a new bridge with a true ROW in the centre, bike lanes, single lane of traffic and wide sidewalks. There would be access from the street to a new Cherry St GO station.

Even before the QQ line can go east, the Bay portal has to be rebuilt 100% for a T connection to Union. At the same time, a major sewer line has to be relocated at Yonge St.

The big issue on the QQ lines is Union Station. I and others think TTC plan for expanding the loop is only good for today, not 20 years down the road.

To do the T and the loop, the QQ line will be out of service 2 years if things go well as plan.

Way things are going these day, you're looking at about 2020 at the earliest of getting the QQ line east of Bay.

What is funny about TTC plan for running buses along QQ from Union, TTC rule that around the block idea out at the very being of the EA process due all kinds of issues on Front as well Bay. We never saw it working at all either.

The only way TTC can get away trying this in Sept, is to run an extra Bay # bus; take the existing Bay buses further east and not use Jarvis St and this will increase run time as well reduce headway; loop a bus Yonge/Front/Bay or beef up the Sherbourne bus, let along the Parliament Bus Route.

TTC can only get away doing this until 2015, as that is went the next condo will come into service, if we are trying to reduce the need for cars on the waterfront. Based on ridership, artic's maybe use here once they show up.

As for rebuilding the existing bridge, this is a Metrolinx item and they have to see where this can fit into their capital budget, as it will cost $50m including the station.

Most of all, what the impact will be on the system as you will have to take 50% of the lines out of service. This well have an impact on getting into/out of the yard also.

It's possible that the bridge will be widen to allow more trackage to the south for the yard, lines as well the station.

There is no timeline for the station as well having one there.

Final note on the new bridge: There is a way of building a new bridge and replacing it on a long weekend and that's building the new bridge off site to the south and roll it in place. It would also mean that the Lake Shore would also be close also. GO would have to run buses from Union to the Danforth Station and have a few extra spare trains east of there encase one or 2 fail. VIA Rail will be impacted also.

If highway bridges weighting up to 1,000 ton can be done this way, there is no reason this cannot be done here. It would mean, GO may not have the lines open for the first day of full regular service, but would be on the 2nd day. Tracks and switches could be in place on the bridge before the move.

Thanks for this informative summary, Drum. So sounds like the top (King to rail berm) portion of Cherry is more-or-less good to go, whilst the QQ East and Cherry south (below the rail berm) plans are still over the horizon.

Getting the QQ East line into Union sounds devilishly complicated, though I can only assume that was anticipated and it's not *so* impossible--just needs money.

Forgive me if this was considered and rejected out of hand, but isn't there some way to bring the QQ East line into Union on the surface as an interim measure? There's so much re-alignment of the road network and construction planned in that area anyway, I wonder if this could be done relatively painlessly. Heck, once GO moves its bus operations from the existing terminal by the Esplanade, you'd even have a good spot for a loop.

 

[allabootmatt]

WT has been bitching for years about not have new LRT since they were due in 2007, as they were a selling item for the redevelopment of the Waterfront. Same goes for the QQ and Cherry St lines now, due to lack of funding.

The Eastbay EA called for the QQ looping at Parliament St area until it was decided how QQ would connect to Cherry St as well the Lake Shore.

Based on current plans, a New Cherry St south of the rail corridor will run on the west side of the silos and buildings on Cherry St, about 500' from its current location to lineup with the existing Cherry to the north.

Until the Pan Am game surface, Cherry St was to see service in 2013 with limit service. It was said, every 3rd eastbound King car (514) would service Cherry St. There was a possibility that this car would also service Boardview Station as a U. At some future date once the QQ and Cherry connect, a new TTC route would run from Boardview Station to Union and the CNE. For security reasons, no Cherry St service until after the Pam Am games now. The last I heard and will find out next week for sure, track work was to take place in 13/14 as the road was being rebuilt.

There are 2 plans to take the Cherry St line south at a future date with the line looping at Shipping channel and connecting to QQ. Plan A would see holes punch on either side of the existing bridge for cycles and pedestrians. The Cherry line would run in mix traffic under the bridge. Plan B calls for a new bridge with a true ROW in the centre, bike lanes, single lane of traffic and wide sidewalks. There would be access from the street to a new Cherry St GO station.

Even before the QQ line can go east, the Bay portal has to be rebuilt 100% for a T connection to Union. At the same time, a major sewer line has to be relocated at Yonge St.

The big issue on the QQ lines is Union Station. I and others think TTC plan for expanding the loop is only good for today, not 20 years down the road.

To do the T and the loop, the QQ line will be out of service 2 years if things go well as plan.

Way things are going these day, you're looking at about 2020 at the earliest of getting the QQ line east of Bay.

What is funny about TTC plan for running buses along QQ from Union, TTC rule that around the block idea out at the very being of the EA process due all kinds of issues on Front as well Bay. We never saw it working at all either.

The only way TTC can get away trying this in Sept, is to run an extra Bay # bus; take the existing Bay buses further east and not use Jarvis St and this will increase run time as well reduce headway; loop a bus Yonge/Front/Bay or beef up the Sherbourne bus, let along the Parliament Bus Route.

TTC can only get away doing this until 2015, as that is went the next condo will come into service, if we are trying to reduce the need for cars on the waterfront. Based on ridership, artic's maybe use here once they show up.

As for rebuilding the existing bridge, this is a Metrolinx item and they have to see where this can fit into their capital budget, as it will cost $50m including the station.

Most of all, what the impact will be on the system as you will have to take 50% of the lines out of service. This well have an impact on getting into/out of the yard also.

It's possible that the bridge will be widen to allow more trackage to the south for the yard, lines as well the station.

There is no timeline for the station as well having one there.

Final note on the new bridge: There is a way of building a new bridge and replacing it on a long weekend and that's building the new bridge off site to the south and roll it in place. It would also mean that the Lake Shore would also be close also. GO would have to run buses from Union to the Danforth Station and have a few extra spare trains east of there encase one or 2 fail. VIA Rail will be impacted also.

If highway bridges weighting up to 1,000 ton can be done this way, there is no reason this cannot be done here. It would mean, GO may not have the lines open for the first day of full regular service, but would be on the 2nd day. Tracks and switches could be in place on the bridge before the move.

Thanks for this informative summary, Drum. So sounds like the top (King to rail berm) portion of Cherry is more-or-less good to go, whilst the QQ East and Cherry south (below the rail berm) plans are still over the horizon.

Getting the QQ East line into Union sounds devilishly complicated, though I can only assume that was anticipated and it's not *so* impossible--just needs money.

Forgive me if this was considered and rejected out of hand, but isn't there some way to bring the QQ East line into Union on the surface as an interim measure? There's so much re-alignment of the road network and construction planned in that area anyway, I wonder if this could be done relatively painlessly. Heck, once GO moves its bus operations from the existing terminal by the Esplanade, you'd even have a good spot for a loop.

 

[DSCToronto]

Forgive me if this was considered and rejected out of hand, but isn't there some way to bring the QQ East line into Union on the surface as an interim measure? There's so much re-alignment of the road network and construction planned in that area anyway, I wonder if this could be done relatively painlessly. Heck, once GO moves its bus operations from the existing terminal by the Esplanade, you'd even have a good spot for a loop.

You obviously do not walk or drive in the area right now - most streets are almost always very busy and there is no empty land. It has been suggested that the QQ line run east to west (Bathurst to Parliament) and that the link to Union Station be some sort of 'people mover" using the existing tunnel. This would mean people taking a streetcar would have to change from streetcar to 'people mover' and in any case the loop area at Union is already grossly overused. I suggest you look at the Transit EA on the WT website.
http://www.waterfrontoronto.ca/expl...ast_bayfront_transit_environmental_assessment

 

[drum118]

We had a number of meetings with TTC and traffic on site looking at closing off Bay St between Lake Shore and Front to all traffic, except transit. They just keep shooting them down.

The QQ line would run on the surface of Bay from QQ for both lines and split into 4 pocket tracks just north of Lake Shore to Front street. There is enough room for 4 platforms in the underpass. The north bound curb lane would be use for GO and other buses.

We even talked about extending one of the pocket tracks north of Front St to Bloor St and that would put the old Bay Line back into service and help to take the pressure off the Yonge line. This would mean the QQ cars would have to be duel end.

When you look at what take place on Bay St today, Bay should be close south of Queen St for a pedestrians Mall since pedestrians out number the cars today and will cause gridlock at Front St within the next 10 years all day once all day service starts on the GO lines.

TTC said traffic on the Lake Shore would cause delays for the surface line, since they block it today. There are a number of ways to prevent it and cost $$ to do it. TTC next argument was at QQ for making turns and the heavily pedestrians traffic trying to get to the ferry boats. Again, there are ways to deal with it.

TTC has been its own worse enemy for the whole waterfront transit plan other that supporting rail for it. Cherry St is an example where they wanted a step down for the track area than a straight flat area. Europe has no problems with flat surface.

With the backing of WT during the various meetings and planning sections before going to the public for input, they have supported our recommendations, but were getting over rule by the city numerous times.

Even the City planners support our ideas.

The city traffic engineer was a real killer as he only could see traffic and nothing else. He wanted 4 lanes of traffic on Cherry St while everyone wanted 2 lanes with one block being a pedestrians mall. In the end we got the 2 lanes and WT was happy as they now had more room to build more buildings to help off set the cost of building roads and transit.

I still expect to see GO existing terminal still in use after a new terminal is built.

WT has been the backer of good transit planning for the waterfront, as they like us, want very few cars on it.

At the end of the day, if the Bay St surface line was built, it would save $100m+ and 18 plus months of closure to build it.

I know during our monthly meetings, the BIA wanted the QQ line to run east-west only with the existing Bay section converted to a people mover or just a tunnel for people to uses to get from Union to the waterfront or the QQ line. Personally, the people mover was a killer and I was not alone on this view. As a pedestrians tunnel, it had its + and -, but not the way to go.

TTC still has the vision of running the Fort York Line into Union under Air Canada Centre and that will become a nightmare operational issues getting into/out of Union Station.

 

[whatever]

You'd probably know this: how much of the underground work for the Fort York Line already exists? I was under the impression that both the Air Canada Centre's Galleria and Telus allowed provisions for it, and I was almost positive that they even built a tunnel box under Union Square while everything was hoarded up for Telus.

My first reaction to reading about the suggested closure of Bay was horror, but after thinking about it for a few minutes it makes perfect sense. Would it not be even better to take the tracks into the current GO terminal tho? Or take one set of tracks into the GO terminal, and then continue it eastward along the Esplanade and out to the Distillery.