TTC: Waterfront Transit EA

[drum118]

Anybody have a graphic of what would ideally be built here to serve both east and west QQ? I'm having a hard time grasping what you folks are talking about.

Its in the thread some where or you can find it up on Steve Munro site.

What you will see is an extra bay on either side of the current tunnel north of Bremner line under the ACC. Cars will have the option of bypassing these bays like it exist today or enter/exit these bays to off load and load for X routes. The north exit will connect to the north existing loop and the south entrance will be where the loop bends to the east on the west side. There are crossovers on both sides of the current track layout. Supposed to hold 2 new cars per side. The current loading area will become an entrance/exit to the subway. The west side is supposed to have a new entrance to the new lower level of the Bay Concourse.

Its only good for today needs, but not for the full built of Waterfront including the Portland. TTC see max 10,000 pphpd for the loop, but model shows 14,000 Plus in the long run. This includes the Bremner Line that is DOA at this time.

The portal will have to be rebuilt 100% to allow cars to turn east or west as well able to bypass the loop 100%.

It is in the Loop Thread

 

[Edward Skira]

Thank you!

 

[drum118]

I should note that TTC came up with this plan based on a lower density proposal over a decade ago, not on what being built or proposed.

If the Bremner line is built, it will be a nightmare for operation at that junction point, let long the QQ one.

Best option and not in Metrolinx play book is to built an other tunnel up Yonge with 4 track east-west platforms under the new bus terminal that will hold 2/3 cars per platforms track. You rebuild the Bay loop to wider radius for faster movement of cars to the new loop and better access to the subway and the new GO Concourse. Bay & Yonge would have opposite direction lines running in opposite direction to each other. This will handle up to 25,000 pphpd and will not allow for the Bremner line that is not needed at all.

It should be also noted that there are 3 threads on this loop and time to combine them into one as well the Waterfront transit.

 

[44 North]

Anybody have a graphic of what would ideally be built here to serve both east and west QQ? I'm having a hard time grasping what you folks are talking about.

Here are a few screenshots from the EAs. One shows 2021 peak numbers (not sure if new density projections have changed these); one shows full build-out of the network that is hoped to exist in the EBF, LDL, and Port Lands; and the others show the T-junction under QQ, as well as the loop design. I can't tell if the Loop differs from what drum posted, but it does seem a bit different.

My synopsis on the whole thing is that what was built as a new age "LRT" to open up our Harbourfront area was done on the cheap, with little thought given to operations, future expansion, let alone anything involving future transit to the eastern waterfront. We had a window to expand the loop during construction of Union's second platform, but that window is now closed - and any loop construction will now undoubtedly involve another lengthy and costly shutdown of streetcar service on QQW. But the biggest hurdle is the cost involved. No one is willing to pay, and because almost nobody lives or works in our eastern waterfront there's little political will.

A few years back UT did an interview with one of the developers involved with the 3C site, and he made it apparent that there's desire to see transit that isn't "antiquated" streetcars. Not sure the history, but Doug Ford became involved and shortly thereafter a new plan was hatched by developers and stakeholders that involved a monorail (or some kind of elevated light metro line), as well as a push to dismiss WaterfronToronto and their control. Obviously that didn't fly, and now it seems the eastern waterfront will be lucky to get BRT.

And agreed with Drum118, there's quite a few threads on transit in the eastern waterfront.

 

[Rainforest]

Best option and not in Metrolinx play book is to built an other tunnel up Yonge with 4 track east-west platforms under the new bus terminal that will hold 2/3 cars per platforms track. You rebuild the Bay loop to wider radius for faster movement of cars to the new loop and better access to the subway and the new GO Concourse. Bay & Yonge would have opposite direction lines running in opposite direction to each other. This will handle up to 25,000 pphpd and will not allow for the Bremner line that is not needed at all.

Indeed, this is probably the best option. Bremner line is problematic in many respects, and might never be built anyway. We will be better off having sufficient and reliable capacity for the Waterfront East & Queens Quay operations.

 

[Edward Skira]

A few years back UT did an interview with one of the developers involved with the 3C site, and he made it apparent that there's desire to see transit that isn't "antiquated" streetcars.

I think he was saying this because the mayor at the time was Doug Ford. Ford did't like streetcars so he said the same. No sense rocking the boat. I'm sure he'd be fine with the new streetcars running past the site today.

 

[44 North]

I think he was saying this because the mayor at the time was Doug Ford. Ford did't like streetcars so he said the same. No sense rocking the boat. I'm sure he'd be fine with the new streetcars running past the site today.

I don't think that part of the interview required interpretation. At least for me it seemed the interview was candid and Crignano's points were sincere and clear: i.e that streetcars are not a solution he fully agrees with, that he wants something more modern, and that he doesn't want to repeat the same mistakes as the western waterfront.

I honestly don't see this as political, or that he was trying to toe the line and not rock the boat. This isn't some lowly city councillor trying to move up in rank...he's one of the biggest developers in the city. If anything, it'd be the Fords kowtowing to the demands of developers and their multi-billion dollar industry. I do agree however that today, any and all East Bayfront developers or stakeholders would be happy with streetcars. I don't see why not, considering things seem to have been downgraded to BRT. A couple years back I believe they made a written appeal to City Hall to fund the line, and that even Rob Ford made a public plea to get it started.

***

I searched the Olympics bid thread for an answer to this, but does anyone know what our plan was for Port Lands transportation during our previous Olympics bid? Or if they think the existing streetcar/LRT plan is sufficient for a 2024 bid?

 

[Edward Skira]

I don't think that part of the interview required interpretation. At least for me it seemed the interview was candid and Crignano's points were sincere and clear: i.e that streetcars are not a solution he fully agrees with, that he wants something more modern, and that he doesn't want to repeat the same mistakes as the western waterfront.

I honestly don't see this as political, or that he was trying to toe the line and not rock the boat. This isn't some lowly city councillor trying to move up in rank...he's one of the biggest developers in the city. If anything, it'd be the Fords kowtowing to the demands of developers and their multi-billion dollar industry. I do agree however that today, any and all East Bayfront developers or stakeholders would be happy with streetcars. I don't see why not, considering things seem to have been downgraded to BRT. A couple years back I believe they made a written appeal to City Hall to fund the line, and that even Rob Ford made a public plea to get it started.

I was at the interview. I'm telling you my first hand impression.

 

[44 North]

I was at the interview. I'm telling you my first hand impression.

Well I stand corrected, and I definitely appreciate the sharing of your first-hand account. I apologize if I made it sound like I was doubting your interpretation. But there are a couple things I'd still like to get to the bottom of, because I have a strong interest in TO's eastern waterfront and the plans for Wards 28 and 30. And I also have trouble wrapping my head around the idea that the disdain toward street rail from a couple of municipal-level goofball politicians could've had such an impact as to dictate transportation planning for such a sizable development in such an important area.

The waterfront vision that Doug presented wasn't some off the cuff remark. It was a crafted plan that took time, money, and support. I can't say for certain, but wasn't Cityzen and other 3C developers part of that support? In the interview, Crignano makes it known that Kuhne/CivicArts is an architect for 3C's retail component - and they also happen to be one half of the team that designed the master plan for Doug's vision. As well, wasn't a major part of the plan (i.e a mall and boat-in hotel at the mouth of the Don) centred around the 3C site? In the interview it's mentioned that 3C could have up 500k sq ft of retail, which is pretty sizable and maybe worthy of a "mall" monicker.

So I guess it would be wise to weigh the political atmosphere at the time of the interview and take what was said by Cityzen with a grain of salt. But at the same time, I'm trying to be logical in considering the possibility that the plan put forward (both for the 3C site, and beyond) was of a much higher density/land use than existed in the official plan and 2010 transportation EA that it may've actually necessitated something beyond what streetcars (and an expanded Union loop) could handle. What do our Outlooks max out at, 7k peak or less? Is it possible that the elevated LRV/monorail wasn't just chosen because Rob n Dough didn't like streetcars, but rather because something faster and with greater capacity was required for the plan (and its major retail component) to work? *this is one reason I brought up the Olympic bid, because I'd like to know if it would surpass the ridership threshold of the existing transportation plan*

I know a lot of people despised that Doug plan, and I'm pretty much in the same camp. But if you mentally remove any association with Ford/s, politics, or 1960's era modes of transit - it's easier to see that at its root much of the plan revolved around increasing and accelerating waterfront development. This piece by Marcus Gee contains quotes from more reputable councillors regarding the plan, and they manage to bring the idea down to earth and make it seem less crazy. And even though it went down like a lead balloon, it did in fact push the City to study accelerating development. Is it possible that new proposals and major changes to the master plan, compounded with an acceleration initiative, could pave the way for a reexamination and introduction of new, non-streetcar options for waterfront transportation? Perhaps time will tell.

 

[Kitsune]

At the the entrance to the portal - there is a large gap in the supports, almost like they were planning for the full T, is that correct or is it a fluke ?

 

[44 North]

At the the entrance to the portal - there is a large gap in the supports, almost like they were planning for the full T, is that correct or is it a fluke ?

You can see that gap in the image below. It doesn't look like it to me, considering half the support would block through-flow for the w-bound track. Unless it was designed to be punched-out at a later date (which I doubt). I think this might be good evidence of the myopic and spendthrift planning that went into waterfront transit and TO's first attempt at building an 'LRT' line.

Ah well. Nothing a two-year, $500,000,000 fix can't take care of. And in a couple decades, when we have 10k peak coming from the eastern waterfront on a service that's at-capacity at 4k...well then we'll just rebuild it again.

 

[rbt]

This could be solved by putting 10 meter long gravel section at the top of the tunnel (see Queensway which rarely has cars on the tracks). If they did try, they'd be stuck out in the open section where it's easier to deal with.


There is no reason to be driving an emergency vehicle at high speeds into the transit tunnel, so it wouldn't be a hindrance to them at the mouth.

 

[DSC]

This sounds like a

This could be solved by putting 10 meter long gravel section at the top of the tunnel (see Queensway which rarely has cars on the tracks). If they did try, they'd be stuck out in the open section where it's easier to deal with.


There is no reason to be driving an emergency vehicle at high speeds into the transit tunnel, so it wouldn't be a hindrance to them at the mouth.

This seems like an easy and cheap fix; nothing will totally stop idiots but it's true it would be best if they were stopped before getting wedged inside!

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Re: QQ LRT

I think demand on the line need to be considered in the context of the long term network (RER & DRL) - the goal really shouldn't be collecting all the riders from the Portlands and then dumping them at Union, but it should take more of a N-S approach and dump them on the trunk lines instead. It's also difficult to imagine that somehow 3C (which isn't that large a project) will singlehandedly saturate the line when you're going to get proximate heavy rail station(s).

AoD

 

[44 North]

Re: QQ LRT
I think demand on the line need to be considered in the context of the long term network (RER & DRL) - the goal really shouldn't be collecting all the riders from the Portlands and then dumping them at Union, but it should take more of a N-S approach and dump them on the trunk lines instead. It's also difficult to imagine that somehow 3C (which isn't that large a project) will singlehandedly saturate the line when you're going to get proximate heavy rail station(s).

No doubt. This is a key reason why I think they need to start a new transportation master plan. The old one was kinda flawed in that it only mildly considered the DRL and GO. Not to mention excluded the plans for the Gardiner, which didn't exist at the time. Further to this, the previous transportation master plan got unconsolidated and broken-down into individual plans for the EBF, LDL, and PL. This lack of integrated planning rides roughshod over smart, bottom-up planning seen elsewhere. And it basically has us repeating the exact same mistakes as the western waterfront - i.e what was once envisioned as a solid cross-waterfront LRT line became piecemeal projects a mere shadow of the original vision.

Back to your original point: as seen in the demand map there are only 175 peak outflow riders using the Cherry spur. Surely there'd be more if a DRL station existed near King/Queen/River as you rightfully point out. And ditto for a station at Broadview. During planning I believe an idea was looked at that had the DRL arcing south to a multi-modal GO station at/around Unilver. And IIRC sometime last year EBF developers spoke up about getting a SmrtTrack stop (but I have my doubts about that happening considering the close proximity to Unilever). Either way, I think it was concluded that QQE would still carry the brunt of riders.

Re: development. This isn't just the 3C site that could increase in size/scope, but other areas like Lower Yonge Precinct and the greater Port Lands. For the Villiers Island precinct, the recent acceleration initiative reduced the greenspace and vastly increased the developable area (tho I believe a large portion b/n Cherry and Don Rdwy will be reserved or something major like an Expo). As well, one thing to consider is the lack of Nimbys. With the exception of probable height restrictions due to BBA flightpaths, it's carte blanche to build whatever.

Long and short, capacity and quality of transit seems to be one of the biggest roadblocks IMO. And as we've found out, we're going to see additional traffic lights on QQE, and that side-of-the-road alignments can result in "slow orders". Both of these will lower reliability and capacity for this important corridor.

I used to cast doubt on the idea that development in the eastern waterfront could warrant anything above a minimal extension of the legacy streetcar system. But now I don't think even that would even suffice. Yesterday while flipping through the acceleration docs, I took some screenshots of how the Port Lands measure up against other major developments/areas. Although it's a refresher for most of us, I for one am continually amazed by the massiveness. I get that few want to speak up against the current transportation plan for fear of being labelled an anti-streetcar, monorail lovin', Ford loyalist. But it seems obvious to me that there are some glaring issues with the existing plan (the downgrade to BRT being just one). Perhaps a silver lining in all of this is that it can give us time to rethink how we want to shape our Port Lands. I know this isn't the fantasy thread, but I'd personally support the staged building of a system similar to London's DLR.