News   Jul 19, 2019
 225     0 
News   Jul 19, 2019
 416     0 
News   Jul 19, 2019
 744     1 

Waterfront Transit Reset Phase 1 Study

How should Toronto connect the East and West arms of the planned waterfront transit with downtown?

  • Expand the existing Union loop

    Votes: 121 74.2%
  • Build a Western terminus

    Votes: 8 4.9%
  • Route service along Queen's Quay with pedestrian/cycle/bus connection to Union

    Votes: 18 11.0%
  • Connect using existing Queen's Quay/Union Loop and via King Street

    Votes: 4 2.5%
  • Other

    Votes: 12 7.4%

  • Total voters
    163

drum118

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
13,930
Reaction score
6,274
Location
Mississauga, where cars rule city growth
Starting a new thread for this study as the New Study of the Waterfront Reset is to start in May.

Best to put all new study info here and leave the other threads as is, since they will be different based on the new study.

This Phase 1 study is being undertaken by the City of Toronto, in partnership with the Toronto Transit Commission and Waterfront Toronto in order to help establish a vision and plan for a comprehensive waterfront transit network.

Going back to almost where we started in 2004.
 

44 North

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Messages
3,145
Reaction score
1,425
Location
Ward 28
Too many waterfront transit threads, so why not create another thread on the topic?!? Haha, jk I fully agree with you. This is a carte blanche scenario, and as we've discussed in the several other waterfront threads, was a much needed initiative. Too many decades of piecemeal plans, under-building, or not building at all. Time to start fresh.

I'm hoping this "reset" doesn't lead to bs, or more under-building. Not saying I want to pay a king's ransom for waterfront transit, I'm actually all ears when it comes to cost-saving measures. And it's pretty clear the previous plans for Union Loop was a costly nightmare made worse by the decision to not coordinate with Union's current construction. So I doubt this will cost any more than what was previously proposed.

Another thing that's clear (to me at least, and I believe @drum118 as well) is that the East Bayfront streetcar plans - which was to serve as the spine for service to the greater Port Lands - were a continuation of our previous under-building. By looking at the ridership projections and seemingly lowballed development projections, no doubt capacity constraints would become an issue in a couple decades (if not sooner). This would obviously be compounded by "slow orders" brought about by the decision to run the streetcar along the sidewalk among throngs of families and cyclists (a la the new QQW).

I think for the same amount of money as the previous proposal we can work out a compromise that meets future growth, adheres to transit-first development, and brings much needed (and promised) transit to the eastern waterfront. Not to mention fix the problem that is the original WWLRT proposal.
 

drum118

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
13,930
Reaction score
6,274
Location
Mississauga, where cars rule city growth
One thing I looking forward to, who well be representing TTC since everyone who has been involved with the Waterfront Transit over the years have either move on or retire. More important, is TTC willing to look outside the box as well the city to develop a true transit plan and not let $$ get in the way??

What we came up with in 2006 was the right steps, but TTC back out of the plan some what during the Ministry EA approval stage and scrap a few lines. The city did that in 2012 as well under Ford.

Lets keep this thread to the current plans/views once they surface.

I know what was plan/vision for the Waterfront years ago compare to what is now been look at, is more density with higher ridership than the existing can move as plan.

Metrolinx has to be at the table since it will involved them in a number of ways.

I do know Commissioner St, Cherry St extension, Queens Quay E lines and extending Broadview south are still in the plan, but beyond that, its a guessing game at this time. Unwin Line has been removed at this time, since the city sees it as a 40 year time frame and a mistake as far as I am concern. The DRL and RER will now be part of this Reset that wasn't around when the original Master Plan was develop, other than having a GO Station at Cherry St.

I have a feeling this Reset Plan is going to look at the Whole Waterfront from Woodbine to Long Branch and if so, long over due and looking at the network as a whole, not piecemeal.
 

ADRM

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 2, 2015
Messages
4,189
Reaction score
8,471
I'm super interested to see the exact proposed routing options (and type of trains) that wind up heading before public consultation. Here are a few questions I've had in my mind I'm interested to hear folks' thoughts on:

> Thinking mostly about the east-west stretch without north-south prongs at any point, what are thoughts on potential duplication of route, assuming that one of the options considered is a Waterfront LRT, between LRT and streetcar? Would we run an LRT underneath the QQ streetcars, for a portion? Would we skip any stops that would be considered duplicative?
> Perhaps out of order, but do we think we'll wind up with both Eglinton-esque LRT trains and new streetcars?
> What form would the connection with the subway and/or Union Station take? Given future anticipated congestion and capacity problems at Union, would we consider bypassing the station all together, a la the preferred DRL corridors?

As someone who's keen to see enhanced vibrancy of connectivity to some of the new and under-construction (and to-be expanded) mini-neighbourhoods, I'm particularly interested to see what type of transit will wind up serving the stretch along Sugar Beach/1-7 Yonge redev/City of the Arts/Aqualina/Monde/East Bayfront/etc., and how that'll connect to: 1) the subway system; 2) future Portlands redevelopment and transit; and 3) Corktown Common/Canary District/etc.
 

44 North

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Messages
3,145
Reaction score
1,425
Location
Ward 28
I'm super interested to see the exact proposed routing options (and type of trains) that wind up heading before public consultation. Here are a few questions I've had in my mind I'm interested to hear folks' thoughts on:

> Thinking mostly about the east-west stretch without north-south prongs at any point, what are thoughts on potential duplication of route, assuming that one of the options considered is a Waterfront LRT, between LRT and streetcar? Would we run an LRT underneath the QQ streetcars, for a portion? Would we skip any stops that would be considered duplicative?
> Perhaps out of order, but do we think we'll wind up with both Eglinton-esque LRT trains and new streetcars?
> What form would the connection with the subway and/or Union Station take? Given future anticipated congestion and capacity problems at Union, would we consider bypassing the station all together, a la the preferred DRL corridors?

As someone who's keen to see enhanced vibrancy of connectivity to some of the new and under-construction (and to-be expanded) mini-neighbourhoods, I'm particularly interested to see what type of transit will wind up serving the stretch along Sugar Beach/1-7 Yonge redev/City of the Arts/Aqualina/Monde/East Bayfront/etc., and how that'll connect to: 1) the subway system; 2) future Portlands redevelopment and transit; and 3) Corktown Common/Canary District/etc.
Still too early to tell. And many variables (e.g DRL alignment and whether it will actually be built, Gardiner realignment, RER/ST and whether there will be a stop at Cherry, Union Loop issue, etc).

From discussions with drum and looking at the older plans, one past idea was to create two lines along the central-east waterfront. One local along QQE, another express-ish along Lake Shore Blvd. I personally don't support that, and would much rather we put money toward grade-separating a single route through the East Bayfront between Bay and Cherry (on either Lake Shore, QQE, or a Harbour St extn).

As for connecting with Union...that's a big problem. By-passing and shuttering the loop might be the direction we're headed, with a moving walkway built in its place (unfortunately). Though I think some of the existing Bay tunnel can be utilized, and a cross-waterfront 509/510 can offer through service stopping at least near Union. Vehicles more than likely will still be standard legacy network streetcars, though I also think it'd be wise to use bi-directional vehicles. *But I should reserve those ideas for the Fantasy thread, and let this thread fill with official info regarding this "Reset" first.
 

cplchanb

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
1,704
Reaction score
694
O Great....another STUDY...... all talk and no action continuously landing back at square one. Why are politicians always having a hard on for studies.....cant they make a decision already? This has been a multi decade issue that pretty much illustrates how
our local government left our city to decay
 

mdrejhon

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 25, 2014
Messages
3,643
Reaction score
2,200
Location
Hamilton
> Thinking mostly about the east-west stretch without north-south prongs at any point, what are thoughts on potential duplication of route, assuming that one of the options considered is a Waterfront LRT, between LRT and streetcar? Would we run an LRT underneath the QQ streetcars, for a portion? Would we skip any stops that would be considered duplicative?
They would never duplicate a streetcar/LRT if they are the same thing!
Streetcars and LRTs can pretty much convert into each other, and be identical.

TTC is slowly defacto progressing some streetcar routes closer to LRT behavior:

- New streetcars, that includes LRT pantograph operation mode.
- Dedicated right of ways (Spadina, St. Clair, future King, parts of QQ)

Remaining problems upgrading TTC streetcars to true LRT rapid transit performance

- Proper traffic signal priority system (instant green on LRVs)
- Efficient stop spacing, "far side platform" technique, etc.
- Tunnel in appropriate hard-to-solve parts

Fix that, and both Spadina/StClair can be just as fast as the downtown part of the TTC subway, finally being true TTC LRTs with the sole exception of the non-standard gauge and single-direction vehicles.
 
Last edited:

rbt

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
6,069
Reaction score
1,544
O Great....another STUDY...... all talk and no action continuously landing back at square one. Why are politicians always having a hard on for studies.....cant they make a decision already? This has been a multi decade issue that pretty much illustrates how
our local government left our city to decay
Decisions are easy. Funding it is hard. It's ridiculously expensive for what you get.

The best solution might be new rolling stock. Turn that option for 60 cars into double-ended vehicles with doors on both sides for 509, 510, and waterfront, remove the loop, and install a single wide linear platform. Offload near the new 45 Bay address (city bought access rights to part of the basement) and board near the existing location (single track, turnback, no loop). 3 minute combined frequencies should be pretty easy with driver step-back or even ATO in the tunnel.
 

drum118

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
13,930
Reaction score
6,274
Location
Mississauga, where cars rule city growth
Decisions are easy. Funding it is hard. It's ridiculously expensive for what you get.

The best solution might be new rolling stock. Turn that option for 60 cars into double-ended vehicles with doors on both sides for 509, 510, and waterfront, remove the loop, and install a single wide linear platform. Offload near the new 45 Bay address (city bought access rights to part of the basement) and board near the existing location (single track, turnback, no loop). 3 minute combined frequencies should be pretty easy with driver step-back or even ATO in the tunnel.
Haaaa!!!

I said during the EA phase of both QQ sections that duel ends should be use and scraping the Union Loop as its will be the bottleneck once the full Waterfront is built. It will happen years before this using the old development vision and a lot sooner with the current visions. If the Bremner Line was added as TTC sees it, it will be a nightmare for operation. Even Steve Munro has stated this operation issue would be a mess.

I have call for Bay St to be close to traffic from the Lake Shore to Queen and to all stub tracks on the surface at Union Station with one northbound lane open to GO bus terminal for GO only. Since the new GO entrance is now going to be on the Lake Shore, you can use all the existing lanes for stub tracks. We just save $350 million not doing the loop as TTC sees it as well removing the portals cost. No more cars caught in the portal as well. To make sure Lake Shore Traffic doesn't block the surface tracks, you place crossing barrier to stop traffic from entering the intersection on a green if traffic is backup to the west. I even call for reinstating the tracks on Bay St to Bloor St to take the pressure off the Yonge Line.

You can build the surface tracks first and then shut down the line to fill in the existing portal so you can replace it with the surface track. Should take no more than 3 months to build the new connection.

TTC cars should be duel ends even if means loosing 6 seat, as it does away with the need for loops as well for short turning. With crossover X distance apart, it allow cars not to be caught up in road closure that pop up unannounced.
 

dowlingm

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
3,493
Reaction score
1,335
TTC cars should be duel ends even if means loosing 6 seat, as it does away with the need for loops as well for short turning. With crossover X distance apart, it allow cars not to be caught up in road closure that pop up unannounced.
You'd lose more than 6 seats with a cab at the back end plus doors on both sides, but would probably have been worth it for less time lost crossing traffic into and out of loops not to mention circuitous turnback routes as you get downtown. But TTC would hate to have a subfleet (when even 1/10th of the downtown order is many cities' entire streetcar fleet) plus the enthusiasts would rage at the PCCs being barred from double end+tail track routings.
With pantographs fully deployed it should be easier to reverse the LFLRVs back to a turning point.
 

robmausser

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 16, 2013
Messages
2,054
Reaction score
1,881
Perhaps its the fiscal conservative in me, but I don't understand why we can't just connect Exhibition Place loop to Dufferin Street loop by running it through Exhibition Place on a ROW, make King Street an ROW with no parking to the Queensway, make Lakeshore West an ROW to Long Branch, run the current Flexities and call it a day.

GO RER will be running pretty adjacent to this line so I don't see the need for it to be super express service.
 

nfitz

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 10, 2007
Messages
23,178
Reaction score
3,309
Location
Toronto
Perhaps its the fiscal conservative in me, but I don't understand why we can't just connect Exhibition Place loop to Dufferin Street loop by running it through Exhibition Place on a ROW, make King Street an ROW with no parking to the Queensway, make Lakeshore West an ROW to Long Branch, run the current Flexities and call it a day.
The plans for the new Dufferin Street bridge show it with streetcar tracks crossing the tracks and the Gardiner, to a T-junction to the new line along Gardiner from Exhibition loop to points west.
 

Top