News   Apr 12, 2024
 100     0 
News   Apr 11, 2024
 1.8K     1 
News   Apr 11, 2024
 972     0 

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: 200 73.3%
  • Build a Western terminus

    Votes: 10 3.7%
  • Route service along Queen's Quay with pedestrian/cycle/bus connection to Union

    Votes: 28 10.3%
  • Connect using existing Queen's Quay/Union Loop and via King Street

    Votes: 19 7.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 16 5.9%

  • Total voters
    273
What exactly does this mean? They have the funding to continue planning, or they can build, or..?

Sorry for the ignorance on my part.

It means that it passed executive committee. It will now go to full council next week where they will be asked to approve the plan and provide the funding to get all of the design to 60%. They have not funded the project and they are not ready to start building yet. The plan that has been presented has some preliminary work (Yonge Slip, utilities movement) starting to take place as early as second quarter next year (pending funding).
 
Here's an idea. A set of tracks on Parliament from King to QQ would improve the interim service along the waterfront, especially while the Cherry connection is being built, as we can expect no service on Cherry for a couple of years. In the event the OL is completed on time, it would provide a convenient transfer from Corktown station onto a waterfront streetcar.
 
Here's an idea. A set of tracks on Parliament from King to QQ would improve the interim service along the waterfront, especially while the Cherry connection is being built, as we can expect no service on Cherry for a couple of years. In the event the OL is completed on time, it would provide a convenient transfer from Corktown station onto a waterfront streetcar.
This idea has been discussed interminably and may well have merit (I was certainly in favour of it a decade ago) but starting another study now will simply extend this 'talk, talk, talk' phase and put a hold on the ACTION we need. Adding tracks on Parliament south of King is NOT as easy as you seem to think and, even if approved, would not be a fact for 5-10 years. I suggest you read the EA docs - though they were written before the idea of an Ontario Line station at Front & Parliament they explain the problems.
 
Here's an idea. A set of tracks on Parliament from King to QQ would improve the interim service along the waterfront, especially while the Cherry connection is being built, as we can expect no service on Cherry for a couple of years. In the event the OL is completed on time, it would provide a convenient transfer from Corktown station onto a waterfront streetcar.
During all the EA's I have been involved with since 2003, we have looked at how the line would work with other lines as well future ones, like your suggestion, but were told, they were outside the scope of the EA and could not included them for consideration. Not looking at the network to see how a line will benefit it is poor planning.

We have looked at tracks on Parliament from QQ to Castle Frank/Broadview, on the Queensway to the West Mall, Kipling, the Lake Shore Blvd East/ West, Broadview that is now in the plan due to East Harbour and so on. These were all before the Ontario Line surface. We have already seen the lost of the Unwin and Lake Shore East Line from the 2006 Master Plan.

At the current rate, we will pass on without taking a ride on this extension considering 2014 was supposed to be the Parliament extension opening.

This idea has been discussed interminably and may well have merit (I was certainly in favour of it a decade ago) but starting another study now will simply extend this 'talk, talk, talk' phase and put a hold on the ACTION we need. Adding tracks on Parliament south of King is NOT as easy as you seem to think and, even if approved, would not be a fact for 5-10 years. I suggest you read the EA docs - though they were written before the idea of an Ontario Line station at Front & Parliament they explain the problems.
There is nothing stopping this extension to have x connect to it by doing an EA for it now, We have to do an EA for the Broadview extension to Commissioner with the first phase to East Harbour. The only problem not having the Parliament EA done now or in the process is not having the T connect thought/approval in place when the extension construction does take place. To put the T connection in at a later date will require about 6 weeks to build it with buses for QQ been use while it been built.

Maybe we will see the right type of switches for this extension, not what we are seeing today.
 
OK. In Toronto (the city that can't!) I guess anything beyond running a bus on an existing street takes decades. I should accept that since all of Toronto has.
 
I am curious how the routing will work, when QQ East has the tracks but the Union loop retains the old (low) capacity.

1. The existing tracks are in the tunnel at the QQ & Bay intersection. Presumably, the QQ East tracks will need to descend to the same level, and a Y-shaped connection built. The streetcars will be able to pass in any direction.

2. Technically, can keep the 509 and 510 using the Union loop, and direct any new QQ East routes to QQ West. But that would create some issues. First of all, much more service on QQ West than on QQ East, while the demand level is comparable, or perhaps higher in the east. Furthermore, riders who use QQ East will complain that those lucky souls on QQ West get 2 routes straight to Union, while QQ East gets none.

3. Another option is to reshuffle the routes, and give both QQ West and QQ East 1 route straight to Union. For example:
- 509 Exhibition still goes to Union.
- 510 Spadina, all cars turn back at the Lower Spadina loop.
- One new route from the east goes to Union.
- Another new route serves both QQ East and QQ West, and runs straight through the QQ & Bay intersection.

That's a more even service distribution, although comes with a risk of another kind. The two routes running straight to Union will be insanely popular and always crowded, with no chance to boost the frequencies because of the loop size constraint. Meanwhile the run-through route might have the slots to add service, but won't get enough riders because it doesn't go where the majority of riders want to go.
 
I am curious how the routing will work, when QQ East has the tracks but the Union loop retains the old (low) capacity.

1. The existing tracks are in the tunnel at the QQ & Bay intersection. Presumably, the QQ East tracks will need to descend to the same level, and a Y-shaped connection built. The streetcars will be able to pass in any direction.

2. Technically, can keep the 509 and 510 using the Union loop, and direct any new QQ East routes to QQ West. But that would create some issues. First of all, much more service on QQ West than on QQ East, while the demand level is comparable, or perhaps higher in the east. Furthermore, riders who use QQ East will complain that those lucky souls on QQ West get 2 routes straight to Union, while QQ East gets none.

3. Another option is to reshuffle the routes, and give both QQ West and QQ East 1 route straight to Union. For example:
- 509 Exhibition still goes to Union.
- 510 Spadina, all cars turn back at the Lower Spadina loop.
- One new route from the east goes to Union.
- Another new route serves both QQ East and QQ West, and runs straight through the QQ & Bay intersection.

That's a more even service distribution, although comes with a risk of another kind. The two routes running straight to Union will be insanely popular and always crowded, with no chance to boost the frequencies because of the loop size constraint. Meanwhile the run-through route might have the slots to add service, but won't get enough riders because it doesn't go where the majority of riders want to go.
There were many options how an e-w line would work with the network.

The existing tracks in the tunnel has to be lower and will effect the T connection that will have to be lower as well including the portals.

Since there will be 4 platforms at Union, 509, 510 and 5xx will have one for themselves with a spare that could be use to drop off riders before moving to a platform. When another line is added, that spare would be use for it. Depending on quality of service, you could have 2 lines using the same platform

End of the day, quality of service and ridership will say which route goes to Union and bypass it. I see both happening as you are servicing different market and needs.

What is not on the table at this time is service from Humber Shores since no real line exist today as well the Lake Shore line is on the backburner as well the Dufferin Connect to the Ex. When those connection open up, it opens the door to an number of option and it will be at least 20+ years down the road. The EA was approved back in 2010 for Lake Shore Redevelopment that moves the road north with an ROW in the middle..

You also have East Harbour by a new Broadview extension to Commissioner that will come into play as well.

If the Lake Shore E line was added back into the master plan as first approved by TTC Commissioners as well council it would offer more options. It was removed from the approved master plan when the province requested that the master plan to be broken into 3 sections by TTC staff unknown to to the team in 2006.

1: Line from Broadview to the Portland
2: Line from Broadview to Union
3: Line from Broadview to the EX for special events
4: Queen/Kingston Rd would do 1-3 as well
5: An e-w line that would bypass Union to the Ex from the Portland
6: A Portland to Union
7: Commissioner Line to Union
8: Commissioner Line to the Ex

At the end of the full build out of the Portland and Waterfront, Union will be useless as it will not handle the number of vehicles to service the needs system wide and something I have said from day one when I first saw the plans for Union. TTC is only seeing 8-10,000 from the east while I see 15,000+. The longer it takes to build this thing, more cars will be on the road because it so late now.
 
How can this project not be fully funded already? Levy a small tax increase on all properties within a 3 km radius or so and build it.

The notion that a thriving part of the city whose tax base is multiplying rapidly can’t get proper transit for decades is absurd. We’re not a city on the verge of economic collapse.
 
How can this project not be fully funded already? Levy a small tax increase on all properties within a 3 km radius or so and build it.

The notion that a thriving part of the city whose tax base is multiplying rapidly can’t get proper transit for decades is absurd. We’re not a city on the verge of economic collapse.

While I support your ambition, it isn't quite that easy.

The City Building Levy, which is the same idea you're after already raises ~600M per year

A dedicated, city wide, 1% tax hike only brings in about 55M.

A 3km radius, even w/the City's most expensive properties wouldn't pull more than 1/3 that number, so ~18M; you would need levy that would to be equal to a 150% tax increase to make that work w/o senior government or other new money.

Not happening.
 
How can this project not be fully funded already? Levy a small tax increase on all properties within a 3 km radius or so and build it.

The notion that a thriving part of the city whose tax base is multiplying rapidly can’t get proper transit for decades is absurd. We’re not a city on the verge of economic collapse.

Pretty sure the Ford government has banned the city from levying any new development charges
 
While I support your ambition, it isn't quite that easy.

The City Building Levy, which is the same idea you're after already raises ~600M per year

A dedicated, city wide, 1% tax hike only brings in about 55M.

A 3km radius, even w/the City's most expensive properties wouldn't pull more than 1/3 that number, so ~18M; you would need levy that would to be equal to a 150% tax increase to make that work w/o senior government or other new money.

Not happening.

Let's use the City Building Levy, then. Also, that 1% increase alone would pay this project off in a couple of decades.

The city's tax revenue is also going to increase as new development goes up along the LRT line.
 
Let's use the City Building Levy, then. Also, that 1% increase alone would pay this project off in a couple of decades.

Feasible. But, I suspect an increase in this tax is coming anyway; and may be otherwise allocated.......... we shall see.

The city's tax revenue is also going to increase as new development goes up along the LRT line.

True, and there is the idea of capturing that value increase and dedicated to the project in question, this is known as Tax-Increment-Financing. Its been mooted as model here before but never taken off.

There's something of an allergy, I think to dedicating the revenue stream to one thing; but also concerns over sufficiency and predictability. Also, in this case, you have something of unique problem. Who is the landowner who would pay the additional tax? (the government); the former is the owner of the majority of the real estate along the route.

****

To be clear, I agree this needs to be funded and moved forward and that its years past due. The challenge is always who pays for what and when.......and how.
 
True, and there is the idea of capturing that value increase and dedicated to the project in question, this is known as Tax-Increment-Financing. Its been mooted as model here before but never taken off.

There's something of an allergy, I think to dedicating the revenue stream to one thing; but also concerns over sufficiency and predictability. Also, in this case, you have something of unique problem. Who is the landowner who would pay the additional tax? (the government); the former is the owner of the majority of the real estate along the route.

I'm not sure that's an option here as it would impact Waterfront Toronto's funding model which is partly based on increased land value.
 
I read Steve Munro's post, and more than a project off the rails, it put me in mind of a civilization in collapse. In 2007 it was supposed to cost half a billion and take 4 years to build. After 15 years of progress it hasn't been started and will now cost five times as much and take nearly 3 times as long. Longer than REM, both phases of the Ottawa system, longer than the Chunnel I think. And there's still no funding plan. It. Is. A. Three. Kilometer. Streetcar.
 

Back
Top