News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto Year-End Poll: Vote on the Best Buildings of 2024, presented by Sapphire Balconies
 1.2K     6 
News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto's Social Media Presence Skyrocketed in 2024
 905     2 
News   Dec 20, 2024
Mattamy Homes Records A Year of Accomplishments
 1.8K     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: 206 71.3%

  • Build a Western terminus

    Votes: 13 4.5%

  • Route service along Queen's Quay with pedestrian/cycle/bus connection to Union

    Votes: 31 10.7%

  • Connect using existing Queen's Quay/Union Loop and via King Street

    Votes: 22 7.6%

  • Other

    Votes: 17 5.9%
  • Total voters
    289
Man, this waterfront transit issue is a bit of a nightmare. ~20km, much money and time, but the worst part seems to be that there will be very little net increase in our legacy network. Even as LRT this cross-waterfront line will be fairly slow, disjointed, and probably well over-capacity on opening day considering these are single Outlooks.

Don't want to comment too much until I see the Phase II report, but one thing I'm wondering is to what extent could an RL to Queen/Roncey change the dynamic of the west waterfront portion. Is it possible we could both make those west of Humber satisfied, while also toning-down the complexity of the section between Humber and Union? The scope of the Waterfront Reset is as broad as they come, but perhaps not broad enough if it excludes the potential benefits of an RL West.
 
44 North said:
Don't want to comment too much until I see the Phase II report, but one thing I'm wondering is to what extent could an RL to Queen/Roncey change the dynamic of the west waterfront portion. Is it possible we could both make those west of Humber satisfied, while also toning-down the complexity of the section between Humber and Union? The scope of the Waterfront Reset is as broad as they come, but perhaps not broad enough if it excludes the potential benefits of an RL West.
Click to expand...

I just commented in another thread (where it may not belong) so I will make the same comment here. Make the streetcar tracks on King west a non-auto zone all the way to Roncy. Make the left turn from King to Queensway a no-auto turn with transit priority (cars can still turn left from the right hand lane, they just can't block the streetcars while waiting to turn). Extend 514 and build the new Park Lawn loop as its terminus, running through the current Humber Loop. That could cut the travel time from Humber Bay to downtown to an acceptable level, without building a new LRT or putting that traffic into the Union loop.

- Paul
 
crs1026 said:
I just commented in another thread (where it may not belong) so I will make the same comment here. Make the streetcar tracks on King west a non-auto zone all the way to Roncy. Make the left turn from King to Queensway a no-auto turn with transit priority (cars can still turn left from the right hand lane, they just can't block the streetcars while waiting to turn). Extend 514 and build the new Park Lawn loop as its terminus, running through the current Humber Loop. That could cut the travel time from Humber Bay to downtown to an acceptable level, without building a new LRT or putting that traffic into the Union loop.

- Paul
Click to expand...

Then the auto traffic jam will back all the way to Jamison. It really is not an answer.

To make this plan viable you will almost need bypass tracks. Bring the King St tracks off the road (move them to the south side of the road eliminating some of the parkette). From about Wilson Park to Glendale. These off-street tracks would require a junction to go north on Roncey.

Queen to Queensway/Roncey would still have on-street tracks. Just moving the King St tracks only.
 
I wonder how much it would cost to cut and cover a small section of underground trackage from Sunnyside (where the Queensway is wide enough to handle a junction and portal, and where the grade permits a duckunder) to about Wilson Park. It would be a pain to construct, but certainly not as costly as an entire LRT line.

- Paul
 
crs1026 said:
I wonder how much it would cost to cut and cover a small section of underground trackage from Sunnyside (where the Queensway is wide enough to handle a junction and portal, and where the grade permits a duckunder) to about Wilson Park. It would be a pain to construct, but certainly not as costly as an entire LRT line.

- Paul
Click to expand...
That has been rule out by Metrolinx, as they want to add a 5th track on the north side that will require a retaining wall. It was also rule out during the EA process as there would be too much problem on King St as well at the intersection.

The intersection is going to be rebuilt in 2019 with a new ROW on the Queensway that currently not in an ROW that will have an eastbound stop on the east side of King St like Roncey, not where it is today. The current right hand turning lane will disappear as well.

The cost to do what you want to do is more that taking the line on the Lake Shore to where it supposed to go and it will better service the waterfront than your plan.
 
crs1026 said:
I just commented in another thread (where it may not belong) so I will make the same comment here. Make the streetcar tracks on King west a non-auto zone all the way to Roncy. Make the left turn from King to Queensway a no-auto turn with transit priority (cars can still turn left from the right hand lane, they just can't block the streetcars while waiting to turn). Extend 514 and build the new Park Lawn loop as its terminus, running through the current Humber Loop. That could cut the travel time from Humber Bay to downtown to an acceptable level, without building a new LRT or putting that traffic into the Union loop.

- Paul
Click to expand...

I doubt there will be a non-auto zone on King, or any street. They'll probably end up bringing the Waterfront "LRT" along King to Dufferin, then through the Ex. There will be improvements along the way, but not true LRT standards. All options will be slow and over-capacity, so why not just choose the least expensive one. I guess that's my pessimism showing for this project (series of projects, really).

But if we're going to do best case scenarios, mine would be: send the RL as far west as possible (say, Roncey/Queen), and find funds to do it asap and on the cheap; fill in the gaps of the streetcar network bare-bone like (e.g Dufferin b/n King and the Ex); simultaneously bring streetcar service on Queensway west of Humber (which is seeing creeping growth). So W->E: Lake Shore and Queensway services would slog, then join together at Humber Loop; then travel along Queensway to deposit downtown-bound riders at a Queen/Roncey RL station. Anyone who wants to stay on board for a scenic route to the core is free to do so. Service would be dispersed along King/Queen/Waterfront, but it'll be slow. RL will be the real benefit to core-bound west waterfront commuters.
 
Whatever solution is chosen, it needs to be able to handle crush loads at Union for TFC games and other events at the exhibition grounds plus the ferry docks. I'm not sure forcing two transfers on people at union would be the best solution. It might help disperse people heading to the ferry terminal away from using the LRT for one stop, but I don't think it'll disperse much more than that.
 
Maybe som hybrid solution with a moving walkway between union and QQ terminal and an altered LRT alignment that provides through service via union station to QQ east without serving the ferry terminal. Kind of like an upside down "V" with ferry docks access being provided by the moving walkway.
 
BMO said:
Maybe som hybrid solution with a moving walkway between union and QQ terminal and an altered LRT alignment that provides through service via union station to QQ east without serving the ferry terminal. Kind of like an upside down "V" with ferry docks access being provided by the moving walkway.
Click to expand...
So a flat W?
--U--
_/\_
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMO
BMO said:
Maybe som hybrid solution with a moving walkway between union and QQ terminal and an altered LRT alignment that provides through service via union station to QQ east without serving the ferry terminal. Kind of like an upside down "V" with ferry docks access being provided by the moving walkway.
Click to expand...
Actually, no. As noted above and in the WT CEO Report, the three options they are looking at are ONLY through streetcar service on Queen's Quay with service to and from Union by a moving walkway, a 'horizontal elevator' or simply by walking inside the current streetcar tunnel or an LRT to a much expanded loop at Union - as already recommended in the earlier EA. As Drum has said the plans need to be questioned, as does their lack of any comparative costs etc. Frankly, it has all been rather a waste of time!
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top