Waterfront Transit Reset Phase 1 Study

[DonValleyRainbow]

Really like the improvements at QQE/Bathurst/Lakeshore. Kind of disappointed with the choice to cross the rail corridor at Colborne Lodge, although I get the rationale and the design is great. I just wish we could get to making an integrated station between GO, LRT and streetcar at King / Queen / Queensway / Roncesvalles. Guess it will have to wait for another day, but that also means they need to protect the ROW between Colborne Lodge and that intersection.

 

[crs1026]

I would like to see a head-on comparison on the cost of building the Colborne Lodge - Exhibition segment versus the cost of moving the Mimico GO to a Park Lawn 'hub'. Possibly GO is the better option to get people from the west to downtown. It doesn't seem that people need to get to Queens Quay per se, it's just an available corridor to get them to other points in the downtown. Maybe that connection isn't all that necessary.

I also wonder how many of the projected riders (from both east and west) who are attempting to get to Union are doing so to continue on somewhere distant on Line 1, versus just riding one or two stops to a destination (at King, say, as opposed to say St Clair).

While it got little support in either Phase I or Phase 2, I wonder if a routing north on Bathurst, east on Front, and south again on Sherbourne or Parliament would get people where they need to go with a walkable 'last mile' in the central district, without putting them on Line 1 at all. Keeping people out of Union and off Line 1 is not a bad thing. In this option, there would not be any reason to alter the QQ streetcar service or loop at all.

- Paul

 

[Jeff Morgan]

Like most here, I think the moving sidewalk option is a no-go. For my job I fly nearly every week and the moving sidewalks at YYZ terminal 3 are almost always broken. I've seen the same thing in many other cities. IMO the technology doesn't seem reliable.

The option for the cable driven train/tram seems interesting to me. The ones that I have used in other cities are fast and efficient. I use the one in the Detroit airport nearly every week and it works well. I know it would add an additional transfer but it seems like a lower cost solution (my guess, but I could be wrong) which it seems like the city is looking for.

Expanding the loop would be the best option IMO but I fear the cost will cause this project to never get off the ground. If it is between the cable driven option, moving sidewalk, or nothing (due to cost) then the choice is clear for me.

 

[ADRM]

Predictably, Steve Munro has a great summary up on his site:

https://stevemunro.ca/2017/09/19/waterfront-transit-reset-phase-2-update/

 

[BMO]

Really like the improvements at QQE/Bathurst/Lakeshore. Kind of disappointed with the choice to cross the rail corridor at Colborne Lodge, although I get the rationale and the design is great. I just wish we could get to making an integrated station between GO, LRT and streetcar at King / Queen / Queensway / Roncesvalles. Guess it will have to wait for another day, but that also means they need to protect the ROW between Colborne Lodge and that intersection.

I was at the meeting last night, and to be honest the rationale for why they are proposing to shift the LRT south to Lakeshore at Colborne Lodge seemed pretty thin and I'd be interested in the cost comparison considering the prefferred option requires a rejigging of Lakeshore Eastbound lanes to accommodate the LRT ROW, not to mention the less streamlined (slower) routing and the fact that this entire deviation actually deviates away from any expected population I just don't see how the combined benefits/cost can make this a preferred option.

I also question the projected proportion of transit-related demand in 2041. Last night the city PM stated about 3,700 out 10,000 people would be taking transit between QQ terminal and Union in the AM Peak. I'd be very suprised if this didn't change in travel demand models considering the overall dearth of North-South connections along QQE basically forcing everyone on that line to go up to Union (unless Cherry is pushed through the rail corridor).

Overall, not keen at all about a walkway solution. Even a fast walkway solution would only operate at a speed of 2m/s requiring a 4-5 minute walk between Union/QQ ontop of any additional average transit transfer time. and that's only in the peak direction as there's only room for one moving walkway on one side mean if you're off-peak your transfer walk will be 8-10 minutes long. I don't think this is realistically going to get any support.

The cable-pulled system seems to make the most sense in terms of minimizing construction, implementation and capacity, but I'm not sure how much buy-in this is gonna get, they explained that 30-50% of traffic is only going one stop to QQ, but at the same time 50-70% are actually going and coming to places beyond QQ Terminal from Union. So forcing a transfer is actually going to be impacting the majority of people using transit on this stretch and seems to complicate it.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

So, is anyone going to apply Kennedy inconvenience logic to scheme B and C?

AoD

 

[drum118]

As someone who worked on the Colborne Lodge route, it was never my choice since I prefer to staying on the lake Shore over the Humber. Humber was a real bad pinch point along with the Gardiner and other things that would be too costly as well time line to fix the problems there that I had to support the plan. Both options allows the public domain land to have better access than it does today as well gaining more green space.

The plan TTC wanted to use by the way of King St would have major impact on it, especially at the Roncey intersection. This was before Metrolinx wanted to go ahead with the 5th track as well doing RER that requires more clearance.

Ridership numbers are lower than previous studies and really question that and why is that when we know it will be higher. Other than Union and Bathurst, same as before in all the approve EA's. No problem with Bathurst other than taking the ROW north to Richmond.

The 2 options were rejected in 2008 and should be so again since it fails the need to move riders outside the central area. It will have a real impact on people who will be force to go out and buy a car since there is no real transit to get them to the core. It totally defeat the idea of transit being first as well moving riders to where they want to go in the first place.

Regardless having a stakeholder group, everything was done behind close doors and poorly handle since it was a City project compare how Waterfront has done things in the past, especially having open doors meetings and better PR.

If you use the pulley system, you have platform issues as well getting people to /from the service. TTC can't have the QQE/W line underground as they see too many issues and prefer to have it on the surface. A huge cost saving by having it on the surface over the approved EA plan for tunneling.

 

[drum118]

So, is anyone going to apply Kennedy inconvenience logic to scheme B and C?

AoD

That was a given back in 2008 and still is today. Anyone wants to spend time looking for the approved EA for 2008 for QQE, you will find the numbers for both sections higher then than today numbers being used. Its also the reason I rejected TTC plan. Since density is at least 5 times higher today than 2008 on what we know that coming to the waterfront east, ridership numbers will be even higher than forecast.

We spent a lot of extra nights meeting at 20 Bay over Union with 2 members pushing for the people mover and everyone else rejecting the 2 other options other than TTC plan.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Predictably, Steve Munro has a great summary up on his site:

https://stevemunro.ca/2017/09/19/waterfront-transit-reset-phase-2-update/

Steve mentions:

A further problem lies in the desire by parts of the Queens Quay community to eliminate the tunnel portal west of Bay and to avoid the creation of another one at Freeland Street, east of Yonge.​

I've never heard this concern before. Why do they desire for the portal to be eliminated? Aesthetic reasons?

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Predictably, Steve Munro has a great summary up on his site:

https://stevemunro.ca/2017/09/19/waterfront-transit-reset-phase-2-update/

So this proposed moving sidewalk would move in only one direction. Everybody else would have to walk 500 metres. Holy shit, what a joke.

Physical constraints in the tunnels prevent installation of two moving walkways within one tunnel. The proposal would have only one such facility and it would operate in the peak direction only. No, I am not making this up. The direct link from streetcar service to the subway at Union would be replaced with a walk of 530m, longer than three subway platforms, for anyone who was not travelling in the “peak” direction.
​

And it gets worse:

If the streetcar goes underground, the passageway would end at the westbound platform, and riders wishing to reach the eastbound platform would have to cross the tracks. The volume of pedestrian traffic would be considerably higher if, as is likely, a ferry terminal connection were included.
City Planning staff are rather dismissive of TTC concerns about the transit/pedestrian crossing and cavalierly say this could be handled with platform doors or gates. This raises questions about the TTC’s role in the process and whether the City is driving the replacement of streetcars in the Bay Street tunnel no matter what.
​

What the hell is going on at City Planning? They expect thousands of commuters to cross those streetcar tracks per hour, and for that not to impact streetcar operations?

 

[TheTigerMaster]

The option for the cable driven train/tram seems interesting to me. The ones that I have used in other cities are fast and efficient. I use the one in the Detroit airport nearly every week and it works well. I know it would add an additional transfer but it seems like a lower cost solution (my guess, but I could be wrong) which it seems like the city is looking for.

Expanding the loop would be the best option IMO but I fear the cost will cause this project to never get off the ground. If it is between the cable driven option, moving sidewalk, or nothing (due to cost) then the choice is clear for me.

I have absolutely no faith that the TTC will be able to maintain an orphaned cable driven system in the long term. When that system isn't running, I suppose everyone will have to walk 500 metres on the surface. And the claimed reliability of such a system is only 98%.

 

[smallspy]

I have absolutely no faith that the TTC will be able to maintain an orphaned cable driven system in the long term. When that system isn't running, I suppose everyone will have to walk 500 metres on the surface. And the claimed reliability of such a system is only 98%.

What makes you think that this is the TTC's idea, or that they would be involved in its operation?

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[BMO]

Steve mentions:

A further problem lies in the desire by parts of the Queens Quay community to eliminate the tunnel portal west of Bay and to avoid the creation of another one at Freeland Street, east of Yonge.​

I've never heard this concern before. Why do they desire for the portal to be eliminated? Aesthetic reasons?

They cited aesthetic reasons. I imagine as the portal creates a visual and physical barrier between the north/south sides of QQ in the immediate area.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

What makes you think that this is the TTC's idea, or that they would be involved in its operation?

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

Never claimed it was a TTC idea. In fact, Steve's article made it quite clear that the TTC is not pleased in the least with City Planning's proposal.

I assumed the TTC would be operating it (albeit reluctantly), but you're right, there's no guarantee it would be the operating it. It could easily be contracted out to another operator or municipal division. But regardless of who's operating it, I have little faith that it will be well maintained.

 

[robmausser]

So, is anyone going to apply Kennedy inconvenience logic to scheme B and C?

AoD

If the streetcar tunnel gets turned into a pedestrian tunnel, or pulley train, I will leave Toronto. It will be clear to me that the people in charge of this city only care about the parts of this city that have been amalgamated in 1998, as transferring at Kennedy is apparently unacceptable for the residents of Scarborough, and deserves a 3.5 billion dollar subway extension, but its not a requirement downtown at Union.