Waterfront Transit Reset Phase 1 Study

[steveintoronto]

How much easier would it be to push the streetcar straight through (maybe lowering the tracks a bit) vs. expanding the loop.

Haven't thought through the intricacies, but that's a damn good suggestion. It stones many birds with one kill. THIS is the kind of thinking, even if the particular application has faults, that will find a much better solution than what's being suggested by any of the official plans we're seeing. Or conversely, for the incredible sums being touted for some of the configurations, it should satisfy the needs of a number of challenges to make the investment yield that much higher. Your concept does that. And it lessens the load on the two legs on the YUS. Terminating it at the Relief Line would could make a lot of sense.

 

[drum118]

I think the end game should be both QQE and QQW going up Bay to City Hall (or more).
I don't recall, but is the elevation of the streetcar tracks the same as the subway?
How much easier would it be to push the streetcar straight through (maybe lowering the tracks a bit) vs. expanding the loop. (It likely causes less disruption to existing service as well). It would either go underground all, or go on surface north of Front.

The end game is taking the line north on Bay to Bloor, closing Bay to traffic south of Queen and making it a pedestrian mall. Downside, city doesn't want the car folks to loose room since they are out number 40:1 today, if not more. 75% of drivers are illegal in the HOV lanes in the first place. Then you got TTC saying people will be a problem at intersections for surface routes and why the line needs to be underground. Not an issue in Europe.

Then you got the issue that the current tunnel needs to drop 30 feet to get under the subway and getting TTC to install 2-3 elevators per platforms.

One thing overlook in the APM plan is the lack of elevators for the new QQ station, as one elevator let alone 2 isn't going to cut it based on the ridership on Bay. All stations should have 2=3 elevators based on ridership, but at least 2 period.

The big major issue for surface route on Bay is the Lake Shore. Need crossing gates today to stop illegal driver blocking traffic and pedestrians trying to cross it on a green and they are blocking them.

Having transit on the surface saves years in construction and well be a fraction of the cost to build it than underground..

 

[Momo49]

To get to the other side...

"Complexity" it seems, is a relative term for some.

Have you a simpler plan? Please, be my guest, present one. Every one I've seen is incredibly complex, expensive, will take a decade or more, will block Bay Street and add more construction onto Union for God knows how many more years and has no funding, and no agreement yet from anyone.

So go right ahead, present your easier plan...I'm dying to see this. And I've mentioned the load at Union, and also relieving it at other points along the line by distributing the load. I've also mentioned improving passenger space at the Union platform. I'll repeat all of that only once...You're obviously not reading.

See: https://stevemunro.ca/2019/03/05/waterfront-transit-reset-the-union-station-connection/

And btw: Where's your case for not making the juncture of Bay and QQ car-free save for access for deliveries and service vehicles? The QQ buildings between York and Yonge can be accessed from their ends some 500 metres or so from the Bay St intersection. Same for Bay from Harbour south.

Every other plan I've seen will dictate the closure of the junction for years anyway. Why not do the diversion now in a permanent way and allow for much easier streetcar access and a much more desirable pedestrian environment?
lol...you'd save a hell of a lot more than that doing surface run where possible.

So the demand between union station and queens quay is up to 8000. Thats higher than the SSE and many sections of the existing subway network.

 

[smallspy]

I think the end game should be both QQE and QQW going up Bay to City Hall (or more).

Nice idea. But it approaches technical impossibility.

I don't recall, but is the elevation of the streetcar tracks the same as the subway?

The streetcar tracks are currently about 2 feet above the top of the subway rail.

How much easier would it be to push the streetcar straight through (maybe lowering the tracks a bit) vs. expanding the loop. (It likely causes less disruption to existing service as well). It would either go underground all, or go on surface north of Front.

Extremely difficult. The line would have to dip underneath the subway line, and any other utilities underneath there as well (there is a trunk sewer in the neighbourhood as well, but I can't recall exactly at what level it runs.

Then, once you get past Front Street, there becomes the issue about trying to bring it back to grade. With all of the underground utilities, and the short blocks between streets, I don't think that there is any possible location to bring the line back up to the surface until north of Queen St.

There is a reason why they built the streetcar loop in the location it is and the grade it sits at. It was exceedingly difficult to bring it any further north.

Dan

 

[crs1026]

There is a reason why they built the streetcar loop in the location it is and the grade it sits at. It was exceedingly difficult to bring it any further north.

I can believe that it would be impossible to get from the underground loop to grade at Queen Street, but is the loop essential? Seems to me that Peter Witt knew how to get a streetcar from Queens Quay to City Hall. have we forgotten how to do that?

- Paul

 

[nfitz]

I don't recall, but is the elevation of the streetcar tracks the same as the subway?

Yes. In fact, there's a point on the new subway platform, that sitting in the subway train,you can see down the short hall from the platform to the streetcars, and see the streetcar on the platform. Any elevation change i's very minor.

 

[DSC]

I can believe that it would be impossible to get from the underground loop to grade at Queen Street, but is the loop essential? Seems to me that Peter Witt knew how to get a streetcar from Queens Quay to City Hall. have we forgotten how to do that?

- Paul

The Peter Witts got from Queen's Quay to Front and onwards to Queen and Davenport on the surface so the grade change was quite minor; the "new line" south of Union is now underground so getting to the surface may well be a challenge. See route history at https://transit.toronto.on.ca/streetcar/4117.shtml

 

[steveintoronto]

The end game is taking the line north on Bay to Bloor, closing Bay to traffic south of Queen and making it a pedestrian mall.

At the end of the day, and with the incredible costs being touted and Rube Goldberg schemes to do it, I think this stands as by far the most reasonable. The King Transitway will have to be the template, so God only hopes they can get it right. We'll know a lot more as time goes on for that. Any reference you can offer on your "end game" most appreciated, and completely agreed on how (gist) "It's not a problem in Europe".

Having transit on the surface saves years in construction and well be a fraction of the cost to build it than underground..

And it puts Rube Goldberg out of a job in this instance.

Nice idea. But it approaches technical impossibility. Only if one assumes that particular grade and alignment is the one to proceed farther north.

Extremely difficult. The line would have to dip underneath the subway line, and any other utilities underneath there as well (there is a trunk sewer in the neighbourhood as well, but I can't recall exactly at what level it runs.

Sewer runs underneath the moat, historically it's mentioned in various legal documents to delineate "The Esplanade" and the USRC and the north edge of Union Station.

I'd love to see a map to see where the loop is vis a vis the sewer, but the loop must have cleared under it to be where it now is, virtually at subway track level.

I can believe that it would be impossible to get from the underground loop to grade at Queen Street, but is the loop essential? Seems to me that Peter Witt knew how to get a streetcar from Queens Quay to City Hall. have we forgotten how to do that?

The present loop can't be wasted from my point of view, but also we need a surface run on at least partially pedestrianized Bay transitway. It may be difficult to have a clearway all the way to Bloor, but one up to the ostensible Relief Line Station at/nr City Hall makes perfect sense, and loop it within the station box to be built there. Since the RL is to be very deep, there's going to be lots of room to do it.

I suggest not melding QQE and QQW streetcar segments, but running the QQE leg up Bay on the surface, and leave the present western leg running as is into the loop. It solves many conundrums, and would be by far the cheapest, least disruptive and fastest to build and implement option. It also leaves open the possibility of QQE being an LRT of standard track gauge while QQW remains TTC gauge. If QQE is TTC gauge, then a 'run-through' surface connection can be made at QQ and Bay to straddle the present porthole and join the two segments there if needed. That area should be transitway anyway until at least York westward, and Yonge eastward. Local vehicular traffic would be permitted, as it is on the King Transitway.

Addendum: And yet one more challenge rendered moot if the QQE line runs on the surface and the QQW continues to loop underground 'as-is' (save for increased passenger ingress/egress tweaks):

The Peter Witts got from Queen's Quay to Front and onwards to Queen and Davenport on the surface so the grade change was quite minor; the "new line" south of Union is now underground so getting to the surface may well be a challenge. See route history at https://transit.toronto.on.ca/streetcar/4117.shtml

 

[gweed123]

Just spit-balling here, but why does the N-S segment of this line have to be Bay St?

Put the portal in the newly opened-up park space on the NE corner of QQW & York. Run under York to Bremner, then make the right turn and go under the ACC Atrium like was planned at one point for the WWLRT. That would also give greater flexibility in terms of where to build the loop at Union.

Yes, Bay may be the most direct path, but if it forces too many design compromises than maybe looking at an alternative N-S corridor may be an option.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Merging the two lines may make some sense now that the DRL is closer to reality. Have two terminals in the west (Spadina, and Exhibition) and two in the east (the proposed east harbour station, and ??? Cherry???)

 

[nfitz]

Merging the two lines may make some sense now that the DRL is closer to reality. Have two terminals in the west (Spadina, and Exhibition) and two in the east (the proposed east harbour station, and ??? Cherry???)

Are there still plans for a Cherry station? I thought that had long been removed. Isn't the need for that station somewhat mitigated by the walkway from the slightly-moved East Harbour station to the Mill Street/Bavview Avenue intersection?

 

[rbt]

Merging the two lines may make some sense now that the DRL is closer to reality. Have two terminals in the west (Spadina, and Exhibition) and two in the east (the proposed east harbour station, and ??? Cherry???)

DRL doesn't have stations that make it a good connection for those who live on the waterfront and work downtown, or those in 80% of Toronto trying to get to the Harbour center or ferry terminal. It could run as a through line, but something north/south from Union is still required; breaking YUS into 2 separate lines with one terminating at Union and the other at Queens Quay would probably work okay though.

There's a map of the approved DRL design at the bottom of this page. The King car will connect at Sumach and King; it'll take a non-trivial effort to get a Queens Quay East line to that station though.

Downtown Relief Line Subway (DRL) - Toronto [Historical Note]

What is the Relief Line? Relief Line Subway Project: Terms of Reference, Challenges, Transit Technology. Why the Ontario Line instead of the Downtown Relief Line?

reliefline.ca

 

[drum118]

Are there still plans for a Cherry station? I thought that had long been removed. Isn't the need for that station somewhat mitigated by the walkway from the slightly-moved East Harbour station to the Mill Street/Bavview Avenue intersection?

The thought of building a GO station at Cherry St is dead with the East Harbour replacing it.

There was 2 option for Cherry with all lines servicing it, while the other option would see no RH line servicing it. No RH line was the prefer choice of GO and they weren't happy having a station there in the first place. It offer access to the Distillery District as well to the Port Land/Cherry Beach. East Harbour in a around about way that does this, but way down the road.

What has been on the table from day one would see TTC running a line from Broadview Station to the EX, bypassing Union Loop by Cherry Street and QQE.

 

[steveintoronto]

Bingo!

Just as I suggested:

Sidewalk Labs has been shopping for financing partners for infrastructure on Toronto’s eastern waterfront, entering into preliminary agreements with private investors and engaging in discussions with the Canada Infrastructure Bank about the proposed smart-city development, according to an internal document obtained by The Globe and Mail.
[...]

Sidewalk Labs in talks with investors for Toronto smart-city infrastructure, document shows
Internal report to parent company Alphabet shows urban-planning firm is also in talks with Canada Infrastructure Bank

www.theglobeandmail.com

For the LRT at least, this allows the 'Consortium' to incorporate under a Federal Charter such that the City and Province have little to no control over it save for what the Constitution allows under Section 92.

THIS is the way forward! I'll have more to add on this later. Now THIS is exciting...

 

[ndawgg]

With zero personal transit planning knowledge I’d love it if Yonge and Church up to Bloor were car-free with wider sidewalks and the waterfront streetcars looping. Make Bay and Jarvis the car only streets.