Waterfront Transit Reset Phase 1 Study

[gweed123]

OK, I've located the ostensible new portal location as you describe

But where's the connection to the (a) tunnel to Union? I've mentally modelled a number of scenarios with the portal there, none of which appears superior to the just Bay option. Have reread your proposal a few times, and can only assume you mean for there to be an LRT loop close to QQ with a People Mover transiting the existing tunnel minus the southern portal to Union?

I'm still thinking best option is a stand-alone QQE surface LRT on Bay to Union and perhaps beyond. And what might be limiting our options is the assumption that the QQE LRT will in fact be an LRT!

That portal location is correct, yes. It would then run under York to Bremner, then under the atrium between Union and Scotiabank Arena, using the alignment originally proposed for the WWLRT. This diagram shows how the Bremner line would enter the existing loop:

This would mean a slightly longer journey for QQE passengers (as they would have to travel 1 block further west to York just to double back to Bay), but as the double-back would be underground the extra travel time should be minimal. And for QQW passengers, the timing would actually be slightly less.

This option would open up the existing Bay tunnel south of the loop to be used as a moving pedestrian walkway (I used People Mover previously, and that was incorrect. I got my terminologies mixed up) between Union and the Waterfront.

This would also have the effect of lowering the number of people who would use the QQLRT for 1 stop just to get down to Queens Quay, as the moving walkway would be a free option, and would take nearly the same amount of time. It would basically create a second (and more direct) PATH connection between Union and the Waterfront.

 

[drum118]

That portal location is correct, yes. It would then run under York to Bremner, then under the atrium between Union and Scotiabank Arena, using the alignment originally proposed for the WWLRT. This diagram shows how the Bremner line would enter the existing loop:

This would mean a slightly longer journey for QQE passengers (as they would have to travel 1 block further west to York just to double back to Bay), but as the double-back would be underground the extra travel time should be minimal. And for QQW passengers, the timing would actually be slightly less.

This option would open up the existing Bay tunnel south of the loop to be used as a moving pedestrian walkway (I used People Mover previously, and that was incorrect. I got my terminologies mixed up) between Union and the Waterfront.

This would also have the effect of lowering the number of people who would use the QQLRT for 1 stop just to get down to Queens Quay, as the moving walkway would be a free option, and would take nearly the same amount of time. It would basically create a second (and more direct) PATH connection between Union and the Waterfront.

Sorry, that has no hope in hell seeing the light of day nor even look at. Fails on all accounts to service the Waterfront the right way.

First of all, any thought of a moving sidewalk is dead as you not only have to dig the tunnel deeper, but wider. To do it, you need to relocate existing infrastructure as well digging up Bay St. Rule out in 2008. Then, how do you put in a moving sidewalk with a loop still in operation??

This also applies to the APM as well.

The current option even though its out date and will never support the system come 2060 is the best option at this time.

At some point in time and should happen with the new Metrolinx Bus Terminal that a new station should have been look at regardless of cost as a U, let along being on the surface with Bay close to traffic. It would have mean closing the line yesterday and opening in 2020.

The Bremner line will be a line on a map and never be built in the end.

As long as single end cars are looked at, you are locking yourself into a plan that will fail at the end of the day.

 

[gweed123]

Sorry, that has no hope in hell seeing the light of day nor even look at. Fails on all accounts to service the Waterfront the right way.

How? You're still providing a N-S connection between QQ and Union. It's just a block west of where it currently is. And you're creating a second pedestrian connection to boot.

First of all, any thought of a moving sidewalk is dead as you not only have to dig the tunnel deeper, but wider. To do it, you need to relocate existing infrastructure as well digging up Bay St. Rule out in 2008. Then, how do you put in a moving sidewalk with a loop still in operation??

This also applies to the APM as well.

How does a moving sidewalk take up more space than a streetcar tunnel? I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around how moving sidewalk (even with the mechnical infrastructure required underneath it) + 10' of headroom for people to walk is greater than streetcar tracks + streetcar + clearance for the overhead wiring. Likewise for width of a moving sidewalk vs width of a streetcar.

The Bremner line will be a line on a map and never be built in the end.

I'm not saying build the Bremner line. I'm saying use the alignment that was originally proposed for the Bremner line from York to into the Union Loop.

This may not be the preferred option, but my suggestion was in response to a line of thought a couple pages back that was looking for creative solutions that haven't been explored before.

 

[drum118]

How? You're still providing a N-S connection between QQ and Union. It's just a block west of where it currently is. And you're creating a second pedestrian connection to boot.

How does a moving sidewalk take up more space than a streetcar tunnel? I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around how moving sidewalk (even with the mechnical infrastructure required underneath it) + 10' of headroom for people to walk is greater than streetcar tracks + streetcar + clearance for the overhead wiring. Likewise for width of a moving sidewalk vs width of a streetcar.

I'm not saying build the Bremner line. I'm saying use the alignment that was originally proposed for the Bremner line from York to into the Union Loop.

This may not be the preferred option, but my suggestion was in response to a line of thought a couple pages back that was looking for creative solutions that haven't been explored before.

Moving Sidewalk must meet AOAD standards with most of accessibility community not using it in the first place. Need room for both walkway and path in the same tunnel for each direction. Fire code requires require require the tunnel to be wider as well deeper and one reasons the tunnels has to be lower even for the streetcars. Look at the Ferry tunnel to see what must take place now that sees a fraction of people that Bay does today..

Still a cost to do your option at a higher cost and still not solving the issues with today loop.

Again, how do you put people and streetcars in the same area without expanding the loop end and keep them separated??

You are using the Bremner line to a point and how do you deal with a future connection to it "IF" it does Happen??.

Having to deal with this loop for over 11 years, not all options were looked at due to TTC not wanting to think outside the box along with cost at all levels.

 

[nfitz]

If they want to think outside the box, then there's plenty of width on Bay under the railway tracks, to turn half the car lanes into dedicated streetcar tracks. Simply put the tracks on the surface, excavate part of Bay just south of Front to the elevation of the moat/teamway, and buy some double-ended streetcars for Spadina/Harbourfront services.

Then they wouldn't even need the box!

Probably a fraction of the cost!

 

[drum118]

\

If they want to think outside the box, then there's plenty of width on Bay under the railway tracks, to turn half the car lanes into dedicated streetcar tracks. Simply put the tracks on the surface, excavate part of Bay just south of Front to the elevation of the moat/teamway, and buy some double-ended streetcars for Spadina/Harbourfront services.

Then they wouldn't even need the box!

Probably a fraction of the cost!

You are talking logic, something TTC and the city don't understand.

My recommendation since 2008 is closing Bay south of Queen to traffic and making it a Pedestrian Transit Mall, with tracks going to Bloor St using duel end cars on the surface. You put 4 tracks under the underpass with platforms for them, with 2 tracks being stub there. Going to Bloor becomes a relief line for the Yonge Line.

You built all the surface tracks up to the portal area on both Bay and QQ first. Once they are completed, you close the line for 6 months tops to fill in the portal area and built the T connection.

The current Bay 6 bus gets replace by the streetcar from Bloor St, with TTC using buses north of it as another route.

The City Planners who have ran the city in the past have stated time to close Bay to traffic since pedestrians already out number them now and only get worse over time, especially Front and Bay as GO expand its service. They get shot down by the car folks on council.

For this $650-$700 million price tag to do the loop and QQE, you could buy a new fleet of duel end cars, do what I said and still have money left over to do other things.

 

[Momo49]

Double ended seems like a good enough idea to explore, but i doubt its that easy. You would probably need at least 3 stub end tracks and platforms underground at union to serve the demand and not sure there is enough space there plus a crossover in the tunnel plus TTC will need to order new vehicles and learn how to fix them.

 

[steveintoronto]

Every post above got a thumbs up, not that I agreed with every point, I don't, but the discussion is far and away better than the pap presented to us from 'those that know best'.

Some points to discuss, and some I'll leave until later as others are critiquing them already:

moving pedestrian walkway (I used People Mover previously, and that was incorrect. I got my terminologies mixed up)

I've seen the term used for moving walkways! I must admit that I though you meant the idea now dismissed.

At some point in time and should happen with the new Metrolinx Bus Terminal that a new station should have been look at regardless of cost as a U, let along being on the surface with Bay close to traffic. It would have mean closing the line yesterday and opening in 2020.

Yeah...talk about being bog obvious. WTF were they thinking? Or weren't. There may still be time though to run a a straight section of loop through there in lieu of a bus bay, It will take very little room, caveats pertaining on layout. I've still not accessed the drawings I wish for the two bus bay levels.

As long as single end cars are looked at, you are locking yourself into a plan that will fail at the end of the day.

Others disagree, and I can't understand why. It has to be looked at. More comment on that to another poster.

If they want to think outside the box, then there's plenty of width on Bay under the railway tracks, to turn half the car lanes into dedicated streetcar tracks.

Another bog obvious point that strikes me every time looking at what's extant already. And with that, the heresy of stating that contrary to all claims, the present Spadina Loop is insufficient for even the present QQW needs. First off, it's an assumption, a foolish one, that both QQE and QQW must be interoperable. It would be nice, but to assume that immediately limits many other excellent options, not the least that QQE can do the surface run up Bay, not connect at all with the undisturbed (save for platform extension and enlargement) extant tunnel, and the QQE can loop elsewhere, or run further up Bay, the real question not being 'if'....but 'how far'? I say at least to the western end of RL City Hall Station or the east end of RL Osgoode Station. Both will have station boxes large enough to contain loops and/or stubs/storage, single ended or double ended. A later line on Bay could also loop adjacent. And I use the word "adjacent" as the door has to be left open for QQE to NOT BE TTC or Metrolinx, but a Sidewalk Consortium.

You are talking logic, something TTC and the city don't understand.

My recommendation since 2008 is closing Bay south of Queen to traffic and making it a Pedestrian Transit Mall, with tracks going to Bloor St using duel end cars on the surface. You put 4 tracks under the underpass with platforms for them, with 2 tracks being stub there. Going to Bloor becomes a relief line for the Yonge Line.

To your first point re 'don't understand': And Private Investors do! I don't see the City, TTC or Province 'getting this'.

For this $650-$700 million price tag to do the loop and QQE, you could buy a new fleet of duel end cars, do what I said and still have money left over to do other things.

I could only recall the costs touted, didn't have reference handy. IIRC one figure was "$900,000. WTF? The cost of theory keeps going up. Practice says "$0.00". It ain't gonna happen at that price and this rate. That's why I call this "Rube Goldberg".

The more I consider all the alternatives based on QQE and QQW not being connected, the more the concept of 'flying' the QQE vehicles on guideways up to either the Union Trainshed or the new GO bus terminal makes sense. And of course, the Docklands Light Rail type vehicles are of course, like subways, double ended. This could be done with orthodox LRVs also (think the SRT) but the automatic control aspect will be very enticing to a company like Sidewalk Labs.

I'll examine what's posted again later. Many thanks for the map @gweed123 ! Yet again another example of how text couldn't come close to showing what a drawing can.

Frankly, I'd like to see any "Big Dig' totally avoided, save for platform expansion. Something not yet suggested is a stand-alone raised platform added at the edge of the USRC near the south side of the Union Trainshed, if not on the embankment itself, that would host QQE vehicles by elevated guide-ways. Again, GO claims to be doing flying ramps for buses to the Gardiner, it's not like QQE rail-vehicle ramps would 'spoil the view'.

Double ended seems like a good enough idea to explore, but i doubt its that easy. You would probably need at least 3 stub end tracks and platforms underground at union to serve the demand and not sure there is enough space there plus a crossover in the tunnel plus TTC will need to order new vehicles and learn how to fix them.

Compared to the almost $1B options? Double-ended looks entirely reasonable. There are many examples of it being an answer. Pearson UPX terminal and Kennedy SRT station are but just two. Loops are the exception, not the norm. Calgary, Edmonton, Van...etc, etc.

 

[nfitz]

Double ended seems like a good enough idea to explore, but i doubt its that easy. You would probably need at least 3 stub end tracks and platforms underground at union to serve the demand and not sure there is enough space there plus a crossover in the tunnel plus TTC will need to order new vehicles and learn how to fix them.

Yeah, probably 3 tracks, but there might be room, between the existing roadway and the Union Station moat. I don't think a cross-over in the tunnel would be an issue. The road tunnel is wide enough for two tracks on each side of the supports on the centre of the roadway. Use the west part of the tunnel for LRT, and keep the east side for 2 private vehicle lanes.

They are ordering 60 to 100 new cars anyway - which will also require them to learn how to fix. This could replace, or be a part of that order. No net new vehicles needed.

 

[44 North]

For the record: I'm a firm believer in Publicly Owned and Operated Transit. But that's becoming a dream in Toronto and the GTHA, as we all know too well. So if it has to be Private, so be it. Anything is better than nothing. And in the event, as many other nations have realized, it can offer greater value per cost if overseen efficiently. And built a hell of a lot sooner...

I'm not down with private. Perhaps it would be better than nothing, but I don't think it'd end well. With a concept like a DLR-type system here it's already on shaky ground with people ready to pounce on it being proprietary, orphan, fitting of a theme park (since it's not running on the street or 150m long and running underground like we're used to). I don't buy into that mindset. But if it were to be owned/operated by some private consortium, heck even owned/operated by the Prov, I might be inclined to side with them. It should still be TTC, even if using B07, Innovia Metro 300, or LFLRV Outlook.

My recommendation since 2008 is closing Bay south of Queen to traffic and making it a Pedestrian Transit Mall, with tracks going to Bloor St using duel end cars on the surface. You put 4 tracks under the underpass with platforms for them, with 2 tracks being stub there. Going to Bloor becomes a relief line for the Yonge Line.

Might be wrong, but I think Steve Munro also advocated for similar back in the late 80s. Iirc because he knew the planned Union Loop was grossly undercapacity, and he was right. I'm personally not down with a surface solution. I think we should bite the bullet and go underground. Not in some nayshunal rhetoric, but rather because I think full grade-separation in the core part is vital for carrying the loads reliably into the future. Just crossing Lake Shore would add too much time and screw with frequencies. Also that we have the 500m tunnel already there, would be a shame to abandon it. I also don't believe there's much relief to Yonge that this theoretical transit mall would offer.

 

[steveintoronto]

But if it were to be owned/operated by some private consortium, heck even owned/operated by the Prov, I might be inclined to side with them. It should still be TTC, even if using B07, Innovia Metro 300, or LFLRV Outlook.

I think we should bite the bullet and go underground.

Then show me the money...how do you think the nation's railways were built? Who's building REM in Montreal? Canada line in Van?

The Globe and Mail article on this was posted here a few days back by myself, but here's more recent coverage:

SIDEWALK LABS SPEAKING WITH INVESTORS, CANADA INFRASTRUCTURE BANK ABOUT FUNDING QUAYSIDE
[...]
“If there is no light-rail through the project, then the project is not interesting to us,” Doctoroff said in an interview with The Canadian Press last week. In that same interview, Doctoroff said Sidewalk Labs intended to only fund 10 to 15 percent of the overall project, but did not disclose how much infrastructure the company was planning to finance.

Government communications obtained by a freedom of information request from The Globe shows John Brodhead, a Liberal Party aide now working in policy and strategy at Sidewalk Labs, was engaged in negotiations with Waterfront Toronto before and during Quayside’s request-for-proposals.

According to The Globe, Broadhead helped in the creation of the Infrastructure Bank, when it was announced in finance minister Bill Morneau’s 2016 economic update. Broadhead was the chief of staff to then-infrastructure minister, Amarjeet Sohi at the time, and left the government in April, joining Sidewalk Labs shortly after.

The acquired correspondence suggests that Waterfront Toronto staff had discussed backing some of the infrastructure through the bank with Brodhead, before he joined Sidewalk Labs.
[...]

Sidewalk Labs speaking with investors, Canada Infrastructure Bank about funding Quayside | BetaKit

Sidewalk Labs has been in discussions with private investors and Canada's Infrastructure Bank, about the development in Toronto’s Quayside neighbourhood.

betakit.com

February 20, 2019
Toronto’s Waterfront LRT Can Become Reality by Embracing Innovative Finance and Funding Solutions
by Mark Romoff, President and CEO of The Canadian Council for Public-Private Partnerships

If Toronto is to remain a leader in innovation and technology and attract global talent, it will need to ensure critical infrastructure keeps pace with demand. The Waterfront BIA recently advanced its case for a faster construction timeline for the Waterfront East LRT, with an ambitious completion date targeted in 2025. More recently, details were published by the Toronto Star of Sidewalk Labs’ draft plan for the waterfront, which raised important issues that need to be discussed.

An LRT is central to growing the waterfront community that includes key tenants like MaRs and the University of Toronto anchoring the Waterfront Innovation Centre to the proposed ‘smart’ Quayside neighbourhood. World class transit is necessary to support the residents, businesses, startups, students and artists who want to call this new neighbourhood home.

This opportunity will be missed if we rely on traditional solutions to infrastructure development. Transit in Toronto is decades behind and tax dollars are rightly going to priority projects like the Downtown Relief Line, Scarborough Subway and the Yonge Extension. Quite simply, the Waterfront LRT is in the back of the queue and completely unfunded.

There are innovative finance and funding solutions that can get the Waterfront LRT built by 2025. The three levels of government have tools that can move this project forward today in partnership with the private sector.

It is conceivable to structure a deal that would see the private sector put significant funds of its own into building the LRT with some combination of a land value capture model and fare revenue to make the project bankable. The land value capture model is already being used by the Ontario government to build the Mimico GO Station, saving taxpayers millions.

The Canada Infrastructure Bank is looking to fill the viability gap in projects with revenue generating potential and the LRT could be a project worth their consideration. The idea behind the Bank is to use the fewest taxpayer dollars possible to bring major projects to market, which is good news for all Canadians.

From a procurement perspective, Infrastructure Ontario is already a recognized global leader in public-private partnerships and has a strong record of on-time and on-budget performance, while ensuring a fair, open, competitive and transparent process. Adopting this approach ensures the Waterfront LRT project will deliver the very best deal for taxpayers. The debate around Sidewalk Labs and ideas put on the table should be part of the discussion, and part of a broader debate on who has the best vision to bring world class transit to the waterfront. [...]

CCPPP - Page not found

www.pppcouncil.ca

What's anyone going to say? "NO"? Metrolinx is already working beyond the DBFOM model. It's P3+ or it's nothing.

 

[BurlOak]

iMght be wrong, but I think Steve Munro also advocated for similar back in the late 80s. Iirc because he knew the planned Union Loop was grossly undercapacity, and he was right. I'm personally not down with a surface solution. I think we should bite the bullet and go underground. Not in some nayshunal rhetoric, but rather because I think full grade-separation in the core part is vital for carrying the loads reliably into the future. Just crossing Lake Shore would add too much time and screw with frequencies. Also that we have the 500m tunnel already there, would be a shame to abandon it. I also don't believe there's much relief to Yonge that this theoretical transit mall would offer.

Richmond and Adelaide are busy streets. Possibly, North of Queen it could become on street. But I agree, the tunnel is there, so why abandon it. And I would like to know the cost comparison of expanding the loop, or through running the tunnel North. Not necessarily picking the cheapest, but picking the best value.

 

[Momo49]

Theres no way youre getting a surface streetcar on bay st. The financial district bia and their members are the most powerful people in the country and they need those vehicle lanes for their porsches and uber pickup. Also under bay is problematic because there is the path network and subway and tons of utilities to cross, which makes for extremely deep and expensive lrt stations. Keep dreaming.

 

[steveintoronto]

Theres no way youre getting a surface streetcar on bay st. The financial district bia and their members are the most powerful people in the country and they need those vehicle lanes for their porsches and uber pickup.

They would favour it actually. The street wouldn't be shut down to vehicles any more than King Street is. It would be in their favour to get employees to work in better time and form, and allow their own access to be more unfettered. Bay street hosted streetcars and trolley buses before the present diesel bus. Businesses wanted more of them, not less.

 

[thettctransitfanatic]

Theres no way youre getting a surface streetcar on bay st. The financial district bia and their members are the most powerful people in the country and they need those vehicle lanes for their porsches and uber pickup. Also under bay is problematic because there is the path network and subway and tons of utilities to cross, which makes for extremely deep and expensive lrt stations. Keep dreaming.

Yeah, damn those rich folks in their Porsches!