Jeff Morgan
Active Member
The recording of one of the meetings is available here -> http://www.waterfrontoronto.ca/explore_projects2/the_wider_waterfront/waterfront_transit_reset
|
|
|
Waterfront Transit Reset Phase 1 Study
- Thread starter drum118
- Start date
tripwire
Active Member
Overall a very informative post. However, I can't agree with this statement (emphasis mine):
I think something will be built, but that something might be a "hodge podge" solution.
The unwillingness to spend in this city (country?) for transit is mind boggling and frustrating. jsjaker
New Member
Where will I be able to sign up for the study of the post-study of the Reset Study?
It's not really an "extra transfer" though. It's just a longer walk in between transfers they would have made anyway.
Just based off rough Google Earth estimates, from the current Union loop to Queen's Quay is only slightly longer than from the main concourse of T1 to the tip of Pier F. With the moving walkways, it doesn't take very long at all to walk that distance.
I just think there are better ways to spend all the money that we would be spending on expanding the Union loop. For example, extending the Cherry ROW to a future DRL station along Queen, providing an alternative option to accessing the Portlands. For what it's worth, that extra connection would also significantly reduce the PPHPD heading towards Union along the Waterfront LRT. Anybody bound for the Central Waterfront or the Union area would take the Waterfront LRT, while anyone heading for the Queen area (or somewhere like Ryerson) would take the Cherry LRT to the DRL.
TransitBart
Senior Member
Agreed. Proposals for a walkway demonstrate a shocking lack of vision. More shocking that this shit is coming from the chief planner's office. From the previous city government I could understand. Perhaps we should all take a walk between Spadina and St. George to see where the TTC had moving walkways when I was a child to get the full wondrous experience of a 500m pedestrian tunnel. No thanks. I hope that there is an insurrection of the citizenry of the city to bury this ridiculous option.
44 North
Senior Member
Creating a 0.5km walkalator isn't optimal, which most agree on. But one of the key reasons it's come back isn't about money or lack thereof. It's because we don't want to shutter streetcar service along the new Queens Quay West. We already faced a notorious multi-year shutdown that was hated by everybody. Thankfully it's over, and QQW has become a tourist mecca bigger and better than ever. But if we decide to rebuild Union Loop (as proposed with the original EBFLRT and Bremner LRT projects), then we're looking at another multi-year shutdown of streetcar service along QQW. It's a slap in the face to area residents, tourists, local businesses, and the city's economy.
Again, I don't think the silly proposal has surfaced because we want to save money and 'go cheap'. Someone even posted a tweet from a local MP that said how funding isn't the issue. It's seemingly because we want to limit the shutdown of streetcar service to less than 1yr (instead 2-3yrs). I personally don't believe we should follow through with the moving walkway, but I also don't think we should continue with the previous plan to close/expand Union Loop for over two years. I think a compromise, or new (unstudied) plan is needed.
Again, I don't think the silly proposal has surfaced because we want to save money and 'go cheap'. Someone even posted a tweet from a local MP that said how funding isn't the issue. It's seemingly because we want to limit the shutdown of streetcar service to less than 1yr (instead 2-3yrs). I personally don't believe we should follow through with the moving walkway, but I also don't think we should continue with the previous plan to close/expand Union Loop for over two years. I think a compromise, or new (unstudied) plan is needed.
TransitBart
Senior Member
Then let's get cracking and build the damn thing under the Ivanhoe/Cambridge redevelopment of 45 Bay. Remarkable what a clear goal, and a little forethought can do. But it would be shocking that since the building is already a private development that contains a significant Metrolinx property - the new Union Station bus terminal - that it would be hard to get this next piece of critical infrastructure designed in from the outset. I suggest we get Ivanhoe, Metrolinx, and Toronto in a room and lock them in until they hammer out an agreement.
dowlingm
Senior Member
45 Bay already contains two significant public elements - the park spanning the tracks and the bus terminal. I would not bet against Ivanhoe walking if a third element - a difficult to construct streetcar station which would principally facilitate non-tenants and which would presumably compromise available space for underground parking and complicate the building footings - were to be added at the whim of the posters above.
44 North
Senior Member
Agreed. I haven't followed that development too closely, but it's my understanding it's considerably far along. And building a multi-track streetcar loop into its foundations is simply out of the question.
Definitely think we should rid any notion of a "loop" with the plans (and the massive space such a subterranean superstructure would require); and instead look at a continuous cross-waterfront line threaded below/within public right-of-ways. We can keep the Bay tunnel, have a below-grade Union stop with room for two LRVs (one that's close enough to the current location)...but drop plans for a 'loop' altogether.
rbt
Senior Member
I thought the city already bought a giant chunk of one of the garage levels for something like 2 million. That was under Tory IIRC, so not very long ago.
Edit: http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2015/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-83173.pdf
Last edited:
Jeff Morgan
Active Member
For the union connection I really like option A.2. I have heard many times that tunneling dramatically increases the cost of a route and I fear it might drive those who make decisions and spend the money to chose a "cheap" option. With that in mind I decided to see what would be possible that would mostly run on existing infrastructure (except for QQE) and minimize the changes. Warning: I am a complete novice here and have no idea if this is remotely feasible.
The core of the idea is a large loop. This loop would go down QQE and take Parliament north to King. It would take King west to Spadina and then take Spadina south back to QQ. LRV would travel in both directions on this loop. In this idea, the current station at QQ and Bay would need to be modified to allow connections from the loop. From the loop to Union (starting at the existing QQ and Bay station) there would need to be a couple of bidirectional LRVs that simply service the connection to Union.
The existing Spading link could loop at QQ on the existing loop. The exhibition line could do the same or it could continue down QQ to a loop somewhere past Parliament.
I think there might be some sort of problem running the LRVs from this loop on King since it does not have a ROW. Perhaps the solution is to reduce the traffic on King and build a ROW.
I know this is a substantial change from the current thinking. People on the waterfront would need to make a connection at Bay to go into Union but hopefully that line would run frequently and would not require any expansing on that loop. Those traveling into Union that wish to go to the waterfront will simply catch that small connection and come up at Bay/QQ. The large loop will connect both the east and west waterfront with Spadina, Parliament, and King.
The core of the idea is a large loop. This loop would go down QQE and take Parliament north to King. It would take King west to Spadina and then take Spadina south back to QQ. LRV would travel in both directions on this loop. In this idea, the current station at QQ and Bay would need to be modified to allow connections from the loop. From the loop to Union (starting at the existing QQ and Bay station) there would need to be a couple of bidirectional LRVs that simply service the connection to Union.
The existing Spading link could loop at QQ on the existing loop. The exhibition line could do the same or it could continue down QQ to a loop somewhere past Parliament.
I think there might be some sort of problem running the LRVs from this loop on King since it does not have a ROW. Perhaps the solution is to reduce the traffic on King and build a ROW.
I know this is a substantial change from the current thinking. People on the waterfront would need to make a connection at Bay to go into Union but hopefully that line would run frequently and would not require any expansing on that loop. Those traveling into Union that wish to go to the waterfront will simply catch that small connection and come up at Bay/QQ. The large loop will connect both the east and west waterfront with Spadina, Parliament, and King.
Megaton327
Senior Member
There is no room on King.
Jeff Morgan
Active Member
I thought this might be the case. I have read about plans to address the issues on King street by reducing traffic and adding a new ROW there. This new loop could be integrated into that plan with this line providing the enhanced downtown service. Again, I am a novice and I am sure there are many things that I should be considering that I haven't.
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...-redesign-king-street-and-quickly-keenan.html
BurlOak
Senior Member
I really don't know the solution at Union.
The expanded loop (A.1) seems to have passenger flow problems.
The walkway (C.2) is too long.
I don't know how the elevation of the loop compares with that of the subway - whether the LRT could just continue north (D.3) to City Hall. (There are also a few PATH paths to cross).
The ones I want to think more about are:
The extended underground option (A.2) but tighten the loop (go under Yonge) and go under north side of rail corridor and not directly under tracks.
A second loop (B.1) for the Bremner LRT. Can this loop be brought up under York to Front St?
A tunnel bypass (C.1). Having some QQ trains stay on QQ and not enter the loop at all.
The expanded loop (A.1) seems to have passenger flow problems.
The walkway (C.2) is too long.
I don't know how the elevation of the loop compares with that of the subway - whether the LRT could just continue north (D.3) to City Hall. (There are also a few PATH paths to cross).
The ones I want to think more about are:
The extended underground option (A.2) but tighten the loop (go under Yonge) and go under north side of rail corridor and not directly under tracks.
A second loop (B.1) for the Bremner LRT. Can this loop be brought up under York to Front St?
A tunnel bypass (C.1). Having some QQ trains stay on QQ and not enter the loop at all.