Waterfront Transit Reset Phase 1 Study

[44 North]

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 loop is literally at the subway level, so bringing any new underground through-route service north of the rail corridor and back south to the loop is out of the question. As is continuing the current tunnel north under Bay (unless we want to regrade the tunnel to go under the subway, which would be very expensive and complicated).

I watched the presentation, and it was stressed that option A.2 was very costly. But I don't think it has to be, and can be done for a lot less than the original loop expansion. I'm thinking follow Freeland north using cut/cover, then west along either the south side of USRC or under Lake Shore, then merge back with the existing tunnel. There's our answer. No loop, just a continuous cross-waterfront through-service.
*Following the south side of the rail corridor would probably be better than Lake Shore Blvd because: a) 45 Bay would get its station, b) this station could be extended and become the defacto Union stop, and c) it's a much shorter transfer to the subway than the 500m ped tunnel option (less than 150m).

 

[dowlingm]

One thing I think should be kept in the mix is the possibility of a Church Street connection. The City has proposed extending Church south of the rail corridor in the Yonge South study.

 

[dowlingm]

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

That was to facilitate an extension of the loop platform along the perimeter of the site though, not a through track.

 

[44 North]

One thing I think should be kept in the mix is the possibility of a Church Street connection. The City has proposed extending Church south of the rail corridor in the Yonge South study.

Yeah, Cooper (which would become the future Church extension) would be a good option in place of Freeland for Union through-service. Particularly if the two separate construction projects of extending Church under USRC and cut+covering Church/Cooper with a streetcar tunnel were to become a single project. Definitely an opportunity for cost-savings there. Basically every street between Yonge and...Woodbine will be completely rebuilt and redesigned, so lots of possibilities to look at IMO.

 

[Cobra]

This city needs a change of mentality. Instead of always going on the cheap, the best option must be picked for the future.
Can't we do anything right from the get go without scratching our heads in the future?

Expand the Union Loop as 1 massive Waterfront LRT terminal. With the DRL going on Queen, it's safe to assume that the YUS line going north both ways, can take the extra ridership coming from the Waterfront LRT East and West.

 

[dowlingm]

This city needs a change of mentality. Instead of always going on the cheap, the best option must be picked for the future.

I don't disagree that Toronto often cheaps out, but I don't think it can be denied that the nature of the Union Loop site is going to require at least some compromise, constrained as it is by the footings for the rail corridor, Union Stn, etc. It's like wishing for a second platform on Bloor at Yonge. Sure it's desperately needed, but you can't pick up and move the HBC building...

 

[Cobra]

I don't disagree that Toronto often cheaps out, but I don't think it can be denied that the nature of the Union Loop site is going to require at least some compromise, constrained as it is by the footings for the rail corridor, Union Stn, etc. It's like wishing for a second platform on Bloor at Yonge. Sure it's desperately needed, but you can't pick up and move the HBC building...

By no mean I'm saying that it's not architecturally challenging, but if that's what's needed, that's what should be done. The plans exist and it's doable at a high cost. Let's do it right instead of having to revisit this later at triple (or more) the cost when we realize that giant pedestrian tunnel doesn't draw any users, or that 2nd loop to nowhere requiring a long walking transfer is unpractical. We have a loop at subway level, let's accept that challenging task and make it work and show the world what we can do here.

I don't even know why that reports doesn't just go ahead and state that upgrading to LRT in Etobicoke is a no brainer.

 

[44 North]

By no mean I'm saying that it's not architecturally challenging, but if that's what's needed, that's what should be done. The plans exist and it's doable at a high cost. Let's do it right instead of having to revisit this later at triple (or more) the cost when we realize that giant pedestrian tunnel doesn't draw any users, or that 2nd loop to nowhere requiring a long walking transfer is unpractical. We have a loop at subway level, let's accept that challenging task and make it work and show the world what we can do here.

I still think the #1 reason the City doesn't want to go ahead with the approved loop plan is because of the inevitable lengthy shutdown of streetcar service on QQW. And I believe the 31 poll votes in favour of this plan would change if UTers knew of its repercussions. Yeah it's costly and complex, but shuttering streetcars on the rebuilt QQW for 2-3 years is unfathomable. We faced a hellish two years of closure, so do we really want to do that all again for up to three years?

I wouldn't doubt there being major lawsuits from property owners on QQW, and a significant dent in the city's economy. And we're in a bind too, because I think lawsuits may be pending if we don't bring streetcars to QQE sometime soon.

 

[Cobra]

I still think the #1 reason the City doesn't want to go ahead with the approved loop plan is because of the inevitable lengthy shutdown of streetcar service on QQW. And I believe the 31 poll votes in favour of this plan would change if UTers knew of its repercussions. Yeah it's costly and complex, but shuttering streetcars on the rebuilt QQW for 2-3 years is unfathomable. We faced a hellish two years of closure, so do we really want to do that all again for up to three years?

I wouldn't doubt there being major lawsuits from property owners on QQW, and a significant dent in the city's economy. And we're in a bind too, because I think lawsuits may be pending if we don't bring streetcars to QQE sometime soon.

Can't they just short-turn at Spadina/Queen's Quay loop? Also the 6 Bay bus can be increased to Queen's Quay?

 

[Kitsune]

Or build QQE first, then do whatever with the tunnel, and just running through service on QQ and a bus to union. It surely can't take that long to modify the portal with an extra opening, there is already a wide cut out that could fit a through track.

 

[Megaton327]

Can't they just short-turn at Spadina/Queen's Quay loop? Also the 6 Bay bus can be increased to Queen's Quay?

1) Queen's Quay and Spadina is massively over-capacity at present due to very unfortunate intersection+traffic signal design. Eastbound 509s routinely have to wait upwards of 5 minutes, several light cycles, for a short-turning 510 to get to the platform, unload passengers, wait for a turn cycle not blocked by cars, and move. At many times, various cars making various movements are significantly backlogged by others due to platforms only supporting 1 LFLRV and poor light timing. No room for a whole LRT route to be thrown in the mix...and as an LRT, if it's operated with 2-car trains, no room for them on existing streetcar platforms which are 1 LFLRV long.

2) 6 Bay - ha! See Steve Munro's recent analysis of service quality/schedule performance on the route...it's very, very sad. I'd like to see them operate the current level of service half competently before trying to increase it to handle an LRT-Union transfer load of passengers...

 

[salsa]

I still think the #1 reason the City doesn't want to go ahead with the approved loop plan is because of the inevitable lengthy shutdown of streetcar service on QQW. And I believe the 31 poll votes in favour of this plan would change if UTers knew of its repercussions. Yeah it's costly and complex, but shuttering streetcars on the rebuilt QQW for 2-3 years is unfathomable. We faced a hellish two years of closure, so do we really want to do that all again for up to three years?

I understand that it's not easy to put up with several years of disruption, but I hate the idea that long term transportation infrastructure should be designed based on construction impact rather than what's best for moving people in a growing city. Should be also cancel plans to build the relief line on Queen Street because the streetcars will be affected? Was the inferior Scarborough subway a great idea just because it avoids an SRT shutdown? And what about all the Eglinton bus riders who are currently inconvenienced by the Crosstown?

Thank goodness that decades ago, our leaders had the guts to build all the subways and streetcar tunnels that we continue to benefit from today. When are we gonna start making the same investments for future generations?

 

[tripwire]

I'm going to have to agree with Salsa. Yes the construction and disruption is going to suck, but sometimes it just has to be done. My ex-Toronto friends whom moved to London (England) sometime ago hated the disruption of the Crossrail project, but I remind them all the time of what they are getting compared to the TTC back home. That tends to shut them up for awhile. I'm sure the DRL (whenever it gets built) is going to be a PITA too, but I say bring it on!

We're going to have to put up with extra construction this year because of Pan Am last year, and sure a lot of people are going to complain, but what's gotta get done, s'gotta get done IMHO. Maybe it's just me, but I find Torontonians in general are plagued with NIMBYism, and a lot of talk and no walk (subways!, but I don't want to pay for it!).

 

[W. K. Lis]

Depending upon the new (and hopefully, improved) streetcar loop design, they can dig around the existing tunnels. Tearing down the walls can be done over several nights, just as they did when they built the North York Centre station around the existing tunnels. See link.

 

[k10ery]

One thing I think should be kept in the mix is the possibility of a Church Street connection. The City has proposed extending Church south of the rail corridor in the Yonge South study.

So many good ideas on this forum, I wish we could crowd-source more transit planning in this town!

In this case I can't see any benefit to extending Church St for cars. But extending the LRT tunnel east from Union under the Esplanade, with a stop at Church before turning south to Cooper St: that would make St Lawrence a lot more accessible to transit, as well as reaching Queen's Quay East in a pretty economical way.