Waterfront Transit Reset Phase 1 Study

[44 North]

Snow water and road salt are not a problem for the streetcars they have onboard sanders that give them traction when they need it. A decrotigvbe "art" pice isn't nedeed to cover the opening for any sort of protection at all

Sorry to go off topic, but re: the onboard sanders wondering if they work off an automated traction control system or are manually dumped. Be a neat feature for cars in northern climates. Car detects slippage and spews projectiles of sand at the wheel.

 

[turini2]

Please take a little time to read over your message and spell check before you send. This was really challenging to read & decipher.

Snow water and road salt are not a problem for the streetcars they have onboard sanders that give them traction when they need it. A decrotigvbe "art" pice isn't nedeed to cover the opening for any sort of protection at all

Snow/water/road salt can affect the tunnel structures, that's why reducing ingress is important.
I know the streetcars have sanders, but if they don't need to be used because the slope is covered/protected - even better!

Not sure how that compares to a vehicle that is designed to be used outside alos if it was importat to cover over the tunnel entrances for the streetcar then why don't we have decrtice art pices over all of the other ones in the city. Maybe because it's from oirver functin andf uncecsary

Plenty of staircases and entrances across the city that have canopies over them - the TTC is working on removing the one at Dundas at the moment!
Maybe if they rebuilt the Spadina station portal today for example, we'd see something similar. Just because there is nowhere else in the city with this, that's not a reason not to do it.

An example of a really ugly utilitarian portal is this one in London - the Crossrail tunnel portal in Stratford. Just a concrete box that burrows into the ground.
(yes I know this is a mainline railway example)

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Please take a little time to read over your message and spell check before you send. This was really challenging to read & decipher.

Snow/water/road salt can affect the tunnel structures, that's why reducing ingress is important.
I know the streetcars have sanders, but if they don't need to be used because the slope is covered/protected - even better!

Plenty of staircases and entrances across the city that have canopies over them - the TTC is working on removing the one at Dundas at the moment!
Maybe if they rebuilt the Spadina station portal today for example, we'd see something similar. Just because there is nowhere else in the city with this, that's not a reason not to do it.

An example of a really ugly utilitarian portal is this one in London - the Crossrail tunnel portal in Stratford. Just a concrete box that burrows into the ground.
(yes I know this is a mainline railway example)
View attachment 331754

And portals like this is fine if the context doesn't require more (and in this case, it doesn't - it's not accessible to the public, much less being a major destination)

AoD

 

[smallspy]

Sorry to go off topic, but re: the onboard sanders wondering if they work off an automated traction control system or are manually dumped. Be a neat feature for cars in northern climates. Car detects slippage and spews projectiles of sand at the wheel.

On the older streetcars, it was both automatic and manually activated. If the systems detected a wheel slide, they would automatically apply sand in front of the leading axle, as well as releasing the brakes or reducing the power as necessary to stop the slide. There was also a button on the dash that allowed a single shot of sand to be applied when the operator deemed it necessary.

On the new cars the system is completely automated. Unless they've retrofitted a button in the past year, there is no way for the operator to manually apply sand.

Dan

 

[Amare]

While we're on the topic briefly, for those who ever wondered what the onboard sanders look like from the interior of the Flexities, here's a little look (albeit a messy one):

 

[turini2]

Waterfront Toronto Design Review panel has slides on the Queens Quay East extension - link here.
Good to see the designers are still pushing for "green tracks" - this time, using embodied carbon as the push! Lots of complicated stuff why the Distillery loop can't be kept with a new tunnel.
I like the idea of querying "where does Queens Quay E end" - rather than it petering out when it meets the Don Valley..

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Waterfront Toronto Design Review panel has slides on the Queens Quay East extension - link here.
Good to see the designers are still pushing for "green tracks" - this time, using embodied carbon as the push! Lots of complicated stuff why the Distillery loop can't be kept with a new tunnel.
I like the idea of querying "where does Queens Quay E end" - rather than it petering out when it meets the Don Valley..
View attachment 332048View attachment 332049

Looks like moving the heritage water tower minimizes conflict with other infrastructure?

AoD

 

[DSC]

Looks like moving the heritage water tower minimizes conflict with other infrastructure?

AoD

I think you mean the "Cherry Street Interlocking Tower" Yes? If so, I think the QQE Transit Study thinks that NOT moving it and putting the proposed streetcar portal to the east of it is the best and cheapest solution. Of course, they also now think that putting a loop at Polson should happen first so I bet that the link from the QQE LRT under the berm and linking it to Cherry is several decades away.

 

[dowlingm]

The “dodge the streetcar around the watch tower” option is inexplicable to me. It pushes the track east as Cherry dodges west, it puts the portal under a wider part of the rail deck, it introduces curves and therefore wear/noise points that don’t need to exist. And for what: so Metrolinx and TTC and WT don’t have to have an awkward conversation about splitting the bill to move it - a move which was previously pencilled in and threatened to make the area between Cherry and Corktown Common a smidgen less boring.

And after all that there is no loop at Parliament (the Small Street land suddenly became insufficient after the 2019 IBC) or even at Cherry-Queens Quay, so nothing can happen until Polson happens, and even then the fallbacks for the track south of Keating Channel being OOS are unpleasant.

 

[ARG1]

The “dodge the streetcar around the watch tower” option is inexplicable to me. It pushes the track east as Cherry dodges west, it puts the portal under a wider part of the rail deck, it introduces curves and therefore wear/noise points that don’t need to exist. And for what: so Metrolinx and TTC and WT don’t have to have an awkward conversation about splitting the bill to move it - a move which was previously pencilled in and threatened to make the area between Cherry and Corktown Common a smidgen less boring.

What's the actual cost of this though? How does moving a historic building at most 40m to the side make the area less boring? What is the cost of having a bit of extra rail tear? How much noise would actually be generated since the curves are directly at stops meaning that the streetcars will already be going over these curves extremely slowly? Is there a significant increase to the cost of the tunnel being 60m instead of 50m?

 

[DSC]

Time to get your comments in!

Dear Waterfront East LRT Extension Stakeholder Advisory Committee members,

Waterfront Toronto, City of Toronto, and Toronto Transit Commission are continuing to gather feedback on the Waterfront East LRT Extension design elements presented at the June 21 Virtual Community Consultation and have decided to extend the online questionnaire until Sunday July 11, 2021 at 11:59pm. In an effort to continue to expand the reach of the questionnaire, we kindly request that you continue to share the online questionnaire with your networks. For more information, and to access all the project materials including slides and the meeting recording, please visit toronto.ca/waterfronttransit.

We thank you for your continued engagement with the Waterfront East LRT Extension.

Kind regards,

The Waterfront Transit Team

 

[EnviroTO]

In the design review board meeting they indicated that the "keep the watch tower in the current location" is desirable from a cost and engineering perspective. The reason for that is twofold:

1. The streetcar tunnel will be deeper than the existing Cherry St tunnel in order to fit the streetcar under the corridor and therefore must dive down but when it is close to the Cherry and Lakeshore intersection that dive must be steep.
2. Being up against the existing Cherry St tunnel requires bracing the existing structure.

I personally support the "keep the watchtower where it is" option because:

1. Part of a building's historic significance is to be able to put your self in the place of someone viewing the same building many years ago, and for it to be a landmark for comparing maps and pictures. One thing I appreciate with the Harbour 60 building being where it is, is the contradiction of the pictures showing it on the water, and seeing it now a couple of blocks inland and knowing the building didn't move... the city did.
2. The view corridor to the watchtower is greater. Fix it up and throw some spotlights on it and you will see it from Eastern Ave. The Gardiner would likely block the view from the south though.
3. Pedestrians walking on the east side of Cherry through the underpass are going to be hemmed in between the streetcar and the road as they exit the underpass to the south or the north and if the streetcar is in a tunnel shifted to the east then pedestrians will have more safe space to congregate, look around, and get their bearings after exiting the underpass rather than walking straight onto streetcar tracks.

 

[drum118]

Area 1 (Underground Works and Bay Street)
Q: On slide 22, how does the tunneling work from the Queens Quay-Ferry Docks Station? The visual is difficult to orient and understand the shape and its surroundings. Where this is coming from, how people get to it etc

A: The station contains two underground levels. One at the platform level and one at the tunnel level. Showing slide 19, this plan view is at the platform level of Queens Quay Station. To get to the tunnel level there are two ways: 1) via the staircase 2) via the elevator. There is also potential for an elevator connection through 11 Bay.

Q: What is the capacity of the elevator and what will happen with large numbers of people trying to get to the lower level? Standard TTC elevators are quite small. This is a pinch point.

A: The current standard elevator size for a TTC subway station is 16 people or 1,200 kgs but capacity does vary depending on the specific station. The project team will look into designing for larger elevators at Queens Quay Station if the location allows.

Q: How is the station accessible for those with mobility devices and children to get to the ferry docks?

A: The team is looking at the high traffic volumes at the street level as well. Based on reviews there are limited options. An entrance with both an escalator and an elevator would impede the street level capacity and block sightlines. The TTC design team will continue to investigate the potential of escalators and higher capacity elevators for deeper stations and locations where we expect higher capacity volumes.

Q: Related to bottlenecks at the elevators, are escalators being considered at the tunnel to the ferry terminal? It will be a busy and many will need assistance with stairs.

A: The entrance building cannot contain both an escalator and elevator due to the constraints and built form surrounding it. A building with both would impede on the space at the pedestrian level, for that reason the design offers the potential to integrate a connection to elevator access in adjacent buildings. This could provide opportunity for elevator access. The team will explore the earlier suggestion to look at higher capacity elevators in lieu of escalators.

Q: There is a line of doors between the Union streetcar platforms and the rest of the Station; there is concern for this creating a bottleneck. Are these doors necessary for fire safety and will they be held open magnetically?

A: Yes, they are required for fire safety and can be held open magnetically.

Q: Is the Bremner line still being considered?

A: The Bremner line has always been identified as a longer-term potential for transit expansion. It will not be included in the 30% design for costing, which is the current scope for this project. Along the Bremner corridor there is also a new vision for the Rogers Centre and those plans are still evolving and will be something to address further down the line.

Q: Would the Bay Street underpass and teamway improvements be in scope for Bay Street reconstruction?

A: This is something the team want to look at further for the Bay Street reconstruction. From Bay Street, the team will need to wait for the Metrolinx construction to finish. This question has come up for all the underpasses. There is some separate work that needs to be completed for some of this work from Jarvis over to Cherry Street.

Q: It seems that both the east and west portal will have similar canopies. Is the plan to do construction simultaneously with the east portal?

A: The design concept for the portal canopies will have similar appearances to the serve as gateways at the Waterfront. As part of the ongoing development of the construction schedule, we must balance priorities to try to have the new expanded line constructed as soon as possible while minimizing the impact on streetcar service. Area 2A (Surface works from Bay St. to east of Parliament St.)

Q: At the Yonge Street Slip, the laneway to access the ferry dock is where island residents get deliveries. How does the revised Yonge Street Slip design impact access in the laneway to the vehicle ferry?

A:The access to the driveway would be a signalized intersection at Yonge Street and connect diagonally to the ferry dock.

Q: Regarding public facilities at Yonge Street, Yonge Street Slip, and Jarvis Slip, will there be public washrooms at these locations? We do not have enough of them in our parks.

A: The team have not discussed this yet, but this is a good point. It can be considered in the broader context, not just in the scope of this project.

Q: On slide 29, there was a dotted line showing combined sewer overflow down Yonge Street; are there plans to replace this to avoid overflow into the Yonge Street Slip?

A: The Inner-Harbour West Tunnel Project would reduce the frequency of combined overflow into the slip, but not eliminate it. Area 2B (Queens Quay East Extension and Cherry Street)

Q: Can you clarify that during Phase 1, to get the east/west line in place and a Union to PortLands link as soon as possible, the Polson Loop is preferred? Is a further connection to the Ontario Line and potentially extending to Leslie still a possibility?

A: The team is exploring which section to implement first. The team’s report to council is coming up, and all of these options are consistent with the transit network that council has approved. For the 2031 planning we are looking at Polson Street; by 2041 the extension would be to Leslie Barns. Of all the options, Polson seems to have the least risk. There is also a great opportunity with Cherry Street starting construction this year to piggyback on the effort.

Q: Were the LRT bridges over the new mouth of the Don removed from the plans due to cost? How will this effect the plan now that Cherry Street is being used instead of the Keating Channel?

A: The bridges included in the Port Lands Flood Protection Project (PLFP) are: the two bridges(called Cherry North) that cross the Keating channel (the transit and road bridges), at Cherry South, (over the new mouth of the Don River) only the road bridge (not the transit bridge) is in the PLFP scope, and for the Commissioner Street Bridge, only the road bridge is included in the PLFP scope.

Q: With the recent realignment of the Ontario Line, is there consideration of a Cherry Street station to allow for an LRT/Ontario Line interchange?

A: No, that is a provincial project, and we are not aware of any initiative to include a station at the Cherry location. In the presentation graphics we are not showing the crossing of the rail corridor with the Ontario Line. What we are showing is alignment at the north side of the rail corridor as proposed. There is about a 6-10 metre elevation difference between the two lines (LRT and Ontario Line) starting around Corktown Common. Corktown Station, just west of King and Parliament, will be served by the 504A streetcar. It will be extended to the Polson loop which would be the direct connection along Cherry Street and west on King to Corktown Station; there will be a direct connection to the Ontario Line there.

Q: Regarding the Distillery Loop; what is the priority? What do you see as timing for the loop and the work being done for getting under rail corridor?

A: The first task of the 2B design team was to do a feasibility study to look at the options from feasibility perspective. One of the findings was that, regardless of the options, getting the streetcar under the rail corridor and the back in time is limiting when preserving the existing loop primarily for grading and alignment reasons but it is also a space issue. The focus is to get the portion from Union to Polson delivered as Phase 1. The extension of Cherry to Polson would come later. The TPAP will include both links. The impacts, mitigation, and design will all be included as part of the scope of work.

Q: Is the old Cherry Street Bascule Bridge capable of carrying streetcars?

A: No, it is not. It is a lift bridge. The ship channel is navigable waters requiring sufficient clearance to allow boats to pass through. Project Phasing and Implementation

Q: Who is responsible for managing traffic during construction? Is there anything built in to manage crowds, cyclists, and other congestion during construction? The intersection is already dangerous.

A: The concern is legitimate, as with any major construction project. It will be critical to maintain access to buildings and maintain at least one lane of traffic in each direction on Queens Quay and Bay Street. It will be important to mitigate these impacts through construction management best practices.

Q: Can you clarify the timeline? It was said that the earliest this could go to council would be October.

A: The most realistic timeline is to share the report at the October Executive Committee and the November Executive Committee meetings first. A report to Council would follow about a week after. Transit Project Assessment Process UpdateQ: For the TPAP process and funding, what is needed and what should we be advocating for to make sure your work can continue and stay on track? What is the next request? A: The project is completing what we call Stage Gate 3, which requires 30% design to put forward for a budget request. In an ideal scenario we would get the budget requested, which would include both design and construction packaged as a complete budget request. For example, this would be the budget for developing the connection to the Polson Loop.

 

[dowlingm]

In the design review board meeting they indicated that the "keep the watch tower in the current location" is desirable from a cost and engineering perspective. The reason for that is twofold:

1. The streetcar tunnel will be deeper than the existing Cherry St tunnel in order to fit the streetcar under the corridor and therefore must dive down but when it is close to the Cherry and Lakeshore intersection that dive must be steep.
2. Being up against the existing Cherry St tunnel requires bracing the existing structure.

I personally support the "keep the watchtower where it is" option because:

1. Part of a building's historic significance is to be able to put your self in the place of someone viewing the same building many years ago, and for it to be a landmark for comparing maps and pictures. One thing I appreciate with the Harbour 60 building being where it is, is the contradiction of the pictures showing it on the water, and seeing it now a couple of blocks inland and knowing the building didn't move... the city did.
2. The view corridor to the watchtower is greater. Fix it up and throw some spotlights on it and you will see it from Eastern Ave. The Gardiner would likely block the view from the south though.
3. Pedestrians walking on the east side of Cherry through the underpass are going to be hemmed in between the streetcar and the road as they exit the underpass to the south or the north and if the streetcar is in a tunnel shifted to the east then pedestrians will have more safe space to congregate, look around, and get their bearings after exiting the underpass rather than walking straight onto streetcar tracks.

I find this rationale re the streetcar tunnel a bit bogus. The streetcar is going to dive down while undertaking a dodge curve around the watch tower? And that platform on the curve - is that going to be on a slope too?

As for the physical location of the tower argument... sigh... how about we put the building on stilts so the streetcar can run underneath. A different spin on Toronto facadism.

 

[EnviroTO]

I find this rationale re the streetcar tunnel a bit bogus. The streetcar is going to dive down while undertaking a dodge curve around the watch tower? And that platform on the curve - is that going to be on a slope too?

The platform northbound would be pretty much exactly where it is now on a straight stretch diagonal to the street and level with the square, the dive down would be in the back corner of the square (southeast) so it wouldn't impact the pedestrian flow much. If they run straight south the dive would be closer to the middle of the square.

As for the physical location of the tower argument... sigh... how about we put the building on stilts so the streetcar can run underneath. A different spin on Toronto facadism.

The "sigh" suggests you really want the track to go straight south hemming in the pedestrians between the tracks and the road. What are the positives you see to that approach you are trying to protect?