Waterfront Transit Reset Phase 1 Study

[44 North]

I wonder if the Waterfront Transit Reset plans should have been better integrated with the Relief Line West planning. City Planning says that they'll begin planning on the Relief Line West as the Relief Line North planning is complete. Given their new extremely accelerated timeline for the Relief Line North, that point could be as little as two years away (that's when RLN EA will begin). Naturally, any waterfront transit lines will likely be interchanging with the Relief Line West.

When the Waterfront Transit Reset was commenced, I don't think City Planning expected to be advancing the Relief Line North as quickly as they have, hence the lack of integration between the waterfront and Relief Line West projects. I certainly never dreamed that the RLN EA would be completed as soon as 2020 (the current plan)

No question. I'd argue Waterfront Reset should've been better integrated with *itself*. And I think RL West should be a much larger priority than it is today. It was in the original Big Move and was a priority. Now it's fallen off the map. There's huge benefit for it, and obviously the core doesn't stop at University Ave. If Mlinx can go rogue and present a Sheppard West extn as a priority, which isn't a City plan, then why can't they show RL West (which is).

But for Waterfront I'm thinking we should've planned to use an LRV with bidirectionality, and maybe ability for two unit operations. I'm not certain if the Flexity Outlook can offer this, but if so we have a window to order some at lower cost with the Outlook exercise option. With this in consideration I think the Union Loop issue could've been improved at lower cost (maybe). And capacity could be bumped up with 2-car operation. But I think there's also benefit to deploying bidirectional legacy cars for other routes. Like Queen or King, particularly to coincide with any RL construction. No logistical nightmare of slow disjointed looping where we have loops, just reverse.

 

[nfitz]

Maybe the problem is that it's not grade-separated (elevated).

• From Long Branch to Sunnyside, it's about 10km which could be elevated.

• I see I've missed some comedy routines ...

 

[crs1026]

I lost my passion for the west leg when TTC admitted that the rationale for the Humber Bay to Bathurst stretch was capacity and not speed. Apparently it will not improve on trip time over 501/504 today. Moving Mimico GO is a far more important thing to push for IMHO. If we continue to have a tracked line along Lakeshore to Long Branch (and beyond to Port Credit, as has been suggested), we are basically putting lipstick on a streetcar.

- Paul

 

[Filip]

I lost my passion for the west leg when TTC admitted that the rationale for the Humber Bay to Bathurst stretch was capacity and not speed. Apparently it will not improve on trip time over 501/504 today. Moving Mimico GO is a far more important thing to push for IMHO. If we continue to have a tracked line along Lakeshore to Long Branch (and beyond to Port Credit, as has been suggested), we are basically putting lipstick on a streetcar.

- Paul

Precisely - the roars of laughter coming from the community when the TTC advised us the new, rapid, shiny LRT is to take as long as the Queen car was damning.

And to think they told us we don't need a GO station because we have the LRT coming! What a bunch of shit.

 

[muller877]

Precisely - the roars of laughter coming from the community when the TTC advised us the new, rapid, shiny LRT is to take as long as the Queen car was damning.

And to think they told us we don't need a GO station because we have the LRT coming! What a bunch of shit.

Can incremental improvements to the line generate better results?

1. from Wilson Park to Glendale (Roncey intersection) running on the south side of the street. With a 3rd track for ones turning north onto Roncey.
2. Somehow fix Jameson
3. Connect via Dufferin to the 509
4. Have the 509 with real signal priority & fix Bathurst intersection
5. Have real signal priority where there are no major cross-streets (all of Queensway, QQW, Fleet, etc)

 

[drum118]

Can incremental improvements to the line generate better results?

1. from Wilson Park to Glendale (Roncey intersection) running on the south side of the street. With a 3rd track for ones turning north onto Roncey.
2. Somehow fix Jameson
3. Connect via Dufferin to the 509
4. Have the 509 with real signal priority & fix Bathurst intersection
5. Have real signal priority where there are no major cross-streets (all of Queensway, QQW, Fleet, etc)

The idea of TTC running a line along the north side of the rail corridor where GO track 5 was to go was a joke from day one. Even how it connected to Queen and Roncey.

The current plan to fix Bathurst Intersection will improve 509/511 some what, but will still find clueless drivers trying to get onto Fleet close to traffic.

Under ML Exhibition GO Station rebuilt plan, it show how the 509 is to connect to Dufferin St. I had a good laugh and rolling my eyes at this plan. So many red flags came up for it.

Having real signal priority is a must using the bar system.

I support keeping the line on the Lake shore over the Humber, not the Queensway. It going to cost big bucks to do it and piss off car drivers. Never going to happen under current leadership.

Jameson intersection is a nightmare on good day and very few options for it other than closing the ramp and a road connection.

 

[MetroMan]

With Toronto set to host 4 World Cup games at BMO Field under a Canada banner, I wonder if a Waterfront LRT now gets the full force of Federal government backing.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

That's what has brought me back to this thread today too. This announcement is potentially significant for Waterfront West Transit Funding.

Its just that... We still have absolutely no clue how transit on the waterfront west of Union is supposed to look like. No idea of what the end goal is for waterfront mobility. I thought that was the purpose of this third "reset" but it appears City Planning don't really know either, are biased towards urban design outcomes over mobility, and are understaffed and have been focused on other transit projects.

Its looking more and more that moving the GO station to Park Lawn is making sense, with Mondelez looking to activate the Kraft factory site in a similar timeframe to the WC2026 bid. However, that option is outside of the City's jurisdiction and is more dependent on how much pull Metrolinx will have under a Ford administration.

 

[georgevicbell]

If they are doing anything for the world cup at BMO field then at the minimum we are going to get an upgraded go station with better pedestrian flow.

Ideally we get lakeshore electrified, the connection to Dufferin, the pedestrian bridge at Fort York, completion of Ontario Place redesign, Bathurst redesign, a BMO field expansion/retractable roof, some additional LRT on lakeshore and maybe a few less parking lots (parks and some restaurants and improved amenities).

In the end it's a challenge to justify this for four soccer games...but some of the changes may be required for safety or national pride.

 

[nfitz]

With Toronto set to host 4 World Cup games at BMO Field under a Canada banner, I wonder if a Waterfront LRT now gets the full force of Federal government backing.

For 4 mid-day games in 19 days, in a stadium with 45,000 seats?

Perhaps they should build something every time the Yankees or Red Sox come to town for a 4-day visit!

 

[crs1026]

For 4 mid-day games in 19 days, in a stadium with 45,000 seats?

Perhaps they should build something every time the Yankees or Red Sox come to town for a 4-day visit!

New ball park? Don’t get me started on how far Skydome has fallen behind newer ball parks. Ambience? Customer service? No comparison.

Returning to topic, I think the concern that some of us reacted to not the actual transit capacity but the political respone and will. Wynne’s commitment to having UPE running in time for Pan Am is what crippled Georgetown South....every time there were challenges on that project, scope was cut and money was shuffled from GTS to UPE. The claim that UPE was completed “on time, on budget” was a blatant lie. And considering how low ridership was initially, it hardly supported the games.

Objectively, GO can handle a few large-crowd events.... but the cynicism over the political temptations is justified.

- Paul

 

[MetroMan]

For 4 mid-day games in 19 days, in a stadium with 45,000 seats?

Perhaps they should build something every time the Yankees or Red Sox come to town for a 4-day visit!

This is the World Cup. The Olympics last a couple of weeks and transform entire cities. People coming here for World Cup games will stay here on vacation. The PanAm Games alone attracted new tourists that would not have otherwise come here. Building infrastructure to make it run smoothly and to accommodate the visitors to our city is important. It’s not just about the 4 games, Toronto will be a host city attracting World Cup spectators from around the world who’ll frequent our bars and restaurants, who’ll stay at our hotels and who will spend money shopping here. Exhibition Place will be World Cup central for the entire duration of the competition and we need to make sure people can get there and out safely and efficiently.

 

[DSC]

This is the World Cup. The Olympics last a couple of weeks and transform entire cities. People coming here for World Cup games will stay here on vacation. The PanAm Games alone attracted new tourists that would not have otherwise come here. Building infrastructure to make it run smoothly and to accommodate the visitors to our city is important. It’s not just about the 4 games, Toronto will be a host city attracting World Cup spectators from around the world who’ll frequent our bars and restaurants, who’ll stay at our hotels and who will spend money shopping here. Exhibition Place will be World Cup central for the entire duration of the competition and we need to make sure people can get there and out safely and efficiently.

This is true but the difference is that for something quite short like World Cup a City may build something sooner than they would have but will probably not build something they had not already planned for the next few years. Of course, civic politicians will certainly try to get extra $$ from Ontario and/or Canada because of the 'special need" and having an 'excuse' to get 'extra $$" they may well succeed.

 

[Jeff Morgan]

Wonder if the acceleration of the Lower Don development will have any effect on the urgency of the Waterfront LRT east.

 

[DSC]

Wonder if the acceleration of the Lower Don development will have any effect on the urgency of the Waterfront LRT east.

In a rational world of course it would as it will increase demand BUT the City and WT have had plans and promises about "Transit First" on QQE for over a decade and we all know how well that turned out! Look at all the new developments and plans for developments and we still rely on the bus routes.