[TOareaFan]

I would think many are going to the other big employment areas: Mississauga near the airport or Markham.

I know of several people who live downtown and drive to those areas for work.

That would be my guess. I have been commuting into the DT for all of my (long) adult life. While my drive times (on days I drive, obviously) have gotten longer over the years, the most noticeable change in travel patterns is sheer volume of people going the other way. I used to sit in traffic and wonder what would happen if we could use "those empty lanes over there"...now I sit in traffic and wonder why I don't just house swap with the similar number of people going in the other direction.

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

Welp, the election is over. Shall we recap? My understanding is:

* City staff recommended removing the Gardiner.
* Public Works Committee directed staff to examine a new option that maintains a connection on the north side of the Union Station Rail Corridor.
* John Tory is against removing the Gardiner.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

Welp, the election is over. Shall we recap? My understanding is:

* City staff recommended removing the Gardiner.
* Public Works Committee directed staff to examine a new option that maintains a connection on the north side of the Union Station Rail Corridor.
* John Tory is against removing the Gardiner.

Thx for the reminder this thread is here! My guess is that the Pan Ams, when WDL is seen by a starstruck populace as an amazing new community, will give Tory et al the cover to make the right decision to remove the Gardiner. Since it's also the least cost solution, he has cover on the fiscal side already.

Our friends at the soap factory had an interesting idea, but they would give away the highway for a subway stop/GO station in a heartbeat.

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

Our friends at the soap factory had an interesting idea, but they would give away the highway for a subway stop/GO station in a heartbeat.

It really struck me that there wasn't a transit EA done in parallel/as part of this. People have been talking of putting a streetcar along Queens Quay forever now, but with the removal option on the table, it gives is a chance to look at using that brand new right-of-way for some higher order transit. An eastern leg of the Waterfront LRT perhaps?

 

[ksun]

It really struck me that there wasn't a transit EA done in parallel/as part of this. People have been talking of putting a streetcar along Queens Quay forever now, but with the removal option on the table, it gives is a chance to look at using that brand new right-of-way for some higher order transit. An eastern leg of the Waterfront LRT perhaps?

It would be foolish not to make QQ a higher order transit street. think about the business and revenue it potentially brings. It is actually hard to fathom that our southern most street is essentially a residential street for years (except a small portion for recreational, but again lacking quality retail).

 

[DSC]

It would be foolish not to make QQ a higher order transit street. think about the business and revenue it potentially brings. It is actually hard to fathom that our southern most street is essentially a residential street for years (except a small portion for recreational, but again lacking quality retail).

During the QQE Transit EA there certainly was talk of phase 2. Phase 1 was to bring it east to Parliament Street, Phase 1a was to get to Cherry and link to the Cherry stub-line (but that had to await the extension of QQE from Parliament to Cherry.) Phase 2 was to go into the Portlands and further east - possibly up Broadview to Queen. This phase was certainly not worked out in detail as the plans for the Portlands were then seen to be much further away; the location on Leslie for the new Streetcar Barns was not yet settled and Great Gulf had not bought the soap factory. I continue to live in hope that the Phase 1 plan (Bay to Parliament) will get the go-ahead soon (the fact that 45 Bay plans call for a streetcar 'station' in the basement is - where space is already reserved for it - is not terribly costly - though going under the rail line to link with Cherry will not be easy.

 

[44 North]

I thought the hot proposal being studied and touted was to rebuild/rejig the Gardiner between the DVP and ~Parliament (with the endgame being that it probably will not be rebuilt at all).

Either way, I believe the Gardiner/Lake Shore corridor is a perfect spot for a rapid transit waterfront line. As the development around the Gardiner proves, people aren't all that opposed to elevated structures. If Lake Shore was converted to one large auto-centric boulevard, an elevated rail line could easily fit alongside or overtop.

It really struck me that there wasn't a transit EA done in parallel/as part of this. People have been talking of putting a streetcar along Queens Quay forever now, but with the removal option on the table, it gives is a chance to look at using that brand new right-of-way for some higher order transit. An eastern leg of the Waterfront LRT perhaps?

I believe it was looked at and was mentioned in the Gardiner EA. But it was as a plain streetcar line built in conjunction with a QQ East line, and somehow Lake Shore would be a pedestrian-friendly realm like Queens Quay. Which seems absurd - Lake Shore should still be treated as a quasi highway. And it would make sense to have that stretch as a bona fide rapid transit corridor instead of an Avenue with streetcars.

I didn't see much mention of it in the Gardiner EA's, but you can see in this image the right-of-way is used to run a streetcar line (the red line adjacent to the Gardiner):

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

I continue to live in hope that the Phase 1 plan (Bay to Parliament) will get the go-ahead soon (the fact that 45 Bay plans call for a streetcar 'station' in the basement is - where space is already reserved for it - is not terribly costly - though going under the rail line to link with Cherry will not be easy.

Well it certainly was included in the QQ Central Waterfront EA prelim design:

 

[drum118]

During the QQE Transit EA there certainly was talk of phase 2. Phase 1 was to bring it east to Parliament Street, Phase 1a was to get to Cherry and link to the Cherry stub-line (but that had to await the extension of QQE from Parliament to Cherry.) Phase 2 was to go into the Portlands and further east - possibly up Broadview to Queen. This phase was certainly not worked out in detail as the plans for the Portlands were then seen to be much further away; the location on Leslie for the new Streetcar Barns was not yet settled and Great Gulf had not bought the soap factory. I continue to live in hope that the Phase 1 plan (Bay to Parliament) will get the go-ahead soon (the fact that 45 Bay plans call for a streetcar 'station' in the basement is - where space is already reserved for it - is not terribly costly - though going under the rail line to link with Cherry will not be easy.

You are correct about the Cherry St underpass as it will cost $50m or more to do.

The plan you stated is correct with phase 2 being the extension of the Cherry St to the shipping channel, Phase 3 would be the extension from Parliament St and connect with Cherry St. Phase 4 would be Cherry St to Lesile by Commissioner St. Phase 5 would be the extension of Broadview Ave from Queen to Commissioner. Phase 6 would be Unwin connecting to Cherry St and Lesile.

Anything pertaining to Portland is 10 years down the road at the earlies, as you have to build the flood channels first and clean the land.

The lack of the QQE is hurting the development for East Bay as well transit being first choice. As long there is no LRT on QQE, cars will be push to get to/from the area.

The streetcar in the basement of 45 Bay is a must.

 

[interchange42]

The streetcar in the basement of 45 Bay is a must.

There is provision in the architectural plans for 45 Bay for a streetcar siding on its P2 level.

42

 

[44 North]

Downtown relief line, Gardiner ‘hybrid’ part of early look at Stintz platform

http://metronews.ca/news/toronto/95...rid-part-of-early-glimpse-at-stintz-platform/

Anyone know if this idea was presented with more detail? Or if there have been any other plans to use the Gardiner for an RT line?

 

[44 North]

I was about to post this in the East Bayfront LRT thread, but the Gardiner thread should suffice. It's equally relevant to the Gardiner issue as it is to a streetcar on Queens Quay East. This may be old news for many of you.

So after skimming through this report http://www.waterfrontoronto.ca/expl...ast_bayfront_transit_environmental_assessment , it seems another railed transit option was looked at for the East Bayfront (see page 44). The report seems to proclaim there are only two transit options available (1. QQ East, 2. Lake Shore + QQ East…both using in-median streetcars). A grade-separate rapid transit route on Lake Shore was completely ignored, and deemed prohibitively expensive and difficult to construct due to constraints at Union station. I find this to be ridiculous. It’s plain as day that there are other options - ones that can be built relatively affordably, and provide fast service.

Although it was erroneously and discriminatorily studied as an in-median streetcar line, the "Lake Shore Express" route was evaluated for: ROW availability, traffic impact, attractiveness of service, and cost.

ROW Availability
The report claims there’s no ROW available on Lake Shore, and there would be a loss of traffic lanes on York, Front, Bay and Lake Shore. But what about if it were to be elevated, or used the old Gardiner’s support columns if the Gardiner is rebuilt? There would be no ROW issue.

Traffic Impact
The report claims there would be a road capacity reduction because of lane removal. But again, what if it is elevated? Or used the Gardiner’s support columns? There would be no issue.

Attractiveness of Service
The report claims a transit route on Lake Shore could theoretically attract more than 2,300 trips in the peak direction, but demand will be affected by quality of service: “Without the possibility to provide a dedicated transit right-of-way along the corridor, it is unlikely that the projected level of transit demand will materialize”.

Again, if the line was elevated above a rebuilt/reconfigured Lake Shore, and/or used the Gardiner; there’s instantly 2,300 peak riders!

Capital Cost
The report claims a “Lake Shore Express” is too costly because a line would have to be built on Queens Quay as well. That’s ridiculous. The line on QQ wouldn’t have to be built at all if a line were built on/above Lake Shore one block north of QQ. And if the capital costs were combined with Gardiner repair/remove/rebuild work, there’s the opportunity for huge savings.

Using a Gardiner/Lake Shore combination to run a rapid transit line seems like a no-brainer.
-the roadway allowance is enormous.
-the Gardiner/Lake Shore are in the process of being reworked and rebuilt regardless.
-people have already grown accustomed to an elevated structure there.
-it's well within the catchment of QQ, and could easily be extended along Cherry, into the Port Lands, and along Commissioners to Leslie Barns.

How would the line connect to Union? An above ground connection, a pedestrian PATH connection, or a short cut/cover connection. Everything east of Union is a piece of cake if combined with the Gardiner repair/remove/rebuild work.

 

[salsa]

http://metronews.ca/news/toronto/95...rid-part-of-early-glimpse-at-stintz-platform/

Anyone know if this idea was presented with more detail? Or if there have been any other plans to use the Gardiner for an RT line?

So it looks like the "hybrid option" actually entails preserving the majority of the elevated highway, except for a small change of alignment east of Cherry St. That sucks. Definitely not a huge improvement for the waterfront in my opinion, but one that will cost millions more compared to demolishing it. But of course the car people at city hall have already made up their minds before the hybrid option has even been studied.

So after skimming through this report http://www.waterfrontoronto.ca/explo...tal_assessment , it seems another railed transit option was looked at for the East Bayfront (see page 44). The report seems to proclaim there are only two transit options available (1. QQ East, 2. Lake Shore + QQ East…both using in-median streetcars). A grade-separate rapid transit route on Lake Shore was completely ignored, and deemed prohibitively expensive and difficult to construct due to constraints at Union station. I find this to be ridiculous. It’s plain as day that there are other options - ones that can be built relatively affordably, and provide fast service.

The idea of plunking an LRT on Lakeshore has been brought up many times by the paper and crayon folks, and I really don't see why some of you love that idea. Firstly, lets take another look at this slide:

1. Don't you think the QQ alignment will better serve the East Bayfront? It will pass through the heart of the community, right in front of George Brown and all the other attractions. Whereas Lakeshore can only have development on the south side since the north side is hemmed in by the rail corridor. Lakeshore would also increasing the walking distance for the majority of people.

2. QQ is undergoing revitalization west of Bay St, and I think it would be logical to continue the same format east of Bay as well. With the new promenade and bike path coming in the near future, QQ will become the main street of East Bayfront where everything will be happening, and where most of the street life will be. Why would anyone be in favour of moving the transit line away from this area, onto an ugly freeway off-ramp road that's choked with cars and trucks?

3. It's unclear how a Lakeshore line will connect to Union, or how it will merge with the 509 (if at all). There's already a nice streetcar tunnel under Bay St that lands right onto the subway platform. There's no way that any alignment other than QQ can match that quality of service.

ROW Availability
The report claims there’s no ROW available on Lake Shore, and there would be a loss of traffic lanes on York, Front, Bay and Lake Shore. But what about if it were to be elevated, or used the old Gardiner’s support columns if the Gardiner is rebuilt? There would be no ROW issue.

Traffic Impact
The report claims there would be a road capacity reduction because of lane removal. But again, what if it is elevated? Or used the Gardiner’s support columns? There would be no issue.

Attractiveness of Service
The report claims a transit route on Lake Shore could theoretically attract more than 2,300 trips in the peak direction, but demand will be affected by quality of service: “Without the possibility to provide a dedicated transit right-of-way along the corridor, it is unlikely that the projected level of transit demand will materialize”.

Again, if the line was elevated above a rebuilt/reconfigured Lake Shore, and/or used the Gardiner; there’s instantly 2,300 peak riders!

4. You must be kidding. Lets not forget that the highway is going nowhere between Jarvis and Union, so how do you plan to fit an LRT onto the Gardiner's support columns? Or alternatively, where to you plan to hem in a new elevated structure, next to the existing one? You also seem to think that an elevated structure can be supported by air, therefore no lanes will be lost. Criticize if you want, but this 5 minute idea that you concocted doesn't hold a candle to the years of studies done by the experts at Waterfront Toronto.

Using a Gardiner/Lake Shore combination to run a rapid transit line seems like a no-brainer.
-the roadway allowance is enormous.
-the Gardiner/Lake Shore are in the process of being reworked and rebuilt regardless.
-people have already grown accustomed to an elevated structure there.
-it's well within the catchment of QQ, and could easily be extended along Cherry, into the Port Lands, and along Commissioners to Leslie Barns.

5. People may be used to it, but they also hate it. Otherwise, they wouldn't wish to tear down the Gardiner in the first place. Sorry, but your solution overall is not a "no-brainer". The only reason I see for keeping the support columns is to serve as a monument to the stupidity of 60s era city planning. Otherwise, just tear it all down and bring back the sunlight to Lakeshore.

 

[44 North]

1Don't you think the QQ alignment will better serve the East Bayfront? It will pass through the heart of the community, right in front of George Brown and all the other attractions. Whereas Lakeshore can only have development on the south side since the north side is hemmed in by the rail corridor. Lakeshore would also increasing the walking distance for the majority of people.

Queens Quay is 230m south of Lake Shore at its farthest point, and less than 200m on average. That’s not exactly all that much distance. And in exchange for a streetcar stopping at traffic lights every 50m (just like the 509 and its slow service), rapid transit would be built in its place. Naturally a rapid solution would serve the waterfront better than a slow streetcar. The report claimed that if a line on Lake Shore were grade-separate, the ridership would be there. Compounded with whatever ridership is forecast with the QQ East line; and a case for rapid transit from Union to (eventually) Leslie/Commissioners can be made.

12. QQ is undergoing revitalization west of Bay St, and I think it would be logical to continue the same format east of Bay as well. With the new promenade and bike path coming in the near future, QQ will become the main street of East Bayfront where everything will be happening, and where most of the street life will be. Why would anyone be in favour of moving the transit line away from this area, onto an ugly freeway off-ramp road that's choked with cars and trucks?

Of the four plans for the Gardiner, only one is to do-nothing. An elevated Lake Shore Blvd transit solution is easily achievable with two of the options (remove and rebuild). The Queens Quay transit EA didn’t consider any plans for removing/replacing the Gardiner. Those plans exist now, so a new report should consider these issues. It only makes sense from a cost and planning standpoint to view the two in tandem.

3. It's unclear how a Lakeshore line will connect to Union, or how it will merge with the 509 (if at all). There's already a nice streetcar tunnel under Bay St that lands right onto the subway platform. There's no way that any alignment other than QQ can match that quality of service.

The streetcar tunnel and terminus involves $300M and ~2yrs in order to become a disjointed part of the QQ East line. That same investment can be used – maybe even in the exact same location. But rather than having the portal on Queens Quay east of Bay, it would be on Harbour or Lake Shore east of Bay.

4. You must be kidding. Lets not forget that the highway is going nowhere between Jarvis and Union, so how do you plan to fit an LRT onto the Gardiner's support columns? Or alternatively, where to you plan to hem in a new elevated structure, next to the existing one? You also seem to think that an elevated structure can be supported by air, therefore no lanes will be lost. Criticize if you want, but this 5 minute idea that you concocted doesn't hold a candle to the years of studies done by the experts at Waterfront Toronto.

Harbour St and/or eastbound Lake Shore blvd between Union and Jarvis. The hemming would be with whatever replacement/remove/maintain option is chosen for east of Jarvis. Again, the East Bayfront Transit EA didn’t consider the four plans which now exist for the Gardiner. Queens Quay has been delayed long enough that the Gardiner plans are now extremely relevant. My 5min idea took this into consideration, their years of study didn’t.

5. People may be used to it, but they also hate it. Otherwise, they wouldn't wish to tear down the Gardiner in the first place. Sorry, but your solution overall is not a "no-brainer". The only reason I see for keeping the support columns is to serve as a monument to the stupidity of 60s era city planning. Otherwise, just tear it all down and bring back the sunlight to Lakeshore.

I didn’t see “hate†as a reason for removing the Gardiner in any of its reports. There are thousands of people living a stone’s throw from it, thousands more within spitting distance, and thousands more in the coming years. Your keyboard jockey summary is a tad too pedestrian to serve as a good dismissal.
__
The East Bayfront streetcar is a half billion dollar project, and has been delayed long enough that it can now be restudied alongside plans for the Gardiner (which didn’t exist at the time). It’s only fair to taxpayers and future commuters that the two projects be studied as one. How far can that $0.5bn go when combined with plans to remove/rebuild/rejig the Gardiner? What percentage of those living/working in the East Bayfront, Keating District, Lower Don Lands, and Port Lands would leave their car at home if their transit choice were faster than a circuitous streetcar along Queens Quay East? How would the ridership projections change? These are important questions.

I like streetcars. I like the renderings of a streetcar on Queens Quay East. But this is a carte blanche scenario for a large quadrant of land from Yonge to Leslie, and south to the lake. It’s enormous. Just as I scold places like Mississauga for not reserving a transit right-of-way to run a transit line when the time comes; so to will I scold Toronto for allowing a Canary Wharf-esque parcel of prime waterfront real estate to be relegated to slow transit service stopping at traffic lights every 50-100m. The Gardiner plan is like a deus ex machina situation, where we’ll have the opportunity, funds, and land available to build a dynamic rapid transit line not unlike the Docklands Light Railway.

 

[muller877]

There is provision in the architectural plans for 45 Bay for a streetcar siding on its P2 level.

42

I don't understand the full need for this station. It is only <250M in each direction to other stations. Aren't they trying to speed up the QQ streetcar line?

And the lineups for the streetcar at Union are horrible already. And now there will be people that will use up this crush capacity instead of walking 200M (in a climate controlled evironment) to get to the subway.

Yes, it's the bus terminal. But I can't imagine the lineups if we add in the GO transfers to the subway (and vice versa) to the already busy loop.