[44 North]

The other reason of course is the spacing of the major intersections being much further than urban environments like QQW, Spadina and St Clair.

This.

I actually do agree with your conclusion that it makes the most sense to grade separate transit in dense urban environments with many intersections and slow street speeds. I just didn't think QQW in todays state was the best example.

And the solution I tried to offer isn't what I demand for every new transit/streetcar project in and around Old Toronto. It's more for this specific situation where we have a carte blanche for an area so large, and with such enormous potential. People will always pay top dollar for anything near the water. I may be a bit biased in that my ward contains the East Bayfront, or that I have a stronger affinity towards Toronto east of Yonge. But even trying to remain unbiased I still believe a grade-separate solution is the right one for the east waterfront (as long as it can be done affordably).

The 509 on QQW definitely works and improves the western downtown waterfront a great deal. If the eastern section stretched only as far as Parliament St, I would agree with a solution similar to the 509. But factoring-in the enormous disconnected swath that is the Lower Don Lands and Port Lands all the way to Leslie, it would only make sense to take a different, bolder approach to transit planning than the go-to of relying on street-running operation.

As many UTers know, the TTC were (for a brief time) pioneers in the area of affordable streetcar/LRT rapid transit. Obviously their SRT baby was saddled with the Prov's oddball ICTS technology and never got the opportunity to shine. But IMO the east downtown waterfront and Gardiner corridor affords us a second opportunity.

 

[ehlow]

44 North:

But why spend money on an elevated route there when there's already a fully grade separated route just north of it: the GO/rail corridor? And we just elected a mayor and provincial government whose main mandate is to build rapid transit along the rail corridor. The SmartTrack map showed a stop near the mouth of the Don River.

We clearly need a fully grade-separated transit line going east-west through downtown. Transit E-W downtown is simply far to slow and low capacity.

As cool as it would be to see elevated LRTs through downtown, I'm tempted to say that if we're spending the money to fully grade-separate, we should finally just build a tunnel going east and west through downtown and have a subway.

This could be the DRL as usually envisioned, or a SmartTrack/GO RER tunnel (as Gweed proposes) added after the line opens.

 

[Rainforest]

But why spend money on an elevated route there when there's already a fully grade separated route just north of it: the GO/rail corridor? And we just elected a mayor and provincial government whose main mandate is to build rapid transit along the rail corridor. The SmartTrack map showed a stop near the mouth of the Don River.

I guess, the granularity will be very different. The SmartTrack stop will be ~ 4 km from Union, with no stops in between. The Lakeshore East light rail line, even if elevated, can make 4 - 6 stops in between.

It would make no sense to build an elevated line along Lakeshore East, by itself. But if such project is part of Gardiner reconstruction, and a lot of costs are shared, then it is worth considering.

 

[44 North]

Perhaps a portion of the rail corridor’s embankment between Union and Cherry can be used to run a short section of this hypothetical streetcar line, but that’s about all I see it useful for. The Gardiner/Lake Shore East corridor just seems much more logical. It’s enormous, will likely be completely leveled and rebuilt, and runs closer to the lake.

Yes, a new downtown subway/SmartTrack tunnel is a logical investment. But what I envision for the waterfront is strictly light, and basically an extension of our streetcar system as originally planned for the waterfront. The stations would be very small and sized specifically for streetcars, not unlike the existing Queens Quay – Ferry Docks station south of Union.

 

[gweed123]

Personally, the combination that I prefer is LRT along QQE, with GO REX along the rail corridor, with a stop at "Distillery" (basically Cherry @ the rail corridor). QQE would handle 2 LRT routes: one that goes up Cherry into the West Donlands, and one that goes down Cherry into the Portlands.

This configuration satisfies both local and express demand along the corridor, and is the closest to what the current plans are.

 

[44 North]

Do you think it can work to put in a Cherry GO station - or any station between Union and the Unilever site? I feel like there may be a reason one was omitted from Tory's SmartTrack plan.

 

[gweed123]

Do you think it can work to put in a Cherry GO station - or any station between Union and the Unilever site? I feel like there may be a reason one was omitted from Tory's SmartTrack plan.

There would need to be some reconfiguration, but I think it could be done, especially if you shift the GO layover facility slightly further south. Put in an island platform between tracks 1 and 2 and tracks 3 and 4, and you've got most of the tracks coming into Union covered.

 

[44 North]

There would need to be some reconfiguration, but I think it could be done, especially if you shift the GO layover facility slightly further south. Put in an island platform between tracks 1 and 2 and tracks 3 and 4, and you've got most of the tracks coming into Union covered.

What you propose does seem interesting and makes sense. Perhaps it could be above Trinity Street where a pedestrian underpass may be built. But even without putting a logical stop at Distillery/Cherry it seems like this city is juggling more than it can handle, development-wise. Not to mention possibly turning away investors. We can’t even build a 2km streetcar line, we’ve left $Billions in East Bayfront real estate in the lurch. And now we’re already planning the equivalent of a small city based around the Unilever site and its SmartTrack station 1km to the east. And apparently SmartTrack is reliant on this specific site for a significant portion of its TIF. I feel like something’s gotta give.

___
I stumbled on this old UT interview from Oct 2011. It's with Sam Crignano of Cityzen and Dominus Construction (major TO developers and owners of the enormous and vacant Home Depot site at SW corner of Cherry and Lake Shore). The interview is old, and I’m sure it was posted on the East Bayfront LRT thread years back. http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2011/10/interview-sam-crignano-cityzen-part-2

I think it’s a fantastic interview and a great insight into the process behind major developments in an urban environment. IMO it’s more relevant now than three years ago. I was a bit surprised that his views on LRT/streetcars along the waterfront was so negative, and that hopes for transit in the area were higher than an East Bayfront LRT. Keep in mind that this is before Doug Ford’s monorail plan came out.

In the interview Crignano mentions a team of architects for their Cherry site, and the London design firm involved with retail (CivicArts) is still hosting the Doug Ford waterfront plan on its site. This has led me to believe that perhaps landowners had a larger role to play in supporting Doug’s “visionâ€. I always believed the plan was pushed by a rogue public agency like TPLC who were more interested in retaining power and getting back what’s now controlled by WT. Whatever it is, did they ever bet on the wrong horse to peddle a vision. And mentioning “monorail†clearly wasn’t a wise move. As an aside, I actually wasn’t aware of their use of Front St to route the monorail from Union to Cherry (which also doesn’t seem like a good idea).

A couple takeaways:

Is LRT being worked into the plans along Queens Quay and down Cherry Street?
Well, you've heard from the Fords, they don't like streetcars. Obviously no one likes buses. I know they are feverishly exploring, and Doug is involved firsthand. They're looking for a solution. It's not like they don't want public transit, they're big supporters of public transit. They want the right kind of public transit, and we're all for that.

Monorail?
That's been floating out there. Tanenbaum has his idea that he's floated out there which is a rail system of a sort, but streetcars are clearly an antiquated technology. It's not a new technology, but let's see what presents itself. Obviously Corus are counting on a public transit system, and George Brown has how many thousands of students?

I believe it's part of Hines contract with Waterfront Toronto that some rapid transit be built.
Everyone is reliant on public transit. We're an urban location, and it's not like the Fords don't agree with that, they do. They just don't like the idea of using this antiquated technology - the streetcar - in a modern day application. I don't disagree with that either, but we need a solution so let's find a solution that everyone is happy with, and it boils down to cost as well.

Are your architects involved in trying to find a possible solution?
Everyone has ideas. As you know, Bruce Kuwabara and Peter Clewes are involved with Waterfront Toronto, they're on the design committee. Everyone is keen on finding a solution, but trying to find that balance between a technology that's clearly state of the art, and trying to make it work within the budget parameters. It may require the involvement of the Province and at the Federal level, but if you're going to invest money in infrastructure, what better place to do it than the Toronto waterfront. Everyone speaks about the mistakes of the past that we made, on the western part of the waterfront. Well let's not make those mistakes again, let's try and correct them. I love our waterfront. I don't see anything wrong with our waterfront. Sure I take issue with some of the buildings that were built on the waterfront, but it works. People flock to the waterfront. I now live here. I walk there. I cycle down there frequently, and it's always filled with people. There are always people on the streets and there are things to do. HTO and Sugar Beach are magnets, and on a hot summer day they're filled to capacity.

We mentioned Sugar Beach earlier and some of the infrastructure investment that the City put into the East Bayfront area. What kind of investments are you looking for from the City for your site as well?
We now have the new Sherbourne Park, so I don't think we need another park. Whatever improvements we require for our site, we will build them and we will pay for them. I'm not looking to the City for that. I definitely want a solution to the transit. I want public transit, there's no question. I'd like a solution. I'll do whatever I can to help out.
I'm hoping all the money that we pay in the form of development charges - cash-in-lieu of, the park contribution - and it's a lot of money… I'm hoping that more of that money will be spent in the neighbourhood and not squandered. I don't like the fact that it goes into this slush fund, and there's really no local benefit. If there is an area that really needs it, it's this neighbourhood. It needs that money. We don't mind paying it, we'll pay those moneys, but for instance: public art. Enough with these stone sofas, or these sculptures that are scattered throughout the city. Why don't we take that money and do something more important. Maybe build a cultural centre that is art focused. Let's pool these funds together and create something, perhaps at the foot of Parliament adjacent to Parliament Quay. There's a sliver of land there owned by Waterfront Toronto. Why don't we pool those art contribution moneys and put it towards something cultural on that land? Or, these linkages that everyone talks about. This linkage that we're talking about through the railway berm, and maybe overtop Lake Shore. Maybe that money is spent for that infrastructure, because it doesn't just benefit Cherry Street, or the Distillery, it benefits the surrounding community, and those other communities that connect to it.

This is what came of their plans a year or so later: http://www.claudecormier.com/projet/3c-waterfront/

 

[drum118]

Do you think it can work to put in a Cherry GO station - or any station between Union and the Unilever site? I feel like there may be a reason one was omitted from Tory's SmartTrack plan.

During the EA process for Cherry St, we looked at putting in a GO Station there and it could be done. The Station would be able to service all lines east of Union Station.

GO saw no issues with a station there other than 2 stops close together. Some track relocation would have to be done as well rebuilding of the underpass to get riders to/from the platform. The platform would be a single one only with tracks on both sides of it.

The cost of the underpass was an issue and still is.

 

[44 North]

I’m still of the opinion that rapider transit should be built along the eastern waterfront instead of the streetcar plan. At the very least to Villiers Island Precinct, which I imagine may become a smaller version of Canary Wharf. Again, not as subways or anything involving mammoth stations (or whacky like monorail) - but merely streetcars and stations similar to Queens Quay-Ferry Docks. However, Gweed’s idea of having a SmartTrack/RER station at Distillery/Cherry (and using streetcars for local service) does make a lot of sense and fits well with current plans.

But here’s my question: to avoid the complicated and costly task of shutting down Union to expand the streetcar turnaround, why not use double-ended Transit City Flexity Freedoms? The route can run along QQE as proposed; but instead of using a tunnel to reach Union, the line could run north on Bay to a surface/roadway terminus with switchover tracks (somewhere just north of Lake Shore Blvd). It'll terminate close enough to Union that it won't be a deterrent. Similarly, the tunnel under the rail corridor to connect with the Cherry spur also wouldn’t be needed, and another switchover could be created. Yes, it’ll be a standalone line and incompatible with our streetcar network, but $350M could be saved (allowing the project to actually get built).

 

[innsertnamehere]

Can we just change the name of this thread to the East Bayfront LRT? its sort of become that given the lack of a proper thread for it.

In other news, I found this while doing some googling. Metrolinx offered a tender for sole sourced work for design of the expanded union station loop, related to the construction of 45 bay.

http://www.merx.com/English/SUPPLIE...ForceLID=&HID=&hcode=+C9sDIXHBlPG14GAqgS1aw==



It seems to suggest that the platform will be constructed along with the office building, which I wasn't aware of. I thought that the development was only taking into consideration the platform and that the platform would be constructed later, but apparently not.

 

[DSC]

Actually there is a Waterfront Transit thread where it may be best to keep all the real (as opposed to fantasy) plans. http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/showthread.php/8672-TTC-Waterfront-Transit-EA/page4

 

[DSC]

In other news, I found this while doing some googling. Metrolinx offered a tender for sole sourced work for design of the expanded union station loop, related to the construction of 45 bay.

http://www.merx.com/English/SUPPLIE...ForceLID=&HID=&hcode=+C9sDIXHBlPG14GAqgS1aw==



It seems to suggest that the platform will be constructed along with the office building, which I wasn't aware of. I thought that the development was only taking into consideration the platform and that the platform would be constructed later, but apparently not.

This is NOT anything to do with Union loop. It is for a new LRT station in the basement of 45 Bay Street that will be immediately south of the rail berm. There will then be 3 underground LRT stations: Ferry Docks, 45 Bay and Union. (I suspect that when this new station is operational it will take some of the load off Union but we still need to expand the Union loop before we can see the East Bayfront LRT happening- if not sooner.)

 

[drum118]

This is NOT anything to do with Union loop. It is for a new LRT station in the basement of 45 Bay Street that will be immediately south of the rail berm. There will then be 3 underground LRT stations: Ferry Docks, 45 Bay and Union. (I suspect that when this new station is operational it will take some of the load off Union but we still need to expand the Union loop before we can see the East Bayfront LRT happening- if not sooner.)

Until there is more detail info and see a plan for 45 Bay, we have no idea what is being plan for the current Union Loop as well the plan expansion.

We know what TTC wants for the current plan expansion for Union Loop that is only good for today, but not tomorrow needs. If it only has to deal with the current lines, the the plan expansion will work, assuming there are 2 Union Loops

What every happens, it will take some or all of the current load issues off the current Union Loop.

It is possible that the current inbound track could turn east to go under 45 Bay, down Yonge and west on QQ. The new QQE line would go north on Yonge to 45 Bay and use the current outbound track to go east.

 

[DSC]

The plans for 45 Bay are on the City planning website and more on the Committee of Adjustment site - (Meeting of 28 January 2015). The Bay Street LRT portion is really "only" a platform along the Bay Street side of the basement of the new building. While I agree with you that the creation of an extra station will take some load off Union Loop the track will not be going under the building to Yonge. It MAY move a few meters east into the basement area.