[TheTigerMaster]

I think there's been a serious misunderstanding about what this report says.

http://www.waterfrontoronto.ca/uplo...front_transit_options___february_6_2013_1.pdf

From the project objectives:
"Develop an interim solution or phased implementation of the EA Solution and 
Queens Quay Vision"

In other words, the contents in this report are for a stop gap measure until East Bayfront LRT is complete.

The pedestrian walkway and streetcar options were eliminated due to cost. The only thing being considered at the moment are
- Wellington Bus
- Bay Street Bus
- Various BRT options.

This report doesn't preclude the construction of the East Bayfront LRT or expansion of Union loop.

Of course it's ridiculous that we're spending money on an interim solution, when this thing should've been done since day 1, but this isn't as bad as I had thought.

 

[Megaton327]

I think there's been a serious misunderstanding about what this report says.

http://www.waterfrontoronto.ca/uplo...front_transit_options___february_6_2013_1.pdf

From the project objectives:
"Develop an interim solution or phased implementation of the EA Solution and 
Queens Quay Vision"

In other words, the contents in this report are for a stop gap measure until East Bayfront LRT is complete.

The pedestrian walkway and streetcar options were eliminated due to cost. The only thing being considered at the moment are
- Wellington Bus
- Bay Street Bus
- Various BRT options.

This report doesn't preclude the construction of the East Bayfront LRT or expansion of Union loop.

Of course it's ridiculous that we're spending money on an interim solution, when this thing should've been done since day 1, but this isn't as bad as I had thought.

That's a 2013 report. I believe the matter we are discussing arose just the other day in TTC budget committee or something of the sort, no?

 

[44 North]

I think there's been a serious misunderstanding about what this report says.

http://www.waterfrontoronto.ca/uplo...front_transit_options___february_6_2013_1.pdf

From the project objectives:
"Develop an interim solution or phased implementation of the EA Solution and 
Queens Quay Vision"

In other words, the contents in this report are for a stop gap measure until East Bayfront LRT is complete.

The pedestrian walkway and streetcar options were eliminated due to cost. The only thing being considered at the moment are
- Wellington Bus
- Bay Street Bus
- Various BRT options.

This report doesn't preclude the construction of the East Bayfront LRT or expansion of Union loop.

Of course it's ridiculous that we're spending money on an interim solution, when this thing should've been done since day 1, but this isn't as bad as I had thought.

I guess it's hard to take a brief tweet seriously without more info, but the tweeter in question is reliable journalist. As for anything from that 2013 report, or any past report about the EBF LRT, I think we're really back to square one on the matter. So in a way everything is off the table, but it's also back on. The most recent info that I know is from Oct 9, and basically tells us that we're doing a "reset". So perhaps Moore's tweet was in jest, or he did in fact glean something from that TTC meeting about their direction.

Personally I think past reports on the line aren't worth the paper they're printed on. There's been way too many changes since the EBFLRT plan was crafted (e.g SmartTrack/Stouffville RER reprioritization, DRL, Gardiner plans, broke Prov, SSE, Union Loop reopening, etc) that a moving walkway may very well be seen as a solution. Or new ideas that haven't been studied (e.g new route, different infrastructure, bidirectional Flexity LRVs, etc).

 

[salsa]

The pedestrian walkway and streetcar options were eliminated due to cost.

That was back then.

And Steve doesn't seem to think this is a joke, judging by his little meltdown on twitter.

And yet for come reason I can't find any details about what went down in the meeting today.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

That was back then.
View attachment 59050
View attachment 59053

When exactly is "back then"? Did they decide the still pursue the moving sidewalk AFTER the publication of the WT report that eliminated it?

 

[TheTigerMaster]

When exactly is "back then"? Did they decide the still pursue the moving sidewalk AFTER the publication of the WT report that eliminated it?

So according to this Tweet, the TTC has now decided to pursue the moving sidewalk. Remember that the posted Waterfront Toronto link was from 2013 (something I hadn't realized... My bad)

@moore_oliver: Sounds as though #ttc resigned to a moving sidewalk-type connection from Union to QQ, rather than LRT link. #topoli
https://twitter.com/moore_oliver/status/663821495706198016

(I shall now resume my outrage)

This is unbelievable!

 

[TheTigerMaster]

So what ever happened to the provincial funding for East Bayfront LRT

 

[goreckm]

Surely all those in favour of spending billions of $ on a Danforth Subway extension to eliminate the "inconvenient" transfer at Kennedy will be outraged over this proposal?

On the bright side, maybe we can convert the Sheppard subway to a moving sidewalk as well, now that we know that it's suddenly a viable option for transporting people. Then we can just build an LRT on shepparrd west of Yonge, and east of Don Mills. Boom, rapid transit problems on Sheppard solved, without need to make the tunnel any bigger for LRT trains.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

In Scarbrough, a transfer the width of a subway platform is an unfathomable injustice, but for the waterfront a transfer more than half a kilometre long is A-OK.

This right here fully embodies the madness of transit planning in Toronto.

 

[Neil]

- bring QQ and Bay St. tracks to the surface
- use existing tunnels for TTC offices and committee meeting rooms
- brick up entrance

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Is this what they call "the reset"? It's about as fun as sticking a wet finger into an electrical outlet.

AoD

 

[drum118]

- bring QQ and Bay St. tracks to the surface
- use existing tunnels for TTC offices and committee meeting rooms
- brick up entrance

That recommendation goes back as far as 2004 when the Master Waterfront Transit Plan was in EA stage. It was based on duel end cars with 3 tracks at Union underpass and Bay St closed to traffic. 2 tracks would continue north on Bay St to Bloor St.

With single end cars now, where do you loop the cars without getting caught up in traffic??

As for the moving sidewalk, its been in all 3 EA studies for the QQ line to the point of having a people mover in the existing tunnel.

Only the east northbound lane would be used for GO Transit under the original thought. TTC object to the surface line as they saw the turning at QQ & Bay being hamper by the pedestrian traffic.

There so many unknown issues as well cost going to the proposed loop that only good for about 20 year or when ridership is too much for it.

 

[dowlingm]

I've talked about a Heathrow T5-T5B APM from Union to the docks as QQ LRT passes overhead, but a tonne of money has been spent on the Bay tunnel and the shimmy approach to the portal, not to mention the disruption. If the TTC is crapping themselves about how hard it's gonna be to excavate the Union Loop, fair enough but they should have gotten there before now. If surfacing the portal and rediverting the tracks causes massive disruption the property owners along the Quay should be furious.

 

[CDL.TO]

With the streetcars as delayed as they are, maybe reducing the current Bombardier order and ordering some double-ended cars to make reconstruction easier is worth reconsideration.

Unfortunate that the curve south of Queens Quay station is so tight, limiting the "off-the-shelf-ness" of any vehicles that could be ordered.

 

[Neil]

That recommendation goes back as far as 2004 when the Master Waterfront Transit Plan was in EA stage. It was based on duel end cars with 3 tracks at Union underpass and Bay St closed to traffic. 2 tracks would continue north on Bay St to Bloor St.

With single end cars now, where do you loop the cars without getting caught up in traffic??

I posted about this many pages ago but I'll throw it to the wolves again. My preference is to have the portal surface in front of the ACC, Bay St transit mall up to Queen and loop around old city hall.

There are other operational options as well. If there were a track union at King, then some 510 cars northbound on Bay could shortcut back to Spadina. Sort of a big short-turn. Same thing could happen to the East if a Cherry-QQ connection ever happens.

Expanding the Union loop would just be a big money pit. I would like to see recent source-destination numbers but I imagine a large chunk of the streetcar passengers are going to the CBD. So lets take them there rather than adding to the pedestrian crush at Union.