|
|
|
- Thread starter AlvinofDiaspar
- Start date
Momo49
New Member
I was referring to SB am demand from Union, which is probably the peak ridership on this line. The streetcars are full at Union and even now I guess perhaps up to half get off at Queen's Quay station. With lower yonge still much to be developed, that percentage probably grows
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
I can assure you from personal experience, this is not the case. The streetcars are full all along Queens Quay, with there often being more demand than the streetcars can handle.
44 North
Senior Member
Something like this is the best by a long shot, and I really do hope it's still floating around. Solves a lot of issues, still Union-centric but would offer high vehicle/pass. throughput considering the lack of a loop. I can't envision a surface transit mall working well at all, and the moving walkway is simply silly. A continuous underground tunnel with a repurposed loop however...it's a winner. I don't think we've seen it costed though, but I can't imagine it being all that much more than the original loop expansion.
Neil
Active Member
I can see the transit mall working but I don't see the need for double ended cars. A loop could be formed going around old city hall and/or via Richmond-Sheppard-Temperance. It also allows for many other operational routing options. New routes could be formed by turning off Bay onto King using it is a quick return to Spadina. You could have a scheduled downtown loop run in the AM or PM rush depending on the origin-destination demands. As Union I would:
- have 2 streetcar tracks at surface using the western half of the Bay Underpass
- have the eastern half of the Bay underpass still be for North bound vehicle traffic to access the Bus terminal and Front St.
- begin 1-way east bound traffic on Front at York St.
- re-purpose the existing union loop as a pedestrian link between the union lower level and points east of Bay.
- have 2 streetcar tracks at surface using the western half of the Bay Underpass
- have the eastern half of the Bay underpass still be for North bound vehicle traffic to access the Bus terminal and Front St.
- begin 1-way east bound traffic on Front at York St.
- re-purpose the existing union loop as a pedestrian link between the union lower level and points east of Bay.
DSCToronto
Superstar
Report coming to PWIC next week. http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2017.PW22.7
ADRM
Senior Member
Recommended infrastructure changes/construction includes:
- easterly extension of Harbour Street (from Yonge Street to Lower Jarvis Street),
- realignment of the Yonge Street/Harbour Street intersection,
- conversion of Harbour Street from one-way eastbound to two-way operations (from York Street to Yonge Street),
- shortening of the Lower Jarvis Street off-ramp from eastbound Gardiner Expressway
- removal of the Bay Street on-ramp,
- reconstruction of Yonge Street (Queens Quay to Front Street) and lower Jarvis Street (Queens Quay to Lake Shore Boulevard East),
- construction of a new street, extending between Queens Quay East and Lake Shore Boulevard, east of Cooper Street, and
- extension of Cooper Street north to connect with Church Street and The Esplanade.
The estimated cost for the transportation infrastructure identified in the Lower Yonge Precinct is $122 million including design and property acquisition costs. This excludes the cost of the proposed Cooper Street extension, which has been identified as a long-term objective.
--
For my part, I'll be looking to see if PWIC whittles down any of the pedestrian and cyclist safety detail.
DSCToronto
Superstar
I think that any 'whittling' will happen when the $$ are allocated rather than here but ...
ADRM
Senior Member
DSCToronto
Superstar
I fear you are wrong. "Funding for this infrastructure is not currently identified within the 2017-2026 Approved Capital Budget and Plan for Transportation Services. A strategy to secure funding through the development review process and the Development Charge By-Law Review are being pursued."
Kitsune
Senior Member
So Lakeshore is going to become one way between Bay and roughly Simcoe ?
jcam
Active Member
If you shifted the E-W part of the tunnel so it was north of the rail corridor, you may be able to tack its construction onto the development of the 3rd Bay Park tower, or whatever is done by the new owners of the Dominion Public building...build the tunnel and station into the lower levels of those towers.
ADRM
Senior Member
This was adopted without amendment at PWIC today and will proceed to Council on 28 June.
DSCToronto
Superstar
At TEYCC today the building at 75 The esplanade (Church and The Esplanade) got the go-ahead. This may be of interest here:
"It is staff's opinion that the most recent submission date stamped February 16, 2017, along with the proposed community benefits under Section 37 of the Planning Act and the conveyance to allow for the future extension of Church Street south under the railway corridor to the lake is appropriate." This is not going to happen soon but when the Green P lot is redeveloped .....
"It is staff's opinion that the most recent submission date stamped February 16, 2017, along with the proposed community benefits under Section 37 of the Planning Act and the conveyance to allow for the future extension of Church Street south under the railway corridor to the lake is appropriate." This is not going to happen soon but when the Green P lot is redeveloped .....
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
I wonder if getting Church Street under the Gardiner and rail corridor will be prohibitively expensive.