News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.4K     0 

How should Toronto connect the East and West arms of the planned waterfront transit with downtown?

  • Expand the existing Union loop

    Votes: 205 71.2%

  • Build a Western terminus

    Votes: 13 4.5%

  • Route service along Queen's Quay with pedestrian/cycle/bus connection to Union

    Votes: 31 10.8%

  • Connect using existing Queen's Quay/Union Loop and via King Street

    Votes: 22 7.6%

  • Other

    Votes: 17 5.9%
  • Total voters
    288
Sort of out there, but with the City planning to demolish the Bay on-ramp, how does a streetcar only Bay Street sound?

Maintain the union loop and use the below ground tunnel for the QQW streetcar and use Bay Street and a terminal just south of Front(above the union loop) for QQE. With the developments at 30 Bay, 45 Bay, and the eventual redevelopment of the Westin Harbour Conference Centre, theres going to be a ton of pedestrian movement along this route. It would be nice to have wide sidewalks, streetcar ROW, and would solve the QQE issue.

Heres a Google Map rough sketch: https://drive.google.com/open?id=118QhllKdy4WxyXpHGFJ37pUWd8Y&usp=sharing
 
alexb said:
Sort of out there, but with the City planning to demolish the Bay on-ramp, how does a streetcar only Bay Street sound?

Maintain the union loop and use the below ground tunnel for the QQW streetcar and use Bay Street and a terminal just south of Front(above the union loop) for QQE. With the developments at 30 Bay, 45 Bay, and the eventual redevelopment of the Westin Harbour Conference Centre, theres going to be a ton of pedestrian movement along this route. It would be nice to have wide sidewalks, streetcar ROW, and would solve the QQE issue.

Heres a Google Map rough sketch: https://drive.google.com/open?id=118QhllKdy4WxyXpHGFJ37pUWd8Y&usp=sharing
Click to expand...
The idea of using Bay for streetcars (or buses) was discussed at some length at the Waterfront transit studies and was rejected because Bay was very crowded, it's worse today. There was also the problem of where it would end. The main problem area with the current underground proposal is that the Union Loop needs to be extended; it not impossible but it is expensive - improving the tunnel under Bay (the problem is at the Y at Queens Quay) ) is not really the problem and it would clearly be FAR better to separate the streetcar from the cars and trucks. Where do you see anywhere "just south of Front" for a surface loop??
 
The week of Sept 18 will see 2 Open Houses for the plans that will be going to Council in Nov for approval and what to do next. Dates will be announce closer to the time frame.

All transit plans and options city wide is to go into the City Official Master Plan in 2018.

Nothing yet as to what may happen for Union Loop, but numbers are higher outbound than inbound for AM Peak. Off peak and special events number are a lot higher than 20 years ago system wide especially south of Dundas.

Major change will be coming to the Fleet/Bathurst/Lakeshore/QQ intersection known as Dog Breakfast Intersection, depending on which one of 3 option is chosen. One will be costly since it will be underground.
 
drum118 said:
Major change will be coming to the Fleet/Bathurst/Lakeshore/QQ intersection known as Dog Breakfast Intersection, depending on which one of 3 option is chosen. One will be costly since it will be underground.
Click to expand...
Do you have a link or reference for this with more info? This intersection is long overdue!
 
PinkLucy said:
Do you have a link or reference for this with more info? This intersection is long overdue!
Click to expand...
There is no link or reference to it and you will have to wait until on Sept to see what being proposed.

I can say very little based on confidential agreement at this time. Option 3 maybe the best option, but the cost and time frame will be the killer. If someone post other info related to transit plans from Long Branch Loop to Bathurst St, I will post more info then.

There is also 3 option to get transit from Park Lawn to Dufferin St extension to the Ex loop.

Anything relate to a Park Lawn loop and GO Station is on hold until there is a master plan as what will happen to the Christie lands. Only then will there a full review what will happen for transit there.
 
drum118 said:
Anything relate to a Park Lawn loop and GO Station is on hold until there is a master plan as what will happen to the Christie lands. Only then will there a full review what will happen for transit there.
Click to expand...

This is a ridiculous approach. Christies is only one anticipated development in an area that is already a high rise jungle. While whatever is decided for Christies could change the ridership numbers, the overall impact is likely only +\- 10% for the overall demand. The numbers without Christies justify LRT design, and even in the most extreme scenario the numbers won't justify subway. So, just get on with it !

And, last I heard, the various negotiations and litigation could go on forever..... sure makes me think that somebody is giving a lame excuse to try to keep this project stalled.

- Paul
 
Good to hear about Humber Bay being a royal mess for the another 15-20 years, good luck to anyone living in that neighbourhood.
 
First of all, having a loop at Christie is still missing the riders west of it like it does today.

Not having a GO Station there today is a huge mistake and continue to show the narrow thinking at all levels of Metrolinx. It been rejected because of lack of car spots since GO/Metrolinx think car drivers are the driving force for ridership, not transit.

Its nice to see 2 of my options are on the table that I recommended years ago for 2 different areas. Its also nice to see a dumb idea that been on the table for a decade being down graded to a bus route if it gets off the ground at all. 750 in both direction for 18 hours of service is too low for a bus route in the first place.

Until the government decide what it want to do with Ontario Place, it will have an impact on some transit plans.

2 lines needs to be added to the city official plan in 2018 and has been around for a few decades is an ROW on Kipling and the Queensway. More so for Kipling with the major changes to six point.

The problem with this study like in the past for approved EA's, where is the money going to come from to build these new lines and when would we see them??
 
pstogios said:
Without a reference, why should we believe anything you say?
Click to expand...
I believe you are entirely free to believe or not believe anything you read here. We all judge information presented here based on the credibility of the poster and the evidence they are willing to provide. You really don't need to tell the thread every time you don't believe what someone says.
 
drum118 said:
The week of Sept 18 will see 2 Open Houses for the plans that will be going to Council in Nov for approval and what to do next. Dates will be announce closer to the time frame.

All transit plans and options city wide is to go into the City Official Master Plan in 2018.

Nothing yet as to what may happen for Union Loop, but numbers are higher outbound than inbound for AM Peak. Off peak and special events number are a lot higher than 20 years ago system wide especially south of Dundas.

Major change will be coming to the Fleet/Bathurst/Lakeshore/QQ intersection known as Dog Breakfast Intersection, depending on which one of 3 option is chosen. One will be costly since it will be underground.
Click to expand...

Interesting, never thought a tunnel below Fleet/Bathurst would've been an option. Looking forward to the next phase of study. Higher AM Union outbound numbers seems a surprise to me, probably has factored in East Harbour (tho would've thought RL would carry much of that demand). You mentioned special events, and I'm hoping that is considered in any modeling because it obviously has a large effect on vehicle/station capacity in the summer months.
 
44 North said:
Interesting, never thought a tunnel below Fleet/Bathurst would've been an option. Looking forward to the next phase of study. Higher AM Union outbound numbers seems a surprise to me, probably has factored in East Harbour (tho would've thought RL would carry much of that demand). You mentioned special events, and I'm hoping that is considered in any modeling because it obviously has a large effect on vehicle/station capacity in the summer months.
Click to expand...
I assume everyone understand this: Confidential – Not for General Circulation and why there is no reference and detail info?? The meeting was Monday night.

In 1996 the split for off peak and peak was 50/50 at about 200 million for off peak and 180 m for peak. Today, peak is 232 m and off peak 306 m for a 43/57 split. TTC numbers and mostly related to the waterfront.

The tunnel is surprising and was raise earlier this year with it being more advance now. Cost and time frame is the killer for the tunnel, but eliminate all traffic issues 100%. It would have to be a cut and fill tunnel with a T connection at Fleet.
 
As long as I can keep driving I no longer give a crap about this city's gross inability to plan... well, just about anything.
 
Trenching the through lanes of LSBW under that junction might solve a few problems with far less disruption to transit users, if we're gonna dig holes.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top