[44 North]

This requires digging a tunnel below grade along the path of the rail corridor. From what I understand, that would be a very expensive endeavour (I hope you can prove me wrong).

Well I guess we don't know where exactly this E-W tunnel would be located since it has yet to be studied in depth. But let's not forget that the Bremner LRT was supposed to tunnel under USRC too (tho maybe that's a reason its DOA lol). Also that the original Expand option is not without its massiveness and high cost. Officials may be mum, but thought it was in $1bn range. Who knows, maybe Extend could come in less. Unless of course its been dropped entirely due to exorbitant cost/complexity, which is a possibility.

 

[pstogios]

you have asked this question for many years and in many threads. Though the standard transit signals seem like a good idea to me I think you have REALLY made your point and it may be time to move on.

Plus this question isn't related to the topic of this thread at all.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Plus this question isn't related to the topic of this thread at all.

Maybe, just maybe, the city may go with transit signals with the reset. Maybe.

 

[drum118]

Since the CEO of WFT has open the door so to speak, I can comment on somethings.

All 3 options in the CEO report were review, look at in detail back in 2008 and all rejected, as it meant extra travel time, let alone another transfer. The only thing different between the 2008 study and this for the 3 option is having 2 4 car trains on each line that will pass each other in the middle. This will require widening the tunnel in the middle. No cost or time frame to do any of the conversion options.

I stand by my comments since 2008 that widening the existing loop is yesterday needs to meet service level, but will "NEVER" meet future needs as the waterfront is built out. We are looking at 6 time the proposed density was supposed to be, if no more. At $400 million plus is a waste of money and council is not prepared to pickup that bill. That is why council wanted this study done since they wanted something cheap.

Best option is to put the line on the surface of Bay St and close it to traffic south of Queen St as a pedestrian transit corridor. Past Chief City planner have stated that foot traffic currently exceed the car traffic and only going to get worse as ridership increase at Union and best to close bay off. To do this would require TTC to get a fleet of duel end cars to service 4 stub tracks at Front with the option to go to Queen or Bloor using stub tracks there. Bloor is the best option as well. By doing this, there is no need for loops on QQE or Cherry St.

I said going into this study it was a waste of time and what took place Tuesday night reinforce that view as well being so piss off, I had a hard time bitting my tongue from saying what I really wanted to say. Union was a joke and took up most the meeting with most of the room seem opposed to these options as well.

What these 3 option does, it removes the existing portal and the whole line is on the surface. It reduce the cost of doing the tunneling to the east. The other option for the QQE is to what is plan for tunneling and build an underground station at Bay. The big issue for the 3 option is how to get riders to/from the surface and 4 elevators will not cut it. You could look at a ramp if the QQE is on the surface. If the QQE/W line is underground, that even going to be worse to get to any level.

You are going to hear high foot traffic compare to transit ridership to try to justify a few things. One thing that is quite clear, outbound AM ridership is higher than inbound and the opposite in the PM. This doesn't take into consideration special events or off peak 7 days a week which is almost the same as peak service.

There will be no written report or recommendation come Monday and there will be some form of report for the Oct 24 executive meeting and that goes to council early Nov. You will see boards with centre cuts from Long Branch to Woodbine that I can't talk to at this time.

Again, I "STRONGLY RECOMMEND" you get out to either meeting and have a say, as well submit your written comments.

I will state the Bremmer line is Official dead and long over due.

 

[EastYorkTTCFan]

Waterfront Toronto USED to have the mantra "Transit First": so that people moving into a new area like West Don Lands and QQE would have good transit from Day 1. Not their finest hour I fear. I agree with @insertnamehere "They just need to bite the bullet and eat the costs of expanding the loop."

I think the plans now are to have larger sidewalks and less car traffic on streets with the streetcar shoehorned in somewhere in between the two.

 

[EastYorkTTCFan]

Maybe, just maybe, the city may go with transit signals with the reset. Maybe.

I think corsstwon is more liley the first to use them other than the few place the TTC curently uses them.

 

[EastYorkTTCFan]

All 3 options in the CEO report were review, look at in detail back in 2008 and all rejected, as it meant extra travel time, let alone another transfer. The only thing different between the 2008 study and this for the 3 option is having 2 4 car trains on each line that will pass each other in the middle. This will require widening the tunnel in the middle. No cost or time frame to do any of the conversion options.

Has the TTC been canslyed about this or is tjis all just Waterfront Toront trying to tell poel waht they want to do and wanting them to ask how hugh they want them to jump

Best option is to put the line on the surface of Bay St and close it to traffic south of Queen St as a pedestrian transit corridor. Past Chief City planner have stated that foot traffic currently exceed the car traffic and only going to get worse as ridership increase at Union and best to close bay off. To do this would require TTC to get a fleet of duel end cars to service 4 stub tracks at Front with the option to go to Queen or Bloor using stub tracks there. Bloor is the best option as well. By doing this, there is no need for loops on QQE or Cherry St.

I'm not sure how much the TTC really wants to add a one-off fleet of cars to the legacy network just because of one line and because whatever waterfront Toronto doesn't want to play with others properly. They are completely set about all of their plans and refuse to listen to anyone from the public that wants to contradict them.

 

[Rainforest]

Best option is to put the line on the surface of Bay St and close it to traffic south of Queen St as a pedestrian transit corridor. Past Chief City planner have stated that foot traffic currently exceed the car traffic and only going to get worse as ridership increase at Union and best to close bay off. To do this would require TTC to get a fleet of duel end cars to service 4 stub tracks at Front with the option to go to Queen or Bloor using stub tracks there. Bloor is the best option as well. By doing this, there is no need for loops on QQE or Cherry St.

Do you think it would be best to run both QQ East and QQ West cars on surface, and stop using the existing tunnel for transit?

Or, would it be easier to let the QQ West routes use the existing tunnel and underground loop, while building a surface Bay St line for QQ East routes only?

 

[drum118]

Do you think it would be best to run both QQ East and QQ West cars on surface, and stop using the existing tunnel for transit?

Or, would it be easier to let the QQ West routes use the existing tunnel and underground loop, while building a surface Bay St line for QQ East routes only?

The plan from day one that QQE or other lines from the east would run straight alone QQ and bypass Union with some using Union

I strongly feel the the line should be on the surface and not using Union Loop. It will be less costly to build and having up and running in the quarter of the time to do Union Loop or less. Only need a few months to fill in the portal and make all connections.

TTC has opposed doing Bay since they feel the Bay/QQ intersection would be an operation issue, but they have all have retire since 2008. Then, they were the ones who opposite doing QQW and Cherry St, yet the Commissioners and Council like the plan.

The one thing I did say Tuesday, time to tell EMS and Fire where to go and put grass down in the current ROW as well the new ones or paint them red for the fool drivers.

Yes TTC will/may opposes having 2 fleets, but then the Chair of TTC back in 2005 mandated they be single ends. It will help with reducing the squealing of the wheels, though the new ones don't squeal as bad as the existing fleet, but they squeal.

 

[BurlOak]

I don't think extending the loop east was in the EA. Seems a fairly fresh concept, and one reason I laud the Reset. And if I had to argue which was more of an 'expansion', the old plan or extending the loop east, I'd say the latter. The amount of breathing room offered is way bigger...it's the real expansion. I guess we'll find out if it survived Phase II (I think it has).

View attachment 121201
View attachment 121202

Is abandoning the loop not the same as abandoning the SRT - we are subtracting transit instead of adding it.
Can QQE and QQW not divert up (underground) to Lakeshore? The cuts the walk down to a reasonable amount.
The Bremner line would use the loop, or possibly get extending north via the loop to under Bay (and under YUS).
Not sure, but can Bremner/Fort York not go onto Fleet and go to the north end of Exhibition. Then QQW could follow Lakeshore or Princes' to serve the south part of the Ex and/or Ontario place - and continue on to be the WWLRT.

 

[DSC]

Is abandoning the loop not the same as abandoning the SRT - we are subtracting transit instead of adding it.
Can QQE and QQW not divert up (underground) to Lakeshore? The cuts the walk down to a reasonable amount.
The Bremner line would use the loop, or possibly get extending north via the loop to under Bay (and under YUS).
Not sure, but can Bremner/Fort York not go onto Fleet and go to the north end of Exhibition. Then QQW could follow Lakeshore or Princes' to serve the south part of the Ex and/or Ontario place - and continue on to be the WWLRT.

As Drum118 has said. The Bremner 'dream' is totally dead so I would waste no more time on seeing how it could help. Maybe Bremner discussion should go into a fantasy thread. The reason the original EA choice (the streetcar going up to Union and a much larger loop) has not happened is that it was thought to be too expensive. Adding tunnels and buried diversions is NOT going to be any cheaper.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I strongly feel the the line should be on the surface and not using Union Loop. It will be less costly to build and having up and running in the quarter of the time to do Union Loop or less. Only need a few months to fill in the portal and make all connections.

Yes TTC will/may opposes having 2 fleets, but then the Chair of TTC back in 2005 mandated they be single ends. It will help with reducing the squealing of the wheels, though the new ones don't squeal as bad as the existing fleet, but they squeal.

Any reason why this hasn't been seriously considered before, beyond the dual-cab LRV issue?

 

[drum118]

Any reason why this hasn't been seriously considered before, beyond the dual-cab LRV issue?

Are you nuts wanting to close Bay St to traffic??

 

[TheTigerMaster]

How about having the LRT travel north on Yonge from Queens Quay to Front, then west on Front to Bay (Union), where the line would terminate? Traffic impacts of this would be less significant, since there are no Gardiner ramps to deal with. This should work fine, as long as the LRVs can deal with the tight curve radius at the Front/Yonge intersection.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

Is there any consensus as to whether Waterfront translit line should be continuous or terminating at Union?

I understand that there is massive development and population/employment growth projected for East Bayfront all the way into the Portlands, but my understanding is that despite that, Union is going to be the starting point or destination for the majority of trips, regardless if the tripmaker's origin/destination is on the eastern or the western waterfront.

This matters. Thorough Waterfront Transit line (streetcar or LRT) bypassing Union would be inconviencing a majority of tripmakers.