[44 North]

Yup we do, here's a link to yesterday's presentation: http://www.waterfrontoronto.ca/uplo..._study___final_presentation_may_25_2016_1.pdf

What I propose is just a modification of Option 3C, to extend it to east to Union, rather than terminating at Bathurst.

Bidirectional LRTs would surely be much easier to work with. For example, with my proposal there could be a surface LRT stop at Union Station on Front Street with no need for a loop

Wicked, thanks. Just did a quick skim, and there's a few things I think can be optimized (via us UTers and our amateur fantasy maps). My main focus is Segment 3 (strachan to parliament), so I was a bit disappointed to read that "all concepts use East Bayfront LRT alignment along Queens Quay". No doubt this street-running section would be too slow and have too low capacity for peak demand of a developed LDL and Port Lands.

But working with that concept and how it serves downtown, I'm interested in A.2 as seen on page 45. The benefit is a continuous cross-waterfront transit line and a direct Union connection. No need for a silly 500m walkalator. My fantasy addition to this would be for the City/TTC/WTO to redo the EA for the EBF LRT so as to use the future Harbour Street extension in the East Bayfront (while offering more grade-separation for this critical section), and to connect to Union via a tunnel under Freeland and Lake Shore Blvd.

 

[drum118]

If there are other options not shown on any boards, this is the time to get them in to all levels so they can be review and be consider going forward.

I can say 100% for sure and it was stated as well, 3C is DOA west of Dufferin St. The new street been proposed for Liberty Village is too narrow for transit, but it is the right location to take it from Dufferin St to Cherry St. I have call for this route for some time. This would require a transit Pedestrian bridge to be built over the rail corridor.

I have call for 2C with a branch line from it to the Dufferin/CNE loop, as well one going from the CNE/Dufferin/King/Queensway ROW and going west on the Queensway to Etobicoke Creek. They all provide service to everyone.

As for duel end vs single end, it takes about 23 seconds to use the loop plus loading time vs up to 90 seconds for stub that includes loading time, but the loop needs a lot of expensive land for it. We continue to look at a shorter car, but in the long run we need to look at either longer cars or running in pairs just like the rest of the world if headway is a problem.

 

[Filip]

The Queensway (in Etobicoke) alignment has already been discounted and referred to the dust bin (until some time that it's worthy to study further).

 

[44 North]

As for duel end vs single end, it takes about 23 seconds to use the loop plus loading time vs up to 90 seconds for stub that includes loading time, but the loop needs a lot of expensive land for it. We continue to look at a shorter car, but in the long run we need to look at either longer cars or running in pairs just like the rest of the world if headway is a problem.

Has the TTC ever discussed operating the LFLRV Outlooks in consists of two or three units? For a standalone line such as something operating between Union and the Port Lands (or Expo 2025), that could be optimal. In the 1984/1985 Downtown RT studies, two-car LRVs (50m in length) were considered for a Bay St LRT. And prior to ICTS the TTC was keen on using multi-LRV consists for fully grade-separated lines like the Scarborough and Etobicoke routes. It was even considered an option for the DRL. And this is probably the only image of a six-car CLRV train. So could we do the same for the Flexity Outlook?

 

[David Brake]

I just read that the 2010 EA rejected an underground moving walkway because it would "create a major inconvenience for transit users" but it remains under consideration here. The high speed Pearson one moves at 7km/h, so if one was installed it would take around five minutes to travel from one end to the other. Alternatively, there could be bike lanes in the tunnel (?!)

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

Imagine if, back when they were first deciding what to do with the old railway lands south of Union, they had made the subway loop at Queens Quay instead of Union? We could have avoided the need for a second Union platform and also gotten around this whole Union to Waterfront discussion!

Oh to look back with 20/20 hindsight.

 

[drum118]

Has the TTC ever discussed operating the LFLRV Outlooks in consists of two or three units? For a standalone line such as something operating between Union and the Port Lands (or Expo 2025), that could be optimal. In the 1984/1985 Downtown RT studies, two-car LRVs (50m in length) were considered for a Bay St LRT. And prior to ICTS the TTC was keen on using multi-LRV consists for fully grade-separated lines like the Scarborough and Etobicoke routes. It was even considered an option for the DRL. And this is probably the only image of a six-car CLRV train. So could we do the same for the Flexity Outlook?

TTC is afraid to go duel cars based on the length of them as well the impact on traffic. If they look to the south, they would see that its is used there now even in non ROW. In fact, a few places have 100 freight cars trains using the street as mainline.

It all boils down to changing mind thinking.

As for the moving sidewalk, that goes back as far as 2008 starting with a people mover and that was rejected then as well in 2010.

Not having duel end cars is a mistake on many fronts from my point of view.

 

[David Brake]

I have just put up a poll about the downtown connection for the Queen's Quay based on the consultation's choices, so please vote (and if you would suggest something else, please let us know what it is you'd like to see!)

 

[Forgotten]

Elevate the...

Took you long enough. I was almost disappointed.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I have just put up a poll about the downtown connection for the Queen's Quay based on the consultation's choices, so please vote (and if you would suggest something else, please let us know what it is you'd like to see!)

Unfortunately I'm not supportive of any of the options. Queens Quay is the least worst option in the list, but I'm. It satisfied with that routing.

 

[David Brake]

Well there certainly doesn't seem to be any solution that would be ideal - do you have any alternative suggestions? Does anyone have any idea what the relative costings of the options would be? I take it in theory instead of a loop at present one could build a tunnel and have the Queen's Quay line curve up to Union and back down - but that it would cost an extortionate amount of money...

 

[nfitz]

I take it in theory instead of a loop at present one could build a tunnel and have the Queen's Quay line curve up to Union and back down - but that it would cost an extortionate amount of money...

That esssentially describes option A.2. Is it that costly compared to A.1 and C.1?

 

[David Brake]

You are right - there are so many different variations it is hard to keep them all straight! I hope we will find out more tonight... My costing guess was simply based on the idea that if it were not that costly it would seem to be the most elegant solution so I assume the others are compromises thought necessary for cost reasons.

 

[44 North]

Took you long enough. I was almost disappointed.

Haha, really it took no time at all. I'm frequently supportive of unexplored and affordable grade-separation alternatives, and have continued to write about this in regards to the eastern waterfront. Frankly I find it odd that you would prefer cattle-car conditions, spotty service, and snails-pace speeds. It should be pretty obvious that all attempts at "LRT" through Old Toronto haven't lived up to the promises made, and that we're soon going to spend a king's ransom to repeat the exact same mistakes.

Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

Oooh, there's a poll (at the top of the thread)!