[nfitz]

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.

Yes, they seem to have taken every proposed scheme in the last 20 years, and carried all but a couple of them forward!

 

[TheTigerMaster]

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.

I really would like to know why City Planning is evaluating building the LRT in a dedicated corrior between Dufferin and Bathurt, but is not evaluating extending that LRT on from Bathurst to Union via Front Street . This would serve more population centres than the other options, save at least 10 minutes (vs. Queens Quay) and bring Libery Village within a 10 minute trip to the downtown core. This would be nearly as good as complete grade separation. I can't think of any technical reasons that couldn't work.

 

[44 North]

I really would like to know why City Planning is evaluating building the LRT in a dedicated corrior between Dufferin and Bathurt, but is not evaluating extending that LRT on from Bathurst to Union via Front Street . This would serve more population centres than the other options, save at least 10 minutes (vs. Queens Quay) and bring Libery Village within a 10 minute trip to the downtown core. This would be nearly as good as complete grade separation. I can't think of any technical reasons that couldn't work.

I'm not well-versed in the plans for the WWLRT, and haven't considered unexplored options. I was underwhelmed by what I read during the TC days, and it's pretty obvious that both the City/TTC and Prov/Metrolinx are notorious for excluding options. Look what happened with Eglinton. We could've had full grade-separation from Keele to Don Mills, but instead dropped the ball by using in-median between Brentcliffe and Don Mills. Leslie went from an in-median stop, to a deep bore station, then back to an in-median stop - with absolutely no discussion about affordably grade-separating that portion by way of trench, viaduct, or side-of-road alignments.

With the WWLRT I don't think much can be done to offer high speeds/capacity. Decades of poor planning through that area means the die has been cast, and what will be built (if we're lucky) will probably be disjointed and slow (tho still a major improvement).

But with the East Bayfront we have a massive area that will be completely rebuilt and redesigned: an expressway, a highway, arterials, local roads, very little development or nimbys... it's carte blanche! And a perfect opportunity to build an LRT line that can actually provide high capacity and speeds. Yet this was completely ignored. We looked at subway technology, monorail, BRT, and tram-style LRT. But nothing in the way of grade-separated LRT. Why this is, who knows?

 

[David Brake]

I really would like to know why City Planning is evaluating building the LRT in a dedicated corrior between Dufferin and Bathurt, but is not evaluating extending that LRT on from Bathurst to Union via Front Street.

I will ask! But option 3C comes close and might include what you want if Metrolinx helps (slide 42)

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I will ask! But option 3C comes close and might include what you want if Metrolinx helps (slide 42)

Thanks David. Option 3C seems to be dependant on Metrolinx building a multi-modal hub there. Presumably an RER/LRT/Streetcar interchange at Bathurst and Front. The exact quote:

• Concept 3C presents issues. These issues could be addressed and significant transportation benefits realized if Metrolinx constructs a major transit hub along Front Street. Continued consultation to be conducted.

The glaring problem with this proposal is that downtown-bound commuters would have to transfer from LRT to RER and to make the short ~1.5 km trip too Union Station. When factoring in the wait time for RER, the travel time and the walking time, this would be far slower than simply extending the LRT east to Union. And these customers would need to pay TTC fare + RER fare. Nobody is going to do this. Unless I'm missing something, this option sounds terrible.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Thanks David. Option 3C seems to be dependant on Metrolinx building a multi-modal hub there. Presumably an RER/LRT/Streetcar interchange at Bathurst and Front. The exact quote:

• Concept 3C presents issues. These issues could be addressed and significant transportation benefits realized if Metrolinx constructs a major transit hub along Front Street. Continued consultation to be conducted.

The glaring problem with this proposal is that downtown-bound commuters would have to transfer from LRT to RER and to make the short ~1.5 km trip too Union Station. When factoring in the wait time for RER, the travel time and the walking time, this would be far slower than simply extending the LRT east to Union. And these customers would need to pay TTC fare + RER fare. Nobody is going to do this. Unless I'm missing something, this option sounds terrible.

Now giving this a second thought, I noted that they said that Metrolinx would need to build a major transit hub along front street (not necessarily at Front and Bathurst). Perhaps they'd be asking Metrolinx to build a satellite station, or an extension of Union Station, somewhere west of Lower Simcoe, to make the streetcar connection to Union Station easier. This option would make more sense than my first interpretation.

With the Metro Toronto Convention Centre slated for renovation or removal, now would be an optimal time to build a Union Station extension at Front and Lower Simcoe Street, where the Waterfront West LRT would presumably terminate. From Lower Simcoe, it would be about 250 metre to 350 metre walk to Union Station, which could be accommodated via PATH.

This would eliminate the need to build a costly streetcar tunnel under Bremner and Lower Simcoe to connect the LRT to the existing streetcar tunnel.

 

[zenmeister]

Unless I'm missing something, this option sounds terrible.

Fare Integration

 

[k10ery]

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!)

There's no mention in that document of the 45 Bay Street development or the possibility of a station there. Weird!

The new eastern and western lines could terminate there (or better a through-route) and the existing loop stay as is for the Queen's Quay west service.

 

[rbt]

Fare Integration

No, still terrible. GO isn't exactly bursting with excess peak capacity either today or with RER implemented. We don't want people transferring from the LRV to hanging off the side of a GO train for that last bit of the trip.

3C might work if the line east of Spadina runs along Wellington (remove Fort York median between Bathurst/Spadina through City Place and replace with ROW). Front is pretty busy and narrow but most of Wellington does not need 4 lanes for traffic. You could take 2 lanes out for LRV ROW and terminate underground near the south end of St. Andrew Station (no interference with University or PATH except CBC connection; though can plug into PATH at 55 University).

EDIT: 45 Bay is now on the PATH map and has an expected connection to the Air Canada Center.

 

[georgevicbell]

There's no mention in that document of the 45 Bay Street development or the possibility of a station there. Weird!

The new eastern and western lines could terminate there (or better a through-route) and the existing loop stay as is for the Queen's Quay west service.

The real question is what is the best long term solution, not the cheapest. 45 bay, Bremner, along with a full reconstruction of the tunnel and loop with a long term view to terminating potentially 3 lines with potentially 2 or even 3 car consists of the new streetcars. There will need to be improvements to the pedestrian flows and accessibility as well as a long term view with regards to reliability (ensuring we don't have more cars venturing into the tunnels) and potential rerouting if there are platform disturbances.

I can't imagine the problems in 10 years if they go with a people mover or some half-thought out plan.

 

[Forgotten]

Thanks David. Option 3C seems to be dependant on Metrolinx building a multi-modal hub there. Presumably an RER/LRT/Streetcar interchange at Bathurst and Front. The exact quote:

• Concept 3C presents issues. These issues could be addressed and significant transportation benefits realized if Metrolinx constructs a major transit hub along Front Street. Continued consultation to be conducted.

The glaring problem with this proposal is that downtown-bound commuters would have to transfer from LRT to RER and to make the short ~1.5 km trip too Union Station. When factoring in the wait time for RER, the travel time and the walking time, this would be far slower than simply extending the LRT east to Union. And these customers would need to pay TTC fare + RER fare. Nobody is going to do this. Unless I'm missing something, this option sounds terrible.

Wasn't the RER station at Bathurst and Front going to be the end of the line for Milton and the other services? Your plan would have a problem then.

RL. Don't tell the chief planner though. The bureaucrats at 100 Queen Street West need their vibrant multi-modal hub under their parking lot.

 

[salsa]

Some putative ideas have surfaced in a Star article, including swaths of LRT across Lake Shore Boulevard and converting the Bay street tunnel to a pedestrian walkway. Several of them seem inspired more by the same approach that put the DRL under Queen, i.e. cost and complexity are the main consideration, actual transportation value not so much.

Billions of dollars are about to be spent on a subway in Scarborough just to eliminate a transfer, but somehow it's perfectly acceptable to impose a 500 metre walk because "we can't afford a tunnel".

 

[salsa]

Steve Munro: "The waterfront transit "reset" is a hodge podge of half baked ideas in a rushed study."

https://stevemunro.ca/2016/05/26/a-messy-reset-for-waterfront-transit-planning/

 

[k10ery]

3C might work if the line east of Spadina runs along Wellington (remove Fort York median between Bathurst/Spadina through City Place and replace with ROW). Front is pretty busy and narrow but most of Wellington does not need 4 lanes for traffic. You could take 2 lanes out for LRV ROW and terminate underground near the south end of St. Andrew Station (no interference with University or PATH except CBC connection; though can plug into PATH at 55 University).

Clever idea. But how do you get from Fort York Blvd to Wellington? I hate to think of streetcars turning from Spadina to Clarence Square and back, given the city's experience with transit signals.

 

[Jeff Morgan]

Are recordings of the presentations from the past two days going to be available online?