TTC: Queens Quay East BRT (Unofficial proposal)

[drum118]

The approved EA by TTC Commissioners and City Council "DID" included an LRT on the Lake Shore Blvd E.

When the Province came back to TTC to break the EA down into 3 separate areas, TTC Staff removed the Lake Shore LRT out of the EA Master Plan unknown to everyone involved with the EA including Me.

It was only when we started the EA for Cherry St did we find out about the removal of the line as well the opposition by TTC to have a line on Lake Shore.

 

[salsa]

The approved EA by TTC Commissioners and City Council "DID" included an LRT on the Lake Shore Blvd E.

When the Province came back to TTC to break the EA down into 3 separate areas, TTC Staff removed the Lake Shore LRT out of the EA Master Plan unknown to everyone involved with the EA including Me.

It was only when we started the EA for Cherry St did we find out about the removal of the line as well the opposition by TTC to have a line on Lake Shore.

Interesting. Why did they remove it?

 

[44 North]

Interesting indeed. Perhaps the TTC didn't want to involve themselves with the Lake Shore / Gardiner corridor, because they know the City has plans to rebuild it. Anything built there may end up being torn out in a few years.

 

[drum118]

TTC comments were not well answers when asked other than dealing with the rail spur in the middle now; where do you take it west; would piss off drivers; didn't fit their vision; and the list goes on.

The lake shore could have been to one side like the QQ, but TTC didn't like that idea like they didn't like doing Cherry and the QQ like they are today.

Waterfront Toronto saw the Lake Shore as either a 4 lanes through traffic or 6 lanes at peak time with the curb lane being used for parking.

If you talk to past City planners they will say reducing the numbers of lanes of traffic and having transit on the Lake Shore was the best option in dealing with reducing traffic to the city core.

The idea of of having transit on the Lake Shore is not a dead issues and will resurface once the Gardiner issue is dealt with in the next few years.

I will also note we looked at every type of technology as to what should be used for the Portland and the Waterfront with LRT being the best choice. I did the spreadsheet for every type of technology with different type of ridership at various time with LRT coming out the strongest. Using a subway was way down the list running as a 2 car train. If you wanted the standard train, at the bottom with real poor service level around every 30 minutes plus.

 

[44 North]

Thanks for the input. Your knowledge and first-hand experience is valued, and much appreciated.

I can understand why subways would be a poor choice for the waterfront. I agree with LRT...but I still firmly believe that an elevated streetcar guideway is more optimal than street-level operation. It’s both fast and affordable. And can run on the south side of Lake Shore East, completely separate from traffic.

If anyone wants to see what could be built on Lake Shore East, check out what they’ve done in The Haag’s financial district. It’s an attractive solution. Too bad Toronto (with the most LRT in the western hemisphere) can’t implement a bold streetcar proposal such as this.

 

[Forgotten]

Couldn't find the East Bayfront/QQE thread, but this one is close enough. Apologies if I’m seemingly dragging this idea through the mud. The plan for streetcars along Queens Quay East has been delayed long enough that I think it’s worth taking another look, and I just wanted to show what I had in mind to make it clear that it’s nothing too zany or costly. *my earlier posts on this idea can be found in the Gardiner thread

The westernmost branch of this east waterfront streetcar network would be shifted one block north from QQE to a rebuilt Gardiner/Lake Shore corridor; with the line being kept as a rapid, partially-elevated streetcar spine between Union and the proposed Broadview extension. All the other proposed routes (i.e - Commissioners, Broadview ext, Cherry connection) will remain as planned.

The Queens Quay EA didn’t consider the Gardiner/Lake Shore realignment and future proposals (because they didn’t exist at the time). But if the report were to be rewritten by a neutral party (i.e – one not interested in making QQE into a postcard showcase avec streetcars), I’m certain Lake Shore would come out on top. As for keeping the line grade-separate...that just seems to make more sense if this city genuinely wants to connect the future east waterfront area. A streetcar on Queens Quay E, stopping at traffic signals every 100m, wouldn’t do a very good job of that IMO.

View attachment 38165

Build elevated guideway for BRT and then you can build an elevated branch up the Don Valley next to the DVP to Eglinton.

Beautiful it like that European example. Thank you, I just saved you $10 billion on the DRL.

 

[44 North]

The Not So Speedy 509 Harbourfront Car

The future of light rail on Queens Quay East (if we’re lucky): http://stevemunro.ca/?p=10438

A couple takeaways:

Although the line re-opened for streetcar service, the operating speed was, putting it mildly, glacial thanks to a whole new set of traffic signals that gave a new meaning to the antithesis of “transit priority”

Even with the fixes, streetcar service is slower than the bus route it replaced (which did not have to deal with anywhere near as many signals) and slower than the streetcar service operated before the reconstruction.

So it turns out that in-median (or side of road) light rail doesn’t work very well in a dynamic and high-density downtown. What may work for the Queensway, or Sheppard East, or Finch West may not work so well for inner-city routes. What better time to take a second look at transit in the East Bayfront than when a 80m-wide highway corridor one block north of Queens Quay East (i.e - Gardiner/Lake Shore East) is being studied for a complete rebuild? This isn’t one or two residential properties needing a transit connection to woo potential investors; this is 1,000 acres of potentially high-value downtown waterfront real estate within Canada's largest city! Why relegate such an important area to slow streetcars (or more probably – BRT), when a marginal increase in capital costs and project scope has the potential to offer such a large and important area bonafide rapid transit?

A lot of major developments hang in the balance (Monde, LCBO property, Lower Yonge, Aqualina, etc). Theoretically these should be some of the most valuable and sought-after sites in TO. Yet without a proper railed transit connection, they’re about to become some lowly run of the mill condos – if that. So will every site east of Sherbourne and across the enormous Lower Don Lands and Port Lands area all the way to Leslie. I’m not calling for heavy rail and astronomically-priced subways, but merely grade-separate LRT/streetcars...similar to what most cities opt for when planning a 'light' rail solution. This is my fantasy map (poster?) of what I believe should exist. It might seem a bit Doug Ford-esque, but it's the right solution IMO.

 

[ehlow]

44 North,

The take-away for the Steve Munro article isn't that it's impossible to do transit with signals and therefore everything has to be elevated, as you seem to imply. It's that the signal timing in place now is terrible and slowing it down a huge amount. The fact that the pre-construction streetcar (which had signals) was much faster shows that it can obviously be much faster if the signals were programmed differently.

The signals were adjusted a few days after the opening and travel times dropped, but it's still not as good as it can be. Waterfront Toronto has said that the actual good signal programming will happen in the Spring, and hopefully it's at least as fast as it was before construction started.

http://blog.waterfrontoronto.ca/nbe...xlUa1IryApy9EXU!/dl5/d5/L2dBISEvZ0FBIS9nQSEh/

 

[jaybe]

44 North,

Waterfront Toronto has said that the actual good signal programming will happen in the Spring, and hopefully it's at least as fast as it was before construction started.

It is confounding that separating the street car from most vehicle traffic that transit times would not improve significantly over the route that went down the center of the Queens Quay. What is wrong with this?

 

[Tuscani01]

44 North,

The take-away for the Steve Munro article isn't that it's impossible to do transit with signals and therefore everything has to be elevated, as you seem to imply. It's that the signal timing in place now is terrible and slowing it down a huge amount. The fact that the pre-construction streetcar (which had signals) was much faster shows that it can obviously be much faster if the signals were programmed differently.

The signals were adjusted a few days after the opening and travel times dropped, but it's still not as good as it can be. Waterfront Toronto has said that the actual good signal programming will happen in the Spring, and hopefully it's at least as fast as it was before construction started.

http://blog.waterfrontoronto.ca/nbe...xlUa1IryApy9EXU!/dl5/d5/L2dBISEvZ0FBIS9nQSEh/

Also,

Many of the 'new' traffic lights are not permanent. Many will be removed once construction is completed. To compare Queens Quay now to what it was before isn't an accurate comparison at all, since it is still under construction.

 

[ehlow]

It is confounding that separating the street car from most vehicle traffic that transit times would not improve significantly over the route that went down the center of the Queens Quay. What is wrong with this?

I don't fully understand your post, but I'll try to interpret. Firstly, I assume you mean separating the streetcar from traffic signals, since this streetcar is already separated from "vehicle traffic" using a private ROW.

Anyways, absolutely nothing is wrong with grade-separating transit, and yes of course it is faster in general than a transit vehicle that goes through traffic lights (controlling other factors).

But my point was that the article about the fact that this streetcar can be improved by changing the signalling of the traffic signals, and that it's much slower than it could be because of particularly bad signal timing.

It's also been pointed out by Waterfront Toronto that the final signals are not in yet and will be in in spring (and that they claim it should be much better for streetcar speeds). So, if we're judging the performance of this route, shouldn't we at least wait until its finished?

 

[44 North]

I don't think that 'everything must be elevated'. But I believe an attempt should be made to grade-separate as many intersections as possible - not simply for the East Bayfront's benefit, but for the broader waterfront all the way to Leslie. There will be an large amount of traffic signals between Yonge and Parliament with a streetcar along QQE...and definitely more than originally promised. How many more will there be in a decade when infill projects like grocery stores require yet another signal out front? Even with signal priority, the vehicle will still have to stop and wait for a bit.

 

[ehlow]

I don't think that 'everything must be elevated'. But I believe an attempt should be made to grade-separate as many intersections as possible - not simply for the East Bayfront's benefit, but for the broader waterfront all the way to Leslie. There will be an large amount of traffic signals between Yonge and Parliament with a streetcar along QQE...and definitely more than originally promised. How many more will there be in a decade when infill projects like grocery stores require yet another signal out front? Even with signal priority, the vehicle will still have to stop and wait for a bit.

OK, all I'm saying is that I don't think that looking at QQW right now with signalling that is both temporary and especially bad is a good indication that:

in-median (or side of road) light rail doesn’t work very well in a dynamic and high-density downtown

as you phrased it.

I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusion, but if you're going to draw a general conclusion like that based on QQW, at least we should wait for the final signal timings, no?

Yes. Of course the more signals there are, the slower the transit vehicle that has to go through them. I don't think I or anyone else would dispute that.

 

[44 North]

I guess another takeaway is that I should probably read an article more carefully instead of skimming through it and attempting to get the gist

But even with QQW operating at 100% efficiency, it would only be logical to conclude that it will run slower than before. Not due to any lack of signal priority, but rather the natural increase in traffic volume over that time - and the subsequent increase in light cycle times to accommodate this increase.

 

[ehlow]

I guess another takeaway is that I should probably read an article more carefully instead of skimming through it and attempting to get the gist

But even with QQW operating at 100% efficiency, it would only be logical to conclude that it will run slower than before. Not due to any lack of signal priority, but rather the natural increase in traffic volume over that time - and the subsequent increase in light cycle times to accommodate this increase.

That really depends.

Is the increase in traffic on the streets intersecting Queens Quay greater than the increase of traffic on Queens Quay? If so, how will signal priority weigh things like car traffic vs transit ridership? Will they even re-evaluate the signalling in the future, and if so, how frequently?

Part of the reason I'm optimistic about the signal delay being not as big on streets like Sheppard and Eglinton through Scarborough is that many of the signals are a major route (which the transit vehicle is on) vs a very small residential road or a big box store driveway. The major roads in this situation get green a large majority of the time. The other reason of course is the spacing of the major intersections being much further than urban environments like QQW, Spadina and St Clair.

I actually do agree with your conclusion that it makes the most sense to grade separate transit in dense urban environments with many intersections and slow street speeds. I just didn't think QQW in todays state was the best example.