Union Station LRT Loop Reconfiguration (TTC, Proposed)

[Amare]

Point being? It's fully enclosed, affects an order of magnitude less people, and a shorter walk than the hike from the proposed downtown subway to the major destinations in the shoulder areas, the latter matter nobody here seems to have a problem with so why would the moving walkway be a sticking point? Snowflakes

Point being that this corridor alone will be transporting tens of thousands of commuters to the largest transportation hub in the country, and the corridor where this is located will grow by an additional tens of thousands of commuters in the next 10-20 years.

Does it make any sense to dump tens of thousands of commuters 500 metres short of their destination every day unnecessarily and create a new bottleneck downtown?

 

[Red October]

Facepalmed for "snowflakes".

 

[Avenue]

Point being? It's fully enclosed, affects an order of magnitude less people, and a shorter walk than the hike from the proposed downtown subway to the major destinations in the shoulder areas, the latter matter nobody here seems to have a problem with so why would the moving walkway be a sticking point? Snowflakes

Did you just randomly throw in 'Snowflakes' into an argument? You need to learn to express yourself better.

 

[georgevicbell]

So, back to Bay Street surface streetcar....benefits:
1) Can support east and west expansion
2) Can go north to king for connectivity with dedicated King transit way (routing options)
3) Can go north to queen for connectivity with queen streetcar (routing options)
4) Eventual connectivity with DRL on queen
5) Brings people from east/west waterfront directly into the core, instead of the periphery
6) Removes cars from Bay, so increased sidewalk space for pedestrians/bikes
7) Cheap
8) Can be built in stages (ie just go to king, front, or even Gardiner first)
9) Vehicles can be included in the next order (reversible cars)
10) Can repurpose the tunnel for "PATH", or keep it as a branch for single ended cars that make it that far

Problems
1) Convincing the car lobby to remove cars from king and from bay...

 

[Jeff Morgan]

So, back to Bay Street surface streetcar....benefits:
1) Can support east and west expansion
2) Can go north to king for connectivity with dedicated King transit way (routing options)
3) Can go north to queen for connectivity with queen streetcar (routing options)
4) Eventual connectivity with DRL on queen
5) Brings people from east/west waterfront directly into the core, instead of the periphery
6) Removes cars from Bay, so increased sidewalk space for pedestrians/bikes
7) Cheap
8) Can be built in stages (ie just go to king, front, or even Gardiner first)
9) Vehicles can be included in the next order (reversible cars)
10) Can repurpose the tunnel for "PATH", or keep it as a branch for single ended cars that make it that far

Problems
1) Convincing the car lobby to remove cars from king and from bay...

Why was this option not considered or presented as an option?

 

[smallspy]

So, back to Bay Street surface streetcar....benefits:
1) Can support east and west expansion
2) Can go north to king for connectivity with dedicated King transit way (routing options)
3) Can go north to queen for connectivity with queen streetcar (routing options)
4) Eventual connectivity with DRL on queen
5) Brings people from east/west waterfront directly into the core, instead of the periphery
6) Removes cars from Bay, so increased sidewalk space for pedestrians/bikes
7) Cheap
8) Can be built in stages (ie just go to king, front, or even Gardiner first)
9) Vehicles can be included in the next order (reversible cars)
10) Can repurpose the tunnel for "PATH", or keep it as a branch for single ended cars that make it that far

Problems
1) Convincing the car lobby to remove cars from king and from bay...

1) So can the tunnels.
2) In theory. No one has proposed such a thing with any seriousness as yet, however.
3) See above.
4) And a connection to the subway at Union doesn't?
5) And the current subway tunnel doesn't?
6) No one has suggested making Bay transit-only.
7) -er than what? And what about the sunk costs of the tunnel and its associated infrastructure?
8) So can a tunnel.
9) Not really a material point.
10) There is already one PATH connection to the ferry docks, and at least one more will be built in the next couple of years.

You forgot about possibly the biggest concern - pedestrian traffic on Bay will greatly delay vehicles, both transit and private. That's part of the reason and advantage to keeping it underground at Queens Quay and Bay.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[crs1026]

Off the top of my head.....what about about a "super-PATH" under Bay Street....excavate the street out to the full width, cut and cover, all the way to the building foundations or whatever is under there now. All the way from QQ to Queen Street. There's lots of current PATH down there already, but it could be enlarged. The point being, with retail down there it would generate revenue as well as providing enough space for a realistically sized underground walkway complete with proper moving sidewalk.

I did a quick Google Maps measurement of where 500 yards gets you from either Grand Central Terminal or Penn Station. Clearly a very large number of New Yorkers hoof that far and much more every day. I wonder what the result would be for London. Our concern about a 500 meter walk may be an artifact of our smaller-town heritage, and may not really reflect life in a really big city center.

- Paul

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Off the top of my head.....what about about a "super-PATH" under Bay Street....excavate the street out to the full width, cut and cover, all the way to the building foundations or whatever is under there now. All the way from QQ to Queen Street. There's lots of current PATH down there already, but it could be enlarged. The point being, with retail down there it would generate revenue as well as providing enough space for a realistically sized underground walkway complete with proper moving sidewalk.

I did a quick Google Maps measurement of where 500 yards gets you from either Grand Central Terminal or Penn Station. Clearly a very large number of New Yorkers hoof that far and much more every day. I wonder what the result would be for London. Our concern about a 500 meter walk may be an artifact of our smaller-town heritage, and may not really reflect life in a really big city center.

- Paul

The question isn't whether someone is willing to walk 500 metres; or even walk 500m to take transit - but whether it make sense to have a transfer working that way.

As to superPATH, not without merit - but if you are spending that much money to dig a new tunnel, you might as well expand the LRT platforms.

AoD

 

[aquateam]

Off the top of my head.....what about about a "super-PATH" under Bay Street....excavate the street out to the full width, cut and cover, all the way to the building foundations or whatever is under there now. All the way from QQ to Queen Street. There's lots of current PATH down there already, but it could be enlarged. The point being, with retail down there it would generate revenue as well as providing enough space for a realistically sized underground walkway complete with proper moving sidewalk.

Why not both?

That way you would improve pedestrian access to the lake, and improve the path system, while still not inconveniencing riders heading to points further west/east along Queen's Quay.

Steve Munro wrote about such an option, where expansion of the Union loop would leave room for a passage way to the bus terminal, which could continue to be extended south by being incorporated into the basements of new development.

One option that does not even appear in any plans is a continuous underground passageway separate from the transit tunnel. Option A will create a platform extending all the way from the existing loop under the east side of Bay to the new bus terminal at Lake Shore. New developments planned between there and Queens Quay could be designed to continue this link further south. This would provide new weather-protected walking capacity extending the PATH system while maintaining the streetcar operation for riders bound for points east and west.

 

[W. K. Lis]

If Colborne Lodge Drive could be converted from the current motor vehicle roadway to pedestrian and streetcar use, why can't Bay Street?

 

[Leo_Chan]

Off the top of my head.....what about about a "super-PATH" under Bay Street....excavate the street out to the full width, cut and cover, all the way to the building foundations or whatever is under there now. All the way from QQ to Queen Street. There's lots of current PATH down there already, but it could be enlarged. The point being, with retail down there it would generate revenue as well as providing enough space for a realistically sized underground walkway complete with proper moving sidewalk.

I did a quick Google Maps measurement of where 500 yards gets you from either Grand Central Terminal or Penn Station. Clearly a very large number of New Yorkers hoof that far and much more every day. I wonder what the result would be for London. Our concern about a 500 meter walk may be an artifact of our smaller-town heritage, and may not really reflect life in a really big city center.

- Paul

Create a Transit Mall under Bay St

 

[dowlingm]

If Colborne Lodge Drive could be converted from the current motor vehicle roadway to pedestrian and streetcar use, why can't Bay Street?

because John Tory is Mayor, and anyone holding a different view has sweet FA chance of raising enough money and having enough positive media attention to replace him.

 

[dowlingm]

My idea of an Union-QQ streetcar-Ferry Terminal APM similar to Heathrow T5-T5B-T5C strikes me as a damn sight more likely to succeed than that ridiculous cable car with passing lanes nonsense, in the event that the streetcar was changed to east west only.

 

[44 North]

This is my focused look into the (now rejected) Union Loop Extension plan. Was kinda hoping we'd see it costed or analyzed more before its rejection. It was probably unfairly costed too high and deemed too complex. But considering the amount of construction and bottom-up planning for the central waterfront, it could've been done for a lot less and simpler than estimated. And just as the people mover and walkalator returned after rejection, so to could a Loop Extension.

For the eastward extension of Union Loop and new tunnel/platforms it theoretically could be worked into CIBC Square's construction. All the infrastructure would be located below USRC just north of the CIBC site. So in effect it could mined-out laterally via CIBC Square's excavation and active construction site. Any services on USRC wouldn't be disrupted, and access to the current loop could remain for the majority. Probably way too late, but if the City/Metrolinx flexed their muscle I think it could still be accomplished.

All the rest between Union and the eastern portal would be relatively easy, and extremely beneficial to locals and longer-haul riders. I mean, the entire area will be rebuilt from bedrock up, including the streets. While sewers and watermains are being put in, just add in a cut/cover streetcar tunnel.

Long and short: rather than losing ~500m of key grade-separated infrastructure like some of the QQ-Union plans, we would be gaining ~700m. This 1.5km subgrade stretch is obviously a lot less than what we're seeing elsewhere like Eglinton, but would probably be adequate for (at least marginally) carrying the demand. Certainly more than any other QQ-Union plan.

 

[BurlOak]

This is my focused look into the (now rejected) Union Loop Extension plan. Was kinda hoping we'd see it costed or analyzed more before its rejection. It was probably unfairly costed too high and deemed too complex. But considering the amount of construction and bottom-up planning for the central waterfront, it could've been done for a lot less and simpler than estimated. And just as the people mover and walkalator returned after rejection, so to could a Loop Extension.

For the eastward extension of Union Loop and new tunnel/platforms it theoretically could be worked into CIBC Square's construction. All the infrastructure would be located below USRC just north of the CIBC site. So in effect it could mined-out laterally via CIBC Square's excavation and active construction site. Any services on USRC wouldn't be disrupted, and access to the current loop could remain for the majority. Probably way too late, but if the City/Metrolinx flexed their muscle I think it could still be accomplished.

All the rest between Union and the eastern portal would be relatively easy, and extremely beneficial to locals and longer-haul riders. I mean, the entire area will be rebuilt from bedrock up, including the streets. While sewers and watermains are being put in, just add in a cut/cover streetcar tunnel.

Long and short: rather than losing ~500m of key grade-separated infrastructure like some of the QQ-Union plans, we would be gaining ~700m. This 1.5km subgrade stretch is obviously a lot less than what we're seeing elsewhere like Eglinton, but would probably be adequate for (at least marginally) carrying the demand. Certainly more than any other QQ-Union plan.

View attachment 121690
View attachment 121691
View attachment 121693

What is the underground distance - maybe 700m. Cost for cut-and-cover maybe $150M/km. That's $100M. Also, add maybe $100M per underground station. $300M total seems reasonable.

Why not just go straight up Yonge?