Every post above got a thumbs up, not that I agreed with every point, I don't, but the
discussion is far and away better than the pap presented to us from 'those that know best'.
Some points to discuss, and some I'll leave until later as others are critiquing them already:
moving pedestrian walkway (I used People Mover previously, and that was incorrect. I got my terminologies mixed up)
I've seen the term used for moving walkways! I must admit that I though you meant the idea now dismissed.
At some point in time and should happen with the new Metrolinx Bus Terminal that a new station should have been look at regardless of cost as a U, let along being on the surface with Bay close to traffic. It would have mean closing the line yesterday and opening in 2020.
Yeah...talk about being bog obvious. WTF were they thinking? Or weren't. There may still be time though to run a a straight section of loop through there in lieu of a bus bay, It will take very little room, caveats pertaining on layout. I've still not accessed the drawings I wish for the two bus bay levels.
As long as single end cars are looked at, you are locking yourself into a plan that will fail at the end of the day.
Others disagree, and I can't understand why. It
has to be looked at. More comment on that to another poster.
If they want to think outside the box, then there's plenty of width on Bay under the railway tracks, to turn half the car lanes into dedicated streetcar tracks.
Another bog obvious point that strikes me every time looking at what's extant already. And with that, the heresy of stating that contrary to all claims, the present Spadina Loop is insufficient for even the present QQW needs. First off, it's an assumption, a foolish one, that both QQE and QQW must be interoperable. It would be nice, but to assume that immediately limits many other excellent options, not the least that QQE can do the surface run up Bay, not connect at all with the undisturbed (save for platform extension and enlargement) extant tunnel, and the QQE can loop elsewhere, or run further up Bay, the real question not being 'if'....but 'how far'? I say at least to the western end of RL City Hall Station or the east end of RL Osgoode Station. Both will have station boxes large enough to contain loops and/or stubs/storage, single ended or double ended. A later line on Bay could also loop adjacent. And I use the word "adjacent" as the door has to be left open for QQE to NOT BE TTC or Metrolinx, but a Sidewalk Consortium.
You are talking logic, something TTC and the city don't understand.
My recommendation since 2008 is closing Bay south of Queen to traffic and making it a Pedestrian Transit Mall, with tracks going to Bloor St using duel end cars on the surface. You put 4 tracks under the underpass with platforms for them, with 2 tracks being stub there. Going to Bloor becomes a relief line for the Yonge Line.
To your first point re 'don't understand': And Private Investors do! I don't see the City, TTC or Province 'getting this'.
For this $650-$700 million price tag to do the loop and QQE, you could buy a new fleet of duel end cars, do what I said and still have money left over to do other things.
I could only recall the costs touted, didn't have reference handy. IIRC one figure was "$900,000. WTF? The cost of theory keeps going up. Practice says "$0.00". It ain't gonna happen at that price and this rate. That's why I call this "Rube Goldberg".
The more I consider all the alternatives based on QQE and QQW not being connected, the more the concept of 'flying' the QQE vehicles on guideways up to either the Union Trainshed or the new GO bus terminal makes sense. And of course, the Docklands Light Rail type vehicles are of course, like subways, double ended. This could be done with orthodox LRVs also (think the SRT) but the automatic control aspect will be very enticing to a company like Sidewalk Labs.
I'll examine what's posted again later. Many thanks for the map
@gweed123 ! Yet again another example of how text couldn't come close to showing what a drawing can.
Frankly, I'd like to see any "Big Dig' totally avoided, save for platform expansion. Something not yet suggested is a stand-alone raised platform added at the edge of the USRC near the south side of the Union Trainshed, if not on the embankment itself, that would host QQE vehicles by elevated guide-ways. Again, GO claims to be doing flying ramps for buses to the Gardiner, it's not like QQE rail-vehicle ramps would 'spoil the view'.
Double ended seems like a good enough idea to explore, but i doubt its that easy. You would probably need at least 3 stub end tracks and platforms underground at union to serve the demand and not sure there is enough space there plus a crossover in the tunnel plus TTC will need to order new vehicles and learn how to fix them.
Compared to the almost $1B options? Double-ended looks entirely reasonable. There are
many examples of it being an answer. Pearson UPX terminal and Kennedy SRT station are but just two. Loops are the exception, not the norm. Calgary, Edmonton, Van...etc, etc.
