[DSCToronto]

This is the first Road Restriction notice I have seen that specifically mentions the QQE LRT. They have these notices for several areas on QQE - to do with surveying I think but one has to start somewhere!

Queens Quay E 28 m Northeast of Richardson St to 68 m Northeast of Richardson St​

RoDARS ID:Tor-RD042026-322-5
Start Date:March 23, 2026
End Date:April 24, 2026
On-Site Hours:09:30am to 03:30pm Weekdays
Contractor: EXP Services Inc.
Description: Waterfront East Light Rail Transit (WELRT) Area 2A project, comprising of the Queens Quay East Right-Of-way and boulevard and the future Queens Quay East extension across 333 Lake Shore Boulevard East, in Toronto, Ontario. The WELRT project plans to connect Union Station to Ookwemin Minising (formerly Villiers Island).

Closure Location: Queens Quay E 28 m Northeast of Richardson St to 68 m Northeast of Richardson St

Last Updated:17 hours ago

​

 

[DSCToronto]

Coming to Council today!

MM40.40 - Starting Construction of the Waterfront East Rapid Transit Line in 2026 - by Mayor Olivia Chow, seconded by Deputy Mayor Ausma Malik​

Motion without Notice
Consideration Type: ACTION Wards: All
Attention
* This Motion has been deemed urgent by the Chair.
* This Motion is not subject to a vote to waive referral. This Motion has been added to the agenda and is before Council for debate.
April 23, 2026 - A communication was posted.

Recommendations​

Mayor Olivia Chow, seconded by Deputy Mayor Ausma Malik, recommends that:

1. City Council authorize the City Manager, in consultation with the Chief Executive Officer, Toronto Transit Commission and Chief Executive Officer, Waterfront Toronto, to establish a governance model for the delivery of the Waterfront East Rapid Transit project.

2. City Council authorize the City Manager in consultation with relevant City Divisions, Toronto Transit Commission and Waterfront Toronto to:

a. design, procure and construct the following work packages either directly or through a third-party, including but not limited to Waterfront Toronto or the Toronto Transit Commission, or a combination thereof:

i. early works for Queens Quay East Extension from Street A to Cherry Street;

ii. early works for Queens Quay East Extension Reconstruction from Yonge Street to Street A; and

iii. Traction Power Substation building envelope and enabling infrastructure within the Quayside development.

b. either directly or through Waterfront Toronto or the Toronto Transit Commission, or a combination thereof to:

i. retain a construction manager to undertake general design and construction readiness for priority Waterfront East Rapid Transit scope elements; and

ii. complete the necessary environmental approvals, and advance design to 30% for rail tracks through the central waterfront.

3. City Council authorize an increase to the Transit Expansion Division’s 2026 Capital Budget of $70 million in project cost and associated cash flow, fully funded through recoverable debt supported by the City Building Fund, to advance the design and construction of the Waterfront East Rapid Transit project.

4. City Council authorize the City Manager, or designate, to negotiate and execute all necessary agreements, including amendments thereto, on terms and conditions satisfactory to the City Manager, or designate, and in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor, to facilitate the implementation of the works described above.

5. City Council authorize the City Manager, or designate, in consultation with the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, to negotiate and execute any necessary agreements related to the Waterfront East Rapid Transit project with orders of government, including amendments thereto, on terms and conditions satisfactory to the City Manager, or designate, and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, and in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor.

6. City Council endorse changing this project’s name from Waterfront East Light Rail Transit to Waterfront East Rapid Transit Line.

Summary​

In March, we secured a historic investment from the Provincial and Federal Governments to build the Waterfront East Rapid Transit Line - $2 billion to match the City’s $1 billion contribution. This motion provides the funding and authority needed to begin building the fully designed components of the Waterfront East Rapid Transit Line this year.

Waterfront East Rapid Transit is transformational new transit infrastructure that will help revitalize Toronto’s Eastern waterfront and the Port Lands, including Ookwemin Minising (formerly known as Villiers Island). It will support 75,000 homes and serve more than 150,000 people who will live and work along the eastern waterfront. When it’s built, we are expecting 50,000 daily riders.

Now that we have the funding commitment, we can advance the work on the new line. The motions below establish a governance model and authorizes the required funding and authorities to begin early work on this new transit line.

The reason for urgency is that we need to ensure construction can begin in the 2026 construction season.

Background Information​

Member Motion MM40.40
https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2026/mm/bgrd/backgroundfile-286368.pdf

 

[hw621]

Coming to Council today!

MM40.40 - Starting Construction of the Waterfront East Rapid Transit Line in 2026 - by Mayor Olivia Chow, seconded by Deputy Mayor Ausma Malik​

Motion without Notice
Consideration Type: ACTION Wards: All
Attention
* This Motion has been deemed urgent by the Chair.
* This Motion is not subject to a vote to waive referral. This Motion has been added to the agenda and is before Council for debate.
April 23, 2026 - A communication was posted.

Recommendations​

Mayor Olivia Chow, seconded by Deputy Mayor Ausma Malik, recommends that:

1. City Council authorize the City Manager, in consultation with the Chief Executive Officer, Toronto Transit Commission and Chief Executive Officer, Waterfront Toronto, to establish a governance model for the delivery of the Waterfront East Rapid Transit project.

2. City Council authorize the City Manager in consultation with relevant City Divisions, Toronto Transit Commission and Waterfront Toronto to:

a. design, procure and construct the following work packages either directly or through a third-party, including but not limited to Waterfront Toronto or the Toronto Transit Commission, or a combination thereof:

i. early works for Queens Quay East Extension from Street A to Cherry Street;

ii. early works for Queens Quay East Extension Reconstruction from Yonge Street to Street A; and

iii. Traction Power Substation building envelope and enabling infrastructure within the Quayside development.

b. either directly or through Waterfront Toronto or the Toronto Transit Commission, or a combination thereof to:

i. retain a construction manager to undertake general design and construction readiness for priority Waterfront East Rapid Transit scope elements; and

ii. complete the necessary environmental approvals, and advance design to 30% for rail tracks through the central waterfront.

3. City Council authorize an increase to the Transit Expansion Division’s 2026 Capital Budget of $70 million in project cost and associated cash flow, fully funded through recoverable debt supported by the City Building Fund, to advance the design and construction of the Waterfront East Rapid Transit project.

4. City Council authorize the City Manager, or designate, to negotiate and execute all necessary agreements, including amendments thereto, on terms and conditions satisfactory to the City Manager, or designate, and in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor, to facilitate the implementation of the works described above.

5. City Council authorize the City Manager, or designate, in consultation with the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, to negotiate and execute any necessary agreements related to the Waterfront East Rapid Transit project with orders of government, including amendments thereto, on terms and conditions satisfactory to the City Manager, or designate, and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, and in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor.

6. City Council endorse changing this project’s name from Waterfront East Light Rail Transit to Waterfront East Rapid Transit Line.

Summary​

In March, we secured a historic investment from the Provincial and Federal Governments to build the Waterfront East Rapid Transit Line - $2 billion to match the City’s $1 billion contribution. This motion provides the funding and authority needed to begin building the fully designed components of the Waterfront East Rapid Transit Line this year.

Waterfront East Rapid Transit is transformational new transit infrastructure that will help revitalize Toronto’s Eastern waterfront and the Port Lands, including Ookwemin Minising (formerly known as Villiers Island). It will support 75,000 homes and serve more than 150,000 people who will live and work along the eastern waterfront. When it’s built, we are expecting 50,000 daily riders.

Now that we have the funding commitment, we can advance the work on the new line. The motions below establish a governance model and authorizes the required funding and authorities to begin early work on this new transit line.

The reason for urgency is that we need to ensure construction can begin in the 2026 construction season.

Background Information​

Member Motion MM40.40
https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2026/mm/bgrd/backgroundfile-286368.pdf

So I will come back in 15 years and see what happens...

 

[Jeff Morgan]

Coming to Council today!

MM40.40 - Starting Construction of the Waterfront East Rapid Transit Line in 2026 - by Mayor Olivia Chow, seconded by Deputy Mayor Ausma Malik​

Background Information​

Member Motion MM40.40
https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2026/mm/bgrd/backgroundfile-286368.pdf

 

[xmyth_]

I think someone challenged my assertion a little while ago about the underpass by Cherry Loop flooding.

Not a fantastic pic but I was biking.

In any case, we haven’t even had a good solid rain today and this collected. I wish I could find the pictures I took when the west side of the road was flooded.

Point is- I dunno if those bioswales replacing the loop are gonna be enough to keep a dug out roadway dry, when stuff gets built.

 

[DSCToronto]

I think someone challenged my assertion a little while ago about the underpass by Cherry Loop flooding.

View attachment 732944

Not a fantastic pic but I was biking.

In any case, we haven’t even had a good solid rain today and this collected. I wish I could find the pictures I took when the west side of the road was flooded.

Point is- I dunno if those bioswales replacing the loop are gonna be enough to keep a dug out roadway dry, when stuff gets built.

One assumes that when they build the new streetcar punch-through they will install proper sewers. I would also note that the current bridge is NOT in a dip, the road seems to have adequate slopes, though the bike lane should certainly be swept occasionally.

 

[ssiguy2]

I read Reece's commentary and it pretty much reflects what I have said.............this project is obscenely overpriced for what little you are getting. He also thinks, like I also stated, that they should be using bi-directional trains. The only difference is that I still think they should use battery trains. This is a VERY short line and recharging at each end would take a minute and save tens of millions in catenary costs as well as being more esthetically pleasing.

Chow is now pushing this thru because she wants to have a ribbon cutting ceremony before the election. This project should be stopped immediately until they agree that it cannot cost more than $1 billion which would include Union reworking and the Cherry tunnel. If they were forced to bring in this project for $1 billion, they would bitch but they could very much do it. Conversely, if you give them $3 billion it will cost $3 billion for the same amount of infrastructure.

All infrastructure projects should be determined by on a cost/benefit analysis and under absolutely no stretch of the imagination can this line be justified for the outrageous price they say they need to build it. Every cent spent on this little gold-plated project is a cent not spent on other needs of the system. This is a vote buying project and it is the taxpayers and long suffering TTC patrons that will pay the price.

 

[Amare]

I read Reece's commentary and it pretty much reflects what I have said.............this project is obscenely overpriced for what little you are getting. He also thinks, like I also stated, that they should be using bi-directional trains. The only difference is that I still think they should use battery trains. This is a VERY short line and recharging at each end would take a minute and save tens of millions in catenary costs as well as being more esthetically pleasing.

Chow is now pushing this thru because she wants to have a ribbon cutting ceremony before the election. This project should be stopped immediately until they agree that it cannot cost more than $1 billion which would include Union reworking and the Cherry tunnel. If they were forced to bring in this project for $1 billion, they would bitch but they could very much do it. Conversely, if you give them $3 billion it will cost $3 billion for the same amount of infrastructure.

All infrastructure projects should be determined by on a cost/benefit analysis and under absolutely no stretch of the imagination can this line be justified for the outrageous price they say they need to build it. Every cent spent on this little gold-plated project is a cent not spent on other needs of the system. This is a vote buying project and it is the taxpayers and long suffering TTC patrons that will pay the price.

Sure that's all nice and everything.

But:

-Buses wont cut it
-Bi-directional streetcars ship has long sailed and wouldnt do a thing to solve the issues you're complaining about
-Battery streetcars doesnt mitigate anything, and is useless for Toronto
-Subway has never been contemplated, and wont be

So what's your solution to providing transit to the Waterfront?

Another point: you're vastly underestimating how complicated the Union Station loop reconstruction really is.

 

[ssiguy2]

Why would battery trains be useless and do nothing? They are used all over and this is a very short line. They would get rid of the cost of the catenary, are easier to expand, have lower clearance heights, and don't have the visual pollution. Bi-directional trains mean that they do not need a loop to turn around whether that be in Union or the Portlands and this means extensions are cheaper and also wouldn't need room for a loop.

Let's do a comparison shall we? Montreal's completely grade separated REM of 67km with 25 station needed to go under Mount Royal, have 3 new Metro interchanges, and goes over the mighty St.Lawrence and all this for $8.4 billion. Conversely, Toronto is getting is a 4km streetcar for $3 billion. Does that put things into perspective?

 

[SaugeenJunction]

Why would battery trains be useless and do nothing? They are used all over and this is a very short line. They would get rid of the cost of the catenary, are easier to expand, have lower clearance heights, and don't have the visual pollution. Bi-directional trains mean that they do not need a loop to turn around whether that be in Union or the Portlands and this means extensions are cheaper and also wouldn't need room for a loop.

Let's do a comparison shall we? Montreal's completely grade separated REM of 67km with 25 station needed to go under Mount Royal, have 3 new Metro interchanges, and goes over the mighty St.Lawrence and all this for $8.4 billion. Conversely, Toronto is getting is a 4km streetcar for $3 billion. Does that put things into perspective?

Catenary isn’t that expensive when you look at the overall cost of the project. No battery trams in Toronto please.

 

[Amare]

Why would battery trains be useless and do nothing? They are used all over and this is a very short line. They would get rid of the cost of the catenary, are easier to expand, have lower clearance heights, and don't have the visual pollution. Bi-directional trains mean that they do not need a loop to turn around whether that be in Union or the Portlands and this means extensions are cheaper and also wouldn't need room for a loop.

You seem to have quite the apparent affection for battery trains that i'm not going to litigate here, as you've been going on about them in numerous posts. They serve of absolutely no value for TTC operation.

The TTC had their chance to procure bi-directional streetcars and get rid of streetcar loops when the Flexities were being procured, and they chose not to. So we wont be seeing that happen.

Let's do a comparison shall we? Montreal's completely grade separated REM of 67km with 25 station needed to go under Mount Royal, have 3 new Metro interchanges, and goes over the mighty St.Lawrence and all this for $8.4 billion. Conversely, Toronto is getting is a 4km streetcar for $3 billion. Does that put things into perspective?

Apples and Oranges comparison which cant be equally equated.

As has been noted before, the Waterfront East project includes the Union Station expansion, the Yonge St portal, modification of the Bay St portal, potential Queens Quay Station modification, and the Cherry St punch through tunnel. So in summary it's more than just streetcar tracks being built on the road, all the items i've noted costs $$$.

 

[nfitz]

As has been noted before, the Waterfront East project includes the Union Station expansion, the Yonge St portal, modification of the Bay St portal, potential Queens Quay Station modification, and the Cherry St punch through tunnel. So in summary it's more than just streetcar tracks being built on the road, all the items i've noted costs $$$.

I hope one day we can see the costs for phase 1, 2, and 3. As one of those phases includes Union Station and the new portal. One includes the Cherry subway expansion. And the third is just track work. That would let us back out an actual cost for simple new streetcar track without all the ancillary costs that we see, such as rebuilding sewers, hydro, sidewalks, roads, bike lanes, etc.

 

[urbanclient]

Why would battery trains be useless and do nothing? They are used all over and this is a very short line. They would get rid of the cost of the catenary, are easier to expand, have lower clearance heights, and don't have the visual pollution. Bi-directional trains mean that they do not need a loop to turn around whether that be in Union or the Portlands and this means extensions are cheaper and also wouldn't need room for a loop.

Let's do a comparison shall we? Montreal's completely grade separated REM of 67km with 25 station needed to go under Mount Royal, have 3 new Metro interchanges, and goes over the mighty St.Lawrence and all this for $8.4 billion. Conversely, Toronto is getting is a 4km streetcar for $3 billion. Does that put things into perspective?

@Amare Seconded on the battery thing. Half the time I see @ssiguy2 's name it's about DEMUs, battery trains and the like.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm only half kidding about the following:

For the next rail project... improve relations with China, do something like pledge to build terminals to sell LNG to China, get them to take over part of the next round of transit projects in 2040+, Indonesian HSR-style (60/40, local/Chinese ownership), so LRTs don't cost $750 million per km (Eglinton, WELRT).

Let's pretend 30/67 km was free because it used to be a commuter rail line. The REM would still be 37 km for $9.4 billion or about $250 million per km.

Now I know people are going to say, "but the workers will be abused/borderline slaves". Ok I agree that labour protections are not nearly as strong in China as they are in Canada.

However, it does not appear that recent urban rail construction is significantly more dangerous in China.

Between 2014 and 2018, 142 people died while building urban rail in China. From 2014 to 2018 inclusive, 3015.4 km of urban rail was built. Here is how that compares to Ontario:

Case	Deaths​	Km opened​	Deaths per 1,000 km​	Km per death​
Ontario: Line 1 TYSSE (8.6) + Line 5 (18.6) = 27.2 km	2​	27.2​	73.53​	13.6​
China: 2014-2018 urban rail completed = 3015.4 km	142​	3015.4​	47.09​	21.24​
China (deaths doubled for illustrative purposes): 2014-2018 urban rail completed = 3015.4	284​	3015.4​	94.18​	10.62​

Sources for TYSSE and Eglinton deaths:

Workers were trapped in their machines in deadly accident at TTC site

One person is dead and five others are injured after a piece of construction equipment collapsed at York University

web.archive.org

Family demands answers after death of construction worker at Eglinton Crosstown LRT site

A family is looking for answers after the death of a 38-year-old man working at an Eglinton Crosstown LRT construction site late last month.

toronto.citynews.ca

Sources for 3015.4 km:

Wayback Machine

Wayback Machine

Secondary source for 142 deaths from 2014 to 2018:

https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/%28ASCE%29ME.1943-5479.0001062

Original source for 142 deaths:
Yu, H., Y. Peng, L. Zhang, R. Wang, and Q. Wang. 2019. “Statistical analysis on urban metro accidents during construction period.” [In Chinese.]Chin. J. Underground Space Eng. 15: 852–860. 城市地铁施工期事故统计分析 于海莹 彭玉林 张立艳

 

[urbanclient]

Why would we ever want to do that? [...] But not one cent should flow

12% of our imports are from China. If we could only "import" one "thing" from China, then the only thing we should import is the means to build infrastructure at a world class level. Speaking of only the infrastructure that the Chinese are best at.

The means can include any or all of the following: intellectual property transfers, services of subject matter experts, tunnel boring machines, specialized machinery, platform screen doors, rolling stock, even foreign direct investment and loans (see the Indonesia case).

Transit infrastructure becoming cheaper means more transit can be built, which means less cars on the road, less car accidents, less pollution, lower excess mortality, less time and $$$ wasted in traffic. People's lives are improved. The planet is greener.

Noone will help you build transit cheaper for free. They get money, Canada gets more transit than it otherwise would've gotten from CrapkinsRealis, Turner & Townsend et al.

-----------------------------------------------------------
I've been vocal against losing the manufacturing base to offshoring. I exaggerate: Why import wooden furniture if the lumber is from Canada.

 

[nfitz]

Why import wooden furniture if the lumber is from Canada.

Because you can't make decent furniture from soft wood like pine and cedar. For it not to cost an arm and a leg, you need hard wood from a tropical environment where the harder woods grow a lot faster than here; and at that point it's cheaper to ship it as furniture than trees.

Remember back when some of the best looking modern furniture was being imported from Scandinavia ... 1970s, etc.? Much of it was teak ... it wasn't growing in Scandinavia (I'm curious as to how it came to be that teak was coming to Scandinavia for their export ... I'm referring to before Ikea came to Canada.

But I get your point - we certainly shouldn't be importing toilet paper and maple syrup. Or streetcars.

(yeah, you can actually buy Vermont maple syrup from Amazon.ca ... probably really from the Quebec Maple Syrup crime syndicate)