An online meeting of the Stakeholder Advisory Committee for Waterfront East transit was called for May 13. Normally these events provide significant new information about the project, and they are usually just ahead of a new round of public consultation or reports to Council.
That was certainly not the case for this round. What information was conveyed has already appeared in previous announcements and reports, and the presenters from Waterfront Toronto and the City’s Transit Expansion Office were loathe to part with details, assuming they knew anything about the project.
Notable by its absence was any detailed discussion of project phasing: which chunks of the Waterfront East will be built first and what the interim service plans will look like. Any further updates have been punted to early 2027 conveniently beyond the election.
I could not help remembering a conversation with then-Mayor Tory at TTC’s 100th Anniversary celebration at Hillcrest in 2021 where he was quite firm that the Waterfront line was a “priority” for him. We are still waiting.
The meeting was one of those embarrassing affairs with roughly the same number of public participants as staff. Notable by their absence was anyone from City Planning, the TTC or any Councillors’ office.
What was presented is already known:
- There is now $3-billion committed by Toronto, Ontario and Canada to fund the project.
- Council has authorized continuing with design work as well as “early works” this year in preparation for construction next year. The early work is construction of the ductbank on Small Street north from Queens Quay to Lakeshore to the site of a future substation to be incorporated in a new development there.
- Planned construction will be on Queens Quay east but not all the way to Cherry, and it is unclear just how much will be done in 2027.
The opening date, as repeatedly stated, is now linked to the 2032 occupancy of new buildings on Ookwemin Minising (formerly Villier’s Island). It is almost as if all of the development already on Queens Quay does not exist or need better transit service as soon as possible. Reading between the lines, this will be the tail end of a service running east across Queens Quay from Spadina, but not yet to Union Station.
There is no staging plan yet. Obviously an east-west link on Queens Quay is needed first and that is impossible without interrupting service at Bay to Queens Quay and Union Stations. There is no projection for the duration of work that will first shut down streetcar service completely, then reopen only for through east-west travel pending completion of the Union Station rebuild.
Also uncertain is the timing of the branch north via Cherry to connect with Distillery Loop. This would provide an alternate link from the east, but there are timing issues with both Metrolinx work (Ontario Line), and the relocation of the Gardiner/DVP ramps. The legacy Cherry Street Tower just north of the rail corridor also needs to be moved.
This meeting did not discuss the many issues related to the Bay Street tunnel including work needed to expand the streetcar loop and to improve connections to the Ferry Docks at Queens Quay. It is ironic that hours before I wrote this, the City announced the names of two new electric ferries that will substantially increase capacity to the Toronto Island.
At the very least, some of these events already have dates or tentative plans, although they must be stitched together into an overall project. The “players” are notorious for changing plans without notice, and there is no guarantee a plan formed today will last until tomorrow. All the same, the public and politicians deserve to know what all the parts are and what issues might arise. We have $3-billion burning a hole in our pocket, but no idea of how to spend it or even if it will cover all of the planned work.
With the opening off to 2032 and full operation to Union beyond that, other projects potentially serving the waterfront also should be discussed including the Broadview extension south to Commissioners, and the extension of the WERTL east to at least Broadview. Waterfront planning has many moving parts, and nobody seems willing to unpack the complete list let alone speculate on costs and timeframes.
I had a real sense that the presenters were clearly the City’s “B” team, the kind of people one sends to a public meeting with a script to say as little as possible. Either they did not know what the options and decisions are on the table, or they were not telling even with repeated chances to clarify. SAC members had expected an update on staging this spring, but now we (and by extension Council and voters) must wait until 2027 after the election.
In some doublespeak worthy of Metrolinx we learned that the former Waterfront East LRT has been renamed the Waterfront East Rapid Transit Line. The purpose is to distinguish it from Lines 5 and 6, with the WERTL being an extension of the existing streetcar network. A rose by any other name.
Years ago, the TTC’s planning function was spun off to the City’s Transit Expansion Office, a group that has never felt like an “A” team. They seem to have taken over this project from the City’s Planning Department who gave a sense they actually knew what was happening having been involved for so long in redevelopment of the eastern waterfront.
Toronto deserves an open and honest discussion of waterfront transit issues, not a once-over-lightly presentation with almost no detail.
Council’s Approval (MM40.40)
City Council on April 22 and 23, 2026, adopted the following:
1. City Council authorize the City Manager, in consultation with the Chief Executive Officer, Toronto Transit Commission and the 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.
Steve Munro 
Thanks Steve for this. I was disappointed. We have been waiting for the funding announcement and when we got it I was expecting that they would be off to the races.
LikeLike
Union Station tunnel or not, $3 billion for a roughly 3 km streetcar line is insane. No wonder we can’t afford to build more transit. This is going to give the 2nd Ave subway a run for its money as the most expensive line ever built, anywhere. 😞
LikeLike
Frankly, you are being far too kind. I have attended these Stakeholder meetings on the QQE LRT for well over a decade and in the past they have always been useful, interesting and well informed. Last night was a total waste of everyone’s time – no new news, no discussion of scheduling possibilities and options and the news that the Cherry Street connection was not likely for 10 years due to the work on the Gardiner.
One of the reasons this has all moved so slowly was because the Bay tunnel and Union loop are very complicated and very expensive – this complexity was stressed yet again but with no further ideas of how best to proceed and, I fear, the hint that the $3 billion is not enough to solve it. I was almost expecting the People Mover idea to be resurrected. It was also bizarre that City Planning and, especially, the TTC were not there; surely this is supposed to be a ‘joint effort’! Sigh!
Steve: I have reached the point where I fear the whole project is dead, and people on the eastern waterfront can just get used to buses and walking to “nearby” Ontario Line stations.
I wanted to be a LOT more insulting, but decided to mainly keep to the “news”. The Transit Expansion Office continues to prove how utterly useless it is. Another legacy of John Tory.
LikeLike
This needs to go underground or be BRT, let us not keep repeating the same mistakes over and over again. I encourage all streetcar/LRT supporters to go take a ride on the brand new Finch West LRT (shut down this entire long weekend for maintenance even though that it just opened).
Steve: In this location, underground means underwater. This project has been a glorious cock up for over a decade thanks to other projects for “deserving” burbs taking precedence.
LikeLike
They are playing it down during the election so Scarborough doesn’t get offended again.
Steve: To be fair to Scarborough, the “Scarborough deserves” lobby and trolls do not represent all of the population there.
LikeLike
We just passed twenty years of study on this and are stuck on the same problems we had then. It’s probably time to accept that the project is dead, in the current form at least. The cost and benefit of expanding the Union Station loop and building a new portal east on Queen’s Quay might put it below other priority projects, possibly forever.
Lots has changed since it was launched. The entire thing was conceived of before the Ontario Line, for example. Queen’s Quay East and the Canary District have been mostly built out. What does this mean for travel demand?
I suggest a reset of sorts is due. Your “Grand Plan” was the philosophical underpinning of Transit City. Maybe this would also be the place to reset the waterfront transit discussion.
Assume we have 1-$3B to spend. What would quality local service into the eastern waterfront look like? What connections will future residents need to the TTC and GO networks? I would love your perspective.
Steve: Yes, this is a good idea. Time to start cogitating. There is always going to be a problem with both the Union connection and the Ferry Docks because of design compromises in the original line. That said the rights of way on QQ and Cherry will be useful for some transit service.
A gigantic problem is that the project and info it has about population and travel patterns has gone dark by punting the next reports to 2027. Almost as if they’re giving a new mayor a chance to kill the project.
A very sad situation considering the decades of work on a transit first neighbourhood.
LikeLike
I know, I know, I know…but hear me out.
BRT trolley busses.
LikeLike
Exactly but try explaining it to streetcar advocates such as Steve who would be up in arms immediately if anyone suggests that streetcars are too expensive and don’t provide good transit.
Steve: As a matter of fact I think that the $3-billion price tag is a bridge too far, and have been contemplating alternate implementations and service plans. It’s difficult. However, before I fall into the too-typical response of drawing lines on maps, there are several key sets of data needed, notably the population and travel projections now that the service area will be primarily residential. Originally it was to be a mix, and the projected jobs generated a different demand than we are likely to see now.
The recent SAC session was notable for the utter absence of detail.
LikeLike
I agree that there needs to be a re-think of some things.
I am an occasional rider of 114 QUEENS QUAY EAST. This spring I experienced a few too many crush-loaded buses, particularly in the morning from Union Station. The buses are pretty much emptied out after the Jarvis and Sherbourne stops, so many of those riders are going to George Brown or to the businesses in the area.
Some of them will always want to go to/from Union Station. I bet others would be happy to avoid Union, as it’s a really crowded facility where just getting to/from the TTC subway platform can involve queuing and dealing with fare gates — it’s not so efficient to have two-way gates when there are crowds moving in both directions: you play chicken with the people on the other side).
Whatever else is done, effective transit to/from Union will require some kind of dedicated travel space. This is where BRT falls down: Bay St from Queens Quay on north is a mess of traffic; I don’t see how you can reserve a lane for buses. And if you do put in a separated one, everything else in the area will come to a halt unless you simply prohibit cars from downtown.
The tunnel to Union Station is a key link, but it’s obviously problematic already and will only get more so as more trips are added to/from the waterfront.
Other links directly north to the Ontario line stations will be quite useful. It’s unclear how traffic patterns will develop, but dedicated lanes for the likely bus (not streetcar) links should be planned for and implemented early.
While I mentioned above that the 114 is pretty much empty east of Parliament/Lake Shore, that’s just at present. Start putting housing in east of New Cherry, and you really will need more links and dedicated ROWs of whatever type. There is no way the existing 114, with a few bus-only red lanes on Queens Quay, will be able to handle larger loads that are travelling to/from further east. And Bay Street is a real bottleneck where the options are so limited.
LikeLike
You are complaining about this but you had no problem doing the exact same thing for the Scarborough subway in 2018 as if they were giving the new council and mayor a chance to kill the Scarborough subway project.
Steve: That is not true. A big problem is that now we have $3-billion burning a hole in our pocket, it is not clear that the staff still support the project but don’t know how to say “wait a minute”. This is another example of how the political process can be hijacked by major efforts to get project funding without asking basic questions about “why are we doing this”.
LikeLike
So pardon my ignorance, but would Bill 98 affect the Waterfront East LRT project. Can the Province rewrite the agreement that was made about a month ago?
I know you’re busy, but I would love to see an opinion piece on your view of Bill 98 and TTCs current operation and capital projects.
Steve: I have not written about Bill 98 because the province has not yet tipped their hand on what they would actually do with the new powers.
LikeLike
What I haven’t heard about yet is where did the city portion of the funding come from? I had assumed it came from the transit levy that was earmarked for the Eglinton East LRT, is that the case?
Steve: The City Building Fund has an expanded scope in part because projects have started late, if at all, and there is more time for money to accumulate in the reserve. It was not specifically for the EELRT.
LikeLike
This is only an initial estimate and an undercount. We cannot afford to spend tens of billions of dollars on whether you want to call it a streetcar or LRT or “rapid” transit only to get something slower than jogging. This needs to be a BRT or an elevated rail line with tunneling where necessary.
Steve: First off, it’s not “tens of billions”, and inflating the price undermines your position. But $3B is a huge amount of money, and I fear between the cost and long lead times we will never actually see this line.
An elevated runs into major problems notably the extra space at ground level for stations and the ramp(s) necessary to get to/from underground sections. An elevated cannot cross the rail corridor for simple reasons of geometry. Tunnels have one basic problem: the lake.
BRT? Yes, for years it has been clear that the City is thinking of BRT as a “first stage”. Whether we would ever get to “stage two” is quite another issue, and the City is being unduly coy about this. Notably the new moniker for the line omits the word “rail”. It’s ironic that one of the early works will be construction of the beginnings of a substation at Small Street and Lake Shore, and a ductbank to carry power south to Queens Quay to a streetcar we might never see.
LikeLike
Due to revised land use plans, redoing the traffic demand studies should be required. And keep in mind that this has been in the planning process for 20 years – are they working with 20 year old data? – how often have they adjusted to the current reality?
Steve: I have not seen demand projections updated to reflect the shift from a mix of commercial and residential to primarily residential. Commercial generated a tighter stronger peak because people must use transit absent a place to park, and a tendency to arrive and leave in a narrow time period.
And then there’s the small matter of the island airport expansion’s effect on development and resulting demand.
Perhaps a rethink of access/interchange points should be considered.
Union is overused as an interchange point, and renovating the loop will be slow and costly. I am not saying abandon, just move it lower on the priority list. Priority should be installing “T” track work at Bay St. allowing for turns to the existing loop and for thru running.
If the connection to Cherry St. will be blocked for 10 years due to Ontario Line and Gardiner construction, would Parliament or Broadview offer earlier connections? East Harbour is supposed to become the Eastern relief point for Union Station overcrowding – why are we not making it the primary interchange point for the Eastern Waterfront – let Union carry the central load, and Exhibition carry the western.
Steve: There are a few issues here. First, the Parliament underpass at the railway is only 4.2m. This is possible for pantograph operations but not ideal especially due to potential collisions with high trucks. The underpass is only 4 lanes wide making a dedicated streetcar right of way dubious.
Second, the time to plan a link at Corktown station was at least a decade ago when some street changes could have been incorporated in the plans. There was a suggested routing from King with a dog leg via Berkeley and Front, but that would be a punch point because of the turns. Turning at King and Parliament doesn’t work because of the intersection geometry.
As for Broadview, the extension is currently planned south to Lake Shore. Going further with transit requires added design not to mention the additional transit bridge on Commissioners, and relocation of a major hydro transmission corridor. Not trivial. Extension east to Leslie is possible but there’s always the question of priorities.
Last but not least, would a link to Leslie Barns via Commissioners St. be worthwhile? It would provide a redundant route, but there is no conflicting construction to slow development of a ROW and with the “T” at Bay would allow for a complete eastern waterfront track link.
Also, is it possible that now that there is money for this our friends at Metrolinx have decided that they need to take control (sorry! co-ordinate). This might explain the sudden “radio silence”?
Steve: It would be an astonishing bait and switch to get the funding announced, put the project in bureaucratic hold, and come back in 2027 with something new. If that’s actually the plan it should be public.
LikeLike