by

Yonge Subway Yard Study (Revised)

At its meeting on November 17, the TTC will consider a report on the yard needs for the Yonge-University-Spadina subway. 

Updated November 15 at 6:10 pm:

A reference to the replacement dates for the BD signal system and the T1 fleet has been corrected.  This triggers a discussion of whether the TTC will concoct an excuse to retire the T1’s early on the grounds that it is not worth installing ATO on them.

Updated November 15 at 4:30 pm:

The Subway Rail Yard Needs Study (aka SRYNS) proposes that future operations of the Yonge-University-Spadina line through 2030 be provided through a combination of various facilities:

  • Expansion of Wilson Yard
  • Storage of 6-8 trains at Davisville Yard
  • Consolidation of all non-revenue equipment (work trains) at Davisville Yard
  • Provision of online storage for additional trains at Richmond Hill
  • Sheppard Subway equipment (four 4-car T1 sets plus a spare) would be serviced at Greenwood

However, looking beyond 2030, staff foresee a need for additional storage and are asking the Commission for perimission to protect for a new yard on the Yonge line with purchase of property, should it become available.  This is a rather oddly worded request to which I will return.

The SRYNS was funded by York Region in recognition of the storage and servicing issues that a Richmond Hill subway extension would create for the YUS line.  The study explicitly does not look at requirements for the Bloor-Danforth line, but the report recognizes that this too must be examined.  The restructuring of the fleet and storage requirements for YUS trigger a move of all T1 subway cars to Greenwood, but that yard is not large enough to hold all of them.  In the short term, the TTC owns more T1s than would be required to operate both the BD and Sheppard subways, but this fleet will reach 30 years in 2026 and replacement with newer cars will occur within the timeframe of any projected yard requirements.

How Many Cars Do We Need?

The study states that the YUS fleet now consists of 62 trains of which 48 are required for service and the remainder are spares.  However, the Subway Fleet Plan only shows spares at 13% for a total requirement of 55 trains.  The current schedule calls for 44 trains in scheduled service plus 4 gap trains in the AM peak, for for 47 trains in scheduled service plus 2 gap trains in the PM peak.  The peak requirement is, therefore, actually 49 trains on the current schedule.  The YUS is operated with a mixture of T1 and H5 cars from Wilson and Davisville.

Peak service on the BD line now requires 42 trains in the AM and 39 in the PM.  The Sheppard line requires 4 4-car trains in service at all times.  BD operates with a mixture of T1, H6 and H4 cars, while Sheppard runs all T1 cars.

The fleet requirement based on current schedules is:

  • YUS:  49 trainsets = 294 cars
  • BD:  42 trainsets = 252 cars
  • Sheppard:  4 trainsets = 16 cars
  • Total:  562 cars
  • Actual Fleet:  372 T1 cars plus 306 H-series cars

The TTC now has 39 TR trainsets on order, with an option for an additional 21, for a total fleet of 60 (360 cars).  An additional 9 trainsets are included in the budget for the Spadina extension bringing the fleet to 69 trains (414 cars) by 2015.

In its fleet plan, as I have discussed elsewhere, the TTC double-counts the benefit of the larger capacity of the TR trains.  It presumes it can provide 10% more capacity with the new trains, but also deducts 10% from its fleet requirements based on that same capacity saving.  Correcting for this requires 9 more trains in the 2020 timeframe that the TTC was projecting, although I believe that they are now adjusting their plans.  Nothing of this is mentioned in the SRYNS.

The study does project a requirement for 80 revenue trains by 2030, plus 8 spares, for a total of 88.  This is a spare factor well below anything the TTC has achieved in recent memory.

The T1 fleet is considerably larger than today’s actual requirement for the BD and Sheppard lines which need 268 cars plus 40 spares (at 15%) or 308 vehicles.  The TTC plans to add 6 trains to BD service by 2016 (7 including a spare), and this will soak up most of the surplus T1 stock. 

Where Will We Put These Trains?

Assuming that the target fleet for 2030 is 88 trains (528 cars), Wilson and Davisville are quite short of space with a current capacity of 358-370 cars (about 60 trains) between them.  Both carhouses have additional problems, especially at Davisville.

Wilson is organized to feed trains south onto Spadina from effectively the north end of the line, but this will not be the case once the Vaughan extension opens.  The track layout at Wilson will be rearranged as part of that extension project.  Wilson can be expanded with vacant land already owned by the TTC north of the existing yard.

Davisville was designed for the original G trains and, more generally, for car sets that could be broken up into pairs.  The TR trains are semipermanently coupled 6-car sets, and these will not fit easily in all parts of Davisville Yard.  Davisville cannot be expanded as it is bounded on all sides by roads, residential areas and a park.

The TTC considered 6 different schemes for accommodating the YUS fleet:

  • Option 1 involves a small expansion at Wilson Yard and continued use of Davisville.  This arrangement cannot handle an 88-train fleet, and it was discarded from further consideration.
  • Option 2 includes full expansion of Wilson Yard, provision of online storage for 14 trains on the Richmond Hill Extension, and removing all revenue train operations from Davisville.  Work trains now serviced at various locations would be consolidated at Davisville to release space in Greenwood and Wilson Yards.
  • Option 2A is essentially the same as Option 2, but includes storage of 6-8 revenue trains at Davisville.  This has a benefit in that the service buildup for both legs of the line would be better balanced, and dead-head time would be saved.
  • Option 3 includes the construction of a new storage and maintenance facility in the Yonge corridor, probably somewhere along the Richmond Hill extension.  However, the report describes such an option as “an environmental, political and risk challenge given the built up nature of the existing Yonge Subway corridor and along the proposed extension”.
  • Option 4 includes a new storage and cleaning, but not maintenance, facility in the Yonge corridor.  Many of the same issues apply as in Option 3.
  • Option 5 includes a connection between the Sheppard-Yonge Station and Wilson Yard so that trains could be fed into the Yonge line from Wilson.  The savings in operating cost from such a scheme is trivial compared to the cost of building the connection.  Moreover, this arrangement would not add to yard space, only provide a way to get trains from Wilson to Richmond Hill comparatively quickly.

Option 2A is the recommended choice because it maximizes use of existing properties where subway operations are already approved.  No new property would be required, and the configuration provides the best balance of storage and operations between the two legs of the YUS.

Finding a New Yard for YUS

A full maintenance and storage yard would require 10 hectares (25 acres) of land, while a storage-only yard would need 4 hectares (10 acres).  Property of this size is not available in the Yonge corridor.

The TTC foresees the need to acquire an existing industrial property where a new subway yard would not disrupt surrounding businesses or residents.

The proposed 14 train storage and cleaning facility at Richmond Hill is expected to be underground and mainly on lands now in the public sector.  The report shows a diagram of a track layout for this scheme, but not a site plan.

Longer term, assuming that the number of trains in service on YUS grows about 88, the TTC will require additional storage.  This could be triggered by:

  • A move to 7-car trains
  • Reduction of the YUS headway below 105 seconds (1’45”)
  • Extension of the Spadina Subway short-turn beyond of Glencairn

These stated constraints have interesting implications.

  • Although the TTC has often talked about 90 second headways (1’30”) or 7-car trains, they do not plan to attempt such operation in the near future.
  • The planned Spadina service to York University and beyond will be at best every other train at a 210 second (3’30”) peak headway.

The staff recommend that they have an open authority by way of a “budget envelope” in the 2015-2019 timeframe to purchase property to protect for yard expansion.  This is the same capital budget from which the TTC recently cut a large number of projects due to funding limitations.

I cannot help thinking, given the wording of the report, that the TTC has its eye on a property already and wants to be able to move when it comes available.  On one hand, they are quite frank that a new yard would be very difficult to obtain for the 2030 timeframe (options 3 and 4), but on the other, they want to protect for acquisition of a property late in the coming decade.  These positions conflict with each other.

Either there is a property that will likely be available before 2020, or there isn’t, and if not, why make provision to buy one?  Whether such a purpose is worthwhile depends on one’s view of the long-term structure of the subway network and demand.

For example, if the growth in peak demand on the YUS is capped by a combination of a Downtown Relief Line and frequent service on GO’s Richmond Hill route, a move below 105 second headways may not be required.  Meanwhile, the BD line requires additional yard space and this might better fit with serving a DRL than a new property in York Region.  I believe it is premature for the TTC to explicitly budget for another Yonge yard before they know how the regional network will actually evolve.  These plans should be sorted out well before the timeframe of a 2015-19 property acquisition, and there is no need to give staff authority to acquire property today.

Capacity for Bloor-Danforth Trains

For the next decade, as noted above, the BD line’s growth in demand will be absorbed by the surplus T1 trains and there will be no need for additional storage.  However, the TTC is considering two scenarios for growth:

  • Headways reduced to 130 seconds (2’10”).  This is the shortest that can be physically handled at the existing Kennedy and Kipling terminals given their track geometry.  This would require about 4 more trains than the current service level.  This is less than the growth shown in the Subway Fleet Plan, and can be handled by the available T1 fleet.
  • Headways reduced to 105 seconds (1’45”).  This operation would require ATO and would likely only be attempted following a BD resignalling.  The existing plant will reach 50 years’ age 10 years before the T1 fleet is due for replacement.  This would require about 64 trains including spares, plus a small allowance for the Sheppard line.  Will the TTC use the cost of retrofitting ATO to the T1 fleet as an excuse to retire those cars ten years early?

Additional storage is available at Vincent Yard (8 trains), and some storage might be possible near Kipling (there is already a plan to add one storage track north of the existing station where provision was left for it in the structure).

The Rail Amalgamation Study

This study, which first appears as part of the SRYNS report, is supposed to review the function and requirements at various properties serving rail vehicles.  The study is so new it does not even appear in the TTC’s Capital Budget.

Among the issues is should address (there is little detail in the staff report) are:

  • How many trains will actually fit within existing facilities on the BD line?  How soon will additional storage be needed?
  • With the move to separate YUS and BD fleets, what modifications will be needed at Wilson so that it can assume its role as a full maintenance facility for TR trainsets while Greenwood handles the T1s?
  • How would a DRL fit into these plans?
  • What will Hillcrest’s role be once the CLRV/ALRV fleet has retired?  Is it capable of handling the new Flexity cars in its work bays, or will all heavy maintenance of that fleet shift to the new Portlands Carhouse?
  • What is the future role for the Russell and Roncesvalles properties?
  • How will the various yards of the Transit City network serve their fleets especially before the network is fully interconnected? 
  • Is Black Creek Carhouse intended to be the heavy maintenance facility for Transit City?
  • How does all of this affect capital budget planning?

The TTC appears to be coming to grips with the need to plan on a system-wide basis rather than one line at a time, although the SRYNS currently before the Commission only hints at this.  While everyone has been busy drawing lines on maps, the TTC is now turning to the question of where to store and maintain the fleets these lines will need.

49 thoughts on “Yonge Subway Yard Study (Revised)”

  1. Here’s my take – if Richmond Hill wants a subway, the yard should be north of Steeles, and they should find the land for it and preferably the money too.

    I would favour the option to stable a small number of trains at Davisville in addition to the non-rev fleet to dispatch in the AM rush and clear congestion from Bloor platforms – essentially having a train in the far platform and when the inevitable passenger assistance alarm happens this train would be sent south to clear the crowds.

    Steve: Richmond Hill wants a subway but they don’t want to pay for it, or pay an extra fare.

    Like

  2. Two things I find interesting, and strange:

    1) Why on earth is Vincent Yard even mentioned? I thought that this yard was to be fully de-activated.

    2) It’s interesting–and telling–that in conjunction with the YUS Yard Study, NO consideration was given for potential growth on BD and for storage of all the T-1s. In fact, the TTC admits they haven’t paid much attention to BD needs for quite a while. That’s not very reassuring.

    Steve: The TTC’s ability to only study part of the system at a time is quite breathtaking at times. However, if they always got it right the first time people like me would have nothing to do. Call it job security for activists.

    Oh yes — there’s no mention of the DRL either.

    Like

  3. Not one mention of the DRL and its implications on network needs.

    I was actually encouraged to see Vincent mentioned. It isn’t used at the moment, except for maintenance vehicles once in a while, but it does have some strategic value. Crew changes take place at Keele.

    Like

  4. If the DRL is built, it will also need a storage yard. Maybe both projects should be packaged together so that the issue can be resolved once and not twice.

    Regardless of where the yard is placed, I do think York Region should pay for at least 70 percent of it.

    Like

  5. Surely it would be a bad idea to permanently deactivate Vincent Yard. If the TTC plans to resignal the B-D line like it is planning with the YUS, and run decreased headways during rush hour (which it will likely need to do in the 2030 timeframe, barring any massive expansion of GO which decreases loads significantly), it will be needed again for train storage.

    Like

  6. If Vincent Yard is used again, they will need to increase security around it (i.e. higher fencing, and not out of mesh). I remember seeing the windows smashed out of the Gloucester trains when they were stored there before scrapping.

    Steve: I was by there a few hours ago, and all of the buildings in that district have ongoing grafitti problems. Vincent Yard would definitely have to be enclosed and properly secured.

    Like

  7. Wasn’t that Spadina signal priority report FINALLY supposed to appear at this meeting???

    Steve: December. It is unclear which millenium, assuming that is even a large enough timeframe to accommodate the process.

    Like

  8. The Vincent Yard could provide a connection with a DRL at Dundas and Bloor, since it is between Dundas West and Keele stations.

    Steve: That would be very tricky. There is a new condo going up on the NW corner of Bloor and Dundas, a school on the SE corner and an existing mid-rise office on the SW. All of them are in the way, one way or another, of links between the BD subway and a DRL coming up Ronces or the Weston subdivision.

    Like

  9. The Sheppard Subway fleet would be maintained at Greenwood Yard?

    I see what you mean Steve by the TTC’s ability to only study part of the system at a time because I’m almost sure that the cost of converting the Sheppard line to use Toronto Rocket cars, even though it would be a waste of capacity, would be less than the amount spent on deadhead moves to Greenwood by 2030.

    Like

  10. Well, perhaps they can store the Sheppard trains at Vincent Yard. It’s small enough, and it would merely add to the already complicated contortions these trains have to perform in order to get on and off the line!

    Like

  11. Why would Sheppard trains go to Vincent? can’t they go to Davisville since it’s closer to the purple line.

    Steve: Davisville is not used for maintenance, only routine work like cleaning. The heavy maintenance shops are at Wilson and Greenwood, If all T-1 maintenance goes to Greenwood, the TTC will have to shuttle trains there from time to time. As long as the T-1’s are on the YUS, they can be cycled to Wilson as part of normal train rotations.

    I think there should be 5 yards.

    * McCowan yard takes care of the SRT
    * Greenwood yard takes care of the Danforth
    * Vincent could take care of Bloor
    * Wilson can take care of University-York (this being the rename of the Spadina part, it also includes the northern extension to VCC).
    * Davisville yard could take care of the Yonge line
    * Something up north could take care of the northern portion of Yonge line and the Sheppard (Don Mills to Richmond Hill Centre via Sheppard-Yonge)

    Just out of curiosity, will the McCowan yard be shut down, moved or stay where it is and active when the SRT gets extended? what about when they change technology?

    Would it be possible to make a yard/garage at the end of the new SRT so it could serve the SRT, Sheppard East LRT and Scarborough-Malvern LRT?

    Steve: McCowan Yard will vanish once the SRT becomes the SLRT. If you have read the EA for the SRT extension, you would know that there is a new carhouse proposed further east on the line. This would not be needed for an LRT, and the Sheppard carhouse (location to be determined) will handle both lines. The SMLRT has not advanced to the point where the TTC has nailed down a carhouse site.

    Vincent Yard only holds 8 trains, far too few for Bloor, and by contrast Greenwood holds far more than are needed for Danforth. What you are proposing is not all that far off what the TTC will be doing, except that Wilson will have a larger role given its size.

    Like

  12. Hmmm

    Vincent Yard eh?

    Say, Steve, I’m looking at it (Vincent) on Google…..

    How far to the east does the underground part run? Does it go all the way to Dundas West Station?

    Steve: It goes right into the area under the streetcar loop. There is a door into the yard inside the station about half way down the stairs from the mezzanine to platform level.

    I’m thinking it would be very hard to bring Vincent up to ‘useful’ size, shame about the TTC giving up those Westwood lands.

    Steve: That’s politics. The City of Etobicoke wanted to build a shining downtown on those lands. You may have noticed that nothing happened. Finally, after all these years, the Six Points are to be reconfigured to get rid of the highway ramps and the land will be developed.

    But could it get up to ‘more useful size’. I’m thinking if you decked over the parking lots next to Keele Station, could you squeeze in as many as 4 more trains on the south side, and maybe 2 to the north? And/or find room for a washing facility.

    Just curious.

    Steve: If you look at the Google Maps shot of Keele and Bloor, you will see that it includes two subway trains. They are longer than the space where you want to add storage tracks. Also, using those trains as a metric, you can see how long two trains would be sitting at Keele Yard. This takes you back to the middle of Dundas West Station loop, and shows how Vincent Yard has the capacity to store 8 trains.

    Like

  13. Just wonder: if 3-car trains will be used on SLRT, but operated off the yard located at Meadowvale and Sheppard, how will those trains get to SLRT?

    Will the section of Sheppard LRT between Meadowvale and Progress be able to handle 3-car trains, or will they have to be assembled from individual cars every day?

    Steve: Longer trains will be able to run there. The only question will be whether the platforms are built to handle them, or if the longer trains will have to run non-stop. A related isssue will be the design of any service that might run from Kennedy to UofT Scarborough via Sheppard.

    Like

  14. To me it seems foolish to write off the Sheppard to Greenwood. Within the horizon of this study the T1s will themselves be up for replacement. Their replacements will probably be updated TR-type trains. At that point they will have to confront Sheppard’s 4 car trains head on. It may be operationally easier to modify TRs, themselves then undergoing midlife overhauls, than to order special trains for Sheppard (and probably cheaper than modifying Sheppard for 6 car operation). At that point Sheppard could be maintained in a YUS yard, simplifying things dramatically. If Sheppard is upgraded to full 6 car operation (who knows, this is the TTC after all) then operationally YUS trains will be simpler.

    I don’t know the mechanical specifics of doing this but if the TRs are ABCCBA unit trains then modifying them to run as ABCA would probably not be difficult.

    Like

  15. Forget Vincent Yard. Sorry I brought it up. It’s only mentioned once in the report and it is a non-starter.

    (Okay more trivia: it is possible for operators leaving their trains at Vincent Yard to climb up a staircase and exit at Dundas West Stn., just west of the Streetcar loop. That’s what that little round building is for or so i was told: I have never actually seen into that little round building.).

    Like

  16. So, what happens when Peak demand actually picks up on Sheppard? Is it even possible to move trains from Greenwood to Sheppard any other time of day than before/after revenue service?

    Steve: The TTC’s fleet plan, and by extension their ridership projections, show no change in Sheppard service for over a decade. As others have pointed out, the T1 fleet will be replaced eventually (it will be 30 years old in 2026) at which point the TTC could get some “short” TR trainsets.

    Like

  17. AndrewS wrote, “I don’t know the mechanical specifics of doing this but if the TRs are ABCCBA unit trains then modifying them to run as ABCA would probably not be difficult.”

    I thought the TRs would be an ABBBBA unit. Is there going to be a difference in non-cab cars (arrangement of air conditioning, non-symmetrical arrangement of doors, or something else) that makes for three types of cars? Regardless, a little shop time will be able to create a shorter unit if ever needed.

    Naturally, if they go for a 50-foot seventh car, then this ‘C’ car would make the units ABBCBBA. This later retrofit would be similar to what was done (is being done) in Dallas on their LRT by adding a centre low-floor section to their LRVs.

    Like

  18. I sincerely hope that the TTC will make all future and all reconstructed yard track and buildings so that they will hold 500′ long 7 car trains. We do not need to go through this again when they convert Greenwood to T1’s. In other jurisdictions where I have ridden that have this type of vehicles have see “married pairs” of equipment sitting in the yard with both ends wide open. It was actually unusual to find a 6 or 8 car train of consecutively numbered cars as a train. They were ususally 3 or 4 unrelated “married pairs.”

    It will be nice to get all the non-revenue equipment into Davisville where everyone can see it, at least those who pass through Davisville will be able.

    Like

  19. One thing that jumps out to me is that they are projection to go from 48 trains + 14 spares today to 80 trains + 8 spares in 2030. That seems odd, as more active trains would imply a need for more spares.

    Steve: I will comment on the spare factor when I review this report in detail. However, the current spare factor is partly due to reliability problems with the older equipment. The flip side is that the TTC has claimed that every new type of equipment will be more reliable than its predecessor, but this never quite happens. The effect is to lowball future equipment needs (as here where they claim a spare ratio of 10%, lower than anything in their own fleet plan) and, by extension, the cost of providing subway trains.

    Since we are always retiring old cars and buying new ones, there active fleet is always larger than the target because old cars hang around until they are no longer needed. In the context of this study, however, the TTC may also lowball yard space requirements. This won’t be an issue for a few decades, but as their own report says, planning for this sort of thing has a long lead time.

    Like

  20. I think this 7th car talk is a non-starter. It is completely unnecessary if the DRL is built. OPTION 1 would even have sufficient capacity with the DRL in the network. There’s no need for a seventh car if we focus on the DRL instead, and the 7th car isn’t worth the headaches it brings.

    Like

  22. Steve, there’s a mistake in the text above.

    You state:

    The study does project a requirement for 80 revenue trains by 2030, plus 8 spares, for a total of 80. This is a spare factor well below anything the TTC has achieved in recent memory.

    80+8≠80

    Just FYI 🙂

    Steve: I was fixing this (and other typos) while you were entering your comment. Thanks!

    Like

  23. “the existing plant will reach 50 years’ age at the same time as the T1 fleet is due for replacement”

    I thought there was 10 years difference (T1s retire 2026-ish, signal system 2016-ish)?

    Steve: Oops – sorry about that. Will fix because it affects the discussion of retrofitting ATO to the T1 fleet.

    Like

  24. RE: Graffiti problems by Vincent…

    I wouldn’t exactly call this a problem… All of those pieces are pretty admirable and were obviously professionally done given how high up on the buildings they are. In some cases they have even incorporated the businesses that operate there. I would hope they don’t get removed.

    As far as protecting trains at Vincent, build fences as high as you want. If there is a will there is a way. It was not long ago I noticed a pair of cars at just north of Wilson yard on the spare track to the west which has been riddled with some nice graffiti. It has since been painted over by the TTC.

    Like

  25. Sheppard trains will go to Greenwood? Oh dear god, talk about waste….by waste I mean the cost of the driver to all the way to Sheppard-Yonge, then just west of the station to go southbound then go all the way to Museum station then go to lower bay (I think the museum-bay track goes to lower and not upper, right?) then to Bloor-Yonge and on east to Greenwood.

    I am saying this since there is no YUS-BD track connection. How long would that take?

    Keep Sheppard on the Yonge North yard I mentioned in a previous comment…The whole Sheppard line (including Sheppard-Yonge), NYC, Finch and the extension stations should be serviced by Yonge North.

    I can’t think of a way to get the Sheppard trains any other way either than go west then south, BIG U turn around downtown then east to Greenwood. God what a waste.

    Steve: It’s strange that Davisville can’t handle the Sheppard line as well as a few Yonge trains. They seem to be so set on having a single equipment type for each line, even though Davisville is simply a storage and cleaning facility. The spare Sheppard train would have to be rotated now and then to Greenwood, but this could be done as an equipment move using a carhouse operator during regular hours. Indeed, given the surfeit of T1s they will have, Sheppard could have two spare 4-car sets assigned to it at all times with equipment cycling to Greenwood now and then.

    Like

  26. Expropriate the land at Yonge Street and 407 for a Richmond Hill yard. It’s only used for a toll road anyway. Nothing important. It will have a better use of it for public transit than it is now.

    Steve: There is probably something in that wonderful contract that Mike Harris signed that would make the TTC pay tolls forever on the 407 even if we closed it.

    Like

  27. – Straighten out Dufferin. Either shorten the runway or bridge underneath it. Yes I know its federal land.
    – Remove Allen Road from the public memory.
    – North of the 401 there is now space to triple the Wilson Yard
    – To shuttle trains to the Yonge line, assuming the RHE is built, build a single non-revenue track in the rail corridor just north of Steeles
    – South of the 401, the goal is to fill in the Allen ravine. A great place for the Eglinton LRT spoil.
    – Replace the Allen with nothing other than selling the real-estate, especially close to subway stations, for hi-rise style development. That windfall will pay for the whole sh-bang and give the Spadina subway a reason for being.

    Of course this is now a city building project, rather than just a transit building project, so never mind.

    Like

  28. Would it be possible that the TTC would overhaul Sheppard to LRT? Then if they did they could just use the carhouse at the end of the Sheppard LRT line anyways

    Like

  29. The biggest problem with putting a TTC yard near 407 is, I would think, the cemetary south of it.

    Now here on the other hand might have some potential. Given the impending consolidation of dealerships in the GTA I’m sure we can find somewhere else to sell cars? Perhaps some decking over the CN line could be done to accommodate administrative structures and some sound barriers to minimise the effect on residences north of the line.

    Like

  30. W. K. Lis said: “Expropriate the land at Yonge Street and 407 for a Richmond Hill yard. It’s only used for a toll road anyway. Nothing important. It will have a better use of it for public transit than it is now.”

    The 407 consortium will sue the Government of Ontario for the lost profit, and the law will be on their side. (Otherwise, they would not purchase 407 in the first place.)

    A.J. said: “Would it be possible that the TTC would overhaul Sheppard to LRT? Then if they did they could just use the carhouse at the end of the Sheppard LRT line anyways.”

    The rolling stock issue would be solved. However, the recent Metrolinx study concluded that the cost of converting Sheppard subway to LRT is $670 million.

    Assuming that their estimate is reasonable, there are many better ways to spend $670 million on transit.

    Like

  31. Miroslav said : “[T]here is no YUS-BD track connection. How long would that take?”

    Yes there is and there always was. People old enough, and transit fans, know about the Y-U-S/B-D connection between Museum, St. George and Bloor/Yonge Stns.

    Like

  32. David Cavlovic said: “People old enough, and transit fans, know about the Y-U-S/B-D connection between Museum, St. George and Bloor/Yonge Stns.”

    Yes, but it connects B-D to the University branch of Y-U-S. There is no connection to the Yonge branch.

    Trains from Greenwood yard would have to cross Yonge, branch to the Lower Bay Stn, enter University branch at Museum, and loop through Union, to enter the Yonge tracks and ultimately reach the Yonge-Sheppard connection.

    Like

  34. In reply to Mark Dowling: The original EA for the YRT Rapidway development (now VIVA) reserved for its rail yards the lands between Langstaff (i.e. the 407) and the graveyard, between Yonge and the Bala rail line. After the EA was approved, the land was assembled by a land developer who derailed (no pun intended) that plan.

    Perhaps the viability of that land for TOD has been diminished by the lack of progress being exhibited by the Yonge North Subway Extension? Maybe the developer has lost interest?

    The footprint of this parcel is approximately the same as Wilson Yard (including the future expansion). I wonder if the Yonge Steeles parcel you’ve indicated has as much functionality, but it should be noted that the area directly north and east (“World on Yonge,” formerly Galleria) is already developing. And the dealership lands would be able to develop based on proximity to Steeles well before the Langstaff lands would, I would think.

    Like

  35. Re Mark: “You wouldn’t have to be that old – not even three”.

    I hit send too fast and didn’t mention that, but thanks. Always great to see that footage.

    I WAS three when the the interchange was in operation, but have no memory of it. Apparently, I have been on it (apparently, I met Mel Blanc at Casa Loma’s Christmas festival that year too, but have no memory of that either. Dammit…..).

    Steve: I was 17 at the time and remember it well.

    Like

  36. Steve: “I was 17 at the time and remember it well.”

    What, meeting Mel Blanc, or riding the blended service?;) It was a Looney Tunes idea destined to fail by its design anyway.

    Steve: The subway. Yes, definitely designed to fail and prove TTC management, who never wanted to build it, right. They have been very good at this sort of thing for a long time.

    Like

  37. Would it be possible to use the land occupied by parking lots in the Finch Hydro Corridor? Once the RH extension opens there won’t be as big a need for parking cars. With a reconfiguration of the hydro towers, we could park some trains there instead.

    Steve: There are access issues with hydro lands for a subway yard. This issue came up regarding a similar hydro right-of-way in York Region.

    Like

  38. “It was a Looney Tunes idea destined to fail by its design anyway.” Yes, but the TTC made a point of telling the American Transit Association convention attendees in June of 1966 that it was working satisfactorily and that all was well in the universe with the integrated service. I guess there was one story for their transit peers and another for everyone else.

    Like

  39. The Kim Chuan depot (Channel News Asia / technical visit) for Singapore’s City Circle Line is fully underground. Most of the KL Sentral complex in Kuala Lumpur Malaysia was built over a 16 track rail yard (masterplan with a number of tall hotels & office towers).

    Is there no way we could build a yard on the Westwood theatre lands, then cover it with the “shiny new downtown” that the Etobicoke council people want?

    Cheers, Moaz

    Like

  40. Given the bridge/deckover damage between Yonge and St. Clair, how would a subway to Richmond Hill cater with a hypothetical failure which extended into one or more additional service days with virtually all yard capacity on the Spadina line… ?

    I don’t know about the rest of you but it confirms me in my view that any additional yard capacity needs to go on the Yonge line, not a mega-Wilson, and that planning should encompass at least a Davisville size yard on the western BD.

    Steve: One additional consideration is the importance of closely spaced turnback points to minimize the length of the bus “bridge” service. As it happens, the TTC plans to reinstall Rosehill Crossover in the next few years although in this particular case, it would have tricky to use. A train short turning at St. Clair might not have room to clear the crossover without reaching the Jackes Avenue “bridge” which was swallowed up by development years ago. College and King Crossovers are also scheduled to reappear. There will always be emergencies that happen at exactly the wrong place.

    The larger issue as we saw from reports at Bloor-Yonge is that the sheer volume of pedestrian traffic dwarfs the street capacity. If any location is turned into a temporary terminal/transfer point for the subway, street capacity becomes a huge problem. Some of the congestion in which buses were trapped would be avoided by completely closing the affected road, but that’s not always practical in some locations given limited alternatives. Buses have no chance of handling subway-level demands, and the TTC doesn’t have hundreds of them just sitting around on the off chance some idiot cuts into their structures.

    Like

Comments are closed.