Downtown Rapid Transit Expansion Study

[11th]

..
We need to stop overbuilding in some areas and starving other areas, just because the technology choice is in vogue, whatever that technology may be. Subways everywhere isn't the solution. LRTs everywhere isn't the solution either. BRTs everywhere isn't the solution either for that matter. Every technology choice does have its place though. The technology choice should be made at the END of the analysis, not the beginning.

However, if you need to build any LRT lines outside of the old city, you'd have to build new maintenance house for the LRVs; then, the question comes, is it worth to build those facilities just for the one line (Eglinton in your suggestion)?
Could the solution be to expand the existing legacy network into the outer city instead?

 

[balenciaga]

Downtown financial core is already built out for the most part and certainly will be by 2030. King/Queen East is not zoned, and I imagine won't be zoned, for major commercial development. Ditto for King/Queen West if it ever went there. Ditto Leslieville and Pape.

Why can't Adelaide, Richmond and Queen East can't be rezoned for commercial use? Plenty of open space (parking lots) and so close the the existing financial core. At least it makes sense for the west of Church portion where there is not a neighbourhood per se.

This area has basically zero identity - not financial district, not St Lawrence market, not even Moss Park.

 

[rbt]

However, if you need to build any LRT lines outside of the old city, you'd have to build new maintenance house for the LRVs; then, the question comes, is it worth to build those facilities just for the one line (Eglinton in your suggestion)?

Perhaps you underestimate the number of cars on order for the new lines. The original LRV orders were 204 for the old city lines and an option for 182 for the new lines was exercised.

I'm not certain what the current orders but it appeared we played with the timing of the payments and have not officially cancelled any portion of the orders; we just don't have the funds budgeted.

So, yes, it makes sense for there to be more than 1 storage yard just for deployment efficiency although it would be really useful if the gap between Finch and Eglinton/Sheppard could be closed somehow so there would be a single large maintenance facility.

For comparison:
* San Francisco has a fleet of about 150 LRVs
* Houston runs 18 LRVs
* San Diego runs 160 LRVs (big system but lowish frequencies)
* Portland runs 127 LRVs

I was unable to find a number for Boston or LA but Toronto's new lines are a really big deal for North America.

 

[11th]

Perhaps you underestimate the number of cars on order for the new lines. The original LRV orders were 204 for the old city lines and an option for 182 for the new lines was exercised.

I'm not certain what the current orders but it appeared we played with the timing of the payments and have not officially cancelled any portion of the orders; we just don't have the funds budgeted.

So, yes, it makes sense for there to be more than 1 yard and maintenance facility for the new lines although it would be really useful if the gap between Finch and Eglinton/Sheppard could be closed somehow.

For comparison:
* San Francisco has a fleet of about 150 LRVs
* Houston runs 18 LRVs
* San Diego runs 160 LRVs (big system here but lowish frequencies)


Toronto's Finch, Sheppard, and Eglinton lines will have more LRVs than most other North American cities have in total. I was unable to find a number for Boston or LA.

But I was referring to gweed's post of Eglinton being the route that actually could/should use an LRT. So if Finch, Sheppard are subtracted, does it still make sense to build the new facilities just for Eglinton.

The new yard and maintenance houses were always planned for all of the orignally planned Transit City LRT lines, I think we could all agree on that.

 

[rbt]

But I was referring to gweed's post of Eglinton being the route that actually could/should use an LRT. So if Finch, Sheppard are subtracted, does it still make sense to build the new facilities just for Eglinton.

The Eglinton/SRT combination is still a large line with a ton of rolling stock.

 

[nfitz]

But I was referring to gweed's post of Eglinton being the route that actually could/should use an LRT. So if Finch, Sheppard are subtracted, does it still make sense to build the new facilities just for Eglinton.

The plan was to build 3 yards. One on Eglinton near Black Creek. One on Sheppard East, near the end of the line. And one on Finch West near Jane.

So if we only build the 1 line instead of 4, then one facility will be fine. But if we build the Scarborough RT extension, then the Eglinton yard may not be enough.

 

[gweed123]

However, if you need to build any LRT lines outside of the old city, you'd have to build new maintenance house for the LRVs; then, the question comes, is it worth to build those facilities just for the one line (Eglinton in your suggestion)?
Could the solution be to expand the existing legacy network into the outer city instead?

Realistically though, the Eglinton line, especially with it's west extension, would be long enough that it would need it's own maintenance and storage facility anyway, regardless of if it was Standard Gauge LRT, Legacy LRT, ICTS, or heavy rail subway.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Any DRL will also need a yard for their trains. Even if heavy rail, they will a yard since Greenwood would be filled and Wilson is already set for some expansion for the Spadina extension. Having a connection track is possible to connect with the Danforth, but a direct connection with the YUS could be problematic.

I can see a yard for the DRL near the Portlands or east of the Don River.

 

[gweed123]

Any DRL will also need a yard for their trains. Even if heavy rail, they will a yard since Greenwood would be filled and Wilson is already set for some expansion for the Spadina extension. Having a connection track is possible to connect with the Danforth, but a direct connection with the YUS could be problematic.

I can see a yard for the DRL near the Portlands or east of the Don River.

This is of course assuming that the DRL is run as a separate line. But if you de-couple the Yonge and University-Spadina lines, a new yard may not be necessary. Spadina-Don Mills can use Wilson, and Yonge can use Davisville and a bit of Wilson if necessary. If/when the Yonge line is extended further north, they can build a new yard at the north end of the line.

It would require some re-jigging, but it's certainly possible.

 

[M II A II R II K]

And a more complete DRL could also use the Keele yard.

 

[W. K. Lis]

And a more complete DRL could also use the Keele yard.

I can see a DRL using heavy rail to connect at Dundas West via the Keele Yard. However, it would be too small to store all the trains for DRL.

 

[andrewpmk]

I can see a DRL using heavy rail to connect at Dundas West via the Keele Yard. However, it would be too small to store all the trains for DRL.

CP is closing a yard near Kipling station (Obico Yard). Could a new yard for the Bloor-Danforth Line be built there, while the DRL is operated out of Greenwood Yard?

 

[Dan416]

CP is closing a yard near Kipling station (Obico Yard). Could a new yard for the Bloor-Danforth Line be built there, while the DRL is operated out of Greenwood Yard?

Sounds viable

 

[Voltz]

CP is closing a yard near Kipling station (Obico Yard). Could a new yard for the Bloor-Danforth Line be built there, while the DRL is operated out of Greenwood Yard?

They might have to fight GO Transit for it.

 

[diminutive]

I don't really see how the DRL could avoid needing its own yard and maintenance facilities. Since the first stage would likely be Pape->Core, that facility would likely be somewhere near the Portlands. Maybe the promise of cheaper real-estate could justify a kind of spur or branch line into the Portlands more properly :-D Sending one track on a viaduct to a station or two along Cherry and a maintenance yard somewhere there cold almost be cost neutral to building a maintenance yard elsewhere along the route. Plus that could save the 300m budgeted for a Cherry LRT...

I feel like coupling the DRL with the Spadina line would require.... substantial track work around Union station, the cost of which would totally dwarf any cost savings on the yard. Also, wouldn't that leave the entire Yonge line with just Davisville? Could that cope?