[smallspy]

Dan,

I would like to counter your argument by stating that while a good idea, removing a couple of trains in the afternoon would cram people into cars where there is no room left to cram. Decreasing congestion at the terminals at the expense of capacity is a no win situation. You can speed things up or you can make life easier for passengers but not at the same time.

I know what you are trying to accomplish Dan and I agree that by decreasing congestion trains can move more easily along the line. With that said, there needs to be a point on the Bloor-Danforth and Yonge lines to turnback trains like they do at Glencairn or at least hold them temporarily to dispatch an empty train. The best places I can think of would Islington (or Vincent Yard when operational) and Chester on the Bloor-Danforth line as well as Davisville and York Mills on the Yonge Line.

The best example of why this is key is Bloor Station in the mornings. Trains are frequent but despite trains arriving every other minute they are full and the crowds keep growing. If a train ran private from Davisville to Bloor Station then turned back at St George you would alleviate some of the crowds at Yonge and decrease dwell time at the station which in turn would help speed up trains along the line.

There are backups of trains leading to the terminals every day right now. When they are standing still, they are not benefiting anyone, and if anything are a hindrance to the system. Pulling 2 trains from the YUS every rush hour would not affect anything, and would actually allow people to make it to Finch and Downsview faster.

That said, I do agree that they should be making better use of the various pocket tracks around the system. And how do you best do that? By taking a couple of trains that are currently used to run the full length, and running them as shorter "trippers" during the rush hours - which is something that they used to do until about 10 or 12 years ago. Oh, and since they're not running the full length of the line, you don't need as many of them (which gets me back to my original point now, doesn't it?).

Now, keep in mind, I'm not suggesting for a minute that every second train gets turned back at Lawrence or Davisville - that would be insane. But of the 51 trains in the afternoon, take say 4 or 5 of them (after removing the first 2) and run them from St. Clair West to Eglinton or Lawrence. Not enough to be a huge drop in capacity, but enough to fill in any gaps that may arise.

Also, forget Vincent Yard - its layout means that it can only be used for getting the first trains out at the beginning of the day and storing the last 8 of the evening.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[robmausser]

The TTC isn't installing PTC - the current signal system is basically a PTC system already. What they are installing is ATC/ATO.

I would argue that a lot of the issues with the supposed lack of speed of the TRs stems more from the number of trains on the line more than anything. Removing a couple of trains in the afternoon would go a long way to relieving the congestion at the terminals, and the double-step-backs currently in place should continue to be used to allow the trains to get out faster.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

Sorry my bad, ive been reading articles on Amtrak and the US railroads installing PTC lately.

With ATC, trains will be able to run closer together, much faster.

So ATC will negate the need to remove any trains.

 

[Richard White]

There are backups of trains leading to the terminals every day right now. When they are standing still, they are not benefiting anyone, and if anything are a hindrance to the system. Pulling 2 trains from the YUS every rush hour would not affect anything, and would actually allow people to make it to Finch and Downsview faster.

That said, I do agree that they should be making better use of the various pocket tracks around the system. And how do you best do that? By taking a couple of trains that are currently used to run the full length, and running them as shorter "trippers" during the rush hours - which is something that they used to do until about 10 or 12 years ago. Oh, and since they're not running the full length of the line, you don't need as many of them (which gets me back to my original point now, doesn't it?).

Now, keep in mind, I'm not suggesting for a minute that every second train gets turned back at Lawrence or Davisville - that would be insane. But of the 51 trains in the afternoon, take say 4 or 5 of them (after removing the first 2) and run them from St. Clair West to Eglinton or Lawrence. Not enough to be a huge drop in capacity, but enough to fill in any gaps that may arise.

Also, forget Vincent Yard - its layout means that it can only be used for getting the first trains out at the beginning of the day and storing the last 8 of the evening.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

Oh jeez I forgot about that you are indeed correct. Vincent is on the eastbound and not able to turn trains westbound. I like your idea regarding Davisville to St Clair West and am surprised nobody has considered a downtown tripper (Bloor to St George) that would take people through downtown only. It would alleviate crowds at St George and Bloor.

 

[smallspy]

Oh jeez I forgot about that you are indeed correct. Vincent is on the eastbound and not able to turn trains westbound. I like your idea regarding Davisville to St Clair West and am surprised nobody has considered a downtown tripper (Bloor to St George) that would take people through downtown only. It would alleviate crowds at St George and Bloor.

You have it backwards regarding Vincent Yard - you could not run trains out eastbound in a reliable manner because the exit faces westbound. It would take too much time to run the train out, have the crew change ends and allow the signal system to clear and reset to allow the train to run eastbound. Of course, running trains westbound for the PM rush isn't particularly good either, as you have to tie up both mains to get a train out. None of these are problems if the yard is solely used to store trains overnight.

As for the trippers, like I said, they used to do it. I'm not sure why they feel that they're not appropriate now.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[drum118]

Nov 4

 

[Richard White]

You have it backwards regarding Vincent Yard - you could not run trains out eastbound in a reliable manner because the exit faces westbound. It would take too much time to run the train out, have the crew change ends and allow the signal system to clear and reset to allow the train to run eastbound. Of course, running trains westbound for the PM rush isn't particularly good either, as you have to tie up both mains to get a train out. None of these are problems if the yard is solely used to store trains overnight.

As for the trippers, like I said, they used to do it. I'm not sure why they feel that they're not appropriate now.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

That is what I was referring to. The track is on the eastbound in terms of where the trains end up. I should have been more clear Dan. I get what you are saying and I have seen it before when they do turnbacks at places like Jane and Victoria Park.

 

[dowlingm]

I wonder if anyone at TTC/Build Toronto is eyeing Vincent as a development opportunity if the trigger is pulled on acquiring Obico. As for turning trains at the Broadview-Chester pocket track, as a Line 2/east end commuter I would argue that PM trains are nowhere near empty enough by then justify taking trains OOS at Broadview.

 

[drum118]

I wonder if anyone at TTC/Build Toronto is eyeing Vincent as a development opportunity if the trigger is pulled on acquiring Obico. As for turning trains at the Broadview-Chester pocket track, as a Line 2/east end commuter I would argue that PM trains are nowhere near empty enough by then justify taking trains OOS at Broadview.

Going out on the limb and say no to development on the Vincent Yard, as its too narrow and fail to meet the 50-75 feet between building guideline.

Don't forget there is another 500' of 4 tunnel storage to the east under the parking lot and the loop.

Now, you could put a development over Dundas West Station when they rebuilt the loop and bus bays, but no underground parking for it.

As for short turning trains, forget it, as TTC does that today getting crews back on schedule costing less than throwing riders off the trains at various stations.

 

[M II A II R II K]

With sending only half the trains to the University and only 1 in 4 trains to VCC that would do wonders for terminal backups. And empty trains can still be caught at Downsview.

 

[junctionist]

Going out on the limb and say no to development on the Vincent Yard, as its too narrow and fail to meet the 50-75 feet between building guideline.

Don't forget there is another 500' of 4 tunnel storage to the east under the parking lot and the loop.

Now, you could put a development over Dundas West Station when they rebuilt the loop and bus bays, but no underground parking for it.

As for short turning trains, forget it, as TTC does that today getting crews back on schedule costing less than throwing riders off the trains at various stations.

If you combined Dundas West Station's air rights with the development site to the south (previously Giraffe condos), you could put parking beneath that site and build one development above Dundas West.

 

[drum118]

If you combined Dundas West Station's air rights with the development site to the south (previously Giraffe condos), you could put parking beneath that site and build one development above Dundas West.

This is one site you don't need parking at all, other car sharing.

You got TTC subway, bus, streetcar in one location and a 5 minute walk to catch a UPX or a GO train that connects with VIA Rail or get you to the airport. 10 minute ride to Union or a 15 minute ride to the airport.

Combining Giraffe site along with Dundas Station and the parking lot, you could put a nice twin 15s tower with a 4-6 story podium. You have to build over the lane-way or you can stub it at Dundas. Bitching will happen if you remove the parking lot, but you could build over it as another option.

 

[sixrings]

http://www.postcity.com/Eat-Shop-Do/Do/November-2016/Wilson-subway-station-parking-lot-closed-today/

Zeni said he will consider parking at Yorkdale once the spots become available. “The other three parking areas here fill up fast, so as of now it looks like taking the bus will be my only option,” he said.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

I thought it was funny, Line 1 was down on the weekend from Downsview to Lawrence, I think. So, no parking at Downsview (obviously, there's the shuttle bus) the first weekend after they close Wilson, with full Xmas in effect at Yorkdale.

ladies and gentlemen, your 2016 TTC!

 

[sixrings]

I think the goal of the TTC is to get people to the subway via transit vs being dropped off by kiss and ride and or parking. Everyone says if you take away the surface lots then people will drive downtown. But people aren't driving for a number of reasons such as the cost of parking downtown and or some do not like driving downtown traffic. I would guess there are more people like this man who will simply opt to take the bus to the station than who will give up on transit altogether. By the way I wouldn't hold my breath that Yorkdale is going to want to extend the TTCs lease when it finally comes up in a few years. I'd bet that Yorkdale will want all those spots for themselves

 

[amnesiajune]

But people aren't driving for a number of reasons such as the cost of parking downtown and or some do not like driving downtown traffic.

Those are good reasons to take public transit, but having to walk to the bus, wait out in the rain/snow/cold for the bus, have to stand because it's packed, and spend more time commuting because the bus is slower than your car are all great reasons to drive. Some people might also find that driving into downtown is faster than the bus + subway. Parking at subway stations and Go Train stations provides a great alternative for those people.