Woodbridge_Heights said:
I recall reading a report on downsview park in the early 2000's. Even though the runway will no longer be used the plan was to work around it.
Click to expand...

I work in an industrial park with an infuriating road network. When strangers ask me for directions I can't help them, despite knowing the way, because there are so many loops and turns involved. To get from one of my work buildings to another on foot, despite being 300 meters away, requires over half an hour of walking. I would have to walk the same distance back to get to my bus stop in the evening.

upload_2018-8-8_9-22-53.png


The complete lack of street grid means that any construction (which is constant, since the highway is crumbling) results in long detours for the bus.

My industrial park is that way partially because of the airport, partially because of the rail lines, mostly because of bad planning. Downsview is a blank slate, it doesn't have to be like this. It would be shameful to replicate this there for "historic" reasons, letting the ghosts of past land uses create present-day obstacles.

Woodbridge_Heights said:
Both for historical reasons and for economic reasons (foundations for runways are often deep and very strong. Difficult to remove)
Click to expand...

Even if it is too expensive to remove the runways to place foundations/utilities, they should at least be able to pave over it to complete the road grid. I see the rusty remains of streetcar tracks poking out from the pavement of most of my neighbouring streets in Montreal, I'm sure a flat bed of deep concrete is a preferable surface for laying ashphalt.

DonValleyRainbow said:
It's generally agreed more compact, connected, and well-designed street networks (i.e. grids) make for denser, more walkable/cyclable and more sustainable communities. Placing a major road like Dufferin through it could definitely achieve that, if done right; it would have to be done in a way that makes it a destination and a complete street, not a through-way for commuters.

And as @sunnyraytoronto pointed out, it's not going to be a perfect grid with the TTC yard in the way. But it doesn't mean it's impossible to make a better network given the constraints. Hell, it could play off the runways as an homage to the past.

Just doodling in paint here, but just to contrast with the city's plan posted above, and for something to chew on. Majors in red, minors in blue.
Click to expand...

This is a massive redevelopment opportunity, well served by transit, in a hot housing market. The TTC needs more yard space for its fleet plans (they are currently procuring another yard.) Maybe a redevelopment could include shifting, expanding, and/or decking over the TTC yards in order to maximize developable land and to consider the entire area as a single parcel.
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-8-8_9-22-53.png
    upload_2018-8-8_9-22-53.png
    103.5 KB · Views: 1,210
How do you cross A-520 in that scenario? Best I can tell, Google maps has you literally hopping the barriers and running across the highway.

Edit: nevermind, I see that there is a pedestrian underpass under the highway beside A-13.
 
aquateam said:
The TTC needs more yard space for its fleet plans (they are currently procuring another yard.) Maybe a redevelopment could include shifting, expanding, and/or decking over the TTC yards in order to maximize developable land and to consider the entire area as a single parcel.
Click to expand...
It wont happen in a million years with the way things work in the city. Davisville would be the yard most ripe for redevelopment over it's footprint, but the TTC and city would drop the ball on that front so many times if the opportunity ever came forth it would be mind boggling.

Wilson Yard on the other hand is far too large, and important of a complex to disrupt operations for even the slightest moment.
 
Amare said:
Wilson Yard on the other hand is far too large, and important of a complex to disrupt operations for even the slightest moment.
Click to expand...

Well that questions the wisdom of centralizing so much yard capacity in one spot. Wouldn't we want a yard elsewhere in case something happened on the line nearby?
 
DonValleyRainbow said:
Well that questions the wisdom of centralizing so much yard capacity in one spot. Wouldn't we want a yard elsewhere in case something happened on the line nearby?
Click to expand...
In an ideal situation yes, but the reason Wilson has been expanded numerous times is because it was much cheaper to do so compared to the other options available (ie: building a brand new yard) and it had plenty of available land surrounding it.

The TTC has found out the hard way that it isnt the best thing in the world to do due to the reason you pointed out, and there have been many times where they have had issues getting trains out of there (especially recently in the morning rush) which has resulted in service on the University branch being crippled.

A new yard is being planned for whenever the Yonge line is expanded northward to Richmond Hill, but until then the situation wont change.
 
The Yonge Line will get a small underground storage yard for 9 trains north of the Highway 7 station - it won't be a proper new yard.

The TTC is in the early stages of planning a new yard just past Kipling, on the former CP Obico Yard lands. It is presumed it will be constructed in coordination with the ATC signalling of line 2, and will allow the Greenwood yard to service the Relief Line.
 
innsertnamehere said:
The TTC is in the early stages of planning a new yard just past Kipling, on the former CP Obico Yard lands. It is presumed it will be constructed in coordination with the ATC signalling of line 2, and will allow the Greenwood yard to service the Relief Line.
Click to expand...

I'll believe it when I see it. I know this was suggested and mused about in past, but I have little faith this will be a priority.
 
DonValleyRainbow said:
I'll believe it when I see it. I know this was suggested and mused about in past, but I have little faith this will be a priority.
Click to expand...
It's not like they're going to have much of a choice, they will have to build a new yard before the Relief Line opens. Greenwood cant expand any further, while Wilson and Davisville are impractical to use as a yard for the Relief Line.
 
DonValleyRainbow said:
I'll believe it when I see it. I know this was suggested and mused about in past, but I have little faith this will be a priority.
Click to expand...
Can’t extend the subway to Scarb Centre without resignalling, can’t operate over new signalling without TRs or other new vehicles which will almost certainly be articulated, so can’t rely on Greenwood (not optimized for six car trainsets)
 
If you look at it on a map, it's interesting to see all of the things around, or close to, Moffett Field, at the south end of San Francisco Bay -- Googleplex Campus, Amazon Lab126, Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Shoreline Amphitheatre, and several NASA Ames Research Center buildings. It's something like Downsview Airport in that it's a former military airfield with two (instead of one) parallel north-south runways about 8 and 9000 feet long, a little longer than the 7000 feet of Downsview.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top