News   Jul 22, 2024
Hazelview and Fitzrovia Break Ground on Affordable Housing at Bloor & Dufferin
 373     0 
News   Jul 22, 2024
News Roundup for July 22, 2024
 424     0 
News   Jul 22, 2024
Colour and Texture
 467     0 

Danforth Line 2 Scarborough Subway Extension

nfitz said:
Would have been higher ridership in the 1990s than the Scarborough Subway in the 2020s ... but after the 1991 recession, the DRL was no longer essential - but certainly it was never a vanity project.
Click to expand...

Based on the results of the YRNS, it definitely would not have been higher than the Scarborough Subway. 2031 usage of DRL U is 11,000 persons. 30 to 40 years prior, usage certainly wound's been a lot lower. Usage in the 90s and 2000s likely would've been very similar to the Sheppard Subway (about 4,000 persons).
 
CDL.TO said:
As the DRL was studied further, it was determined that ICTS wouldn't offer sufficient capacity plus, according to Transit Toronto, the ICTS tech fell out of favour following the issues which plagued the SRT launch. As such, the proposed tech was changed to subway in studies before the proposal was killed.
Click to expand...

I've never seen anything that said that. If so, I wonder what their routing would've been. Because I doubt the ICTS route would've worked for our standard subway (lots of elevated downtown and in EY, tight curves, etc). Unless they meant a metro vehicle similar in size and flexibility as the MkI, but more reliable. Though Inovia wasn't around then, it can carry up to 57k peak.

This is more of an open q, but somewhat related. With the ideas of upgrading the SRT, whyd the TTC only propose MkII? There are other vehicles out there that may even work better. I was reading about Siemens Inspiro, and it sounds pretty good. Lightweight, can be made to order, etc.
 
The idea of the DRL being elevated in the downtown core died even before the ICTS idea did.

It's really unfortunate how the Network 2011 Final Report and the Downtown Rapid Transit Expansion Study (1985) aren't available online.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps in the core it was an obvious nonstarter. But I believe the Don crossing would've been a bridge, and we'd have seen a guideway around Eastern, as well as the yard. And perhaps USRC and Georgetown corridor was to be used.

Yes I've been meaning to head to the library to see any plans that aren't online. The drl definitely is an interesting project. If you haven't checked yet, Ed Levy's book is good for showing past plans.
 
The advanced planning for the DRL only went from Danforth to Spadina. Anything beyond that was considered simply "possible future extensions" and lacked any detail.

The plan did call for the DRL to share the railway corridor from Eastern to Church-ish. I don't recall whether the Don crossing itself would be above or below ground, but I'm guessing above alongside the Kingston Sub. It would be underground along Eastern. None would really be a guideway per se.

Ed Levy's book is great, but lacking in the detail that a true transit fan should desire. That's why you need to go to the source! :)
 
44 North said:
Perhaps in the core it was an obvious nonstarter. But I believe the Don crossing would've been a bridge, and we'd have seen a guideway around Eastern, as well as the yard. And perhaps USRC and Georgetown corridor was to be used.

Yes I've been meaning to head to the library to see any plans that aren't online. The drl definitely is an interesting project. If you haven't checked yet, Ed Levy's book is good for showing past plans.
Click to expand...


CDL.TO said:
The advanced planning for the DRL only went from Danforth to Spadina. Anything beyond that was considered simply "possible future extensions" and lacked any detail.

The plan did call for the DRL to share the railway corridor from Eastern to Church-ish. I don't recall whether the Don crossing itself would be above or below ground, but I'm guessing above alongside the Kingston Sub. It would be underground along Eastern. None would really be a guideway per se.

Ed Levy's book is great, but lacking in the detail that a true transit fan should desire. That's why you need to go to the source! :)
Click to expand...

Ha. Believe it or not, I was planning to go to the Toronto Archives tomorrow to find some documents on the DRL planning. It'll be my first trip to the archives. I'll try to share whatever I find if I make it there tomorrow.
 
TheTigerMaster said:
Ha. Believe it or not, I was planning to go to the Toronto Archives tomorrow to find some documents on the DRL planning. It'll be my first trip to the archives. I'll try to share whatever I find if I make it there tomorrow.
Click to expand...

Network 2011 Final Report and the Downtown Rapid Transit Expansion Study (1985) are both available at the Reference Library IIRC.
 
TheTigerMaster said:
Ha. Believe it or not, I was planning to go to the Toronto Archives tomorrow to find some documents on the DRL planning. It'll be my first trip to the archives. I'll try to share whatever I find if I make it there tomorrow.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I recall being at the archives once, maybe a decade ago. Forget what I was doing there, but I remember stumbling on info about streetcar crashes in the early 20th century.

But the reports cdl mentioned should be gold if you find them. Perhaps if they have stuff on a Sheppard west extn that could be interesting too.
 
TheTigerMaster said:
Ha. Believe it or not, I was planning to go to the Toronto Archives tomorrow to find some documents on the DRL planning. It'll be my first trip to the archives. I'll try to share whatever I find if I make it there tomorrow.
Click to expand...

The DRL report is also in the Ryerson Library.

I wanted to read through it last time I was there but I got caught up learning about the Eglinton Subway instead, then began reading Vukan Vuchic's massive book about transit.
 
CDL.TO said:
It's mentioned in passing in the RTES (2001), which you can find here: http://www.ttc.ca/PDF/About_the_TTC/DRTES_Final_Report_-_September_2012.pdf

There might be something in the Sheppard EA, but if there is I'm sure it's very minimal. Sheppard West has never been serious enough of a proposal that it's merited further study.
Click to expand...

Ok, right. I guess I was more focused on the West Don crossing (which was discussed in another thread a week or so ago). This is also something I've been particularly interested in for the DRL as well, and I believe it will play a bigger role in its routing than many realize. More often than not, a bridge is more optimal than a tunnel in such a situation. But if it were to be ruled out (for numerous reasons), what effect would that have on station spacing, location, and depth on Sheppard West. I'd assume this to be covered in the Sheppard EA, but I could be wrong. When I have the time and energy, I'll definitely head over to the Reference Library.
 
Skip the Scarborough subway and modernize the SRT, says transit expert - Toronto Star

"Abandoning a 30-year-old capital investment in rail rapid transit would probably make Toronto unique among major cities in the world and probably the universe," he concludes.
Click to expand...

This.

(The only other example I can think of where a city "kind of" threw away a functioning rapid transit system and replaced it with something else would be Jacksonville, Florida, where they built a MATRA VAL 256 with 3 stations, ran it for a couple of years, then gutted the guideway and built a Bombardier (well, Universal Mobility) monorail in the trough and extended it into a Y-shaped network.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"Abandoning a 30-year-old capital investment in rail rapid transit would probably make Toronto unique among major cities in the world and probably the universe," he concludes.

This is just the Star continuing to throw some dirt until something sticks. How about moving on from this RT mistake both the technology and route were sub par. The proposed SLRT isnt all that bad but the benefits of the SSE are also very good in many ways.

The real disgrace is still the Sheppard LRT line connecting to a short stubway & that's really something no other major City in the Universe would build. You couldn't draw a map to show truer inequality in transit building being laid out in the same direction

The Star doing there bi-weekly trolling of Scarborough
 
Anyone have a link to the actual report? One thing people might be hung up on is the idea that any 'modernization' of the SRT must involve Bombardier's technology. I doubt this is the case, and I think there are at least a dozen companies that can build affordable, 21stC, non-proprietary light metro vehicles as a replacement - possibly without any significant changes to the existing infrastructure/stations/alignment. There is no rule that says we must buy BBD's MkII or III and continue the ICTS legacy.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top