TOareaFan
Superstar
@44north...in your map above the legend shows Sheppard as a light purple colour but your loop takes the green of the BD onto/across sheppard so there is no need for that colour in the map.
|
|
|
crs1026
Superstar
Is there a maximum length that the experts say a subway line should not exceed, for operability reasons?
I wonder if we are already there with TYSSE and potentially with the 'looped' Line 2.
I can think of some equally long lines in other cities, but that's not to say it's smart to have them that long.
= Paul
I wonder if we are already there with TYSSE and potentially with the 'looped' Line 2.
I can think of some equally long lines in other cities, but that's not to say it's smart to have them that long.
= Paul
44 North
Senior Member
Oh right, I had the base map and quickly added this in. And as others have noted, this is questionable. As would be any very long line. There'd probably be multiple turnarounds, confusion, and it'd be abandoned within a year. Like our attempt at interlining.
Rainforest
Senior Member
That option has been discussed a few times here.
IMO, this is not a particularly good idea. Ridership counts will be particularly low between STC and Agincourt. There will be relatively few riders who benefit from the two lines being combined; and the existing segment of Sheppard will have to be operated with 6-car trains instead of 4-car, increasing the operational expenses.
I'd rather send just one subway there (BD to Sheppard and McCowan), then add LRT services from the subway terminus to Malvern Centre, to the Zoo, and perhaps one more up McCowan then west on Finch E to reach Yonge and connect to Finch West LRT.
GenerationW
Senior Member
That's a convenient excuse. Every part of Toronto is a minority. Didn't prevent Jack Layton from successfully leading the downtown charge against the TTC that killed the DRL in the 90s. And it's not like Scarborough politicians were in a position of strength when they began a road that eventually overturned a funded and approved LRT.
When downtown had more than enough power at City Hall not that long ago, Miller and Giambrone could have easily pushed through a DRL as part of or instead of Transit City, but they foolishly had no interest.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
There was little justification for building the Downtown Relief Line in the 90s. It was a vanity project, like the Scarborough Subway.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Nope, it is not a vanity project - it is the inability to foresee future needs and the utter failure of the Metroplan and the subcentres model of development, as well as taking advantage of the ridership downtown to renew and expand the transit network.
Speaking of which, I am glad Royson is ripping everyone involved a new one:
http://t.thestar.com/#/article/news...ore-disaster-coming-down-the-track-james.html
AoD
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
I said the DRL was a vanity project. Past tense.
Well how far into the future should we be considering when deciding to build infrastructure? The Network 2011 plan would've completed the DRL in about 2000, about 30 years before the line is expected to become necessary. I'd much rather delay the construction of the DRL by a few decades, than have the TTC forced to operate yet another expensive and underused rapid transit line.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
It wasn't even a "was" - the Yonge line was seriously congested up till 89 - which is why you see the YUS northern loop being proposed as well (to reduce headways, I believe). There is a ridership limit below which subways are total vanity, but I think the case for some kind of downtown subway line is fully justifiable at all times.
Except that by delaying it a few decades, you are not only dealing with a multitude of non-trivial cost increases in construction, but the opportunity cost of not doing anything (congestion, delays, whatnot). Anyways, DRL really isn't the point of this thread.
AoD
44 North
Senior Member
Keep in mind the Network 2011 DRL was an ICTS line. I don't think I've seen any evidence that it was to be a standard heavy rail underground subway. And I believe all the preceding plans were for a streetcar subway or pre-metro.
Edit: so I guess what I was going to add was that an ICTS drl (or its streetcar-subway / Crosstown-style pre-metro predecessor) would've been more affordable than a heavy rail line. However either would've been quite intrusive had they gotten built (which I doubt would've happened, even if downtown politicos supported it).
I wonder what would be better: a 1990 skytrain line, or our current wait for a 2030 proper line.
Edit: so I guess what I was going to add was that an ICTS drl (or its streetcar-subway / Crosstown-style pre-metro predecessor) would've been more affordable than a heavy rail line. However either would've been quite intrusive had they gotten built (which I doubt would've happened, even if downtown politicos supported it).
I wonder what would be better: a 1990 skytrain line, or our current wait for a 2030 proper line.
Last edited:
nfitz
Superstar
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.
However, when proposed in the 1980s, when the Yonge ridership peaked, and Yonge hit capacity, it was essential. I haven't got the Yonge ridership numbers at hand, but the system itself peaked at 463.5 million in 1988 before falling to 372.4 million in 1996. However it's been rising consistently since the 405.4 million in 2003, rising to an estimated 555 million in 2016. That's almost 50% growth in 20 years.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
I'd say wait. It would be difficult for ICTS to handle to passenger loads in the Yonge Relief Network Study.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
That debate took place during the times when decentralization is official Metro policy (objection to the DRL is partly based on that) - and it has since been proven to be an abject failure. Not to say that nothing would have better than something, but at this point it's pretty safe to assume the core will continue to intensify and DRL should be sized accordingly.
AoD
CDL.TO
Moderator
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.
GenerationW
Senior Member
The proposed Eglinton busway quickly morphed into a subway before its infamous death at the hands of the Harris government. Hard to imagine a 90s DRL wouldn't have been a standard subway if things had progressed. And, pre-Network 2011, there was a proposal floated at Metro Council in the early 80s to build a subway parallel to the DVP which, again, was ignored/rejected by downtown.