TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Um... Metrolinx is against the DRL since when?
|
|
|
44 North
Senior Member
Metrolinx was created in April 2006 (under the name GTTA). Just over a year after its creation the Prov (and I guess by default, GTAA/Metrolinx) released MoveOntario 2020 with an $11.5bn funding commitment. None of MO2020’s 52 projects included any kind of DRL. IMO it’s a pretty big oversight on the Prov’s part to propose extending Yonge all the way up to Richmond Hill, but not to consider Yonge’s capacity issues.
Then in 2008 we had the Big Move published – where a duly noted DRL finally was included. Unfortunately it was only as the short section up to B/D, and it was also relegated as a non-priority (#48) to be built sometime in their 15-25 year timeframe. So an entire decade (or more) after Yonge’s extension to RHC. Again, this is a big oversight.
As well, in 2014 Metrolinx Chair Pritchard said that we shouldn’t get ahead of ourselves, or seize on one solution for a relief line. That the line may "potentially" involve a subway, but that it will also 'involve buses'.
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/tra...c_go_top_priorities_for_new_transit_fund.html
Perhaps I’m reading too much into this, and "against" is the wrong word to use. But it doesn’t sound like the Prov/Metrolinx supports the DRL all that much. And considering our current situation where SmartTrack has somehow become this city’s top priority, and it has a "relief" moniker attached to it; my guess is that Stouffville RER is assumed by the Prov (and York Region, unsurprisingly) to provide adequate relief. Or at the very least enough relief so as to get the Markham Subway started ASAP. As well, Metrolinx’s Yonge Relief Network Study has apparently been put on hold – which perhaps might explain why Metrolinx’s relief findings won’t be released this Spring as originally promised.
http://globalnews.ca/news/1861698/smarttrack-could-delay-plans-for-downtown-relief-line/
Then in 2008 we had the Big Move published – where a duly noted DRL finally was included. Unfortunately it was only as the short section up to B/D, and it was also relegated as a non-priority (#48) to be built sometime in their 15-25 year timeframe. So an entire decade (or more) after Yonge’s extension to RHC. Again, this is a big oversight.
As well, in 2014 Metrolinx Chair Pritchard said that we shouldn’t get ahead of ourselves, or seize on one solution for a relief line. That the line may "potentially" involve a subway, but that it will also 'involve buses'.
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/tra...c_go_top_priorities_for_new_transit_fund.html
Perhaps I’m reading too much into this, and "against" is the wrong word to use. But it doesn’t sound like the Prov/Metrolinx supports the DRL all that much. And considering our current situation where SmartTrack has somehow become this city’s top priority, and it has a "relief" moniker attached to it; my guess is that Stouffville RER is assumed by the Prov (and York Region, unsurprisingly) to provide adequate relief. Or at the very least enough relief so as to get the Markham Subway started ASAP. As well, Metrolinx’s Yonge Relief Network Study has apparently been put on hold – which perhaps might explain why Metrolinx’s relief findings won’t be released this Spring as originally promised.
http://globalnews.ca/news/1861698/smarttrack-could-delay-plans-for-downtown-relief-line/
Very interesting article and map posted here: http://www.humantransit.org/2015/04/san-francisco-world-class-transit-map-unveiled.html
San Francisco has redone it's transit map in a clear visual hierarchy, based on speed and frequency. There is some segmentation based on route type (different colouring for cable cars, etc), but the line weight is a function of frequency. If the popularity of TTC express routes catches on, I can definitely see this type of map being very useful.
Even just at a glance, you can immediately grasp the hierarchy of transit routes that the map is trying to portray. Faster routes are red, slower routes are blue. Routes along major arteries with frequent service are thicker, minor routes are thinner. The Muni Metro is coloured a single colour, with only the letters to identify the branches (which simplifies the look of the Market St Subway immensely).
Taking a stab at creating a Toronto map like this would be a massive undertaking, and to be honest I don't have the proper base map to even start with something like that, as Google Earth imagery wouldn't be appropriate, nor would using something diagrammatic. If anyone has a base image of Toronto that is similar to the base image of that map though, I'd be interested in giving it a try.
Here's the link to the full resolution image: https://www.sfmta.com/sites/default/files/projects/2015/Final_Map.pdf
San Francisco has redone it's transit map in a clear visual hierarchy, based on speed and frequency. There is some segmentation based on route type (different colouring for cable cars, etc), but the line weight is a function of frequency. If the popularity of TTC express routes catches on, I can definitely see this type of map being very useful.
Even just at a glance, you can immediately grasp the hierarchy of transit routes that the map is trying to portray. Faster routes are red, slower routes are blue. Routes along major arteries with frequent service are thicker, minor routes are thinner. The Muni Metro is coloured a single colour, with only the letters to identify the branches (which simplifies the look of the Market St Subway immensely).
Taking a stab at creating a Toronto map like this would be a massive undertaking, and to be honest I don't have the proper base map to even start with something like that, as Google Earth imagery wouldn't be appropriate, nor would using something diagrammatic. If anyone has a base image of Toronto that is similar to the base image of that map though, I'd be interested in giving it a try.
Here's the link to the full resolution image: https://www.sfmta.com/sites/default/files/projects/2015/Final_Map.pdf
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
The TTC already does something similar with our system map. But using colours to differentiate frequency is a good idea. The only issue is that our rapid transit lines would need to be the same colour.
I was thinking about that problem, and I think I've come up with a solution: Have a red line (rail) underneath with a thick line weight (frequent), and have the route colour as a thinner line weight down the middle of it. That way it shows the route colour, but still has the "frequency and type" line underneath. For non-RT routes, that line down the middle wouldn't be necessary, since they're assigned no unique colour.
44 North
Senior Member
I came across an animated gif on Torontoist showing the growth and future of TTC's accessible stations - http://torontoist.com/2015/03/mapping-an-accessible-ttc/. I guess seeing it made me want to create one showing the history of our subway/RT system, as a change to the usual stuff.
I did a couple of other versions where the time between each successive frame correlated to the different lengths of time between actual subway expansions. But some of the long periods of no growth made the progression seem too choppy with lengthy delays. For example, the steady expansion in the 60s and 70s when compared with the 16yr lull between Sheppard’s 2002 opening and the Vaughan ext in 2018.
As well, I think it would’ve been more fitting to use the existing TTC map as a template. But like I’ve said on another post, I don’t think a labelled FWLRT and Crosstown East would be able to fit on there.
I did a couple of other versions where the time between each successive frame correlated to the different lengths of time between actual subway expansions. But some of the long periods of no growth made the progression seem too choppy with lengthy delays. For example, the steady expansion in the 60s and 70s when compared with the 16yr lull between Sheppard’s 2002 opening and the Vaughan ext in 2018.
As well, I think it would’ve been more fitting to use the existing TTC map as a template. But like I’ve said on another post, I don’t think a labelled FWLRT and Crosstown East would be able to fit on there.
Attachments
Last edited:
MafaldaBoy
Senior Member
I made a hypothetical GO Regional Express Rail map (PDF), similar to what we might see in the future in the style of the current GO train system map. Some new stations here and there, though I'm sure many can be taken out if the lands around them can't be redeveloped, as this map banks on high density nodes at nearly every (new) station.
I made a hypothetical GO Regional Express Rail map (PDF), similar to what we might see in the future in the style of the current GO train system map. Some new stations here and there, though I'm sure many can be taken out if the lands around them can't be redeveloped, as this map banks on high density nodes at nearly every (new) station.
Nice map! A few comments:
1) The Hamilton and Niagara services will both be using the James North station when it's completed, so the split after Aldershot won't be necessary.
2) There are plans underway for a Lakeshore East extension to Bowmanville via downtown Oshawa. That should probably be included, considering it's at about the same stage as the Gormley extension.
3) Just from a geographic realism perspective, I would probably have the Kitchener line be longer than the Milton line. I know it's a far from realistic map (geographically speaking), but I think Kitchener should be further west than Milton.
wopchop
Building Toronto
My understanding is that Hamilton Hunter Street will also continue to be served by GO Trains.
44 North
Senior Member
Why does the GO Train Map differ so much from their System Map? They’re both simplified schematics... wouldn’t it make more sense to only use the more optimal System Map – but with bus routes omitted when only showing train service?
MafaldaBoy
Senior Member
Platform 27
Active Member
Er, no. The RER plans that have been released have shown the primary Hamilton station will continue to be Hunter, and the split at Aldershot will continue.
Er, no. Gormley extension is under construction. Bowmanville extension is not funded.
CDL.TO
Moderator
Because it needs to fit into the frames on board the trains.
jcam
Active Member
I think you'll also be getting stations (see link) past James North that include Confederation, Fifty Road (future - Winona?), Grimsby, Beamsville (future), then St. Catharines and Niagar Falls.
In light of the decision by Metrolinx not to pursue electrfication of Richmond Hill, I think it's less likely you'll get the Gerrard and Don Mills stations (ie. they won't be investing more in that corridor on the south end).
I'm also not sure a Landsdowne station is compatible with the Barrie line's bridge over Davenport, but I'm not entirely sure.
Looks like a nice map though.
In light of the decision by Metrolinx not to pursue electrfication of Richmond Hill, I think it's less likely you'll get the Gerrard and Don Mills stations (ie. they won't be investing more in that corridor on the south end).
I'm also not sure a Landsdowne station is compatible with the Barrie line's bridge over Davenport, but I'm not entirely sure.
Looks like a nice map though.
nfitz
Superstar
I'm not aware of any Metrolinx plan not to pursue electrification of Richmond Hill. At the last Metrolinx meeting in March, the report on RER discussed both the Milton and Richmond Hill corridors. They are clearly not going first, but there's been no indication that they aren't in the long-term plan, as far as I know.