Transit Fantasy Maps

[Chuck]

There is enough people using Union's subway platforms that it is the only station in the whole system currently getting a platform expansion.

Agreed, but this was required due to poor station design and having the narrowest stairs and platforms in the entire system, not because train capacity was in any way lacking. And that's the point - because Union doesn't need increased subway capacity and is already served by two subway lines, the placement of the DRL should not be based on proximity to Union Station.

Along with speed and capacity, a third goal of the DRL should be to get as many people as possible within walking distance of a non existing subway station. The corridor that best achieves this is, in my opinion, somewhere between King and Shuter.

 

[Fresh Start]

If a single station is decided on, and there is space, could we not just construct the station layout like this?

[PLATFORM] westbound boarding
<==TRACK== westbound trains  
[PLATFORM] exit
==TRACK==> eastbound trains 
[PLATFORM] eastbound boarding

Yes, this layout would require additional elevators, but it would allow both train doors to be opened to allow for smoother boarding/unboarding. whether or not this design is overbuilt is a matte of opinion, but if its a decision between one and three stations, i would choose one but with this setup.

If you had read my most-recent post you've seen that I already suggested this layout. The single station approach is the best one for several reasons. Most importantly of these cost and speed/travel time. Why subject through-passengers to having their train trips stopped every 150m to serve the same neighbourhood, a neighbourhood which is centered on King and Bay to which all adjacent buildings already have an underground connection to? People are not afraid of walking. It is not uncommon to witness droves of GO customers walk it all the way up from the GO station to past Queen St, every weekday. What is it to walk 100m maximum from St Andrew-Union-King to the new CBD Station situated in-between York and Bay Sts. Less than walking the full length of a standard TTC subway platform, that's what.

Cost is another factor. At $130 million per station it'd be absurd to have so many stations concentrated in one area. DRL spacing across Wellington-Front should be Strachan, Bathurst, Spadina, John, Bay, Church, Sherbourne, Cherry. Seeing as the existing PATH network makes it out to John St (Metro Hall) it is reasonable to presume that some St Andrew transferees could make use of the E.D. station in an effort to alleviate CBD. Likewise the Church St stop in relation to King Stn. Fare-paid zone transfers aren't necessarily needed as several spots on the TTC offers a walk-in transfer connection between parallel yet not quite intersecting routes.

 

[Fresh Start]

Your design does definetly have merits. If it were designed like that, it would need at least 3 separate entrances/exits (York, PATH, and Bay), in addition to the fare-paid zone connections to King, Union, and St. Andrew. In short, it would need to be a fairly substantial station, and an even bigger station complex. And naturally, it would need to be deep-boared, as many of those connections would need to go underneath existing underground infrastructure.

Any DRL alignment through the CBD will have to navigate beneath the PATH network. The DRL will also have to be one level below YUS through this whole stretch as the original Yonge Line is very shallow. Doing such in fact simplifies the routing and connections possible because fare-paid zone pathways can be made in straight lines and diagonals between the four subway stops with relative ease. The way I see the more access points are made to the one station, the greater the opportunity to spread out the load and not have all commuters crowd up in one section of the platform/station (the north end of Bloor Stn, for instance). Segregating offloads and on-loads, westbounds and eastbounds via 3 separate platform areas further reduces bottlenecks and dwell times for train trips.

And I noticed on the west side of the line you have the Spadina station at Spadina and Wellington. I would be inclined to move it down to Spadina and Front, or even lower. In the SOS Move Toronto plan, all the DRL cost projections and the like are being done from Science Centre to Spadina. One of the main reasons why I stressed this so hard is the change in construction technique that would take place immediately after Spadina.

You won't be saving much money at all by shifting the line south. In fact the costs will probably go up as there's no space at-grade in the rail-corridor for the DRL to route; and it is very unlikely that gov'ts will permit even partial closure of a CNR/CPR mainline through Toronto for an indefinite period during underground construction. The rail corridor neglects the very important King/Bathurst area which has a high concentration of offices and condos to the west. And Wellington/Strachan is also centric to the King West Village condo community. From there westwards the line can naturally enter the Weston-Galt progressing northwestwards with another station at King/Atlantic for Liberty Village and short walk north of Exhibiton GO, followed by a station at Queen/Dufferin. All along I thought that this was the version of DRL our SOS group had in mind.

Everything east of Spadina would need to be boared, while everything west could be cut-and-covered, elevated, or trenched, depending on what is warranted. Regardless, a change in construction techniques will occur, especially if it uses the rail corridor (which it likely will). It just doesn't make much sense to end the line in the CBD, and then have to bring the TBMs back down a decade or so later to tunnel another 1km or so. Ending Phase I of the DRL at Spadina also has the advantage of serving the Rogers Centre, as well as servicing City Place and the Spadina streetcar.

A station at John is even better equipped to serve the Rogers Centre. And the CN Tower. And Roundhouse. And CBC Headquarters. And Royal Alexandra and Princess of Wales Theaters. And a condo cluster. And the eastern border of Cityplace. And Canada's Walk of Fame. And Second City. And the Convention Centre. And Metro Hall. And short walk south of Rio Can, and clubs, and CityTv. And short walk north of the Harbourfront Centre. If ever there was reason not to skip over a intersection when planning a subway line, John is it. What's the value in placing 3 stations within walking distance of eachother to distribute loads?

Just some food for thought.

Hey man, keep the analyzes coming. I'm glad that there's others out there like you who seem to have a vested interest in making transit work and not approaching this like some career-advancing political move. If only the TPTB looked at things from the perspective of actual transit riders, maybe they'd learn something too and achieve positive results.

 

[gweed123]

Any DRL alignment through the CBD will have to navigate beneath the PATH network. The DRL will also have to be one level below YUS through this whole stretch as the original Yonge Line is very shallow. Doing such in fact simplifies the routing and connections possible because fare-paid zone pathways can be made in straight lines and diagonals between the four subway stops with relative ease. The way I see the more access points are made to the one station, the greater the opportunity to spread out the load and not have all commuters crowd up in one section of the platform/station (the north end of Bloor Stn, for instance). Segregating offloads and on-loads, westbounds and eastbounds via 3 separate platform areas further reduces bottlenecks and dwell times for train trips.

That's what I was thinking. For the Union DRL platform, you could even have separate exits for each of the office complexes, to even further distribute the rush hour load. Each of them would in essence have their "own part" of the platform.

You won't be saving much money at all by shifting the line south. In fact the costs will probably go up as there's no space at-grade in the rail-corridor for the DRL to route; and it is very unlikely that gov'ts will permit even partial closure of a CNR/CPR mainline through Toronto for an indefinite period during underground construction. The rail corridor neglects the very important King/Bathurst area which has a high concentration of offices and condos to the west. And Wellington/Strachan is also centric to the King West Village condo community. From there westwards the line can naturally enter the Weston-Galt progressing northwestwards with another station at King/Atlantic for Liberty Village and short walk north of Exhibiton GO, followed by a station at Queen/Dufferin. All along I thought that this was the version of DRL our SOS group had in mind.

For a good portion of that stretch however there is room to put a subway in. Many of those tracks that are there are spur lines/holding tracks, and not part of the main network. Even if the city does have to pay CN/CP to temporarily shut down their tracks, it would still be cheaper than cut and covering or boring under a street. It could also be paired with the Front St West extension, if necessary.

I just think that once the DRL exits the core in the west, the opportunities for redevelopment and TOD in and around the rail corridor exceed the potential that is along Wellington, while still serving Liberty Village very efficiently. The farther north you put it, the harder it is to do TOD in new areas.

But having said that, it would not be the end of the world if it was decided to be placed along Wellington for that portion. You could use different planning rationales to justify either.

A station at John is even better equipped to serve the Rogers Centre. And the CN Tower. And Roundhouse. And CBC Headquarters. And Royal Alexandra and Princess of Wales Theaters. And a condo cluster. And the eastern border of Cityplace. And Canada's Walk of Fame. And Second City. And the Convention Centre. And Metro Hall. And short walk south of Rio Can, and clubs, and CityTv. And short walk north of the Harbourfront Centre. If ever there was reason not to skip over a intersection when planning a subway line, John is it. What's the value in placing 3 stations within walking distance of eachother to distribute loads?

The St. Andrew DRL will extend to nearly John, and an exit could easily be added there, even if it needs a little bit of a walkway at the end of the platform.

Hey man, keep the analyzes coming. I'm glad that there's others out there like you who seem to have a vested interest in making transit work and not approaching this like some career-advancing political move. If only the TPTB looked at things from the perspective of actual transit riders, maybe they'd learn something too and achieve positive results.

Glad you appreciate my efforts, haha .

 

[doady]

I updated my map based on recent discussions, just minor changes really. Mostly I just jazzed it up, aesthetic additions/change like symbolization, colours, etc.

Here it is:

Link

 

[noctis]

these "fantasy" maps (and i quote fantasy) are nice, no doubt. but lets be honest here, we all kno that the government is lacking money. so in order for these fantasy lines to be built they gotta start saving some $$ and from my point of view, it probably won't happen till........ i dunno...... the day i die ><" sigh... it's sad i kno...

on another note, i think u guys shud start rebuilding ur fantasy maps since the LRTs are being built now. i am not an artist but my fantasy map goes something like this:

1. build a subway at yonge/steeles (after finch expands to steeles that is), going east/west. eastward direction can go as far as durham region (if necessary) and the westward direction can connect to steeles west station and then go as far as where humber college is and maybe even further is possible.

2. build that damn DRL (the one that everyone's been talking about). it shud start from dundas west passing thru union and then up coxwell and further up if necessary.

3. expand the bloor/danforth line @ kipling to sherway gardens, square one, and possibly to the airport.

and i think that's good enough, honestly, there really is nothing more we can expect the government to do...this is already too much for them to handle...

 

[Second_in_pie]

and i think that's good enough, honestly, there really is nothing more we can expect the government to do...this is already too much for them to handle...

ahahahahah right.
Again, our government is one of the richest and most empowered governments in one of the richest and most progressive countries in the world. Not only do we have the money, but if people knew that we were being set up well for the future, I'm fairly certain that they'd delay "full financial recovery" to make sure that their future selves and their children are getting things right. And the government does have money to do all this, and more. Our government is in 50 billion dollars of debt, yet California is well over 80 billion in debt (and not much of a sign of getting out of that,) and it's financing huge expansions for local and regional systems in LA and San Fran, long distance rail lines in the California Corridor (with a preliminary cost of 10 billion,) and subsidies for local transit all throughout the state. It may not be a likable situation, but the money's there.

And if worst comes to worst, the world collectively liquidates all the auto companies we bailed out and lets it get redistributed back to the governments who paid. Bailing them out was a painfully stupid idea. If I have to not think in the past, then: we have the money, we have the demand, and if we don't act, our transit system is going to age further and become even more obsolete than it already is.

Oh, and subway isn't as expensive as the TTC says it is, that's already been pretty well noted

@ Doady and map: I like that map pretty well. Personally, I think Hurontario should be a RT (cost savings by raised guideway for part of the route?) At the least, it should have all the concessions made for it (Eglinton or better,) and be tunneled from Eglinton to Port Credit. I just think it's a really important transit corridor (going right through a region of 1 million and growing,) and would connect major growth centres, transit lines, etc. etc.
I like the Lawrence and Wilson (BRTs? I'm not sure if Wilson is justified, but Lawrence is.) Though I'd start Lawrence at Lawrence and Don Mills on the subway, because it doesn't have to go through (probably tunnel) through the very low ridership and redundant Bridle Path. Not to mention there'd be a LOT of opposition to that.
As for the Purple Go line, I still think that line would be better suited to go through the Finch Hydro corridor and then follow to Pearson and whatnot, but it's not a huge bone to pick considering it's a fantasy map

Though may I suggest some new things:
-Highway 7 subway between VMC and MTC if the Purple line gets moved south.
-BRT/LRTs on Warden/Kennedy/McCowan (pick one or two,) Steeles, Islington, Finch, Queen, Queensway to Sherway
-Midtown Go line on the CP Mainline
I like your map though Admittedly, it lacks a certain something that would make it a good system map, but it looks good and tidy nonetheless

 

[nfitz]

Hmm ... Dowdy ... interesting. Though if you actually run a subway up Main, you would't put the intermediate stop at Gerrard - more likely at Kingston; Gerrard is pretty close to Danforth ... the Danforth GO station is a bit closer to Gerrard than it is to Main. Kingston is a bit more remote ... particularly with the hill between there and Queen.

 

[savevp]

I updated my map based on recent discussions, just minor changes really. Mostly I just jazzed it up, aesthetic additions/change like symbolization, colours, etc.

Here it is:

Link

This is a wonderful map, I must say. However, it does bring up an interesting point. Toronto subway maps, unlike many other cities, have never used 45* angles. Look at the Barcelona metro map for example and see the use of those standard angles. Anyway, this map brings up the point that if Toronto's rapid transit system gets this big on day, it may need 45* angles. The question is do we stick with our tradition of varied angles or do we conform to 45* angles? (of course we would need the system to be built first, which is a long way off as of yet).

Comments?

 

[Calrissian]

There is very little, if at any at all, consistency or conformity to any of our(Toronto) transit map designs. The TTC ride guide vs the Subway maps, vs the Go train system map, are all just done in house mickey mouse productions. Even Vancouver has recently stepped up there game with their Transit Connections System Map, that actually makes the system look quite extensive and clean, and giving off the impression of a big time well implemented/integrated system (accomplished through properly thought out and executed design).

What the TTC and GO still need lessons in, is their ability to project clearly this same message through there designs. The new GO site that just launched is pretty good, and as part of that refresh, was really anticipating a revamped system map, but no, still that 8th grade, hap-hazard, embarrassingly amateur map.

I hope as part of Metrolinx make over, they hire a proper experienced design firm to clean this up for both GO and TTC (and other integrated systems)

 

[Dan416]

There is very little, if at any at all, consistency or conformity to any of our(Toronto) transit map designs. The TTC ride guide vs the Subway maps, vs the Go train system map, are all just done in house mickey mouse productions. Even Vancouver has recently stepped up there game with their Transit Connections System Map, that actually makes the system look quite extensive and clean, and giving off the impression of a big time well implemented/integrated system (accomplished through properly thought out and executed design).

What the TTC and GO still need lessons in, is their ability to project clearly this same message through there designs. The new GO site that just launched is pretty good, and as part of that refresh, was really anticipating a revamped system map, but no, still that 8th grade, hap-hazard, embarrassingly amateur map.

I hope as part of Metrolinx make over, they hire a proper experienced design firm to clean this up for both GO and TTC (and other integrated systems)

Completely agree.

 

[The Mad Navigator]

This is a wonderful map, I must say. However, it does bring up an interesting point. Toronto subway maps, unlike many other cities, have never used 45* angles. Look at the Barcelona metro map for example and see the use of those standard angles. Anyway, this map brings up the point that if Toronto's rapid transit system gets this big on day, it may need 45* angles. The question is do we stick with our tradition of varied angles or do we conform to 45* angles? (of course we would need the system to be built first, which is a long way off as of yet).

Comments?

Maps are great and all, but only in fantasies can we put the "carriage before the horse."

This could happen IF and only IF we consolidated all Regional and Local routes (all modes) into one map for the time being. Toronto could have it on its own if all TC lines are built along with the DRL and any other subway expansion.

 

[andomano]

Here's a streetcar map that's been floating around the Transit Toronto discussion board. Yes, there are a few mistakes, but it still is quite the amazing map.

http://radikal.ru/F/s52.radikal.ru/i136/1001/08/6f457e2b01cf.png.html

 

[SlickFranky]

Pretty sweet, but I wonder...is it big enough?

 

[CDL.TO]

That's crazy and amazing. Either someone has access to a really good dataset or has a lot of time on their hands.