[nfitz]

Edit: BTW, I don't think commuter/regional rail should be included either, for similar reasons. Again, the fare system is different, but the service is also much lower than subway. The lines, if included, should be thinner (like on my map), not thicker (like on the Paris map).

But what when GO frequencies increase. GO is talking about 15-minute frequencies on some lines in the next decades; which is as good or better than some subway lines in other cities in the late evening. One option could be like TFL's high-frequency services map - which shows lines that run with a 15-minute or better daytime frequency more prominently than lines that run less often (and it's interesting to note that not all the London tube lines run that frequently). It also shows streetcars.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/High-frequency-services-map.pdf

And perhaps the answer is multiple maps. London has at least a half-dozen different tube maps on their website for different uses.

 

[golodhendil]

Streetcars don't have fixed stops so no way they should be included on the subway/RT map, especially considering they operate on street. LRT is questionable. They will have fixed stops but still operate on-street and still use a different fare system (no fare-paid boarding zones for either trains or buses at stations).

As the other examples from around the world has shown, on-street operation, "different" fare systems, and even not stopping at all stops are not enough to prevent light rails from being included in rapid transit maps. I do agree, however, that most of TTC's streetcar system as it is should not be included, because most lines are almost exclusively in mixed traffic (similarly as why, eg Philadelphia, don't show their mixed-traffic tram network). The separate ROWs on QQ, Spadina, Fleet, Queensway, St. Clair, etc, would qualify to be included, with the connecting mixed-traffic sections included with either thinner or dotted lines.

If they do include the Transit City lines, they should differentiate between stations that use honour fare (LRT stations) and those that use fare-paid zones (subway/RT stations). Or they could make two separate maps, one for subway/RT and one for subway/RT plus LRT.

For sure, different iterations of the rapid transit system map would/could exist.

Edit: BTW, I don't think commuter/regional rail should be included either, for similar reasons. Again, the fare system is different, but the service is also much lower than subway. The lines, if included, should be thinner (like on my map), not thicker (like on the Paris map).

I think the RER's service level is comparable enough to the metro for that to not matter. The fare system of the metro and the RER is also technically not separate.

 

[Second_in_pie]

Edit: BTW, I don't think commuter/regional rail should be included either, for similar reasons. Again, the fare system is different, but the service is also much lower than subway. The lines, if included, should be thinner (like on my map), not thicker (like on the Paris map).

Yes, but that's because the RER provides a system that's as good as the Metro, some might consider it better because it gets around faster. I think the biggest reason is just to differentiate between LRT, Subway and Regional Rail. You could make regional rail a tiny line with LRT having a massive line, but most people associate Regional Rail being the biggest and LRT being the smallest and lightest.

Also, in the future, Go's going to be providing service that's competitive with the Subway in speed and reliability. Don't be so quick to say Regional Rail sucks without knowing what real regional rail is.

 

[Dan416]

I could see TC being on the map as skinny lines. But once people figure out that they don't provide the same level of service as the subway lines, it might not be so pretty. I guess we'll see how bad those red lights really are...

 

[Ansem]

I could see TC being on the map as skinny lines. But once people figure out that they don't provide the same level of service as the subway lines, it might not be so pretty. I guess we'll see how bad those red lights really are...

I think Eglinton deserves to be on the subway map.

The underground route is rapid transit and the above ground (from the EA) will be built so that red lights won't be an issue.

We don't have enough information on the other lines but we all agree that Sheppard East is the worst transit project in years and it has nothing to bypass the red lights.

 

[jks]

Here's how I think the subway map should look like after Transit city. I also included the Yonge and Spadina Extensions. Only Jane is missing of the TC lines, because we still don't know how they're going to even operate it. Although almost all the TC lines are shown, I only put underground stations on the map, with the surface operation as a thin line.

 

[andomano]

It's a start, but that map can be miss leading where one may believe that they are riding on an express route from Kennedy to Don Mills, or Finch West to Pearson.

Also, FYI there's no plans to connect the Sheppard LRT with Scarborough Town

 

[Whoaccio]

Something about putting TC routes on the maps seems misleading. If it had to go on, I would prefer the TC routes be portrayed as dashed lines.

 

[jks]

Also, FYI there's no plans to connect the Sheppard LRT with Scarborough Town

Actually, it's still possible. The Sheppard EA didn't include it, but it's still there as a separate study. And STC being such a huge trip generator, they'd be crazy not to include it

 

[andomano]

Actually, it's still possible. The Sheppard EA didn't include it, but it's still there as a separate study. And STC being such a huge trip generator, they'd be crazy not to include it

Of course anything is possible, but we are talking about the TTC. I wasn't aware of any particular study with TC1. Maybe we'll see this in the future with TC2, so for the time being it can be filed as fantasy

 

[ShonTron]

Something about putting TC routes on the maps seems misleading. If it had to go on, I would prefer the TC routes be portrayed as dashed lines.

Hollow lines, like how the DLR is shown on London maps, is probably fair.

Unfortunately, I wouldn't even be sure that Pape will be underground. And yes, while the TTC would be crazy not to have a connection to STC direct (like how the old 85G, now 190 does it), I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Calrissian]

Here's how I think the subway map should look like after Transit city. I also included the Yonge and Spadina Extensions. Only Jane is missing of the TC lines, because we still don't know how they're going to even operate it. Although almost all the TC lines are shown, I only put underground stations on the map, with the surface operation as a thin line.

I love this map! I think it could still have 'ticks' to represent the street intersections for the surface sections.

I think the TTC should be coming up with these now, if nothing else but to help generate/sustain the excitement around Transit City, to keep selling it and themselves.

(I know they have that preliminary map with just the red lines, but they need to take it to the next few levels like this one to help make things more... official.)

 

[W. K. Lis]

I love this map! I think it could still have 'ticks' to represent the street intersections for the surface sections.

Underground and aboveground stations should remain as white circles within thick lines, while stops should be bumps on thin lines.

 

[jks]

I love this map! I think it could still have 'ticks' to represent the street intersections for the surface sections.

That's actually a good idea! I'll add that to the map and upload later, it would make things more clearer. As someone said before, it can be kind of misleading, making it look like an express route with no stops.

EDIT: Here it is, the edited version, all the stop locations are approximate based on the EA reports. I didn't name any of the tops as it would make the map very crowded.

 

[doady]

Will the underground portions the Eglinton LRT have full-blown stations? I am talking about stops with fare-paid boardings zones for trains and buses. If not, then it doesn't work like the rest of the subway network and it shouldn't be shown as a subway line.

Underground vs above ground doesn't matter to riders. After all, parts of the existing subway/RT are above ground already, and they are not shown as different from the rest of the system, and there is no reason they should be. So if the underground parts of the Eglinton LRT operates no differently than the above ground parts there is no need make that distinction either.

I like the idea that ShonTron suggested of making the Transit City lines hollow.