[Calrissian]

It's a neat book. The section on Toronto is pretty short, but they have great write-ups on the world's more extensive systems. I find the history of the Berlin S-Bahn and U-Bahn especially fascinating.

But to note; its not about the subway systems, its about the subway MAPS, and therefore not necessarily grouped by length, age and capacity of systems, but more about the varying cartography associated with each systems map. However, in discussing how the map for each metro plan developed, they discuss the evolution of each system by association.

 

[Chuck]

Otherwise, interesting map, though again, I'm not crazy about the idea of a Yonge Express subway. The DRL, upgraded GO, signal improvements and longer trains will likely do fine if the Yonge subway is extended north. The DRL will be able to absorb a lot of the latent and current Yonge subway demand simply by being a great intervening opportunity for commuters from the east.

Express subways aren't just about capacity, they're about speed. Hence the name express. The ride from Eglinton to Union is just brutal with the abundance of stops and slow speeds. It's even worse heading in from the ends of the Bloor line as the distance is three times as far. At the same token, the station spacing on the Yonge line, north of Eglinton, is too far apart for local service. More stops are needed in between.

New subway lines should be built first, but express subways, in conjunction with better local service on certain parts of the Yonge line, would be fantastic for this city. 4 track is the way to go!

 

[yllianos]

I like the TTC logo. But it would probably be a good idea to have a distinct logo for rapid transit. But why should it be based on an M? It's not called the metro in Toronto. If it's based on a letter it should be an S. While M is the most common around the world, it's not universal. German and Austrian cities use a U and Seoul has an S. It doesn't have to have a letter at all, it could just be a distinct logo that says "subway", like in Madrid or London (metro, underground).

I agree with you, "M" though did seem for a right fit for the "Metro" system universality as well as the Metrolinx corporation aspect. I would however want a better name than Metrolinx to begin with. Something more professional, like SORTA Southern Ontario Regional Transit Authority.

 

[Filip]

Sorta pathetic?

LOL... I like Metrolinx.

 

[Tuscani01]

Yea, SORTA sounds lame.

Metrolinx sounds more corporate and fancy.

 

[Dan416]

I think Metrolinx is a terrible name. Not that I have any alternatives, but it's just awful, especially with that X in there.

 

[doady]

As awesome as the name SORTA is, it is already taken by another agency, the Southern Ohio Regional Transportion Agency. It I think it for Cincinatti or something.

I prefer the name GTTA cuz people recognize GTA and you can make a logo that looks similar to (but still legally distinguishable from) GO's current logo (chech out my fantasy map to see what I mean).

I agree the name Metrolinx sux.

I agree with MisterF, Toronto should not use the term Metro. We use Subway here. This ain't Montreal. Streetcar should be changed to Trams and LRTs should be Tramways. Streetcar is outdated and doesn't make much sense anymore and LRT is a dumb term.

I like in one of the early Metrolinx documents they labeled upgrade GO service as REX line (Regional EXpress line). These are the terms I used in my map.

S- and U-Bahn systems use square and circular icons to differentiate between them on their maps and station signage. I think giving subway lines numbers in circles icons and then giving REX routes letters in squares icons would be distinctive and simple for people.

 

[gweed123]

As awesome as the name SORTA is, it is already taken by another agency, the Southern Ohio Regional Transportion Agency. It I think it for Cincinatti or something.

I prefer the name GTTA cuz people recognize GTA and you can make a logo that looks similar to (but still legally distinguishable from) GO's current logo (chech out my fantasy map to see what I mean).

I agree the name Metrolinx sux.

I agree with MisterF, Toronto should not use the term Metro. We use Subway here. This ain't Montreal. Streetcar should be changed to Trams and LRTs should be Tramways. Streetcar is outdated and doesn't make much sense anymore and LRT is a dumb term.

I like in one of the early Metrolinx documents they labeled upgrade GO service as REX line (Regional EXpress line). These are the terms I used in my map.

S- and U-Bahn systems use square and circular icons to differentiate between them on their maps and station signage. I think giving subway lines numbers in circles icons and then giving REX routes letters in squares icons would be distinctive and simple for people.

The problem with the term LRT is that the operating environment that it describes is so vast that it's impossible to envision exactly what somebody is talking about when they say "oh, it's an LRT system". LRTs range from glorified streetcars, to almost subways. With terms like "subway" or "streetcar", for most people they conjure up both an image of the type of vehicle used, and the environment in which it operates. LRT conjures up a vehicle, but the operating environment is very much left open to interpretation.

 

[RussianCyclist]

Good call. And yeah, the express subway was added in in the last phase (I haven't shown the phases on here, but the Yonge Express subway and the DRL from Eglinton to Finch are in the last phase (ie nice-to-haves).

The main focus of the map was to show:
1) The possibility of a 4-tracked Queen LRT subway, with multiple branches providing one-seat service to downtown.
2) How splitting the US and Y subways and integrating US with the DRL east would impact service
3) How 4-tracking or combining service on the Richview corridor would allow for a transferless express ride from Pearson to downtown.
4) How a 'BRT ring' around the city, with multiple routes running on the same corridors, could potentially work.

Splitting off the Yonge line from the U-S line and integrating the DRL east with the US is a real good idea. The thing is, it would require tricky track reconstruction. I have drawn out using "Paint" a possible track confuguration if the U-S line was connected to the DRL east and how Yonge line trains would terminate at Union Station.

 

[Dan416]

That' coming up REALLY small. Can you make it bigger?

 

[doady]

The problem with the term LRT is that the operating environment that it describes is so vast that it's impossible to envision exactly what somebody is talking about when they say "oh, it's an LRT system". LRTs range from glorified streetcars, to almost subways.

The fact that "LRT" doesn't include regular streetcars is what makes it a dumb term. Regular streetcars are light rail, but they aren't light rail transit. What is the sense in that? There's no such thing as HRT, so there shouldn't be LRT either. LRT is mostly technical term only but it doesn't make even make sense in a technical sense either. To the riders though, most LRT systems are branded as "tramways" or "metros" which is better since the heavy rail systems are never branded as "heavy rail" or "HRT" ever. Branding a system as "LRT" is just foolish and boring.

I think branding LRT in the GTA as Tramways would make sense since the heavy rail equivalent is already known as Subway, and at the same time it would separate it from the regular streetcars, which is important.

 

[nfitz]

I have drawn out using "Paint" a possible track confuguration if the U-S line was connected to the DRL east and how Yonge line trains would terminate at Union Station.

If your using Paint, save it as a BMP instead of a JPG.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Splitting off the Yonge line from the U-S line and integrating the DRL east with the US is a real good idea. The thing is, it would require tricky track reconstruction. I have drawn out using "Paint" a possible track confuguration if the U-S line was connected to the DRL east and how Yonge line trains would terminate at Union Station.

Not necissarily a comment on your post but moreso a continuation of my thought process on this topic and I don't want it to be read and not have context.

Does anybody know if there is enough room to drop the Yonge portion of the line down below the proposed DRL east extension so that it can serve the waterfront?

 

[Ed Drass]

Current 'U-bahn und S-bahn' map

Has anyone seen a map, either in this thread or elsewhere, showing the current subway and GO rail system? I'm looking for a simplified schematic, perhaps using standardized (i.e. London Underground-inspired) graphics.
MapArt atlases have one, and so does Where magazine, I think -- but they're not quite there...

-ed

This neither: http://www.urbanrail.net/am/toro/toronto.htm

 

[gweed123]

Splitting off the Yonge line from the U-S line and integrating the DRL east with the US is a real good idea. The thing is, it would require tricky track reconstruction. I have drawn out using "Paint" a possible track confuguration if the U-S line was connected to the DRL east and how Yonge line trains would terminate at Union Station.

What I was thinking the process would be is re-install the crossovers just north of St. Andrew, and then to separate the lines, with US running into St. Andrew, and Yonge continuing into Union. A 2nd platform would then be dug underneath the current Union platform, and the curve going from Union to St. Andrew gets reconfigured to drop into the lower level (since it's a much wider curve than the Yonge side, it would be easier). The way I see it, if you're going to be completely rebuilding Union anyway to have a DRL stop there, doing a little extra and separating the line while you're at it makes some sense.