Thanks, dude. Since I posted I’ve made dozens of changes...but for the most part they were all aesthetics. After reading your post I took a gander at how other cities present their maps, and it would definitely make sense to display where sections of a particular line terminate/originate – and maybe even the type of service offered. I might go for the NYC technique. Which like you mention uses numbers and letters, but a whole whack of symbol combinations. So any next map may look a bit messy, but at the same time should be a lot clearer.
is dead (in comments) because the reconfiguration of the Scarlett Road underpass didn't allow for it.
http://www.inat.fr/metro/new-york/. The London one is pretty amazing too: http://www.inat.fr/metro/london/. He places the route identifiers just at terminus points, so that you can easily trace a route through the system. For Toronto right now it isn't an issue because there isn't any interlining or anything, but with your proposal there would be.
In terms of the type of service offered, I've always gone with a letter prefix describing the service type followed by a route number. I think it's the easiest way of immediately identifying what type of service you're working with, but again that's just my personal preference. There are certainly other ways of doing it (different shapes on the identifiers, letters vs numbers, different line weights and patterns, etc).
Quick question, would GO RER and Smartrack be considered a "metro" type of rapid transit. If so, when this is fully implemented, the GTA would have one of the most extensive metro systems in the world.
I'm sure many will try and argue that it is a "metro" however. We're not going to escape from the false idea that anything which isn't a metro/subway is inherently inferior any time soon.
Last edited by CDL.TO; 2014-Nov-19 at 15:20.
It's on the subway map. That's the way it was presented, as part of the TTC rapid transit system, on the subway map.
Being on the map implies certain things:
1. Part of the TTC system, covered by TTC fare with free transfers to other TTC routes, just like another subway line
2. Service level approaching TTC rapid transit standards. 15 min is the minimum frequency, they will likely need more frequent on peak
3. Stop spacing being more dense than typical GO or regional systems. We see this on the SmartTrack map, it's wider spacing than typical subway in Toronto, but way more stops than a GO/commuter/regional system
My impression is that the whole idea of it is to approach rapid transit on GO from a local, TTC, subway-like perspective, and the service levels and price that that implies, and the idea was presented that way.
So here’s an update to my previous map - with letters and symbols identifying each line and its branches. As well I added a waterfront RT line.
The numbers and symbols are fairly self-explanatory. This city has twelve lines, four of which are split into lettered branches (the Yellow, Blue, Red, and Orange lines). Squares identify a line’s terminus, circles are any point between termini, and diamonds are some kind of express or bypass. Every station is treated like a local service where all trains stop.
The waterfront line I’ve been thinking about for awhile now. I was a bit reluctant to add it because IMO it somewhat throws off the balance of the map. And I haven’t really examined the routing all that much. But I’d like it to be an actual RT line (perhaps using streetcars) - instead of an in-median streetcar stopping at every traffic light. Theoretically it would run anywhere along the backs of properties, adjacent to the Gardiner and Lake Shore, and trenched/elevated where need be. Instead of diverting into Union like the Queens Quay streetcar (and planned QQ East line) this line would bypass Union altogether. We’re about to spend +$300M to expand the streetcar tunnel below Union, which IMO is a ridiculous amount of money for something that isn't rapid transit. And it negates the possibility one cross-waterfront line by rendering it as two disjointed pieces. The connection at Cherry is another major expenditure (~$50M) for what amounts to slow local service transit.
I like to think of it more as London’s Docklands Light Railway than a touristy monorail. And if this line is connected to transit hubs at either end, it wouldn’t need to be so Union-centric and could actually provide fast service to the tens of thousands in a catchment from the lake to King. I’d like to see streetcars expanded into the suburbs, or even inner suburbs like East York, York, and south Scarborough or Etobicoke. But the core of Toronto is somewhat outgrowing the merits of an in-median setup.
Last edited by 44 North; 2014-Nov-19 at 22:53.