Toronto Eglinton Line 5 | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | Arcadis

[ctf5650]

An issue I could see arise from making the at-grade portions of the LRTs a thinner or dotted line is a potential association with the new standard on GO Transit maps, where dotted lines mean limited service. People could associate the two and end up confused, thinking parts of the TTC lines have limited service, which is not the case.

 

[A 6264]

The number of enthusiasts to the general public is 1 in a thousand. The goal of a transit agency is transit, not to cater to the 1% that cares a little more than the rest

The transit commission and the general public are kind of a 2-way street. Transit projects don't get approved unless it can be demonstrated that the general public is enthusiastic. This is done by using advertising to get people excited about changes occurring. At the moment, it's backfiring on them because they are getting a lot of criticism over bad choices, failures, missed deadlines, going way over budget, and transparency. The latter, in particular, is working against them because they want us to get excited about what's going on, but then they put up the (figurative) barriers so we can't see. The public changes from enthusiasts to critics. Even so, it's the right way to go about it, you just have to deliver the goods. It's like a band that advertises to get their followers excited about their next album, a great idea as long as it's not a clunker.

 

[Natika33]

An issue I could see arise from making the at-grade portions of the LRTs a thinner or dotted line is a potential association with the new standard on GO Transit maps, where dotted lines mean limited service. People could associate the two and end up confused, thinking parts of the TTC lines have limited service, which is not the case.

As others have mentioned, I like the idea of showing all the rail lines on one map so people can decide for themselves which route makes the most sense for them, but also using something to differentiate between frequent service which includes streetcars and subways and less frequent service like GO, UP & VIA. I agree dotted lines should be used for the latter and solid lines for the former, but I don't see why the line couldn't be thinner for portions that are streetcar or streetcar-like. I see no reason why line 5 couldn't have thinner & thicker sections to denote when it's on the surface & when it's not. I think that would help with way-finding too.

 

[nfitz]

That seems like a pretty nebulous quantifier... the 504 King, traditionally "light rail", carries a hell of a lot more people than the Sheppard line or the Franklin Avenue shuttle in New York, which most traditionally define as "heavy rail".

A transit line can be heavy rail but carry no passengers. It's about capacity, not actual ridership. Sheppard runs 4-car trains, each with a capacity of about 750, every 6 minutes. That's 10 trains an hour, for a peak capacity of 7,500 people per hour per direction (pphpd). Probably higher, as the trains are so infrequent, that you could run them at crush capacity without impacting frequency.

But they can run every 2 minutes, bringing the peak capacity to 22,500 - well in the range of heavy rail. Even more if they used the entire length of the platforms, that are built for 6.5-car trains, with an easily removable barrier blocking off the rest of the platform.

Sheppard ridership is only about 5,000 pphpd at the peak point (westbound into Sheppard-Yonge station). On King Street however, the peak capacity of each streetcar is 130 people. If you managed to get a streetcar every minute (which I don't think is even possible), the capacity is only 7,700 pphpd - well below any definition of heavy rail that I've ever seen!

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

Chicago's rapid transit are "heavy rail" with level street crossings (with third rail, not overhead catenary). At least, they use railroad crossing arms.

 

[hw621]

As others have mentioned, I like the idea of showing all the rail lines on one map so people can decide for themselves which route makes the most sense for them, but also using something to differentiate between frequent service which includes streetcars and subways and less frequent service like GO, UP & VIA. I agree dotted lines should be used for the latter and solid lines for the former, but I don't see why the line couldn't be thinner for portions that are streetcar or streetcar-like. I see no reason why line 5 couldn't have thinner & thicker sections to denote when it's on the surface & when it's not. I think that would help with way-finding too.

Too complicated for Metrolinx, and is out of TTC purview.

 

[nottoban]

Too complicated for Metrolinx, and is out of TTC purview.

I can assure you that giving a line a unique graphic treatment is well within the capabilities of any credible designer, including those at Metrolinx. The reason the LRT line is shown at a consistent thickness—regardless of whether it’s underground or at grade—comes down to two factors.

First, the TTC’s position from the outset was that vehicle type is not a primary driver of customer decision-making; therefore LRT should be treated as part of the subway network. I disagree with this. Vehicle type does matter: unfamiliar riders carry specific assumptions about what “subway” means in terms of frequency, speed, and stopping pattern. Those assumptions help them understand the network even if they don’t know every detail.

Second, line thickness was already being used on the map to communicate frequency. Subway lines appear thicker than regional rail, and dashes were used elsewhere to signal lower-frequency service. While showing the underlying infrastructure can have value, it was ultimately judged less important because it doesn’t meaningfully support a customer decision. Riders need to know that they can board a train without checking a timetable and reach their destination quickly; whether a station is above or below grade rarely affects that judgment.

Finally, the concept of “running in mixed traffic” is almost impossible to communicate in any reliable, customer-useful way. It implies variability but doesn’t translate into a consistent or predictable condition we can express visually. The degree to which traffic will disrupt the service on any given day simply can’t be quantified in a way customers can act on.

 

[EnviroTO]

If the Crosstown used the TTC naming scheme then Eglinton West would keep its name and Eglinton would become Eglinton-Yonge (which honestly it still should).

No, if the TTC naming was used it would be Eglinton West-Allen. I would say community based names makes more sense. Street names for station names seems like some kind of assistance for people trying to use a transit system like a car. Like trying to call the Lakeshore West line the QEW Line and to call Port Credit station Hurontario South.

 

[EnviroTO]

I really don't think Metrolinx's quest for unique station names on local transit lines makes any sense. Buses don't have unique stop names--they just tell you what street the local bus is crossing, or sometimes an address.

Yes, but naming bus routes after streets and bus stops after streets makes a lot of sense for buses because buses are street vehicles.

 

[EnviroTO]

light rail ≠ heavy rail

Other interesting comparisons: Heavy rail not equal to vehicles on tires like the Montreal or Paris Metro. Ontario line vehicles are lighter than Toronto Rocket. UP DMU not equal to GO Train. Original Gloucester subway cars not equal to subway cars today.

That said, the experience sitting in a seat watching the tunnel pass by on the Eglinton LRT will barely be different to running along the existing subway lines.

 

[EnviroTO]

At some point I think transit fans will be the only people looking at the system map. Everyone else will be typing in where they want to go and Google will tell them what to take and Google will only consider travel time, not factors like vehicle type (unless the user specifies a bus or rail aversion).

 

[T3G]

Finally, the concept of “running in mixed traffic” is almost impossible to communicate in any reliable, customer-useful way. It implies variability but doesn’t translate into a consistent or predictable condition we can express visually. The degree to which traffic will disrupt the service on any given day simply can’t be quantified in a way customers can act on

The downtown network runs in mixed traffic, Eglinton and Finch do not.

 

[T3G]

Last night, not all of history had been erased, yet.

 

[Metroscapes]

Last night, not all of history had been erased, yet.

View attachment 697315

Maybe they paused to recalibrate their printing after the first installation.

 

[smallspy]

First, the TTC’s position from the outset was that vehicle type is not a primary driver of customer decision-making; therefore LRT should be treated as part of the subway network. I disagree with this. Vehicle type does matter: unfamiliar riders carry specific assumptions about what “subway” means in terms of frequency, speed, and stopping pattern. Those assumptions help them understand the network even if they don’t know every detail.

Vehicle type does not matter. If it did, the Scarborough RT would have been differentiated on the map differently than the other lines, and it was not.

To the average customer, the Eglinton and Finch West lines will behave a lot like a subway - they will come quite frequently, they will have to pay before boarding the vehicle, and they will be able to enter from any door. Thus, it makes sense to put them on the map as equivalent.

Second, line thickness was already being used on the map to communicate frequency. Subway lines appear thicker than regional rail, and dashes were used elsewhere to signal lower-frequency service. While showing the underlying infrastructure can have value, it was ultimately judged less important because it doesn’t meaningfully support a customer decision. Riders need to know that they can board a train without checking a timetable and reach their destination quickly; whether a station is above or below grade rarely affects that judgment.

Agreed on all counts.

Finally, the concept of “running in mixed traffic” is almost impossible to communicate in any reliable, customer-useful way. It implies variability but doesn’t translate into a consistent or predictable condition we can express visually. The degree to which traffic will disrupt the service on any given day simply can’t be quantified in a way customers can act on.

Also agreed. This is why I disagree with putting the streetcars on any subway map without also putting a bus. The two are equivalent.

Dan