Transit Fantasy Maps

[ShonTron]

It is amazing how much effort you put into that map, but unfortunately, I find it kind of confusing. Lake Ontario runs East-West (not quite, but it does in most peoples minds) and so does Lakeshore GO, B-D, Eglinton, Hwy. 2, Dundas. And Yonge most definitely runs North-South. Very interesting map though.

I agree. Why must a very rectangular (much more wide than long) city region have to use silly map system map standards that mandate a square map? Square maps work in places like Paris or Atlanta, but not Toronto so much.

 

[PL1]

I already have an older version of a to-scale map that would only need a few updates in order to accurately reflect what I've shown there. In the meantime, here's a GO REX map that I made, which shows the same basic configuration, only using a Queen alignment instead of the King alignment I've used in this one:

I like the look of this map. My only quibble is that Niagara Falls is shown way too far west. It is roughly due south of Coxwell. I realize part of the reason you did this is so that you could add the K-W and Ottawa systems in insets in the same map (see back a couple of pages).

 

[MrsNesbitt]

So after going through several versions before finding a look that works, I've completed my INAT (http://www.inat.fr/about/maps/) version of the GTHA. There's a specific set of rules that INAT maps follow, including all lines must be either 0º 45º or 90º, the map must be square, a standardized method of displaying transfers and different line types.

With that said, here's what I've come up with:

(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/43869799/INAT GTA v4.jpg)

Because the GTHA is such an east-west region, fitting it onto a square map was challenging. I had to bend both Durham and Halton regions to show as being vertical instead of horizontal. I also tried to maximize the number of routes that were running either diagonal or N-S (on paper), because based on INAT standards labels need to be horizontal (no angles). This makes putting labels on a horizontal line very difficult.

Another thing from a transit perspective is the E## routes that use a DRL tunnel under King/Wellington. The branches run to the inner 905 centres, maximizing the "relief" part of the DRL.

If you have any questions about any other aspect of the map, just ask, haha.

Oh wow, this is one of the best transit maps I've ever seen. I understand that the lake looks distorted because a lot of the system is on an angle to keep to the INAT rules, but I think we could pretty quickly get used to this.

And from a transit perspective, this level of integrated transit just makes me drool. One question I have; would there be potential for extending the Highway 407 BRT eastward along the 407 East through Durham? Living out here I know a heck of a lot of people who commute to destinations in York Region and currently have zero transit options to do so.

 

[diminutive]

Although the past few maps have all been technically very nice and well designed, I question the practicality of including various regional routes like Toronto-Niagara Falls or Toronto-Kingston.

These trips are generally infrequent and don't really benefit from schematic maps since they're usually preplanned. Same reason we wouldn't really want a schematic diagram of flights from Pearson.

Yet including them in the map introduces all sorts of distortions in scale and orientation.

 

[gweed123]

Oh wow, this is one of the best transit maps I've ever seen. I understand that the lake looks distorted because a lot of the system is on an angle to keep to the INAT rules, but I think we could pretty quickly get used to this.

And from a transit perspective, this level of integrated transit just makes me drool. One question I have; would there be potential for extending the Highway 407 BRT eastward along the 407 East through Durham? Living out here I know a heck of a lot of people who commute to destinations in York Region and currently have zero transit options to do so.

Thanks! Haha. Yeah, when I was making it I found it hard to read sometimes, but by the end of it I was pretty used to it.

As for the 407 Transitway, it's difficult to extend eastward at this point because east of Unionville along the 407 there isn't really much there. The only thing I can possibly think of is extending it eastward via the 407, then south along Brock Rd to the future GO REX station at Taunton & Brock. But even that may be stretching it a bit.

Although the past few maps have all been technically very nice and well designed, I question the practicality of including various regional routes like Toronto-Niagara Falls or Toronto-Kingston.

These trips are generally infrequent and don't really benefit from schematic maps since they're usually preplanned. Same reason we wouldn't really want a schematic diagram of flights from Pearson.

Yet including them in the map introduces all sorts of distortions in scale and orientation.

Fair enough. Is there really much of a difference between Toronto-Kitchener and Toronto-Niagara Falls though? About the same distance, and I don't think many people would question including the route to Kitchener on any GO systems map. Personally, I think they have a place on the maps, because they illustrate the layering of the transit system (local, local rapid, express rapid, regional). I envision most of these routes being hourly service, with some of them being bi-hourly, albeit not running full 12-car GO trains.

They do create distortions in scale, but what I've done with them is sent them off on their own 'branch', so that there's little relatively with any of the local rapid transit lines in the area. This helps minimizes the confusion associated with the difference in scale between the local rapid transit and regional transit lines.

 

[MrsNesbitt]

Thanks! Haha. Yeah, when I was making it I found it hard to read sometimes, but by the end of it I was pretty used to it.

As for the 407 Transitway, it's difficult to extend eastward at this point because east of Unionville along the 407 there isn't really much there. The only thing I can possibly think of is extending it eastward via the 407, then south along Brock Rd to the future GO REX station at Taunton & Brock. But even that may be stretching it a bit.

Fair enough. Is there really much of a difference between Toronto-Kitchener and Toronto-Niagara Falls though? About the same distance, and I don't think many people would question including the route to Kitchener on any GO systems map. Personally, I think they have a place on the maps, because they illustrate the layering of the transit system (local, local rapid, express rapid, regional). I envision most of these routes being hourly service, with some of them being bi-hourly, albeit not running full 12-car GO trains.

They do create distortions in scale, but what I've done with them is sent them off on their own 'branch', so that there's little relatively with any of the local rapid transit lines in the area. This helps minimizes the confusion associated with the difference in scale between the local rapid transit and regional transit lines.

It's a bit of a problem yes, that there isn't really a destination along the 407 East. I just see potential ridership in Durham from a lot of commuters to Markham, Richmond Hill, and Vaughan who currently drive the 407 or along Taunton/Steeles. Maybe a branch of the Transitway service could head along the 407, down the West Durham Link, and terminate at one of the Lakeshore East GO stations along the 401?

I also like the inclusion of the regional routes onto the map. If this is meant to be a complete system map for GO, TTC, etc. then I can see good value in noting the regional connections right on the map. Alternately you could always have those lines end off with coloured arrows reading "To Kingston" (for example) but that would also lose information about the stops en route.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Extending it past Unionville to Cornell Centre is probably a good idea, but extensions past that are longer term. You need to give 10-20 years for Durham to start building out to the 407 extension.

 

[gweed123]

It's a bit of a problem yes, that there isn't really a destination along the 407 East. I just see potential ridership in Durham from a lot of commuters to Markham, Richmond Hill, and Vaughan who currently drive the 407 or along Taunton/Steeles. Maybe a branch of the Transitway service could head along the 407, down the West Durham Link, and terminate at one of the Lakeshore East GO stations along the 401?

I would think that Pickering Station would probably be the best candidate, considering it's not that far from Brock Road. Putting the line there would hit 2 GO stations (one present, one future). I would think the demand for this would grow once Seaton really starts to build up.

I also like the inclusion of the regional routes onto the map. If this is meant to be a complete system map for GO, TTC, etc. then I can see good value in noting the regional connections right on the map. Alternately you could always have those lines end off with coloured arrows reading "To Kingston" (for example) but that would also lose information about the stops en route.

Well said. As long as it doesn't visually detract from the local rapid transit (which is the primary purpose of the map), I don't see the harm in including it.

 

[doady]

Fair enough, and thank you! Like I said, it was an evolution and a lot of trial and error to get to that point. Out of curiosity, is it the Mississauga section you don't agree with, or the DRL configuration?

Mississauga? I never liked the loop or branch to MCC, but that is debatable. The DRL I never noticed. Toronto needs another strong north-south transit corridor, and I don't think that Richmond Hill GO line is it. So it does seem lack a major lack of north-south local transit on that map compared to east-west, which is strange considering Toronto is much longer east/westerly... I think with that imbalance, Yonge will continue to be overcrowded, maybe even more so. Eglinton is basically subway (why bother with such a small on-street section), that's one of many new pressures on Yonge. I don't want to nickpick further, because the idea of a regional/integrated system is the important thing.

This is not about your map specifically, just about TTC maps in general, but one thing I have to say is about the branding. I think with LRT and legacy streetcar, the branding is important. "LRT" works in other cities, but in Toronto it is unacceptable. Toronto must find the proper branding for its modern light rail, or rebrand it's legacy light rail. What exactly is the difference between St-Clair "streetcar" and Hurontario "LRT"? Can you seperate the two? Once the new LRVs finish testing and finally come into service, the distinction will be even more blurred.

 

[ehlow]

Mississauga? I never liked the loop or branch to MCC, but that is debatable. The DRL I never noticed. Toronto needs another strong north-south transit corridor, and I don't think that Richmond Hill GO line is it. So it does seem lack a major lack of north-south local transit on that map compared to east-west, which is strange considering Toronto is much longer east/westerly... I think with that imbalance, Yonge will continue to be overcrowded, maybe even more so. Eglinton is basically subway (why bother with such a small on-street section), that's one of many new pressures on Yonge. I don't want to nickpick further, because the idea of a regional/integrated system is the important thing.

This is not about your map specifically, just about TTC maps in general, but one thing I have to say is about the branding. I think with LRT and legacy streetcar, the branding is important. "LRT" works in other cities, but in Toronto it is unacceptable. Toronto must find the proper branding for its modern light rail, or rebrand it's legacy light rail. What exactly is the difference between St-Clair "streetcar" and Hurontario "LRT"? Can you seperate the two? Once the new LRVs finish testing and finally come into service, the distinction will be even more blurred.

Generally it seems like most would think Don Mills aka DRL will be the next north-south rapid transit line.

Yes I consider the St Clair an LRT, but a lower-end, local, slow LRT. Or in between streetcar & LRT. I would say it's a continuous spectrum, not a clear cut thing. Unfortunately it's extremely politicized now. Yes when St Clair gets the new vehicles it will blur the lines even more.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Generally it seems like most would think Don Mills aka DRL will be the next north-south rapid transit line.

Yes I consider the St Clair an LRT, but a lower-end, local, slow LRT. Or in between streetcar & LRT. I would say it's a continuous spectrum, not a clear cut thing. Unfortunately it's extremely politicized now. Yes when St Clair gets the new vehicles it will blur the lines even more.

St. Clair is not even close to being LRT imo. There's no signal priority and stops are way too close.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

This is not about your map specifically, just about TTC maps in general, but one thing I have to say is about the branding. I think with LRT and legacy streetcar, the branding is important. "LRT" works in other cities, but in Toronto it is unacceptable. Toronto must find the proper branding for its modern light rail, or rebrand it's legacy light rail. What exactly is the difference between St-Clair "streetcar" and Hurontario "LRT"? Can you seperate the two? Once the new LRVs finish testing and finally come into service, the distinction will be even more blurred.

On a new map I'm working on I'm using "Rapid Transit" to designate protected rapid transit (eg subways) and "Street Rapid Transit" to designate LRT in ROWs.

 

[ehlow]

St. Clair is not even close to being LRT imo. There's no signal priority and stops are way too close.

Yes but it's clearly better than a "normal" mixed-traffic streetcar since it has a dedicated ROW like an at-grade LRT. That's why I'm saying it's a spectrum, not black & white.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

I think the most obvious distinction between streetcars and LRTs like Eglinton for the general public will be the stations themselves.

If you give the LRT proper stations like along Eglinton, then they will think of it as a a 'light' subway. If you give them stations akin to bus stops, they will think of them as streetcars. Just my two cents.

 

[ehlow]

I think the most obvious distinction between streetcars and LRTs like Eglinton for the general public will be the stations themselves.

If you give the LRT proper stations like along Eglinton, then they will think of it as a a 'light' subway. If you give them stations akin to bus stops, they will think of them as streetcars. Just my two cents.

That's interesting, but as far as I know we don't know what the surface Eglinton stops/stations will look like. They could look very similar to St Clair or Spadina stops.

Of course the underground stations will be like subway stations.

The renderings of surface stops here seem similar to St Clair or Spadina stops:
http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2013/05/crosstown-lrt-bring-rapid-transit-through-mid-toronto