Transit Fantasy Maps

[44 North]

You guys make some good points. I'll have to rethink how I do Eglinton. I was under the impression the two segments were to be run separately. As well, I screwed up the alignment of Sheppard's stations (not to mention their order).
But I'm still undecided on whether the FWLRT and SELRT should be shown as something more than a grey line with unnamed dots for stops.

Oh yeah, and I guess it wasn't in a high enough resolution, but I did put an asterisk on the legend for lines that are grey that said something like 'see route map for stop locations'. Which I guess doesn't really help if there's no route map.

 

[Johnny Au]

It should be 14th Avenue. John Tory made that mistake on his SmartTrack map.

 

[innsertnamehere]

14th avenue station is likely impossible, its in the middle of a grade seperation for the CN bypass tracks just to the north of it.

 

[W. K. Lis]

I agree. Why not show the stops? The stop spacing is the same as a subway, there's room to show them.

And obviously, as I pointed out before, it should be the same colour since it's a continuous line. You don't need to get out of the vehicle and enter another vehicle to continue (like at Sheppard & Don Mills). There is no transfer.

You can look at San Francisco or Boston green line as examples, two systems with light rail that's partly in a tunnel, partly in-median ROW like Eglinton will be.

They show the surface stops on Boston Green Line:

and they call the stops "stations". We should call them "stations" as well. Maybe we could start with Queensway "stations" on the 501 Queen line.

 

[Ozman]

You guys make some good points. I'll have to rethink how I do Eglinton. I was under the impression the two segments were to be run separately. As well, I screwed up the alignment of Sheppard's stations (not to mention their order).
But I'm still undecided on whether the FWLRT and SELRT should be shown as something more than a grey line with unnamed dots for stops.

Oh yeah, and I guess it wasn't in a high enough resolution, but I did put an asterisk on the legend for lines that are grey that said something like 'see route map for stop locations'. Which I guess doesn't really help if there's no route map.

Firstly, let me say congrats on all your maps and the work you do contributing to this forum. I enjoy the artwork of the maps and your posts which I often I agree with.

Others have pointed out little things with the new map, which are good points and you have acknowledged them. On the Spadina subway line: Yorkdale and Wilson should be switched and the first new stop on the extension is Downsview Park (not just Downsview). There's a small typo with Sheppard West where Sheppard is missing a "p".

As you mentioned the spacing on the Sheppard Line is off and the station order is wrong. But when that's fixed I will like that the stations line up to corresponding stations/streets on other (parallel) subway lines. On Sheppard: Leslie should line up with Donlands and I believe Don Mills roughly with Coxwell and Bessarion roughly with Laird.

Re: the streetcar lines I would leave them as they are with out even ticks or dots for stops because they are different than even in-median LRT. I would add Spadina and treat it the same way as St. Clair and Harbourfront. I'm not sure whether you should treat Finch West and Sheppard East LRT's like streetcar lines or more like the Eglinton LRT where it's in median. I'll have to think about that some more.

And finally, re: Eglinton. I agree with others that it should all be orange to show it's continuous but (still) a thinner line east of Laird. Personally I would put ticks or small dots at all the stops between Laird and Kennedy because we know where they are exactly but they are not stations. Even Don Mills which is an underground station should just have a tick since the speed of the line east of Laird is what matters.

The plan now is to have every second train short turn at Laird and head back west but as someone said re: the St. Clair West AM subway short-turn, that doesn't need to be reflected on the map. I'd make the line just as it is now but with orange for the colour right across and the ticks or small dots for stops between Laird and Kennedy.

That's my two-cents and keep up the great work!

Thank you so much for sharing these maps and I look forward to the next updated version.

 

[ehlow]

They show the surface stops on Boston Green Line:

and they call the stops "stations". We should call them "stations" as well. Maybe we could start with Queensway "stations" on the 501 Queen line.

I'd imagine the Eglinton East surface LRT stops (and Finch & Sheppard) would be similar the streetcar stops along St Clair or Spadina.. so it doesn't seem appropriate to call them "stations".

Are they called stations in places like LA or SF with their surface LRTs?

Of course, the underground part of Eglinton will have full on subway stations.

 

[W. K. Lis]

I'd imagine the Eglinton East surface LRT stops (and Finch & Sheppard) would be similar the streetcar stops along St Clair or Spadina.. so it doesn't seem appropriate to call them "stations".

Are they called stations in places like LA or SF with their surface LRTs?

Of course, the underground part of Eglinton will have full on subway stations.

I would call the Spadina & St. Clair "stops".

The Queensway has "stations" similar to Boston's Green Line. Just needs PRESTO machines.

 

[aquateam]

20” x 28” attempt
View attachment 43146

Great map! This is with adobe illustrator? I like how you've included all the transit proposals that will likely be built.

I'm going to try to avoid repeating comments that other people have said, but I'll give my 2 cents:

-every tourist is going to find it ridiculous that we have a line called SmartTrack. I really hate that branding.

-Only River station between Queen station and the Don? Seems a bit stingy.

-the way it's drawn, it's a little depressing how many stubs there are, and how disjointed the new transit lines in Toronto look. The Sheppard line, DRL phase I, even Eglinton looks stubby. Part of that is from your decision to mark the above-ground portion in a different colour, part of that is that SmartTrack cuts it off.

-I find it a little depressing that the LRT lines are thin grey lines that don't even get names or separate colours. I'm okay with them being represented differently than subways, but considering their expense and that they're most of the transit expansion we can expect to see, it would be nice for them to be more visually prominent.

-I'll reserve judgement on whether it makes sense to mark the LRTs in the same way as streetcars in ROWs. I'm a big LRT supporter, but depending on how they're operated it may not make sense to make a visual distinction.

-by the TTC naming convention, Eglinton should be 4 and Sheppard should be 3, since it's by the order they were built. Currently Sheppard is 4 and the SRT is 3, but I think it makes more sense to reorder than to slip Eglinton into the SRT's slot.

-Bloor-Scarborough line, is it a requirement that any line that touches Scarborough have Scarborough in the name? I found it annoying enough when the Eglinton crosstown was renamed the Eglinton-Scarborough crosstown. If it's renamed, I'd rather it be renamed after streets that it runs under instead of the downtrodden neglected former borough that it touches, like the current convention. How about Bloor-McCowan line?

 

[wopchop]

Some of the arguments here confuse me. What purpose does it serve to separate the Eglinton LRT Line by different line-weights, or putting ticks instead of dots? It certainly doesn't serve the transit user by making wayfinding through the system any simpler. In fact, it needlessly complicates things. The purpose of the map is to allow people to navigate the system and get to where they are going, and not to satisfy the needs of transit nerds to provide a complicated legend to the slightly different forms of rapid transit (which no average user really cares about).

Along this same line of thinking, the Finch West LRT and Sheppard East LRT should also probably be shown on the map. Why exclude them? If users are on one part of the system and want to go somewhere along Finch West or Sheppard East (or vice-versa), are they just expected to know where they are? That's ridiculous.

 

[11th]

I'd imagine the Eglinton East surface LRT stops (and Finch & Sheppard) would be similar the streetcar stops along St Clair or Spadina.. so it doesn't seem appropriate to call them "stations".

Are they called stations in places like LA or SF with their surface LRTs?

Of course, the underground part of Eglinton will have full on subway stations.

LA's LRT stops are more in common with C-trains'. I'd call them stations. But then there's the thing with it having absolute priority - railroad crossing barriers.

 

[ehlow]

Some of the arguments here confuse me. What purpose does it serve to separate the Eglinton LRT Line by different line-weights, or putting ticks instead of dots? It certainly doesn't serve the transit user by making wayfinding through the system any simpler. In fact, it needlessly complicates things. The purpose of the map is to allow people to navigate the system and get to where they are going, and not to satisfy the needs of transit nerds to provide a complicated legend to the slightly different forms of rapid transit (which no average user really cares about).

Along this same line of thinking, the Finch West LRT and Sheppard East LRT should also probably be shown on the map. Why exclude them? If users are on one part of the system and want to go somewhere along Finch West or Sheppard East (or vice-versa), are they just expected to know where they are? That's ridiculous.

I agree, the main purpose is to be a tool for people to figure out how to get where they're going. I also agree the average person is not saying "omg it crosses a traffic light!" like us transit nerds, they just need to figure out the best way to get to a given place.

However, on reason to use ticks or even show nothing would be if the stops are so close together that you couldn't possibly fit them on the map.

For example, if you were to include St Clair on the map, you probably couldn't list every single stop. That doesn't apply to Eglinton however, which has the same stop spacing as a subway.

On the SF Muni map, which has a surface LRT/streetcar, it shows major stops but ticks for minor stops for example.

 

[wopchop]

I agree, the main purpose is to be a tool for people to figure out how to get where they're going. I also agree the average person is not saying "omg it crosses a traffic light!" like us transit nerds, they just need to figure out the best way to get to a given place.

However, on reason to use ticks or even show nothing would be if the stops are so close together that you couldn't possibly fit them on the map.

For example, if you were to include St Clair on the map, you probably couldn't list every single stop. That doesn't apply to Eglinton however, which has the same stop spacing as a subway.

On the SF Muni map, which has a surface LRT/streetcar, it shows major stops but ticks for minor stops for example.

Yes, this is reasonable.

I'm not opposed to using ticks like Muni does, but it seems completely unnecessary for Eglinton LRT. I'm not positive what the spacing Is on Sheppard or Finch, but given that those parts of the map aren't exactly full, I suspect they could fit if we really wanted to fit them.

As for St. Clair and the rest of our legacy streecar network, I've always personally be in favour of a subway map that was overlayed over a streetcar map. The streetcar map would only show the lines in a thin lineweight, with the line number. Definitely no stops. That would be impossible to show.

 

[44 North]

Thanks for the compliments @aquateam and ozman, and to others for the interesting offshoot discussions that are fun to read. I already had the template from my months-old fantasy map, and this is mostly a to-scale copy of the current system – so not much effort went into the decisions. I more wanted to give an idea that the TTC map doesn’t have to be so squished, and when viewed w/out the enormous distortion north of Dupont, looks better IMO.

But one thing I want to clear the air about is that I’m a big supporter of LRT – every type. Even if the LRTs were to be mixed traffic, I’d put that leaps and bounds above buses (even BRT). I’d take a streetcar over a bus any day, even if the trip were to be 5x longer. My making them grey wasn’t supposed to be a diss to Transit City, it was more of a technical choice to differentiate between different types of service. Having them better ID’d and with stations does make sense. But space is limited, and I don’t really know how small a font can be for it to be readable in a subway car. And another thing is that if we show the SELRT and FWLRT, then why not Harbourfront, Spadina, or St Clair? Sure, there are some differences, but on the whole they’re quite similar.

I would still like to somehow differentiate between street-running and grade-separated RT/subways; but I think I’d also like to include the normal streetcar system. Even though mixed traffic operation is basically the same as a bus, I do believe streetcars may be worth including. The question is: how the heck would it fit in? I think ultimately an inset or smaller ‘south of B/D’ map may be needed.

Another thing is that part the thought process I was using was that we’d have individual electronic route maps above the doors, or somewhere near the main subway map. I'm not really familiar with how that could be set up. But a few pages back Gweed was showing how NYC and other major cities do things. Perhaps if we have it here, maps could be automated/expandable, or hands-on.

I really like Boston’s map that was linked to. Their Green Line looks amazing, and I could only wish TO had a true multi-branched LRT that meets together in a central trunk tunnel. But what is also neat is how many cities incorporate geography or shorelines. If there was a way to include the lake, islands, Don and Humber - I’d be for it.

 

[Ozman]

I know what you mean 44 North about the streetcar lines would be nice to include but I think we're running into mission creep here. If the map is for rapid transit lines then I think we should have just the fastest modes, i.e. grade-separated transit. So for TTC that means the subway lines and the Eglinton tunnelled portion. The problem of course comes because Eglinton will be one continuous line that changes from grade-separated to in-median just west of Leslie.

In my opinion I'd have all the subway lines as they are (with typos corrected of course ) and then have the Crosstown as is but change the thin eastern part to the same colour orange. If you want to add small dots (to match the line width) and stop names that's fine too if they'll fit.

I'd leave out all streetcar lines including Harbourfront, Spadina and St. Clair. I don't know if Sheppard and Finch LRTs will be like Spadina and St. Clair (if so leave them off) or if they'll be more like Eglinton, (in which case put them in.) As I said above you must include Eglinton east because it's part of one continuous line and the underground portion should definitely be same width as subways.

That's my thoughts, of course do what you want, it's your map; but in any event I'm looking forward to the next version.

Cheers!

 

[ehlow]

Thanks for the compliments @aquateam and ozman, and to others for the interesting offshoot discussions that are fun to read. I already had the template from my months-old fantasy map, and this is mostly a to-scale copy of the current system – so not much effort went into the decisions. I more wanted to give an idea that the TTC map doesn’t have to be so squished, and when viewed w/out the enormous distortion north of Dupont, looks better IMO.

But one thing I want to clear the air about is that I’m a big supporter of LRT – every type. Even if the LRTs were to be mixed traffic, I’d put that leaps and bounds above buses (even BRT). I’d take a streetcar over a bus any day, even if the trip were to be 5x longer. My making them grey wasn’t supposed to be a diss to Transit City, it was more of a technical choice to differentiate between different types of service. Having them better ID’d and with stations does make sense. But space is limited, and I don’t really know how small a font can be for it to be readable in a subway car. And another thing is that if we show the SELRT and FWLRT, then why not Harbourfront, Spadina, or St Clair? Sure, there are some differences, but on the whole they’re quite similar.

I would still like to somehow differentiate between street-running and grade-separated RT/subways; but I think I’d also like to include the normal streetcar system. Even though mixed traffic operation is basically the same as a bus, I do believe streetcars may be worth including. The question is: how the heck would it fit in? I think ultimately an inset or smaller ‘south of B/D’ map may be needed.

Another thing is that part the thought process I was using was that we’d have individual electronic route maps above the doors, or somewhere near the main subway map. I'm not really familiar with how that could be set up. But a few pages back Gweed was showing how NYC and other major cities do things. Perhaps if we have it here, maps could be automated/expandable, or hands-on.

I really like Boston’s map that was linked to. Their Green Line looks amazing, and I could only wish TO had a true multi-branched LRT that meets together in a central trunk tunnel. But what is also neat is how many cities incorporate geography or shorelines. If there was a way to include the lake, islands, Don and Humber - I’d be for it.

I do think Finch & Sheppard LRTs will be faster and higher capacity (double the vehicle length), and probably more reliable than St Clair and Spadina.

However, I do agree that once St Clair, Spadina, and Harbourfront get all-door loading with the new streetcars and POP, you can make a case that they should be the same level as Finch or Sheppard on the map.

The Boston subway map has a BRT in it (silver line) as well as frequent bus routes.

I know what you mean 44 North about the streetcar lines would be nice to include but I think we're running into mission creep here. If the map is for rapid transit lines then I think we should have just the fastest modes, i.e. grade-separated transit. So for TTC that means the subway lines and the Eglinton tunnelled portion. The problem of course comes because Eglinton will be one continuous line that changes from grade-separated to in-median just west of Leslie.

In my opinion I'd have all the subway lines as they are (with typos corrected of course ) and then have the Crosstown as is but change the thin eastern part to the same colour orange. If you want to add small dots (to match the line width) and stop names that's fine too if they'll fit.

I'd leave out all streetcar lines including Harbourfront, Spadina and St. Clair. I don't know if Sheppard and Finch LRTs will be like Spadina and St. Clair (if so leave them off) or if they'll be more like Eglinton, (in which case put them in.) As I said above you must include Eglinton east because it's part of one continuous line and the underground portion should definitely be same width as subways.

That's my thoughts, of course do what you want, it's your map; but in any event I'm looking forward to the next version.

Cheers!

Well in terms of mission creep, we already have the airport express bus on it, which runs in traffic