Transit Fantasy Maps

[gweed123]

Really?

I don't know how tall this woman is, but this doesn't seem to be an issue like you say it will be.

Regardless, I don't agree with the idea of non-labeling the streets. Judging by gweed's map, it certainly looks to be possible to name everything that is necessary. The map can even be made to be a lot wider.

Those pictures are pretty interesting. Yes, I don't think it would be much of an issue, especially considering that people are frequently standing over top of people sitting on packed trains anyway. Many cities have the full system map in that location on a train, including NYC and Boston (and NYC's map is a whole heck of a lot more complicated than Toronto's). It's really just a supplementary info map that people who are transferring onto multiple lines would be using. People who are staying on the same line would just use the line map above the doors.

 

[44 North]

it's a challenge to squeeze a primarily E-W map onto a vertical page. If you're having trouble fitting them all on one side, my suggestion would be to alternate between above and below, that way it doesn't interrupt the 'flow' when reading them, since they're all that way.

I thought about that. But I got a bit OCD when I was trying to figure how to alternate them, or what should happen if I had to change up the pattern. But such a way may make sense, particularly since things got screwy when I had to hyphenate Mc-Cowan and Morning-side for this map.

I don't believe that would be ideal for the 20" x 28" ad space. Remember that there would be people sitting below these ads. It wouldn't be a comfortable situation to have customers leaning over each other to look at tiny tics on the map. The map is informations dense enough as is

That’s definitely a concern. One of my biggest peeves with transit is to be sitting while crowds stand around me...feel a bit like a sitting duck. This is probably one of the reasons why I prefer to stand. But with the images of the ad space shown above, it’s not all that close to head height. And perhaps the spot can be moved further up if needed.

***
Okay, here’s an update using the suggestions to include in-median LRT. I decided to go with ticks and smaller font to show stops. One thing I didn’t like about the change is that Bay/Union is no longer the centre of the map. It’s now Yonge, which is okay – but it makes the map look a bit offset (considering that the bottom of Line 1’s U is usually the centre). And although things are a bit more distorted than I was hoping, I think it looks good with almost all of Scarborough now included.

There’s no question all of Eglinton should be included, considering it’s a through-running pre-metro. But I’m still a bit on the fence re: Finch and Sheppard. I was actually debating whether I should include St Clair as a coloured/numbered line as well, considering it and other in-median streetcar lines are almost identical to the service offered by FWLRT and SELRT. But one last minute change I did do to differentiate between in-median and grade-separated subway/RT is to give the SELRT and FWLRT letters instead of numbers. This is similar to Gweed’s map, and I think it makes sense.

 

[sixrings]

Gweed I HATE that JOHN TORY Smart Track Eglinton west line you have on your map. If we are actually going to go through with that crappy design can we at least get the Eglinton LRT to the airport via Dixon. But we all know this is what the map should look like

 

[BurlOak]

Gweed I HATE that JOHN TORY Smart Track Eglinton west line you have on your map. If we are actually going to go through with that crappy design can we at least get the Eglinton LRT to the airport via Dixon. But we all know this is what the map should look like

IF someone would suggest grade-separating the ECLRT from Mount Dennis to Pearson, then I am sure that Tory would be happy to pocket the $1B savings and send SmartTrack to Pearson via the rail corridor, while still maintaining the essence of his election promise. Then you could just switch the orange and blue colours west of Mount Dennis.

 

[gweed123]

Okay, here’s an update using the suggestions to include in-median LRT. I decided to go with ticks and smaller font to show stops. One thing I didn’t like about the change is that Bay/Union is no longer the centre of the map. It’s now Yonge, which is okay – but it makes the map look a bit offset (considering that the bottom of Line 1’s U is usually the centre). And although things are a bit more distorted than I was hoping, I think it looks good with almost all of Scarborough now included.

There’s no question all of Eglinton should be included, considering it’s a through-running pre-metro. But I’m still a bit on the fence re: Finch and Sheppard. I was actually debating whether I should include St Clair as a coloured/numbered line as well, considering it and other in-median streetcar lines are almost identical to the service offered by FWLRT and SELRT. But one last minute change I did do to differentiate between in-median and grade-separated subway/RT is to give the SELRT and FWLRT letters instead of numbers. This is similar to Gweed’s map, and I think it makes sense.

Looking good! A few questions/comments:

1) The names of some of the DRL stations are quite unique. I'm wondering how you came up with those.

2) I think, navigation-wise, it would be helpful to add the number/letter bubble at the terminus points of the line on the actual map, instead of simply referring to the legend. Here's how the MBTA does it: http://www.mbta.com/images/subway-spider.jpg

3) Curious as to why the North Yonge extension isn't shown on your map, considering it's often paired with the DRL in terms of timelines.

4) Also curious as to why you terminated the Pearson Express Bus at Richview instead of continuing it down to Kipling, as it currently does.

5) Interesting that St. Clair and the QQW & QQE lines are on the map, but Spadina isn't. Is that an omission, or done on purpose?

Overall, great map though!

Gweed I HATE that JOHN TORY Smart Track Eglinton west line you have on your map. If we are actually going to go through with that crappy design can we at least get the Eglinton LRT to the airport via Dixon. But we all know this is what the map should look like

I know, I think it's a dumb idea too. I was just showing what's officially proposed right now. Take a look at a few of my earlier maps to see what I would actually LIKE to see. I can tell you it would feature and western Eglinton LRT extension and a GO RER solution for Scarborough instead of the Scarborough Subway.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

There’s no question all of Eglinton should be included, considering it’s a through-running pre-metro. But I’m still a bit on the fence re: Finch and Sheppard. **I was actually debating whether I should include St Clair as a coloured/numbered line as well, considering it and other in-median streetcar lines are almost identical to the service offered by FWLRT and SELRT.** But one last minute change I did do to differentiate between in-median and grade-separated subway/RT is to give the SELRT and FWLRT letters instead of numbers. This is similar to Gweed’s map, and I think it makes sense.

If ROW streetcar lines are almost identical to LRTs, and if we accept that LRTs provide identical service to subways, then by the transitive property, we can conclude that streetcar lines are identical to subways.

But seriously, **the LRT lines do not provide similar service to ROW streetcars**. Our streetcars have very close stop spacing, exactly the same as our bus routes. The average speed of ROW streetcar routes is no faster than the speed of suburban busses or downtown streetcars that don't operate in ROW. In fact, ROW streetcars are significantly slower than suburban bus routes.

Conversely, our LRT lines operate with stop spacing similar to that of Line 2. Average speed of the LRTs will be slightly slower than many sections of our subways.

So I wouldn't include the streetcars on the map. Nor would I differentiate between modes of rapid transit, as I don't see them increasing the utility of the map (I can't envision a situation where people would need to know vehicle types and mode when planning routes).

 

[WislaHD]

Can the new ROW streetcar vehicles that are currently rolling out be used on LRT lines? If so, then all that is differentiating ROW streetcar lines from in-median LRT lines are stop-spacing.

You said it yourself, differentiating between different modes of rapid transit doesn't increase utility to users. People should be aware rapid transit ROW's exists on Spadina, St. Clair and the Waterfront.

Heck, what makes the East Waterfront LRT so different to what is there now?

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Can the new ROW streetcar vehicles that are currently rolling out be used on LRT lines?

No.

 

[ehlow]

Can the new ROW streetcar vehicles that are currently rolling out be used on LRT lines? If so, then all that is differentiating ROW streetcar lines from in-median LRT lines are stop-spacing.

Besides stop spacing (which is important), there are other differences:
1. Fewer traffic lights and more green signal, which increase speed.
2. Running multi train in 2-3 car trains, meaning 2-3 x the length of the new streetcars.
3. The trains are different, they are slightly wider and have cabs on both ends so it doesn't need to loop to reverse. Also the trains have doors on both sides.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Can the new ROW streetcar vehicles that are currently rolling out be used on LRT lines? If so, then all that is differentiating ROW streetcar lines from in-median LRT lines are stop-spacing.

You said it yourself, differentiating between different modes of rapid transit doesn't increase utility to users. People should be aware rapid transit ROW's exists on Spadina, St. Clair and the Waterfront.

Yes. They belong on a different map. The rapid transit map is not a streetcar map.

Heck, what makes the East Waterfront LRT so different to what is there now?

Depends on the operating conditions of EBLRT.

 

[aquateam]

But seriously, **the LRT lines do not provide similar service to ROW streetcars**. Our streetcars have very close stop spacing, exactly the same as our bus routes. The average speed of ROW streetcar routes is no faster than the speed of suburban busses or downtown streetcars that don't operate in ROW. In fact, ROW streetcars are significantly slower than suburban bus routes.).

The downtown subway runs slower than suburban bus routes too. But that's just the nature of downtown, where things are closely spaced. Suburbs have large block sizes and are designed around maximizing vehicle speed, but people and destinations are spaces far apart.

The ROW streetcars don't run any faster than streetcars in mixed traffic for the 95% of time when the roads are mostly empty and traffic moves slowly. But for those peak hours when traffic is at a standstill they are still reliable and frequent.

Conversely, our LRT lines operate with stop spacing similar to that of Line 2. Average speed of the LRTs will be slightly slower than many sections of our subways.

So I wouldn't include the streetcars on the map. Nor would I differentiate between modes of rapid transit, as I don't see them increasing the utility of the map (I can't envision a situation where people would need to know vehicle types and mode when planning routes).

I find it strange that you think it doesn't make sense to distinguish based on mode or ROW, but that it makes sense to distinguish between lines where the stop spacing is every 450 meters (Eglinton LRT surface) instead of every 300 meters (Spadina streetcar).

Can the new ROW streetcar vehicles that are currently rolling out be used on LRT lines? If so, then all that is differentiating ROW streetcar lines from in-median LRT lines are stop-spacing.

No, the LRTs will run on standard gauge track whereas the legacy TTC system uses english carriage gauge track.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

The LFLRVs cannot couple into trains, their track gauge is wrong, they are not bi-directional, they don't have doors on both sides and the power systems are incompatible. They likely don't support ATO either. Our LFLRV are inappropriate for Line 5,6 and 7.

 

[ehlow]

I find it strange that you think it doesn't make sense to distinguish based on mode or ROW, but that it makes sense to distinguish between lines where the stop spacing is every 450 meters (Eglinton LRT surface) instead of every 300 meters (Spadina streetcar).

450 is way to low of a figure for Eglinton surface. It's more like 500-600m. Wikipedia says 500m, the EA says "660 to 670 metres" for surface (850m underground).

Either way though, it's significantly wider than Spadina at 300m. St Clair is even closer for much of it (200m or even less). I personally think St Clair should have had wider stop spacing. However, it still hits traffic lights very frequently which slows it down anyways. Hopefully the new vehicles with all door boarding & POP speed those routes up.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I find it strange that you think it doesn't make sense to distinguish based on mode or ROW, but that it makes sense to distinguish between lines where the stop spacing is every 450 meters (Eglinton LRT surface) instead of every 300 meters (Spadina streetcar).

I'm distinguishing based on speed and route capacity. Speed is a function of stop spacing, dwell times, signal priority and various other factors.

 

[aquateam]

450 is way to low of a figure for Eglinton surface. It's more like 500-600m. Wikipedia says 500m, the EA says "660 to 670 metres" for surface (850m underground).

Either way though, it's significantly wider than Spadina at 300m. St Clair is even closer for much of it (200m or even less). I personally think St Clair should have had wider stop spacing. However, it still hits traffic lights very frequently which slows it down anyways. Hopefully the new vehicles with all door boarding & POP speed those routes up.

For Eglinton, the LRT has stops as little as 350 m apart (Pharmacy to Victoria Park). I'm not sure the reason for the discrepency between wikipedia and the EA. In theory if you have 12 stops from Laird to Kennedy that's every ~660 meters.

I'm distinguishing based on speed and route capacity. Speed is a function of stop spacing, dwell times, signal priority and various other factors.

My point is that speed isn't a good measure of what should go on the map. Otherwise you'd put all the suburban bus routes and leave out anything downtown. And those other factors you mention don't really change between LRTs and the ROW streetcars:
dwell time: with all-door boarding and POP now on the entire streetcar network this should be the same
signal priority: in theory, this exists on the streetcar network. It remains to be seen how well this is implemented on the LRT lines.
The difference between LRTs and Streetcars in ROWs is a difference of degree, not a difference of kind. That's why there are many references to the Spadina, Harbourfront and St. Clair "LRTs" in their topical news stories, and why various expansions of the streetcar network (e.g. Waterfront West LRT, East Bayfront LRT) are referred to as LRTs.

For branding purposes I'm okay with maintaining a distinction, especially since the networks are incompatible, but I don't think it makes sense to say one deserves to be called rapid transit but not the other. The Pembina institute included the ROW streetcars as Rapid Transit in their reports.

But of course this gets us back to our favourite discussion about the semantics of what is "Rapid Transit".