Transit Fantasy Maps

[Bureaucromancer]

Assuming you mean DOESN'T need to go to Pickering, I'd suggest continuing though Highland Creek east of UTSC and terminating at Rouge Hill rather than doubling back to Guildwood - this probably would be my preferred approach if mainline connections were on the table):

Remember though, that if this is light rail without interlining the 2A/401 to Pickering option is basically all in highway medians, and avoids a pretty long stretch of construction in a wetland park area. The cost difference may not be as dramatic as it seems just measuring distance, and stations are absolutely better placed.

That said, getting off the RT corridor in the west and continuing to follow Sheppard to Kennedy defeats MY purpose in suggesting high floor LRV, and imo puts us more or less back to where we are now in terms of the how valuable a Sheppard extension really is compared to other projects. The main thing I want to emphasize about the Wye configuration is that between high floor LRVs and a 401 alignment it should be entirely feasible to modernize the RT, extend to Malvern as well as convert and extend Sheppard within the budget of the subway project.

It doesn't hurt that a western extension could be built without grade separation and that a Highland Creek alignment of some sort gets a Pickering connection that can be built entirely above ground and substantially at grade, but these are, imo, essentially separate issues from the real core project:

 

[BurlOak]

Assuming you mean DOESN'T need to go to Pickering, I'd suggest continuing though Highland Creek east of UTSC and terminating at Rouge Hill rather than doubling back to Guildwood - this probably would be my preferred approach if mainline connections were on the table):
View attachment 199847
Remember though, that if this is light rail without interlining the 2A/401 to Pickering option is basically all in highway medians, and avoids a pretty long stretch of construction in a wetland park area. The cost difference may not be as dramatic as it seems just measuring distance, and stations are absolutely better placed.

That said, getting off the RT corridor in the west and continuing to follow Sheppard to Kennedy defeats MY purpose in suggesting high floor LRV, and imo puts us more or less back to where we are now in terms of the how valuable a Sheppard extension really is compared to other projects. The main thing I want to emphasize about the Wye configuration is that between high floor LRVs and a 401 alignment it should be entirely feasible to modernize the RT, extend to Malvern as well as convert and extend Sheppard within the budget of the subway project.

It doesn't hurt that a western extension could be built without grade separation and that a Highland Creek alignment of some sort gets a Pickering connection that can be built entirely above ground and substantially at grade, but these are, imo, essentially separate issues from the real core project:

View attachment 199846

1. First, the final destination. Guildwood is 3.5km away from UTSC. Rouge Hill is 5.5km, and Pickering Town Centre is 9.5km.
2. Second, for an intermediate station, Lawrence and Highland Creek has somewhat more density than Lawrence and Rouge Valley. Lawrence and Highland Creek has more density than anywhere along Ellesmere and then highway 2.
3. Granted, Pickering may be a better terminus than the other two, but at 2 or 3 times the distance and no real intermediate station, I think it is quite the extra expense for limited benefit.
4. The Pickering BRT would run along highway 2 and Ellesmere - to intercept both this Sheppard Extension Line and the Scarborough Line.

My guess is that once the public realizes that the Sheppard Line would go along the 401, the locals will change their NIMBY stance and want a line that services the density along Sheppard.
Also, the benefit of not being on-street is huge and will ensure that it gets public support.
Budget is not the problem, the problem is when people push ideas that are opposed by the public. Grade-separation will ensure public support. I worry that the demand on this line (especially with the slightly smaller trains) would be exceeded if there is interlining and the frequency on the downtown bound portion of the line would be only half.

 

[north-of-anything]

An East Toronto streetcar line. It's a loop, with a short branch to East Harbour. I'm not really sure whether the orange Woodbine/Queen route or the pink Gerrard/Main route would be better. Regardless, I would like it to have stop spacing that resembles the Crosstown in Scarborough more than current streetcar routes.

 

[Bureaucromancer]

I'm not really sure whether the orange Woodbine/Queen route or the pink Gerrard/Main route would be better.

Of those two Main, easily, given the residential towers around the top of Main. That said, how about Coxwell? I'd think something along the lines of the areas night bus, running in from Kingston Rd, up Coxwell, across to Broadview then south.

Ideally I'd think extend both, with Kingston cars as above and 506 looping on street around Coxwell/Mortimer.

Not exactly realistic today, but very reminiscent of the plans for East York part of the Township of York Railways.

 

[micheal_can]

One thing I keep thinking is all of the major roads in the city should become Streetcar/LRT lines. The roads are about 2km apart and cris cross the city.

 

[north-of-anything]

This is how Line 2 should really be extended. ...trust me.

 

[north-of-anything]

This is what I would like the Queen-Don Valley Subway to be like.

The northern terminus would be at Seneca College, a better transit destination in my opinion than the Fairview Mall. Between Finch and Eglinton, it would only stop every 2 km at major cross-streets, partially because of low-ish development potential along that corridor and partially to be faster than Yonge. I left off the Flemingdon Park station because I felt it was a little too close to the adjacent stations. Between Overlea and Osgoode, the stations and alignment are the same as the TTC's Relief Line alignment. I extended the line slightly west to have stations at Spadina (named Vanauley, Chinatown, or Atkinson perhaps), Bathurst (Alexandra, Palmerston, or Tecumseth), and Strachan/Shaw, with tail tracks extending to or past Ossington. This small extension would be for encouraging more density between Ossington and Bathurst, as well as improving access to the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, but leaves enough space in the west for many different extension routes west or northwest.

 

[north-of-anything]

Of those two Main, easily, given the residential towers around the top of Main. That said, how about Coxwell? I'd think something along the lines of the areas night bus, running in from Kingston Rd, up Coxwell, across to Broadview then south.

I thought about this a little, but the reason I'd say no to that alignment is that it's too far west for my liking. I wanted the route to use some existing streetcar track, while serving as much of the East Toronto area as possible (south of Taylor Massey Creek, between Broadview and Vic Park). Coxwell would make the spur along Gerrard necessary to maintain existing service quality to Main Street, which isn't necessary if Main Street is used instead. Main Street also allows for direct access to the Danforth GO station as well as the future East Harbour station.

 

[Rommant]

Hi!
How about the Finch West LRT and/or the Eglinton Crosstown LRT using the Union Pearson Express spur instead of the UPE train? (perhaps making a Eglinton Pearson Finch LRT line)?.
And now that Metrolinx and Woodbine are committed to a new GO station at Woodbine, maybe, as has been mentioned, Pearson Airport ought to get on board with Woodbine as a location for the Pearson Transit Hub as well?. Trying to think of a name…Pearson Woodbine Hub? Peawoo Hub? PW Hub?

- The UPE spur could remain as is or realigned to serve both current and/or future airport terminals.
- Replace UPE with UPWHE (Union - Pearson Woodbine Hub Express), which together with all other express/nonstop trains (Kitchener GO Express, VIA, Windsor - Toronto HSR/HFR, Etc.), would run nonstop from PW Hub to and from Union, sharing the same tracks.
- GO local trains would use their own separate tracks and serve all stations from PW Hub to and from Union.
- Pearson Woodbine Hub multilevel, multi-platform station, facilitating transfers.
- If the Eglinton Pearson Finch LRT is not adequate enough for PW Hub to and from the terminals service, then augment it with a Pearson Woodbine Shuttle LRT using the same UPE spur track.
- Adding BRT or LRT from Malton GO could also contribute to better service/capacity.

Benefits of this Layout -

• No conflict between nonstop/express and local trains, between PW Hub and Union.
• Union to and from PW Hub nonstop service options.
• Eglinton Pearson Finch LRT direct to Pearson terminals.
• PW Hub connectivity for the Airport and surrounding area(employment zone).
• Less cost to build compared to diverting/constructing new GO/VIA tracks to Pearson Airport (I would think?). Also no increased travel time due to track diversion, for those not going to Pearson.

Drawback of this Layout

• The Union, Bloor/Dundas and Weston to and from Pearson terminal 1 connection would no longer be direct, with one transfer required.

I am guessing that converting the UPE spur to LRT would be relatively easy and not cost prohibitive. Also guessing that LRT running close to freight/GO/VIA trains, (and how this layout would affect those freight train operations) should not be too much of an issue as well.
Is a Woodbine GO station too far from Pearson to be putting Pearson in the stations name? Probably calling it Pearson Woodbine helps differentiate it from Woodbine Ave. subway station, I would think.
I don’t think I have added anything new to the UPE/Kitchener Corridor/Pearson Hub discussion, except for maybe the UPE spur conversion to FWLRT/ECLRT usage and the sharing of that spur with a Pearson shuttle, which I don’t think I have seen suggested.
Prior to construction of UPE, I did see suggestions made that Pearson ought to be connected to the Kitchener line with a shuttle.
Now that UPE exists, and with the potential for Finch and Eglinton LRT extensions, is such a spur conversion viable?

 

[Bureaucromancer]

It's a fairly good concept so long as LINK is extended to the transit hub and upgraded to something with a lot more capacity and somewhat more speed. It also doesn't get any kind of dedicated bus route into the airport (although sharing the light rail guideway along Woodbines south perimeter between the 427 and 27 seems reasonable. A centralized transportation hub is something I like, and the GTAAs location for it seems the best combination of multi modal accessibility and airport operations available. Mind you, if the terminalas continue to operate more or less as today, emphasizing Woodbine starts to look a lot more reasonable than diverting everything...

That said, it's still goign to be a major project farther south if Pearson wants to centralize check-in. The mainline realignment is a big and expensive project, but the rest of GTAAs current proposal makes a lot of sense. My inclination is to build a shared bus/LRT ROW along the lines of the current plan, replace the Weston UPX stop with Woodbine once RER is running, allow free GO/UPX transfers at Woodbine and hold off on a mainline loop until the centralized check-in etc is complete and there are either capacity issues with UPX, someone other than Metrolinx willing to pay for most of the diversion or a real need to reuse the UPX spur for something other than UPX.

 

[north-of-anything]

I remember there was a discussion about the track gauge on St Clair Avenue, which made me think - what if the section of the streetcar network north of Bloor had its own maintenance and storage facilities and all that? Could the network be expanded in that direction?

This map shows two additional routes that could use these facilities as well: Dufferin North and Dupont, with a streetcar yard connecting somewhere to one of these two new lines.

> Dufferin is a major north-south corridor that has been floated for higher-order transit, but its proximity to Line 1 makes that unrealistic in the areas that need that transit the most. North of Eglinton, it would be more practical for Dufferin to be a feeder route connecting to higher-capacity lines, while fuelling redevelopment between Eglinton and Dupont.
Stations from north to south: Lawrence West, Corona, Wenderly/Playfair (optional), Glencairn, Castlefield, Fairbank (Eglinton), Preston (optional), Rogers, Cloverlawn/Goodwood (optional), St. Clair, Davenport, Wallace Emerson

> Dupont between Dundas and Spadina has modest development potential, plus it historically had a streetcar route. At Dundas I would probably have it turn southwards to intersect with Bloor, while terminating at Spadina would allow for a Line 1 connection before Dupont ends (and having the streetcar reach Yonge would do little to benefit an area with multiple nearby subway stations).
Stations from west to east: Bloor, Annette, Symington, Lansdowne, Wallace Emerson, Westmoreland (optional), Ossington, Christie, Bathurst, Dupont Station

 

[Ritachi]

I've designed a semi-realistic (In a perfect world much of what I've put on the map would be built) transit map for the TTC and GO Rail Transit for the year 2100.
It includes all bus routes (and a separate layer for 10-minute service routes), Express bus routes, streetcar routes (and additional redundant tracks), along with rapid transit. I've added several bus routes that may or may not be viable, now or in the future, I've also made the Eglinton Line a heavy rail subway (converted some time in the future) which might be the most unrealistic aspect of the map.
Here's the full map link here: https://drive.google.com/open?id=102rit15z0zA-pdTOa8wru-GhQPNfOQP5
Rapid Transit Lines (when clicked) show rail gauge, rolling stock info (just the width), and the build dates for the non existing infrastructure (segments of each Subway/LRT route).
Rapid Transit Stations (when clicked) shows whether the station is built underground/at-grade (fully separate or not)/elevated, in case of interchange stations it shows info for the platforms on each line that serves the station.
All bus routes (when clicked) show the end points for all branches of the route (if applicable), streetcar routes do the same.
GO Train Lines (when clicked) show the termini of each respective route (along with some turn back points), the stations only show if they are served by express trains (those that aren't are left blank)
Here's a preview showing only the Rapid Transit lines

Any criticism is welcomed. If there's anything that might not be possible at all please let me know.

 

[H4F33Z]

I've designed a semi-realistic (In a perfect world much of what I've put on the map would be built) transit map for the TTC and GO Rail Transit for the year 2100.
It includes all bus routes (and a separate layer for 10-minute service routes), Express bus routes, streetcar routes (and additional redundant tracks), along with rapid transit. I've added several bus routes that may or may not be viable, now or in the future, I've also made the Eglinton Line a heavy rail subway (converted some time in the future) which might be the most unrealistic aspect of the map.
Here's the full map link here: https://drive.google.com/open?id=102rit15z0zA-pdTOa8wru-GhQPNfOQP5
Rapid Transit Lines (when clicked) show rail gauge, rolling stock info (just the width), and the build dates for the non existing infrastructure (segments of each Subway/LRT route).
Rapid Transit Stations (when clicked) shows whether the station is built underground/at-grade (fully separate or not)/elevated, in case of interchange stations it shows info for the platforms on each line that serves the station.
All bus routes (when clicked) show the end points for all branches of the route (if applicable), streetcar routes do the same.
GO Train Lines (when clicked) show the termini of each respective route (along with some turn back points), the stations only show if they are served by express trains (those that aren't are left blank)
Here's a preview showing only the Rapid Transit linesView attachment 204747
Any criticism is welcomed. If there's anything that might not be possible at all please let me know.

Damn, that's clean! Why is the relief line and sheppard line same colors though. I would also say to extend the eglinton line north to meet with steeles

 

[Leo_Chan]

Damn, that's clean! Why is the relief line and sheppard line same colors though. I would also say to extend the eglinton line north to meet with steeles

They’re just very similar colours. Not the same.

 

[BurlOak]

I've designed a semi-realistic (In a perfect world much of what I've put on the map would be built) transit map for the TTC and GO Rail Transit for the year 2100.
It includes all bus routes (and a separate layer for 10-minute service routes), Express bus routes, streetcar routes (and additional redundant tracks), along with rapid transit. I've added several bus routes that may or may not be viable, now or in the future, I've also made the Eglinton Line a heavy rail subway (converted some time in the future) which might be the most unrealistic aspect of the map.
Here's the full map link here: https://drive.google.com/open?id=102rit15z0zA-pdTOa8wru-GhQPNfOQP5
Rapid Transit Lines (when clicked) show rail gauge, rolling stock info (just the width), and the build dates for the non existing infrastructure (segments of each Subway/LRT route).
Rapid Transit Stations (when clicked) shows whether the station is built underground/at-grade (fully separate or not)/elevated, in case of interchange stations it shows info for the platforms on each line that serves the station.
All bus routes (when clicked) show the end points for all branches of the route (if applicable), streetcar routes do the same.
GO Train Lines (when clicked) show the termini of each respective route (along with some turn back points), the stations only show if they are served by express trains (those that aren't are left blank)
Here's a preview showing only the Rapid Transit linesView attachment 204747
Any criticism is welcomed. If there's anything that might not be possible at all please let me know.

I don't think the B-D line has to go from Sherway to Long Branch. The Kipling (or a 427) BRT or LRT would do a good enough job connecting these lines.
Maybe the Waterfront West LRT could be connected to the existing Harborfront LRT and extended as the Queens Quay East.