News   Mar 28, 2024
 62     0 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 545     0 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 352     0 

Transit Fantasy Maps

Want to break Line 1 up without any new infrastructure, we could bring back the interline/wye. Finch to Kipling 1-A, Finch to Kennedy 1-B. The former 'Spadina' portion would default to Line 5 then be VMC-Spadina. This would allow proper transferring between each line. Doesn't really solve the length issue tho.

Another alternative would be Finch to Bay (Lower) one Line, VMC to St George as a separate line. However Bay Lower doesn't really work as a terminal without crossovers leading into it (which I'm sure could be added at minimal cost). Could there be merit to this? Possibly.
I cannot process what you're trying to explain, this is the reason why the TTC closed Bay lower, it's just too confusing..
 
What ever you are smoking, please share. One broken train could really mess up things in the 2, sorry, 3 lines.

Things are already kinda like on our system to begin with. Such large volumes, such high frequency, but on an almost entirely two-track system. One hiccup reverberates, clearly. And the original post was that Yonge is getting so long (and being only a single service, two-track line), these 'mess ups' already happen and will continue to do so.

I cannot process what you're trying to explain, this is the reason why the TTC closed Bay lower, it's just too confusing..

Easier to grasp when looking at a track diagram. It is still neat to think that we have the infrastructure in place to put in a more dynamic subway alternative to the status quo relatively easily. Two lines and two services into three lines and five services. Give a seamless core-bound ride to those using Line 2, at the expense of the lower volumes using the Spadina section of Line 1. Not completely off base, but yes not very optimal due to infrastructure limitations, and our high volumes/frequencies.
 
Listen, if this is the fantasy page, why not simply put in 2 new tracks for express service on Line 1? It could stop at only stations that are interchanges. It would alleviate the congestion and would make the system more robust.

Is it really all that much of an inconvenience to have the trains serve the minor stops (North York Centre, Summerhill, Rosedale and Wellesley)? Assuming 60 second dwell times, that's only 2:40 added to a trip from Finch to College southwards. Express trains sound good on paper but in the grand scheme of things doesn't help things much.
 
When the Relief Line was Queen-alignment, I thought there would be some logic to splitting Line 1 so that:
  • Yonge terminated at Queen's Quay / Harbourfront Centre
  • Spadina-University continued east to the Portlands with stops at Lower Jarvis, Distillery District, maybe at Cherry, then into the Portlands
  • Waterfront LRT is built without any concern for looping it up to Union Station.

What you're suggesting reminds me of this classic fantasy map from the mid-2000s that proposed spitting the YUS Line into two at Union:

futurettc.jpg
 
Is it really all that much of an inconvenience to have the trains serve the minor stops (North York Centre, Summerhill, Rosedale and Wellesley)? Assuming 60 second dwell times, that's only 2:40 added to a trip from Finch to College southwards. Express trains sound good on paper but in the grand scheme of things doesn't help things much.

It is not about convenience, it is about crush loading. Most people are trying to get to/from one of those interchange stations. By having express between them, the local train could stop being so congested.
 
I had kind of an out-there thought about how to solve the Airport Corporate Centre employment region last-mile problem.

Extend the Eglinton Crosstown and make ACC one giant loop. The stop-spacing is on average ~450m. Stations are more or less cheap St. Clair style streetcar stops. Service would be surface level and St. Clair street-car like, which I think is sufficient for the low-density built-form.

I made a 5-minute drawing to explain it (so excuse questions on alignment through 401/427 interchange). Not sure how to integrate the Mississauga Transitway (does it even need integration aside from the terminal station? They serve separate uses). Edit: Can't believe I didn't think of it, but along Eglinton they could actually even share the Transitway corridor without much problem, no?

208064
 
I had kind of an out-there thought about how to solve the Airport Corporate Centre employment region last-mile problem.

Extend the Eglinton Crosstown and make ACC one giant loop. The stop-spacing is on average ~450m. Stations are more or less St. Clair style streetcar stops. Service would be surface level and St. Clair street-car like, which I think is sufficient for the low-density built-form.

I made a 5-minute drawing to explain it (so excuse questions on alignment through 401/427 interchange). Not sure how to integrate the Mississauga Transitway (does it even need integration aside from the terminal station? They serve separate uses).

View attachment 208064

This would preclude the Crosstown from serving the Pearson Transit Hub. I would much rather have the route serve that ridership base than this one. Done right the Person Transit Hub would serve both airport travelers, AND those who work at the offices surrounding this. While the ACC would only serve workers. As an alternative, a local line connecting to the Transit Hub and/or Renforth gateway could accomplish the same thing you are trying to do here.
 
This would preclude the Crosstown from serving the Pearson Transit Hub. I would much rather have the route serve that ridership base than this one. Done right the Person Transit Hub would serve both airport travelers, AND those who work at the offices surrounding this. While the ACC would only serve workers. As an alternative, a local line connecting to the Transit Hub and/or Renforth gateway could accomplish the same thing you are trying to do here.
Counter-argument: With the completion of the Crosstown, those along the Eglinton Corridor can access the UPX at Mount Dennis. Why is it important for the Crosstown to go to Pearson as well?

Also, I want to question the logic of prioritizing the employment at Pearson Airport over the employment at ACC as the right decision. Specifically, I question if whether it would be better for economic growth in the region overall if the (more white-collar) jobs located at the firms in ACC were more accessible to labour pool of Toronto. Pearson Airport is already served by the UPX and 192 Kipling Rocket.

That said, this idea should have some thought towards a greater local connectivity strategy with Pearson Airport. I'm not sure what the future of the Link Train is with the Pearson Transit Hub, but maybe it can serve as a shuttle to the Renforth Gateway.
 
The line could also split with both ACC and YYZ as terminuses.
With say 5-minute headways on each branch, or 2.5-minute headways between Renforth/Martin Grove and Laird.

Also, I was thinking that Metrolinx could probably purchase one of the lots at ACC to store and provide maintenance to Crosstown vehicles rather easily, should they see the need.
 
Last edited:
kingrelief.png


It's been a hot minute since I've posted something here.
While I personally think that building a subway line on King is kind of a waste and that Queen is the better option if we plan to enhance waterfront service, I wanted to see what a relief line along King could possibly look like, plus some northwards extensions on either end. I don't like how this line doesn't have a good connection to Liberty Village but I don't think one was possible.
 
View attachment 210534

It's been a hot minute since I've posted something here.
While I personally think that building a subway line on King is kind of a waste and that Queen is the better option if we plan to enhance waterfront service, I wanted to see what a relief line along King could possibly look like, plus some northwards extensions on either end. I don't like how this line doesn't have a good connection to Liberty Village but I don't think one was possible.

I'd put a station in LV to connect with the proposed GO station in the rail corridor. Frankly, I'd loop a King subway north on Dufferin towards Eglinton so it can service the outer portions of western old Toronto. A second downtown subway would then travel along Queen, beginning in the Beaches in the east end and terminating at Roncesvalles in the west. The Queen line could then travel north towards Bloor or continue west to Humber Bay depending on demand and development patterns at that point in time.
 
Last edited:
downtown routes.png


Based on the discussion surrounding the proposed development at Lake Shore and Park Lawn, I thought of another way to connect the neighbourhoods south of Bloor to downtown.

The red line is a Waterfront LRT - beginning at Dundas West station, due south until Queen before it maneuvers southeast and follows the Gardiner to Exhibition Place. From there, it assumes much of the existing streetcar routes. Here I drew the route re-connecting with the Relief Line at Sumach Station and proceeding north along Parliament, but I see no reason not to take a different route beyond the end of Queen's Quay.

The blue line is the Queen line in TTC stock. I'm really not sure if it would be a true subway along the entire route, or if a transfer to LRT would be necessary at Roncesvalles or earlier. Regardless, this configuration would allow a one-seat ride to the northern business district from Humber Bay, and reduce the reliance of the waterfront communities on Union Station.
 

Back
Top