Midtown Urbanist
Superstar
I like the idea of using the TTC map model on other cities' transit systems. Kudos!
|
|
|
Midtown Urbanist
Superstar
I liked it a little too much it seems. I decided to use my time this morning to imitate your map for Montreal's metro system. 
nfitz
Superstar
As far as I know, the Yellow line from Jean-Drapeau to Longueuil is almost parallel with the Green line Atwater to Beaudry and the Orange Line from Bonaventure to Champ-de-Mars. So something looks off there. There's also too much distnace on the Blue line north-south from Parc to Snowdown. Parc should line up with Namur. Rosemont with Cote-Ste-Catherine. Laurier with Snowdon.
Other than that, looks reasonable. Though I prefer the Montreal graphics.
Other than that, looks reasonable. Though I prefer the Montreal graphics.
44 North
Senior Member
@ssiguy
Thanks. And you’re correct abt the expansion. I haven’t been following what’s been going on in vancouver all that much, and I had a hard time finding official maps of future lines that I could use to replicate – so I basically guessed how the Broadway ext could look.
@wisahd
I don’t really consider the TTC’s styling as a standard, and I find their schematic to be kinda bs. Although I like the colour scheme, I don’t care for the overtly excessive distortion on the n/s axis, their free use of angles outside of 45 and 90, and that the schematic seems to change all the time. Much of this has to do with how the map must conform to the narrow space between the train’s ceiling and wall, which I think is also quite bs. Montreal OTH seems to have a proper standard, and more of a model that can be followed.
As for you Montreal map - although I like it, I think I’d prefer it minus the replication of certain features unique to my maps (i.e – cream-coloured border, same north arrow symbol, the title's placement/font/italicization). I use those as pseudo-trademarks of sorts. But otherwise, good job.
Thanks. And you’re correct abt the expansion. I haven’t been following what’s been going on in vancouver all that much, and I had a hard time finding official maps of future lines that I could use to replicate – so I basically guessed how the Broadway ext could look.
@wisahd
I don’t really consider the TTC’s styling as a standard, and I find their schematic to be kinda bs. Although I like the colour scheme, I don’t care for the overtly excessive distortion on the n/s axis, their free use of angles outside of 45 and 90, and that the schematic seems to change all the time. Much of this has to do with how the map must conform to the narrow space between the train’s ceiling and wall, which I think is also quite bs. Montreal OTH seems to have a proper standard, and more of a model that can be followed.
As for you Montreal map - although I like it, I think I’d prefer it minus the replication of certain features unique to my maps (i.e – cream-coloured border, same north arrow symbol, the title's placement/font/italicization). I use those as pseudo-trademarks of sorts. But otherwise, good job.
Midtown Urbanist
Superstar
Apologies for that, I literally took your Toronto map and started editing around.
I realize TTC's styling is not a standard and has many many issues, but it is a style that I have grown up with and am used to. Seeing it done for other cities is fascinating.
I realize TTC's styling is not a standard and has many many issues, but it is a style that I have grown up with and am used to. Seeing it done for other cities is fascinating.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
BurlOak
Senior Member
Maybe we should just go back to transit city and give up on trying to get a DRL or other subways. The solution to all our problems is LRT.
Last edited:
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Why would you want to do that? Clearly different modes of transit are more appropriate under different circumstances. The viability of a subway in one part of the city, doesn't preclude the viability of LRT in others. Frankly, this all or nothing approach to transit (either all subway or all LRT) over the past four years has been incredibly damaging to our city, and I'm a little surprised that you've subscribed to this philosophy.
acornman
New Member
Didn't you hear, saying the "S" word is taboo now among the hip, online Toronto crowd now. Being in favour of a subway anywhere outside of a DRL means you're automatically a low intelligence, Rob Ford loving troglodyte in their eyes.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
So you're saying that I must view myself as a low intelligence, Rob Ford loving troglodyte in my own eyes?
I'm getting really of the anti intellectualism on this board and in this city. Is it such a bad thing that some of us feel the need to base our decisions on facts, rather than resorting to rhetoric?
Anyways if the best response to a reasonable proposal that you people can come up with is straw man arguments and bullshit stereotyping, then it isn't worth having a discussion with you.
BurlOak
Senior Member
I always find it strange when people says we need to base our decisions on facts, but they pick and choose the facts they like. At one point in time, the experts said that the B-D subway extension was the best option. Then a different set of experts said (TTC, 2006) that conversion of the SRT to Mark II was the best solution. Then yet another set of experts (Metrolinx, 2009) said that building Transit City LRT is the best option. Then another set of experts (Metrolinx, 2012) said the best option is to connect the SRT to the Eglinton line.
Now, I am not sure if any expert actually said that the B-D is the best solution. I think they just said it is feasible to construct along a specific route.
So the point is, if you want transit based on what experts say is the best solution, then any one of the above plans is just as valid as the next. If you base your decisions based on the most recent facts, then Transit City would not be supported. The fact that the most recent government report (Metrolinx, 2012) and the most recent think-tank report (Neptis, 2013) both conclude that the best solution is a connected SRT and Eglinton - it is looking like that is the undisputed best solution, based on facts.
aquateam
Active Member
Gorgeous map. Only thing I don't like is that the Eglinton and Sheppard lines dip a little, which (although they physically do that) I think since it's a diagrammatic map and the LRTs stay running along the same street, it would be more intuitive to keep the lines straight on the map.
I'd also like to see what this map would look like with the Bloor-Danforth extension and no Scarborough-Malvern LRT, since at this point it looks like that's what is going to be built. The morningside LRT is unfortunately in the same fantasy land of unfunded projects as the Jane, Waterfront West, Phase II Eglinton/Finch and Don Mills LRTs.
He's being sarcastic when he says LRT is the solution to everything. But in general, given the wide capacious roads and low-rise built form of scarborough, LRT is definitely the right option.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
It's funny that you mentioned that, because a connected SLRT and ECLRT was my favoured plan. I actually mentioned this last week in the SRT replacement thread.
However, if it's that option vs. all of SMLRT, SELRT, FWLRT, I'd pick the latter
sixrings
Senior Member
I thought the connected srt eclrt was the best option as well even if it meant less stops or some elevated portions. I'm with converting sheppard subway to lrt as well.
BurlOak
Senior Member
Converting Sheppard to SkyTrain and bridging over 404 (instead of tunnelling), and then elevating through Scarborough is another option - similar to Michael Schabas' plan.
After Ford go the money from Flaherty for the Scarborough Subway, there was enough money on the table (from Eglinton, SRT, and Sheppard) to connect SRT to an elevated Eglinton line (+$500M), convert Sheppard to SkyTrain (+$200M?), and elevate Sheppard to STC ($1200M). These dollars compare to the $1000M for Sheppard, $700M from feds and $900M from property tax. It looks like it would not have even requried a property tax increase.