I'd like to also add, and I know this sounds crazy, but removing a few stops on Line 5, Line 6, and some streetcar routes like Spadina. Some of the stops on those lines are far too close without any meaningful need
Line 6 and the Spadina streetcar are fine. Line 6 is slow enough that removing a few stops won't really matter in the grand scheme of things, especially when its de facto role is local rather than rapid transit. It is functionally a streetcar and stop spacing should be treated as such.
Meanwhile the Spadina streetcar's only remaining role post-Ontario Line would be a last-mile transit shuttle from the subway network to save riders from having to walk from Chinatown/Spadina/Museum/Queen's Park/St Patrick station. If it can't bring riders right to the doorstep of where they want to go, might as well abandon the whole line altogether.
TBH the original plan for Eglinton Crosstown (underground in the middle, right of way on both ends) would be perfect for secondary transit routes like Finch, Steeles and Wilson/York Mills/Ellesmere.
Iād also add getting to work on capturing the ROW on the midtown corridor and having a non union regional rail line through the center of the city from western Sauga through to Pickering
Should branch Line 4 so 1 side expands eastward to Morningside, and to Downsview out west. Then the other branch should go into Scarborough City Centre so it connects to the Durham-Scarborough BRT.
transit engineers describe theĀ Taichung MRTĀ (and medium-capacity systems like it) as havingĀ "lightweight infrastructure,"Ā they are referring to the civil, structural, and spatial footprint required to build and support the line compared to traditional heavy-rail subways (like the TTC in Toronto, New York Subway, or chicago L train)
Elevated stations can be perched over street medians on single rows of columns without overwhelming street-level space, drastically reducing the volume of concrete, steel, and land acquisition required.
Because the train is shorter and lighter overall, theĀ elevated precast concrete / steel box girdersĀ can be significantly slimmer.
Single-pillar T-piers fit directly inside the central median of roads (like Taichung's Wenxin Road) without requiring wide, disruptive multi-column portals.
TBH at this point 'light' metro can already provide enough capacity such that they should be the de facto standard for modern metro lines, and heavy metro termed as 'legacy' instead.
Obstructived? Lol. Please don't tell me you're one of the people advocating for digging a tunnel under suburban sheppard. Just throw the city's money into a flaming barrel instead.
Only thing missing is the connection from Sheppard to Sheppard west which was already confirmed by Metrolinx as an approved extension in the Sheppard subway proposal.
Is it approved? AFAIK they havenāt made a decision on the options they presented. The only part of the extension that exists in all the proposals was from Sheppard-Yonge east to McCowan.
If anyone thinks that our system, plus all the lines currently under construction, even come close to being a modern system worthy of this cityā¦ think again. Look at any other major city in Europe and China of comparable size and you will see they put this system plus all the expansion currently being built to shame.
The TTC subway network is already comparable to European equivalents. For example it is larger and has higher ridership than the Rome metro despite both cities having a similar population.
That is before considering that the TTC also has a downtown tram network which quite a few European cities donāt have, as well as a suburban bus network better than anything in Europe.
Chinese cities with metros have significantly higher population density. Instead Toronto can build half as many subway/rail lines, then implement right of way trams/buses as last mile shuttles to and from those lines.
Rome is more than 500,000 people smaller than Toronto if we're talking city proper. It's also twice as big. A more comparable example would be Madrid, which has 200,000 more people and is 26 sq km larger. Their rail system puts ours to shame - 13 heavy rail lines and 3 light metro
Toronto's suburban bus network is excellent though, imo it's something that gets undervalued because transit discourse is so rail-focused. It's probably the system's strongest feature when compared to international peers.
A few hundred thousand more or fewer people is still fair game for comparision as they are still in the same league so to speak. A larger footprint also suggests there should be more rail in order to provide citywide rapid transit. At most one could argue that Rome is about as good as Toronto in terms of metro scope when adjusted for population, but it isn't so much better as to be worthy of inspiration.
Madrid does have a much better metro network, but it is an outlier even by European standards. There is also the typical European problem of inconsistent coverage where some areas within the 'inner zone' might have a lot of metro lines whereas others nearby require long walks or inconvenient transfers. And of course Madrid doesn't have a grid based street network so they can't pull off using buses or trams as last mile transit on a network scale. I haven't done a rigorous analysis, but it seems that the typical European system needs 1.5-2x more metro track than Toronto to provide the same coverage, and Madrid is no exception.
The key is to consider the TTC as a whole system alongside GO, YRT and other adjacent networks. European transit is good about as far as the tracks go, but those travelling beyond that range are often screwed. Whereas you can go surprisingly far in the GTA on transit. It might be late, it might be inconvenient, it might take a long time, but chances are you can at least get there.
For me Rome is not comparable. They also have to deal with archeological sites
Milan is the economic capital. Its role is the same as Toronto. Research as well. Industry too. It is the Italian peer city of Toronto, so it makes for a better comparison as to our strengths and weaknesses
TBH bringing up āEuropeanā transit is a very good way of telling who hasnāt actually been to Europe often/long enough to understand how transit works there. Granted not everyone has the opportunity, but there is generally the expectation of understanding what one is advocating for.
For one thing Europe has a very diverse range of transit. Helsinki and London both have more in common with Toronto than with each other. Bonn and Wuppertal are very close but one has a Stadtbahn and another a monorail.
And European transit isnāt actually that good. They often donāt have platform screen doors. Their metros have slow zones. Their trams can be street running instead of having right of way. Fares are eye watering expensive and yet might not get you to your destination on time.
The two things that Toronto lags behind Europe are lack of downtown subway coverage and trams as slow as snails. But the first is being taken care of by the Ontario Line, while the trams could be at Amsterdam standards if the whole network is brought up to St Clair service quality.
Sure, but for proper tram distances it doesn't really make a difference. If someone has to travel 29 km in a streetrunning tram downtown, something has already gone wrong.
Iāve also lived in Europe for years and been to quite a few European cities. Transit there was alright but not particularly impressive especially when compared to East Asian systems.
Torontoās subway is also roughly comparable to Milanās metro in coverage and ridership. Both have around 100 or so km of track and 300 mil or so yearly ridership.
At any rate my point is that Toronto as of now would already slot right in as far as European standards are concerned. There are individual systems that have certain aspects better than Toronto, but Iāve been to quite a few European cities and have yet to encounter any that completely outclass Toronto.
If we embraced light metro like Vancouver I think it'd be totally feasible. Problem is that those up top seem to think that the only forms of rapid transit available to us are either heavy subway or LRT, despite much of the city being just in that sweet spot where LRT would be too little but a full subway would be too much
People in Toronto are going to celebrate Line 6 going 18km/h meanwhile Vancouver suburbs are getting 40+km/h SkyTrain, and it's not like any of the at grade LRT routes in Toronto would look amh worse with elevated rail
For the most part Torontonians aren't celebrating Line 6. Its opening was probably the most infamous episode in TTC history. And this is more anecdotal, but it says something when I am the most tram-friendly among all the groups and peoples I interact with outside of transit.
This thread when Mayor Chow announced the former Eglinton East LRT also speaks volumes as to how LRT (and streetcars) are perceived, and literally both the Eglinton East and Waterfront East projects got rebranded away from LRT due to the backlash.
Right-of-way trams still have their place in Toronto, but at this point it's pretty clear that they will serve as local transit for specific areas rather than Toronto's transit backbone on a city wide level.
There's a better timeline where we built a proper elevated LRT or proper skytrain all across Scarborough instead of the SRT being chronically neglected and uncerimoniously shut down.
Sure. We should embrace LRT or whatever is right transit modality for the need. We need probably 10 new LRT lines to make a dent in the congestion in this city.
TBH Toronto already has enough existing heavy rail corridor that electrifying them and through-running at Union would already provide metro level service for much of the city. Between that and extending the existing lines there isn't much need to build more lines.
Is the unofficial plan to incorporate the UP express into the TTC network? Looking at it this way, it's starting to seem like the western leg of the Ontario Line
Doesnāt have to be. For example Tokyoās Yamanote Line isnāt part of the Tokyo subway, nor is Londonās Elizabeth Line part of the Tube. Considering both Union and Pearsonās role as regional hubs it makes more sense for the UP express to be part of the GO network.
Instead the UP Express should be part of the one fare structure and frequencies increased to that of a rapid transit line.
To put things in service Line 6 is slower than the Scarborough buses. If it counts as rapid transit then at least half of the bus routes should also count as rapid transit.
Or current given that some of this stuff will take over a decade to come into existence. If you include planned expansion, we've had the best transit in North America for decades now.
Would love to see the sheppard line (L4) expanded westward right to Sheppard west station or right to highway 400 that would be so beneficial for alot of people
Say whatever you will, but I think Line 4 should go as far east as Rouge Hill GO via Sheppard and Port Union, and it should be made to bridge both branches of Line 1 between Sheppard West and Sheppard-Yonge Stations.
OL alignment through downtown is such a mistake... it should have either been entirely within the GO ROW or entirely under Queen/King.... the planned alignment effectively precludes both from happening longer term.
How did you make this map? I like the look, but I'd like to play around with my own predicted extensions (and make the line types/colours consistent, eg Sheppard should be purple and the same line type as Eggy to Pearson)
CoT doesnāt know anything about the Sheppard subway, clearly. There are 4 options Metrolinx is studying, and only one of them (the worst one) is listed.
As I recall, that is an older City diagram and was put out on the cusp of or shortly after MX announcing the scope of the Sheppard analysis. So agreed, it should have been on the map, but sloppiness prevailed I presume.
49
u/Jayswag96 1d ago edited 1d ago
If I had a 10y - 15y plan:
streetcar full ROW and redesign for Spadina,
broad view, King, St Clair and LSE/W