[Aplus23]

So with a northern extension, how would they get past that rail bridge that's on Don Mills just north of the station?

Would they go above the bridge? Temporarily remake or relocate the bridge?

I'm actually more egar for this extension then the actual line. We should be in the design phase now for this extension, instead of trying to build 15-20+ KM in one shot, we should be systematically extending the lines we already have. Go improvement would also be kinda transformational

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

Yeah while I can somewhat understand grouping different lines together by color when they essentially branch off each other, I never understood their logic of assigning letter names that aren't grouped together (like why ACE, BDFM, etc, instead of ABC, DEFG, etc??).


Spot on.

Should be remembered that New York City used to be run by 3 different companies, now divisions. IRT (Interborough Rapid Transit) was the first subway line, while BMT (Brooklyn-Manhattan Transit) and IND (Independent Subway System) were later additions. Today, the IRT lines are primarily known as the A Division, and the BMT and IND lines are combined as the B Division. IRT lines are generally narrower and use smaller train cars than the BMT and IND lines, which are combined into the B Division.

Maybe for Toronto Lines 1, 2, and 4, being the original subway lines, they should be considered their own division for the TTC. Line 5 and Line 6 trains cannot run on the original lines, so should be their own different division. The Ontario Line 3 trains cannot run on any other line (so far this century), so should be their own division. Maybe the numbers, letters, and/or symbol should reflect the division they are in.

 

[81-717]

Should be remembered that New York City used to be run by 3 different companies, now divisions. IRT (Interborough Rapid Transit) was the first subway line, while BMT (Brooklyn-Manhattan Transit) and IND (Independent Subway System) were later additions. Today, the IRT lines are primarily known as the A Division, and the BMT and IND lines are combined as the B Division. IRT lines are generally narrower and use smaller train cars than the BMT and IND lines, which are combined into the B Division.

I know the divide between the A & B divisions, but that doesn't explain the grouping of letters within the B division (the A division, on the other hand, is grouped sequentially 1–3, 4–6 and 7).

Maybe for Toronto Lines 1, 2, and 4, being the original subway lines, they should be considered their own division for the TTC. Line 5 and Line 6 trains cannot run on the original lines, so should be their own different division. The Ontario Line 3 trains cannot run on any other line (so far this century), so should be their own division. Maybe the numbers, letters, and/or symbol should reflect the division they are in.

That's why I was originally advocating for the 4 to be renumbered as 3, and the OL to become 4, to group the 3 TTC lines together, though I also understand the logic of keeping the numbers as is. It's just such a damn shame the OL isn't being built as an extension of the TTC division, which would make this a non-issue. And in general, I hate this new trend of building every single new line as a standalone line rather than as part of a single interconnected network. Even NYC's A & B divisions are more interconnected (to each other) than that.

 

[A 6264]

Should be remembered that New York City used to be run by 3 different companies, now divisions. IRT (Interborough Rapid Transit) was the first subway line, while BMT (Brooklyn-Manhattan Transit) and IND (Independent Subway System) were later additions. Today, the IRT lines are primarily known as the A Division, and the BMT and IND lines are combined as the B Division. IRT lines are generally narrower and use smaller train cars than the BMT and IND lines, which are combined into the B Division.

Maybe for Toronto Lines 1, 2, and 4, being the original subway lines, they should be considered their own division for the TTC. Line 5 and Line 6 trains cannot run on the original lines, so should be their own different division. The Ontario Line 3 trains cannot run on any other line (so far this century), so should be their own division. Maybe the numbers, letters, and/or symbol should reflect the division they are in.

The Triangle Line, the Square Line, the Button Line? I actually like it! But I'm betting some people look at the route map and say, "that doesn't look like a triangle or square to me".

 

[A 6264]

So with a northern extension, how would they get past that rail bridge that's on Don Mills just north of the station?

Would they go above the bridge? Temporarily remake or relocate the bridge?

I'm actually more egar for this extension then the actual line. We should be in the design phase now for this extension, instead of trying to build 15-20+ KM in one shot, we should be systematically extending the lines we already have. Go improvement would also be kinda transformational

The only reason the bridge is there, is so Don Mills Road can dip down under the train tracks, which are actually at ground level. So, over the tracks and next to the bridge is the answer, no need to make the OL track higher.

 

[nfitz]

The only reason the bridge is there, is so Don Mills Road can dip down under the train tracks, which are actually at ground level. So, over the tracks and next to the bridge is the answer, no need to make the OL track higher.

The track will already be relatively high to get over Wynford Road (shame it's too close to Eglinton for a station). And elevated over Barber Greene/Greenbelt (might need to be in the centre of there). I wouldn't be surprised if the elevation over the CP tracks is just a bit lower than it would be at Wynford and Barber Greene!

 

[JSF-1]

I know the divide between the A & B divisions, but that doesn't explain the grouping of letters within the B division (the A division, on the other hand, is grouped sequentially 1–3, 4–6 and 7).


That's why I was originally advocating for the 4 to be renumbered as 3, and the OL to become 4, to group the 3 TTC lines together, though I also understand the logic of keeping the numbers as is. It's just such a damn shame the OL isn't being built as an extension of the TTC division, which would make this a non-issue. And in general, I hate this new trend of building every single new line as a standalone line rather than as part of a single interconnected network. Even NYC's A & B divisions are more interconnected (to each other) than that.

Honestly I would just do away with the numbers and go with the Japanese system of lettering the lines and numbering the stations.

Y = Yonge-University (Y01 Vaughan, Y02 Highway 407, etc)
B = Bloor-Danforth (B01 Kipling, B02 Islington, etc)
N = Ontario (N01 Exhibition, N02 King-Bathurst, etc) (I'm using N as it wouldn't be good to use O as then you would end up with stations numbers like O01, O02, O03, etc)
S = Sheppard (S01 Sheppard-Yonge, S02 Bayview, etc)
E = Eginton (E01 Mount Dennis, E02 Keelesdale, etc)
F = Finch West (F01 Humber College, F02 Westmore, etc)
H = Hazel Mccallion (H01 Port Credit, H02 Mineola, etc)
J = (reserved for the Jane line if ever built as a separate line)
M = (reserved for the Eglinton East Line. Since "E" is already taken perhaps we rename the Eglinton East line to the Malvern Line).

We could do the same for the GO Train network as well.
LE = Lake Shore East
LW = Lake Shore West
ST = Stouffville
RH = Richmond Hill
BR = Barrie
KT = Kitchener
ML = Milton
UP = Union-Pearson Express
BL = (reserved for the Bolton Line)
MT = (reserved for the Midtown Line) (PB is also an option if the line runs to Peterborough)

Something like this basically:

I prefer this type of system since not only does the numbering making navigating the system easier but the icons eliminate any ambiguity. The large bold letter(s) in the centre is what the eye gravitates towards first with the colour acting as a boarder drawing the eye to the centre while still helping the icon stand out against the others.. It also allows for similar colours to be used closer together since the letter(s) become focal point and are seen before the colour.

 

[Dan416]

GO basically already does what you suggest (except MI instead of your ML for Milton, and KI instead of your KT for Kitchener).

 

[ShonTron]

Honestly I would just do away with the numbers and go with the Japanese system of lettering the lines and numbering the stations.

Y = Yonge-University (Y01 Vaughan, Y02 Highway 407, etc)
B = Bloor-Danforth (B01 Kipling, B02 Islington, etc)
N = Ontario (N01 Exhibition, N02 King-Bathurst, etc) (I'm using N as it wouldn't be good to use O as then you would end up with stations numbers like O01, O02, O03, etc)
S = Sheppard (S01 Sheppard-Yonge, S02 Bayview, etc)
E = Eginton (E01 Mount Dennis, E02 Keelesdale, etc)
F = Finch West (F01 Humber College, F02 Westmore, etc)
H = Hazel Mccallion (H01 Port Credit, H02 Mineola, etc)
J = (reserved for the Jane line if ever built as a separate line)
M = (reserved for the Eglinton East Line. Since "E" is already taken perhaps we rename the Eglinton East line to the Malvern Line).

We could do the same for the GO Train network as well.
LE = Lake Shore East
LW = Lake Shore West
ST = Stouffville
RH = Richmond Hill
BR = Barrie
KT = Kitchener
ML = Milton
UP = Union-Pearson Express
BL = (reserved for the Bolton Line)
MT = (reserved for the Midtown Line) (PB is also an option if the line runs to Peterborough)

Something like this basically:
View attachment 660774
I prefer this type of system since not only does the numbering making navigating the system easier but the icons eliminate any ambiguity. The large bold letter(s) in the centre is what the eye gravitates towards first with the colour acting as a boarder drawing the eye to the centre while still helping the icon stand out against the others.. It also allows for similar colours to be used closer together since the letter(s) become focal point and are seen before the colour.

H stands for Hurontario, not for the crooked racist dead mayor!

 

[Johnny Au]

I would prefer the numbering scheme to go from the central outwards to allow for extensions from any direction without having to renumber all the stations after extensions open.

The central station would be given the number 0. Cardinal directions would be added after.

For example, Line 1's 0 station would be Union. 1W would be St. Andrew. 1E would be King.

Line 2's 0 station would be Bloor-Yonge.

Ontario Line's 0 station would be Queen (at Yonge).

Line 4's 0 station would be Sheppard-Yonge.

Line 5's 0 station would be Eglinton.

Line 6's 0 station would be Finch West.

The Hurontario Line's 0 station would be Mississauga City Centre.

Eglinton East LRT's 0 station would be Kennedy (on Lines 2 and 5).

Jane LRT's 0 station would be Eglinton Flats.

All GO Train lines' 0 station would be Union.

Infill stations would be given A, B, C, etc. (in order of opening) between the number and the cardinal direction.

Loop lines would have cardinal directions be C (for clockwise) and A (for anticlockwise or counter-clockwise).

 

[dowlingm]

The only reason the bridge is there, is so Don Mills Road can dip down under the train tracks, which are actually at ground level. So, over the tracks and next to the bridge is the answer, no need to make the OL track higher.

Because my kid is at Don Mills MS I have had a lot of occasion to look at this. Going under or through the CP embankment and continuing as tunnel until the Donway is what makes sense to me given the steeply rising topography and the sharp drop down towards Lawrence, during which a jog to the west side and the Shops of Don Mills parking lots would likely be preferable. Not easy, which is why I think we will be waiting some time for it. It might have been simpler if the phase 1 alignment had never come to the east side of Don Mills, but we are where we are.

 

[81-717]

I would prefer the numbering scheme to go from the central outwards to allow for extensions from any direction without having to renumber all the stations after extensions open.

The central station would be given the number 0. Cardinal directions would be added after.

For example, Line 1's 0 station would be Union. 1W would be St. Andrew. 1E would be King.

Agreed, I always think of line 1 as "starting" at Union and "ending" at Finch & Vaughan, rather than "starting" at Finch, going all the way "down" to Union & back "up" and "ending" in Vaughan or vice versa.

 

[Dan416]

At the risk of sounding like another poster on here by posting something from back in the day, but this is probably because it originally *did* start at Union. So I think it is fair to say that it "starts" at Union.

 

[A 6264]

Because my kid is at Don Mills MS I have had a lot of occasion to look at this. Going under or through the CP embankment and continuing as tunnel until the Donway is what makes sense to me given the steeply rising topography and the sharp drop down towards Lawrence, during which a jog to the west side and the Shops of Don Mills parking lots would likely be preferable. Not easy, which is why I think we will be waiting some time for it. It might have been simpler if the phase 1 alignment had never come to the east side of Don Mills, but we are where we are.

Agreed, I don't get it either. They are building a whole new neighbourhood in the northwest corner of Don Mills and Eglinton, and they call it Crosstown AFTER the transit line, so they should have planned the neighbourhood around the transit line plans. I was surprised when they let a big office building get built right in the way of where the line would have been under the original plan to use the west side of Don Mills only, and by that I mean that in phase 1, there was likelly always a plan to extend the tracks beyond the station as a place to park trains.

As for the issue of tunnelling vs. elevated vs. ground level, everyone seems to agree tunnelling is best, but it's also the most expensive, so not feasible. As a general rule, of course. We haven't had much in the way of elevated lines in Toronto, except for bridges, and a small section of the Scarborough LRT, which was, at the time of its contruction, built in the middle of nowhere, almost like being out in the country. It will be interesting to see how well an elevated line will be accepted and integrated in a more populated area, assuming that at any day now, they tear down the Science Centre and condos go up in its place, right behind the elevated line.

 

[PShells]

I still hate that 3 is now a purple-ish colour. As much as I like blue, I didn't need them to make line 10 blue. Did we really need 2 purple lines? Let's be honest, Metrolinx is atrocious at naming stations (West Harbour, East Harbour, Allandale, Old Elm, Eglinton, Cedarvale--which I had to look up because I couldn't remember the name) and now they're terrible at assigning colours to lines as well.

Hey now…that elm tree at the end of the Stouffville line is a beauty.