Line 1 is not one line
Toronto’s Line 1 is unique, even among U-shaped lines. In the long term, treating it as two different lines would eliminate more confusion than it would create. Put down your pitchfork and hear me out.
Why
Sometimes, the way a transit network is operated disagrees with the way it’s used. This can be accommodated by aligning public-facing information with passenger usage at the expense of fidelity to operations. For example, two similar services might share a number if they share a common trunk and destination, or a single service might change its number and destination at a major intermediate node through which few passengers stay onboard. As a friend of mine put it, “you can lie to the user to help them.”
A U-shaped line is not typically the fastest way to travel between its endpoints, even without accounting for faster transit modes. Its extremes act like parts of two separate lines—two separate sequences of stops with no practical direct connection to each other—which come together at a common “bowl” where riders from both extremes intermingle. But this bowl often represents a lengthy portion of the overall line with nebulous limits and the most concentrated ridership, so it makes sense to treat the line as a singular line. After all, even straight lines rarely see much end-to-end travel.
Line 1 is not a typical U-shaped line. Here, the trade-off scale tips the other way. Zooming out of downtown to look at Toronto in full, the U gives way to a narrow, pointy V shape. The “bowl” is only a few stations long with a clear apex at Union, the most prominent node in its vicinity.
Certainly, by Line 1’s next rapid transit connections (to Line 2 at Bloor Street), the network’s shape is such that there’s almost never a reason to ride around the U, even accounting for an extra change of trains. From the perspective of a Line 2 rider, each Line 1 interchange offers connection to one of two distinct sets of stations with only Union in common. If we accept that a transit line is in essence a sequence of stations, then we see that Line 1 interacts with Line 2 — indeed, with virtually all of Toronto’s transit network — as two different lines with at most a few stations’ overlap.
The advent of faster shortcuts farther south across Line 1 stands to amplify this effect by further reducing the need to travel around the U. These include the Ontario Line, inevitably, and improved and usable downtown streetcars, optimistically.
Even the TTC’s own communications reflect the line’s unusual dual character.
- Southbound trains on the Yonge line are variously signed for Vaughan, Union, or Vaughan via Union (swap “Finch” for “Vaughan” on the University line). It’s little wonder that these signs are often accompanied by the word “SOUTH” scribbled on a wall by a rider who’s had enough. Identifying directions by terminal names is best practice, but they’ve got to be consistent and intuitive.
- The two parts of Line 1’s long-form name, “Yonge-University Line”, appear separately at Union station, where cardinal directions can’t meaningfully supplement destination names. Even where Line 1 is actually the fastest way to both of its terminals, it’s clear there’s value in distinguishing the two segments as separate units.
- When a central section of Line 1 closes for scheduled works, announcements direct passengers to take surface transit from stations on “the Yonge side of Line 1” or “the University side of Line 1”. Again, it’s understood that these are unambiguous and useful concepts for the riding public.
The TTC numbered its subway lines in 2014 with the objective of supplanting unwieldy line names that weigh down signage and communications. The continued official use of “Yonge Line” and “University Line” to convey meaning not accommodated by the numbered system indicates that the “Line 1” moniker is failing to meet the very objective that brought it about.
How
Splitting Line 1 is an exercise in balancing the needs of the greater network with the needs of riders travelling to and from the core. In Monterrey, the Mexican city with a metro network similar to Toronto’s in shape, Lines 2 and 3 simply meet head-on at their southernmost station, Zaragoza. Despite the lines sharing a bowl several stations wide without such a clear apex as our Union station, the system makes no concession that trains run through the station and onto the other line.
Monterrey demonstrates that this can be done in a system like ours to some effect. A Line 1 rider knows without much effort whether to change trains at Cuauhtémoc or Félix U. Gómez because the intersecting line numbers correspond neatly to the different sets of stations optimally reached from each interchange. But it also illustrates the need for clarity where operations diverge from wayfinding material. Notice the two lines under construction, 4 and 6, which will meet Line 3 at Santa Lucía. The clean Line 2/Line 3 split at Zaragoza gives the misleading appearance that Line 2 will lack a direct connection to Lines 4 and 6. In fact, these lines can be reached by staying on a Line 2 train as it joins Line 3 and exiting at Santa Lucía.
Some verbal or graphic acknowledgement of the through-running operation—a colour gradient, a callout box, an announcement onboard—would do much to prevent confusion. But the most complete solution is to overlay the lines for a short distance, with trains changing their displayed line as they enter the bowl. Most boarding passengers are travelling beyond the core, and passengers already onboard don’t know or care how their train is signed, so trains within the bowl should always appear outbound.
Sydney is among the cities that employ this strategy. Lines T2 and T8 form a through service around the City Circle, pinching at Central station before heading off in different directions. Like Toronto’s Line 1, this is not a service meant to be ridden all the way through—a single train calls at Central twice in its journey, carrying a completely new set of riders the second time around. Splitting the service into two lines that are concurrent in the City Circle best reflects how riders use the service by separately identifying the long, entirely distinct tails that radiate outbound from Central.
Line 1’s equivalent “pinch point”, by which its two sides should be fully distinguished, is the latitude at which it’s reliably faster to travel across the U than around it. Accounting for the future Ontario Line, the pinch point is Queen Street. (I’ve chosen to ignore station access and transfer penalties because it’s difficult to accommodate different penalties for those approaching the area on Line 1, on the Ontario Line, on surface transit, and on foot.)
This is how the network would look:
By minimizing the overlap to a three-station segment, we localize the added complexity to a small and simple part of the transit network where the through-running service is most relevant to riders’ decisions. This is a small price to pay for a clearer transit network at large. The Line 2 rider no longer thinks about which Line 1 interchange leads to their target Line 1 station. Southbound trains and signage make no mention of destinations and connections best reached by travelling in the opposite direction. “Yonge Line” and “University Line” are relieved of their awkward, ad-hoc official usage by a system of line numbers that actually matches the way riders use the network.
Here are some examples of these improvements on wayfinding signage:
Thanks for reading this first post of my new blog! I’ve got more thoughts brewing about transit nomenclature, wayfinding, and the like, so you’ll want to subscribe for email updates. You can also find me on Bluesky and at fernkhahn.com.
