You are absolutely correct: the SAS should have PSDs, and it is feasible. This is not a technical problem, nor is it limited by the rolling stock or signals (though standardized trains and CBTC would make it much easier). It is 100% at the mercy of attitude and operational stubbornness of the MTA. The recent PSD pilot program was set up to fail and was ill-fated from the start.
I wrote a post about the PSD Pilot Program and why we will wont have PSDs until the MTA makes serious changes.
This is great. The MTA needs to be constantly pressured to change it's ways and modernize. Even other places that see themselves as constantly behind are way ahead!
By the time SAS2 opens, the entire B division should be 60-ft NTTs, so only a single door positioning. And CBTC for SAS 1 and 2 is planned for Phase 2, so that shouldn't be a problem either. There's literally no excuses not to do it.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Avenue_Subway) "In early plans, the Second Avenue Subway was also to have platform screen doors to assist with air-cooling, energy savings, ventilation, and track safety,[170] but this plan was scrapped in 2012 as cost-prohibitive.[171] Platform screen doors may be constructed at Phase 2 stations depending on the results of studies being conducted for their installation elsewhere.[144]: 15 "
Screen doors have always been needed. They are a valuable addition to any subway or train station. The most important point you make is the importance of New York constructing them as proof of construct. It's crazy how the USA has required seat belts in cars, and then regulated safety more so by requiring air bags. And yet, we haven't demanded screen doors, which is something that would make a subway platform much, much safer. In D.C., I stand way back from that yellow strip--just in case. These strips remind me of bike sharrows, which do very little to protect cyclists from danger. Just make the platforms safer!
It is surprising. Like with a lot of things its a modern transit technology that seems like it would disproportionately help the US, but has not really been deployed there.
Screen doors seem like a clear win, but they also seem to be an easy thing to value engineer out. I like your take: would we consider elevator doors a nice to have? Of course not - they're obviously massive for safety and the perception of safety.
I think more and more that innovation and inspiration will come not from the biggest cities, but from the next tier. This is already happening in Canada where both Montreal and Vancouver are moving well ahead of Toronto on a pound for pound basis. Perhaps the same can be said for Portland, Seattle, and perhaps LA, which seem to be leaders in the States.
I agree vision is what's needed in both Toronto and NYC, alongside much lower construction costs. What worries me about both cities is that while more infrastructure is clearly needed, there does not seem to be a vision or principle behind what infrastructure projects should be pursued. Or more succinctly, what is the goal for transit in each city?
For New York, they have built lots of stuff, just for way too much money. And the wrong priorities were chosen: East Side Access and a new platform under Grand Central LOST riders and saved no travel time for riders. Palatial stations that cost several billion (World Trade Centre for one) but didn't add service. It seems to be too driven by what ribbon cuttings can happen, seemingly much more than other places. Even Second Ave. spent huge sums on big station boxes that don't meaningfully improve the service. It comes down to a lack of higher principles on how to help lots of riders have faster, more convenient trips.
Toronto spent about twenty years fighting about building subways or streetcars/ LRT, as if this was the main question (as you've pointed out both sides had strong and weak arguments). In the end, some questionable subways and some questionable streetcars were built. Is there actual value spending that much money to bring a few subway stations to Scarborough? Why were suburban expansions prioritized over Downtown Relief / Ontario Line? Is the Ontario Line the right approach (maybe?) or are the trains undersized? Will Eglington be fast enough to help get people across the region, or is it just another subway feeder? Are we only about feeding the subway?
I've been pouring over maps of Toronto and after the Ontario Line is built and Eglington opens, my question is basically what are the OBVIOUS priorities after that? GO improvement, yes, but this seems massively hampered by capacity issues at Union Station, where there are no easy fixes. Plus the institutional issues and lack of ambition are slowing the evolution of GO towards more of a regional model, like say the RER in Paris. There are a bunch of decent infrastructure projects that might go forward - mostly extensions of existing subways or streetcars, including pushing Eglington farther east and west. But are there any clear game changers to do?
Perhaps that sounds too simplistic for a metro that is near 7 million people, anchoring a region that is perhaps over 9 million depending on what you count as GTA+. But what are the next clear winning projects in Toronto? Not home runs, but what doubles should we try to hit? I don't see obvious great projects in the same way there are in other cities, partly because the projects built or under construction have been chosen through such a haphazard political mess. And then we add on the cost issue which make it harder to build the volume of projects that likely needed.
Maybe it's ok that all the next strong projects in Toronto may be modest, but going back to the lack of a clear goal for transit, it seems likely there will be a struggle for all the players to keep moving the football down the field if you will. Finch West and Eglington issues have burned so much political capital and good will ... this matters a lot. If the needed wins are small and incremental, political capital is really important.
And I keep coming back to something that should happen in Toronto, that does not seem to be a priority or enough on the radar: improving surface transit of all types. It is likely low-hanging fruit, e.g. don't allow left-turns in front of streetcars at some major intersection. But the politics are so rough. The legacy streetcar system is an incredible asset in terms of capacity, legibility, destinations served, and a nice smooth ride. But running at 12 km/ hour, or even less on the busiest downtown streets, is brutal. I don't see any real political will or institutional ability to address this issue. Same with bus routes - Toronto has some beautiful, wide streets where queue jumps and/or signal priority could make a difference. But lacking a holistic vision, beyond just building things that seem politically expedient, this opportunity - which is not all or nothing at all - is missed. Which means the big rail projects underway will be less useful, since the whole thing functions as a network.
In contrast, while neither Vancouver or Montreal are perfect, Vancouver takes on-street routes seriously and is continually working on speed, reliability, and frequency. This means B-lines, proposed BRT, and also changes to conventional routes. TransLink make them better where they can. Montreal's buses need big work, but the city has an overall idea of how to use street space and the ability to change things up. That thinking about street space could make a big difference if applied year over year to bus priority. And while no means great for cost or timeliness, I was impressed by the hard infrastructure and frequency of the BRT line on Pie-IX, which is being expanded. Perfect - no. Great, probably not. Frequent and reliable - yep! They are working on something similar for Henri-Bourrasa Blvd., which is a major crosstown.
Sorry to have derailed a post on NYC into all the things Toronto misses. But both cities - NYC and Toronto - really don't seem to have strong transit principles: more service, quick service, focusing on the pressing issues, addressing critical network gaps, using street space and money wisely. Individual bad decisions stem from confusion about what to do with transit, where, and why. Most cities are not good at those convos, but NYC and Toronto are very visibly struggling with those convos.
Great comments, and you nail a lot of serious issues. That being said, I would maybe not be so down on the stuff Toronto is building. Eglinton shouldn't have the surface section, Finch should be way faster, but besides that the projects are mostly good. I think the issue is more as you say that we don't get a ton of small details with things like surface transit operations and priorities right.
Re. future projects, I recently did a series of several posts in UrbanToronto on just this!
Fair: it's too easy to dunk on Toronto transit issues of late. And dunking on Toronto is broadly a national sport, anyways, so the pile-on gets intense.
Thanks for the link to Urban Toronto - I like the idea of sending the Dundas line west into Mississauga, creating a critical crosstown link, while also serving underserved areas on the way. I had never thought of that - seems like solid built up area along the way to Mississauga. That link would get at some of my crosstown connection concerns, but it's still quite far south. And Sheppard is so far north. So still big gaps, but again, Canada broadly took a big break in investing consistently in rapid transit for both Montreal and Toronto.
I am an amateur on Toronto, but a western extension of the Ontario Line seems like a good idea, but would it not be better to choose an alignment closer to Downtown? Something like Ossington - more density for the most frequent transit on offer in the region. It might be tomoto-tomatoe versus what you proposed and again, I am far from an expert on Toronto neigbhourhoods. But I am very big on putting the highest performing rapid transit where it is needed most not just where it is nice to have (hence my critiques on Toronto broadly).
After all your proposals, the big gap to my eyes is still Lawrence and getting faster transit going crosstown here. I've never seen anything on the books, but rail rapid transit on Lawrence would be a tough sell after investing in tunnels under Eglington just 2 km south. Hopefully Eglington surprises and delivers high speeds to justify it being labelled rapid transit - that would be huge.
Did you see the 'Better Billion' report for NYC from Marco Chitti, Alon Levy, et al?
You are absolutely correct: the SAS should have PSDs, and it is feasible. This is not a technical problem, nor is it limited by the rolling stock or signals (though standardized trains and CBTC would make it much easier). It is 100% at the mercy of attitude and operational stubbornness of the MTA. The recent PSD pilot program was set up to fail and was ill-fated from the start.
I wrote a post about the PSD Pilot Program and why we will wont have PSDs until the MTA makes serious changes.
https://substack.com/@aaronshavel/p-160061956
This is great. The MTA needs to be constantly pressured to change it's ways and modernize. Even other places that see themselves as constantly behind are way ahead!
By the time SAS2 opens, the entire B division should be 60-ft NTTs, so only a single door positioning. And CBTC for SAS 1 and 2 is planned for Phase 2, so that shouldn't be a problem either. There's literally no excuses not to do it.
Yeah exactly! I would say things like this with more confidence but with NY there are often weird edge cases and operating practices.
Yes PSDs are a good idea. According to Wikipedia
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Avenue_Subway) "In early plans, the Second Avenue Subway was also to have platform screen doors to assist with air-cooling, energy savings, ventilation, and track safety,[170] but this plan was scrapped in 2012 as cost-prohibitive.[171] Platform screen doors may be constructed at Phase 2 stations depending on the results of studies being conducted for their installation elsewhere.[144]: 15 "
Cost prohibitive, yet somehow Italy, and Korea put them in *and* build the subway for a fifth the price or less.
Screen doors have always been needed. They are a valuable addition to any subway or train station. The most important point you make is the importance of New York constructing them as proof of construct. It's crazy how the USA has required seat belts in cars, and then regulated safety more so by requiring air bags. And yet, we haven't demanded screen doors, which is something that would make a subway platform much, much safer. In D.C., I stand way back from that yellow strip--just in case. These strips remind me of bike sharrows, which do very little to protect cyclists from danger. Just make the platforms safer!
It is surprising. Like with a lot of things its a modern transit technology that seems like it would disproportionately help the US, but has not really been deployed there.
Paris added Screen doors to 100 years-old lines with no major problems. New York can and should for this price.
Probably not the same price, but also not whats been suggested.
I don't like to think about it a lot because in general public transit is much safer than driving, but NYC has a lot of deaths from subway collisions... 97 in 2023. Thanks for writing about this. https://www.thecity.nyc/2024/04/11/mta-operators-subway-collisions-mental-health/
Its safer, but thats like saying we shouldn't have air bags in cars because we already have seatbelts!
Screen doors seem like a clear win, but they also seem to be an easy thing to value engineer out. I like your take: would we consider elevator doors a nice to have? Of course not - they're obviously massive for safety and the perception of safety.
I think more and more that innovation and inspiration will come not from the biggest cities, but from the next tier. This is already happening in Canada where both Montreal and Vancouver are moving well ahead of Toronto on a pound for pound basis. Perhaps the same can be said for Portland, Seattle, and perhaps LA, which seem to be leaders in the States.
I agree vision is what's needed in both Toronto and NYC, alongside much lower construction costs. What worries me about both cities is that while more infrastructure is clearly needed, there does not seem to be a vision or principle behind what infrastructure projects should be pursued. Or more succinctly, what is the goal for transit in each city?
For New York, they have built lots of stuff, just for way too much money. And the wrong priorities were chosen: East Side Access and a new platform under Grand Central LOST riders and saved no travel time for riders. Palatial stations that cost several billion (World Trade Centre for one) but didn't add service. It seems to be too driven by what ribbon cuttings can happen, seemingly much more than other places. Even Second Ave. spent huge sums on big station boxes that don't meaningfully improve the service. It comes down to a lack of higher principles on how to help lots of riders have faster, more convenient trips.
Toronto spent about twenty years fighting about building subways or streetcars/ LRT, as if this was the main question (as you've pointed out both sides had strong and weak arguments). In the end, some questionable subways and some questionable streetcars were built. Is there actual value spending that much money to bring a few subway stations to Scarborough? Why were suburban expansions prioritized over Downtown Relief / Ontario Line? Is the Ontario Line the right approach (maybe?) or are the trains undersized? Will Eglington be fast enough to help get people across the region, or is it just another subway feeder? Are we only about feeding the subway?
I've been pouring over maps of Toronto and after the Ontario Line is built and Eglington opens, my question is basically what are the OBVIOUS priorities after that? GO improvement, yes, but this seems massively hampered by capacity issues at Union Station, where there are no easy fixes. Plus the institutional issues and lack of ambition are slowing the evolution of GO towards more of a regional model, like say the RER in Paris. There are a bunch of decent infrastructure projects that might go forward - mostly extensions of existing subways or streetcars, including pushing Eglington farther east and west. But are there any clear game changers to do?
Perhaps that sounds too simplistic for a metro that is near 7 million people, anchoring a region that is perhaps over 9 million depending on what you count as GTA+. But what are the next clear winning projects in Toronto? Not home runs, but what doubles should we try to hit? I don't see obvious great projects in the same way there are in other cities, partly because the projects built or under construction have been chosen through such a haphazard political mess. And then we add on the cost issue which make it harder to build the volume of projects that likely needed.
Maybe it's ok that all the next strong projects in Toronto may be modest, but going back to the lack of a clear goal for transit, it seems likely there will be a struggle for all the players to keep moving the football down the field if you will. Finch West and Eglington issues have burned so much political capital and good will ... this matters a lot. If the needed wins are small and incremental, political capital is really important.
And I keep coming back to something that should happen in Toronto, that does not seem to be a priority or enough on the radar: improving surface transit of all types. It is likely low-hanging fruit, e.g. don't allow left-turns in front of streetcars at some major intersection. But the politics are so rough. The legacy streetcar system is an incredible asset in terms of capacity, legibility, destinations served, and a nice smooth ride. But running at 12 km/ hour, or even less on the busiest downtown streets, is brutal. I don't see any real political will or institutional ability to address this issue. Same with bus routes - Toronto has some beautiful, wide streets where queue jumps and/or signal priority could make a difference. But lacking a holistic vision, beyond just building things that seem politically expedient, this opportunity - which is not all or nothing at all - is missed. Which means the big rail projects underway will be less useful, since the whole thing functions as a network.
In contrast, while neither Vancouver or Montreal are perfect, Vancouver takes on-street routes seriously and is continually working on speed, reliability, and frequency. This means B-lines, proposed BRT, and also changes to conventional routes. TransLink make them better where they can. Montreal's buses need big work, but the city has an overall idea of how to use street space and the ability to change things up. That thinking about street space could make a big difference if applied year over year to bus priority. And while no means great for cost or timeliness, I was impressed by the hard infrastructure and frequency of the BRT line on Pie-IX, which is being expanded. Perfect - no. Great, probably not. Frequent and reliable - yep! They are working on something similar for Henri-Bourrasa Blvd., which is a major crosstown.
Sorry to have derailed a post on NYC into all the things Toronto misses. But both cities - NYC and Toronto - really don't seem to have strong transit principles: more service, quick service, focusing on the pressing issues, addressing critical network gaps, using street space and money wisely. Individual bad decisions stem from confusion about what to do with transit, where, and why. Most cities are not good at those convos, but NYC and Toronto are very visibly struggling with those convos.
Great comments, and you nail a lot of serious issues. That being said, I would maybe not be so down on the stuff Toronto is building. Eglinton shouldn't have the surface section, Finch should be way faster, but besides that the projects are mostly good. I think the issue is more as you say that we don't get a ton of small details with things like surface transit operations and priorities right.
Re. future projects, I recently did a series of several posts in UrbanToronto on just this!
https://urbantoronto.ca/news/2026/01/next-round-transit-gtha-subways.60213
Fair: it's too easy to dunk on Toronto transit issues of late. And dunking on Toronto is broadly a national sport, anyways, so the pile-on gets intense.
Thanks for the link to Urban Toronto - I like the idea of sending the Dundas line west into Mississauga, creating a critical crosstown link, while also serving underserved areas on the way. I had never thought of that - seems like solid built up area along the way to Mississauga. That link would get at some of my crosstown connection concerns, but it's still quite far south. And Sheppard is so far north. So still big gaps, but again, Canada broadly took a big break in investing consistently in rapid transit for both Montreal and Toronto.
I am an amateur on Toronto, but a western extension of the Ontario Line seems like a good idea, but would it not be better to choose an alignment closer to Downtown? Something like Ossington - more density for the most frequent transit on offer in the region. It might be tomoto-tomatoe versus what you proposed and again, I am far from an expert on Toronto neigbhourhoods. But I am very big on putting the highest performing rapid transit where it is needed most not just where it is nice to have (hence my critiques on Toronto broadly).
After all your proposals, the big gap to my eyes is still Lawrence and getting faster transit going crosstown here. I've never seen anything on the books, but rail rapid transit on Lawrence would be a tough sell after investing in tunnels under Eglington just 2 km south. Hopefully Eglington surprises and delivers high speeds to justify it being labelled rapid transit - that would be huge.
Did you see the 'Better Billion' report for NYC from Marco Chitti, Alon Levy, et al?
Have many American subways moved over to open gangways?
Almost none. It's basically just a few trains in NYC
Boo.