Among several reports on their recent meeting agenda, the TTC Board considered an update on the various Metrolinx projects that will add to Toronto’s rapid transit system: the Ontario Line, plus extensions to Line 1 (Richmond Hill), 2 (Scarborough) and 5 (Eglinton West). These are all grand projects collectively worth billions, but discussion turned to capacity problems on the existing subway, especially Line 1 Yonge-University-Spadina.

In the Line 1 section of the Major Projects Update for April 30, 2026, TTC staff warn of risks about future capacity constraints:

• The YNSE Project currently includes a new train storage facility, which will provide additional storage and dispatching capacity for up to 15 trains, but no maintenance capacity. Based on a fleet of 84 trains after YNSE opening, the maintenance capacity of Line 1 facilities will be completely consumed and will exceed available capacity.
• Separate long-term travel models from Metrolinx and the City of Toronto agree that prior to 2051, Line 1 service levels, which can be operated with 73 in-service trains will not be sufficient to serve the anticipated demand in the peak hour, while meeting the TTC’s crowding standard. The precise time when additional trains are needed to serve demand on Line 1 is largely affected by how quickly development activity occurs and what the long-term work-from-home pattern will be.
• The City of Toronto’s 2025 Q4 Development Pipeline shows that development activity continues around the Yonge corridor despite the softer market. The Yonge corridor appears to remain the most desirable corridor for development in Toronto. The projected crowding levels on Line 1 based on the TTC/City of Toronto demand forecast with the service that can be provided with confirmed assets shows crowding emerging in the mid-2030s, coinciding with the opening of the YNSE. The opening of the YNSE is projected to increase Line 1 AM peak hour demand by 11% in the City/TTC model. This adds pressure as demand mounts travelling southbound toward Bloor-Yonge Station. Based on the City/TTC analysis, the quality of service is inadequate and will result in severe crowding levels from Lawrence Station to College Station.
• To address overcrowding on Line 1, the TTC has identified a program of investments under the Line 1 Capacity Enhancement Program. To achieve a higher level of service on the extended Line 1, further investment is required and is dependent on the funding and procurement of additional growth trains and a new Train Maintenance and Storage Facility. [p. 17]

The TTC Board has, at long last, recognized that there is a problem, and given the lead times for some remedial actions, the time to deal with this is “now”. We have had quite enough of drawing lines on maps and launching decade-long construction projects, but we have not as a city addressed the limitations of the existing system.

There are Capacity Expansion Programs for both Lines 1 and 2 dating back to the last decade, and status reports appear each quarter in the Major Projects Updates. Those reports typically are received by the Board without debate or comment. For its part, management does not provide an overview presentation and this contributes to the sense that the reports are unimportant.

An important factor with the CEPs is that they are not a single project. Moreover, as noted in the last bullet above, there are additional items in the Capital Plan integral to the CEPs but not included in them. This fragmentation can give the false impression that one can cherry pick which plan components to implement. Recent City lobbying efforts for capital funding have been very project focused (e.g. new subway trains, waterfront transit), but the greater challenge is to see the CEPs as a collection of needs requiring sustained and integrated funding.

A further problem is that the CEPs predate the change in planning permissions thanks to the provincial imposition of “Major Transit Station Areas” (MTSAs) around every GO, subway and LRT station. The effect is to substantially upzone permitted densities for large swaths of Toronto. How much of that density will actually be built remains to be seen given current market conditions, but development proposals continue to land at the City for approval.

The Board passed a motion directing staff to take a more active role in commenting on the effect of new development plans for transit growth and the network’s ability to handle added loads.

1. Direct TTC staff, through the City’s development review process, to identify when a proposed development is located in a corridor or network segment where:

• current or forecast demand indicates insufficient transit capacity based on currently funded plans;
• additional transit infrastructure, station capacity, service, or accessibility-related improvements may be required to support growth at a reasonable level of service;
• required improvements are not yet fully funded; and/or
• the anticipated in-service date of required improvements is not expected to align with projected development occupancy.

2. Request the Chief Executive Officer, TTC, to report back to the Board, through a future Transit Network Expansion Update or other appropriate report, on options for establishing corridor- and station-level service and capacity measures to support long-term planning, including how such measures could be used to inform development review, capital planning, and intergovernmental funding requests.

3. Direct that TTC staff request the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, when reporting to City Council on zoning by-law amendments, Official Plan amendments, or other planning approvals in identified high-demand transit corridors, to include any TTC comments regarding known funded and unfunded transit capacity requirements, including the expected timing of required infrastructure where available.

4. Direct TTC staff, in consultation with the City of Toronto, to develop strategies for funding transit infrastructure growth requirements that support City approved development, recognizing the TTC also has a priority need to address state-of good repair of existing assets.

There is a complementary motion on City Council’s agenda for July 29.

One potential problem with this approach is the “straw that broke the camel’s back” issue. Any individual project might not overload a portion of the transit system, but the collective effect of many projects could be more severe. The same issue comes up with other municipal services such as water and sewage hookups. It is difficult to prove that any one development will cause chaos, and even harder to stop it in the face of a provincial government bent on untrammeled development.

Despite projected needs for considerably more subway capacity in the coming decade, there is little provision for fleet and service growth on the surface network, nor are there demand projections indicating anything beyond modest growth. There are obvious questions:

• Where will all of the projected new riders come from, and how will this affect surface feeder routes?
• Is surface network growth constrained by the quality and level of service provided?
• What about travel demand that does not lie along the subway corridors?
• How much will development now in the pipeline affect demand on nearby surface routes?

A complete review of the CEPs for both lines, and for the surface network, is essential to inform Council and the TTC Board of the breadth of requirements for system expansion, capital and operating funding needs over coming years. It is ironic that while the capital plans foresee billions in new subway spending, schemes for Ridership Growth focus on small-scale changes and limited additional demand.

This is not just a contradiction in scope and ambition among TTC management, but speaks to City Council’s two-faced attitude to transit improvements. Big construction projects, new rapid transit a decade away, these are noble goals. Better service today is beyond affordability.

The remainder of this article reviews the Capacity Expansion Programs and related projects.