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.

Line 1 Capacity Expansion Program

According to the Major Projects Update [p. 22], the Line 1 CEP contains the following items:

• Station modifications to improve station capacities and increase service at St Andrew, St George, and King stations.
• Tactics implementation [wayfinding signage and tiles on platforms] to improve passenger flow at 12 stations, including three pilot stations: St Andrew, St George, and TMU (formerly Dundas).
• Electrical Traction Power Upgrades
• Additional Fire Ventilation requirements to achieve target headways
• Guideway Enhancement
• A new Train Maintenance and Storage Facility with:
  • Storage for 34 trains, including a test track, and access track to the site.
  • Carhouse with seven bays for preventative and corrective maintenance.
  • Operations and Infrastructure (O&I) facility to support maintenance activities (a small shop building, outdoor/indoor storage tracks for work cars, material storage, and a staging area).
  • Ancillary facilities (Traction Power Substation (TPSS) and Hostler platform).

The CEP only addresses capacity issues at three stations, and yet there are problems at College with inadequate capacity to clear the platform between trains (typically AM peak), and to hold waiting passengers due to full trains (PM peak). There should be a review of station capacity generally in the context of more frequent service and passenger flows. Running more trains is only part of a solution to growing demand.

Traction power upgrades are needed to handle more frequent service and the presence of more trains in each power section of the route at a time. This affects substations, feeder cabling and third rail infrastructure. The CEP does not include an estimate of the scale or timeline for this work, but it is a basic constraint on the number of trains that can be operated. (By analogy, the TTC discovered during recent World Cup service that the electrical system serving Bathurst/Harbourfront service to the games could not handle the volume of streetcar service they attempted to operate.)

Many of the traction power issues listed in the report appear to address state of good repair (e.g. replacement of old existing cables), not a full route-review of power available for expanded service.

If the passenger load on a station rises and the station is expanded, an integral part of the work is improved ventilation to meet modern fire code.

The proposed “guideway enhancements” are not detailed.

The estimated cost of the Line 1 CEP is $6.8-billion of which only $1.1-billion is funded.

Not included in the CEP are:

• Additional equipment for Line 1 to bring the fleet up to 122 trains to operate a 100 second headway (1’40”) as compared to the current 2’30” and service currently possible of 2’20”.
• The Yonge North extension plans currently include a yard for 15 trains, but no maintenance facility. The CEP contemplates a much larger capacity and function for a new yard.
• Additional trains for the North Yonge extension are in Metrolinx’ project budget, but no trains for more frequent service.
• An updated estimate of the infrastructure changes needed to support a 100 second headway and predicted passenger volumes.
• Provision for Platform Edge Doors including physical station changes, power supply, signal system interfacing and ventilation (depending on the chosen design).
• Operating cost estimates for Line 1 running at a substantially increased capacity.
• The project to expand Bloor-Yonge Station is separate from the CEP and has its own funded budget line ($1.5-billion).
• Accessibility projects have their own budget line, but there is no provision for added facilities beyond the projects now in progress to achieve basic accessibility for all stations.

An important issue for a new yard is that it is impractical to dispatch all of the service from the west side of the line at Wilson Yard because it will take too long to load or shut down service from the extended line. A separate yard on the east leg of Line 1 would allow service to be loaded or removed from both sides at once shortening the time needed for the transition. It would also provide some redundancy in case access to part of the line is blocked.

(Note that Davisville Yard is small, and is now used to hold work trains and the Line 4 Sheppard fleet.)

Current predictions place the need for 100-second service in the mid-2030s which is not very far in the future considering lead times for many of these items. There is no comment on what would be done to handle growth beyond that point.

Line 2 Capacity Expansion Program

According to the Major Projects Update [p. 19], the Line 2 CEP contains the following items:

• Station capacity upgrades
• Traction power upgrades
• Guideway enhancements
• Greenwood Yard modifications for new subway trains

The actual component projects are less impressive than the list above might imply. The station capacity upgrades include only the expanded streetcar platform and concourse at Spadina, and modifications to Jane Station for a new fare line and staircase.

Traction power work include some feeder upgrades, one substation upgrade (Lansdowne) and one new substation (Danforth). It is not clear whether this is an exhaustive list of work needed to achieve more frequent service.

Guideway enhancements include only a storage track at Warden that, while it could be used to spot a “gap train”, would not add to peak scheduled service.

Greenwood Yard and shops require extensive modifications to support the new fleet of trains for Line 2. This work includes modifications of the carhouse and overhaul shops, signaling for the yard (ATC conversion) and Oakvale substation.

Not included in the CEP are:

• Any provision for station capacity expansions including ventilation upgrades.
• Platform edge doors and associated station changes.
• The 55 new trains to replace the existing Line 2 fleet are in a separate project with its own budget.
• Additional trains for the Scarborough extension are in Metrolinx’ project budget.
• Trains needed to allow 120 second headways on Line 2 (down from the current minimum of 140 seconds) on the existing and extended Line 2 are not included.
• Maintenance facilities for an expanded fleet. This would likely require construction of the new yard and MSF southwest of Kipling Station on the Obico Yard property already purchased by Toronto for this purpose.
• The Automatic Train Control (ATC) project has its own budget line, and the portion for the extension will be covered by Metrolinx.
• Accessibility projects have their own budget line, but there is no provision for added facilities beyond the projects now in progress to achieve basic accessibility for all stations.

As with Line 1, the projected timeframe for increased demand is moving closer and the 120 second capability is needed for 2037 rather than 2041 as originally thought. This is only a few years after the SSE will open and the ATC project will go live. There is no indication of what might be done for additional capacity beyond that.

The Capital Budget

The 2026 Capital Budget included tables summarizing the scale of funding needed just to address items that are officially part of the budget list. It does not include provision for scope changes between the original project designs and today’s expected demands.

This is only part of the overall budget which also includes sections for buses ($11.4-billion), streetcars ($3.3-billion), facilities maintenance ($4.4-billion), network-wide projects, e.g. IT, ($1.8-billion), and TransformTO ($7.3-billion). For details, see the 2026 Capital Budget.