Danforth Line 2 Scarborough Subway Extension

[OneCity]

Depending on the subway alignment, I can see them demolishing the entire station and building a new one.

Sorry I meant the entire elevated structure for the current RT could be reused to run rapid transit as an East-west City Center feeder into the subway and run up to Malvern. I agree the SCC platform will be demo'd but the subway stop will likely reside in the same location. It would make the City Center area very "urban" and attractive from public transit users.

 

[Tuck]

I guess I should be the one to deviate this thread from subway vs LRT.

What are you guys expectation for Scarborough Centre subway station?

A) More or less in line with the other Bloor-Danforth Stations with a modern touch?

B) Modern Stations like the Spadina extension?

C)World Class Station?

Never mind the fact that the extension is already stupidly expensive as it is, there is no reason to make a "world class' station or even Spadina-extension esque, for that matter.

And I'm not talking only about this extension. I'm talking about the system as a whole. The only place it is justified is maybe Union Station. No, the station designs on the spading extension were not justified. It was a combination of Toronto's vanity and inferiority complex, nothing more.

I was recently in Bangkok - more of a world-class city than Toronto will ever hope to be. Their subway stations are so simple - they're basically Finch station, but with more upscale tiling. Thats all that is needed, and that is all that is justified.

I cannot stress this enough: rapid transit is a very expensive piece of critical infrastructure, not a fashion statement.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I was recently in Bangkok - more of a world-class city than Toronto will ever hope to be.

I wish this "world class" phrase would go away. Whatever meaning it held has been lost.

I cannot stress this enough: rapid transit is a very expensive piece of critical infrastructure, not a fashion statement.

Station finishes are a tiny fraction of money spent on rapid transit

 

[Tuck]

I wish this "world class" phrase would go away. Whatever meaning it held has been lost.

Tbh, I do agree. But since Toronto likes throwing that word around, I figured I might as well too to make the comparison. Guess I'm a hypocrite, ah well.

Station finishes are a tiny fraction of money spent on rapid transit

Maybe my post wasn't clear. I'm not referring to the finishes, I'm referring to the actual architecture and physical design of the station.

My point is that we can have very simple stations that look great because of the nice finishing (Which is a tiny fraction of the money spent on transit, as you said), rather than making the stations themselves architecturally impressive, which is expensive and takes a lot of time.

I'm not saying we need to have ugly stations. I'm saying we don't need to have impressive ones.

 

[gweed123]

My point is that we can have very simple stations that look great because of the nice finishing (Which is a tiny fraction of the money spent on transit, as you said), rather than making the stations themselves architecturally impressive, which is expensive and takes a lot of time.

But do they actually take that much more time to build than simple stations though? Are the construction timelines for the 'grandiose' stations on the Spadina line (contractor delays excluded) really that different from the relatively simple stations on the Eglinton line?

I do agree that the stations on the Spadina line are larger than they need to be, but I don't think we should be confusing size with architectural impressiveness. You can have a relatively compact station and still have great architecture.

 

[Tuck]

But do they actually take that much more time to build than simple stations though? Are the construction timelines for the 'grandiose' stations on the Spadina line (contractor delays excluded) really that different from the relatively simple stations on the Eglinton line?

I do agree that the stations on the Spadina line are larger than they need to be, but I don't think we should be confusing size with architectural impressiveness. You can have a relatively compact station and still have great architecture.

I'll be honest, I don't know for sure. And thats probably something I should check before I open my big fat mouth. So you're right to call me out on it. I've done some googling on it, but couldn't really find a cost estimate for the original designs vs what they ended up as.

But looking at the Spadina stations, I don't see how they could possibly be the same price as a simple looking station, nor as quick to build. It just makes sense that a complex design would take more time, effort and money to accomplish. The designs are complex, the TTC has admitted as much, though a part of the (added) expense appears to be them changing the designs midway. And we already know they are behind schedule (But... maybe that would have happened even with simple stations). Of course though, with these things common sense and intuition doesn't always make you right - often the opposite. So maybe I'm just complaining about nothing.

I would be curious to see how the Eglinton stations fare - i.e will they have as many delays (though I suppose a more competent contractor would be a major factor here too).

 

[BurlOak]

Didn't Bessarian station cost $40M or something like that. Size and cost are definitely related.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Tbh, I do agree. But since Toronto likes throwing that word around, I figured I might as well too to make the comparison. Guess I'm a hypocrite, ah well.

In Toronto, "world class" seems to roughly be defined as any major city that is NOT Toronto.

 

[APTA-2048]

Never mind the fact that the extension is already stupidly expensive as it is, there is no reason to make a "world class' station or even Spadina-extension esque, for that matter.

And I'm not talking only about this extension. I'm talking about the system as a whole. The only place it is justified is maybe Union Station. No, the station designs on the spading extension were not justified. It was a combination of Toronto's vanity and inferiority complex, nothing more.

I was recently in Bangkok - more of a world-class city than Toronto will ever hope to be. Their subway stations are so simple - they're basically Finch station, but with more upscale tiling. Thats all that is needed, and that is all that is justified.

I cannot stress this enough: rapid transit is a very expensive piece of critical infrastructure, not a fashion statement.

They 2nd Ave subway stations seem to be on par with the TYSSE stations. Seems like someone feels the same way you do here.

 

[Palma]

But do they actually take that much more time to build than simple stations though? Are the construction timelines for the 'grandiose' stations on the Spadina line (contractor delays excluded) really that different from the relatively simple stations on the Eglinton line?

I do agree that the stations on the Spadina line are larger than they need to be, but I don't think we should be confusing size with architectural impressiveness. You can have a relatively compact station and still have great architecture.

there has got to be a difference. I am not a technical person but common sense says if you build bigger of course it takes longer and costs more or in the case of the ttc, over build. If there were no difference then why don't all cities over build their stations?

 

[W. K. Lis]

In the 1950's, when the original Yonge subway opened (Eglinton to Union), there was no requirements for escalators nor elevators nor secondary exits. Today, they must have escalators, must have elevators, must have secondary exits, and other "must haves" which all add to the cost.

Look at the platform edges as a small example.

Which platform edge would be cheaper? Which one would last longer?

 

[sixrings]

there has got to be a difference. I am not a technical person but common sense says if you build bigger of course it takes longer and costs more or in the case of the ttc, over build. If there were no difference then why don't all cities over build their stations?

Because other cities don't build out on farm land where you can cut and cover.

 

[gweed123]

I'll be honest, I don't know for sure. And thats probably something I should check before I open my big fat mouth. So you're right to call me out on it. I've done some googling on it, but couldn't really find a cost estimate for the original designs vs what they ended up as.

But looking at the Spadina stations, I don't see how they could possibly be the same price as a simple looking station, nor as quick to build. It just makes sense that a complex design would take more time, effort and money to accomplish. The designs are complex, the TTC has admitted as much, though a part of the (added) expense appears to be them changing the designs midway. And we already know they are behind schedule (But... maybe that would have happened even with simple stations). Of course though, with these things common sense and intuition doesn't always make you right - often the opposite. So maybe I'm just complaining about nothing.

I would be curious to see how the Eglinton stations fare - i.e will they have as many delays (though I suppose a more competent contractor would be a major factor here too).

One of the things that was used on Eglinton, and will be used for GO stations going forward is the idea of a "kit of parts". A set of commonly used items that can be assembled and configured in different ways to give the stations a sense a commonality, but also a flare of uniqueness. This is a very different approach to what the TTC did with Spadina, where each station was designed independently from the ground up. For example, the 'glass box entrance' will be a feature at almost every underground Eglinton station, but its size, location, and integration with surrounding buildings will be site-specific. Ottawa is using a similar design philosophy for the Confederation Line stations.

there has got to be a difference. I am not a technical person but common sense says if you build bigger of course it takes longer and costs more or in the case of the ttc, over build. If there were no difference then why don't all cities over build their stations?

Because most cities aren't building underground stations in industrial parks and open fields. That type of aversion to anything above-ground is pretty unique to Toronto (except for Montreal, though they had a good technical reason to require it). Building large, spaced-out stations like that in an urban context is pretty cost prohibitive, mainly due to the engineering challenges of cramming something like that into a subterranean labyrinth that exists under most urban areas.

 

[aquateam]

Comparing anywhere with China is a little misrepresentative.

You've obviously never been to Markham

 

[ssiguy2]

or Richmond or Vancouver for that matter.