|
|
|
GO Transit: Construction Projects (Metrolinx, various)
- Thread starter drum118
- Start date
Northern Light
Superstar
We are getting bare bones stations. There are no elaborate buildings or full canopy coverage or granite platforms....... 232M per station for what we are getting is absurd.
Bojaxs
Senior Member
"However, the operator of GO Transit stated that new railway links will meet GO standards"
"GO standards" are not good enough! More emphasis on speed.
Last edited:
reaperexpress
Senior Member
Indeed it seems like an issue of quantity over quality (as well as Metrolinx's usual overhead cost and project management bloat). At St Clair / Old Weston, instead of getting a 3-car UPX platform, we're getting a 12-car platform. Future proofing is important to consider in any design, but there always needs to be a realistic tradeoff with the upfront cost. If we expected UP Express trains to be 12 cars long within a few years of opening then it would absolutely make sense to build the station that big. But if there are no current plans to run 12-car UP Express trains, it would presumably make more sense to design the station as a 12-car station, but then only actually build a 3-car portion of that design. As part of the construction, the track layout would be shifted such that the platforms could be extended to 12 cars in the future without requiring major infrastructure work.
Bojaxs
Senior Member
I mean, compare the average GO station to an average European station, and what we deem "bare bones" would be considered elaborate in most European countries. Tunnels going under platforms, rail lines, etc.
Northern Light
Superstar
The tunnels are not 'tunneled'. They are pre-fab boxes, essentially large culverts, that are placed, typically with rapid cut and cover.
That and long, but plain platforms with snow-melt, lighting and shelters do not cost anywhere near 233M to build. I assure you, nowhere close, even 1/2 that much is an excessive ask.
Last edited:
txlseries4
Active Member
lol people are going to be so pissed off with that especially with the Simcoe closure for 2 years. Just read a December community event was moved from in-person to online on the advice of authorities because of an anonymous threat.
reaperexpress
Senior Member
Europe is a big continent with many different countries. I can't speak for all of them, but I have lived and worked in the Netherlands, and they are actively grade separating as many crossings as possible, just like Metrolinx. The fact that Metrolinx grade-separates pedestrian crossings is not the main issue here.
If you want, you could maybe suggest they should be using more overpasses than underpasses, which might be cheaper. For example at Maple station, they built a long tunnel from the elevated bus terminal:
Rather than building an overpass that would have reduced the amount of elevators and stairs required:
Bojaxs
Senior Member
That's defintley something I noticed while in England, was the use of pedestrian overpasses at train stations vs underground.Europe is a big continent with many different countries. I can't speak for all of them, but I have lived and worked in the Netherlands, and they are actively grade separating as many crossings as possible, just like Metrolinx. The fact that Metrolinx grade-separates pedestrian crossings is not the main issue here.
If you want, you could maybe suggest they should be using more overpasses than underpasses, which might be cheaper. For example at Maple station, they built a long tunnel from the elevated bus terminal:
Rather than building an overpass that would have reduced the amount of elevators and stairs required:
crs1026
Superstar
(Making effort to forget painful memories of schlepping suitcase up and down steep and ancient stairways in exotic overseas rail stations)
Stairways vs tunnels are a simple exercise in cost comparison. The UK model may not be appropriate from an accessibility perspective.
I have no problem with the expense of making stations accessible. One can point to many places in the world where they are not, but one can also point to the efforts elsewhere to incrementally correct that. In this case we are discussing new stations built from scratch and I would not want to omit accessibility amenities from any new station.
What I do object to is the size and massing of the on platform structures, which have far more metal and concrete and wiring than most. Much more complex to build, more trades, more materials, more time, more maintenance. And for what? As we are looking ahead to 2WAD with headways where no one will have to shelter for very long, it seems we could omit a lot of that. I would keep snowmelt, but not much more.
I am quite OK with traditional GO glass wall mini shelters and oversized bus shelters.
A good example of unnecessary embellishment would be the original platforms and station buildings at Milliken and Agincourt versus the new. Similarly the original Bloor versus the new, minus the UP element.
Certain "key destination" stations might warrant the full treatment - Brampton, Guelph, Oakville for example. But not the intermediate commuter stops.
- Paul
PS - Per the wonderful book Metropolitan Corridor, when the steam era commuter lines were built, stations and platform shelters were often built only on the inbound-side platform of American commuter lines. There was no need for shelters on the outbound sides, because nobody hung around after getting off the train. We are looking at 2-way transit rather than peak commuter trains, but that parsimony should be kept in mind.
Stairways vs tunnels are a simple exercise in cost comparison. The UK model may not be appropriate from an accessibility perspective.
I have no problem with the expense of making stations accessible. One can point to many places in the world where they are not, but one can also point to the efforts elsewhere to incrementally correct that. In this case we are discussing new stations built from scratch and I would not want to omit accessibility amenities from any new station.
What I do object to is the size and massing of the on platform structures, which have far more metal and concrete and wiring than most. Much more complex to build, more trades, more materials, more time, more maintenance. And for what? As we are looking ahead to 2WAD with headways where no one will have to shelter for very long, it seems we could omit a lot of that. I would keep snowmelt, but not much more.
I am quite OK with traditional GO glass wall mini shelters and oversized bus shelters.
A good example of unnecessary embellishment would be the original platforms and station buildings at Milliken and Agincourt versus the new. Similarly the original Bloor versus the new, minus the UP element.
Certain "key destination" stations might warrant the full treatment - Brampton, Guelph, Oakville for example. But not the intermediate commuter stops.
- Paul
PS - Per the wonderful book Metropolitan Corridor, when the steam era commuter lines were built, stations and platform shelters were often built only on the inbound-side platform of American commuter lines. There was no need for shelters on the outbound sides, because nobody hung around after getting off the train. We are looking at 2-way transit rather than peak commuter trains, but that parsimony should be kept in mind.
reaperexpress
Senior Member
The decision between pedestrian overpasses and pedestrian underpasses has very little to do with accessibility. Obviously both options will include the necessary step-free circulation, which usually consists of an elevator.
Underpasses usually have less elevation change for pedestrians than overpasses, which may increase the percentage of people who choose to use the elevator rather than the stairs. However, in some cases such as the connection to the Maple Station bus terminal, an underpass actually has more elevation change than an overpass.
Voltz
Senior Member
I’m also irked about them having to come back to do more work to eventually raise the platforms to level floor height on all these recently built platforms, instead of modifying the coaches now to work with a level height platform and not having to raise all these platforms.
McGillicuddy
New Member
I thought they were sort of roughing in high-floor platforms.
My assumption was that the reason they're building all these platforms with knee-high concrete cuffing around the walls and pillars is that someday they will raise the height of the platform to that level, and this saves them having to deal with conflicts at that stage. (All the glass and all the electronic fixtures are already at an appropriate height, etc.) They'll have to rework things like stairways and raise the heights of doorways, but that's easier than rebuilding the whole platform.
To illustrate, Weston Station when it was under construction.
My assumption was that the reason they're building all these platforms with knee-high concrete cuffing around the walls and pillars is that someday they will raise the height of the platform to that level, and this saves them having to deal with conflicts at that stage. (All the glass and all the electronic fixtures are already at an appropriate height, etc.) They'll have to rework things like stairways and raise the heights of doorways, but that's easier than rebuilding the whole platform.
To illustrate, Weston Station when it was under construction.
Northern Light
Superstar
I'll differ somewhat here.
I don't mind extra elaboration, particularly full platform canopy coverage, and heated waiting areas for winter.
Sure, some routes will hopefully be every 15 minutes in the next few years (though not all), but delays happen, off-peak services will likely be less frequent at times, but also.....
Do you really want to get rained on on your way to the 'shelter'? Temperatures can be extreme at times, and unexpected as well.
I don't mind paying for better amenitization or a bit of aesthetic enhancement.
What I mind is paying serious coin, excessive coin, that should come with all of the above and more, for considerably less.
At the price points quoted, the platforms need to be granite, there needs to be full canopy coverage with some artistic oeuvre, I want elegant light fixtures, and the seats better recline, and some with tush warmers and I want my damned escalators. LOL
crs1026
Superstar
I will gladly meet you in the middle of the platform on this. Nothing wrong with shelter if it can be erected and maintained in a more spartan manner.
When I look at the elaborate flashings and trim on the most recently constructed platforms, and the incredibly plodding pace at which some have been built over the last few years, I definitely feel that directionally things should be kept simpler.
A good template I would offer would be the Scarborough station.... there is a roof level shelter in the middle of the platform, but traditional bus shelters towards the ends of the platform. From my observation, the limits to the roofing does not discourage people from spreading along the entire platform. There is lots of standing room under the roofed area.... but precious few benches. The roof and walls make the platform narrower and therefore less room for benches. If we are going to provide shelter, benches are desirable. (there are more seats in the bus shelters than under the roofed area). The tunnels have ramps which is a good addition to the elevators.
But having said that, my home station is Mimico and I have never minded its austerity. OK, on bad days one has to push through the folks who shelter at the top of the stairs, so some people want a roof. But building something massive end to end is just not needed.
Cup holders. Don't forget the cup holders.
- Paul
Last edited: