Toronto Crosstown LRT | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | Arcadis

[Second_in_pie]

I'm all ok with having slightly larger platforms and escalators and elevators in the right place. As long as they lay out the platform well, I really could care less whether they're 16 feet wide or 20 feet wide.

The thing that I totally don't get is the massive stations. They're designed like they're supposed to be modern art, or that the TTC is expecting bids to put on orchestra performances inside. They can make the platform all nice and pretty, but then they could easily forget about the other stuff.

For instance, your average medium-ridership suburban station doesn't need to have a cavernous mezzanine, connecting with underground bus bays through 20 foot wide stairwells.
If they've got space, do a simple above ground building. Entrances from one or two places, and a fair paid zone in the middle with two or three stairs and an elevator leading up to the platform. If they need to hook up with a bus, do a simple above ground loop, or even an easy entrance into a fair paid zone, from which they can go back onto the road.
Even smaller stations don't even need all that. Just put stairs and one or two escalators down to the platform area. One side of the platform has a collector booth and maybe a gateway newstand or something, and the other just has automatic token/metropass doors, both leading onto platform level. If we need wheelchair access, just outfit the stairs with one of those wheelchair platforms.

And even if those aren't doable, we definitely don't need huge, massive stations. They could certainly be colourful, and there's nothing stopping little renovations in the future, or even community projects if people think the local subway station needs some sprucing up.

 

[W. K. Lis]

According to the current schedule, the first section to open in 2016 is between Eglinton West (Allen Road) station and Commerce Road. This includes the original route for the Eglinton West HRT subway between Eglinton West (Allen Road) and Black Creek. Most likely, since they already have the HRT plans for that section, they just tweaked it for the LRT.

One major change is with the Black Station now being a stop instead of as an station, as it was with the HRT plans.

Option 1 has both Weston and Black Creek as stops, unlike the other options.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Some stations aren't underbuilt but are overused simply because Toronto's rapid transit network is insufficient, piling multiple busy surface routes into stations not always intended for that kind of traffic. Eglinton won't see the amount of surface transfers that the subway lines do, but I still hope all stations are built with at least 2 exits, with at least one at each end. There's no reason to not do so.

 

[Tdot_one]

Why don't they run the surface portions of the Eglinton LRT under a trench? There seems to plenty of space east or west of the tunnel. It would eliminate the need to stop at red lights and enhance the speed of the service.

The more local LRT lines located on the central lanes would be more appropriate in higher density areas that are served by subway. That's what is occuring over in Paris, while the Brooklyn proposals are looking at connection high density areas to the subway.

It would only seem appropriate if most of Eglinton is intensified. Locals, who'd form a very large population on the corridor, and workers from elsewhere (due to a high concentration of jobs) would exploit local service. The DRL could enhance transportation throughout the city's main centers, while GO REX would offer quick trip to Union.

 

[Fresh Start]

^ But to implement all that would require common sense, something which the current adminstration is lacking.

 

[Fresh Start]

Option 1 has both Weston and Black Creek as stops, unlike the other options.

I fail to see why Weston and Black Creek stops have to be road median and on the surface. Between Keelesdale and Mount Dennis there a huge drop in elevation, perhaps 150 ft. It begs to reason that the ROW could be elevated as to bridge across in a straight line from the central tunnel to a brief underground section at Weston Road. Sticking to the road surface, climbing up and down the sides of hills, will only make travel times longer and for what, a hand full of shoppers at the No Frills? There could be an elevated station for Black Creek all the same though, elevated over the highway with stairs descending to all four corners, plus elevator shaft at the SW corner. But Mt Dennis should be underground. The area is residential and needs to remain pedestrian friendly. People connecting to/from the GO train or the 89/73 buses will want to transfer off onto this line like a subway, and the underground mezzanine could easily extend over to Photgraphy Dr for a seamless direct interchange.

 

[Darwinkgo]

Why don't they run the surface portions of the Eglinton LRT under a trench?

Trenches are a lot more expensive. Not as expensive as a tunnel to be sure (though you would have to build short tunnels under roads) but a least 3 times as expensive as surface running.

 

[Tdot_one]

Freshstar, if Eglinton is going to be greatly intensified, it would be interesting to see what will become of areas such as Golden Mile. There is plenty of room present to expand housing stock by multiple units and it'd help address the growing population.

The corridor would match nicely with its center at Yonge-Eglinton. I've read that there will be Downtown-level intensification (in terms of jobs as well) in YE, possibly, with the area merging joining Old Toronto and, possibly, .

That would, in my opinion, be more appropriate than an Eglinton subway. It would be nice, though, but I don't see this city taking a loss, and attempting to create something larger. I doubt most Torontonians would oppose both local tram and subways on the corridor. Density is already present around the huge apartment blocks which probably make up the majority of inhabitants in all of the boroughs including Scarborough. This is an advantage that many Western cities outside of Europe do not carry.

 

[Northern Magus]

Even smaller stations don't even need all that. Just put stairs and one or two escalators down to the platform area.
<snip>
And even if those aren't doable, we definitely don't need huge, massive stations.

I'm guessing that by "huge, massive stations" you mean excessive beyond what their function and projected ridership reasonably requires. I'm not sure there are too many white elephants like that on the system, and I agree that we should guard against it.

The TTC is subject to accessibility legislation, so elevators are a must. They also help draw riders with strollers, carts, luggage etc, as well as older riders and those with limited mobility. Bit by bit the entire system will have them eventually, and imo that's a very good thing.

The push is on to make using the system a pleasurable experience that draws people out of their cars, as well as to build infrastructure befitting Toronto's global city status. Considering that station infrastructure will last for decades and decades, it's understandable that each one will be designed around functional projections for the medium to long term. What may make the Eglinton tunnel unique is that it's supposed to be built in such a way that will allow for upgrading to HRT when future ridership justifies it.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Trenches are a lot more expensive. Not as expensive as a tunnel to be sure (though you would have to build short tunnels under roads) but a least 3 times as expensive as surface running.

These generalized ratios are not useful. 'Surface running' in the Richview corridor, for instance, is cheaper than 'surface running' in the middle of Eglinton coupled with bike lanes and landscaping and so on, which requires rebuilding the entire road. Bloated stations are becoming one the the largest transit costs, and trenches could radically lower the cost of stations.

I'm guessing that by "huge, massive stations" you mean excessive beyond what their function and projected ridership reasonably requires. I'm not sure there are too many white elephants like that on the system, and I agree that we should guard against it.

The push is on to make using the system a pleasurable experience that draws people out of their cars, as well as to build infrastructure befitting Toronto's global city status. Considering that station infrastructure will last for decades and decades, it's understandable that each one will be designed around functional projections for the medium to long term. What may make the Eglinton tunnel unique is that it's supposed to be built in such a way that will allow for upgrading to HRT when future ridership justifies it.

There are some clearly overbuilt stations. Wilson is one, Leslie, Kennedy, Downsview, etc. Whenever stations have unnecessary mezzanine layers or nooks and crannies and tunnels to nowhere, all of which were built on purpose and need to be lit and maintained, they are overbuilt. Some stations are better/worse depending on how over- or under-used they might be...many downtown stations are reasonably sized but overused, like Y&B or St. George. Leslie would seem somewhat less overbuilt if it had 30K riders a day, but, still, there's 4 exits on the same corner and a comically unused bus terminal. STC is underbuilt, though, since it was always known that many bus routes would feed STC's dangerously small platform. Bessarion even should have had one entrance at each end of the platform to maximize local access.

People will be drawn out of their cars once transit can get them where they're going in less than double or triple the time it takes them by car. Murals won't lure them...slashing 30 minutes from their commute might.

 

[Tdot_one]

Trenches would cost 3x over a surface route? That is in a corridor that is largely empty. I'd guess the reverse since the roads will have to be modified extensively to partially grade separate it.

 

[junctionist]

People will be drawn out of their cars once transit can get them where they're going in less than double or triple the time it takes them by car. Murals won't lure them...slashing 30 minutes from their commute might.

Overbuilding is a problem. But what we shouldn't lose sight of as we move towards more appropriately sized stations is the fact that shunning architecturally unique and attractive stations isn't going to free up funds for incredible improvements in the speed of transit, it'll just make the experience of taking transit and indeed living in the city more boring and monotonous. I figure the architecture and art will give the people a sense of pride in their choice and will probably keep transit on their minds.

After all, cars aren't just about getting from point A to B, there's a strong culture that emphasizes design and driving experience which pushes the prevalence of this mode of transportation forward. Higher levels of investment into design can equate to sophistication and long-term appeal.

 

[Eug]

Poorly designed ≠ overbuilt

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Overbuilding is a problem. But what we shouldn't lose sight of as we move towards more appropriately sized stations is the fact that shunning architecturally unique and attractive stations isn't going to free up funds for incredible improvements in the speed of transit, it'll just make the experience of taking transit and indeed living in the city more boring and monotonous. I figure the architecture and art will give the people a sense of pride in their choice and will probably keep transit on their minds.

After all, cars aren't just about getting from point A to B, there's a strong culture that emphasizes design and driving experience which pushes the prevalence of this mode of transportation forward. Higher levels of investment into design can equate to sophistication and long-term appeal.

You know that a tiled mural costs virtually nothing compared to regular tiles, right? And that a transit system that looks like a neverending dingy public washroom will move the same amount of people as one that looks as good as the Taj Mahal? I'm not saying we should ditch good design (assuming it costs any more than standard/poor design) and make the system ugly and uninspiring, just that either way it won't make a difference in actual ridership. Ambiance is very far down the list of what factors into choosing transit, and even far down the list of what makes transit pleasurable.

In some cases in might even be cheaper to build more impressive stations if we remove some mezzanine elements and let the platform ceilings soar...all that space needs to be excavated, anyway, so why fill so much of it back in with areas that need to be lit and maintained?

 

[Second_in_pie]

^^ That's a good point too.

EDIT: Would it actually be less expensive to keep it open like that? I see the rationale in that you don't have to create mezzanines, and that it's built as a hole in the ground anyways.

I think I've got a new description/explanation for this. Stations should be pretty, but they shouldn't be complicated. Pretty as in the work at museum station, and that's the top end of what's considered "pretty." Complicated would be the likes of Leslie station, with unneeded mezzanines, fare areas, entrances and bus bays.

An important thing to note is that prettiness is a lot less expensive than complicatedness. Compared even to the cost of an extra entrance, which would be "complicated", "pretty" things like a mural or funky pillars are pennies. And while "pretty" things like art make a station more attractive, unneeded elements don't really improve anything in the station, and if anything they make them confusing and imposing.

We could easily ditch all the unneeded design elements, such as mezzanines, bus bays and entrances, and save a bunch on our transit building. Again, low-traffic suburban stations might just need a hole coming out of the ground. If you want to get fancy, a hole out of the ground, with a covered walkway to a large-ish, heated bus shelter that's linked by elevator. Right there, you save on building your mezzanine and surface building, and you've integrated the paying area into the platform. You save on a bus loop, and probably on traffic created by that loop as well.
Bigger stations could be more like the B-D stations, with a simple building with a bus loop. If they wanted to save even more money, take out the mezzanine and put it at ground level.
The downtown stations, or stations near developments, should be using nearby buildings to supplement the station. This kind of thing could easily be done on the Eglinton line; find some developers who would be interested in building on cheap land above a subway, and make the only catch that they have to integrate the station into their building. Do that, and they'll basically be paying you to build your station.

The artsy stuff doesn't cost that much. Things like paintings, mosaics or other artwork that you'd do in elementary school art class could even be done by volunteers. Maybe local artists would be willing to try to make their name out while giving to the community in the form of a pretty station, or at least do it for cheap. The more intricate stuff is still nothing compared to an underground bus bay; things like fancy railings or pillars that could be done for a couple thousand dollars.

So by cutting away all the useless crap and getting to a simple, ergonomic and aesthetic station, you could save literally hundreds of millions of dollars on station design. I'm sure even if you gave them a station that looked like it was fished out of a toilet, they'd still be glad that the TTC wasn't using high station costs as an excuse for not expanding the network.