Toronto Union Station Revitalization | ?m | ?s | City of Toronto | NORR

The decision to remove 1/4 of the shed makes no sense. If it is so historic, why would you remove 1/4 of it? Why not keep up the whole thing and if 1/4 of it is to be removed why not remove the whole thing?
 
Adjei said:
The decision to remove 1/4 of the shed makes no sense. If it is so historic, why would you remove 1/4 of it? Why not keep up the whole thing and if 1/4 of it is to be removed why not remove the whole thing?
Click to expand...
Yup the blame goes sorely on the historical board that said thet they can only put a new roof on part of it. Just because something is old doesn't mean we always have to save it. The train sheds at Union aren't and never have been the nicest thing in the world I think it would look so much better with a glass room the length of the platforms then keeping some old concrete and steel structures and putting a grass roof on them.
 
EastYorkTTCFan said:
Yup the blame goes sorely on the historical board that said thet they can only put a new roof on part of it. Just because something is old doesn't mean we always have to save it. The train sheds at Union aren't and never have been the nicest thing in the world I think it would look so much better with a glass room the length of the platforms then keeping some old concrete and steel structures and putting a grass roof on them.
Click to expand...

This may have something to do with the insane levels of protection on the station. Parks Canada, the City of Toronto, GO transit etc all have to work together on the station but given that it is a national historical site any major changes have to go through parks canada as per the Heritage Railway Station Preservation Act of 1985 which states that the Minister responsible for Parks Canada and/or governor in council has to give approval for alterations, demolitions etc of any designated sites by a railway company. That is according to paragraph 5 (1) , subsection A which states:

5 (1) Unless authorized by the Governor in Council, no railway company shall

  • (a) remove, destroy or alter or sell, assign, transfer or otherwise dispose of a heritage railway station owned by it or otherwise under its control; or

  • (b) alter any of the heritage features of a heritage railway station referred to in paragraph (a).
Basically GO transit and the TTR cannot modify the station without approval. The 1/4 coverage of the glass roof was likely a compromise as there was no way in hell they would let them demolish the train shed unless it was in danger of imminent collapse.
 
Richard White said:
This may have something to do with the insane levels of protection on the station. Parks Canada, the City of Toronto, GO transit etc all have to work together on the station but given that it is a national historical site any major changes have to go through parks canada as per the Heritage Railway Station Preservation Act of 1985 which states that the Minister responsible for Parks Canada and/or governor in council has to give approval for alterations, demolitions etc of any designated sites by a railway company. That is according to paragraph 5 (1) , subsection A which states:

5 (1) Unless authorized by the Governor in Council, no railway company shall

  • (a) remove, destroy or alter or sell, assign, transfer or otherwise dispose of a heritage railway station owned by it or otherwise under its control; or

  • (b) alter any of the heritage features of a heritage railway station referred to in paragraph (a).
Basically GO transit and the TTR cannot modify the station without approval. The 1/4 coverage of the glass roof was likely a compromise as there was no way in hell they would let them demolish the train shed unless it was in danger of imminent collapse.
Click to expand...

Ant that's why I have a problem wit it way too many government regulations on it If they wanted to tear down union station itself I would have a problem but the train shed should be allowed to be altered as they see fit. Parks canada needs to figure out that it's no longer practical to jam things into their silly old suture any more. If we had built a glass roof over it before this act was created no one would be complaining about it.
 
Richard White said:
Basically GO transit and the TTR cannot modify the station without approval. The 1/4 coverage of the glass roof was likely a compromise as there was no way in hell they would let them demolish the train shed unless it was in danger of imminent collapse.
Click to expand...
Further complicated by the fact that the station itself and the train shed are owned by two separate entities: The City (Station) and Metrolinx (the shed and track).
 
Preserving the trainshed was reasonable and could have been made more attractive until they decided to put a green roof over the remaining portion. All that is needed is a few more gaps to let natural light in.

The only way to get more amenable platform space is to remove or stub end some platforms. That is quite doable for VIA as many intercity trains will be only a few cars long.

- Paul
 
EastYorkTTCFan said:
It's because the train shed is "historic" because it's the only bush shed left in north america which to me says that we shouldn't bother saving it because it's not useful any more. It's from a time when steam engines used to run and needed places for smoke and steam to be ventilated well they were in the platforms. There are many examples of older things being retired because they don't fit in with the modern use or needs.
Click to expand...
Isn't there a plan to make the rest of the shed a green roof?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/union-go-platform-design-rethink-1.3426236

My vote is to raise the roof of the shed to improve the feel of the space, maintain cover for passengers. A green roof would still be dark, so not my top pick.

Something like this would look great http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/thread...ement-track-upgrades-zeidler.3222/#post-56887
 
Last edited:
steveintoronto said:
From the CBC story linked:
""Unfortunately the people that built Union Station weren't thinking in terms of electrifying a service. They had diesel trains and that's what they accommodated," Aikins said. "

Errr..."diesel trains"? Tsk, tsk, tsk...
Agreed btw on not blocking light from overhead.
Click to expand...

I never thought the RER service should be bi-level EMUS.

4-15 minute service I don't think will necessitate bi-levels, and when you are running a multi-stop "localized" service, it doesn't make sense. You will have half the doors on a 4 car bi-level vs an 8 car single level EMU. Plus, who wants to go up to the second level when their stop is 5, 7, 10 minutes away?

Longer single level EMUs will accelerate faster, will have more doors, easy accessibility, and fit in Union without modification.
 
robmausser said:
Longer single level EMUs will accelerate faster, will have more doors, easy accessibility, and fit in Union without modification.
Click to expand...

Union's real issue with bi-levels is platform space and/or passenger movement (and low floor platforms). Paris has no issues hitting 3 minute frequencies with bi-level cars which turn-over 3/4th of the passengers at the busiest stations but they also have two 4m wide platforms per track.

I'd like to see Union modelled as a 6 track station (4 GO + 1 VIA + 1 UPX in current location).

3 minute frequencies on 4 tracks is 40 trains per hour per direction or 80,000 pphpd, or 160,000 pph terminating at Union. The hard part is getting them off or onto the platforms.
 
Last edited:
robmausser said:
I never thought the RER service should be bi-level EMUS.

4-15 minute service I don't think will necessitate bi-levels, and when you are running a multi-stop "localized" service, it doesn't make sense. You will have half the doors on a 4 car bi-level vs an 8 car single level EMU. Plus, who wants to go up to the second level when their stop is 5, 7, 10 minutes away?

Longer single level EMUs will accelerate faster, will have more doors, easy accessibility, and fit in Union without modification.
Click to expand...
I have to clarify my comment "tsk, tsk, tsk". The station was designed for *steam* not "diesel" as per "Unfortunately the people that built Union Station weren't thinking in terms of electrifying a service. They had diesel trains and that's what they accommodated," Aikins said. "
 
I'm okay with keeping come of the "historic" train shed, but I wish the ratio of glass-to-shed was higher. It will still seem dark in a lot of it. The green roof will really improve the look of it from above, at least.
 
rbt said:
Union's real issue with bi-levels is platform space and/or passenger movement (and low floor platforms). Paris has no issues hitting 3 minute frequencies with bi-level cars which turn-over 3/4th of the passengers at the busiest stations but they also have two 4m wide platforms per track.

I'd like to see Union modelled as a 6 track station (4 GO + 1 VIA + 1 UPX in current location).

3 minute frequencies on 4 tracks is 40 trains per hour per direction or 80,000 pphpd, or 160,000 pph terminating at Union. The hard part is getting them off or onto the platforms.
Click to expand...

Let's face it - the whole thing is just does not function well in terms of circulation - just look at the staircases even post-renovation! They are designed to hinder, not facilitate quick platform access. What they should follow is something like Stockholm Central Station

Citybanan_fp_proj_slide_img.png


Citybanan2_fp_proj_slide_img.png


http://linkarkitektur.com/en/Projects/Citybanan-station-city

AoD
 
Yeah that just seems entirely impossible. Completely different systems and initial infrastructure.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top