[nightstreak]

I just want to voice that being able to use the Eglinton LRT is messing with me! Went with a friend to show him Oakwood Village/dinner and emerging to the street from the station left me disoriented! Like being in Westboro in Ottawa as it looks similar to a Toronto arterial but something is not right!

I understand the feeling. Our mental routing maps that we've had in our heads for decades have to be recalibrated. It really is a bit of a brain scrambler.

One of our warehouses is near Eglinton Square. Getting there without a car was a miserable hour long transit experience waiting for buses that were often packed if we went in the morning. Today, it's all rapid rail transit on comfortable trains. The 5 minute frequency means virtually no waiting and the complete transit time is cut in half. 25% of the commute time was waiting for a bus.

It's going to be even pronounced when the Ontario Line opens. You mean to tell me that I can get from Riverdale to King West in 10 minutes on a subway?

 

[pmacpherson68]

In no way is the 34 better than Line 5. Maybe in scarborough, but in the centre of the city the bus will get held up at every major intersection especially avenue and approaching Allen either way. I've taken this bus route for 10 years and Line 5 is leagues better.

what i found, for me is most of the time I take the 34 if im going less than 3-4 stations away. i just wait for the next bus to come by and i find that its faster... not by a lot, but when you factor in having to walk 3-4 blocks to get to the station, go down all the escalators, wait for 3-4 minutes and then up and out, the travel time makes the bus just quicker. (as long as I dont need to get past Allen road during rush hour, the rest of the route is not too bad)

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

what i found, for me is most of the time I take the 34 if im going less than 3-4 stations away. i just wait for the next bus to come by and i find that its faster... not by a lot, but when you factor in having to walk 3-4 blocks to get to the station, go down all the escalators, wait for 3-4 minutes and then up and out, the travel time makes the bus just quicker. (as long as I dont need to get past Allen road during rush hour, the rest of the route is not too bad)

Should have the same headways as the underground lines. Same reason that Line 1 and Line 2 should have parallel bus lines. The distance between Eglinton Station and Sheppard Station on Line 1 are examples of needing more frequent bus headway that matches the headways of the "rapid transit" lines.

 

[nfitz]

what i found, for me is most of the time I take the 34 if im going less than 3-4 stations away. i just wait for the next bus to come by and i find that its faster... not by a lot, but when you factor in having to walk 3-4 blocks to get to the station, go down all the escalators, wait for 3-4 minutes and then up and out, the travel time makes the bus just quicker. (as long as I dont need to get past Allen road during rush hour, the rest of the route is not too bad)

For short trips. Which is also why (double-decker!) buses are faster for many short trips in London - not having to travel down to the bowels of the earth.

 

[thenorth]

I’m relatively young and able bodied, but the depths of these stations even leaves me feeling relatively exhausted. We gotta stop building these transit lines so deep. I thought the TYSSE was bad for this, but Eglinton is so much worse. And the depressing grey/white aesthetic of the stations, coupled with the long wait times and cold temperatures doesn’t help either. For these reasons, I feel like the Eglinton Line is probably my least favourite section of subway to use in the city. Lines 1/2/4 are much more human-friendly.

 

[nfitz]

I’m relatively young and able bodied, but the depths of these stations even leaves me feeling relatively exhausted. We gotta stop building these transit lines so deep. I thought the TYSSE was bad for this, but Eglinton is so much worse. And the depressing grey/white aesthetic of the stations, coupled with the long wait times and cold temperatures doesn’t help either. For these reasons, I feel like the Eglinton Line is probably my least favourite section of subway to use in the city. Lines 1/2/4 are much more human-friendly.

But everyone complained the cheaper Vaughan extension stations were too expensive!

I don't see how all the white everywhere is going to decrease suicides. It seems post-apocalyptic.

The depths are only going to get worse. I was surprised how shallow Cedarvale and Eglinton were compared to what I expected. Wait for Lawrence East station. An early design only had (lots of) express elevators; but I think they value-engineered that into 4 or 5 escalators to get out.

 

[urbanclient]

Lines 1/2/4 are much more human-friendly. [and have better aesthetics]

Since this topic keeps coming up:

Less physically taxing? Yes. Aesthetically? No. I find most Line 1-2-4 stations to be dirty and poorly lit. I've been too spoiled by subways abroad to think the stations in Toronto are human friendly. The perception of dirtiness and unsafety is much worse compared to Line 5.

I have witnessed deep puddles of rainwater mixed with urine inside newer entrances of Sheppard Yonge. This is not an issue relegated to the 70 year old stations.

Eglinton gets crap for being too white and sterile, but also hard to clean? That's mostly grasping at straws. They're brightly lit and feel modern. Hopefully they stay clean.

I've been a vocal critic of Line 5 Eglinton, this is the lowest priority thing to complain about. Deep bore tunnels and white walls? Tell me you've never been in Asia without telling me you've never been in Asia.

Agree to disagree.

 

[nfitz]

I've been a vocal critic of Line 5 Eglinton, this is the lowest priority thing to complain about. Deep bore tunnels and white walls? Tell me you've never been in Asia without telling me you've never been in Asia.

Tell me you never been in New York City, New Jersey (PATH), Chicago, or the Paris RER without telling me you've never ...

Tell me you've never ridden buses in Bangkok without telling me you haven't rode buses in Bangkok - a clean subway station is lost if the connecting bus is so poor, and crush-loaded to an extent never seen in Canada.

Do people still bring live chickens onto buses in Jakarta and Bandung?

 

[urbanclient]

Tell me you never been in New York City, New Jersey (PATH), Chicago, or the Paris RER without telling me you've never ...

I have been on the NYC Subway and Paris Metro and RER. From my experience, NYC is dirtier, Paris is cleaner than Toronto. But why are we punching down instead of looking up? Let me be or exact, East Asia + Singapore is the gold standard. New Middle Eastern metros as well, which are technically West Asia.

Generally speaking, North American subways are dirty even compared to Europe. Including Warsaw Pact, and post-Soviet Europe.

Tell me you've never ridden buses in Bangkok without telling me you haven't rode buses in Bangkok - a clean subway station is lost if the connecting bus is so poor, and crush-loaded to an extent never seen in Canada.

You're sounding almost jingoistic again.... Lost as in not visible or not appreciated? Or lost as in becomes dirty? Bangkok's rail transit is better than Toronto's by absolute measures (kilometres), but relative to population in a similar area, Toronto's is better last time I checked, barely. Transit expansion is much faster there, it might've already caught up or exceeded Toronto.

Anecdotally, this Bangkok MRT station looks worse than the TTC? They also have much lower ridership per km than Toronto, so I highly doubt any claims of overcrowding.

Wait for Lawrence East station. An early design only had (lots of) express elevators; but I think they value-engineered that into 4 or 5 escalators to get out.

Speaking of which, an objective weakness of Line 5 Eglinton is the lack of redundancy for less-mobile folks. There is only one elevator to platform level from concourse, often only one elevator from surface to concourse. Most stations have one escalator for each direction to and from the platform. Deep bore tunnelling (which often cannot be avoided) is not the problem.

The problem is I have seen the same 5-6 elevators be down intermittently since the first two weeks of opening. With no back up. I guess if you're a wheelchair user, you are SOL.

 

[thenorth]

Since this topic keeps coming up:

Less physically taxing? Yes. Aesthetically? No. I find most Line 1-2-4 stations to be dirty and poorly lit. I've been too spoiled by subways abroad to think the stations in Toronto are human friendly. The perception of dirtiness and unsafety is much worse compared to Line 5.

I have witnessed deep puddles of rainwater mixed with urine inside newer entrances of Sheppard Yonge. This is not an issue relegated to the 70 year old stations.

Eglinton gets crap for being too white and sterile, but also hard to clean? That's mostly grasping at straws. They're brightly lit and feel modern. Hopefully they stay clean.

I've been a vocal critic of Line 5 Eglinton, this is the lowest priority thing to complain about. Deep bore tunnels and white walls? Tell me you've never been in Asia without telling me you've never been in Asia.

Agree to disagree.

Regarding cleanliness, let’s give Line 5 a decade and then talk about cleanliness. The TYSSE stations are just as clean, despite being a decade older.

 

[thenorth]

Putting aside the depth, the TYSSE stations were some of the best designed stations we’ve got in Toronto. To go from that, to Eglinton in less than a decade is just bleak. Metrolinx needs to get better at public design. People deserve to exist in spaces better designed than this.

 

[urbanclient]

The TYSSE stations are just as clean, despite being a decade older.

I hope so? To be fair traffic there is low. I welcome people to tour the the half-dozen Sheppard-Yonge entrances that opened in 2002.

To go from that, to Eglinton in less than a decade is just bleak. Metrolinx needs to get better at public design.

I have nothing against public artwork and sprucing up stations, but I don't like it when people who seem to barely use it start complaining about aesthetics when there are more important issues.

Like lack of redundant elevators/entrances forcing people to go down 6 flights of escalators or stairs at Avenue (Elevator 1 is from concourse to platform):

Or the next train sign being useless. Or @nfitz 's no-no word, 'overcrowding' during rush hour.

Also some sacrifice to creativity is something I'm happy to accept in exchange for cheaper, standardized stations. Artwork can still be displayed, but the station itself doesn't have to be art. Given the option, I'd take less crowded, larger, more frequent trains over art.

The money blew on architecture firms for the massive TYSSE station entrances was not worth it. This goes for the whole world. You want more transit? Build cheaper stations:

 

[crs1026]

The problems with Lines 1 and 2 are the result of
1) damage and remediation measures resulting from water ingress thanks to concrete settling and cracking over a 60-70 year period
2) accumulations of brake dust over the same period in every nook and cranny
3) retrofitting of power and telecom conduits to accommodate energy needs and amenities never contemplated in the original design
4) modifications that leave scars in walls and terazzo floors
5) general sloth and pennypinching on things such as replacing ceiling tiles after work - mods or repairs - are finished (ceilings at Royal York have been left unfinished for over a decade now)
6) Bad design that may look good at first but discourages cleaning (mops and scrubbers not able to reach into pockets etc)

I wonder how much different the newer stations will be in a couple decades. Public art is fine but some of those high ceilings will be devils to keep up.

Vitrolite tiles, however, are holding up pretty well.

- Paul

 

[urbanclient]

2) accumulations of brake dust over the same period in every nook and cranny

Platform screen doors please.... That would solve a big part of the long-term cleanliness problem.

I noticed you didn't mention lighting though. Line 5 is more brightly lit.

 

[thenorth]

Also some sacrifice to creativity is something I'm happy to accept in exchange for cheaper, standardized stations. Artwork can still be displayed, but the station itself doesn't have to be art. Given the option, I'd take less crowded, larger, more frequent trains over art.

This is a false dichotomy. There is no correlation between cost and good design.

Things like adequate seating and trash bins, and properly enclosed surface stops, are not expensive. Excellent visual interior design is also not expensive. The poor aesthetic and functional design of the Eglinton Crosstown is a reflection of Metrolinx’s lack of care, rather than of budgetary constraints