This is what I was expecting all along. I wouldn't have been surprised if a 6 storey , 2000 space, precast parking structure was included in the mix. I suspect layoffs at CF over this untimely purchase so whether they are contributing to the transit hub or not, they will cut costs wherever they can. Residential development isn't going to pay back the billion invested here.
 
I'm skeptical of blaming CF for this when the design is so very in-line with the bland suburban garbage MX has proposed for all the "SmartTrack" stations(and this was/maybe still is (idk) a SmartTrack station). CF has it's problems, but we can't just let Metrolinx off the hook here. Even if CF didn't wanna give them money for the station, it's still going to be a Metrolinx-owned station, with Metrolinx trains running through it, and it's a hideous pile of garbage. MX could have spent the money to make this what it should be, but they clearly did not. Presumably it all went to their overpaid executives' salaries instead.
 
Dan416 said:
I really do wish that GO would move toward level boarding.
Click to expand...
Metrolinx is actively planning for it. It just takes time, they need all the stations “future proofed” so they can be converted quickly then need to retrofit all the train cars as well.. it’s not an east transition.

If you look at all the recent GO stations built in the last few years they are all clearly future proofed for it. Elevators, stairs, etc all drop passengers at the level of the existing accessible platform then passengers have to drop back down a few steps to the main platform. Eventually it’ll be flat for level boarding.

I’m hoping the conversion is included in the ONExpress contract, but I’m not sure on that.
 
innsertnamehere said:
Metrolinx is actively planning for it. It just takes time, they need all the stations “future proofed” so they can be converted quickly then need to retrofit all the train cars as well.. it’s not an east transition.

If you look at all the recent GO stations built in the last few years they are all clearly future proofed for it. Elevators, stairs, etc all drop passengers at the level of the existing accessible platform then passengers have to drop back down a few steps to the main platform. Eventually it’ll be flat for level boarding.

I’m hoping the conversion is included in the ONExpress contract, but I’m not sure on that.
Click to expand...
Elevators, as in plural? Currently, most transit agencies are retrofitting elevators into existing stations for accessibility. However, they tend to be singular elevator, which means if they are out-of-service for maintenance or vandalism, the station is no longer accessible. Same problem with elevators in high rises.
 
Just to double-check the East Harbour renderings are depicting that GO Transit users would be standing outside? Not under a glass canopy?

P.S. I also emailed all of the people "Northern Star" recommended on this forum. The design looks downright cheap! I thought it would be like Belgium's Liège-Guillemins Railway Station or Southern Cross Station, Melbourne.
 

Attachments

  • 13-12-26-Gare_de_Liège-Guillemins_by_Santiago_Calatrava-20.jpg
    13-12-26-Gare_de_Liège-Guillemins_by_Santiago_Calatrava-20.jpg
    174 KB · Views: 27
  • Capture.JPG
    Capture.JPG
    170.3 KB · Views: 24
Last edited:
innsertnamehere said:
I’m hoping the conversion is included in the ONExpress contract, but I’m not sure on that.
Click to expand...

We know they're expecting to do some type of station work because their website mentions "More accessible stations", but that could be a lot of different things. Only Union platform restructuring seems a sure-thing.

If they're sneaky, they may only raise heights of stations with dwell times long enough to cause service delays like Exhibition or Oakville.
 
Here are some examples of stations that have chosen a different approach at street level. It wouldn't take much to liven up the south facing plaza given the eventual redevelopment of that land. I'm also concerned about how they plan on integrating the connection to the Broadview car.

Examples are Manchester, Berlin, and Tokyo. The first two examples aren't in reference to the architecture, just the street presence.

Screen Shot 2023-11-13 at 1.11.35 PM.png
Screen Shot 2023-11-10 at 10.49.45 PM.png
\
Screen Shot 2023-11-11 at 8.06.56 PM.png
Screen Shot 2023-11-11 at 4.54.24 PM.png
 
Dan416 said:
I really do wish that GO would move toward level boarding.
Click to expand...
My fear is that it seems that if they do raise the platform they won't raise it to the more common 380mm, 550mm, 760mm, 1100mm, or 1250mm platform heights that would actually allow us to get off the shelf international trains sets, but instead choose some platform height that is in the middle of things. The decision to move away from TTC gauge on new lines was made for the reason of being able to buy "off the shelf" but if the platform height doesn't match that of markets that produce a lot of trains the goal will not be met.
 
EnviroTO said:
My fear is that it seems that if they do raise the platform they won't raise it to the more common 380mm, 550mm, 760mm, 1100mm, or 1250mm platform heights that would actually allow us to get off the shelf international trains sets, but instead choose some platform height that is in the middle of things. The decision to move away from TTC gauge on new lines was made for the reason of being able to buy "off the shelf" but if the platform height doesn't match that of markets that produce a lot of trains the goal will not be met.
Click to expand...

No need to fear, you can be disappointed right now:

Currently GO platforms are built to 127 mm ATR (Above Top of Rail) height and station platform
standards reflect this. Platforms of this height require customers to board/alight a rail vehicle by
climbing two steps. However platform heights for level boarding will be 610 mm ATR (for details
on dimensions for straight and curved platform, refer GO Track Standard (GTS) plan 3004).
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top