[beatle04]

Ideally they'd look at better, faster ways of moving people within the station (high speed elevators, for example), which would allow them to build it at the current depth, while improving passenger experience. But sadly, this is metrolinx, so it'll be 5-6 escalators to get between platforms. But there are ways to make the current station depths work, if they would just make the effort/spend the money.

DC actually has a subway station so deep that the only way to access it is via a high speed elevator. There are no escalators/stairs other than an emergency stair well. But to your point, that'd never happen here.

 

[innsertnamehere]

A reminder of what Metrolinx is planning for Queen. It will be a net of 4 escalators between platofrms. OL Platform > OL Concourse > middle concourse > Line 1 lower concourse > Line 1 platform.

We don't have to go to DC to see super deep platforms - Montreal is building an elevator-access-only station on REM as well.

Hopefully whoever ends up winning the bid finds a way to reduce the escalator count. Ideally down to 2 escalators, if possible.

 

[Bureaucromancer]

A reminder of what Metrolinx is planning for Queen. It will be a net of 4 escalators between platofrms. OL Platform > OL Concourse > middle concourse > Line 1 lower concourse > Line 1 platform.

We don't have to go to DC to see super deep platforms - Montreal is building an elevator-access-only station on REM as well.

Hopefully whoever ends up winning the bid finds a way to reduce the escalator count. Ideally down to 2 escalators, if possible.

Looks to me like there’s no a lot of hope for the escalators going below three (honestly, it looks like there probably is room, but the designs are farther along then they will want to make that large a structural change). At this point I think we should probably be emphasizing optimized elevators.

 

[treplow]

We don't have to go to DC to see super deep platforms - Montreal is building an elevator-access-only station on REM as well.

Their existing metro has some super deep platforms too. I remember Lucien L'Allier station having at least four loooooong escalator rides from platform to surface level.

 

[11th]

Looks to me like there’s no a lot of hope for the escalators going below three (honestly, it looks like there probably is room, but the designs are farther along then they will want to make that large a structural change). At this point I think we should probably be emphasizing optimized elevators.

There needs to be a OL concourse level to provide more access points to the platform, that's 1 flight escalators.
The OL concourse can't be fitted into lower Queen because that's a PATH level.
From OL concourse to lower Queen is another flight of escalators, that's 2.
Then of course another from lower Queen to line 1 platforms, that's 3.

 

[kotsy]

DC actually has a subway station so deep that the only way to access it is via a high speed elevator. There are no escalators/stairs other than an emergency stair well. But to your point, that'd never happen here.

The London Underground has a station like this as well. I can't remember off the top of my head what station or how deep it is but it's just elevators and emergency stairs.

 

[syn]

The problem is, that for Queen and Osgoode anyway, due to the buildings, PATH tunnels, and other infrastructure around Queen in the area, this is probably how deep it needs to be without it costing an absolute fortune to build. Building it in a layer of rock as planned, also avoids having to deal with the complete engineering nightmare of underpinning the existing Queen station, because underpinning stations was a big part of what held up the Crosstown at Eglinton and Eglinton West for so long.

Ideally they'd look at better, faster ways of moving people within the station (high speed elevators, for example), which would allow them to build it at the current depth, while improving passenger experience. But sadly, this is metrolinx, so it'll be 5-6 escalators to get between platforms. But there are ways to make the current station depths work, if they would just make the effort/spend the money.

We're building fairly deep in other areas of the city/GTA and it doesn't seem to be much of an issue.

Here, it's a necessity.

 

[TossYourJacket]

We're building fairly deep in other areas of the city/GTA and it doesn't seem to be much of an issue.

Here, it's a necessity.

Exactly!

I feel like people are acting like it's fine to put tunnels 25m below ground at SCC but somehow they expect a cut and cover tunnel through the heart of the city, which is the one place it makes no sense to do so.

 

[fanoftoronto]

Exactly!

I feel like people are acting like it's fine to put tunnels 25m below ground at SCC but somehow they expect a cut and cover tunnel through the heart of the city, which is the one place it makes no sense to do so.

To be fair, I don't support SCC needing to be 25m below ground either. Scarborough has literally the widest streets in all of Toronto, which is ripe for either cut-and-cover shallow stations or elevation.

Also, this is a horrible argument: "they're doing it in other projects, why not here?"
A bad engineering decision is a bad engineering decision regardless of where it is being implemented.

With regards to Queen and Osgoode stations, I do understand why they'd rather go that deep than deal with the myriad of engineering challenges with a shallow tunnel, but it more seems like there is no proper decision making process.

How much more expensive is it to have shallow tunnels between University and Yonge streets vs the currently proposed deep tunnels?
How much time is saved by going shallow vs going deep and having the passengers traverse 4 sets of elevators/stairs to get between lines?

It would be super easy for Metrolinx to nix any naysayers by providing the cost-benefit analysis of shallow vs deep tunnels. If it's going to cost (just for an example) $5 billion extra to tunnel shallow, then it's a moot point to support shallow tunnels. But they don't provide any of their decision making processes and that makes me suspicious if they even do any proper cost-benefit analysis for the different options.

 

[tsm1072]

To be fair, I don't support SCC needing to be 25m below ground either. Scarborough has literally the widest streets in all of Toronto, which is ripe for either cut-and-cover shallow stations or elevation.

Also, this is a horrible argument: "they're doing it in other projects, why not here?"
A bad engineering decision is a bad engineering decision regardless of where it is being implemented.

With regards to Queen and Osgoode stations, I do understand why they'd rather go that deep than deal with the myriad of engineering challenges with a shallow tunnel, but it more seems like there is no proper decision making process.

How much more expensive is it to have shallow tunnels between University and Yonge streets vs the currently proposed deep tunnels?
How much time is saved by going shallow vs going deep and having the passengers traverse 4 sets of elevators/stairs to get between lines?

It would be super easy for Metrolinx to nix any naysayers by providing the cost-benefit analysis of shallow vs deep tunnels. If it's going to cost (just for an example) $5 billion extra to tunnel shallow, then it's a moot point to support shallow tunnels. But they don't provide any of their decision making processes and that makes me suspicious if they even do any proper cost-benefit analysis for the different options.

This really comes down to whether you trust the engineers that work at our public institutions. I am sure these decisions aren't being made off the cuff and there is solid engineering behind them, but presenting that in a public report is difficult to do. Taking all the information gathered and reporting it adds a lot of time and cost to the process. The other problem engineers face nowadays is dishonest reporting of sections of a report and trying to take things out of context. I would love for all this to be public, but I also trust the engineers behind these decisions to be making them in good faith.

 

[crs1026]

^I’m not an engineer, but on a common sense level - driving the Ontario Line deep in the downtown area makes eminent sense. A cut and cover would require deep excavations just to get below the stuff we know is buried already… and then there’s the stuff we don’t know is there. Lots of risk that digging would have to stop while discoveries were investigated and resolved. Excavations would be expensive and disruptive…. The stations will be hell enough.
But I totally agree that outside of downtown, the use of TBM’s is excessive and drives the wrong kind of design.

- Paul

 

[fanoftoronto]

This really comes down to whether you trust the engineers that work at our public institutions. I am sure these decisions aren't being made off the cuff and there is solid engineering behind them, but presenting that in a public report is difficult to do. Taking all the information gathered and reporting it adds a lot of time and cost to the process. The other problem engineers face nowadays is dishonest reporting of sections of a report and trying to take things out of context. I would love for all this to be public, but I also trust the engineers behind these decisions to be making them in good faith.

But that's the thing, what have the engineering firms done to earn my trust? Lets look at the currently ongoing public transit improvements in Toronto and my engineering gripes with them:

• Eglinton West LRT extension - The EPR Addendum is written solely to support the underground+elevated option that was championed by Doug Ford. The alternatives presented were non-sensical and made the underground+elevated option the preferred choice by default. The daily boarding for the current proposal is 5,000 riders lower than the surface LRT option, while being billions more expensive. How is that sound engineering design decision making?
• Eglinton West LRT extension - Arguably the widest ROW in all of Toronto, but only elevated for 1.3 km of the total 9.2 km length. Elevated is handily cheaper than tunneling. Granted the elevated portion is to get past the Humber River, which is logical. But why not elevate for the rest of Eglinton as well where there is tons of space to do so?
• Scarborough extension - Again, wide ROWs, but deep stations with zero attempt to look at elevated. The station at Lawrence and McCowan is, I believe, one of the deepest in Toronto. This is to get below river in that area, but Metrolinx went elevated for the Eglinton West LRT, why are they tunneling deep in this location? They aren't even being consistent with their design decisions.
• Yonge North extension - The distance between the end of the Bridge station and beginning of the High Tech station is around 300m. Stations are one of the most expensive parts of transit building in Toronto, they're building 2 stations within 500 m of each other in the outer fringe of the city. Where is the sound engineering decision making evident in this?

The above are only some of the reasons why I don't trust the city/Province's design decision making process. I don't doubt the skill of the engineers involved in these projects, just that they're decisions are made for them by politicians and others that don't know how to make design decisions. And the engineers are forced to manipulate the numbers to support these decisions.

 

[TRONto]

To be fair, I don't support SCC needing to be 25m below ground either. Scarborough has literally the widest streets in all of Toronto, which is ripe for either cut-and-cover shallow stations or elevation.

Also, this is a horrible argument: "they're doing it in other projects, why not here?"
A bad engineering decision is a bad engineering decision regardless of where it is being implemented.

With regards to Queen and Osgoode stations, I do understand why they'd rather go that deep than deal with the myriad of engineering challenges with a shallow tunnel, but it more seems like there is no proper decision making process.

How much more expensive is it to have shallow tunnels between University and Yonge streets vs the currently proposed deep tunnels?
How much time is saved by going shallow vs going deep and having the passengers traverse 4 sets of elevators/stairs to get between lines?

It would be super easy for Metrolinx to nix any naysayers by providing the cost-benefit analysis of shallow vs deep tunnels. If it's going to cost (just for an example) $5 billion extra to tunnel shallow, then it's a moot point to support shallow tunnels. But they don't provide any of their decision making processes and that makes me suspicious if they even do any proper cost-benefit analysis for the different options.

The answer for why they went so deep on the downtown section is in this forum back a few pages. Essentially, there is a lot in the way of doing the tunnels shallower.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

The London Underground has a station like this as well. I can't remember off the top of my head what station or how deep it is but it's just elevators and emergency stairs.

There are a few, but Covent Garden station is one. Used it before - not the greatest experience when I was, but it did the job. Not sure if the system is up to handling any serious rush hour crowds though.

AoD

 

[TopOfRail]

But that's the thing, what have the engineering firms done to earn my trust? Lets look at the currently ongoing public transit improvements in Toronto and my engineering gripes with them:

• Eglinton West LRT extension - The EPR Addendum is written solely to support the underground+elevated option that was championed by Doug Ford. The alternatives presented were non-sensical and made the underground+elevated option the preferred choice by default. The daily boarding for the current proposal is 5,000 riders lower than the surface LRT option, while being billions more expensive. How is that sound engineering design decision making?
• Eglinton West LRT extension - Arguably the widest ROW in all of Toronto, but only elevated for 1.3 km of the total 9.2 km length. Elevated is handily cheaper than tunneling. Granted the elevated portion is to get past the Humber River, which is logical. But why not elevate for the rest of Eglinton as well where there is tons of space to do so?
• Scarborough extension - Again, wide ROWs, but deep stations with zero attempt to look at elevated. The station at Lawrence and McCowan is, I believe, one of the deepest in Toronto. This is to get below river in that area, but Metrolinx went elevated for the Eglinton West LRT, why are they tunneling deep in this location? They aren't even being consistent with their design decisions.
• Yonge North extension - The distance between the end of the Bridge station and beginning of the High Tech station is around 300m. Stations are one of the most expensive parts of transit building in Toronto, they're building 2 stations within 500 m of each other in the outer fringe of the city. Where is the sound engineering decision making evident in this?

The above are only some of the reasons why I don't trust the city/Province's design decision making process. I don't doubt the skill of the engineers involved in these projects, just that they're decisions are made for them by politicians and others that don't know how to make design decisions. And the engineers are forced to manipulate the numbers to support these decisions.

I agree with a lot of your points. I think the vision for many projects has already been determined before it meets RFQ for engineering design. This is a massive failure on the part of political involvement in what should be an apolitical process. One thing I don't understand is how Metrolinx can back projects that have BCRs of less than 1. A PDBC that yields something more costly than beneficial... shouldn't be built? Let's be frank, this is also the most optimistic point in the project - the cost tends to only go up from this point. I think this happens too often and I'm surprised not more has been critiqued about this in the press. Contrastingly, I find it intriguing to see how CDPQi approach(ed) REM expansions in Montreal, with an albeit brutal but efficient objective - even inciting the dismay of some architectural firms. I guess it didn't work out so well for them either...

On the topic of deep stations, one has to consider the throughput of passengers in these circumstances as well as time. If reachable only by high-speed elevator, you may require a multitude of elevators in order to meet the capacity of stairs or escalators. Not to mention reliability and maintenance. With depth, also comes journey time: it physically takes longer to transfer and navigate. But at the same time, this can also be used as a people movement benefit. There is an interesting case study which I believe is implemented in the London Underground, where making the route longer can reduce crush capacity instances. Consider making the journey from fare gate to platform longer for embarking passengers and much shorter for disembarking passengers. LU has used their tunnels and wayfinding to great effect for this. There is a strange elegance in creating small inefficiencies to create a wider system efficiency that I find is lacking in the modern ethos for design. The symmetry in the snapshot is wonderful, however I often wonder if this generic approach is "good enough".