[Dr. Snoot]

It comes down to do we spend hundreds of millions into making stations look pretty or spend those exact same funds into extending a line and having more total number of stations.
Which is more beneficial to the city and transit user?

The tradeoffs aren't pretty station vs barebones stations but rather pretty stations vs more transit.
This is why I am in favour of making stations as cheaply as possible because you will be able to get more of them in the long run.

Sorry, but this is such a false dichotomy. It doesn't have to cost hundreds of millions of dollars to make stations look pretty, or at least more interesting than a grey box. Good design is about creativity.

Also, even if it did cost hundreds of millions, I'd argue this is the exact place we should be putting funds into making things look "pretty". Transit stations are probably the most heavily used public infrastructure in our country--seen by millions more people than private residences, fancy offices, or even most museums. I, for one, don't want to live a good portion of my life at the lowest common denominator of cheapness.

 

[T3G]

w

Sorry, but this is such a false dichotomy. It doesn't have to cost hundreds of millions of dollars to make stations look pretty, or at least more interesting than a grey box. Good design is about creativity.

Also, even if it did cost hundreds of millions, I'd argue this is the exact place we should be putting funds into making things look "pretty". Transit stations are probably the most heavily used public infrastructure in our country--seen by millions more people than private residences, fancy offices, or even most public parks. I, for one, don't want to live a good portion of my life at the lowest common denominator of cheapness.

Well put! You don't need to go as far as incorporating the stylings of Rathaus Spandau into a station to make it look more attractive. A simple but clean and welcoming design like Dupont + a maintenance and cleaning budget can go a long way to making a station feel inviting too.

 

[Obsidian]

Sorry, but this is such a false dichotomy. It doesn't have to cost hundreds of millions of dollars to make stations look pretty, or at least more interesting than a grey box. Good design is about creativity.

Also, even if it did cost hundreds of millions, I'd argue this is the exact place we should be putting funds into making things look "pretty". Transit stations are probably the most heavily used public infrastructure in our country--seen by millions more people than private residences, fancy offices, or even most museums. I, for one, don't want to live a good portion of my life at the lowest common denominator of cheapness.

I don't think its false at all, we have two recent examples in the city illustrating my point.

1. Stations have been cut from the Yonge extension for the purpose of saving money.
2. Platform screen doors were cut from the York University extension to make the stations cheaper to save money.

in these examples we had to choose cheaper stations or fewer stations.

Would you sacrifice for examlpe the King and Bathurst stations so the other stations can look nicer?

 

[interchange42]

You're all repeating yourselves now, ad nauseum. Enough, please. Deletions may follow.

42

 

[Northern Light]

I don't think it's false at all, stations have been cut from the Yonge extension for the purpose of saving money.
Would you sacrifice for exam the King and Bathurst stations so the other stations can look nicer?

Ummm, one station may be cut; not stations. Royal Orchard was put back in; Mx is still planning to build Cummer if the gov't greenlights it, planning is proceeding for that station.

 

[Obsidian]

Ummm, one station may be cut; not stations. Royal Orchard was put back in; Mx is still planning to build Cummer if the gov't greenlights it, planning is proceeding for that station.

if we make the Yonge stations cheaper maybe we wouldn't need more money to add the Cummer station. this is my point.

also, i added more context to my original post, see below.

1. Stations have been cut from the Yonge extension for the purpose of saving money.
2. Platform screen doors were cut from the York University extension to make the stations cheaper to save money.

in these examples we had to choose cheaper stations or fewer stations.

Would you sacrifice for example the King and Bathurst stations so the other stations can look nicer?

 

[T3G]

Is there some kind of grandiose art installation planned on the Yonge North stations that made adding Cummer in a non starter? I'm not aware of such. There's only so many cuts you can make to a project before it ceases to be functional.

I am not aware of the PSDs being cut from the Spadina extension for the reason of cheapness, either. My understanding is that it was done because they were concerned the ATC installation would not be complete in time.

 

[Obsidian]

I don't know the details of the Yonge extension stations designs, but would you rather have Cummer station built if they were able to cut the cost of the other stations by 15% to make it possible or keep the current plans and not have a Cummer Stations at all?

This is the crux of my argument, building nicer stations will always come at the cost of more transit.

Is there some kind of grandiose art installation planned on the Yonge North stations that made adding Cummer in a non starter? I'm not aware of such. There's only so many cuts you can make to a project before it ceases to be functional.

I am not aware of the PSDs being cut from the Spadina extension for the reason of cheapness, either. My understanding is that it was done because they were concerned the ATC installation would not be complete in time.

 

[T3G]

Well, quite frankly I'd rather the Yonge North extension not be built at all. At least, not beyond Steeles.

But without knowing the details of how the cost cutting of 15% would have to be achieved, I really can't say whether that would be a worthwhile trade off or not. Looking at what has been built for the Eglinton Crosstown as compared with the renderings, there really isn't anything grandiose going on. I know not to expect anything different from the proposed OL stations, they will be watered down until they resemble the renderings in no way. So bearing that in mind, I would be rather concerned that cutting the cost by 15% would steer us into negligence territory.

 

[Obsidian]

Well, quite frankly I'd rather the Yonge North extension not be built at all. At least, not beyond Steeles.

But without knowing the details of how the cost cutting of 15% would have to be achieved, I really can't say whether that would be a worthwhile trade off or not. Looking at what has been built for the Eglinton Crosstown as compared with the renderings, there really isn't anything grandiose going on. I know not to expect anything different from the proposed OL stations, they will be watered down until they resemble the renderings in no way. So bearing that in mind, I would be rather concerned that cutting the cost by 15% would steer us into negligence territory.

the stations get watered down so that they can build all of them, if they didn't water down the stations, some of them would have to be cut.
What underground Eglinton station would you remove so the other stations look nicer?

Again, this is my point making stations nicer = fewer stations and therefore worst usability and vice versa (More stations = less nicer ones)
If we want the Ontario Line stations to be more grandiose, which ones will you want to sacrifice to make it possible.

Metrolinx should aim to cut all stations cost by 10% on all transit stations under construction in Toronto and give us a Cummer, Brimely and Cherry Stations

 

[Lenser]

Seems to me that Metrolinx s going to do whatever it wants to do, regardless of public opinion - or, for that matter, criticism, however meaningful and well intended, from the likes of this board. I get the feeling that Metrolinx acts as if it is beholden to no one. Its attitude toward Toronto and its needs is one of indifference, if not openly hostile.

 

[Obsidian]

Seems to me that Metrolinx s going to do whatever it wants to do, regardless of public opinion - or, for that matter, criticism, however meaningful and well intended, from the likes of this board. I get the feeling that Metrolinx acts as if it is beholden to no one. Its attitude toward Toronto and its needs is one of indifference, if not openly hostile.

Metrolink exist to get transit projects built and i am glad that they don't get bogged down in local politics and push through regardless of public opinion.
Leaving transit decisions up to local politicians, who are controlled by their local NIMBY's, has proven to be much worst in my opinion.

I believe the more projects they do, the more cost efficient they will become due to institutional knowledge as long as they continually build projects.

 

[Lenser]

I commend your optimism on that regard. Where you see strength, I see weakness. I don't think Metrolinx has the city's best interests in mind. It's an entity subject to the whims of the provincial govenment.

 

[Obsidian]

I commend your optimism on that regard. Where you see strength, I see weakness. I don't think Metrolinx has the city's best interests in mind. It's an entity subject to the whims of the provincial govenment.

Toronto doesn't know what wants though as we can see with the 180-degree change from Mayor Millers Transit City to Rob Fords, Subways Subways, Subways.
Metrolink will tell Toronto what it is getting and build it regardless of criticisms.

I like that we have an agency who is 100% focus on getting transit built and who will not get easily derailed from their projects by endless debates.
By their share existence it means we will continually have transit expansions and there would never a gap or more than a couple of years between active constructions somewhere since dozens of highly paid civil servants jobs will depend on keep the transit machine going.

If we had Metrolink 20 years earlier, i feel so many more projects would have been built in the GTA by now.

 

[DSC]

Metrolink exist to get transit projects built and i am glad that they don't get bogged down in local politics and push through regardless of public opinion.
Leaving transit decisions up to local politicians, who are controlled by their local NIMBY's, has proven to be much worst in my opinion.

I believe the more projects they do, the more cost efficient they will become due to institutional knowledge as long as they continually build projects.

Not much sign of that so far!