- Thread starter 299 bloor call control.
- Start date
BMO
Senior Member
Not spend the most but it definitely merits a different approach than somewhere like downtown. Often I feel like too many people get stuck in the NOW of it all and fail to look at the broader future trickle down effects that an investment like transit could have on an area and in this case the design of those stations.
rbt
Senior Member
You keep saying stuff like that. No money like the 80's, etc. Why do you believe this? Toronto actually has far more money, collectively as a region, than at any time in the past. We've chosen to direct it to things other than transit; but it was a choice. To get money directed back at transit, mind-share must be won.
Our debates on spending $2.8B on transit gets an equal amount of as hand-wringing as $3B. It's not easier to pass. In fact, often the $3.3B option has an easier time getting funding than the $2.8B option. Voters are NOT at all in any way practical with their transit demands; see Scarborough Subway debates for a recent example of a $500M unfunded project getting priced into the $3B range to get voter buy-in.
Often a little bit, or a whole ton, of flash is required to get people to open their wallets.
It's the same with buying private vehicles. Very few buy (except a couple years around high oil pricing) the Lada or the Civic equivalent that will happily get them from point A to point B. They spend many times that amount on something that does no better at going from A to B; but it is flashier or more comfortable or has some additional quality they think they need.
Last edited:
BMO
Senior Member
London's suburbs are far more conducive to transit usage and much denser than Toronto's suburbs it's almost comparing apples to oranges. But let's look at what you said. London's suburbs are denser, these stations are being built with new land use policies in place to promote density at these stations. The intent is to eventually have something similar to what we see in London's suburbs to promote the usage of these facilities. It's not like they simply decided to make these stations pretty in hopes people would come, there's actual planning and policy that's put in place in conjunction with this extension.
nfitz
Superstar
London hasn't built an underground station in the suburbs in 40 years.
The comparison should be to Montreal. Where stations are similar to the University subway extension. And cheaper.
cplchanb
Senior Member
IMO not really since most of their station boxes followed a general generic template whereas each station in the YUS is unique.
nfitz
Superstar
Ours also follow a generic template.
junctionist
Senior Member
Montreal built a great system from a design standpoint. Every station looks unique. Most are attractive. There are certain themes to the stations that unify the system, like the confident use of architectural concrete inside and out (often poured in geometric or sculptural forms) with brightly coloured accents. Most artists and architects were Quebeckers. The artwork is often interesting. Yet there never seemed to be scandals about the designs of the stations, and the system wasn't more expensive to build than ours.
The middle ground is to be build unique stations with some unifying themes and without a significantly higher budget. Reserve extravagance for a small number of significant locations. Some locations should have something bolder like London's Canary Wharf tube station. But most stations would be fine if they looked like Montreal's stations.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Why do all the underground stations in Montreal have such high ceilings?
W. K. Lis
Superstar
The friction heat generated by the rubber-tyred Metro trains would be worse if the ceilings were low. Heat rises, so the higher the ceilings the better. Unfortunately, it can get hot in the Montréal Metro even in winter.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Is that a stated fact? From physics, one'd imagine the heavier trains we use (in absence of regenerative braking back then) would produce more heat than the system in Montreal - the wheel material shouldn't make a difference in the total amount of heat generated. That, and the old cars are not air-conditioned - unlike ours since H6, which dump the heat into the stations.
AoD
Last edited:
nfitz
Superstar
Good point. My theory is that it is because the stations in Montreal are typically deeper. The bedrock there is fairly shallow compared to Toronto, and the engineers their have always preferred to tunnel in bedrock rather than overburden.
If you look at the Yonge and BD lines here, it was all cut-and-cover, just below the surface. So we have relatively low ceilings, because to go deeper, it would have cost a lot more.
Once the line was deeper in Montreal, there was more space to work with. And not particularly a lot of extra cost to make higher seasons. Perhaps less cost, as you don't have to fill the hole back in with as much material. Though there's a handful of stations I can think of in Montreal, where they tunnelled the stations, rather than excavating down to them (and those will be fun ones to put elevators in now!). Snowdon comes to mind.
If you look at the Yonge and BD lines here, it was all cut-and-cover, just below the surface. So we have relatively low ceilings, because to go deeper, it would have cost a lot more.
Once the line was deeper in Montreal, there was more space to work with. And not particularly a lot of extra cost to make higher seasons. Perhaps less cost, as you don't have to fill the hole back in with as much material. Though there's a handful of stations I can think of in Montreal, where they tunnelled the stations, rather than excavating down to them (and those will be fun ones to put elevators in now!). Snowdon comes to mind.
Last edited:
W. K. Lis
Superstar
All rubber-tyred trains (Montréal, Paris, Mexico City, etc.) have the same problem of heat dissipation. See link.
Because of the possible snow conditions in Montréal, the tracks have to be enclosed, even in the more suburban areas.
I'm assuming they went with tunneling above Steeles Avenue, is because it would be more likely to snow in Vaughan, to reduce snow problems.
junctionist
Senior Member
That's a good point. With deeper stations, there's more space to work with. You don't have to have high ceilings, but it's cheaper to build that way if the station has to be excavated down to the bedrock tunnels.