UD2 said:
If you find it so inexcusable then why don't you spend this time and walk to the city hall, put up a sign, and fight for it to be changed. Along with all the other things against the TTC you have to complain about.

I find the constant pounding and complaining on this forum a bit naive. We could all agree with you and it still wouldn't make a difference other than us agreeing with you, which not all of us do.

If you want change you got to go out and fight for it. Sitting at home in front of a computer ranting on an internet forum ain't gonna get you what you want.

Frankly I find the designs OK to accept. York's entrance is located in a good location simply because there isn't much of anything due east of that point at this moment. Also to add that I believe the area due east of the station is some type of a reserved green area, so I believe nothing much would go there in the future either (correct me if I'm wrong).

Sheppard may seem to be a bit overbuilt at this point, but then so was the entire Spadina subway line when it was being constructed. The point of building infrastructure like this is so that they'll still be adequate 50 years from now. I don't understand why people don't get this. It’s the same thing with stops like York Mills, Lawrance and even Sheppard when they were planned. Those stations were also much bigger than it was justified for with the ridership that it served when they were constructed. But look where we are now.

We're building something that's meant to serve not only us but our children and their children and even their children's children. Let's keep that in mind when before we start complaining and remember that it will be much more expansive to change something after it's built than to do it right the first place.
Click to expand...

You're bitching about a complaint (that I've already brought up at meetings and via email, not that such actions make the slightest difference, which everyone knows unless they're naive...posting here is actually more effective since it can trigger multiple people to complain and act - even two voices are better than one). Seriously, why not spend your time going out and having children so that your children's children can enjoy this massively overbuilt station instead of bitching about complaints?

Sorry, but Lawrence is not overbuilt...you're not quite grasping the concept of overbuilding here. York Mills isn't, either.

Yes, you're wrong about York U. The land closer to Keele may not all be developed, but much of it is slated to be, and the point about multiple entrances pertains to the platform itself, which goes from north of York Blvd to south of York Blvd yet only has one large entrance into the Commons. Now that's building for the future!

Pete1983 said:
This would probably be why Sheppard West station is being built the size that it is: http://www.toronto.ca/planning/downsview.htm

The City clearly has big plans for the Downsview lands. Also, I think it is a bit unfair to call this a waste of money, considering the amount of people that live and could potentially move there (according to the new Downsview Secondary plan, it could be a minimum of 20,000). If we want to talk about a waste of money, I'd probably single out the Hwy 7 subway stop, especially since that is in the middle of nowhere. And remember: it isn't always about south of Bloor.
Click to expand...

Note that most of the people slated to live at Downsview will be along Keele, a kilometre or more from Sheppard West, or south of Downsview station.
 
Last edited:
TTC unveils station plans

Torontoist
TTC Beefs Up Design Chops for New Sheppard West and York University Stations

This Thursday, the Toronto Transit Commission will sit down to approve conceptual layouts for York University and Sheppard West, two of the new stations on the future Spadina subway extension. The details are outlined in the meeting's agenda, and some of the more significant points in the plans are after the jump.

Link: http://torontoist.com/2009/09/sheppard_west_york_university_subway_plans.php

The StarDesigns for two Spadina subway extension stops take advantage of their suburban surroundings

Sep 23, 2009 04:30 AM
Tess Kalinowski
Transportation Reporter

It's the TTC's version of Operation Runway.

This week, the transit agency revealed plans for the first two stations on the planned Spadina subway extension, including a design for Sheppard West from architectural firm Aedas that resembles twinned landing strips.

"It looks like a wing to me, or a partial wing – something that invokes flight. That's my impression," says Andy Bertolo, the TTC's project manager...


Link: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/699503

Designs look pretty nice! :)
 
Last edited:
Many things needs to be address here

A)Which buses will go where?
84-Sheppard west and Dowsview
105-Downsview
117-Downview

101-106-108-107-Sheppard Or Downsview? or both?
What about the 196 express?

B)With the subway going to York University and the possibility of the 196 being cancel, I really hope that the TTC will make the Sheppard Line extension to Downsview one of their priority. At peak time, the service is disastrous.

No amount of 196B or 84 bus (like in the transit city bus) can fix that. Too much traffic.

Without a direct link from Sheppard-Younge to York University, the subway is the only way to compensate. The Sheppard-Yonge Plateform would stop being an embarrassment...

C) That's a lot of land... I don't have a problem with the architecture but that's really a lot of land...It's like owning a mini park...within a park??? Surely they could have only own the building and leave the green areas to the park...
 
kEiThZ said:
Is it all that bad though? At worst they've wasted a few million dollars. We are talking a percent or two of the project's total cost. It’s not anything that would pay for even an extra km of subway on Yonge.
Click to expand...

I just find it ironic that the same politicians who argue that subways cost too much are the ones pushing for cathedralesque stations like these. Given that each station includes millions of dollars of bells and whistles, it is irresponsible to approve a design that is believed to be over budget before the shovels even hit the ground. The point is not how much subway could be built with the savings, it's that the preservation of public funds should be more of a priority.

Having read the Toronto Star article, I found these 2 quotes amusing:
"Those [original Yonge stations] were very functional stations, if you just need to access track level," Giambrone said.
Click to expand...
Question for Giambrone: Are you implying that people enter a subway station for reasons other than accessing track level?

Both stations are already over-budget, according to the reports before councillors on the transit commission. "The project cost of $2.6 billion includes around a 10 per cent, or $260 million, contingency budget," said Giambrone. "So, while we are eating up good chunks of it, we are still okay."
Click to expand...
This comment is insulting. The contingency is there to protect against items such as unknown soil conditions, unexpected material cost increases, or unexpected structural issues. If the station is over budget in the design stage, now is the time to trim it back to get costs under control. To use the contingency to fund an architect's unrealistic design concept demonstrates shocking incompetence on the TTC's part in the area of project management.

As a project manager myself, I believe that a quote like this is suicidal. It demonstrates to contractors and designers alike that the TTC has loose purse strings, would rather give in to design changes by dipping into the contingency than fight against them, and has poor control over its trades. Based on this quote, it sounds like the TTC is a pushover, ripe for approving large extras.
 
Last edited:
The contingency allotment is actually over $500M, so there's plenty left to burn on stations like VCC or Steeles West. I have every confidence that the designs will inflate to fit the contingency. The people behind the Yonge extension, though, have promised with all their hearts to not do this, but we'll see.
 
Chuck said:
I just find it ironic that the same politicians who argue that subways cost too much are the ones pushing for cathedralesque stations like these. Given that each station includes millions of dollars of bells and whistles, it is irresponsible to approve a design that is believed to be over budget before the shovels even hit the ground. The point is not how much subway could be built with the savings, it's that the preservation of public funds should be more of a priority.
Click to expand...
I half agree. But the TTC could actually save a lot of money if they didn't brutally overbuild these stations. But I too find it very stupid that these same politicians have decided to make such giant stations.

Chuck said:
Having read the Toronto Star article, I found these 2 quotes amusing:

Question for Giambrone: Are you implying that people enter a subway station for reasons other than accessing track level?
Click to expand...
Well obviously, there needs to be space for several stores other than Gateway Newstands.
Of course, they also need to act as bomb shelters. And in case another station goes down, they need to be able to fit the entire riding's population just to make sure they can handle an overflow.
And how could we live without the room for chamber choirs and orchestras? I know that there aren't any plans yet, but I'm sure the TTC's discussed holding concerts in one or two stations on the Sheppard Line :rolleyes:
 
Brutally overbuild? If you were raised in the tunnel under Dundas station, perhaps they are brutally overbuilt ... but they are both stations that will carry large peak loads. York will have very heavy loads at the beginning and end of classes. And Sheppard West will have peak loads co-inciding with the GO train ... in the same manner that Vendome station does in Montreal (which is a prime example of underbuilding ... because the designed it without thinking of the passenger load that the commuter trains would create only 30 years after the station was designed).
 
Sheppard West might one day see truly massive peak loads of one whole thousand people per hour. The proposed station is far too small for this...I recommend 12 escalators.
 
nfitz said:
Brutally overbuild? If you were raised in the tunnel under Dundas station, perhaps they are brutally overbuilt ... but they are both stations that will carry large peak loads.
Click to expand...

Crush loads can only be accommodated by providing multiple entrances and multiple turnstiles. King Station has both of these, which is why despite having virtually no street presence and a miniscule concourse area, 500 people can easily enter the platform per 2 minute train cycle. Finch on the other hand doesn't have nearly enough turnstiles, which is why despite having a ginormous concourse level, there are often long lineups to get into the fare paid area.

The amount of interior station area is not proportional to the station's people moving capacity, however the number of entrances and turnstiles is. Sheppard Station could have an entrance on the north sidewalk leading to the north end of the platform, an entrance on the south sidewalk leading to the middle of the platform, and two entrances leading down from the tracks connecting to GO. No above grade construction, nothing but staircases straight down to the tracks. The overflow at the GO station could be accommodated by an outdoor plaza covered by a glass canopy. Similar situation at York.
 
It's very important to note that there's a huge difference between attractive stations and overbuilt stations. A lot of modern TTC stations are massively overbuilt, with huge mezzanines and vast underground caverns, but they're quite unattractive. In Munich, for example, all of the new stations are very interesting and attractive, but they're quite simple. Escalator down from the surface at either end. Maybe a little newsstand. The cost isn't in art displays or interesting tiles. It's in 10,000 square feet of empty underground space.

The biggest shame with those mezzanines is that the space could be used to make a much taller and more attractive station. Instead, we excavate huge underground caverns and still have low-ceilinged warrens at track level.

York U station is definitely reminiscent of Foster`s Canary Wharf station. It`s certainly impressive, though I do understand the appeal of underground connections and multiple entrances. I`m less concerned about the overbuilding at what will be a very well-used station. I also like the open-to-below aspect.

I`m very happy we have Chuck here to give an expert perspective on these issues.
 
Last edited:
Transportfan said:
What a waste of money!
Click to expand...

And this is why we can't have nice stuff.

Do you understand what it is for and how it will be used? Hint, it helps address capacity issues between Bloor/Yonge and Union stations.

Just because you cannot understand something does NOT make it a waste.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top