[44 North]

^^Now I wasn't really saying they were, just more the fact that had the stations been designed simpler/smaller we could've possibly saved $X-million (which could otherwise have gone to improving our public realm elsewhere). I haven't exactly analyzed where the cost overruns are biting us, but are we certain they're not somewhat related to the 'lavishness' of these stations? I feel like if each station followed a similar template/standard with perhaps a smaller footprint, things may've gone smoother. Though I'm not sure on this.

 

[Adjei]

^^Now I wasn't really saying they were, just more the fact that had the stations been designed simpler/smaller we could've possibly saved $X-million (which could otherwise have gone to improving our public realm elsewhere). I haven't exactly analyzed where the cost overruns are biting us, but are we certain they're not somewhat related to the 'lavishness' of these stations? I feel like if each station followed a similar template/standard with perhaps a smaller footprint, things may've gone smoother. Though I'm not sure on this.

What makes you think any potential savings would have gone into our public realm? This city doesn't care about its public realm. Never has and never will.

 

[dowlingm]

What makes you think any potential savings would have gone into our public realm? This city doesn't care about its public realm. Never has and never will.

I agree with the premise here. Given the recent political climate, the money "saved" would have been used to reduce borrowing or taxation as people pass through sterile boxes en route to their destination. In any event local conditions such as location of bus loops and other entrances would have demanded at least some variation within the design.

 

[CDL.TO]

I think we should at least give "cheap a cheerful" a consideration.

As an example, look at Georg-Brauchle-Ring station in Munich (opened 2003). It's actually a very simple station. It's just a box; there aren't any architectural flourishes at all. But with good lighting and an artful approach to the walls, it's quite a nice space:

The station entrances are simple and tasteful. Streetview.

And the lack of a mezzanine would presumably result in lower construction and maintenance costs.

Sure, I'd rather the stations all look like architectural showpieces and I know that building like the station above is not going to solve the fundamental problems of funding and general construction costs. But, as long as costs are preventing us from expanding our rapid transit network, then value engineering (while still designing the space to be "cheerful") is at least worth looking into.

 

[Earlscourt_Lad]

Sure, I'd rather the stations all look like architectural showpieces and building like the station above not going to solve the fundamental problems of funding and general construction costs. But, as long as costs are preventing us from expanding our rapid transit network, then value engineering (while still designing the space to be "cheerful") is at least worth looking into.

+1

On that note, there's got to be a way to motivate architects/designers to work with the concept of elegantly done, simpler, stations.

 

[salsa]

The architectural frills you guys are complaining are only a small fraction of the cost of a subway station. What you should really be complaining about is that they are so deep underground. Cut and cover tunnelling would have saved money and the stations would be shallower and thus more user friendly (just compare the difference between Dundas station and Don Mills for example). Sure, this subway doesn't follow roads, but for the Yonge north extension anything other than cut and cover would be a waste of money.

 

[aquateam]

The architectural frills you guys are complaining are only a small fraction of the cost of a subway station. What you should really be complaining about is that they are so deep underground. Cut and cover tunnelling would have saved money and the stations would be shallower and thus more user friendly (just compare the difference between Dundas station and Don Mills for example). Sure, this subway doesn't follow roads, but for the Yonge north extension anything other than cut and cover would be a waste of money.

Shallower stations is a good idea. Reduced construction costs. Shorter trip for commuters. Less mileage of escalators/elevators to maintain. Would be great if there was natural light/light wells.

In general though, stations shouldn't be stand-alone structures. Why devote valuable above-ground real estate just to ingress/egress? Wherever possible, stations should be incorporated into developments, like at College and Dundas stations. That way, developers can bear/alleviate the cost of station construction and the new stations generate ridership in ways that park-and-rides cannot.

 

[jcam]

The architectural frills you guys are complaining are only a small fraction of the cost of a subway station. What you should really be complaining about is that they are so deep underground. Cut and cover tunnelling would have saved money and the stations would be shallower and thus more user friendly (just compare the difference between Dundas station and Don Mills for example). Sure, this subway doesn't follow roads, but for the Yonge north extension anything other than cut and cover would be a waste of money.

Cut and cover just doesn't make sense under dense urban arteries anymore. Only the southern section of Line 1 is under the main street. North of college they expropriated land adjacent to the road. Same with almost all of Line 2. The disruption to surface transportation and disruption of businesses is too much. Vancouver had a conniption over cut-and-cover on Cambie. Bored tunneling means you're only fully disrupting the surface at station locations....way less intrusive.

The other huge issue is utilities. All roads have a network of cable, telephone, power, water, stormwater and sewage under them within the first 5-10m below the surface. Then look at the major streets that have trunk sewers under them. The cost of relocating those at stations is high enough, imagine messing with one under the entire length of a cut and cover line.

Then you look at RoW. In a narrow right of way, you'd be excavating to the property lines, and basement walls of old buildings....that's risky. Minimize the risk by doing it only at stations and you're in much better shape.

Cut and cover can still work in underdeveloped areas with open space and less utilities, but it's rarely done inside big cities anymore.

 

[ehlow]

I think we should at least give "cheap a cheerful" a consideration.

As an example, look at Georg-Brauchle-Ring station in Munich (opened 2003). It's actually a very simple station. It's just a box; there aren't any architectural flourishes at all. But with good lighting and an artful approach to the walls, it's quite a nice space:


The station entrances are simple and tasteful. Streetview.

And the lack of a mezzanine would presumably result in lower construction and maintenance costs.

Sure, I'd rather the stations all look like architectural showpieces and I know that building like the station above is not going to solve the fundamental problems of funding and general construction costs. But, as long as costs are preventing us from expanding our rapid transit network, then value engineering (while still designing the space to be "cheerful") is at least worth looking into.

Something like this, except smaller since the trains are smaller, would be good for Eglinton stations.

 

[christiesplits]

Something like this, except smaller since the trains are smaller, would be good for Eglinton stations.

I have a feeling the ELRT stations will be bare-bones, sort of like the blank concrete walls of the Sheppard line, minus the public art installations.

 

[ehlow]

I have a feeling the ELRT stations will be bare-bones, sort of like the blank concrete walls of the Sheppard line, minus the public art installations.

I'm fine with that. They'll probably be smaller than the Sheppard stations, but similar style yeah.

 

[JasonParis]

I think there is an art component for all stations along the line. Not saying it will be significant though.

 

[smallspy]

The TTC hasn't published any data on the cost to operate each subway route. I have a suspicion that this is to avoid disparaging the Sheppard Subway. Royson James had to fight to get a report released (likely though the freedom of information act), that revealed for the first time exactly how poorly the subway was performing. Steve Munro goes into detail about this report on his blog


2011.03 Transit Technology Summary and Background
2011.03 Transit Technology Table

The TTC does report the ridership of each subway line, but the cost of operations for each line is not included.

There are a number of reasons for this. One is that people would probably freak out when they saw what it actually costs to run each train - while the generally accepted rule is that ~85% of the cost of running any given transit vehicle is labour, and that the rule holds mostly true when it comes to the operation of the subway, the vast, vast majority of the labour required to run the subway is not front-line. The second is that unlike most surface routes, the service levels of the subway only partially dictated by ridership - do you really think that the ridership of the subway warrants 5 minute headways at 1 in the morning on a Sunday? Of course not - but the TTC has made a conscious decision to run that level of service right until the end of service every day, and deal with the costs as they come.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[muller877]

Cut and cover just doesn't make sense under dense urban arteries anymore. Only the southern section of Line 1 is under the main street. North of college they expropriated land adjacent to the road. Same with almost all of Line 2. The disruption to surface transportation and disruption of businesses is too much. Vancouver had a conniption over cut-and-cover on Cambie. Bored tunneling means you're only fully disrupting the surface at station locations....way less intrusive.

The other huge issue is utilities. All roads have a network of cable, telephone, power, water, stormwater and sewage under them within the first 5-10m below the surface. Then look at the major streets that have trunk sewers under them. The cost of relocating those at stations is high enough, imagine messing with one under the entire length of a cut and cover line.

Then you look at RoW. In a narrow right of way, you'd be excavating to the property lines, and basement walls of old buildings....that's risky. Minimize the risk by doing it only at stations and you're in much better shape.

Cut and cover can still work in underdeveloped areas with open space and less utilities, but it's rarely done inside big cities anymore.

Hmmm....Shenzhen? They use cut and cover and they are a modern city (think of Hong Kong...but more modern). They are building hundreds of km of subways so they know what they are doing. They also have one of the highest GDP per person in China (around $12000-$15000 per person).

 

[jcam]

Hmmm....Shenzhen? They use cut and cover and they are a modern city (think of Hong Kong...but more modern). They are building hundreds of km of subways so they know what they are doing. They also have one of the highest GDP per person in China (around $12000-$15000 per person).

I don't know the particulars of Shenzen, but Bejing and Zhenzhou extensions, then your London, New York, San Fran, Singapore, etc. go bored tunnels because it's just easier to go under all the crap under the surface than try to build through and around it.