Toronto Crosstown LRT | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | Arcadis

[TheTigerMaster]

The design of the street-level buildings are nice, but the rest of the architectural design on the Crosstown is lazy. Especially at platform level, where we're getting the grey concrete treatment with the station name lazily tacked on, backed by some unimaginative artwork. This is only going to get worse as the concrete deteriorates and collects dust (and the concrete already looks like its in rough shape here).

And the design of the street-level stops is disgraceful. There are no redeeming qualities about this design. We're leaving people out in the wind and cold here. Even the YRT shelters are superior to this.

This is typical Toronto ultra-utilitarian architecture. If you want to see actually impressive, yet functional, architecture, look towards London's Crossrail.

I hope MX does better with the Ontario Line, but initial renters indicate that they're sticking with their lazy, yet functional design style.

 

[dad pad]

I think your objections are valid overall but Crossrail is an rung above metro and the Crosstown is a rung below so I don't believe that it is completely fair to compare the two

 

[ARG1]

I think your objections are valid overall but Crossrail is an rung above metro and the Crosstown is a rung below so I don't believe that it is completely fair to compare the two

I don't think that should matter. The Viva Rapidway as just a plain BRT but they put some money into making a templated stop design that looks absolutely fantastic, and major stations like VMC are phenomenal (granted I wish they instead put the money into running actually frequent service but eh). For some reason our politicians are building the nice stuff out in the suburbs meanwhile stuff built within the city of Toronto look horrible. Look no further than the DSBRT where the shelters over in Durham are these large enclosed shelters with heating and stuff, meanwhile as soon as the BRT crosses over into Toronto, the shelters get immediately reduced in scale and begin looking like what you'd find on Line 5 or 6.

https://imgur.com/C2UAD7Y

https://imgur.com/6mrbDjZ

https://imgur.com/ahtwOSS

 

[drum118]

I don't think that should matter. The Viva Rapidway as just a plain BRT but they put some money into making a templated stop design that looks absolutely fantastic, and major stations like VMC are phenomenal (granted I wish they instead put the money into running actually frequent service but eh). For some reason our politicians are building the nice stuff out in the suburbs meanwhile stuff built within the city of Toronto look horrible. Look no further than the DSBRT where the shelters over in Durham are these large enclosed shelters with heating and stuff, meanwhile as soon as the BRT crosses over into Toronto, the shelters get immediately reduced in scale and begin looking like what you'd find on Line 5 or 6.

https://imgur.com/C2UAD7Y

https://imgur.com/6mrbDjZ

https://imgur.com/ahtwOSS

The different between Toronto and Durham shelters, Durham is exposing themselves to legal issues like Ottawa shelters. The roof needs to a a lot higher than what is shown as well the removal of post that are replace with an L support with the rear post taking the extra loading for supporting the roof.

 

[NoahB]

The different between Toronto and Durham shelters, Durham is exposing themselves to legal issues like Ottawa shelters. The roof needs to a a lot higher than what is shown as well the removal of post that are replace with an L support with the rear post taking the extra loading for supporting the roof.

Can you explain the reasoning behind the idea of roof design exposing the mentioned cities to 'legal issues'?

 

[drum118]

Can you explain the reasoning behind the idea of roof design exposing the mentioned cities to 'legal issues'?

If the roof is at the same height of the bus roof and at the edge, there is a chance the bus can hit it even with a hit platform and cause damage and injuries to riders on the bus and platform. Hitting a post can cause the roof to come .down.

The roof needs to be set back at least 6 inches

The cost between a post roof an a L support roof is not going to be much more.

 

[NoahB]

If the roof is at the same height of the bus roof and at the edge, there is a chance the bus can hit it even with a hit platform and cause damage and injuries to riders on the bus and platform. Hitting a post can cause the roof to come .down.

The roof needs to be set back at least 6 inches

The cost between a post roof an a L support roof is not going to be much more.

I'm sure the built version will have taken the existence of busses into account, unlike the conceptual blockout...
Is this an issue in BRTs in Bogota etc?

It would be something to ask during a community session maybe. But I looked at the render again and the cover is offset from the curb. So unless the bus crashes into the shelter then I dont think this is an issue for these shelters.

 

[W. K. Lis]

If the roof is at the same height of the bus roof and at the edge, there is a chance the bus can hit it even with a hit platform and cause damage and injuries to riders on the bus and platform. Hitting a post can cause the roof to come .down.

The roof needs to be set back at least 6 inches

The cost between a post roof an a L support roof is not going to be much more.

That's why...

TTC says it has no plans to roll out double decker buses

From link.

Many people might not know that at one point the TTC had double decker buses. They were first introduced back in 1922 and were a regular sight in the city through the 1940s.

But don't expect to see them on Toronto streets anytime soon.

It's long been a favourite pastime among TTC aficionados to dream up ways to bring back some of the nostalgia of years gone by and double decker buses check all the right boxes.

As Eddie Ho pointed out back in 2012, double decker buses could make sense for busy routes. They have more space, great views and could likely come at only an incremental cost.

Last year, local artist Adrian Badaraco took the dream a step further when he came up with a full realization of the double decker bus. It looked so realistic that some actually thought they were in the works.

My parents (ttc drivers) just got emailed pictures of double decker ttc busses that'll be on the road soon! I'm amped lmao pic.twitter.com/zQFjhcnQbU
â SDSđ (@SHAYBUTTER__) September 8, 2017

Alas, they're not to be. TTC Executive Director of Corporate Communications Brad Ross confirms it's just a pipe dream and that the TTC currently has no plans to reintroduce the vehicles.

A TTC double decker bus as it looked back in 1930. Photo via Toronto Archives.

The TTC used to have a host of vehicles of varying functions, like the city's first horse drawn streetcar, carriage sleigh, and an electric streetcar, all of which are currently housed in storage and sadly not available for public viewing.

 

[Towered]

That's why...

TTC says it has no plans to roll out double decker buses

From link.

A TTC double decker bus as it looked back in 1930. Photo via Toronto Archives.

That fake TTC double decker looks rather neat, but what could it offer that an articulated bus can't? (and we should certainly get more of those)

 

[mdu]

That fake TTC double decker looks rather neat, but what could it offer that an articulated bus can't? (and we should certainly get more of those)

The only real advantages of double deckers are seated capacity and tighter turns, so there's not much of a use case in the city.

 

[Steve X]

If the roof is at the same height of the bus roof and at the edge, there is a chance the bus can hit it even with a hit platform and cause damage and injuries to riders on the bus and platform. Hitting a post can cause the roof to come .down.

The roof needs to be set back at least 6 inches

The cost between a post roof an a L support roof is not going to be much more.

That's a bad driver ramming the bus into the shelter at high speed after loosing control hitting a snowbank. There's a chance that bus would have jump the curb even if the roof wasn't there.

 

[drum118]

That's a bad driver ramming the bus into the shelter at high speed after loosing control hitting a snowbank. There's a chance that bus would have jump the curb even if the roof wasn't there.

Only take one case of X doing what they did to create a mess for everyone and need to open the pocket book. A driver hitting black ice even at low speed could do a number on that shelter, let alone at high speed on clear road. Its better to be safe than sorry on day one.

End of the day, a life lost or injure is one too many

My 2 cents

 

[crs1026]

The OC Transpo incident is the precedent for accident-proofing any structure that might come in contact with an upper level of a tall bus. In the downtown, that applies not just to transit shelters but in may places to the built form of the street.

It would be a huge task just to verify, inventory and address the low hanging wires, traffic signals, etc just to get one or two TTC routes qualfied for double deckers. With the number of road obstructions we see in Toronto - planned and unplanned - a lot of work would go into having a network of approved alternate routes and diversion contingencies.

It’s doable…. at considerable expense. And it would be 2-3 years just to do the study and prepare the work order for changes….many of which might have to be contracted with a bid process. And then there would be heritage structures that might be showstoppers.

It’s an interesting alternative, and I can’t naysay it…. but one can certainly see why TTC hasn’t found it worth the effort.

- Paul

 

[Coolstar]

I hope MX does better with the Ontario Line, but initial renters indicate that they're sticking with their lazy, yet functional design style.

I disagree, I do like the OL stations based on initial renderings. I like the warm and modern atmosphere these stations give IMO. But hey, they'll probably end up the Toronto grey we all love.

 

[crs1026]

I disagree, I do like the OL stations based on initial renderings. I like the warm and modern atmosphere these stations give IMO. But hey, they'll probably end up the Toronto grey we all love.

“Warm and modern”.should not be the goal. Tastes change. Nothing stays modern very long.
Let’s try “Timeless and maintainable”. And maybe “upgradeable”.
I like the spaciousness and use of natural light, but imagine a decade of grime and dust on louvers and perforated panels. And a couple generations’ of upgrade to technology, signage, lighting..
How often will all that glass get washed?
Those “sterile” fifties and sixties subway stations were warm and modern when they opened… but with decades of leaking roofs, relocated turnstiles and barriers, retrofitted cabling, new security systems, and new styles of signage that don’t synch to the original design,….. when I look at station renders I try to imagine what the janitor and the next decade’s electricians see. Garbage receptacles? Safet alarm panels?

- Paul