[thenorth]

You're not totally wrong, but you're missing the earlier context of what I said. You think gaudy stations like this were money well spent? Do you know how expensive a custom architecture job of this size is in Canada?

View attachment 725855York Uni station, North entrance (1 of 2)

View attachment 725854

This is what the #10 entrance for the busiest metro station in Shanghai looks like (People's Square; 500,000 riders per day):
View attachment 725856

Here's what a random Shanghai entrance integrated into a building podium looks like (elevator on the left):
View attachment 725857

The entrances are standardized. That saves cost and allows the municipal transit authority to build more...everything.

How can we seriously say building this was a net positive (Line 1, Downsview Park; 6,000 riders per day):
View attachment 725859
Gaudy, large footprint, but no redundancy for escalators or elevators, no infrastructure for retail. Two total entrances. One elevator and one set of escalators to platform level. Sure the main entrance looks beautiful? But at what cost...

People really have their priorities mixed up on transit.... That's how we ended up with stations with single points of failure for accessibility, no utility hook ups for retail, no washrooms except for current and former terminus stations. It's embarrassing for a first-world country to have only 1 of 6 stations built with washrooms despite having huge custom entrances (TYSSE).

Honestly, Line 5’s entrance pavilions are the nicest architectural component of this project.

My issue is more with the underground portions. Couple the immense depth, with the lack of escalator and elevators, the bare white and concrete walls, the lack of sunlight, the cold temperatures, the lack of seating and garbage bins, and it all just come together to make an incredibly hostile environment for the customer. These stations feel more like nuclear bunkers than railway stations.

And beyond the depth, the amount of horizontal travel necessary to reach the platform is also absurd. For example, at Forest Hill Station, you have to use two elevators to accesss the platform, but these two elevators are on opposite sides of the station, so it takes quite a bit of walking to reach the other elevator.

Just overall, Metrolinx seems to have put zero thought into how to make the stations and platforms easy to access. The placement of stairs, elevators and escalators seeems wholly driven by value engineering. The depressing interior design and lack of furniture is just the cherry on top.

 

[thenorth]

Honestly, Line 5’s entrance pavilions are the nicest architectural component of this project.

My issue is more with the underground portions. Couple the immense depth, with the lack of escalator and elevators, the bare white and concrete walls, the lack of sunlight, the cold temperatures, the lack of seating and garbage bins, and it all just come together to make an incredibly hostile environment for the customer. These stations feel more like nuclear bunkers than railway stations.

And beyond the depth, the amount of horizontal travel necessary to reach the platform is also absurd. For example, at Forest Hill Station, you have to use two elevators to accesss the platform, but these two elevators are on opposite sides of the station, so it takes quite a bit of walking to reach the other elevator.

Just overall, Metrolinx seems to have put zero thought into how to make the stations and platforms easy to access. The placement of stairs, elevators and escalators seeems wholly driven by value engineering. The depressing interior design and lack of furniture is just the cherry on top.

If I had bad knees, I don’t think I’d want to use the underground portion of Line 5. That’s how bad the accessibility is. I couldn’t imagine using this thing multiple times a day with bad knees.

 

[thenorth]

I’ll give Metrolinx credit. The Crosstown works. In the sense that the trains get from Point A to Point B. But you can definitely tell that this was their first attempt at building rapid transit. More experienced builders and operators of rapid transit would not have messed up seemingly trivial, yet important, details, such as ensuring easy station egress, or adequate seating.

The Finch Line is an even bigger mess in terms of design/engineering decisions, where they couldn’t even select proper operating equipment, but I digress.

We need them to do better with the Ontario Line.

 

[urbanclient]

Just overall, Metrolinx seems to have put zero thought into how to make the stations and platforms easy to access. The placement of stairs, elevators and escalators seeems wholly driven by value engineering. The depressing interior design and lack of furniture is just the cherry on top.

I agree actually, and what 'value' did we get? Likely 4 billion dollars over budget. We'll know more when the next Metrolinx quarterly update comes out.

My first ride was from Avenue, the deepest station. I was gobsmacked at the number of escalators it took just to reach the concourse. But the true depth of Avenue is not crazy deep (~30 metres). I've been in much deeper metro stations. The problem is that each set of escalators is too short. The shafts dug to reach the station box are too narrow to accommodate longer, less steep, faster escalators. It's a no brainer to use the elevator for Line 5 (if it's working).

I don't know what'll happen with Line 2's extension, but I hope they didn't make the same mistake.

Lack of furniture, also very mind boggling. The only excuse I can think of for no washrooms and no seating is to dissuade the homeless from setting up shop.

nicest architectural component of this project.

Aesthetically? Not amazing, but not bad IMO. But someone please explain why they're two storeys tall for seemingly no reason? And despite some being massive, why is there no provision for retail?

 

[thenorth]

At Bathurst Station (Line 2), if I’m at platform level, I can be pretty damn sure that I can transfer to a bus departing in one minute. You could never do the same at Forest Hill (Bathurst) Station on Line 5. That alone means I’m going to be a lot more inclined to take Line 2 over Line 5. These little details matter.

Likewise, taking Line 5 from Oakwood to Cedarvale (Eglinton West) doesn’t even make sense. Once you account for the station depth and the wait time, I can literally walk to Cedervale faster than Line 5. And it’s probably less physically exhausting than navigating those stairs at Oakwood, too

Outside of rush hour, I’m finding that taking the parallel bus routes often makes a lot more sense, for these reasons.

 

[ViewerOfToronto]

The only excuse I can think of for no washrooms and no seating is to dissuade the homeless from setting up shop.

For the washroom part, I believe I heard somewhere that the TTC did attempt a request for every possible station to have a washroom in Line 5, but this request was denied by Metrolinx, keeping washrooms only at terminus or interchange stations.

 

[thenorth]

I’ll tell you guys, I had some errands to run along Eglinton last weekend. I had to navigate four Eglinton Line stations in 90 minutes with somewhat heavy bags, and between the station depth and long wait times for trains, it was not a pleasant experience. I was very exhausted and very annoyed

 

[urbanclient]

navigating those stairs at Oakwood, too

Are the escalators down that often?

 

[rdaner]

I’ll tell you guys, I had some errands to run along Eglinton last weekend. I had to navigate four Eglinton Line stations in 90 minutes with somewhat heavy bags, and between the station depth and long wait times for trains, it was not a pleasant experience. I was very exhausted and very annoyed

Time for a shopping buggy!

 

[thenorth]

Are the escalators down that often?

lol yes. But even with the escalators working, I’d rather just walk to Cedarvale.

 

[thenorth]

I know it’s all really nitpicky, but living in Midtown, I find the Crosstown isn’t nearly as helpful as I had hoped, for the reasons discussed over the past several posts. Some combination of Line 1, Line 2 and various surface routes are typically faster, easier or more comfortable.

I really only find it useful when I need to go far into the east or west ends of the line (which is unusual for me).

That’s not to say that I’m not happy with the line overall. It’s a great addition to the city. But I’m just frustrated with design decisions that have limited its usefulness for more local travel in the area.

 

[81-717]

At Bathurst Station (Line 2), if I’m at platform level, I can be pretty damn sure that I can transfer to a bus departing in one minute. You could never do the same at Forest Hill (Bathurst) Station on Line 5. That alone means I’m going to be a lot more inclined to take Line 2 over Line 5. These little details matter.

At Main, it takes about 30 seconds to frantically run from platform to street level because the stupid subway delayed itself by just the right amount to arrive at the exact minute your connecting bus is due to depart.

I understand if Metrolinx wants to force French down our throats (which is odd, given only NB is a bilingual province)

Especially considering QC can be like this lol.

 

[urbanclient]

living in Midtown, I find the Crosstown isn’t nearly as helpful as I had hoped, for the reasons discussed over the past several posts. Some combination of Line 1, Line 2 and various surface routes are typically faster, easier or more comfortable.

Where are you going though, if your destination isn't on Eglinton, but closer to Bloor, then obviously Line 5 won't help much. Besides the deep stations, it operates a bit slower than Line 2 to begin with.

 

[Steve X]

I agree actually, and what 'value' did we get? Likely 4 billion dollars over budget. We'll know more when the next Metrolinx quarterly update comes out.

My first ride was from Avenue, the deepest station. I was gobsmacked at the number of escalators it took just to reach the concourse. But the true depth of Avenue is not crazy deep (~30 metres). I've been in much deeper metro stations. The problem is that each set of escalators is too short. The shafts dug to reach the station box are too narrow to accommodate longer, less steep, faster escalators. It's a no brainer to use the elevator for Line 5 (if it's working).

I don't know what'll happen with Line 2's extension, but I hope they didn't make the same mistake.

Lack of furniture, also very mind boggling. The only excuse I can think of for no washrooms and no seating is to dissuade the homeless from setting up shop.


Aesthetically? Not amazing, but not bad IMO. But someone please explain why they're two storeys tall for seemingly no reason? And despite some being massive, why is there no provision for retail?View attachment 725872

I do think the taller glass building design improves the counterphobic appearance and allows more sunlight to reach inside. The white wall encloses the ventilation system that occupies up to the second story. So parts of that building out be that tall anyways.

 

[smallspy]

If I had bad knees, I don’t think I’d want to use the underground portion of Line 5. That’s how bad the accessibility is. I couldn’t imagine using this thing multiple times a day with bad knees.

I have bad knees, and I use the Crosstown every day. In fact, I use the stairs every day in an effort to strengthen them.

Dan