T3G said:
Good grief, this is really becoming a gongshow. What's next, putting those lines on the Toronto subway map?
Click to expand...

Putting everything on the GO Map would be both reasonable and expected as GO Expansion rolls out: GO will become the backbone of the system and the subway will be more of a local service.
 
Last edited:
Matheson Station Render

https://twitter.com/x/status/1615355990748037122
1673968584787.png

Looks like the use of the TTC Font is spreading 🥳

Also, calling it line 1 is strange choice...
 
ARG1 said:
Matheson Station Render

https://twitter.com/x/status/1615355990748037122
View attachment 451081
Looks like the use of the TTC Font is spreading 🥳

Also, calling it line 1 is strange choice...
Click to expand...
Metrolinx is saying that "Line 1" is a placeholder for now, i'm assuming until they have time to vet it with their consultant...

Not that it particular matters anyways, they're already going to confuse enough people with the "Hazel McCallion" naming and the Eglinton station naming for starters.

As for the station renderings, they look...pretty uninspiring. Not that I was expecting them to come up with anything better.
 
Amare said:
Metrolinx is saying that "Line 1" is a placeholder for now, i'm assuming until they have time to vet it with their consultant...

Not that it particular matters anyways, they're already going to confuse enough people with the "Hazel McCallion" naming and the Eglinton station naming for starters.

As for the station renderings, they look...pretty uninspiring. Not that I was expecting them to come up with anything better.
Click to expand...
I thought that’s what people wanted. Minimalist station design to keep costs down versus Spadina subway extensions mammoth airport like terminals.

Build too big people complain. Build minimalist people complain.
 
sixrings said:
I thought that’s what people wanted. Minimalist station design to keep costs down versus Spadina subway extensions mammoth airport like terminals.

Build too big people complain. Build minimalist people complain.
Click to expand...
My problem is that if you're going to go with a minimalist approach, or grandiose approach than do it right. Unfortunately in Ontario we do things backwards.

We build underground LRTs where there should be elevated transit or BRTs, subways where we should build LRTs or just nothing at all, palatial parking garages where we should build simplified garages, simplified stations where we should be elevating the design, grandiose subway stations where we cheapout and get water infiltration crack marks on subway walls, surface shelters which dont shelter from anything, etc..

We dont do grandiose properly, and we dont do minimalist properly. It's a zero-win game in this province.
 
Amare said:
My problem is that if you're going to go with a minimalist approach, or grandiose approach than do it right. Unfortunately in Ontario we do things backwards.

We build underground LRTs where there should be elevated transit or BRTs, subways where we should build LRTs or just nothing at all, palatial parking garages where we should build simplified garages, simplified stations where we should be elevating the design, grandiose subway stations where we cheapout and get water infiltration crack marks on subway walls, surface shelters which dont shelter from anything, etc..

We dont do grandiose properly, and we dont do minimalist properly. It's a zero-win game in this province.
Click to expand...
You didn’t mention how this was minimalist gone wrong though. Did you just expect a pole with the LRT schedule?
 
For starters, extend the canopy for the entire length of the platform. Or even maybe introduce other weather protection elements such as a slight curve at the end of the canopy.

Took me 2 seconds to think of and neither would increase the cost of the project significantly.
 
sixrings said:
You didn’t mention how this was minimalist gone wrong though. Did you just expect a pole with the LRT schedule?
Click to expand...
For starters why not have an enclosed area like the viva stations in York Region? Maybe having a red lamp for some heating similar to what you see in Edmonton and Ottawa? There are so many nice amenities that can be offered yet we go with something that's so bare bones, the only thing that can be more barebones is a literal bus shelter (even then, most bus shelters offer more weather protection than this).
 
Last edited:
Amare said:
For starters, extend the canopy for the entire length of the platform. Or even maybe introduce other weather protection elements such as a slight curve at the end of the canopy.

Took me 2 seconds to think of and neither would increase the cost of the project significantly.
Click to expand...
that is the antithesis of minimalist design though... everything adds up.
 
Amare said:
For starters, extend the canopy for the entire length of the platform. Or even maybe introduce other weather protection elements such as a slight curve at the end of the canopy.

Took me 2 seconds to think of and neither would increase the cost of the project significantly.
Click to expand...
No different than Eglinton shelters other than its a centre one. Why upgrade these stations that will carry less riders than Eglinton. Oh!! our heads are acking for thinking outside the sandbox and thinking about riders. Got to keep things on the cheap scale for the car folks. We are thinking of you and showing you what we think about surface transit.
 
I am not a fan of penny pinching for stations or stop designs. When it comes to subway stations, infinitely more cash would be saved by not running subways where they don't belong instead of making a minimalist station. People will use the service either way, but it will be more pleasantly remembered if the station looks like an inviting public place, instead of a bathroom.


As for the LRT, there is being minimalist and then there is uselessness. The stop offers near zero protection from the elements, at the very least an enclosed waiting area should have been included.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top