junctionist
Senior Member
This is so stupid. Should be little more than a scaled up version of this. The explosion in transit costs is hugely self-imposed.
What's proposed looks like a better station than in your picture, and that's surely a good thing for the end user. A bigger station is more comfortable to use, particularly during crowded peak times (unless it's so big that walking through it lengthens a person's commute unnecessarily).
The biggest problem with transit construction costs here is apparently Metrolinx's reliance on external consultants to develop projects versus the use of experienced in-house staff. I've read that we spend more money than Italy, for instance, on white collar labour in transit projects and much less on stations as a result. Our transit stations tend to compare unfavourably with those in Italy as a result of the amount of money spent on consultants to complete our projects in the region.
The goal should be to spend less on consultants and more on stations to make using transit the most satisfying transportation option of all of them. More retail should be incorporated into stations as well, like commuter-oriented restaurants and supermarkets. But that takes more money from a design and planning standpoint, which isn't available when you've spent it all on consultants just to get the basic aspects of a project done.
Last edited:
