Quote:
Originally Posted by Corndogger
Was it not possible to just build an entirely new station right next to the old one and then tear down the old one when the new one is ready to use? The Toronto station does not look appealing at all to me. How much did the Berlin station cost to build?
|
That Toronto station is incomplete first of all - its mid construction. Of course it looks like crap. The train shed project isn't going to be finished for another year. Berlin cost around a billion USD, and about 10 years before union - so slightly more than the Union station renovation project. Again, it was built on a greenfield site where the Berlin Wall once stood - its not a fair comparison.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beedok
Where would you put a new station? Union is surrounded on every side (except maybe the east, but that's about to change very soon and would still potentially be a problem for all trains in the eastern GTA), and part of what makes it successful is the subway connection.
|
Exactly - besides, moving it would mean we would lose use of the headhouse building - which is quite spectacular, even if the train shed isn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hipster duck
I would have rather they spent $2B to get it right.
|
So you would willingly have spent a billion dollars to get platforms that offer marginal operational improvements at best over the current configuration? That same billion could bring RER service to a new GO line.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hipster duck
GO was in a better position to shut down the entire station than you let on, as was VIA. Only the Lakeshore line travels through Union station. All other GO lines terminate there. Lakeshore could have used the modern platform 27/28 on the south side of the station, and they could have used those other tracks for train movements. All other lines, plus VIA (they could have temporarily suspended through trains to Aldershot) could have terminated on either side of the current union station, using temporary, upgraded outdoor platforms and the teamways as access points to the subway/downtown. Then they could have ripped out the entire middle and rebuilt the station from scratch. The east and west sides have their own GO storage yard, too. What I'm suggesting isn't easy, of course, but it's a lot easier than trying to reconfigure the station 40 years down the line to accommodate RER service because they screwed it up the first time.
|
RER service isn't going to be impacted - GO has preliminary plans for throughput issues with Union for RER - and none of them have to do with platform space. Sure they could have done that I guess, but you would have hit capacity issues there most likely, and space issues. The corridor gets a lot skinnier on either side of Union pretty quickly, fitting 150m long platforms on both sides of union while maintaining all existing track switch operations would be rather difficult. Most trains are stored at Willowbrook too, and it is also the only full maintenance facility - which means you still need significant through capacity. VIA exists too and they need several platforms. To entirely demolish Union you would have either 2 through platforms and 2 through tracks with no platforms or 3 through platforms and no through tracks - This wouldn't be enough for VIA's operations, yet alone the Lakeshore lines AND deadhead operations too and from Willowbrook.
I could debate semantics about possibilities - but trust me, GO would have looked at this. They are acutely aware of platform width issues, there just isn't really a fix that is remotely reasonable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hipster duck
We all forget the 5 years of annoyance that we had to put up with to get to the infield terminal so that they could tear down T1 and T2 to build the large, modern new airport terminal. Imagine if they would have tried to spruce up the old terminal 1 and terminal 2 instead. That's what GO's doing now.
|
Uhhh... no. No, No, NO. First off, one is planes, the other is trains. Not comparable. Second, one is attached to a heritage structure, the other isn't. Third, It would be more akin to demolishing T1 and only retaining the jet bridges - they are only retaining the platforms, the concourse is getting entirely rebuilt. More stair accesses, elevators, new concourse that is triple the size, partial glass trainshed replacement, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hipster duck
The dwell time is what constrains the capacity of Union, not the number of tracks. In stations like Berlin - which has just 6 tracks on the upper level - or 4 for regional rail - they can thread hundreds of trains at subway-like frequencies.
|
Berlin has 6 upper tracks - 2 of which are used for S-Bahn service, and 8 lower level tracks. Those 2 tracks are used by 2 S-Bahn services, which interline for significant distances approaching the station, and do not terminate. Its no different than any other station for S-Bahn services, and has no reason as for why they would need more than 2 tracks. Berlin has capacity for roughly 350,000 passengers using its 14 tracks - coincidentally the capacity Union Station will have. Efficient track and platform use is how GO plans to grow passenger throughput on existing platforms - and that is the capacity issue, not the width of the platforms. Platform width matters little, as long as you can clear passengers out and get the next batch on quickly - which given the large amount of stairs GO is putting in and most tracks access to two platforms means it happens quickly Through run Lakeshore trains have 3 minute layovers today at Union - which could be much lower if they wanted to be. I've seen late trains at rush hour pickup 1,200 passengers in around 2 minutes in current platform conditions.
GO's problems for RER aren't platform width, its the lack of tracks. They are talking about double berthing a couple of tracks to get more track capacity - the issue truly does not lie with the width of the platforms. Cutting platforms would do nothing but harm throughput capacity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hipster duck
I think two platforms at Union are still narrower than one platform at Hauptbahnhof. And there are other reasons for going for the 1 big platform design: cross-transfers to other lines being one, and the ability to move around large obstacles like elevator shafts and stairwells being another.
|
Cross platform transfers are good when you are only serving two different lines at a station - not so much when you have 7 GO lines, subway, and VIA / Amtrak. Vast majority of passengers at Union depart the station anyway, transfers between GO lines are minimal. GO's platforms are wide enough allow for you to get around stairs - though there isn't really a need as stairs are scattered all down the platform to get people down into the concourse - which is where there is space to wait, or transfer trains in comfort.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hipster duck
There was nothing preventing them from dismantling the shed and rebuilding it somewhere else. The point is to remove it from Union station where it disrupts the station's functionality.
|
As I mentioned, I don't entirely agree on the decision to keep it, but be realistic here. Where are you going to put an 8 acre train shed? Certainly not anywhere that gets close to respecting its heritage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hipster duck
Lipstick on a pig. A $1 billion pig.
|
If the pig looks like this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by hipster duck
Yes, and those new concourses have permanently sealed the fate of those narrow, pre-war platforms. It will have to be fixed eventually, and it will cost way more than $1 billion next time around.
|
I'll let you know when it happens. Metrolinx certainly doesn't think it'll be needed.
Prev
Linear Mode
