King-Victoria Transit Hub

[kps]

What the hell?

What the hell indeed. Direct access from the west end of the platform to the southbound LRT should be a requirement in itself.

[ijmorlan]

It’s bad enough that they botched the Waterloo St. situation so that apparently a tunnel under the tracks connecting the “1 below” level just north of the tracks with ground level just south of the tracks is infeasible, but now they’re proposing to close Duke St. as well?

Part of the botch on Waterloo St was allowing Grandlinq to put the TPSS there instead of across King as originally specified; the part that doesn't have the TPSS on it has electrical vaults under it. The other part — assuming no TPSS — was not putting in concrete box culverts before piliing the new tracks on top.

I would say the botch was the combination of (1) allowing Grandlinq to put the TPSS there with (2) not designing for a tunnel.

It is not believable that the TPSS and associated infrastructure couldn’t co-exist with a tunnel. But if the design of the TPSS doesn’t protect for the tunnel, it ends up putting cable vaults or whatever right where the tunnel needs to go.

Putting in the basic structure for the tunnel while doing all that other work would also have been a good idea.

[KevinL]

Yeah, the tunnel was out of scope for the LRT project and they didn't want to include a change order.

This let GrandLinq put in the TPSS however they want, and the Region shot itself in the foot.

[kps]

It is not believable that the TPSS and associated infrastructure couldn’t co-exist with a tunnel. But if the design of the TPSS doesn’t protect for the tunnel, it ends up putting cable vaults or whatever right where the tunnel needs to go.

I recall reading (probably somewhere deep in the Ion topic) that Metrolinx specifies a minimum width for pedestrian tunnels that is greater than the remaining space.

[Spokes]

If they cheap out on this and it's anything less than a show stopper I will be SO DAMN PISSED

[Spokes]

Continuing to think about this:

If they do have to close Duke, I hope they incorporate Duke Street from the tracks to Victoria into the project and have it feel like one continuous space.  I see no need for the little stub of Duke to be there unless it's purely for development/parking entrances.

I love that Matt Rodrigues mentions a pedestrian scramble here.  I think it's well suited.  I've always been a fan of his stuff on Twitter.  Matt, if you're a user on here, well done my friend!

I really hope the design of the hub is planned that future phases can/will integrate with it.  I really don't want this to feel out of place once the development starts.

It just felt like everything was more integrated in previous designs.  The bus stops, the drop off, everything felt as one.  This does not.  And maybe that's just the unfortunate reality of not being able to do it all as one project.

[westwardloo]

Agree 100% with spokes this need to be a show stopper for the region. Personally I feel like the rough preliminary design looks like a cheap suburban community centre. This is our main transportation hub. Think bold, think grand and if it's not feasible yet. Wait another year or two and have someone spectacular. As long as this is on it's way for 2025 when all day two-way go happens we are in good shape. No need to rush a sub-par design.

Also the little bus loop seems dysfunctional and way more present than in the previous design.

[tomh009]

I think the word we should use is "showcase" rather than "show-stopper". We don't want to stop everything ...

[panamaniac]

I suspect that expecting anything that includes the word "show" is setting oneself up for disappointment. Like, ION, this will likely be a bare bones facility.

[ijmorlan]

It is not believable that the TPSS and associated infrastructure couldn’t co-exist with a tunnel. But if the design of the TPSS doesn’t protect for the tunnel, it ends up putting cable vaults or whatever right where the tunnel needs to go.

I recall reading (probably somewhere deep in the Ion topic) that Metrolinx specifies a minimum width for pedestrian tunnels that is greater than the remaining space.

That’s what I’m getting at. The TPSS didn’t need to be exactly where it is, down to the centimetre. The electrical vaults didn’t need to be exactly where they are. And so on.

By designing the tunnel and the TPSS together, they could have both been fit into the space. Maybe the tunnel would go under the TPSS. Maybe the TPSS would shift over a bit compared to where it is. Maybe something else. Bottom line is, it’s not believable, in this case, that a good design couldn’t have been found.

It’s entirely believable that putting in a tunnel around the TPSS infrastructure that has already been installed would be difficult or even impossible.

[ac3r]

This new design could not be more underwhelming.

[KevinT]

Meanwhile, in Innisfil...

Simcoe.com, Innisfil GO station gets funding commitment, council endorses development vision

[KevinL]

Now THAT's transit-oriented development.

[danbrotherston]

Lol, it certainly has no lack of ambition. I don't know though, it looks like one of those 1960 futuristic tower in the park concepts, except with trains instead of a freeway. They didn't usually turn out that well...but the picture doesn't really give any actual details.

[Rainrider22]

They could do a similar approach here. Have the transit building tie into Google. The Google employees would enjoy that !