Jump to content

The importance of good station and transit corridor design


Recommended Posts

 Design discussions is something that come back again and again when we talk about REM-B and other transit projects around Montreal. It seems to me that this is often an issue that is either brushed under the rug, not taken seriously enough, or ends up taking the brunt of cost cutting measures.

We saw some of that with REM-A. The viaduct built between Île des Sœurs and Griffintown was been heavily criticized for it's brutalist architecture. Station Panama and Brossard were criticized for their lack of an enclosed heated waiting area at the bus terminal. Station Île Des Soeurs was critisized for its spash zone in the middle of the highway. The lack of the Dorval connection feels like an obvious oversight. The connection from the REM to the Orange line at Bonaventure has seen its fair share of ctitics. There is this feeling that while we are getting a modern transit network of far better quality than the LRT systems which are being built all over North America, there is still much that could be improved. I share this opinion.

After the announcement of REM-B, fears over what the René-Lévesque might look where very quickly put to the forefront, with the obvious comparison being made to the Pointe St-Charles Viaduct. To a lesser extent, we have seen criticism over the Sherbrooke alignment as well as the elevated structure that is to be built along Notre-Dame. It has also seen quite a bit of criticism over the lack of connections, or poor connections with RÉSO and the existing metro network downtown.

With this topic, my goal is to explore how things are done elsewhere in the world, the good, the bad, the ugly, the functional and not so functional designs.  What can we take away from what the rest of the world is doing? What can be applied here in Montreal? With this first post in this thread, I would like to present to you the Whitechapel station in London. It is an old station which saw quite an extensive renovation and modernisation program.

There are multiple things to be liked about that station. As with the rest of the London transit network, it has that great signalisation which is consistent across all networks. The size of the lettering, the symbols, the positioning, all of it is rather extensively described in a document that can be found on TFL's website. There has clearly been a lot of though put into how passengers access the station, and how they move through the space. A pedestrian route through the station was added to stich back together the fabric of the city. I particularly like the clean white aesthetics of the lower corridors of the station. The panels have some texture which makes them less boring and more pleasing to the eyes. The roof lines encourage you to keep moving. This is a design that is repeated in many locations on TFL's network. I really like the simplicity of it, and the fact that we do not see any conduits anywhere. My understanding is that theses can be removed relatively easily to access what is behind.

This video provides more details and explain some of the design philosophy.

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Le 2022-02-11 à 15:30, Enalung a dit :

 Design discussions is something that come back again and again when we talk about REM-B and other transit projects around Montreal. It seems to me that this is often an issue that is either brushed under the rug, not taken seriously enough, or ends up taking the brunt of cost cutting measures.

We saw some of that with REM-A. The viaduct built between Île des Sœurs and Griffintown was been heavily criticized for it's brutalist architecture. Station Panama and Brossard were criticized for their lack of an enclosed heated waiting area at the bus terminal. Station Île Des Soeurs was critisized for its spash zone in the middle of the highway. The lack of the Dorval connection feels like an obvious oversight. The connection from the REM to the Orange line at Bonaventure has seen its fair share of ctitics. There is this feeling that while we are getting a modern transit network of far better quality than the LRT systems which are being built all over North America, there is still much that could be improved. I share this opinion.

After the announcement of REM-B, fears over what the René-Lévesque might look where very quickly put to the forefront, with the obvious comparison being made to the Pointe St-Charles Viaduct. To a lesser extent, we have seen criticism over the Sherbrooke alignment as well as the elevated structure that is to be built along Notre-Dame. It has also seen quite a bit of criticism over the lack of connections, or poor connections with RÉSO and the existing metro network downtown.

With this topic, my goal is to explore how things are done elsewhere in the world, the good, the bad, the ugly, the functional and not so functional designs.  What can we take away from what the rest of the world is doing? What can be applied here in Montreal? With this first post in this thread, I would like to present to you the Whitechapel station in London. It is an old station which saw quite an extensive renovation and modernisation program.

There are multiple things to be liked about that station. As with the rest of the London transit network, it has that great signalisation which is consistent across all networks. The size of the lettering, the symbols, the positioning, all of it is rather extensively described in a document that can be found on TFL's website. There has clearly been a lot of though put into how passengers access the station, and how they move through the space. A pedestrian route through the station was added to stich back together the fabric of the city. I particularly like the clean white aesthetics of the lower corridors of the station. The panels have some texture which makes them less boring and more pleasing to the eyes. The roof lines encourage you to keep moving. This is a design that is repeated in many locations on TFL's network. I really like the simplicity of it, and the fact that we do not see any conduits anywhere. My understanding is that theses can be removed relatively easily to access what is behind.

This video provides more details and explain some of the design philosophy.

 

Je me dois de souligner la validité de ton message.  Je serai particulièrement intéressé par les leçons (pour Montréal)  que tu en tireras dans tes messages subséquents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...
adblock_message_value
adblock_accept_btn_value