Toronto Kipling Station Transit Hub | ?m | 2s | Metrolinx | SAI

Amare said:
So the same TTC that declared the parking at Islington "surplus" and ultimately allows another condo development to take its place, all of a sudden goes to Metrolinx and requests that they require more parking at Kipling forcing a redesign of the bus terminal that is even further away from Kipling station?

This goes to show that the TTC is utterly clueless as to what they should do with their parking spaces. One minute they're declaring various lots "surplus" and selling them off (ie: Wilson, Warden, York Mills, Islington), and the next minute they want more parking space.
Click to expand...

- Islington or any other stations you mentioned have nothing to do with Kipling
- Islington is not a mobility hub
- Why should the TTC maintain parking at Islington for people who need to catch a Miway bus or GO train that's at Kipling?
 
Amare said:
So the same TTC that declared the parking at Islington "surplus" and ultimately allows another condo development to take its place, all of a sudden goes to Metrolinx and requests that they require more parking at Kipling forcing a redesign of the bus terminal that is even further away from Kipling station?

This goes to show that the TTC is utterly clueless as to what they should do with their parking spaces. One minute they're declaring various lots "surplus" and selling them off (ie: Wilson, Warden, York Mills, Islington), and the next minute they want more parking space.
Click to expand...
First of all, its not TTC that forcing the terminal further from the plan location, but Hydro ONE. Hydro One wants to retain the land to meet their needs as well not allowing buildings to be built under there overhead.

All the land TTC is on at Kipling belong to Hydro ONE in the first place.

The plan location is still where its is, but the parking lot is a better design than before. Also, in place of a tunnel from the terminal to GO platform is now a bridge, that now allow TTC to take take the subway underground to go west as well get under CP tracks to the new TTC Obico site yard.

This clearly shows why TTC is dumb for not building the extension proposed back in 2005 & 2008 to Cloverdale,since the land is there for everything as well cutting everyone travel time. It would allow TTC To either provide more service with the same number of buses as today, or to remove some and still provide the same quality of service. Then its is also Metrolinx not building the Gateway Hub as per the Big Move at Cloverdale in the first place.

It would remove the amount of traffic getting to/from Kipling & Islington that exist today. It would speed up the plan redevelopment of the area.

GO Transit who doesn't service the area at all is now going to use Kipling as a hub will spend extra travel time to get to the Gardiner/427 compare to a hop on and off at Cloverdale.
 
salsa said:
- Islington or any other stations you mentioned have nothing to do with Kipling
- Islington is not a mobility hub
- Why should the TTC maintain parking at Islington for people who need to catch a Miway bus or GO train that's at Kipling?
Click to expand...
Those are all valid points that you raise, however I find it comical that it is the TTC that is raising the issue of parking and not Metrolinx. Metrolinx is generally more concerned with parking at their stations and mobility hubs, while the TTC has been getting rid of parking space.

The thing with Kipling is that *If* there was no way to accommodate additional parking spots (or reduce the loss of parking spots resulting form the construction of the terminal), I can guarantee you that Islington would have been looked at as an alternative.

drum118 said:
First of all, its not TTC that forcing the terminal further from the plan location, but Hydro ONE. Hydro One wants to retain the land to meet their needs as well not allowing buildings to be built under there overhead.

All the land TTC is on at Kipling belong to Hydro ONE in the first place.

The plan location is still where its is, but the parking lot is a better design than before. Also, in place of a tunnel from the terminal to GO platform is now a bridge, that now allow TTC to take take the subway underground to go west as well get under CP tracks to the new TTC Obico site yard.
Click to expand...
That makes more sense now, I was wondering why it was further out. As for Obico Yard, i'm not so sure that has been sold off yet has it? And if it hasnt Metrolinx would acquire it much faster than TTC ever would.
 
Amare said:
Those are all valid points that you raise, however I find it comical that it is the TTC that is raising the issue of parking and not Metrolinx. Metrolinx is generally more concerned with parking at their stations and mobility hubs, while the TTC has been getting rid of parking space.

The thing with Kipling is that *If* there was no way to accommodate additional parking spots (or reduce the loss of parking spots resulting form the construction of the terminal), I can guarantee you that Islington would have been looked at as an alternative.


That makes more sense now, I was wondering why it was further out. As for Obico Yard, i'm not so sure that has been sold off yet has it? And if it hasnt Metrolinx would acquire it much faster than TTC ever would.
Click to expand...
As far as I known at this time, both the yard and sub belongs to Metrolinx with CP having running rights on the sub.

The question has been from day one early last year why was Metrolinx buying the yard when it was going to have a 2nd yard in the east with more layovers for all lines? Its better be safe to have it than sorry for not buying it down the road.

Metrolinx still has their eye on taking over TTC subway lines and this yard is for that protection as well expansion of the Bloor line west.

If the Cloverdale Gateway was built, you could built both underground parking as well parking structures to deal with the parking issues since it will mostly be 905 riders.

The other thing I should point out about Kipling vs Cloverdale Hub is the fact TTC will be able to deal with the bus capacity better at Cloverdale and shut up the NIMBY folks across the street in the towers who bitch about the buses as well the subway crossing. Its time to start telling these folks where to go in real talk since they were so clueless to understand what was beside them in full view as well CP corridor and yard that was in service at the time of building the towers.
 
Amare said:
Those are all valid points that you raise, however I find it comical that it is the TTC that is raising the issue of parking and not Metrolinx. Metrolinx is generally more concerned with parking at their stations and mobility hubs, while the TTC has been getting rid of parking space.
Click to expand...

- The TTC has declared many of its parking lots surplus to its needs.
- Redeveloping the lots raises money while generating additional ridership.
- TTC relies mostly on buses, streetcars and walk-up traffic, while GO Transit relies mostly on suburban commuters driving to its stations.
- TTC charges for parking at its lots, and is not in a hurry to build more.
 
Hopkins123 said:
No point just building to Cloverdale. At least get it to Sherway Gardens.
Click to expand...
Get real, as that will be 10 time worse than the STC extension.

Have you looked at ridership for any route from Kipling to see what the numbers are in the first place??? Moreso, have you ridden any of these routes to see what the ridership looks like??? I have.
 
Hopkins123 said:
No point just building to Cloverdale. At least get it to Sherway Gardens.
Click to expand...

Why? There is nothing there but box stores and a high-end mall used by autocentric customers who won't switch to transit. It's not a good gateway to Mississauga. We are 20 years from any further extension westwards. Cloverdale serves more of Mississauga. It's a long diversion to then head south to Sherway.

- Paul
 
crs1026 said:
Why? There is nothing there but box stores and a high-end mall used by autocentric customers who won't switch to transit. It's not a good gateway to Mississauga. We are 20 years from any further extension westwards. Cloverdale serves more of Mississauga. It's a long diversion to then head south to Sherway.

- Paul
Click to expand...

They are planning some significant rework of the Sherway area though

http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/c...nnel=82e352cc66061410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD

In any case, there is no reason why we can 't eventually have both by the way of a branched terminus.

AoD
 
If the Line 2 is extended to Sherway Gardens, they should include a parking garage. Then people can park in the garage, commute to downtown via the subway lines, and on the return trip, stop off at Sherway to shop, and then drive home in Mississauga, Oakville, etc. (after the rush hour traffic).
 
crs1026 said:
Why? There is nothing there but box stores and a high-end mall used by autocentric customers who won't switch to transit. It's not a good gateway to Mississauga. We are 20 years from any further extension westwards. Cloverdale serves more of Mississauga. It's a long diversion to then head south to Sherway.

- Paul
Click to expand...

Just like how it is today, the final stop on the line doesn't have to be the one where the bulk of inter regional transfers occur. That doesn't mean there's no merit to go to Sherway, which already has more development surrounding it than Kipling does with tons of growth potential. It's strategically located where three highways meet for maximum commuter travel usage and is the logical endpoint for several routes (191, 192, 112 could end there + existing 15, 80, 123; Miway 4 and potentially 5 Dixie)
 
Hopkins123 said:
Just like how it is today, the final stop on the line doesn't have to be the one where the bulk of inter regional transfers occur. That doesn't mean there's no merit to go to Sherway, which already has more development surrounding it than Kipling does with tons of growth potential. It's strategically located where three highways meet for maximum commuter travel usage and is the logical endpoint for several routes (191, 192, 112 could end there + existing 15, 80, 123; Miway 4 and potentially 5 Dixie)
Click to expand...
You really think having a subway station at Sherway with a large parking structure is going to lure cars off the highways???

With the Big Box stores there, are they going to get more riders there with a subway than today???

Have you looked at the ridership of those bus routes to see what they are today??

You think MT is going to run 5 Dixie to this station, as that pure dreaming. Route 14 is the next route being added to the mall and very hard to justify in the first place. Better to stop at Dixie Mall, but This route will use QEW back to Dixie Mall unlike the 4. If you get 500 people a day using #4, you are seeing amassing numbers for a low ridership route in the first place.

If the city can't look at putting an LRT on Queensway today based on the amount of development taking place along it, as well about to begin, how can they justify a subway that has low ridership not been service by the routes out of Kipling or Islington???

You are saying you need to build this station to service about 5,000 riders a day with a vision to create a hub that will take about 50 years to build is the best use of funds that are poorly needed elsewhere???

How long has it taken to build the 3 towers at Sherway??? What is the residential ratio between Kipling and Sherway??? Kipling has more people living there than Sherway and only going to increase more in the next decade.
 
drum118 said:
You really think having a subway station at Sherway with a large parking structure is going to lure cars off the highways???

With the Big Box stores there, are they going to get more riders there with a subway than today???

Have you looked at the ridership of those bus routes to see what they are today??

You think MT is going to run 5 Dixie to this station, as that pure dreaming. Route 14 is the next route being added to the mall and very hard to justify in the first place. Better to stop at Dixie Mall, but This route will use QEW back to Dixie Mall unlike the 4. If you get 500 people a day using #4, you are seeing amassing numbers for a low ridership route in the first place.

If the city can't look at putting an LRT on Queensway today based on the amount of development taking place along it, as well about to begin, how can they justify a subway that has low ridership not been service by the routes out of Kipling or Islington???

You are saying you need to build this station to service about 5,000 riders a day with a vision to create a hub that will take about 50 years to build is the best use of funds that are poorly needed elsewhere???

How long has it taken to build the 3 towers at Sherway??? What is the residential ratio between Kipling and Sherway??? Kipling has more people living there than Sherway and only going to increase more in the next decade.
Click to expand...

It will be a hub, but you're right, probably not for 15-20 years. My inkling on how the dominoes will fall:
-Queensway gets built up from Islington going west
-Queensway LRT extended to Sherway
-maybe a Hurontario spur comes out to Sherway
-IF the whole master plan is built out of the Acura/Chapters/Staples/HomeSense parcel, maybe they look at a RER stop there IF Milton line gets more service
-maybe you need a north-south LRT in the west...my vision would be Renforth Gateway, down Renforth, across Rathburn, then down West Mall to Queensway, and maybe on Browns Line down to Long Branch.
-finally add subway extension to make a major hub: Milton Line, Hurontario LRT, Queensway LRT, Etobicoke LRT, Line 2.
 
Great news! I just hope the new terminal gets completed before the Islington bus bays completely crumble apart.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top