GO Transit: Service thread (including extensions)

[NotAToy]

They would give up parking revenue why?

They would probably want a share of the profits, land back after x years, etc. They would also (maybe) want a one-time payment for the contracts.

GO needs to encourage development around stations. Metrolinx should advocate for better transit to and from GO Stations. Sadly, that will not happen in any of our lifetimes.

 

[micheal_can]

Many of the outlying GO stations are in the middle of industrial zones so there is nothing around them other than warehouses or factories. There is no "there" there, so any kind of residential redevelopment would be a long way off if ever. On the other hand stations like Oakville and Port Credit along the Lakeshore West have higher density residential development around them already and are more urban.

You are describing downtown Toronto about 30-50 years ago. Look at it now. If a developer bought the land adjacent to the station an got the municipality to rezone it, do you really think people wouldn't move there?

 

[robmausser]

You are describing downtown Toronto about 30-50 years ago. Look at it now. If a developer bought the land adjacent to the station an got the municipality to rezone it, do you really think people wouldn't move there?

What they are saying isn't even correct on its merits.

Yes, there are some industrial zones the GO trains go though, but by and large a lot of them go right into the downtown core of the outlying cities; Brampton, Kitchener, Milton, Stouffville, King City, Aurora, Newmarket, Richmond Hill, Langstaff. Etc etc.

 

[micheal_can]

What they are saying isn't even correct on its merits.

Yes, there are some industrial zones the GO trains go though, but by and large a lot of them go right into the downtown core of the outlying cities; Brampton, Kitchener, Milton, Stouffville, King City, Aurora, Newmarket, Richmond Hill, Langstaff. Etc etc.

I am thinking of places like Oshawa where it really is a large industrial wasteland.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

How do we go about the long-term urbanization around GO stations such as Applyby and Bronte GO that are predominantly industrial lands?

The heavy industrial uses are not exactly the most compatible with residential mix-use, and those areas are lacking in essential community services to serve prospective new residential populations.

Moreover, that industrial land is valuable and the businesses that use them will seek alternative lands to establish their business, which can induce more urban sprawl and is something that we might not necessarily want to see.

That being said, I feel it is somewhat wasted to not package dense mix use development around those GO stations.

 

[Streety McCarface]

How do we go about the long-term urbanization around GO stations such as Applyby and Bronte GO that are predominantly industrial lands?

The heavy industrial uses are not exactly the most compatible with residential mix-use, and those areas are lacking in essential community services to serve prospective new residential populations.

Moreover, that industrial land is valuable and the businesses that use them will seek alternative lands to establish their business, which can induce more urban sprawl and is something that we might not necessarily want to see.

That being said, I feel it is somewhat wasted to not package dense mix use development around those GO stations.

I don't know any people that want to live next to the Fearman's Slaughterhouse. Perhaps we should direct the parking needs at these types of stations.

 

[Jonny5]

How do we go about the long-term urbanization around GO stations such as Applyby and Bronte GO that are predominantly industrial lands?

The heavy industrial uses are not exactly the most compatible with residential mix-use, and those areas are lacking in essential community services to serve prospective new residential populations.

Moreover, that industrial land is valuable and the businesses that use them will seek alternative lands to establish their business, which can induce more urban sprawl and is something that we might not necessarily want to see.

That being said, I feel it is somewhat wasted to not package dense mix use development around those GO stations.

I don't know any people that want to live next to the Fearman's Slaughterhouse. Perhaps we should direct the parking needs at these types of stations.

This is interesting as the very large slaughterhouse right at Appleby, and the are stacked townhouses directly across the street from the Appleby south parking lot have both been there a very long time.
There is little "heavy" industry along the corridor in Oakville and Burlington anymore, it's mostly logistics and recycling. .I don't see a reason to permanently remove any industry with jobs away from that space tough as it's going straight to the 401 and shifting 100% to trucks. Any space in the interim points along the corridor should be protected for industry as long as possible because once it is residential the industrial employment is lost permanently forever.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

In regards to Bronte GO, I was wondering if it made any sense to relocate the station to the west from Third Lane to Bronte Road.

The commercial-industrial land there both north and south of the tracks seem like less-permanent fixtures (minus the hydro infrastructure), less contaminated, and more redevelopable, residential development can be supported by access to park space along Bronte Creek, and a direct bus service can link the station with downtown Bronte to the south with frequent service.

Downside is that you are foregoing existing station infrastructure including some large GO parking lots, and the current location probably serves West Oakville and the suburbs around Third Line better.

 

[AlbertHWagstaff]

In regards to Bronte GO, I was wondering if it made any sense to relocate the station to the west from Third Lane to Bronte Road.

The commercial-industrial land there both north and south of the tracks seem like less-permanent fixtures (minus the hydro infrastructure), less contaminated, and more redevelopable, residential development can be supported by access to park space along Bronte Creek, and a direct bus service can link the station with downtown Bronte to the south with frequent service.

Downside is that you are foregoing existing station infrastructure including some large GO parking lots, and the current location probably serves West Oakville and the suburbs around Third Line better.

The Bronte station has had major infrastructure improvements in the last five years and added parking on the former Procor land on the south side. Interestingly the old CN Bronte station was just about where you're describing, however it was a typical small CN suburban station and evidently GO decided to move the station eastwards to where more land was available for parking on the north side of the tracks. The "new" station opened in 1977 as Oakville West and I believe was renamed to Bronte around 1998 or 1999. In either case there isn't much residential infrastructure nearby to support a residential development around the station, however there is more commercial activity on Third Line both north and south of the tracks than there is on Bronte Rd. Most of the industrial properties along the line in Oakville appear to be warehousing operations or storage lots for commercial vehicles. The town works yard and bus garage are also adjacent to the rail line. Most of the densification potential is around the Oakville station on the east side of Trafalgar Rd. unless the town actively seeks to rezone portions of Speers Rd for eventual residential infill.

 

[micheal_can]

Several parts of Toronto were undesirable to live in. Some of the reasons moved out for cheaper land. Now those places are very desirable. That transformation can happen throughout the GTA.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Honestly I'm fine with focusing residential intensification around a few specific stations and let some other ones continue to serve primarily as park and ride stations. In the case of Oakville that can be to intensify Oakville GO while perhaps building a parking structure at Bronte to allow it to focus as a parking focused station, for Burlington use Appleby as a primarily parking based station and intensify Burlington/Aldershot GOs, etc...

 

[micheal_can]

Honestly I'm fine with focusing residential intensification around a few specific stations and let some other ones continue to serve primarily as park and ride stations. In the case of Oakville that can be to intensify Oakville GO while perhaps building a parking structure at Bronte to allow it to focus as a parking focused station, for Burlington use Appleby as a primarily parking based station and intensify Burlington/Aldershot GOs, etc...

Actually, no station should be in a desert of nonresidential buildings.

 

[W. K. Lis]

...
Stations that I would say have limited parking (i.e. small parking lots due to constrained land areas), more in line with a typical Metra station:
Mimico
Long Branch
Stouffville
Agincourt
Markham
Centennial (there is a parking garage here but it is fairly small, and essentially no surface parking)
West Harbour GO
NIagara Falls and St Catharines
Newmarket GO
...

The stations with limited parking should be looking at putting up multi-level parking garages. The problem would be be trying to keep existing parking while the construction is going on. Good news and bad news.

 

[gweed123]

The 'industrial' stations are actually easier to densify around, because you don't get any NIMBY reaction that way.

What I'm thinking is 3-4 storey structures covering most of the site (ground floor retail, 2-3 floors of parking above) with residential towers above that. And if you put enough commercial amenities (grocery store, LCBO, etc) into ground floor retail at these locations, the residential component will feel less isolated.

 

[mickael]

The 'industrial' stations are actually easier to densify around, because you don't get any NIMBY reaction that way.

What I'm thinking is 3-4 storey structures covering most of the site (ground floor retail, 2-3 floors of parking above) with residential towers above that. And if you put enough commercial amenities (grocery store, LCBO, etc) into ground floor retail at these locations, the residential component will feel less isolated.

You want commercial, then parking, then residential? Why not make underground parking a requirement, if not a single garage under each building, then an investment in various large underground parking lots to cover the neighbourhood. If each parking lot was split between a couple developers, or even just one each, then it'd be fairly easy to figure out.