News   Apr 24, 2024
Latest Iteration of 50 Eglinton West Proposes 46- and 58-Storey Towers
 941     1 
News   Apr 24, 2024
Sustainability Month: Mass Timber Construction Showing Long-Term Economic Benefits
 1.4K     1 
News   Apr 24, 2024
Aspen Ridge Freehold Townhomes at Crosstown in Master-Planned Community
 615     0 

Transit Fantasy Maps

t54zhao said:
IDK what the right place to post this is, but how come the province doesn't do transit oriented development and zoning with regards to the GO Trains similar to how the Caltrain functions in the bay area?

In California, you get little downtowns clustered around these Caltrain stops like these examples from San Mateo, Palo Alto and Mountain View



Put that in contrast with what we have around GO stops in Mississauga (Clarkson GO), Oakville , Milton, King City etc.

***photos snipped for size***
Click to expand...

Simple answer. The existing rails run through light industrial areas, some that are actually active, leaving little opportunity to renew/redevelop
 
JSF-1 said:
I believe there is a two-fold issue here. The first being urban planning, Toronto and Canada in general still has a long way to go to solve out horrendous urban planning principles. As well the sleepy-suburbs around Toronto aren't really clamoring to develop anything but more residential. They seem intent on trying the keep the suburban dream alive for as long as possible to the ultimate detriment of residence. The other issue is with Metrolinx and the various transit agencies in the GTA. The fact is the GTA is still very auto-dependent mostly due to our horrific urban planning. Metrolinx and transit agencies for there part don't seem to be to concerned with any of this and Metrolinx further fuels this problem by constructing parking garages of a grand scale. The fact is we know many GO Stations sit on some prime real estate the Metrolinx could sell for some good cash and can be developed, however municipalities may be against this as it brings development they may not want, and Metrolinx also likes the money they make from the parking lots and integration of transit services is still a far off dream.

Basically our Urban planning forces people to drive because public transit outside the urban cores is non-existent. Metrolinx further fuels this car culture by constructing grand palaces for car owners and suburban municipalities don't want any of that "urban" development ruining the quaint little suburbs so they would likely be up in arms if ML started selling off GO properties to developers. As well Metrolinx isn't in the business of Property development/ ownership themselves as that is mostly an East Asian occurrence.

If it were up to me I would create a ranking system for the Stations based off potential for development. It would go something like this:

Class A Stations: Stations that serve as the centre of an urban core. Development of the site should the be the highest priority. These stations should become hubs of transit and commerce ala; Central stations for their municipality. (Examples: Union, Cooksville, Brampton, and Langstaff)
Class B Stations: Stations that are of some importance but don't fit the bill as being a large hub. These stations may be in suburban areas/towns that aren't of the same quality as say Brampton, Mississaugga, or Toronto. Development is encouraged although to a smaller degree.
Class C Stations: Stations that have little to no development potential mostly due to being located in areas of little to no development. (Examples: Lincolnville, Gromley)

Something along these lines is encouraged although the success of it would be based solely on the roles ML and municipalities play. Success could be quite easy to achieve if say ML was able to unilaterally sell GO lands to developers without municipal approval, or if ML was allowed to become a property developer. However if municipalities are allowed to be envolved with the process unless there is an overhaul to our urban planning system, such a development scheme would fall to special interest groups; especially in suburban areas.
Click to expand...

I don't think we even need 3 designations. Urban stations that are mini downtowns with full service and local transit connections. And Commuter stations with parking and peak service only.
 
Woodbridge_Heights said:
I don't think we even need 3 designations. Urban stations that are mini downtowns with full service and local transit connections. And Commuter stations with parking and peak service only.
Click to expand...
I think we do. I can look at lets say Brampton as a station in which a Downtown area should be built around, yet can you say the same about a station like Danforth or Mimico? These are two stations that have development potential but to an extent far lower than that of say Union or Brampton which are in the heart of there municipalities. At the same time those two stations aren't in a middle of suburban/rural nowhere so you don't necessarily need to drive to get to them. Lastly you have stations like Lincolnville or Gromely which a really out of the way and driving is almost neccissary. These types of stations aren't in areas that could support large development and may be in the middle of nowhere relative to its counterparts. That's why I break the stations into 3 categories, you have the central hubs, the far out rual/suburban stations and then everything in between; those that have some development potential but also aren't going to major hubs.
 
Some GO stations are almost entirely reserved parking, which is $100/month to rent a space. Long Branch GO has 272 spaces.. that means $27,000/month in parking revenue. And there is a waiting list for spaces there.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
JSF-1 said:
I think we do. I can look at lets say Brampton as a station in which a Downtown area should be built around, yet can you say the same about a station like Danforth or Mimico? These are two stations that have development potential but to an extent far lower than that of say Union or Brampton which are in the heart of there municipalities. At the same time those two stations aren't in a middle of suburban/rural nowhere so you don't necessarily need to drive to get to them. Lastly you have stations like Lincolnville or Gromely which a really out of the way and driving is almost neccissary. These types of stations aren't in areas that could support large development and may be in the middle of nowhere relative to its counterparts. That's why I break the stations into 3 categories, you have the central hubs, the far out rual/suburban stations and then everything in between; those that have some development potential but also aren't going to major hubs.
Click to expand...

I don't think we are far off in our ideas. However I think that urban stations (your Class A and B stations) will only differ in that the have their development (the type, amount, and density) depend on the surrounding community. For example, Union Station (a Class A station for you and an Urban station for me) clearly warrants massive amounts of high density, high rise, commercial and residential development around it because it is at the centre of a massive regionally dominant city. While on the other had places like Aurora and Newmarket (both Class B stations, but still Urban to me) will obviously have more medium and low density development around it, it won't be as intensive, and likely medium to low rise. While commuter stations would be places out in corn fields such as Gormley or Bloomington.

Danforth and Mimico would be Urban stations still, but would have mainly mid rise medium density residential development, with some commercial supporting the area community.
 
IDK if this has ever been suggested, but if Yonge-Line capacity needed to be addressed, how about breaking off half the line at Spadina, running it down Spadina to Front, meeting the old Line 1 at Union, turning North at Sherbourne and then passing through Rosedale and then up Bayview. You could double track the new parts of the line so you could run an express service downtown.

1575737568084.png
 
line4west.png

Now, from the "will make some people very happy but not going to happen" file, a westward extension of Line 4. Sheppard cannot continue over the Humber, but a completely at-grade heavy-rail line could take some pressure off the Crosstown, while also serving some corridors that are prime for intensification. Also Etobicoke, I guess.

The stretch between Walsh and Rexdale stations is probably the biggest obstacle, not really sure how that could be done. However, if combined with some sort of rapid transit on Sheppard East, a continuous route could connect Pearson Airport and Kitchener GO with Agincourt and maybe even Malvern.
 
north-of-anything said:
The stretch between Walsh and Rexdale stations is probably the biggest obstacle, not really sure how that could be done.
Click to expand...

I would consider running at the surface level in the 401 corridor, just for that stretch. Should be doable, especially if Line 4 is converted to OL type / slimmer rolling stock, rather than extended as is.
 
Rainforest said:
I would consider running at the surface level in the 401 corridor, just for that stretch. Should be doable, especially if Line 4 is converted to OL type / slimmer rolling stock, rather than extended as is.
Click to expand...
OL rolling stock won't make any difference, the trains are the same length. Only the width is different and it's hardly notable.
 
Rainforest said:
I would consider running at the surface level in the 401 corridor, just for that stretch. Should be doable, especially if Line 4 is converted to OL type / slimmer rolling stock, rather than extended as is.
Click to expand...
It's only next to 401 for a short time - and at 401, the 400 goes overhead, so this new Sheppard line would actually have lower elevation if it followed Wilson.
 
BurlOak said:
It's only next to 401 for a short time - and at 401, the 400 goes overhead, so this new Sheppard line would actually have lower elevation if it followed Wilson.
Click to expand...

Indeed it would be hard to thread the rail line through the 401/400/Black Creek Dr maze.

Therefore, I would consider continuing under Wilson to the west of 400, and then cutting towards the 401 corridor between the CP Bolton rail line and the Weston Rd interchange. Both Weston Rd and Islington Ave cross over 401, while the "Sheppard" metro line would be running at the same level as the 401 lanes, possibly between the collector and the express. Some lane changes would be needed, and perhaps one westbound lane lost, but that should all be doable with the metro rolling stock that can handle tight turns and steep grades.
 
Last edited:
^ And once west of Islington, there would be two routing options.

Either follow the 401/409 corridor to Pearson.

Or, turn north to Rexdale, serve Woodbine, Westwood Square, Bramalea GO Stn, and Bramalea City Centre. Connecting Brampton to North York. Riders travelling to Pearson would be able to transfer at Woodbine, to the extension of Finch West LRT.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top