News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 4.8K     0 

jmi22 said:
I agree that would be preferable, and likely the case had the historic station footprint been preserved, however the land surrounding the intersection of rail line and woodbrige avenue is essentially all single family homes. The ability to construct a station, nevermind a decent level of TOD would be very limited here

View attachment 499133
Click to expand...

The historical station is actually located closer to the proposed station, south of the Woodbridge foam plant. The tracks were shifted east to their current location at some point.

The other historical railway station was along the Humber river which was part of the Toronto suburban railway.

Regardless of the existence of sfh in the area. Station construction will be difficult given the terrain and grade differences between the road and railway
 
SaugeenJunction said:
Today at AMO:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1693631326690128027
Click to expand...

Let me bring that forward for those lacking previews and/or the Click-averse:

1692644983051.png
 
Having a spur off the MacTier into Caledon (as part of a passenger project) might provide options for shifting aggregate extraction from road to rail. It wouldn‘t address all the issues with that activity, but given the rate of construction in the GTA presumably aggregates have to come from somewhere
 
dowlingm said:
Having a spur off the MacTier into Caledon (as part of a passenger project) might provide options for shifting aggregate extraction from road to rail. It wouldn‘t address all the issues with that activity, but given the rate of construction in the GTA presumably aggregates have to come from somewhere
Click to expand...
Only marginally and at significant cost. There needs to be handling and storage facilities at both end (where in Toronto - particularly downtown - would you put that?). You still need to truck it to and from the source to railhead and from railhead to destination.
 
lenaitch said:
Only marginally and at significant cost. There needs to be handling and storage facilities at both end (where in Toronto - particularly downtown - would you put that?). You still need to truck it to and from the source to railhead and from railhead to destination.
Click to expand...
Yeah… when I wrote that I was thinking somewhere in the vicinity of St Mary’s Cement in Leaside, just NE of CP Leaside Yard, but there is less open/available land in that area at present than I guessed.
 
dowlingm said:
Yeah… when I wrote that I was thinking somewhere in the vicinity of St Mary’s Cement in Leaside, just NE of CP Leaside Yard, but there is less open/available land in that area at present than I guessed.
Click to expand...
The way Toronto and the GTA is growing, there really is no one good spot and it would concentrate the 'last mile' trucks into one area. It also assumes a single supplier and source. Pits are owned by a number of companies, and Caledon is only one of the source areas.
 

Woodbridge GO Station Land Use Study​

To assess the feasibility of adding a potential new GO Station in the area south of Kipling Avenue and Meeting House Road, the City of Vaughan is undertaking the Woodbridge GO Station Land Use Study.

Registration is not required. To join tonight's virtual meeting, click the link below:

 
lenaitch said:
The way Toronto and the GTA is growing, there really is no one good spot and it would concentrate the 'last mile' trucks into one area. It also assumes a single supplier and source. Pits are owned by a number of companies, and Caledon is only one of the source areas.
Click to expand...
Just one portion of the large James Dick quarry between Hurontario and Kennedy Road in Caledon.

DJI_0094.jpg


DJI_0634.jpg
 
Allandale25 said:
4. would be my preference.
Click to expand...
Why?

I’m not sure what Woodbridge Foam’s longer term intentions are, but the newish residential on the same side of the track makes me think the Town accepts erosion of industrial, and there is green space behind. A GO station without further erosion of the adjoining green space would be as sympathetic as it gets.

Whatever the fairground’s (3) prospects, that space should be banked for either continuance or some other future amenity, not paved over.

I wouldn’t go with (2) either as it’s small and green space unlike the swathes of “little boxes made of ticky tacky” to the north, with the exception of provision for a medium-long term second platform.

(4) contains residences of the sort that makes me think a Town which wants to persuade itself it still has a ye olde village ambience would struggle to part with them. Also, a small site.

Did anyone on here actually join the meeting and get further context beyond the map posted up-thread?
 
dowlingm said:
Why?

I’m not sure what Woodbridge Foam’s longer term intentions are, but the newish residential on the same side of the track makes me think the Town accepts erosion of industrial, and there is green space behind. A GO station without further erosion of the adjoining green space would be as sympathetic as it gets.

Whatever the fairground’s (3) prospects, that space should be banked for either continuance or some other future amenity, not paved over.

I wouldn’t go with (2) either as it’s small and green space unlike the swathes of “little boxes made of ticky tacky” to the north, with the exception of provision for a medium-long term second platform.

(4) contains residences of the sort that makes me think a Town which wants to persuade itself it still has a ye olde village ambience would struggle to part with them. Also, a small site.

Did anyone on here actually join the meeting and get further context beyond the map posted up-thread?
Click to expand...

4 and 2 are equally small though. 4 is smaller than 2 IIRC
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top