[Sunnyside]

The Friends of Pickering Airport group has proposed a "Union Station East" near the Pickering Airport Lands.This is in the wake of the RFP that went out for an HFR station in Pickering.

View attachment 516784

https://pickeringairport.org/union-east-station/

Let’s not blow this out of proportion. This might sound harsh, but I’m genuinely shocked this was published. Look closely at this map and tell me if any of it looks remotely as serious as “Union West”. Right off the bat this isn’t even drawn very well… that’s a good sign, lol.

So let’s get into it. Every line they show connecting to “Union East” does not exist. More importantly, most here likely will not exist, or should not (all) be reasonably assumed by a municipality. Thats unlike Union, Union “West” and even Union “North” (RHC). Hwy 7 VIVA is the only thing that’s remotely concrete here- 16th avenue won’t have VIVA, so they made that up, and Major Mack is almost certainly not going to be LRT. The 407 transitway has legs, but is very far off too. VIA/GO here is a typical inclusion in any TMP/RTP so whatever, but it’s not exactly concrete.

So In short, we have questionable plans presented in a very poor manner. Make no mistake, in principle it’s understandable, but I’d be more open to the pitch if it looked like they were serious. Part of the planning point is to show people that this is needed, or at least a good idea, and I’m not sold—There are too many “ifs” without any commitment. I’m more bothered that they’re making stuff up, though. It just comes off as more fantasizing from the Durham area and it’s so disconnected from reality.

 

[micheal_can]

I mean in fairness, if the goal is a general transport hub rather than just another airport link, a station at the rail corridor and an APM link probably does make more sense than a mainline branch to the terminal.

If we are talking of an existing airport then you are correct. However, this is a completely new build from a greenfield that is currently farmland. Nothing has been approved,so everything can be moved as needed.

 

[Coolstar]

Let’s not blow this out of proportion. This might sound harsh, but I’m genuinely shocked this was published. Look closely at this map and tell me if any of it looks remotely as serious as “Union West”. Right off the bat this isn’t even drawn very well… that’s a good sign, lol.

So let’s get into it. Every line they show connecting to “Union East” does not exist. More importantly, most here likely will not exist, or should not (all) be reasonably assumed by a municipality. Thats unlike Union, Union “West” and even Union “North” (RHC). Hwy 7 VIVA is the only thing that’s remotely concrete here- 16th avenue won’t have VIVA, so they made that up, and Major Mack is almost certainly not going to be LRT. The 407 transitway has legs, but is very far off too. VIA/GO here is a typical inclusion in any TMP/RTP so whatever, but it’s not exactly concrete.

So In short, we have questionable plans presented in a very poor manner. Make no mistake, in principle it’s understandable, but I’d be more open to the pitch if it looked like they were serious. Part of the planning point is to show people that this is needed, or at least a good idea, and I’m not sold—There are too many “ifs” without any commitment. I’m more bothered that they’re making stuff up, though. It just comes off as more fantasizing from the Durham area and it’s so disconnected from reality.

Of course, this plan is very unserious and fantasy-like. It mostly serves as justification/a feature for their Pickering Airport plans.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Not to mention, the orange square is 4 square Km large, ~2 Km wide at it's widest point. For comparisons, Union station's building covers approx 70,000 (!) square METRES! Even counting the approach tracks gets us to ~120,000 square m. And on the Union station W proposal by the GTAA, even a generous estimate of the land needed is ~350,000 square M.

They are proposing a station that covers 10x the area of any other station in the GTA!!! This would be a Taj Mahal of a station that would make Bloomington Go station look insignificant.

Now sure maybe their argument would be that the orange square is accounting for more than just the station building and includes things like approach roads, ancillary items, ppudo, etc ... sure, but not on this scale.

It's like they just say hey maybe we should have a Union Station East plan as well, and came up with the most uninformed, unknowledgeable, fantasy idea.

 

[Sunnyside]

Not to mention, the orange square is 4 square Km large, ~2 Km wide at it's widest point. For comparisons, Union station's building covers approx 70,000 (!) square METRES! Even counting the approach tracks gets us to ~120,000 square m. And on the Union station W proposal by the GTAA, even a generous estimate of the land needed is ~350,000 square M.

They are proposing a station that covers 10x the area of any other station in the GTA!!! This would be a Taj Mahal of a station that would make Bloomington Go station look insignificant.

Now sure maybe their argument would be that the orange square is accounting for more than just the station building and includes things like approach roads, ancillary items, ppudo, etc ... sure, but not on this scale.

It's like they just say hey maybe we should have a Union Station East plan as well, and came up with the most uninformed, unknowledgeable, fantasy idea.

Yeah I think they just laid out a conceptual area for where the hub would be. I doubt the station would be that big, and I’m willing to give some leeway this early. Better to allocate more land than less. In concept this works as a smaller version of the peripheral HSR hubs in Chinese cities, which operate more like airports— It’s your eastern GTA gateway. It’s more problematic imo to imply there will be more going in to meet this end, especially when everything ’real’ is already dubious.

My smallest gripe is calling it, or any other hub, Union-something. Union is Union. I get what they’re going for, but It’s diminished to promote other stations’ importance. Either come up with a new naming scheme for the emerging+future hubs, or rename Union to “Grand Union” etc. Then you can have Union E, W, N, and S (Hamilton, anyone?) and the “real” Union is still clearly a tier above. Unless your going to match Union’s arch. presence too (doubt it).

Ideally a naming scheme would also distinguish Kennedy, Kipling, Bloor-Dundas, Square One, Exhibition, East Harbour and Science Centre (moreso if the midtown is realized). Basically anywhere with 3+ major connections.

 

[TossYourJacket]

Not to mention, the orange square is 4 square Km large, ~2 Km wide at it's widest point. For comparisons, Union station's building covers approx 70,000 (!) square METRES! Even counting the approach tracks gets us to ~120,000 square m. And on the Union station W proposal by the GTAA, even a generous estimate of the land needed is ~350,000 square M.

They are proposing a station that covers 10x the area of any other station in the GTA!!! This would be a Taj Mahal of a station that would make Bloomington Go station look insignificant.

Now sure maybe their argument would be that the orange square is accounting for more than just the station building and includes things like approach roads, ancillary items, ppudo, etc ... sure, but not on this scale.

It's like they just say hey maybe we should have a Union Station East plan as well, and came up with the most uninformed, unknowledgeable, fantasy idea.

It's Durham. Most of that space would inevitably be surface parking

 

[TossYourJacket]

My smallest gripe is calling it, or any other hub, Union-something. Union is Union. I get what they’re going for, but It’s diminished to promote other stations’ importance. Either come up with a new naming scheme for the emerging+future hubs, or rename Union to “Grand Union” etc. Then you can have Union E, W, N, and S (Hamilton, anyone?) and the “real” Union is still clearly a tier above. Unless your going to match Union’s arch. presence too (doubt it).

Yeah this "Union West/East/etc" thing needs to die. Many cities have multiple major stations. They name them different things. Makes life easier. Just call the one at Pearson either "Pearson" (for obvious reasons) or idk, Viscount (since IIRC it's supposed to replace where Viscount Station on the Airport Link Train is now). The idea we should name major train stations in the same stupid way the TTC named all the subway stations along East-West streets is idiotic.

 

[Coolibop]

I don't think anyone is proposing naming it union east? It's just a placeholder name to easily get the message across to a population already familiar with union.

 

[EastYorkTTCFan]

The idea we should name major train stations in the same stupid way the TTC named all the subway stations along East-West streets is idiotic.

They named them after the street names. In Toronto when a major street in the old city of Toronto crosses young its ether east or west . For example King Street East is east of young and King Street West is west of young.

 

[micheal_can]

The term "Union Station" is used for any station where 2 different railroads met. So, calling this a union station would be correct.Using it as a place holder would also be correct.

Lets focus on the (de)merits,not the name.

 

[kEiThZ]

The real irony is that they are pushing a "Union Station East" at the edge of Markham rather than trying to push an integration into a future "Toronto East Airport". The way to compete with the Pearson Airport/Union Station West Hub is to offer integration right off the bat. As pitched, the station makes sense, but the airport still doesn't.

 

[Bureaucromancer]

As pitched, the station makes sense, but the airport still doesn't.

Meh; more sense than the airport anyway, but we are talking about major interchange in the middle of a mostly protected greenfield area. Potentially useful yes, but barring the airport and urban boundary changes probably not the best option.

I'd put it in the same bucket I do the airport: just sensible enough that we should keep protecting the lands, and firming up plans enough to enable that protection makes sense... but timelines beyond that really aren't needed. A small GA airport aimed at replacing Buttonville without pushing everyone out to Oshawa might be sensible in the vaguely near term, but that also doesn't require any kind of transit beyond an occasional bus and a design that doesn't block further expansion.

 

[kEiThZ]

Meh; more sense than the airport anyway, but we are talking about major interchange in the middle of a mostly protected greenfield area. Potentially useful yes, but barring the airport and urban boundary changes probably not the best option.

I should have been more clear. The idea is alright. But somehow I don't think that's where Metrolinx would want to put their GTA East station.

But if I was trying to sell an airport as a transportation hub, I would at least try to co-locate as many modes as possible.

 

[Bureaucromancer]

But if I was trying to sell an airport as a transportation hub, I would at least try to co-locate as many modes as possible.

OTOH if one mode is going to not be truly co-located, its the airport I'd be inclined to move. And I think the choice in Picking would realistically be an airport transport hub with mainline rail at a distance, or a ground transport hub with an airport link an APM could handle nicely.

 

[micheal_can]

OTOH if one mode is going to not be truly co-located, its the airport I'd be inclined to move. And I think the choice in Picking would realistically be an airport transport hub with mainline rail at a distance, or a ground transport hub with an airport link an APM could handle nicely.

You miss the part where they are pushing this as a GA airport, which is not like Pearson, but more like the smaller ones without scheduled service.