[TRONto]

Does TTC and/or Metrolinx own the land they build their stations/station entrances on? If so, it seems odd to me that there's no attempt to capture the value of that land (and help fund the system) by allowing commercial/residential development on these sites.

Their newer stops (e.g. York University) are obviously suitable for this, but even the 'modernization' of the Dufferin station a few years ago seems like it could have included some additional development on site.

Even if it's the city or province that owned the land, seems like a shame that they aren't helping to fund transit through these means.
Any idea why this isn't more common here?

This type of work can delay the project by years. Metrolinx is pursuing this strategy more aggressively now.

 

[Northern Light]

Does TTC and/or Metrolinx own the land they build their stations/station entrances on? If so, it seems odd to me that there's no attempt to capture the value of that land (and help fund the system) by allowing commercial/residential development on these sites.

Their newer stops (e.g. York University) are obviously suitable for this, but even the 'modernization' of the Dufferin station a few years ago seems like it could have included some additional development on site.

Even if it's the city or province that owned the land, seems like a shame that they aren't helping to fund transit through these means.
Any idea why this isn't more common here?

Yes, they own the land almost anywhere where there's a free-standing surface building; be that purely as entrance/exit or as a bus/streetcar terminal.

Also, they've pursued more of that than you would think.

The TTC owns a portion of the land under Hudson's Bay Centre which is on long-term lease to Brookfield.

Canada Square sits on land leased from TTC.

St. Clair Station has a building sitting over its terminal.

The York Mills Centre is over the TTC's terminal.

So is the bus terminal at Lawrence.

The TTC tried with Sheppard, but had a mandate to pursue office towers, not residential and couldn't get any takers.

There are a couple of others as well.

The TTC also tried at Rosedale, but the local Nimbys put a stop to the 9-storey proposal there.

On more suburban Line 2, the line sits north of Bloor West and/or Danforth, and the interest has not been as great. Density permissions in the past were also quite low for surrounding sites, limiting the value.

 

[syn]

Not quite TTC news but wasn't sure where to post it:

Metrolinx offered $1 for his garage. Why the GTA’s massive transit expansion means sudden change for some landowners

 

[turini2]

Does TTC and/or Metrolinx own the land they build their stations/station entrances on? If so, it seems odd to me that there's no attempt to capture the value of that land (and help fund the system) by allowing commercial/residential development on these sites.

Their newer stops (e.g. York University) are obviously suitable for this, but even the 'modernization' of the Dufferin station a few years ago seems like it could have included some additional development on site.

Even if it's the city or province that owned the land, seems like a shame that they aren't helping to fund transit through these means.
Any idea why this isn't more common here?

Create TO is working pretty hard on this on behalf of the TTC - with affordable housing being a major focus.

TfL in London are doing a similar approach to Toronto, maximising affordable housing rather than profit - however they're also building "Build to Rent" properties. Some sites have 50% affordable! Basically, TfL will become a property landlord, and get long term rental income from their properties.
The alternative approach would be like MTR in Hong Kong, building as much as possible on their land (very tall towers, shopping malls etc) to maximise income, regardless of anything else.

Yes, it's a shame that the TYSSE (and although not TTC, the Eglinton Crosstown) stations were not built with over-station development in mind - similar to many other cities around the world. I'm glad to see the Ontario Line has this in mind - this is taken from the recent "Subway Station Architecture Design Standard."

 

[turini2]

This type of work can delay the project by years. Metrolinx is pursuing this strategy more aggressively now.

As Housing Now TO rightly points out, you can design stations with the future development in mind - strong enough foundations, access, crash deck to protect station infrastructure etc. Nine Elms in London will open later this year as a (pretty bland looking) set of two storey pavilions, but there's permission for a 480 unit scheme (40% affordable) to be built above it!

https://twitter.com/x/status/1250939722672869377

 

[Coolstar]

You can now tour Union Station in street view! I'm assuming that the TTC will continue to do other stations in the coming months.

Toronto Transit Commission - Google Maps

 

[drum118]

Create TO is working pretty hard on this on behalf of the TTC - with affordable housing being a major focus.

TfL in London are doing a similar approach to Toronto, maximising affordable housing rather than profit - however they're also building "Build to Rent" properties. Some sites have 50% affordable! Basically, TfL will become a property landlord, and get long term rental income from their properties.
The alternative approach would be like MTR in Hong Kong, building as much as possible on their land (very tall towers, shopping malls etc) to maximise income, regardless of anything else.

Yes, it's a shame that the TYSSE (and although not TTC, the Eglinton Crosstown) stations were not built with over-station development in mind - similar to many other cities around the world. I'm glad to see the Ontario Line has this in mind - this is taken from the recent "Subway Station Architecture Design Standard."
View attachment 300322

Was looking at the propose plan for Islington Station redevelopment and the plan to build a new station entrance and bus terminal is still in the same location. Both development will use the same access to Islington Ave as separate driveways.

4 towers are plan that will take up all the existing parking lot.

I sure hope there is another entrance plan for the tower at the corner of Islington and Bloor that will service everyone especially around elevators as that would be a mistake.

 

[Northern Light]

Yes, it's a shame that the TYSSE (and although not TTC, the Eglinton Crosstown) stations were not built with over-station development in mind - similar to many other cities around the world. I'm glad to see the Ontario Line has this in mind - this is taken from the recent "Subway Station Architecture Design Standard."
View attachment 300322

Not quite right.

The Crosstown has a few station sites that are being built development ready.

Leaside (Bayview) notably among them.

As per this Blog Post:

Metrolinx Press Room

Find the latest Metrolinx news, project updates and more.

blog.metrolinx.com

From the above:

At the intersection of Bayview Avenue and Eglinton Avenue East, Leaside Station is being built by CTS with additional structural elements to accommodate future development. This includes additional structural supports about the station’s southeast entrance and a layout that allows the entrance to remain operational during any potential high-rise construction.

 

[TransitBart]

Create TO is working pretty hard on this on behalf of the TTC - with affordable housing being a major focus.

TfL in London are doing a similar approach to Toronto, maximising affordable housing rather than profit - however they're also building "Build to Rent" properties. Some sites have 50% affordable! Basically, TfL will become a property landlord, and get long term rental income from their properties.
The alternative approach would be like MTR in Hong Kong, building as much as possible on their land (very tall towers, shopping malls etc) to maximise income, regardless of anything else.

Yes, it's a shame that the TYSSE (and although not TTC, the Eglinton Crosstown) stations were not built with over-station development in mind - similar to many other cities around the world. I'm glad to see the Ontario Line has this in mind - this is taken from the recent "Subway Station Architecture Design Standard."
View attachment 300322

I can't effin' believe that we are going to put modified Tesla logos on every "transit" station so that people will know it's transit. I hate that T.

 

[drum118]

I can't effin' believe that we are going to put modified Tesla logos on every "transit" station so that people will know it's transit. I hate that T.

I happen to look at some of the videos I shot in Europe not long ago and a few of them had the T for the tram stations. English is not everyone first language nor are they willing to learn it. To deal with language issues as to what type of transit it is in the first place, images and symbols are being use with the T being use more.

We may call our underground system a subway, but other refer to it as the Metro, Tube, u-bahn, underground and so on.

 

[DSCToronto]

I happen to look at some of the videos I shot in Europe not long ago and a few of them had the T for the tram stations. English is not everyone first language nor are they willing to learn it. To deal with language issues as to what type of transit it is in the first place, images and symbols are being use with the T being use more.

We may call our underground system a subway, but other refer to it as the Metro, Tube, u-bahn, underground and so on.

Yes, and the terminology changes over the decades! This is the original Queen Street Subway https://www.blogto.com/city/2011/09/the_birth_of_the_queen_street_subway_no_not_that_one/

 

[drum118]

Yes, and the terminology changes over the decades! This is the original Queen Street Subway https://www.blogto.com/city/2011/09/the_birth_of_the_queen_street_subway_no_not_that_one/

Every time I walk by the underpass and see that Queen Street Subway marking, it amuse me that they use Subway for Queen and King, yet it only an underpass by right. It most likely got use as there was no such thing as an overpass and something new for everyone at the time.

Things get rename over time to meet the understanding of the public what they call things.

I am sure if you could go back in time and to say to the people of the day that Subway was the wrong name and you must use underpass, they would say you nuts.

 

[drum118]

Maybe TTC could look at this model for low ridership routes.

 

[superelevation]

This type of work can delay the project by years. Metrolinx is pursuing this strategy more aggressively now.

It does not need to delay it by years, you just need to be smart and design in the necessary stuff for an OSD in the future as seen in London and Vancouver as well . . .

 

[W. K. Lis]

While the TTC has commissioners on its board who don't use public transit, it's the same elsewhere...

A major malfunction at Major Mackenzie Drive​

York Region’s latest bus rapid transit project has a major flaw at Major Mackenzie Drive in Richmond Hill

From link.

On December 20, 2020, the newest section of York Region’s Viva Rapidways opened for service on Yonge Street between Highway 7 and Major Mackenzie Drive. I have been critical of York Region’s rapid transit projects for several reasons: they are underutilized, they are poorly designed for pedestrians, and without frequent service and convenient connecting routes, the money spent on fancy new infrastructure ends up becoming a questionable investment.


At least the new Yonge Street Rapidway would serve York Region’s busiest transit corridor, supporting new high-density development in Richmond Hill. Unlike on Highway 7 or in Newmarket, there are no two-phase pedestrian crossings on this part of Yonge. Unfortunately, a botched connection between the new Rapidway at Major Mackenzie Drive created a new problem for the YRT/Viva transit network.


This issue — along with the other problems with York Region’s Rapidways that I discussed previously — should be held up as lessons on what not to do when building new transit rights-of-way in street medians, be it on Hurontario Street in Mississauga and Brampton, planned BRT lines on Dundas Street in Mississauga, or Queen Street in Brampton.

Though Yonge Street is wide enough for dedicated bus lanes, along with bike lanes and two general traffic lanes between Highway 7 and Major Mackenzie, the roadway narrows through Richmond Hill’s historic downtown. Through Downtown Richmond Hill, Viva buses and cyclists rejoin general traffic, and parking is permitted in the curb lanes outside of weekday rush hours.

Schematic of new Major Mackenzie Viva bus stop at Yonge Street – access is only permitted from the south, at Hopkins Street/Elmwood Avenue (from VivaNext website)

Because of this traffic constraint, the Viva bus stops are located one block south of Major Mackenzie, at the intersection of Yonge Street and Elmwood Avenue and Hopkins Street. Pedestrians intending to get to the Viva bus stops from Major Mackenzie Drive and Downtown Richmond Hill must walk that extra block south on the sidewalk, push the beg button to cross Yonge Street at Elmwood/Hopkins and backtrack to the bus platform.

Pedestrian crosses Yonge Street from the Major Mackenzie Drive intersection. This is the fastest and most direct route to the new Viva stops, but it is prohibited – pedestrians are expected to walk down to the next traffic lights, push the beg button and wait for a walk signal to cross and backtrack to the stop platforms.

To dissuade pedestrians from making the shorter, direct route across Yonge Street north of the Viva stop, temporary barriers were set up, an indication that natural human behaviour was not thought out during the design phase. YRT transit enforcement officers are regularly stationed as well to lay jaywalking charges against those who try to take the shortest path, including those transferring from east-west buses on Major Mackenzie.

Looking north towards Major Mackenzie Drive – note the temporary “no pedestrian access” signs on the north side of the platform

This poor design is especially bad considering that this is one of the busiest transfer points on Yonge Street in York Region. Combined, Routes 4 and 25 make Major Mackenzie Drive the busiest and most frequent conventional (i.e., non-Viva) transit corridor in York Region. Therefore, hundreds of transit riders must walk longer distances and cross more lanes of traffic than previously when the curbside Viva stops were adjacent to the intersection.

The second busiest conventional route is 20 Jane, which connects to the new Vaughan hospital site, Vaughan Mills mall, the subway and (via an unnecessarily long walk) York University. A new Viva route was planned to serve the Jane and Major Mackenzie corridors between Vaughan Metropolitan Centre station and Richmond Hill GO Station, just east of Yonge Street, originally planned to commence with the opening of the subway extension, which occurred in December 2017. However, Viva Silver’s start date has been delayed several times; as of February 2021, there is no indication on when service would begin. When Viva Silver service finally begins, this will be an even busier transfer point.

The sanctioned access point to the Major Mackenzie Drive Viva bus stop, where pedestrians must beg to get to the bus platforms

If you need to put up temporary barriers and deploy enforcement officers to ticket your own customers trying to access your service, you probably made some serious mistakes. User-centred design must be part of any transit project, and transit riders must be made to feel as welcome as possible. Once again, York Region got this wrong. Hopefully, future transit projects learn from these mistakes, rather than repeat them.