Kipling & Islington Station Renos

Sean Marshall has a good article over at spacing about the planned changes at Kipling and Islington Stations.  There’s a good thread of comments too.

One other item of note, in next week’s TTC agenda, is the planned transfer of responsibility for building the new terminal from TTC to GO Transit. 

4 thoughts on “Kipling & Islington Station Renos

  1. Looking at the plans for these two stations, I have a couple of concerns, notably of course, the conversion of parking lots to the proposed terminals. Mind you, I understand your point of the importance of local links as an alternative to parking lots.

    The plan states that good chunk of parking in both Kipling and Islington stations will be removed. While there are immediate plans to provide alternative parking at Kipling, none has been made for Islington. The use of the entire parking lot for the six-bay bus terminal structure is not what I consider to be an efficient use of space here as I will get to in a moment.

    The plan does state an “increase” in parking spaces, that is because alternative parking has been planned for the corridor south of the Subway between Kipling and Islington Stations, along with a swath of land along Bloor and Aukland. Unfortunately, this does not provide any form of convenience to users of these parking lots are a considerable walking distance to the stations themselves, in fact, worst case will find a commuter almost equidistant between the two stations.

    While the loss of spaces at Kipling station is mitigated by what appears to be an efficient rework of the surrounding property to provide interim parking, Islington station itself is another matter. The entire main lot would be closed off and used for the construction of the new terminal. That’s a loss of 526 spaces, a large chunk to lose. The proposed lot on 3 Fieldway is a considerable distance to the Subway and I don’t think commuters will find that a convenient place to park and take the subway, unless you’re planning a station inbetween Kipling and Islington (which would absolutely be ridiculous).

    I have stated before that on prior occaisions while commuting downtown that the Islington Main lot acted as a convenient alternative to when there is no available parking at Kipling. The main lot does see a lot of traffic from what I recall but admittedly, I do not know about the other two lots at Cordova and Lomond. I’m aware the Lomond’s lot is strictly paid only, so if they HAVE to eliminate the main lot, they had better convert the Lomond lot for metropass use. Again 526 spots is a lot of spots to use when AFAIK, the Islington parking lots do see a lot of traffic.

    As for the Islington terminal, the planned six-bay terminal does not seem to be an effective use of space there. This is because of the angle of the terminal as well as the room required for buses to make their turns. In fact, I have never seen an isolated island terminal with only six bays (the smallest I have seen is eight, and that is at Kennedy Station, a much busier station). What I would have preferred was an island corner terminal at the northwest side of Bloor and Islington, with an entrance at Bloor and exit at Islington. Such a terminal arrangement would have buses enter the terminal at Bloor and exit at Islington (where you would have your proposed light at Aberfoyle). As well, this would efficiently integrate the proposed terminal with the new SNC Lavallin building which would be the proper way to build it. If such an arrangement cannot be made, then perhaps the terminal should be built under the building in the same vein as York Mills and the proposed Eglinton Station. Either way, this maintains the parking at Islington and provides a reasonable alternative to commuting downtown.

    Steve: Another writer here has pointed out that six bays at Islington is excessive for the services that will remain at this station. There will be 37 Islington, 110 Islington South and 50 Burnhamthorpe. Throw in one extra for subway shuttles, and four seems quite adequate.


  2. Steve, that was me…. 😉 I pointed out that fact and that a large bus terminal is somewhat excessive. But I can understand the rationale for “requiring” six bus bays:

    Bay 1: Unloading
    Bay 2: 37, 37C, 37D Islington
    Bay 3: 37A Islington via Rexdale
    Bay 4: 110 Islington South
    Bay 5: 110A, 110B Islington South
    Bay 6: 50 Burnhamthorpe.

    But I digress. The schedules appear to be spaced apart suffuciently enough during peak periods to not warrant two bus bays for routes 37 and 110. Given this fact, I have no clue why the TTC doesn’t opt for a simpler design that doesn’t take so much space.


  3. There is also supposed to be one remaining MT route running into Islington (not sure if it’ll be the Burnhamthorpe or the Dundas), which some have argued if it is the Burnhamthorpe, the TTC should just scrap the 50 and contract it out to MT which would provide improved service. Working out a transfer arrangement for those boarding within Toronto would need some figuring out first.

    Anyway, with the last MT route, that brings to 4 the number of bays needed. One can be used as a drop-off bay and the last one can be used for either subway shuttles or to park a bus for a bit while the driver does a quick run into the station.


Comments are closed.