crossposted to Metronauts.ca
Above are aerial photos of six GO train stations on the Lakeshore Line. Can you identify which station is which? Even for someone like me, who is fairly familiar with the system, I had a difficult time putting a name to each one. There are no obvious distinguishing features to make identification easy — instead, there is a typical GO Station recipe: platform, station building, parking lot, and arterial roadway access. For a transit system to be truly visible and integrated into our urban fabric, these stations should not be placeless, featureless landscapes. The above photos show just how far we still have to go. The identity of each of these stations and more discussion, after the jump.
How many did you get right?
There are three reasons why I chose to place the spotlight on the Lakeshore GO Line. First, the line has been in operation for over forty years. Second, there is already high-quality and frequent (by commuter rail standards) service to each of these stations. And last, the line is poised for significant investment and improvement as part of MoveOntario and the Metrolinx Regional Transportation Plan.
There are very few urban transit lines in the world where four decades of continuous service has failed to spur significant development adjacent to a station. With a few exceptions, GO Transit’s suburban stations are expanses of parking lots and low density development with little walkability and identity. Instead of turning these stations into urban places, the model followed was clearly to make it as efficient as possible for commuters to drive from their homes to hop on a train.
I believe the main barrier that has prevented GO Stations from becoming urban hubs is the prominence of Park and Ride in the system’s ridership strategy. Granted, park and ride clearly represents a significant proportion of riders; however, building large parking lots on the land that is also the most attractive for development is completely counterproductive to building an all-day transit culture. Unlike in urban settings, the desirability of development drops off sharply around GO Stations, mainly due to the perception of distance in suburban environments. The parking lots therefore automatically push development beyond the limit of desirability, simply due to their size. Very few people are going to purchase a home adjacent to a GO Station when it takes ten minutes to walk across a windswept parking lot. Meanwhile, park and riders get a comfortable ten minute drive to park closer to the station than those who live by it. Is there any surprise then, why few developers have jumped at building around the stations? Is it even fair to those who are choosing a more sustainable way of living, by punishing them with that long, uncomfortable walk?
A major topic in the Green and White Papers is the concept of a Mobility Hub. I believe if GO Transit and Metrolinx are truly passionate about that concept, there needs to be shift in how we design and build around existing and new GO Stations. It is possible for park and ride to coexist with Transit Oriented Development, for example, selling the park and ride lots for development that incorporates a multi-storey parking garage to maintain park and ride capacity. But most importantly, a balance has to be made in facilitating more intermodal activity beyond the existing car-to-train.
There is huge potential for our suburban GO Stations to become landmarks and places. And if we take the right approach, perhaps soon the aerial photos above will show a place with identity, and not just another parking lot.
Are you surprised with the lack of development around our GO Stations? What do you think we should see as we move forward? What kind of measures can we take to encourage the idea of Mobility Hubs?
