Lost Road: Rathburn Rd Bridge

[Bamako]

Did mississauga at any point have plans to bridge Rathburn across Etobicoke creek? A way overbuilt 4 lane road just dead ends. They could have finished it sent the 20 along there to the 427.

With the loop for the TTC 48 gone they could just send it down Mill/Old Burnhamthorpe/Elmcrest or Mill/Laver/Elmcrest.
Or since this is the ~future~ where regional boundaries don't matter, over to Ponytrail. In this same future the TTC 50 would be replaced by the 26.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Did mississauga at any point have plans to bridge Rathburn across Etobicoke creek? A way overbuilt 4 lane road just dead ends. They could have finished it sent the 20 along there to the 427.

With the loop for the TTC 48 gone they could just send it down Mill/Old Burnhamthorpe/Elmcrest or Mill/Laver/Elmcrest.
Or since this is the ~future~ where regional boundaries don't matter, over to Ponytrail. In this same future the TTC 50 would be replaced by the 26.

Could be. Rathburn looks to be the next concession road North of Burnhamthorpe and so was probably planned out. They just never got around to crossing the Etobicoke Creek

 

[gweed123]

Could be. Rathburn looks to be the next concession road North of Burnhamthorpe and so was probably planned out. They just never got around to crossing the Etobicoke Creek

Another situation like this is Upper Middle Rd in Oakville/Burlington. It's discontinuous across Bronte Creek (or is it Sixteen Mile Creek, I forget).

 

[Transportfan]

Could be. Rathburn looks to be the next concession road North of Burnhamthorpe and so was probably planned out. They just never got around to crossing the Etobicoke Creek

Rathburn Rd. in Mississauga is not a concession road. It was scratch-built (like Bristol or Courtney Park) as a planned extension of the Toronto section, but Nimbyism prevailed when it came time to build the bridge.

 

[drum118]

Did mississauga at any point have plans to bridge Rathburn across Etobicoke creek? A way overbuilt 4 lane road just dead ends. They could have finished it sent the 20 along there to the 427.

With the loop for the TTC 48 gone they could just send it down Mill/Old Burnhamthorpe/Elmcrest or Mill/Laver/Elmcrest.
Or since this is the ~future~ where regional boundaries don't matter, over to Ponytrail. In this same future the TTC 50 would be replaced by the 26.

I stand to be corrected, but there is a plan to build that bridge, but when is unknown.

Taking MT route 20 along the new route is a waste of riders time since most are going to/from the subway today. Going the new route will be longer trip.

I have said since 2002 that MT should take over TTC 50, since Toronto residents would get better service while MT gets a better cost recovery. With #20, #26 and #76 running along Burnhamthorpe in Toronto, the residents would have one the best service route in the city compare to what there now.

TTC own cost recovery and notes, 50 and 49 are high up on the chopping block if TTC every had to downsize or cut back due to lack of funding.

I did the business case back in 2003 & 05 that supported MT taking over 50 with TTC saving 3 buses and a $1 million a year. Metrolinx has seen this report and has used it as an example how to deal with cross border issues and approved the idea over 3 years ago.

TTC 48 would cover this new section and loop at Mills loop or around Ponytail area. Haven't looked into as to how it would loop for sometime.

 

[Bamako]

I stand to be corrected, but there is a plan to build that bridge, but when is unknown.
Taking MT route 20 along the new route is a waste of riders time since most are going to/from the subway today. Going the new route will be longer trip.

Google Earth says that from Burnhamthorpe and 427, it's 3.5km to Ponytrail/Renforth via current routing, and 4.7km via Rathburn extension. However, the new routing serves 900m of Rathburn that was previously unserved.

edit: I was thinking of the 76 there, but you could send the 26 up 427 if you need it to go fast

Heck, you could shrink the bridge by making it one bidirectional lane for buses (20/48), bike lanes and ped path. No traffic for NIMBYs to complain about!

 

[adma]

Rathburn Rd. in Mississauga is not a concession road. It was scratch-built (like Bristol or Courtney Park) as a planned extension of the Toronto section, but Nimbyism prevailed when it came time to build the bridge.

Bloor in Mississauga was similarly conceived.

 

[West Toronto Junction]

6 July 2013

I'll share my fantasy solution to this long obvious disconnect.

Recognizing that all crossings have been blocked earlier, either by Nimby-ism or reluctance to spend money; any practical ideas have to be cheap and unobstrusive. So I assume it's cheapness that has prevented a simple pedestrian and bicycle bridge, probably along with 'don't waste the money on a little bridge since we're eventually going to build a big one.'

And obviously noise, road safety, pollution, bad guys are reasons for not building the four lane road that is provided for, with useful connections, on both sides.

I'l like a two lane bridge structure with double standard width raised sidewalks. The lanes arranged as 0.5 for bicycles, one lane for motor vehicles, and 0.5 for bicycles. The motor traffic lane should be reversable.

The bridge approach traffic configuration on each side would narrow the regular traffic flow into one lane. The righthand most remaining lane would be turned into a bus-only lane. Regular traffic would queue in a single lane and wait for it's turn on the reversable lane, just like existing automated single lane operations found from time to time.

The bus lane provides a queue jump so that any bus goes to the head of the line for the single traffic lane. A premptive traffic signal would mean a bus never has to wait beyond clearing the bridge of existing motor traffic. Also that emergency vehicles would have easy priority access.

This suggestion mixes a smaller footprint structure with a modicom of mostly local benefit. It's politically sustainable because it would be extremely uneconomic to expand; because the cream of the economic benefits would have already been taken care of: pedestrians, cyclists (both largely local populations), local transit, local car traffic. Even local cars would not use this much at peak periods as the signal cycle time on the single lane would make it too slow to use. The physical design guarantees limited overall traffic impact, but improvement for very local trips.

Lots of design details to be worked out, engineering and architectural, but the concept is sound.

West Toronto Junction

 

[Bamako]

Weeks ago I wrote Holyday('s staff) a letter requesting this bridge be considered and what happened to it. I got a phone call from their staff saying that decades ago Mississauga wanted it but Toronto NIMBYs killed it. In the letter I suggested a bridge with bike lanes, sidewalks and a reversible bus only lane, so that way it could be a small, light, inexpensive steel span across the river, and this would connect the two neighbourhoods without flooding the areas with traffic.

Edit: Here's the email I wrote:

Dear Mr. Holyday:
I've been a resident of your ward for 20 years. One thing that I've noticed in my neighbourhood (overlooking Etobicoke Creek) is how Rathburn Road abruptly ends at the creek, and continues on the other side in Mississauga. On the Mississauga side, the size of the road relative to the traffic it get makes it painfully obvious that at one point, there was a plan to connect the two sides with a bridge. I've asked around and all answers indicate that this was the case, however this plan was killed by residents who understandably didn't want the increased traffic passing in front of their homes.

Right now, commuting from Centennial Park to Mississauga is terribly inconvenient without a car. On foot, one has to walk far to access the river path and up a lot of stairs. On bike, one has to detour along Eglinton or Burnhamthorpe, which is very intimidating given the volume and speed of traffic on either of these major thoroughfares. I think it would be highly beneficial to reconsider this bridge, and I believe it can be done without upsetting local residents. I want to suggest, for your consideration, a bridge with one bidirectional lane so that (only) the MiWay 20 service can cross it, along with bike lanes and sidewalks for pedestrians. Since it would not carry traffic, it would not need to be large and thus expensive. Such a bridge would go a long way to link the two sides together, improve mobility, and be a significant gesture in local governments acting together as one overall larger region.

Thank you for taking the time to read my suggestion, and I would like to hear what you think of this idea. I am available at [redacted] for questions or comments.

Thanks
-[Bamako]

Given that Holyday is Toronto's most hardcore paleoconservative, a $10m bridge for them commie bikeriders/bustakers has approximately a 0% chance of happening.

 

[West Toronto Junction]

@Bamako,

I guess the difference between your proposal and mine is that I would have the reversable lane open to all traffic, not just buses. As a bus-only lane it would be empty much of the time and so both appear to, and actually, not live up to it's economic potential. It's the physical capacity limit of the reversable lane that would keep motor traffic relatively low. The advantage is that the broader benefit to motor traffic would attract more political support than a bus-only lane.

West Toronto Junction

 

[doady]

Bloor in Mississauga was similarly conceived.

And Glen Erin, Matheson, Mavis (north of Eglinton)...

if you look at a map you can tell which are concessions and which are not. The concessions seem to change at the Mississauga border: Rathburn is a concession road in Toronto but not in Mississauga, Burnhamthorpe is a concession Road in Mississauga but not in Toronto, Bloor is a concession road in Toronto but not Mississauga, Dundas is a concession road in Mississauga but not in Toronto...

 

[adma]

if you look at a map you can tell which are concessions and which are not. The concessions seem to change at the Mississauga border: Rathburn is a concession road in Toronto but not in Mississauga, Burnhamthorpe is a concession Road in Mississauga but not in Toronto, Bloor is a concession road in Toronto but not Mississauga, Dundas is a concession road in Mississauga but not in Toronto...

Well, Burnhamthorpe in Etobicoke is *kind of a* concession road, or at least inter-concessional--though it's interesting to consider Old Burnhamthorpe's colliding-diagonal-grids configuration, and how it echoes the one-time relationship btw/Eglinton/Richview in Etobicoke and Eglinton/Base Line in Mississauga/Toronto Township. (Ditto w/Derry Road vs Rexdale--though "cleaner" because of the presence of Indian Line--and, for that matter, the ghost of the Middle Road viz. the Queensway.)

An interesting paradox about the erstwhile EtobiNIMBY battles that killed the Rathburn bridge; the net result has been something of a cul-de-sacced "exclusivity" about the easternmost reach of Rathburn in Mississauga, to the point where if they revived the crossing idea now, I wouldn't be surprised if the *Mississauga" side was more anti- than Etobicoke...

 

[ShonTron]

Well, Burnhamthorpe in Etobicoke is *kind of a* concession road, or at least inter-concessional--though it's interesting to consider Old Burnhamthorpe's colliding-diagonal-grids configuration, and how it echoes the one-time relationship btw/Eglinton/Richview in Etobicoke and Eglinton/Base Line in Mississauga/Toronto Township. (Ditto w/Derry Road vs Rexdale--though "cleaner" because of the presence of Indian Line--and, for that matter, the ghost of the Middle Road viz. the Queensway.)

Burnhamthorpe *is* a concession road. Middle Road was too. The Queensway in Mississauga was not west of Etobicoke Creek (but was in Etobicoke).

Toronto Township had two surveying systems. South of Eglinton (Lower Base Line), the concessions started with Lakeshore (west of Southdown Road), then Royal Windsor/Lakeshore, Middle Road (now the QEW/Upper Middle Road) then Dundas, then Burnhamthorpe, then Lower Base Line. North of LBL/Eglinton, the system went to a more rectangular shape. South of Eglinton, Cawthra was the first line east of Hurontario, but to the north, Kennedy is. To the west, Mavis was (interrupted by Credit River) to the south, McLaughlin to the north. Mavis didn't go north of Eglinton until the early 1990s.