News   Dec 13, 2019
 1.1K     16 
News   Dec 13, 2019
 1.9K     5 
News   Dec 13, 2019
 845     1 

Mississauga Dundas Transportation Master Plan

salsa

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 27, 2013
Messages
8,215
Reaction score
7,515
Location
North York
Running a parallel subway from only Dixie to Hurontario isn't an egregious overlap of service (we have the 97 Yonge along the YUS line afterall, but they serve different markets of riders).
Any transit line with wide stop spacing is required to have parallel bus service, which usually run empty and infrequently to begin with. But putting the most expensive form of transit in a corridor with not nearly enough ridership for it, that almost completely either parallels the Milton GO line or directly duplicates the Hurontario LRT...that is indeed an egregious overlap of service. It's not "different markets of riders" when the 3-stop Scarborough subway extension had to be substantially watered down because of the parallel Stouffville line - another egregious overlap of service that was of much smaller magnitude than your proposal. Perhaps you ought to take note of what happened there instead of comparing the Yonge bus.



But for everyone heading from Square One or Cooksville exclusively to the subway at Kipling/Islington in order to head further into Toronto, it's punishing them not to extend the subway further west.
Do you realize that your subway extension is longer than the distance between Kipling and St George? You'll be sitting underground for over an hour on a stiff chair until your butt hurts. Talk about punishment.

Screen shot 2016-04-08 at 12.14.30 AM.png




But the good news is, as you pointed out:
...the vast majority of commuters are travelling to and from [Toronto & Square One], not to destinations along Dundas...
If a bunch of subway stations on Dundas street is of little use to most people, then might as well scrap the whole thing. The parallel Milton GO line would serve mostly the same Toronto-bound riders in half the commute time and twice the comfort. It's time that people accept that subways are not meant for really long distance trips from the suburbs into the centre of the city.



It may not be a priority today (because 1.2 million residents in Peel are less important to provide subways to than 300k Vaughan, 200k Richmond Hill and 600k Scarborough residents apparently), but...
If you're gonna lump Caledon, Brampton and Mississauga together, you can't just compare an entire region to the cities of Vaughan, Richmond Hill or Scarborough. Compare apples to apples please.

Peel Region - 1.2M
York Region - 1.0M
Toronto - 2.6M​


Regardless, what does the population of a sprawling regional municipality have to do with whether a subway is justified? The key determinants should be population density, planning goals, travel patterns, and ridership. A vanity subway extension in Vaughan is not a good excuse to repeat that same mistake everywhere else too.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

gweed123

Moderator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 10, 2009
Messages
7,553
Reaction score
1,030
Location
Burlington
IMO, building an RER spur from the Milton line to Square One is a much more efficient option than digging a subway all the way to Square One. It would be about half the time between Square One and Downtown Toronto via that than it would be via a subway extension. For people who's destination is actually along Bloor (a pretty small minority judging by the transfer volumes at St. George), there would be a connection to the Bloor-Danforth Subway at Kipling.

And that says nothing of the cost. You'd basically be digging a 2.5km long tunnel with 1 underground station at the end of it instead of a nearly 12km long subway extension with 10 stations. So let's assume $300 million/km for tunnelling and $300 million per station. You can either build an RER spur for $1.05 billion that would get people downtown in ~25 minutes, or build a subway extension for $6.6 billion that would get people downtown in over 1hr. Oh, and they would both have more than enough capacity to handle the demand.

Tough choice (not).
 

drum118

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
14,442
Reaction score
6,905
Location
Mississauga, where cars rule city growth
IMO, building an RER spur from the Milton line to Square One is a much more efficient option than digging a subway all the way to Square One. It would be about half the time between Square One and Downtown Toronto via that than it would be via a subway extension. For people who's destination is actually along Bloor (a pretty small minority judging by the transfer volumes at St. George), there would be a connection to the Bloor-Danforth Subway at Kipling.

And that says nothing of the cost. You'd basically be digging a 2.5km long tunnel with 1 underground station at the end of it instead of a nearly 12km long subway extension with 10 stations. So let's assume $300 million/km for tunnelling and $300 million per station. You can either build an RER spur for $1.05 billion that would get people downtown in ~25 minutes, or build a subway extension for $6.6 billion that would get people downtown in over 1hr. Oh, and they would both have more than enough capacity to handle the demand.

Tough choice (not).
That is why I said a subway on Dundas to Hurontario only.

I am on record calling for a Tram-Train cutting off the Milton Line onto the Hurontario LRT to the City Centre and it was recommend as a $125+/- million budget item for the transit budget in December to council by me.

If you want to do a true RER line and I believe it was you or someone else who convince me to go this way as you propose, but more. The true RER line would be as proposed by you, but you take it north and reconnect to the Milton Line north of the 403. This would allow another option to run full service to the city centre as well the Cooksville Station. You could run different type of service in both direction from the City Centre based on needs and ridership and could be built in phases. This cut off Tram-Train/RER line would not service the Cooksville Station area.

There is no reason you can't build the tunnel for DD since it been done in Europe now and in operation.

The Dundas subway/LRT/BRT would service the people who need the service within Mississauga as well in Toronto compare to those in the City Centre area. Not a big deal doing a transfer. You could build the Dundas subway in phases once you have the density and ridership support one in the first place and that not in anyone life time on this board.
 

gweed123

Moderator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 10, 2009
Messages
7,553
Reaction score
1,030
Location
Burlington
That is why I said a subway on Dundas to Hurontario only.
My personal preferred option is subway extension to Cloverdale/Honeydale, then an in-median corridor along Dundas capable of handling both LRT and BRT vehicles. The BRT would run straight through, continuing west past Hurontario to form the Dundas BRT, while there would be an LRT route that would run the Square One loop, down Hurontario, east on Dundas, and terminate at Cloverdale. This would allow Hurontario LRT trains to run straight through Square One as opposed to deviating through the loop, and would provide a direct access option to the subway.

And of course an RER spur.

I am on record calling for a Tram-Train cutting off the Milton Line onto the Hurontario LRT to the City Centre and it was recommend as a $125+/- million budget item for the transit budget in December to council by me.
That's an interesting proposal. So you're proposing that a section of the Milton line be upgraded to handle LRT vehicles? Would this run all the way into Union, or just to a designated terminus (Kipling?)?.

If you want to do a true RER line and I believe it was you or someone else who convince me to go this way as you propose, but more. The true RER line would be as proposed by you, but you take it north and reconnect to the Milton Line north of the 403. This would allow another option to run full service to the city centre as well the Cooksville Station. You could run different type of service in both direction from the City Centre based on needs and ridership and could be built in phases. This cut off Tram-Train/RER line would not service the Cooksville Station area.

There is no reason you can't build the tunnel for DD since it been done in Europe now and in operation.
Yeah, I'm on the fence as to whether it should be a spur or a thru tunnel. They both have their advantages and their drawbacks. I'm more partial to the spur because of the cost considerations, the fact that Erindale is a pretty major station (which would be bypassed), and because it's easier to run it as an operationally distinct line (i.e. a potential SmartTrack West) if it's a branch. Many of my previous maps showed it paired with a Scarborough Spur, which would be a similar type of operation (branching off the main line and terminating at a city centre).

I certainly wouldn't be opposed to a thru line tunnel though. Like I said, it's two pretty good options. If you do do a thru line, do you continue the tunnel and cut diagonally so that it connects north of Streetsville, in effect bypassing that entire mess? The DD tunnel is a non-issue as far as I'm concerned, although it would require electrification. A slightly wider tunnel diameter isn't a show-stopper.
 

drum118

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
14,442
Reaction score
6,905
Location
Mississauga, where cars rule city growth
My personal preferred option is subway extension to Cloverdale/Honeydale, then an in-median corridor along Dundas capable of handling both LRT and BRT vehicles. The BRT would run straight through, continuing west past Hurontario to form the Dundas BRT, while there would be an LRT route that would run the Square One loop, down Hurontario, east on Dundas, and terminate at Cloverdale. This would allow Hurontario LRT trains to run straight through Square One as opposed to deviating through the loop, and would provide a direct access option to the subway.

And of course an RER spur.



That's an interesting proposal. So you're proposing that a section of the Milton line be upgraded to handle LRT vehicles? Would this run all the way into Union, or just to a designated terminus (Kipling?)?.



Yeah, I'm on the fence as to whether it should be a spur or a thru tunnel. They both have their advantages and their drawbacks. I'm more partial to the spur because of the cost considerations, the fact that Erindale is a pretty major station (which would be bypassed), and because it's easier to run it as an operationally distinct line (i.e. a potential SmartTrack West) if it's a branch. Many of my previous maps showed it paired with a Scarborough Spur, which would be a similar type of operation (branching off the main line and terminating at a city centre).

I certainly wouldn't be opposed to a thru line tunnel though. Like I said, it's two pretty good options. If you do do a thru line, do you continue the tunnel and cut diagonally so that it connects north of Streetsville, in effect bypassing that entire mess? The DD tunnel is a non-issue as far as I'm concerned, although it would require electrification. A slightly wider tunnel diameter isn't a show-stopper.
Tram-Train all the way to Union.

I support extending the subway to Cloverdale since 2005 since it would solve everyone problems, especially for TTC under built Kipling terminal and deadhead time.

Having a tunnel for EMU DD for the RER is a must. I don't see the need to take the tunnel north of Streetsville as the cost would be too high and why I said north of 403.

As I stated, the tunnel can be built in phases with the first going to Sq One off the Milton Line at Cooksville. Again, if you take the tunnel north of Streetsville, you need a station some where along it. I don't expect to see 12 cars being use on the spur for decades and any other on line stations other than Sq One needs to be only for a 5 car train.

I got thinking about Tory SmartTrack to STC and support the idea of converting the SRT to SmartTrack and taking it to Malvern as plan for the LRT expansion. Trains only need to be 3-5 DD EMU long. It will do what none of the other plan option would do, is offer a single seat to the city core and the airport. It would service any other on line stations off the SRT line.

As for Dundas, the BRT can be upgraded to LRT going to Sq One, but where do you built the terminal for the BRT from the west at Hurontario other than running as an extra service on the LRT section?? The city is talking about building a terminal there now and would not meet the redevelopment ideas for the area unless it underground. Any surface would destroy what there now.
 
Last edited:

gweed123

Moderator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 10, 2009
Messages
7,553
Reaction score
1,030
Location
Burlington
Tram-Train all the way to Union.
Interesting. I would suspect that there would need to be more than one setup like that then, in order to make the infrastructure all the way to Union worth it.

I support extending the subway to Cloverdale since 2005 since it would solve everyone problems, especially for TTC under built Kipling terminal and deadhead time.
Yup. They could also incorporate a yard, which would allow Greenwood to be used primarily for the DRL. Also gives much more convenient access to the 427 for a variety of buses.

Having a tunnel for EMU DD for the RER is a must. I don't see the need to take the tunnel north of Streetsville as the cost would be too high and why I said north of 403.

As I stated, the tunnel can be built in phases with the first going to Sq One off the Milton Line at Cooksville. Again, if you take the tunnel north of Streetsville, you need a station some where along it. I don't expect to see 12 cars being use on the spur for decades and any other on line stations other than Sq One needs to be only for a 5 car train.
I just suggest Streetsville as an option because I know that the grade separation requirements through that area are going to be very complicated, even more complicated than Weston I think. Yes, it would cost more to tunnel, but it may save a lot of headaches with regards to community consultations for that grade separation.

I got thinking about Tory SmartTrack to STC and support the idea of converting the SRT to SmartTrack and taking it to Malvern as plan for the LRT expansion. Trains only need to be 3-5 DD EMU long. It will do what none of the other plan option would do, is offer a single seat to the city core and the airport. It would service any other on line stations off the SRT line.
Yup, I actually wrote a piece that was published on UT about that very thing last year. So obviously, I'm a strong supporter of it, haha.

As for Dundas, the BRT can be upgraded to LRT going to Sq One, but where do you built the terminal for the BRT from the west at Hurontario other than running as an extra service on the LRT section?? The city is talking about building a terminal there now and would not meet the redevelopment ideas for the area unless it underground. Any surface would destroy what there now.
The terminal for the Dundas BRT would be at Cloverdale. Basically, for the section of Dundas between Hurontario and Cloverdale, the ROW would be built to BRT width, but would have LRT tracks laid in it. They would be concrete filled, just like mixed-traffic streetcar tracks in Toronto. That way, BRT and LRT vehicles could use the same ROW and same platforms. You could potentially build a passing lane at some or all stations, so that BRT buses could run as off-only once it hit the LRT overlap section, providing what is in essence an express run from Hurontario to Cloverdale.

The ridership east of Hurontario is a lot more than west of Hurontario, so the LRT east of it provides the needed capacity increase, while the overlap provides the continuity of not having to do a linear transfer at Hurontario.

LRT and BRT are normally not mixed in a corridor, but there's no technical reason why they can't be, as long as the corridor is designed to handle both. If you laid tracks in the VIVA Highway 7 corridor, it would be perfectly usable as an LRT corridor too.
 

drum118

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
14,442
Reaction score
6,905
Location
Mississauga, where cars rule city growth
Interesting. I would suspect that there would need to be more than one setup like that then, in order to make the infrastructure all the way to Union worth it.



Yup. They could also incorporate a yard, which would allow Greenwood to be used primarily for the DRL. Also gives much more convenient access to the 427 for a variety of buses.



I just suggest Streetsville as an option because I know that the grade separation requirements through that area are going to be very complicated, even more complicated than Weston I think. Yes, it would cost more to tunnel, but it may save a lot of headaches with regards to community consultations for that grade separation.



Yup, I actually wrote a piece that was published on UT about that very thing last year. So obviously, I'm a strong supporter of it, haha.



The terminal for the Dundas BRT would be at Cloverdale. Basically, for the section of Dundas between Hurontario and Cloverdale, the ROW would be built to BRT width, but would have LRT tracks laid in it. They would be concrete filled, just like mixed-traffic streetcar tracks in Toronto. That way, BRT and LRT vehicles could use the same ROW and same platforms. You could potentially build a passing lane at some or all stations, so that BRT buses could run as off-only once it hit the LRT overlap section, providing what is in essence an express run from Hurontario to Cloverdale.

The ridership east of Hurontario is a lot more than west of Hurontario, so the LRT east of it provides the needed capacity increase, while the overlap provides the continuity of not having to do a linear transfer at Hurontario.

LRT and BRT are normally not mixed in a corridor, but there's no technical reason why they can't be, as long as the corridor is designed to handle both. If you laid tracks in the VIVA Highway 7 corridor, it would be perfectly usable as an LRT corridor too.
You are correct the there is no technical reason why BRT and LRT can use the same ROW other than the concrete will take more a beating from the buses, depending on the quality of service.

East of Hurontario will support an LRT from day one, but Metrolinx wants it to be BRT for a Regional Connection. You could run the BRT along the LRT ROW with only 2-4 stops being use for it east of Hurontario,

In 2004, I was writing a report calling for TTC to build a subway line to the airport along the Weston Sub until Blue 22 surface. You could still use this corridor for other Tram-Train operation since you only dealing with a few VIA Rail trains a day.

I don't see the DRL being a subway, but a rail line using EMU DD trains that are 5-10-12 car long, interlining with the RHC line. Similar that is found in Zürich today. It could interline with the west lines as well. TTC could use the old CP yard at Kipling for BD line new yard.

Grade separation is major problem at Mississauga Rd than else where and they have to be dealt with sooner than later. This will not require the need for the tunnel to bypass the crossing.
 

gweed123

Moderator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 10, 2009
Messages
7,553
Reaction score
1,030
Location
Burlington
You are correct the there is no technical reason why BRT and LRT can use the same ROW other than the concrete will take more a beating from the buses, depending on the quality of service.

East of Hurontario will support an LRT from day one, but Metrolinx wants it to be BRT for a Regional Connection. You could run the BRT along the LRT ROW with only 2-4 stops being use for it east of Hurontario.
Exactly. The larger pattern for southern Mississauga would have one N-S line (Hurontario), one E-W line (Dundas BRT), with an L-shaped line overlaid on top of both. This setup would adequately handle demand, would provide a direct connection between Line 2 and Square One, would allow the Hurontario LRT to not have to detour through the loop, and would speed up all BRT trips originating or bound for west of Hurontario. And all that for the marginal extra cost of laying track inside of a BRT ROW. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

In 2004, I was writing a report calling for TTC to build a subway line to the airport along the Weston Sub until Blue 22 surface. You could still use this corridor for other Tram-Train operation since you only dealing with a few VIA Rail trains a day.
Could you not theoretically use the Eglinton West LRT to do that same trip pattern? It's a good idea though.

I don't see the DRL being a subway, but a rail line using EMU DD trains that are 5-10-12 car long, interlining with the RHC line. Similar that is found in Zürich today. It could interline with the west lines as well. TTC could use the old CP yard at Kipling for BD line new yard.
Yup, this is exactly what I've proposed as well. The DRL would basically become the RH alignment south of Lawrence. It would pick up some Lakeshore and Stouffville trains at Gerrard Square via a wye, increasing the service level. That wye would also allow trains to thru to Union, instead of continuing through the DRL if they wanted. In the west, they would branch off northward at Queen, with one line continuing west and connecting to Lakeshore at Roncesvalles.

Grade separation is major problem at Mississauga Rd than else where and they have to be dealt with sooner than later. This will not require the need for the tunnel to bypass the crossing.
No, but I just figured that if you have to engage in a series of complicated grade crossings, all of which will likely face community opposition (see Weston and the Junction), that paying extra just to continue to thru tunnel to past where those grade separations need to take place may be warranted. Not saying it's the preferred option, but I think it should be included in the cost-benefit analysis.
 

drum118

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
14,442
Reaction score
6,905
Location
Mississauga, where cars rule city growth
From Thursday meeting and have a number of issues right off the bat as well a number of land owners along Dundas.

I will give credit to the team if they did the full walking of Dundas from end to end in Mississauga as claim since that has always been one of my recommendation for any project where possible.

Dundas Connects
 

gweed123

Moderator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 10, 2009
Messages
7,553
Reaction score
1,030
Location
Burlington
If they want to maximize speed, they might be better of using Queensway instead of Dundas,

AoD
There are definitely pros and cons to each. To me, the biggest pro of Dundas is the development potential, which is on both sides of the street (as opposed to the Queensway where it's largely only on the north side, as the south side is a pretty stable low-rise neighbourhood). The biggest pro of the Queensway is that if the hydro corridor can be repurposed, you have a ready-made transit corridor. You'd also have a direct connection to Sherway.

In the end though, I still think Dundas wins out.
 

jcam

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 30, 2011
Messages
480
Reaction score
235
Yup. They could also incorporate a yard, which would allow Greenwood to be used primarily for the DRL. Also gives much more convenient access to the 427 for a variety of buses.
Was just at a luncheon speech by Byford...and he said they're already studying upgrades to Line 2, including a possible new yard. My guess is the Obico lands, which wouldn't preclude a Honeydale or Sherway terminus, but would add the need for grade separation to get over or under the Milton line.
 

gweed123

Moderator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 10, 2009
Messages
7,553
Reaction score
1,030
Location
Burlington
Was just at a luncheon speech by Byford...and he said they're already studying upgrades to Line 2, including a possible new yard. My guess is the Obico lands, which wouldn't preclude a Honeydale or Sherway terminus, but would add the need for grade separation to get over or under the Milton line.
Very interesting! Presumably they would need some kind of a wye west of Kipling to make that happen. If you're putting in that much subway infrastructure west of the existing end of the tracks, adding an extra station would be almost secondary in the project scope.

I'm having a hard time with the grades that would be required though in order to get under or over the Milton corridor. The wye may even need to be east of Kipling, and actually run under the Milton line for the stretch around Kipling. You can't really even elevate or depress the grade of the Milton corridor, because of the overpass at Kipling and the underpass at Shorncliffe.

An alternate would be to only build a partial wye from the west, which would basically require a station at Honeydale/Cloverdale. The subway would depress in grade into an underground station, and just east of the station there would be a partial wye that would dip under the Milton line, and surface on the south side to access the yard. Not ideal for train movements, but unless there's an option I've missed that may be the only reasonable way to do it.
 

doady

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
3,976
Reaction score
334
Location
Mississauga
1/101 Dundas is much, much busier than 123 Shorncliffe. I don't know why people want a subway to Sherway instead.

Subway along Dundas to Hurontario is the best choice. LRT is not warranted west of Hurontario, and it can't serve UTM anyways. So might as well build a subway instead of a short LRT.

Look at the Hurontario/Dundas, the four corner of Cooksville. Imagine what it would be like with Hurontario LRT and Dundas subway. The entire Dundas East corridor too has lot of development potential.

But even without development, ridership is too high for BRT. 1/201 is already 4-5 minute combined frequency. What do they expect with BRT? There's not much room for growth until the BRT starts interfering with regular traffic. I don't see why Dundas East in Mississauga needs the same service as Dundas in Burlington to begin with.

Keep in mind, Dundas ridership in Mississauga is high even though mode split in Mississauga is very low. Mississauga is 7 or 8%, Toronto is 24% of trips by transit. And consider also the extra fares that Dundas riders have to pay compared to Shorncliffe riders. But despite that Dundas is much higher volume of buses and riders than Shorncliffe.
 

gweed123

Moderator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 10, 2009
Messages
7,553
Reaction score
1,030
Location
Burlington
1/101 Dundas is much, much busier than 123 Shorncliffe. I don't know why people want a subway to Sherway instead.

Subway along Dundas to Hurontario is the best choice. LRT is not warranted west of Hurontario, and it can't serve UTM anyways. So might as well build a subway instead of a short LRT.

Look at the Hurontario/Dundas, the four corner of Cooksville. Imagine what it would be like with Hurontario LRT and Dundas subway. The entire Dundas East corridor too has lot of development potential.

But even without development, ridership is too high for BRT. 1/201 is already 4-5 minute combined frequency. What do they expect with BRT? There's not much room for growth until the BRT starts interfering with regular traffic. I don't see why Dundas East in Mississauga needs the same service as Dundas in Burlington to begin with.

Keep in mind, Dundas ridership in Mississauga is high even though mode split in Mississauga is very low. Mississauga is 7 or 8%, Toronto is 24% of trips by transit. And consider also the extra fares that Dundas riders have to pay compared to Shorncliffe riders. But despite that Dundas is much higher volume of buses and riders than Shorncliffe.
Would building a BRT corridor with LRT tracks in it east of Hurontario not be a better solution then than spending billions on a subway extension? That way you'd have interoperability with the Hurontario LRT.

I really don't get this "well it's too high for BRT, so let's jump waaaaaay up the capacity scale and build a subway instead". There are intermediate options that will work too.
 

Top