Mississauga Mississauga Transitway | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | IBI Group

Pretty interesting. Any chance of this actually happening any time soon?
Looks ridiculously expensive to me. When compared to what could be accomplished at grade, the benefits of going underground look limited.

Also, if anything should be separated from traffic it’s the LRT. So my brain hurts thinking about the addition of a level crossing at Hammerson drive, where there would otherwise be nothing slowing the train down on this spur.
 
Pretty interesting. Any chance of this actually happening any time soon?
Sometime In the 2030's if 30% design is happening in 2027. Getting to 100% design by 2029/30 with tender call for in 2030/31 and completed around 2035 assuming funding is there for it.

It needs to be design to handle 125-150,000 riders a day with extra spare bus bays to meet future quality of service. Then there is the need to able have an LRT on the Transitway servicing this Hub in the future

Another example of not building development on top of the terminal.

Getting the Transitway under Hurontario on Rathburn is going to be a tight turn as well fitting under the existing overpass
 
Where exactly will the future GO branch to square one end. And where does the Kipling Subway extension end? Very confused.
 
Looks ridiculously expensive to me. When compared to what could be accomplished at grade, the benefits of going underground look limited.

Also, if anything should be separated from traffic it’s the LRT. So my brain hurts thinking about the addition of a level crossing at Hammerson drive, where there would otherwise be nothing slowing the train down on this spur.
the ordinal plan back in 1990's call for a tunnel to/from the existing terminal to connect to the lower level platform that exist there today. The terminal is in the wrong location and undersize when first built. One thought tears ago was to keep the Transitway to the north that would run under City View to a terminal and then cross under the 403 to the north side and connect to the missing Transitway.

During the building of the Transitway, Hazel did not have the $20 million for the tunnels and we got what we see today. it was proposed at that time that Duke of York would be elevated north of Rathburn to fly over City View, the 403 and the future north service road and connect to the missing Transitway. The north service road is now history.

Unless the new terminal is built to handle 150,000 riders a day, it will be back to the design board how to handle the extra riders and buses, let alone a though of another LRT on the Transitway as plan.
Where exactly will the future GO branch to square one end. And where does the Kipling Subway extension end? Very confused.
That is beyond our life span as Kipling subway extension will never reach MCC. If Hazel did not kill the free RT from Kipling in the 80's, it could be a different story but the density between MCC and Cloverdale is a major issue to support a subway today let alone by 2060. Far off running an Go branch line from Dundas to the 403 underground. Even having Line 5 connect to MCC as a branch line is better than a subway.
 
the ordinal plan back in 1990's call for a tunnel to/from the existing terminal to connect to the lower level platform that exist there today. The terminal is in the wrong location and undersize when first built. One thought tears ago was to keep the Transitway to the north that would run under City View to a terminal and then cross under the 403 to the north side and connect to the missing Transitway.

During the building of the Transitway, Hazel did not have the $20 million for the tunnels and we got what we see today. it was proposed at that time that Duke of York would be elevated north of Rathburn to fly over City View, the 403 and the future north service road and connect to the missing Transitway. The north service road is now history.

Unless the new terminal is built to handle 150,000 riders a day, it will be back to the design board how to handle the extra riders and buses, let alone a though of another LRT on the Transitway as plan.

That is beyond our life span as Kipling subway extension will never reach MCC. If Hazel did not kill the free RT from Kipling in the 80's, it could be a different story but the density between MCC and Cloverdale is a major issue to support a subway today let alone by 2060. Far off running an Go branch line from Dundas to the 403 underground. Even having Line 5 connect to MCC as a branch line is better than a subway.
I don’t know in what world line 5 being extended is better than a subway. More realistic maybe but better? Are we all trying to get to midtown? I thought union or at least Bloor/danforth was the goal.
 
the ordinal plan back in 1990's call for a tunnel to/from the existing terminal to connect to the lower level platform that exist there today. The terminal is in the wrong location and undersize when first built. One thought tears ago was to keep the Transitway to the north that would run under City View to a terminal and then cross under the 403 to the north side and connect to the missing Transitway.

During the building of the Transitway, Hazel did not have the $20 million for the tunnels and we got what we see today. it was proposed at that time that Duke of York would be elevated north of Rathburn to fly over City View, the 403 and the future north service road and connect to the missing Transitway. The north service road is now history.

Unless the new terminal is built to handle 150,000 riders a day, it will be back to the design board how to handle the extra riders and buses, let alone a though of another LRT on the Transitway as plan.

That is beyond our life span as Kipling subway extension will never reach MCC. If Hazel did not kill the free RT from Kipling in the 80's, it could be a different story but the density between MCC and Cloverdale is a major issue to support a subway today let alone by 2060. Far off running an Go branch line from Dundas to the 403 underground. Even having Line 5 connect to MCC as a branch line is better than a subway.
150,000 passengers a day? That's busier than Union Subway station, at that point, there should be a light metro, a GO tunnel and maybe a line 2 extension for good measure. A bus station that busy would be stuck in its own traffic.
 
I don’t know in what world line 5 being extended is better than a subway. More realistic maybe but better? Are we all trying to get to midtown? I thought union or at least Bloor/danforth was the goal.
Not everyone wants to go downtown Toronto from within Toronto and from the 905 area. Travel should be focuses on a few areas with we are trying to create a seamless network. It is the same thing in Mississauga.

150,000 passengers a day? That's busier than Union Subway station, at that point, there should be a light metro, a GO tunnel and maybe a line 2 extension for good measure. A bus station that busy would be stuck in its own traffic.
The original plan for Mississauga was to see 725,000 residents by 2025 and we have already pass that years ago. CCTT was built in the 90's for a city of 400,000 that was to see 25,000 riders a day. By 2000, CCTT was seeing over 30,000 and that was before GO came to town. The expansion of CCTT was to increase ridership to 40,000 not including Go Transit. When Brampton 502 came to town, it took away a fair chuck of route 19/17 ridership while increasing ridership north of Sq One to the point CCTT and GO are seeing close to 60,000 today if not more. With all the land in MCC still to be built as well see taller tower than what Mississauga want to see, ridership will only increase to around 150,000 a day. I have been using that number over 10 years when calling for a new terminal.

The current model for ridership is 15% and has change that much in the last 25 years. If you try to get to 25-30% model split, it will need a lot better quality of service as well having a fleet and terminals to handle it. If you use 15% for 800,000 today, you get 100,000 riders system wide today. By 2040, the city will be over 1,000,000 on its way to 1.4 million or more by 2060 if not sooner. The city core can handle 300-400,000 residents and workers easy if the right development takes place by 2050 with 45,000 to 60,000 riders at 15% plus riders from outside the core. Going to 25% ridership will be 75-100,000 plus outside ridership. We have no more road space and the city not wanting to widen road like the past, transit is needed to move people more than before. mL has no plans to increase parking spaces at various stations that already seen parking garages built for them as they are sitting on value land that has a higher return rate for development that a vehicle that may park there for 40 hours a week.

There been calls for well over 10 years to reduced the number of parking spots at GO stations as they create gridlock both within the parking area as well on the road after a train has drop riders off
 
Twitter thread from Moaz Ahmad showing snippets of the RFP for the Downtown Mobility Hub and Transitway Connection: https://xcancel.com/yyzMYA/status/1965812947235794948#m


From west to east:

Western Transitway portal at Centre View Drive to the underground level of a new City Centre Transit Terminal:
G0ghLfJXoAEPXIZ.jpg


Connectivity for the new Transit Terminal:
G0f4J3mWMAABHwV.jpg


New Transit Terminal concept:
G0f5FpeWMAMX3XQ.jpg



Grade-separated tie-in to the eastern segment of the Transitway. The preferred alignment runs below Centre View Drive:
G0glGgAW0AAcraH.jpg

I thought this was interesting so I looked it up. Folks here might already be familiar with this context, but it bears reiterating now that there's some movement on it.

1.) The 2022 Mississauga Downtown Movement Plan lists the Downtown Mississauga Terminal and Transitway Connection ("DMTTC") as the 6th of 12 projects to implement for the 2041 horizon, along with the downtown LRT loop and a short-term Downtown Mississauga Transit study.

1759543814794.png

1759543855795.png


2.) Digging deeper into Appendix (Alternative Evaluation Report): The alignment of the transitway underneath Hurontario looks like it might be impacted by recommendations for the extension of Square One Drive east of Hurontario to link up with Rathburn and Shipp Drive. The alignment seems to take the place of the right-hand ramp that comes up from Rathburn to Hurontario.

1759544608665.png
 
I thought this was interesting so I looked it up. Folks here might already be familiar with this context, but it bears reiterating now that there's some movement on it.

1.) The 2022 Mississauga Downtown Movement Plan lists the Downtown Mississauga Terminal and Transitway Connection ("DMTTC") as the 6th of 12 projects to implement for the 2041 horizon, along with the downtown LRT loop and a short-term Downtown Mississauga Transit study.

View attachment 685543
View attachment 685544

2.) Digging deeper into Appendix (Alternative Evaluation Report): The alignment of the transitway underneath Hurontario looks like it might be impacted by recommendations for the extension of Square One Drive east of Hurontario to link up with Rathburn and Shipp Drive. The alignment seems to take the place of the right-hand ramp that comes up from Rathburn to Hurontario.

View attachment 685545
If you want rail on the Transitway, it is built for it but missing a pile of things to do so.

The biggest item is the currnt plan to run the Transitway along the northside of Rathburn to the plan underground station as well getting to the Erin Mill Station. Then how does the line go east other than making the Transitway a branch line for Line 5??

If you want to run a DMU or battery power trains, where are you starting and stopping as well dealing with the underground station since these trains cannot use Rathburn in the first place due to turning raidus??

I have called for a branchline off the Milton Line that would service the new terminal as a bypass line underground coming off the line at Dundas and north of the 403. The other option for the Milton Line is using a Tram-Train connecting to the Hurontario LRT that will bypass the Cooksville GO station.
 
If you want rail on the Transitway, it is built for it but missing a pile of things to do so.

The biggest item is the currnt plan to run the Transitway along the northside of Rathburn to the plan underground station as well getting to the Erin Mill Station. Then how does the line go east other than making the Transitway a branch line for Line 5??

If you want to run a DMU or battery power trains, where are you starting and stopping as well dealing with the underground station since these trains cannot use Rathburn in the first place due to turning raidus??

I have called for a branchline off the Milton Line that would service the new terminal as a bypass line underground coming off the line at Dundas and north of the 403. The other option for the Milton Line is using a Tram-Train connecting to the Hurontario LRT that will bypass the Cooksville GO station.
What happens if there is a branch service. One train an hour goes to MCC and one train an hour goes to Milton? I mean this is such an improvement over regular service but just a question. Also if Milton is addressed I’m guessing we might see a midtown train which means how do they decide which train goes to union and which goes to midtown. Or do you need two trains an hour to both places so in this world there would be two trains to MCC and two trains to Milton with half of those trains going to union and the other half to midtown.
 
Correct me if I am wrong but there’s no way for buses to leave the transitway at east gate and connect to Eglinton. Essentially all service starts at MCC. Why wouldn’t they have made it so that there could have been a brt on Eglinton from Winston Churchill and connect straight to the transitway instead of diverting to MCC.
 
Moving towards a grid network will reduce the amount of buses passing through Square One, resolving any capacity issues with the current terminal. Tunneling the transitway is interesting, but the money needed is likely better spent on a 3rd garage, which @drum118 has long been advocating for.
 
Correct me if I am wrong but there’s no way for buses to leave the transitway at east gate and connect to Eglinton. Essentially all service starts at MCC. Why wouldn’t they have made it so that there could have been a brt on Eglinton from Winston Churchill and connect straight to the transitway instead of diverting to MCC.
You can exit the Transitway as well accessing it just east of Dixie Rd. There was to be an exit/entrance for the Transitway between Renforth and Etobicoke station as an emerancy access but it dissapears like the one plan for Etobicoke station.
 
This is my comment to an email about the 135 using the Transitway

The 135 would turn south on/off Eglinton either at Dixie Rd or Burgoyne St to Crestlawn Dr to get to Fewster Dr than to Encino St that will connect to the Transitway west of the Dixie Station. Time lost doing this.

If the bus stay on Eglinton it still can service all the Transitway stations and use the ramp at Commerce Blvd to get to the Renforth Station.

The amount of riders gain going to/from the Dixie Station is a drop in bucket for ridership than staying on Eglinton that will be faster than the Transitway.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top