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

[cdl42]

Transit use and population in Misssissauga certainly warrants a subway extension to Square One. And if we had a subway station at Square One, imagine how much easier it'd be to get downtown?

No point pipe dreaming about a realignment of the Milton line through Square One.

Why is a subway tunnel with T1s feasible but a subway tunnel with EMUs a pipe dream? A realignment could most likely cost LESS than a subway extension and offer greater benefits.

But one thing seems to be agreed on by all, the busway is a waste that goes from nowhere to nowhere via a shopping mall and makes no effort to emulate or serve the city's busiest routes.

 

[spmarshall]

Time to rehash what I consider a UT classic:

Once heard at a Mississauga Council Meeting:

So it's decided then. We'll put transit money into our overcrowded existing corridors.

Wait!

You know, a suburb with a big reserve fund is a little like a mule with a spinning wheel. No-one knows how he got it and danged if he knows how to use it!

The name's Chong. Gordon Chong. I come to you good people with an idea. Naw. You're not interested. It's more like a Winnipeg kind of idea."

Wait! We're bigger than Winnipeg, and a lot safer too. Just tell us your idea and we'll vote for it.

Alright. I'll show you my idea (lifts cover).

Ooooh!

I've sold busways to Ottawa, Pittsburgh and ahhh, ohhh Ottawa. And by golly, I put these places on transit's cutting edge!

I'm offering Mississauga a genuine bona-fide dieselized, two-lane busway. What's is called?

Busway!

That's right! - Busway!

Busway!
Busway!
Busway!
Busway!

Shouldn't we be going light rail?
- Don't you worry, my plan won't fail!

But wouldn't ridership be really low?
- But the trip to nowhere won't be so slow!

The walk to bus stops will be quite far.
- Don't be silly, drive your car!

I heard that buses are awfully loud.
- Buses will drive gentle as a cloud!

I swear it's 'Sauga's only choice!
Throw up your hands and raise your voice!

Busway! Busway! Busway!

We've got concerns about the route that's chosen!
- Sorry guys, Hazel's spoken!

Busway,
Busway,
Busway!!!!!
Bus - Do'h!

 

[Tuscani01]

^ :rollin

That was great... At first I was wondering where you were going with that, then I began to sing it to the tune.

As for this BRT system being useless... It will make getting to the City Centre a lot easier as well as going to the Airport Corporate centre. Most MT busses go to Square One. With a BRT system, MT wont have to link most of its routes to Square One anymore. Busses can take people to the nearest BRT station and from there they can choose to go to Sq. 1, Erindale GO station (Train and Bus to Union) or to the Airport corporate centre. It will make everyones trip a lot faster no matter which part of the city you live in.

 

[Degnaw]

If a BRT was feasible in the '70s, why isn't an LRT feasible today?

 

[spmarshall]

The Mississauga Hurontario LRT, which is now on the books is an excellent idea, and very worthy of support. Hurontario is an insanely busy corridor by 905 standards, even by TTC standards it would rank up there (though not as much as their busiest routes, like 29, 39, 54/58, 96/165, 501/3/8, but it would be in the top 20 routes, I think)

I just think Mississauga is much better off putting in "BRT" on Burnhamthorpe for now (the corridor east of Square One is intentionally wide to support higher-order transit), and then moving to a rail solution like regional rail (think S-Bahn, Sydney, BART or RER) from the Milton line into MCC, or another alternative.

 

[Observer Walt]

^ sp, with all respect, the Burnhamthorpe corridor was mothballed years ago (converted to a bike path). The problem with any BRT along Burnhamthorpe is that, outside of the City Centre area (1 km. each side of Hurontario) Burnhamthorpe runs through pretty low-density areas. As you drive along Burn'th. you see mainly detached houses on fairly large lots dating from the 60s and 70s. This is not the most transit-friendly territory, sad to say. Going east, as it crosses into Etobicoke ... more of the same, with one high-density exception at West Mall.

A route located a bit farther north, roughly along the 403 and Eastgate Parkway, would still serve the high-density City Centre (just on its north side instead of the south), and also Airport Corporate Centre and the Airport itself, not to mention the existing transit terminal.

Even more importantly, in the longer run, it could be continued east from Renforth, going along the existing hydro corridor in a somewhat northeasterly direction, then east adjacent to Finch, right across the whole width of Toronto, connecting with the subway at Yonge, and possibly ending at the Zoo ("next stop: African Pavilion" ?). To me this is the beauty of this route: it opens a possibility of a truly regional route connecting Oakville, Mississauga, and the northerly parts of Toronto.

If we're ever going to get the burbs weaned off the car to any extent at all, this kind of cross-border transit project has to get going. Piddling projects a few miles long, within the boundaries of one municipality (Miss. or any other) won't cut it any longer.

 

[dashingdan]

cdl42

I just don't see how they would realign the Cooksville to Erindale portion of the Milton line. Where would the train go underground? Right after Cooksville station? Then somehow veer north to Square One practically at a right angle, and then veer west, again at a right angle, to Erindale station. And you expect a bilevel to do this underground? One things for sure, if it did happen, it would be GO's only underground suburban train station. Although now that I think about it, it'd still be a cool idea. Somehow I still see a new alignment along Dundas to be more important locally, as it wouldn't JUST service downtown, it'd serve anyone who wants to go anywhere from Square One to Etobicoke to the former city of York to St. George to Scarborough.

Further, I have no problem with the BRT going through Square One. It only makes sense. It's the other end of the alignment that I have a problem with. It goes to the Airport Corporate Centre. Who cares? Who goes there? If it went to the subway it'd be useful. But it doesn't.

spmarshall

That was awesome. I loved these two lines:

But wouldn't ridership be really low?
- But the trip to nowhere won't be so slow!

The walk to bus stops will be quite far.
- Don't be silly, drive your car!

Tuscani01

I don't think the BRT will be useful to me. I'm one bus away from Square One if I walk 10 minutes (or two if I take the closest bus). Taking the 38 to Erindale GO and then the BRT to Square One doesn't sound any faster.

Observer Walt

My point is that the Mississauga BRT doesn't go anywhere on its own. If it did go to the Yonge line then that'd be great, if it was fast.

 

[doady]

i have gone why a diversion of the Milton line to MCC is a really bad idea, no need to go over it again.

But wouldn't ridership be really low?
- But the trip to nowhere won't be so slow!

The walk to bus stops will be quite far.
- Don't be silly, drive your car!

Again the busway goes nowhere simply because it is jsut one section of a much larger system that is planned the whole GTA. The BRT is being incrementally exactly as you suggested it be built.

Yes, the busway will rely on park and ride and bus connection, but not anymore so than the GO Trains. Is improving the GO Train system a bad idea too?

The Mississauga Hurontario LRT, which is now on the books is an excellent idea, and very worthy of support. Hurontario is an insanely busy corridor by 905 standards, even by TTC standards it would rank up there (though not as much as their busiest routes, like 29, 39, 54/58, 96/165, 501/3/8, but it would be in the top 20 routes, I think)

I just think Mississauga is much better off putting in "BRT" on Burnhamthorpe for now (the corridor east of Square One is intentionally wide to support higher-order transit), and then moving to a rail solution like regional rail (think S-Bahn, Sydney, BART or RER) from the Milton line into MCC, or another alternative.

Higher order transit along Hurontario and Burnhamthorpe might be a good idea (MT is actually considering Dundas next, not Burnhamthorpe), but it is simply for local transit. The transitway is for regional transit, it is completely different.

The 403 corridor is even busier than Burnhamthorpe most of the time. Most people who use the Burnhamthorpe bus transfer from other routes (especially Dixie) so i don't how it is any more suitable alternative BRT route, by any standard.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Observer Walt:

^ sp, with all respect, the Burnhamthorpe corridor was mothballed years ago (converted to a bike path). The problem with any BRT along Burnhamthorpe is that, outside of the City Centre area (1 km. each side of Hurontario) Burnhamthorpe runs through pretty low-density areas. As you drive along Burn'th. you see mainly detached houses on fairly large lots dating from the 60s and 70s. This is not the most transit-friendly territory, sad to say. Going east, as it crosses into Etobicoke ... more of the same, with one high-density exception at West Mall.

That wouldn't have mattered one bit. The area along the way might be low density, but there is already 1. an established ridership; 2. excellent connections with existing surface routes and 3. intensification protential along the way. The 403 corridor has none of these potentials.

Even more importantly, in the longer run, it could be continued east from Renforth, going along the existing hydro corridor in a somewhat northeasterly direction, then east adjacent to Finch, right across the whole width of Toronto, connecting with the subway at Yonge, and possibly ending at the Zoo ("next stop: African Pavilion" ?). To me this is the beauty of this route: it opens a possibility of a truly regional route connecting Oakville, Mississauga, and the northerly parts of Toronto.

There is no reason why a properly designed mass transit network has to avoid the Burnhamthrope corridor in order to achieve the same results.

If we're ever going to get the burbs weaned off the car to any extent at all, this kind of cross-border transit project has to get going. Piddling projects a few miles long, within the boundaries of one municipality (Miss. or any other) won't cut it any longer.

Actually no, in order to wean the burbs off the car, what is needed is an entirely different planning paradigm. Providing economically unsustainable, auto-centric transit serivce to support an urban form that remains low density will not solve a thng.

AoD

 

[scarberiankhatru]

"If we're ever going to get the burbs weaned off the car to any extent at all, this kind of cross-border transit project has to get going."

IMO, BRT isn't the best way to go for this...a 407 transitway- / Finch hydro corridor-type project really should be on rails.

 

[Observer Walt]

Alvin: I wonder if we're talking about the same Burnhamthorpe! Your points are: B. has an established ridership. Yes, as do other streets, but this can be served by the existing bus routes. Connections with existing routes are certainly present, especially at the Square One terminal, but this would remain the same or even be enhanced if a busway were to connect to the terminal.

I really don't see much "intensification potential" along Burnhamthorpe, which is now completely developed along both sides, other than the City Centre area. Where would new density go, along Burnhamthorpe? The existing low-density neighbourhoods aren't going to morph into something higher-density.

By contrast, the proposed route running roughly along 403 would serve several higher-density nodes. At Erin Mills Parkway you have the Erin Mills Town Centre mall, and Credit Valley Hospital ( large institution, and getting larger). It would serve the City Centre and would be reasonably close to development farther north along Hurontario. Such a route could also directly serve the Airport Corporate Centre, one of the largest concentrations of offices outside the Toronto downtown core (and still developing), and obviously the Airport itself.

I don't know how you would serve these nodes efficiently from a route running along Burnhamthorpe. You would have to use connecting routes, with the need to transfer. Transfers add time and inconvenience to the trip and discourage riders. There is also the practical problem of how you would get a connecting route from any point along Burnhamthorpe up to the Airport, for example, without using existing streets? As a further bonus you could build "park and ride" lots at a numbr of points adjacent to the route. I don't know where you could do that along most of Burnhamthorpe.

In summary, why place a BRT or any other type of higher-order transit along Burnhamthorpe? There was a reason that the City abandoned this poorly-conceived idea years ago.

what is needed is an entirely different planning paradigm

No argument from me there, but it's easier said than done in an already-developed area where the prevailing "paradigm" is unfortunately that of 30 years ago.

My point in referring to "weaning the burbs off the car" is that we need larger-scale transit projects crossing boundary lines, which hasn't much happened in the GTA to date. The Miss. busway makes sense, IMO, only in such a context. I acknowledge those who claim that a line only from one boundary of Miss. to the other would not make the most sense. Most people don't actually care that much about political boundaries, they care about how to get from point A (home) to point B (work) and back again.


Scarberian: You're probably right, but AFAIK this discussion isn't on the agenda at present. I suspect the cost would be higher, but might be jstified by a higher passenger capacity.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Observer:

Yes, as do other streets, but this can be served by the existing bus routes. Connections with existing routes are certainly present, especially at the Square One terminal, but this would remain the same or even be enhanced if a busway were to connect to the terminal.

The busway doesn't enhance existing local transit - it siphons riders and resources away from well established one (considering it parallel other routes) while providing a level of benefit that is questionable. Keep in mind that reduction of car use is above all else tied to the quality of local transit - and the latter is what drives ridership.

By contrast, the proposed route running roughly along 403 would serve several higher-density nodes. At Erin Mills Parkway you have the Erin Mills Town Centre mall, and Credit Valley Hospital ( large institution, and getting larger). It would serve the City Centre and would be reasonably close to development farther north along Hurontario. Such a route could also directly serve the Airport Corporate Centre, one of the largest concentrations of offices outside the Toronto downtown core (and still developing), and obviously the Airport itself.

The 403 is nowhere near these nodes - certainly not close enough to make any one of them reachable by walking or conveniently by transit without transfers. A node isn't something that you need to drive 5 minutes from a rapid transit station to reach - it is one that is situation right at the route. Besides, if one's intent is to serve these nodes, one would argue for rapid transit along Eglinton instead (which would have made far more sense - re: densification, etc). Also keep in mind - the ACC isn't transit oriented - to expect transit to do well in an office park where the majority of riders getting off will not be able to walk to their desgination is unrealistic at best.

I don't know how you would serve these nodes efficiently from a route running along Burnhamthorpe. You would have to use connecting routes, with the need to transfer. Transfers add time and inconvenience to the trip and discourage riders. There is also the practical problem of how you would get a connecting route from any point along Burnhamthorpe up to the Airport, for example, without using existing streets? As a further bonus you could build "park and ride" lots at a numbr of points adjacent to the route. I don't know where you could do that along most of Burnhamthorpe.

First, the forementioned nodes aren't the only ones around the city; second, given the planned alignment of the busway, transfers will be required regardless; and third, the park and ride model of transit is exactly what needed to be avoided, in order to break the existing planning paradigm.

In summary, why place a BRT or any other type of higher-order transit along Burnhamthorpe? There was a reason that the City abandoned this poorly-conceived idea years ago.

Why place a BRT or any other type of high order transit along Burnhamthrope? Observe the ridership of the route, and think about the urban context.

Considering the current mess, I would take the city's rationale with a grain of salt, if you don't mind.

My point in referring to "weaning the burbs off the car" is that we need larger-scale transit projects crossing boundary lines, which hasn't much happened in the GTA to date. The Miss. busway makes sense, IMO, only in such a context. I acknowledge those who claim that a line only from one boundary of Miss. to the other would not make the most sense. Most people don't actually care that much about political boundaries, they care about how to get from point A (home) to point B (work) and back again.

Large scale transit projects in the matrix of an urban form that is inheritly anti-transit will result in a system that is uneconomical to service, and that's exactly what will happen to the busway even if there is a GTA wide network. GO Transit works as a commuter service because of the efficiency and immediacy of the downtown core - the sheer concentration of trips makes servicing economically feasible; none of the other nodes suggested have such qualities; worst, there is the issue of getting around AFTER the trip to worry about.

AoD

 

[cdl42]

"I just don't see how they would realign the Cooksville to Erindale portion of the Milton line. Where would the train go underground? Right after Cooksville station? Then somehow veer north to Square One practically at a right angle, and then veer west, again at a right angle, to Erindale station. And you expect a bilevel to do this underground? One things for sure, if it did happen, it would be GO's only underground suburban train station. Although now that I think about it, it'd still be a cool idea. Somehow I still see a new alignment along Dundas to be more important locally, as it wouldn't JUST service downtown, it'd serve anyone who wants to go anywhere from Square One to Etobicoke to the former city of York to St. George to Scarborough."

I guess the question to ask is not "does MCC deserve rapid transit?" but instead "does the area BEYOND MCC deserve rapid transit?" and "when a train from Mississauga reaches Kipling would it be more attractive for it to continue downtown via the local Bloor subway or via the express CP corridor?". Heck, all other variables could be the exact same. The type of train really isn't the important question.

Urban rail AKA Metros AKA Subways are primarily used to serve urban areas, while Suburban rail is used to... well, you know. If we're going to develop a proper suburban rail system, where should the line be drawn for changing systems? Subways shouldn't continue ad infinitum, it wouldn't make for a very comfortable ride. I would argue that Kipling is a wise choice for this corridor.

Re-routing suburban trains underground to properly serve nodes and destinations has been done in lots of places. Including: Berlin, Munich, Berlin, Hong Kong along with Paris, Sydney, Madrid, and Amsterdam who run bi-levels in theirs. Sydney's currently building a pretty major underground link with more planned.

There's a heck of a lot of people living beyond MCC and the whole area is growing. As well, there is the HUGE Meadowvale business park and park and ride potential for Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge, and Guelph residents.

As for serving a number of Toronto-wide destinations, there's nothing stopping people from changing trains at Kipling. We shouldn't be determining the design of our network based solely on the current fare system; something that could be changed with the movement of a pen. Plus the Bloor line is pretty busy as is; it's the second-busiest "spoke" in the subway system after Yonge.

How would I envision it? I see it with two underground stations; Cooksville and MCC. The line would dip underground before reaching Hurontario, travel diagionally to MCC, then curve into the 403 hydro corridor where it would eventually rejoin with the current Milton corridor with a relocated Erindale station.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

"Plus the Bloor line is pretty busy as is; it's the second-busiest "spoke" in the subway system after Yonge."

According to the figures unimaginative posted a few months back, by some counts it's actually slightly busier than Yonge north of Bloor. This may not be the most accurate way to compare ridership between spokes (those who transfer between lines at Spadina may bring Bloor down to below Yonge), but:

Bloor line, west of St. George - 338,893
Danforth line, east of Yonge - 295,198
Spadina line, north of St. George - 173,605
Yonge line, north of Bloor - 327,071

 

[dashingdan]

Looking at those Bloor line west of St. George figures you have to wonder why no one talks about extending the Bloor line west.

I still think a subway ending at Square One would be a perfect end point. Although I accept the argument that there isn't much in the way of destinations in between Sherway and Square One. I still thinking it'd be useful, and I'd still have no problem against an underground rerouting of the Milton line to service MCC. I do have a problem with your suggestion that Erindale GO station be relocated. Where would you relocate it to? The 403? That would take it too far away from Burnhamthorpe if you ask me. Tons of people take the 26 or 206 after getting off the GO train. Okay, not tons, but people do. They also take the 38.