What do you guys think of extending the Bloor-Danforth line into Mississauga?

Currently it ends at Kipling but the TTC can easily extend it...

Here are some stops I think which could be part of the line:

Kipling - Dixie - Cawthra - Dundas/Hurontario - Burnamthorpe/Huronntario - Square 1

http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/5071/bloordanforth.jpg

No point. It runs parallel to a GO line, and Hurontario warrants an LRT. Too many places IN Toronto that need subway service or would at least use it at a more efficient level than in Mississauga.

why not?

Mississauga has a population of nearly 800,000 people and will soon cross to over 1 million and a majority of them work in Toronto and use the 401 which is already clogged up bad...

So extending the Subway to the heart of Mississauga to relieve congestion just like the TTC is doing by extending the subway into Vaughn

Mississauga has a population of nearly 800,000 people and will soon cross to over 1 million and a majority of them work in Toronto and use the 401 which is already clogged up bad...

Those 800,000 people are spread out over 288 km2, and much of the proposed route goes through industrial areas and very low-density housing. There are much higher corridors within Toronto, where there is also an established "transit culture" that simply doesn't exist in Mississauga.

Also, as I was saying before, that corridor is already served by the Milton GO line, and the higher-density development along Hurontario is more suited to LRT.

http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/156/74178216.jpg


So extending the Subway to the heart of Mississauga to relieve congestion just like the TTC is doing by extending the subway into Vaughn

Also a stupid move on the TTC's part. Though slightly less so, as going to Steeles is somewhat justifiable, and its only 2 km more to VCC, rather than having to go through 8 km of nothingness to reach MCC.

The reason an extension to Mississauga wont work to well is because the trip would take over 1 hr to get downtown. The ride from Sq. One to St. George would be about 60 minutes plus transferring to the YUS line would add another 10-15 minutes to the journey. Plus, Mississauga will never get the subway until Hazel is gone. She is fevereshly against it.

York Region is getting it only due to strong political pressure, but also because with the extension into York Region, the ride from there to downtown is transfer-free and would take approximately 45 minutes from the terminals.

Mississauga needs better GO service, say 15-20 minute service, or should start their own rapid transit. I find it kinda ridiculous that a city like Mississauga of 700,000 people or so doesn't have any rapid transit. It could almost have it's own subway system or at least an LRT. That BRT they are building is a joke. A glorified HOV lane IMHO.

why not?

Mississauga has a population of nearly 800,000 people and will soon cross to over 1 million and a majority of them work in Toronto and use the 401 which is already clogged up bad...

So extending the Subway to the heart of Mississauga to relieve congestion just like the TTC is doing by extending the subway into Vaughn

Extending the subway into Vaughan will have minimal benefit to congestion. It is a joke.

Since you said the majority work in Toronto, I suggest they take the GO train. Riding that subway into downtown would be a long and slow trip by comparison.

The reason an extension to Mississauga wont work to well is because the trip would take over 1 hr to get downtown. The ride from Sq. One to St. George would be about 60 minutes plus transferring to the YUS line would add another 10-15 minutes to the journey. Plus, Mississauga will never get the subway until Hazel is gone. She is fevereshly against it.

York Region is getting it only due to strong political pressure, but also because with the extension into York Region, the ride from there to downtown is transfer-free and would take approximately 45 minutes from the terminals.

Mississauga needs better GO service, say 15-20 minute service, or should start their own rapid transit. I find it kinda ridiculous that a city like Mississauga of 700,000 people or so doesn't have any rapid transit. It could almost have it's own subway system or at least an LRT. That BRT they are building is a joke. A glorified HOV lane IMHO.

I dont think it will take 60 minutes from Square 1 to reach St.George

I take the TTC everyday from Kipling all the way to St.Clair and Yonge.

The Subway ride takes about 35 minutes.

Adding another 5 stations would probably add 7-8 minutes. I would say Square 1 to Yonge/Bloor in 40 minutes.

The only reason I proposed this I was reading the Toronto 2020 plan in which the TTC is extending the subway into Vaughn, Richmond Hill, adding a downtown relief line and extending the subway into Markham.

I was thinking why not Mississauga.

I dont think it will take 60 minutes from Square 1 to reach St.George

I take the TTC everyday from Kipling all the way to St.Clair and Yonge.

The Subway ride takes about 35 minutes.

Adding another 5 stations would probably add 7-8 minutes. I would say Square 1 to Yonge/Bloor in 40 minutes.

The only reason I proposed this I was reading the Toronto 2020 plan in which the TTC is extending the subway into Vaughn, Richmond Hill, adding a downtown relief line and extending the subway into Markham.

I was thinking why not Mississauga.

Your trip duration estimates are off, but nonetheless I fully support this proposal. :) Here's a map of my own that I posted in another thread regarding expansion into Mississauga:

http://i349.photobucket.com/albums/q378/DENTROBATE54/Mississaugasubwayextension.jpg

Even if it did take an hour from Square One to Bloor-Yonge (Bloor-Yonge to Kipling alone is under 35 minutes so I doubt it'd take that long) remember what the alternative is. Riding LRTs through Mississauga could take just as long as 35 mins just to reach Kipling. Square One to Kipling via B-D extension meanwhile could be as short as 10-12 mins.

Great concept, however I think your alignment skipping over Sherway Gdns is a mistake. It'll yield high customer usage not only from mall patrons and the surrounding density but as well from feeder routes funneling in passengers from all over southwestern Etobicoke and eastern Mississauga south of the QEW. :yes:

^^ Interesting...I just proposed this concept but you seem to have done your homework...

But I was thinking why not add express service during morning (6am - 10am) and evening(4pm - 7pm) rush hours?

Like on the Bloor-Danforth Line,

Kipling - Dundas West - St.George - Yonge/Bloor - Pape - Kennedy

And people who use the stations in between can travel the local train to the nearest express station and from there take the express subway. This way, if some one travels from Kipling to Yonge/Bloor it will take max maybe 15-20 minutes.

New York City, Tokyo and other major cities have express services and so why not Toronto?

Given Toronto's geography and spread out nature of the city, I think its a must

New York City, Tokyo and other major cities have express services and so why not Toronto?

Given Toronto's geography and spread out nature of the city, I think its a must

There's a simple reason that Toronto doesn't run express trains: There's no reasonable method for local trains to be overtaken by an express. In theory, you could park a local train on the east side of Islington, east side of Ossington, and west side of Chester, but that is a) very adverse for the quality of the local service, b) has potential safety issues, as in the event of a power outage or fire, these are among the most hazardous areas to have an evacuation between stations, and c) are too few to allow an effective express service anyway.

The renovations required for allowing express trains to overtake trains at stations, which is present across the Tokyo system, are not necessarily feasable and even if they were, the cost would be astronomical.

NYC, even better than Tokyo, has a quad-tracked system where its express service operates. That's also what allows 24-hour service in New York.

Toronto already has the tracks for an express service between Kipling and Dundas West; Milton GO. The only thing that is missing is a station on the Milton Line where the Georgetown Line already has one. Even better, it goes to Union as well. That's your Bloor Express Service right there.

personally, comparing Toronto to NYC or Tokyo doesn't make sense because the population densities in those two cities actually support such express systems. As others have pointed out, Mississauga has plenty of express options thanks to GO to get to downtown. Once the BRT/LRT to Kipling?? is operational, the cross town trip should get significantly shorter as well.

I would actually combine both of the fantasies together, and have the subway serve Sherway Gardens, and to continue to Dundas, along Dundas, and somehow curve to MCC. However, it seems to reach MCC, much of Dundas will not be served.

I would actually combine both of the fantasies together, and have the subway serve Sherway Gardens, and to continue to Dundas, along Dundas, and somehow curve to MCC. However, it seems to reach MCC, much of Dundas will not be served.

That's because there's nothing along Dundas worth serving at this point. Even 25 years from now, the streetscape may not change all that much under the influence of streetcar operation. Dundas-Horontario (downtown Cooksville) is the only major node that the rail corridor alignment skips, but remember Cooksville GO is only an under 10 minute walk to the north AND the Hurontario LRT can bridge the gap for customers seeking a direct link. Ideally I'd recommend grade separating the Hurontario LRT through the densest built-up section of that corridor from Port Credit to Eglinton. If that we're done, no one would complain about B-D missing this intersection.

Cawthra-Dundas Stn would be centric to a dense area of the Dundas East commercial strip whereby transfer on/off the Dundas LRT will be seamless. Dixie Stn is also a few minutes walk south of Dundas Street.

Comparing Toronto to NYC or Tokyo is one thing.

Comparing Mississauga to



ah forget it I can't even say it without laughing

I'd say that for those that really want to get the subway to Sq.1 in a fast, direct manner, corridor-efficient manner, I'll tell a little secret.

These people should advocate for relocating Kipling Station (and relocate the GO to Islington). Bloor St. provides the ideal path into Sq.1, as it is a smooth path with no sharp turns. Bloor St. itself terminates a little before Hurontario, but there's plenty of open space and parking to weave through to reach the MTCC terminal, making an alignment very feasable, even preferred.

I'd keep the tracks at the old Kipling site and expand them through the bus terminal and Subway Crescent plus parts of the north side parking areas into a half-decent yard. The current station can be converted into the area where staff take trains from the yard after the yard staff take the trains to said platform for the subway operators, however, part of the platform could be removed for an additonal track, and the scheme would require a new access from the east side of the station.

The proposed Kipling terminal would, of course, conflict with such an idea, but with an extension to Sq.1, and GO buses that would be at Kipling presumably going to Islington with the relocated GO Train station instead, that terminal, in such an extension scenario, becomes obsolete.

This is somewhat appropriate in a sense as it has the BLOOR-Danforth line run to the end of BLOOR St. Bloor's not the heaviest transit corridor in Mississauga, but it is sandwiched between Burnhamthorpe and Dundas, which see good levels of traffic.

Like this. (http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w203/TrainX/BloorMissis.jpg)
Stations:
Kipling (new)
Martin Grove (Shaver)
East Mall
Renforth (West Mall)
Markland Wood (Mill)
Dixie
Tomken
Carlaw
Mississauga Valley (Burnhamthorpe)
Square One (MTCC)

I don't support such an extension, for the record. If it has to be done though, this is how I'd do it.

Just for the record, I do NOT support any subway extension to "Suaga.

But TRZ's alignment is pretty good.

I'd say that for those that really want to get the subway to Sq.1 in a fast, direct manner, corridor-efficient manner, I'll tell a little secret.

Like this. (http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w203/TrainX/BloorMissis.jpg)
Stations:
Kipling (new)
Martin Grove (Shaver)
East Mall
Renforth (West Mall)
Markland Wood (Mill)
Dixie
Tomken
Carlaw
Mississauga Valley (Burnhamthorpe)
Square One (MTCC)

Well, if you're going to go through all the trouble of building this many superfluous station stops then you may as well have included one at Feldgate too. :ohno: This is precisely the type of station proximity we should be avoiding at all costs through low-density suburban sprawl as it adds on too much time to the overall commute. This is why I loathe the York Region extensions and even that proposal has wider gaps. I'd put the LRTs/streetcars there and reserve the new subway projects for areas that can already handle subway operation (Eglinton; Queen/downtown; Don Mills).

The only reason that I suggest an extension to Mississauga City Centre is because the B-D line lacks a true terminus in the west. Sherway and especially Square One would fulfill this objective and slash bus commute travel times in half. For people bad with schedules or impatient of waiting every 15 or 20 minutes for some GO train to show up, this is the solution for them. However we need to get off this idea of using the subway to avenueize Dundas or any other corridor in Mississauga. It's wasteful and cost-prohibitive. Locally spaced LRTs connecting to adjacent long-distance spaced subway stops is good enough. Running the alignment alongside readily available topographic features (hydro corridors, rail corridors, highways, open fields) for most of the journey to Sq 1, at the end of the day, results in an overall cheaper right-of-way and shortened subway trip for most. :yes:

Extending the subway into Vaughan will have minimal benefit to congestion. It is a joke.

Since you said the majority work in Toronto, I suggest they take the GO train. Riding that subway into downtown would be a long and slow trip by comparison.

i would have to respectfully disagree

i live in vaughan, and i go downtown everyday for school. I take the GO, they take the subway from Yorkdale. i take the YRT to the go station, they drive down the 400/401E corridor and pile into the YD parking lot. I can honestly say if you put a subway in Vaughan, you will see cars disappearing off the 400 and 401 on that morning rush hour, because highway 7 is well serviced by VIVA, YRT and Brampton transit too. i tried doing that commute but its too much, the ramp from the 400 onto the 401 is just 2 lanes and cars are backed up until almost Finch! Coming from the land of 2.0 cars per household (i know people who have cars JUST to get to Ydale in the mornings), this would help reduce congestion in toronto ALOT (less vaughan cars on toronto roads).

Well, if you're going to go through all the trouble of building this many superfluous station stops then you may as well have included one at Feldgate too. :ohno: Feldgate, with an appropriate expansion of bus services including new service along that street, might not be a bad idea, actually. All the stations have connecting bus routes (including Mill St. via an extended 48 to replace the 49).
Rather ironic comment from the person that promotes a North Queen station, though.
This is precisely the type of station proximity we should be avoiding at all costs through low-density suburban sprawl as it adds on too much time to the overall commute.Actually the reverse is true. This goes back to the roots that made the original Yonge and Bloor-Danforth subways successful. This alignment allows for a walkable corridor and can encourage a stronger urban fabric with an active streetscape. The tighter station spacing makes for a consistent demand along the corridor. This also allows some surface routes to be replaced, such as the 3 Bloor, the 49, and the 76, plus truncation of numerous others, such as 20 and 26, which would see reduced demand from a combined effect of local riders along the route walking to the station or, for those a little farther away, shifting to north-south routes, which allows some reductions in number of vehicles on the routes seeing lower demand. This saves money from the current surface operations, a benefit which an industrial routing doesn't bring. Surface routes cannot be replaced with wide station spacing either, and should therefore be discouraged except where natural barriers (valleys, etc) exist, or through industrial lands (like North Queen).

This is why I loathe the York Region extensions and even that proposal has wider gaps. Weren't you promoting a Centre/John station, i.e. proposing more stops for tighter gaps that would "slow travel down" even more?

The only reason that I suggest an extension to Mississauga City Centre is because the B-D line lacks a true terminus in the west.It terminates at an urban growth centre currently.
Sherway and especially Square One would fulfill this objective and slash bus commute travel times in half.Deviating south when you actually want to go north increases travel times. Hairpin turns also increase travel times. Given the out-of-the-way alignment plus the extremely sharp turns, you're not cutting travel times much at all for those originating east of Sq.1, nor are you galvanizing any corridor since it doesn't stick to a corridor.

For people bad with schedules or impatient of waiting every 15 or 20 minutes for some GO train to show up, this is the solution for them.For people bad with schedules, the solution is more frequent service. You don't need a subway to provide service every 5 minutes (or less, but LRT should start to be considered if service is needed at every 3-4 minutes to meet demand). However we need to get off this idea of using the subway to avenueize Dundas or any other corridor in Mississauga. It's wasteful and cost-prohibitive.I was running along Bloor in the recent post, not Dundas, but strengthening corridors and the communities along them, through Avenue plans or other stimulus strategies, is how subways recoup their investment in addition to continued ridership growth (although the breaking point for ridership hasn't even gotten close yet, since LRT is needed to get so much as within striking distance, and that's why I don't support such an extension). You don't build them just to make travel faster, that's what is wasteful and cost-prohibitive. Especially with your alignment which has much more track length. Locally spaced LRTs connecting to adjacent long-distance spaced subway stops is good enough. Running the alignment alongside readily available topographic features (hydro corridors, rail corridors, highways, open fields) for most of the journey to Sq 1, at the end of the day, results in an overall cheaper right-of-way and shortened subway trip for most. :yes:
Running a parallel LRT to the subway route like you're proposing for Dundas is extremely wasteful. This puts so much capacity on Dundas, it becomes totally redundant service.
If you think you can do most of your alignment on the surface, you'd be disappointed. Try to keep in mind that the subway can only handle a slope of 3.5%.

i would have to respectfully disagree

i live in vaughan, and i go downtown everyday for school. I take the GO, they take the subway from Yorkdale. i take the YRT to the go station, they drive down the 400/401E corridor and pile into the YD parking lot. I can honestly say if you put a subway in Vaughan, you will see cars disappearing off the 400 and 401 on that morning rush hour, because highway 7 is well serviced by VIVA, YRT and Brampton transit too. i tried doing that commute but its too much, the ramp from the 400 onto the 401 is just 2 lanes and cars are backed up until almost Finch! Coming from the land of 2.0 cars per household (i know people who have cars JUST to get to Ydale in the mornings), this would help reduce congestion in toronto ALOT (less vaughan cars on toronto roads).

There isn't going to be any parking at the VCC station. So no, it won't have any real impact on the 400.

There isn't going to be any parking at the VCC station. So no, it won't have any real impact on the 400.


Really?????????

thats retarded, why would anybody go there? in that case, cancel the vaughan subway station (unless they have a car park garage like the one at YD station and a YRT/GO bus terminal)

TRZ is right. There will be no parking spaces at the VCC station. That station is intended to be part of a 'urban renewal' of the area and planners expect to see development that is conducive to walking to the station or hopping off the YRT/VIVA at the station. There won't even be bus bays since there will be no fare paid area between the bussess and the subway, busses will stop at street laybys.

Parking will, however, be provided at Steeles West Station and 407 Transitway station.

I still think we need something to get people in the Northwest off the idea of driving in to Yorkdale/Wilson/Downsview and subwaying into the city and onto the idea of taking the GO. Improved service would be a start, both by GO and by YRT/VIVA to the stations.

Feldgate, with an appropriate expansion of bus services including new service along that street, might not be a bad idea, actually. All the stations have connecting bus routes (including Mill St. via an extended 48 to replace the 49).
Rather ironic comment from the person that promotes a North Queen station, though.

Didn't you see the map I composed as a visual aid for my argument? Basically it's an 8-stop extension to Square One/Mississauga City Centre. The alignment especially though eastern Mississauga has very wide spacing gaps, more like 2 kilometres actually in-between stops (Sherway-Dixie-Cawthra-Cooksville). North Queen Stn is strictly optional, though I feel the deindustrializing vicinity could one day sustain condominiums/retail and some 427/27 transit trips could operate out of this station, justifying its existence. Other than that, none of the other stops are expendible/skippible or minor as all would connect to multiple feeder routes and/or nodal areas.

:|

Actually the reverse is true. This goes back to the roots that made the original Yonge and Bloor-Danforth subways successful. This alignment allows for a walkable corridor and can encourage a stronger urban fabric with an active streetscape. The tighter station spacing makes for a consistent demand along the corridor.

Apart from Hurontario, no other corridor through Mississauga is capable of handling the closer spacing. Your own map proves this as half of your stations are within Etobicoke. Tomken can easily be skipped because the 51 bus loops via Middlegate passing though Dundas/Haines just a few blocks east of my proposed Cawthra Stn. And Markland Wood is somehow more deserving of a subway stop than the entire Sherway-Alderwood-Long Branch region, especially when new bus routes can operate along the West Mall south of Dundas St? Irrefutably transwank planning for the 'burbs, IMO. :no:

Weren't you promoting a Centre/John station, i.e. proposing more stops for tighter gaps that would "slow travel down" even more?

Ideally, north of Steeles should be an LRT line because there's a parallel mass transit already in place through this area. The fact that the Richmond Hill GO line is the least used of all their commuiter rail services, should infer to you just how unpopular they are for shorter-distance trips. Hurontario's just as far away from the downtown core as Hwy 7 is. If RHC cannot thrive without a subway link, how is it that transit experts can repeatedly continue to overlook MCC; which easily would be serving twice as many customers from all over Mississauga, Brampton and Oakville?

Oh and in the 80s, the province was seriously considering placing a GO stop at John and Bayview not too far from Centre-John, so there must be some regional long-haul significance to that corridor worthy of locating higher-order transit there.

It terminates at an urban growth centre currently.
Deviating south when you actually want to go north increases travel times. Hairpin turns also increase travel times. Given the out-of-the-way alignment plus the extremely sharp turns, you're not cutting travel times much at all for those originating east of Sq.1, nor are you galvanizing any corridor since it doesn't stick to a corridor.

Since most MT routes connect through CCTT anyway, this is not a problem. I'm just glad for once that it is I whose championing the cheaper, faster, more reliable transit solutions here while you're harking on a very time-consuming alignment that would have be tunneled full-length and make 8-9 intermediate stops as opposed to just 6 on mine. :angel:

For people bad with schedules, the solution is more frequent service. You don't need a subway to provide service every 5 minutes (or less, but LRT should start to be considered if service is needed at every 3-4 minutes to meet demand).

Outside of late evening service, trains arrive every 2-3 minutes or better along the B-D Line. Following my recommodation, customers boarding from Square One could be at Kipling Stn in approximately 10 minutes. Not even GO Transit can achieve that.

You don't build them just to make travel faster, that's what is wasteful and cost-prohibitive. Especially with your alignment which has much more track length.

Running a parallel LRT to the subway route like you're proposing for Dundas is extremely wasteful. This puts so much capacity on Dundas, it becomes totally redundant service.

The greater track length is the fault of the rail corridor's meandering nature, can't be helped. I'm proposing nothing for Dundas actually, Metrolinx is. I personally have no problem with the 1/1C/201 services, especially when the articulated buses show up. The only problem with eastbound trips through Sauga is the duration of time it takes to reach Islington. Putting a stop at Cawthra would put everyone at Hurontario and Dundas within 5 minutes bus ride of the subway. Not bad at all.

If you think you can do most of your alignment on the surface, you'd be disappointed. Try to keep in mind that the subway can only handle a slope of 3.5%.

I'd challenge this, but I'm bit preoccupied with the Queen-DRL proposal at the moment to care. Namaste! :tongue4:

:|It doesn't matter if you say it is optional, you still proposed it meaning you're promoting the idea.

You said immediately thereafter that you expect deindustrialization in the area and condos to sprout up. That's extremely naive since deindustrialization isn't going to be happening anywhere around there - that CP Yard isn't packing up shop, and it allows industrial activity to thrive in this area.



Apart from Hurontario, no other corridor through Mississauga is capable of handling the closer spacing. Your own map proves this as half of your stations are within Etobicoke. Tomken can easily be skipped because the 51 bus loops via Middlegate passing though Dundas/Haines just a few blocks east of my proposed Cawthra Stn. And Markland Wood is somehow more deserving of a subway stop than the entire Sherway-Alderwood-Long Branch region, especially when new bus routes can operate along the West Mall south of Dundas St? Irrefutably transwank planning for the 'burbs, IMO. :no:
The rail corridor and Sherway alignment will be a total failure at serving any local traffic, since nobody lives around the North Queen and Dixie GO areas. Dixie GO is only conveniently accessible by car. I know, speaking as someone that's used it making a connection to the MT Dixie bus. It's an awful station design, and not really located near any places people live or places people would go. It's strictly park'n'ride. Not the place for a subway. North Queen is pretty much all industrial. Not the place for a subway stop. Sherway is an isolated mall cut off from everywhere else. Mall hours are not subway hours. The condo development isn't going to sustain a subway service, not by a long shot. Not the place for a subway stop.

There's more stations in Etobicoke because a)there's more bus services, and b)there's more streets and, thereby, more access to the service. The latter changes in Mississauga. I think Feldgate is a good thing to bring up, as it is a good potential candidate for a station and can improve the urban fabric. A lack of intersecting streets makes that difficult in some parts though, a typical by-product of the suburban ideology.

The problem with ducking to down to Sherway is that that isn't where the ridership goes. The ridership on the MT4 is sad, at best, and gives a good hint as to how big a failure a subway there would be. Canary in the mine shaft. Also, a station at Sherway would inevitably promote park'n'ride, as would a station at Dixie GO, again, that's not the kind of commuting pattern we want to encourage, and therefore we locate stations in neighbourhoods, and in areas that already have well-used transit (i.e. where there's an estabished culture). There's no established transit culture at Sherway, and the highway junction there sees to it staying that way since it is an incentive for the car-centric to move in. Sherway-Alderwood is a very small area of the city, the Bloor alignment reaches far more people, especially for walk-ins, and more feeders, too. Being sandwiched between the Burnhamthorpe and Dundas corridors allows for an intensification scope as wide as the distance between Burnhamthorpe and Dundas in the long-term.

For someone who puts so much importance on cutting bus travel times, you've completely missed the reality that the Bloor alignment intercepts northern routes coming in from the 427 soonest, besting both Sherway and Dundas alignments.

Ideally, north of Steeles should be an LRT line because there's a parallel mass transit already in place through this area. The fact that the Richmond Hill GO line is the least used of all their commuiter rail services, should infer to you just how unpopular they are for shorter-distance trips. Hurontario's just as far away from the downtown core as Hwy 7 is. If RHC cannot thrive without a subway link, how is it that transit experts can repeatedly continue to overlook MCC; which easily would be serving twice as many customers from all over Mississauga, Brampton and Oakville?People from Oakville and Brampton are not going to flock to a Sq1 subway. Especially Oakville, where electrified Lakeshore GO service is on the horizon. Brampton is in line for express service to downtown as well, and connects to BD at the Bloor GO station. That would be far more attractive than a Sq1 subway.
The Richmond Hill GO line is the least used because it has the least number of stations and the least amount of off-peak service. I'd gladly use the GO service to get back into Toronto after work sometimes if I'm going downtown after, but there's no service past 2pm. GO will be changing this, though... eventually.
I agree that north of Steeles should be LRT, but not for the reasons that you cited.

Oh and in the 80s, the province was seriously considering placing a GO stop at John and Bayview not too far from Centre-John, so there must be some regional long-haul significance to that corridor worthy of locating higher-order transit there. Bayview is a bit of a hike from Yonge, don't treat them as the same area. That John/Bayview station is back on the radar these days though, public pressure is mounting. There's some towers in the immediate area of the tracks, and the residents in those towers think GO trains should stop in front of them. I happen to agree, with other reasons in addition to towers in the area, and think it is a smart location for a GO station.



Since most MT routes connect through CCTT anyway, this is not a problem.Might wanna actually read the post you reply to, I said east of Sq.1. I'm just glad for once that it is I whose championing the cheaper, faster, more reliable transit solutions here while you're harking on a very time-consuming alignment that would have be tunneled full-length and make 8-9 intermediate stops as opposed to just 6 on mine. :angel:It wouldn't have to be tunneled full-length, the Mississauga Valley area may allow some open-cut, and the Kipling-Islington stretch has some at-grade. Square One grounds would be cut-and-cover, not tunneled.
Your alignment though, as I already pointed out, isn't cheaper, since a)you're going to have to do far more tunneling than you realize, b)you've got more linear-length of track, and c)you need to aquire space for and build a new yard, which I've already dealt with through recycling existing infrastructure (Greenwood isn't likely going to hold all the trains... and you can't store them on YUS). You also got hairpin turns and indirect routing that actually makes your alignment more time consuming. I could go through the mathematics of it. I'd need time to prepare details for your alignment though.



Outside of late evening service, trains arrive every 2-3 minutes or better along the B-D Line.It isn't possible to do better than 2.35 minutes (2'21"), so no, there is no "or better" as it's impossible. Frequencies are also only half that outside peak, every 4-5 mintues. Late evening service is every 6 minutes.

Following my recommodation, customers boarding from Square One could be at Kipling Stn in approximately 10 minutes. Not even GO Transit can achieve that.Sure it can; Cooksville to Kipling is exactly 10 minutes by GO Train. Same as your subway.



The greater track length is the fault of the rail corridor's meandering nature, can't be helped.Obviously it can so be helped, as I've proven such with the Bloor alignment. I'm proposing nothing for Dundas actually, Metrolinx is. I personally have no problem with the 1/1C/201 services, especially when the articulated buses show up.
That's not what you said:
Locally spaced LRTs connecting to adjacent long-distance spaced subway stops is good enough.
That implies quite clearly that you think it is a good idea to run LRT on Dundas while running the subway through industrial lands south of it, providing no real use for travel along Dundas itself. Are you aware that subways need all-day ridership to be sustainable? That's part of the point of having a strong local corridor quality.

The only problem with eastbound trips through Sauga is the duration of time it takes to reach Islington. Putting a stop at Cawthra would put everyone at Hurontario and Dundas within 5 minutes bus ride of the subway. Not bad at all.You think that's the only problem with Mississauga's transit system?! :uh:



I'd challenge this, but I'm bit preoccupied with the Queen-DRL proposal at the moment to care.
I guess that means you concede.

i would have to respectfully disagree

i live in vaughan, and i go downtown everyday for school. I take the GO, they take the subway from Yorkdale. i take the YRT to the go station, they drive down the 400/401E corridor and pile into the YD parking lot. I can honestly say if you put a subway in Vaughan, you will see cars disappearing off the 400 and 401 on that morning rush hour, because highway 7 is well serviced by VIVA, YRT and Brampton transit too. i tried doing that commute but its too much, the ramp from the 400 onto the 401 is just 2 lanes and cars are backed up until almost Finch! Coming from the land of 2.0 cars per household (i know people who have cars JUST to get to Ydale in the mornings), this would help reduce congestion in toronto ALOT (less vaughan cars on toronto roads).

The gridlock at Vaughan Jane & Hwy 7 is indeed unbearable but this is mainly due to trucks and non-downtown bound traffic. I would never wish travelling anywhere near here on anybody, not even to get to a subway station.

Better GO train service would serve these people much better.

I should also say that designing a subway to pull drivers into a parking lot and transfer is horrible planning. A good plan wouldn't involve driving or parking at all.

How about a one stop extension to the 427 and Dundas for now? Keep the station far enough east that it can turn under the 427 so a Sherway extension is still possible, but in the meantime connections to Mississauga are shortened, express busses get direct access to the 427, and an Etobicoke LRT could be through routed Long Branch - Sherway - Airport - Humber without a detour to the subway.

The gridlock at Vaughan Jane & Hwy 7 is indeed unbearable but this is mainly due to trucks and non-downtown bound traffic. I would never wish travelling anywhere near here on anybody, not even to get to a subway station.

Better GO train service would serve these people much better.

I should also say that designing a subway to pull drivers into a parking lot and transfer is horrible planning. A good plan wouldn't involve driving or parking at all.
i agree, i wouldnt wish hwy 7 traffic on anyone

to solve it, i wouldnt focus on the Go train. I take the GO trains into the city, but the last one comes at around 8 in Maple (On the barrie line). Plus, Union Station isnt always the final destination for many of these drivers. I would suggest a GO bus that goes TO the yorkdale subway from York Region. It should be an express type route and pick up people from hubs like V Mills, the Go stations in the area, basically a local GO bus that takes you to the subway (goes down the 400, Black Creek, Lawrence, Dufferin) That way you avoid that disaster of a ramp on the 401, and ultimately (or, Hopefully!) have less cars on the roads.

i agree, i wouldnt wish hwy 7 traffic on anyone

to solve it, i wouldnt focus on the Go train. I take the GO trains into the city, but the last one comes at around 8 in Maple (On the barrie line). Plus, Union Station isnt always the final destination for many of these drivers. I would suggest a GO bus that goes TO the yorkdale subway from York Region. It should be an express type route and pick up people from hubs like V Mills, the Go stations in the area, basically a local GO bus that takes you to the subway (goes down the 400, Black Creek, Lawrence, Dufferin) That way you avoid that disaster of a ramp on the 401, and ultimately (or, Hopefully!) have less cars on the roads.

The Spadina Line subway extension to Vaughan includes a new station connecting to the Barrie GO Train line at the new Sheppard West subway station proposed around Chesswood. This should allow a convenient transfer between GO Train and TTC subway - much better than Yorkdale's bus terminal.

More GO Train stations on the Barrie line between Union and Sheppard West would also be a good idea. E.g. Earlscourt GO, Wallace Emmerson GO, etc., would appeal to the non-core bound trips.

^^ my god...how do u guys have so much information?

The Spadina Line subway extension to Vaughan includes a new station connecting to the Barrie GO Train line at the new Sheppard West subway station proposed around Chesswood. This should allow a convenient transfer between GO Train and TTC subway - much better than Yorkdale's bus terminal.

More GO Train stations on the Barrie line between Union and Sheppard West would also be a good idea. E.g. Earlscourt GO, Wallace Emmerson GO, etc., would appeal to the non-core bound trips.

Sure thats true, but then the issue becomes cost. its cheaper to run buses than trains, plus after 8am the demand really drops on the Barrie line so I think they should stick to buses. Trains would be quicker, but im not too sure if it would be feasible. They already run buses from King City to Union after the last train leaves. Maybe they can re-route that bus to Sheppard West instead of Union Station (after 8 when the last train leaves)? It would be less KM's travelled and those savings on the GO bus ticket could be put towards TTC tokens or a metropass.

^^ my god...how do u guys have so much information?

Gnomes. :)

Sure thats true, but then the issue becomes cost. its cheaper to run buses than trains, plus after 8am the demand really drops on the Barrie line so I think they should stick to buses. Trains would be quicker, but im not too sure if it would be feasible. They already run buses from King City to Union after the last train leaves. Maybe they can re-route that bus to Sheppard West instead of Union Station (after 8 when the last train leaves)? It would be less KM's travelled and those savings on the GO bus ticket could be put towards TTC tokens or a metropass.

For GO Transit on Barrie and Stoufville corridors, it is arguably cheaper for them to run trains. GO owns the Newmarket and Uxbridge subdivisions which service Barrie and Stouffville corridors, which means GO doesn't have to rent track space. The Newmarket sub has also been grade separated from the York sub just north of Steeles.

GO Train stations are, except during the am peak, unmanned. As the midday Bramalea service has already illustrated, this likely wouldn't change if all-day service were introduced, except at the north-end terminating station (whichever that ends up being, presumably Bradford according to The Big Move). Automated fare vending machines would take the place of the station attendants, those needing other services would have to get them at Union.

This means that the only staffing costs, which are the biggest cost incurred by any transit service, are almost entirely on the trains only, just like a bus. However, a 6 car train can carry many more people per crew member than a bus per driver. There are 3 crew per train.

This means that the main cost difference would be fuel. Since the train is far more attractive than the bus, it is likely that GO would attract more riders with all-day train service than all-day bus service. That would mean that there may actually be a cost-incentive to provide all-day service by rail over that by bus.

The only question of feasability is the reality of the single-track character of the Newmarket sub. GO is investing in double-tracking, so that hurdle is addressed. This is for the purpose of providing bi-directional service (currently, rail service is mono-directional in each peak period).

Here's a map of my own that I posted in another thread regarding expansion into Mississauga:

http://i349.photobucket.com/albums/q378/DENTROBATE54/Mississaugasubwayextension.jpg

What I'm seeing here is a lot of duplication of service. You have the subway, the Milton GO line (which will eventually see all-day, two-way service), the higher-order (BRT/LRT) corridors on Hurontario and Dundas, both short-listed by Metrolinx but Hurotario having more work done, and what will most likely be some sort of local service on both corridors given the likely stops.

Then there's the GO bus service between Square One, Cooksville and Dixie to Union. The BRT along the 403 would connect to reserved lanes along a redesigned 427 (see: http://www.427ea.ca/) which could be used by both Mississauga Transit and GO Buses to a new Kipling regional terminal (à la Finch). So there are plenty of options without needing to costly duplicate services.

That being said, I'd favour any extension to continue west along Dundas to try and stimulate development along that corridor. A couple of warehouses behind Dixie GO station have been torn down. I'm not sure what will be going in their place, but it's possible some sort of redevelopment from industrial to something more dense/sustainable. This could be the start of a redeveloped Dundas St. corridor.

The ultimate endpoint for any westward Dundas extension should be Hurontario. The LRT/BRT corridor could start from there and then continue westward. It would also connect with the Hurontario LRT/BRT. There are plenty of plazas in the area which could be razed and redeveloped into a proper transit terminal. What you'd end up with is something similar to Main St. station and Danforth GO station. Keeping the short-haul and long-haul passengers separated should reduce crowding. Both lines already connect at Kipling allowing for transfers between the two.

For GO Transit on Barrie and Stoufville corridors, it is arguably cheaper for them to run trains. GO owns the Newmarket and Uxbridge subdivisions which service Barrie and Stouffville corridors, which means GO doesn't have to rent track space. The Newmarket sub has also been grade separated from the York sub just north of Steeles.

GO Train stations are, except during the am peak, unmanned. As the midday Bramalea service has already illustrated, this likely wouldn't change if all-day service were introduced, except at the north-end terminating station (whichever that ends up being, presumably Bradford according to The Big Move). Automated fare vending machines would take the place of the station attendants, those needing other services would have to get them at Union.

This means that the only staffing costs, which are the biggest cost incurred by any transit service, are almost entirely on the trains only, just like a bus. However, a 6 car train can carry many more people per crew member than a bus per driver. There are 3 crew per train.

This means that the main cost difference would be fuel. Since the train is far more attractive than the bus, it is likely that GO would attract more riders with all-day train service than all-day bus service. That would mean that there may actually be a cost-incentive to provide all-day service by rail over that by bus.

The only question of feasability is the reality of the single-track character of the Newmarket sub. GO is investing in double-tracking, so that hurdle is addressed. This is for the purpose of providing bi-directional service (currently, rail service is mono-directional in each peak period).

If they're on schedule, there should be two-way service to Newmarket by next year. Not fully double-tracked, though, so it will start as hourly headways at best.

What I'm seeing here is a lot of duplication of service. You have the subway, the Milton GO line (which will eventually see all-day, two-way service), the higher-order (BRT/LRT) corridors on Hurontario and Dundas, both short-listed by Metrolinx but Hurotario having more work done, and what will most likely be some sort of local service on both corridors given the likely stops.

Then there's the GO bus service between Square One, Cooksville and Dixie to Union. The BRT along the 403 would connect to reserved lanes along a redesigned 427 (see: http://www.427ea.ca/) which could be used by both Mississauga Transit and GO Buses to a new Kipling regional terminal (à la Finch). So there are plenty of options without needing to costly duplicate services.

That being said, I'd favour any extension to continue west along Dundas to try and stimulate development along that corridor. A couple of warehouses behind Dixie GO station have been torn down. I'm not sure what will be going in their place, but it's possible some sort of redevelopment from industrial to something more dense/sustainable. This could be the start of a redeveloped Dundas St. corridor.

The ultimate endpoint for any westward Dundas extension should be Hurontario. The LRT/BRT corridor could start from there and then continue westward. It would also connect with the Hurontario LRT/BRT. There are plenty of plazas in the area which could be razed and redeveloped into a proper transit terminal. What you'd end up with is something similar to Main St. station and Danforth GO station. Keeping the short-haul and long-haul passengers separated should reduce crowding. Both lines already connect at Kipling allowing for transfers between the two.

While there is some duplication of transit modes and services, it should be noted that the subway will always be the preferrable mode of transit and to overlook such a dense nodal region as Mississauga would be a crying shame. I personally see no problem with the stop spacing that I prescribed for eastern Mississauga, because most passengers will primarily be coming in via feeder routes no matter whether the spacing between stops is every 600m or 2 kms. However just to indulge the mindsets that assume eastern Mississauga/ the Dundas corridor somehow needs a subway line running through it in order to sustain urban growth, I've cooked up this:

http://i349.photobucket.com/albums/q378/DENTROBATE54/Mississaugasubwayextension1.jpg

This alignment would kill many birds with one stone:

Puts an end to the isolationism of Sherway Gardens; triggers further intensification development
Increases accessibility to Dixie and Cooksville GO Stns
Bolsters a transit-oriented streetscape along Dundas East full length as reliable BRT or LRT continues east of Dixie Stn; with the subway routing westbound.
Brings mass transit to downtown Cooksville (Dundas-Huronatrio) and reduces the need for LRT along Dundas West (as Burnhamthrope BRT would be serving the same niche market more or less)
Spares Hurontario/Main LRT passengers the time lapse of detouring through CCTT in order to access the subway with instead a quicker, more direct transfer @Hurontario Subway Stn.
Spreads the passenger loads throughout the City Centre area (Central Pkwy-MCC-Square One Stns) rather than have all customers converge at one central point.


Yes, the increased length/station stops does reduce some of its long-haul appeal, but for local residents such an alignment would be a dream come true.
Mississauga Transit carries more than 160,000 riders per weekday. If even half of these passengers boarded from Square One or Hurontario, that's instantly 80,000 customers served a hell of a lot sooner than they would be slugging it all the way towards Kipling be it via bus or newly built streetcar lines. Lastly, until GO suburban service can provide local by-the-neighbourhood accessibility, has 24/7 rail service, and is 100% electrified third rail subway-style rail we just can't nonchalantly assert that it is superior to extending the Bloor-Danforth Line into Mississauga.

The rail corridor and Sherway alignment will be a total failure at serving any local traffic, since nobody lives around the North Queen and Dixie GO areas. Dixie GO is only conveniently accessible by car. I know, speaking as someone that's used it making a connection to the MT Dixie bus. It's an awful station design, and not really located near any places people live or places people would go. It's strictly park'n'ride. Not the place for a subway. North Queen is pretty much all industrial. Not the place for a subway stop. Sherway is an isolated mall cut off from everywhere else. Mall hours are not subway hours. The condo development isn't going to sustain a subway service, not by a long shot. Not the place for a subway stop.

No one may live nearby Dixie GO Stn today but like Gil suggests, the area is gradually giving way to potential residential tower developments. Dundas/Dixie is also a beehive of commercial activity within walking distance of the subway (Dixie Plaza; Dun-Dix Centre; Dixie Decor Centre; Dunwynn Centre).

North Queen has long term potential at becoming a new sustainable residential community, in much the same way most of the central waterfront area was once mainly industrial twenty years ago but now it's so relevant as a residential neighbouthood it's challenging the innercity as to where we should situate the DRL line. Furthermore, the 111 and 191 buses could operate out oif this station seamlessly, thus avoiding the gridlock that is Dundas through Six-Points.

Again, Sherway Gardens is not just about the mall. The area has a hospital, outdoor retail and business parks with existing condos and more coming on the horizon. There's also regional significance to that location. You talk about shortening trips along minor routes like the 49/50 buses but forget to realize this would reduce travel times along and even replace part of the 123 bus route in entirity. Service along the 15/80 would increase as demand for these corridors becomes bidirectional under a new subway-subway routing. Long Branchers could now take a short trip north to Sherway for subway access rather than having to construct multimillion dollar LRT lines there that'd take forever to reach Union Stn. Interregional bus routes could also loop into this location (GO Transit; MT; airport/Hwy 27 trippers). If we were to follow your logic that it is an inferior location; transit hubs like Fairview, Yorkdale and Vaughan Mills would not exist. People are acclimatized to converging at large, suburban malls to mix in some shopping while they're commuting. It's just that simple.

For someone who puts so much importance on cutting bus travel times, you've completely missed the reality that the Bloor alignment intercepts northern routes coming in from the 427 soonest, besting both Sherway and Dundas alignments.

What northern routes? 48/49/50 route half-empty during most of the day. Just how many Bessarions do we need in the system? Martin Grove buses can operate from the Shorncliffe Stn just as easily as they would your Shaver stop and would be serving the community in-between Bloor and Dundas. The 111 and 112 would be rerouted to North Queen (East Mall) and Sherway Gdns (West Mall) Stations respectively. Keeping those buses within their own grids shortens the overall trip whilst serving new areas. I'd also reroute the 191/2 buses.

People from Oakville and Brampton are not going to flock to a Sq1 subway.

A sizable number still would. If even 30,000 passengers from Brampton (and to a lesser extent Oakville via the OT 24 bus then Burnhamthrope BRT eastwards) boarded the subway from Mississauga; that's still a lot of people we'd be subjecting to a more expensive, out-of-the-way commute to GO trains which will never route at the frequency of subways.

I agree that north of Steeles should be LRT, but not for the reasons that you cited.

You just couldn't admit that I was right without a backhanded jab, eh? :ohno:

It wouldn't have to be tunneled full-length, the Mississauga Valley area may allow some open-cut, and the Kipling-Islington stretch has some at-grade. Square One grounds would be cut-and-cover, not tunneled.

You do realize Mississauga Valley is a public park smack in the middle of a residential community, right? :sly: For those same reasons, so much of Islington-Bloor/Kipling would have to be below-grade anyway that you may as well tunnel it.

That implies quite clearly that you think it is a good idea to run LRT on Dundas while running the subway through industrial lands south of it, providing no real use for travel along Dundas itself. Are you aware that subways need all-day ridership to be sustainable? That's part of the point of having a strong local corridor quality.

Well, my second map blows that theory clear out of dodge. I've replaced LRT along Dundas with BRT beyond the Dixie-Hurontario section, which will of course become closely spaced subways. Not that I endorse such an alignment, but that's how I'd do it to sustain a streetscape/ high-yeilding walk-in customer base throughout eastern and central Mississauga. :cheers:

http://i349.photobucket.com/albums/q378/DENTROBATE54/Mississaugasubwayextension1.jpg

I wonder if Sauga and Toronto can work out a deal with Sherway Gardens (or Cadillac Fairview) and local developers to cover a significant portion of the costs to put a subway stop directly to the mall? im sure its been discussed before....because it doesnt seem like its really that far a distance to make it unrealistic. This way, toronto has a choice btw eaton centre, ydale and now sherway. increased traffic to a mall = always good plus local developers can benefit from more people wanting to live closer to the subway or mall. I believe there are new condos that just went up in the area too!

No one may live nearby Dixie GO Stn today but like Gil suggests, the area is gradually giving way to potential residential tower developments. Dundas/Dixie is also a beehive of commercial activity within walking distance of the subway (Dixie Plaza; Dun-Dix Centre; Dixie Decor Centre; Dunwynn Centre).I guess you haven't been to this part of Mississauga, or used the Dixie GO Station. I have. A friend of mine used to live in this area. The area is quite industrial upto just west of Cawthra. I can see some residential development taking place on Dundas, but most likely on the north side of Dundas, not the south. In anycase, this "beehive of commercial activity" you refer to are all majorly car-oriented. Typical suburbia that isn't conductive to transit use.

North Queen has long term potential at becoming a new sustainable residential community, in much the same way most of the central waterfront area was once mainly industrial twenty years ago but now it's so relevant as a residential neighbouthood it's challenging the innercity as to where we should situate the DRL line. Furthermore, the 111 and 191 buses could operate out oif this station seamlessly, thus avoiding the gridlock that is Dundas through Six-Points. Those buses don't go through the six-points interchange, Kipling is located west of the six-points interchange.

North Queen and the central waterfront are nowhere near comparable. First and foremost, North Queen doesn't have any waterfront, but secondly, and of equal importance, freight hasn't moved out of this area, nor is it expected to. The freight railways moving out of downtown opened the door to deindustrialization, which to some extent started with GO Transit since that had a hand in making the York sub happen, complete with CN's Maple Yard. Related to that was the selling off of the railway lands that are now CityPlace and then the string Queen's Quay West developments created a sandwiching effect with King St. and its redevelopment, and this has now been spreading east, of which GO's new Don Yard is another bit of evidence of freight moving out of the core.

The CP yard southwest of Kipling is not going anywhere, in fact it is projected to get busier as it has great highway access, which means great connections with trucks. It's a busy intermodal terminal facility. Industry here isn't going anywhere. There is no prospect for residential development here. To draw a comparison to the central waterfront, well, do so at your own risk.

Again, Sherway Gardens is not just about the mall. The area has a hospital, outdoor retail and business parks with existing condos and more coming on the horizon. There's also regional significance to that location. You talk about shortening trips along minor routes like the 49/50 buses but forget to realize this would reduce travel times along and even replace part of the 123 bus route in entirity. Service along the 15/80 would increase as demand for these corridors becomes bidirectional under a new subway-subway routing. Long Branchers could now take a short trip north to Sherway for subway access rather than having to construct multimillion dollar LRT lines there that'd take forever to reach Union Stn. Interregional bus routes could also loop into this location (GO Transit; MT; airport/Hwy 27 trippers). If we were to follow your logic that it is an inferior location; transit hubs like Fairview, Yorkdale and Vaughan Mills would not exist. People are acclimatized to converging at large, suburban malls to mix in some shopping while they're commuting. It's just that simple.Vaughan Mills is a very far cry from a success. The transit connectivity to Vaughan Mills is an awful design.

Fairview's traffic is only so high because of artificial reconfigurations of bus routes to try to boost the Sheppard Subway's ridership figure. If Fairview wasn't the terminus of the Sheppard Subway, it wouldn't have anywhere near it's level of rideship.

Yorkdale is partly propped up by GO Transit connections there.

There is no acclimatization to suburban malls as transit hubs, as they're not really that successful. SCC and MCC are different because they actually have more to them than just the mall, such as civic centres and government services, plus denser business developments nearby.

Kennedy has extremely high bus traffic, HUGE ridership figure, yet you don't rant and rave about hubs like that, which have no mall attached, but the main ridership sources are the same. Looking at the big picture and being objective is useful in understanding these things.

Sherway has no regional significance because you're creating artificial connections to it that are actually out of the way. The Shorncliffe station is closer for airport and 27 among other northbound routes, many MT. And the Bloor alignment I proposed is even closer.

If you think the purpose of the WWLRT is to get people from Long Branch to Union, then you haven't heard of this thing called Lakeshore West GO Train service. WWLRT isn't designed for long haul. Neither are subways (they're medium haul). GO Transit is the long haul service of choice, it just needs better frequency at more times of day.

What northern routes? 48/49/50 route half-empty during most of the day. Just how many Bessarions do we need in the system? Martin Grove buses can operate from the Shorncliffe Stn just as easily as they would your Shaver stop and would be serving the community in-between Bloor and Dundas.Don't know if you noticed, but Martin Grove doesn't go south of Bloor, the street terminates there. It makes more sense to take the Shorncliffe route up Shaver since that will improve the bi-directional traffic on the industrial Shorncliffe route. The distance from Shorncliffe to Kipling along Dundas is about the same as the distance from Dundas to Bloor along Shaver (the latter's slightly less, but it has to go across Bloor for two blocks, so it comes out even), but for the communities between Bloor and Dundas, convenience for them actually goes up since they're far more likely to have room on the bus, while those north of Bloor, on a much more crowded bus, will have a shorter ride on the bus.

And as for the northern routes, the East Mall and Renforth stations would have a large number of buses, including MT routes 1, 11, 17, 27, 50, 57, 70, 76, 82, 89, and 201, as well as TTC routes 111, 112, 191, 192, and eliminates the 49 (it doesn't connect with the 49, read what I post).
The 111 and 112 would be rerouted to North Queen (East Mall) and Sherway Gdns (West Mall) Stations respectively. Keeping those buses within their own grids shortens the overall trip whilst serving new areas. I'd also reroute the 191/2 buses.Bloor alignment is superior on that angle.



A sizable number still would. If even 30,000 passengers from Brampton (and to a lesser extent Oakville via the OT 24 bus then Burnhamthrope BRT eastwards) boarded the subway from Mississauga; that's still a lot of people we'd be subjecting to a more expensive, out-of-the-way commute to GO trains which will never route at the frequency of subways. Lakeshore would reach subway frequency. Besides, 30,000 passengers, assuming these are people making a round trip, that's only 3750ppdph. If you mean 30,000 rides, then it's 1875ppdph, which is nothing to a subway.



You just couldn't admit that I was right without a backhanded jab, eh? :ohno:What backhanded jab? I don't think it should go north of Steeles because the ridership is not there, while you have different reasons.



You do realize Mississauga Valley is a public park smack in the middle of a residential community, right? :sly: For those same reasons, so much of Islington-Bloor/Kipling would have to be below-grade anyway that you may as well tunnel it.Have you ever ridden the subway from Kipling? It's currently at-grade already, and the land between Kipling Ave., Dundas St., and the tracks is largely undeveloped and can easily be crossed at grade. It's not a public park, it's mostly unused land (there's a grand total of two-and-a-half structures, and they're not that big). Tunneling the whole thing isn't an option anyway because I'm maintaining those tracks for yard use, and need a wye.

I'm aware of the park in Mississauga Valley, it's on the south side of Mississauga Valley. I am talking about the portion where it is roughly (obviously not exactly) above the river in this area. It is common practice to go overtop rivers, with the exceptions of Kennedy and York Mills, which were exceptions where the TTC never wanted to go under in both cases.

Well, my second map blows that theory clear out of dodge. I've replaced LRT along Dundas with BRT beyond the Dixie-Hurontario section, which will of course become closely spaced subways. Not that I endorse such an alignment, but that's how I'd do it to sustain a streetscape/ high-yeilding walk-in customer base throughout eastern and central Mississauga. :cheers:

Actually, your second map validates my thoery through and through since you're taking my advice. Good on you! :okay:

I'd argue Bloor would still yeild higher walk-in because of more residents in the area around the alignment being farther away from the Dundas industrial lands that don't do much of anything for a subway's benefit. Deindustrialization isn't going to happen due to the strong presense of CP and the truck traffic of the nearby QEW and to a lesser extent Queensway, which makes the area attractive to industry. Ever notice how once the railway crosses to the north side of Dundas, industry suddenly stops? It's not a coincidence. The same pattern is evident in the Burnhamthorpe/Mavis area.

Also, as I was saying before, that corridor is already served by the Milton GO line
Define "served". Do trains even run at all during the off-peak, at night or on weekends?

Not saying I support the subway idea as I know nothing of the area, but having just a few peak hour trains is a laughable service.

Define "served". Do trains even run at all during the off-peak, at night or on weekends?

Not saying I support the subway idea as I know nothing of the area, but having just a few peak hour trains is a laughable service.

No they do not. The service is deplorable, only 6 eastbound trains in the AM Peak and six westbound trains in the PM Peak. The bulk of transit's done via bus. There used to be midday service back in the late 1980s but that was soon cancelled. And GO Transit cannot expand the service either because of limitations placed upon them by Canadian Pacific Railway which operates freight along the same tracks, their busiest and most trafficked freight lane through Toronto.

You don't have to know much about the area to understand the significance and relevancy of building such a subway extension. Scarborough Centre is far less impressive than Mississauga City Centre, yet it is the focal destination of not one but two proposed subway extensions (Sheppard and B-D). Richmond Hill Centre is a sad joke, I get depressed just thinking that place will get subways ahead of Peel Region. If the TTC plans on expanding its subway reach beyond city limits, there is nowhere more logically suited population wise (2361 people per km²) for it than an established downtown, that's grown on its own without even need of a subway. MCC is more centralized than downtown Toronto, so walk-in and feeder potential there would be huge. And because of the nature of eastern Mississauga we'd only require a few stops along the way (RE: my 1st map on pg. 1).

Canadian Pacific Railway which operates freight along the same tracks, their busiest and most trafficked freight lane through Toronto.

You don't have to know much about the area to understand the significance and relevancy of building such a subway extension.

It's Canadian Pacific Railway's only freight corridor through Toronto. Unlike CN, they have no Toronto bypass.

You always have to know the area for any subway extension.

So my mind has been running with the concept of a Kipling Yard and how it would work. I had already gotten a pretty good idea of how connecting to the yard would work, but hadn't really figured out the yard itself.

Here's one way a Kipling Yard might work. (http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w203/TrainX/KiplingYard.jpg)

Note that the southern most tip isn't shown, but you get the idea. The southern-most track is longer than the others due to an additional switch (it's visible, the southern-most single-crossover).

The wye from Kipling Yard is quite sharp to enter the new Kipling Station. This is about equal to the infamous King curve. However, as it would only be used for Yard movements, and would see only around 50, maybe 80, vehicles a day, it should be OK. Most of that curve is underground to keep wheel squeal subdued for residents in the area, and no passengers would ever be carried along this trackage. Speed is a non-issue on this track, as yard movements are always slow.

Portals are indicated in white, and should serve to illustrate the vertical relationship between yard track and main-line service track (yard track goes under the main-line eastbound track).

The eastbound trackage between the eastern yard switch and Islington station's crossover is becomes capable of being bi-directional, but is generally only used at the end of the day (a number of trains would go out of service at Islington as service winds down for the night, but the final train at the end of the night would still continue to the end of the line, and be stored on the line at the terminus), or if a disabled train is waiting at Islington's triple-tracked area and needs to be taken off the line ASAP.

The western access to the yard is also bi-directional, but has no impact on the regular service trackage's direction of service.

Subway Cres. is modified along the part that abuts the tracks, and is narrower since most traffic along the street now disappears apart from those residing in the condominium across from the yard and TTC staff. The light blue area is space that would be used for TTC staff (that may include parking for staff), and the red area is land that could be sold for redevelopment. East (right) of that red redevelopable space is the hydro corridor, so not much that can be done with that. The transformer/substation (the double-circle structure) area has been preserved and will either remain in use or be replaced with another of approrpiate capacity. One of the design challenges ended up being the existing hydro supports on the north side of the existing tracks. Almost all of the existing track has been re-used in the design. Half the platform has also been preserved (only staff would be using it, so it can be quite narrow, even at half the size, it's still much wider than needed... those familiar with the Wilson Yard know what I mean... you can see it on a train to/from Downsview), but a clear majority of the station, except for the west underground entrance (which would be used by staff), is decommissioned.

Operators would still have the option of using an east-end exit.

I have not addressed the GO station issue as of yet.

The new yard is only for storing vehicles, it does not have a shop. It can, however, recieve new (or repaired) rolling stock from the CP Line. The capacity of the yard is a maximum of 33 6-car consists, a significant capacity that balances the needs of the line east and west of Bay St., and aids significantly in accomodating the fleet of the DRL at Greenwood as well as a Mississauga extension of the B-D line.

I've also modified the stations on the alignment I posted earlier (http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w203/TrainX/BloorMissis.jpg). Some have shifted slightly in location since a Feldgate station was added. I also added some track details; red = triple-track structure, light blue = double-crossover. The triple-track structure west of Square One isn't shown in full, but you get the idea. This illustrates a two-phase project, Etobicoke phase and Mississauga phase. It conforms to the standard of allowing turn-back points every 3km. I haven't included the yard access in this image, see the other link above for that. :)

For those that think there should be Central Parkway and Robert Speck stations, no can do, stations cannot be on curves.

It's Canadian Pacific Railway's only freight corridor through Toronto. Unlike CN, they have no Toronto bypass.

You always have to know the area for any subway extension.

Again, your simply extrapolating my comments in such a way to find something to argue with. I was responding directly to L2's assertion that he is inexperienced with the transit conditions through Mississauga. My post was merely to inform him on its validity, not to insinuate that I myself don't know anything about a Region I've been residing in for over 2 years now. :hammer:

The wye from Kipling Yard is quite sharp to enter the new Kipling Station. This is about equal to the infamous King curve. However, as it would only be used for Yard movements, and would see only around 50, maybe 80, vehicles a day, it should be OK. Most of that curve is underground to keep wheel squeal subdued for residents in the area, and no passengers would ever be carried along this trackage. Speed is a non-issue on this track, as yard movements are always slow.

So it's okay for you to recommend curves narrower than the 116m standard but when I do it, it is suddenly a problem?

For those that think there should be Central Parkway and Robert Speck stations, no can do, stations cannot be on curves.

Those stations shouldn't exist, but not for the reasons you've stated.

Again, your simply extrapolating my comments in such a way to find something to argue with. I was responding directly to L2's assertion that he is inexperienced with the transit conditions through Mississauga. My post was merely to inform him on its validity, not to insinuate that I myself don't know anything about a Region I've been residing in for over 2 years now. :hammer:What you wrote implied there more than one CP route through Toronto... there isn't. I'm keeping the facts straight.
So it's okay for you to recommend curves narrower than the 116m standard but when I do it, it is suddenly a problem?It's not tighter than 116m. It's also not main-line track. Try reading the post you reply to, as you never seem to do so.



Those stations shouldn't exist, but not for the reasons you've stated.

I never gave any reasons that they should exist, only reasons that make them impossible to exist if anybody suggested it. :)

What you wrote implied there more than one CP route through Toronto... there isn't. I'm keeping the facts straight.

Then the more poignant question becomes, how can any GO Train line offer comparable level of service to a subway line when freight trains always take precedence over passenger rail. Every GO corridor is shared, friends. There's no getting over that without cost-prohibitive construction of new ROW.

So for Mississaugans whom lack a direct GO Train connection to their city centre/downtown core; we would be inferring to them that they are somehow second-class citizens in contrast to Vaughan and Richmond Hill residents, although they represent a larger population bloc and are a more transit-oriented city overall than the latter two I mention.

I never gave any reasons that they should exist, only reasons that make them impossible to exist if anybody suggested it. :)

KISS. We don't build them because they are simply not warranted. I'd trade a third of the minor stops you've prescribed for one centralized Sherway stop, and I think I'd have a majority referendum's support backing me on this. :)

Then the more poignant question becomes, how can any GO Train line offer comparable level of service to a subway line when freight trains always take precedence over passenger rail. Every GO corridor is shared, friends. There's no getting over that without cost-prohibitive construction of new ROW. There is getting over that without cost-prohibitive construction of a new ROW, and that is simply expanding the existing ROW. If that ROW can be made to hold 4 tracks, which in most parts is not hard (there's a small handful of tricky pockets), then subway-frequency GO service becomes possible, and for comparatively cheap.

Also, not every GO corridor is shared. GO owns the Barrie (Newmarket sub) and Stouffville (Uxbridge sub) lines. I've heard that the Province has bought the Weston sub from CN, too, so GO will own the Bramalea-Union part of the Georgetown corridor, too. That's becoming a significant chunk of the network owned by GO. If they buy the Belleville Don Branch from CP and connect it with the Bala sub for their Richmond Hill service, they'd own the Oriole-Union, and possibly Oriole-Thornlea portion (upto the York sub) of that line, too.

So for Mississaugans whom lack a direct GO Train connection to their city centre/downtown core; we would be inferring to them that they are somehow second-class citizens in contrast to Vaughan and Richmond Hill residents, although they represent a larger population bloc and are a more transit-oriented city overall than the latter two I mention. Two wrongs don't make a right.



KISS. We don't build them because they are simply not warranted. I'd trade a third of the minor stops you've prescribed for one centralized Sherway stop, and I think I'd have a majority referendum's support backing me on this. :)

Math is on my side.

I hope that I didn't cause a bit of an argument here! :)

GO is certainly laughable, and the low frequency (hourly) provided to the routes that do receive daytime services makes you think the others are never going to get anything good - if they do get a full time service, how high (or not) is the likelyhood that it would be at a non-hopeless frequency :ohno:

But of course the claim put out by at least one transport advocate here in Australia who idolises Toronto is that every subway terminus has buses every 5-10 minutes into the land where GO runs, and that the buses are the main people movers with GO being a supplementary service that benefits a few in peak.

Off-peak frequency would be around 15 minutes, give or take 5 depending on the line. Milton's the busiest after Lakeshore, so I'd expect 10 min. off-peak. Peak frequency can go as high as every 5 min.

So my mind has been running with the concept of a Kipling Yard and how it would work. I had already gotten a pretty good idea of how connecting to the yard would work, but hadn't really figured out the yard itself.

Here's one way a Kipling Yard might work. (http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w203/TrainX/KiplingYard.jpg)

Note that the southern most tip isn't shown, but you get the idea. The southern-most track is longer than the others due to an additional switch (it's visible, the southern-most single-crossover).

. . .



The one problem with your grand scheme is that there are already plans for the redevelopment (http://www.toronto.ca/wes/techservices/involved/transportation/six-points/) of the entire Six Points interchange and area. There was a news story today about a new courthouse going in where the old Westwood Theatre stood.

The one problem with your grand scheme is that there are already plans for the redevelopment (http://www.toronto.ca/wes/techservices/involved/transportation/six-points/) of the entire Six Points interchange and area. There was a news story today about a new courthouse going in where the old Westwood Theatre stood.

I was wondering if someone would bring that up. :)

It's not incompatible if the re-aligned Dundas does a semi-overpass (semi because the subway would be on the descent already, so slopes would be quite gentle). The key reason why it isn't incompatible is because most of the roads in the area I'm using are only potential local roads, not actual proposals/plans.

I did, however, forget about the southern-most road squiggling further south, so capacity of the yard should be reduced by 7 trains. I've modified it to hold 26 so that the new road can go through. (http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w203/TrainX/KiplingYard.jpg)

Construction for that redevelopment is still half-a-decade away. Valid point nonetheless.

The gridlock at Vaughan Jane & Hwy 7 is indeed unbearable but this is mainly due to trucks and non-downtown bound traffic. I would never wish travelling anywhere near here on anybody, not even to get to a subway station.

Better GO train service would serve these people much better.

I should also say that designing a subway to pull drivers into a parking lot and transfer is horrible planning. A good plan wouldn't involve driving or parking at all.

Actually it's not all trucks. A lot of it is due to traffic going to York University. My gf drives through this area every day to go to school, and during the strike it took her 20 mins less to get to York (her part wasn't on strike) and it immediately picked up again when the strike was over.

It's debatable whether all of these students and staff driving down that area would start using the subway to York once that's possible, but it becomes much more of a possibility. If you lived anywhere off Hwy 7, for a decent price you could commute to York pretty quickly using BRT Viva and subway compared to driving, and considering how expensive parking is at York and how far many of the lots are from the main campus, it's a good option.



As for this thread, I think it's one thing to propose going into Mississauga, but another to say this should happen instead of a YUS Thornhill extension. The length of track where this extension goes to virtually no man's land before reaching Square 1 is longer than the entire Steeles/Hwy 7 extension. Also keep in mind that new plans from Markham and Vaughan should place another 100,000 people in the Yonge corridor in the next 2 decades.

Actually it's not all trucks. A lot of it is due to traffic going to York University. My gf drives through this area every day to go to school, and during the strike it took her 20 mins less to get to York (her part wasn't on strike) and it immediately picked up again when the strike was over.

It's debatable whether all of these students and staff driving down that area would start using the subway to York once that's possible, but it becomes much more of a possibility. If you lived anywhere off Hwy 7, for a decent price you could commute to York pretty quickly using BRT Viva and subway compared to driving, and considering how expensive parking is at York and how far many of the lots are from the main campus, it's a good option.

I live right off of Hwy 7 (Queen Street) in Brampton but even with BRT implemented, I'm unsure whether travelling such a long commute eastwards to Vaughan Corporate Centre subway would be any more convenient than just riding local routes southeast into Toronto then TTCing it from there (especially after Finch West-Hwy 27 LRT's completed).

As for this thread, I think it's one thing to propose going into Mississauga, but another to say this should happen instead of a YUS Thornhill extension. The length of track where this extension goes to virtually no man's land before reaching Square 1 is longer than the entire Steeles/Hwy 7 extension. Also keep in mind that new plans from Markham and Vaughan should place another 100,000 people in the Yonge corridor in the next 2 decades.

There is no reason why all three subway extensions couldn't be built in the forseeable future (albeit with some amendments made to the York Region extensions). I'm in the firm belief that VCC is a terrible idea and that the extension should end at Steeles West. This is comparable to the absurd idea of a 2-stop extension to VP on the Sheppard Line. Areas with this little in the way of residential-commercial streetscape can be handled via buses (which if any of you regularly ride along VIVA Orange, know that this is a density dead-zone). Now that TYSSE is officially on the table, the need for the 407 Transitway stop is nullified and a Hilton Inn + IKEA store + AMC theatre Stn does not an urban centre make. :no:

As for RHC extension, I'd reduce the number of new stations to just three initially and have feeder routes mind the lower-density gaps.

As for RHC extension, I'd reduce the number of new stations to just three initially and have feeder routes mind the lower-density gaps.

Non-stop Steeles to RHC, eh? (it's called GO Train)

I live right off of Hwy 7 (Queen Street) in Brampton but even with BRT implemented, I'm unsure whether travelling such a long commute eastwards to Vaughan Corporate Centre subway would be any more convenient than just riding local routes southeast into Toronto then TTCing it from there (especially after Finch West-Hwy 27 LRT's completed).

Brampton is kind of far to be commuting to anywhere not in a car. I was talking about Vaughan and Markham residents who go to York University, of which there are a lot.

As for RHC extension, I'd reduce the number of new stations to just three initially and have feeder routes mind the lower-density gaps.

Well at least you finally see the stupidity of building a Centre Street station. But I don't see why Clark has to be taken out.

So my mind has been running with the concept of a Kipling Yard and how it would work. I had already gotten a pretty good idea of how connecting to the yard would work, but hadn't really figured out the yard itself.

Here's one way a Kipling Yard might work. (http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w203/TrainX/KiplingYard.jpg)

Note that the southern most tip isn't shown, but you get the idea. The southern-most track is longer than the others due to an additional switch (it's visible, the southern-most single-crossover).

The wye from Kipling Yard is quite sharp to enter the new Kipling Station. This is about equal to the infamous King curve. However, as it would only be used for Yard movements, and would see only around 50, maybe 80, vehicles a day, it should be OK. Most of that curve is underground to keep wheel squeal subdued for residents in the area, and no passengers would ever be carried along this trackage. Speed is a non-issue on this track, as yard movements are always slow.

Portals are indicated in white, and should serve to illustrate the vertical relationship between yard track and main-line service track (yard track goes under the main-line eastbound track).

The eastbound trackage between the eastern yard switch and Islington station's crossover is becomes capable of being bi-directional, but is generally only used at the end of the day (a number of trains would go out of service at Islington as service winds down for the night, but the final train at the end of the night would still continue to the end of the line, and be stored on the line at the terminus), or if a disabled train is waiting at Islington's triple-tracked area and needs to be taken off the line ASAP.

The western access to the yard is also bi-directional, but has no impact on the regular service trackage's direction of service.

Subway Cres. is modified along the part that abuts the tracks, and is narrower since most traffic along the street now disappears apart from those residing in the condominium across from the yard and TTC staff. The light blue area is space that would be used for TTC staff (that may include parking for staff), and the red area is land that could be sold for redevelopment. East (right) of that red redevelopable space is the hydro corridor, so not much that can be done with that. The transformer/substation (the double-circle structure) area has been preserved and will either remain in use or be replaced with another of approrpiate capacity. One of the design challenges ended up being the existing hydro supports on the north side of the existing tracks. Almost all of the existing track has been re-used in the design. Half the platform has also been preserved (only staff would be using it, so it can be quite narrow, even at half the size, it's still much wider than needed... those familiar with the Wilson Yard know what I mean... you can see it on a train to/from Downsview), but a clear majority of the station, except for the west underground entrance (which would be used by staff), is decommissioned.

Operators would still have the option of using an east-end exit.

I have not addressed the GO station issue as of yet.

The new yard is only for storing vehicles, it does not have a shop. It can, however, recieve new (or repaired) rolling stock from the CP Line. The capacity of the yard is a maximum of 33 6-car consists, a significant capacity that balances the needs of the line east and west of Bay St., and aids significantly in accomodating the fleet of the DRL at Greenwood as well as a Mississauga extension of the B-D line.

I've also modified the stations on the alignment I posted earlier (http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w203/TrainX/BloorMissis.jpg). Some have shifted slightly in location since a Feldgate station was added. I also added some track details; red = triple-track structure, light blue = double-crossover. The triple-track structure west of Square One isn't shown in full, but you get the idea. This illustrates a two-phase project, Etobicoke phase and Mississauga phase. It conforms to the standard of allowing turn-back points every 3km. I haven't included the yard access in this image, see the other link above for that. :)

For those that think there should be Central Parkway and Robert Speck stations, no can do, stations cannot be on curves.

As well-versed as you may be in matters of the train, respectfully, your alignment makes no sense. It doesn't follow the TTC's plan for going to Dixie/Dundas via Sherway. And it goes along Bloor Street! Bloor Street in Mississauga is not Bloor Street of Toronto. It has the same name, but Bloor Street's character changes at Six Points. Dundas is the logical street to follow from Kipling station. Dundas is the busiest east-west transit route in Mississauga. Bloor is busy, but it ends at Central Parkway (technically I guess it "became" Central Parkway).

By routing along Bloor, you're bringing it closer to the Mississauga Transitway, but that's really not why I'm against it. I just don't think Bloor makes any sense. I imagine your reasoning is that it's mid-way between Burnhamthorpe and Dundas, but seriously, Bloor isn't suited to HRT at all. Whereas Dundas already has the ridership, and it has tons of redevelopment potential.

As well-versed as you may be in matters of the train, respectfully, your alignment makes no sense. It doesn't follow the TTC's plan for going to Dixie/Dundas via Sherway. And it goes along Bloor Street! Bloor Street in Mississauga is not Bloor Street of Toronto. It has the same name, but Bloor Street's character changes at Six Points. Dundas is the logical street to follow from Kipling station. Dundas is the busiest east-west transit route in Mississauga. Bloor is busy, but it ends at Central Parkway (technically I guess it "became" Central Parkway).

By routing along Bloor, you're bringing it closer to the Mississauga Transitway, but that's really not why I'm against it. I just don't think Bloor makes any sense. I imagine your reasoning is that it's mid-way between Burnhamthorpe and Dundas, but seriously, Bloor isn't suited to HRT at all. Whereas Dundas already has the ridership, and it has tons of redevelopment potential.

Finally, someone else gets it. Let sanity prevail! :applause::bow:

The land use/form surrounding Bloor Street through western Etobicoke and Mississauga is in no way oriented for higher-order transit, unless TRZ is under the assumption that the swath of single-detached residential home properties flanking the street continuously from Kipling to Markland Wood and again through the Mississauga Valley area are magically going to be razed to make way for high-rise condo projects.

By neglecting the higher demand directly surrounding Dundas and/or Burnhamthrope via opting to utilize the lower-density corridor over a kilometre in-between these two points, benefits no one because you've just inhibited yet another transfer point obstacle for commuters to traverse. In stark contrast, the Milton Sub-Sherway alignment would result in more proximal station stop locations for commuters coming in from along all three throughfares: Burnhamthrope, Central Pkwy/Bloor and Dundas.

As well-versed as you may be in matters of the train, respectfully, your alignment makes no sense. It doesn't follow the TTC's plan for going to Dixie/Dundas via Sherway. And it goes along Bloor Street! Bloor Street in Mississauga is not Bloor Street of Toronto. It has the same name, but Bloor Street's character changes at Six Points. Dundas is the logical street to follow from Kipling station. Dundas is the busiest east-west transit route in Mississauga. Bloor is busy, but it ends at Central Parkway (technically I guess it "became" Central Parkway).

By routing along Bloor, you're bringing it closer to the Mississauga Transitway, but that's really not why I'm against it. I just don't think Bloor makes any sense. I imagine your reasoning is that it's mid-way between Burnhamthorpe and Dundas, but seriously, Bloor isn't suited to HRT at all. Whereas Dundas already has the ridership, and it has tons of redevelopment potential.

I disagree withthe redevelopment potential of Dundas as the south side is unlikely to deindustrialize east of roughly Cawthra. Mississauga Transitway serves a different travel pattern as it connects to the Eglinton LRT, and that's fine. Yes, being about mid-way between Burnhamthorpe and Dundas is a key factor, and it makes the ridership catchment area largest. It also has better feeder interception than Dundas.

I used to think Dundas was good, but one thing people aren't asking is where is the ridership on Dundas coming from? Unless there's a convincing answer to this to argue that the subway should continue along an industrial corridor, then I'm not convinced Dundas makes any sense.

As for TTC's plans for Sherway and Dundas, what many people don't know is that that plan had the same people that came up with the VCC subway prepare it. Sherway is what makes no sense, and I've gone over this several times in other threads. Following the Milton line is also of questionable value (especially going to Dixie GO, that's even more ridiculous than VCC).

You say that Bloor is different, it is, but different doesn't mean bad. I've already posted a large number of images that show a large amount of mid-rise and also some high-rise residential development, especially just beyond where Bloor Street ends in the Mississauga Valley area. Yes, Bloor/Cawthra and Bloor/Martin Grove are not very dense, I don't dispute that, but they'd still have feeder buses. Every station on the alignment would have at least one feeder (which you were correct to highlight the importance of in your other post). I think singling out two station areas as being too low density and therefore the alignment has a whole should be discounted is a stretch.

Bloor doesn't have the ridership of Burnhamthorpe or Dundas, but it has more density than Burnhamthorpe or Dundas, that is a fact, and it is close enough to be part of the same catchment area. The lower ridership of the Bloor bus, I'd argue, stems more from the short length of the route.

As for the charge that Bloor changes at Six Points, remember that Six Points is going to undergo a massive reconfiguration starting in about 5 years from now, and that will make Bloor an uninterupted through-artery, as it should be.

Although it isn't an argument in and of itself, it has logic that the BLOOR-Danforth line go to the end of BLOOR St.

Finally, someone else gets it. Let sanity prevail! :applause::bow:

The land use/form surrounding Bloor Street through western Etobicoke and Mississauga is in no way oriented for higher-order transit, unless TRZ is under the assumption that the swath of single-detached residential home properties flanking the street continuously from Kipling to Markland Wood and again through the Mississauga Valley area are magically going to be razed to make way for high-rise condo projects.
What?, like this?
http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w203/TrainX/BloorMissi/BloorBridgewood.jpg

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w203/TrainX/BloorMissi/BloorFeldgate.jpg

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w203/TrainX/BloorMissi/BloorHavenwood.jpg

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w203/TrainX/BloorMissi/BloorWilliamsport.jpg

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w203/TrainX/BloorMissi/BloorDixie.jpg

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w203/TrainX/BloorMissi/BloorGoldenOrchard.jpg

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w203/TrainX/BloorMissi/BloorRunningbrook.jpg

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w203/TrainX/BloorMissi/Renforth.jpg

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w203/TrainX/BloorMissi/EastMall.jpg

By neglecting the higher demand directly surrounding Dundas and/or Burnhamthrope via opting to utilize the lower-density corridor over a kilometre in-between these two points, benefits no one because you've just inhibited yet another transfer point obstacle for commuters to traverse.
Riiight, because the pictures above are lower density than this?
http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w203/TrainX/Dundas/DixieGO.jpg

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w203/TrainX/Dundas/Dixie.jpg

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w203/TrainX/Dundas/DunDix.jpg

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w203/TrainX/Dundas/Fredrica.jpg

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w203/TrainX/Dundas/Arena.jpg

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w203/TrainX/Dundas/Constitution.jpg

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w203/TrainX/Dundas/DunTomken.jpg

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w203/TrainX/Dundas/Haines.jpg

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w203/TrainX/Dundas/StJohns.jpg

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w203/TrainX/Dundas/DunCawthra.jpg

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w203/TrainX/Dundas/Cedarbrae.jpg

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w203/TrainX/Dundas/Hensall.jpg

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w203/TrainX/Dundas/Grenville.jpg

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w203/TrainX/Dundas/Given.jpg

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w203/TrainX/Dundas/Kirwin.jpg

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w203/TrainX/Dundas/Jaguar.jpg

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w203/TrainX/Dundas/Hurontario.jpg

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w203/TrainX/Dundas/Cook.jpg

Or this (Burnhamthorpe)?

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w203/TrainX/burnhamthorpe/Kipling.jpg

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w203/TrainX/burnhamthorpe/MartinGrove.jpg

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w203/TrainX/burnhamthorpe/EastmallNorth.jpg

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w203/TrainX/burnhamthorpe/EastmallSouth.jpg

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w203/TrainX/burnhamthorpe/westmallNorth.jpg

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w203/TrainX/burnhamthorpe/westmallSouth.jpg

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w203/TrainX/burnhamthorpe/Renforth.jpg

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w203/TrainX/burnhamthorpe/tribumham.jpg

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w203/TrainX/burnhamthorpe/MillNorth.jpg

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w203/TrainX/burnhamthorpe/MillSouth.jpg

Just because I know you love Mill Rd. Dent, that was for you. :)

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w203/TrainX/burnhamthorpe/Fieldgate.jpg

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w203/TrainX/burnhamthorpe/Dixie.jpg

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w203/TrainX/burnhamthorpe/SilverSpeakDixie.jpg

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w203/TrainX/burnhamthorpe/Tomken.jpg

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w203/TrainX/burnhamthorpe/BeechBorough.jpg

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w203/TrainX/burnhamthorpe/CawthraEast.jpg

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w203/TrainX/burnhamthorpe/CawthraWest.jpg

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w203/TrainX/burnhamthorpe/CentralPkwyEast.jpg

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w203/TrainX/burnhamthorpe/CentralPkwyWest.jpg

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w203/TrainX/burnhamthorpe/RobertSpeck.jpg

That last image by Robert Speck would actually be covered by a Bloor alignment.

So as you can see, as far as any kind of density is concerned, Bloor comes out on top. Burnhamthorpe comes in second. Dundas is LAST!

Also, Bloor is less than a kilometre from Burnhamthorpe in Mississauga, not over, and within Toronto, the same is true for Dundas. Get your facts straight.

In stark contrast, the Milton Sub-Sherway alignment would result in more proximal station stop locations for commuters coming in from along all three throughfares: Burnhamthrope, Central Pkwy/Bloor and Dundas.Hardly, the Sherway dip has nothing to do with any of those streets. Neither does Dixie GO for that matter. Furthermore, Bloor eliminates the Bloor bus service altogether, and serves the Burnhamthorpe connection equally well as your Confederation routing. I would point out though, that your alignment doesn't have any relationship with Bloor at all. You're going to make them go aaaaall the way out to Sherway, going way out of the way south before continuing east-north-east.

We talk about feeders a lot. Does anybody know why Dundas and Burnhamthorpe are popular routes for Mississauga? Because they are the only crosstown lines that connect to the subway. Bloor would be more popular if it wasn't a short route. There's Eglinton as well, but only with limited service routes. That's the destination along Dundas, along Burnhamthorpe (well, Burnhamthorpe obviously serves Sq1, too, but that's where a lot of its ridership transfers on from). Dundas and Burnhamthorpe are popular because of feeders themselves, it's like a feeder feeding another feeder. Extend the subway further into Mississauga and intercept the same feeders, ridership would plummet on both Dundas and Burnhamthorpe.

This is the big picture thinking you always miss. This is the research you never do.

What?, like this?
Riiight, because the pictures above are lower density than this?
http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w203/TrainX/Dundas/Fredrica.jpg
http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w203/TrainX/Dundas/Constitution.jpg
http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w203/TrainX/Dundas/Haines.jpg
http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w203/TrainX/Dundas/Cedarbrae.jpg
http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w203/TrainX/Dundas/Jaguar.jpg
http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w203/TrainX/Dundas/Hurontario.jpg
http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w203/TrainX/Dundas/Cook.jpg
So as you can see, as far as any kind of density is concerned, Bloor comes out on top. Burnhamthorpe comes in second. Dundas is LAST!

Spamming the thread with countless satelite photos which makes the page difficult to load, won't make your convictions any more logically sound. In fact those photos that I've chosen to leave in this reply just go to show just how much residential density actually is proximal to the Dundas Street corridor already, meaning all these customers would be inconvenienced by your north--east-south alignment.

Also, Bloor is less than a kilometre from Burnhamthorpe in Mississauga, not over, and within Toronto, the same is true for Dundas. Get your facts straight.

It's not walking distance for pedestrians living along those corridors desiring your Bloor subway. Get your facts straight.

Hardly, the Sherway dip has nothing to do with any of those streets. Neither does Dixie GO for that matter. Furthermore, Bloor eliminates the Bloor bus service altogether, and serves the Burnhamthorpe connection equally well as your Confederation routing. I would point out though, that your alignment doesn't have any relationship with Bloor at all. You're going to make them go aaaaall the way out to Sherway, going way out of the way south before continuing east-north-east.

3200 total customers per weekday or a mere 71.1 pphpd for the 49 bus is the type of route usage deserving of being replaced with a subway line? :ohno:

I believe the expectation of allowing Bloor customers to feed directly into a Central Parkway Stn (be it at Hurontario or Confederation) or otherwise having them use routes MT 8, 51, 5 and TTC 112, 11 and 46 to traverse the short distance south to Dundas; is a reasonable request.

Dundas and Burnhamthorpe are popular because of feeders themselves, it's like a feeder feeding another feeder. Extend the subway further into Mississauga and intercept the same feeders, ridership would plummet on both Dundas and Burnhamthorpe.

Duh.

This is the big picture thinking you always miss. This is the research you never do.

Too bad with all the big picture thinking and research that you've supposedly done, you still came up with a proposal that includes several minor miscellaneous (i.e. expendible) station stop locations which would involve shutting down an existing fully-functional transit hub. And yet still you've overlooked targeting key semi-nodal areas such as Sherway Gdns-Alderwood, Dixie/Dundas and Cooksville en route, by doing so losing out on whatever potential riders B-D could've stolen from the 1/1C/201 and all southern 'Sauga routes which feed into them. :ohno:

Spamming the thread with countless satelite photos which makes the page difficult to load, won't make your convictions any more logically sound. In fact those photos that I've chosen to leave in this reply just go to show just how much residential density actually is proximal to the Dundas Street corridor already, meaning all these customers would be inconvenienced by your north--east-south alignment.You're obviously not very observant. First off, half of those shots are in the area of the Cooksville GO Station. That, combined with the popular Hurontario corridor, is why they're there. Second, the other shots you posted are very slim pickings, if even. You're not stopping at the Queen Frederica area, and the shot you show at Constitution doesn't have anything to brag about. Some of the shots on Dundas are beyond car-dominated, and you simply don't find that kind of crap along Bloor, which makes it far more conductive to transit ridership.



It's not walking distance for pedestrians living along those corridors desiring your Bloor subway. Get your facts straight.My facts are straight since I a)don't falsify distances, and b)have actually walked it myself, so I'd know, because c)for subways, the walking distance is said to be as high as 800m, while other transit, like bus, the reasonable walking distance is 400m. These are the facts.

3200 total customers per weekday or a mere 71.1 pphpd for the 49 bus is the type of route usage deserving of being replaced with a subway line? :ohno: Notice how short the route is? Notice the only routes it intersects with are 111 and 112, for which there isn't any incentive to transfer? I tell you to think big picture, and you still make the same mistakes all over again immediately after! :applause:

I believe the expectation of allowing Bloor customers to feed directly into a Central Parkway Stn (be it at Hurontario or Confederation) or otherwise having them use routes MT 8, 51, 5 and TTC 112, 11 and 46 to traverse the short distance south to Dundas; is a reasonable request.Why are you making them use other routes when it is unnecessary? You still fail to realize that you're hurting the walk-in ridership base for the sake of going through industrial lands and duplicating existing rail service.



Duh. Yet it never occurred to you, otherwise you'd see that there isn't that much ridership on Dundas itself, but from the connecting routes using it to reach the subway. But nope, that goes right over your head.



Too bad with all the big picture thinking and research that you've supposedly done, you still came up with a proposal that includes several minor miscellaneous (i.e. expendible) station stop locations which would involve shutting down an existing fully-functional transit hub. And yet still you've overlooked targeting key semi-nodal areas such as Sherway Gdns-Alderwood, Dixie/Dundas and Cooksville en route, by doing so losing out on whatever potential riders B-D could've stolen from the 1/1C/201 and all southern 'Sauga routes which feed into them. :ohno:
I've already told you that Dixie/Dundas is a)pretty sad, as per satelite image, and b)is already serviced by GO Train. Cooksville is also served by GO Train. It doesn't need subway service because it already has GO rail service. I told you already, there's little value in duplicating service. However, you're incapable of seeing GO Transit as a useful/valuable service, so you make ridiculous arguments instead.

For the 1000th time, there's nothing key about Sherway/Alderwood, it's not a hub, it's a car-lover's paradise, it's not conductive to transit, and any subway there would be a complete failure. It creates an indirect routing, runs through industrial lands, and doesn't serve any useful purpose because this area is awful for walking and the feeder connections are terrible as they're too far out of the way. Malls do not successful transit hubs make.

I have to admit, TRZ, you've almost convinced me of a Bloor alignment. The satellite pictures are a good argument. Keeping the Bloor subway on Bloor is also an argument that pleases my soul.

I disagree that Dundas can't be redeveloped. The potential is there, but it will probably take a long time.Taking the subway to where people actually live also has its appeal. I've taken the Bloor bus before, and the reason I don't take it is because it stops way too much compared with Dundas or Burnhamthorpe. Reason for that probably is all the high-density housing along Bloor. And if we build the subway along Bloor, we could still have our Dundas LRT.

I believe Dundas can make a good LRT corridor. History has proven LRT and industrial areas can work together. As I've said previously, it's the south side of Dundas that I don't have much faith in redevelopment taking hold in, particularly east of Cawthra. North side, things can happen, and have been happening in some parts. West of Cawthra, different ballgame, and the prospects become stronger.

LRT on Dundas can also connect with the future TTC network, fare integration permitting, if the TTC's own network extends along Dundas (such as the previous murmurs of a 512 extension along Dundas from Scarlett, for which the rail underpass renovation and intersection immediately south, a project that was approved recently IIRC, is making the provision for LRT there).

An LRT could later act as an effective crosstown artery through Mississauga in its own right. I don't think any of us expect the subway to go much west of Hurontario (I believe we see MCC as the final terminus, yes?), so we're not considering a subway for a crosstown purpose anyway, whereas the LRT, in the future (not the first phase), could do that. :)

So in effect, we avoid disjointing the network by not using Dundas for a Square One subway (unless we're going to duplicate services).

I have to admit, TRZ, you've almost convinced me of a Bloor alignment. The satellite pictures are a good argument. Keeping the Bloor subway on Bloor is also an argument that pleases my soul.

I disagree that Dundas can't be redeveloped. The potential is there, but it will probably take a long time.Taking the subway to where people actually live also has its appeal. I've taken the Bloor bus before, and the reason I don't take it is because it stops way too much compared with Dundas or Burnhamthorpe. Reason for that probably is all the high-density housing along Bloor. And if we build the subway along Bloor, we could still have our Dundas LRT.

:nono: If you believe in this, then the terrorists have won.

:jk:

If the Bloor route has more local stops, that should tell you just how many more people we'd be inconveniencing by forcing them all to now to walk in-between the widely gapped station stops (per TRZ's proposal that would mean gaps exceeding one kilometre). There is nothing stopping us from having a Dundas LRT line either. For the sake of throughness it could run from Shorncliffe Stn to the Oakville border, but that's a redundant and timely overlap when B-D functionally does the same job east of Cooksville. LRT or BRT west of Cawthra's fine by me though. :yes:

I am definitely in favour of more LRT/BRT for Mississauga, even including some cross-border lines into Brampton (Hurontario of course, but also along Dixie linking up Bramalea GO, Bramalea City Centre and Trinity Commons Mall to the B-D line sparing customers from a melee of transfer points).

I believe Dundas can make a good LRT corridor. History has proven LRT and industrial areas can work together. As I've said previously, it's the south side of Dundas that I don't have much faith in redevelopment taking hold in, particularly east of Cawthra. North side, things can happen, and have been happening in some parts. West of Cawthra, different ballgame, and the prospects become stronger.

LRT on Dundas can also connect with the future TTC network, fare integration permitting, if the TTC's own network extends along Dundas (such as the previous murmurs of a 512 extension along Dundas from Scarlett, for which the rail underpass renovation and intersection immediately south, a project that was approved recently IIRC, is making the provision for LRT there).

An LRT could later act as an effective crosstown artery through Mississauga in its own right. I don't think any of us expect the subway to go much west of Hurontario (I believe we see MCC as the final terminus, yes?), so we're not considering a subway for a crosstown purpose anyway, whereas the LRT, in the future (not the first phase), could do that. :)

So in effect, we avoid disjointing the network by not using Dundas for a Square One subway (unless we're going to duplicate services).

Yes MCC would be the final terminus. Western Mississauga is waaaay too low density to support subway.

So a Dundas Crosstown LRT would be a good counterpoint to the Bloor line going to MCC.

Network! :)

Any new subway brings with it reconfigurations in the bus network. I've taken a closer look at that and while this is just a loose concept, here's what I think might work:

Implications of MT Bus Routes from a Bloor Subway Extension along Bloor St. to Square One, via Mississauga Valley

MODIFIED EXISTING MT ROUTES
1: Re-routed up West Mall to Renforth Station
1B: New, from new Kipling Station along Dundas to Hurontario, up Hurontario to Square One
1C: Re-routed up Cawthra to Cawthra Station
3: Discontinued
9: Re-routed down Erindale Station Rd, Wolfedale, Paisley, to Trillium Health Centre
8: Re-routed up Cawthra to 403, across to Square One, via Cawthra Station
10: Re-routed across Bristol Rd E, down Kennedy/Central Parkway East, to Mississauga Valley Station
18: Re-routed down Cawthra to Cawthra Station
11: Re-routed to Renforth Station - (exit 427 @ Eva, enter 427 @ Gibbs) - all branches
17: Re-routed to become Fieldgate route to Fieldgate Station, all-day service up to Tahoe
20: Re-routed down Ponytail to Fieldgate Station, extend west to Erindale GO
26: See branches for replacement service
26A: New, from Square One, down Duke of York, across on Burnhamthorpe, down Mill to Markland Wood Station
26B: New, from South Common Centre, across on Burnhamthorpe, one-way loop from Duke of York across on Burnhamthorpe to Robert Speck, to Square One, to Duke of York to Burnhamthorpe
27: Re-routed to operate out of Square one, across City View to Mavis, up to White Clover way, across to and up Wainscot/Terry Fox Way to Matheson, terminate Renforth/Eglinton, bi-directional peak service
35: Re-routed to Renforth Station - (exit 427 @ Eva, enter 427 @ Gibbs) - all branches
38: Re-routed across Central Parkway West to Mississauga Valley Station
50: Re-routed down Elmcrest/Centennial Park/Mill to Markland Wood Station
53: Re-routed down Central Parkway East to Mississauga Valley Station
65: Re-routed down Central Parkway East to Mississauga Valley Station
70: Re-routed to operate out of Square One up Hurontario, with minor modification to loop routing relating to Britannia and Milverton, bi-directional peak service
76: Discontinued
82: Re-routed down 403 and Cawthra to Cawthra Station - all branches
89: Re-routed down Elmcrest/Centennial Park/Mill to Markland Wood Station
109: Re-routed down Cawthra at Eastgate Parkway to Cawthra Station
201: Re-routed up West Mall to Renforth Station
230: Re-routed up 427 to Renforth Station (exit 427 @ East Mall by Gordon Park, enter 427 @ Eva)

NEW MT ROUTES
2 Fairview: From Mississauga Valley Station, across Fairview, up Redmond, across Webb, up Duke of York to Square One
3 Mississauga Valley: From Mississauga Valley Station around Mississauga Valley, across Molly, across Meadows, across Robert Speck, to Square One
21 Golden Orchard: From Dixie Station up Golder Orchard, across Willowbank Trail, loop via Westminster
24 Bough Beeches: From Dixie Station up Havenwood/Bough Beeches, to Rathburn (loop Garnetwood Chase)

MT ROUTES BY STATION
Kipling: 1B (Dundas LRT phase 1?)
Renforth: 1, 11, 35, 201
Markland Wood: 26A, 50, 89
Fieldgate: 17, 20
Dixie: 5, 21, 24
Tomken: 51 (no bus terminal at this station)
Cawthra: 1C, 8, 18, 82, 109, 230
Mississauga Valley: 2, 3, 10, (26A/B, but not in bus terminal), 38, 53, 65
Square One: 1B, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 19, 20, 26A/B, 27, 28, 34, 61, 66, 67, 68, 70, 110

TTC ROUTES BY STATION
Kipling: (30, but not in bus terminal), 44, 45 (all branches)
Martin Grove: 46, 123(A,C) - 123B discontinued
East Mall: 111, 191, 192, New 49 Judson to Mimico (both Ave. and GO) via East Mall and Delta St.
Renforth: 15, 112, 30
Markland Wood: 48, 50

BUS TERMINAL SIZES
Kipling: Small-medium
Martin Grove: Small
East Mall: Medium
Renforth: Large
Markland Wood: Medium-large
Fieldgate: Small
Dixie: Small-medium
Tomken: None
Cawthra: Large
Mississauga Valley: Large
Square One: Existing Hub

TRZ, you've done a lot of thinking about a subway extension you don't even support!

^^Talk about a paradox, eh? :lol:

It's weird, my mind just ran away with it and now, well, it's been posted. :)

Now tell us what your predicted ridership for each of the stations you proposed will be. Followed by how much east station would cost. :P

Then I'll forward it to our mayor-in-waiting, Carolyn Parrish!

Then I'll forward it to our mayor-in-waiting, Carolyn Parrish!

:hilarious
I needed that. :)
I'd support that woman for PM, too. :D

Note on station spacing: Average is ~750m on Bloor St. Through the Mississauga Valley (Cawthra-Sq1), it becomes 1.5km spacing.

^^ So the average spacing when factoring in the sum of both segments is still roughly around every 1000 metres then, right?

Now tell us what your predicted ridership for each of the stations you proposed will be. Followed by how much east station would cost. :P

Then I'll forward it to our mayor-in-waiting, Carolyn Parrish!

Now this I've got to see!

Btw, I really don't mind your flip-flop of support, as sycophancy is something I regularly frown upon anyways. :cheers:

^^ So the average spacing when factoring in the sum of both segments is still roughly around every 1000 metres then, right?

Technically, but there's a clear difference on either side of Cawthra, because of the layout of both natural features and the built form (...and alignment curvature). Even as an overall average though, it still confirms that you once again didn't get your facts straight:

widely gapped station stops (per TRZ's proposal that would mean gaps exceeding one kilometre).

Followed by how much east station would cost.

I can tell you which stations would be cheapest:
Tomken (probably ~$70m)
Square One (probably ~$80m)

These stations are cheap because either there is no bus terminal, or the bus terminal is existing.

Most expensive station? Hmmm, that's gonna be a toss up between Cawthra and Renforth. Mississauga Valley's a big station, but shouldn't require much excavation since it's not underground, so it's cheaper.

I can tell you which stations would be cheapest:
Tomken (probably ~$70m)
Square One (probably ~$80m)

These stations are cheap because either there is no bus terminal, or the bus terminal is existing.

Most expensive station? Hmmm, that's gonna be a toss up between Cawthra and Renforth. Mississauga Valley's a big station, but shouldn't require much excavation since it's not underground, so it's cheaper.

Better start saving my pennies.

EDIT:

When I looked at a Bloor alignment, I got 12 stops: Kipling (relocated), Martin Grove, East Mall, Renforth, Mill, Fieldgate, Dixie, Tomken, Cawthra, Kennedy (aka Central Parkway), Hurontario (@ Burnhamthorpe) and Mississauga Centre (Square One).

Live Maps tells me the extension is approximately 11 km. That averages 1 km/stop as you guys pointed out. Regarding naming stations: since it's an East-West line, I just used the north-south streets. Kennedy is Central Parkway renamed to match the street north of Eglinton. Hurontario is a station I would place at the southeast corner of Hurontario & Burnhamthorpe: there's lots of space there and it's near the Kaneff building. Mississauga Centre would be near the bus terminal. It would have "Square One" written below in small writing like "Dundas" at St. Patrick, "King" at St. Andrew, "Queen" at Osgoode, or "Yorkville" at Bay.

If an actual line were built into Mississauga, would the extra ridership overburden the existing B-D line? More reason to build the DRL perhaps?

I haven't included a Hurontario or Central Pkwy/Kennedy stop but instead put a Mississauga Valley stop between the two, which is quite close to the southeast corner of Hurontario/Burnhamthorpe, but closest to Burnhamthorpe/Robert Speck. The alignment curvature makes a Central Pkwy/Kennedy station difficult and the density is extremely low at Bloor/Central anyway. So I have 11 stops instead of 12.

If an actual line were built into Mississauga, would the extra ridership overburden the existing B-D line? More reason to build the DRL perhaps?

Depends how many new riders are generated and how many use the Milton Line from Islington [Kipling] or Cooksville. If the Mississauga load transfers to GO in Etobicoke, then GO is acting as the relief line. Likewise, the same thing could happen at Dundas West. This is what makes the eastern leg of the DRL so much more important than the west. What the west needs more than anything is fare integration and beefed up regional rail service. :)

Depends how many new riders are generated and how many use the Milton Line from Islington [Kipling] or Cooksville. If the Mississauga load transfers to GO in Etobicoke, then GO is acting as the relief line. Likewise, the same thing could happen at Dundas West. This is what makes the eastern leg of the DRL so much more important than the west. What the west needs more than anything is fare integration and beefed up regional rail service. :)

I'm all for beefed up regional service. I don't even take the subway anymore. I drive and/or take GO.

A very interesting and detailed and technical discussion. TRZ proved the merits of a rapid-transit corridor on Bloor St. Dentrobates and the others provided interesting counterpoints.

My view would be pretty simple - now that we have the corridors identified, we use the money for the proposed subway extension to build 4* east-west LRT lines:

>Eglinton - extension of Cross-town LRT
>Bloor - extension of BD subway
>Dundas - extension of BD subway
>Lakeshore - extension of WWLRT

plus 1 north-south LRT (Hurontario)

*You may note that I left out B'thorpe because the density is quite low in comparison to the other corridors - Density around the Sq. 1 area is focused on Square 1.

I believe that Sherway would never be more than an LRT interchange - the east-west Queensway LRT and a north-south Highway 27/Kipling/Brown's Line LRT.

Anyways, going back to those 4 residential LRT corridors ......

Wait 5 years and watch & see which one attracts the most redevelopment and infil and displays the most potential and then convert that one into a subway while the other 4 east-west lines remain as LRT lines connected to Toronto's Subway / LRT system.

Who wants to bet it would be Bloor that ends up converted to a subway corridor? It is more direct, it has lots of infil potential, and residential areas on both sides.

Dundas is your likely #2 but it is non-residential until you get west of Dixie - and then mostly on the north side. The only area with serious residential development on both sides of the street is west of the CP to just west of Confederation Parkway.

Between the Toronto Border and Tomken and from Glen Erin to the 403 you would be better off referring to Dundas St. as "Furniture Store Road"

Cheers, m

*You may note that I left out B'thorpe because the density is quite low in comparison to the other corridors - Density around the Sq. 1 area is focused on Square 1.True, but I am not so sure I would count it out because of its crosstown quality. Eglinton west of the Humber is in a similar light, arguably worse depending on how you look at it. The cross-town factor, I would argue, is signficant.

I believe that Sherway would never be more than an LRT interchange - the east-west Queensway LRT and a north-south Highway 27/Kipling/Brown's Line LRT.I'm not sure it would necessarily be Kipling if the subway is extended to meet a route more in-line with 27/Brown's. West Mall-Renforth routing maybe (although that would take it to the airport)?

With the Queensway LRT, would that be Toronto only, or would that extend to Mississauga as well? Personally, I see no merit to extending a Queensway LRT into Mississauga, too close to Dundas, and flanked by barriers on both sides, one side by railway (CP Galt) and the other by highway (QEW) very nearby.

Wait 5 years and watch & see which one attracts the most redevelopment and infil and displays the most potential and then convert that one into a subway while the other 4 east-west lines remain as LRT lines connected to Toronto's Subway / LRT system.

Who wants to bet it would be Bloor that ends up converted to a subway corridor? It is more direct, it has lots of infil potential, and residential areas on both sides.I am not sure the build it and wait 5 years idea would play in Bloor's favour.
If the Hurontario and Dundas LRTs interline, the argument starts to fade for a Bloor LRT, since it has limited appeal as a non-integrated service requiring a transfer in Etobicoke. To me, that would suggest that the Dundas and Hurontario LRTs should be built first, and optionally the Lakeshore extension to Port Credit, although that would be a different corridor relatively unrelated to the subway. If Dundas east of Cawthra starts to see significant levels of ridership, plow the subway through to Square One along Bloor so that there are no disruptions to service on Dundas while the subway is under construction. Prior to putting the subway through the Bloor corridor, the Burnhamthorpe LRT could be constructed as an effort to alleviate Dundas and a small piece of Hurontario (Burnhamthorpe-Dundas portion only). This allows the cross-town LRTs to max out and thereby maximize developments and demand on both sides of Bloor St. thereby creating the largest possible catchbasin of ridership through the Bloor corridor before the subway is put in, and maintain that ridership through construction.

True, but I am not so sure I would count it out because of its crosstown quality. Eglinton west of the Humber is in a similar light, arguably worse depending on how you look at it. The cross-town factor, I would argue, is signficant..The challenge in Mississauga is that the cross-town factor is quite diluted. Dundas only has residential pockets and mostly single family homes. B'thorpe has some higher density residential but it is mostly towards the south side. Eglinton has the most cross-town potential in the city and the widest ROW for LRT but it isnt developed - and then throw in the Transitway and things get even more messed up.

For cross-town Mississauga Id lead towards Eglinton not Dundas or B'thorpe

I'm not sure it would necessarily be Kipling if the subway is extended to meet a route more in-line with 27/Brown's. West Mall-Renforth routing maybe (although that would take it to the airport)? .it would depend on where the subway ends up. If the extension to west mall goes forth then it makes sense to move the line west as there are the East Mall and West Mall and Martin Grove that are more dense than Kipling.

With the Queensway LRT, would that be Toronto only, or would that extend to Mississauga as well? Personally, I see no merit to extending a Queensway LRT into Mississauga, too close to Dundas, and flanked by barriers on both sides, one side by railway (CP Galt) and the other by highway (QEW) very nearby..Queensway would be Toronto only since there is no serious residential development along the Queensway until you get to Hurontario.

I am not sure the build it and wait 5 years idea would play in Bloor's favour.
If the Hurontario and Dundas LRTs interline, the argument starts to fade for a Bloor LRT, since it has limited appeal as a non-integrated service requiring a transfer in Etobicoke. To me, that would suggest that the Dundas and Hurontario LRTs should be built first, and optionally the Lakeshore extension to Port Credit, although that would be a different corridor relatively unrelated to the subway. If Dundas east of Cawthra starts to see significant levels of ridership, plow the subway through to Square One along Bloor so that there are no disruptions to service on Dundas while the subway is under construction. Prior to putting the subway through the Bloor corridor, the Burnhamthorpe LRT could be constructed as an effort to alleviate Dundas and a small piece of Hurontario (Burnhamthorpe-Dundas portion only). This allows the cross-town LRTs to max out and thereby maximize developments and demand on both sides of Bloor St. thereby creating the largest possible catchbasin of ridership through the Bloor corridor before the subway is put in, and maintain that ridership through construction.It depends on the value of the arguments in favour of a Dundas LRT versus the other good east-west option, which would be Eglinton. It also depends on whether the LRT is for local service or connecting service.

Hurontario absolutely needs the LRT as a local service plus a connector. On the other hand, an LRT along Dundas east of Hurontario it would be built for the purpose of connecting to Hurontario LRT to the subway - hence the interlining - but not as a local service.

This is fine from a transit user perspective but you would have to make a very strong case that the Dundas line needs to be changed to LRT since the density and residential areas do not really exist east of Tomken Rd - and because the Dundas buses are carrying a great number of people succesfully.

The Hurontario Factor

In the past few years MT has made multiple changes along Hurontario - eliminating the 19B, adding the express service, bringing back the 19B (as the 19A) - this is all just to keep up with demand. Dundas has lost the 1B branch but the 1 and 1C and the express bus are still the same - so methinks Dundas is working for the time being and there are no huge changes needed.

There is another factor - when Hurontario is built it may be from Port Credit all the way to Main Street in Brampton, possibly even further north.

That is why I think that the 1st connection of the Hurontario LRT to the TTC / Transit City system will be at Eglinton, not at Dundas.

Connecting at Eglinton

There are a few factors behind this connection - the collective presence of the Eglinton Cross-Town LRT, the transitway, land availability, ROW size, the airport connection and the existing debate over where the subway should go - will all have an effect.

Right now the subway extension is being debated - there is a powerful push to have it go to Sherway. There is also a (more) powerful push to have it go west along Dundas to serve the Cloverdale area and hopefully bring redevelopment along the way. Cloverdale has the advantage (redevelopment + Mississauga + Hwy 427 corridor) but Sherway will not go down without a fight.

While that is all happening, the Eglinton Cross-Town LRT will be finishing and once it gets to Renforth there will be a push to drive it further west. TTC buses are already reaching to Fieldgate in Mississauga, and there is a lot of density along Eglinton west of Dixie and the 403 connection, plus the various office parks east of Dixie have lots of employees and they are busy throughout the day and night.

There is also the presence of the Mississauga Transitway. Once people see what it really is (a separate roadway for the 403 GO buses) there will be a push for LRT to come to Mississauga

I believe this will increase the calls for the Eglinton Cross-Town to be extended further west to Fieldgate, Dixie, and Hurontario.

If we consider land availability - it is likely that Mississauga's LRT yard would be located in one of the office parks along Hurontario (maybe around Courtney Park road or Derry Rd.)

Also, since GO Trains + Dundas buses already carry large numbers of people successfully through Mississauga I think there would be a push for a centrally located line - Eglinton.

There is also another factor - greater density in the south of Mississauga especially around Dundas will encourage the construction of the LRT at Eglinton where there is more space - because this is Mississauga and construction cannot disrupt existing roads that much :nuts:

What about South/Central?

Once the Eglinton LRT starts to happen the push for an LRT in the south/central Mississauga will start to become strident ... so there will be a quick promise to build a Dundas LRT to satisfy people in south / central Mississauga.

People will argue, why not extend the subway instead - at this point, that earlier Sherway/Cloverdale debate is already over (Cloverdale wins) ...but now you have a new debate - Dundas, Bloor or B'thorpe alignment for the subway extension?

The answer will be to compromise - build LRT / BRT and see which one is most succesful - because by this time Transit City (Finch + Sheppard East) will have been operating for a while and the prevailing mood will be in favour of LRT first then see what happens.

Bloor Alignment

The advantages of the Bloor alignment will stand out. Because the Bloor line would pass through a low-density residential area, because the alignment is relatively straight, and because the terminus is the Mississauga City Centre, the push will be to build the subway along Bloor.

At the same time, residents will be against subway construction and prefer an LRT or nothing if given the choice.

But at the same time, the value of a faster connection to Western Toronto will have to be considered. Eglinton and Dundas LRT will slowly be turning into local services and a fast alternate connection will be needed. The Milton GO line will be frequent commuter rail, not subway - good for fast trips to Kipling, Bloor-Dundas and Union - but the subway connection will still be needed.

Conversion of the Bloor LRT to subway will not cause significant disruption as compared to Dundas or Eglinton - and as I said before, minimizing disruptions would be very important in Mississauga.

Summary

To sum up, I think we will probably see an Eglinton / Crosstown / Mississauga LRT and a Hurontario LRT before Dundas happens. Once Eglinton happens, then Dundas LRT will happen.

The success of Transit City will increase the value of the "LRT first" argument which will influence proposals to extend the Bloor-Danforth subway westwards.

At the same time, Eglinton and Dundas will start to become local services - so the need for a faster connection will settle on Bloor.

That's how I see it - might be a few holes in there but it follows trends I see happening in Toronto and Mississauga now and in the near future.

Cheers, m

With 18,000 average weekday boardings, Dundas is the third busiest transit corridor in the 905 suburbs, and yet you guys think that it is not good enough for subway or LRT???

In comparison, Yonge in York Region has around 20,000 average weekday boardings. Number one is Hurontario with 25,000.

I've identified a long list of reasons to not go down Dundas, and at the same time I supported LRT for Dundas - I think all of us support LRT for Dundas. Worth noting though is that 18K isn't much. Both B-D and Yonge carry more than that in just an hour in one direction.

With 18,000 average weekday boardings, Dundas is the third busiest transit corridor in the 905 suburbs, and yet you guys think that it is not good enough for subway or LRT???

In comparison, Yonge in York Region has around 20,000 average weekday boardings. Number one is Hurontario with 25,000.like I said, Dundas has room to expand the bus services to meet the current needs.

Mississauga should do what it can to direct traffic off of Dundas st between Dixie and Hurontario, and onto other streets like Queensway and B'thorpe.

If Mississauga let the buses take over Dundas and expand the 3 routes to full artic service and even introduce bus lanes or a central ROW, the needs of Dundas will be fully taken care of.

However, Mississauga wont do that because of the "road space" issue - which is why they will build BRT on B'thorpe (or LRT on Eglinton) before they build LRT on Dundas.

Cheers, m

like I said, Dundas has room to expand the bus services to meet the current needs.

Mississauga should do what it can to direct traffic off of Dundas st between Dixie and Hurontario, and onto other streets like Queensway and B'thorpe.

If Mississauga let the buses take over Dundas and expand the 3 routes to full artic service and even introduce bus lanes or a central ROW, the needs of Dundas will be fully taken care of.

However, Mississauga wont do that because of the "road space" issue - which is why they will build BRT on B'thorpe (or LRT on Eglinton) before they build LRT on Dundas.

Cheers, m

Burnhamthorpe is limited in the number of buses it can have by the TTC/City of Toronto and Etobicoke residents living on Burnhamthorpe who complain about the loud MT buses (as opposed to the quiet TTC ones).

Queensway will never see a very busy route due to the very low density of that street. It's mostly single-family detached homes around the Queensway (especially west of Hurontario--though to be fair, Queensway currently ends not far west of Hurontario; the other pieces of Queensway in Western Mississauga were renamed after the City decided not to attach them--I think this was a mistake and eventually Queensway should be made a proper east-west corridor as it was originally intended to be; and Britannia should eventually be rejoined as well--too many of our East-West streets are messed up around here).

Burnhamthrope doesn't need a BRT. Burnhamthorpe needs that extra-wide row to urbanize the street (e.g. townhouses that face the street).

Eglinton is too low-density in Mississauga at present to support an LRT. The bus service isn't even that widely used. If Eglinton buses connected to an Eglinton West subway line maybe people would take an Eglinton bus to the westernmost station. I don't know if people will do that for the proposed Eglinton LRT. Maybe they will? Who knows? If it's as FAST as a subway, then people will. If the perception is that it's slower than B-D, then some people will. If people perceive it to be a glorified streetcar, then very few people will switch.

I think Dundas will be fine with LRT, same with Hurontario for now. I still believe the subway should expand west along Bloor, even if its just a few stops for now.

Burnhamthorpe is limited in the number of buses it can have by the TTC/City of Toronto and Etobicoke residents living on Burnhamthorpe who complain about the loud MT buses (as opposed to the quiet TTC ones).

Queensway will never see a very busy route due to the very low density of that street. It's mostly single-family detached homes around the Queensway (especially west of Hurontario--though to be fair, Queensway currently ends not far west of Hurontario; the other pieces of Queensway in Western Mississauga were renamed after the City decided not to attach them--I think this was a mistake and eventually Queensway should be made a proper east-west corridor as it was originally intended to be; and Britannia should eventually be rejoined as well--too many of our East-West streets are messed up around here)..As far as I know, the complaint about buses on B'thorpe is not just about the noise --- TTC uses Orion VII and D40LF and they are quite noise.

MT buses have high frequency and TTC passengers cannot use them - methinks that is part of the issue there as well.

Queensway is not intended to be a public transport corridor - it is a road with very few stoplights and single family homes all around it. I did say divert traffic off Dundas but I didnt mean public transport.

Burnhamthrope doesn't need a BRT. Burnhamthorpe needs that extra-wide row to urbanize the street (e.g. townhouses that face the street).

Eglinton is too low-density in Mississauga at present to support an LRT. The bus service isn't even that widely used. If Eglinton buses connected to an Eglinton West subway line maybe people would take an Eglinton bus to the westernmost station. I don't know if people will do that for the proposed Eglinton LRT. Maybe they will? Who knows? If it's as FAST as a subway, then people will. If the perception is that it's slower than B-D, then some people will. If people perceive it to be a glorified streetcar, then very few people will switch.That would be a nice idea but like I said, the city wants to use B'thorpe and Queensway as transport corridors for the longer distances, Dundas is more of a local corridor even though it is highway 5. Urbanizing B'thorpe road is a nice idea too.

As for Eglinton, it is low density factory land in most cases but there are areas that are becoming higher in density - watch the city change rapidly as the Hurontario LRT arrives - suddenly density will start to spread from the "traditional" areas (the City Centre, Dixie-Bloor, Malton) into non-traditional ones and the lower density roads like Eglinton will redevelop fast.

And say what you want about perceptions - but if I was living in North 'sauga and I want to get to Toronto I will use Eglinton .... LRT or not, a corridor on Eglinton is better than congestion and stress trying to get down to Dundas or Bloor St.

or I might just drive

I think Dundas will be fine with LRT, same with Hurontario for now. I still believe the subway should expand west along Bloor, even if its just a few stops for now.Like I said, an LRT on Dundas would be better as a local line, not as a connector to the subway in Etobicoke.

Connectors to the subway - Eglinton and Burnthorpe
Local lines - Lakeshore, Dundas
Subway expansion on bloor - great idea

Cheers, m