G

green22

Guest
The research shows that you get a much bigger bang in lower auto-modal shares when going from medium density employment to high density employment instead of just low density employment to medium density. The reasons stated were that the medium density nodes (unless in mixed use areas) can not support decent transit service and end up surrounded by surface lots which further depresses walking and transit. The Airport Corporate Centre is a classic case, however it is still better than the low-density office clusters which are the norm. If it weren't for the surface parking lots and wide road rights-of-way the ACC would be high density.

If we could allow offices and their workers to share neighbourhoods next to other medium/high density uses we could change modal splits, but who wants to live next to a bunch of large surface parking lots. High auto-use (and zoning) impedes the kinds of development that would lead to lower auto uses.
 
D

doady

Guest
Why highway BRT so popular with politicians:

The Transportation Ministry build and understand roads as do the majority of driving suburban politicians and their driving residents. They fully expect transit to succeed using the same build the highway, parking lot and sprawl formula that has been so successful in increasing automobile usage.

Bus highways along highways take little money, have no political costs and do not change land use (for the better). they entrench auto-dependency and help to add pavement and lower densities. Its the kind of transit any Conservative or Liberal suburban politician could support.

What is your main complaint about the transitways here? The fact that they will be relaint on park-and-ride facilities? That's what it seems like to me.

A typical commuter rail line is very reliant on park-and-ride too. In fact, the 407 and Missisauga Transitways will have much better connections to local transit than the GO Trains do.

Having lots of park-and-ride lots is not good for the residential areas but it does allow employment centres to reduce the amount of parking needed and densify. This is exactly the way downtown Toronto benefits from the GO Trains. Take away just those park-and-ride lots in the suburbs and the core will suffer.

Airport Corporate Centre does have too much parking, but the transitways can help with this problem and allow it and other places like it to increase their density.
 
F

FutureMayor

Guest
Give Mississauga Some Credit Already!

Wow, pretty dense compared to office parks in the GTA. What a powerful statement. That is a criteria that is hard to loose... like saying "voted the fairly attractive building at 1 King West". Do any of those office buildings have a parking garage? Without a parking garage an office park that near 98% of employees drive to isn't going to be dense... most buildings have a sea of parking lots and for most buildings you would need to walk across a parking lot to get to the street where any transit would be located.

I don't know where you and Alvin are really getting at?

How else was Mississauga suppose to plan the Airport Corporate Centre?

Does Toronto have some other successful model on how to plan a corporate park? I don't think so. If anything, most of Toronto's business parks are a lot less dense and less accessible by public transit.

Mississauga isn't screaming for the province to build the Eglinton Subway out to the Corporate Centre. Unlike York Region, we also aren't making grand promises to build high density office towers in the middle of empty hydro fields surrounded by one of the GTA's largest parking lots. Instead, we have built a strong concentration of employeers TODAY and have worked towards building a base and need for rapid transit.

The long term plan has always been to build the Mississauga Transitway and the Eglinton Subway out to this centre. If those two projects had been built we would had a greater number of commuters arriving via public transit.

Both Mississauga Transit and the TTC run successful bus routes to the Airport Corporate Centre. There is a strong ridership base there, and the potential for it to grow with some form of rapid transit with a connection to the subway and the City Centre.

Also, in terms of urban design, many of the buildings, especially the newer ones, have their parking lots located in the back, making it easier for pedestrians to walk up to a building if getting off public transit. The twin TD Financial Towers have plans for a future Transitway Station at it's front entrance. There are parking garages in the centre, most notably the massive Bell Mobility complex. Mississauga, like most GTA municipalities have launched a carpool intiative with employeers.

These are small steps, however, there is a real effort and desire here in Mississauga to provide an alternative to the car.

Louroz
 
S

scarberiankhatru

Guest
I wouldn't say the Airport corporate centre is particularly larger or denser than other comparable business parks in the GTA. Beaver Creek in Richmond Hill had 19,000 in 2001 but has gone up a bit since then - ACC has 20,538 jobs as of 2006. The six business parks along the DVP/404 in Toronto (Consumers, York Mills, Eglinton, Steeles, Bermondsey, Leaside) have 75,000 combined. However, the ACC seems to have room for expansion, while most others, not so much.
 
D

doady

Guest
^ ACC is expected to have over 29,000 jobs by 2021, so that is an increase of 50%. The employment density will be 99 jobs per hectare.

Better than other business parks maybe but still not very good. In comparison, MCC has 20,000 jobs also but it is smaller than ACC and most of land is not even used for employment.
 
G

green22

Guest
The suburban idea that office workers need to be segregated from other uses and hidden away in corporate office 'parks' is part of the reason these areas are so realiant on vehicles.

"Having lots of park-and-ride lots is not good for the residential areas but it does allow employment centres to reduce the amount of parking needed and densify. This is exactly the way downtown Toronto benefits from the GO Trains."

Toronto doesn't have parking lots at Union, but I'm sure if GO had planned the station today it would look something like Square 1 or the airport. The park-and-ride lots will not be able to bring workers to businesses along the highways since they are surrounded by parking just as the stations are. Having one business that is accessible by transit is just the exception to the general rule of parking lot based highway transit.

The Queen streetcar and all types of uses along its corridor can be accessed easily on foot. The Viva model also makes it easy to access businesses near stops on highway 7 (except perhaps in awful places like Vaughan Corporate Centre). GO transit does an lousy job of taking you to uses along its path except at Union (thankfully they can't afford to turn downtown Toronto into a surface lot)

The Hurontario lrt would be transit, while the 403 will only be used for one way commuting. One will intensify and serve uses along its path one will only encourage sprawl.
 
S

scarberiankhatru

Guest
"In comparison, MCC has 20,000 jobs also but it is smaller than ACC and most of land is not even used for employment."

Jobs don't need to be located within a designated "GTA's largest" office park to be worth something. Square One can be considered employment lands - thousands of people work there and not just suits driving in from Caledon or Woodbridge. Same goes for City Hall, etc. Even residential lands employ people such as maids and parkland requires gardeners.

I'd rather have schools, hospitals, malls, etc., around a transit stop than exclusively office buildings, even if they exceed 99 jobs per hactare.
 
D

doady

Guest
Jobs don't need to be located within a designated "GTA's largest" office park to be worth something.

Did I say otherwise? All I am saying is that Airport Corporate Centre is not dense.

Toronto doesn't have parking lots at Union, but I'm sure if GO had planned the station today it would look something like Square 1 or the airport.

Why would GO have parking at Union when Union is the main destination for most of their passengers?

The park-and-ride lots will not be able to bring workers to businesses along the highways since they are surrounded by parking just as the stations are. Having one business that is accessible by transit is just the exception to the general rule of parking lot based highway transit.

Then how can you say that the transitways will increase sprawl? If you argue that people can't get use the transitways to get to their place of work, then you can't argue that the transitways will increase sprawl at the same time.

GO transit does an lousy job of taking you to uses along its path except at Union<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>

I guess that is not much an issue when Union is the main destination for GO passengers.

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>(thankfully they can't afford to turn downtown Toronto int
<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END-->

Again, they don't need to turn Union into surface lots beause if people drive to Union then they have reached their destination already and have no reason to use GO in the first place.

Bottom line is that, without GO Transit and its park-and-ride lots, Toronto would not be as dense because there would have to be tens of thousands more parking spaces downtown.
 
E

EnviroTO

Guest
How else was Mississauga suppose to plan the Airport Corporate Centre?

Set a maximum lot coverage for parking lots so that builders are forced to put parking underground and buildings can be located closer together. Some of those newer buildings have parking lots covering 60-70% of the property compared to 30-40% for the actual building! It will be hard to put a parking garage under a building which is already standing so now Mississauga will be stuck with big above ground parking garages for the ACorpC if it ever intensifies.

Also, in terms of urban design, many of the buildings, especially the newer ones, have their parking lots located in the back, making it easier for pedestrians to walk up to a building if getting off public transit.

Some buildings are putting the parking in back which is an improvement but not many. HP seems pretty new and it doesn't have a parking garage and it would be hard to make it further away from the street. Those buildings on Tahoe Blvd have made no effort to front the street or put parking underground. The Bell Mobility campus has one building against Eglinton but most of their frontage is parking lot. The first few phases have focused on views of the creek and their fake pond and had nothing to do with improving the walk along Eglinton to catch a bus. I have walked through the ACorpC area and it is a walk where you are very exposed to the elements and the distance between neighbouring buildings (new ones, the old one storeys are actually closer together) is significant.
 
F

FutureMayor

Guest
EnviroTO:

I still don't see your point, and as I suspected you can't provide me with another model in the City of Toronto or elsewhere in the GTA where your proposals are being implamented?

The bottomline is that they are unrealstic, and if they were actually imposed developers and businesses wouldn't have built, concentrated and turned the area into a huge bomming success.

Mississauga did the best it could with the ACC, there is demand there TODAY for rapid transit connections to the subway, City Centre and the Airport. There is potential for even greater intensification of the area.

Louroz
 
G

green22

Guest
I still don't see your point, and as I suspected you can't provide me with another model in the City of Toronto or elsewhere in the GTA where your proposals are being implamented?

The centres concept implemented by Metro for Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough and downtown Toronto was fairly successful at concentrating office jobs along transit lines. Metro was at the time a regional government which gained if employment was structured in relatively dense servicable sections.

Sprawl long ago outgrew the metro boundaries and thanks to various provincial governments we have no level of government with a regional interest. Today we have multiple 905 regions zoning and servicing an inordinate amount of land for employment uses in order to compete for growth with other jurisdictions. Mississauga merely tried to catch as much employment growth as it could by any means necessary as did other jurisdictions. No one was looking out for the region or the Province.

New infrastructure (not replacement) was largely and to a large degree still is subsidized by the Provincial government, so regions have an incentive to get as much as they can. When they run out of the last green fields to sprawl they will be forced to repent and grow up.
 
W

wyliepoon

Guest
Post on Mississauga LRT proposal

Link to article


City hopes to add LRT to transit system
Mississauga already runs 26 buses on busy Hurontario Street route



Natalie Alcoba, National Post
Published: Wednesday, September 20, 2006

Mississauga hopes to run a light rail system -- much like Toronto's Spadina Avenue streetcar -- up and down busy Hurontario Street.

A feasibility study, expected to get underway next year, will examine the prospects of a "higher order transit system" to move people along Hurontario, Mississauga Transit's busiest and fastest-growing transit corridor.

Already, 26 buses, including four added this month, move 20,000 riders a day along the north-south No. 19 route, which runs from Brampton to Lake Ontario every seven minutes during peak hours.

"At some point in time when you get so many transit users, you have to start looking at other forms of transit," said Bruce Carr, director of the strategic planning and business services division in the city's planning and building department.

A light rail system that operates on an exclusive lane and has right-of-way privileges sounds like the "optimal solution" for a service corridor that has already reached saturation, said Bill Cunningham, director of Mississauga Transit.

But if recommended, such a dramatic shakeup of the city's bus-only system is at least 15 years away, he said. In the meantime, the city has other, less expensive changes to consider.

Dedicated bus lanes are one way to speed up bus travel times, said Mr. Cunningham. Affording buses traffic signal priority is another. The feasibility of these options will be examined in the study.

"Whether or not it goes to LRT would depend on future growth and the pace of development," Mr. Cunningham said. "It would very much depend on the availability of funding, too."

On the street yesterday, plumber Gary Lawless waited no more than five minutes for his bus and the start of a seemingly endless trek on Mississauga Transit. The 44-year-old rides on as many as five buses to get from Mississauga to his destination in Brampton, "and it's not even that far," he said as he waited for the No. 19 to pick him up on Hurontario Street near Eglinton Avenue. He is in favour of any modification that would speed up the trip or cut out a transfer.

Others wonder why the city wants to fix something that is not broken.

"I'm happy with the service," said Lana Richards, another rider who waited on a grassy slope for the bus. "They've expanded a number of routes, and it's quite frequent." She wasn't seduced by the idea of streetcar or light rail service. "What's the point?" she asked. "Why fix something that's working?"
 
F

FutureMayor

Guest
Hmm, actual MT riders saying the service is good!

Mississauga is doing something right, and as you can see, planning for the future.

Louroz
 
S

spmarshall

Guest
Hmm. I wonder if that one rider at the bottom takes the 19 from Port Credit to Mineola, and doesn't have to put up with the (still) inadequate service on the north end, or the passengers left behind as Doady mentions.

It's typical to get both opinions in a news piece, even if the opinion is skewed heavily one way.
 
F

FutureMayor

Guest
If you are advocating for better service from MT north of the 407, it might be worth looking into Brampton paying Mississauga Transit to operate increased service to Shoppers World or for BT to take over that portion of the route with a new Regional Terminal at 407.

Louroz
 

Top