[RC8]

I just don't see it.

I lived in Mississauga and I don't know when if ever I would have ever taken advantage of this transit way.

If I wanted to move along Hurontario transit was painfully slow and crowded. Same with Dundas and to a lesser extent Eglinton. The 110 was over capacity and deserved improvements. Burnhamthorpe was badly in need of relief, too.

Will there be, say, a much improved route from Kipling/Islington to Square One? Will they finally throw a 110 to UTM that doesn't need to stop at South Common? Will they significantly increase frequency on Mavis?

At least I'm assuming the bus between Square One and the airport will no longer take an hour.

P.S. If things were done as per the diagram early in this page I would be very happy. All the info that has come out since then has been rather confusing, though.

 

[nfitz]

I lived in Mississauga and I don't know when if ever I would have ever taken advantage of this transit way. ... Will there be, say, a much improved route from Kipling/Islington to Square One?

Surely the busiest route on the transitway will be from Square One to Kipling/Islington. You never took that route?

 

[aleesia]

Dixie has access from north and south. I don't see the point of it though.

Especially that the Dixie-Kipling has been replaced by 105, that ramp will be useless. I was thinking of an emergency exit, but those, seeing the design plates, will be constructed throughout the transitway, so that's out of the question. 17 can be rerouted to that station, but I think it's better for it to combine with 50 to serve Renforth, or 51 to alleviate crowding along Tomken south of Eglinton.

That's true. It is an open bus corridor (meaning routes could feed in and out of a central ROW) but there's few points along the route for buses to move on and off. Just Dixie, and it looks as if it is designed for buses to enter and exit from the north only. Unfortunately, most jobs in the Airport Corporate Centre are north of the busway, towards Matheson and the 401, and not that well served without having to make a transfer.

I think the original purpose of 50 is just a shuttle throughout the Airport Corporate Centre. But I think the current scenario doesn't work because it's a total mess (zigzagging route, overlap with 18, etc.). Let's just wait about what they'll do with the rest of the routes.

Seeing that 27 and 89 have already been cut to just Skymark this July, I'm having this gut feeling that they are now preparing for the BRT scenario. Because of that, I feel that 17 and 50 will be cut from Islington too, and 18 can be cut to just run between Renforth Station - Westwood, even though I see a fully-seated bus along Rathburn at peak direction.

Will there be, say, a much improved route from Kipling/Islington to Square One?

Yes! From what I have seen, that route number will be 100. It will run from Winston Churchill Station all the way to Kipling or Islington.

The time savings will come from the transitway itself. The reason why 109 is slower than 20 is because of the absence of it, as well as lack of bus shoulders along 427, which must be commencing anytime soon.

Will they finally throw a 110 to UTM that doesn't need to stop at South Common? Will they significantly increase frequency on Mavis?

I'm wishing for a "super-express" version of 110 (110X?). Square One passengers alone can crunch the entire bus during the academic year. What can those people at Erin Mills BRT Station and South Common take to go to UTM if they couldn't take the 110? Unless 201 will serve UTM, Erin Mills Station and South Common, then we'll see a lot of trouble for UTM students.

Will they significantly increase frequency on Mavis?

They just did exactly that.

61 now runs every 13 mins in rush hours from 17, 18 mins in midday from 38?, 24 mins on Saturdays from 36?, and 36 mins on Sundays from 50.

There is less crowding for sure, because it is summer. Let's wait until September to see if those increases are enough.

At least I'm assuming the bus between Square One and the airport will no longer take an hour.

It never takes an hour to go from Square One to the Airport. 33 minutes by 107, 50 minutes by 7.

P.S. If things were done as per the diagram early in this page I would be very happy. All the info that has come out since then has been rather confusing, though.

Things will likely change from that diagram. Hurontario-Kipling and Dixie-Kipling will be likely out. Don't know about the rest though.

 

[rbt]

So we shouldn't build LRTs, BRTs or subways because they increase the speed of transit? Seriously, I have no idea what you are talking about.

No, build them for efficiency of the network and economy (centralization is helpful).

Don't build them expecting a persons travel time to decrease as you will be disappointed. After 10 to 15 years their travel time will be exactly where it is today but with a longer distance involved.

They'll be going to the further away mega daycare (lower cost, better service) or the larger centralized grocery store with better selection instead of the more local one.

 

[RC8]

Surely the busiest route on the transitway will be from Square One to Kipling/Islington. You never took that route?

I did, and Square One to Kipling/Islington is without a doubt the most important route of the new network. I just hope there's a massive improvement in the time it takes (I wasn't totally clear on whether they'd send a bus down there at all). It'll be a game-changer if it's closer to 20min!

 

[nfitz]

I did, and Square One to Kipling/Islington is without a doubt the most important route of the new network. I just hope there's a massive improvement in the time it takes (I wasn't totally clear on whether they'd send a bus down there at all).

Most of the bus routes on the transitway will go to Kipling, according to figures shown on the two previous pages of this thread. I'll repeat them below.

It'll be a game-changer if it's closer to 20min!

The table on the Mississauga website says that it would cut the current travel time from 37 minutes to 22 minutes from Square One (City Centre) to the Subway. And from the Square One to the Airport from 41 minutes to 19 minutes"

 

[nfitz]

Some stations, like Tomken, are real head scratchers: nothing around it, no parking lot, a kiss and ride that's on the other side of a major intersection and really not that far from other, much more useful stations. If that station gets more than 300 users a day, I'd be impressed.

Not that a lot of the peak express services will not stop at Tomken, or any other station along there other than Renforth, Dixie, or City Centre.

 

[RC8]

That's very exciting then, assuming plans haven't changed since 2007.

Unfortunately it'll still take UTM students an hour to hit the subway outside peak hours.

 

[BurlOak]

Most of the bus routes on the transitway will go to Kipling, according to figures shown on the two previous pages of this thread. I'll repeat them below.

That is a lot of buses on Dundas. Is anyone advocating to extend the B-D subway by one stop to ease this 2 km trip to Kipling Station. OR is already fully approved and past the point of no return.

 

[nfitz]

Unfortunately it'll still take UTM students an hour to hit the subway outside peak hours.

I don't see why it would be that long. Presumably at a minimum there will be full-day service from Erin Mills station to the subway, and there is already off-peak from UTM to Erin Mills station that takes only 14 minutes.

On the other hand, I don't understand how on that table it's only 30 minutes from UTM to the subway, and 22 minutes from City Centre to the subway, and yet it's 21 minutes from UTM to City Centre. I'm missing something there ...

 

[RC8]

I don't see why it would be that long. Presumably at a minimum there will be full-day service from Erin Mills station to the subway, and there is already off-peak from UTM to Erin Mills station that takes only 14 minutes.

On the other hand, I don't understand how on that table it's only 30 minutes from UTM to the subway, and 22 minutes from City Centre to the subway, and yet it's 21 minutes from UTM to City Centre. I'm missing something there ...

Precisely, unless they send a bus from UTM directly to the subway there's no way it can be done in 30 minutes.

Right now the best way to hit the subway from UTM is to take one of the Dundas buses. If it'll take 21min to City Centre and the 110 will head North eventually, then that means 21min to Square One - a transfer - and 22min to the subway. Which will be more or less equivalent to what they have now.

The life of transit-dependent UTM students would be much improved with service to Port Credit on Mississauga Rd. and with trips to Square One that don't need to pass through South Common first.

 

[doady]

South Common is right at the 403 exit. And it is a busy stop in its own right.

The 110 is faster than the 24, which was a direct bus to UTM.

Removing S. Common stop is pointless.

No, build them for efficiency of the network and economy (centralization is helpful).

Don't build them expecting a persons travel time to decrease as you will be disappointed. After 10 to 15 years their travel time will be exactly where it is today but with a longer distance involved.

They'll be going to the further away mega daycare (lower cost, better service) or the larger centralized grocery store with better selection instead of the more local one.

Ummm... speed -> efficiency.

2x the speed means half the buses or trains and therefore half the cost at the same frequency of service. For efficient transit, speed is the single most important factor.

Just compare Hurontario bus to LRT.

To provide 5 minute bus service from Port Credit to Shopper's World, MiWay the new Mississauga Transit has to put around 30 buses on the road.

To provide 5 minute light rail service from Port Credit to Downtown Brampton, only 16 trains are required. That's already half the operating cost despite a longer distance just because of improved speed.

And no, there is no evidence that faster transit, light rail or otherwise, decreases density and increases decentralization and sprawl. If that true, there wouldn't be concepts like TOD.

 

[rbt]

Ummm... speed -> efficiency.

Yes, but speed != travel time to a variable destination.

Your initial statement was to build rapid transit to decrease a persons travel time. That's essentially impossible since we simply change our destination (see numerous highway studies).

Do build them for a host of other reasons; not to reduce a persons travel time.

 

[doady]

Yes, but speed != travel time to a variable destination.

Your initial statement was to build rapid transit to decrease a persons travel time. That's essentially impossible since we simply change our destination (see numerous highway studies).

Do build them for a host of other reasons; not to reduce a persons travel time.

I was talking about a busway, not a highway.

Yes, I guess higher speed enables accessibility to more places for transit users. Which is good right? More potential transit riders, social equity and all that? To any particular place, the travel time is reduced. Why shouldn't that be a goal?

But I never mentioned travel time anyways, as far I can tell. It seems you are the one who mentioned brought up travel time. I even did CTRL+F to search for the word "time". I have only talked about speed.

 

[rbt]

I was talking about a busway, not a highway.

Yes, but the same social rules apply. Any speed gains will quickly be eaten up in additional distance travelled for cheaper rent or services.

Yes, I guess higher speed enables accessibility to more places for transit users. Which is good right? More potential transit riders, social equity and all that? To any particular place, the travel time is reduced. Why shouldn't that be a goal?

I'm all for transit investment and even kicked the TTC a $100 donation with my property tax bill.

It's this exact reason that I'm very particular about arguments made in favour of transit. If people expect a subway line to reduce congestion, they're going to be really pissed off when it gets finished and the number of cars on the road is the same.


Improved mobility, which you list, and economic growth are great reasons at this time in Toronto.

But I never mentioned travel time anyways, as far I can tell.

Sorry, I misinterpreted one of your posts to be parroting what others (CC notably) have said about the importance of reducing travel time by increasing speed/removing stops.

My mistake.