Bureaucromancer said:
I mean it’s true in both cases… it’s just that that only really means that the corridor geometry will accommodate rail.
Click to expand...
The idea of converting the BRT to LRT has been there since day one but missing a lot of things to make it an LRT Line. It is the same thing for the York Region BRT system.

The first thing is this is GO Transit thing that is part of their bus network and the main user for the corridor based on ridership numbers. Since this is GO Backbone for their network, GO has no need for an LRT line in the first place as it will not fit their needs.

Unless there is a branch line off the Crosstown Line, there is no need for an LRT since Mississauga Transit ridership will not only support one along with branches off it.

To convert the Transitway from Rethford to MCC requires a tunnel under Hurontario St with an underground station for MCC. It will require the section from Rethford to east of Dixie Rd to be completely close for bus service adding extra travel time for all routes that use the Transitway while the conversion is done either for one direction at a time or for both The Transitway road will have to be completely torn up to put the tracks in place with a topcoat on top of the track to allow buses to run on top of it. Substation land needs to be found in a few places.

Once that first section is done, then the next section can be done, Buses will be able to exit or enter the Transitway at Dixie once the tracks are built across that point to get to/from Rethford to branch out from there. Buses to/from MCC while the first section is being rebuilt, buses can use the same exit/entrance for the Transitway

To take the Transitway from MCC to Winston Churchill requires the missing section to be built as well getting to the north side of Hwy 403. That is as far as an LRT may be able to go if ridership numbers can justify doing so and don't seeing any decades soon if ever at all.

As I have stated since 2004, the Transitway is a GO thing with GO generating ridership, but not at the level they call for in the EA. Come 2050+, it may be a different story and if the numbers are achieved as per the EA, then GO needs to change their model setup from Rethford to Hamilton where an LRT will meet those numbers
 
Like Ottawa, the Mississauga Transitway wouldn't see conversion until ridership gets to the point that it's straining the system.

My understanding is there remains a lot of additional capacity left in the current transitway. 🤣
 
nfitz said:
Like Ottawa, the Mississauga Transitway wouldn't see conversion until ridership gets to the point that it's straining the system.
Click to expand...
Meh; If it doesn't get connected to a 407(ish) busway I see a very real possibility that it ends up in a SRT like situation where the problem is a lot less the actual technology than the politics and perception of the transfers that come with it.
 
Are there any future plans to expand the Mississauga Transitway?

A lot of the 407 GO buses would probably benefit if the transitway extended north along side the 403/ 410 all the way up to the 407. Build a stop at CourtneyPark Dr.
Also construct direct access (for buses) between the 407 and Winston Churchill Transitway station. Bypass red lights at Erin Mills when heading west.
This way the 56, 41 GO buses can stay on the Transitway when not on the 407 and completely bypass all the traffic on the 403/410.

Not exactly transitway related, but it would be nice if Metrolinx could work with 407 to either reconstruct the Bramalea Rd. on/off ramps or construct on/ off bus lanes to allow for quicker access between Bramalea GO and the 407. Allowing GO buses to completely bypass Steeles.
 
Last edited:
I was just thinking about the Mississauga Transitway the other day.

Have we learned anything by building it? Was it actually worth building? I have never taken it, and when I drive by I rarely even see buses using it. Maybe they should look into what went wrong/right with it before building any more of these (e.g. the 407 transitway).
 
Of course the transitway never looks busy or crowded with vehicles like the regular streets -- that's kind of why it's there, so the buses can zip along without getting held up.
The Miway buses sometimes slow down but don't stop at a station, if there's no one waiting to board and nobody on the bus has pushed the button or yellow strip.

I had used the Miway Route 109 from Kipling (after it relocated from Islington) to Square One at least once a month up until my reason for it disappeared at the end of 2023, and a couple of times on GO buses using the transitway. Even if it didn't necessarily save a lot of time, it sure seemed faster than the local routes I had previously used, crawling along Burnhamthorpe, Rathburn, etc. By the last few months the 109 buses were usually crowded, even in the middle of a weekday afternoon. To me it seems to work better than the York Region ones that have to stop at intersections.
 
Last edited:
Dan416 said:
I was just thinking about the Mississauga Transitway the other day.

Have we learned anything by building it? Was it actually worth building? I have never taken it, and when I drive by I rarely even see buses using it. Maybe they should look into what went wrong/right with it before building any more of these (e.g. the 407 transitway).
Click to expand...
As I stated in my opposition to the GO Thing, the ridership was not there in 2004 and 20 years later it still is not. Maybe by 2045, 50% of the projected numbers for 2030 maybe there.

Until the missing links are built for it, it will continue to be a white elephant. Even with the missing links been built, GO has a major issue with the original plan for going east of Renforth as the route has been removed by Hydro One. Nothing has happen for the west section as ridership and service is not there as forecast,

With the coming of the RER, a number of GO routes will see less needs for them as well the quality of service that the Transitway will see less GO service.

The problem for miWay from/to Kipling is the 427 as it can get caught up in stop and go traffic more from Kipling that off sets any time saving for riders try to get to CCTT that you are better off using 3, 20, 26 local service.

Having the 107 servicing the airport and Malton is the lack of quality of service 7 days a week.

109 ridership is greater for the west end than the east end and another example of poor planning by both the city and miWay as well funding for the system. Quality of service play a huge part getting ridership as well having a need for the system in the first place.

Once the Dundas BRT is built, it will be faster to use the LRT and the BRT to/from Kipling than the Transitway to/from CCTT even with transferring.
 
Dan416 said:
I was just thinking about the Mississauga Transitway the other day.

Have we learned anything by building it? Was it actually worth building? I have never taken it, and when I drive by I rarely even see buses using it. Maybe they should look into what went wrong/right with it before building any more of these (e.g. the 407 transitway).
Click to expand...
I never understood the practicality of constructing a 407 transitway when the highway is never congested and the GO buses are always flying along the 407, making good time.

I think there needs to be better connections between the 407 and Mississauga Transitway. Which is what I was suggesting in my previous post.

GO buses that use the 407 and Transitway in some capacity act as a Midtown line, Union station bypass. The 56, 41, 40 stop at the 407 subway station and go completely around downtown Toronto.
 
Last edited:
Bojaxs said:
I never understood the practicality of constructing a 407 transitway when the highway is never congested and the GO buses are always flying along the 407, making good time.
Click to expand...
The problem isn't travelling on the 407, the problem is the station accesses. Its great, GO Busses are able to fly down the 407 at high speeds never worried about traffic, but the moment the bus has to leave the 407 to serve a Park and Ride or a GO/TTC Station, everything goes downhill. Existing park and rides don't have infrastructure that is optimized for busses to immediately access upon leaving the highway, meaning every additional station/stop easily adds 5-10m of end to end travel time, and also means that GO has to further rely on various express services to skip stops to keep longer distance trips at reasonable travel times. By building a transitway where serving a stop only requires the bus to briefly stop at a platform, that 5-10m runtime penalty is reduced to 30s, to say it would result in massive travel time and operational improvements is an understatement.

The big question is whether these improvements can be done through more meager means than building out a full transitway, and in some ways you could. A good interim tactic would be to add off-ramp stops similar to what you see in cities like Vancouver and Ottawa (as well as the Keele/401 intersection here in Toronto) where you place a stop right at the offramp to allow for smoother and more direct operations. Now while this could allow for improved stop spacings and add more stops to streets like Bathurst (which is one of the streets that has a new stop listed in the 407 Transitway EA) without massive time penalties, this is far from a universal solution, and won't fix anything for larger stations. Easy example is Highway 407 Station, if you simply add an off-ramp stop for Westbound busses and force all riders to walk the 500m across the 407 to reach VMC, that sounds like a recipe to kill all ridership to and from the station on the spot. In cases like these, fully built transitway-like infrastructure is basically a requirement in order to make the transfers appealing, while also significantly improving travel times.
 
There are a few places where better highway-to-station accesses would go a long way.

Having only a partial interchange at Bramalea Road causes pain for lot of bus passengers at what should be a prime intermodal hub. The 407 charges a fortune to GO for using the highway though, so I wonder if Metrolinx wants to bake it in further.
 
ARG1 said:
The problem isn't travelling on the 407, the problem is the station accesses. Its great, GO Busses are able to fly down the 407 at high speeds never worried about traffic, but the moment the bus has to leave the 407 to serve a Park and Ride or a GO/TTC Station, everything goes downhill. Existing park and rides don't have infrastructure that is optimized for busses to immediately access upon leaving the highway, meaning every additional station/stop easily adds 5-10m of end to end travel time, and also means that GO has to further rely on various express services to skip stops to keep longer distance trips at reasonable travel times. By building a transitway where serving a stop only requires the bus to briefly stop at a platform, that 5-10m runtime penalty is reduced to 30s, to say it would result in massive travel time and operational improvements is an understatement.

The big question is whether these improvements can be done through more meager means than building out a full transitway, and in some ways you could. A good interim tactic would be to add off-ramp stops similar to what you see in cities like Vancouver and Ottawa (as well as the Keele/401 intersection here in Toronto) where you place a stop right at the offramp to allow for smoother and more direct operations. Now while this could allow for improved stop spacings and add more stops to streets like Bathurst (which is one of the streets that has a new stop listed in the 407 Transitway EA) without massive time penalties, this is far from a universal solution, and won't fix anything for larger stations. Easy example is Highway 407 Station, if you simply add an off-ramp stop for Westbound busses and force all riders to walk the 500m across the 407 to reach VMC, that sounds like a recipe to kill all ridership to and from the station on the spot. In cases like these, fully built transitway-like infrastructure is basically a requirement in order to make the transfers appealing, while also significantly improving travel times.
Click to expand...
In that case, instead of building out a full fledge 407 Transitway, they should instead look at redesigning the park & rides to allow GO buses to drop and pickup passengers without getting off the highway.

Something akin to the truck inspection stations.

Edit: I just realized that wouldn't work with buses heading in both directions. Unless we constructed park & rides on both sides of the highway.
 
Bojaxs said:
In that case, instead of building out a full fledge 407 Transitway, they should instead look at redesigning the park & rides to allow GO buses to drop and pickup passengers without getting off the highway.

Something akin to the truck inspection stations.

Edit: I just realized that wouldn't work with buses heading in both directions. Unless we constructed park & rides on both sides of the highway.
Click to expand...
And then someone returning would need a way to get from one side of the highway to the other (where they parked their car), so a pedestrian bridge?
 
Would it make sense to have one bus route that is assigned the whole length? You would still have the others, but this one route number would go end to end and only on it.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top