[West End Boy]

Have you factor in the time that it will take you to get to/from the transitway to/from your parent place by walking or using transit??

Unless they are picking you up/off at the transitway station, you are far better using 20 or 26 to get to your parents place than using GO.
..........
I have said in the past and will continue to say, "OMERS" is the white elephant in the city core that is screwing the city over by refusing the ROW on Rathburn, location of a new terminal and most of all building the so call downtown for the city. Until the city has some balls to tell "OMERS" where to go over the transit issues as well the land use, the core will remain a core and poor land use.

I was thinking this as well. It's not a long walk from the bus terminal, but the 20 goes right by their house so that might end up being quicker. It's too bad for me that the Transitway takes such an indirect route to the subway, but I know not everyone is heading to the subway. We will see how it all pans out when it's open.

And yes, I agree that the larger picture of transit in MCC is incredibly frustrating. Going right back to picking Square One as the location of downtown. Then they moved the transit terminal far away from major streets (Hurontario and Burnhamthorpe) making the whole thing a mess (and the way buses take such an indirect route to get to the terminal). I am still curious to see how a Hurontario LRT will efficiently serve the terminal if it needs to do a big loop.

 

[drum118]

I was thinking this as well. It's not a long walk from the bus terminal, but the 20 goes right by their house so that might end up being quicker. It's too bad for me that the Transitway takes such an indirect route to the subway, but I know not everyone is heading to the subway. We will see how it all pans out when it's open.

And yes, I agree that the larger picture of transit in MCC is incredibly frustrating. Going right back to picking Square One as the location of downtown. Then they moved the transit terminal far away from major streets (Hurontario and Burnhamthorpe) making the whole thing a mess (and the way buses take such an indirect route to get to the terminal). I am still curious to see how a Hurontario LRT will efficiently serve the terminal if it needs to do a big loop.

Depending on what stop you get off on the transitway, you are looking at least 10-15 walking distance to Rathburn plus the time to walk along it to your parents place. On a nice day its ok, but on the days we been having, it will be a bitch.

I only can speak for the PM 109, but the bulk of the riders get on after leaving Islington these days. In fact, Sq One generates more riders going west than before it.

Going back as far as 2004, I have and continue to recommend a new terminal for MT & GO on the current land between Hurontario and City Centre Dr or in the north east corner of Sq One. It has to handle 125,000 riders daily with 2/3 levels of bus bays. You can put an development on top of it. I would protect the lower levels for a future REX/Subway/LRT lines and that will require 2 levels.

If on the land next to Sq One, the LRT will run on the west side of Hurontario starting south of Sq One Dr with a new bridge over the 403. There is support in Transportation and Work for this plan.

If in the N-E corner, the LRT will use City Centre from Sq One Dr and go over the 403 and could be on one side of the road for safety issues or in the middle of an ROW that will be more of a safety issue.

The Loop is a dumb idea and will continue waste 15 minutes of riders times like the 19 does today. The loop is supposed to service the people from Parkside Village, yet the ridership numbers don't support it in the first place. The riders have the choice of the 28, 6, 8, 66, 61, 20 and 9 to get to the new terminal.

The idea is still on the table to remove 26 100% from the terminal and run it as a grid line. Riders that need to go to the terminal have the choice of using 6, 28, 8, 3 and the LRT/19. This would require doing a transfer that not done today. 26 would save 30 minutes of runtime on a round trip to the point you can either decrease the headway or remove 2 buses with the current headway. It will be a 5 minute walk to the mall from any of the Burnhamthrope stops. Shelter are still in place for Duke of York considering it been a decade the 26 have used these new style shelters.

There is a lot of opposition to the loop within the design team as there is no business case for it and the money can be better use elsewhere on the line. More political interference and a few Councillors trying to look good.

The walking distance to the mall will be longer and that is no big deal. One only has to look at the Brampton 2 mall terminals to see there is no impact on ridership for the malls in their new locations. You can always build a cover walkway between the terminal and the mall.

 

[TFC]

On a somewhat unrelated note to the current discussion, would GO travel times between Winston Churchill/403 and Square 1 be faster if buses traveled on the 403 or the transitway? I assume that during rush hour, the answer is obvious and the transitway is faster. What's the answer/prediction for off-peak?

 

[aleesia]

The BRT will still be faster (though by a fraction of a minute) during off-peak, since you still have to access the Erin Mills carpool lot,

- which, without BRT, involves waiting for right turn with seemingly endless parade of vehicles in Winston Churchill, then entering 403, then exiting 403, then a set of traffic lights that take so long to turn green (especially the Erin Mills Pkwy has lots of vehicles), then another left turn to access the station (but again Erin Mills Pkwy has lots of vehicles, so vehicles entering the station will essentially have to wait for the yellow light before making the left turn).

- but with BRT, no cars to contend with, so turns are not really a hassle.

 

[TFC]

Thanks! Those were the things I was thinking about. Just wanted to be sure.

 

[doady]

Going back as far as 2004, I have and continue to recommend a new terminal for MT & GO on the current land between Hurontario and City Centre Dr or in the north east corner of Sq One. It has to handle 125,000 riders daily with 2/3 levels of bus bays. You can put an development on top of it. I would protect the lower levels for a future REX/Subway/LRT lines and that will require 2 levels.

If on the land next to Sq One, the LRT will run on the west side of Hurontario starting south of Sq One Dr with a new bridge over the 403. There is support in Transportation and Work for this plan.

If in the N-E corner, the LRT will use City Centre from Sq One Dr and go over the 403 and could be on one side of the road for safety issues or in the middle of an ROW that will be more of a safety issue.

The Loop is a dumb idea and will continue waste 15 minutes of riders times like the 19 does today. The loop is supposed to service the people from Parkside Village, yet the ridership numbers don't support it in the first place. The riders have the choice of the 28, 6, 8, 66, 61, 20 and 9 to get to the new terminal.

The idea is still on the table to remove 26 100% from the terminal and run it as a grid line. Riders that need to go to the terminal have the choice of using 6, 28, 8, 3 and the LRT/19. This would require doing a transfer that not done today. 26 would save 30 minutes of runtime on a round trip to the point you can either decrease the headway or remove 2 buses with the current headway. It will be a 5 minute walk to the mall from any of the Burnhamthrope stops. Shelter are still in place for Duke of York considering it been a decade the 26 have used these new style shelters.

There is a lot of opposition to the loop within the design team as there is no business case for it and the money can be better use elsewhere on the line. More political interference and a few Councillors trying to look good.

The walking distance to the mall will be longer and that is no big deal. One only has to look at the Brampton 2 mall terminals to see there is no impact on ridership for the malls in their new locations. You can always build a cover walkway between the terminal and the mall.

The original terminal was meant to connect the BRT. If an LRT connection is needed they just need a smaller secondary terminal for the route that do no connect to the LRT elsewhere, namely routes 6, 9 and 61. These routes can still stop onstreet on Rathburn at the current terminal. But not having use the loop would free up much needed capacity for the current terminal.

Every other route serving the terminal already connect with Hurontario elsewhere. To move the entire terminal to connect to the LRT is just pointless. If connecting to the LRT will not a problem for these bus routes, then why exactly do you need to move the terminal?

Given that the current terminal is operating well beyond capacity, I don't see how you can justify an even bigger terminal, and adding an LRT connection, concentrating even more transit at a single point. Mississauga Transit has become way too busy to have single transfer point in MCC, and it will get even busier. A single bus loop in the centre cannot handle the Mississauga Transit, let alone Mississauga + GO buses.

Actually, since 20 is extended, I think they can have the 26 bypass the terminal altogether now and just run straight down Burnhamthorpe. If they combine 28/66 into one, people can just transfer at Duke of York, Kariya, and Hurontario to connect to other routes., no need to go to the terminal. There is no reason to have all transfers take place in one terminal.

 

[drum118]

The original terminal was meant to connect the BRT. If an LRT connection is needed they just need a smaller secondary terminal for the route that do no connect to the LRT elsewhere, namely routes 6, 9 and 61. These routes can still stop onstreet on Rathburn at the current terminal. But not having use the loop would free up much needed capacity for the current terminal.

Every other route serving the terminal already connect with Hurontario elsewhere. To move the entire terminal to connect to the LRT is just pointless. If connecting to the LRT will not a problem for these bus routes, then why exactly do you need to move the terminal?

Given that the current terminal is operating well beyond capacity, I don't see how you can justify an even bigger terminal, and adding an LRT connection, concentrating even more transit at a single point. Mississauga Transit has become way too busy to have single transfer point in MCC, and it will get even busier. A single bus loop in the centre cannot handle the Mississauga Transit, let alone Mississauga + GO buses.

Actually, since 20 is extended, I think they can have the 26 bypass the terminal altogether now and just run straight down Burnhamthorpe. If they combine 28/66 into one, people can just transfer at Duke of York, Kariya, and Hurontario to connect to other routes., no need to go to the terminal. There is no reason to have all transfers take place in one terminal.

The current lower level of the terminal is part of the BRT plan when it was built back in 1995/97.

It took 11 years for my recommendation to get route 20 to Erindale Station with 26 still on hold

Until there is a true grid system and doing away with the current setup in MCC, we have to look at a new terminal. Even if the grid is in place, the ridership at MCC will be higher than it is today once if the so call downtown get built and will require a new terminal.

28/66 would be a grid alone with 20 and 26. I have recommended that a new 61 or X run from Derry to Dundas and then to Cooksville GO station. The 61 using Derry be scrap and replace by a new loop bus for the area west of Mavis. Still need a 61 from Sheridan and run from Dundas only to Shoppers World. 6 would run only between Dundas and Burnhamthrope as is and loop by Erindale Station Rd. A new route would run from the subway by Bloor and Central Parkway and Creditview that would replace the 6, beef up 3 and 38 as well offer a faster bypass of Sq One.

70 would only be a loop replacing 25 and part of 53 that will be feeding the LRT only.

This still leaves 3, 8, 9, 76, 91 servicing MCC. 65, 68 need to be rework along with 53. 53 could run on Kennedy as it does today, but travel along the full length of Central Parkway to the Erindale GO Station.

34 could become a split 35 that service the route south of Eglinton for both the 34 & 7. 7 would disappear as is and be replace from Dixie Station. The plan calls for a new 7 from the Renforth Terminal in 2015 along with the 24. 27 will be scrap in 2015.

Then there is the question how to deal with 9 and there are a number of options, but most of all, it has to be redesign.

10 would stay on Bristol and connect with the LRT, go east to Kennedy, north to Matheson and follow it to the Renforth Terminal. I have call for 49 to do the same thing as both routes would service the sport centre currently lacking access to at night and on the weekend. Also to get riders to Dixie sooner and eliminate the doubling backing that currently take place. In fact, the 49 could north on Creditview to Matheson and by doing so eliminate the need for other routes that currently service the area as well freeing up resources.

Doing this grid will require a beef up headway schedule of 10-15 service or less on most routes 7 days a week with a few seeing higher service headway.

You still got to deal with new routes by GO from MCC using the transitway as well increase of service and ridership by them.

There are 2 studies underway at looking where to put sub terminal in the MCC area for MT.

By moving to a grid system and forcing riders to transfer will be met with strong objection by them as they want that single seat ride they have today regardless how much more it cost to service the line compare to the cost saving by going grid.

If what I proposed happen, you will need a smaller MCC terminal beside the LRT than what I have call for, but the ridership will still be over 100,000. You still have to move the terminal east as it too far to walk between it and the LRT as well not having the ideal service on 20 to justify it in the first place. In the end, the new terminal will becomes more a GO terminal with MT 3, 8, (9?), 91 and 76 servicing it with 76 running 7 days a week all day to replace part of 53. At the same time, the current terminal cannot handle a REX/Subway or an LRT line not part of the Hurontario Line down the road. That LRT could be an extension of the TTC Eglinton Line, upgrade of the BRT to LRT with GO Buses still using the transitway or an Sheppard/Airport line.

I don't see the LRT on Rathburn along with the loop as proposed since there is no business case for it.

It going to take 5+ years before the new terminal comes on line as the existing business have to be relocated first and to allow for a development over the terminal to be completed or provision to have the terminal ready to go into service. Should be completed by 2020 to open at the same time as the LRT line.

 

[bielawski]

34 could become a split 35 that service the route south of Eglinton for both the 34 & 7. 7 would disappear as is and be replace from Dixie Station. The plan calls for a new 7 from the Renforth Terminal in 2015 along with the 24. 27 will be scrap in 2015.

By 27 do you mean 43? I've heard similar things from MT staff, that the 43 will be gone after the BRT opens. What I haven't heard is what will replace it, will it be split up, or will we finally have a two-way Matheson route?

 

[doady]

It's crazy they still have no two-way service for Britannia/Matheson corridor, after all these years. 43 should get two-way all-day service, the 87 is the one that should be cancelled (43 and 87 are interlined, and provide service in opposite directions).

By moving to a grid system and forcing riders to transfer will be met with strong objection by them as they want that single seat ride they have today regardless how much more it cost to service the line compare to the cost saving by going grid.

Well, I wasn't saying riders should be forced to transfer needlessly. If there is a lot of demand to connect to GO buses and serve Square One, it would be more efficient to give riders that one seat ride than to force them to transfer to the 20, which would not be able handle the loads anyways. I think Mississauga Transit is busy enough to support both grid service and hub-and-spoke service together.

I suggested removing 26 from the terminal since it is overlaps with many other routes anyways, especially 20 and 76, but also 6, 109, 110... riders of 26 have other options, so if 28/66 is combined, it will not be a big deal for 26 not to serve the terminal. A grid route for Mavis would help the 26 too. Another gap in the grid is Kennedy/Central Parkway/Cawthra.

If what I proposed happen, you will need a smaller MCC terminal beside the LRT than what I have call for, but the ridership will still be over 100,000. You still have to move the terminal east as it too far to walk between it and the LRT as well not having the ideal service on 20 to justify it in the first place. In the end, the new terminal will becomes more a GO terminal with MT 3, 8, (9?), 91 and 76 servicing it with 76 running 7 days a week all day to replace part of 53. At the same time, the current terminal cannot handle a REX/Subway or an LRT line not part of the Hurontario Line down the road. That LRT could be an extension of the TTC Eglinton Line, upgrade of the BRT to LRT with GO Buses still using the transitway or an Sheppard/Airport line.

I don't see the LRT on Rathburn along with the loop as proposed since there is no business case for it.

It going to take 5+ years before the new terminal comes on line as the existing business have to be relocated first and to allow for a development over the terminal to be completed or provision to have the terminal ready to go into service. Should be completed by 2020 to open at the same time as the LRT line.

I think the secondary terminal should be at Rathburn and City Centre for the LRT connection. The current terminal can stay put for the main GO/BRT connection, for routes that alway intersect with the LRT elsewhere.

So if you consider the current routes, 3, 10, 28/66, 53, 65, 68, 76, 91 would still use the current bus loop since they come from the east and therefore will already have an LRT connection. 6, 9, 61 come from the west so they will need to be extended to a new terminal to connect with the LRT. The 6, 9, 61 will stop on street only at the current terminal. The 20 would stop on street only at both terminals.

Not having 6, 9, 19, 20, 26, 61 use the current bus loop would free up a lot of space there, and allow MiWay to increase frequencies of all routes without having to worry about the capacity of the terminal.

I think the LRT would have to be diverted slightly westward of Hurontario onto City Centre Dr (beside Walmart) as was original proposed because I don't see how it could connect with the BRT otherwise... City Centre and Rathburn is the only place where BRT and LRT riders can intersect. Rathburn and Hurontario is a grade-separated intersection, so how would transfers would work there...

 

[Transportfan]

And yes, I agree that the larger picture of transit in MCC is incredibly frustrating. Going right back to picking Square One as the location of downtown.

Very true. Burnhamthorpe was a bad choice for the downtown crossroad. Dundas would have been way better as it feeds into Bloor and the subway, as well as giving MCC a more real NYCC-type downtown, and would have provided a powerful incentive for a westward extension of the B-D subway. Even Eglinton would have been better as it would lead directly to the Eglinton LRT.

Burnhamthorpe? That's a road that leads basically nowhere.

 

[drum118]

Starting Jan 15, stop for 109E, 110 and 502 relocated to the west bus stops as work will start on the rebuilding the shelter at Sq One Terminal.

Crew was cleaning the area today as well placing salt so the site be ready tomorrow for crews.

The location of the terminal was a mistake going back to the 70's/80's when it was located on the south side where the parking structure is now.

It had to do then as now as how to bring riders to the mall and hell to them for not going there in the first place. Spoke and Hub was their thinking then and still is today along with that single seat ride regardless of the extra cost per seat doing so.

The way 26 runs today is a poor way along with poor headway as there is nothing on the route itself to support it in the first place. It would gain far more riders in Toronto if it was allow to pickup riders in the first place. Metrolinx thinks MT should be able to pickup riders. My business case supported by Metrolinx said the same thing to the point TTC doesn't need to service the route at all. 26, 76, 20 and 11 would offer far more service than TTC does today. TTC is planning on cutting service for 50 this year.

 

[doady]

Very true. Burnhamthorpe was a bad choice for the downtown crossroad. Dundas would have been way better as it feeds into Bloor and the subway, as well as giving MCC a more real NYCC-type downtown, and would have provided a powerful incentive for a westward extension of the B-D subway. Even Eglinton would have been better as it would lead directly to the Eglinton LRT.

Burnhamthorpe? That's a road that leads basically nowhere.

What do you mean? Burnhamthorpe goes from one end of Missisauga to the other...

10/Dundas is already a major node (it was the original downtown of Mississauga after all... ) and planned for further high density and mixed-uses, as is 10/Eglinton. There's a massive high-rise condo project under construction at the NE corner to 10/Eglinton. Mississauga has lost nothing.

I don't believe that B-D subway should serve MCC at all, just go along Dundas to serve Cooksville. Of course, Downtown Cooksville is part of the Mississauga City Centre Urban Growth Centre, so in a way it is MCC.

I don't understand why Mississauga should locate its downtown based on the TTC, instead of Mississauga Transit. Why not just cut to the chase locate MCC right on the border with Toronto?

 

[doady]

The way 26 runs today is a poor way along with poor headway as there is nothing on the route itself to support it in the first place. It would gain far more riders in Toronto if it was allow to pickup riders in the first place. Metrolinx thinks MT should be able to pickup riders. My business case supported by Metrolinx said the same thing to the point TTC doesn't need to service the route at all. 26, 76, 20 and 11 would offer far more service than TTC does today. TTC is planning on cutting service for 50 this year.

If TTC just pays MT to provide the service, it would save both agencies money, and both Mississauga and Toronto riders would get better service. 76 needs to be rerouted back onto Burnhamthorpe (it was diverted onto 427 because of the protests). TTC route 50 can't compete with the combined 20/26/76.

I wonder how they would handle the transfers though. The TTC riders get free transfer but not MT riders...

 

[salsa]

What do you mean? Burnhamthorpe goes from one end of Missisauga to the other...

10/Dundas is already a major node (it was the original downtown of Mississauga after all... ) and planned for further high density and mixed-uses, as is 10/Eglinton. There's a massive high-rise condo project under construction at the NE corner to 10/Eglinton. Mississauga has lost nothing.

I don't believe that B-D subway should serve MCC at all, just go along Dundas to serve Cooksville. Of course, Downtown Cooksville is part of the Mississauga City Centre Urban Growth Centre, so in a way it is MCC.

I don't understand why Mississauga should locate its downtown based on the TTC, instead of Mississauga Transit. Why not just cut to the chase locate MCC right on the border with Toronto?

Actually, Dundas and Hurontario would have been a better location since there's a GO station, which would have been a better intermodal transit hub than the bus terminal at Square One. At the same time, the planned Dundas BRT/LRT would have would have also provided a nicer east/west connection to the subway, in addition to the Hurontario LRT. But that's what happens when this city is build for cars rather than transit. The downtown exists where it does today because of it's proximity to hwy 403. Hazel screwed up big time.

 

[drum118]

If TTC just pays MT to provide the service, it would save both agencies money, and both Mississauga and Toronto riders would get better service. 76 needs to be rerouted back onto Burnhamthorpe (it was diverted onto 427 because of the protests). TTC route 50 can't compete with the combined 20/26/76.

I wonder how they would handle the transfers though. The TTC riders get free transfer but not MT riders...

MT buses inside of Toronto would issue TTC transfer.

My ridership data is outdated and needs to be looked at for both 20 and 26 between Dixie and Mills Rd to see what % of rider will be paying 1 MT fare compare to 2 for round trips.

MT looses 15 minutes of no revenue service within Toronto and can recover all or most of it with cash fare.

If any money is to be paid to MT by TTC, it would be small. TTC would walkaway with 3 buses and $1 million in operation saving yearly.

All MT riders would get on 20, 26 and 76 free like TTC 50 does today at the subway. Next bus an MT rider take next will require them to pay a MT fare. MT route 11 riders would pay MT fare at the subway since they don't use the same route going back to Westwood Mall.

As for MT 3 taking over TTC 49, its a bloodbath since the bulk of the riders are get off before Dixie, allowing them to get a free MT ride for a round trip. TTC would save 3 buses, but would leave 50-60% of the operation cost on the table so MT could recover its operation cost.

MT 3 would only go to Kipling like the 49 does today while 20, 26, 11 and 76 go to Islington like they do today. 20, 26 and 76 would return the same way as TTC 50 does today, not like MT does today. They would still do this after MT gets relocated to Kipling down the road.