News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 30K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 2.9K     0 

afransen

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
5,745
Reaction score
5,222
The idea of converting the Milton Line to something else and making a diversion is really interesting. I wonder how well it could meet the needs of those commuting from Lisgar or Milton…. that’s a long ride.
GO expansion with electrification, is talking about raising average speeds to 60 kph. Milton Line has pretty wide stop spacings, including essentially running express from Kipling, so perhaps even higher average speed would be possible, or at least many more infill stations could be added while maintaining current average speed (around 60 kph now). I could imagine an express service (with fare integration) from Kipling to Union that only took 10 -12 minutes (down from 20 currently) being pretty popular.
 

ARG1

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 28, 2020
Messages
2,031
Reaction score
4,992
City:
Toronto
^I haven’t seen much detail in terms of either residential or employment numbers for the planned redevelopment at Sherway, but one can’t justify a heavy rail line to a mall. Even with new development, won’t an LRT or two suffice?
I think it depends on the alignment. Obviously if we're tunneling the whole thing, then no that makes no sense, but if we just extend Line 2 along the Milton corridor and just put a station north of the Mall, it should be fine I think.
While it’s not the plan (yet), Dundas is the only east west street in east Mississauga that can handle transit oriented density. If we are saying we want Line 2 to extend further, shoudn’t we scrap the BRT, rezone Dundas to some higher TOD value, and run the subway there?
This is where the question of timing comes in. In theory the concepts shouldn't be mutually exclusive, if we build the BRT cheaply, then it can absolutely be justified as an interim solution to improve transit along the corridor until we can fund HRT there - plus get some development going in the corridor, and finally replace the BRT with maybe an El (Dundas should be wide enough to support one post BRT). Of course other minds could argue that we can just get the development funds and just go full steam ahead and build HRT on Dundas right off the bat.
Above all, we should have the whole Transit City style subway vs LRT debate all over again, with a new territory but the same basic theme…. why tunnel at all when we can build far more kms of surface (or elevated) LRT for the same price? Is density in Mississauga reaching the levels where we really need subways? Can an LRT to Sherway handle whatever ridership we project?
First I'd rather remove the notion that subways like Line 2 have to be underground. We can easily run a theoretical westward extension Line 2 on elevated viaducts in the median of Dundas, so for the purposes of arguing for subways, I'm going to assume that we're arguing for NY/Chicago style Els and not deep tunnels.

Once again the question of HRT vs LRT in these areas has little to do with capacity but to do with speed and minimizing redundant transfers. Now a good argument could be made for the Dundas corridor that the Milton Line is right there to provide that higher speed service and as such an LRT on Dundas could work. However...
The idea of converting the Milton Line to something else and making a diversion is really interesting. I wonder how well it could meet the needs of those commuting from Lisgar or Milton…. that’s a long ride.
An obvious goal present here would be to try and maintain the Milton Line as an express service that has long distances between stops. What this could mean in practice is we could extend Line 2 and have it act as sort of a Mississauga Local service that can divert to areas like MCC. If you are commuting from far out communities like Milton and Lisgar, the Milton Line is the obvious service for you, however a theoretical Dundas El/HRT along the Milton corridor could function as a more local higher speed service that replaces theoretical Milton Line infill stations.
 

Deadpool X

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 4, 2018
Messages
632
Reaction score
1,070
My two cents:
- I don't think it needs to be a tunnel. Roads in Mississauga are wide and an elevated alignment could be used. This would necessitate converting Milton Line to lighter trains, like single level EMUs or even just light metro.
- Burnhamthorpe is particularly wide and was intended for transit to run down it at some point.

That said, I would retain a station at Cooksville, go up Confederation to Burnhamthorpe, and run down Burnhamthorpe to Erindale GO and resume in the Rail ROW. The intersection of Confederation and Burnhamthorpe would be tight with M City. But the station could be on the east side of Confederation south of Burnhamthorpe to maximize the curve radius. If that is too tight, I would suggest departing from the rail ROW east of Hurontario, up to Burnhamthorpe around Robert Speck.
Your suggested route would miss Square One by a good distance. Because of turning radius requirements, it is unlikely the tunnel will go north of Burhamthorpe. Also, it's not a good idea to put a station on a tight curve because you will have huge platform gaps that may need big platform extenders. Or else the station will be place before or after the curve and will be far from Square One in either case.

Northern Light's route has potential to have the station right besides Square One, although his route will go under a lot of homes and that's hard to sell if we go by Yonge subway extension's experience.
 

jys

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 17, 2017
Messages
185
Reaction score
155
City:
Toronto
Why is there a(n almost) default assumption that an extension of Line 2 should go to Mississauga City Center? Sure it's got some tall buildings, but as we know, height != density. With the upcoming plans for densification along Dundas, it'll become a linear urban corridor (where public transit performs best). More importantly, MCC is already well served by HuLRT, and riders travelling from MCC to Kipling can simply take the LRT down to Cooksville GO and transfer to a GO Train.
 

drum118

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
18,129
Reaction score
16,700
City:
Toronto
Without advocating for or against, but to contribute here, I mapped out what I believe an MCC tunnel for the Milton GO line would look like in terms of placement and distance.

I would defer to those w/greater expertise than I, in saying I may not have it quite right.

I used only the simple assumptions that:

It must start and end at the existing Milton GO Line (assuming through service)
You want it as straight as possible, with gentle curves.

View attachment 400446

In the route layout above, I have bypassed Erindale station, one could choose to include that, but it either means a more southerly alignment (right along Burnamthorpe) , or a significant curve to the south at the western extent of the tunnel.
First of all, the Milton ROW will only support GO/CP 4 track corridor and no room for an elevated subway. CP will kill any idea of a tunnel under their corridor.

2. A 3 car subway train is overkill for ridership let alone 6 cars. You would be lucky to see 20 minute headway based on future ridership demand. Do the math to say what ridership may look like a 50,000 a day come 2050+ to justify quality of service.

3. Other than a Sq One Station, none of those stations come close in ridership to beat TTC Chester or Elsmere ridership numbers. You can't build higher density there now.

4. Any subway extension into Mississauga would be on Dundas as far as Dixie and only after Dundas has been redevelop to midrise mix development with 100-200,000 living and working along the route. Only after development takes place west of Dixie to Hurontario, the 2nd phase extension could be look at.

5. Far off having a tram-train using the Milton Line that will connect to the Hurontario Line at Cooksville GO Station with no station there for it. You could run the tram-train from Sq One and reconnect with the Milton Line on the north side of the 403.

6. Part of the Milton Line already has 3 tracks in place as well in operation. The whole Milton line was to be 3 tracks by 2007/11, but die. Until CP agrees to electrification, tram-train on the Milton Line is a dead issue at this time.

7. This extension is worse than the Yonge extension and way more costly..

8. Better off tunneling the GO Line to Sq One and then to the north side of the 403 using shorter trains.
 

afransen

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
5,745
Reaction score
5,222
Why is there a(n almost) default assumption that an extension of Line 2 should go to Mississauga City Center? Sure it's got some tall buildings, but as we know, height != density. With the upcoming plans for densification along Dundas, it'll become a linear urban corridor (where public transit performs best). More importantly, MCC is already well served by HuLRT, and riders travelling from MCC to Kipling can simply take the LRT down to Cooksville GO and transfer to a GO Train.
As long as we upgrade Milton Line to enable frequent service.

MCC is going to be high density. I think it's debatable to say it is well served by HuLRT. Most of the density is west of Sq One, and HuLRT skirts the east side of the mall. It's a long walk to an LRT line that won't very quickly bring you to an infrequent GO Line. MCC is a massive growth centre--it needs better regional transit service.
 

duffo

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 17, 2020
Messages
49
Reaction score
192
Without advocating for or against, but to contribute here, I mapped out what I believe an MCC tunnel for the Milton GO line would look like in terms of placement and distance.

I would defer to those w/greater expertise than I, in saying I may not have it quite right.

I used only the simple assumptions that:

It must start and end at the existing Milton GO Line (assuming through service)
You want it as straight as possible, with gentle curves.

View attachment 400446

In the route layout above, I have bypassed Erindale station, one could choose to include that, but it either means a more southerly alignment (right along Burnamthorpe) , or a significant curve to the south at the western extent of the tunnel.
Why can't it just be a spur? Run the tunnel from your 0-km marker up to MCC and create a layover area/turnback along the 403.
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
21,278
Reaction score
51,728
Why can't it just be a spur? Run the tunnel from your 0-km marker up to MCC and create a layover area/turnback along the 403.

You absolutely could.

Though what are you envisioning, a service that goes up the spur, back down and onwards? Or a branch line?

In the case of the former, the downside would be that it would add a lot of trip time for those coming from further west along the line; while in the latter case
there are limitations in running a blended service where the 2 branches interweave.

But that's not to knock the idea, simply point out the each way of doing things involves trade-offs with time, frequency and $.
 

denfromoakvillemilton

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 1, 2008
Messages
7,091
Reaction score
1,088
I don't want my personal accounts to be public-facing, so I've uploaded it here instead. (Download while you can -- it will only work for 30 days.)

Some of the pictures are duds -- these were taken 10 years ago when cameras were worse. If you need those pages, then it is a perfect excuse to go visit the TRL. :)

Enjoy!
I've uploaded this to my google drive.


Download at will!
 

duffo

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 17, 2020
Messages
49
Reaction score
192
You absolutely could.

Though what are you envisioning, a service that goes up the spur, back down and onwards? Or a branch line?

In the case of the former, the downside would be that it would add a lot of trip time for those coming from further west along the line; while in the latter case
there are limitations in running a blended service where the 2 branches interweave.

But that's not to knock the idea, simply point out the each way of doing things involves trade-offs with time, frequency and $.
Branch for frequent service between MCC and Union - riders heading to MCC from the west would have to get off at Cooksville GO and take the LRT north to reach their destination.
 

nfitz

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 10, 2007
Messages
25,095
Reaction score
5,751
City:
Toronto
Why can't it just be a spur? Run the tunnel from your 0-km marker up to MCC and create a layover area/turnback along the 403.
Which would be along the lines of what Metrolinx suggested in 2008 (no idea what they were thinking for layover/turnback ... I'd think it could just be a dead-end like at Pearson).
 

sixrings

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
5,078
Reaction score
2,409
If we could get this line to Sherway could we not just have one massive above ground subway along the queensway with only a stop at Dixie and hurontario.
 

crs1026

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 17, 2014
Messages
8,181
Reaction score
14,073
If we could get this line to Sherway could we not just have one massive above ground subway along the queensway with only a stop at Dixie and hurontario.

We could, yes or even cut and cover.... but do we need it? If we have GO LSE to the south and improved Milton GO to the north - it could be overkill

The appeal of going to Mississauga City Center is more organic than practical - being on the subway network would connect it with Etobicoke City Center, Scarborough Town Center, and (with transfer) North York City Center and Downtown Toronto. That makes sense on an intellectual level. But MCC is not really practically servable from a single station with platforms in a single location - it's too spread out.

Considering the timeline to extend the subway anywhere.... this would be a good place for Elon Musk to do something useful. Use some sort of road-based AV peoplemover to connect the Square One precinct using a variety of existing roads leaving both Hurontario LRT and Milton GO on their current paths, and there's no need to have a subway built there at all. That technology isn't as farfetches as it may sound - Musk aside, it i's likely to be available within the planning horizon.

I do think Dundas Street is more amenable to transit oriented development and would be more likely to generate the volume of ridership needed to justify a Line 2 extension, but would need to be aggressively developed..I would be just as happy if that extension were only LRT ie not as heavy as Line 2 but heavier than BRT.

Funny how quickly the public mood has swung for all three parties from "we can't even afford subway to STC" to "subways subways subways". I do think even Rob Ford would shudder at the "gravy train" aspects of the transit spend. His brother seems to have swallowed the Kool Aid. Personally I would like the pendulum to swing back just a little so our available transit dollars get stretched a little better.

- Paul
 
Last edited:

Top