News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 4.7K     0 

Northern Light said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
jys said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Northern Light said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
duffo said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 $.
 
BB ON said:
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!
Click to expand...
I've uploaded this to my google drive.

Google Drive: Sign-in

Access Google Drive with a Google account (for personal use) or Google Workspace account (for business use).
drive.google.com

Download at will!
 
Northern Light said:
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 $.
Click to expand...
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.
 
duffo said:
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.
Click to expand...
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).
 
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.
 
sixrings said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
crs1026 said:
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.
Click to expand...
This is a hard disagree for me. Mississauga desperately needs better regional transit access. Milton Line upgrade to frequent service, preferably with direct service to MCC, or replacement of Milton with a line that can accomplish that task, has to be one of the higher priority transit projects in the GTA. The gap is going to become glaring as GO expansion dramatically ramps up service and performance of other lines and fare integration comes along.
 
As long as we’re dealing with CP I don’t see much progress coming on the Milton line. It doesn’t show up on any Metrolinx plans for electrification. If they can’t do that, there’s no way they’re rerouting it to MCC.

Practically speaking, I think you might as well extend line 2 to Sherway to start, and eventually make it to MCC.

Unless CP goes bankrupt, in which case go nuts.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top