I am okay with a subway extension, but what really needs to happen to frequent, all-day service on the Milton Line. That would be worth more to a lot more people. Getting riders to Kipling quickly allows them to transfer to Line 2 or continue downtown.
It really seems like the problems with CP for the Milton Line are solvable with either battery or hybrid EMUs, where there can be discontinuity in catenary power to avoid conflicts with CP track at the most costly or complex points. For the rest, there is some bridge work and flyovers required, but that should be relatively cost effective compared to subway construction. A tunnel diverting from Cooksville up to Square One then over to Erindale to resume to CP corridor would provide much better service for MCC as well as NW Mississauga and Milton, buit more ambitious rerouting/branching could be evaluated as well.
Sherway already has it's secondary plan in place and from my understanding has set aside some land near Queensway and West Mall for a new station, so the TTC really just needs to get it done before the density comes in. Ford can paint it as his Etobicoke legacy project if he needs some brownie points. After that perhaps they can use the Queensway hydro corridor to cut back on costs. However, the key density piece is Dundas which should be activated by the forthcoming BRT (as long as Metrolinx gets it's act together and implements the Toronto portion to Kipling station as well).
The squeaky wheel has long steered subway planning in the GTA—and I’m conflicted. This is a long reach into relatively low density (aside from MCC), and it likely invites extra stops until it becomes a slow milk run. I’d rather see a tighter extension to Sherway, paired with all-day service on Milton and Midtown. That turns Kipling into a true hub—with fast access to both downtown and midtown for riders from Peel and beyond.
I don't think the density is particularly lower than say the Yonge or Scarborough extensions, and both of those avoided extra stops.
The whole point of the post though was that the Milton line just doesn't seem like its happening anytime soon, and a subway extension could start construction tomorrow! All that density should have better transit, and if it ALSO gets a Milton line diversion that would be great, but it shouldn't be the only option.
Identifying opportunities for the GTA's first primarily elevated route is a good idea. I feel like the Metro level of government used to keep an eye on wider regional opportunities (before it was eliminated in amalgamation) and we should have something similar now to ID similar opportunities in the wider GTA.
If more projects were added to such a "maybe" roadmap, they could be pitted against each other with only the best opportunities proceeding, rather than dusting off old unsuitable plans like Eglinton East LRT just because they are at-hand. Maybe if we were building an options deck like this, the GTA could get a project that resembled the cost efficiency of the ION project, rather than just another ratchet in the cost escalation progression.
What about a Line 5 extension to MCC? It's already grade separated west of Leslie and it seems to be the easiest thing to do especially since the GTAA isn't getting their act together on Pearson.
Better public transport to Mississauga should definitely be built. But of course, only after Scarborough or North York. They are part of the City of Toronto, and that’s the point, it isn't right to compare them to Richmond Hill or Vaughan. Density isn't the only justification for every project. The City of Toronto needs to serve its own residents first, rather than those of other cities.
They shouldn't come after. Density is what matters for transit need and the city mostly isn't funding this stuff - and so it just isn't the case that "Toronto needs to serve its own residents first" even if I think that itself still does not make sense. I really think this is just kind of the issue with the parochial attitude in Toronto.
I think calling it ‘parochial’ misses the functional reality of how a city-region actually survives. While density is a massive factor, transit planning isn't just a spreadsheet of who has the most condos; it’s about network legibility and social equity.
If we only built for the highest density, we’d only ever build in the downtown core, leaving the 'inner suburbs' like Scarborough and North York in a permanent cycle of car dependency. These areas were designed in the mid-century for cars, and building LRTs there is a corrective measure to fix that structural mistake.
On the funding point: even if the province or feds provide the capital (the 'build' money), the municipal taxpayers are the ones who often carry the long-term operational costs and the local infrastructure integration. A city has a social contract to ensure its own residents can reach jobs, grocery stores, and healthcare within their own borders.
Comparing a Mississauga-to-Toronto commute to local Scarborough transit is comparing two different needs. One is regional commuter transit (which is what GO Expansion is for), and the other is local mobility. You can't sacrifice the ability of a North York resident to get to their local pharmacy just because a commuter in Mississauga wants a faster ride to Union Station. Density justifies the technology (Subway vs. LRT vs. Bus), but the need for a connection is justified by the right to mobility for everyone paying into the system.
Likely, a light automated metro would better serve the Mississauga city center. Ideally, such a service would follow the CP freight ROW to Kipling, and then the existing GO ROW into the core. One advantage of doing that you could elevate it in the 403 corridor from CP ROW to Mississauga City Centre, and possibly bridge over the top of the current LRT, or run down Confederation Parkway, back into the CP sub. Run from at least Streetsville GO into core. The perfect world would have a connection with a service in the old OBRY corridor there.
I would rather see an automated, lighter, more frequent service, extending out. A show-up and go service.
The LRT does not need to be slow; it has 1 km spacing, which is 60% longer than the average spacing on Finch West. It need not be bad, if there is actually the will to get out and properly lay out and defend signal priority, and that is at least in part under the control of the city of Mississauga. While the City of Toronto has been blaming Metrolink, it seems to me that the signal controls, as demonstrated by the scramble after service start, were always under the control of the city traffic department. The City of Mississauga, has to elect to make the LRT the (not a) priority in the corridor. Everyone also needs to resist the temptation to just add stops. Improve stops yes, more no.
On the other hand, the density of destinations is lower than it could be without the restrictions on building height, which *forces* longer trip distances.
Yes, and zoning near rapid transit needs to change. As it is, there is no obvious route for a subway that would pick up a lot more density than what already exists near the City center and GO stations. Really need to update the zoning near rapid transit to go from fractional to multiple coverage.
The entire GTA transit system is geared for trips to and from Toronto downtown. That mentality has to break - there are lots of dense office parks in Markham, Vaughn, Mississauga, and Oakville; and there are also lots of people making commutes such as Mississauga to Markham, or Oshawa to Markham or Toronto downtown to Markham etc.
Even connecting the dense commercial/office locations to all-day Go Transit would make gear progress. Running a train parallel to lakeshore but along Sheppard or Steeles would also help out in similar fashion.
Yes, because downtown Toronto is loaded with trip generators. You don't make transit better by not connecting to it. Obviously other places can be connected, but suburban office parks are not great and probably do not have a great future!
At some point due to land scarcity, it may make sense to upzone some of those office parks for medium/high density commercial and connect them via appropriately sized transit. This would either free up a lot of land or just reduce pressure to sprawl more 1-2 story office space.
There is plenty of low density commercial near the Meadowvale Go in Mississauga that could already be upzoned like this. Though that stop is on the Milton line, so train capacity is currently limited.
The transit enhancement & upzoning could probably be focused on the most promising areas for now, some could be ID'd outside of downtown Toronto to get the intensification ball rolling.
Maybe upzone not just due to land scarcity, but also because trip distances can generally be shorter with more density of destinations, and there is also the economies of density.
> Can we also please remember when talking about speed and travel time that this subway
> would run at more than triple the average speed of the Finch LRT, and someone going from
> Mississauga City Centre would have faster access to downtown Toronto than someone at the > end (or probably even middle) of “Line 6”?
But most trips are under 5km long, and most trips longer than that are for work. Toronto is quite low-density (from what I know), and this leads to longer trip distances. If a greater density of destinations is created, people do not need to travel as far.
> Make it about housing, make it about fairness with Toronto,
> make it about shifting people out of cars
> — there are no shortage of reasons why this project would make a lot of sense.
Why not make it about reducing the need for longer trip distances, namely with more density of destinations?
This is a classic mistake planners and some advocates make. You can't engineer peoples journeys this way. The reason most trips are so short is because they are to local stuff that people could find anywhere, its much harder to serve those trips with true mass transit. The point is commutes to big nodes are where you have the collective trip volume to justify big investments!
I cannot exactly follow the third sentence. My point is that built-density affects trip distances.
According to a video on Oh the Urbanity, developers wanted to build a high-rise somewhere in Toronto, but residents fought back and got a four-storey-high infill instead. It was finished in 1981.
"..Vaughan has developed a lot since it got its subway (most is recent and not pictured.."
Yes, the Google Maps view is about ~12 years old.
Will there ever be a Google Maps update? ??
Its not that old, maybe 6 years! They do update it every so often, I'd assume this bit will be soonish!
I am okay with a subway extension, but what really needs to happen to frequent, all-day service on the Milton Line. That would be worth more to a lot more people. Getting riders to Kipling quickly allows them to transfer to Line 2 or continue downtown.
It really seems like the problems with CP for the Milton Line are solvable with either battery or hybrid EMUs, where there can be discontinuity in catenary power to avoid conflicts with CP track at the most costly or complex points. For the rest, there is some bridge work and flyovers required, but that should be relatively cost effective compared to subway construction. A tunnel diverting from Cooksville up to Square One then over to Erindale to resume to CP corridor would provide much better service for MCC as well as NW Mississauga and Milton, buit more ambitious rerouting/branching could be evaluated as well.
Sherway already has it's secondary plan in place and from my understanding has set aside some land near Queensway and West Mall for a new station, so the TTC really just needs to get it done before the density comes in. Ford can paint it as his Etobicoke legacy project if he needs some brownie points. After that perhaps they can use the Queensway hydro corridor to cut back on costs. However, the key density piece is Dundas which should be activated by the forthcoming BRT (as long as Metrolinx gets it's act together and implements the Toronto portion to Kipling station as well).
I really am not convinced about the BRT, and the density at MCC is far more immense anyways. Good to hear they at least set land aside for the subway!
The squeaky wheel has long steered subway planning in the GTA—and I’m conflicted. This is a long reach into relatively low density (aside from MCC), and it likely invites extra stops until it becomes a slow milk run. I’d rather see a tighter extension to Sherway, paired with all-day service on Milton and Midtown. That turns Kipling into a true hub—with fast access to both downtown and midtown for riders from Peel and beyond.
I don't think the density is particularly lower than say the Yonge or Scarborough extensions, and both of those avoided extra stops.
The whole point of the post though was that the Milton line just doesn't seem like its happening anytime soon, and a subway extension could start construction tomorrow! All that density should have better transit, and if it ALSO gets a Milton line diversion that would be great, but it shouldn't be the only option.
Identifying opportunities for the GTA's first primarily elevated route is a good idea. I feel like the Metro level of government used to keep an eye on wider regional opportunities (before it was eliminated in amalgamation) and we should have something similar now to ID similar opportunities in the wider GTA.
If more projects were added to such a "maybe" roadmap, they could be pitted against each other with only the best opportunities proceeding, rather than dusting off old unsuitable plans like Eglinton East LRT just because they are at-hand. Maybe if we were building an options deck like this, the GTA could get a project that resembled the cost efficiency of the ION project, rather than just another ratchet in the cost escalation progression.
What about a Line 5 extension to MCC? It's already grade separated west of Leslie and it seems to be the easiest thing to do especially since the GTAA isn't getting their act together on Pearson.
Better public transport to Mississauga should definitely be built. But of course, only after Scarborough or North York. They are part of the City of Toronto, and that’s the point, it isn't right to compare them to Richmond Hill or Vaughan. Density isn't the only justification for every project. The City of Toronto needs to serve its own residents first, rather than those of other cities.
They shouldn't come after. Density is what matters for transit need and the city mostly isn't funding this stuff - and so it just isn't the case that "Toronto needs to serve its own residents first" even if I think that itself still does not make sense. I really think this is just kind of the issue with the parochial attitude in Toronto.
I think calling it ‘parochial’ misses the functional reality of how a city-region actually survives. While density is a massive factor, transit planning isn't just a spreadsheet of who has the most condos; it’s about network legibility and social equity.
If we only built for the highest density, we’d only ever build in the downtown core, leaving the 'inner suburbs' like Scarborough and North York in a permanent cycle of car dependency. These areas were designed in the mid-century for cars, and building LRTs there is a corrective measure to fix that structural mistake.
On the funding point: even if the province or feds provide the capital (the 'build' money), the municipal taxpayers are the ones who often carry the long-term operational costs and the local infrastructure integration. A city has a social contract to ensure its own residents can reach jobs, grocery stores, and healthcare within their own borders.
Comparing a Mississauga-to-Toronto commute to local Scarborough transit is comparing two different needs. One is regional commuter transit (which is what GO Expansion is for), and the other is local mobility. You can't sacrifice the ability of a North York resident to get to their local pharmacy just because a commuter in Mississauga wants a faster ride to Union Station. Density justifies the technology (Subway vs. LRT vs. Bus), but the need for a connection is justified by the right to mobility for everyone paying into the system.
Likely, a light automated metro would better serve the Mississauga city center. Ideally, such a service would follow the CP freight ROW to Kipling, and then the existing GO ROW into the core. One advantage of doing that you could elevate it in the 403 corridor from CP ROW to Mississauga City Centre, and possibly bridge over the top of the current LRT, or run down Confederation Parkway, back into the CP sub. Run from at least Streetsville GO into core. The perfect world would have a connection with a service in the old OBRY corridor there.
I would rather see an automated, lighter, more frequent service, extending out. A show-up and go service.
The LRT does not need to be slow; it has 1 km spacing, which is 60% longer than the average spacing on Finch West. It need not be bad, if there is actually the will to get out and properly lay out and defend signal priority, and that is at least in part under the control of the city of Mississauga. While the City of Toronto has been blaming Metrolink, it seems to me that the signal controls, as demonstrated by the scramble after service start, were always under the control of the city traffic department. The City of Mississauga, has to elect to make the LRT the (not a) priority in the corridor. Everyone also needs to resist the temptation to just add stops. Improve stops yes, more no.
On the other hand, the density of destinations is lower than it could be without the restrictions on building height, which *forces* longer trip distances.
Yes, and zoning near rapid transit needs to change. As it is, there is no obvious route for a subway that would pick up a lot more density than what already exists near the City center and GO stations. Really need to update the zoning near rapid transit to go from fractional to multiple coverage.
The entire GTA transit system is geared for trips to and from Toronto downtown. That mentality has to break - there are lots of dense office parks in Markham, Vaughn, Mississauga, and Oakville; and there are also lots of people making commutes such as Mississauga to Markham, or Oshawa to Markham or Toronto downtown to Markham etc.
Even connecting the dense commercial/office locations to all-day Go Transit would make gear progress. Running a train parallel to lakeshore but along Sheppard or Steeles would also help out in similar fashion.
Yes, because downtown Toronto is loaded with trip generators. You don't make transit better by not connecting to it. Obviously other places can be connected, but suburban office parks are not great and probably do not have a great future!
At some point due to land scarcity, it may make sense to upzone some of those office parks for medium/high density commercial and connect them via appropriately sized transit. This would either free up a lot of land or just reduce pressure to sprawl more 1-2 story office space.
There is plenty of low density commercial near the Meadowvale Go in Mississauga that could already be upzoned like this. Though that stop is on the Milton line, so train capacity is currently limited.
The transit enhancement & upzoning could probably be focused on the most promising areas for now, some could be ID'd outside of downtown Toronto to get the intensification ball rolling.
Maybe upzone not just due to land scarcity, but also because trip distances can generally be shorter with more density of destinations, and there is also the economies of density.
> Can we also please remember when talking about speed and travel time that this subway
> would run at more than triple the average speed of the Finch LRT, and someone going from
> Mississauga City Centre would have faster access to downtown Toronto than someone at the > end (or probably even middle) of “Line 6”?
But most trips are under 5km long, and most trips longer than that are for work. Toronto is quite low-density (from what I know), and this leads to longer trip distances. If a greater density of destinations is created, people do not need to travel as far.
> Make it about housing, make it about fairness with Toronto,
> make it about shifting people out of cars
> — there are no shortage of reasons why this project would make a lot of sense.
Why not make it about reducing the need for longer trip distances, namely with more density of destinations?
This is a classic mistake planners and some advocates make. You can't engineer peoples journeys this way. The reason most trips are so short is because they are to local stuff that people could find anywhere, its much harder to serve those trips with true mass transit. The point is commutes to big nodes are where you have the collective trip volume to justify big investments!
I cannot exactly follow the third sentence. My point is that built-density affects trip distances.
According to a video on Oh the Urbanity, developers wanted to build a high-rise somewhere in Toronto, but residents fought back and got a four-storey-high infill instead. It was finished in 1981.