miWay Transit

[Wm Perkins Bull]

No riders nor destinations for riders to go to, This go back to the 70/80s when the city had the chance to build the road over the Credit River, but the golfers got their way buy killing the idea. The late Ward 1 councilor was planning not only on pushing that extension over the river, but to a new interchange on the 403.

Route 4 only used to use the service roads to/from Sherway until traffic and construction became a problem for westbound and it was move to the Queensway

The Queensway needs to get punched through all the way to Winston Churchill

 

[JJTheJetPln]

The Queensway needs to get punched through all the way to Winston Churchill

I'm genuinely surprised it hasn't been. But then again, after looking at aerial views of Queensway / Old Carriage Road, the golf club, Blythe road, and Sheridan Park.... It I guess tells me all I need to know in terms of why they won't do it.

 

[drum118]

I'm genuinely surprised it hasn't been. But then again, after looking at aerial views of Queensway / Old Carriage Road, the golf club, Blythe road, and Sheridan Park.... It I guess tells me all I need to know in terms of why they won't do it.

The road goes through the ex-mayor backyard to start with and those fools on Mississauga Road backyard as well for starters. Hazelle stated public a few years before her passing that not building the extension was one of her mistakes while being mayor

As for south of the QEW, you have too many $5-$20 million homes on roads like Stavebank that are narrow single lane road with no room for widen for both N-S and E-W.

My first house was on Atwater and it connects to Minneola as an e-w road with the River to the west and the 2 golf courses to the east preventing a longer road as well being only single lane in the first place. Mississauga has lack grid roads since I first moved to the city and can be hard to get around driving if the QEW goes down or special events that close roads for transit.

Mississauga is made up of towns and villages who had no need to meet today needs for roads and built what they needed to meet their needs.

Transit will suffer due to these towns, villages, but most of all poor urban planning for low density and having the car been the main mold for getting about in the city. The city is unwilling to increase density in many parts of the city to support transit in the first place and thinks the core is the place to building as its downtown which I see will never be a downtown with the current thinking and building in the park for it.

 

[Dan416]

I get the challenges w/Stavebank, but a more than 4km gap from Hurontario to Erin Mills/Southdown its too much for N-S routes, indeed, frequent N-S routes.

You want to think of someone not living right on Lakeshore and mid-way'ish between those 2, they're facing a 2km+walk to a frequent transit stop.

That's a distance where serious modal share for transit not plausible.

Now, I'm not stuck on Stavebank; but the point would be link a major N-S road north of QEW down to Lakeshore. The location of the Valley means there aren't a lot of good choices, as you don't want to duplicate the on-an-angle Mississauga Road.

Erindale Stn Road/Glengarry line up with Woodeden to the south, but that seems no less awkward and requires a massive valley crossing at great expense as well. I'll gladly entertain a different grid-layout that makes sense. I realize any choice here is expensive and has its drawbacks. Its not the first place I'd drop cash here, nor second or third; but it one doesn't keep this mind, one can't use The Official Plan/Zoning and coordinated infrastructure plans to at least keep the option open, if not gradually put the pieces in place over time.

If you're talking about the gap between Hurontario and Erin Mills, I really don't see how Stavebank even comes into the discussion. At Lakeshore it's less than 500 m from Hurontario. What does that do to fix a 4 km gap?

Honestly I've lived in Mississauga nearly my entire life, and I don't think anyone has ever suggested the need for a new N-S street along the river bank, or anywhere within the Credit Valley.

I have heard many times people talk about Queensway crossing the river, which I kinda get. But I'm still not convinced even that is necessary, because if it was, we'd probably have done that by now.

I think the estimation of how many people in that quadrant need public transit is vastly overestimated. I don't think the citizens of Mineola West would appreciate an arterial road being plopped in their neighbourhood (particularly when they're already right beside Hurontario already), nor would Credit Valley Conservation likely be in favour of Stavebank being a new arterial road, seeing how close it is to the river.

As for Lorne Park, whereas on a map I think it makes more sense for a new N-S street to extend Erindale Station Road/Glengarry to the south, I cannot imagine that happening either. The people who live there would have no desire for a road nor transit.

I really think this idea is a complete non-starter, as long as this area is full of multimillion dollar homes. If the areas ever change, and somehow all these homes are abandoned / converted to higher density, maybe. But right now any bus you would presumptively run there would be as infrequent and underused as Lakeshore itself.

 

[Northern Light]

If you're talking about the gap between Hurontario and Erin Mills, I really don't see how Stavebank even comes into the discussion. At Lakeshore it's less than 500 m from Hurontario. What does that do to fix a 4 km gap?

I get that its not ideal, but running a road down the valley is a non-starter, so you have to go to one side or the other. You also need to see a logical extension across the highway, and to consider the costs.

I'm quite open to alternative solutions. This is not my hill to die on...........its just one possible way to address the issue.

Honestly I've lived in Mississauga nearly my entire life, and I don't think anyone has ever suggested the need for a new N-S street along the river bank

That's because most of those existing residents are driving and don't care if transit is poor.

But we're clearly moving towards substantial intensification around Lakeshore, and around all of the existing GO Stations and at least one additional one.

A good chunk of those new residents will need to go north. If they all drive, Lakeshore, Hurontario and Southdown will all be hopelessly gridlocked.

You're going to need to find at least one additional path/route. For cars and for transit.

, or anywhere within the Credit Valley.

Other than a bridge crossing any intrusion into the valley is a complete non-starter, and should be.

I have heard many times people talk about Queensway crossing the river, which I kinda get. But I'm still not convinced even that is necessary, because if it was, we'd probably have done that by now.

I think Drum has done a good job explaining the history there, and I've read his past explanations on Queensway, and spoken w/some in the Mississauga civil service who feel not doing this was an enormous mistake and one in dire need of correction.

The notion that if there's a need, governement will automatically see to it that its met is a curious one......... see our homelessness problem or our drug addiction issues, or the shortage of family doctors.....and you'll quickly come to understand that just because something is a good idea or very needed does not mean it will get done.

Opposition, entrenched interests, politics, and financial cost, among other things, all effect what gets done and what does not.

I think the estimation of how many people in that quadrant need public transit is vastly overestimated. I don't think the citizens of Mineola West would appreciate an arterial road being plopped in their neighbourhood (particularly when they're already right beside Hurontario already), nor would Credit Valley Conservation likely be in favour of Stavebank being a new arterial road, seeing how close it is to the river.

As someone who has worked closely with Conservation staff, including those at the CVCA, I can tell you that unto itself, it wouldn't be an issue, they would simply impose conditions that would make it more expensive, such as re-aligning the road to the east in spots, and investing in road salt mitigation measures. They would generally want the road set back 30M from STOS (Stable top of slope), but would likely work with 10M if pragmatism demanded it.

To be clear, I'm not quoting any CVCA official here, on this particular idea, but I have had discussions on similar'ish projects w/them, and the criteria they apply.

As for Lorne Park, whereas on a map I think it makes more sense for a new N-S street to extend Erindale Station Road/Glengarry to the south, I cannot imagine that happening either. The people who live there would have no desire for a road nor transit.

Again, this isn't about the people there now, its about all the density being added.

I really think this idea is a complete non-starter, as long as this area is full of multimillion dollar homes. If the areas ever change, and somehow all these homes are abandoned / converted to higher density, maybe. But right now any bus you would presumptively run there would be as infrequent and underused as Lakeshore itself.

You're welcome to that view, its one I don't share.

 

[Dan416]

Yeah of course you’re welcome to your view as well. I’ve never even heard the city discuss such a need before. It’s never been a public discussion.

I would be extremely surprised if this were to happen anytime within the next 50 years, to be honest. Mississauga has much more pressing concerns than a road that no one has ever asked for and basically borders on fantasyland. Roads are not something that Mississauga lacks. Spend that money on transit instead.

 

[Northern Light]

This discussion (completing the grid) is tangential to the thread, except in so far as it impacts transit routes, so I don't want to drag it out.

But it got me thinking......that I wanted to share the long-term road network plan for Mississauga, as it was last approved in 2010:

Source: https://www7.mississauga.ca/documents/pb/main/2020/Sched_5_roadtran_V7.004.pdf

At the link above you can enlarge the map to make the details more readable.

Interesting to look at what has been done from this plan, what is still planned to be done, and then to note, this plan is up for renewal ~2030.

 

[Dan416]

This discussion (completing the grid) is tangential to the thread, except in so far as it impacts transit routes, so I don't want to drag it out.

But it got me thinking......that I wanted to share the long-term road network plan for Mississauga, as it was last approved in 2010:

View attachment 611467

Source: https://www7.mississauga.ca/documents/pb/main/2020/Sched_5_roadtran_V7.004.pdf

At the link above you can enlarge the map to make the details more readable.

Interesting to look at what has been done from this plan, what is still planned to be done, and then to note, this plan is up for renewal ~2030.

From this plan I don’t see much planned or done.

A couple that I have heard about are the Britannia Rd E extension west over the 410 and the Creekbank extension over the 401.

Neither have had any progress.

I am not a fan of the half-hearted Britannia concept. They should realign Britannia to be continuous over the 401 and 410 rather than a jog. They should route the eastern section more southward to make it easier to align with the western section.

 

[drum118]

The link to the survey is here:

 

[BakedPasta]

The link to the survey is here:

I hope they are considering partnering with an existing 3rd party app like “Transit”. I believe some other agencies are already doing that and the user experience is much better than any agency-specific app could ever be.

 

[Northern Light]

Miway 2025 Service Plan Images: (from poster Arc2222, at CPTDB)

****

Lots of good improvements above........but I continue to hate Miway, like York Region's aversion to clockface service, I also don't get ranges....

I mean every 19-24M is a huge swing..........the Airport route.

 

[MiExpress]

Miway 2025 Service Plan Images: (from poster Arc2222, at CPTDB)

****

Lots of good improvements above........but I continue to hate Miway, like York Region's aversion to clockface service, I also don't get ranges....

I mean every 19-24M is a huge swing..........the Airport route.

For the example of the 7 Airport's Saturday service, currently it operates every 24 minutes during the daytime and 36 minutes in the evening. What they are likely trying to suggest is that the frequency will be improved to 19 minutes in the daytime and 24 minutes in the evening. It is a poor way of communicating it however.

Frequency improvements are always welcome, but many of the proposed improvements only return some routes close to their pre-pandemic rush hour frequencies, or in the case of others, not even close.

When thinking about a frequent network, 20 minute rush hour service should not be considered frequent, and the industry consensus seems to be that 15 minutes is the minimum to be considered frequent.

In my personal opinion, MiWay's current route network design is not very conducive to a successful frequent network as there is too much mix of hub and spoke vs grid elements, routes that should be grid also serving as coverage routes, many non-existent or indirect connections (no 26 to 45 connection, indirect 38/44 and 42 connections just to name a few examples). There is also a continuing emphasis on introducing overlaying express routes rather than increasing frequency of the local route.

There is a survey available to fill out and the full slide deck is here.

 

[Northern Light]

For the example of the 7 Airport's Saturday service, currently it operates every 24 minutes during the daytime and 36 minutes in the evening. What they are likely trying to suggest is that the frequency will be improved to 19 minutes in the daytime and 24 minutes in the evening. It is a poor way of communicating it however.

That is indeed a very poor way of communicating that; thank you for clarifying.

When thinking about a frequent network, 20 minute rush hour service should not be considered frequent, and the industry consensus seems to be that 15 minutes is the minimum to be considered frequent.

I concur, and would add, 15M really should be the minimum during most service periods, on most grid routes, weekday daytime, weekday early evening, Saturday, from 8am to 10pm, Sunday daytime, at the very least.

The above, in addition to peak service, of course.

In my personal opinion, MiWay's current route network design is not very conducive to a successful frequent network as there is too much mix of hub and spoke vs grid elements, routes that should be grid also serving as coverage routes,

I also agree. I think the base network should come first, most/all major arterials, generally running across the length of same. Then you layer on a small number of additional targeted services where you have the concentrated demand (City Centre, UTM, the Airport), and can consider 1 or 2 routes that can layer in to those hubs to simplify transfers and make service more attractive.

There is a survey available to fill out and the full slide deck is here.

Thanks.