CDL.TO
Moderator
Let's not get started on the London "Underground".
RedRocket191
Senior Member
What about the London Overground? 
scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
Heck, with shallow trenches, you could say I'm calling for the Ground...
CDL.TO
Moderator
What about the London Overground?
Ah yes. It's taking over an underground Underground line. Now there's a conundrum.
Hey look! London is converting a subway line a s-bahn/suburban rail line, but yet no one is complaining that they're getting second-class transit.
doady
Senior Member
Some might say though that London already has a larger subway system than Toronto, even after such a conversion.
Some might say though that Mississauga is pedestrian unfriendly, and that yet another barrier to pedestrians might make it even more so.
scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
There'd be at least a bridge at every road, if not more often. If a barrier is defined as preventing someone from walking from the middle of a parking lot or grassy knoll to a midblock point on Hurontario fronted by absolutely nothing other than parking lots and grassy knolls, then, yes, it'd be a barrier to this sort of random movement to nowhere. Of course, no one randomly wanders around these places, so no one will be affected by this "barrier."
CDL.TO
Moderator
It doesn't have to be so extensive... or it could be even more extensive. But a Mississauga-centred rail line running though MCC could bring thousands of people into the city for employment and shopping and help drive the development of MCC as a true regional centre.
RedRocket191
Senior Member
I went to the Hurontario Rapid Transit / Urban Design public information centre at Brampton City Hall tonight. Overall it was a very good session, and while there wasn't a lot of people there, they answered all of the questions asked with a lot of depth. They seemed genuinely interested in the suggestions we had to offer, both written and verbally. There was paper, pens and post-it notes for use to use, and it was always within arms' reach.
From the transit side of things, the decision was clearly between LRT and BRT. Subways and elevated alignments didn't seem to be on the table. The only uncertainty was how to deal with the narrow sections between Queen Street & Shoppers World, and between the QEW & Lakeshore. Brampton is also looking at moving the Shoppers World terminal closer to Main Street, which I take as an indication that they are striving for better.
From the urban design side of things, I got the sense that there was a real desire to build transit oriented development along the corridor in order to make Hurontario be more of a complete street. The slogan used was "21st Century Main Street", and many of the concepts presented reminded me of the lively main streets in small towns in Ontario. The only challenge will be how to urbanize the area between Steeles and Bristol, but I have a feeling that Orlando's 75-foot setback building will be the last of its kind, if it's built at all.
Overall, I think it was a great session. I can only hope the Mississauga side presents the same vision to the public tomorrow.
From the transit side of things, the decision was clearly between LRT and BRT. Subways and elevated alignments didn't seem to be on the table. The only uncertainty was how to deal with the narrow sections between Queen Street & Shoppers World, and between the QEW & Lakeshore. Brampton is also looking at moving the Shoppers World terminal closer to Main Street, which I take as an indication that they are striving for better.
From the urban design side of things, I got the sense that there was a real desire to build transit oriented development along the corridor in order to make Hurontario be more of a complete street. The slogan used was "21st Century Main Street", and many of the concepts presented reminded me of the lively main streets in small towns in Ontario. The only challenge will be how to urbanize the area between Steeles and Bristol, but I have a feeling that Orlando's 75-foot setback building will be the last of its kind, if it's built at all.
Overall, I think it was a great session. I can only hope the Mississauga side presents the same vision to the public tomorrow.
Dan416
Senior Member
Were most people in favour of LRT over BRT?
RedRocket191
Senior Member
Using dotmocracy (which is legally binding), yes.
khris
Senior Member
If BRT gets chosen, I will be very disappointed.
nfitz
Superstar
If we wanted to be consistent, if it uses Skytrain technology we'd call it a skytrain ... but we don't.
We've never used the subway terminology for anything other than a railway that is mostly below ground surface - either in a tunnel or a cut of some kind. If we start building elevated railways, are we really going to call them subways?
nfitz
Superstar
Why would they? As part of the upgrade they are increasing the frequency of the trains, significantly extending the line, and introducing rolling stock that will run faster.
CDL.TO
Moderator
Well, exactly. The point is that the terminology doesn't matter and people seem to concentrate on that far too much. A subway is not automatically better. What matters is service.
nfitz
Superstar
I missed something somewhere - wouldn't people prefer traditional rail service to subway? It's faster (because less stations). Which is why the Paris RER works so well (though I'd hardly call the East London Overground line RER - station spacing is quite close). Though if anyone had any sense, they'd prefer the SRT technology to subway, simply because it is quicker than the subway (completely ignoring capacity issues - but a decent choice for lesser used lines, such as Sheppard and Eglinton).