Mississauga Hurontario-Main Line 10 LRT | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx

[sixrings]

Sixrings again has it out for me.

Never have I ever defended burying Eglinton West.
Never have I ever defended canceling Sheppard East (Although a Line 4 extension does make more sense to avoid a linear transfer.)

I keep going on about Elevated, which you fail to mention.

Guess what Mississauga has, massive fing roads, surely enough room for some elevated lines?

massive roads surely enough room for BRT or ROW LRT... If the people of Eglinton dont want to live beside elevated lines, the people of Sheppard dont want to live beside elevated lines, the people of Scarborough dont want to live beside elevated lines then guess what Mississauga people dont want them either.

I am still extremely confused that anyone thinks elevated lines are urban? If Toronto is so great shouldn’t Mississauga copy them. Did they start their transit networks elevated? I thought the legacy street car network was the great bones of the TTC. Maybe I missed something somewhere.

Finally you seem to really be hung up on inter city connectivity while praising being urban through elevated lines. The Hurontario line is not meant for inter city connectivity unless that city is Brampton. Sure the LRT line helps Mississauga people get to GO stations but its more for moving people along Hurontario. Also I would think that if Mississaugas goal is to become its own city versus just a bedroom community then it needs to focus as much as on itself than trying to connect to other places. The goal is to keep people in Mississauga, or draw people to Mississauga it isnt to give people as fast access to the neighbouring city.

 

[Lake Ontario]

Rail has been installed at the Watline/Milverton intersection:

Looking south:

Matheson station:

 

[afransen]

I don't see why. You can see the LRV coming from a long-distance. And it will be a lot safer crossing Eglinton than it is now. And no one proposes putting fences there now.

I'd expect cars will be a bigger issue than pedestrians.

In places where people frequently cross the tracks, speeds have to be kept low. Pedestrians misjudge how fast LRVs are moving and how much room they need to slow down. Transit operators can't be emergency stopping on a regular basis for the comfort and safety of passengers. That means low speeds. Some times that is appropriate like in a transit mall like say King St.

 

[T3G]

In places where people frequently cross the tracks, speeds have to be kept low.

Wouldn't the solution to this be to set up the track in a way that it is not user friendly for people to cross, i.e. not embedding it in concrete?

 

[SashaLemon]

If the people of Eglinton dont want to live beside elevated lines, the people of Sheppard dont want to live beside elevated lines, the people of Scarborough dont want to live beside elevated lines then guess what Mississauga people dont want them either.

Yes. Because these two streets have the exact same design characteristics, and a transit option has the same pros and cons regardless of location. Never mind that you just won't be able to build elevated here. (As this is North America and we see this as too tight I guess.) And we need some sort of grade separation in order to provide the highest quality transit we can. On Hurontario there is a truly monumental amount of room. And yes, I think the Line 5 West extension should be elevated most of its route, not tunneled. But then Metrolinx would of had to make a good design choice...

I am still extremely confused that anyone thinks elevated lines are urban?

Yeah. I guess your right. There are no elevated rail lines in cities.

inter city connectivity while praising being urban through elevated lines

This is crazy to me. You are just consistently advocating for worse transit, literally just trams and BRT for a city of 800,000. There are many many many examples of elevated metro systems in the world. I don't know why you think they are "inter-city". In fact I don't even know what "inter-city" lines ARE elevated. Maybe Japan and China. But those are mainline tracks. And a lot of High Speed Rail as well. Bizarre how you don't understand this.

 

[afransen]

Finally you seem to really be hung up on inter city connectivity while praising being urban through elevated lines. The Hurontario line is not meant for inter city connectivity unless that city is Brampton. Sure the LRT line helps Mississauga people get to GO stations but its more for moving people along Hurontario. Also I would think that if Mississaugas goal is to become its own city versus just a bedroom community then it needs to focus as much as on itself than trying to connect to other places.

HuLRT is going to be 20-ish km once it is completed to Brampton GO. This is a similar distance as Port Credit GO to Union. We are talking regional distances. If this LRT is just for local service, why would it go past Eglinton?

 

[sixrings]

HuLRT is going to be 20-ish km once it is completed to Brampton GO. This is a similar distance as Port Credit GO to Union. We are talking regional distances. If this LRT is just for local service, why would it go past Eglinton?

I agree it’s regional in one sense that it covers a large area but in usage I am sure it isn’t meant to be regional. Most people won’t be getting on at the first station and exit at the last station which sure is 20kmish. Meanwhile anyone who gets on at cooksville, or port credit is almost certainly going all the way to union. So they might be the same distance but they serve different purposes.

Could we use more regional lines to get to places quickly like Toronto. Or for people from Toronto to get to Mississauga sure. But that’s not the purpose of hurontario line. It isn’t to funnel people from the southern parts of Mississauga as quickly as possible to Brampton. And it isn’t to funnel the people from Brampton as quickly as possible to the southern parts of Mississauga. It’s meant for people who live on hurontario to get to places on hurontario.

 

[nfitz]

In places where people frequently cross the tracks, speeds have to be kept low.

The operative word here is "frequently". Though if they are crossing frequently - it's time to add a pedestrian crossing.

This is crazy to me. You are just consistently advocating for worse transit, literally just trams and BRT for a city of 800,000.

Perhaps we should discuss what's being built, and save the fantasy and alternate-history discussions to the fantasy thread - there's no need to keep revisiting this decision - which was finalized last decade.

 

[T3G]

The constant discourse about whether a line is grade separated or not strikes me as missing the forest for the trees. Provided no asinine TTC style operating procedures are introduced, even a non grade separated line is going to be much faster than the bus lines it's replacing running in mid traffic. And I don't know of any Hurontario-style line in Europe, situated in the middle of a stroad, that artificially imposes speed limits because of frequent pedestrian crossings.

 

[sixrings]

Yes. Because these two streets have the exact same design characteristics, and a transit option has the same pros and cons regardless of location. Never mind that you just won't be able to build elevated here. (As this is North America and we see this as too tight I guess.) And we need some sort of grade separation in order to provide the highest quality transit we can. On Hurontario there is a truly monumental amount of room. And yes, I think the Line 5 West extension should be elevated most of its route, not tunneled. But then Metrolinx would of had to make a good design choice... View attachment 425526View attachment 425527




Yeah. I guess your right. There are no elevated rail lines in cities.

View attachment 425533View attachment 425535View attachment 425536View attachment 425537View attachment 425538View attachment 425543



This is crazy to me. You are just consistently advocating for worse transit, literally just trams and BRT for a city of 800,000. There are many many many examples of elevated metro systems in the world. I don't know why you think they are "inter-city". In fact I don't even know what "inter-city" lines ARE elevated. Maybe Japan and China. But those are mainline tracks. And a lot of High Speed Rail as well. Bizarre how you don't understand this.

No one said there are zero elevated lines in cities. The question is if they are desirable. The fact that we can’t build them in Toronto should tell you they are not as marketable as you think they are. When a lot of people think of elevated transit right fully or wrongfully they think of movies from New York City, Philly, Chicago where people live in gritty apartments beside a elevated line and every time the train passes the apartment almost shakes. Plus there are benefits of lrt in a row on the street. It is more accessible. You don’t need stairs. And todays building laws would require elevators for accessibility purposes. These things break. There’s a reason they took out the walking sidewalk in the spadina subway transfer area. They break and are expensive to maintain. It’s also much faster to get on and off a train if it’s in the median then having to go either up to elevated transit or underground to a subway. The ride itself may not be as quick but the accessibility is faster. Stations are far cheaper in a row and you can build more making the system more useful then a system you are proposing. Then there’s the aesthetics. I’m sure there are places where elevated is done right. But so many places I have been to where elevated is around what’s underneath is often barren. So the actual urban area becomes a place you don’t want to walk. Quite the opposite of urban.

Anyways there’s a reason no one in Toronto wants elevated and there’s a very good reason people in Mississauga don’t either. You can keep pounding the elevated line mantra all you want but it’s never had any traction in Toronto and the one line which we had we have decided to bury while the other line we were in the process of making we also buried. If it doesn’t gain traction in Toronto then it’s not going to be made in the 905. Because as much as I defend the 905 they are always going to look at the 416 for inspiration.

Finally we had hazel forever. Personally I’m going to give Bonnie a minute to get her footing before I judge if this city is progressive or not.

 

[afransen]

I agree it’s regional in one sense that it covers a large area but in usage I am sure it isn’t meant to be regional. Most people won’t be getting on at the first station and exit at the last station which sure is 20kmish. Meanwhile anyone who gets on at cooksville, or port credit is almost certainly going all the way to union. So they might be the same distance but they serve different purposes.

Could we use more regional lines to get to places quickly like Toronto. Or for people from Toronto to get to Mississauga sure. But that’s not the purpose of hurontario line. It isn’t to funnel people from the southern parts of Mississauga as quickly as possible to Brampton. And it isn’t to funnel the people from Brampton as quickly as possible to the southern parts of Mississauga. It’s meant for people who live on hurontario to get to places on hurontario.

If it is meant for local service, how is it beneficial to cut back on stops and service frequency by switching it to LRV?

If it is local, it would have been better off as dedicated bus lanes with frequent service. When we are spending rail money, it should not be for local service, unless buses aren't up to the local passenger demand like the streetcar network downtown.

 

[SashaLemon]

No one said there are zero elevated lines in cities. The question is if they are desirable. The fact that we can’t build them in Toronto should tell you they are not as marketable as you think they are. When a lot of people think of elevated transit right fully or wrongfully they think of movies from New York City, Philly, Chicago where people live in gritty apartments beside a elevated line and every time the train passes the apartment almost shakes. Plus there are benefits of lrt in a row on the street. It is more accessible. You don’t need stairs. And todays building laws would require elevators for accessibility purposes. These things break. There’s a reason they took out the walking sidewalk in the spadina subway transfer area. They break and are expensive to maintain. It’s also much faster to get on and off a train if it’s in the median then having to go either up to elevated transit or underground to a subway. The ride itself may not be as quick but the accessibility is faster. Stations are far cheaper in a row and you can build more making the system more useful then a system you are proposing. Then there’s the aesthetics. I’m sure there are places where elevated is done right. But so many places I have been to where elevated is around what’s underneath is often barren. So the actual urban area becomes a place you don’t want to walk. Quite the opposite of urban.

Anyways there’s a reason no one in Toronto wants elevated and there’s a very good reason people in Mississauga don’t either. You can keep pounding the elevated line mantra all you want but it’s never had any traction in Toronto and the one line which we had we have decided to bury while the other line we were in the process of making we also buried. If it doesn’t gain traction in Toronto then it’s not going to be made in the 905. Because as much as I defend the 905 they are always going to look at the 416 for inspiration.

Ignore all the examples I posted, that's okay.

Trams are great for local transit, but when that is all you have to cover a sprawling city of 800,000 that is not great. How are you supposed to get across the city quickly when your on a tram?

Anyways there’s a reason no one in Toronto wants elevated and there’s a very good reason people in Mississauga don’t either.

I guess Vancouver is just better then us...

 

[afransen]

Trams are great for local transit, but when that is all you have to cover a sprawling city of 800,000 that is not great. How are you supposed to get across the city quickly when your on a tram?

Keep driving your car.

 

[sixrings]

If it is meant for local service, how is it beneficial to cut back on stops and service frequency by switching it to LRV?

If it is local, it would have been better off as dedicated bus lanes with frequent service. When we are spending rail money, it should not be for local service, unless buses aren't up to the local passenger demand like the streetcar network downtown.

I don’t think you’re going to like my answer. I believe the upgrade is to say we are prioritizing hurontario. We might not be able to afford a subway but surely we can do better than a bus. When transit city was being discussed there was several surveys which basically all showed that people preferred rail transit because of comfort and their own bias that it felt more upscale. While busses simply had a poor image surrounding them. Also the studies showed that development often came when rails where introduced because people saw rail as permanent where as a bus lane could easily be given back to a car. So to answer your question I believe the lrt was chosen for aesthetics, peoples preference, development just as much as what mode would actually move people. I don’t think it’s a complete gentrification project but that said hurontario is booming with applications now that the line is almost in. And for a city that is trying to identify itself I don’t actually think that is a bad thing.

 

[T3G]

Trams are great for local transit, but when that is all you have to cover a sprawling city of 800,000 that is not great. How are you supposed to get across the city quickly when your on a tram?

Have you seen the schedules for the service already? Do you know something we don't?