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

ARG1 said:
How much extra lanes improve traffic basically operates on a log graph. Reducing a 4 lane road to a 2 lane road is a MASSIVE deal. Meanwhile reducing a 6 lane road to a 4 lane road, eh, doesn't do nearly as much, especially on a regular major street (this is different than for instance on a highway), so its not a fair comparison.

Also, digging a tunnel under Yonge? Neat. To bad it will never happen 😟
Click to expand...
So you want transit underground so you can zoom along streets with no care in the world that transit riders must be rats as they will see no daylight or see what taking place on the street in the first place doing so.

Transit is slow in mix traffic and a ROW takes up more space to offer a faster trip. Both Brampton and RH need to remove on street parking and learn to live with the standard 1 lane road they use today. All you are doing is removing the on street parking and turning it into a traffic lane that will run next to the LRT/BRT ROW, so what is the different??

Where do you plan to put the 1.8 to 2.2 million more cars on the road by 2040 when today roads can't deal with what we have today???
 
Bojaxs said:
Surprised at how accommodating the 407 has been. Are they allowing this construction purely as good PR? Doesn't the 407's contract with the province forbid the construction of mass transit projects near or on 407 property?
Click to expand...

No. The 407 agreement has a non-compete with regard to future highway construction but that's about it.
 
drum118 said:
So you want transit underground so you can zoom along streets with no care in the world that transit riders must be rats as they will see no daylight or see what taking place on the street in the first place doing so.

Transit is slow in mix traffic and a ROW takes up more space to offer a faster trip. Both Brampton and RH need to remove on street parking and learn to live with the standard 1 lane road they use today. All you are doing is removing the on street parking and turning it into a traffic lane that will run next to the LRT/BRT ROW, so what is the different??

Where do you plan to put the 1.8 to 2.2 million more cars on the road by 2040 when today roads can't deal with what we have today???
Click to expand...
Now you're quite literally making the "Bramptonians will forever live in darkness". argument. Rapid Transit underground is almost always faster than Rapid Transit on the street in its own ROW. Ignoring the fact there are less stops, underground/grade separated transit is less likely to have interference from outside sources such as cars stuck turning left, or poorly timed streetlights (don't respond with Signal Priority, since I've never seen that work perfectly, EVER), and the speed of LRTs travelling in a ROW in the middle of the street is always slower than underground or on an elevated guideway. When I travel on RT, I would much rather be underground than in a street median. Period.
 
ARG1 said:
Now you're quite literally making the "Bramptonians will forever live in darkness". argument. Rapid Transit underground is almost always faster than Rapid Transit on the street in its own ROW. Ignoring the fact there are less stops, underground/grade separated transit is less likely to have interference from outside sources such as cars stuck turning left, or poorly timed streetlights (don't respond with Signal Priority, since I've never seen that work perfectly, EVER), and the speed of LRTs travelling in a ROW in the middle of the street is always slower than underground or on an elevated guideway. When I travel on RT, I would much rather be underground than in a street median. Period.
Click to expand...
The underground section is under 3 km, any speed difference is going to be marginal, but the cost is $1.7 billion instead of $0.4 billion ($400 million).
 
ARG1 said:
How much extra lanes improve traffic basically operates on a log graph. Reducing a 4 lane road to a 2 lane road is a MASSIVE deal. Meanwhile reducing a 6 lane road to a 4 lane road, eh, doesn't do nearly as much, especially on a regular major street (this is different than for instance on a highway), so its not a fair comparison.
Click to expand...
Hey there, your facts are probably correct and your thinking is great ... for a highway. I ask you to kindly take into consideration that we are talking about main (literally Main) street here. Instead of focusing on level of service (traffic throughput), let's also think about safety and walkability. Sure, removing a lane might significantly reduce the level of service, but it just so happens that the best urban streets all have terrible level of service. Traffic moves slowly, and people feel safe to walk along the street.
With this reduction in lanes, downtown Brampton will become more pedestrian-friendly and more urban.. and wait! Isn't this exactly what they're trying to achieve? A more vibrant downtown?
:)
p.s. I hesitate to use the world 'disaster'. Time and time again, local and global examples have proven that when you take lanes away (or road becomes more 'congested'), people driving will simply change their habits, be it taking an alternative route or switching to another mode of transportation.
 
I don't think people are afraid of walking along a street just because its four lanes. Also, if an area is undesirable, narrowing a street is not likely to gentrify it.
 
jys said:
Hey there, your facts are probably correct and your thinking is great ... for a highway. I ask you to kindly take into consideration that we are talking about main (literally Main) street here. Instead of focusing on level of service (traffic throughput), let's also think about safety and walkability. Sure, removing a lane might significantly reduce the level of service, but it just so happens that the best urban streets all have terrible level of service. Traffic moves slowly, and people feel safe to walk along the street.
With this reduction in lanes, downtown Brampton will become more pedestrian-friendly and more urban.. and wait! Isn't this exactly what they're trying to achieve? A more vibrant downtown?
:)
p.s. I hesitate to use the world 'disaster'. Time and time again, local and global examples have proven that when you take lanes away (or road becomes more 'congested'), people driving will simply change their habits, be it taking an alternative route or switching to another mode of transportation.
Click to expand...

That's exactly why surface LRTs can be so valuable. They're at odds with a suburban lifestyle, but can really help 'urbanize' a strip. That's why I haven't had a problem with the surface portions of the Eglinton LRT in Scarborough - it should really enhance the area from that perspective.
 
Thinking back to various places I been in Europe, Praha stands out as a city with 3 types of Tram service from mix traffic to pure ROW. The one things with Praha mix traffic, it had curb parking and very little traffic on the tracks to slow the Trams down compare to here.

Some cities had one lane of traffic next to an ROW while others have one or 2 lanes with no on street parking.

We been so fix since the 50s on the car that they must be the king of the road and transit needs to get out of their way, that we fail to see what it does to the city as a whole.

When we looked at the QQW from day one, the thought was the new street going to be 2 or 4 lanes and after many debates, it was to become 2 lanes. When it went to the public the first time during the EA, the plan was about 49-51 for the plan. We went back and had a second look to the point various counting measure were use to determined real numbers for everything at various point including checking vehicles plates to see where they were coming from in the first place. Based on vehicles counts, 65% of traffic where using QQ to bypass traffic on the Gardiner and Lake Shore. Based on the data we could go back to the public to say there was enough road space for a single lane of traffic to service the local area as well visitors to the area.

Regardless if the road is 2-6 lanes, it what exist along the road to say it a safe area to walk or not. Been in a number of cities where it wasn't safe to walk the street.

It boils down do we waste tons of money building tunnels to allow a small percentage of people to drive on the surface compare to taking that same amount and building more KM of RT or beefing up service or expanding the system?? The pols only look at what will it take to get elected or stay in office with no experience using transit nor real understand it.
 
afransen said:
$1.3billion to keep a few hundred parking spaces on street? Ridiculous. Build an underground garage or two if needs be.
Click to expand...
There are five city owned parking facilities, downtown, and when I asked them if the parking garages have ever reached 95% full, they couldn't say. And the parking facilities are already heavily subsidized at only $308 a year, with most of it being used by employees who receive a further 50% off.

afransen said:
High speeds mean high traffic noise, which makes it really unpleasant to walk or be on the street.
Click to expand...
Now what would it be like if we turned the section into a transit mall, closed to cars, but allowing buses to go through, and the side lanes are used to widen the sidewalk, and add bike lanes?
 
drum118 said:
Thinking back to various places I been in Europe, Praha stands out as a city with 3 types of Tram service from mix traffic to pure ROW. The one things with Praha mix traffic, it had curb parking and very little traffic on the tracks to slow the Trams down compare to here.

Some cities had one lane of traffic next to an ROW while others have one or 2 lanes with no on street parking.

We been so fix since the 50s on the car that they must be the king of the road and transit needs to get out of their way, that we fail to see what it does to the city as a whole.

When we looked at the QQW from day one, the thought was the new street going to be 2 or 4 lanes and after many debates, it was to become 2 lanes. When it went to the public the first time during the EA, the plan was about 49-51 for the plan. We went back and had a second look to the point various counting measure were use to determined real numbers for everything at various point including checking vehicles plates to see where they were coming from in the first place. Based on vehicles counts, 65% of traffic where using QQ to bypass traffic on the Gardiner and Lake Shore. Based on the data we could go back to the public to say there was enough road space for a single lane of traffic to service the local area as well visitors to the area.

Regardless if the road is 2-6 lanes, it what exist along the road to say it a safe area to walk or not. Been in a number of cities where it wasn't safe to walk the street.

It boils down do we waste tons of money building tunnels to allow a small percentage of people to drive on the surface compare to taking that same amount and building more KM of RT or beefing up service or expanding the system?? The pols only look at what will it take to get elected or stay in office with no experience using transit nor real understand it.
Click to expand...

That paragraph perfectly sums up everything wrong with transit planning in the GTA today.
 
Transportfan said:
You don't need tunnels, just run it in mixed traffic in that short section.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, there are people who say having light rail vehicles will spoil the "historical" vista of Brampton's downtown. (Not really, in my opinion.) Some people think the LRT will ruin Brampton. Maybe they expect to see that barbarians from Mississauga will be invading them.

8635219_f1024.jpg

From link.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top