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

Allandale25 said:
To clarify, I meant a group of people making a similar argument.
Click to expand...
As I said before, it is not a position I personally espouse....but i do respect that it was one put forward by a majority of the democratically elected members of Brampton's council.

My personal opinion always was that straight up main was/is the best RT route from Steeles and Main northward....I just took excpetion to the choice of letter before the RT ;)
 
TOareaFan said:
My personal opinion always was that straight up main was/is the best RT route from Steeles and Main northward....I just took excpetion to the choice of letter before the RT ;)
Click to expand...

In other words, you believe that the entire line from Port Credit to Brampton should have been BRT?
 
salsa said:
In other words, you believe that the entire line from Port Credit to Brampton should have been BRT?
Click to expand...
nope...my original view (largely unchanged) was PC to SQ1 LRT...SQ1-Btown BRT.

Won't discuss it further because every time I am asked about it and explain it people accuse me of re-hashing it...but it is discussed in length earlier in this thread.
 
I'm not sure why all the proposals have the portal south of Etobicoke Creek (south of Harold) - there's nothing there - and plenty of space to widen the road if necessary.
 
Last edited:
DKsan said:
Who wants to pay up to $570 million for an LRT tunnel on Main Street north of Steeles?

Main Street LRT tunnel proposed by city staff
Click to expand...
This seems (to me) to be more political posturing in a city that is taking politics to ever increasing levels.

A majority of council vote against the HMLRT surface routing between Steeles and DT GO....ask city staff to further look at other routes....only routes looked at are same route but take the surface out of it.

Goal seems pretty clear to me....show a huge cost that city taxpayers would have to take on so that public pressure is put on the dissenting councilors to give in and go back to the recommended surface route as if any/all alternatives have to cost $400 million more.

Unless (until) the feds come in and say "we'll pay for the tunnel"....none of these tunnel options will get approval...but that is (IMO) not the intent of tabling them....it is just a play to get 1 vote to swing and publicly state "I am onside with the ML proposed surface route north along Main".
 
Regarding other alignments:

The Etobicoke Creek valley route, as well as routes on Kennedy Road, McLaughlin Road, and the OBRY railway were rejected due to impacts on the environment, impacts to employment lands and stable neighbourhoods, and constraints on operating an LRT on a railway that operates freight trains during the day.
Click to expand...

I'd agree with TOareaFan's assessment. Staff consider the alternate routes unacceptable (and I'm inclined to agree with them) and so are giving council the "choice" of spending an absurd amount of money.

I don't see council responding with much other than "No, we want other alignments. We don't care what you think about them. Price them."

I'm having a hard time seeing this get resolved before the next election.
 
nfitz said:
I'm not sure why all the proposals have the portal south of Etobicoke Creek (south of Harold) - there's nothing there - and plenty of space to wider the road if necessary.
Click to expand...

I find this interesting as well. Going beneath the creek will require a hell of a dive and considerable work to stabilize soil and sufficiently waterproof. Perhaps a TPAP (if it gets to that point) will explore it further.
 
This is the third time staff looked at this. Twice they recommended the surface alignment direct on Main Street. Given that council rejected its advice, and the preferred alternative developed after a multi-year EA, staff went and had another look.

Of course the other alignments are ridiculous. The Etobicoke Creek alignment moves the LRT from in front of the complaining old white people's homes on Main, and puts it into a floodplain, while backing on to less expensive houses, also taking the LRT on a less direct corridor. The McMurchy/McLaughlin /OBRY alignments take it on a narrow freight railway (More narrow than that used by the Waterloo Ion LRT), and also moves it off-course and into areas where the houses are less expensive.

So that leaves the tunnel option. It's direct. It gets the LRT to Downtown Brampton. It panders to the NIMBYs (who will still enjoy a few years of construction in front of their homes). What were we going to expect?
 
nfitz said:
I'm not sure why all the proposals have the portal south of Etobicoke Creek (south of Harold) - there's nothing there - and plenty of space to wider the road if necessary.
Click to expand...

DonValleyRainbow said:
I find this interesting as well. Going beneath the creek will require a hell of a dive and considerable work to stabilize soil and sufficiently waterproof. Perhaps a TPAP (if it gets to that point) will explore it further.
Click to expand...

because doing it there maximizes the cost of the tunnel to construct....makes the cost of the tunnel (which will become known as the cost of "alterantive routes") so high that it is easier to get one vote opposed to the ML proposed route to "switch".
 
If you put the portal north of the bridge, then you're well into the residential stretch by the time you get it underground.
Every property south of Clarence would be losing a chunk of front lawn.
Where does Bill Davis live? Would he still be able to turn left out of his driveway?
 
The original routing was the correct routing, but I think we are at the point with the Brampton portion where if we can find consensus, let's just build it. I am sure the Province and the Feds will help fund this, as Brampton is politically important to the GTA, and is currently mostly red provincially, and completely red federally.
 
If they were proposing something underground, from say Wellington to the tracks maybe (but don't we want the LRT on surface to make the transfer to GO easier?). But from Wellington to Elgin is just insane. There's plenty of space - and if they really want to maintain 2 lanes in each direction, then some expropriation is far cheaper than tunnelling.

If Brampton wants to toss money into the flames for this, fine - but I don't see that other taxpayers from elsewhere should be involved.
 
^I'll say it again....no one in Brampton wants to spend $400MM+ on this.....what you have here is a clear attempt to make the ML planned route the only one that is "affordable"...it's an attempt to create a will to go back and say to ML "sorry, can we revisit what you wanted in first place".
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top