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

[TOareaFan]

To be brutally honest this LRT going up Main to Brampton GO wouldn't serve Brampton all that much. And a resident of Mississauga I say who cares? This line is more about creating a direct regional connection to a transit node, and less about city building in Brampton. I wouldn't mind paying more in taxes to operate a line that goes to Brampton without tax input from Bramptonians if it means more commuters coming to Mississauga for work from the Kitchener line. Brampton will have other lines that will better serve their city.

Anything other than a direct connection is a waste of time and money because it doesn't achieve the lines' goals.

I guess that is why it goes all the way straight down Hurontario because it is about connecting regional transit connections at the 3 GO lines/stations and has nothing to do with city building and all deviations from Main/Hurontario are a waste?

 

[zenmeister]

I guess that is why it goes all the way straight down Hurontario because it is about connecting regional transit connections at the 3 GO lines/stations and has nothing to do with city building and all deviations from Main/Hurontario are a waste?

In Brampton...

 

[Allandale25]

splitting hairs a bit but the route would not run past two correctional facilities as it would veer NE on the rail corridor after the first one....

That's not the correct route for the "McLaughlin" route that a majority of Council endorsed for the EA or that staff recommended.

Staff listed it in their report for the June 20, 2016 Planning Committee meeting the route to be studied with an EA as "Steeles-McLaughlin-Queen-Orangeville Brampton Railway-Brampton GO" (see page 8.1-6, 175 in the PDF). It is also known as route 5 in the route options (see page 8.1-7, page 176 in the PDF). Route 6 was the one where it veered NE along OBRY. Route 5 does follow OBRY, but only for a short section and it would start at Queen, not McLaughlin.

UPDATE: clarification provided in post 2682.

 

[TOareaFan]

right...that is what I said...it does not run past the second correctional facility as it veers off on the rail corridor south of it

 

[Allandale25]

right...that is what I said...it does not run past the second correctional facility as it veers off on the rail corridor south of it

Sorry I might be confused by what you're saying. Veers off of what? Aren't both facilities on the west side McLaughlin south of Queen?

 

[GTAmazing]

My understanding is that would runs up McLaughlin past 2 correctional facilities, a drug withdrawal facility and a few soccer fields before turning east on Queen Street.

 

[GTAmazing]

Here is the current ZUM map of the existing 'Rapid' transit routes (BRT-light). If I was to suggest the 1st priority route to be upgraded, I would recommend the N/S spine that connects all the others, which happens to the be the 2nd highest ridership and fastest growing ridership. Oh, and BTW, it was the fully-funded LRT route recommended by city staff and Metrolinx.

 

[TOareaFan]

Sorry I might be confused by what you're saying. Veers off of what? Aren't both facilities on the west side McLaughlin south of Queen?

yes...both are on the west side south of Queen...but one is north of the rail tracks and one is south....as the proposed/conceptualized route heads NE on the rail corridor before it gets to one facility it only really passes by one of them...but as I said at first "splitting hairs" and was never sure that showing off culture was the point.

 

[TOareaFan]

Here is the current ZUM map of the existing 'Rapid' transit routes (BRT-light). If I was to suggest the 1st priority route to be upgraded, I would recommend the N/S spine that connects all the others, which happens to the be the 2nd highest ridership and fastest growing ridership. Oh, and BTW, it was the fully-funded LRT route recommended by city staff and Metrolinx.
View attachment 79879

How much of that ridership is from the stretch from Nelson to Steeles? North of that the route is not being upgraded and south of that is not in debate

 

[Allandale25]

yes...both are on the west side south of Queen...but one is north of the rail tracks and one is south....as the proposed/conceptualized route heads NE on the rail corridor before it gets to one facility it only really passes by one of them...but as I said at first "splitting hairs" and was never sure that showing off culture was the point.

The staff recommendation was for route 5, not 6. Route 6 headed NE on the rail corridor from McLaughlin. Route 5 goes all the way up to Queen, turns right, and then turns left at OBRY (which at this point is basically running north-south). I get that it's splitting hairs to mention this kind of detail but I just wanted to reference what was actually recommended and adopted for the EA (along with Kennedy)

I've shown the two correctional facilities (Roy McMurtry Youth Centre & Ontario Correctional Institute) that the McLaughlin LRT route (in red) will pass before reaching Queen. The development potential for both sites is subject to debate of course. OBRY is also noted.

UPDATE: clarification provided in post 2682.

 

[TOareaFan]

^look at your own post 2673 which says (amongst other things)

"That staff also recommends that an EA study be undertaken for...........

.......Steeles - McLaughlin - OBRY - Brampton GO"

 

[Allandale25]

I actually said this in 2673: "Staff listed it in their report for the June 20, 2016 Planning Committee meeting the route to be studied with an EA as "Steeles-McLaughlin-Queen-Orangeville Brampton Railway-Brampton GO" (see page 8.1-6, 175 in the PDF).""

The reference to Queen is key because that's what differentiates it from route 6. Both use OBRY but route 5 uses OBRY for a shorter distance.

Update: apologies, I think I now know what you're referring to. The staff report says "including any sub-options for" so I assume that you're arguing staff will consider routes and 6 together. 6 could be a sub-route of 5. It just wasn't clear because I wasn't seeing the "sub-options" reference. I honestly wasn't sure if you were aware of 5 and just thought it was going to be 6.

^look at your own post 2673 which says (amongst other things)

"That staff also recommends that an EA study be undertaken for...........

.......Steeles - McLaughlin - OBRY - Brampton GO"

 

[TOareaFan]

^I am not arguing anything....I am continually mis-reading the same sentence over and over again (until now)....my apologies but every time I read the excerpted text you posted my eyes did not see the word "queen" in the route to be studied.....so, once, you understand that you can understand my "bafflement" that it somehow passed both jails......only on this, what, 8th attempt at reading it did my eyes allow me to see the word "queen" in there (even when I re-typed it in my last post i did not pick it up...and I can assure you that was not my intention).

So, sorry, the route to be studied does pass both jails....so I am only left with the second part of my point...."so what?".

 

[Allandale25]

Not a problem. Actually I think we could both be right because of this key word: "sub-options". Staff may ask the consultants in the EA to look at the OBRY section of 6 as a "sub-option" of 5. We'll have to see. I've updated the map I did in 2680 and added in each post on this that people should see 2682 for my clarification.

In terms of the "so-what", we won't really know if 5 or [the OBRY section of the] 6 makes a difference until the EA gets underway. One of the key directions from Council was on economic development and intensification. My sense is that there might be slightly more intensification possibilities with 5 rather than [the OBRY section of the] 6, but I'm only looking at Google Maps and there could be equal constraints for both or one could be better than the other. I don't want to pull a John Tory campaign with the Eglinton West LRT and only rely on Google Maps. We'll see what happens in the EA.

^I am not arguing anything....I am continually mis-reading the same sentence over and over again (until now)....my apologies but every time I read the excerpted text you posted my eyes did not see the word "queen" in the route to be studied.....so, once, you understand that you can understand my "bafflement" that it somehow passed both jails......only on this, what, 8th attempt at reading it did my eyes allow me to see the word "queen" in there (even when I re-typed it in my last post i did not pick it up...and I can assure you that was not my intention).

So, sorry, the route to be studied does pass both jails....so I am only left with the second part of my point...."so what?".

 

[TOareaFan]

^LRT optimists and, likely, proponents of this route would likely tell you that the entire west side of McLaughlin could be re-developed right up to Queen. I would be less optimistic about that....it is very hard for senior levels of government to find municipalities to host jails these days....and since we have two of them in Brampton I doubt there would be any great rush to redevelop those. If they opted for the route right up to Queen, you might see the city willing to sell to an developer the Flower City Campus on the former OPP grounds...or it could re-emerge as the prefered site of a future university...who knows.

The only really/readily developable lands on the McLaughlin route are on the south side of Steeles just west of Hurontario.......but those are probably going to be developed whether or not the route goes west on Steeles. The only really interesting thing (to me) about a Steeles west to McLaughlin route is that it would serve Sheridan...which none of the other routes do....is that enough to justify/support the re-routing...I don't know........

.....i will say this, that once Main itself was killed, most of the long list of "alternative routes" put forward had my eyes rolling and the only two that made me think "I wonder how they would look/do" are the two that are left.....but, again, I was never a "route guy" on this whole line so we will see.