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

doady said:
But according to a lot of people on UrbanToronto, stub lines and forced transfers are no big deal, so maybe it will no effect.
Click to expand...

The effect of a transfer is almost entirely dependent on the wait time during that transfer. 30 minute wait is a huge deal, 90 second frequencies have very little effect with able-bodied passengers (the large majority). It's not uncommon for riders in London, Paris, Moscow, Tokyo, etc. to make 2 or even 3 transfers during their trip; but with high frequency service it's impact isn't severe and strong ridership is the result.

While Heavy Rail has strong representation in those cities, frequency seems to be key rather than rails. Frequent LRT and BRT service in those same cites also receive relatively high ridership even when implemented as a stub expansion.

Actually, in London there is even evidence that people prefer to walk rather than to stand. They aggressively change walking routes to longer pathways to prevent platform congestion; this is both for safety (crowding) and it reduces the number of customer complaints.
 
Last edited:
The cost of the surface LRT from Steeles to DT GO is ~$200MM......the tunnel adds between $400MM and $500MM (staff's thumb in the air estimate)......so the big expense is the tunnel.

The ridership studies/projections barely into BRT territory....why would anyone go to the expense of tunneling for, either, a LRT or a BRT?
 
This looks good on Council. After voting down the original surface alignment, they asked for a staff review of how to bring the LRT through Brampton, with surface LRT up Main Street not allowed as an option. What they got was a report that basically confirms that there is no better option.

The old adage - don't ask a question unless you are prepared to hear the answer.

- Paul
 
crs1026 said:
This looks good on Council. After voting down the original surface alignment, they asked for a staff review of how to bring the LRT through Brampton, with surface LRT up Main Street not allowed as an option. What they got was a report that basically confirms that there is no better option.

The old adage - don't ask a question unless you are prepared to hear the answer.

- Paul
Click to expand...
i presume you read the staff "report"? I think straight up Main is the best route for a (B)RT.....but if I was one of the proponents of any of the other routes I would be chuckling that a lot of the negative reasons staff give for rejecting them is that they are not Main Street. That is, previous administrations had put in goals like "RT on Main"....then staff say they are judging the routes in the context of city planning goals....and point out that a route up, for example, Kennedy does not "advance the city goal of having RT on Main"....there are a bunch of those in the report.

So you get this bizarre circular dance between council and staff.....council rejects a (L)RT route on Main and asks for alternatives...then staff reject the alternatives because (largely) they are not on Main.
 
This is popcorn-worthy entertainment.

The article does reference the fact that there seems to be limited intensification opportunity along Main Street. But the point of a Main Street alignment is direct and quick access to and from Brampton GO and the general downtown. If we want to strike a balance, we can eliminate alternatives that go way out of the way. We can also eliminate the alternative that goes through the river valley, that would never be acceptable economically or environmentally.

What does that leave though? All other areas between Kennedy and McLaughlin seem to be low-density established residential or creek/floodplain area. I don't see improved intensification opportunity elsewhere, so what is the argument really about?
 
DonValleyRainbow said:
This is popcorn-worthy entertainment.

The article does reference the fact that there seems to be limited intensification opportunity along Main Street. But the point of a Main Street alignment is direct and quick access to and from Brampton GO and the general downtown. If we want to strike a balance, we can eliminate alternatives that go way out of the way. We can also eliminate the alternative that goes through the river valley, that would never be acceptable economically or environmentally.

What does that leave though? All other areas between Kennedy and McLaughlin seem to be low-density established residential or creek/floodplain area. I don't see improved intensification opportunity elsewhere, so what is the argument really about?
Click to expand...

The other alignments that Bowman and other anti-LRT councillors are calling for are a ploy. Sure, they get the LRT out of the way of Bill Davis and other wealthy white people on Main Street, but they just transfer the route to be in the front yards of many more, and not so wealthy, people. The floodplain route can never be built. If you keep asking for infeasible routes because you don't like the feasible route, you get nothing.

This is the third time staff and/or outside consultants have looked at the options and called for a Main Street route.

I link to the report and the maps on my blog.

I'm also very disappointed that San Grewal is still given this assignment. His biases show; he's very close with councillors who wanted Susan Fennell out (rightly so) but wanted John Sanderson elected. With Linda Jeffrey elected instead, they've become obstructionist. Brampton Council is almost entirely white, and many councillors are Conservative. The mayor is a Liberal.
 
^I have to premise this with my usual disclaimer that I am not a proponent of any of the alternative routes....but as a local I might have perspective on the opinions of the people putting them forward.

There seem to be only two "real" alternatives....both of which end up at the Brampton GO...although in a less direct route.

The fans of the alternative that takes it west on Steeles from Gateway to McLaughlin then north to the Orangeville railway corridor and then along that to the GO station will tell you that it has the benefit of 1) touching more development potential on Steeles than is available between Steeles and DT on main and 2) serving an existing ridership driver in Sheridan college. They will also tell you that the housing on McLaughlin is no less dense than the housing on the contested stretch on Main and, given the income demographic, more likely to be transit users anyway.

The other alternative seems to be to go east on Steeles to Kennedy and North to Queen then West to the GO station. They will tell you that 1) Kennedy is, already, more densely poplulated (on it's west side) than Main and has potential for further redevloment on its East side (not sure they are right about that but they will) and 2) Kennedy is already a heavily used transit node and is, again, 3) populated by people of an income demographic more inclined to use transit. They will also tell you that this route serves part of the Queen corridor and, in particular, the part of the Queen corridor that contains the new medical facility growing at Queen and Centre.

Again, my beef with this H(M)LRT has never been the route so these are not my thoughts.....but a problem I do have is the city staff seem to just dismiss any of those "benefits" with "not on main" which is kinda obvious....rather than tell the council (and, I guess, by extension the citizens) why those benefits are not as important as running the route in a direct fashion up a street that, by their own admission, has very little intensification potential.
 
rbt said:
The effect of a transfer is almost entirely dependent on the wait time during that transfer. 30 minute wait is a huge deal, 90 second frequencies have very little effect with able-bodied passengers (the large majority). It's not uncommon for riders in London, Paris, Moscow, Tokyo, etc. to make 2 or even 3 transfers during their trip; but with high frequency service it's impact isn't severe and strong ridership is the result.

While Heavy Rail has strong representation in those cities, frequency seems to be key rather than rails. Frequent LRT and BRT service in those same cites also receive relatively high ridership even when implemented as a stub expansion.

Actually, in London there is even evidence that people prefer to walk rather than to stand. They aggressively change walking routes to longer pathways to prevent platform congestion; this is both for safety (crowding) and it reduces the number of customer complaints.
Click to expand...

I would add one caveat to that though: Linear transfers =/= transfers. It's one thing to transfer from a line going E-W to a line going N-S. But transferring at a relatively arbitrary mid-way point to continue going the same direction? That people have a lot less tolerance for.
 
gweed123 said:
I would add one caveat to that though: Linear transfers =/= transfers. It's one thing to transfer from a line going E-W to a line going N-S. But transferring at a relatively arbitrary mid-way point to continue going the same direction? That people have a lot less tolerance for.
Click to expand...
in the context of this thread....there is going to be a linear transfer (perhaps 2) and it is just a matter of where.
 
I don't have a preferred route either, and I don't have much insight into what is getting built or could be built along the options under study.
What does strike me is that if the result takes a circuitous loop to reach a given end point , we need to be sure the detour is where the ridership is. Otherwise we builda Brampton street car and not an LRT.
The idea of a direct north south spine makes intuitive sense even if it misses some destinations - presuming it connects key transfer points and makes a great many trips faster. I'm assuming transfers to Queen are equally distributed west and east, but I don't know that as fact. Connecting directly to the City Center terminal and the GO line, and even Pushing the line one arterial road north of Queen, appeals for that reason - in theory. But my impression is that Steeles is a more active transfer hub than Queen anyways, so maybe it's moot.
It's revealing that developers are not coming forward to argue for LRT on Main. It's also revealing that the debate is not polarising into east-side/west-side local factions. The local indifference is deafening.
Perhaps that argues for terminating the line at Steeles until more compelling local needs emerge.
 
There are lots of opportunities to direct new development in the Shoppers World area (I wrote about that as well).

The lack of development opportunities north of Shoppers World is a red herring though. There aren't many new opportunities along McLaughlin Road or McMurchy Avenue, the exception being the former OPP academy, unless the province decides to sell off the correctional lands. I think Brampton Mall could be redeveloped quite imaginatively, as well as the former Beckers/Burger King/Tim Hortons strip at Nanwood.

Hurontario Street between the QEW and Port Credit GO is a hornets' nest of NIMBYs, yet the LRT is going in there because the connection to Port Credit is so important. There were no serious calls to re-route it via Cawthra Road.

Development of the Shoppers World area would benefit more with the full LRT built, but for now, I'm okay with it as a temporary terminus until Council gets its act together.
 
crs1026 said:
I don't have a preferred route either, and I don't have much insight into what is getting built or could be built along the options under study.
What does strike me is that if the result takes a circuitous loop to reach a given end point , we need to be sure the detour is where the ridership is. Otherwise we builda Brampton street car and not an LRT.
The idea of a direct north south spine makes intuitive sense even if it misses some destinations - presuming it connects key transfer points and makes a great many trips faster. I'm assuming transfers to Queen are equally distributed west and east, but I don't know that as fact. Connecting directly to the City Center terminal and the GO line, and even Pushing the line one arterial road north of Queen, appeals for that reason - in theory. But my impression is that Steeles is a more active transfer hub than Queen anyways, so maybe it's moot.
It's revealing that developers are not coming forward to argue for LRT on Main. It's also revealing that the debate is not polarising into east-side/west-side local factions. The local indifference is deafening.
Perhaps that argues for terminating the line at Steeles until more compelling local needs emerge.
Click to expand...
Couple of points I might help you with

1.) no transfers at Queen would not be equal e/w.......far more transfers go East (there is some density around the Bramalea City Centre and the main E route (501) takes students to York University. Not much going west.
2.) don't think Steeles is, presently, a more active transfer hub, but it has potential to be and that might be ok.
3.) Developers likely not pushing precisely because there is very little to develop.
4.) Local indifference should not shock you.......regardless of where they stop it (Steeles or Nelson) it impacts/affects a very small percentage of Brampton's population (and, to be truthful, a fairly small percentage of BT riders)
 
TOareaFan said:
in the context of this thread....there is going to be a linear transfer (perhaps 2) and it is just a matter of where.
Click to expand...

This is true. If the transfer point is Brampton GO though, at least the majority of people will be doing a perpendicular transfer (either onto GO or onto Zum Queen). If it's at Shoppers World, it will be very much like Don Mills or Kennedy.
 
^possibly, would have to get a breakdown of the 502 ridership north of Nelson v Nelson south to know for sure...but yes, the 501 does deliver some people to the main terminal there.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top