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

doady said:
I think it will be a mistake to have the 101 serve UTM and the 102 serve CCTT. Even the 109 does not serve CCTT, even though it probably should.
Click to expand...

109 needs to service CCTT as 10 riders is not supporting the run now per trip.

102 will only survive if it service CCTT as well wasting 15 minutes of riders time. Even if you run 102 every 10 minutes, it will be 70% empty. Going South of CCTT will it have higher numbers until Dundas at which point it will be 90% -100% empty.

I agree on 101 as it supposed to be going into Oakville as plan and long over due.
 
I'm not sure about this concept of building BRT first than upgrading to LRT later for some of the systems in the GTA like Hurontario

First of all, I'm not sure about the cost savings for upgrading vs just build LRT.. It could end up being significantly more than just building LRT right way. Ottawa spent billions in today's dollars to build its Transitway and is still spending billions to convert its system to LRT (and many areas are fully grade separated).

Second, it will take longer than you think to upgrade .... in the future it will seem like a better idea for politicians to spend money building new lines and serve new riders than upgrade existing lines for moderately better service

Third, you may need to shut down the system to upgrade to LRT - this will mean there could be a 1-2 year period without rapid transit (which will be very busy by the time the decision is made to upgrade)

I think it will be better to just build as much as possible now or build in stages (just add rush hour bus lanes in Brampton for now?)....


any examples of a successful BRT to LRT conversion... I have heard this 'build BRT first, upgrade later' concept in theory, but what are some good examples?
 
Last edited:
urbanfan89 said:
There's the Canada Line in Richmond, but even the province admitted that short-sightedness in planning caused a traffic disaster.
Click to expand...
Well they say that ... but it wasn't short-sightedness; it was do it quick and cheap. The construction time has been quite short, and this was as cheap as it could be. All will be forgotten 10-years from now.

It's a shame that we didn't sacrifice Bloor-Danforth for a couple of years, and had a subway under the street, rather than one-block north ... though I guess these days, they'd just tunnel.
 
Last edited:
A new Direction report has just been posted on the project site.

The report is to go to Council General committe March 4??. After that, the EA it's self will get underway
 
The Mississauga Transit terminal should be moved to Hurontario & Burnhamthorpe at the north-west corner. That corner should be levelled to be at the same height as Hurontario also. This would be the perfect place for transit to all come together, while still being very close to Square One.
 
...

for anyone that was at the downtown21 event the other night, what was the response to the question re: the terminal? i, for some reason, sort of zoned out - but i thought he said something about four stations spread across the area? again, i could be completely off base - but did he say something to that effect?
 
khristopher said:
The Mississauga Transit terminal should be moved to Hurontario & Burnhamthorpe at the north-west corner. That corner should be levelled to be at the same height as Hurontario also. This would be the perfect place for transit to all come together, while still being very close to Square One.
Click to expand...

What about the Transitway and GO? And you don't seriously expect buses to be able to enter such a terminal from Hurontario or Burnhamthorpe do you?
 
I've only read about half the directions report, but for the most part it's what I was expecting for the most part. Redevelopment, challenges, pedestrian/cyclist friendly/unfriendly areas.

There are a few things I've seen so far that stand out and worry me a slightly
1. Who wrote this thing? It's full of spelling and grammar errors, and has inconsistent formatting. The figure numbers don't line up with the picture they're referring to and some of the table of contents numberings are just wrong.

2. According to this, GO is buying land on the east side of Hurontario to expand parking.

3. The report refers to the uses of large number of buildings for uses they don't actually have. The most obvious one being the "small apartment" that is the former St. Lawrence Starch HQ in Port Credit, and now FRAM's office. It worries one a little bit when this multi-million dollar project has so many obvious errors.
 
jeicow said:
I've only read about half the directions report, but for the most part it's what I was expecting for the most part. Redevelopment, challenges, pedestrian/cyclist friendly/unfriendly areas.

There are a few things I've seen so far that stand out and worry me a slightly
1. Who wrote this thing? It's full of spelling and grammar errors, and has inconsistent formatting. The figure numbers don't line up with the picture they're referring to and some of the table of contents numberings are just wrong.

2. According to this, GO is buying land on the east side of Hurontario to expand parking.

3. The report refers to the uses of large number of buildings for uses they don't actually have. The most obvious one being the "small apartment" that is the former St. Lawrence Starch HQ in Port Credit, and now FRAM's office. It worries one a little bit when this multi-million dollar project has so many obvious errors.
Click to expand...

I'm noticing a pattern with the new streamlined EA process. Yonge had horrendous figures, too, and the tight 6-month time-frame was blamed for it.
 
The main thing that bothered me about this report was that the picture of the bus was larger than the picture of the streetcar. (Rather, the graphic in the header)
 
there's nothing top secret about the planning study Mississauga and Brampton are doing now. Look on the web for Hurontario Directions Report (or go through either City's website). The concept is for either LRT or BRT to go from Port Credit to Brampton's downtown. And I'm surprised at the petty comments from other people above....a) it's not "full of grammar and spelling errors" and b) it would be more productive to hear some comments about the vision instead!!!
 
Last edited:
On page 143-145, "Potential Proof of Concept Sites", does anybody understanding where they are going with this? or even what the title means?

-on a side note I was pleasantly surprised to see this report was released sooner than later.

-I had attended one of the info sessions and it seems as though they are seriously interested in the land at Hurontario and 407. either a yard or a major station. I drove by the other day and GO Transit is currently building a parking lot.
 
The terminal is no where in anything I have seen to date as well in the 10 year capital budget.

It was stated today at Council, The LRT will use Burnhamthorpre, Duke of York an Rathburn to service the city centre.

Even in it's own ROW, riders will be spending an extra 15-20 minutes travel time trying to bypass Sq One like today.

Next public meeting is supposed to be in June for the BRT/LRT.

Will post more on the presentation at Council later.

The one laugh I had was the comment that TTC wants to take over the ""Full"" operation of 26/76.

Given the fact TTC cannot deal with it's own systems for buses and drivers, Where is it going to get them to do 76/26??

At the same time, TTC doesn't have artic's and will require to put more buses on the road to carry the current service of MT.

Hazel is beating the war drum on Fare Integration. She said if Fare integration cannot happen on Burnhamthrope, not going to happen else where under Metrolinx watch. Totally agree and time the Province step in tell TTC this is what you are going to do on Fare Integration and the Presto like it or not.
 
drum118 said:
Hazel is beating the war drum on Fare Integration. She said if Fare integration cannot happen on Burnhamthrope, not going to happen else where under Metrolinx watch. Totally agree and time the Province step in tell TTC this is what you are going to do on Fare Integration and the Presto like it or not.
Click to expand...

It's been interesting to see how much of a progressive transit advocate Hazel has been in the past few years. It was her motion that lead to the fare integration study (but it wasn't her fault it stalled) and it was her motion that moved the funding tools study forward.

Also, the TTC taking over the 26 is fine by me if it means taking over all the other routes across the region. That solves the problem too.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top