superelevation
Active Member
I think people need to stop with the Hyperbole about cities not having elevated rail etc. Eglinton has some elevated sections, the OL will too including through some pretty affluent areas (embankment adjacent to GO).
The idea that Mississauga could NOT get anything better than a tram seems odd, Toronto is currently getting 4 different new subway projects built, Surrey (a smaller city) is getting SkyTrain (Richmond, Coquitlam etc. already have), Laval has Metro and Brossard etc are getting REM. It feels like a reverse justification, now that Miss. has tram - it couldn't have done better. Despite the evidence.
Anyways, ultimately - the suggestion that this will do more to encourage ridership seems diametrically opposed to ridership data where Vancouver wildly outpaces most US LRT networks even though it is a smaller city and has less stations. I'm all for comfortable streets and the like - I love my time in AMS and COP, but I do not think Eglinton East and much less Hurontario will ever be that kind of environment.
The idea that Mississauga could NOT get anything better than a tram seems odd, Toronto is currently getting 4 different new subway projects built, Surrey (a smaller city) is getting SkyTrain (Richmond, Coquitlam etc. already have), Laval has Metro and Brossard etc are getting REM. It feels like a reverse justification, now that Miss. has tram - it couldn't have done better. Despite the evidence.
Ok, but we all know that isn't representative of any modern project, so why say this . . . we have local examples to point to. This is a forum with fairly worldly people and folks should aim for better examples.No one said there are zero elevated lines in cities. The question is if they are desirable. The fact that we can’t build them in Toronto should tell you they are not as marketable as you think they are. When a lot of people think of elevated transit right fully or wrongfully they think of movies from New York City, Philly, Chicago where people live in gritty apartments beside a elevated line and every time the train passes the apartment almost shakes.
...
As above the suggestion that Miss. couldn't afford a subway seems to assume the only thing one could consider "subway" is a deep tunnel with 6 car Toronto rockets - which isn't what Surrey or Montreal area is getting.I don’t think you’re going to like my answer. I believe the upgrade is to say we are prioritizing hurontario. We might not be able to afford a subway but surely we can do better than a bus. When transit city was being discussed there was several surveys which basically all showed that people preferred rail transit because of comfort and their own bias that it felt more upscale. While busses simply had a poor image surrounding them. Also the studies showed that development often came when rails where introduced because people saw rail as permanent where as a bus lane could easily be given back to a car. So to answer your question I believe the lrt was chosen for aesthetics, peoples preference, development just as much as what mode would actually move people. I don’t think it’s a complete gentrification project but that said hurontario is booming with applications now that the line is almost in. And for a city that is trying to identify itself I don’t actually think that is a bad thing.
You don't need grade separation to go at a good speed. I know because I lived in a city that had good tram service. Separated ROW, prioritized signals, and reasonable stop spacing (which I think this LRT has) equals convenient, comfortable and fast travel. Faster than a car? Probably not. But it's a good deal for people who don't want to worry about driving, or simply can't.
I'm not a fan of grade-separating everything, unless there is a major lack of space on the surface. Having to walk up or down stairs, or take elevators, is a barrier, both physical and psychological. I, and many people, would rather just hop on at street level. Hurontario is a stroad not lacking in space (except at a couple of choke points). Its space just needs to be better used, which is what the LRT does.
...
I get and have argued the "more comfortable and time efficient (because you can read)" argument, but the reason transit currently and likely into the future plays second fiddle to the car in places like Mississauga is precisely because it is so non competitive with driving, we can't expect to become more transit oriented when our main market it people who can't drive or mind it so much they are willing to go much slower.I don't understand. Mississauga has to start somewhere. I'd love to see more rail lines in the future. Putting this convenient train at eye level will do more to encourage ridership and desire for more lines than would some kind of elevatedmonstrosityeyesoreexpensive gaffe.
Anyways, ultimately - the suggestion that this will do more to encourage ridership seems diametrically opposed to ridership data where Vancouver wildly outpaces most US LRT networks even though it is a smaller city and has less stations. I'm all for comfortable streets and the like - I love my time in AMS and COP, but I do not think Eglinton East and much less Hurontario will ever be that kind of environment.