[nfitz]

The loop could just be separate like the old shuttle bus that looped around the mall like 10-20 years ago.

Line 11!

 

[Wm Perkins Bull]

I'm struggling to understand why building the loop and asking riders to choose a service that best suits their needs is worsening service. Building the loop increases service coverage and services at least one more high-target destination in the Square One area (Celebration Square, Sheridan and the central library). I never took the MiExpress 100 but know from frequent 502 riding that the main target is often Square One.

But this also feels like other issues that impact GTA transit planning, from fare zones (defunct) to linear transfers, in that we just assume riders will not use a service if they are a tiny bit inconvenienced.

This is intended to deliberately create a forced transfer at Square One, to discourage through traffic trips. This is much worse than a linear transfer at Steeles in Brampton.

In all the talk of the Loop, I'm having some difficultly appreciating which trips will negatively impacted, and by the most. Is it people who want a want seat ride from let's say Gateway all the way to Port Credit and the Loop obviously adds a transfer and more time? Or is it someone going from Eglinton to Port Credit which I assume would have more trips/interest?

Any trip north of Square One heading south of Square One will be adversely impacted.

 

[Bojaxs]

The only reason I supported the loop is because I was under the impression there would be a bypass option, and you could continue heading straight along Hurontario. If this isn't the case, then the loop is a terrible idea.

 

[sixrings]

The only reason I supported the loop is because I was under the impression there would be a bypass option, and you could continue heading straight along Hurontario. If this isn't the case, then the loop is a terrible idea.

This should be an easy fix. I’d rather have the loop and fix the problem then not have the loop.

The real problem is that MCC is basically all west of hurontario. Confederation is not exactly close to hurontario. Is it walkable? Sure. But it’s a bit of a hike. And there’s buildings planned all the way to grand park. That shoppers plaza will be history so is there a theoretical Mississauga that sees burnamthorpe development all the way to mavis? I’m going to guess with enough time it is inevitable.

 

[micheal_can]

The only reason I supported the loop is because I was under the impression there would be a bypass option, and you could continue heading straight along Hurontario. If this isn't the case, then the loop is a terrible idea.

I'd imagine that after a few years of operating, if they see that there is enough forced transfers, they could add thru service so long as the rail infrastructure is there to allow for it.

 

[ARG1]

I'd imagine that after a few years of operating, if they see that there is enough forced transfers, they could add thru service so long as the rail infrastructure is there to allow for it.

The issue I have is what that would mean for headways. I mentioned this a few pages ago but at the start Hurontario will only have 7m headways. This means that if you introduce a special service that bypasses S1, then that will only run every 14m, or at most every 10m which is... fine? But certainly not great and could be frustrating to make use of.

 

[micheal_can]

The issue I have is what that would mean for headways. I mentioned this a few pages ago but at the start Hurontario will only have 7m headways. This means that if you introduce a special service that bypasses S1, then that will only run every 14m, or at most every 10m which is... fine? But certainly not great and could be frustrating to make use of.

Or, outside the loop you have less than 7m headway. That may mean getting more LRVs

 

[sixrings]

Or, outside the loop you have less than 7m headway. That may mean getting more LRVs

This seems to me to be something far easier to fix than torontos transit signal priority which should be an easy fix. Just add some more LRVs. If money is really that big of an issue than neither the loop or the tunnel should have been built. Somehow they always can find money when they want to.

 

[ARG1]

Or, outside the loop you have less than 7m headway. That may mean getting more LRVs

This seems to me to be something far easier to fix than torontos transit signal priority which should be an easy fix. Just add some more LRVs. If money is really that big of an issue than neither the loop or the tunnel should have been built. Somehow they always can find money when they want to.

This is why I brought up the 10m number. ~5m headways are about as low as you can get if you want to maintain any semblance of reasonable TSP on the route.

 

[micheal_can]

This seems to me to be something far easier to fix than torontos transit signal priority which should be an easy fix. Just add some more LRVs. If money is really that big of an issue than neither the loop or the tunnel should have been built. Somehow they always can find money when they want to.

There is always money when the pressure gets applied. If they need to double the fleet to do it,they may be able to"hide" it in the contract for the extension to Brampton.

This is why I brought up the 10m number. ~5m headways are about as low as you can get if you want to maintain any semblance of reasonable TSP on the route.

The issue I have is what that would mean for headways. I mentioned this a few pages ago but at the start Hurontario will only have 7m headways. This means that if you introduce a special service that bypasses S1, then that will only run every 14m, or at most every 10m which is... fine? But certainly not great and could be frustrating to make use of.

You said 14m, not 10m.

 

[ARG1]

This means that if you introduce a special service that bypasses S1, then that will only run every 14m, or at most every 10m which is... fine?

Reading Comprehension

 

[micheal_can]

Reading Comprehension

Sorry, missed that part.

 

[Wm Perkins Bull]

I'd imagine that after a few years of operating, if they see that there is enough forced transfers, they could add thru service so long as the rail infrastructure is there to allow for it.

Forced transfers aren't a bug, they are a feature at Mississauga City Centre.

This is why I brought up the 10m number. ~5m headways are about as low as you can get if you want to maintain any semblance of reasonable TSP on the route.

You can run below 5 minute headways with TSP, it just needs to be conditional TSP to get vehicles back on schedule.

 

[sixrings]

Forced transfers aren't a bug, they are a feature at Mississauga City Centre.

You can run below 5 minute headways with TSP, it just needs to be conditional TSP to get vehicles back on schedule.

Forced transfers are a feature at Scarborough town centre as well and they got a subway extension. Maybe there’s a method to the madness.

 

[drum118]

Feb 23
I had a close look at the Brampton block that is to be razes to make sure what I remember of the area was correct before posting about it.

That block was to be redeveloped by the developer who did the City Hall expansion that became a lawsuit with the developer losing the case. That block has been on the city books for close to two decades and part of it was torn down about a decade or so a go. Part of the area was to see a development in 2020 and like many proposals for the area, it hasn't gone nowhere.

Other than the two end buildings on Main St, those are heritage buildings as far as I know that need some upgrading and in full service. The buildings behind these buildings on the laneway can go including the free parking garage.

Everything on Queen can go including the corner buildings. Same for George St and don't think the building by the laneway is heritage.

I don't support the removal of the heritage building as it is following Toronto method of removing things that help to build the city in the first place. You can do what is taking place on Yonge St and that is making those buildings part of the new towers that are at the back of the buildings. To remove these buildings to mine the station is an example of cow bowing to someone to save or gain seats in the next election as well as wasting good tax dollars to put the LRT underground when it should be on the surface in the first place.

I shot the whole block, the laneway, various buildings for it and those photos are up on my site now. If other places can run LRV's in mixed traffic for more blocks than the two been proposed as single lanes with bike lanes, there is no reason it cannot be done here.

The east side is in worse shape and empty with most of it torn down when the Rose Theater was built. Been to the Rose for a number of events there and it is better than the LAC in Mississauga from my point of view.

As for the old creek under the buildings, there are two options to deal with it for new development.
1. Rebuild it if encased in concrete with parts of the foundation walls on either side of it and a floor slab on top of it if it is to remain. If not encase in concrete, then encase it with good waterproofing.
2. Remove it 100% during construction.

A few of the shots I took that day with rest up on my site.

George and Nelson St (Can go for both streets)

George and Queen (Can go for both streets or retain as Façade on Queen other than corner)

Queen and Main (All of Queen and the RBC building can go or retain as Façade except the two corners)

Nelson and Main (Corner building can go as the rest on Nelson is gone and no idea why I fail to shot the corner)

Main looking South from Nelson

Not sure about the buiding at the laneway and can be use as Heritage Building Façade like a number of buildings in Toronto

The laneway and all can go up to the rear of buildings that should stay

This is to go for the GO expansion and the new bus terminal