[drum118]

Just received a response from the Metrolinx Community Relations Specialist concerning the Fairview LRT stop. According to them, It will be located at the intersection of Fairview Road and Hurontario. Not sure why they would put it there. So close to the Cooksville stop no density and no demand.

There is a new tower on the corner of Fairview that could be built by the time the line opens. It was approved this month by council. Density is not the issue, but the traveling route and time to/from the stop is. Another example of poor urban planning from the 70's.

If Fairview and Burnhamthrope are the new location for stops, it will add an extra 9 minutes to my current travel time of 14 minutes to Elm today and I am an able body at this time. The folks with walkers, canes and strollers will see no less than an extra 15 minute travel time added. Elm will have 20-40% more ridership than all the 3 stops combine with the new change.

Bottom line, a stop is needed between Fairview and Burnhamthrope.

 

[Allandale25]

https://www.facebook.com/74982491149/posts/10157395469116150

 

[drum118]

Dec 02
Better Bus Stop than TTC ones on Eglinton as the platform is for 60' buses while TTC is only front door only. All the centre median and traffic lights removed.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50681679768_753eea5fd1_b.jpg/img]
[img]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50681679908_bdaff5a4d5_b.jpg

 

[superelevation]

Can someone explain why Hurontario is getting an LRT (see tramway)? With such sparse density and long distances between locations wouldn't a Metro like the REM (maybe downsized) down the middle of the road (elevated) make way more sense?

 

[Divas S.]

I wouldn't say Hurontario is sparsely populated at all, maybe compared to Yonge street or something... It's the busiest corridor in Peel and LRT is a good technology to serve it especially from a cost perspective, the stops themselves are already pretty spread out for a lot of the route so quite a few people will still be taking the bus because they have to go somewhere in between stops. I know I will when it opens

 

[ericmacm]

Can someone explain why Hurontario is getting an LRT (see tramway)? With such sparse density and long distances between locations wouldn't a Metro like the REM (maybe downsized) down the middle of the road (elevated) make way more sense?

The Hurontario LRT was designed as predominantly a replacement for Mississauga's busiest bus route (19 Hurontario), which runs the entire Hurontario corridor through Mississauga and Brampton, so it needs to go the entire length and have a large amount of stops similar to the bus line. If there were fewer stops, more people would need to take an additional bus to get to where they need to be, since many people would live between stops. The Hurontario corridor is far from sparsely populated either, since it contains dense spots like Cooksvile, MCC, Uptown MCC, Port Credit, and various employment/office park areas.

An elevated metro would in no way be practical for this corridor, as it would be overbuilt and expensive. There is more than enough space to fit an at-grade separated ROW on Hurontario for the LRT trains.

 

[WislaHD]

With such sparse density and long distances between locations

This won't be the reality in twenty years.

 

[W. K. Lis]

I wouldn't say Hurontario is sparsely populated at all, maybe compared to Yonge street or something... It's the busiest corridor in Peel and LRT is a good technology to serve it especially from a cost perspective, the stops themselves are already pretty spread out for a lot of the route so quite a few people will still be taking the bus because they have to go somewhere in between stops. I know I will when it opens

Surface stops can be removed or added very easily. Very hard for underground stations. Though, opposition or sentiment for the addition or removal would, of course, depend on the NIMBYs or YIMBYs in the neighbourhood.

 

[afransen]

I wonder if the trade-off of longer travel times offsets the access benefit of frequent stops on the value of a line like this. Maybe it is better to have a fast travel time between the major trip generators and use bus shuttle service to provide access to stations. We're just starting to see autonomous shuttle buses being tested. Perhaps in ten years, it won't be so difficult to provide frequent access to transit stations using smaller/low speed vehicles, and at a reasonable cost. I don't think we do enough to emphasize speed of transit service, and congestion will always rise to the point that it is no faster to drive than take transit, so speed is critical to converting people to transit.

 

[stanko]

Can someone explain why Hurontario is getting an LRT (see tramway)? With such sparse density and long distances between locations wouldn't a Metro like the REM (maybe downsized) down the middle of the road (elevated) make way more sense?

"Metro" is generally used to describe an underground, heavy rail line so I'm struggling to understand why you think that would be more appropriate for a sparsely dense corridor as you put it

 

[ericmacm]

I wonder if the trade-off of longer travel times offsets the access benefit of frequent stops on the value of a line like this. Maybe it is better to have a fast travel time between the major trip generators and use bus shuttle service to provide access to stations. We're just starting to see autonomous shuttle buses being tested. Perhaps in ten years, it won't be so difficult to provide frequent access to transit stations using smaller/low speed vehicles, and at a reasonable cost. I don't think we do enough to emphasize speed of transit service, and congestion will always rise to the point that it is no faster to drive than take transit, so speed is critical to converting people to transit.

I really think the true value in an LRT like this is the practicality and predictability. I feel like a setup that uses shuttles to fill the gaps would make things unnecessarily complex, and time savings would be difficult to quantify due to the presence of transfers and dependence on traffic conditions, since the shuttle buses would need to enter mixed traffic.

Predictability and practicality are, in my opinion, the two most important factors in making transit a more viable option for people. Providing a single system that makes more stops, albeit potentially slower than one with less stops, will always be more superior and more attractive to one that requires more effort to use and more moving parts that can potentially fail.

Additionally, the purpose of a line like this, with lots of stops, is to encourage and entice developers and residents to build their lives and communities around it in such a way that produces a strip of development, not to serve and create pockets of density with commuter sheds and shuttles to fill the gaps. We already have the GO for that.

 

[NoahB]

"Metro" is generally used to describe an underground, heavy rail line so I'm struggling to understand why you think that would be more appropriate for a sparsely dense corridor as you put it

The Metro word was invented by Paris. They use 'tiny' trains (thinner than a streetcar & 90m in length) that frequently run above ground.

Metro generally refers to grade-separated systems, but there is no universally accepted definition. I have seen trams being called metro by their cities. LA considers both light rail and their subway as part of the Metro. Manchester calls its light rail "Metrolink". The REM is called a light metro in french, but light rail in English, even though the trains are longer and wider than many metro lines in Europe. But most European cities call only their grade-separated lines metros regardless of the vehicle type. (as seen in 'pre-metro' line) So a metro is usually a synonym to a subway, but it is very contextual.

Edit: To add, a VAL style system (Grade separated, automated, small trains running at extreme frequencies) is very appropriate for a city like Mississauga or Hamilton. The stations are small and can be cheap to build. Check out the Lille Metro.

 

[afransen]

I really think the true value in an LRT like this is the practicality and predictability. I feel like a setup that uses shuttles to fill the gaps would make things unnecessarily complex, and time savings would be difficult to quantify due to the presence of transfers and dependence on traffic conditions, since the shuttle buses would need to enter mixed traffic.

Predictability and practicality are, in my opinion, the two most important factors in making transit a more viable option for people. Providing a single system that makes more stops, albeit potentially slower than one with less stops, will always be more superior and more attractive to one that requires more effort to use and more moving parts that can potentially fail.

Additionally, the purpose of a line like this, with lots of stops, is to encourage and entice developers and residents to build their lives and communities around it in such a way that produces a strip of development, not to serve and create pockets of density with commuter sheds and shuttles to fill the gaps. We already have the GO for that.

Speed is important when converting mode share. When it comes to HuLRT, the number of stops is not too bad. But I worry about the travel speed on a line like this. It is expected to average 28 kph according to Metrolinx. That seems too slow for rapid transit and a lot of users won't be converted from cars when you factor in the added walk and wait times. If you have money you will be inclined to continue to drive. I also worry that we may not do as good a job with signal priority as hoped.

There are no N/S GO links in Peel, and GO does not serve MCC. There is bus service, but that is just as likely to get stuck in traffic.

 

[Undead]

Speed is important when converting mode share. When it comes to HuLRT, the number of stops is not too bad. But I worry about the travel speed on a line like this. It is expected to average 28 kph according to Metrolinx. That seems too slow for rapid transit and a lot of users won't be converted from cars when you factor in the added walk and wait times. If you have money you will be inclined to continue to drive. I also worry that we may not do as good a job with signal priority as hoped.

There are no N/S GO links in Peel, and GO does not serve MCC. There is bus service, but that is just as likely to get stuck in traffic.

iirc, 28 km/h is competitive with rush hour driving (about 30 km/h on average in my experience).

 

[jys]

Speed is important when converting mode share. When it comes to HuLRT, the number of stops is not too bad. But I worry about the travel speed on a line like this. It is expected to average 28 kph according to Metrolinx. That seems too slow for rapid transit and a lot of users won't be converted from cars when you factor in the added walk and wait times. If you have money you will be inclined to continue to drive. I also worry that we may not do as good a job with signal priority as hoped.

There are no N/S GO links in Peel, and GO does not serve MCC. There is bus service, but that is just as likely to get stuck in traffic.

Line 2 (Bloor-Danforth) has an average speed of 32km/h. This isn't much slower.