You’re right. We should have built a subway in Kitchener. And Hamilton should skip their brt plans and go straight to subway. And damn it hurontario is home to three go stations two which will have underground lrt stations so why not make the entire thing a subway. None of these lrt plans make any sense.
I find it funny that you try to respond with a strawman. First as someone said, Hamilton was supposed to get a Skytrain like system similar to Vancouver in the 70s, but due to NIMBYism it didn't happen. No, just because I think we are building LRTs in the wrong places doesn't mean I think LRTs can't exist. Kitchener should've been (and got) an LRT, Hurontario, Eglinton, Scarborough, Sheppard East, and Don Mills should not have been LRTs. You do realize this isn't a binary choice between LRTs or Subways right? We should build LRTs where they make sense like on Waterfront, Finch West, and Kitchener, and we should build Elevated Metros and Subways where they make sense like on Hurontario, Eglinton, and Don Mills. Unfortunately the LRT crowd wanted LRTs absolutely everywhere and now we're going to be stuck with underwhelming transit on many of these corridors for decades when we could've and should've had so much more.
If ICTS was built in Hamilton, it would've crumbled apart a lot quicker than it did in Toronto. So in a way, they actually saved themselves...from themselves. Hamilton has hacked it's transit service apart like no tomorrow, and is the only system in the GTAH with declining ridership numbers.

But I digress we're talking about Mississauga here. Elevated rail would have been far more appropriate for Hurontario compared to this on-street LRT we're getting here, however, ICTS would've been a big mistake. The climate here is really not suitable for it, unless you put it underground.
Why do you think so? Since GO would probably be operating it or at least HSR, its entirely possible it would've been in much better condition compared to the TTC which neglected it due to basically not caring about it.
 
I find it funny that you try to respond with a strawman. First as someone said, Hamilton was supposed to get a Skytrain like system similar to Vancouver in the 70s, but due to NIMBYism it didn't happen. No, just because I think we are building LRTs in the wrong places doesn't mean I think LRTs can't exist. Kitchener should've been (and got) an LRT, Hurontario, Eglinton, Scarborough, Sheppard East, and Don Mills should not have been LRTs. You do realize this isn't a binary choice between LRTs or Subways right? We should build LRTs where they make sense like on Waterfront, Finch West, and Kitchener, and we should build Elevated Metros and Subways where they make sense like on Hurontario, Eglinton, and Don Mills. Unfortunately the LRT crowd wanted LRTs absolutely everywhere and now we're going to be stuck with underwhelming transit on many of these corridors for decades when we could've and should've had so much more.

Why do you think so? Since GO would probably be operating it or at least HSR, its entirely possible it would've been in much better condition compared to the TTC which neglected it due to basically not caring about it.
I love talking to you about transit. I get to learn for free all about my weak debating techniques such as fallacies and ad hominems while simultaneously learning nothing about transit.

btw I like many lrt advocates always believed the drl should be a subway. Now the subway subway subway people are building the drl but not using a subway. See lrt people aren’t lrt people everywhere. But what does a straw man know.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: syn
I love talking to you about transit. I get to learn for free all about my weak debating techniques such as fallacies and ad hominems while simultaneously learning nothing about transit.

btw I like many lrt advocates always believed the drl should be a subway. Now the subway subway subway people are building the drl but not using a subway. See lrt people aren’t lrt people everywhere. But what does a straw man know.
In my entire post, only a single sentence, 12 words, was devoted to addressing the strawman, and I only did so to point out that you were addressing a point no one was making. Nobody, and I mean ABSOLUTELY NOBODY was begging for a Kitchener Subway. The rest of my post was devoted to talking about where I personally feel LRTs make sense, and where they don't. There are 2* places where LRTs make sense, dense downtown cores where everything is so closely packed together that the slow speed isn't a big deal (unlike suburbs where LRT speeds are often detrimental to the usability of system), or if you're building short feeder routes to other major RT lines. This is why I'm in favour of routes like Finch West, Scarborough-Malvern*, and Waterfront West/Bayfront East. The only stipulation on this front are linear transfers. If you constantly have to change trains to reach your destination, then that's just bad network design. This is why LRT lines such as Sheppard East and Don Mills were so problematic. Let's say you live in Scarborough along Sheppard. If we forget about GO (just like Transit City did), to reach downtown Toronto you had to A) Change to the Scarborough LRT, then change to Danforth, then Change to Yonge (these are of course assuming you didn't have to take a bus to reach Sheppard btw), or B) Change to the Sheppard Subway, then change to the Yonge Line, or C) Change to the Don Mills LRT, then change to DRL which was only going to reach Pape under Transit City and nothing more. This is also why I placed an asterisk with Scarborough-Malvern because in a way it could be considered to be a linear transfer, but if we went with Rob Ford's Eglinton Line plan which was to extend the Scarborough RT west along Eglinton (although hopefully elevated and not tunneled), I think that concern is basically addressed.

Here is where LRT doesn't work: 1) Large crosstown lines. The Eglinton Line has to be one of the worst LRT plans ever devised. Do you know what Toronto needs rn? A rapid east west lines that crosses the city. Do you know what does a bad job fulfilling this need? A median LRT line that doesn't even have TSP* (edit: wow that was quite a typo). The same could be said about the Hurontario Line. People like LRTs in suburbs because people believe that the low price is representative of the investment that is needed for the transit needs of suburbs. HERE IS THE PROBLEM: Suburbs are large, and well, sprawling. Effective transport in suburbs requires first and foremost high speeds, because otherwise your little transit project becomes poor people transport meanwhile everyone sticks to their cars. This is further compounded by the Toronto's idea of having the LRT lines act as a replacement for the local bus services, leaving projects like Finch West oversaturated with stops. The last thing you want for suburban transit are speeds where by the time you reach the major RT corridor you're connecting to, you could've driven to downtown and back. Currently in the middle of the day, GMaps says that it'll take 35 minutes to drive from Humber College to Downtown Toronto. That's the amount of time that's planned to get from Humber to Finch West. This is pathetic. This is exactly the type of project you build if you're hell bent on making transit look like poor people transit for decades to come. I never thought I'd say this, but do you know what transit agency seems to know how to build suburban LRT/BRT? YRT. Ignoring greenbelt areas, the average distance between viva blue stops is a little over a kilometer. This is especially useful for people who need to commute to Toronto every morning since the low amount of stops bundled with having its own ROW with TSP* (Well, York Region's Traffic Priority system, not exactly TSP) means that its still useful as a commuting method and fairly quick (outside of downtown Richmond Hill). Those who need to use the bus for local services still have access to the 98 or 99 depending on which side of Bernard Terminal you are (although the frequencies on those are a problem, but where isn't it on YRT).

Going back to Hurontario, everything I have just said about what doesn't work about LRT applies here as well. You have a large crosstown line that's eventually going to run between two GO stations running through suburbs with relatively frequent stops, travelling long distances and overall is going to push more people to use the car since even with reduced lanes, cars will still be king without high speeds and absolute priority. This is ultimately going to also affect ridership because people don't like sitting on slow moving LRVs as a method to travel around town unless they have.

As a closer, I would like to bring attention to two west coast cities, Portland, and Vancouver, both of which have roughly the same population in the metro area. Portland has a massive LRT network that they have built up over the years that is almost 100km long, meanwhile Vancouver's system is only 80km and has far fewer stations. However if you look at ridership numbers, a completely different story is told. Vancouver has a daily ridership of 526,000 meanwhile Portland's much larger network only serves 121,000. The reason for this is extremely simple, the ability to run fast automated trains that aren't impeded by traffic, pedestrians, or traffic lights are a far more compelling method of traversal especially if you're coming in from suburbs which is the market that both of these systems attract. If you live in Vancouver, even if the Skytrain isn't faster than the car, its fast enough that even on an off peak journey, a wealthy car owner might still consider taking the Skytrain instead of the car if they want to save on gas and maybe get some work done on the way to downtown. The same doesn't happen in Portland because nobody wants to use Max unless they need to. This is why Vancouver canned the Surrey LRT plan, a plan that on average would've saved a single minute in travel time compared to the bus route it was replacing, in favour of a Skytrain extension to Langley. This is why Montreal canned their tram systems in favour of having the CDPQ pay for automated Light Metros (which is what I've been advocating for on this forum). Sure they might be pricier, but the ridership is significantly larger, and average travel times are significantly faster. For a slightly larger cost (and when I say slightly, I mean they're not even 2x more expensive than LRT), you get exponentially larger ridership and you end up improving travel times tenfold.
 
Last edited:
Why do you think so? Since GO would probably be operating it or at least HSR, its entirely possible it would've been in much better condition compared to the TTC which neglected it due to basically not caring about it.
It wouldve been operated by the HSR, and we see how inept the HSR is at operating a proper transit system in Hamilton. And ultimately we can see how inept Hamilton City Council is in operating and providing proper funding to the HSR.
 
In a perfect world, GO RER would’ve been prioritized on the Kitchener Line, to and from Brampton GO instead of Bramalea for 2WAD 15 minute service. Hurontario-Main LRT would’ve sticked to their original plan with Downtown Brampton included. And finally, the Queen-7 BRT would’ve been completely fluent from Brampton, all the way to Cornell terminal in Markham, which i’ve heard would have GO bus services and DRT all set and ready to go, causing a bigger connectivity in regional travel.


One can get from, for example, Kitchener to Richmond Hill or Whitby to Brampton with ease if these things would’ve happened. The opportunity to make Brampton a decent transit city at the same time as Mississauga would be was right there, yet they missed the target at all angles. If the government truly cared about transit, they would’ve fought long and hard to make these opportunities become a reality, but as everyone in office would see it, car is always king in Ontario.
 
I'm all for elevated transport in the suburbs, but hitching your wagon to ICTS is a risky move, with not a lot of benefits. An elevated network of intermediate capacity mass transit vehicles would've served just fine.
 
Would the cost of elevated rail be comparable to if you just built a subway for this line? Seeing how the Scarborough LRT thing went, I would prefer an LRT with more stops. I was also under the impression that the ROW would double as a fast lane for EMS vehicles which would be great for the hospital and fire services on Hurontario that need that N/S connection. The car traffic in the afternoon pre-covid was rather terrible and would probably still be terrible regardless of the transit type if you believe that Mississaugans would still be hard set on driving everywhere.
 
Would the cost of elevated rail be comparable to if you just built a subway for this line? Seeing how the Scarborough LRT thing went, I would prefer an LRT with more stops. I was also under the impression that the ROW would double as a fast lane for EMS vehicles which would be great for the hospital and fire services on Hurontario that need that N/S connection. The car traffic in the afternoon pre-covid was rather terrible and would probably still be terrible regardless of the transit type if you believe that Mississaugans would still be hard set on driving everywhere.
Absolutely not. Elevated rail is significantly cheaper than subways. While it may not be the same price as a median LRT, it is definitely not that much more expensive, at the very least less than maybe 1.5x the price? If even that. As a point of comparison, the Canada Line in Vancouver had the same construction cost per km as the Hurontario LRT, despite it being automated, half of it being tunneled (Cut and Cover and Bored), and the other half being elevated or at grade. 2nd, no I seriously doubt it would run as a fast lane for EMS vehicles, that sort of assumes that it will be built on pavement with embedded tracks which its just as likely to be regular tracks with grass in between. Finally, yes Mississauga traffic is bad during rush hours, but the key word here is "Rush Hours". Transit should be something that people want to take at any time, not just something they begrudgingly take because they want to avoid rush hour traffic. This is something you want with your transit, you need to be able to get people from point A to point B as quickly as possible, and it shouldn't be restricted to certain times of the day. A major issue we're going to start seeing with services like the Finch West LRT is that its entirely possible that due to the tight stop spacing, and the fact that the LRT will most likely have to make all stops without a stop request feature, it might actually be slower than the previous bus route. This is something even subways struggle with, it takes roughly just as long to get from Sheppard-Yonge to Don Mills on the Sheppard bus in late hours as it does on the subway, and this is the Sheppard Line where stop spacing is a little over a km. Imagine having to stop every 500m, and you have transit system that is worse than local busses at certain times of the day.
 
The estimated cost of the Davenport railway overpass, a length of 1.4 km, is around $210 million. See link.

While not the same as the 18 km Hurontario LRT (light rail versus commuter train), it can serve as a model when we see the results.

gh3-Davenport+Diamond-DUPONT+VIEW.jpg

gh3-Davenport+Diamond-WOOD+SEATING.jpg

From link.
 
You could address the desire for more local stops and emergency vehicle routing by adding priority bus lanes/BRT, either median or curb. It's probably a much better solution to have elevated stops spaced every 1.5-2km at major traffic generators and buses to act as local service. The money saved on rail stations (which would be significant) would likely pay for the bus lanes. And if opex is a concern, I would think that in 10 years or so, buses are going to be battery electric and autonomous (maybe with remote operation). We could be doing so much better. And wider stop spacing could help to get average speed up to 40-45 kph which would actually make such a service competitive with cars.
 
And to be clear that I'm not just hating on LRT, I would add that there are situations where LRT is the best/only solution. King St is a great example where there is a need to move a lot of people short distances and provide good local service. There is no way buses could do it, and a subway would be calamitously expensive to provide frequent stops for that area. So LRVs are absolutely the right technology there. I just think that LRT is a bit of a fad, and being used in many places where it is inappropriate. It is best for high passenger volume, short to medium distance corridors. The one thing I would do with King is make it has much stronger signal priority and stronger enforcement for vehicles impeding LRVs. There are still things that could be done to improve speed.
 
And to be clear that I'm not just hating on LRT, I would add that there are situations where LRT is the best/only solution. King St is a great example where there is a need to move a lot of people short distances and provide good local service. There is no way buses could do it, and a subway would be calamitously expensive to provide frequent stops for that area. So LRVs are absolutely the right technology there. I just think that LRT is a bit of a fad, and being used in many places where it is inappropriate. It is best for high passenger volume, short to medium distance corridors. The one thing I would do with King is make it has much stronger signal priority and stronger enforcement for vehicles impeding LRVs. There are still things that could be done to improve speed.

King Street has all the perfect ingredients for a subway line. High density and ridership. More frequent stop spacing would make sense.

If anything I'd say the fad is suburban subway obsession. We're implementing subways in areas that don't have the density/ridership to justify them for needs better served by regional transit like GO.

The Scarborough LRT was a great solution - practical and easily expandable. It would already be up and running.
 
King Street has all the perfect ingredients for a subway line. High density and ridership. More frequent stop spacing would make sense.

If anything I'd say the fad is suburban subway obsession. We're implementing subways in areas that don't have the density/ridership to justify them for needs better served by regional transit like GO.

The Scarborough LRT was a great solution - practical and easily expandable. It would already be up and running.
It would be impossible to provide the level of local service you have with King streetcar using subway. I'm not saying King shouldn't get a subway eventually, just that when it does get a subway we may still want to have the streetcar for local service. Especially if it means we can have a less ruinously expensive line with deep stations every 500m.

LRT is a waste of money in the suburbs. Start with BRT. Once a BRT becomes saturated, it makes sense to use elevated rail with wide stop spacing (close to regional rail). We aren't going to be able to use freight corridors to play the role of regional rail in the suburbs as they don't always exist to serve travel patterns (particularly circumferential ones like Hurontario).

Thankfully, Metrolinx is starting to come around to this idea, and hopefully Finch and Hurontario will be the last time we splash out on LRT through suburbia. Most new projects on the books are BRT.

There is even a glimmer of hope that they are starting to see elevated rail to act as quasi-regional rail too. OL is a hybrid: relief line/subway downtown, perhaps transitioning to elevated more-regional rail north of Eglinton, if it is expanded that way? Seems like an elevated, 2km stop spacing is quite possible for a future extension to Don Mills/Sheppard, with stops at Lawrence, York Mills and Sheppard.
 
Last edited:
It would be impossible to provide the level of local service you have with King streetcar using subway. I'm not saying King shouldn't get a subway eventually, just that when it does get a subway we may still want to have the streetcar for local service. Especially if it means we can have a less ruinously expensive line with deep stations every 500m.

LRT is a waste of money in the suburbs. Start with BRT. Once a BRT becomes saturated, it makes sense to use elevated rail with wide stop spacing (close to regional rail). We aren't going to be able to use freight corridors to play the role of regional rail in the suburbs as they don't always exist to serve travel patterns (particularly circumferential ones like Hurontario).

Thankfully, Metrolinx is starting to come around to this idea, and hopefully Finch and Hurontario will be the last time we splash out on LRT through suburbia. Most new projects on the books are BRT.
Tbh, after this wave of BRT is over, I hope that Metrolinx maybe starts focusing more on helping municipalities run frequent service rather than just pay for more infrastructure. The Viva Rapidway has amazing looking infrastructure, but with the exception of Viva Blue, the service is so infrequent that its effectively useless. Unfortunately though you can't have photo ops for more frequent busses so :(
 
Tbh, after this wave of BRT is over, I hope that Metrolinx maybe starts focusing more on helping municipalities run frequent service rather than just pay for more infrastructure. The Viva Rapidway has amazing looking infrastructure, but with the exception of Viva Blue, the service is so infrequent that its effectively useless. Unfortunately though you can't have photo ops for more frequent busses so :(
This and regional fare integration and key next steps. Bus frequency hopefully becomes easier to accomplish over time with electrification and autonomy, but leave that for the transportation disruption thread.

I think there is still room for more BRT throughout the region. In Mississauga alone, Lakeshore, Eglinton and Erin Mills spring to mind. More infill GO stations are also a priority, I think, as long as they are more TOD from the get go and not 10 acres of parking.
 

Back
Top