FullMetalEngineer said:
The link is giving 404 Error page Today. It looks like the same chart from Feb 27'th and figures we saw a couple months ago at the Brampton Council LRT session.

https://pub-brampton.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=81694

The cons for the surface are manufactured on purpose as I broke down in this thread in February. $216M of the new $933M surface costs are from a new underground station added into the design over the 2015 plans. I recently publicly questioned the Integrated Downtown Plan pushed by staff who have no interest in giving priority to any transit vehicles through the downtown as they remove 2 lanes and was responded with condescending answers where such a consideration was considered "extreme".
The path that Mayor Brown is taking by putting all eggs in one basket because the "surface shortchanges the tunnel ask" is going to result in nothing being funded at all and this LRT ending at Steeles indefinitely.
I'm keeping an eye on when they halt progress on the surface study to prioritize the tunnel. Likely in a decision once the full 30% design docs are released soon.
Click to expand...
Brown and company can say it is tunnel or nothing at all once full 30% is done.

The province will say either we are fine with no extension or you are getting the surface line regardless you don't want it if its to be on our dime. You want a tunnel, you pay for not only the building of it, but as well the maintenance of it for the next 60 years.
 
I think when they make changes to the agenda it changes the "DocumentId" number which is annoying. So it's now "81878" but when @ShonTron posted the link it was "81694". I wish munis like Brampton would use the software that Toronto uses and not escribemeetings. cc @Northern Light

Just so this doesn't happen again, I've downloaded the report and added it to G Drive here.

Also, the staff report has an Appendix 1 in a separate document. I've downloaded it to G Drive here.

Screenshot below.

1683313296807.png

1683313312639.png
 
Last edited:
This new table in the document is directly from Patrick Brown's nonsensical words at the February LRT workshop. Funny how the actual number of stops and lengths of projects are left out of the comparison and buried in a separate appendix not included in the package. $3B for a 2km, 4 stop tunnel is a terrible business case, use the $3B cost argument to extend the LRT surface route to Sandalwood. I will ensure Council is on full blast if they end up dropping the surface route as is being signalled.

1683321807237.png
 
Last edited:
FullMetalEngineer said:
This new table in the document is directly from Patrick Brown's nonsensical words at the February LRT workshop. Funny how the actual number of stops and lengths of projects are left out of the comparison and buried in a separate appendix not included in the package. $3B for a 2km tunnel is a terrible business case, use the $3B cost argument to extend the LRT surface route to Sandalwood. I will ensure Council is on full blast if they end up dropping the surface route as is being signalled.

View attachment 474509
Click to expand...
Will the stations for a Brampton underground LRT be close together, like the Line 1 Yonge leg south of Bloor; or far apart, like the Line 1 Yonge leg between Eglinton & Sheppard stations? If far apart, then they'll need a local bus service (like the 15 30 minute headways of the 97 Yonge bus)? Adding a local bus would mean an increase in the operational budget.
 
I think they should tunnel from eglinton to port credit if this gets passed.

Actually keep it the way it is and get all day go to cooksville.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if the hope is that some party at some point - either this one when it’s inevitably on the ropes, or one in waiting that wants to secure seats - will end up promising money to Brampton in hope of clinching Brampton’s seats.

BTW, the reasons for the tunneled option are not compelling, and a case study in how Canadian Ontario cities manage to deliver less transit for more $$$.
 
allengeorge said:
I wonder if the hope is that some party at some point - either this one when it’s inevitably on the ropes, or one in waiting that wants to secure seats - will end up promising money to Brampton in hope of clinching Brampton’s seats.

BTW, the reasons for the tunneled option are not compelling, and a case study in how Canadian Ontario cities manage to deliver less transit for more $$$.
Click to expand...
Of course the case isn’t compelling. In fact it’s so pathetic is not even a case. If it is a case, it is a case against spending the money. And yet again if Brampton gets its way I don’t see why other municipalities or areas would ever settle for lesser. Just keep pressing until you get what you want no matter how ludicrous it is.
 
sixrings said:
Of course the case isn’t compelling. In fact it’s so pathetic is not even a case. If it is a case, it is a case against spending the money. And yet again if Brampton gets its way I don’t see why other municipalities or areas would ever settle for lesser. Just keep pressing until you get what you want no matter how ludicrous it is.
Click to expand...

I agree, judging by government shortchanging of Brampton on most fronts, I expect this position to delay all potential progress further north until someone on council steps up and demands we progress the surface study past the 30% design documents this spring.

The tunnel is a compromise for NiMBys and downtown interests to keep heat off council and point the finger at other levels of government who have already indicated at Brampton board of trade talks that they don't see value in the tunnel costs.

It works in Brown's favour to kick the can down the road and avoid another LRT debate with a divided council. If Santos, Vicente, Toor, Brar, Singh and others agree to drop the surface route, it would be a betrayal to their progressive base who got them elected.
 
I wrote about the staff report and its findings. I argue that that the surface alignment is the only realistic option.

seanmarshall.ca

Brampton LRT: a second chance to get it right

Brampton City Council will once again consider extending the Hurontario LRT north into downtown. Will they hold out for a tunnel? Or succeed in getting it built?
seanmarshall.ca seanmarshall.ca
 
ShonTron said:
I wrote about the staff report and its findings. I argue that that the surface alignment is the only realistic option.

seanmarshall.ca

Brampton LRT: a second chance to get it right

Brampton City Council will once again consider extending the Hurontario LRT north into downtown. Will they hold out for a tunnel? Or succeed in getting it built?
seanmarshall.ca seanmarshall.ca
Click to expand...
Could we maybe start a new thread for discussion of the extension?
 
I agree. the discussion between construction in Mississauga and future planning in Brampton belong together.
Right now both have a lot of updates going on. Next year once the line is opened, the Mississauga activity here will transition to occasional service concerns and focus shift to the Brampton extension that was originally planned.
 
FullMetalEngineer said:
I agree. the discussion between construction in Mississauga and future planning in Brampton belong together.
Right now both have a lot of updates going on. Next year once the line is opened, the Mississauga activity here will transition to occasional service concerns and focus shift to the Brampton extension that was originally planned.
Click to expand...
You mean 2025 when service start. End of 2024 is supposed to be the completion of the line. It just like the Finch Line to be completed this year with service starting in 2024

There is no need for another thread for Brampton extension and if there is one, then we will have to do another one for the dumb city loop. In time there will be the expansion of the stations platforms to support 2 cars and that 10-20 years down the road.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top