[sixrings]

A tunnel for an LRT through downtown Brampton is legitimately nuts. I would be okay with it if we were getting more of a Skytrain light metro that could be run more frequently with smaller, automated trains. Spending billions to put worse transit service through sleepy downtown Brampton to save a few detached homes a few feet off their front yards is patently crazy.

Those houses btw are going to be sold off and redeveloped into condos. All they did was make these properties worth more

 

[T3G]

From the beginning Brampton wanted a tunnel. Everyone whining and complaining about that being to expensive proves that transit is done in such a way that everywhere else is expected to get scraps.

Transit should be built according to the demand and built environment. Tunneling a suburban LRT line when you have ample space above is nuts, regardless of if one person demands it or 10,000.

People whining and crying until they get what they want doesn't sound like a democratic decision, it is emotional blackmail, plain and simple. If Brampton was a more expensive form of transit when a cheaper form would do, they are welcome to pony up the cash for it. As is Scarborough. This is not how adults make decisions.

 

[micheal_can]

Transit should be built according to the demand and built environment. Tunneling a suburban LRT line when you have ample space above is nuts, regardless of if one person demands it or 10,000.

People whining and crying until they get what they want doesn't sound like a democratic decision, it is emotional blackmail, plain and simple. If Brampton was a more expensive form of transit when a cheaper form would do, they are welcome to pony up the cash for it. As is Scarborough. This is not how adults make decisions.

You proved my point.We don't need to keep on this. I did not state what I did to change anyone's mind. I did state it to show that it exists. One thing to remember, there were over 20 streetcar systems in the province. Only one survived. The adult thing to do would have been to maintain it and grow as needed.

 

[Bojaxs]

Transit should be built according to the demand and built environment. Tunneling a suburban LRT line when you have ample space above is nuts, regardless of if one person demands it or 10,000.

People whining and crying until they get what they want doesn't sound like a democratic decision, it is emotional blackmail, plain and simple. If Brampton was a more expensive form of transit when a cheaper form would do, they are welcome to pony up the cash for it. As is Scarborough. This is not how adults make decisions.

But there isn't "ample of space". That's why it's being tunneled. Simple. We don't want LRVs sharing the same lane of traffic as cars. Because then it becomes a streetcar. I don't care if Europe does it.

This will spur development and density within downtown Brampton.

 

[sixrings]

But there isn't "ample of space". That's why it's being tunneled. Simple. We don't want LRVs sharing the same lane of traffic as cars. Because then it becomes a streetcar. I don't care if Europe does it.

This will spur development and density within downtown Brampton.

The development which happens downtown Brampton should encourage people to walk, take transit and a very distant third use a car. As a result I don’t know why you would need to keep an extra lane for car traffic.

 

[Bojaxs]

The development which happens downtown Brampton should encourage people to walk, take transit and a very distant third use a car. As a result I don’t know why you would need to keep an extra lane for car traffic.

Tunneling the LRT will ensure that it's "rapid" and make it more appealing to riders. Even for people who own a car.

 

[Transportfan]

I think it is bad that Mississauga and Brampton still don't have an agreement on the LRT subsidies.


The reason is because when Toronto Township was turned into the Town of Mississauga in 1968, it was only the unincorporated areas, and the towns of Streetsville and Port Credit were already incorporated towns.

So then why weren't Port Credit, Streetsville, and Toronto Township just amalgamated into a new City of Port Credit?

 

[sixrings]

Tunneling the LRT will ensure that it's "rapid" and make it more appealing to riders. Even for people who own a car.

I would think that most transit riders would be heading first into Toronto via go and a distant second into MCC. And how much faster is the underground portion exactly. If it’s not considerably faster then how do you justify the expense or is there no limit to how much “rapid” is worth? Btw the rest of the line is at grade so how much of a difference does a small section tunnel make. This sounds like someone advocating for the automobile via a transit smoke screen.

 

[ARG1]

Tunneling the LRT will ensure that it's "rapid" and make it more appealing to riders. Even for people who own a car.

Eh? Its not that simple.

This is only true if A) The subway is shallow (I have a feeling Brampton won't be), and B) The line is fully grade separated for a long stretch of the line. While the former might still be somewhat true (hopefully its not the TYSSE), the latter isn't true. The best way I can demonstrate this problem is with the new Central Subway that opened in San Francisco this past year. Its a 3 stop extension of MUNI Metro T line (A mostly median running tramway) into downtown SF via a new tunnel. This section of the line, is no joke, SLOWER THAN THE EXISTING BUS SERVICE THAT PRECEDED IT. Why? Because not only does the line have horrible headways, it is also deep that by the time you could've possibly recouped any time savings from those 2 factors, you're already at the outdoor portion and aren't going to go much faster than local busses.

Now in all likelihood this Hurontario Subway won't be anywhere near as bad as the Central Subway, but fact of the matter is having the last 2 stations of the Hurontario Line be tunneled isn't going to make the line that much more appealing to car owning riders when the other 95% of the line isn't grade separated.

 

[Bojaxs]

Eh? Its not that simple.

This is only true if A) The subway is shallow (I have a feeling Brampton won't be), and B) The line is fully grade separated for a long stretch of the line. While the former might still be somewhat true (hopefully its not the TYSSE), the latter isn't true. The best way I can demonstrate this problem is with the new Central Subway that opened in San Francisco this past year. Its a 3 stop extension of MUNI Metro T line (A mostly median running tramway) into downtown SF via a new tunnel. This section of the line, is no joke, SLOWER THAN THE EXISTING BUS SERVICE THAT PRECEDED IT. Why? Because not only does the line have horrible headways, it is also deep that by the time you could've possibly recouped any time savings from those 2 factors, you're already at the outdoor portion and aren't going to go much faster than local busses.

Now in all likelihood this Hurontario Subway won't be anywhere near as bad as the Central Subway, but fact of the matter is having the last 2 stations of the Hurontario Line be tunneled isn't going to make the line that much more appealing to car owning riders when the other 95% of the line isn't grade separated.

This is my concern with the Crosstown LRT, because they added too many stops on the surface portion of the line. Underground trains will have to slow down for surface trains. I'm hoping this won't the case for the Hurontatrio LRT. The trains should move quickly between Brampton GO and Shopper's World due to there being only a few stops.
I have high hopes for Hurontario line because the stop spacing seems more sensible compared to the other LRTs being constructed.

 

[Wm Perkins Bull]

Transit should be built according to the demand and built environment. Tunneling a suburban LRT line when you have ample space above is nuts, regardless of if one person demands it or 10,000.

People whining and crying until they get what they want doesn't sound like a democratic decision, it is emotional blackmail, plain and simple. If Brampton was a more expensive form of transit when a cheaper form would do, they are welcome to pony up the cash for it. As is Scarborough. This is not how adults make decisions.

A surface LRT extension was still estimated at $900 million due to needing to lower the street to allow the LRT to pass under the CN rail bridge

Tunneling the LRT will ensure that it's "rapid" and make it more appealing to riders. Even for people who own a car.

Attracting riders is not Brampton's problem.

So then why weren't Port Credit, Streetsville, and Toronto Township just amalgamated into a new City of Port Credit?

Toronto Township simply renamed itself to the Town of Mississauga to reflect its increasingly urban character, amalgamation was done later by the province. Mississauga had the lion's share of population and that is why the name was kept.

http://www5.mississauga.ca/research_catalogue/C-9_eiHisbrochure_fin_a2.pdf

I would think that most transit riders would be heading first into Toronto via go and a distant second into MCC. And how much faster is the underground portion exactly. If it’s not considerably faster then how do you justify the expense or is there no limit to how much “rapid” is worth? Btw the rest of the line is at grade so how much of a difference does a small section tunnel make. This sounds like someone advocating for the automobile via a transit smoke screen.

The tunnel will save ~2 minutes.

Eh? Its not that simple.

This is only true if A) The subway is shallow (I have a feeling Brampton won't be), and B) The line is fully grade separated for a long stretch of the line. While the former might still be somewhat true (hopefully its not the TYSSE), the latter isn't true. The best way I can demonstrate this problem is with the new Central Subway that opened in San Francisco this past year. Its a 3 stop extension of MUNI Metro T line (A mostly median running tramway) into downtown SF via a new tunnel. This section of the line, is no joke, SLOWER THAN THE EXISTING BUS SERVICE THAT PRECEDED IT. Why? Because not only does the line have horrible headways, it is also deep that by the time you could've possibly recouped any time savings from those 2 factors, you're already at the outdoor portion and aren't going to go much faster than local busses.

Now in all likelihood this Hurontario Subway won't be anywhere near as bad as the Central Subway, but fact of the matter is having the last 2 stations of the Hurontario Line be tunneled isn't going to make the line that much more appealing to car owning riders when the other 95% of the line isn't grade separated.

the Main Street Subway Extension will not be shallow, but it also won't be half way to China. The substantial issue is the need to go underneath the Etobicoke Creek, so it won't be cut and cover.

 

[afransen]

But there isn't "ample of space". That's why it's being tunneled. Simple. We don't want LRVs sharing the same lane of traffic as cars. Because then it becomes a streetcar. I don't care if Europe does it.

This will spur development and density within downtown Brampton.

We can just prevent through movement for cars, and the volume of car traffic will be minimal. And if that volume is minimal and low speed it can be shared bicycle street/bike lanes.pave the vehicle lanes with bumpy pavers and make the centre part smooth for bikes. Cars will drive slowly then.

 

[sixrings]

We can also sell condos right downtown with far less parking spots than normal.

 

[T3G]

But there isn't "ample of space". That's why it's being tunneled. Simple. We don't want LRVs sharing the same lane of traffic as cars. Because then it becomes a streetcar. I don't care if Europe does it.

This will spur development and density within downtown Brampton.

Who said anything about sharing the same lane as cars? This seems like a strawman you set up. The most obvious answer is to not allow cars in the narrow streets that the LRT would be running on.

Regardless of whatever other points you make, though, I am baffled at your urgent need to dismiss any suggestions by saying "I don't care if Europe does it." Has it ever occurred to you that the reason transit is so shit in this area is because of Torontonian exceptionalism? Because we refuse to look at other cities and learn from global best practices? Many European cities, including non capital cities, have better transit than we will ever have in yours or my natural lifespan. The idea that we have nothing to learn from them is sheer arrogance. Nothing more, nothiness.

 

[sixrings]

Who said anything about sharing the same lane as cars? This seems like a strawman you set up. The most obvious answer is to not allow cars in the narrow streets that the LRT would be running on.

Regardless of whatever other points you make, though, I am baffled at your urgent need to dismiss any suggestions by saying "I don't care if Europe does it." Has it ever occurred to you that the reason transit is so shit in this area is because of Torontonian exceptionalism? Because we refuse to look at other cities and learn from global best practices? Many European cities, including non capital cities, have better transit than we will ever have in yours or my natural lifespan. The idea that we have nothing to learn from them is sheer arrogance. Nothing more, nothiness.

I think Bojaxs is from Oakville... I could be wrong... but that would explain the love of cars even more so than Toronto and its closest suburbs