[sixrings]

The biggest cost of a TBM is inserting and removing it, the incremental per km cost is more reasonable. Even if we can't afford an extra station, I would just bore an extra km to the north to where an extraction shaft is more practical. Consider the unused tunnel just futureproofing until we can afford to extend.

I really wonder why we aren't learning from other projects. Cut and cover is probably cheaper and less intrusive given that the tunnel runs directly under a main business alley that needs the shortest possible disruption. Why are we so eager to replicate the misery of the Eglinton experience ?

- Paul

Cut and cover also means stations closer to the surface? I’d think that’s a plus if someone was trying to connect from the LRT to the GO.

 

[17_Bean_17]

Median on Main or diversion to Kennedy were already discussed nearly over a decade ago. When the initial conversation about having a LRT in Brampton was announced, there were NIMBY's who lived right along the Main Street corridor who opposed the idea of it strongly. So strongly that you had factions in Brampton City Hall who were vetoing ever building it along Main Street in support of those NIMBY's, and instead suggesting Kennedy Road. McLaughlin, diversions along other inner streets, and other routes that I don't even remember anymore. Not to mention, diverting along those routes does nothing to solve the influx of people coming off the GO train, Go Bus, or arriving by bus to downtown Brampton.

They suggested these routes because they didn't want to lose their long driveway ROW, and were more concerned about their property values than they were about ever using it as a service. They thought that the sight of an above ground LRT was absolutely heinous, and would cause traffic disruptions and so on. This stalled the development in Brampton, and it only recently started back up once the vetoing faction was voted out. None of their suggestions had anything to do with ever running the LRT into downtown Brampton.

I am aware of the history regarding the alternative proposed routes and the involvement of the NIMBY's along Main, but a rejection by a bunch of NIMBY's should not be grounds to automatically gravitate towards a significantly more expensive option which does not align with the density of the corridor. Various different alignment options could have provided different costs/benefits in terms of connectivity (e.g. Main is more direct, Kennedy + Rail Corridor would have allowed access to William Osler and Brampton GO), but the decision to construct a tunnel is different from the choice of alignment in that it is a purely political decision made in spite of the reality of the situation. A lot of well-earned disdain has been directed to the parties involved in the initial shortening of the LRT in Brampton, but the reality is that by digging this tunnel, not only are we giving them what they wanted, we are also showing the rest of the province what they need to do to have their way.

Whether or not you agree with the line being done the way it is, comparing Brampton's downtown to Mississauga's City Centre without focusing on the stops in between, or additional variables means you're focusing on only one section of the entirety of the HMLRT. The 502 that travels on Main starts from Hurontario / Sandalwood, makes a few stops before hitting Downtown Brampton, makes a few stops before hitting Gateway Terminal, and then a few stops in Mississauga before hitting Square One. By one point, the bus is already full, and some stops have been skipped because of how full the bus is, and how many people are not getting off because they're all trying to go to Square One. Combine this with the fact that it's rush hour, Main/Theatre, Main/Queen, Main/Welington are completely backed up. People are waiting for a bus to come because the other buses are full. The bus takes longer than the scheduled time because of gridlock.

The tunnel for the LRT will reallocate resources from Brampton Transit's 502 to the incoming 504, and eventually the currently being planned 515, while also ensuring that everyone is able to get on, and be moved around the city to where they need to get to.

Also... I'd like to know what historical significance a shopping mall has when we're talking about moving a significant number of people via different transit solutions between one city to another city. Heritage is one thing, but to suggest that a city must have heritage in order to benefit from something is a little.... Strange to me I suppose.

I agree with you that connecting the LRT to Downtown Brampton is a great idea with network connectivity benefits beyond the weak density of the place, with that said, the network impacts and the bus relief which you mention are brought about by the LRT itself, not the tunnel. There were far far cheaper ways to introduce those benefits into the network, but the province has bent the knees and chosen the same transit for a far higher cost. Remember every dollar spent on this, is a dollar not spent on growing bus networks, constructing other lines, or even extending the LRT all the way up to Sandalwood so that it can fulfill the full network relief potential it has.

A shopping mall, similar to Downton Brampton, has very little heritage significance, and I agree with you in that heritage should have very little to do with network decision-making on the scale of the Hurontario LRT, which is why it is a shame that heritage has been used as a lever to push the line, and 1.7 billion dollars - underground.

 

[sixrings]

I am aware of the history regarding the alternative proposed routes and the involvement of the NIMBY's along Main, but a rejection by a bunch of NIMBY's should not be grounds to automatically gravitate towards a significantly more expensive option which does not align with the density of the corridor. Various different alignment options could have provided different costs/benefits in terms of connectivity (e.g. Main is more direct, Kennedy + Rail Corridor would have allowed access to William Osler and Brampton GO), but the decision to construct a tunnel is different from the choice of alignment in that it is a purely political decision made in spite of the reality of the situation. A lot of well-earned disdain has been directed to the parties involved in the initial shortening of the LRT in Brampton, but the reality is that by digging this tunnel, not only are we giving them what they wanted, we are also showing the rest of the province what they need to do to have their way.


I agree with you that connecting the LRT to Downtown Brampton is a great idea with network connectivity benefits beyond the weak density of the place, with that said, the network impacts and the bus relief which you mention are brought about by the LRT itself, not the tunnel. There were far far cheaper ways to introduce those benefits into the network, but the province has bent the knees and chosen the same transit for a far higher cost. Remember every dollar spent on this, is a dollar not spent on growing bus networks, constructing other lines, or even extending the LRT all the way up to Sandalwood so that it can fulfill the full network relief potential it has.

A shopping mall, similar to Downton Brampton, has very little heritage significance, and I agree with you in that heritage should have very little to do with network decision-making on the scale of the Hurontario LRT, which is why it is a shame that heritage has been used as a lever to push the line, and 1.7 billion dollars - underground.

I 10000% agree that building this we are rewarding bad behaviour. That said this is how Scarborough managed to cancel the RT conversion and get themselves a subway. It’s also how Sheppard LRT got cancelled. It’s also why Vaughans subway extension was underground versus above ground. This has been the way for a long time and as long as our funding is related to politics I’m not sure this will ever change. As a result I don’t see why places like MCC don’t do the same song and dance complaining until they get a subway extension or all day GO branch. All of this is concerning. Because if we keep picking only the most expensive versions of transit then less transit will ultimately be built.

But I voted for transit city. When I did I believed in a network that served everyone. It wasn’t perfect but it was a network. Since then I have come to accept that the way this works is who ever complains the most is getting the most funds. It’s just a fact. So I don’t know if I believe in advocating for everyone everywhere anymore. But perhaps it’s just best to advocate for your own self interest. Isn’t that a sad commentary on where we’ve gone. A whole region of people only caring about their own self interests.

 

[ShonTron]

"Brampton Gateway" -- yet another dumbass stop name.

No, it isn’t. It’s the name of the transit terminal already there, with a deliberate indication of the urban development planned for the area, on the southern edge of the city. The previous transit terminals were named for Shoppers World, but eventually, that land will be completely redeveloped.

 

[nfitz]

Is that MCC loop on the new map on the previous page really a loop, or will the cars go in forward, and leave going the other direction to head north?

I fear how long the delay will be for the MCC stop already.

 

[sixrings]

Is that MCC loop on the new map on the previous page really a loop, or will the cars go in forward, and leave going the other direction to head north?

I fear how long the delay will be for the MCC stop already.

I’m still confused why some trains couldn’t loop while others continue through without the loop. Branch services are not that complicated.

 

[ARG1]

I’m still confused why some trains couldn’t loop while others continue through without the loop. Branch services are not that complicated.

You're complicating service patterns whilst also significantly messing with headways. If you have a train every 7.5m for instance, that means you're only going to get a train every 15m through the loop per direction. It also means that you're probably not going to have consistent headways in the non-loop sections - what could be consistent 7.5m headways could become an uneven sporadic pattern of a 10m followed by a 5m train, or even worse levels of bunching. I have to deal with a similar reverse branching nonsense with Viva Purple, and it's deeply unwelcome. The only way to avoid this mess is to simply have one service serve the south half of the corridor, and one loop serve the north half. It's not a great solution, but it will probably result in the most consistent/least worst service pattern for Hurontario after the loop is built.

 

[T3G]

I’m still confused why some trains couldn’t loop while others continue through without the loop. Branch services are not that complicated.

Branch services only work if both branches run frequently enough to not screw over those on the not-shared part of the route.

I don't know how frequently this line is supposed to run, but if the headways were any wider than 5 minutes, that means you would have upwards of a 10 minute wait at Square One, and at that point the further you go (because the service wouldn't be running every 5 minutes on Sunday night), the more you will push riders with alternatives away.

 

[nfitz]

I’m still confused why some trains couldn’t loop while others continue through without the loop. Branch services are not that complicated.

Theoretically some would. But I'd assume there'll be periods of the day (at least) when no services bypass.

 

[sixrings]

Branch services only work if both branches run frequently enough to not screw over those on the not-shared part of the route.

I don't know how frequently this line is supposed to run, but if the headways were any wider than 5 minutes, that means you would have upwards of a 10 minute wait at Square One, and at that point the further you go (because the service wouldn't be running every 5 minutes on Sunday night), the more you will push riders with alternatives away.

When I lived in Calgary they managed to figure out the branching. But we were also content with he c train coming once every 15 minutes and sometimes every 30 minutes. I find it hard hearing people complain about frequency in Toronto when I lived through that for my university years in often minus 30 weather.

 

[T3G]

When I lived in Calgary they managed to figure out the branching. But we were also content with he c train coming once every 15 minutes and sometimes every 30 minutes. I find it hard hearing people complain about frequency in Toronto when I lived through that for my university years in often minus 30 weather.

Sure, there's cities with even worse frequencies. But this crabs in a bucket, race to the bottom mentality is not a great way of growing your transit ridership. We should be looking at cities with good transit and trying to copy them, rather than saying that it's fine to have pretty shit transit because there's cities with extremely shit transit that are even worse off.

N.B. There's a lot of routes in the GTA that are just as embarrassing as Calgary's. Have a look at the schedules for the MiWay 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 17, to give a not very exhaustive list. Or, perhaps the most egregious of all is the 109 , a supposedly "major" "express" route, which "boasts" a midday frequency of 22-23 minutes. Sucks to be a Calgarian, I guess, but I'm not sure why I shouldn't be calling for better frequencies just because Calgary's are even worse.

 

[ARG1]

When I lived in Calgary they managed to figure out the branching. But we were also content with he c train coming once every 15 minutes and sometimes every 30 minutes. I find it hard hearing people complain about frequency in Toronto when I lived through that for my university years in often minus 30 weather.

There's a difference between Branching and Reverse Branching (which is what you're asking for). Branching is like Calgary where there's a shared central section, and the end sections split up into routes. This type of branching is mostly fine and doesn't cause many issues. Reverse branching is when branching occurs in the middle of the route, where the ends of the route are identical but there are 2 different routes through the middle. Viva Purple is a prime example of this.

This is generally bad and should be avoided wherever possible due to the reasons outlined by myself and @T3G above. Splitting up the Hurontario LRT between loop and non loop variants is basically the same thing and will cause similar issues.

 

[sixrings]

Sure, there's cities with even worse frequencies. But this crabs in a bucket, race to the bottom mentality is not a great way of growing your transit ridership. We should be looking at cities with good transit and trying to copy them, rather than saying that it's fine to have pretty shit transit because there's cities with extremely shit transit that are even worse off.

N.B. There's a lot of routes in the GTA that are just as embarrassing as Calgary's. Have a look at the schedules for the MiWay 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 17, to give a not very exhaustive list. Or, perhaps the most egregious of all is the 109 , a supposedly "major" "express" route, which "boasts" a midday frequency of 22-23 minutes. Sucks to be a Calgarian, I guess, but I'm not sure why I shouldn't be calling for better frequencies just because Calgary's are even worse.

Yeah I get it. And I’m not here arguing we should have lower frequencies. But if it facilitates branching then I still find it a plus. I mean no one’s going to agree with me but I’d be tempted to run a third branch down Dundas to Kipling. So in this world one let goes straight down Hurontario. One lrt goes down Hurontario and does a loop. One lrt loops around square one and then down to Dundas and to Kipling.

I could be really wild and suggest a fourth branch going around square one and then going to the airport. But that’s 2050 talk.

 

[drum118]

You're complicating service patterns whilst also significantly messing with headways. If you have a train every 7.5m for instance, that means you're only going to get a train every 15m through the loop per direction. It also means that you're probably not going to have consistent headways in the non-loop sections - what could be consistent 7.5m headways could become an uneven sporadic pattern of a 10m followed by a 5m train, or even worse levels of bunching. I have to deal with a similar reverse branching nonsense with Viva Purple, and it's deeply unwelcome. The only way to avoid this mess is to simply have one service serve the south half of the corridor, and one loop serve the north half. It's not a great solution, but it will probably result in the most consistent/least worst service pattern for Hurontario after the loop is built.

There better be branch lines, otherwise this is a failure of getting people out of their cars, getting to/from where they want to go, but most of all, longer travel time. Mississauga is taking the route that the city revolves around MCC just like other cities in NA, when in fact that is where they are forced to go to get to where they want to go in the first place. Can I say Toronto is a good example of this?? Interline will work with the correct headway of all lines to the point MCC stops are seeing service every 4 minutes. There is no such service of 7.5 minutes on the road other than the planners schedules. It is either 7 or 8 minutes on good days.

The average travel time today to bypass MCC is 22 minutes using route 2 and 17 on a good day compared to the 103 that takes 1 minute.

The loop is not on the map, but the original plan was to west of Square One Station to Duke of York and then south to Burnhamthorpe to east to Hurontario. Current plan will see the line go west of Square One to Confederation, south to Burnhamthorpe and east to Hurontario to service M City and Parkside Village and other developments plan for that area. Currently there are 4 traffic light on Burnhamthorpe with another 1-2 more to be added, 3 on Confederation with one more to come along with 4 on Rathburn. As far as I know unit detail designs come out for the loop, the line going west of Square One Station remains on the north side of Rathburn to Duke of York and then move to the centre of the of all the roads for the rest of the loop.

There are 3 large projects plan for Hurontario and Eglinton with 2 more to come and if those new residents want to get to Cooksville GO station once AD2W service arrives, they will chose to drive to/from the GO station than waste 22 minutes or so looping MCC unless they have no car in the first place. This wasting value life time that is irreplaceable for those riders just like it is today using the bus.

As I have stated for years, Quality of Service as well Reliable Service along with faster travel time will get people to use transit than drive. Sadly, not the case for most systems. My major rode average 19km in 50km zone that only has a few major ridership points with a fair number of stops under the city standard of 400m between stops that see the odd rider or two at various times. Even a lot of express buses are in the 22 to 32km for 50 and 60km zones. Should note, traffic not an issues for those averages, the bus drivers are. Some have lead foot while others are Sunday drivers the mess up the runtime badly that some routes have too much padding or not enough.

 

[drum118]

There's a difference between Branching and Reverse Branching (which is what you're asking for). Branching is like Calgary where there's a shared central section, and the end sections split up into routes. This type of branching is mostly fine and doesn't cause many issues. Reverse branching is when branching occurs in the middle of the route, where the ends of the route are identical but there are 2 different routes through the middle. Viva Purple is a prime example of this.
View attachment 628613
This is generally bad and should be avoided wherever possible due to the reasons outlined by myself and @T3G above. Splitting up the Hurontario LRT between loop and non loop variants is basically the same thing and will cause similar issues.

Got to blame Markham on that since they decided to relocate the city centre. Ridership dictates the quality of service to the point where both routes run together, the quality of service should be better.

Talk to any real good transit planner and they will say branch lines feeding into trunk line will offer better service to residents along the trunk line that the headways will have different spacing and cannot be help.