Mississauga Hurontario-Main Line 10 LRT | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx

Some will agree or disagree with the quotes/positions in this article depending on their views. References made to the Brampton LRT debate.
here was my initial reaction last night to the story

upload_2017-5-30_10-34-14.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2017-5-30_10-34-14.png
    upload_2017-5-30_10-34-14.png
    42.3 KB · Views: 223
Some will agree or disagree with the quotes/positions in this article depending on their views. References made to the Brampton LRT debate.

Jeffrey is totally right. Let's be honest here - the old guard of councillors is bought and paid by the rich homeowners in downtown Brampton. That's why they killed the surface connection to Brampton GO. They have completely failed Brampton.
 
Jeffrey is totally right. Let's be honest here - the old guard of councillors is bought and paid by the rich homeowners in downtown Brampton. That's why they killed the surface connection to Brampton GO. They have completely failed Brampton.
Aside from her own record being less than stellar on, well, anything.....people seem to miss that 3 of the 6 "no" votes were rookies on council so not "old guard" and only 2 of the councillors represent what could be called downtown ridings (and none of those were the 3 rookies).....so 4 non downtown councillors, including 3 rookies, also voted "no".

The "old money in DT bought and paid for the no vote" makes for good newspaper copy....but it just is not true.
 
Why can't they just use a stacked tunnel (for minimal noise and vibration disturbance impact) and take the line to downtown Brampton directly under Main Street? I understand that surface is cheaper and all, but all this twisting ourselves into knots thinking up alternate routes to get to the GO station is getting ridiculous.

If you're boring a tunnel, you'd likely need a bigger diameter to stack 2 catenary LRTs than if you put them side by side in a single bore. You could narrow the tunnel by stacking them if you did cut and cover, but then you'd be way more disruptive on that 'sensitive' stretch of Main St.
 
Aside from her own record being less than stellar on, well, anything.....people seem to miss that 3 of the 6 "no" votes were rookies on council so not "old guard" and only 2 of the councillors represent what could be called downtown ridings (and none of those were the 3 rookies).....so 4 non downtown councillors, including 3 rookies, also voted "no".

Except that some of those rookies came from the same old-Brampton families. It's like swapping Doug Holyday for Stephen Holyday.

The council members that continue to block the mayor were the Conservatives who allied with Fennell or with Saunderson.
 
Except that some of those rookies came from the same old-Brampton families. It's like swapping Doug Holyday for Stephen Holyday.

The council members that continue to block the mayor were the Conservatives who allied with Fennell or with Saunderson.

Further, if Bill Davis and Neil Davis are considered by some to be "old Brampton" as well as the make up of two of the citizen groups who opposed (Citizens for Sensible Light Rail and Citizens for a Better Brampton), and multiple-term former Councillor Sanderson (who lost when he ran for Mayor) who also opposed, then pstogios' comment has more strength.

Of course I wouldn't interpret pstogios' comment to literally imply 100% of "old" or "new" (however they are being defined) were for *or* against the HMLRT. If you look at the deputations in the October 2015 meeting, some could argue several who supported the project could be considered "old" Brampton.
 
Jeffrey is totally right. Let's be honest here - the old guard of councillors is bought and paid by the rich homeowners in downtown Brampton. That's why they killed the surface connection to Brampton GO. They have completely failed Brampton.

These Councillors were elected by a lot of voters outside the so called "old guard". You may not like their policies but they are working for their entire constituency based on what they think is best.

And remember, the current bus service has a whopping 400-500 riders per hour at rush hour. And with a huge 3% growth rate planned for Main St that will increase to maybe 1000 riders per hour at rush hour. How many riders do you need to make LRT feasible?

And the per hour projections for Mississauga say that the Gateway Terminal will have 1500 riders per hour in 2015. So the 1000 riders is not unreasonable (or overstated). Looking at the numbers the LRT should realistically stop at Derry.

I think the LRT crowd is trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. The operating costs on a LRT for Brampton would cripple them for decades. The good news is that the riders could have their pick of empty seats.
 
I think the LRT crowd is trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. The operating costs on a LRT for Brampton would cripple them for decades. The good news is that the riders could have their pick of empty seats.

In terms of operating costs, I assume given your ridership concerns you are skeptical of what staff presented in July/October 2015 showing the HMLRT would have saved the City of Brampton $300k/year by 2031 (Brampton Transit itself would still have required a subsidy.) Not sure if you had seen this before.

2sihoDH


Also, just for context, here are the fare box recovery ratios for several GTHA transit agencies from 2012. 2014 data is here but I'm having some network issues. I assume you feel that the addition of LRT in Brampton would drive this ratio down?

2rfEw77
 
In terms of operating costs, I assume given your ridership concerns you are skeptical of what staff presented in July/October 2015 showing the HMLRT would have saved the City of Brampton $300k/year by 2031 (Brampton Transit itself would still have required a subsidy.) Not sure if you had seen this before.

2sihoDH

I don't know about @muller877 but, yes, I have been critical of that powerpoint slide since it was first presented.....because it is an example of using a very simplistic piece of math because it produces the exact result they wanted. They simply took the overall numbers for the entire corridor and divided by 4 because 25% of the line runs in Brampton.

Without access to the numbers it is impossible to know what the actual cost/savings to Brampton would be....but to try and suggest it is as simple of an analysis as total divided by 4 is insulting to the intelligence.

There are operating differences between the two municipalities....no? Does it cost both municipalities exactly the same amount of money to operate a bus per km? How about factoring in what services will stay and which ones will go after the proposed LRT is running. Mississauga, for instance, has an entire bus route/line (the 103) that can/will be fully discontinued after the LRT goes into operation.......in Brampton that is not the case....whether the LRT stops at Steeles or Nelson there is a fairly long chunk of the 502 that still exists....unless, of course, the way you get the costs down for this short stretch of Main is to reduce service to other parts of Brampton?

The above simplistic analysis also assumes facts not in evidence....that is will ML/Mississauga accept an operating agreement where "each km is treated equally" or will they chargeback more to Brampton because (as we all know) the lowest ridership parts are in Brampton? Absent an operating agreement how could anyone put that chart together?

Of course, none of us know if this will cost more or less for Brampton.......but the people who put that slide together don't know either....and the fact they contrived that simplistic analysis as an answer to the concerns of some people about the unknown operating costs just fueled more debate/suspicion/concern.
 
Am I correct to say that BRT is cheaper to maintain compared to LRT? Are operating costs of a LRT conversion ready BRT higher than just a BRT?
 
Of course, none of us know if this will cost more or less for Brampton.......but the people who put that slide together don't know either....and the fact they contrived that simplistic analysis as an answer to the concerns of some people about the unknown operating costs just fueled more debate/suspicion/concern.

In terms of "the people" who put the chart together, a Brampton staff member presented it at the time and I wonder if the reference to the "Business Case Analysis" refers to any of the documents in the studies and reports done during the EA/TPAP? Maybe Brampton staff were summarizing the information found in the studies. Wouldn't the bus operating savings be fairly easy for staff to have asked Brampton Transit staff? Same thing for the increase in fare revenue. Wouldn't it simply be a the number of riders projected by 2031 multiplied by the fare? I realize the technology is different, but would the process between Brampton staff, Brampton transit, and any outside consultants really have been that different from when Zum was established and projections were made on the the costs or savings of introducing those routes?

Without more commentary from the people who put the slide together, or having a chance to ask them directly, I wouldn't want to assign motive. I do agree that more information is always more helpful.
 
In terms of "the people" who put the chart together, a Brampton staff member presented it at the time and I wonder if the reference to the "Business Case Analysis" refers to any of the documents in the studies and reports done during the EA/TPAP? Maybe Brampton staff were summarizing the information found in the studies. Wouldn't the bus operating savings be fairly easy for staff to have asked Brampton Transit staff? Same thing for the increase in fare revenue. Wouldn't it simply be a the number of riders projected by 2031 multiplied by the fare? I realize the technology is different, but would the process between Brampton staff, Brampton transit, and any outside consultants really have been that different from when Zum was established and projections were made on the the costs or savings of introducing those routes?

Without more commentary from the people who put the slide together, or having a chance to ask them directly, I wouldn't want to assign motive. I do agree that more information is always more helpful.
and yet it all, magically, came out at the same ratio as the length of the line?

And any analysis of increased fare revenue has to be taken in the context of the fact the BCA had sections of the line (including the one we are talking about) seeing increases in transit modal share from sub 10% to >70%.....so get some salt pinches ready before you swallow that pill ;)
 
Am I correct to say that BRT is cheaper to maintain compared to LRT? Are operating costs of a LRT conversion ready BRT higher than just a BRT?

This question came up in the Hamilton LRT debate. Here's what a writer said on the Raise the Hammer blog in case it is helpful.

But while the capital cost is lower, the operating cost is much higher. Most of the operating cost of a transit system is paying the vehicle operators, and an LRT driver can carry many more passengers than a bus driver.

By coupling two LRT vehicles together, a single driver can carry up to 250 passengers, more than twice the capacity of an articulated bus.
 
and yet it all, magically, came out at the same ratio as the length of the line?

And any analysis of increased fare revenue has to be taken in the context of the fact the BCA had sections of the line (including the one we are talking about) seeing increases in transit modal share from sub 10% to >70%.....so get some salt pinches ready before you swallow that pill ;)

One of the pages in the BCA literally said the mode share for transit along Hurontario/Main in Brampton would go from 10% to 70% by 2031? Any chance you recall where it said that? Appreciate the perspective.
 

Back
Top