Politics: Tim Hudak's Plan for Ontario if he becomes Premier

[Solid Snake]

BRT is crap. Stop shoving that stuff down our throats. It's just buses.

It's crap... that's why so many North American cities and European cities are going towards them. The things you read when LRT die hard fans gets a taste of their own medicine... Reports and numbers

 

[doady]

Not according to the reports number which clearly shows Hurontario LRT ridership within BRT level

29 million boardings annually (~100,000 boardings per weekday) is within BRT level?

I recognize those are percentages of commuters and not total population but...Mississauga's population is 713k....the combined population of the other two you mention is about half of that (358,299) so (assuming the ratio of commuters to total population is consistent amongst the municipalities) the commute to Toronto percentages for those 2 communities would have to be more than double Mississauga's for GO to have a lower impact on regional transportation in 'sauga by comparison.

I don't understand.

I would also bet (just a gut feeling) that one of the drivers on people who work and live in Mississauga (or any like communities) is the ability to drive to work.

If people in Mississauga are so obsessed with driving, to the point where they avoid working ar places where they can't drive to work, then why bother building any new transit at all, local or regional?

I guess what I am saying is that I think in case of Mississauga (any 905 community I guess) that GO train improvements have a much better chance of materially and positively impacting traffic/gridlock than improvements to local transit. Not saying we should not improve local transportation (I am very proud of the work being done in my municipality on that front) but in setting priorities I think GO Train improvement has, and should have, a higher priority.

Brampton is probably even more self-contained and isolated from Toronto than Mississauga. Far more benefit from improved local transit either way. Traffic and gridlock is not limited to highways. And it's not like GO riders don't use local transit anyways...

Besides I was speaking in terms of what the populace wants, not what is most beneficial. Only a small minority of people in Peel use GO or commute to anywhere in Toronto, let alone downtown. Concentrating on GO and ignoring local transit will not win Hudak many votes here.

 

[Solid Snake]

29 million boardings annually (~100,000 boardings per weekday) is within BRT level?

http://lrt-mississauga.brampton.ca/.../Master-Plan/hurontario_MP_Part1_Chapter3.pdf

P.98 of the document or 28 of the PDF

 

[doady]

http://lrt-mississauga.brampton.ca/.../Master-Plan/hurontario_MP_Part1_Chapter3.pdf

P.98 of the document or 28 of the PDF

"Figure 3.6.2 illustrates the ranges of demand which
can be accommodated by transit in shared lanes, BRT
and LRT. This indicates that the projected demands
are at the high end of the BRT range. This indicates
that LRT would be a preferred technology – should
demands grow beyond the level estimated for 2031
(which does not reflect “full build-out” of the corridor
parcels), BRT would not be able to accommodate
them;"

Reading is tech.

 

[Filip]

It is hilarious. The hypocrisy is too funny. I'm willing to bet Toronto will have 0 LRT lines by 2030.

 

[Solid Snake]

"Figure 3.6.2 illustrates the ranges of demand which
can be accommodated by transit in shared lanes, BRT
and LRT. This indicates that the projected demands
are at the high end of the BRT range. This indicates
that LRT would be a preferred technology – should
demands grow beyond the level estimated for 2031
(which does not reflect “full build-out” of the corridor
parcels), BRT would not be able to accommodate
them;"

Reading is tech.

Reading is key! Let me point out the choice of words...

"Figure 3.6.2 illustrates the ranges of demand which
can be accommodated by transit in shared lanes, BRT
and LRT. This indicates that the projected demands
are at the high end of the BRT range. This indicates
that LRT would be (instead of "is") a preferred technology – should (instead of "will")
demands grow beyond the level estimated for 2031
(which does not reflect “full build-out” of the corridor
parcels), BRT would not be able to accommodate
them;"

That paragraph is not facts but just assumptions. I actually have nothing against those conclusions. Where I have a problem here is that whenever the same arguments were used to promote subways, it was ridiculed, shut down and heavily mocked.

The same assumption can be made for Eglinton or Sheppard. I still remember that our very pro-LRT members were dismissing those same assumptions when it was regarding the Scarborough Subway even when the TTC and Metrolinx stated that the numbers were there.

My issue is with LRT fans denying the double standards.

So by your logic, Eglinton and Sheppard should have been subways...right? Or are you going to find some kind of acrobatic argument to deny it?

 

[andrewpmk]

So you want to put in one of those evil, dastardly ridership destroying forced transfers at Don Mills that are apparently the bane of all transit riders existence then?

Eglinton's density drops off dramatically a bit east of Don Mills. Sheppard's density is much higher east of Don Mills. Hence the justification for extending the Sheppard subway east, but not building Eglinton LRT east of Don Mills and building BRT east of there instead. For instance, the 54 turns off Eglinton at Leslie and the 100 turns off at Don Mills, only the 34 goes to Kennedy, so there are about half as many buses east of Don Mills as west of Leslie.

Also Eglinton is more suitable for elevated, so we can build elevated east of Don Mills on Eglinton if the Canadian Tires, Walmarts, etc. get redeveloped.

 

[Platform 27]

And while we're doing this here reading thing, Metrolinx also ran the numbers and crossed BRT off the options list for not having enough capacity:

(PDF page 9) Overall, the results indicate that an investment in LRT in the Hurontario/Main corridor will generate significant benefits and support Mississauga and Brampton’s broader objectives to revitalize, redevelop and reshape its most significant north-south corridor. The lowest cost option, Option 2, produces a high benefit-cost ratio but the analysis has shown demand exceeds capacity for this option by 2021 (note that the forecasting model is not capacity constrained), suggesting it may not provide a long term solution. While only BRT sections show capacity constraints, another advantage of a LRT system is it allows for increased capacity by increasing vehicle size (from 30 to 40m vehicles) or adding new vehicles

 

[TOareaFan]

"Figure 3.6.2 illustrates the ranges of demand which
can be accommodated by transit in shared lanes, BRT
and LRT. This indicates that the projected demands
are at the high end of the BRT range. This indicates
that LRT would be a preferred technology – should
demands grow beyond the level estimated for 2031
(which does not reflect “full build-out” of the corridor
parcels), BRT would not be able to accommodate
them;"

Reading is tech.

I may need some help reading that funky chart.....is the red line the projected 2031 peak point demand (+/-3k?)....presumably then the "bubble" with the word BRT is showing the capacity of BRT? If so, is the capacity of BRT 5,000?(ish)? and am I right in saying that is an optimal number with the dotted/dashed continuation of the BRT bubble being a sort of pushing it/extended capacity?

If that read is correct it is interesting that 60% of the BRT capacity is being defined as "at the high end of the BRT range" in my math texts I remember 60% being just a tad over half.

So if the basis for the conclusion that BRT cannot handle the ridership is "if we meet our ridership projection by 2031, that would put us a little over half full and, goodness knows it might grow from there"....I am not yet convinced.

Gotta admit though, I am not techy so I might be reading this wrong.

I also need a bit of help reading the chart 3.6.3 on page 27 (pdf page #). Picking one line as an example.....is it saying that now 8.4% of the people travelling from Brampton GO to Steeles are using transit and that with an LRT this will jump to 71.1%?

 

[Solid Snake]

And while we're doing this here reading thing, Metrolinx also ran the numbers and crossed BRT off the options list for not having enough capacity:

Again, not denying the report. Just pointing out that the same argument was made for Eglinton when Metrolinx deemed it viable for grade separation... where were you to defend those conclusions? I'm only saying BRT would be enough because I'm using the same reasoning than the LRT crowd when they claimed that Scarborough and Eglinton didn't need a subway.

I stand by my interpretation of that report that even by 2031, a BRT wouldn't be at over capacity. They're only assuming that it will. Aka a famous quote that was so often ridiculed "Build it and they'll come". Funny how true it is for LRT and doesn't make sense for subways...

 

[Filip]

Again, not denying the report. Just pointing out that the same argument was made for Eglinton when Metrolinx deemed it viable for grade separation... where were you to defend those conclusions? I'm only saying BRT would be enough because I'm using the same reasoning than the LRT crowd when they claimed that Scarborough and Eglinton didn't need a subway.

I stand by my interpretation of that report that even by 2031, a BRT wouldn't be at over capacity. They're only assuming that it will. Aka a famous quote that was so often ridiculed "Build it and they'll come". Funny how true it is for LRT and doesn't make sense for subways...

Careful: a subway costs 3x more therefore has more scrutiny! (even though the tunnelled Eglinton portion costs more!)

 

[Solid Snake]

I may need some help reading that funky chart.....is the red line the projected 2013 peak point demand (+/-3k?)....presumably then the "bubble" with the word BRT is showing the capacity of BRT? If so, is the capacity of BRT 5,000?(ish)? and am I right in saying that is an optimal number with the dotted/dashed continuation of the BRT bubble being a sort of pushing it/extended capacity?

If that read is correct it is interesting that 60% of the BRT capacity is being defined as "at the high end of the BRT range" in my math texts I remember 60% being just a tad over half.

So if the basis for the conclusion that BRT cannot handle the ridership is "if we meet our ridership projection by 2031, that would put us a little over half full and, goodness knows it might grow from there"....I am not yet convinced.

Gotta admit though, I am not techy so I might be reading this wrong.

I also need a bit of help reading the chart 3.6.3 on page 27 (pdf page #). Picking one line as an example.....is it saying that now 8.4% of the people travelling from Brampton GO to Steeles are using transit and that with an LRT this will jump to 71.1%?

You're interpretation would be similar to the way I understood it.

 

[Solid Snake]

Careful: a subway costs 3x more therefore has more scrutiny! (even though the tunnelled Eglinton portion costs more!)

Which is why at that cost, burying the whole line made sense with the projected ridership which was to double.

Sheppard West is needed but Sheppard East for me is a big : Proceed with caution. Extend it at least to Victoria Park since the ridership is there. With caution to Agincourt. Past Agincourt, I'd put a BRT and re evaluate the stretch to McCowan after the Scarborough Subway is built

 

[Voltz]

Which is why at that cost, burying the whole line made sense with the projected ridership which was to double.

But the increase in rideres were mainly existing riders switching from the Bloor Danforth line, they are not new riders and they already have a subway.

Sheppard West is needed but Sheppard East for me is a big : Proceed with caution. Extend it at least to Victoria Park since the ridership is there. With caution to Agincourt. Past Agincourt, I'd put a BRT and re evaluate the stretch to McCowan after the Scarborough Subway is built

There is not nor will there be ridership for any subway on Sheppard, it's not complicated to figure that out, you don't need to go and cautiously build it to figure that out.

 

[Electrify]

Just want to say, it is nice to see a transit discussion based around facts and numbers, rather than rhetoric based along party lines. For example, despite costing more I still feel that there was a good argument to go with a subway extension to replace the SRT rather than converting into traditional light rail. There was also a very good argument to go with LRT as well, but Ford has poisoned the well so much that if you support any subway besides the DRL then you are a neo-fascist conservative who likes to waste money on excessive infrastructure boondoggles (though ironically that latter part generally is used to stereotype those left of centre).