Rapid Transit

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by HillStreetBlues

It’s a fact that a train is never able to leave its tracks, whereas a bus can be flexible and change routes. It’s true that, if there is an accident in a transit lane, a bus can briefly go into mixed traffic to avoid it, whereas a train will simply be waiting for it to be cleared. And, if the system operates in mixed traffic for any segment, it can be delayed by other traffic accidents or blockages, and buses have more flexibility in those cases. Anyway, I think you’re right that there is misconception about both LRT and BRT.

I’m a bit concerned when I hear people say that there’s no point to half-measures, even though I understand the sentiment. Buying a few more articulated buses to put on Main and King now; or improving the 10 to actually act more like a BRT; those are not even close to half-measures, but they would be useful things to do that would improve mobility for a lot of Hamiltonians. We shouldn’t be ruling anything out, and I include stubby little lines (actually, McMaster to Downtown is 4 kilometers, which is not such a bad place to start); BRT; some BRT “light” that operates in mixed traffic most of the way. Going for LRT is great, but I hope we don’t wind up spiting ourselves, saying “if we can’t have LRT, we don’t want anything better than what we’ve got now.”

Yes it's less flexible in some ways, but that is outweighed by increased reliability and capacity IMO. Some people don't see both sides of the argument, sometimes because they don't want to, but more often I think because they just aren't aware of them both. So I wish the city would do a better job explaining the details so that the average person has a more informed picture of the transit alternatives. Costs and benefits of each of them... operational details... how often problems like blockages occur vs. buses in general purpose lanes being affected by heavy traffic... what they mean to transit users, and what they mean for other street users... what they mean for the longer-term future of the transit system... etc.

I think too many opinions are being formed based on too little information (or on misinformation). Detractors exaggerate the negatives. Many advocates exaggerate the positives, or are not able to explain the positives in a concise enough way or in terms that people can relate to. The city should be active communicating a balanced, factual story about transit in plain language. They stopped doing that long ago.

My fear regarding partial implementation or partial measures is the risk that they will become full measures by default, because we won't end up taking the next steps or putting any "savings" from building a BRT on the B-Line into the other options that have been brought up. It's easy to say "let's invest in better transit across the whole city" but how many people really mean it?

[HillStreetBlues]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

no it won't, unless you want to built an ottawa style transitway which isn't possible.

BRT lines don't attract the same ridership.

remember the 3 Cs of transportation choice:

Comfort
Convenience
Control

Buses may be slightly more convenient as they run into less issues with blocked trackage, but the comfort portion is thrown out the window for a marginal increase in reliability. you can sleep on an LRT, you can read a book, etc. doing that on a bus is all but impossible. a LRT will have much higher ridership for that simple reason, no matter how fast it is compared to a bus, a bus feels like you are being shipped around as human cattle, but a LRT feels like you are actually comfortably going somewhere on your own accord. that is huge for ridership, ridership isn't just how fast it is.

Some people choose to feel like human cattle when riding a bus. I don’t feel that way: I feel like a person choosing to ride a bus that’s taking me somewhere I want to go. You can have a bus that’s nearly as comfortable as a train, and as dignified. Our belief that buses are for shipping cattle is part of the reason the HSR as it is now provides such poor and unpleasant service.

It is not impossible to build an Ottawa-style transitway or any other type of BRT. It is challenging, like many things. We choose to label things as “impossible” because we have other preferences. We could choose something like the BRT in Curitiba or Transmilenio in Bogota or the BRT in Brisbane.

There is little objective reason for preferring LRT over quality bus service. The fact that some people have that subjective preference is important, but it’s only one factor. I don’t mean to knock LRT. I mean to say that my personal fear is that we are going to praise LRT to the exclusion of all else, and then when LRT is not an option, all of the city’s transit advocates will have got themselves into the frame of mind that everything else is not worth doing.

Another thing worth saying is that the full measure for a city of this size is higher order transit serving every corner of the city. One approximation of that is that BLAST map. You can frame anything less as a half measure and you’d be right. You could also frame it as a step in that direction. If what can be done is a BRT on King, are we going to say “no”? If what can be done is a BRT on King and another on James, are we going to say “no”? What about along only part of the B Line? If it’s “LRT or bust,” I’m concerned that it’s really going to be bust.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by HillStreetBlues

There is little objective reason for preferring LRT over quality bus service.

The big difference is operating costs, if your passenger volumes are high enough. Look at the budgets for Calgary Transit versus OC Transpo if you want evidence.

[HillStreetBlues]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

The big difference is operating costs, if your passenger volumes are high enough. Look at the budgets for Calgary Transit versus OC Transpo if you want evidence.

When I said “there is little reason for preferring LRT over quality bus service,” I meant as a rider. If you’re a rider on one or the other, the only reasons you’ll have a preference is subjective.

Lower operating costs are one real advantage of LRT over BRT.

[Innsertnamehere]

maybe for you as an individual rider, but rail in the same location as a bus will always attract more people.

Ottawa style BRT is all but impossible, the amount of city you would have to rip up to make it completely grade seperated is insane.

I'm not saying LRT or bust, simply saying that we shouldn't settle for BRT on King. you may be able to do it on James, but sticking it on King beyond what is currently built is foolish.

[markbarbera]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

no it won't, unless you want to built an ottawa style transitway which isn't possible.

BRT lines don't attract the same ridership.

remember the 3 Cs of transportation choice:

Comfort
Convenience
Control

Buses may be slightly more convenient as they run into less issues with blocked trackage, but the comfort portion is thrown out the window for a marginal increase in reliability. you can sleep on an LRT, you can read a book, etc. doing that on a bus is all but impossible. a LRT will have much higher ridership for that simple reason, no matter how fast it is compared to a bus, a bus feels like you are being shipped around as human cattle, but a LRT feels like you are actually comfortably going somewhere on your own accord. that is huge for ridership, ridership isn't just how fast it is.

Being someone who has ridden the King, Spadina and St. Clair lines in Toronto, I would not agree with the equation of LRT and comfort. King may be an extreme example and not really an LRT implementation, but Spadina and St. Clair are both implementations similar to that proposed for Hamilton B-Line, and neither have been particularly successful at delivering the three c's you cite. From my experience riding transit systems in North America, Asia and Europe, the difference in convenience and comfort between BRT and LRT is marginal.

[matt602]

Even the Spadina and St. Clair streetcars are not really good examples of what we'd get in a Hamilton LRT line. The stations would be more spread out than in those examples and the equipment would be modern, low floor, articulated light rail vehicles, not urban streetcars that were built 40 years ago. There really is nothing that exists in Toronto right now that you can compare to what our LRT would be. The Spadina and St. Clair dedicated lines are similar but even still I'm sure ours would be even more modern with larger stations since they would be spread farther apart.

[Innsertnamehere]

exactly, its because the TTC uses 30-40 year old run down trains. come back and ride Spadina in September when the new streetcars are out. even then the spadina streetcar is a world away from the bay bus, which is technically a "BRT". you would be complaining even more if it was a 30 year old bus.

[Dr Awesomesauce]

Originally Posted by HillStreetBlues

If people had felt about streetcars in the 1940s and 50s the way that they feel about LRT now, they wouldn’t have been all ripped out. In retrospect, we realize the folly. Opinions change, so it’s not at all correct to say that the ridership and development will “always” be greater with rail than with bus. I think it’s just as possible to do LRT really poorly as it is to do BRT really well.

Who is to say people didn't feel the same way as many do now? Fact of the matter is, GM made a concerted effort to hasten the demise of North America's streetcar network. Some might even suggest it was a conspiracy by various players in the automobile, petroleum and rubber industries but I digress.

I'm a little confused about why you're arguing in favour of BRT anyway. It's not the best option available and as already stated, it's quite expensive. In fact, it's operating costs are greater than LRT. And the inflexibility you refer to is an advantage, not a hindrance. When a city puts rails in the ground, people notice. Money flows to the areas closest to LRT because of the permanence that rails represent. BRT just doesn't attract investment in the same way. Buses are big, noisy, noxious and let's not forget, bloody uncomfortable! These are facts which developers are keenly aware of.

LRT from Eastgate to Mac would be a boon to public transit users and to the City's coffers via increased investment along the line. BRT, in contrast, would not provide the financial return to rationalise the massive expenditure required. Furthermore, the B-line already has the ridership to warrant LRT - no need to phase it in as BoBra likes to say. It's time public transit was considered a city building initiative and not just a social service. We need this. We deserve this.

[thistleclub]

IBI Group’s 2010 Operational Review of the Hamilton Street Railway focused on user load in the weekday afternoon peak period (3pm-7pm), with the bulk of the ridership survey conducted in Nov 2008 (the remainder of samples were concentrated between Sept-Nov and Jan-Apr). As a result, there appears to be no recent, rigorous third-party information regarding HSR ridership outside of the post-secondary school year – or, for that matter, on weekends. The peak period referenced in the IBI report features the highest service frequency of the entire week – an average of 30 buses per hour – but that’s obviously atypical of the system’s performance. Even so, there is reason to be encouraged.

Studying traffic frequency on the HSR’s schedules for routes 1/5/10/51 offers some broad-brush hints as to existing ridership.

Sept-Apr
Mon-Fri: Average of 21 buses an hour (30% below peak)
Sat: Average of 12 buses an hour (60% below peak)
Sun: Average of 8 buses an hour (74% below peak)

AFAIK, 51 University doesn’t run during the summer, leading to a modest decline in weekday frequency.

May-Aug
Mon-Fri: Average of 18 buses an hour (40% below peak)
Sat: Average of 11 buses an hour (63% below peak)
Sun: Average of 8 buses an hour (74% below peak)

From May to August, it seems safe to assume that ridership among the postsecondary cohort would also dip. Unfortunately, the HSR’s limited operational budget makes it impossible to know how much latent demand they are failing to capture even now through the disincentive of mediocre service levels.

Metrolinx’s 2010 Benefits Case Analysis uses reference capacities of 90 passengers per articulated bus and 1,950 riders per operating hour of a single-car train on a four-minute headway. In other words, 15 single-car trains gives you the approximate ridership capacity of 21 articulated buses. (Coincidentally, this is the current average hourly service frequency from Monday to Friday during the school year, though obviously not all 1/5/10/51 buses are artics.)

[Jon Dalton]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

exactly, its because the TTC uses 30-40 year old run down trains. come back and ride Spadina in September when the new streetcars are out. even then the spadina streetcar is a world away from the bay bus, which is technically a "BRT". you would be complaining even more if it was a 30 year old bus.

Toronto didn't do signal priority very well either. They always seem to be trying to fix it but the streetcars are stopped at red lights too many times. On a modern LRT system (and I've been on several), the train only stops to pick up passengers.

[Jon Dalton]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

exactly, its because the TTC uses 30-40 year old run down trains. come back and ride Spadina in September when the new streetcars are out. even then the spadina streetcar is a world away from the bay bus, which is technically a "BRT". you would be complaining even more if it was a 30 year old bus.

Toronto didn't do signal priority very well either. They always seem to be trying to fix it but the streetcars are stopped at red lights too many times. On a modern LRT system (and I've been on several), the train only stops to pick up passengers.

Even saying that I found the newest St. Clair line smooth and fairly quick. It will be even better with the new streetcars.

[markbarbera]

Originally Posted by thistleclub

From May to August, it seems safe to assume that ridership among the postsecondary cohort would also dip. Unfortunately, the HSR’s limited operational budget makes it impossible to know how much latent demand they are failing to capture even now through the disincentive of mediocre service levels.

Metrolinx’s 2010 Benefits Case Analysis uses reference capacities of 90 passengers per articulated bus and 1,950 riders per operating hour of a single-car train on a four-minute headway. In other words, 15 single-car trains gives you the approximate ridership capacity of 21 articulated buses. (Coincidentally, this is the current average hourly service frequency from Monday to Friday during the school year, though obviously not all 1/5/10/51 buses are artics.)

There is an assumption being made that LRT ridership will capture all 1/5/10/51 ridership. I would like to point out once again that this is not a correct assumption. While ridership on 10 and 51 would obviously transfer to an LRT, the same assumption cannot be made for people who ride the 1 and 5. These routes serve people making short trips specifically along these routes that LRT will not serve. The King bus makes frequent stops over short distances on King that the LRT in its current configuration would bypass, and it won't serve any of the route along Main that the King bus currently provides. Most of the route the Delaware bus covers is considerably further south than the planned LRT line, so its ridership is even less likely to migrate from it to LRT.

This leaves LRT capturing practically all the current ridership for routes 10 and 51 and probably 60-70% of the current routes 1 and 5, plus any new ridership attracted by the shiny new trains. Considering that the demographic currently riding routes 10 and 51 are primarily a subsidized student fare, the potential for operational cost recovery is somewhat compromised by this demographic, making independent operational viability not very likely.

The challenge here is clearly demonstrating that perceived gains from capital reinvestment along the LRT route will more than compensate for its operational cost. This would be a much easier sell if the route was planned along Main Street, where arguably there is a greater potential for intensification, as Main has a more significantly underdeveloped street wall than King. A route along Main would also capture more of the current ridership of the current Delaware and King bus route. Main also offers enough space for LRT and car traffic to co-exist with significantly less impact on current traffic patterns.

Exactly why are we insisting on the LRT being routed on King when Main is a much better fit? No one seems to want to answer that question. It seems everyone is more content to keep it on King and have a rather unnecessarily inflamed and protracted "car vs. transit" debate left to fester.

[matt602]

I actually would have preferred to see it on Main as well since I feel that it needs the reduction in lane capacity a lot more than King does. It also doesn't suffer the severe bottleneck at Wellington like King does.

[thistleclub]

Originally Posted by markbarbera

There is an assumption being made that LRT ridership will capture all 1/5/10/51 ridership. I would like to point out once again that this is not a correct assumption.

Appendix A of the Rapid Ready report notes: “Public transportation industry consultants have stated that two-thirds of ridership from the existing B-Line corridor can be expected to transfer to the LRT B-Line.”

Even so, I agree that this is speculative territory.

[HillStreetBlues]

Originally Posted by Dr Awesomesauce

Who is to say people didn't feel the same way as many do now? Fact of the matter is, GM made a concerted effort to hasten the demise of North America's streetcar network. Some might even suggest it was a conspiracy by various players in the automobile, petroleum and rubber industries but I digress.

I'm a little confused about why you're arguing in favour of BRT anyway. It's not the best option available and as already stated, it's quite expensive. In fact, it's operating costs are greater than LRT. And the inflexibility you refer to is an advantage, not a hindrance. When a city puts rails in the ground, people notice. Money flows to the areas closest to LRT because of the permanence that rails represent. BRT just doesn't attract investment in the same way. Buses are big, noisy, noxious and let's not forget, bloody uncomfortable! These are facts which developers are keenly aware of.

LRT from Eastgate to Mac would be a boon to public transit users and to the City's coffers via increased investment along the line. BRT, in contrast, would not provide the financial return to rationalise the massive expenditure required. Furthermore, the B-line already has the ridership to warrant LRT - no need to phase it in as BoBra likes to say. It's time public transit was considered a city building initiative and not just a social service. We need this. We deserve this.

I’m a little familiar with how the streetcar networks of the past were dismantled, and I wouldn’t argue that it was anything but senseless. I just mean to say, not everyone in every place in all time periods will be such true believers about the inherent superiority of rail. We might be surprised in twenty years by what people “know” is better.

I’m not arguing in favour of BRT for the B Line. Given ridership along the B Line, LRT probably is the better option. I’m just wary of statements like “buses are big, noisy, noxious and let’s not forget, bloody uncomfortable!” I can clearly envision the possibility of being unable to push LRT through, and then taking another look and thinking “Well, we can’t get a train, and buses are big and noisy, so guess we’ll just leave things as is.” These are not facts: buses need not be noisy or noxious and they are less noisy and noxious with every generation.

We don’t need to frame things this way. I find it a little dishonest and I fear very counter-productive. There is every possibility of saying “Rapid buses are great (in a lot of cases); Light Rail is better (in some cases).” Again, I have to repeat your opinion that buses are “big, noisy…noxious.” Does that mean we shouldn’t be pursuing Transit-Oriented Development in the many parts of the City that are nowhere close to the ridership that would justify LRT? I really hope not. But I get nervous when even transit advocates are slagging off transit, because any and all improvements should be heartily embraced in this city.

[flar]

The problem with BRT, as we know, is that it's buses. And buses are for poor people, as in, "You had to take the bus? What's the matter, you don't have a car?"

[thistleclub]

Originally Posted by markbarbera

While ridership on 10 and 51 would obviously transfer to an LRT, the same assumption cannot be made for people who ride the 1 and 5. These routes serve people making short trips specifically along these routes that LRT will not serve.

I agree that it is equally problematic to make similar assumptions around ridership capture on feeder routes such as 52/55/55A/58, which are tangential to the western and eastern terminus of the proposed B-Line yet frequently lumped into the existing ridership counts for the trunk corridor.

[drpgq]

Originally Posted by HillStreetBlues

When I said “there is little reason for preferring LRT over quality bus service,” I meant as a rider. If you’re a rider on one or the other, the only reasons you’ll have a preference is subjective.

That's just not right. Have you ridden the HSR lately? Buses are way less uncomfortable than they were 30 years ago. With the low floor buses, most of the seats are on the side of the bus, often with poles separating the seats and in any case if those seats are all filled they are not at all comfortable if yourself or the people beside you are not tiny. Further there's way less seating than on buses 30 years ago.

I split my time between Dresden and the Hammer and just returned to Hamilton on Saturday. I used the Dresden light rail system (whose Bombardier trains I'm guessing will be pretty close to what Hamilton would get) every day for two weeks and the difference in comfort between them and a Hamilton bus ride is night and day. The vast majority of seating is in pairs and quite roomy compared to Hamilton low floor bus seating. If people had the option I'm sure the vast majority would pick the LRT experience. And I say that as someone with experience riding transit systems in North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa and Australia.

[Dr Awesomesauce]

^There's the rub. Most people in this discussion (city-wide) have not had the opportunity to enjoy the European LRT experience. If they could, they'd quickly change their tune.