The future of Hamilton's public transit

[flar]

Originally Posted by mic67

The LTR is not realistic in a cost benefit ratio (yet - although the future benefit is another story).

How do you know this and what are you basing it on? I assume that you're just assuming LRT is more expensive to build and operate than BRT. If you look back through this thread you'll see that LRT is more expensive to build but not more expensive to operate. You will also see that funding for rapid transit will be available from the provincial (MoveOntario 2020) and possibly the federal government. Why not take advantage of that?

Originally Posted by mic67

Okay lets not compare cities per say, but rather density in areas of any city and as such Toronto is or would be a good starting point. North York was the 5th largest city in Can. at one time (or close to that). What year did the Yonge St subway get there? ie above eglinton ave. Mid to late 70's

Don Mills and Sheppard, I was told was once the most populated areas of North America at one time (70's) and it only got rapid transit -Sheppard subway a few years ago, and they were thinking of reducing or limiting service as a cost benefit ratio.

For well over 3 decades they discuss LTR from pearson Airport to downtown - nada.
Then along lakeshore or Queen St. nada
All High density residential.

You're making the Toronto comparison again and your examples have no relevance to Hamilton's situation. First, subways are completely different from LRT. Secondly, your examples don't support your argument. As an example, the subway is what helped North York Centre intensify.

Originally Posted by mic67

Flar look at your own photo's (and I do like them) from the mountain, where is the obvious residential density
- just south and just east and just west of city hall - the highrise apartments.

There is residential density throughout the lower city. Have a look at Google Maps and compare Hamilton's road network to that of other cities. Hamilton fits a larger number of people into a much smaller space. The result is the roads are close togther which makes walkable neighbourhoods and gives Hamilton an urban character that is well suited to public transit.

Quite a chunk of Hamilton was built before the automobile, in the late 1800's Hamilton was the fourth largest city in Canada. The rest of the lower city was built on a streetcar network before WWII. Again, what is your frame of reference here? Because there are few cities in Canada that have such a large area of rowhouses and townhouses built close together and right up to the street in an urban format.

Originally Posted by mic67

Hey the b-line is great it halfs the time to get to downtown vs the reg. bus.

By what percentage would an LRT attract new riders - certainly not enought to justify it economically.
I believe that those people that would increase HSR usage would be commuters that the LRT would provide a 1 transit b-line
to their place of work, much like the usage of and by the people using the bitter way (TTC) subway in Toronto.

In the late 60's early 70's when I lived in Hamilton they had trolly buses -electric.

I am not a regular commuter to downtown but when I have used the Main/King bus in every way it has been superior to anything that the overburdened TTC has, Barton hasnt been that great and needs a b-line.

What I am saying isnt new and has been stated in posts regarding this issue, and I tend to agree with those points
that were made.

Again, numerous studies have shown LRT has a greater ability to attract new riders and is cheaper to operate than BRT. Also, LRT is different than the trolleys.

Originally Posted by mic67

If Hamilton wants economic benefit as the result of any transportation improvement get a rapid transit system to Toronto - that is were the future is. Gesh... they dont even have regular go train service to Hamilton and that says loads.

Hamilton needs to strenthen its local economy, dependence on Toronto won't work. LRT is a tool to improve Hamilton's economic prospects. Studies have shown economic benefits derived from LRT in other cities. For example, look at raisethehammer.org and you'll find actual reports and studies that you check for yourself.

Originally Posted by mic67

I cant compare Hamilton to cities which I have not been to or have knowledge of.

FLAR QUOTE
"Compared to Toronto, Hamilton sucks. Compared to other places, Hamilton actually has a lot going for it."

Yep. But Hamilton has great potential, one developer told me that the Steel industry was the worst thing that happened to Hamilton, and today that seems to be true. Short term gain for long term disaster.

Hamilton compared to what exactly? I cant think of anything close... at the moment.

I agree that Hamilton has potential, but I was exaggerating when I said Hamilton "sucked." I actually like Hamilton and find it has a lot to offer. But it might not seem that way if you're comparing it to Toronto.

Originally Posted by mic67

Yes Hamilton is so different in so many ways than Toronto. And from what I see on the forum there seems to be many in the forum and outside of it that would prefer to be in Toronto. Hamilton is a big city without any of the benefits of one. That is NOT to say that there isnt any positive aspects of Hamilton, as my neighbour said "the 60's and 70's were the good times in hamilton." No tagging or garbage all over, for one thing. I would agree, I lived here and partly grew up here.

mic67

Just because Hamilton has suffered decline doesn't mean it has ceased to function as a city. There is still a lot going on here. Compared to Toronto, no, but compared to say London or Kitchener, a lot. People on the forum just want to help the city reach its potential, which you acknowledge that Hamilton has.