Rapid Transit

[emge]

My husband and I picked Florence to honeymoon in because of its amazing walkability and scale (as well as history)... and coming back to Ontario was such a rude awakening. We're so impoverished for vision (and beauty in design) here it's scary.

(It's also kind of scary some folks think its impossible to stop at your stop sign and look both ways when going through an intersection. That said, with signal priority I'm guessing there has to be some system in place at currently unsignaled intersections?)

[oldcoote]

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

If you think traffic is bad now just wait until King and Main Sts become 2 way, then we will see traffic congestion like we have never seen before in this city.

Traffic is bad?

[highwater]

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

I am afraid the those of you who are proponents of this system in your zeal have forgotten that the majority of people in this city will not use this system and will not take kindly to being inconvenienced for the benefit of the few who will use it. Votes matter, and when it comes right down to it politicians will do what their constituents want. I can guarantee you something that will disrupt peoples lives as much as this will, will not be approved.

You really shouldn't go around making these assertions when you clearly have not been following the debate. You are at least correct when you state that politicians will do what their constituents want, which is why the majority of councillors support LRT. All public consultations to date have shown overwhelming public support for LRT. Even Lloyd Ferguson has seen the writing on the wall.

[Millstone]

Originally Posted by adam

The time of the automobile is gone, check out Chrysler, they are mothballing, heck, even Honda is going to barely break even this year. The younger generation that is coming up to the work force isn't buying cars in droves. They want to be close to amenities, be able to walk to get a bag of milk, they want to run into friends downtown. Different mindset. Either teach yourself a new trick or be considered an old dog.

The "time of the automobile" is not "gone", that's completely preposterous. You're conveniently ignoring the global financial crisis that has more to do with this than you're allowing. And most cars don't cost $60k, they cost more like $20-30k. But you wouldn't know that, you're anti-car and shouldn't speak on the subject anyway.

[highwater]

Originally Posted by Millstone

But you wouldn't know that, you're anti-car and shouldn't speak on the subject anyway.

By that logic, bigguy and mic67 shouldn't speak about LRT.

[flar]

After a month in Ottawa, it is truly disturbing to hear some of the comments about transit/roads in Hamilton.

First, Ottawa has more traffic congestion than Hamilton (by far), yet people here somehow still manage to accept bus only lanes (not just a few, they are all over the city--both downtown and suburban areas). There are bike lanes everywhere too.

Second, I've changed my mind about middle class suburbanites using transit. In Ottawa there are plenty of people with big fat salaries who leave their cars at home and take a bus to work. If you build transit that people can actually use, they will in fact use it. Ottawa is a more suburban oriented city than Hamilton too.

[ryan_mcgreal]

Originally Posted by BrianE

Where's McGreal when you need him?

Somebody on the Internet needs me!

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

The reality is 80% of the people in this city will never use these streetcars just as 80% don't use the HSR now.

The evidence does not support your assertion. In every city that has buildt a system in the past decade, LRT is much better at attracting and retaining new riders than buses or BRT.

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

people will alter their driving patterns. They won't go anywhere near downtown Hamilton.

People said exactly the same thing about the King-Spadina Secondary Plan in Toronto: How will people get there? The answer is that people:

a) Moved into the neighbourhood in droves; and
b) Took the streetcar. *

* Note: the Spadina streetcar really is a streetcar, riding on the traditional TTC gauge, making frequent stops, and running in mixed traffic. Hamilton's LRT system will run on dedicated lanes with signal priority.

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

What you are assuming is that people will yield the right of way in those intersections.

People generally stop when the light turns red.

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

All it's going to take to throw a monkey wrench into the whole system is for a car to breakdown on the tracks or an accident to happen.

So you're basing your assessment of the entire system on an uncommon edge case? Your argument smacks of desperation.

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

I am not opposed to rapid transit, but to me this just isn't rapid transit. To me rapid transit would be trains on rails with dedicated thorough fares, no cross streets, no obstructions. The only way that is going to happen in this city is to either go underground, my preference, or elevate it.

My understanding is that Hamilton is ill-suited to underground transit, and above-grade transit would severely degrade the neighbourhoods over which it towers. The idea is for the transportation system to benefit neighbourhoods, unlike the situation today with our urban expressways.

In any case, you can't just redefine "rapid transit" arbitrarily so that the proposed system - whatever it is - doesn't conform. Frankly, it sounds like you're rationalizing here.

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

I cannot see wasting a couple of billion dollars for something that is essentially no better than what we already have.

1. The system is projected to cost around $1 billion, not "a couple of billion dollars".

2. Considerably faster than buses (notwishstanding the slew of broken down cars that you anticipate crossing the rail lines).

3. Operating costs 25-75% lower than buses.

4. Longer vehicle life and lower lifecycle costs.

5. Much higher net ridership gains than buses or BRT.

6. Dramatically higher rates of private investment along the transit corridor (developers seem to know something about LRT that you aren't seeing).

7. Less susceptible to energy price volatility.

8. No emissions at the tailpipe.

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

The people who are advocating this system are assuming that there is going to be a 30-40% increase in ridership. What if that does not happen?

Why would the ridership gains experienced in every other city that has built LRT in the past decade not materialize here? Note: garden variety exceptionalism disallowed as a response.

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

I know I am not willing to subsidize something that will be a moneypit if the projections are wrong.

The normal course is for ridership gains to exceed projections significantly.

[ryan_mcgreal]

Originally Posted by Millstone

And most cars don't cost $60k, they cost more like $20-30k.

The average small car costs some $10,000 per year in total operating costs, even with the massive public subsidies that make mass car ownership economically viable.

[Jon Dalton]

Bigguy1231: Have you ever been to a city that has light rail similar to what is proposed here? I've been to several. The trains don't stop at intersections. Drivers do yield the right of way. Traffic mayhem does not occur. 80% of people are not opposed to it.

[mic67]

On Friday at about 3pm I was going east bound to eastgate mall and from - just before - Nash Rd. it took almost as long to get to the mall as it did to get to that point from the delta.

Point being right of way would be useless in such a situation.

Neither big guy nor I am against rapid transit but the only way that a true rapid transit would work is as big guy first pointed out.

Why didnt they go with right of way on StClair in Toronto?

Ha...the Ham. LRT only cost 1 billion, very unlikely.

When I think of Ham. LRT, I think of the horrendous link that Ham. has to Canada's financial capital Toronto, a 15 minute link via rapid transit is possible, why hasnt that happened it will do more for Ham. than any local LRT.

Like I said before they havent got a link from Pearson to Union station, and Toronto is a world class city.

Ormro, those that built center mall wont build an LRT system, that ought to be obvious - the stupidity of what center mall now is but stands an excellent chance of being carried over into an LRT sys. for Ham.

I cant think of any place like center mall - say in Toronto, the only other place sort of like it was the Medowlands and I did not even get off the bus for that.

If there is no dedicated land for an LRT, its not rapid transit. If you make dedicated lanes on King or Main, that wont work either.

The rail line just north of Barton is really very wide, dont know much about it...utilize it?

It seems that many 1/2 of those who get on at mcnab go all the way to eastgate???

mic67

[drpgq]

I'm for LRT, but if you really want to help downtown, even out the mill rates for multi-residential versus houses. 4.05% versus 1.65% is frankly ridiculous.

[ryan_mcgreal]

Originally Posted by mic67

On Friday at about 3pm I was going east bound to eastgate mall and from - just before - Nash Rd. it took almost as long to get to the mall as it did to get to that point from the delta.

That pertains to LRT on Main and King ... how, exactly?

Originally Posted by mic67

Ha...the Ham. LRT only cost 1 billion, very unlikely.

Why? Pricing for LRT is pretty well understood.

Originally Posted by mic67

When I think of Ham. LRT, I think of the horrendous link that Ham. has to Canada's financial capital Toronto, a 15 minute link via rapid transit is possible, why hasnt that happened it will do more for Ham. than any local LRT.

You're talking about long-distance high speed rail, not rapid transit. I would support both, but a transit system that links Hamilton to Toronto would not, by itself, provide Hamilton with the local higher order transit it needs. It's certainly not a replacement for a fast, comfortable means of getting around Hamilton.

Originally Posted by mic67

Ormro, those that built center mall wont build an LRT system, that ought to be obvious - the stupidity of what center mall now is but stands an excellent chance of being carried over into an LRT sys. for Ham.

Why? Different people are responsible for it, city staff working on it are demonstrating understanding of the issues, and the province has final jurisdiction over technology, routing and so on. Also, LRT is a citizen-based initiative, not a developer initiative.

Originally Posted by mic67

I cant think of any place like center mall - say in Toronto, the only other place sort of like it was the Medowlands and I did not even get off the bus for that.

Last time I was in the Beaches neighbourhood, local activists were campaigning against a big box development planned for Queen St E. Stupidity is everywhere - Hamilton hardly has a monopoly on bad planning.

Originally Posted by mic67

If there is no dedicated land for an LRT, its not rapid transit. If you make dedicated lanes on King or Main, that wont work either.

Why? No one has made a convincing argument for why dedicated lanes with signal priority on Main and King somehow magically don't qualify as "dedicate land for an LRT".

Originally Posted by mic67

The rail line just north of Barton is really very wide, dont know much about it...utilize it?

AFAIK freight rail has first priority on those rails, so using them for regular LRT service is a non-starter.

[ryan_mcgreal]

Originally Posted by drpgq

I'm for LRT, but if you really want to help downtown, even out the mill rates for multi-residential versus houses. 4.05% versus 1.65% is frankly ridiculous.

Why not both? The latter doesn't preclude the former.

[mic67]

That pertains to LRT on Main and King ... how, exactly?

Well if the road is filled with cars right of way is useless, if it is dedicated land then traffic jams are of no matter.

Pricing for LRT may be understood by some but not others and certainly the greed factor, not many such projects come in on budget.

Point - a link to TO is more important than an LRT for Hamilton.
The HSR makes the TTC look like amatures.
Point - if they can not get a decent link to TO or from Pearson to union you think they and get an LRT right in Ham???ha

Whether citizen or developer based - stupidity is universal - given the above I dont have the faith.

Hamilton hardly has a monopoly on bad planning.

Center mall, medowlands are mighty fine examples.

Why? No one has made a convincing argument for why dedicated lanes with signal priority on Main and King somehow magically don't qualify as "dedicate land for an LRT".

Ok...your "dedicated lanes" is land that at no time will cars ever be able to use, if it is on level with the car lanes then I doubt it, has "right of way" now been changed to dedicated?

AFAIK freight rail has first priority on those rails, so using them for regular LRT service is a non-starter.

Not one HSR driver thinks - it, or will there be an LRT in Hamilton, that I have asked.

Then change it,pretty simple.

[adam]

LRT is increasingly important for attracting the new working generation that is replacing the baby boomers.. (and replacing the steel industry that is leaving/has left Hamilton)

Many in the younger generation think it is ridiculous to spend a whole year's after-tax salary on a car that is going to break down in 5-6 years. These folks are quickly filling up condos in urban centres because they would rather take mass transit and put their hard-earned money into things that are more important to them like hobbies and entertainment.

So.... is Hamilton going to be left behind and give up now that the steel industry is gone, or will it attract the right kind of people for economic growth and utilize its potential as an urban destination?

[bigguy1231]

Originally Posted by highwater

You really shouldn't go around making these assertions when you clearly have not been following the debate. You are at least correct when you state that politicians will do what their constituents want, which is why the majority of councillors support LRT. All public consultations to date have shown overwhelming public support for LRT. Even Lloyd Ferguson has seen the writing on the wall.

Just because I don't agree with the few who post here and have a different point of view regarding rapid transit doesn't mean I have not been following the debate. I have stated numerous times that I am in favour of rapid transit for this city.Unfortunately, like most narrowminded zealots, many of you figure your way is the only way.

As for public support for LRT, I agree, there is overwhelming support for it, for now. The problem is people were expecting one thing but are going to get something totally different than what they expect. People expect something other than streetcars. They expect rapid transit. What is being proposed is not rapid transit, it is mass transit. There is a difference.

The public consultation process is not a good indicator of support, since the only people who usually attend these meetings are the most ardent supporters. The people that will oppose this proposal will deal directly with their councillors through phone calls, emails and their votes. Next year is an election year. As for the politicians, of course they are going to support the idea of rapid transit, especially when most of the funding is comming from elsewhere. But they are only supporting it in principle for now. They will make up their minds yea or nay once the final proposal is presented and they hear from their constituents.

[ryan_mcgreal]

Originally Posted by mic67

Well if the road is filled with cars right of way is useless, if it is dedicated land then traffic jams are of no matter.

Then you'll be glad to know that the LRT will run on dedicated lanes.

Originally Posted by mic67

Pricing for LRT may be understood by some but not others and certainly the greed factor, not many such projects come in on budget.

Nope.

Originally Posted by mic67

Point - a link to TO is more important than an LRT for Hamilton.

They're both equally important, and serve different goals.

Remember, despite the received wisdom Hamilton is not a bedroom community for Toronto. We have our own local economy, and one of the goals of LRT is to increase local business investment in the city, leading to more local jobs.

Originally Posted by mic67

The HSR makes the TTC look like amatures. Point - if they can not get a decent link to TO or from Pearson to union you think they and get an LRT right in Ham???ha

Good thing the TTC isn't running Metrolinx.

Originally Posted by mic67

Whether citizen or developer based - stupidity is universal - given the above I dont have the faith.

Yet numerous cities have turned their downtowns and fortunes around by building LRT systems and establishing a regulatory TOD corridor around it. Your cynicism is not supported by the evidence.

Originally Posted by mic67

Ok...your "dedicated lanes" is land that at no time will cars ever be able to use, if it is on level with the car lanes then I doubt it, has "right of way" now been changed to dedicated?

Whatever you do, don't conduct any research before drawing conclusions. The inentiona has always been to put LRT on "dedicated" lanes with a clear demarcation from vehicular traffic.

Originally Posted by mic67

Not one HSR driver thinks - it, or will there be an LRT in Hamilton, that I have asked.

???

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

I have stated numerous times that I am in favour of rapid transit for this city.Unfortunately, like most narrowminded zealots, many of you figure your way is the only way.

In fact, it is you who persists in harbouring an impossibly narrow definition of "rapid transit" that is calculated to exclude every plausible rapid transit option for Hamilton.

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

The public consultation process is not a good indicator of support, since the only people who usually attend these meetings are the most ardent supporters.

Normally, this is true. But normally, the public consultation process for a city project draws ten or fifteen people.

The public meetings back in May of last year drew hundreds of participants, and the ongoing public consultation has drawn well over two thousand responses - plus overwhelmingly positive direct contact with councillors across the city. That's absolutely unprecedented for any city consultation with the public - it's right off the charts. The staffers working on this have never seen anything like it before.

[mic67]

When you say "dedicated lanes", it seems that you are being purposely vague. That is why I tried to be very specific>>>

Originally Posted by mic67
Ok...your "dedicated lanes" is land that at no time will cars ever be able to use, if it is on level with the car lanes then I doubt it, has "right of way" now been changed to dedicated?

The discussion was about "right of way".

Now what I am understanding is there will be dedicated lane - meaning that the LRT will always occupy that space consistently when needed, but when not used by the LRT it will be used by cars?

Dedicated lanes with "right of way", if that is the truth, meaning that cars can also use those lanes when right of way is not in use the LRT - then you calling dedicated lanes for the LRT is very misleading, that is why I was very specific "that at no time will cars ever be able to use".

As you said " The inentiona has always been to put LRT on "dedicated" lanes with a clear demarcation from vehicular traffic."

-----------------

not many such projects come in on budget - sorry that is fact.

-----------------

Good thing the TTC isn't running Metrolinx. Yep they can probably screw it up without the TTC's help.

----------------

Originally Posted by mic67
Not one HSR driver thinks - it, or will there be an LRT in Hamilton, that I have asked.

Of all the drivers I have asked none think that an LRT will happen or be viable.

---------------

" narrow definition of "rapid transit" that is calculated to exclude every plausible rapid transit option for Hamilton."

No, bigguy made the distinction between rapid transit and mass transit. What I understood he said was that for it to be rapid transit it lanes (above or below ground, or possibly slightly raised like the StClair line in Toronto) and not just right of way dedicated lanes.

--------------

Fact is I agree with bigguy, the public will think they are getting one thing but infact will get something totally different.

Look and understand what and why they did what they did with the Stclair Line in TO, no cars will ever be able to use that land to drive on, so I would consider that rapid transit.

Mic67

[mic67]

Humm after a little more consideration.

Ok...the LTR will be one the same grade (level) as cars and the lane that they use will be dedicated meaning that cars can not ever use that lane (??an assumption for now), and a painted line on the road is what makes that lane dedicated.

Great now, or when it is realized that this will not work, hey no problem they will make the rapid transit into a street car system, right? And the public will get something different.


"In fact, it is you who persists in harbouring an impossibly narrow definition of "rapid transit" that is calculated to exclude every plausible rapid transit option for Hamilton."

If a raise LRT is not an option, if an underground LRT is not an option and a dedicated NO CAR USE on grade option is not viable. Then there is no viable rapid transit option for Hamilton, it just a street car system.

How come hamilton doesn have any rickshaws?

What would bigguy see as possiblities?

mic67

[SteelTown]

Originally Posted by mic67

Humm after a little more consideration.

Ok...the LTR will be one the same grade (level) as cars and the lane that they use will be dedicated meaning that cars can not ever use that lane (??an assumption for now), and a painted line on the road is what makes that lane dedicated.

Hell even the A-Line will have dedicated lanes even if it'll turn out to be BRT instead of LRT.

You'd look like an idiot if your driving a car on the dedicated lane, plus you instatly would get a fine, probably worth $150.