Rapid Transit

[HillStreetBlues]

Originally Posted by drpgq

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.

I rode the HSR yesterday... A lot of the time it's pretty unpleasant to me because of overcrowding. Not all buses have to be that way, and buses I've taken elsewhere haven't been. Did you mean to say "Buses are way less uncomfortable than they were 30 years ago"? I agree with that (possibly not in Hamilton), but think you might have mis-spoke based on what you went on to say.

I've had experience taking transit systems on a few different continents (not that I'm going to suggest that I don't have a right to have an opinion on my city's transit system otherwise...). I took transit (different types of buses and BRTs) on a daily basis in South America for a time. I wouldn't mean to say that LRT isn't generally better, but it doesn't have to be. Buses done well can be very comfortable, very smooth, very dignified experiences, with express service and limited stops that are well designed. A lot of systems have stations with ticketed access, and feel more like a metro than some street cars do.

Again: I'm not saying that LRT isn't generally better. I'm saying that the true believers are going to trap us into saying that it's the only thing worth anything, and we're going to wind up with the status quo. Telling people they're unsophsticated and if they could only afford a vacation in Europe (sorry: I know that was not what was actually said, but that's what these things can sound like to some people) they'd see things more clearly...bad way to convince people of anything.

Some BRT systems are better than some LRT systems. Is anyone actually disagreeing with that? Is anyone able to state "the worst-executed LRT system is better than the best-executed system"?

[Beedok]

I think Hamilton's density might partially be a curse on the rapid transit front. There's no room for transitways and separated LRT.

[mishap]

Originally Posted by markbarbera

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.

They did answer that at public meetings. Their claim is that they need one street to handle trucks and delivery traffic, because they will always be around in some form. Main would be better suited to handle that traffic than King.

On its own, I would accept that. Yet in the west end, the line jumps down to Main, conveniently avoiding Westdale Village. Then you realise that there's no stop proposed at Locke St, which is just north of a thriving little neighbourhood. You would expect a stop at Gage, but instead, there are two stops, one a short distance in each direction. Apparently, Gage isn't close enough to the stadium.

In the future, University Plaza may get an extension, but not the increasingly-dense core of Dundas. The Osler hill is too much trouble, but the valley approaching the plaza, not so much? In Stoney Creek, the line could eventually cross miles of suburban flatland to reach a "gateway" at Winona, yet it can't go one more mile into Dundas to an already populated area.

My guess: the LRT route is only somewhat related to transportation demand. It is designed to go everywhere they think they can build up, and avoid those areas where they can't, even if it's because those areas are already built up. It's as much about luring developers as it is about moving people. It's rewarding potential prosperity, while ignoring proven prosperity. Look at the maps, I think there's something to that.

[mishap]

Originally Posted by Beedok

I think Hamilton's density might partially be a curse on the rapid transit front. There's no room for transitways and separated LRT.

Outside the core, not a problem. Dedicated lanes or a Spadina-style median could come into play.

Alternate LRT routes were suggested for the core, on this board even. I mentioned a modified, traffic-restricted Jackson St., while someone else similarly mentioned Hunter St. Either corridor could also be used as part of the A-Line to reach the Claremont Access, one of the "climbing" options.
These were even brought up at public meetings, and dismissed with the explanation that people had to see what was there. When someone heckled "what is there to see?" the presenter went on about McMaster, etc., when we were clearly talking about the downtown. Frustrating meeting, to be sure.

[Dr Awesomesauce]

Originally Posted by Beedok

I think Hamilton's density might partially be a curse on the rapid transit front. There's no room for transitways and separated LRT.

Are you sure? Perhaps you've forgotten about the expressways that criss-cross the lower city. Plenty of room for dedicated lanes.

[HillStreetBlues]

Originally Posted by mishap

My guess: the LRT route is only somewhat related to transportation demand. It is designed to go everywhere they think they can build up, and avoid those areas where they can't, even if it's because those areas are already built up. It's as much about luring developers as it is about moving people. It's rewarding potential prosperity, while ignoring proven prosperity. Look at the maps, I think there's something to that.

That’s an interesting way to think about it and I think you may be right. And I think it could prove dangerous to try to spur development in areas that haven’t had it, rather than support transportation and further intensification in areas that have already proven themselves desirable spots for development. Very good point about Stoney Creek versus Dundas.

An LRT would make a lot more sense along Main than King for a lot of reasons (transportation and development potential), even though having it go through the heart of the city at Gore is a really nice thought. King is fine, too, though.

Another question: why not just mirror the 10’s route? Wasn’t the intent of that line at least partly to validate ridership a future LRT? I know that its path is dictated by the one-way streets, but there are some advantages (lots of disadvantages, too) to the train using a street pair. This is actually what the Ion will be doing through downtown Kitchener (incidentally, on two formerly one-way streets that have been converted to two way and will remain two way with one direction of the Ion on each).

[coalminecanary]

Originally Posted by HillStreetBlues

Did you mean to say "Buses are way less uncomfortable than they were 30 years ago"? I agree with that (possibly not in Hamilton), but think you might have mis-spoke based on what you went on to say.

No, they have gotten less comfortable. Because we have moved to accessible low-floor buses; we have to fit sideways-facing seats, plus wheel wells, plus a wide hallway into the standard width of a bus. In the old days, city buses were laid out like a school bus/tour bus hybrid. Everyone faced forward and you only shared one shoulder space with a neighbour - rather than facing sideways with people on both sides of you where you're constantly leaning into each other every time the bus lurches from stop to start. And compared to rail travel they certainly lurch. Additionally, the new buses have fewer seats so they fill more quickly.

Yes, I'm sure we can search the world to find some great BRT systems, and we could search to find some terrible LRT systems - but why bother? Why go through the cost and disruption of installing dedicated-lane BRT, when we have a provincially mandated capital expenditure plan? Thi sis an investment in hamilton's future, and LRT is a long term investment that WILL PAY OFF. BRT would result in a compromise in service with a HUGELY inflated operating bill that we alone will be on the hook for covering forever and ever with no provincial support.

We spent 5 or 6 years planning this, and LRT is the accepted best solution by all paid professionals. I don't get the point of compromising for compromise sake because of a handful of nimbys who haven't done their research. LRT will save taxpayers money in the long run, there is no doubt about it.

[HillStreetBlues]

Originally Posted by coalminecanary

...We spent 5 or 6 years planning this, and LRT is the accepted best solution by all paid professionals. I don't get the point of compromising for compromise sake because of a handful of nimbys who haven't done their research. LRT will save taxpayers money in the long run, there is no doubt about it.

I’m not sure it’s nimby’s, and I’m not sure it’s a handful. I think that the pattern of support is probably more like a good number of people who really want LRT in their backyard, and then a lot of people who don’t live along the B Line who can’t see how it will benefit from it. I certainly want LRT in my backyard (I live near the B Line and use the bus lines the LRT will replace). Who wouldn’t? For most Hamiltonians, though, it’s not going to be in their backyard, and they are going to wind up with the buses everyone (but everyone) insists are no good. That’s because they chose to live in places with no density, but I can still understand why they would not see that as a good deal.

If LRT is the best technology for the trunk line, great. The operating costs are lower with high riderships, so I can certainly understand that. There is absolutely no reason to be negative about other technologies- the technologies that rapid transit in other parts of the city will surely be using in the future- in making that case. To me, when I hear “LRT is what we need because buses are smelly and noisy and awful to ride,” that’s not such a convincing argument, and I also wonder why someone who lives on Garth would agree to pay for your LRT while he is going to be riding a bus for the foreseeable future.

LRT is one piece of the puzzle. We should not be aiming for a state-of-the-art transit system for one part of the city, and what we have now for the rest. We should be doing better everywhere.

[coalminecanary]

We DO have a better plan for everywhere, including a mix of lrt and brt where the respective technologies are most appropriate.

Diesel buses are smelly, and buses are less comfortable to ride. It's not a secret. These are definitely reasons to support LRT on corridors where the ridership and TOD potential justifies the investment. I don't see why some facts should be used and others hidden.

I agree that using positive arguments is more effective than negative, but if the positives are "more comfortable, less polluting, less expensive to operate, more attractive", there is an implied "than what" side of the coin that is impossible to just sweep under the rug. And it's "than buses".

The big problem here is that none of our leaders are willing to champion the positives of LRT. It can and will benefit every single resident in the city - including the business people who have to live through a year of construction and the suburbanite who never sets foot downtown. It's not for the elite, it's not for transit riders, it's for everyone.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by Dr Awesomesauce

Are you sure? Perhaps you've forgotten about the expressways that criss-cross the lower city. Plenty of room for dedicated lanes.

I said transitways and separated LRT. Those 'expressways' aren't much different from the streets with buslanes in Downtown Ottawa that are a completely bottleneck for the whole system. Transitways are something very different and not something you could put on a street. Traffic lights, cars turning, only having one lane for the buses (so they can skirt around the buses that stop if none of their riders stop), and so forth make streets a rather iffy 'BRT' or 'LRT' option. Bus lanes and streetcars are very different from transitways and separated grade LRT.

[Berklon]

Originally Posted by HillStreetBlues

An LRT would make a lot more sense along Main than King for a lot of reasons (transportation and development potential), even though having it go through the heart of the city at Gore is a really nice thought.

Would they be able to run along Main and then turn onto King when downtown and then turn back onto Main at some point after that - this way we still get it to run through the heart of downtown while still utilizing Main for most of it's run? Maybe that would be too complicated and make too much of a mess.

[coalminecanary]

The fact that Main is not considered part of "The heart of downtown" speaks to the huge problems with the current configuration of that street :-)

[ScreamingViking]

As usually happens with big plans, a lot of people who don't know all the facts in the bigger picture latch onto key arguments. Some are sensible, others easily quashed.

The expense argument is a big one and it's a valid concern. Yes this is costly, but if the province is funding construction out of a pool of money that Hamiltonians will be paying into regardless then I don't understand why we shouldn't fight for the best investment we can, and the one that brings the biggest benefit to the city. The decision may be made for us depending on how the provincial budget debate goes, or whether there's a change in government, but until we know that raising the affordability flag is premature.

The "buses can do the same job" issue that has been discussed here should be discussed the same way in public. There are facts to be shared and debated. I really don't think people know what a full BRT system would look like.

The "this won't benefit me" argument is petty. We rarely hear it brought up related to any number of large investments the city makes... not when they plan to create/expand a business park, build a new arterial road or highway, remake a waterfront park, renovate a major building, etc. Transit seems to be faced with it all the time; heck even councillors were using a form of this point during the debate over marginal investments in bus service. People need to be better informed about how this plan does benefit the entire city, just like many of the other large investments do.

If the city AND council (more than just a couple of folks) were out front of this, responding to questions and criticisms, continuing to hold public information sessions, and actively promoting the transit plan, then things would not seem in such disarray. The fact they are choosing not to on such a large and potentially city-changing idea is just sad.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by Beedok

I said transitways and separated LRT. Those 'expressways' aren't much different from the streets with buslanes in Downtown Ottawa that are a completely bottleneck for the whole system. Transitways are something very different and not something you could put on a street. Traffic lights, cars turning, only having one lane for the buses (so they can skirt around the buses that stop if none of their riders stop), and so forth make streets a rather iffy 'BRT' or 'LRT' option. Bus lanes and streetcars are very different from transitways and separated grade LRT.

I don't understand why you're bringing this up. Yes there's a difference in being able to run a transitway instead of taking away general-purpose lanes of road, but there's nothing we can do about it.

It comes down to making a choice to invest in transit to use existing transportation corridors more efficiently to move more people. Hamilton has more than enough street capacity to handle that.

[mishap]

Originally Posted by coalminecanary

The fact that Main is not considered part of "The heart of downtown" speaks to the huge problems with the current configuration of that street :-)

The fact that planners consider Main too far to walk to King speaks to the huge problems with the current citizenry.

[HillStreetBlues]

Originally Posted by coalminecanary

The fact that Main is not considered part of "The heart of downtown" speaks to the huge problems with the current configuration of that street :-)

I agree with your sentiment, but I think a lot of people would agree that Gore Park is the singular heart of downtown , and that will remain true even when Main is one day a vibrant human-scale street. I think Main is the better option for an LRT, but a lot of people will want to see it go right through Gore Park.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by ScreamingViking

I don't understand why you're bringing this up. Yes there's a difference in being able to run a transitway instead of taking away general-purpose lanes of road, but there's nothing we can do about it.

It comes down to making a choice to invest in transit to use existing transportation corridors more efficiently to move more people. Hamilton has more than enough street capacity to handle that.

I'm just saying that it's a problem that Hamilton has that other cities don't as much. Also that it means that Hamilton might have trouble reaching the same standards of transit with the same budget due to those disadvantages. It's interesting how something that's normally a positive can be a negative.

[Dr Awesomesauce]

Originally Posted by Beedok

I said transitways and separated LRT. Those 'expressways' aren't much different from the streets with buslanes in Downtown Ottawa that are a completely bottleneck for the whole system. Transitways are something very different and not something you could put on a street. Traffic lights, cars turning, only having one lane for the buses (so they can skirt around the buses that stop if none of their riders stop), and so forth make streets a rather iffy 'BRT' or 'LRT' option. Bus lanes and streetcars are very different from transitways and separated grade LRT.

You didn't mention grade-separated LRT the first time round. We could potentially do that but it's not the best course of action for this city.

Ottawa, on the other hand, has more profound traffic issues than Hamilton. Ottawa's problem, of course, is that tens of thousands of people are forced to commute into the city every day for work and while OCTranspo is pretty decent, most people still drive out of necessity. And I believe their LRT plan involves tunnelling under that part of the city centre you mentioned (from the Flats to the canal), so it seems they aren't even going to address the traffic issues they have downtown directly. Anyway, I don't know enough about Ottawa's issues to really speak with much authority on the matter. Back to our regularly scheduled nonsense.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by Beedok

I think Hamilton's density might partially be a curse on the rapid transit front. There's no room for transitways and separated LRT.

Originally Posted by Dr Awesomesauce

You didn't mention grade-separated LRT the first time round. We could potentially do that but it's not the best course of action for this city.

I just forgot the 'grade' part.

Originally Posted by Dr Awesomesauce

Ottawa, on the other hand, has more profound traffic issues than Hamilton. Ottawa's problem, of course, is that tens of thousands of people are forced to commute into the city every day for work and while OCTranspo is pretty decent, most people still drive out of necessity. And I believe their LRT plan involves tunnelling under that part of the city centre you mentioned (from the Flats to the canal), so it seems they aren't even going to address the traffic issues they have downtown directly. Anyway, I don't know enough about Ottawa's issues to really speak with much authority on the matter.

Ottawa traffic is very rediculous. Even with a highway cutting through it and a Parkway. (Plus other things.)

Originally Posted by Dr Awesomesauce

Back to our regularly scheduled nonsense.

Yay. I wasn't trying to be confrontational or anything, just thought it was too bad that Hamilton had no potential pure transit corridors (at least downtown). I only really brought it up because I tried to make a conceptual map where Hamilton build a more Ottawa style transit system but realised that wasn't possible.

[thistleclub]

McCallion wants GTHA mayors to declare war on gridlock
(Mississauga News, John Stewart, Mar 6 2014)

Buoyed by the success of a summit meeting of GTHA mayors and chairs that squeezed cash out of Queen’s Park for damages caused by the December ice storm, Mayor Hazel McCallion is gathering her municipal tribe for another battle.

“I’m calling together the mayors and chairs for another meeting to deal with gridlock,” McCallion told the annual general meeting of MIRANET (Mississauga Residents’ Associations Network) last night (Wednesday, March 5) “I’m very concerned and frustrated with the traffic problems we’re having in the GTHA (Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area).

The mayor said she "wants to see if we can get a unanimous approach” on a problem that threatens the continued economic well-being of the region, which is considered the engine of Ontario’s economy.

Finance Minister Charles Sousa, who addressed the meeting of ratepayer heads from across the city just before McCallion announced her gridlock summit, said the cost of traffic congestion in the GTHA is about $6 billion a year.

“There are a lot of ideas — a lot of controversial ideas — about how to deal with it,” said the Mississauga South MPP. Every time he goes to Kitchener or Guelph or London, the provincial treasurer says he’s reminded that “they don't think they should have to pay for transit improvements in the GTHA.”

Gridlock is significantly reducing travelling times for commuters and forcing many companies that rely on timely delivery of goods and services to reconsider whether they want to do business here, McCallion warned.

“How many cities have anti-idling bylaws?” she asked. “Yet cars are sitting for hours and hours in those cities, idling on freeways.”



Read it in full here.