The future of Hamilton's public transit

[CaptainKirk]

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

Two sets of rails and no parking will not sit well. As for Jackson Square they have underground parking, sheltered parking where people don't have to deal with the elements or traffic.

I hear what you're saying, but 2 sets of LRT rails are not 2 sets of "conventional" old rails.

Also, the "magic" of LRT is that, uml;ike buses, it attracts people which is good for business

And "elements of traffic" ? If that's what's killing your business, then there is something wrong with the street design of the business or both. I dunno. I'm having a tough time buying that excuse. Still think it's way more convenient to park at Jackson Square than it is to park at a meter and cross King St. Anybody that goes downtown sees lottsa people crossing King St all the time

[Beedok]

More buses and no LRT is a temporary thing in my view. You have to create a transit culture to get people to accept rapid transit infrastructure on the roads. Just like tossing up a highrise in a single family neighbourhood gets a lot of resistance putting LRT in a car city is going to be hard. Start with midrises/bus ridership.

[flar]

I'm still in favour of LRT for Hamilton. As I've maintained all along, HSR ridership will never increase with buses, doesn't matter how fast or convenient they are. Buses are for the poor, disabled, elderly and students. LRT is classier, and if Hamilton could actually manage to implement it properly (I have my doubts here), it would be a game changer. Unfortunately, the realist in me says that running a dinky LRT line from Eastgate to McMaster could end up with just the same people currently riding buses riding LRT. There has to be an integrated city-building plan and the line has to go from somewhere useful to somewhere useful.

[HillStreetBlues]

Originally Posted by flar

I'm still in favour of LRT for Hamilton. As I've maintained all along, HSR ridership will never increase with buses, doesn't matter how fast or convenient they are.

That’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. If ridership won’t ever increase with buses, obviously it wouldn’t be prudent to invest in our buses. Which we haven’t, and ridership has not increased. If buses are as terrible as you suggest, why are people clamoring to take them all along the length of the B Line? Our buses are overcrowded, and yet you say you can’t get ridership with buses. What’s going to happen in the rest of the city, which will continue to be served by buses? No ridership increases ever?

Originally Posted by flar

Unfortunately, the realist in me says that running a dinky LRT line from Eastgate to McMaster could end up with just the same people currently riding buses riding LRT.

The proposed route is over 10 kilometers long. That’s not “dinky,” that’s along the same lines as many cities when they implement LRT. And the people currently riding HSR buses on the corridor (and tolerating drive-bys and crush loads) deserve better transit- whom else should the LRT serve besides transit users?

Originally Posted by flar

There has to be an integrated city-building plan and the line has to go from somewhere useful to somewhere useful.

Name a couple of places in the city that are more “useful” that our downtown, and our university?

[thistleclub]

Poor management and disinvestment have led to the current status quo on buses. There's no reason to expect that crush load and wait times can't be replicated using a new technology.

See page 3 of Rapid Ready:

There may be a need for some reduction in service frequency to fully utilize the available train capacity.

[HillStreetBlues]

Thanks. That's pretty disheartening...

[flar]

Originally Posted by HillStreetBlues

That’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. If ridership won’t ever increase with buses, obviously it wouldn’t be prudent to invest in our buses. Which we haven’t, and ridership has not increased. If buses are as terrible as you suggest, why are people clamoring to take them all along the length of the B Line? Our buses are overcrowded, and yet you say you can’t get ridership with buses. What’s going to happen in the rest of the city, which will continue to be served by buses? No ridership increases ever?

The poor, disabled, students and elderly are concentrated in the lower city, and these are the people taking the bus, for the simple reason that they don't have cars. Very few people choose to ride the bus in Hamilton, it is almost always their only option. How do you attract riders? BRT won't do it. LRT might do it if you can get all these condos built and the people living in these condos can take the LRT somewhere useful, such as the GO station, downtown offices or McMaster.

Originally Posted by HillStreetBlues

The proposed route is over 10 kilometers long. That’s not “dinky,” that’s along the same lines as many cities when they implement LRT. And the people currently riding HSR buses on the corridor (and tolerating drive-bys and crush loads) deserve better transit- whom else should the LRT serve besides transit users?

Exactly, this is where the current transit riders are. They do deserve better transit. But simply serving the same people also threatens increasing ridership. The problem is people will not want to ride LRT if it's like taking 1 King or 2 Barton, because people with choices by and large don't want to mix with people they consider sketchy, and this is probably HSR's biggest problem to overcome.

Originally Posted by HillStreetBlues

Name a couple of places in the city that are more “useful” that our downtown, and our university?

The university is the most compelling destination, or at least the one with the most potential, as is the Innovation Park. Downtown will be a poor magnet for new transit riders as long as it is cheap and convenient to drive to and park at the office. Again, people with the means will choose this comfortable option every time. Dundas is a destination as well, it's one of the best parts of Hamilton, with decent shopping, walkability, good density, lots of seniors and lots of people going to Mac. The Eastgate area is not much of a destination, has low density, poor walkability, etc. I'd almost rather see the LRT go up the mountain, where it would have by far the most potential of attracting new riders (people going downtown, MIP and Mac).



I don't have the answers, Hamilton is in a difficult position right now with respect to transit. There is no compelling reason for people with the choice to use transit right now. The city has to plan for a future where more people of means will live and work in the lower city, and I think LRT can be a catalyst for that, whereas BRT will not. LRT is certainly not without its challenges, some of which I discussed above.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by flar

The poor, disabled, students and elderly are concentrated in the lower city, and these are the people taking the bus, for the simple reason that they don't have cars. Very few people choose to ride the bus in Hamilton, it is almost always their only option. How do you attract riders?.

I think more buses would work. People on the mountain don't take buses because they're typically inconvenient on the mountain or in the suburbs. Make those buses convenient and more people will take them. It might take a while to get people who can easily afford to drive, but there will be plenty of people sort of the edge who would like a cheaper option. Also if there's more mountain only buses that are convenient then you'll avoid the worry of "downtown types" on the bus.

LRT will help to a degree, but the scale of it makes it hard to get momentum. More buses are an easy quick fix that will help. More useful than just arguing about LRT for 10 years.

[thistleclub]

Originally Posted by Beedok

People on the mountain don't take buses because they're typically inconvenient on the mountain or in the suburbs. Make those buses convenient and more people will take them.

Excerpt from the Oct 2 Hamilton Mountain News editorial:

The debate in this election over LRT has only highlighted the cultural divide between urban and rural, suburban and exurban communities. Few politicians venture out to the so-called wilds of Binbrook, Winona or Carlisle. While the political fire of amalgamation has died down, the flames of anti-amalgamation anger still burn hot and bright. How many city programs or services even bother to take into account the impact they will have in Mount Hope or Greensville?

Development beyond the downtown core remains a high priority issue in some suburban communities, while the aging roads, poor transit service, lack of amenities such as parks and green space, and the art of providing the basic quality of life services are lacking in Copetown, Carluke and Tapleytown.

Even if Clark’s campaign to highlight how Hamilton has been ignoring the suburbs is based upon crass political strategy, so be it. This will be the first time a mayoral candidate is trumpeting Hamilton’s suburbs to have a place at the decision-making table rather than just being the cash cow that pays for all of the fancy programs for downtown.

[Dr Awesomesauce]

Originally Posted by Beedok

I think more buses would work. People on the mountain don't take buses because they're typically inconvenient on the mountain or in the suburbs. Make those buses convenient and more people will take them. It might take a while to get people who can easily afford to drive, but there will be plenty of people sort of the edge who would like a cheaper option. Also if there's more mountain only buses that are convenient then you'll avoid the worry of "downtown types" on the bus.

Emphasis added.

Add more buses and you'd probably see a mere blip in numbers. The best case scenario would perhaps see a return to 1980s ridership levels. Perhaps. If the City wants transformative change, they'll have to do better and that should not include adding more buses.

And aside from diehards, essentially nobody takes the bus if they can afford to drive. As has already been pointed out, it's not — enough and it's not comfortable enough.

Personally, if LRT is a no-go, then I would hope they just stick with the status quo because the literature suggests that BRT just isn't worth the massive expense. Invest that money in bike lanes. Leave the HSR to the young and the disenfranchised.

[durandy]

Originally Posted by thistleclub

Excerpt from the Oct 2 Hamilton Mountain News editorial:

The debate in this election over LRT has only highlighted the cultural divide between urban and rural, suburban and exurban communities. Few politicians venture out to the so-called wilds of Binbrook, Winona or Carlisle. While the political fire of amalgamation has died down, the flames of anti-amalgamation anger still burn hot and bright. How many city programs or services even bother to take into account the impact they will have in Mount Hope or Greensville?

Development beyond the downtown core remains a high priority issue in some suburban communities, while the aging roads, poor transit service, lack of amenities such as parks and green space, and the art of providing the basic quality of life services are lacking in Copetown, Carluke and Tapleytown.

Even if Clark’s campaign to highlight how Hamilton has been ignoring the suburbs is based upon crass political strategy, so be it. This will be the first time a mayoral candidate is trumpeting Hamilton’s suburbs to have a place at the decision-making table rather than just being the cash cow that pays for all of the fancy programs for downtown.

Should read, this will be the first time since 2010 a mayoral candidate is trumpeting Hamilton's suburbs...

I don't even know where to start with this editorial. If by fancy programs they mean the 25 RCFs that are within a km of my house, then I'd be happy for Copetown to take on some of that burden.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by Dr Awesomesauce

Emphasis added.

Add more buses and you'd probably see a mere blip in numbers. The best case scenario would perhaps see a return to 1980s ridership levels. Perhaps. If the City wants transformative change, they'll have to do better and that should not include adding more buses.

And aside from diehards, essentially nobody takes the bus if they can afford to drive. As has already been pointed out, it's not — enough and it's not comfortable enough.

Personally, if LRT is a no-go, then I would hope they just stick with the status quo because the literature suggests that BRT just isn't worth the massive expense. Invest that money in bike lanes. Leave the HSR to the young and the disenfranchised.

I don't see LRT as a permanent no-go. Getting back up to 80s levels of ridership would be an important first start to get more support for the HSR. Then you can start some park and ride systems, more express buses, etc. thanks to improved reputation (no longer a totally stagnant system). Those will get ridership up higher. Then LRT can happen. It might take 10-15 years to get to that point (maybe even 20) but that's better than what we have now where we seem to just argue in circles about LRT and nothing happens. Improve it now to get support for more drastic measures.

[CaptainKirk]

Excerpt from the Oct 2 Hamilton Mountain News editorial:

This will be the first time a mayoral candidate is trumpeting Hamilton’s suburbs to have a place at the decision-making table rather than just being the cash cow that pays for all of the fancy programs for downtown.

It's my understanding that this is — backwards; that the city is subsidizing the burbs, not the other way around.

[markbarbera]

The sentiment in the past few posts illustrates what is holding this city back. I can't believe there still is a prolonged argument over who is worse done by. This urban/suburban divide is ruining the city. As long as this sentiment persists, we will continue to have a parochial council without any kind of city wide vision, and the city is doomed to continue to fail.

[CaptainKirk]

Originally Posted by markbarbera

The sentiment in the past few posts illustrates what is holding this city back. I can't believe there still is a prolonged argument over who is worse done by. This urban/suburban divide is ruining the city. As long as this sentiment persists, we will continue to have a parochial council without any kind of city wide vision, and the city is doomed to continue to fail.

Agreed. The sooner the burbs realize that a strong inner city can better subsidize them the better off everyone is.

Maintaining the status quo, or holding back the lower, inner city, makes the burbs all that much more financially unsustainable while increasing their tax burden.

[markbarbera]

Originally Posted by CaptainKirk

Agreed. The sooner the burbs realize that a strong inner city can better subsidize them the better off everyone is.

Maintaining the status quo, or holding back the lower, inner city, makes the burbs all that much more financially unsustainable while increasing their tax burden.

If you truly believe this, then this reply actually reveals how the big picture remains lost to most. A stronger inner city cannot be done at the expense of the suburbs.

[CaptainKirk]

Originally Posted by markbarbera

If you truly believe this, then this reply actually reveals how the big picture remains lost to most.

Can you please provide a direct quote of any sentence I wrote that you think is wrong, or that you disagree with?

I'd be happy to carry the discussion forward.

Originally Posted by markbarbera

A stronger inner city cannot be done at the expense of the suburbs.

Agreed. The reality is that suburbs are currently supported at the expense of the city. Even Brad Clark brought that up at the tactical Taxation talk at the Zoetic theatre. The video is available online somewhere. Other suburban councillors are also on record as acknowledging this. Noting new here.

[flar]

Things that make people use transit:

Serious traffic congestion (equal or faster to take bus)
Lack of parking (no guarantee of a space, or long walk to/from)
Expensive parking (as in $250+ per month)


And the transit has to be reliable and convenient (one transfer is okay)

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by flar

Things that make people use transit:

Serious traffic congestion (equal or faster to take bus)
Lack of parking (no guarantee of a space, or long walk to/from)
Expensive parking (as in $250+ per month)


And the transit has to be reliable and convenient (one transfer is okay)

Well I and II build off each other. Hopefully the development boom that seems set to hit will gobble up enough parking lots to get that part going. Congestion is not a good thing, it slows the buses, slows emergency vehicles, leads to increased population, etc. I've seen plenty of ambulances trapped in Ottawa's gridlock.

[thistleclub]

Originally Posted by CaptainKirk

The video is available online somewhere.

Via Joey Coleman, May 1, 2014 Tactical Taxation: Hamilton Mayoral Candidates Debate