The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by middeljohn

In order for the city and especially the downtown to recover transit must be improved and all the one-ways need to converted back to two-ways, which have time and time again been proven to be much more pedestrian friendly.

Why do people keep saying that 2-way is better? Many of Canada's most thriving commercial districts are 1 way streets, and many of the least walkable ones are 2 way streets. The high speeds and thin sidewalks are the issue. 1 way vs 2 way is trivial in comparison.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Beedok

Why do people keep saying that 2-way is better? Many of Canada's most thriving commercial districts are 1 way streets, and many of the least walkable ones are 2 way streets. The high speeds and thin sidewalks are the issue. 1 way vs 2 way is trivial in comparison.

It depends. 1 ways can make for nice streets when they're short and on pedestrian-oriented streets.

The issue is that for longer distance routes, 1 way streets allow for near-perfect signal timing causing motorists to treat them like highways, which doesn't happen on 2 ways.

Sometimes though, such one-way freeways can actually form a traffic calming measure if the signal timing is designed for slower speeds.

In Kingston, our only Hamilton-style '1-way freeway' is the Brock Street & Johnson Street pairing west of downtown. Both streets have signal timing such that if you go 40km/h-50km/h, you hit every single green light, but if you go 60-70, you hit every single red. One of the best traffic calming measures I've ever seen; it forces the speed demons to stop frequently and rewards the drivers going slowly and cautiously. Both streets also got buffered bike lanes last summer which are a great touch.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

It depends. 1 ways can make for nice streets when they're short and on pedestrian-oriented streets.

The issue is that for longer distance routes, 1 way streets allow for near-perfect signal timing causing motorists to treat them like highways, which doesn't happen on 2 ways.

Sometimes though, such one-way freeways can actually form a traffic calming measure if the signal timing is designed for slower speeds.

In Kingston, our only Hamilton-style '1-way freeway' is the Brock Street & Johnson Street pairing west of downtown. Both streets have signal timing such that if you go 40km/h-50km/h, you hit every single green light, but if you go 60-70, you hit every single red. One of the best traffic calming measures I've ever seen; it forces the speed demons to stop frequently and rewards the drivers going slowly and cautiously. Both streets also got buffered bike lanes last summer which are a great touch.

I just know that Bronson in Ottawa is easily as bad as Main in Hamilton. With the thin sidewalks and high speeds you get those green waves, but they seem staggered in opposite directions. At least with Main there's occasionally clearings rather than a steady roar of cars zipping past like a highway.

Main in Hamilton certainly isn't good though and needs a lot of work. I just don't think switching to two way will help it. Now some of those side streets, those should be switched for the sake of drivers

[matt602]

It's important to note that a lot of the better one way streets in Canada are complete streets with wide sidewalks, slower traffic without sequenced traffic lights, bike lanes, trees, mostly complete streetwalls. University Avenue and a lot of Montreal's downtown one-ways come to mind here.

Things that Main Street in Hamilton doesn't even have one of (even Cannon has a protected cycle track now). If our LRT was to run along Main instead of King, we could have gone a long way toward rectifying those issues.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by matt602

It's important to note that a lot of the better one way streets in Canada are complete streets with wide sidewalks, slower traffic without sequenced traffic lights, bike lanes, trees, mostly complete streetwalls. University Avenue and a lot of Montreal's downtown one-ways come to mind here.

Things that Main Street in Hamilton doesn't even have one of (even Cannon has a protected cycle track now). If our LRT was to run along Main instead of King, we could have gone a long way toward rectifying those issues.

Yes, I was just saying that if you look to two way streets that have all the other features Main Street has they're roughly equally as unpleasant to walk down.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Beedok

I just know that Bronson in Ottawa is easily as bad as Main in Hamilton. With the thin sidewalks and high speeds you get those green waves, but they seem staggered in opposite directions. At least with Main there's occasionally clearings rather than a steady roar of cars zipping past like a highway.

Main in Hamilton certainly isn't good though and needs a lot of work. I just don't think switching to two way will help it. Now some of those side streets, those should be switched for the sake of drivers

Bronson is directly connected to Ottawa's only north-south 'highway' and that has created problems but traffic signals rather quickly slow down traffic in the central city. It does not address traffic volume, which can never be resolved. Just to be clear, Bronson is a two way avenue (north of the Rideau Canal) and it has always been more of a residential street and not a 'main' street. There are some businesses along its route but they tend to be sporadically located.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Bronson is directly connected to Ottawa's only north-south 'highway' and that has created problems but traffic signals rather quickly slow down traffic in the central city. It does not address traffic volume, which can never be resolved. Just to be clear, Bronson is a two way avenue (north of the Rideau Canal) and it has always been more of a residential street and not a 'main' street. There are some businesses along its route but they tend to be sporadically located.

It never really seems to slow that well. I mean it's not the highway speeds it is by Carleton, but near the downtown the cars are still zipping past pretty good. I was mostly thinking of areas north of the Canal, and especially north of the highway. It's not a perfect comparison to Main, but they're fairly similar (Main is a bit more commercial, but a walk down Bronson sees it at least 50/50 commercial). It seems the best example of what Main would look like if turned 2 way with no other fixes. Apart maybe from that hyper severe Ottawa rush hour gridlock.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Beedok

It never really seems to slow that well. I mean it's not the highway speeds it is by Carleton, but near the downtown the cars are still zipping past pretty good. I was mostly thinking of areas north of the Canal, and especially north of the highway. It's not a perfect comparison to Main, but they're fairly similar (Main is a bit more commercial, but a walk down Bronson sees it at least 50/50 commercial). It seems the best example of what Main would look like if turned 2 way with no other fixes. Apart maybe from that hyper severe Ottawa rush hour gridlock.

You can compare two parallel streets in Ottawa, Bronson and Bank. The difference being that Bank Street is truly a 'main' street. In fact, it is THE main street in Ottawa. Both are 4 lane streets, both have to deal with heavy traffic, yet they are totally different. In the case of Bank Street, there is on-street parking, at least outside of peak periods. This slows down traffic considerably. I also suspect, the more interesting views of stores on Bank and the additional pedestrians, automatically slows down traffic. It is pretty illustrative of how on-street parking, fewer traffic lanes and more pedestrians will change driver behaviour. I have always said, if you want to make traffic move slower, make the street narrower. In the case of Bronson, there is little on-street parking (I think some is allowed on part of the street but not many use it), and few pedestrians. This is why traffic tries to move faster, as well as the highway like design south of the Rideau Canal.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

You can compare two parallel streets in Ottawa, Bronson and Bank. The difference being that Bank Street is truly a 'main' street. In fact, it is THE main street in Ottawa. Both are 4 lane streets, both have to deal with heavy traffic, yet they are totally different. In the case of Bank Street, there is on-street parking, at least outside of peak periods. This slows down traffic considerably. I also suspect, the more interesting views of stores on Bank and the additional pedestrians, automatically slows down traffic. It is pretty illustrative of how on-street parking, fewer traffic lanes and more pedestrians will change driver behaviour. I have always said, if you want to make traffic move slower, make the street narrower. In the case of Bronson, there is little on-street parking (I think some is allowed on part of the street but not many use it), and few pedestrians. This is why traffic tries to move faster, as well as the highway like design south of the Rideau Canal.

Yes. If you compare a lot of King in Hamilton to Main the more interesting shops thing seems to have impact. On street parking, lower speed limits, and wider sidewalks would make a huge difference. Switching from one way to two way seems unlikely to change as much as people seem to think it would. That's all my point is.

[eemy]

Originally Posted by GreatTallNorth2

I'm not sure that Hamilton has higher transit ridership.

HSR doesn't have higher numbers, despite having a larger service area. It will likely be surpassed by Grand River Transit as well in the next few years if ridership growth doesn't accelerate.

[miketoronto]

Originally Posted by Beedok

Why do people keep saying that 2-way is better? Many of Canada's most thriving commercial districts are 1 way streets, and many of the least walkable ones are 2 way streets. The high speeds and thin sidewalks are the issue. 1 way vs 2 way is trivial in comparison.

Totally agree. One way streets did not kill downtown Hamilton. Limeridge Mall did.

[middeljohn]

Main is essentially a highway. It's pretty easy to speed through there at 70. All the lights are timed as well so cars really don't have any incentive to slow down.

Two-way won't solve all the problems, but it will help slow things down, especially if they remove one of the lanes. It's generally just easier to drive fast on a one-way because it's more comfortable. With opposing traffic separated only by a yellow line people tend to go slower. Then add on-street parking and it further slows things down. And with two-way there are left-turns in the middle of the road cross-section which again helps slow things down.

A great example is downtown Calgary versus downtown Edmonton. Calgary has a ton of one-ways in their downtown. Edmonton has gotten rid of almost all of them (the only ones that remain that I can think of are one lane). Edmonton also has a lot more pedestrian activity during non-peak hours and traffic is slower during those hours as well. Coincidence?

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by middeljohn

Main is essentially a highway. It's pretty easy to speed through there at 70. All the lights are timed as well so cars really don't have any incentive to slow down.

Alternatively they could just retime the lights to give greens only to drivers going 40-50.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by middeljohn

A great example is downtown Calgary versus downtown Edmonton. Calgary has a ton of one-ways in their downtown. Edmonton has gotten rid of almost all of them (the only ones that remain that I can think of are one lane). Edmonton also has a lot more pedestrian activity during non-peak hours and traffic is slower during those hours as well. Coincidence?

Edmonton's downtown is more mixed use than Calgary's, with a university helping out, and less office towers squeezing out residential by raising property values.

Office districts are pretty dead no matter where you go.

[ssiguy]

Middlejohn...............

You state Hamilton probably needs more transit as it is the "the bigger city and hence has higher ridership" but half that equation is right.

Hamilton is indeed bigger but it is London that has the higher transit ridership numbers despite Hamilton Railway serving approx. 504,000 and London 365,000 as per 2013. In fact by any metric HR is doing exceptionally poorly compared to it's Ontario peer.

The City of Hamilton's transit strategy released March 6 2015 is confirms and reinforces this. Listed below are the per-capita ridership stats for similar Ontario cities first with 2006 numbers and then 2013:

Brampton 24--35 Durham 14--19, London 54---63, York 18---22, Missisauga 41---48
Windsor 28---31, and Hamilton 48---45.

As you will note Hamilton was the only city between 2006 and 2013 to experience a DECLINE in per-capita ridership. The Hamilton numbers do not include trips made on GO but would include trips made on HR to get to the GO station.

It did not compare KW but in 2013 KW has 22 million riders, London 23.8, and Hamilton 21.5. Not only do London and Kitchener have higher total ridership numbers but also higher per-capita with London far out in the lead and third in the province after only Toronto and Ottawa.

Again my issue is not with Hamilton getting transit funds but rather it getting 100% infrastructure funding that that Kitchener and London will not enjoy despite having higher ridership and faster growing ridership.

How can this be justified?

[theman23]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Middlejohn...............

You state Hamilton probably needs more transit as it is the "the bigger city and hence has higher ridership" but half that equation is right.

Hamilton is indeed bigger but it is London that has the higher transit ridership numbers despite Hamilton Railway serving approx. 504,000 and London 365,000 as per 2013. In fact by any metric HR is doing exceptionally poorly compared to it's Ontario peer.

The City of Hamilton's transit strategy released March 6 2015 is confirms and reinforces this. Listed below are the per-capita ridership stats for similar Ontario cities first with 2006 numbers and then 2013:

Brampton 24--35 Durham 14--19, London 54---63, York 18---22, Missisauga 41---48
Windsor 28---31, and Hamilton 48---45.

As you will note Hamilton was the only city between 2006 and 2013 to experience a DECLINE in per-capita ridership. The Hamilton numbers do not include trips made on GO but would include trips made on HR to get to the GO station.

It did not compare KW but in 2013 KW has 22 million riders, London 23.8, and Hamilton 21.5. Not only do London and Kitchener have higher total ridership numbers but also higher per-capita with London far out in the lead and third in the province after only Toronto and Ottawa.

Again my issue is not with Hamilton getting transit funds but rather it getting 100% infrastructure funding that that Kitchener and London will not enjoy despite having higher ridership and faster growing ridership.

How can this be justified?

London has no transit plan. Heck, London has no plans. What's there to fund?
Also, the GTHA is more strategically important to the economic well-being of this province than London. Of course it should get preferential treatment for infrastructure.
Not sure what Kitchener has to do with anything. They're getting their funding.

[eemy]

Originally Posted by theman23

London has no transit plan. Heck, London has no plans. What's there to fund?
Also, the GTHA is more strategically important to the economic well-being of this province than London. Of course it should get preferential treatment for infrastructure.
Not sure what Kitchener has to do with anything. They're getting their funding.

Kitchener also got shafted compared to the GTHA, that's where it comes in. I don't mind the GTHA getting a higher proportion of funds than other areas; frankly, transportation isn't nearly the problem here in KW that it is in Toronto. I do have an issue with the expectation that other regions have to demonstrate financial commitment to a project while municipalities in the GTHA can have their cake and eat it too. Hamiltonians don't even want LRT (as demonstrated by their elected council - once again, compare to the results in Waterloo Region) and yet the province is basically forcing free money on them. That is just astonishing to me. At least it's not going to be owned by HSR since undoubtably any money saved by having LRT would have ended up in a roads budget instead of back in transit.

[Dr Awesomesauce]

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

I do have an issue with the expectation that other regions have to demonstrate financial commitment to a project while municipalities in the GTHA can have their cake and eat it too. Hamiltonians don't even want LRT (as demonstrated by their elected council - once again, compare to the results in Waterloo Region) and yet the province is basically forcing free money on them.

I'll just comment on the bolded bit by saying that, well, to suggest that a city council represents the wishes of its citizenry is true only on the most theoretical of levels. I think we all know that, do we not?

A survey conducted by the City several years ago showed overwhelming support for LRT.

Let's just leave the blithering idiots on council out of this discussion, shall we? Municipal politics is a f&%king circus after all, especially in Hamilton.

[SteelTown]

Hamilton City Council voted unanimously for LRT in Hamilton, not once but twice.

As typical politicians they talk behind council chambers saying they are iffy with LRT but when it comes time to vote, they end up voting in favour. It's just councilors pandering to their constituency, ESPECIALLY after we just had a municipal election.

[niwell]

It's also worth noting that Hamilton was one of the municipalities that was particularly screwed over by amalgamation. You already had a big urban / suburban divide, but now you have a massive rural area on top of that. It's incredibly difficult to get anything with a pro-urban agenda passed in that environment. Ottawa has a similar situation of course, but I don't think it's quite as pronounced.