Rapid Transit

[realcity]

IT's going to be busses anyway. Both routes. When it is I hope the City tells them to stick their busses up their butts. And we'll wait until they decide to fund LRT which is what they City has overwhelmingly said it wants.

That's why the decision has been delayed. They are strategizing the political fallout of the decision for BRT. Even tho Metrolink is arms length. Two 'can't do it' reasons 1. will be the geography and 2. that would lead to turning it into a cost issue.

$50 bucks says its BRT who's taking it?


Then they'll probably turn around and make the Eglinton LRT a subway (or partial sub) using Hamilton's LRT money.


I just can't take getting my hopes dashed. I was wrong about PanAm I hope I'm wrong about this too

[markbarbera]

Originally Posted by coalminecanary

Remember that elevated lines, grade-separated lines, dedicated right of ways and old fashioned streetcars are not light rail

???

Streetcar routes are definitely not LRT, I 'll give you that. But I think you'd be hard-pressed to give an example of an LRT system that does not employ any of the other elements you list here as non-LRT elements. I'll stand for correction, but I can't think of a LRT system that does not have dedicated right of way.

[Jon Dalton]

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

I wouldn't want to see you hurt yourself.

I stand by my words, thanks.

[markbarbera]

Originally Posted by realcity

IT's going to be busses anyway. Both routes. When it is I hope the City tells them to stick their busses up their butts. And we'll wait until they decide to fund LRT which is what they City has overwhelmingly said it wants.

That's why the decision has been delayed. They are strategizing the political fallout of the decision for BRT. Even tho Metrolink is arms length. Two 'can't do it' reasons 1. will be the geography and 2. that would lead to turning it into a cost issue.

$50 bucks says its BRT who's taking it?


Then they'll probably turn around and make the Eglinton LRT a subway (or partial sub) using Hamilton's LRT money.


I just can't take getting my hopes dashed. I was wrong about PanAm I hope I'm wrong about this too

Well you aren't going to get much argument here. There's definitely going to be BRT for A-Line as there simply is no proper justification for LRT expense on this route at this juncture. Dedicated lanes of BRT for this guy.

I'm still holding out hope for LRT on B-Line, but that's my heart getting ahead of my mind. The CBA for LRT is going to be a tight justification that requires political motivation to push it into the end zone, and the new structure of Metrolinx removes political influence from decision-making. It will be a challenge to get ridership to the level of operational break-even point. You'd ahve to at least triple the ridership of the current B-Line to approach the break-even point for operating the line. Still, I think there is a willingness to go for LRT on B-Line.

Worst case scenario, BRT on A-Line and BRT on B-Line as the first phase of eventual LRT, but I'm putting my money on BRT on A-Line and LRT on B-Line.

[coalminecanary]

Originally Posted by markbarbera

???
Streetcar routes are definitely not LRT, I 'll give you that. But I think you'd be hard-pressed to give an example of an LRT system that does not employ any of the other elements you list here as non-LRT elements. I'll stand for correction, but I can't think of a LRT system that does not have dedicated right of way.

Sorry - by dedicated right of way, I mean lines that are not part of the streetscape at all. For instance, using an existing freight rail corridor with absolutely no commercial or residential frontage.

Elevated/grade separated lines are not LRT in the sense that hamilton is looking at LRT, namely as a street-level system which has the power to bring development with it. I understand that they can be "light" as opposed to "heavy" but studying such systems does not help us since that's not what we are interested in for Hamilton.

My point is that it's entirely inaccurate to point to other "failures" when they share zero physical features with the system being proposed here. I did not mean to start anything about the logistical terminology of "light rail".

If we are going to look at other cities, we need to look at other cities who have implemented street level light rail (modern streetcar) with level boarding and priority signals etc - almost all of which are hugely successful in terms of ridership and ROI.

[highwater]

Originally Posted by markbarbera

It will be a challenge to get ridership to the level of operational break-even point. You'd ahve to at least triple the ridership of the current B-Line to approach the break-even point for operating the line.

Not sure where you're getting that from. According to the recent pro-LRT editorial in the Spec, the break even point is 34,000 trips/day, and there are already 25,000-30,000 trips/day on the B line.

[coalminecanary]

Originally Posted by markbarbera

Worst case scenario, BRT on A-Line and BRT on B-Line as the first phase of eventual LRT, but I'm putting my money on BRT on A-Line and LRT on B-Line.

...which is a pretty bad case, because investment in BRT now will mean 20-30 years of reluctance to spend any more money on the same transit corridor. Which probably will translate to "buses forever".

[SteelTown]

Originally Posted by highwater

Not sure where you're getting that from. According to the recent pro-LRT editorial in the Spec, the break even point is 34,000 trips/day, and there are already 25,000-30,000 trips/day on the B line.

yep I was gonna say. We would only need about 5000 more trips per day which shouldn't be hard with new LRT.

[markbarbera]

Originally Posted by highwater

Not sure where you're getting that from. According to the recent pro-LRT editorial in the Spec, the break even point is 34,000 trips/day, and there are already 25,000-30,000 trips/day on the B line.

Originally Posted by SteelTown

yep I was gonna say. We would only need about 5000 more trips per day which shouldn't be hard with new LRT.

34000 trips per day is the break even point. The 24,000-30,000 ridership mentioned in the editorial was for the four routes that currently follow the proposed LRT route - King, Delaware, University, and B-Line.The B-Line actually has weekday ridership at about 10,000. That means they would have to attract an extra 24,000 riders for the route to break even. The demographics of riders on King, Delaware and University are significantly different than that of B-Line and it would be foolhardy to think all those riders would automatically jump to LRT when built. It will be a real challenge to meet the 34000 ridership.

[SteelTown]

[QUOTE=markbarbera;4692837] The demographics of riders on King, Delaware and University are significantly different than that of B-line.

How so? All has pretty much the same route. Don Hull and the rapid transit office have the same opinion.

[markbarbera]

B-Line and King certainly do serve different demographics. It doesn't bode well for our rapid transit office if they do not recognize the difference between local and express transit service.

Local routes like King and Deleware may travel a great distance, but a significant portion of their ridership are short-haul travellers not looking to travel cross-town quickly (which is what an LRT is designed to do). Rather, they board the buses and/or travel to stops that are relatively closer together and not served by a long-distance express services like the B-Line and its successor rapid transit route.

LRT on the other hand is designed to provide express service to connect transit nodes (Eastgate, downtown, McMaster) with limited stops in between. LRT will not replace the kind of service (and ridership) provided by routes like King and Delaware, nor should it intend to.

[emge]

With the proposed LRT stops and the distance they're apart, I know I would change my ridership patterns. I'd get on the LRT, get off closest to my destination (whether that's midtown, west, or east) and walk a bit further.

Similar to taking the subway and walking a few more blocks instead of taking the much slower bus to my EXACT destination... it'll change what people do, especially if there aren't buses on the LRT route since they're on similar companion routes, it's less trouble to take the LRT and walk from the stop than it is to walk to the next-closest bus and then walk.

[coalminecanary]

Originally Posted by markbarbera

B-Line and King certainly do serve different demographics. It doesn't bode well for our rapid transit office if they do not recognize the difference between local and express transit service.

I think you are severely underestimating the convenience improvement LRT will provide... for the sake of a block or two of extra walking, most people would choose LRT with much more frequent dependable service than the local buses which come... every so often... sometimes when they are supposed to... while you stand there craning your neck, wondering if the next set of headlights is your bus or a garbage truck.

Of course, there will be lots of trips which still make sense for local service. But the B line now is not frequent enough, fast enough, or reliable enough to give up the slightly-closer-to-home local bus. LRT will draw lots more people, plus new riders. I don't think reaching the ridership is going to be a problem.

I just hope they can work the fares out nicely - with a card system or whatever.

[markbarbera]

Originally Posted by coalminecanary

I think you are severely underestimating the convenience improvement LRT will provide... for the sake of a block or two of extra walking, most people would choose LRT with much more frequent dependable service than the local buses which come... every so often... sometimes when they are supposed to... while you stand there craning your neck, wondering if the next set of headlights is your bus or a garbage truck.

Of course, there will be lots of trips which still make sense for local service. But the B line now is not frequent enough, fast enough, or reliable enough to give up the slightly-closer-to-home local bus. LRT will draw lots more people, plus new riders. I don't think reaching the ridership is going to be a problem.

I just hope they can work the fares out nicely - with a card system or whatever.

I am confident there will be an significant increase in B-Line ridership, but to triple the ridership would be a real challenge (and that only gets it to the operational break-even point). And it is really a false assumption to think all current King riders will automatically jump on the LRT. A " block or two of extra walking" may not seem much to your average rider, but it is a big deal if you are a senior, physically challenged, or a mother with a baby carriage or small children. As a regular user of the current HSR system, I know that these groups make up a significant portion of the current usage of King and Delaware routes. And to be honest, average spacing of LRT stops tend to be more like 500m in downtown service areas and at least 1km apart beyond the city core, and that is a tad more than just a one or two block walk.

Having said that, I am glad to see you agree a one or two block walk would not have an impact on riding habits should, say, the LRT be positioned on Main rather than King

[coalminecanary]

No, but it would have a huge impact on development potential

[mdsweet]

Consider as well that many current HSR routes would likely be realigned to feed into the LRT line rather than focus on going downtown on their own. The fact that the E/W line would become the focal point of the entire system will on its own increase ridership for the LRT.

[markk]

I noticed some progress today at the new MacNabb st. terminal. Steel beams went up so its starting to look like a little something more than just demo work.

[markbarbera]

Originally Posted by coalminecanary

No, but it would have a huge impact on development potential

The development potential would be amazing. Imagine an opportunity to develop a proper streetwall along Main Street should LRT be positioned along Main. The potential for King would be pratically the same be it on King or on Main.

[SteelTown]

Isn't KW getting LRT? So why can't Hamilton? Ridership must be doubled compared to KW.

[highwater]

Originally Posted by markbarbera

The development potential would be amazing. Imagine an opportunity to develop a proper streetwall along Main Street should LRT be positioned along Main. The potential for King would be pratically the same be it on King or on Main.

I completely agree. I've always preferred Main for this reason.