The future of Hamilton's public transit

[thistleclub]

Via USA Today:

Ridership on public transportation last year grew 1.1% to 10.7 billion trips, the highest total since 1956, according to new data from the American Public Transportation Association. Since 1995, transit ridership is up 37.2%, which outpaced the national population growth of 20.3%, says Michael Melaniphy, APTA president and CEO.

By comparison, HSR ridership fell 0.4% between 2011 and 2012, though it increased by 7.1% between 1995 and 2012.

[Beedok]

How much did Hamilton grow during that time? How do the ridership ratios work? It's easy to go from terrible to bad, but going from decent to good takes a lot more effort.

[thistleclub]

Originally Posted by Beedok

How much did Hamilton grow during that time? How do the ridership ratios work? It's easy to go from terrible to bad, but going from decent to good takes a lot more effort.

Hamilton/Hamilton-Wentworth's population grew around 11.1% between 1995 and 2012. (The population of Wards 1-8, which contains most of the transit service area, grew by around 2.5% during the same time.)

Setting aside the "service area" slant and using total population as the comparative, HSR ridership ratios fell during that period, from 44 rides per capita in 1995 to just under 42 rides per capita in 2012 -- the post-amalgamation plateau, give or take.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by thistleclub

Hamilton/Hamilton-Wentworth's population grew around 11.1% between 1995 and 2012. (The population of Wards 1-8, which contains most of the transit service area, grew by around 2.5% during the same time.)

So the US had transit grow at about 2x the relative rate of Hamilton (~150% of population vs. ~70%). Not so good for Hamilton.

Originally Posted by thistleclub

Setting aside the "service area" slant and using total population as the comparative, HSR ridership ratios fell during that period, from 44 rides per capita in 1995 to just under 42 rides per capita in 2012 -- the post-amalgamation plateau, give or take.

I'm guessing it's still a fair bit above similar sized US metros though no?

Getting a regional plan going with Burlington and maybe Grimsby would probably be good for the metro.

[thistleclub]

Originally Posted by Beedok

So the US had transit grow at about 2x the relative rate of Hamilton.... I'm guessing it's still a fair bit above similar sized US metros though no?

Long Beach, CA
28,822,200 ridership, 467,892 population = 61.6 rides per capita
(+7.31% demand response, 21.47% ferry boat, -0.6% bus, -0.55% YOY total)

Sacramento, CA
27,638,400 ridership, 475,516 population = 58.1 rides per capita
(-0.23% demand response, -2.42% light rail, +5.3% bus, +1.31% YOY total)

Tucson, AZ
20.082,100 ridership, 524,295 population = 38.3 rides per capita
(-0.71% bus, -0.71% YOY total)

Kansas City, MO
16,166,000 ridership, 464,310 population = 34.8 rides per capita
(-14.09% demand response, -1.76% bus, +7.29% van pool, -2.06% YOY total)

Fresno, CA
10,703,900 ridership, 505,882 population = 21.2 rides per capita
(+0.64% demand response, -2.68% bus, -2.61% YOY total)

On the whole, the HSR's ridership numbers seem pretty mid-pack.

But there are all kinds of variables at play, not least of which is the measure of unlinked or linked trips.

It's mostly broad-brush stuff, so here is a nation-wide comparison of 2013 to 2012 performance from the APTA:

Heavy Rail: +2.79%
Light Rail: +1.56%
Commuter Rail: +2.10%
Trolleybus: -1.35%
Bus: -0.10%
Bus Population Group
2,000,000+: -0.11%
500,000-1,999,999: -1.07%
100,000-499,999: +0.60%
Below 100,000: +3.83%
Demand Response: +0.51%
Other: -0.33% (incl. aerial tramway, automated guideway, cable car, ferryboat, inclined plane, monorail & vanpool)

US Total: 1.09%
Canada: -0.07%

[HillStreetBlues]

Originally Posted by Beedok

I'm guessing it's still a fair bit above similar sized US metros though no?

Getting a regional plan going with Burlington and maybe Grimsby would probably be good for the metro.

It sometimes seems hard to compare U.S. and Canadian Urban Areas/Metro Areas/Congolomerations/whatever, but Rochester's Urban Area is about 700,000 surrounding a city of only about a quarter of a million.

According to this news release from a month back, "the Rochester community saw a 37.4 percent increase in public transit miles traveled per capita from 2005 to 2010...During the same period, Rochester commuters who traveled by car decreased 1.2 percent."

It's possible that Hamilton and Rochester are not a fair comparison (do we have an "international peer group" for our transit system?), but I don't think it's necessarily a fair assumption that HSR is doing better than similar-sized transit systems south of the border.

[LikeHamilton]

Found this video on the benifits modern transit has on Cincinnati.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aYQrMoRjrc

[thistleclub]

Via HamiltonTransit.ca:

There are some sixty new bus shelters planned to be installed through the city of Hamilton, with twenty six of those already installed as of today. The new shelters are being installed as a result of a plan by staff which was brought to a Public Works Committee meeting back on March 18th, 2013. That report recommended installing up to 56 shelters at a budgeted cost of $10,000 per shelter. The transit shelter expansion plan is fully funded from the Transit Provincial Gas Tax Reserve.

The transit shelter expansion program had until 2010 historically been funded through the advertising contract between the City and CBS Outdoor Canada (CBS). However in 2010, the agreement was subject to re-negotiation and was subsequently amended eliminating the requirement for CBS to fund an annual transit shelter expansion of 15 new shelters per year. Consequently, since 2010, there has been no expansion of the transit shelter inventory while the list of requests for new installations has grown substantively.

Council approved the Public Works Committee Report 13-003 that dealt with staff report PW13005 concerning “Transit Bus Shelter Expansion Plan” on March 27th, 2013.


A list of newly installed and planned shelters can be found here.

[LikeHamilton]

From the final approved 2014 city budget.

Transit: $2.7 million deferred

The HSR saw an extra $127,000 in revenue last year and will put off buying new diesel buses and accessibility spending until next year.

$965,000 expenditure

The city is increasing bus presence on the Mountain, adding weekend service along Rymal and Stone Church roads and extending the A Line to the lake. A late amendment Wednesday reduced frequency on Route 44 through Ancaster.

[markbarbera]

Once an hour service on route 44 on evenings and weekends is a terrible decision. The fact that this is a service 'improvement' is embarrassingly ridiculous.

[HillStreetBlues]

Ward 12, your city councillor just successfully negotiated for less service for you.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by markbarbera

Once an hour service on route 44 on evenings and weekends is a terrible decision. The fact that this is a service 'improvement' is embarrassingly ridiculous.

I think almost every city in Canada has been having that type of 'improvement' lately.

[matt602]

Another huge disappointment.

[SteelTown]

City repainting bus-only lane in downtown Hamilton

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilt...lton-1.2605577

It looked like it was gone for a while, but downtown Hamilton’s trial bus-only lane is rising again.

City crews will head out in the next several weeks to redo lines that faded over the winter. The lines let motorists know that the lane stretching along King Street from Mary to New Streets was for buses only.

It caused some confusion, said Coun. Jason Farr of Ward 2. But he hopes that’s over now.

The pilot project runs until October, and it’s been successful so far, he said.

“We were measuring it and it was proving to be successful,” Farr said. “We had lower volumes of traffic. Transit times were better. From the first month to the third month, before the unfortunate weather took over, it was proving itself.”

Police had stopped enforcing the lane, too, because they didn’t feel comfortable issuing tickets when the paint was faded, Farr said. And it made it harder for drivers obeying the lane to turn right through a lane of regular traffic driving in the lane.

The lane has been controversial, drawing the ire of some business owners and motorists. It was a close vote to implement it at council too, with some councillors reporting complaints from residents.

In addition to pavement markets, the lane is marked by overhead signs. Here’s what else the city is doing to the lane:

More diamond markings painted in the lane (three to each block instead of two).
More overhead signage.
More instances of “bus only” painted on the asphalt.
Making the north curb lane at John Street and Bay Street a lane for cyclists.

The pilot project costs $300,000.

[thistleclub]

Originally Posted by markbarbera

Once an hour service on route 44 on evenings and weekends is a terrible decision. The fact that this is a service 'improvement' is embarrassingly ridiculous.

Not a great outcome, but while I am all for increased transit funding, in terms of routes crying out for enhanced service levels, the 44 would probably not be high in my priority sequence.

For the bulk of its route length, the 44 services the old City of Hamilton. Running along the outer edge of the suburbs and dipping down to Eastgate Square, the 44 connects that shopping centre with the Ancaster Business Park, and that trip lasts just over an hour. This includes a tangent along the exurban margin of Ancaster. Redeemer is 2 minutes inside Ward 12, while the Ancaster Business Park, the route's western terminus, is about a 20-minute drive inside ward 12, one way.

The 44 appears to be rationalized based on weekday ridership of workers and students -- it runs on the half-hour roughly 6am-7pm Mon-Fri (except for a blip during the lunch hour when the route only runs from Glancaster to Upper James). While it now runs hourly on weekday evenings (7-9, at least), it does not appear to currently run on Saturdays/Sundays/Holidays.

IBI Group's HSR Operational Review (2010) found that the 44 had the third lowest farebox recovery ratio, and the worst of any crosstown route, with an average afternoon (3-7pm) boarding of 80 passengers and average of 2.8 passengers per bus (far below the city-wide average of 12 per). And that data was derived from weekdays during the school year (though before the introduction of Redeemer's U-Pass program or the expansion of the business park).

Time for another operational review so we can deal in fresh data.

[HillStreetBlues]

Originally Posted by thistleclub

Not a great outcome, but while I am all for increased transit funding, in terms of routes crying out for enhanced service levels, the 44 would probably not be high in my priority sequence.

I guess that scarce resources for transit are better used alleviating over-crowding on the buses on the B Line, but I think it’s important to encourage new riders in more suburban parts of the city. Half-hourly service is insufficient to convince someone to take the bus who has another choice, and hourly service on evenings and weekends guarantees that no one who has any choice will ever take the bus: missing one when the next is not due for an hour is devastating.

The areas south of Rymal are experiencing rapid growth. People new to the area will quickly fall in to habits of getting around, and as soon as those habits are formed, they are hard to shake. Currently, people move to the area and can quickly surmise- accurately- that HSR service is pretty terrible. Their habits will be built around that assumption, and they won’t break those habits just because service is incrementally improved.

If, on the other hand, the 44 were to pass by every twenty minutes, and run half-hourly on weekends as well, they might surmise that it’s not that bad and can be useful for some trips. And they’ll be in a better position to observe improvements in service in the future and increase their use of transit accordingly.

The very worst bus lines in the city for farebox recovery are the local routes in Dundas, Ancaster, and Waterdown. It’s pretty easy to see why the Ancaster Local doesn’t have high ridership as it both has poor frequency and doesn’t go anywhere- to get anywhere using it, you need to make an inconvenient connection. Waterdown is just for shuttling people to Go.

Dundas is the very worst (1.6%!) and, if farebox recovery is important, why isn’t that route scrapped entirely? Ridership is not likely to improve there as there is little development along the route. At least with 44 Rymal, there is development and likely future development, so we can expect ridership to increase if proper investments are made.

[thistleclub]

Originally Posted by HillStreetBlues

I guess that scarce resources for transit are better used alleviating over-crowding on the buses on the B Line, but I think it’s important to encourage new riders in more suburban parts of the city. Half-hourly service is insufficient to convince someone to take the bus who has another choice, and hourly service on evenings and weekends guarantees that no one who has any choice will ever take the bus: missing one when the next is not due for an hour is devastating.

The areas south of Rymal are experiencing rapid growth. People new to the area will quickly fall in to habits of getting around, and as soon as those habits are formed, they are hard to shake. Currently, people move to the area and can quickly surmise- accurately- that HSR service is pretty terrible. Their habits will be built around that assumption, and they won’t break those habits just because service is incrementally improved.

If, on the other hand, the 44 were to pass by every twenty minutes, and run half-hourly on weekends as well, they might surmise that it’s not that bad and can be useful for some trips. And they’ll be in a better position to observe improvements in service in the future and increase their use of transit accordingly.

The very worst bus lines in the city for farebox recovery are the local routes in Dundas, Ancaster, and Waterdown. It’s pretty easy to see why the Ancaster Local doesn’t have high ridership as it both has poor frequency and doesn’t go anywhere- to get anywhere using it, you need to make an inconvenient connection. Waterdown is just for shuttling people to Go.

Dundas is the very worst (1.6%!) and, if farebox recovery is important, why isn’t that route scrapped entirely? Ridership is not likely to improve there as there is little development along the route. At least with 44 Rymal, there is development and likely future development, so we can expect ridership to increase if proper investments are made.

I agree that in principle, council should be prepared to meet the 2004 baseline service guidelines of 20-minute headways, system-wide. The problem is that they're not really willing to do much more than fund the status quo.

Increased service levels can be addressed, to a certain extent, through operational efficiencies (such as the retirement of the 5B University Plaza line). But without capital or operational wherewithal to add buses, the HSR will just end up redistributing service -- meaning that well-served areas will gear down and crush loads will become more commonplace so that spacious buses can patrol the hinterlands trying to lure drivers away from their cars. Some would argue that this is exactly what has happened since amalgamation. But successfully converting drivers is not just about headway: The 44 takes 40 minutes to get from Glancaster and Garner to Eastgate, a distance that a car can make (according to GoogleMaps) in under half that time.

I suspect that the HSR's maintenance of underwhelming local routes in Dundas, Ancaster, and Waterdown comes down to the service guideline of having service within 400-meter walking distance of 90% of the population. If that's the case, performance isn't as important as geographic coverage. There may be a related funding variable in play as well. I'm not really up on those mechanisms.

FWIW, the 44 was one of eight routes identified in the 2010 Operational Review as having 30-minute-plus headways. In fact, the 44 operates below the 1996 service guidelines, which are 30-minute headway Mon-Sat (6am-12am) and 60-minutes headway on Sundays (6am-6pm). That said, the 1996 service guidelines also mandate a minimum farebox recovery ratio of 30% in order for a route to be considered for more than basic 30-minute Mon-Fri rush-hour-only service.

One loophole is that the 2004 service standards are different in Ancaster than Hamilton (again from the IBI review): "Feeder route operates 60-minute headway in base period; no evening service Mon-Wed; no Sunday/Holiday service."

Another is that those are unofficial system guidelines. The amalgamated suburbs appear to have no official service guidelines.

[markbarbera]

This needs to change. This should be made an issue for the mayoral candidates to address during the upcoming campaign.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by thistleclub

The problem is that they're not really willing to do much more than fund the status quo.

Exactly.

Which is why the anti-LRT argument about investing in transit across the "whole" city instead rings hollow with me. When it comes down to making the specific decisions on investing in improved service in certain areas, I think the same types of Ferguson-esque positions will come out (even if transit is no longer area-rated by that time)

[mishap]

Originally Posted by thistleclub

For the bulk of its route length, the 44 services the old City of Hamilton.

The old city only makes up about 9.5 km of the total 31 km length of route 44, and that's all along the mountain. A small portion of maybe 500 m runs along the Hamilton/ Stoney Creek boundary in the lower city. Still, that is not quite a third of the total. Another third belongs to Stoney Creek, but a third of that borders Glanbrook. That leaves the final third squarely in Ancaster.

I can see why they're reluctant to expand service in Ancaster. Under Area Rating, transit service is billed by miles travelled, and Ancaster has the most miles of route 44 to travel. When you calculate that on a per-household basis, it is probably costing Ancaster ten times as much as Hamilton to provide that service, with large portions of the corridor undeveloped, and far fewer transfer opportunities than in Hamilton. Better that some of the money went to providing Sunday service on the 16. Unfortunately, that's not happening either...

IBI Group's HSR Operational Review (2010) found that the 44 had the third lowest farebox recovery ratio, and the worst of any crosstown route, with an average afternoon (3-7pm) boarding of 80 passengers and average of 2.8 passengers per bus (far below the city-wide average of 12 per). And that data was derived from weekdays during the school year (though before the introduction of Redeemer's U-Pass program or the expansion of the business park).

The IBI numbers for route 44 are completely useless now. The route as studied in 2008-09 only went from Glancaster to Pritchard, in other words, only from one end of old Hamilton to the other, plus space needed to get turned around. The route 44 we know now debuted in fall of 2009, after the study, but before IBI submitted their report. Redeemer students wouldn't use the 44; they had to shuttle out just to reach it.

Given how big a change there was, that route should have been re-examined. As it was, IBI actually recommended no service east of Upper Wentworth. Talking to drivers, that is exactly where the majority of ridership is found, and there is more growth coming in that direction. That was known in 2009, but not reflected in the report. Some of IBI's findings are interesting, but reading the report, you can tell they did not really familiarize themselves with the system or the city.

80 riders per bus per afternoon? The buses that pass Bishop Ryan or St Thomas More (EB) after dismissal could now get 80 riders over the length of the trip. Rymal buses can go on passby in these areas, and there are even extras out on Rymal for bell times. Sure, these numbers would drop a lot after the school rush, but 2.8 passengers isn't even close to an accurate number any more. A bus will leave Eastgate with more than that. At many times during the day, a bus will leave the Ancaster Industrial Park with more than that.

Time for another operational review so we can deal in fresh data.

They definitely need updated numbers. With more houses and one more high school coming to Rymal Road, I would not be surprised to see ridership on the 44 surpass that of the 43.