micheal_can said:
Lets look at a great system in Canada - Ottawa Transitways. Lets look at another one - York Busway.

Both of those have been or are being replaced with higher order transit. The Busway was replaced by a subway extension and the Transitways are being replaced by LRT.

Lets look at why.

The Busway was replaced even though it is faster than a subway. Yes, you read that right; the busway was faster than the current subway from Downsview to York U. But, the issue becomes peak ridership, which a bus system cannot compete with a Subway.

The Transitways are being replaced by the LRT due to the central transitway being congested. They could ahve simply tunneled that portion, but instead they decided to upgrade the transitways to LRT. IIt has lasted about 30 years, but it still has become too congested. I predict that within the net 25 years, the LRT will eventually be what the city builds, not transitways.

Both of those 2 systems are not lacking ridership. They will grow over time as well.

Having said that, I still feel that the 5 routes; BLAST; that Hamilton is suggesting, should be run as BRT till the province is able to help to upgrade them.

I am not against BRT, but I do not think they are the best answer. They are the cheaper answer.
Click to expand...
You are speaking in absolutist terms in regards to what BRT can or can't do, which I take issue with because it is way more complicated than that and has to have regard to the specific conditions of the transit corridor and transit operations. You say that BRT can't handle high ridership, and yet there are many international examples showing that it can.

1581457106816.png


As you can see, BRT when well designed, surpasses LRT in many ways. Note that this is an outdated source, and some areas where LRT prevails (e.g. vehicle propulsion and vehicle control) are no longer valid due to technological change.
 
44 North said:
A bus every 12sec, and 45k capacity per direction? Are riders dumped in through the roof with a hopper, and ejected out a hole in the floor? How many lanes would something like that need.. I don't think that's the greatest chart.
Click to expand...
Lol, they aren't all being crammed into one bus. Picture many buses and long platforms. Here is an example of Brisbane's busway:


Brisbane's BRT is being upgraded to handle Line 1 subway level volumes with bi-articulated buses. Hamilton doesn't have to worry about that, and can scale down to the appropriate level of service (and scale up as demand grows).
 
micheal_can said:
The Busway was replaced even though it is faster than a subway. Yes, you read that right; the busway was faster than the current subway from Downsview to York U. But, the issue becomes peak ridership, which a bus system cannot compete with a Subway.
Click to expand...
From Sheppard West, and including transfer times, the busway was not at all faster than the subway. The subway takes 7 minutes, the transfer from Sheppard West to the bus terminal takes at least 3.
WislaHD said:
You are speaking in absolutist terms in regards to what BRT can or can't do, which I take issue with because it is way more complicated than that and has to have regard to the specific conditions of the transit corridor and transit operations. You say that BRT can't handle high ridership, and yet there are many international examples showing that it can.

View attachment 230566

As you can see, BRT when well designed, surpasses LRT in many ways. Note that this is an outdated source, and some areas where LRT prevails (e.g. vehicle propulsion and vehicle control) are no longer valid due to technological change.
Click to expand...
These numbers are highly fudged and don't make sense here because of drivers' salaries.

The TTC can't even manage a bus that comes every 2 minutes and you expect them to be coming every 12 seconds? If a bus came that frequently on a 10 km route and buses traveled at 20 km/h on average, you'd need 300 operators and buses. That's more than the number of subway CARS (not trains) running on lines 2 and 4 combined (route km of 31 km, so 3* that of the busway).

The subway can theoretically get to every 90 seconds, but Idk of any subway train anywhere (not even NYC) that can regularly hold 2400 passengers.

The vehicle operation costs make no sense at all either. 1 bus revenue km costs 7,800 CAD, and the LRT costs 2.5 times that despite running on electricity and having fewer operators.
Even then, just look at it more closely, if 6 buses come for every LRT vehicle, you're paying for 2.93 * 6 vehicles/hr, or 17.58 * 2000 USD per LRV. In other words, the LRV is more efficient than the bus if it's running 1/2.6 * as frequently as the BRT buses are. If you want train frequencies of every 4-5 minutes, you only need a bus corridor that sees a bus between 1.5 min/bus - 2 min/bus.
 
urbanyimby said:
This thread becomes the sequel to the SSE thread. I sense the same sentiment:
- For SSE: There already is a fully functioning RT, but people want something new and shiny (Subway) despite the steep costs and will justify it no matter what
- For Hamilton: There is nothing wrong with a BRT, but people want new and shiny (LRT) despite the steep costs and will justify it no matter what.
Click to expand...
Exactly
 
It's not just about the shine. It is about the built form. Reducing lanes to create a right of way that isn't simply there to provide exclusive space to rows of buses alters the look, feel, and use of the street. Streetcars or street railways or light rail will survive beyond the combustion engine and perhaps beyond personal vehicles. They reinforce the sense of a community centre or hub in the design and location of stations, which then become centres of intensified development. Planning in the GTA (e.g. Places to Grow) is based around transportation hubs because we've finally learned that the nature of transportation technology and routes doesn't just provide the efficient movement of goods and people between centres of development, it creates them. Cities are now being developed around train stations (for example, Innisfil). The Spadina streetcar right of way revitalized Spadina Ave., which was very run down. The LRT draws development and makes a statement about the direction of the city. We see this in K-W, but Hamilton has a segment of the population that has no real interest in the old city or anything distinctly Hamiltonian. It's just about the house by the Linc with the generic strip mall. Could be anywhere. It's nowhere. It's housing and highways, which is fine enough. The old city, if appreciated and enhanced through good urban planning and transit, is where the opportunity is for Hamilton in my opinion. Walkable, complete neighbourhoods with good transit are the future. Downtown Hamilton had that a century ago. That's what needs to be restored and enhanced.
 
Last edited:
gibsonm said:
It's not just about the shine. It is about the built form. Reducing lanes to create a right of way that isn't simply there to provide exclusive space to rows of buses alters the look, feel, and use of the street. Streetcars or street railways or light rail will survive beyond the combustion engine and perhaps beyond personal vehicles. They reinforce the sense of a community centre or hub in the design and location of stations, which then become centres of intensified development. Planning in the GTA (e.g. Places to Grow) is based around transportation hubs because we've finally learned that the nature of transportation technology and routes doesn't just provide the efficient movement of goods and people between centres of development, it creates them. Cities are now being developed around train stations (for example, Innisfil). The Spadina streetcar right of way revitalized Spadina Ave., which was very run down. The LRT draws development and makes a statement about the direction of the city. We see this in K-W, but Hamilton has a segment of the population that has no real interest in the old city or anything distinctly Hamiltonian. It's just about the house by the Linc with the generic strip mall. Could be anywhere. It's nowhere. It's housing and highways, which is fine enough. The old city, if appreciated and enhanced through good urban planning and transit, is where the opportunity is for Hamilton in my opinion. Walkable, complete neighbourhoods with good transit are the future. Downtown Hamilton had that a century ago. That's what needs to be restored and enhanced.
Click to expand...

While you paint the lifestyles in slightly polarizing shades that I dont agree with, you bring up some great points to support LRT and more importantly bring to light the bigger issue with the outer Hamilton suburbs not feeling the value. The similarity to Toronto the past few decades is that any plan should have been looking to build bridges to mesh these outer areas better when investing at such a high rate as the main objective. This seems to have been missed here as well.

Two sincere questions:

What is Hamilton doing to push for a remotely similar ratio of investment $$ for areas like as Ancaster, Stoney Creek, Flamborough etc?

What is the near term and long plan to connect all of these outer areas to funnel into Hamilton Centre if the plan is to invest heavily to create a bigger commerce hub?

If there is no reasonable answers i'd say there has been a major planning failure, and the politics reflect the polarizing ideologies and having lifestyles pitted instead of transitioning together. I'm all in support of the LRT here, so long as it cant be accomplished in conjunction with connecting, and investing similar in the surrounding areas with far greater detail.

Most suburban area residents take a lot of pride in the greater City they surround as well as their indicidual areas and if they felt they were being connected to that City and/or felt their areas were being invested in somewhat of a fair manner with the greater City i think we'd easily see greater support.
 
Last edited:
OneCity said:
While you paint the lifestyles in slightly polarizing shades that I dont agree with, you bring up some great points to support LRT and more importantly bring to light the bigger issue with the outer Hamilton suburbs not feeling the value. The similarity to Toronto the past few decades is that any plan should have been looking to build bridges to mesh these outer areas better when investing at such a high rate as the main objective. This seems to have been missed here as well.

Two sincere questions:

What is Hamilton doing to push for a remotely similar ratio of investment $$ for areas like as Ancaster, Stoney Creek, Flamborough etc?

What is the near term and long plan to connect all of these outer areas to funnel into Hamilton Centre if the plan is to invest heavily to create a bigger commerce hub?

If there is no reasonable answers i'd say there has been a major planning failure, and the politics reflect the polarizing ideologies and having lifestyles pitted instead of transitioning together. I'm all in support of the LRT here, so long as it cant be accomplished in conjunction with connecting, and investing similar in the surrounding areas with far greater detail.

Most suburban area residents take a lot of pride in the greater City they surround as well as their indicidual areas and if they felt they were being connected to that City and/or felt their areas were being invested in somewhat of a fair manner with the greater City i think we'd easily see greater support.
Click to expand...
Good points. We can see how King/Main is the natural main line to connect all these interesting established communities, and how GO must also play a role, given the distances between some of these settlements, for example Dundas and Stoney Creek. I also agree that an important connection must be made between the lower and upper town. Greater connectivity will help reduce the polarization that concerns you. I’m just tired of seeing the continued abandonment of the downtown by the mountain residents. There are important similarities. Concession Road is a fine village. We need transit on every level: inter-city, between city neighbourhoods, and in the last mile along the community arteries.
 
I don't see why the Mountain needs to be abandoned from the transit debate. It is not at all like the horrendously laid out suburbs of Mississauga, Vaughan, and Markham. It is arrayed in an arterial grid like pattern which is the absolute dream for creating a viable transit network. Even better, there is not an egregious number of cul-de-sacs and the lots are all facing the arterial road with their frontages, rather than their rear, which means the entire Mountain has development potential. There are also a number of trip generators and commercial areas every 1-2km in each direction.

Really, Hamilton is the best location in Canada to develop into a major city, if you look at the urban fabric of both the downtown core and the Mountain suburbs. Still, the Mountain needs serious transit attention. This is what I would do:

Extend the proposed A-line BRT on James Street up the mountain and all the way to the Airport as intended (or at least to Rymal Road).
Plop BRT corridors on Fennal, Mohawk, Stone Church, and Rymal with 5 minute frequencies.

Now you have a viable commute pattern for the entire Mountain where they can travel east-west to James Street and transfer to the LRT to downtown Hamilton employment centre. With that quality level of service, you can expect Scarborough level bus ridership along the corridors. Next, you relax zoning on the arterial roads where the BRT run, as well as along the entire Upper James corridor, and let the market do the rest.
 
urbanyimby said:
This thread becomes the sequel to the SSE thread. I sense the same sentiment:
- For SSE: There already is a fully functioning RT, but people want something new and shiny (Subway) despite the steep costs and will justify it no matter what
- For Hamilton: There is nothing wrong with a BRT, but people want new and shiny (LRT) despite the steep costs and will justify it no matter what.
Click to expand...
Disagree. By an order of magnitude, the LRT makes far more sense for Hamilton, than the subway makes sense for Scarborough.

Before replying, see this post.
asher__jo said:
Exactly
Click to expand...
Nope.

Yes, there's parallels politically. (The cancel-resurrect churn)
But, economically & taxpayer efficiency & ROI, the Hamilton LRT is a massively better investment.

We can debate till the cows go home, but I've already posted the reasons throughout many dozens of pages of this thread. Many agree. You DON'T have to agree, but at least understand why of our point of view.

Before replying, see this post.
 
Last edited:
WislaHD said:
I don't see why the Mountain needs to be abandoned from the transit debate. It is not at all like the horrendously laid out suburbs of Mississauga, Vaughan, and Markham. It is arrayed in an arterial grid like pattern which is the absolute dream for creating a viable transit network. Even better, there is not an egregious number of cul-de-sacs and the lots are all facing the arterial road with their frontages, rather than their rear, which means the entire Mountain has development potential. There are also a number of trip generators and commercial areas every 1-2km in each direction.

Really, Hamilton is the best location in Canada to develop into a major city, if you look at the urban fabric of both the downtown core and the Mountain suburbs. Still, the Mountain needs serious transit attention. This is what I would do:
Click to expand...
In other cities, I've seen plans resurrected as expanded plans that satisfied a larger area = bigger voter base voting for higher-order transit.

One possible initiative to resurrect the LRT -- MAY be to expand the LRT plan somewhat, if 2022-2026 window provides a triple-pitch-in opportunity (Municipal+Provincial+Federal). Who knows? Demographics can change a lot in that time.

1581564350845.png


This plans covers 6 wards instead of 4. An additional 2 city councillors onboard can mean a city may finally be able to vote to end area rating and/or vote to raise bonds for their 1/3 share.

While Hamilton has refused to fund the LRT, but Hamilton did fund the famous 2011 Business Case. Lots of local taxpayer money was spent on THOSE documents that was used to pitch province/Metrolinx to award $1B to Hamilton LRT.

But that does not mean another council (2022 or 2026) might vote on an expanded LRT plan that satisfies a larger number of Amalgamated Hamilton wards.

Now, if you also extend to Dundas, there is a potential 7-ward coverage for a Hamilton LRT plan. Sure, each level will have to pitch over $1B each level, but the demographic changes (population) and climate pressures (slow migration to additional options beyond cars) solves that city council problem (eventually), and the next couple councils later may actually vote to go with a local third pitch-in. Who knows?

The A-Line BRT can still be built to the airport, the A-Line becomes a real LRT serving "Waterfront-GO-GO-Mohawk-StJoe-Limeridge" with a very spetacularly good business case and densification opportunity.

An expanded LRT before 2030 is one of the possibilities of an LRT resurrection, because many Mountain residents were voting against LRT because of a lack of Mountain LRT. Sure, the A-Line is poor density nearer airport, but if you start with the stub -- (A single LRT route that combines the densest A-Line + densest T-Line) -- and you magically solve the Mountain Business Case problem.

Expanded LRT plans have occured after LRT cancellations before (just look at Ottawa, even if they have teething problems).

We can still build BRT-Lite in 2021 in the meantime. I know Hamilton will #BRTcreep down to a cheap BRT. Almost guaranteed. Wasting less of the $1B per route, and saving most of previously approved $3.7B for Hamilton LRT ($1B capital + $2.7B ops/maint that was approved in a leaked document). We can use the leftover $2.7B later in the 2020s for a larger LRT resurrection. Combine that with pitchins and then there's funding for a bigger LRT plan if muni+prov+feds pitch. Hey, it's happened before (look at other cities with expanded resurrected plans).

#BRTcreep is almost guaranteed to occur:
A proper BRT costs almost as much as an LRT.

Fancy high-capacity BRTs like Ottawa Transitway requires more land than LRT. Fewer lanes for cars.

If Ford spends, Hamilton is probably not spending $1B for a proper red-asphalt fully-curbed traffic-dedicated-laned BRT in Hamilton in a semi-trenched BRT-way. Local car owning tax payer locally will not stand for it, and will easily push a few #BRTcreep dominos. It's not easy to erase a traffic lane in Hamilton without a tempting plan such as a fancy all-door level-boarding transit-prioritized metro -- like an LRT or subway.

The Hamilton LRT was practically as subway as you could get without burying, by erasing 75% of intersections along King/Main. Combined with automatic green lights for the LRT vehicles, that would have kept the LRT as fast at peak as offpeak. Hamilton LRT is using the same technique being used for Eglinton Crosstown LRT surface sections.

So it is probably going to be #BRTcreep watered down to a cheaper express bus route (upgraded B-Line + upgraded A-Line), allowing an acceleration of an expanded LRT announcement by 2026-2030 (instead of 2050).

1581564896143.png

1581564922780.png


Bring on the #BRTcreep.

Might as well. BRT and LRT isn't mutually exclusive

At least it'll allow $1B to create a "5-BRTlite" system.
All five B-L-A-S-T routes.

Then after, it'll just accelerate an expanded LRT announcement in less than a decade -- for A-Line and B-Line. Even watered down express bus routes (DO NOT CALL IT A TRUE BRT, Hamilton is NOT getting a TRUE BRT... it's a BRTINO -- BRT in Name Only -- I have lots of info our BRT is a BRTINO).

And by the way, these images are a repost. I posted these images I created years ago, and they've all been shown on the projector in the City Council chambers during the previous administration. (I delegated) And these are only 5% of the images I've created. I'm ready to do a few more rebuttals to the "Hamilton does not deserve an LRT" debate. ;)

_______

But yes, even #BRTcreep'd bus routes are MUCH better than the bus routes we have.

The advantage is the funding gets watered across multiple routes, and we've already got the leaked documents that show the additional opex funding.

Ontario Treasury Board Already Approved 1B capital + 2.7B opex+maintenance for Hamilton LRT. Mississauga got that additional funding (separate of capital funding announcement).

However, for Hamilton the numbers were intentionally distorted by the administration to create the fake "$1B grew to $5B" Hamilton LRT "overrun-in-name-only" to give excuses to unilaterally cancel the Hamilton LRT. Dirty number fudging towards the expensive side, pretending operating/maintenance is part of capital. One of the Hamilton LRT bidders is so mad they are currently auditing the Ford numbers they currently disagree with. That's not even Scarborough drama. See? It's that bad.

Hurontario LRT got same math. Hurontario LRT was announced as $1.6B,. If you include operating/maintenance (annual fees for 30 years) -- it is a $4.6 billion contract. $4.6B out of $1.6B. Cost overrun? No, since $1.6B is capital (to build it), and $3B to operate/maintain it.

Hamilton got unfair treatment to force a cancellaton. The 1B LRT announcement is only capital. But Ford added operating/maintenance in, and gave us an "Overrun In Name Only"' of $1B falsely turning into $5B. Now the Auditor General is investigating.

Anyway, micdrop.

_______

Once the LRT is built, move the spare BRT buses to upgrade the L-Line "BRT-lite", S-Line "BRT-lite", and T-Line "BRT-lite".

Long time posters know this, the non-Hamilton-knowing newbies don't realize how important LRT is to Hamilton -- LRT is more important to Hamilton than subway is important to Scarborough.
(Yes, I'll be attacked by scarborough residents for saying that... but it's true.)

Scarborough is very lucky not to need to delete car lanes
Scarborough is very lucky to have a dedicated transit corridor that can potentially run a subway, or upgraded LRT, or other metro. Hamilton is unlucky enough to need to delete car lanes to get a metro installed locally.
(Yes, I'll be attacked by "Hamilton LRT is not a metro" crowd -- Buy it's already literally 75% metro with alldoor level boarding on subway-length chains of trains + erasure of ~75% of traffic intersections across the middle of road + automatic green light traffic priority for approaching LRT trains at the remaining non-deleted intersections. Our LRT were supposed to be higher capacity and more dedicated than Kitcher-Waterloo ION LRT. Our launch trains were supposed to be almost as long as the Eglinton Crosstown LRT trains. Our LRT is nearly identical to the surface section of Eglinton Crosstown LRT. Some of our main Hamilton LRT stations were going to be slightly bigger than several mid-route surface stations of Eglinton Crosstown LRT.

____

Fair Disclosure To Newbies In This Thread: My spouse ran as a city councillor in Hamilton in 2018, so I have a good passing familiarity with the local politics, and armed with enough behind-the-scenes spidey sense to know the ~50% odds of an LRT resurrection this decade. I was also born in Ottawa. Ottawa cancelled their LRT in 2006. And look at what happened to Ottawa, resurrected with a bigger LRT plan. And Ottawa is not the only city this happened.
(Ok, Ottawa has teething problems -- but that is not universally true for all LRTs!)
 
Last edited:
My one issue with BRT Creep moniker is that I don't think feel that cheaper BRTs like the one in York Region should be singled out as poor examples of transit investment. It's all about having the right tool for the right job.

On the Mountain, a BRT like the VIVA network is an excellent idea, and should be built out as a whole network.

In Downtown Hamilton along the Main Street corridor, the VIVA configuration would be inadequate and not deliver on the rapid transit goals of the LRT. Though I would like to see it tried on Barton Street.

BRT Creep should refer to what happened in Winnipeg, where the proper BRT proposed was whittled down to a service that was a marginal improvement over the previous conventional bus route.
 
VIVA would still be an upgrade!

Yeah, but, sometimes we have to call it like it is -- My problem is that we'll get be thrown a "Here's a BRT" bone and we end up with a simple watered-down, non-traffic-prioritized bus lane semi-shared with cars, and with no curbs. Many residents hear "BRT" and think we're getting a Transitway (not getting that fancy BRT), or think BRT is just an upgraded bus route that still shares car lanes (not even a BRT).

The right tool for the right job is correct, but let's be honest with what kind of bus ugprades we'll get, and not water down whatever bus upgrade that is.

The #yesLRT advocates also wants voters to be involved even if they have to wake them up with a little "BRT creep" education. Huh, what's is a BRT creep? Oh, like an Ottawa Transitway being watered down to a Cancelled Downtown Bus Lane. ;) It catches attention (while staying pragmatic & honest).

Other readers, we've got a well known Cancelled Downtown Bus Lane saga, in case you weren't aware.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top