innsertnamehere said:
The original LRT plans had some traffic configuration changes which have since been dropped - i.e. originally the plan was to take York St and convert it back to 3-lanes westbound to try to make up for King St disappearing, which has now been dropped.

Generally there has just been a complete information vacuum on the LRT for going on almost a decade now that desperately needs to be backfilled. Unfortunately, Metrolinx is absolutely terrible at releasing information.
Click to expand...
I really think they're waiting for the city to suggest whether they want public or private O&M. The RFP will need to include that most likely and Metrolinx doesn't want to look like it's moving forward without the city's input even if they do what they want anyway. The city deferring the decision, and now likely cancelling the deferral meeting because of the Cyber security issue is so typical Hamilton, which is likely delaying Metrolinx even further.
 
Fencing around the trees, relocating traffic lights with construction cones and signs for watermain relocating starting soon before major LRT work happens.
IMG_2270.JPG
 
Eglinton West LRT extension RFQ issued, still no word on the B-Line RFQ, just more stories about evictions and demolitions.

Hamilton continues to take a back seat to GTA transit projects (including a highway!).

And in case anyone needed any reassurance as to why the City of Hamilton / HSR must not run whatever rapid transit we end up with in a decade, please read this report from The Public Record:

COLEMAN: HSR is Hiring More Consultants, Which Begs the Question, Why?

HSR has 50 managers, project managers, and staff in transit planning, innovation, support, and innovation - why does it need more consultants.
www.thepublicrecord.ca www.thepublicrecord.ca


This isn’t about Public vs Private (as the unions want you to believe), it’s Competence vs Incompetence.

Hamilton and HSR has proven themself incapable of running a basic bus network, nevermind a serious rapid transit system.
 
Chris R. said:
I really think they're waiting for the city to suggest whether they want public or private O&M. The RFP will need to include that most likely and Metrolinx doesn't want to look like it's moving forward without the city's input even if they do what they want anyway. The city deferring the decision, and now likely cancelling the deferral meeting because of the Cyber security issue is so typical Hamilton, which is likely delaying Metrolinx even further.
Click to expand...

I’m not sure the City is 100% to blame for this decade+ delay, however the City’s laziness is a huge factor in Metrolinx dragging its heels and putting other projects ahead of this one (ie MCC Loop + Brampton Extension).

Hamilton is very unserious about public transit and has no drive to see this complete in a timely manner. The City invested $0.00 into this project, so there’s no incentive to move forward quickly to cash in on any ROI public transit investment brings.

Had the City invested even 10-20%, there would be public pressure from local taxpayers to get moving!


This is the only mention of Hamilton LRT in the 2024 Ontario Budget (keeping in mind these ‘studies and consultations’ started in ~ 2009):
  • Hamilton LRT: Due diligence work is currently underway related to matters such as subsurface investigations. In addition, engagement with Indigenous communities is also ongoing.
source: https://budget.ontario.ca/2024/chapter-1a.html#section-1
 
DC83 said:
I’m not sure the City is 100% to blame for this decade+ delay, however the City’s laziness is a huge factor in Metrolinx dragging its heels and putting other projects ahead of this one (ie MCC Loop + Brampton Extension).

Hamilton is very unserious about public transit and has no drive to see this complete in a timely manner. The City invested $0.00 into this project, so there’s no incentive to move forward quickly to cash in on any ROI public transit investment brings.

Had the City invested even 10-20%, there would be public pressure from local taxpayers to get moving!


This is the only mention of Hamilton LRT in the 2024 Ontario Budget (keeping in mind these ‘studies and consultations’ started in ~ 2009):
  • Hamilton LRT: Due diligence work is currently underway related to matters such as subsurface investigations. In addition, engagement with Indigenous communities is also ongoing.
source: https://budget.ontario.ca/2024/chapter-1a.html#section-1
Click to expand...
to be clear I would be very surprised if the Brampton Line 10 extension happens before the Hamilton LRT.

Metrolinx just has a very lethargic procurement process which the Hamilton LRT is slowly working it's way through. The Brampton LRT extension will have to go through that same process. Like Hurontario and Finch, once the contract is signed, things should move like gangbusters. This project is going to feel like it's going nowhere until suddenly one day it seems like it's flying.
 
DC83 said:
Eglinton West LRT extension RFQ issued, still no word on the B-Line RFQ, just more stories about evictions and demolitions.

Hamilton continues to take a back seat to GTA transit projects (including a highway!).

And in case anyone needed any reassurance as to why the City of Hamilton / HSR must not run whatever rapid transit we end up with in a decade, please read this report from The Public Record:

COLEMAN: HSR is Hiring More Consultants, Which Begs the Question, Why?

HSR has 50 managers, project managers, and staff in transit planning, innovation, support, and innovation - why does it need more consultants.
www.thepublicrecord.ca www.thepublicrecord.ca


This isn’t about Public vs Private (as the unions want you to believe), it’s Competence vs Incompetence.

Hamilton and HSR has proven themself incapable of running a basic bus network, nevermind a serious rapid transit system.
Click to expand...
So while I appreciate the efforts of those to keep transit public, and I think it should be one day. I have come around to the idea of having a private operator for the first 10 years. I think it's worked well in Kitchener, and should be a model used moving forward. I think this should occur in Hamilton or more generally for a few reasons:

1) As mentioned, Hamilton can barely maintain it's current transit system. This comes from a lack of funding, but also general incompetency. I don't trust HSR at the moment to successfully operate a multi-billion LRT system.

2) I have concerns about the P3 model or other models where the private consortium has incentives to not complete a project well. Maybe I'm way off-base here, but it seems when the company that builds the LRT also has to operate the system afterward and deal with issues and receiving fines, they seem to build the system better and more efficiently. Alternatively, systems where the builder gets to hand the keys to the city and disappear seem to have nonstop issues because the consortium that built it gets to wipe their hands of the issues. For this reason alone, I like the private O&M model for a temporary time. I think of a house flipper versus someone renovating their house to live in. The latter seem to do things properly because they have to deal with issues after the renovation.


I'd just like to see it get started. It's gonna be a tough 5 years during construction and it will feel like it takes forever. We've all been waiting forever to get started and I'd like to see shovels in the ground asap.
 
The fact that it's taking this long to get construction on the Hamilton LRT going shows that the province isnt really that serious about this project. Early works have literally just started even though this project has been on the books for a long, long time (well minus the time the province held the project hostage by cancelling it to wait for Federal funding). Meanwhile the Ontario Line has mobilized early works in relatively quick fashion, despite not having as much planning done on it compered Hamilton LRT.

As for who should operate the LRT, i'm in agreement that it should not be the HSR. This is one of the most ineptly run transit systems I have ever used/seen, and they arent even capable of running in any kind of reliable service. The fact that they are still actively scheduling routes in the Main/King corridor to run in bunches instead of spreading service evenly shows that they dont know what in the hell they are doing. But I will give them credit for finally re-thinking the entire network and re-arranging/re-routing routes across the city, it's something that should've been done a decade ago but we'll have to wait until the LRT is completed (whenever that will be) to see that come to fruition.
 
To keep things on topic, I'm moving the conversation with @Chronamut here:
I'd be more interested if the lrt wasn't just a fast lane for mcmaster students to shave a few minutes off to go to.. eastgate?
Click to expand...

It's a bit reductive to call the LRT a McMaster student shuttle to Eastgate.

1) Who says anyone is going from end to end? I'd guess fewer than 10% of McMaster students will ever go to Eastgate on any mode of transportation.

2) This shows a fundamental misunderstanding many have about transit projects, which is that the terminus need to be something "important". While McMaster is important, Eastgate isn't, and so the LRT is going "nowhere". I'd argue, places are important for a transit context dependent on where people are. Eastgate is one of the busiest transit connections in the city, and so it makes sense for the LRT to extend to there, same as the current B-Line. You could say the Barton St bus doesn't go anywhere either. People don't just use transit do go from end to end and damn the stops in the middle. That's car-oriented thinking.

3) People are using the B-Line and it is at capacity. The LRT is marginally faster end to end, but few will notice a significant speed increase outside of rush hour when LRT will be able to bypass traffic congestion. The LRT is a higher capacity transit system. Much like a highway being widened when it's at capacity (one can argue the merits of whether this accomplishes anything) and transit system doesn't just get more buses, it fully changes it's approach. Small bus, becomes big bus, becomes greater frequency, becomes at capacity, becomes LRT, becomes higher frequency LRT, becomes metro system, becomes heavy rail.
 
Chris R. said:
To keep things on topic, I'm moving the conversation with @Chronamut here:


It's a bit reductive to call the LRT a McMaster student shuttle to Eastgate.

1) Who says anyone is going from end to end? I'd guess fewer than 10% of McMaster students will ever go to Eastgate on any mode of transportation.

2) This shows a fundamental misunderstanding many have about transit projects, which is that the terminus need to be something "important". While McMaster is important, Eastgate isn't, and so the LRT is going "nowhere". I'd argue, places are important for a transit context dependent on where people are. Eastgate is one of the busiest transit connections in the city, and so it makes sense for the LRT to extend to there, same as the current B-Line. You could say the Barton St bus doesn't go anywhere either. People don't just use transit do go from end to end and damn the stops in the middle. That's car-oriented thinking.

3) People are using the B-Line and it is at capacity. The LRT is marginally faster end to end, but few will notice a significant speed increase outside of rush hour when LRT will be able to bypass traffic congestion. The LRT is a higher capacity transit system. Much like a highway being widened when it's at capacity (one can argue the merits of whether this accomplishes anything) and transit system doesn't just get more buses, it fully changes it's approach. Small bus, becomes big bus, becomes greater frequency, becomes at capacity, becomes LRT, becomes higher frequency LRT, becomes metro system, becomes heavy rail.
Click to expand...
Aiming for the stars are we.. I honestly just feel like they went to europe and other cities in canada and the states said "oh look what is working over there" and decided to tear up half the city end to end to try to build it here.

so what do mcmaster people want to experience on the east end out of curiosity? Or in the stretch between? Not trying to sound ignorant but I am not a mac guy so I have no idea what theyd come down to this end for - and of course its not just mac people I realize that - its an end to and range - but what is their plan for all the major stops for amenities for people to go to?

The question becomes do we actually need it? And how much more benefit will it add vs detriment in its birth? We're cramming a buncha more people into the city which means by the time its actually done itll already be obsolete in its congestion relieving (if it can even be considered that) mitigation. That and during its construction it will negatively impact all the businesses along here that exist, and has caused many to have to relocate already - if we're not careful we're gonna turn that stretch into another barton or cannon st..

but hey, I suppose everything has to start somewhere.

I think a lot of us just feel it's a waste. Yes the buses are crammed full of people, so just get.. more buses. Or do this and get tha asian country sweeper people to cram as many people into them as possible when the doors open lol.. I think its mainly optics - people think of buses and think of the scum of hamilton, but somehow in their mind the ltr sounds fancy and modern and new - but itll have the same scum.. the same shrieking people, the same smelly unkempt people.. you can't solve hamiltons problems without first solving the problems that have made hamiltonians into.. hamiltonians..
 
Last edited:
Chronamut said:
Aiming for the stars are we.. I honestly just feel like they went to europe and other cities in canada and the states said "oh look what is working over there" and decided to tear up half the city end to end to try to build it here.

The question becomes do we actually need it? And how much more benefit will it add vs detriment in its birth? We're cramming a buncha more people into the city which means by the time its actually done itll already be obsolete in its congestion relieving (if it can even be considered that) mitigation.

I think a lot of us just feel it's a waste. Yes the buses are crammed full of people, so just get.. more buses. Or do this and get tha asian country sweeper people to cram as many people into them as possible when the doors open lol..
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting we build a metro system?

Buses have an upper limit and we are at of near that limit. If you have headways of buses under 5 minutes, you basically just have buses bunching and it doesn't work anymore. Not to mention congestion. Without a separated track, the bus system downtown will have dozens of buses next to each other, stalled in traffic.

So if the solution is to separate the system, you can built a BRT. The issue being the operating costs are higher, as articulated buses can still only hold around 70-80 people each, which means you need many more buses, and therefore drivers. You still run into the capacity limit though, where in 5 or 10 years the BRT will be at capacity because with reduced parking minimums to encourage a better modal split as the roads also have capacity, you end up with tens of thousand of people in a BRT system that is jammed with people and has brutal boarding slow downs. LRT solves much of this by being slightly higher capacity than Hamilton needs right now or for probably a few decades at least. It also has the ability to have more access points (doors) which can speed up boardings and reduce time at stations.

LRT trains can handle up to 450 people each, which is likely enough until at least 2060. It may never hit capacity, and what's more likely is higher frequency of the LRT or a parallel system on Main St or Cannon in the late 21st century at most.

If Hamilton is serious about transit ridership, LRT is a must. And it should be serious, because in 10 or 20 years if everyone that moves to Hamilton only gets around by car, it will take 90 minutes to get across the city.

I expect the modal split of Hamilton to trend heavily toward transit following the LRT construction and the HSR new plan.
 
Chris R. said:
Are you suggesting we build a metro system?

Buses have an upper limit and we are at of near that limit. If you have headways of buses under 5 minutes, you basically just have buses bunching and it doesn't work anymore. Not to mention congestion. Without a separated track, the bus system downtown will have dozens of buses next to each other, stalled in traffic.

So if the solution is to separate the system, you can built a BRT. The issue being the operating costs are higher, as articulated buses can still only hold around 70-80 people each, which means you need many more buses, and therefore drivers. You still run into the capacity limit though, where in 5 or 10 years the BRT will be at capacity because with reduced parking minimums to encourage a better modal split as the roads also have capacity, you end up with tens of thousand of people in a BRT system that is jammed with people and has brutal boarding slow downs. LRT solves much of this by being slightly higher capacity than Hamilton needs right now or for probably a few decades at least. It also has the ability to have more access points (doors) which can speed up boardings and reduce time at stations.

LRT trains can handle up to 450 people each, which is likely enough until at least 2060. It may never hit capacity, and what's more likely is higher frequency of the LRT or a parallel system on Main St or Cannon in the late 21st century at most.

If Hamilton is serious about transit ridership, LRT is a must. And it should be serious, because in 10 or 20 years if everyone that moves to Hamilton only gets around by car, it will take 90 minutes to get across the city.

I expect the modal split of Hamilton to trend heavily toward transit following the LRT construction and the HSR new plan.
Click to expand...

Thats why many of us use the sherman cut - bypass all of that entirely.

honestly? Maybe we NEED a metro system - we have an 1800s styled city that is trying to meet hundreds of thousands of immigrants being shoveled into it - anything we build is gonna reach capacity. We're building mdus like crazy like never before in hamiltons history - of course things are gonna reach max capacity. Perhaps the city should have thought about its already crumbling infrastructure before they decided to just pour people into it like fish in a sardine can..

you can at least mitigate the issue UNTIL the lrt is built by having more buses - which god knows how long its gonna take at this rate..

Hamilton is still a car city, and its gonna be a long time before those who are used to moving around like that warm up to the idea of taking transit to cross the city.
 
Chris R. said:
It's a bit reductive to call the LRT a McMaster student shuttle to Eastgate.

1) Who says anyone is going from end to end? I'd guess fewer than 10% of McMaster students will ever go to Eastgate on any mode of transportation.

2) This shows a fundamental misunderstanding many have about transit projects, which is that the terminus need to be something "important".
Click to expand...
I completely agree. These arguments tend to be made either in bad faith or due to a lack of understanding.

Glossing over all of the intermediate stops in a line is pretty egregious. McMaster students travelling downtown is an obvious trip, as is McMaster staff travelling from their homes in Central Hamilton to their work (McMaster is the city's largest employer). Plus all of the other combinations of trips: Central to downtown, Central to Eastgate, etc.

The other thing people tend to ignore is that a transit line does not stand alone, it is part of a network. The LRT will not only be used for origin+destinations that are both directly on the line. The Hamilton LRT would be the trunk of the HSR network and a big chunk of the trips would be from people transferring to and/or from buses.
 
blaixx said:
I completely agree. These arguments tend to be made either in bad faith or due to a lack of understanding.

Glossing over all of the intermediate stops in a line is pretty egregious. McMaster students travelling downtown is an obvious trip, as is McMaster staff travelling from their homes in Central Hamilton to their work (McMaster is the city's largest employer). Plus all of the other combinations of trips: Central to downtown, Central to Eastgate, etc.

The other thing people tend to ignore is that a transit line does not stand alone, it is part of a network. The LRT will not only be used for origin+destinations that are both directly on the line. The Hamilton LRT would be the trunk of the HSR network and a big chunk of the trips would be from people transferring to and/or from buses.
Click to expand...
Using the term trunk makes a lot of sense actually. Like a tree, should we not build a strong trunk to hold more branches? The leaves of course being people.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top