Raise the Hammer

Fyi, minor note, a recent open letter by Metrolinx Chair, Robert Prichard to province mentions need to get on with priority next wave project, and lists Hamilton's LRT as one of them. Letter can be found on the Metrolinx website.

I’m not going to suggest I think that economic development is not within the purview of a municipal government. A vibrant and prosperous core benefits city residents, even those who never visit it. It is in a lot of cases worth public investment to achieve and maintain that.

That having been said…are we talking about transit, or economic development? I guess it’s both. You can have excellent transit using buses. A lot of places achieve this. Gill says that you can provide comparable service with BRT as LRT, and he’s right: it can provide frequent service between civilized stations where boarding is quick because platforms are raised and fares have been collected at station entrances rather than the door to the vehicle. It can still be flexible in ways in which rail cannot: if a bus breaks down in the bus right-of-way, other buses can temporarily bypass it in mixed traffic; if called for, vehicles can proceed past the line’s terminus to serve local routes. I don’t think he’s wrong about those things, and I don’t think they are contradictory as claimed.

The issue has been studied, and LRT was the choice. It was not the choice exclusively because it serves riders better, however: it was also the choice because it is believed that it will spur economic development. It seems like there is plenty of evidence to support that. I would suggest, however, that much of the positive impact of the benefit of that would accrue to property owners along the line.

I would also suggest that those are the people who should pay for LRT, or more specifically the difference in cost between BRT and LRT. I say this as someone who lives along the line: the most appropriate way to fund LRT would be an aggressive capture tax on the unearned value increase on properties near the LRT, or some kind of special assessment. This is assuming that BRT can provide excellent transit service (I don’t really think anyone believes it can’t), and that the incremental investment in LRT is for sound reasons of economic development, as seems to be the case.

“The people now lining up to push BRT over LRT, including mayoral contender Brad Clark, don't actually promise they would support the $300 million or so it would take to build it…” You are dead right here, and this is the real problem. There seem to be no real transit advocates around here, whose goals are strictly to provide better service. A lot of these BRT “proponents” right now are those who want no rapid transit at all, as you say.

I find this to be an unfortunate situation: if we want better transit, evidently we have to disingenuously claim that buses are just plain no good. Meanwhile, all of the city’s transit users ride buses and most will continue to do so once LRT is built on the B Line. There are a lot of parts of the city where BRT would be an appropriate choice, and should be funded now, and it may be very hard to make that argument after spending years being negative about BRT.

Not about being negative about BRT. Question is what is best option. We always want best possible option, which for B-line is clearly LRT. Sure, best options tend to cost more, and we should be willing to pay, as worth it in the long run, hence best option.

Two key Mississauga transit improvements — the new Mississsauga Transitway and the Clarkson GO Station parking lot — are facing further delays to completion schedules that had already been extended.

thestar.com/news/gta/transportation/2014/05/05/mississauga_transit_projects_brt_and_clarkson_parking_structure_face_new_delays.html

I would suggest, however, that much of the positive impact of the benefit of that would accrue to property owners along the line.

This doesn't make much sense to me. The reason properties on rapid transit lines like subways are more valuable is because people want to use them more. Rents may increase, but that will be a result of people wanting to live there. Retail/commercial space may become more valuable and see more lucrative leases because the properties will be better spots for business. If property values go up, its a reflection primarily on the fact that people want to be there more. To me, that means everyone wins.

Anybody advocating a BRT system should be required to explain in detail what exactly they mean by "BRT". I'd wager most of them think "add a bus-lane on Main, increase frequency on B-line, and put up a few more bus-shelters" qualifies as BRT.

Sure, best options tend to cost more

Even this is debatable as the lifecycle costs are very different, and considering that even BRT proponents are suggesting that we would possibly want to upgrade to LRT later. The cost of building BRT now and then disrupting it to build LRT later will most likely be higher than the cost of just building LRT straight away.

Useful numbers for the bus LRT debate.

http://www.railforthevalley.com/latest-n...

The following is from the Light Rail Transit Associations hand book Light Rail Transit Today, comparing the operating parameters of bus, light rail, and metro on an unimpeded 8 kilometre route with stations every 450 metres. Using real data based on acceleration, deceleration, dwell time, etc., the study gives real time information for the three transit modes.

Please note: This study has been abridged for brevity and clarity. The study assumes a vehicle capacity for a bus at 90 persons; LRT 240 persons (running in multiple unit doubles capacity); and metro at 1000 persons.

The time to over the 8 km. route would be:

Bus – 22.4 minutes
LRT – 18 .6 minutes
Metro – 16.3 minutes

The Round trip time, including a 5 minute layover:

Bus – 54.8 minutes
LRT – 47.2 minutes
Metro – 42.6 minutes

The comparative frequency of service in relation to passenger flows would be:

At 2,000 persons per hour per direction:

Bus – 2.7 minute headways, with 22 trips.
LRT – 7.5  minute headways, with 8 trips.
LRT (2-car) – 15 minute headways, with 4 trips.
Metro – 30 minute headways, with 2 trips.

At 6,000 pphpd:

1 Bus – 0.9 minute headways, with 67 trips.
LRT – 2.4 minute headways, with 17 trips.
LRT (2-car) – 4.8 minutes, with 13 trips.
Metro – 10 minute headways with 6 trips.

At 10,000 pphpd:

Bus – 30 second headways, with 111 trips (traffic flows above 10,000 pphpd impractical).
LRT – 1.4 minute headways, with 42 trips.
LRT (2 car) – 2.8 minute headways, 21 trips
Metro – 6 minute headways, 10 trips.

At 20,000 pphpd:

LRT – 0.7 minute headways, with 83 trips.
LRT (2 car) – 1.4 minute headways, with 42 trips.
Metro – 3 minute headways, with 20 trips.

Comparative Staff Requirements on vehicles in relation to passenger flows. Station staff in brackets ().

At 2,000 pphpd:

Bus – 21 (0)
LRT – 7 (0)
LRT (2 car) – 4 (0)
metro – 2 (up to 38)

At 6,000 pphpd:

Bus – 61 (0)
LRT – 20 (0)
LRT (2 car) – 10 (0)
Metro – 5 (up to 38)

At 10,000 pphpd:

Bus – 110 (traffic flows above 10,000 pphpd impractical) (0).
LRT – 34 (0)
LRT (2 car) – 17 (0)
Metro – 8 (up to 38)

At 20,000 pphpd:

LRT – 69 (0)
LRT (2 car) – 34 (0)
Metro – 15 (up to 38)

Quickly into reading this article, I made the assumption that Dreschel only wrote it to generate page views directed via Raise the Hammer.

I'm guessing writers block is the culprit here.

what happens if the rail line is blocked. stalled train, car, fire, police investigation? the rail system comes to a complete stop, for many hours. a bus can take a detour and the system keeps moving.
I still can't figure out why Hamilton needs rapid transit in the first place. is there a large group of people in Stoney creek that would go to Mc Master if they could make it there 10 min faster than they can now?

I guess that last problem is unavoidable in that it can be hard to explain the quality of something except in contrast with something else. Wasn’t this article about how much better LRT is than BRT? Aren’t they all? I don’t think you can deny that at least some people are in favour of LRT because it is "sexy" and because they feel that so-called “choice riders” don’t like buses.

Question: does rail service that offers the same service level as bus service attract more ridership? Why would that be? I can’t see that being the case at all, and it continues to be true that much of the argument in favour of LRT is for reasons of economic development, and not (exclusively) one of high quality transit service.

Anyway, I’m really not trying to be argumentative even though it may seem like it. It’s a bit frustrating how much time and energy seems to be devoted in the city to this “big issue” of rapid transit, at the expense of inexpensive incremental improvements that would really improve service. They seem not to be on the radar at all sometimes.

Who benefits when property values go up but the owners of those properties? It’s because demand has gone up which is certainly a good thing, but the property owner is the beneficiary of that. If someone invests in an improvement to his property, and attracts higher rents because of it, that’s certainly a good thing. Should the taxpayer pay to have that individual’s location improved for him?

In the case of improved transit, transit is a public good. If this investment’s intent is improved transit + increased development, I don’t see what’s wrong with asking the beneficiaries of that development from footing part of the bill.

Well... actually yes. And would take a lot of cars off the road.

Depends on a lot of details. Depending on the design, a proper BRT (as compared to "express buses") may not necessarily detour easily, especially if electrified, or in separated lanes. In either of those cases, any accident that blocks the RT line blocks the service.

Emergency vehicles use Tram tracks elsewhere, no reason they can't here. Any emergency that leaves emergency services parked on the tracks, has likely closed the whole road anyway.

I guess the reasoning is, perhaps benefits of faster throughput 99.9% of the time more than outweigh for the fraction of a percent of the time that the road closes due to a major incident?

Comment edited by mikeonthemountain on 2014-05-06 13:46:25

In the rare instances of break-downs, buses would temporarily serve as shuttles. The city would not come to a standstill.

It’s because demand has gone up

And why might the demand go up? The demand for a piece of property would go up when it provides a benefit to its users, meaning people want it more. A residential or commercial property near transit is more valuable / sees higher demand because it is more desirable for residents and businesses to rent or buy - i.e. it benefits those residents and businesses. Why else would they be willing to pay that higher value? We WANT developers to see a profit potential in building new, high-quality buildings in Hamilton, because if that happens people will come to downtown and use those buildings. That IS the economic development process.

I don’t see what’s wrong with asking the beneficiaries of that development from footing part of the bill.

I don't disagree with this, but all I can say is that the mechanism for this would be to implement modern development charges and zoning/taxation policy along the rapid transit corridor so that the city can a) promote well-designed developments, and b) not be stuck losing money on infrastructure to support those developments. The LRT task force has already proposed this by suggesting that if the Province doesn't want to fund all of the LRT they should allow the city to borrow against future increases in tax base that would presumably happen with introduction of LRT.

If the tram is broken down the next tram is also able to push it to a layover area (either mid-route or at the end).

Wait, they do that? Is that a thing?

Yes. Trams can do anything.

They do that in Toronto quite frequently, especially given the fact that the Canadian Light Rail Vehicles that the TTC uses are 40 years old and showing their age. They have couplers behind a detachable piece of the body for use in towing. The TTC also uses short turning trackage to get vehicles off the main route, something that HSR would most likely install in some places as well (it's a common practice in light rail systems).

The entire city doesn't come to a standstill because a vehicle has broken down or because the route is otherwise blocked. The vehicles can be short turned before the blockage with shuttle service around it until it's resolved. Seriously people, it's not like no city has ever attempted to run train cars on the street before. We've been doing it for over a century.

Neat!

Because waffling on a well-developed plan totally worked out for the stadium, right?

I swear, we're going to end up spending a billion rotating Main Street 90 degrees.

Just cede control of B-Line LRT to Metrolinx, let them shoulder all costs (capital/operating) and recoup as they see fit. The HSR/City of Hamilton can keep pace or become bystanders in their own city.

Yeah, but what if the shuttle service breaks down? Then what?!?!?!

A-Line FTW!

Have you seen the MetroBus system in Mexico City? It works fantastically well. I couldn't say how it would compare in terms of intial and ongoing costs versus a LRT line in Hamilton's case, but I wouldn't be heartbroken if we ended up with something like that.

http://www.busandcoach.travel/en/latest_...

Comment edited by bvbborussia on 2014-05-06 22:50:57

So the same Spec columnist who flipped his lid at 800 grand being spent for a protected two-way bike lane is suggesting we throw away millions of $ in research that has already been done and studied the various options? And he seems to be advocating for Hamilton to only accept spending 200mil for a jazzed up bus system instead of fighting for the 800mil for our first line of a world-class LRT system? Like all LRT opponents I've heard so far - he simply doesn't want to spend money on transit. Surely there are more banquet halls we could be building by the airport, or cloverleafs to Walmart, or roundabouts in the middle of nowhere.
Why is the Spec still publishing nonsense from the middle of last century???

btw, this nonsense comment about BRT being 'more flexible' is simply untrue. A true BRT system as promoted by this ex-Hamilton traffic planner (haven't they damaged our city enough?) is just as fixed in it's own lanes with level platform stations etc as an LRT system. A true BRT system is literally the same as LRT except without all the EcDev spinoffs. BRT systems in Bogota or Curibita are in just as much trouble in case of a fire/accident as LRT systems around the world.
If we're going to use possible accident delays as a reason to not build an LRT line, can these same people please fill the Spec letters page with that same rationale the next time a freeway is proposed??
Didn't think so.

That said, I'd love to see a couple of true BRT lines built to connect to the LRT B-line.

Comment edited by jason on 2014-05-06 23:02:55

According to an article in the Hamilton Spectator tonight, current Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne said that Hamilton will receive 100 per cent funding for rapid transit.

Dependent on them actually being re-elected. Same thing we heard years ago.

"Full BRT, in contrast, would not be much cheaper to build than LRT"

This is purposeful misinformation. Bronze BRT would be about 1/3 the cost of LRT. If 1/3 the capital cost is not considered cheaper, than what exactly is?

I will completely agree that conversion of BRT to LRT is fiction. Once BRT is built, it's built.

A minimum of Bronze level BRT is what I define as BRT.

https://go.itdp.org/display/live/The+BRT...

BRT is NOT a jazzed up bus system. This is hyperbole and does not further the discussion.

BRT buses can enter and exit the BRT lane, giving transit planners many options. Buses may be able to enter and use the LRT corridor, however the LRT cannot leave. There are more options.

Studies that get far too easily dismissed here because they are inconvenient state that BRT can spur development just as effectively as LRT. The key to Ec Dev success after any dedicated transit corridor is constructed lies in the zoning changes around the corridor. LRT or BRT, they will both flop without supporting zoning and planning changes.

Well... Ottawa is doing it in some spots AFAIK. I think there is some overlap between the current BRT and the new Confederation line, although the BRT doesn't go into the core.

Since the province wants to pay for 100% of construction, why choose the more expensive operating cost?

"With respect to BRT operating cost, experiences vary due to widely differing labour cost structures. One US study found average operating costs of BRT to be less than that of LRT and metrorail on both a revenue-kilometre and revenue hour basis, despite bus services being more labour-intensive"

http://www.acea.be/uploads/publications/...

Read the report.

Also, let's consider this, we pay both contractors and city employees to preform the exact same work, such as picking up municipal waste. Nothing says that the driver positions for whatever system is installed will be HSR employees. The new system is ripe for a contractor to provide the labour.

And you are once again completely ignoring or dismissing the capital cost differences.

Would this really be the end of the world?

http://old.brt.cl/new-video-explaining-b...

Because every other munipality is also ignoring the capital cost differences and getting full LRT with only the most minimal contribution from the city. iirc Missisauga's LRT is ringing in at 85% of capital cost but their LRT plan is far more expensive than Hamilton's plan, to the point that 100% of Hamilton's capital costs would be substantially less than their 85% contribution to Mississauga's LRT.

Meanwhile, pseudoconservatives have pushed Toronto to move away from LRT plans in favour of more subways, which make the high capital costs of LRT look like bargain-basement prices (conservatives who push for subways over LRT lose the right to call themselves conservatives).

So, with all this money flying out of our tax coffers, why should Hamilton settle for less? Why should Hamilton take one for the team and let other Ontario cities get the best while we settle for the rest? Is Hamilton so well-off that we can afford to be magnanimous with provincial dollars? Do you really want your tax dollars flowing into other cities' transit upgrades while we settle for buses?

Again, its not that BRT is bad, but this is a discussion about downgrading from LRT to BRT; only in that context is BRT a negative. If the province decided that LRT is too expensive and said they would fund BRT or nothing, we LRT supporters would be disappointed but we would support BRT over the nothing, especially since 'nothing' includes leaving King and Main as 4-lane highways. But the province isn't saying they would rather fund BRT because both they and city staff know that LRT is the better option for this application.

Furthermore, in those videos the BRTs shown have many features comparable to LRT such as level boarding, right of way, pre-purchased fares etc... but the videos don't explain why we should do BRT instead of LRT.

I think its clear that we need to be following up with Metrolinx instead of Glen Murray to state our strong preference of LRT over BRT. Mr. Murray has gauranteed 100% capital funding, but sounds like he is saying it is up to Metrolinx and city to determine whether BRT or LRT, though he himself thinks LRT would be best. My advice is to tweet Metrolinx with our questions.

I have listened to Mr. Gill's presentation to GIC and his now notorious "comic sans" power point presentation. It is really a poor presentation that literally makes no sense and is deeply self contradictory. I would like to know who asked him to present this to council and whether we paid for this presentation. It is most disappointing. Millions of dollars have been spent on researching which is the best system for the route in question (B line LRT on King). We have a funding commitment from the province (for what that is worth). Any other proposals at this juncture are simply FUD. This one topic is making me question whether democracy can work at all.

http://tinyw.in/m6hh (powerless point presentation)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfAwOaN8rUg&feature=share (starts at 43:05)

Are the Liberals playing games in this instance, or has Hamilton thrown such a retarded tantrum over this issue, that they don't know what to think?

The only analogy I could think of, is parents trying to buy a car for their teenage child. They'll pay the entire purchase price, the teen just pays for gas. The teen shows such dissatisfaction with any proposals, chooses gas guzzlers, whines and complains about everything, that the parents finally change their mind.

This city deserves, but didn't get, leadership that did the research (which they've already done), and then kept a unified front all the way to implementation. Unfortunate but hopefully not too late to salvage!

You'd think we'd have figured this process out the last time the province tried to dump 9 figures of cash into our laps.

If the city had pushed hard and demanded the LRT we were promised, we'd be near the front of the line... well, we'd probably still be on the hook for $100mill in capital costs or so, but at least then council would have a number they could sit down and hash out.

retarded

Not okay.

your link doesn't work. 404 not found.

Apologies Pxtl! 'Foolish' is a better word I should have chosen. Anyways, this debate still existing, and being so fiery, is perplexing to say the least. I meant no disrespect.

And that means with 3 times the headway for LRT vehicles. The off-peak service interval would then be every 30 to 60 minutes.

Except that you omitted the amortization of capital assets from the "operating cost". Remember, nothing lasts forever. When the vehicles, trackage, substations, etc. are due for replacement, it's going to incur the same capital cost again, and then it may not be the province that foots the bill.

This is also one of the things omitted from the "operating cost" of LRT - the costs of maintaining a fleet of spare buses for occasional LRT disruptions (due to breakdowns, constructions, accidents, etc.) and the extra operators to run the shuttle buses. I'm not even talking about the economic impact and inconvenience of LRT disruptions (if you need an example, look up TTC routes 501, 509, and 510 at this very moment).

Firstly, the capital cost is NOT paid once. It's a long-term cost that the city will incur every 30 or so years.

Secondly, the so-called economic uplift sounds more of a myth. A lot of cities build or upgrade to LRT in areas that are undergoing or have been planned for development or revitalization. In other words, building the LRT is a consequence of the economic development in the area, not the cause of it.

Also,would your position on LRT and BRT be different if the province had not promised to pay for 100% of the capital cost? I can't help but to think that the real reason for the vigorous push for the LRT is to "get even" with other cities that are building various forms of rapid transit with provincial money.

It's not about getting even. It's about taking advantage of provincial support for municipal transit. I suppose by your view, the prudent thing would be for Hamilton to just say "no", so that we instead fund everyone else's systems.

Then we can spend the next 30 years complaining about how no businesses will locate here because they all go to KW, Brantford, Niagara, Toronto instead. At which point we can buy a huge sign on the highway and a fountain in the bay and wonder why it's not attracting any economic development.

Concerned about bad ROI math? Turn your sights on the airport.

The prudent thing is to build what's needed, and a BRT system is perfectly good for Hamilton's case. Among all proposed LRT lines, the B-Line makes the least business case. Some people wanted the LRT only because the province promised it and not because it's the most suitable solution (although they tried to justify it with selective facts).

You're right, years of public discourse, studies and cost benefit analysis holds no weight against the gut feelings of anonymous internet commenters.