Raise the Hammer

I'm not quite sure why Jason is pushing the smaller 'modern streetcars' rather than full LRT.

As the photo from Grenoble in Wilson's Spec interview shows, even a long 44m Citadis car can fit into very small streets since it is not very wide (2.4m) and has 7 articulated sections (which allows it to negotiate tight corners). The modern streetcars Jason mentions are 80ft = 24m which is MUCH small than the full-size LRT.

Since operating costs are similar for smaller and larger vehicles (the major cost is the salary of the driver), Hamilton should go for full-size from the start. If a 44m articulated vehicle can fit the narrow winding historic centres of European cities, they can definitely fit Main St!

This is an important point since the 300 passenger capacity we've used at Hamilton Light Rail is based on full-size LRT.

We don't want to make the mistake of building infrastructure for short modern streetcars and then discover that the platforms are not long enough when we need to scale up. Vancouver fell into this trap with skytrain (initially called ALRT: automated light rapid transit). The platforms are not long enough to meet current demand.

Terrific news! I can't wait to ride the LRT in Hamilton!

I know this is early, but is there any chance that the east-west line can somehow be extended to the end of King ST in Dundas and then maybe up Ogilvie or Osler, then back downtown via Main ST?

Just a thought. Anyway, terrific work on the LRT advocating!

some clarification re: modern trams. The Skoda/Inekon vehicles can be built to suit Hamilton's needs. I'm not suggesting we use the small vehicles that Portland is using as their streetcar line.

Here are some examples:

http://www.inekon-trams.com/pento_low-floor_tram_tech_specs.html This tram holds between 215-300 people.

This one holds between 230-324 people: http://www.inekon-trams.com/superior_low...

Here are some more images that I think would be suitable for Hamilton: http://flickr.com/photos/trainplanepro/2...

http://www.inekon.cz/showdoc.do?docid=14...

http://www.skoda.cz/darkblue/produkty.as...

These vehicles are slightly narrower than many LRT vehicles, and are cheaper to construct tracks due to their lighter weight. Yet, they still hold as many passengers.

I agree with kevlahan, if these trains can exist in narrow European streets, we should have no problems here.

Given the City's love of consultants. If ever they decide to hire a consultant for LRT, I'd hope the City would be wise enough to hire someone like Jason Leach, Ryan McGreal, Nicholas Kevlahan, Sean Burak, etc.

^^^

I never thought it was possible for someone to write so much, yet say so little...

Sorry, comment was directed at WRCU2. Not at the original article.

A couple points to respond to WRCU2.

Calgary's LRT runs completely on wind generated power. It is grid connected but the wind turbines installed in this initiative supply more energy to the grid than the LRT takes, so effectively the LRT is wind powered.

Hamilton used to have rail transit that operated on hydro power. The Hamilton, Beamsville and Grimsby Electric Railway switched to hydro after the first hydroelectric generating station was installed in the area.

Electricity may be generated using cleaner methods and the grid will remain the same. Whatever systems we build using electrical energy are adaptable to the energy sources of the future. Any energy source can be converted to, stored and transferred as electricity. The most efficient way to use electricity is to transmit directly through a high voltage grid rather than storing it in batteries or as hydrogen. The future of tranportation is in clean power sources and grid-connected light rail vehicles.

Wind power is not a joke. I was at an international trade show recently and there must have been at least a dozen companies that produced or made material for wind turbines. This is an industry that is growing and developing itself rapidly. It is just slow to catch on over here.

WR:

Regarding your point #1, the choice is BRT (pollution in town for the life of the buses) or LRT (pollution moved externally for now with the capability of the energy source getting greener and greener every year).

We all understand that LRT for now only moves the GHG emissions elsewhere, but at least there is a potential for GHG reductions as greener electricity production technologies spread -- a potential that BRT definitely does not offer. With BRT we are stuck with diesel fumes for 20 more years in a city that routinely gets hit with air quality warnings as it is.

Seems like a valid argument to me still... thoughts?

I think that an LRT in Hamilton is a great idea. I lived in Portland, OR in a ground floor apartment no more than 20 meters from an LRT (they call it The Max in Portland) station and there was no noticeable noise, even when we left our windows open at night in the summer.
My wife and I had a car, but we would regularly ride the Max downtown to go to a baseball, football or basketball game, or just to go downtown to go shopping or out for dinner. Incedentally, our favorite restaurant was steps away from another Max stop downtown. Sometimes, I would hop on the Max just to go down the street to get groceries. While on the Max, we would see all sorts of people, from businessmen to parents with kids, even the elderly rode the Max.
There was also (and still is) plenty of development along the Max line. Businesses are just springing up all over the place. And old neighbourhoods are being restored.
When compaing an LRT to a BRT, here is what I think. I can't recall how many times I rode the Max during my time in Portland, but not once did I ever ride a bus in Portland. Also, I visit my folks in Hamilton on a regular basis and I look forward to the day when the Hammer has an LRT. I would take my kids on it just for the experience, but if they do decide to do a BRT in it's place - forget it.
Finally, there is one thing that I would say about the Max in Portland that I would like to see Hamilton avoid if they were to get an LRT. In Portland, there are new LRT lines springing up everywhere, out to the airport, down to the southern part of town and others too. But, it seems to me that it is all coming at the expense of drivers. There has been very little invested back into roads or highways in Portland in the last number of years, it all goes into LRT. The eastbound 1-84/I-5 split is always backed up, even on weekends, and little ever seems to get done about it. Now, I know that Portland as a city is different than most, but I hope that Hamilton might be able to avoid that problem at least. I don't ever think you'll get rid of cars, but don't let the roads get so shabby that every person has no other option that to take the LRT.
That's my experience and my two cents worth.

Electric motors have at least 80% mechanical efficiency. An extremely good diesel engine is around 40%. Transmitting electricity is also cheaper than trucking gas. Pollution coming out of a tall smokestack far away from population centres has much less of an adverse effect than it does coming out at ground level in the city core. LRT is indeed less polluting than buses, both now and especially in the future.

what the blazes are you talking about?? seriously. oh, and you used the word 'irregardless.' need i say more?

I think it's time to refill those meds.

Is LRT really a green solution?

I believe LRT's stated goal is to get 20% of the cars off the road. In doing so some 4 lane roads get reduced to 2. Assuming this goal is actually acheived the remaining 80% of the cars will now be fighting traffic jams. I would not be surprised if the 80% of the cars left are now producing more smog than before. (if fact I think this is the likely outcome) If green is your goal how about making downtoan more cycle friendly? Then I might leave my car at home.

Many people have produced lots of examples where LRT works. Unfortuantly all of these cities have populations much much higher than Hamilton. Can anyone name a city with a population similar to Hamiltons where it is successfull?

Finally buses, at least on the Dundas to downtown leg, are NOT being significanly delayed due to traffic congestion. This really begs the question of why an LRT/BRT system is needed.

DavidG

DavidG,

The goal is to get 20% of ALL cars off the roads, not just the two roads with LRT lines. An LRT car carries up to 300 passengers (or the equivalent about 300 one-passenger cars). With a frequency of 5-10 minutes, LRT has the potential to take an awful lot of cars off the roads.

Examples of cities of comparable size to Hamilton with successful LRT (just the ones I know about):

Grenoble, Lemans, Montpellier, Mulhouse, Nantes, Orleans, Rouen, Strasbourg, Valenciennes in France.

Edinburgh (city population < 500 000) is building a line, Sheffield, Nottingham in the UK.

Jersey City, Norfolk VA, Charlotte NC, Cleveland, OH in the US.

Kitchener-Waterloo is going for LRT right next door.

Remember that Hamilton is part of a megalopolis of about 6 million people. Metrolinx is now planning a coherent transportation network for this whole region. Hamilton's population is expected to grow to at least 600 000 over the next 20 years, possibly much more. The GTA+Hamilton is expected to grow by 3.5 million over the next 25 years.

During the morning, I am often have to wait for several full buses to pass by before I can get on. Buses are slower relative to cars: the goal of signal priority and dedicated lanes is to provide transit at least as fast, comfortable and convenient as driving. As the city and region grow, congestion will get much worse.

kevlahan

I have to admit that I thought the reason I had never heard of an example of LRT working in a small city is perhaps because there were none. I would still question in those smaller cites how many of them put their LRT right on the busiest vehicular road. The Norfolk Va plan for example appears to be utilizing an existing railway for much of it's length. Hamilton also has a somewhat unique geography due to the escarpment and Lake Ontario which really limits the east-west routes available for cars. (Dundas to Hamilton you've got pretty much one option)

If LRT could be built in such a way as to actually offer people a choice whether or not to use it I would be all if favour of it, as opposed to being forced to us it because your 20 minute drive has turned into an hour.

A dedicated lane for buses may be a good idea in some parts of the city but again it sure does not look to me on the Dundas Hamilton portion that it would do any good since traffic flows great.
The only part of my commute where the roads get a bit congested is on King St heading W out of downtown. (as a side note this is partly due to buses zipping along in the right lane then cutting in when it ends due the courteous drivers and of course the yield for buses by law) Correct me if I'm wrong but I think this is the are where the proposed system would cut this from 4 lanes to 2. That strikes me as creating a traffic nightmare.

Surely the simple solution to your problem, which I would imagine is pretty frustrating, is to add a few more buses during peak hours.

City engineers say that there is plenty of spare capacity on EW roads to allow for a two-lane reduction on Main or King.

Remember:

1. We're talking about two lanes on two roads out of the whole city. This is actually a relatively minor re-balancing of our transportation network.

2. Separating transit and traffic can actually be beneficial to drivers (as your comment on buses pulling out indicates).

3. It is impossible to significantly improve transit without impacting drivers to some extent. Rapid transit is about providing an equivalent or better level of service compared to driving. It is also about fairness: even in the richest neighbourhoods 30% of residents do not have the option of driving (those under 16, the elderly and those who choose not to own a car). In Hamilton, this percentage is significantly higher.

4. Removing capacity does not necessarily lead to delays because of the intrinsic properties of networks (see Braess' paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braess'... and because people will change their travel patterns. This has been shown over and over (e.g. the collapse of the bridge in Minnesota and the removal a freeway in San Francisco did not increase congestion).

5. Dedicated lanes have not lead to traffic chaos in other cities with much less spare network capacity ... I don't see why Hamilton would be the exception.

All intersting points, however, the reason I think Hamilton may be the exception is this: How do you get from Dundas to downtown? You pretty much have one option. Main St. Going the other way you also have pretty much one option. King St.

Since it sure looks like we are getting an LRT/BRT system I cetainly hope you are right. Part of my problem is a complete lack of confidence with the City engineering and planning departments. Ask a developer what it's like to deal with the city of Hamilton. I really hope they know what they are doing.

PS thanks for your reply's. Although you have not changed my mind there is a least a glimour of hope that maybe the City can get it done right.

P.S. Where did you get the information that the Minneapolis bridge collapse did not increase traffic congestion. I find that extremely hard to believe.

DavidG,

There are currently some alternatives:

Travelling to Downtown: Main to Dundurn to York. Travelling to Dundas: Cannon to Dundurn to King.

Of course, two way conversion of Main, King, York, Cannon would provide even more alternatives for drivers!

However, even in the unlikely event that your total average trip speed decreased over 40% from the current value of about 33 km/h (based on Google maps value) to 20 km/h your approx 7.6 km trip from Dundas to downtown would only take 9 minutes longer than the current Google estimated time of 14 minutes ... is 9 minutes longer really a disaster? You might even consider taking LRT to get there a bit faster.

I can no longer find the original article on the absence of huge traffic jams, but here's some evidence from USAToday:

"the traffic nightmare that state and local officials feared in downtown Minneapolis did not materialize Monday."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007...

The reports I read indicated that the the "traffic nightmare" never did materialize (partly due to efficient detour information provided electronically to drivers).

Interestingly, the proposed replacement bridge will be "Light rail ready"!

DavidG,

There are currently some alternatives:

Travelling to Downtown: Main to Dundurn to York. Travelling to Dundas: Cannon to Dundurn to King.

Of course, two way conversion of Main, King, York, Cannon would provide even more alternatives for drivers!

However, even in the unlikely event that your total average trip speed decreased over 40% from the current value of about 33 km/h (based on Google maps value) to 20 km/h your approx 7.6 km trip from Dundas to downtown would only take 9 minutes longer than the current Google estimated time of 14 minutes ... is 9 minutes longer really a disaster? You might even consider taking LRT to get there a bit faster.

I can no longer find the original article on the absence of huge traffic jams, but here's some evidence from USAToday:

"the traffic nightmare that state and local officials feared in downtown Minneapolis did not materialize Monday."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007...

The reports I read indicated that the the "traffic nightmare" never did materialize (partly due to efficient detour information provided electronically to drivers).

Interestingly, the proposed replacement bridge will be "Light rail ready"!

"1. LRT reduces air pollution and GHG emissions.

Only at the end of the line, the tram itself. The source of generation is still polluting, only more because there is an increase in demand. Please don't blow me down with your wind all propped up with spin, when in the GTA area there are scant few within. (Or that even work ) "

^^^
Only reason why Toronto's wind turbine doesn't ever spin is because of its placement. It was purposefully put in a high visibility spot -- not an are with high winds as a publicity stunt. Not fair to discount the entire technology based on one example.

kevlahan

I think you just confirmed my point with your 'alternate' routes to and from Dundas in that they both still had the streets King and Main in it. Of course once I get to Dundurn there are alternatives.

I hope when you talk about the converting Main and King to two way you are thinking about the current 403 to Main and King on and off ramps. It seems no one mentions this. It would undoubtably require extensive reconstruction on the QEW.

Would an extra 9 minutes on my commute be a distaster? of course not. But can you not understand how I would oppose spending 1.2 billion dollars for this just so transit users can save a couple minutes? That is a huge amount of money that I think many people may have trouble appreciating. Every year the City begs the province for a mere 20-50 million to offset social service costs and avoid tax increases.

I think perhaps my main objection to this idea has gotton lost which is this; (and again I can really only speak to the Dundas - downtown commute) Buses are not being delayed by traffic congestion or running at capacity so why do we need this system?

Given that the LRT is planned to start at Mac Dundas residents would require a transfer wich of course requires more waiting so that I suspect even their commute time will increase.

DavidG,

My suggested alternate routes assumed that congestion would occur downtown (i.e. East of Dundurn). No one is predicting congestion West of downtown due to LRT.

Morning buses ARE running at capacity (I take the buses in bad whether from Downtown to Mac) and they are slower than driving.

I'm not sure where you got the 1.2 billion figure from ... the entire East-West line should cost under $300 million.

However, you're right that is ultimately our choice where to spend infrastructure and transportation money: on polluting and energy intensive roads and freeways (e.g. the proposed mid-pen freeway which would cost billions), or on clean efficient rapid transit that will serve the city now and in the future (when the city and region has grown enormously in population).

I thought the article in yesterday's Globe, entitled _Road To_Hell Paved_With Public_Transit_ was fascinating. It was about the work of Randal O'Toole, Oregon economist and environmentalist.

Some tidbits: Cars are more efficient than buses on a per passenger basis.

No city in North American has managed to raise transit use above 1% of commuters or reduce driving by even 1%.

Yet.

I hope you do not take this guy seriously. He claims that public transit is a waste of money while not taking into account the enormous cost of expressways built to facilitate indiscretionary single occupancy vehicle trips for everyone.

Randal o'toole has used numbers to determine the efficiency of cars such as 'the average occupancy of cars is the average family size minus one person'

When you make up numbers like that out of thin air, you can make them prove whatever point you want...

He was referring to cars in high occupancy vehicle lanes there, which he opposes.