Raise the Hammer

Myth: We can't afford to build LRT. Fact: We can't afford not to build LRT.

That doesn't make the "myth" untrue. For example, if a person has no money to buy food and is starving and they say "I can't afford to eat", telling them that "you can't afford NOT to eat" doesn't make their statement untrue. If they don't have the money, they don't have the money.

Calgary is an excellent case study of a low-density, automobile dependent city that nevertheless invested in LRT rather than more highways and has one of the most successful rapid transit systems in North America. Some 50% of commuters into downtown Calgary take the train to work instead of driving.

Just a minor thing.. not to be too nit picky, but first the author says Calgary is an automobile dependent city and then says 50% of commuters use the train instead of driving. So it is car dependent (ie transit isn't successful in reducing dependency on a car) or it isn't car dependent?

Now that the nit picking is done, lets get onto the real info...

The Population of Calgary is almost THREE times that of Hamilton's (1.3 million compared to 0.5 million)

Calgary has a labour force of over 600,000 (more than Hamilton's entire population). Of that labour force, how many people living in Calgary do you think commute outside of Calgary for work? I'm guessing not nearly as many of the Hamiltonians who commute outside of Hamilton for work.

Population density of Calgary around 1300/sq km Population density of Hamilton around 500/sq km Just as the density is higher than 500/sq km around the proposed B-line, the density in Calgary along their CTrain is higher than 1300/sq km

buses operating on the east-west LRT route already carry 13,000 passengers a day

The C train (2 routes, total 48km) carries around 260,000 passengers/day

On a per-passenger basis, LRT is much cheaper to operate - generally 25 to 75 percent cheaper - than buses

The author must have selective vision. Anyone who looked at the link will notice that the only difference even close to 75% is in Baltimore where LRT is 75 MORE EXPENSIVE per passenger to operate than BRT. In everyone's favourite example, Portland, it is 5% more expensive to operate LRT than BRT per passenger. Where LRT tends to win out more consistently is cost per mile/km. This makes sense as LRT is in the densest parts of town and covers relatively, much shorter lines, not servicing the rural areas.

Calgary's C-Train costs only $0.27 per passenger to operate, whereas Hamilton's HSR costs around $5.00 per passenger

Calgary's cost per Passenger for the bus is $0.89. Yes, it remains, less, but considerably more in line with the LRT cost compared to the Hamilton example you chose. What you didn't mention is that the cost per hour to operate is considerably higher for LRT than it is for BRT. Some more Facts to add to your list (if it's not biased): Cost per hour to operate LRT vs BRT Dallas $310 vs $150 LA $670 vs $40 San Jose $310 vs $170 Calgary $113 vs $49

Therefore, unless LRT attracts significantly more passengers than the bus currently does, LRT would be more expensive to operate. The fact that provided in this RTH article is a fact about another city and has nothing to do with myth in how it relates to what might or might not happen here in Hamilton.

Myth: LRT will cause traffic congestion by reducing vehicle lanes

Lets look at Calgary as an example. Their CTrain runs on a street not important to car travel. Calgary has several major roads (one way) which run east and west. Even with the LRT, Calgary has significantly more capacity to handle car traffic than Hamilton currently has. I think many people (myself included) would be much more in favour of LRT in Hamilton if it didn't take away lanes of traffic on our two most important east/west roads. Perhaps this is a key difference in the goals for LRT expressed here in RTH compared to the goals other cities had. When other cities plan to have LRT, their goal is to improve transit for it's citizens. It seems that a lot of people on RTH want to improve public transit commutes as well as worsening the conditions for people who drive (even if they have no choice other than to drive). If the only way you can justify LRT working in a city is to shut down car travel, it's not much of an argument if you ask me.