;;

Tuesday, April 11, 2017

With Clr. Skelly- On LRT

Enjoy this Q/A with Clr. Donna Skelly:

Clr. Skelly: You have long been rather fearless about expressing your concerns about the LRT project.

Many are marrying the LRT funding to an opportunity to refresh our infrastructure and address other longstanding concerns. What do you say to those who warn that turning our backs on the 1 Billion is also akin to a missed opportunity to address our other related needs?


I have been consistently opposed to the LRT for a number of reasons. The funding package offered to us by the province could, in my view, be better spent on more modern transit options; such as electric buses. The money could also be used to expand GO service, and address the bottleneck at Aldershot. This $1 billion has never been about infrastructure, as the infrastructure that would be replaced has a lifecycle of between 10 and 15 years remaining. If the money can be used towards updating infrastructure, there are many other projects in the city with a higher priority.

64 comments:

  1. Thanks Donna - I think it's extremely feasible to do all these things! The money is for infrastructure where it would need to be done along the LRT root. This is huge savings for Hamilton - along with the tax savings, even if you don't ride LRT, it's just financially the best way forward.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Captain HamiltonApril 07, 2017

    I agree with Donna Skelly

    The Captain

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mar 22, 2016:

    Skelly… vowed to "ruffle a few feathers" on council – but also support decisions already made, like a commitment to LRT.

    http://www.thespec.com/news-story/6400355-ward-7-chooses-former-chch-personality-donna-skelly/

    Noted

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Since her days as a candidate for the Hudak PCs, Clr Skelly has insisted that "[Hamilton LRT] is about $1 billion the province doesn't have," so it's a little weird seeing her itemize a shopping list like this. Maybe her comfort with the province's fiscal health has dramatically improved since eight months ago, when it was simply a matter of the province not having $1B to spend in Hamilton (“it doesn’t exist”) and a better idea to use it those Moving Ontario Forward funds to bankroll neglected Toronto transit.

      https://youtu.be/bKuR30lqCeY?t=1m4s

      Skelly’s criticism that municipal transit “will not move one good, it will not move one tomato, it will not move one box of wood” echoes both the concerns of John Best and the Southern Ontario Gateway Council and her past advocacy for the construction of a new superhighway through Hamilton-Halton-Niagara’s greenbelt lands.

      http://sirepub.halton.ca/councildocs/pm/14/Jul%2011%202012%20REGULAR%20MEETING%20OF%20REGIONAL%20COUNCIL%20Other%20Business%20%20Presentation%20and%20Submission%20from%20%20%20John%20Best%20S%20Ont%20Gateway%20Council%20ppt%20152965.pdf

      https://www.flamboroughreview.com/news-story/5400045-tories-look-to-hwy-6-as-alternative-roadway/

      FWIW

      Delete
    2. "The funding package offered to us by the province" is attached exclusively to B-Line LRT. That's how project funding works. Entertaining though they may be, “what if” thought experiments must also acknowledge that basic reality.

      So: How successful has the City been in negotiating massive investments in its transit system? What's the total amount amassed since amalgamation? What's the annual average?

      Councillors might also consider how soon they can assemble any major infrastructure investment in Hamilton if their particular objection is that the province (with a debt to GDP ratio of 39.4%) is broke and the country (with a debt to GDP ratio of 90.5%) is twice that, and that we don't want to burden future generations with debt deeper than today. (Especially in light of Hamilton's own obligations — City debt, after adding in rate-supported debt, peaks at $918M in 2019, and its infrastructure deficit stands at $3.5B.)

      That seems like an interesting nut to crack.

      Noted

      Delete
  4. @ Noted- it always irks me to see a comment like the one you posted. I personally believe that our politicians should be free to change their minds and base their positions on facts as thew facts present themselves. Imagine if politicians were paralyzed to revise their positions based on a referenced outdated news article. When I read comebacks such as these, it reeks of desperation. I don't mean that disrespectfully. But your argument is not very compelling.
    Sorce

    ReplyDelete
  5. "The money could also be used to expand GO service, and address the bottleneck at Aldershot."

    As of 2011, two-thirds of Hamilton’s workforce commuting daily to destinations between Hamilton and Toronto — 23,445 of 38,690 individuals — were heading to jobs in Burlington.

    http://civicplan.ca/Where_Hamilton_Works.pdf

    There’s already GO service to Aldershot and Fairview GO Stations, and express Burlington Transit service to both from downtown Hamilton. It takes less time for a car to travel from any of Hamilton’s GO Stations to Aldershot GO or Fairview GO than it does for a train to travel the same distance.

    Admittedly, I'm not clear on how Clr Skelly would recommend that Hamilton to Burlington GO Service be improved, but in order for her preferred initiative to get funded, Hamilton would have to fund and conduct the studies and business case analyses that help inform Metrolinx's investment strategy.

    Noted

    ReplyDelete
  6. "If the money can be used towards updating infrastructure, there are many other projects in the city with a higher priority."

    Independent of the rapid transit project currently funded, it cannot. In order to experience any knock-on benefit in terms of infrastructure work anywhere in the city, that work would have to be directly linked to a rapid transit project funded and approved by the province.

    Moving Ontario Forward only funds exclusively infrastructure projects outside of the GTHA, and much of that money has already been allotted.

    http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/budget/ontariobudgets/2016/bk2.html

    Noted

    ReplyDelete
  7. "The funding package offered to us by the province could, in my view, be better spent on more modern transit options; such as electric buses."

    Nov 3, 2015:

    Brampton can't count on hanging on to the money that the province had allocated as its share of the Hurontario-Main LRT, says Transportation Minister Steven Del Duca.

    "It is disappointing," he told reporters at a conference on Tuesday of that city's decision not to accept the province's offer of an LRT that would run down Main St. to the Brampton GO station.

    The money will be reinvested in transportation infrastructure, said Del Duca. But where it goes depends on an analysis of priority transit projects by provincial transportation agency Metrolinx.

    "We will proceed with the plan to build the LRT from the Port Credit GO station to Steeles and the balance of the funding in question will flow back into the (province's) Moving Ontario Forward plan to be invested in priority transit projects in the region, which in theory could be a project or more than one project in Brampton but is not necessarily going to be Brampton," he said.

    https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/transportation/2015/11/03/brampton-should-not-count-on-lrt-funding-says-minister.html

    Mar 04, 2016:

    Ontario Transportation Minister Steven Del Duca says Hamilton will have to use its portion of the provincial gas tax money to help fund its 10-year bus transit strategy instead of relying in direct provincial help.

    Del Duca, who was attending the unveiling of the new $24 million GO Transit bus facility in Flamborough March 4, said when asked about Hamilton council’s March 2015 request for $302 million for bus funding, said the province is “focused on the LRT and expansion of GO.”

    “We provide all of our communities across the province with on-going gas tax support,” said Del Duca.

    http://www.thespec.com/news-story/6376718-hamilton-s-302-million-bus-transit-funding-request-crashes/

    Noted

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think the Clr was saying that the move would be better used for. She said "could be" but not ion the sense that you took it.

    Just saying

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I get that the councillor's opposition can be seen as merely figurative or symbolic. That is to say, as an outcome that is not as good as some other imagined outcome that wasn't within the realm of options at any point. Reality being what it is, however, the decision is simply between making the best of this provincial funding or refusing it.

      Although she insists that this "has never been about infrastructure," (transit infrastructure notwithstanding), it is certainly a happy side-effect. Clr Skelly freely concedes that all of the infrastructure on this 11km cross-city corridor is aging out at the same time and in the near future (i.e. "the infrastructure that would be replaced has a lifecycle of between 10 and 15 years remaining," meaning that the cost would otherwise be shouldered on local taxpayers between 2027 and 2032 when the city's transportation aorta starts to collapse) and the LRT construction is slated to take place between 2019 and 2024, so even if you accept the councillor's estimate, in some cases this work is only shaving a few years off the lifespan of this infrastructure. And reaching the end of a lifecycle means that wholesale replacement will be required, and on a massive scale. The question, it seems to me, is simply who will pay for it.

      It goes without saying that council is free to prioritize municipal investment in the conversion of the HSR to an all-electric fleet with or without provincial funding. Any councillors who support this direction can move a motion to that effect, perhaps starting with a allocating funds for a feasibility study that leads to a pilot purchase. Positive steps.

      Noted

      Delete
  9. Making the best of it would be to refuse an expensive to operate system that will require additional funding above what current systems require thus resulting in service reduction or higher taxes

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Higher taxes are likely coming anyway, with or without LRT, if council puts pay to all of their transit champion lip service. Don Hull estimated that council should be upping its transit budgets by $80M annually in order to meet its performance metrics.

      http://hamiltoncatch.org/view_article.php?id=811

      Noted

      Delete
    2. That's like saying we should start smoking because there is pollution anyway

      Delete
  10. "The true operating costs between bus and light rail. Bus vs. Light Rail: Which is the cheapest to operate?"
    www.thoughtco.com/bus-and-light

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Both the BRT and LRT options show a significant positive benefit when compared to the costs associated with their implementation. Although, as a benefit/cost ratio, the BRT shows a relatively higher benefit (Table 11.3.1), this is purely the result of the higher initial costs for the LRT. Evaluating only the benefit/cost ratio masks the fact that, in all benefit measures, the LRT option is preferred to the BRT alternative. LRT significantly outperforms BRT in the important factors of travel time savings, tax revenue and operating cost. This shows that over the longer terms LRT is a better solution.

      http://lrt-mississauga.brampton.ca/EN/Master-Plan/Documents/Master-Plan/hurontario_MP_Part3_Chapter11.pdf

      FWIW

      Delete
    2. sure, if you take out the cost/benefit component, LRT is the better choice in your mind hands down.Fair enough.

      Delete
    3. It should be noted that the ratio only captures part of the benefits that are expected to accrue from the LRT alternative. Other benefits are expected to include:
      • The tax uplift implications and the opportunity to intensify development along Hurontario and Main Street are
      dependent on significant transit improvements. It is
      therefore possible that a BRT option will not be sufficiently
      attractive to result in the proposed intensification and
      associated improvements along this corridor. (This has
      been the experience in numerous case studies assessed,
      with little contradictory evidence.)
      • Reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the corridor
      (reduction by approximately 25% over the BRT).
      • Quality of ride, LRT has been widely shown to provide a highly superior travel experience to the rider.
      • By virtue of the greater investment in infrastructure,
      economic benefits associated with the construction
      of the LRT will be significantly higher than those
      associated with a BRT project.

      http://lrt-mississauga.brampton.ca/EN/Master-Plan/Documents/Master-Plan/hurontario_MP_Part3_Chapter11.pdf

      FWIW

      Delete
    4. still it should be noted from a cost/benefit perspective(which was the question), buses win!

      Delete
    5. Plus the City can buy all new buses every 10 years as the technology changes. they would have to have to wait 40 years to do that with LRT.

      FWIW

      Delete
    6. still less expensive to operate buses.

      Delete
    7. I read that link you provided and it basically confirmed what I knew all along. It's cheaper and more flexible to BRT. We have to stop this LRT madness cause that is what it is.
      Sorce

      Delete
    8. and you can buy quite a few new buses with all that operating revenue saved each and every year. Brand new, state of the art material...can you imagine what those trains will look like in 40 years?

      Delete
    9. Total costs for completion of the Mississauga portion of the system are approximately $259 million which is equitably funded by the Federal Government, the Province of Ontario, GO Transit and the City of Mississauga. The Province and the Federal Government have already committed $173 million to the development of the BRT in Mississauga because they understand its importance to the economic and social fabric of the GTA and, ultimately, the country as a whole. The City of Mississauga has also received budget approval for its share of the development and operating costs as part of its overall transit strategy.

      http://www.mississauga.ca/portal/residents/brtbasics?paf_gear_id=9700018&itemId=102600571n

      FWIW

      Delete
  11. I read through the material Jim Graham provided to prove why BRT is better than LRT. Jims opinions are that because LRT has a higher cost than BRT to implement we should choose BRT. Jim material shows LRT beating BRT in ROI and C/B in every category except startup and implementation. Jim Graham knows the province is paying for startup and implementation of LRT. So this material shows that Hamilton is dodging the bullet of the higher costs of implementing the LRT over BRT yet Hamilton will be reaping the higher return and more benefits of the LRT over BRT. This proves Jim Grahams point how?

    James Taylor

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. a little more reading for you to misinterpret and from which you can draw your own conclusions. Take small bites, digest it slowly. Feel free to share with your pals.

      forbes.com/sites/jeff mcmahon/2013/09/15
      "Bus rapid transit spurs development better than light rail or streetcars"

      steerdaviesgleave.com/news and insights/LRT vs. BRT
      "which is the better option?"

      metrolinx.com/project evaluation/benefit cases
      "Brampton Queen St. Rapid transit benefits case"

      Delete
  12. actually Jim, you asked Mr.Taylor to demonstrate how LRT is more expensive to operate, then quickly deleted your comment(why would you do that Jim?). I was trying to help inform you on the matter, and it appears I was at least partially successful.
    As you clearly had no clue LRT is far more expensive to operate than buses, your confidence in reaping higher return and imagined benefit seems fanciful at best. What returns? Who benefits? Please be as specific as you can.
    You refer to LRT as an "upgrade". I say costlier to operate, slower, reduced service levels, diminished revenue returns....all proven....confirm an albatross.
    Evidence vs. imagination.
    Try expressing your thoughts and opinions on the subject Jim, you may have more success.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Cost of King Street bus lane pilot: $150K/lane kilometers
    Length of BLAST Network: 92 lane kilometers

    The City can start building its desired BLAST network in the next budget cycle by earmarking $14M in roads budget to creating a city-wide network of bus lanes, as councillors universally desire.

    If the council doubled that budget they could do curbside shave and pave along the entire length of the network, making bus rides smoother and more appealing rather than the shipping-container-dropped-down-a-mine-shaft experience currently on offer.

    Noted

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A recent federal funding announcement supports City investment in BLAST:

      $14,325,000: Design and planning of New Maintenance & Storage Facility in lower Hamilton

      $1,925,000: Transit priority measures on A-Line and/or T-Line express routes including queue jump lanes and transit signal priority

      $3,521,704: Transit shelter and bus stop rehabilitation including shelter refurbishment, replacement and bus stop pylon upgrades

      $5,190,000: Fleet expansion as per Ten Year Local Transit Strategy

      And so on. No reason for council to delay, unless their game is to forfeit senior government funding (as often seems to be the case).

      https://www.canada.ca/en/office-infrastructure/news/2017/03/backgrounder_canadaandontarioannouncefundingfor312publictransitp.html

      Noted

      Delete
    2. "I say costlier to operate, slower, reduced service levels, diminished revenue returns....all proven..." Jim Graham says this is all "proven" he gave a link to prove is point about operating costs. Folow the link yourself, read all the information. See how Mr Graham then cherry picked facts about costs based on a vehicle to vehicle comparison. What is behind Mr Graham neglecting to inform us that even worst case scenario where LRT costs twice as much to operate as bus's, it takes four and one half bus's to move the same amount of people as LRT. This is what Mr Graham focus's on? Oh well. Desperate times on the anti LRT front call for desperate measure from the anti LRT front.

      Delete
    3. cherry picked? Steer Davies Gleave is the lead consultant on Hamilton's LRT file. What is their opinion on the comparison?
      "however we can draw an important conclusion from the survey and the conventional comparison: BRT is not necessarily inferior to LRT. On the contrary, this research shows a well designed and operated BRT system can be as attractive to passengers as LRT, if not more" Without the construction, without the increased costs.
      And how about Metrolinx, you may have heard of them? What did they conclude after evaluating the competing technologies?
      "bus rapid transit design and technology is rapidly evolving,improving with modern styled vehicles, more comfortable seating, improved propulsion and clean fuel technology.
      From a purely cost benefit perspective, bus rapid transit demonstrates the greatest benefit per taxpayer dollar invested."
      Evidently Mayor Fred and his band of anonymous advocates have little appreciation for value or detailed analysis. They've always wanted a train. When we need "four and one half buses" to pick up passengers at every stop every 2 minutes, LRT will make sense. Until then.

      Delete
    4. Yes, cherry picked. Steer Davies Gleave is NOT comparing how LRT compares to BRT in HAMILTON. Show us where your cherry picked quote applies to our city. You cant. "BRT is not necessarily inferior to LRT. On the contrary, this research shows a well designed and operated BRT system can be as attractive to passengers as LRT, if not more" Or less. Depending. For Hamilton, the LRT was the best choice.


      "bus rapid transit design and technology is rapidly evolving,improving with modern styled vehicles, more comfortable seating, improved propulsion and clean fuel" Yes BRT tech is evolving. We need a solution today. Not your flying car future.

      Jim Taylor

      Delete
    5. "Without the construction, without the increased costs."

      That's only true if you're talking about the HSR as it is today. If you improve service in any way, you're incurring additional costs. As well, there are significant performance limits to conventional bus service. Even building the BLAST network isn't anticipated to boost per-capita ridership beyond 50 by 2024 — roughly half of the City’s performance target of 80-100 rides per capita.

      BRT's construction costs aren't quite as intensive as LRT because of the lack of rails and the relative weight of the vehicles, but BRT still requires sub-grade infrastructure work such as utility relocation (e.g. water, wastewater, gas, electric, telecom), and comes with road reconstruction. The chief differences are the vehicles’ capacity and lifecycle cost.

      That and LRT is funded, whereas any other option is not.

      Capital investment in transit usually requires that the municipality or region step up as an equal partner (or better). Mississauga, Brampton and York Region each kicked in between $85M and $115M toward their BRT routes. (York trimmed its capital exposure by ceding ownership of the BRT rapidway to the province.)

      As a city predicated on the status quo, Hamilton should be ready for more of the same if it decides against the generational opportunity in front of it.

      Sigma Cub

      Delete
    6. flying cars? your solution is at least a decade away. The quote from STG is a generalization, and from their perspective applies to LRT vs. BRT today, tomorrow, here or there. But we should take your word for it, as you appear unable to provide a credible reference to refute the claim. Just you. OK.

      Delete
    7. Hamilton City Council, senior levels of government, and countless experts evaluated LRT vs BRT for Hamilton. The experts said LRT was best overall. No expert opinion dissented. Jim Graham CANT provide data showing BRT being better for Hamilton than LRT cause no expert was able to. he cant show an expert that says BRT is better than LRT for Hamilton. There isnt one. So what does Jim do. He uses "generalizations" . "The quote from STG is a generalization..."

      Generalizations. By all mean, use all the generalizations you want. If you think Thats where you want to draw your line., cool. The saving grace of all weak arguments. Generalizations.

      Thank you Jim.


      Jim Taylor

      Delete
    8. your welcome. If you could provide a single quote from a recognized "expert" declaring LRT as superior to BRT for Hamilton which is supported by anything other than personal opinion, you should do that,as it would enhance your credibility tremendously.

      Delete
    9. Jim Graham asks "If you could provide a single quote from a recognized "expert" declaring LRT as superior to BRT for Hamilton..."

      Yea. Its called the Metrolinx Business case. LRT was found to be the best option. Will all of your future commentary be as well considered?
      As factually sound?


      Allan Graham

      Delete
  14. Noticing that the publishing date has been changed from April 7 to April 11. Has any information in this article been altered? Or is it just a matter of trying to juice this closer to the top (i.e. a editorial choice to promote an anti-LRT article to undercut the mayor's letter)?

    Doppio

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hamiltonian adminApril 11, 2017

    Nothing has changed. Those who read us regularly will know that we often bump up political articles after the weekend.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Thanks for the clarification. First time I'd noticed reheats being promoted.

    Doppio

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Hamiltonian AdminApril 11, 2017

      Doppio

      The Hamiltonian tries hard to provide a forum for all sides of any given issue. Sometimes we are caught in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. Despite that, we still provide a free service provided by volunteers.

      Delete
    2. Totally appreciate your position. Thanks to all toiling behind the scenes!

      Doppio

      Delete
  17. Jim Graham says "As you clearly had no clue LRT is far more expensive to operate than buses, your confidence in reaping higher return and imagined benefit seems fanciful at best. What returns? Who benefits? Please be as specific as you can." My mistake. I thought Mr Graham was being clear in his comparisons and was using the true metrics for which system is less expensive to operate. Lets look at Mr Grahams data about "costs to operate". https://www.thoughtco.com/bus-and-light-rail-costs-2798852 "The table shows a much wider range in the cost of operating light rail vehicles ($124.01 - $451.33 per hour) than buses ($84.61 - $163.96), although if we throw out the two outliers in light rail costs (Los Angeles and Dallas) the range is reduced to $124.01 - $292.51." So on a vehicle to vehicle comparison, LRTs worst result is $292.51 and the bus's lowest is $84.61. So a spread of $207.90 from LRTS worst to the bus's best. Lets say we assume the worst because Mr Graham probably will. Lets look at the complete data from Mr Grahams citation. Data that gives the real, true costs of operation. Not per vehicle or per hour comparisons. But how many people get moved for what you pay to operate the vehicle per hour. "It is true that one light rail train consisting of three sixty feet long cars can carry as many people as four and one-half regular buses. What this means is that assuming passenger load remains constant, a light rail train that has three-car consists operating every ten minutes would need to be replaced by standard buses operating almost every two minutes (six light rail trains per hour = 27.5 standard buses per hour)."

    Jim Taylor

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. precisely Jim,passenger load on the King 1A is not constant, never has been (likely never will be) and you and yours should accept that until we can fill an LRT car "almost every two minutes" this LRT proposal is fiscally unsound and predicated on demand that does not currently exist. Period.

      Delete
    2. Jim Graham says "precisely Jim,passenger load on the King 1A is not constant, never has been (likely never will be" Well Jim, you are wrong. Again. Show your HSR data that proves your point about lack of ridership.

      James Taylor

      Delete
    3. already done Jim, you must have glossed over that part. How about you demonstrate how 13,000 daily riders are going to fill up 160 seats every 2 minutes. All day long. In order to meet the criteria you reference as an acceptable ROI for this proposal. Doesn't work? How about every 5 minutes? 10?
      You will need real imagination and a poor grasp of basic math in order to make this nonsense feasible Jim, (or about 96,000 daily riders!) but give it a try, you seem very determined.

      Delete
    4. Where did you provide HSR data to prove your point? "already done Jim, you must have glossed over that part."

      Jim Taylor

      Delete
    5. "It is true that one light rail train consisting of three sixty feet long cars can carry as many people as four and one-half regular buses" They wont be running LRTs every two and a half minutes all day long. The travel times and headways are to service the ridership at different boarding loads of the day are already projected by Metrolinx based on current ridership. They wont be running as many LRT vehicles in off peak times. Just like they dont run the same amount of buses in off and on peak times. Jeesh Jim. What dont you get?

      Jim Taylor

      Delete
    6. the part where you said ridership is constant, but now contradict, the evidence from Metrolinx demonstrating LRT only makes financial sense when you are filling up LRT cars every 2 minutes, which we will never do. That part.

      Delete
    7. Jim Grahams confused. I never used any data from Metrolinx citing two minute headways all day. Thats from Jim Grahams steerdaives citaion that he admits is a "generalization" only.

      Heres Jim Graham today.

      "the evidence from Metrolinx demonstrating LRT only makes financial sense when you are filling up LRT cars every 2 minutes"

      You initially cited steerdavies as proof. heres your link

      steerdaviesgleave.com/news and insights/LRT vs. BRT
      "which is the better option?


      I cited used the relevant part of your steerdavies link to disprove you.

      Heres the citation you say is me quoting Metrolinx ""It is true that one light rail train consisting of three sixty feet long cars can carry as many people as four and one-half regular buses. What this means is that assuming passenger load remains constant, a light rail train that has three-car consists operating every ten minutes would need to be replaced by standard buses operating almost every two minutes (six light rail trains per hour = 27.5 standard buses per hour)."

      You cant even keep track of the cherry picked data you try and use.

      Jim Taylor

      Delete
  18. Jim Graham says LRT is "slower" How? Heres the HSRs numbers. 4 million plus boarding a year for King bus. 4 million boarding for Delaware bus. Current time from HSR schedule from Eastgate to Mac on King? Best time on King, 40 minutes worst 48. Now thats not including countless delays from traffic, signals and slow boardings and countless riders being passed by with multiple full bus's while people are huddles in the rain and snow or late at nite on a unlight street. But lets give HSR BEST case times. Compare to LRT. BRT from Eastgate to Queenston, transfer, LRT to Mac, 36 minutes. Current time from Cochrane to Mac on Delaware? Best time 43 minutes worst time 47. Compare to LRT. HSR from Cochrane, LRT at Queenston, LRT to Mac 35 minutes. And the LRT doesnt slow down due to traffic or signals or slow boardings and theres no pass bys. Sounds like a vast improvement for 8 million plus boardings a year. How does mr Graham say LRT is slower? We know what data he tried to use to prove his other point about operating costs. . We saw that fail. Im sure someone would like to see Mr Grahams data on how LRT will be slower than current HSR.

    Allan Graham

    ReplyDelete
  19. how about an average speed of 27 km/hr Allen? How does that grab you? A veritable rocket ride through town. You would likely be ticketed for impeding traffic if you drove that speed now, but with your forward thinking traffic impedance is now the goal. According to Allen LRT is free to do as it pleases, no stopping-or even slowing down- for obstacles like traffic lights or pedestrians. Bravo.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Metrolinx's King/Main Benefits Case Analysis estimated:

      • BRT would travel at 25 km/h
      • LRT would travel at 33-35 km/h

      Noted

      Delete
    2. and the City's "HSR OPERATIONAL REVUE" prepared by the IBI Group in 2010 has buses travelling the B Line corridor averaging "at about 40 km/hr based on travel time studies carried out as part of this study"

      Delete
    3. "how about an average speed of 27 km/hr Allen? How does that grab you?" It grabs all of us the same way. Your making things up. Everyone can google "Hamilton LRT travel time, Quuenston to mac" You will find 25 minutes. The HSR travel time needed to connect riders to LRT are known. The travel time on BRT from Eastgate to Queenston are known. All existing four million plus boarding on the King will have far better travel times. All the existing 4 million boarding of the Deleware boradings will have far better travel times. Proven by a business case. Whats Jimes response? "27 kms and hour". Good show.

      Jime Taylor

      Delete
    4. Jim says it all sarky like but finally he agrees with us about the benefits of speedy LRT travel "A veritable rocket ride through town"

      Yea, thats why they called em Red Rockets.

      Jim Taylor

      Delete
    5. Jim finally says what he means. He keeps saying "LRT is slower than current HSR" He means the b-line. Well I never mentioned bline. Current, public, peer reviewed data from Metrolinx and HSR prove the major gains in travel times for current 4 million plus boardings annual for the King. And major gains in travel time for 4 million annual boardings of the Delaware. Well what about the poor souls thattake the bline? First there just over a milion boarding a year. Hmmmmm. The fact that Jim Graham focus exclusively on the million plus annual boardings of the bline vs the 8 million plus annual boardings of the combined King/Deleware routes is perplexing. But we should just resign ourselves that Jim Graham will never say why he thinks the LRT providing 8 million plus annual boaarings with major gains in travel time isnt important. Since Jim seems disregards all other data except as it pertains to b line lets see how long it takes someone on the bline to get from Eastgate to mac. 32 minutes. Not bad. Now lets compare on day one of LRT operations. get on a HSR Queenston Express bus at Eastgate. Current travel time on HSR bline to Quuenston TC? 4 minutes. Transfer in 3 minutes to LRT. 25 minutes to Mac on LRT. Total travel time? 32 minutes. And remember Jim Graham, the HSR bline travel time of 32 minutes is an ESTIMATE that often takes far longer due to overcrowding or traffic. The LRT is a smooth 32 minute each time every time. So Jim Graham, lets recap. Data proves LRT gives major improvements in travel times for 8 million plus annual boarding of the existing King and Delaware routes. Your obsessive concern about bline customers that blinds you to these improvements can be eased. The travel times for the 1 million plus annual boardings on the current bline will either stay the same or improve. You should sleep easier.

      Allan Graham

      Delete
    6. Jim Graham writes: "and the City's "HSR OPERATIONAL REVUE" prepared by the IBI Group in 2010 has buses travelling the B Line corridor averaging "at about 40 km/hr based on travel time studies carried out as part of this study"

      Demonstrably false. Refer to exhibit 3-7: Average Speeds. The only stretches of KIng-Main-Queenston with service above 30km/h are east of the Queenston Traffic Circle, with the vast majority east of Centennial Road. (The only stretches that exceed 30 km/h anywhere in the system are typically to be found on the fringes of the HSR service area.)

      The 2010 HSR Operational Review notes:

      "The data in the Exhibit shows that HSR service speeds are in almost all cases less than 40 km/hr, below the posted maximum road speed of 50 km/hr. Further, most of the downtown area (below the escarpment) has average speeds of under 20 km/hr. Overall, HSR's average system speed is 18.7 km/hr, which is below both the national average and HSR's peer group (CUTA 2008 Transit Fact Book). Given the large number of routes that run through the downtown area, any action that would increase average vehicle speed (such as transit priority measures) will benefit a large number if riders, and potentially lead to fewer vehicles being required."

      http://www2.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/9D868772-92BE-4A69-B874-42A1081726CD/0/TTRFinalReport.pdf

      GoogleMaps has the 10 Express travelling from University Plaza Terminal to Eastgate Terminal, a distance of 15.2km, in 37 minutes, for an average speed below 25 km/h.

      Noted

      Delete
    7. Metrolinx's King/Main Benefits Case Analysis estimated:

      • BRT would travel at 25 km/h
      • LRT would travel at 33-35 km/h

      Noted

      Delete
  20. By jove Jim! I think youve got it! Finally! "According to Allen LRT is free to do as it pleases, no stopping-or even slowing down- for obstacles like traffic lights or pedestrians" Thats another benefit of LRT. Auto traffic signals are keyed to stop all car traffic so LRT can speed through town at 35 klicks per hour all day long. Same for pedestrian crossings. Its not just me that "says" that. Its how LRTs work in Toronto and now Waterloo. Google it.

    Allan Graham

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. service reduced, slower, costlier, confirmed and demonstrated by some of the feeblest debate in the discussion to date.You 2-Allan Graham and Jim Taylor-are a disservice to the movement you purport to support (trojan horses?). Unable to counter with anything resembling evidence or data,you are quickly reduced to personal opinion and insult. You are not doing us any favors here.

      mike orangefield

      Delete
    2. Mr Orangefield, please cite your sources that LRT will be "service reduced, slower, costlier, confirmed and demonstrated".

      Bill Bentley

      Delete
  21. Curious. Someone named Bill Bentley asks Mike Orangefield to show his citations and Jim Graham answers for Mike Orangefield in the negative.

    Jim Taylor

    ReplyDelete

Your comments are welcome. Please abide by the blog's policy on posting. This blog facilitates discussion from all sides of issues. Opposite viewpoints, spirited discussion and even pointed comments are welcome, provided they are respectful. Name calling is not allowed and any posts that violate the policy, will simply not be authorized to appear. This blog also reserves the right to exclude comments that are off topic or are otherwise unprofessional. This blog does not assume any liability whatsoever for comments posted. People posting comments or providing information on interviews, do so at their own risk.


Comments posted on this blog, may be used as excerpts in whole or in part, in other media sources .
This blog believes in freedom of speech and operates in the context of a democratic society, which many have fought and died for.

Views expressed by commentators or in articles that appear here, cannot be assumed to be espoused by The Hamiltonian staff or its publisher.