W. K. Lis
Superstar
But it hasn't been incorporated as a city, yet.
Hamilton Hamilton Line B LRT | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx
- Thread starter Kiwi
- Start date
But it hasn't been incorporated as a city, yet.
micheal_can
Senior Member
Whitby is a town with 128k. City of North Bay has less than 60k. Again, let's move from this silliness or let's see just how silly this argument can get.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
rbt
Senior Member
Seems straight forward; Hamilton has massive swaths of parkland. The botanical gardens alone are 2700 acres and doesn't include anything on the escarpment.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
Except the botanical gardens are in Burlington.
edit: I see the population centre boundaries for Hamilton include Burlington, never mind.
Hamilton is lower density because its suburbs are much lower density than Miltons are and that results in an overall average lower density, even if the density peak around the downtown is much higher.
Milton is "dense" because its mostly newer suburbs that create a fairly standard amount of density on average. Compared to other cities, which often have higher density downtowns or "peaks", but of which most land area is for much larger lot detached residential areas that bring the average down.
Basically Milton is dense because there is no such thing as a large lot residential subdivision there. It's all small lot detached residential and townhouses.
Also, the Hamilton population centre boundary includes lots of undeveloped land, which brings down densities. Milton's population centre is more or less entirely developed.
Wm Perkins Bull
Active Member
BRT does not need full grade separation, and the reason they can't do another fully grade separated one is they don't have the money, they wouldn't be able to afford an LRT, let alone a grade separated one on their budget.
TriMet has a catchment population in excess of 1.5 million,Winnipeg has 750,000 people. Look at what Portland, Oregon has, a city with less than 650,000 people:
You're telling me Hamilton, with 580,000 people, can't justify one LRT line? It comes down to choices. Portland is a city that attracts talent.
Why does it need to be an LRT?
micheal_can
Senior Member
Before complaining about how Hamilton does not have an LRT, lets complain how Winnipeg won't for some time. QC might in the next decade, but all Winnipeg will have is a BRT.How did Milton, Ontario end up at being the 4th densest city in Canada ahead of Hamilton at 9th?
From link.
Wm Perkins Bull
Active Member
What exactly is wrong with BRT?
micheal_can
Senior Member
It isn't future proof. All BRT is upgraded to LRT or better, but that isn't the case with true LRT.
urbanyimby
Active Member
This thread becomes the sequel to the SSE thread. I sense the same sentiment:
- For SSE: There already is a fully functioning RT, but people want something new and shiny (Subway) despite the steep costs and will justify it no matter what
- For Hamilton: There is nothing wrong with a BRT, but people want new and shiny (LRT) despite the steep costs and will justify it no matter what.
- For SSE: There already is a fully functioning RT, but people want something new and shiny (Subway) despite the steep costs and will justify it no matter what
- For Hamilton: There is nothing wrong with a BRT, but people want new and shiny (LRT) despite the steep costs and will justify it no matter what.
WislaHD
Superstar
That is false. Look at Brisbane, Rio de Janeiro, or any number of cities in China.
You can run and operate BRTs at higher frequency and capacity than LRT, especially the type of LRT that we are building on Finch, Kitchener-Waterloo, Mississauga, and planning to build in Hamilton.
LRT should be built on Main Street, but a proper BRT should be considered on corridors like Barton Street, and all east-west arterials on the Mountain.
lrt's friend
Active Member
LRT needs proper planning and integration with the bus network. This needs to be done very well or the results will be underwhelming. The pitchforks are out here in Ottawa for the mayor and various officials because of the botched LRT implementation and inadequate bus integration. Many cities have actually lost ridership because LRT was not properly planned and integrated, possibly the majority of cities who have gone this route in North America. Shiny new trains are not an automatic route to a more successful transit system.
Wm Perkins Bull
Active Member
Did you just combine a non falsifiable statement with No True Scotsman in a single sentence?
With BRT, increased usage results in running more vehicles which improves headways, and better headways attracts more riders, this causes a virtuous cycle.
With LRT because it is sold on operating cost efficiency, and expensive relatively flat costs get ignored, more ridership results in longer consists, and longer consists don't attract increased ridership like frequency does.
As a result, because BRTs require a relatively low threshold to make sense, and can easily grow, yes, they do tend to get upgraded. Meanwhile with LRTs, they tend to not get upgraded, because often they struggle to attract the ridership that was promised to justify the existence in the first place. Take Baltimore's LRT, in 2018 it had 23,335 riders, meanwhile it was projected to have 33,100 by 2010.
At least it isn't Brampton's magical underground LRT extension which is planned to enter and exit in flood plains, which the TRCA probably won't approve, ever.
Ah, but just because they haven't, doesn't mean they won't, that poster appears to have implied an infinite time horizon.
Streety McCarface
Senior Member
Both of these are vastly misleading:
SSE: Line 3 with the current ICTS tech is both obsolete and dilapidated. It needs a full-scale replacement. The question now is whether we should replace it with a subway, which serves a better corridor, decreases transfer time, and improves bus connections but costs a crap ton and will probably take longer to build, or we replace it with an LRT, which is cheaper and serves more stops, but on a poorer corridor with fewer available connections.
Hamilton: The current HSR system has been inadequate to serve the current and future needs of the city of Hamilton. The LRT will improve development and allow for increases in its capacity as needed, but will cost a bit more. A BRT system will be cheaper and likely serve more areas, but will likely be a subject of BRT creep, will not have the redevelopment benefits, and will hold fewer riders.
All options have their advantages and disadvantages.
micheal_can
Senior Member
Lets look at a great system in Canada - Ottawa Transitways. Lets look at another one - York Busway.
Both of those have been or are being replaced with higher order transit. The Busway was replaced by a subway extension and the Transitways are being replaced by LRT.
Lets look at why.
The Busway was replaced even though it is faster than a subway. Yes, you read that right; the busway was faster than the current subway from Downsview to York U. But, the issue becomes peak ridership, which a bus system cannot compete with a Subway.
The Transitways are being replaced by the LRT due to the central transitway being congested. They could ahve simply tunneled that portion, but instead they decided to upgrade the transitways to LRT. IIt has lasted about 30 years, but it still has become too congested. I predict that within the net 25 years, the LRT will eventually be what the city builds, not transitways.
Both of those 2 systems are not lacking ridership. They will grow over time as well.
Having said that, I still feel that the 5 routes; BLAST; that Hamilton is suggesting, should be run as BRT till the province is able to help to upgrade them.
I am not against BRT, but I do not think they are the best answer. They are the cheaper answer.