Special Report: Transit

Just Do Something to Improve Transit

We are tired of public transit being a second-class mode of commuting. If transit is important to City Hall, we the citizenry cannot tell.

By Ryan Janssen
Published February 09, 2015

I have given up caring about what Hamilton City Council does about improving transit in Hamilton, I just want them to do something.

I refer to all of Council, but especially to those Councillors who have been vocal in their disapproval of the most recent transit growth initiatives: particularly Councillors Chad Collins, Terry Whitehead and Arlene VanderBeek.

To be fair, naysayers play a valuable role in avoiding unhealthy patterns of group decision-making. But the discourse around issues of public transit has a very familiar rhythm to it.

There are reasons for saying 'no' to these issues, I understand. Which, again, is why I say: I do not care what Council does about bettering transit in Hamilton, I just want Council to do something.

So that I am not opining from anonymity: my name is Ryan Janssen. I have lived with my wife in the Durand neighbourhood for several years.

We do not own a car, partly because we simply cannot afford one. I am completing a Masters degree in Toronto and I work in Mississauga, and my wife is completing a degree in Nursing at McMaster while working at Juravinski Hospital.

We commute everywhere - to work, to school, to the grocery store, to church - by the HSR, GO, and/or by bike. We live, work, play, and pay taxes to the city of Hamilton.

I live in the downtown, but my life is in more than Ward 2.

We see a need for better transit services. We are tired of being passed by full buses on the B-Line. We are tired of low service levels on off-peak hours and weekends.

We are tired of the lack of information offered by the HSR. What other transit agency in a city larger than half a million people does not have an official social media presence?

We are tired of routes not connecting with each other and tired of lack of follow-through for a general vision for transit in Hamilton.

We are tired of five-lane superhighways running through our neighbourhood and of being separated from fast-moving traffic by nothing but a sidewalk curb. We are tired of cars being the logical choice, and public transit being a far lesser fate.

We are tired of the pathetic disconnection between parts of the city. My parents live in Councillor Vanderbeek's ward, but service levels are so low in Dundas that, despite my parents' close proximity, it is enormously difficult to see them.

I worked for some time in Councillor Ferguson's ward, and I would love to spend my money in his ward, but I cannot get to most of it by bus.

And if it is too difficult for Councillor Collins to ride the bus to work only five times out of an entire month, "family obligations" or not, that should say something.

We are tired of public transit being a second-class mode of commuting. If transit is important to City Hall, we the citizenry cannot tell.

Hamilton City Hall: ridership on the HSR is low. Very low. And annual transit trips per capita has actually decreased between 2006 and 2013. People are not riding the HSR because the system is flawed.

About the targets Council sets for transit, the HSR Ten Year Transit Plan says: "[Hamilton] is lagging behind in all targets." All targets.

So I do not care what Coundil does about bettering transit in Hamilton, I just want them to do something.

This article is adapted from a letter to Council.

Ryan Janssen was born and raised here in Hamilton - living first in Dundas, then in Westdale, and now in the downtown core. He is currently finishing a Masters degree in Toronto, working in Mississauga, and living in Hamilton.

67 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By walkcouncillors (anonymous) | Posted February 09, 2015 at 10:45:36

I doubt Collins et al. ever even walk downtown let alone take the bus.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By LeeEdwardMcIlmoyle (registered) - website | Posted February 09, 2015 at 11:45:31

applause

Ryan, you nailed it on the head.

Our Council can't work as a team. The city has become balkanized by the constant grousing about the inequities of amalgamation. Many of these councillors have become so parochial, and so very, very small-minded, that OUR Council is even less effective than it was before the election, where they would at least agree to do something, even if they would weasel out of their commitments later. Now they just spew soundbites and refuse to agree on a course of action for anything that affects parts of the city they don't like driving through.

City Council is seriously broken. Egos are running rampant, and no one has the power or influence to make anything positive happen in hamilton anymore. I'm all for consensus building, but if this is any indication of what we have to look forward to in the next four years, I think we need to relook at election reform, including binding commitments for the performance review and possible recall of ineffective councillors. We also need to insist on referendum points being added to our ballots, so we can tell our politicians what their job is, rather than them haring off to some country club meeting to have their marching orders given to them.

Why are we being forced to suffer through years of ineptitude and intransigence? What did we do wrong to these people, other than finding it physically impossible to live in every ward at once?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted February 09, 2015 at 12:38:38

It's more than a little disappointing that there is so little intellectual honesty, empathy, vision, courage or leadership present in council chambers just 10 weeks after our representatives were sworn in.

Odds are good that they will only have progressively less backbone as the term wears on.

Permalink | Context

By LOL_all_over_again (registered) | Posted February 14, 2015 at 11:25:22 in reply to Comment 108908

I believe they have lots of backbone and that is exactly why you don't like them. You are entitled to not like them but they are doing exactly what they are supposed to do, represent the wishes of their constituents.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By ItJustIs (registered) | Posted February 09, 2015 at 13:10:55

"...but if this is any indication of what we have to look forward to in the next four years, I think we need to relook at election reform..."

"It's more than a little disappointing that there is so little intellectual honesty, empathy, vision, courage or leadership present in council chambers just 10 weeks after our representatives were sworn in."

From a dedicated civic engagement activist:

"I'm inclined to think elections are overrated. If you vote for a candidate once every four years but don't get involved in the meantime, it doesn’t really matter much who you vote for. Once politicians get inside the bubble, it's impossible to keep any kind of perspective without ongoing, substantive interaction with 'regular voters' for grounding. Which is why it's so important for citizens to: a) elect councillors who will allow themselves to be engaged, and b) keep up their end of that engagement between elections.

Permalink | Context

By AnjoMan (registered) | Posted February 10, 2015 at 18:45:06 in reply to Comment 108909

And what is it you've done to spur change in your community... posted critical, assumptive comments on a website? What a contribution.

Permalink | Context

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted February 09, 2015 at 13:28:52 in reply to Comment 108909

I agree that widespread civic engagement is incredibly important, but doesn't reduce my disappointment in a municipal government stubbornly jamming it in neutral.

Permalink | Context

By LOL_all_over_again (registered) | Posted February 14, 2015 at 11:29:00 in reply to Comment 108910

wonder what your reaction would be if they decided to do something you were against. What if they all voted to allow the demotion of some of those old decrepit buildings downtown. I can already hear the screaming, whining and complaining.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mel (registered) | Posted February 09, 2015 at 13:56:36

Excellent article! Well articulated.

Next steps? How do we, the citizenry who ARE engaged, help move city councillors from fearful inaction into action?

If history has something to teach us it is that city councillors do not necessarily listen to/accept city staff and their reports.

I think we have a winner in David Dixon. He needs support. Our support. I, for one, will lend him my support and make my councillor aware that I support Mr. Dixon's efforts.

Further, HSR would benefit from having citizens/riders on the HSR Advisory Board. One of the things Guelph Transit did right was to have 2 citizen advisors on their Board (1 student rep from U/Guelph, the other a transit rider) and those voices helped to shape GT into a more-user friendly transit system. I"m not saying it was perfect -- it wasn't -- but at least there was rider representation. Does the report discuss this at all?

Finally, one thing HSR could do right now, right away, without costing a penny: when the bus is FULL, display "Sorry, bus full" where route number/name is. Guelph Transit began doing this 4 years ago and it went a long way to foster better customer service (stranded riders didn't have to wonder why the bus wouldn't stop) and helped track the number of routes, days, and times that buses could not accommodate everyone wishing to get on. That data led to GT adjusting service times, service routes, and adding to the fleet.

Permalink | Context

By AnjoMan (registered) | Posted February 10, 2015 at 18:46:45 in reply to Comment 108911

(1 student rep from U/Guelph, the other a transit rider)

Its sad that you have to specify 'one of the citizen advisors was a transit user'.

Permalink | Context

By LOL_all_over_again (registered) | Posted February 14, 2015 at 11:30:35 in reply to Comment 108988

since most of the residents of Hamilton don't use transit why would there be many of them on the committee?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Rallyup (anonymous) | Posted February 09, 2015 at 14:17:13

We need to start by holding a rally at the next council meeting about Transit, packing council chambers, more than was at the King St. TOL debate.

Permalink | Context

By LOL_all_over_again (registered) | Posted February 14, 2015 at 11:31:08 in reply to Comment 108912

You do that. I will be there taking pictures.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Noted (anonymous) | Posted February 09, 2015 at 14:56:30

Another drama in Hamilton’s city hall has come and gone, as nine councillors opposed to the downtown bus lane finally got their way in killing the pilot project.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the councillors from Wards 14 and 15 were included in the opposition. For those of us far from the city centre, it is easy to view downtown public transit as a waste of money, an unfortunate by-product of an amalgamation that by now seems irreversible. While an understandable reaction to an issue that might seem irrelevant to our community, this view negatively impacts the rest of Hamilton and is ultimately contradictory to Flamborough’s own self-interest.

flamboroughreview.com/opinion/flamborough-can-help-build-a-vibrant-downtown-core/

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted February 09, 2015 at 17:48:07

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

By jansserj (registered) | Posted February 09, 2015 at 22:07:14 in reply to Comment 108915

DowntownInHamilton: I mean the entire city.

The whole conversation about "transit for the downtown" vs. "transit for the city" is flawed... I mean, the entire purpose of transit is to move me around from A to B, and what purpose does transit have if connects only the "downtown" to the "downtown."

Case in point, and as I mention in the letter: my parents live in Dundas, I used to work in Ancaster, I live downtown, I have friends and family on the east mountain and... well, I have no use for Stoney Creek, but I'm sure some people somewhere do. The lives of Hamiltonians are more than in their own neighbourhoods -- public transit should be instrumental in connecting these unique parts of the city!

Permalink | Context

By LOL_all_over_again (registered) | Posted February 14, 2015 at 11:34:56 in reply to Comment 108923

And where does all the money come from?

Easy peasy to want more buses, more routes, more frequent service but how does it get funded? Transit is used my a minority of the inhabitants and subsided by the rest. We just can't afford it.

Permalink | Context

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted February 16, 2015 at 23:08:38 in reply to Comment 109154

I usually agree with you, but on this you are wrong.

Transit is useful, even if you don't use it. I don't, either. But my wife does, close family and friends do. It's easy to point and say that since we don't use what we have, we shouldn't have it at all. We need to beef up our existing majors, then fan out to the smaller ones.

It's also easy to say we can't afford anything and to just not do it. Maybe we can take away your power lines or water or something to help out others.

Permalink | Context

By LOL_all_over_again (registered) | Posted February 17, 2015 at 15:05:51 in reply to Comment 109232

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

By TheDude (registered) | Posted February 18, 2015 at 20:22:05 in reply to Comment 109246

So, back to your point. The "we just can't afford it" nonsense. Let me ask you this:

  • Did you buy your house for cash?
  • Did you buy your car for cash?
  • Do you ever use a credit card?

If you have/had a mortgage, car payments, monthly CC bills, you bought something you couldn't afford. You've stretched it out by paying for it long term. Why can we not do the same with enhanced transit?

Permalink | Context

By ostrich town (anonymous) | Posted February 17, 2015 at 15:51:54 in reply to Comment 109246

yes actually they are subsidized

Permalink | Context

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted February 10, 2015 at 19:44:34 in reply to Comment 108923

Thanks for the response. I wasn't 100% sure.

It sounds like you and I were very similar. My parents live in Dundas, my sister in Burlington, extended family in Ancaster and I work out of town. We live on the mountain now (used to live downtown) and my wife relies on the bus to get in to work at McMaster. Her trip is now about the same as it was when she lived downtown, which is odd, but she has said now that instead of just dealing with students going into Mac crowding the bus, it's also students from Mohawk that crowd the first part of the trip.

We can't focus just on the core any more. It's on it's way and sure, it has some serious problems, but so do other parts of our city - not only with crowding, but also with regular service to remote hubs such as Lime Ridge, the Meadowlands, the power centre at the edge of Ancaster, East Stoney Creek, etc.

Thanks again.

Permalink | Context

By so concerned all of a sudden (anonymous) | Posted February 10, 2015 at 23:02:37 in reply to Comment 108993

feeling the heat eh?

Permalink | Context

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted February 11, 2015 at 18:30:50 in reply to Comment 109002

Heat from what? Transit should always include the city - regardless of where you live. It's just unfortunate so much of the conversation centres on the downtown.

Permalink | Context

By Show me the Money (anonymous) | Posted February 10, 2015 at 20:47:02 in reply to Comment 108993

Good luck getting them to agree to the tax increase to make it happen.

Permalink | Context

By mikeonthemountain (registered) | Posted February 10, 2015 at 20:20:57 in reply to Comment 108993

Indeed! I just needed a ride from the GO to Mohawk road on west mountain. At peak hours the 33 was passing people by before we were even past Mohawk College. It was stuffed before we even started up the escarpment. I tried to call somebody at HSR to let them know this was happening regularly, but gave up before I figured out who to reach and how, recognizing it was a unlikely that anyone would give a crap.

When the 33 passed me by at Hunter Street I realized HSR was non-viable along with a normal life, so that ended there.

A friend of mine on the east mountain - her employer chose to proactively arrange carpool for her - this productive and valued young lady was going to quit because the bus ride to stoney creek was virtually impossible.

It looks like there may be a fairly large number of people that are actually suffering because the whole "organism" suffering because its parts aren't working together (reference to wards sabotaging each other so to speak).

Personally, I wanted to see an efficient, world class execution, of a provincially paid higher order transit on one of the crush corridors (B-line) with the freed buses filling in numerous other service deficiencies. But so far only in my naive little (duh it's so simple why aren't you doing it this way :) mind.

Comment edited by mikeonthemountain on 2015-02-10 20:38:41

Permalink | Context

By MissingPartOfTheStory (registered) | Posted February 10, 2015 at 23:48:33 in reply to Comment 108997

That's the key to the whole idea. Marketing LRT as a way to improve transit in Hamilton more generally speaking.

Permalink | Context

By downtowninabbey (anonymous) | Posted February 09, 2015 at 22:28:51 in reply to Comment 108923

don't waste energy on this lunatic who's immune to logic and reason

Permalink | Context

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted February 10, 2015 at 19:44:58 in reply to Comment 108928

Aww, I love you too <3

I appreciate everything you've added with your comment.

Permalink | Context

By Ditto (anonymous) | Posted February 09, 2015 at 23:10:29 in reply to Comment 108928

That's how I feel about council.

Permalink | Context

By Utilitarian (anonymous) | Posted February 09, 2015 at 18:35:50 in reply to Comment 108915

Would obviously be nice for entire city, but need is greatest in downtown right now. Utilitarianism.

Permalink | Context

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted February 09, 2015 at 18:04:26 in reply to Comment 108915

The Dixon plan is extremely favorable to the suburbs, and you still see the RTH set supporting it.

The Dixon plan is large fare hike to subsidize service upgrades in places that voted against the bus-lane and run generally-empty buses. And yes, expecting fares to cover transit improvements is unfair to downtown in light of this:

farebox recover ratios by route

Basically, downtown riders and Metrolinx will be covering upping the frequency on the mountain for half-empty buses, and planned express buses out to the peripheral communities.

It is absolutely a raw deal for downtown. And you know what? The RTH set still supports it, because boosting transit is good for the city, the environment, and Hamiltonians.

Comment edited by Pxtl on 2015-02-09 18:04:46

Permalink | Context

By MissingPartOfTheStory (registered) | Posted February 10, 2015 at 23:51:19 in reply to Comment 108917

Do you seriously think the downtown lines would be so economical if it weren't for the suburban lines feeding into them? It's like hearing an arm tell a leg that they do all the real heavy lifting... work together folks, look inside yourself and stop being so divisive....

Permalink | Context

By anony (anonymous) | Posted February 11, 2015 at 10:05:14 in reply to Comment 109005

it's the fringe councillors being divisive, not the "rth set"

Permalink | Context

By MissingPartOfTheStory (registered) | Posted February 11, 2015 at 10:14:29 in reply to Comment 109017

Do the 'fringe' councillors blog, comment and evangelize their position all day, every day? Nope. If you're definition of being divisive is disagreeing with you, you're definition needs some improvement.

What makes them 'fringe' councillors by the way? I assume you mean the location of the wards, because they seem to keep winning the votes.

Permalink | Context

By anony (anonymous) | Posted February 11, 2015 at 13:12:16 in reply to Comment 109019

You've obviously never been to a council meeting if you think the suburban councillors don't evangelize. It is completely self serving for them to create a rift between their wards and the downtown wards, and they take every opportunity to do so. The lower city councillors are considerably more holistic in their views, actions and votes.

Permalink | Context

By Hereyougo (anonymous) | Posted February 11, 2015 at 12:05:55 in reply to Comment 109019

This is the lie of egalitarianism, upon which our government rests. All people are NOT equal, other than in terms of deserving basic human dignity and respect. You, my friend, are clearly either a willful idiot or an incapable of not being an ignoramus. If it is the former, you don't deserve to be dignified with a response. I'm assuming it might be the latter, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and pretend you are capable of reasoning. To answer your question then, disagreeing is not being divisive, but disagreeing with all the logic, facts, evidence, and wide-spread support stacked against you is divisive, to say the least.

Permalink | Context

By English 101 (anonymous) | Posted February 11, 2015 at 11:28:44 in reply to Comment 109019

What needs improvement is you're grammar.

Permalink | Context

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted February 10, 2015 at 10:52:55 in reply to Comment 108917

Black Vertical = revenue/cost ratio for entire system (51.1%)
Pink Vertical = 30% minimum set by the HSR’s service standards

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted February 09, 2015 at 21:22:13 in reply to Comment 108917

Wow....tremendous graph. That the #8 York is on par with a crosstown route like Cannon, and far ahead of crosstown's on the Mtn such as Mohawk, Stone Church and Rymal is remarkable.

Why on earth are we planning an express route to run the same route as that pitiful Rymal bus??

I posted a few months ago that I felt a new express route should be developed running from downtown to Mohawk college and then to Limeridge Mall. Lo and behold, which 3 Mountain routes are the best performing? the 25/26 and 35.
I simply don't understand this fixation with the A-Line route when anyone who works at city hall or the HSR only needs to ride these routes for a month to see that there is far greater demand on the Limeridge Mall/Mohawk corridor.

How the A-Line got bumped to 2nd on the list for rapid transit is a head-scratcher. And the Rymal line? Well, unless we plan on building a proper urban street along the Rymal corridor with mixed-use buildings and not just single family homes, I don't see a rapid transit route ever being useful there.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be built, but not before more pressing express routes such as the aforementioned route, and perhaps a Barton route and the T-line.

Permalink | Context

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted February 10, 2015 at 11:05:50 in reply to Comment 108922

Ian Dunlop dug into some of these dynamics a few years back.

"Bus or Rail? Finding the Right Solution for Hamilton’s A‐Line" (Dec 2011)
reports.strategicinterchange.ca/SI_A-Line_CBA.pdf

Permalink | Context

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted February 10, 2015 at 09:08:50 in reply to Comment 108922

To be fair, this is from the 2010 IBI report and it's out-of-date. And yes, its counts showed that the lion's share of bus activity was at Downtown, Eastgate, Mohawk, Mac, and the Meadowlands. The A-line LRT does follow the alignment of the popular College until it starts proceeding south from Mohawk, so it has that going for it. The problem with going along Wentworth or Wellington is that those roads are primarily residential except for the mall. Upper James is commercial for its entire length. The A-line alignment makes sense except for the mall problem.

Realistically, the right orientation for the A-line is probably to give up on the white-elephant airport and just end at Lime-Ridge Mall, but I don't know how it would get from Upper-James to Lime Ridge Mall.

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted February 10, 2015 at 09:20:10 in reply to Comment 108944

I don't know how it would get from Upper-James to Lime Ridge Mall.

Couldn't it make a left turn at Mohawk? If the City is determined to have it continue south, it can always pull through Lime Ridge, then jump on the Linc and cut back to Upper James.

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted February 10, 2015 at 10:01:34 in reply to Comment 108945

I would run it from Mohawk College to Upper James via Fennell (tons of dense apartments and the Mt Plaza Mall there). Then run it south on Upper James to Mohawk and along Mohawk to Upper Wentworth. Again, as far as Mountain arterials go, that stretch of Upper James and portion of Mohawk has a ton of apartments and density.
I'm not saying to remove all bus service from Upper James for folks who want to head there, but based on the density of Fennell/Upper James N of Mohawk and Mohawk from Upper James to the main hub - Limeridge Mall, the ridership potential is fantastic. Much more so than the ever lowering density, mega parking lots along Upper James the further south one goes from Mohawk.

The density along this corridor is much greater than people realize when flying by in their cars. And the massive width of the roadway would actually allow for curb bus lanes while still leaving 2 lanes for cars each way if we re-painted the lanes to a more common 9.5 feet width.

Upper James and Fennell corner density: http://goo.gl/20Gi8H

Upper James north of Mohawk. Not massive density, but much higher than the rest of Upper James. Retail built close to the street as well ala mid 20th Century.

http://goo.gl/sgUL1A

Mohawk Road very impressive density between Upper James and Upper Wentworth:

http://goo.gl/v7QfTE

Compared with further south along Upper James. Transit isn't equal. It works best in areas with higher densities and walkable streets.

http://goo.gl/5ihcuC

Comment edited by jason on 2015-02-10 10:10:53

Permalink | Context

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted February 10, 2015 at 11:33:12 in reply to Comment 108947

That's basically the current plan plus a Mall add-on. The A-line bus runs the planned route - run the full length of James/Upper James, climbing the mountain through James Mountain Road (that's the hard part) and then take Fennel to get back to Upper James.

If Lime Ridge was built closer to Upper James, it would be perfect.

My ideal plan would be to build the first-cut implementation of the A-line ending at Lime Ridge Mall. Just end it there. Forget continuing south.

Then the next phase of expansion is building the T-line and the A-line airport run, separating the A-line from limeridge.

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted February 10, 2015 at 11:50:05 in reply to Comment 108951

agreed that the A-Line should terminate at Limeridge Mall as Phase 1. Although it already exists. But so does the #27. Perhaps the #27 can remain and the A-Line shift to Limeridge.

And T-Line should be next IMO, not an airport run.

Permalink | Context

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted February 10, 2015 at 10:42:59 in reply to Comment 108947

"Transit isn't equal. It works best in areas with higher densities and walkable streets."

Exhibit 3-18: Service

6 Aberdeen
Boardings: 207
Avg load: 2.3

7 Locke
Boardings: 197
Avg load: 3.2

8 York
Boardings: 380
Avg load: 3.2

25
Boardings: 1,639
Avg load: 16.7

26
Boardings: 1,387
Avg load: 8.7

27 Upper James
Boardings: 977
Avg load: 10.5

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

That data is six years old, though.

Permalink | Context

By LOL_all_over_again (registered) | Posted February 14, 2015 at 11:41:13 in reply to Comment 108948

It works best in small (area wise) cities that are densely populated. Tough for transit to work well at a reasonable cost in a city where the so many live in single family homes.

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted February 14, 2015 at 16:49:15 in reply to Comment 109156

ya if only we were more dense like London ON, Mississauga and Winnipeg.

Permalink | Context

By LOL_all_over_again (registered) | Posted February 17, 2015 at 15:15:16 in reply to Comment 109167

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

By turning four (anonymous) | Posted February 17, 2015 at 15:50:38 in reply to Comment 109247

somebody got an abacus for christmas!

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted February 17, 2015 at 15:45:10 in reply to Comment 109247

I try to avoid feeding the trolls, but your bullshit density claim has been addressed so many times on this site that there is no possible way you aren't being deliberately obtuse.

Your endlessly claimed density of 465 people/km2 includes the large rural area of Hamilton that is outside the urban boundary, pays no tax levy toward the cost of transit and receives no transit service.

The actual density of the total area of Hamilton within the urban boundary is 2,253 people/km2.

(For the old city wards 1-8, which all pay the highest area rated transit levy, the average density is 2,663 people/km2.)

Now will you please go away and stop wasting everyone's time with your relentless repetition of many-times-debunked nonsense.

Permalink | Context

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted February 10, 2015 at 11:33:57 in reply to Comment 108948

Oddly, the IBI report considered the 3,6,7 and 8 all "underperforming" and wanted to axe them all, the argument that 3 is redundant with 1 and 2. There was the soft-pedaled proposal of somehow amalgamating the 3, 6, 7... but it really pushed one of those silly "trans-cab" services for Durand/Strathcona/Westdale-North.

If it was really necessary to kill them all, I'd just make a single U-shaped "LockeWood" bus that runs the full length of Longwood, then jogs along Aberdeen to Locke, then the full length of Locke with a brief detour to swing by the Dundurn Fortinos Plaza.

Permalink | Context

By Stephen (anonymous) | Posted February 11, 2015 at 11:32:35 in reply to Comment 108952

It makes no sense for a major artery like Dundurn, with big trip generators in the middle (multiple connections at Main and King; Fortino’s plaza) not to have a bus that runs continuously down Dundurn. The 8 is one thing, but the 6 and 7 perform badly in the IBI Report, for good reason. They should be rationalized to afford a route that travels the length of Dundurn and contribute to a proper grid.

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted February 14, 2015 at 16:50:24 in reply to Comment 109026

agreed. The #8 does quite well considering it's lacklustre service, especially evenings/weekends.

But surely something better can be done with 6 and 7. And yes, all the way up Dundurn already.

Permalink | Context

By Rimshot (anonymous) | Posted February 10, 2015 at 12:09:31 in reply to Comment 108952

"Lorkerdeen"

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted February 10, 2015 at 11:54:27 in reply to Comment 108952

Makes no sense to axe any of the 6,7,8 runs when one looks at this data:

https://www.raisethehammer.org/comment/1...

More frequency on these routes would be better in IMO. And better connections along Dundurn both directions.

This is where city hall just doesn't get it. They complain about low headways way out by Upper Sherman and Rymal, and discontinuing 'low performing' neighbourhood routes such as these, yet the #8 York makes them more money than the #21, 22, 33, 41, 43, 44

Permalink | Context

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted February 10, 2015 at 12:04:16 in reply to Comment 108954

This was the 2010 recommendation from IBI, an outside body. City Hall ignored that recommendation, so you can argue that City Hall does get it.

Comment edited by Pxtl on 2015-02-10 12:04:36

Permalink | Context

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted February 10, 2015 at 12:14:44 in reply to Comment 108955

Chad Collins' to-do list does include fixing under-performing routes, though time will tell if that's "fix" in the sense of "mend" or "neuter".

Permalink | Context

By And (anonymous) | Posted February 10, 2015 at 15:21:49 in reply to Comment 108957

Hopefully includes "get head out of own ass" too.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By KevinLove (registered) | Posted February 09, 2015 at 22:49:37

Can we imagine a City of Hamilton that had enough pride in HSR that it would run cool bus commercials?

Permalink | Context

By Narly (anonymous) | Posted February 09, 2015 at 23:13:48 in reply to Comment 108935

Awesome commercials man!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By notlloyd (registered) - website | Posted February 10, 2015 at 09:31:07

A truly revolutionary change in transit is coming. It might eliminate LRT, BRT and buses for that matter. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557...

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Halleluah (anonymous) | Posted February 11, 2015 at 09:49:26

Enlighten us. Exactly which suburban lines feeding into which downtown lines do you refer?

Permalink | Context

By MissingPartOfTheStory (registered) | Posted February 11, 2015 at 10:15:51 in reply to Comment 109014

All of them? Look at the HSR map...

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted February 11, 2015 at 22:36:30

I wonder why the previous 10 year HSR plan which called for an express bus system using the shoulders of the RHVP, Linc and 403 isn't being pursued right now by Dixon and his new 10-year plan? Talk about a cost-effective way to make rapid connections in a huge geographical area of the city for not a whole lot of money.

Ottawa has been doing this for years:

http://r3.masstransitmag.com/files/base/...

Bus stops are located at the on-ramp back onto the highway after having exited. The stop would be right here on the right, then a bus-only ramp would be cut through the median on Upper James allowing the bus to access the on-ramp back onto the Linc and continue it's journey:

http://goo.gl/rQeXjj

Off the top of my head this could start at Eastgate or the Centennial/QEW commercial development and have stops at Barton/Queenston/King/Meadowlands East/Upper Gage/Upper Wentworth/Upper James/Garth/Meadowlands/MIP/McMaster U

It was proposed years ago, but like every transit proposal hasn't been followed up on.

Comment edited by jason on 2015-02-11 22:41:13

Permalink | Context

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to comment.

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds