 |
| Keanin Loomis |
In any community, champions are needed to get things done on a grand scale. We’ve been proud to join many hundreds, if not thousands, of staunch Hamilton LRT supporters that are passionate about bringing ambition back to the Ambitious City.
The promise of LRT was one of the reasons I decided to settle here in 2009 (the only question at that time was whether it’d be ready for the PanAm Games!). The appeal of light rail transit is certainly informed by my own travels and by my desires for the type of city I want to live in.
However, as President & CEO of the Hamilton Chamber of Commerce, the calculus is necessarily different. In the position of CEO of the Chamber, I did not come by the decision to actively advocate for LRT lightly, because at no point does a leader of an organization want to get too far out in front of his/her key stakeholders – in this case our membership and the Board of Directors. When it comes to arriving at a certain position for an organization of 1,000 members, it’s imperative that a rigorous, open-minded and inclusive process be put in place to gauge opinion.
Fortunately, many of our members spent many years on our LRT Task Force (which was struck well before I came into this role), hearing delegations and researching numerous case studies of proven economic uplift in other cities. It was after this process that our Board of Directors and our staff felt empowered to advocate for this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.
I am not critical of those that do not share the same enthusiasm, because certainly I don’t expect unanimity across the community. Especially on a major project like this, you have to overcome a lot of anxieties and skepticism. This is Change Management on a community-wide scale, and it’s the responsibility of champions, in an intellectually honest way, to help people understand the business case and, eventually, get excited by the vision.
Concerns are natural and in many cases legitimate, but what I have always been critical of are alarmists that grasp at straws and spurious thinking to whip up hysteria in an effort to undermine this $1 billion investment.
2. Why is it important for LRT to move ahead? What do you see as the short, medium and longer term impacts/benefits.
Hamilton is experiencing an incredible renewal and it’s a very desirous city in which to live. However, it can be so much more. When it comes to our streets and our transportation system, the status quo is completely unacceptable. We need to make some radical investments to maximize our potential…
…and, fortunately, after many years of planning and hurdles cleared – the most significant being the pledge by the province to fund the entire $1 billion project – LRT is very close to becoming a reality. Because of all we’ve invested (time, money, optimism) in getting to this point, it was my contention in my April 18th Hamilton Spectator op-ed that the costs of doing nothing are enormous and irreversible. (https://www.thespec.com/opinion-story/7248850-the-high-cost-of-doing-nothing/)
The impacts of building LRT, on the other hand, are temporary and manageable. It will require good planning, a lot of hustle and a positive attitude to get through to the other side, but I’m confident that we are on the right track.
The long-term pay-offs will be in the infrastructure we are upgrading along a significant swath of the city, the long-needed investment we are making in modernizing our transit system, and the residential and commercial development that all of that unlocks. We’ve already seen a significant amount of development attributable to LRT, but it’s just the beginning as the number of new Hamiltonians we’ll have to absorb within the existing urban boundary is immense. The projected population increase of 250,000 by 2041 means that the market size for every business in Hamilton is anticipated to increase by 50% over the next 25 years.
3. If you were to allow a serious concern about the implementation of LRT in Hamilton, what would that concern be and what makes you comfortable living with that concern. What mitigating factors would you look to.
Just because I’m a champion for the project doesn’t mean I haven’t asked myself many times over the last number of years if we’re doing the right thing. It’s healthy to constantly re-evaluate your assumptions and course of action.
When it comes to the design, planning and implementation, I’m very confident that the highly professional staff at Metrolinx and the City of Hamilton are doing everything right.
Ultimately, my biggest concern is the impacts to businesses in the lower city, especially retailers along the corridor. I’ve said many times that being Hamilton’s Voice of Business requires us to be staunch supporters of the project, but also obligates us to do everything possible to mitigate the impacts of construction to businesses.
After much study and discussion with experts, I’ve learned there are a variety of things we can do to make sure that those impacts are mitigated. The great thing is that we are not the first city in Southern Ontario, let alone North America, to be building LRT. And there are a lot of lessons to learn from those cities.
As a result, we’ve been proud to work with Metrolinx over the last year to design an LRT Ready seminar series that helps Hamilton businesses understand the impacts that they are about to face and the measures they as business owners, and we as a community, need to embrace to get through construction.
I believe our first session, held on June 6th, should be mandatory viewing for not just businesses, but all Hamiltonians. (www.lrtready.ca).
Our second session will be a road trip on August 21st to K-W to talk to businesses that have been through the process. Subsequent sessions will help businesses build digital loyalty (website, CRM, e-commerce, social media) among their customers.
Our friends in K-W and Eglinton said they didn’t have these conversations until construction started and the fact we’re having these discussions two years before shovels go in the ground will serve us very well.
And we’re already discussing with Metrolinx what comes after the business preparedness series. In development are: 1) a communications plan that will help businesses understand what’s going during any given day of construction, and 2) a branding and marketing plan that will make sure the community is mindful of where its dollars need to be spent over the course of the project.
4. LRT has been a divisive matter in Hamilton, which is to be expected given the magnitude of the change and its rippling effects. How do you ensure the voice of all of your members is heard, agnostic to your personal views on LRT?
As LRT grew as a topic of conversation in the community and among our membership, I was surprised to find that there is actually very little controversy among our members on this matter. What I’ve come to realize is that a chamber of commerce is usually a collection of the more forward-thinking and community-oriented businesses in any community. Most businesses understand that you need to make strategic investments to remain competitive – if you’re not innovating, you’re dying. The same goes for the community in which these businesses operate.
As LRT grew as a topic of conversation in the community and among our membership, I was surprised to find that there is actually very little controversy among our members on this matter. What I’ve come to realize is that a chamber of commerce is usually a collection of the more forward-thinking and community-oriented businesses in any community. Most businesses understand that you need to make strategic investments to remain competitive – if you’re not innovating, you’re dying. The same goes for the community in which these businesses operate.
5. What do you say to transit union members and people like Eric Tuck, who are gravely concerned about the impact of LRT of his members?
The issue of operations hasn’t been within our purview and it’s only recently become a hot button item. There is still so much that remains to be worked out when the winning consortium comes into the equation, but I’m sure all parties will share the same goal: this system has to be as well-run as possible. And I’m sure that will involve unionized workers.
The issue of operations hasn’t been within our purview and it’s only recently become a hot button item. There is still so much that remains to be worked out when the winning consortium comes into the equation, but I’m sure all parties will share the same goal: this system has to be as well-run as possible. And I’m sure that will involve unionized workers.
6. Is there anything else you’d like readers to know either about your views on LRT, or the views/concerns of your members?
The business case for building LRT in Hamilton is very sound. This is the right time and place for this type of project. There are of course no guarantees, but if you do it right – and we have thus far – this project will completely transform this city.
I’ve learned that these projects follow a pretty similar pattern. Once you get over the initial resistance to change, and once the project is done and delivering its intended impacts, everybody will say they were for it all along! Fast forward 20 years and nobody will question the wisdom of this decision.
Thank-you Keanin for engaging with Hamiltonians via The Hamiltonian
I am hoping Mr. Loomis will be willing to help me better understand the Business Case for this undertaking.
ReplyDeleteI am only aware of one such analysis that was conducted for our City, which is the "King-Main Benefit Case" prepared by Metrolinx in 2010
In it, 3 options were considered. Ultimately, decision makers were forced to reject all 3, choosing instead what I consider to be a sort of "convoluted hybrid" which requires buses to continue following light rail in order to provide an acceptable standard of service. To the best of my knowledge, this choice has never been costed, modeled, or carefully analyzed. With speed of light rail being a critical component to it's success, and with assumptions being made respecting speed that did not include sharing the route with buses, I believe that supporting evidence remains absent.
Can Mr.Loomis reference a Business Case modeled on the option we are about to employ?
Aside from your posts, I haven't seen any reference to buses sharing lane space with LRT. Can you produce a link to a logistical or operational document from Metrolinx or the City of Hamilton that supports your contention? (On the face of it, it makes no sense: LRT is oriented around the inside curb lane, while bus stops are oriented around the right, with doors to match.) Vehicles can share a corridor or parallel a route alignment without sharing a single dedicated lane.
DeleteCassiopeia
it is not light rail that will slowed by buses, but regular traffic.
Deletewith just one lane to share, regular traffic will be significantly impeded by buses continuing to make regular stops.
When one considers one of the benefits ascribed in the analysis is "as well as greater automobile user time savings resulting from reduced congestion along the realigned King -Main corridor" you realize easily the premise is destroyed with the necessary addition of buses.
"With speed of light rail being a critical component to it's success, and with assumptions being made respecting speed that did not include sharing the route with buses, I believe that supporting evidence remains absent"
ReplyDeleteNo mystery, no hoopla. Any buses that may be needed periodically along the route to further enhance service will, for now, flow with the auto traffic as it does right now. Nothing changes, no doom and gloom required. Then, the LRT runs on priority scheduling along the entire route. It wont be subject to the vagaries of auto traffic, which will flow at its present pace, only a bit slower.
So your fears about buses slowing down LRT arent justified.
Stompin Cam
buses will be needed all the time, not periodically, and everything changes, buses, priority signalling, all contribute to slowing auto traffic-as you rightly point out-which contradicts a stated benefit in the analysis.
DeleteLRT is slow, all by itself, and does require further impediment.
From the BCA,
ReplyDelete"these travel time benefits however are dependent upon the ability of the new rapid transit system to achieve the proposed operating speeds which in turn is dependent upon the implementation of the necessary transit priorities."
Transit priorities which have not been implemented, and according to Metrolinx, now never will be implemented.
Transit priorities such as converting both Main and King to 2 way traffic along the entire route.
"Clearly the need for 2 way operation is essential for the successful operation of this transit line, given the findings presented. Therefore the conversion of King and Main to 2 way operation has been assumed for the purpose of this evaluation."
Has not happened. Is not going to happen. Yet it is identified as critical to success.
Hopefully Mr. Loomis has new information to support his contention that this undertaking is predicated on sound business practice. Hopefully he is willing to share this information in an "intellectually honest" fashion.
Respectfully, the BCA clarifies that the critical component to transit travel speed is *not* two-way conversion but rather the transit signal priority measures widely prescribed in other local transit documents (most recently 2015's Ten Year Local Transit strategy, but also the March 2010 HSR Operational Review, which dedicates pages 90-96 to said measures). From the BCA:
DeletePage 5
"For each option, the majority of benefits are derived from the travel time savings thus highlighting the importance of the operating speed of the rapid transit system to the success of the project. Given the supportive transit signal priority/pre-emotion measures proposed under each of the options, the City of Hamilton has an opportunity to establish a new performance standard for the region to fully realize the benefits from the rapid transit investment."
Page 6
"In addition to the merits of the two-way conversion, the ability of the rapid transit system to compete with the automobile and generate travel time benefits is directly related to the operating speed of the rapid transit system. For each option assessed in this study, the majority of the benefits are derived from travel time savings. If the City of Hamilton provides the supportive transit signal priority/pre-emption measures proposed under each of the options, the results indicate that the City can leverage the benefits from a rapid transit investment while establishing a new performance standard for rapid transit in the region."
Similarly, your closing quote regarding "2-way" is taken out of context. In this case the BCA is addressing (on pages 20-22) the virtues of LRT route configuration. A "one-way system" is alternately described as a "split rapid transit corridor" that essentially mimics the current flow on one-way streets; "two-way" operation in this context has nothing to do with traffic flow and everything to do with the alignment of LRT operation along a single path running easy-west on parallel rails.
Cassiopeia
"finally the results of this comparative analysis presented in this report are based on the assumption that the current two way street system through the downtown core is converted to two-way traffic system where both Main street and King Street are converted to two-way streets"
DeleteThe results are based on conditions which do not exist. Period.
And the analysis mentions the importance of 2 way conversion no fewer than 10 times.
Page 6: "Finally, the results of the
Deletecomparative analysis presented in this report are based on the assumption that the current one-way street system through the downtown core is converted to a two-way traffic system where both Main Street and King Street are converted to two-way streets. In the absence of this conversion, the incremental benefits generated by the introduction of a rapid transit system are greater than those presented in this report, reflecting the different trip characteristics under each scenario. The one-way system typically supports longer cross town trips rather than the shorter trips encouraged by the two-way streets. As a consequence, the travel time savings resulting from the introduction of rapid transit under a two-way street scenario are less significant than under a one-way scenario as individual trip patterns already
reflect the shorter trip distances." So actually what the report says is that if the two-way conversion doesn't happen, the LRT has even greater benefits but if it does happen it will still have great benefits. The report is clear in this.
-Adam
Page 22: "Therefore, the conversions of King Street and Main Street to two-way operations have been assumed for the purposes of this analysis." Refers to a two way LRT system operating on Main west of the 403 and King east of the 403. (the purpose of the section is to identify the best option between two way LRT on Main/King or 1-way LRT on each of Main and King).
DeleteThe section also mentions that the city finds 2-way traffic conversion to Main and King also best serves the local public: "While this one-way street configuration facilitates efficient traffic flow for passenger vehicles and longer trips traveling through the downtown, it is not ideal for pedestrians, transit users, and people generally using and experiencing the downtown area." However, the 2-way vehicle traffic conversion of Main St or King St are not required to make the project successful as stated on page 6.
-Adam
agreed, the report apparently wants what is worst for us.
DeleteSeems odd, no?
Eve
Not agreed - that's a matter of opinion. In my opinion, 2-way Main and King would be fantastic and better treatment for pedestrians, transit users and people generally using and experiencing the downtown area sounds like a great thing. The way I see it the report appears to want what is best for us, hence it is a matter of opinion.
Delete-Adam
in "it's" absence, everything is better? Than "it" is worst.
DeleteJust not in your opinion.
Eve.
take the option with the worst cost/benefit ratio.
Deleteand encourage it's use in a worst case scenario.
wynne/wynne.
Horatio
The obvious: You can't diverge from the Metrolinx model of BRT and retain the BCA's cost/benefit ratio. If you split the BRT line in two, with one dedicated lane on Main heading east and one dedicated lane headed west, you're now ripping up two major crosstown streets, which would substantially increase the project's capital cost, thereby eroding the cost/benefit ratio. By the same token, if you contend that Metrolinx could simply cheap out on the infrastructure to stretch budget, that would also weaken ROI. The more you make Metrolinx-standard BRT resemble standard-issue HSR, the lower the ROI spirals. And at its most skeletal, the BRT model in the BCA presumes that buses would arrive five times more frequently than they do now on the 10. That means the operational costs of the 10 would quintuple, with the City determined to shoulder that load, under contract to the province, for a period of 30 years.
DeleteAnd buses other than the 10 would still mingle in the reduced number of lanes that remained. Buses following buses, making up for the inadequacy of fast buses by adding more slow more buses. Makes sense.
Hornblower
If you claim that the lack of two-way King and Main destroys the cost/benefit ratio for LRT, it stands to reason that it would also destroy the cost/benefit ratio for BRT. Although admittedly, the cost is being borne by the province in the BCA, and increasingly the City issownloading costs onto itself, which would potentially yield more benefit to the province.
DeleteHornblower
You are clearly taking the quote out of context. Being better as referred to by the report is the ability of the LRT to improve travel times over standard public transit, while with two way conversions it adds additional public benefits to safety and liveability. The performance of the options is not black and white as you promote. It is not "better" vs "worst" - it is better than now or even better than that. However, it is all in the report - one only has to read and not take things out of context in an effort of supporting an anti-transit stance.
DeleteAdam
the performance of the options is....grey? Murky?
Deletetwo-way in neither better nor worse, just way better than now?
A lose/lost proposition.
Eve.
Another very good article and worth reading. Having said that...
ReplyDeleteI'm all for Hamilton ambition, transforming and all the other buzz words you can fit in a shopping bag.
But adults don't believe magic tricks and fables. No matter which make believe business case you flaunt (I've seen these things engineered), you're not going to convince an intellgent adukt that ripping up infrastructure to run these tracks, is a better solution that being more flexible and covering more territory with busses. Just doesn't add up. 2 + 2 never equals 5.
Sorce
Even if the money for an ambitious citywide bus system is coming from municipal coffers? Because the funding in this scenario relates exclusively to the project that has been studied for years and championed exclusively. That is to say the crosstown stretch between McMaster and Eastgate. Regardless of chosen rapid transit technology, the only option on the table runs that route. And because BRT would require everything that LRT does except trains and rails (ie. it would run in a BRT-exclusive corridor with signal priority and require road reconstruction along its entire length) the question becomes whether the City and Metrolinx think a $1B LRT line with a vehicle lifespan of 30 years offers better ROI than a $250M BRT line with a vehicle lifespan of 10 years. The politically astute play for the Ontario Liberals would be to save $750M and lock the CIty into a contract obligating them to triple the operational expense of the B-Line for the next three decades, using the spare $750M to invest in another GTHA project before their hold on power is loosened.
DeleteSigma Cub
BRT would not require "everything that LRT does" this is just another nonsense argument to add another layer of lipstick on the pig.
DeleteBRT requires a dedicated lane.1/3 the cost, 1/3 the disruption.
Demi
"True BRT... has traffic signal priority to avoid red lights, station platforms that are level with the bus for easier boarding, sidewalk ticket machines for faster boarding, and stations moved out of traffic, usually in the centre of the road. Larger vehicles are often used, with a different design than the regular buses to set them apart.
DeletePainting lines on the road is not enough to keep lanes clear for BRT, so the roadway is typically rebuilt and widened. York Region’s Viva BRT is a great example of this. Ottawa also has BRT, a 27-kilometre private highway across the city called the Transitway. It was designed to allow an LRT upgrade when ridership grew, and that upgrade is happening right now. Ottawa's Confederation LRT Line opens for business in 2018."
https://www.thestar.com/autos/2015/09/12/council-plus-ttc-equals-lrt-brt-srt.html
Sigma Cub
You're reconfiguring traffic flow in a permanent way that would otherwise rut pavement — and by your own admission, constricting traffic flow outside of the lanes dedicated to rapid transit. You don't want to have any roadwork closing this corridor, so you upgrade everything in order to be done with it for decades.
DeleteThere's also the matter of compensating for the pavement loads that you're going to throw at this route under increased traffic volume of all kinds. Lest 14 km of King and Main suddenly resemble Burlington Street, you take proactive measures to install performance roadways, which yield benefits in terms of reduced O&M costs on your fleet, which otherwise gets jackhammered by the pothole patchwork of curbside lanes.
York Region:
"Rapid transit alignments run in the middle of the road, so if you're cool with the richly textural experience of riding curbside, enjoy. There are a number of challenges that require careful planning, investigation and design when adopting existing heavily travelled arterial roads to accommodate Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) lanes. These include the widening/strengthening old deteriorated pavements, staging, grade raises, as well as Agency requirements related to extended service lives, timing rehabilitation to coincide with that on adjacent lanes, coloured pavements, to name a few."
http://conf.tac-atc.ca/english/annualconference/tac2011/docs/p1/balasundaram.pdf
California:
"Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) has the potential to improve mass transit service and contribute to reduced traffic congestion in urban areas. To achieve this improvement in service BRT will require the use of dedicated bus lanes together with lane assist and precision docking (LA/PD) to accelerate the passenger boarding process. Using this approach, BRT lanes can be reduced somewhat in width. However, such a reduction will result in increased channelization of traffic which in turn can lead to a more rapid development of pavement distress. With today’s improved pavement engineering technology, it is possible to design and construct pavement infrastructure which can result in long term and cost effective pavement performance (both in terms of pavement deterioration and equipment wear and tear). At the same time the system can be environmentally friendly with reduced traffic noise and increased passenger comfort from a smoother ride."
http://www.path.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/publications/PRR-2008-32.pdf
Winnipeg:
Delete"Accurately determining the extent of pavement damage by vehicle type requires data that is currently not readily‐available in most jurisdictions. Pavement damage estimates attributed to transit buses are often inconclusive and inaccurate. One study found that 2.4% of the total pavement maintenance cost in New Jersey is attributable to buses (Boile et al. 2004). Other studies have estimated that “heavy buses are responsible for 70 to 90 percent of the damage to the streets on the bus routes” (Battelle, 2007, p. 3). In a 2003 report, pavement deterioration attributable to transit buses was estimated to be $0.72 per mile of travel, resulting in approximately $1.6 billion in pavement damage that year (Federal Transit Administration, 2003). Although these studies are not comparing the same road networks and transit systems, their disparities exemplify the complexity of estimating pavement damage due to transit buses and suggests that more research about transit bus pavement impacts may be necessary."
"Researchers and departments of transportation have developed pavement design guides and best practices to help increase pavement life on bus exclusive facilities and other roadways that are expected to have high transit bus volumes. These guides and practices are continually being updated as ongoing research identifies methods and materials to further improve pavement performance. The following are some examples of pavement design approaches specifically applied to accommodate transit buses:
• Increased design axle loads: Although many states limit transit buses to 20,000 pounds per axle, the Riverside Transit Agency (2004) in California recommends designing pavements that are expected to experience transit bus traffic to withstand repetitive axle loads of at least 25,000 pounds. Increasing the design axle load could entail the use of thicker pavement layers and/or changes in material properties, mixture designs, and reinforcement (for rigid pavements).
• Adequate design life: The BRT Standard developed by the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (2014) recommends a minimum 30‐year design life for BRT facilities to prevent unnecessary delays due to maintenance and rehabilitation. A 30‐ year design life can be achieved with many different pavement types, including asphalt pavements with surface replacements every 10 to 12 years, jointed plain concrete pavement (JPCP), or continuously reinforced concrete pavement (CRCP).
One study found that unbonded Portland cement concrete overlays and conventional jointed plain concrete pavement (JPCP) inlays are effective rehabilitation treatments for urban roadways subject to frequent transit bus axle loads. The roadway in the study, located in Toronto, Canada, was originally paved with asphalt pavement and required maintenance every two to three years due to severe rutting. More than 10 years after being rehabilitated with JPCP the roadway has not required any maintenance, although some joint faulting has been observed. The researchers in this study expect that this pavement will reach or exceed the design service life of 25 years and recommend the use of dowel bars at transverse joints in future projects to mitigate potential joint faulting (Kivi, Tighe, Fung, & Grajek, 2013)"
https://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/An-Analysis-of-Transit-Bus-Axle-Weight-Issues-TCRP-J11-T20.pdf
Winnipeg:
Delete"Accurately determining the extent of pavement damage by vehicle type requires data that is currently not readily‐available in most jurisdictions. Pavement damage estimates attributed to transit buses are often inconclusive and inaccurate. One study found that 2.4% of the total pavement maintenance cost in New Jersey is attributable to buses (Boile et al. 2004). Other studies have estimated that “heavy buses are responsible for 70 to 90 percent of the damage to the streets on the bus routes” (Battelle, 2007, p. 3). In a 2003 report, pavement deterioration attributable to transit buses was estimated to be $0.72 per mile of travel, resulting in approximately $1.6 billion in pavement damage that year (Federal Transit Administration, 2003). Although these studies are not comparing the same road networks and transit systems, their disparities exemplify the complexity of estimating pavement damage due to transit buses and suggests that more research about transit bus pavement impacts may be necessary."
"Researchers and departments of transportation have developed pavement design guides and best practices to help increase pavement life on bus exclusive facilities and other roadways that are expected to have high transit bus volumes. These guides and practices are continually being updated as ongoing research identifies methods and materials to further improve pavement performance. The following are some examples of pavement design approaches specifically applied to accommodate transit buses:
• Increased design axle loads: Although many states limit transit buses to 20,000 pounds per axle, the Riverside Transit Agency (2004) in California recommends designing pavements that are expected to experience transit bus traffic to withstand repetitive axle loads of at least 25,000 pounds. Increasing the design axle load could entail the use of thicker pavement layers and/or changes in material properties, mixture designs, and reinforcement (for rigid pavements).
• Adequate design life: The BRT Standard developed by the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (2014) recommends a minimum 30‐year design life for BRT facilities to prevent unnecessary delays due to maintenance and rehabilitation. A 30‐ year design life can be achieved with many different pavement types, including asphalt pavements with surface replacements every 10 to 12 years, jointed plain concrete pavement (JPCP), or continuously reinforced concrete pavement (CRCP).
One study found that unbonded Portland cement concrete overlays and conventional jointed plain concrete pavement (JPCP) inlays are effective rehabilitation treatments for urban roadways subject to frequent transit bus axle loads. The roadway in the study, located in Toronto, Canada, was originally paved with asphalt pavement and required maintenance every two to three years due to severe rutting. More than 10 years after being rehabilitated with JPCP the roadway has not required any maintenance, although some joint faulting has been observed. The researchers in this study expect that this pavement will reach or exceed the design service life of 25 years and recommend the use of dowel bars at transverse joints in future projects to mitigate potential joint faulting (Kivi, Tighe, Fung, & Grajek, 2013)"
https://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/An-Analysis-of-Transit-Bus-Axle-Weight-Issues-TCRP-J11-T20.pdf
Sigma Cub
You're reconfiguring traffic flow in a permanent way that will otherwise rut pavement. You don't want to have any roadwork closing this corridor, so you upgrade everything in order to be done with it for decades.
DeleteThere's also the matter of compensating for the pavement loads that you're going to throw at this route under increased traffic volume of all kinds. Lest 14 km of King and Main suddenly resemble Burlington Street, you take proactive measures to install performance roadways, which yield benefits in terms of reduced O&M costs on your fleet, which otherwise gets jackhammered by the pothole patchwork of curb-side lanes.
Metrolinx BRT in York Region:
"Rapid transit alignments run in the middle of the road, so if you're cool with the richly textural experience of riding curbside, enjoy. There are a number of challenges that require careful planning, investigation and design when adopting existing heavily travelled arterial roads to accommodate Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) lanes. These include the widening/strengthening old deteriorated pavements, staging, grade raises, as well as Agency requirements related to extended service lives, timing rehabilitation to coincide with that on adjacent lanes, coloured pavements, to name a few."
http://conf.tac-atc.ca/english/annualconference/tac2011/docs/p1/balasundaram.pdf
California
"Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) has the potential to improve mass transit service and contribute to reduced traffic congestion in urban areas. To achieve this improvement in service BRT will require the use of dedicated bus lanes together with lane assist and precision docking (LA/PD) to accelerate the passenger boarding process. Using this approach, BRT lanes can be reduced somewhat in width. However, such a reduction will result in increased channelization of traffic which in turn can lead to a more rapid development of pavement distress. With today’s improved pavement engineering technology, it is possible to design and construct pavement infrastructure which can result in long term and cost effective pavement performance (both in terms of pavement deterioration and equipment wear and tear). At the same time the system can be environmentally friendly with reduced traffic noise and increased passenger comfort from a smoother ride."
http://www.path.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/publications/PRR-2008-32.pdf
Sigma Cub
You're reconfiguring traffic flow in a permanent way that will otherwise rut pavement. You don't want to have any roadwork closing this corridor, so you upgrade everything in order to be done with it for decades.
DeleteThere's also the matter of compensating for the pavement loads that you're going to throw at this route under increased traffic volume of all kinds. Lest 14 km of King and Main suddenly resemble Burlington Street, you take proactive measures to install performance roadways, which yield benefits in terms of reduced O&M costs on your fleet, which otherwise gets jackhammered by the pothole patchwork of curb-side lanes. That goes for cars as well: Rapid transit alignments run in the middle of the road, so if you're cool with the richly textural experience of riding curbside, enjoy.
Metrolinx BRT in York Region:
"There are a number of challenges that require careful planning, investigation and design when adopting existing heavily travelled arterial roads to accommodate Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) lanes. These include the widening/strengthening old deteriorated pavements, staging, grade raises, as well as Agency requirements related to extended service lives, timing rehabilitation to coincide with that on adjacent lanes, coloured pavements, to name a few."
http://conf.tac-atc.ca/english/annualconference/tac2011/docs/p1/balasundaram.pdf
California
"Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) has the potential to improve mass transit service and contribute to reduced traffic congestion in urban areas. To achieve this improvement in service BRT will require the use of dedicated bus lanes together with lane assist and precision docking (LA/PD) to accelerate the passenger boarding process. Using this approach, BRT lanes can be reduced somewhat in width. However, such a reduction will result in increased channelization of traffic which in turn can lead to a more rapid development of pavement distress. With today’s improved pavement engineering technology, it is possible to design and construct pavement infrastructure which can result in long term and cost effective pavement performance (both in terms of pavement deterioration and equipment wear and tear). At the same time the system can be environmentally friendly with reduced traffic noise and increased passenger comfort from a smoother ride."
http://www.path.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/publications/PRR-2008-32.pdf
Sigma Cub
We don't want "true" BRT-as defined by Metrolinx-we want regular buses, regular road, regular cost, regular performance.
DeleteDemi
Oh, BRT as in Bus Regular Technology. I see.
DeleteYou don't actually want Metrolinx investment of any scale, then. Not LRT, not BRT. The "regular" service you're describing is the HSR's 10 Express route, which we've had for the last 20 years.
Sigma Cub
we want our money, so we can use it to improve transit in Hamilton,
Deleteas opposed to investing $1B in order to achieve the status quo with different technology, which is what you appear to desire.
Demi
@ Sigma Club. I always like your posts because they are informative. I have to respectfully disagree with you on this. Just because 1 Billion dollars is at play, it does not mean that we go with the wrong solution because the money is with the wrong solution. And ironically, the money could have been with the right solution if we had the right leadership.
ReplyDeleteSorce
For the purpose's of the Benefits Case Analysis (BCA) a "Multi Account Evaluation" (MAE)model was employed, affording broader examination of implications and criteria used to evaluate any option considered.
ReplyDeleteIn order to be eligible for Provincial funding, any option considered needed to demonstrate a Cost/Benefit factor greater than 1.
LRT barely made the grade, scoring a 1.1
By comparison, BRT scored considerably higher, 1.4 while using identical metrics.
In order to achieve a positive value, the LRT option was forced to take certain liberties, particularly with operating speed, which is critical in providing the travel time savings which it relied upon to effect "Transport User Benefits"
Essentially, the BCA "assumes" an average speed over the route of 34 kp/h, a value it has never before obtained in any light rail project...anywhere....ever.
Further, while acknowledging in a footnote (#7)that speeds in the downtown section will need to be reduced to 25kp/h to accommodate increased pedestrian activity, the value is never calculated into the overall travelling speed, instead using a value of 33 kp/h in the core for the calculation.
By comparison, the K-W "ION" LRT notes it will travel at 20 kp/h thru it's downtown core. Apparently when it comes to pedestrian safety, a sliding scale of mitigation is employed by Metrolinx
So let us recalculate with values we can be certain of, whilst trying to remain optimistic.
According to the Toronto Environmental Alliance,
"LRT FAQ's" "LRV's run at an average of 27 kp/h"
Lets be generous, and "assume" an overall average of 30 kp/h here, while adjusting the values for the downtown core to 25 kp/h. So we have:
11 km @ 30 kp/h =22 minutes
3 km @ 25 kp/h =7.2 minutes
dwell time of 20 sec/st =5.4 minutes
=33 minutes
Unto itself, this adjustment erodes "transport user benefits" rendering the option ineligible for Provincial funding. And with the adjustment LRT travel time is now within 1 minute of the BRT's overall speed.
But wait, there is more.
Yesterday we learned that ridership has declined system wide for a 3rd consecutive year. Yet the BCA ignores real data, and employs something called "Greater Golden Horseshoe Travel Forecasting Model" which forecasts ridership growing exponentially into the future.
Real data erodes the value, further diminishing the perceived benefit. Further, revenues forecast will be shared with buses collecting the majority of users and their fares.
Again, real data erodes the perceived benefit.
How about "automobile cost savings?" Now that we know regular traffic will be competing with buses for the only available remaining space(and forced to stop regularly) any notion of improved traffic flow needs to be reconsidered. This "benefit" no longer exists.
Safety benefits? Does the necessary addition of buses make the route safer? I have my doubts. Decreasing speed in the core is a clear and obvious benefit.
And of course we need to reconsider the environmental impacts of those required buses.They are not belching out fresh air.
By my calculations, these adjustments would place the cost/benefit factor of the LRT option below a .7 factor, which would exclude it from eligibility for Provincial funding.
A house of cards.
While a BCA may differ from a "business case" it is my opinion that benefiting business was never the goal here. No one is disputing a few members of the business community stand to gain substantially from this sort of undertaking.
I don't care.
Transit users would lose. The general public would lose.
I attended the first session at the Chamber as a guest. The theme was "messaging"
Never tell the truth.
Mr. Loomis' advocacy has been consistent in this regard.
Does the Metrolinx BCA's BRT valuation factor in having no appreciable difference from regular bus service other than quantity, as is your preferred interpretation of BRT? Does it factor in being run by a union of no-shows? Or does it imagine that those factors will be cancelled out by a municipality shouldering O&M costs?
DeleteAlso, how does the ROI on BRT change when local taxpayers are paying once to build it, paying again to operate and maintain it, and again to ride it? How does that impact the cost-benefit ratio?
Beancounter
I collect all of the ATU's anti-Liberal propaganda swag, with messsging about how the Wynne Liberals privatized the 407. It's entertaining stuff, but in fairness I guess that's what you get when you have to bring in advocacy consultants from the USA.
DeleteSalient
BRT replaces "base case"
DeleteLRT requires "base case" in order to provide an acceptable standard of service.
See the difference?
"Essentially, the BCA "assumes" an average speed over the route of 34 kp/h, a value it has never before obtained in any light rail project...anywhere....ever."
ReplyDeleteExcept numerous light rail projects all over North America. dallas at 34 kph, baltimore, los angeles, salt lake city at 38 kph, and los angeles and denver at 62 kph. These figures have station stopping times included in the math.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_rail#Speed_and_stop_frequency
Stompin Cam
and how many of those projects have involved Metrolinx?
DeleteZero?
As I was saying...
lo and behold. Ottawa Confederation Line average speeds of 35 kph. Kinda folds jim grahams version of the facts: "Essentially, the BCA "assumes" an average speed over the route of 34 kp/h, a value it has never before obtained in any light rail project...anywhere....ever"
ReplyDeleteExcept lotsa places including Ottawa.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederation_Line
Stompin Cam
Great example, has not picked up a single passenger as of yet, due to open sometime next year.
Delete"never before obtained in any light rail project....anywhere...ever"
Fun fact: The technical spec. for Ottawa's Confederation Line references a "maximum operating speed of 35kph"
DeleteNot average speed.
And it has never been proven, as it is yet to operate.
Interesting side note, but the available power has an direct impact on available speed. A 1500 VDC system, can provide more energy than a 750 VDC configuration.
Different cost, different outcome.
Hamilton's LRT is proposed to operate at 750 VDC, while Ottawa's will operate at 1,500 VDC
Demi
"Fun fact: The technical spec. for Ottawa's Confederation Line references a "maximum operating speed of 35kph"
ReplyDeletePlease cite.
Heres my source citation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederation_Line
Stompin Cam
same source.
DeleteYour welcome
Demi
Mr. Loomis believes "car culture" is in decline, and apparently considers it his role to accelerate its demise.
ReplyDeleteI wonder how many Chamber of Commerce members are regular transit users? That would be interesting data.
How many plan on leaving the car at home, jumping on a bus, transferring to LRT, and then walking the rest of the way to the waterfront in order to continue attending meetings?
Inconvenient?
"the chamber" Jackson chided, "should be a little more concerned and worried about ensuring communication to its business members, especially along the LRT corridor, about the casualties that will result"
"in five years our City is going to be ripped up and it is going to be hell"
"it was never about simply laying track on King Street"
Keanin's vision is not about improving transit for riders-this proves that-but making things difficult for motorists.
Who cares what Keanin Loomis thinks about transit?
Not me.
Giovanna