The future of Hamilton's public transit

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by mishap

I like how the diagram "allows" for the buses to be nose-to-tail. That's how you know the plans are done by someone who may be good at design, but just doesn't get how buses work.

They're frequently nose to tail in Ottawa.

[mishap]

Originally Posted by Beedok

They're frequently nose to tail in Ottawa.

Drivers are taught not to pull up tight except in extremely crowded conditions (James at Hunter, for example). It does not allow for the rear bus to depart first should the first bus have a slow passenger, or a wheelchair, or just a larger load to take on. The second bus can only do this if the driver is fairly certain that the lead bus is not going to hang around.

Crowding also makes raising the bike rack difficult, and lowering it downright unsafe, if it cannot done from front-and-centre. Another reason drivers are told to hold back.

At least this stop isn't broken into route-specific zones. It's even worse if the later bus has to take the front position at the platform. Sort of the situation with the 25 and 43 at Lime Ridge Mall, except it likely wasn't foreseen that the 25 would be using 60' buses when that terminal was designed.

[matt602]

The 3/51 stop at the GO Centre has the same problem as well. The 51 drivers often take their layover/break there and if 2 60 footers are in the space, there's no room at all for the Cannon bus to even pull up to the stop. I've had to board it in the middle of the driveway because of that a few times. Things can get pretty crowded for the same reason at Main and Macnab as well if the 5 or 1 driver takes a break there. It's nice that they enlarged the sidewalk space there though.

[Beedok]

One thing that I think is probably needed would be express buses from the Mountain to Burlington. I'm sure there's plenty of potential customers for that.

[thistleclub]

Originally Posted by Beedok

One thing that I think is probably needed would be express buses from the Mountain to Burlington. I'm sure there's plenty of potential customers for that.

Solution: Remove stops and evening/weekend service from the 11 Parkdale, which currently takes around 45 minutes to go from Paramount Drive to downtown Burlington, on a 30-minute headway. Voila: The 30 Express (C-Line).

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by thistleclub

Solution: Remove stops and evening/weekend service from the 11 Parkdale, which currently takes around 45 minutes to go from Paramount Drive to downtown Burlington, on a 30-minute headway. Voila: The 30 Express (C-Line).

That could work. I was thinking a more central mountain bit (maybe an Ancaster one too). So two three commuter express routes maybe (West, Central, and/or East)?

[thistleclub]

Originally Posted by Beedok

That could work. I was thinking a more central mountain bit (maybe an Ancaster one too). So two three commuter express routes maybe (West, Central, and/or East)?

I can't imagine three express routes to Burlington, let alone three operated by the HSR, but it's all down to ridership demand… though I imagine enhanced service inside Hamilton is likely to be a higher priority.

Would be interested to see a new operational review undertaken, in any event. In the last one, the Parkdale wasn't amazing by any means — it was in the lower end of the mountain routes in terms of ridership. And the HSR's system-wide ridership hasn't improved much since then (2007: 21.07M, 2015: 21.86M).

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by thistleclub

I can't imagine three express routes to Burlington, let alone three operated by the HSR, but it's all down to ridership demand… though I imagine enhanced service inside Hamilton is likely to be a higher priority.

Would be interested to see a new operational review undertaken, in any event. In the last one, the Parkdale wasn't amazing by any means — it was in the lower end of the mountain routes in terms of ridership. And the HSR's system-wide ridership hasn't improved much since then (2007: 21.07M, 2015: 21.86M).

Just trying to think of growth potentials. Ottawa has a number of successful long haul commuter routes, so it seems like it might work. GO would probably start making annoyed noises though.

[thistleclub]

Originally Posted by Beedok

Just trying to think of growth potentials. Ottawa has a number of successful long haul commuter routes, so it seems like it might work. GO would probably start making annoyed noises though.

I don't know if they'd be annoyed. It's likely a infinitesimal fraction of the commuter population that pays GO rates to avoid municipal transit. But it would almost certainly cannibalize ridership from Burlington Transit. Running express service from central or west mountain would trace the 101 Route for much of its length (and the HSR would likely face pick-up restrictions — HSR adult cash fare is 75 cents lower than BT, which is already bleeding ridership numbers).

The bigger issue with Burlington is not so much the initial leg as it is the final mile. The city's larger transit service is not robust or convenient, so it's often hard to sell even an express bus as a convenient option to anyone who has access to a car. It's faster to get to Union Station by GO bus than it is to many parts of Burlington by city bus.

[thistleclub]

Trudeau says $3.4B for transit to roll out this year, Ontario could get half
(Toronto Star, Terry Pedwell, Apr 8 2016)

SAULT STE MARIE, ONT.—The $3.4 billion included in last month’s federal budget for transit infrastructure will begin rolling out to municipalities this year, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced Friday as he expanded on his government’s plan to invest the money.

The prime minister didn’t specify how much individual communities would receive, but he did say Ontario in particular could expect to receive about half the money — $1.5 billion.

The federal government will also pay a larger share of the cost of projects, and provinces and municipalities can spend the money as they see fit, Trudeau told a news conference at a transit headquarters building in Sault Ste. Marie, Ont.

“To get projects moving quickly, the federal government will fund up to 50 per cent of the eligible costs of projects,” Trudeau said.


Read it in full here.

[thistleclub]

Regional transit plan provokes fear in Hamilton
(Hamilton Spectator, Matthew Van Dongen, Apr 24 2016)

Efforts to "integrate" transit fare payment across the region are raising fears city bus riders will be forced to pay more to use Hamilton's planned LRT — or maybe just more for public transit, period.

Provincial transit agency Metrolinx — which will own and operate the city's planned $1-billion light rail transit line — is looking to streamline how riders pay to travel across 10 increasingly interconnected transit systems from Oshawa through Toronto to Hamilton.

Hamilton and most GTA riders can already use "Presto" tap-and-go cards to pay for both local bus travel and GO train service between municipalities. Cities have been warned the cost of participating in the Presto partnership will rise.

But an ongoing fare integration study — meant to simplify and modernize inter-regional travel payment — is also looking at the potential for more fares paid by distance or zone, as well as paying extra for "rapid transit" trips on LRT compared to slower local buses.

Hamilton — which has some of the lowest bus fares in the GTA and beyond — risks "coming out on the losing end" of such integration, said Coun. Chad Collins. "If what we're talking about is fare harmonization, there will be cost implications to our budget or to riders, or both," said Collins, who along with Coun. Terry Whitehead recently requested a report on the issue from HSR officials.

He'll likely have to wait until June, when Metrolinx publicizes more detailed recommendations. An agency spokesperson said it was too early to answer Spectator's questions about affordability and the implications for local bus fares….

Regardless, the privilege of participating in inter-regional transit is about to get pricier.

That's because Metrolinx has declined to extend the city's contract for the use of Presto cards, which calls for the city to pay a two per cent commission on each fare "tap" until the end of 2016. The agency wants "greater cost sharing" from its partner cities, according to a memo to councillors from city manager Chris Murray, who will report back on prospective negotiations later this year.

It's unclear how much more Metrolinx expects partner cities to pay, but it's unlikely Hamilton can just opt out. Using Presto is a requirement for most large cities near Toronto to qualify for annual gas tax funding. That's close to $10.7 million in Hamilton.


Read it in full here.

[Innsertnamehere]

The idea is that it'll be fare neutral.. Which means some people pay more and some pay less. Touching fares is never politically popular - some people always end up paying more. I doubt individual agencies are going to be left with large bills for additional money - just that customers will be paying differently for different trips with the same overall revenue for the agency.

[thistleclub]

Hamilton settles complaint over trans woman’s treatment at city washroom
(Hamilton Spectator, Teviah Moro, Apr 25 2016)

Advocates hope a human rights settlement involving a transgender woman who was barred from a Hamilton bus terminal washroom will lead to greater inclusivity.

Coun. Aidan Johnson says the city must tighten up policy regarding transgender rights, which were enshrined by changes to Ontario's human rights code in 2012.

"We need to do a better job of enforcing our existing policy and this case made that clear."

In 2014, a security guard denied a transgender woman access to a women's washroom at the MacNab bus terminal. She took her case to Ontario's human rights tribunal.

On Monday, the city announced some of the terms of the settlement.

It plans to "codify" its commitment to safe and accessible use of municipal facilities, such as washrooms, in a formal written policy, give extra training to employees and post signs where needed.

The rest of the settlement terms are confidential, city spokesperson Kwab Ako-Adjei noted, declining to say whether financial compensation was involved.

Some municipal facilities already have gender-neutral signage indicating that either gender can use an available washroom, Ako-Adjei said.

"But where that's not the case, we will post the appropriate signs nearby emphasizing our commitment (to respecting trans rights)."


Read it in full here.

[thistleclub]

A new era for GTA transit fares: Metrolinx considers 3 options
(Toronto Star, Ben Spurr, Apr 26 2016)

The days of paying a flat fare to ride the TTC could be coming to an end. In a bid to break down barriers between GTA transit operators, Metrolinx is examining three proposals for an integrated regional fare system that could charge riders according to how far they travel, and which transit mode they use.

The current system
The nine municipal transit operators whose fares Metrolinx wants to integrate generally charge a flat fare for local and rapid transit within their own borders. Riders usually have to pay a second fare if they cross a municipal boundary (from Vaughan to Toronto, for example) or if they transfer between the TTC and GO Transit. Metrolinx chief planning officer Leslie Woo said riders don’t feel the complicated fare system gives them good value for money, and it’s deterring drivers from switching to transit. “We need to move away from it being a barrier.”

Option 1: Modified status quo
This option would even the playing field by harmonizing policies for transferring between various GTA transit operators. The cost of a bus, streetcar, subway or LRT trip would be flat regardless of the length, and GO or Smart Track rides would be based on distance, with a medium-length trip costing about the same as a subway or LRT trip of similar length. Because this option is closest to the existing model, it may be easiest to implement. “Deliverability would be one of its strengths,” said Woo.

Option 2: Transit zones
The GTA would be divided into geographic zones, and fares would be determined according to how many zones a rider crosses. Fares for rapid transit (subway and LRT) could be more expensive than for local transit (bus and streetcar), but the same zones would apply. Ticket prices for regional rail trips would continue to be based on distance. “The most critical thing … is how big is a zone?” said Woo. Many, smaller zones would make travel too complicated, while fewer, larger zones would make it impossible to assign a fair value to the ride.

Option 3: Hybrid
The third option would combine the previous two concepts: riders could take local trips by bus and streetcar for a flat fare, but the cost of subway, LRT and regional rail fares would be based on distance, using either zones or the length of the trip itself. Woo said that many cities, such as Amsterdam and Melbourne, have successfully implemented this type of system, but they evolved towards it over time. “What we’re trying to examine is, what if you designed it from the get-go as a hybrid?”


Adult Cash Fares, GTHA (Apr 2016)

YRT/VIVA $4.00
Brampton Transit $3.75
Burlington Transit $3.50
Durham Region Transit $3.50
MiWay $3.50
Oakville Transit $3.50
TTC $3.25
HSR $2.75

HSR adult cash fare trajectory:

Sept 2015: $2.75
Sept 2016: $2.90
Sept 2017: $3.00
Sept 2018: $3.10

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by thistleclub

A new era for GTA transit fares: Metrolinx considers 3 options
(Toronto Star, Ben Spurr, Apr 26 2016)

The days of paying a flat fare to ride the TTC could be coming to an end. In a bid to break down barriers between GTA transit operators, Metrolinx is examining three proposals for an integrated regional fare system that could charge riders according to how far they travel, and which transit mode they use.

The current system
The nine municipal transit operators whose fares Metrolinx wants to integrate generally charge a flat fare for local and rapid transit within their own borders. Riders usually have to pay a second fare if they cross a municipal boundary (from Vaughan to Toronto, for example) or if they transfer between the TTC and GO Transit. Metrolinx chief planning officer Leslie Woo said riders don’t feel the complicated fare system gives them good value for money, and it’s deterring drivers from switching to transit. “We need to move away from it being a barrier.”

Option 1: Modified status quo
This option would even the playing field by harmonizing policies for transferring between various GTA transit operators. The cost of a bus, streetcar, subway or LRT trip would be flat regardless of the length, and GO or Smart Track rides would be based on distance, with a medium-length trip costing about the same as a subway or LRT trip of similar length. Because this option is closest to the existing model, it may be easiest to implement. “Deliverability would be one of its strengths,” said Woo.

Option 2: Transit zones
The GTA would be divided into geographic zones, and fares would be determined according to how many zones a rider crosses. Fares for rapid transit (subway and LRT) could be more expensive than for local transit (bus and streetcar), but the same zones would apply. Ticket prices for regional rail trips would continue to be based on distance. “The most critical thing … is how big is a zone?” said Woo. Many, smaller zones would make travel too complicated, while fewer, larger zones would make it impossible to assign a fair value to the ride.

Option 3: Hybrid
The third option would combine the previous two concepts: riders could take local trips by bus and streetcar for a flat fare, but the cost of subway, LRT and regional rail fares would be based on distance, using either zones or the length of the trip itself. Woo said that many cities, such as Amsterdam and Melbourne, have successfully implemented this type of system, but they evolved towards it over time. “What we’re trying to examine is, what if you designed it from the get-go as a hybrid?”


Adult Cash Fares, GTHA (Apr 2016)

YRT/VIVA $4.00
Brampton Transit $3.75
Burlington Transit $3.50
Durham Region Transit $3.50
MiWay $3.50
Oakville Transit $3.50
TTC $3.25
HSR $2.75

HSR adult cash fare trajectory:

Sept 2015: $2.75
Sept 2016: $2.90
Sept 2017: $3.00
Sept 2018: $3.10

Personally, I like the idea of fare zones. I also think having GO integrated into fare zones would go a long way to improve transit overall. Even adding Via to the mix would be nice.

Sorting out the boundaries of fare zones will be a political nightmare.

[thistleclub]

On a related note, here's an excerpt of Steve Munro's Fare Integration: A TTC/Metrolinx Non-Update:

In his opening presentation, TTC CEO Andy Byford dwelt at length on five “megaprojects” within the TTC, and showed a list of other major improvements in the hopper (see p34 of the presentation). All of these have been implemented at least to some degree except for Time-Based Transfers, and the idea has been sidelined for the moment in part because it is perceived to be too expensive by some city politicians. The most recent word on the subject was in a December 2015 update on fare policy:

While introducing a 2 hour time-based transfer is still considered a worthwhile service improvement that would reduce complexity and make the TTC consistent with other transit agencies within the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area, the ongoing Fare Integration work, led by Metrolinx, may propose changes to transfer rules. That being the case, it is recommended that further analysis or implementation should follow the completion of the Fare Integration work if required. [pp. 2-3]

This is something of a Catch-22 because transfer rules are obviously part of any overall fare strategy – they affect the attractiveness of transit for multiple “short hops” on a single fare without the need to own a Metropass (or some equivalent). Moreover, the ability to make many short trips on one fare speaks to the problem of “trip chaining” often cited in debates about bias in fare policy towards longer commute journeys and against the type of travel more common to the un- and under-employed.

Transfer rules across the GTHA should be part of any “fare integration”, and yet the topic has been completely ignored in Metrolinx work to date. Metrolinx sloughs off the topic claiming that these are local policies, not regional issues, forgetting that regional planning is impossible without considering local effects.

During the update presentation, TTC’s Deputy CEO Chris Upfold noted that the TTC network is an integrated design with free movement between routes and modes. Josh Colle gave as an example the St. Clair streetcar which runs directly into two subway stations and talked of how the system would have to be “de-integrated” to accommodate a separate fare for subway travel.

Metrolinx Chief Planning Officer Leslie Woo replied that the concepts in the study are only for analysis with a business case, economic and operating impact studies to follow. Considering how long the study has been underway (see main article), one might think that economic and operating impacts would have been an integral part of early analysis to determine whether options were viable. Instead, Metrolinx forged onward with its preferred view of fare structures strongly leaning to a distance and class-based tariff ignoring the issues for transit operations, not to mention the potential effect on riders. Again, the blinkered view of an agency with relatively small ridership and a uniform demographic precluded consideration of the effect on an operation ten times its size serving much more complex travel patterns.

TTC Commissioner Shelley Carroll asked about reports to come in fall 2016, and their implication for actual implementation of new fares. Woo replied that Metrolinx is very open to meeting with area Councils, agencies and transit management. That reply dodges the basic problem that Metrolinx has acted as the gorilla in the room in its dealings with local transit agencies, and the threat of losing provincial subsidy always hangs over municipalities who don’t sing from the Metrolinx songbook.

Chris Upfold stated that the TTC Board and Toronto Council need to take a position on fare integration. He suggested that this cannot happen until something is actually proposed, and nothing is going to happen to fares within 2016. That’s all very well, but Metrolinx history shows that once a proposal emerges from staff, it acquires the endorsement of a provincial agency and is cast, if not in stone, in very fast-setting concrete and is almost impossible to change. Toronto needs to understand what a new tariff would actually look like in order to take an informed position. Otherwise, the process is nothing but endless rounds of approving “principles” that could have far-reaching effects. “Equity” to one person might mean time-based transfers (in effect limited-time passes), while to another might mean fares charged by distance and class of service.

“We can leave the decision to later” is a recipe for Metrolinx cooking up a tariff and claiming that Toronto (or other cities) don’t object when the process precludes such objections until after the tariff is fixed. This is the same cart-before-horse process we see in transit project assessments (mini-Environmental Assessments) where early decisions discard options that are almost impossible to reinstate later even if the early work is shown to be flawed or outdated.

Read it in full here.

+

Project timeline from the TTC/Metrolinx Joint Board Meeting GTHA Fare Integration Update (Apr 27, 2016):

COMPLETING THE FARE STRUCTURE PROPOSAL

• April-May 2016: Optimisation and evaluation of concepts
• May-June 2016: Consultation with public, municipal officials and elected officials concerning evaluation findings
• June 2016: Technical update to Metrolinx Board meeting
• July-August 2016: Complete business case analysis and evaluation to determine preferred option

CONSIDERING THE PROPOSAL

• Fare structure findings, reflecting input from the GTHA municipalities, including the TTC Board, will be presented to the Metrolinx Board in fall, 2016 for consideration as advice to the Ministry of Transportation
• Metrolinx and MTO will investigate the feasibility of implementation in consultation with municipalities, addressing issues such as
– Impacts on ridership and service
– Impacts on revenue and financial sustainability
– Impact on decision-making structures and governance
– Phasing
• An implementation plan will be developed by Metrolinx and MTO for review and decision-making by the Provincial government and municipalities.


You can explore Fare Structure Concepts and give feedback via Metrolinx Engage.

[thistleclub]

Happy belated third anniversary, Quick Wins A & B Line Passenger Amenities!

[SteelTown]

Hamilton's head of transit is leaving the city

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilt...city-1.3597365

Hamilton's head of transit, Dave Dixon, is leaving after less than two years with the city.

City manager Chris Murray sent an email to city councillors Tuesday morning about Dixon's departure, saying Dixon has "decided to leave" the City of Hamilton. His last day is June 18.

"Dave has played a significant role in his two years here," Murray said in an email.

Dixon and his team "have made a lot of positive progress."

Dixon, who was hired in October 2014, leaves amid planning for Hamilton's $1 billion light rail transit (LRT) line.

His most notable initiative at city council was a $300 million, 10-year plan to improve HSR, including a bus maintenance storage facility with an estimated price tag of $200 million.

Dixon is the former chief operating officer of the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC).

[thistleclub]

Nineteen months.

Head of HSR to resign
(Hamilton Spectator, Matthew Van Dongen, May 24 2016)

Hamilton's head of transit is leaving the job after less than two years in the midst of renewed political debate over the fate of a $1-billion LRT project.

Dave Dixon was hired in late 2014 to replace longtime HSR head Don Hull.

The new director quickly put forward a 10-year transit plan for the HSR that won plaudits for pitching phased, concrete improvements to Mountain bus service.

But he also raised the ire of LRT fans by recommending a $300-million request to the province for new buses – despite warnings from Mayor Fred Eisenberger it would compete with an existing ask for light rail transit cash.

After the province announced $1 billion in funding for the LRT – but no bus money – Dixon became a senior member of the city's light rail transit planning team.

But in recent weeks, some councillors have cited Dixon in arguing the city needs to build up its bus ridership before building the planned east-west LRT line, plus a north-south spur to the James Street GO station.

City manager Chris Murray announced in an email Tuesday that Dixon has decided to leave as of June 18.

"Dave has played a significant role in his two years here, "said Murray, pointing to the 10-year HSR strategy and work on accessible transit and LRT. "Working with staff and our (union) partners, Dave and team have made a lot of positive progress."

More to come.

[thistleclub]

HSR head says he’s leaving Hamilton for ‘unsolicited offer’
(Hamilton Spectator, Matthew Van Dongen, May 24 2016)

Excerpt:

"I had an unsolicited offer … and I just decided to go in a different direction," said Dixon, who will leave the city June 18.

Dixon said he didn't feel any "undue influence" from council on either the LRT file or planning for conventional transit.

"I found the politics quite reasonable, generally," said the veteran transit manager, who had worked in a high-level Toronto Transit Commission job under late mayor Rob Ford's tumultuous administration.