PDA

View Full Version : Rapid Transit


Pages : 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

DC83
Jul 28, 2008, 3:40 PM
I'm glad to see they are considering using Claremont for the A-line. It doesn't make sense eonomically or ecologically to be drilling a tunnel through the escarpment at James. The A-Line can run north from the airport along Upper James to Fennell, west on Fennell to Mohawk College, then north on West 5th, following Claremont down to King, west on King to James, north on James looping at the base, then south on James to Charlton, east on Charlton, north on John, east on Main then back south up the Claremont to Fennell via west 5th, east on Fennell to Upper James, then south back up to the airport loop.

This is the only option that makes sense!? I don't even know WHY they were considering James Mtn Rd in the 1st place!?

Look at this map, there's already an underused right-of-way that could be converted to Light Rail Only:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=Hamilton,+Hamilton,+Ontario,+Canada&ie=UTF8&cd=1&geocode=0,43.260970,-79.888460&ll=43.244366,-79.876549&spn=0.004259,0.012145&t=k&z=17

And if the A-Line were take Hunter Street (turn East @ James), it could a) avoid the TH&B underpass @ James and therefor avoid the extra $$$$$$$, and b) pass right infront of TH&B connecting to B-Line @ Hughson.

Hunter is also a rediculously underused street, so it could have ROW all the way to the bottom of the Clairmont Accs.

ryan_mcgreal
Jul 28, 2008, 5:42 PM
I don't even know WHY they were considering James Mtn Rd in the 1st place!?

When the city finalized its transportation master plan, they settled on three rapid transit corridors: east-west along Main/King, north-south on James/Upper James, and unspecified east-west across the mountain.

At the time, there was no federal or provincial capital funding framework, so they were effectively limited to bus rapid transit (BRT).

After the MoveOntario 2020 (now Metrolinx) announcement in June 2007, light rail transit (LRT) started to look like a real possibility, and the city launched the rapid transit feasibility study to compare BRT with LRT.

At the outset, they decided to compare the two modes using the routes that had already been established for BRT. LRT ended up looking comparatively poor because they were comparing it to BRT on a route that had been specifically selected for BRT.

After being challenged on this (see, for example, this critique: http://raisethehammer.org/blog/971 ), staff pointed out that the study was just at phase 1 and that subsequent phases would look more closely at different route options.

Since council voted to go to phase 2 with an emphasis on light rail, they're now looking more closely at the Claremont route.

I was at the public information centre today on the Jackson Square Plaze (about 25 people were in attendance between 12:00 and 12:30 PM), and Jill Stephen discussed this a bit more.

She didn't have a cost comparison between the more direct but invasive James Mountain Rd tunnels and the less invasive but more roundabout Claremont Access route, but said that it would be ready when they report to council in September.

markbarbera
Jul 28, 2008, 6:05 PM
IMO James and Upper James should be handled as separate LRT lines. Upper James can run from airport to downtown via Upper James-Fennell-West 5th-Claremont, joining the same east-west LRT track for B-Line at Victoria and King/Main, terminating at King/Main and James. It can even continue westward along the B-Line track to McMaster University, thereby increasing frequency on the western leg of B-Line, the highest volume portion of the current B-Line bus route.

North-South in the lower city can be its own LRT running on James Street from Charlton to Barton, then eastward along Barton as far as Centennial, then up Centennial to loop at the Eastgate terminal. It doesn't have to go sas far Centennial for the first phase, it can loop back at Centre Mall. Further expansion a few years down the road can send it to Centennial and Eastgate, then a third phase can push it farther south on Centennial to link up with the eastern terminal of the as-yet-undefined mountain east-west route.

matt602
Jul 28, 2008, 7:30 PM
I really like that idea of a split North/South route using Barton.

I went on and on about a route along Barton in the survey that I dropped off this morning at the presentation. They had also mentioned that a lot of people inquired about a future route along Barton and they're seriously considering it.

DC83
Jul 28, 2008, 7:43 PM
^^ If Barton ever needed a saviour, LRT might be it.

I think a dedicated route for Barton would be great:
Western Terminus @ Stadium Stn (Barton & Caroline)
A-Line Connection @ James North GO
East-End Terminus/ B-Line Connection @ Eastgate

BrianE
Jul 28, 2008, 7:52 PM
Good idea Mark.

I would even suggest that the A line terminate at Main (or King if they decide to put westbound LRT on King) and Victoria St. With some sort of switching system to reverse the direction of the train to go right back up the Clarmont. If you want to go downtown or Mac, you just wait 5 min until the next B line train comes by.

This would involve a couple transfers for passengers traveling from the mountain to get to the waterfront. So there's some inconvienience there. But I would think that would simplify the scheduling and reduce the number of trains needed to keep a 15 min schedule for the A-line.

Think of the boon this would mean to the Main, King and Victoria area. Easy transit access to all points east, west and south in the city.

SteelTown
Jul 29, 2008, 11:02 AM
LRT failed to arrive in 1981
lPlan for elevated transit system sagged under criticism

July 29, 2008
Mark McNeil
The Hamilton Spectator

If Hamilton's quest for light rail transit sounds strangely familiar, that's because it's not the first time the city has taken a hard look at running fast trains through the city.

In 1981, a plan for an elevated transit system was probably the most controversial municipal issue of the year and it deeply divided the community.

The $111-million plan, which would have been funded through the provincial government, was eventually turned down by regional council in a decisive 18-8 vote in December of that year.

The system was available as a kind of demonstration project through the Urban Transportation Development Corporation, a provincial Crown corporation created to develop transit vehicles for public transit authorities.

The UTDC plan looked at various routes between the Mountain and downtown but the preferred path would have followed Upper James Street, through a tunnel to Hughson Street and then looped along MacNab Street to an area south of Hunter Street.

That route compares with the far more ambitious current $1.1-billion plan for two lines for light rail transit. One line would run along Upper James and James streets connecting the airport and the waterfront. The other could run along Main/King streets from University Plaza to Eastgate Square. The Claremont Access instead of James Mountain Road is also being looked at as an alternative for the first route.

The 1981 plan was vehemently opposed by many residents who didn't want the lines running near their homes. Others argued it would be a white elephant that would not be used by enough riders to make it viable. While the main part of the system would have been free to the community, many noted there would inevitably be significant operating and unforeseen costs to the municipality.

Many had doubts about the experimental technology scaling the escarpment and didn't like the idea of it being built above ground.

On the other side were those who felt it would boost the city's fortunes and help revitalize the downtown.

A poll at the time suggested 61 per cent of residents were in favour of the UTDC plan. That compares with a more recent poll that indicated 71 per cent of Hamiltonians like the idea of the current light rail plan.

In 1981, then regional chairman Anne Jones championed the system whereas Hamilton mayor Bill Powell was opposed. "Thank God we live in a city where people rise in righteous anger" against the "brain-washing techniques of a multimillion-dollar organization," he was quoted as saying at the time.

Jack MacDonald, who lost to Powell in the previous election, said yesterday he believes it was a huge mistake for council to kill the elevated transit proposal in 1981. "Nobody wanted it to run on their street and not enough councillors had the courage to defend it," he says.

After Hamilton rejected the elevated transit, a version of the system was built in Scarborough as well as in Vancouver.

Councillor Bob Bratina says he was opposed to elevated transit in 1981 but he likes the new proposal. He says council's vote to kill the plan was the right decision because he feels Hamilton would have been stuck with a problem-prone system with ghastly infrastructure that would have had to have been replaced.

SteelTown
Jul 29, 2008, 11:06 AM
Enthusiasm for proposed transit system is gaining momentum

July 29, 2008
Rob Faulkner
The Hamilton Spectator

How much will it cost? Where will it run? How often will it stop? When could it all be built?

Just a few of the questions about the ambitious Hamilton light rail proposal that arose at a sun-drenched public information session atop Jackson Square yesterday.

City staff are urgently working on a bid to secure provincial approval and cash for what may become a $1.1-billion light-rail system.

Last year's MoveOntario 2020 announcement said $300 million was available for Hamilton rapid transit. Since then, the city did a rapid transit feasibility study.

It hopes that its data, public consultations and reports will result in approval and a lot more funding from Metrolinx, the transportation agency to evaluate such proposals.

Where do things stand?

The city is working closely with Metrolinx, the provincial agency to implement a Greater Toronto and Hamilton transportation plan.

Metrolinx will adjust the preliminary list of projects released with the announcement of Ontario's $17.5-billion MoveOntario 2020 plan. (Hamilton rapid transit was a project mentioned here.)

Hamilton wants light rail in the first five-year Metrolinx budget for 2009-13. A draft Metrolinx budget arrives Sept. 26.

Where will it run?

For now, the city is focusing on a route that would put rail westbound on King and eastbound on Main; it would send rail south on James from the waterfront, up the Claremont Access, then to the airport using Upper James.

How much will it cost?

Initially, the city estimated it will cost $1.1 billion to build light rail east-west from Eastgate Square to University Plaza, and up James via a Mountain tunnel.

This cost wasn't adjusted as the city looks at using the Claremont Access, not tunnelling under steep James Mountain Road. Hamilton hasn't consulted the Niagara Escarpment Commission yet.

What is Hamilton's share?

It's unclear. While the province hopes to fund transit infrastructure that would not otherwise be built, Metrolinx notes cities already collect development charges and other cash to operate transit. This will continue. Metrolinx expects cities will pay some capital costs, like streetscaping. The city estimates it will cost $160 an hour per vehicle to run a light-rail system, and has raised concerns about how it will afford to run a new system.

When could it start to run?

If part of the 2009-'13 Metrolinx budget, city staff say 2009 to 2010 may see the project begin study, design and approvals. Construction may start in 2011 or later.

Will it be elevated?

No. Hamilton wants street-level rail to mesh with the streetscape, said Jill Stephen, manager of strategic planning.

Would there be dedicated lanes?

Outside of downtown, yes. But from Eastgate Square to the Delta in east Hamilton, and along James Street North, stores are so close to the road that a lane can't be freed. Rail there would move like a streetcar, at the speed of car traffic.

How frequent?

Light rail vehicles are planned for a frequency of every 10 minutes. It led concerned citizen Mark Volterman to call the LRT plan a waste of money. He wants more frequent vehicles and is concerned about the environmental impact of escarpment crossings.

How is Hamilton doing?

Metrolinx CEO Michael Fenn said Hamilton is well along, citing its public consultations, compared with other cities with rapid-transit plans. Fenn said the draft budget will favour projects farther along.

Will LRT really deliver economic investments along the route?

In Portland, Ore., the LRT system had 34 million riders in 2007 and, since it was built, there has been $6 billion in development within walking distance of its stations.

City staff will start conference calls tomorrow with peers in cities such as San Diego, Minneapolis, Buffalo to hear their bus and rail rapid transit experience and find out what LRT can, and cannot, accomplish.

HAMRetrofit
Jul 29, 2008, 12:16 PM
Light rail vehicles are planned for a frequency of every 10 minutes. It led concerned citizen Mark Volterman to call the LRT plan a waste of money.


This is why we should never underestimate the predictability of stupidity.

markbarbera
Jul 29, 2008, 12:51 PM
This is the same dolt that held up the redevelopment of King and Pearl for years with his frivolous complaints and appeals to the OMB. In the end the OMB fined him $250 for forcing an appeal and never showing up to attend it. Wonder if he ever coughed up the dough, a fraction of the cost laid out for the appeal he had initiated and then bailed on. Someone like this cannot be taken seriously.

Last thing we need is to get him holding things back on this now too...

raisethehammer
Jul 29, 2008, 12:54 PM
great momentum for LRT....this is awesome!
I have a really tough time with their claim that LRT can't run in it's own lane from Eastgate to at least Parkdale.
The lanes are huge, there are 5 of them and east of Red Hill there is a lot of room for use of the goofy little grass strip between the road and parking lots.
I can see the area near Delta being tight and James North.
James South is a tough one. They could send all buses on John and free up the western lane of James south for LRT only. But I'm guessing they'd use Hunter to access the Claremont, so perhaps that's not an issue. I hope they figure out a way to use Charlton to access the Claremont instead - it would give that great stretch of James South LRT, as well as Corktown.

markbarbera
Jul 29, 2008, 12:59 PM
I have a feeling that, should the A-Line use Claremont, the final James LRT route will not run on James South at all. If it does, it certainly wouldn't be a dedicated lane (unless James/John revert back to one way automobile traffic, with one-way LRT running in the opposite direction on each road)

SteelTown
Jul 29, 2008, 1:00 PM
I highlighted a few things but it shows that for the B-Line the Rapid Transit Office has pretty much nailed down that the route will go along King and Main St. Therefore it's likely Main St and parts of King St will likely stay as one way expect a lane taken away.

Also you'll notice that the city could end up fitting the bill for streetscaping. So it sounds like the City will pay for streetscaping King and Main St. This is where we hope and pray the city will include traffic calming measures and wider sidewalks.

Another thing as I predicted construction could begin in 2011. I say this because the province would like to bid for the 2015 Pan Ams, it'll be important to link McMaster to downtown with mass transit. The A-Line will be close to drop people off to the waterfront stadium. It's likely the current arch buses will relocate to Barton so it'll pass right along the proposed stadium.

SteelTown
Jul 29, 2008, 1:03 PM
I have a feeling that, should the A-Line use Claremont, the final James LRT route will not run on James South at all. If it does, it certainly wouldn't be a dedicated lane (unless James/John revert back to one way automobile traffic, with one-way LRT running in the opposite direction on each road)

Indeed, it's sounding more and more like the Rapid Transit Office will avoid James St South for the A-Line and turn along Hunter Street to Claremont.

raisethehammer
Jul 29, 2008, 1:10 PM
they could use Charlton to eastern Corktown - Ferguson for example, and then down to Hunter/Claremont.
It would be a shame for the potentially awesome shopping district of James South to miss out. Although, trains on Hunter is still darn close.
King/Main isn't a done deal by any means. There's still a good group in city hall hoping for two-way LRT on Main. They will have a mess on their hands trying to run all the other bus routes on Main/King if they do LRT on Main/King.
Two-way LRT on Main is much easier and IMO would allow better flow of overall traffic. All buses are moved to a two-way King and that's the end of it....no buses competing with LRT trying to pull in and out for stops at every block etc..... LRT needs to be given priority so that it's a fast option for moving across town. If cars are still whizzing past on 4 lanes of one-way street instead of 5 lanes, it will kill LRT.

markbarbera
Jul 29, 2008, 1:20 PM
It's a double-edged sword. If you put both LRT tracks on Main, Main will remain one-way. Main simply cannot function with just three lanes available for two-way automobile traffic. However, one westbound LRT track on King and one eastbound on Main would allow for a traditional two-lane two-way roadway running on Main alongside a dedicated LRT line.

SteelTown
Jul 29, 2008, 1:24 PM
They will have a mess on their hands trying to run all the other bus routes on Main/King if they do LRT on Main/King.
Two-way LRT on Main is much easier and IMO would allow better flow of overall traffic. All buses are moved to a two-way King and that's the end of it....no buses competing with LRT trying to pull in and out for stops at every block etc.....

If we have LRT on King/Main and with the planned frequency of every 10 minutes all current buses on King/Main will disappear, there will be no more King/Beeline, etc.

raisethehammer
Jul 29, 2008, 1:34 PM
If we have LRT on King/Main and with the planned frequency of every 10 minutes all current buses on King/Main will disappear, there will be no more King/Beeline, etc.

what about all the 5 buses and 52, 51 etc....


Mark's point is a good one - King and Main could go two-way with LRT on each street. I'd propose that the LRT run on the north lane of Main, westbound. And on the south lane of King, eastbound. Then, any buses using these street would be on the other side of the street using their stops there.
Plus, it means less street crossings necessary for anyone using LRT. Right now the B-Line is a nuisance in my neighbourhood (Strathcona) since you have to cross both King and Main to get the downtown-bound bus. I've missed buses before standing on the wrong side of Main waiting for a break in the freeway so I can cross. No such luck in rush hour.
Using the 'inner lanes' of King/Main would help keep the tracks closer together. I still worry about this option in central Hamilton where King/Main are quite a distance apart. I know it's only a couple of stops - Sherman/Gage, but it would hinder the EcDev spinoffs in that area since someone north of king or south of Main probably won't want to make the long walk to the other LRT track when a Delaware or Cannon bus goes right past them. But whatever...it can't be perfect I guess.

raisethehammer
Jul 29, 2008, 1:35 PM
I guess there will also be no more 27-Upper James bus too.

SteelTown
Jul 29, 2008, 1:42 PM
Yea, all buses that goes along King, Main and Upper James will disappear.

Imagine the bus improvements you'll see once these buses are relocated to other routes/new routes.

coalminecanary
Jul 29, 2008, 1:49 PM
I think an entire rewrite of the bus routes will accompany the opening of LRT. We are due for it anyway!

Regarding A-Line, the more I think about it, the more I think it should run on john st. - it would disrupt less traffic, and john needs ec dev much more than james. james (especially north) is doing quite well as-is. it is an easy walk from john to james. lrt can have its dedicated lane all the way from waterfront to hunter. i am also thinking of some loop options for the mountain access... time for google maps!

coalminecanary
Jul 29, 2008, 2:00 PM
Why can't a-line come down Claremont and continue along victoria (or better yet, wellington) all the way to Burlington, turn west to john, turn north to hunter, turn east to Claremont and back up... no turnaround, no changing directions, just one giant loop.. the only extra expense would be the length of track along Burlington st... then you could have a Burlington st express bus from wellington to the qew so anyone commuting from mountain to any of the industrial area has a really easy go of it.. one transfer

ryan_mcgreal
Jul 29, 2008, 2:09 PM
If you put both LRT tracks on Main, Main will remain one-way.

Arrrgh. Main is a five-lane road:

* 1 lane for eastbound traffic
* 1 lane for eastbound LRT
* 1 lane for westbound LRT
* 1 lane for westbound traffic
* 1 lane for curbside parking

Convert all the streets back to two-way, and the total number of traffic lanes will be exactly the same as it would be if one LRT lane went on Main and one went on King.

raisethehammer
Jul 29, 2008, 2:37 PM
Arrrgh. Main is a five-lane road:

* 1 lane for eastbound traffic
* 1 lane for eastbound LRT
* 1 lane for westbound LRT
* 1 lane for westbound traffic
* 1 lane for curbside parking

Convert all the streets back to two-way, and the total number of traffic lanes will be exactly the same as it would be if one LRT lane went on Main and one went on King.

good point....not only would there be the same number of lanes but there would be double the options for travel direction.

adam
Jul 29, 2008, 3:02 PM
And with 2-way traffic on Main and King drivers no longer have to spend so much time switching lanes / letting people in / trying to sneak into a lane. They can spend more time looking at what shops and businesses the downtown has to offer.

BrianE
Jul 29, 2008, 3:13 PM
what about all the 5 buses and 52, 51 etc....

I still worry about this option in central Hamilton where King/Main are quite a distance apart. I know it's only a couple of stops - Sherman/Gage, but it would hinder the EcDev spinoffs in that area since someone north of king or south of Main probably won't want to make the long walk to the other LRT track when a Delaware or Cannon bus goes right past them. But whatever...it can't be perfect I guess.

I wonder about this too, since I live in the Sherman - Gage area. I'm sure they will keep the #5 Delaware Bus. I would take that to get downtown instead of walking 20 minutes to get to King St. LRT. It's a 10 min walk to Main and Sherman, so I would probly take the LRT to go east in the city.

BrianE
Jul 29, 2008, 3:22 PM
Arrrgh. Main is a five-lane road:

* 1 lane for eastbound traffic
* 1 lane for eastbound LRT
* 1 lane for westbound LRT
* 1 lane for westbound traffic
* 1 lane for curbside parking

Convert all the streets back to two-way, and the total number of traffic lanes will be exactly the same as it would be if one LRT lane went on Main and one went on King.

I suppose that situation would work... if nobody ever turned left off Main St. Everybody is forgeting the effects of turning right or left off Main and King. A car sitting in the single eastbound lane waiting to turn left on James street in this scenario would prevent anybody behind him from moving forward until a break in traffic or the light changes Red.

Oh, and don't forget, there's 5 lanes now, but widening the sidewalks on the north and south sides would effectivley make it a 4 lane road. Take 2 lanes for LRT and it's a single lane each way.

Oh, and does anybody have a sugestion for what to do at Main and Queen St. For a short stretch Main street bottlenecks to 4 lanes, as one lane is right turn only onto Queen. There are heritage buildings on the SE corner, that can't be expropriated and torn down.

SteelTown
Jul 29, 2008, 3:33 PM
I think we have to keep a fair balance here, taking away 4 lanes to provide 2 LRT lanes, 1 Westbound and 1 curbside parking lane along Main St will be tough to sell to some councillors as some have already expressed concerns with taking away just one lane.

I would like to have at least 3/4 support from councillors and to do that they'll likely support taking away one lane, perhaps two but not 4 lanes.

LikeHamilton
Jul 29, 2008, 4:51 PM
I cannot see any of the bus routes disappearing. This is to replace the present B Line service. The present B Line and the future A & B LRT are express routes stopping every 10 or 12 blocks. The others are local buses that stop every 2 blocks. You cannot loose these buses, as there will still be a need for them.

SteelTown
Jul 29, 2008, 5:19 PM
Yea not all will disappear but likely a bus route will either disppear or merge with another bus route, etc instead of having 5 bus routes along King and Main. They'll likely be a shake up.

ryan_mcgreal
Jul 29, 2008, 5:40 PM
I suppose that situation would work... if nobody ever turned left off Main St.

The whole point of wholesale two-way conversion is that you abandon the model of channeling traffic through a few major arteries. If Main is congested, take Markland, or Herkimer, or Charlton, or Hunter, or Jackson, or King, or York, or Cannon, or Barton instead.

raisethehammer
Jul 29, 2008, 7:47 PM
The whole point of wholesale two-way conversion is that you abandon the model of channeling traffic through a few major arteries. If Main is congested, take Markland, or Herkimer, or Charlton, or Hunter, or Jackson, or King, or York, or Cannon, or Barton instead.

o come on, get real! We need more options than that!

BrianE
Jul 29, 2008, 11:24 PM
The whole point of wholesale two-way conversion is that you abandon the model of channeling traffic through a few major arteries. If Main is congested, take Markland, or Herkimer, or Charlton, or Hunter, or Jackson, or King, or York, or Cannon, or Barton instead.

Well... that is until you find yourself on a congested Main St and try to make a Left turn to get to King or Cannon... but you can't because everyone else is making a left turn to get off Main and because it's 1 lane EB and 1 lane WB nobody is moving.

All I'm saying is that considerations have to be made for traffic to flow North and South off the Main East and West streets. Which means that there have to be more than a single lane going in each direction or at least shoehorn in a left turn lane here and there.

coalminecanary
Jul 30, 2008, 12:49 AM
Brian, this is suburban thinking. Does Yonge Street have a left turn lane? Nope. Does it need one? Nope. Is it a good idea to use it as a through street? Nope. Does it function on lots of different levels - transportation, retail, street life, etc? Yep. That is the idea. The main streets through the core should serve more functions than "thoroughfare".

Main, King, James and John should not be made to pander to through traffic above all other uses. These are our major downtown streets. They need to support retail, traffic, pedestrians, cyclists, transit, street life, etc - and all should be given equal treatment.

Other options through downtown are available. It's not about choosing to get off of Main when there is a traffic issue - it's about not choosing main in the first place if your goal is to get through the city.

We have Wilson and Cannon - underused streets that could act akin to Toronto's richmond and adelaide while Main and King could be akin to Toronto's Queen and King.

adam
Jul 30, 2008, 12:50 AM
Brian, I used to drive in Toronto for 3 years and people learn to get into the right lane at an intersection to avoid being held up by someone turning left. Its worked perfectly fine for years.

hamiltonguy
Jul 30, 2008, 2:39 AM
Did ANYBODY read the report from the city?

LRT on James South WOULD have dedicated lanes. The report provides crosssections of every different area of street under LRT. Also the frequencies listed in the newspaper aren't quite correct. The B-Line will be 10 minute frequency (assuming no increase in ridership) and the central (Up. James and Mohawk to Downtown) section of the A-line will be 8(I think) (again assuming no ridership increase).

I really don't think it would be bright to run the LRT up the Claremont.

Honestly there's no way to use the claremont without sacrificing a great deal of speed (massive double back) or skipping St. Joe's Hospital (Major Employer) and still sacrificing speed.

I assume that with an LRT on James South all the East Mountain Buses would use John while the West Mountain Buses would terminate at Mohawk College and the 25/26 would be a loop up on the Mountain (both are connected to downtown by LRT).

I doubt that all service on King/Main would Stop. I assume the 5 buses from the East will terminate Downtown, The 1 will assume the full length of the 1A and will provide local service as well as service downtown Westdale.

The Western branches of the 5 would probably be renumbered and link up with the LRT.

52 and 52A(already a local non-through branch) at University Gardens. The 5C could go all the way to Ancaster every bus from McMaster and the 5 bus that services King Street in Ancaster could connect at the MUMC station, express via Cootes Drive.

I would hope though that the 27 isn't continued. I doubt the demand would be present.

raisethehammer
Jul 30, 2008, 3:01 AM
please post a link to the report...I missed it.
thanks.

hamiltonguy
Jul 30, 2008, 3:16 AM
http://www.myhamilton.ca/myhamilton/cityandgovernment/projectsinitiatives/rapidtransitfeasibilitystudy

Top Link on the Right, I can't figure out how to get it to link directly.

raisethehammer
Jul 30, 2008, 3:20 AM
ahh, that. Sorry, I thought a new one had been released this week.
thanks.

SteelTown
Jul 30, 2008, 3:23 AM
That's dated May 2008, when the Rapid Transit Office suggested building a tunnel. That plan has changed to use Claremont instead and will be presented to council in September.

hamiltonguy
Jul 30, 2008, 4:05 AM
That's dated May 2008, when the Rapid Transit Office suggested building a tunnel. That plan has changed to use Claremont instead and will be presented to council in September.

I thought Claremont was being studied as an alternative and wasn't settled yet.

If they use Claremont it will be the death of this project.

The fastest and densest way it by the tunnel. It costs a bit more, but the gains in ridership would be great.

If they screw this up the won't be able to fix it.

Think about it.

A line a long the Claremont could NOT service James South or St. Joes and would take longer.

It would be a colossal failure. I'd rather have BRT for A-Line then have them set up a poorly routed LRT.

Besides I was under the impression that we weren't paying for the capital construction costs?

hamiltonguy
Jul 30, 2008, 4:09 AM
The other issue with the Claremont is if it uses King/Main from the Claremont to downtown it would eat up a lot of capacity.

That stretch would be 4 minute frequencies and with a 2-21/2 minimum headway it would severely limit capacity increases.

markbarbera
Jul 30, 2008, 8:36 AM
Brian, I used to drive in Toronto for 3 years and people learn to get into the right lane at an intersection to avoid being held up by someone turning left. Its worked perfectly fine for years.

And this does work on streets that have two lanes of traffic in either direction, as Yonge Street in Toronto does. The issue is there is not enough physical space to have two lanes of traffic in both directions on Main as well as two lanes of dedicated LRT track. At best, three lanes can fit next to the LRT if both directions are run on Main, meaning automobile traffic will have only one lane available either eastbound or westbound should this road be converted to two-way.

IMO it only makes sense to maintain the system we have now with the B-Line. Have one dedicated eastbound lane along Main and one dedicated westbound lane on King. This would allow Main to have two lanes of eastbound and two lanes of westbound traffic. Reconfiguring Main is going to be the biggest political challenge associated with LRT planning. There's already palpable resistance to its two-way conversion in general. Any attempt to reduce traffic lanes along Main to one lane in either direction could put the entire plan at jeopardy.

The options are either convert Main and King to two-way with eastbound B-line LRT on Main and westbound on King, or have both directions of B-Line LRT on Main and maintain the rest of Main as one-way eastbound traffic. IMO the first option would be preferrable, although there would be an overall cost savings with the second option.

Is there an issue with running eastbound B-Line LRT on Main and westbound on King other than the additional construction cost associated with this approach?

raisethehammer
Jul 30, 2008, 12:28 PM
I thought Claremont was being studied as an alternative and wasn't settled yet.

If they use Claremont it will be the death of this project.

The fastest and densest way it by the tunnel. It costs a bit more, but the gains in ridership would be great.

If they screw this up the won't be able to fix it.

Think about it.

A line a long the Claremont could NOT service James South or St. Joes and would take longer.

It would be a colossal failure. I'd rather have BRT for A-Line then have them set up a poorly routed LRT.

Besides I was under the impression that we weren't paying for the capital construction costs?


I agree about James South and St Joes...that's why I suggest they use Charlton over to the Claremont. I love the Claremont idea. If they use Charlton, it will connect Corktown to the LRT network as well.

coalminecanary
Jul 30, 2008, 12:50 PM
A line a long the Claremont could NOT service James South or St. Joes and would take longer.

If you used hunter to jog over to claremont, you'd be within 4 residential blocks (equivalent to what... 2 major blocks) from St. Joe's. That may sound like a long walk, but I'm telling you - I live in that area and hospital workers will park 4, 5, 6, 10 blocks away from the hospital and walk in order to avoid parking fees.

You are talking about a HUGE expenditure in order to service one major employer.

And by taking hunter to claremont, you service more residential area plus an opportunity to link to the hunter terminal in a more slick way than if the LRT just went on James.

Plus the tunnel would cut off a bunch of areas on the mountain since it would be underground for the first few hundred metres or more.

Besides I was under the impression that we weren't paying for the capital construction costs?

Well that's not it exactly... the province and federal gov't are putting up some cash for these projects but it's not unlimited. We have to come up with a proposal that asks for a certain amount. If we can eliminate the tunnel expenditure then it would be more feasible to put longer lines in. That tunnel money would be much better spent if we could put it toward getting LRT into Dundas or Stoney Creek. So essentially we could ask for the same amount and service way more people if we skip the tunnel and put longer lines instead.

Do you live on the mountain and work at st. joes? :D I'm just asking because I think your proposal sacrifices a lot simply to better serve one single employer..

coalminecanary
Jul 30, 2008, 12:50 PM
I agree about James South and St Joes...that's why I suggest they use Charlton over to the Claremont. I love the Claremont idea. If they use Charlton, it will connect Corktown to the LRT network as well.

Charlton wouldn't connect very easily to claremont though...

SteelTown
Jul 30, 2008, 1:00 PM
Yea, isn't the Claremont ramp already high above Charlton?

Either way they'll be winners and losers with the A-Line route.

BrianE
Jul 30, 2008, 2:34 PM
Does the A-Line have to be one continuous line that weaves through Corktown and Durand?slowing down to take sharp turns and such.?

Why not terminate the A line at Victoria and King. Make that area a small transit hub.

Why not make a small spur-line the entire length of James St? Say from Charlton down to the lake front. Just have a bunch of cars that go North and South at regular intervals along James.

This whole escarpment running through the middle of the city is a serious pain in the ass when it comes to transportation planning, isn't it?

coalminecanary
Jul 30, 2008, 3:09 PM
I like that idea of a separate lower james and upper james line that link perhaps at hunter (upper james line comes down claremont to hunter and goes back up the same way. lower james line crosses hunter but terminates at st. joes).

If I had my way though, i'd have a lower terminus at st joes, and an upper at the top of claremeont - and I would link them with a gondola... gondola cars come every 30 seconds and it doubles as a tourism thing with a lookout on top. if the upper and lower LRT frequencies can be in the neighboutrhood of 5 mins, and the gondola every minute or less, the connections could be pretty quick.. not much slower than an LRT line that has to run sideways and then backtrack.

raisethehammer
Jul 31, 2008, 3:09 AM
Yea, isn't the Claremont ramp already high above Charlton?

Either way they'll be winners and losers with the A-Line route.

My suggestion is that it uses Charlton from James over to Ferguson or Wellington...then back down to Hunter and up the Claremont.

DC83
Jul 31, 2008, 5:03 PM
One reason I'm so all about Hunter St for the A-Line is Co$t!
There were significant costs associated with allowing LRT to go under either (or both) the James & John St railway track bridges. If they can eliminate such unecessary costs by rerouting it along an already underused stretch of road to an already existing (at-grade) entry to the Claremont Accs, then why not!?

Want service to St Joe's? No problem. I like Coalmine's idea of a gondola connecting the park at the Claremont to St Joe's. Also, it's a 3 min walk up James South from TH&B Stn to St Joe's along Hughson. Hughston is still to be streetscaped, so why not make it an attractive LRT link?

And to be fair, people already park right behind the TH&B between Market & Augusta for work @ St Joe's, so they walk this path every day already.

In the end, it will come to the bottom line (everything does), and I think Hunter to Claremont by way of TH&B is a much more economical solution to digging out those blasted tunnels under the tracks!

ryan_mcgreal
Jul 31, 2008, 6:01 PM
I think Hunter to Claremont by way of TH&B is a much more economical solution to digging out those blasted tunnels under the tracks!

Not only that, but the potential for cost overruns in a tunnel cut is exponentially higher than in a straight track run along the street.

markbarbera
Jul 31, 2008, 7:43 PM
Not to mention the environmental assessment process for using an existing route up the escarpent would be much more straightforward than doing an EA for a tunnel through it.

SteelTown
Jul 31, 2008, 7:49 PM
I know St Joe's has a shuttle service from the Mountain hospital next to Mohawk College so they could provide a shuttle service from TH&B station once the LRT for A-Line is complete.

Or the city could get the neat electric mini shuttle buses like in Quebec City.

markbarbera
Jul 31, 2008, 8:38 PM
I think James South is pretty well served with all the buses running along it currently. The frequency is really good (except of course on Sundays). You can introduce one shuttle that loops along James north to Barton, east to John, south to Charlton,west back to James, and another looping in the opposite direction and have them timed to connect with arriving A-Line and B-Lines. They could also serve as a GO link between the Hunter GO Centre and the future James North GO/Via station.

hamiltonguy
Aug 1, 2008, 1:11 AM
A number of issues to be addressed

1) Cost: How big IS the difference. The Claremont Route is 4 km, the James Street Route is .6 KM plus Tunnel and Bridge Reconstruction.

2) Time: Claremont Route is literally twice as long. This makes about 3 minutes difference.

3) Convenience: People at St. Joes may walk for their cars BUT its because once they get to their car they can go straight home. Transit can't offer this at the other end but if it services St. Joes directly it can provide this at one end.

4) The Buses won't run as frequently down James/John when the LRT runs regardless of which route. An educated guess would be that only the 22/23/24 buses would run down this area (peak combined frequency of 5 minutes)

5) While a cable car sounds cool, realistically it will cost a good deal of money.

6)It's more like at 5-6 minutes walk from Hunter and that is up hill. Outpatients, and older employees would not walk this distance if at all possible.

7) Shuttle Buses would cost additional monies to run

8)St. Joes is expanding and Durand/ Corktown are booming

9) I do not work or live near St. Joes. I work part time at the Henderson Hospital and live near Stone Church and Upper Sherman.

10) Hamilton rules.

mishap
Aug 1, 2008, 9:01 AM
One reason I'm so all about Hunter St for the A-Line is Co$t!
There were significant costs associated with allowing LRT to go under either (or both) the James & John St railway track bridges.
The argument for the tunnel was that the LRT had to cross the escarpment at a reasonable grade. But look at James St. immediately south of the GO station. That's pretty steep, even if only for a short length. Any solution to that challenge is going to be pricey. And that's just to get to the very expensive tunnel.
If they can eliminate such unnecessary costs by rerouting it along an already underused stretch of road to an already existing (at-grade) entry to the Claremont Accs, then why not!?
As mentioned before, your idea is very similar to mine. I prefer Jackson St. as it stays closer to Main, local traffic can be limited, through traffic can be very easily curtailed, and City Hall can be a stop along this stretch. I have to say, I was liking the Hunter idea as part of a terminal concept in front of the GO station, but I was told the (bus terminal) idea had been considered and dismissed. One plus for Hunter, I'll admit, is how directly an LRT line could enter the Claremont Access.

The big advantage to either street over James is that further millions could be saved by the A-Line and B-Line sharing tracks through the core. And you don't just have a single transfer point, you end up with a transfer zone between Wellington and Bay, not unlike Calgary's Seventh Avenue. This corridor could also be used to link to a future Barton line. Someone here suggested such a line run west to Bay or Caroline. From there, you could continue that line south to City Hall to meet the others through the transfer zone.

In the end, it will come to the bottom line (everything does), and I think Hunter to Claremont by way of TH&B is a much more economical solution to digging out those blasted tunnels under the tracks!
Tens of millions cheaper, maybe even a hundred million dollars. And what do you really lose on James South? Probably one station around Charlton. That can easily be covered by bus. Even after route restructuring, there would still have to be some bus service toward the escarpment, maybe to connect to Concession Street.

mishap
Aug 1, 2008, 9:39 AM
4) The Buses won't run as frequently down James/John when the LRT runs regardless of which route. An educated guess would be that only the 22/23/24 buses would run down this area (peak combined frequency of 5 minutes)
Maybe the 23. Something will still have to cover Concession Street from Downtown, as James St would be closer than any stop on the A-Line. Assuming the "loop" stays, then also the 24.
The 22 might be steered away from Downtown... long before LRT.
(Makes me wonder what will happen to routes 25 and 26... running in circles, I'd guess.)

8)St. Joes is expanding and Durand/ Corktown are booming
When the bus routes are restructured, maybe we'll see routes like Delaware and Aberdeen shifted a bit further south. Once LRT is in, running route 5 along Young St isn't that outrageous. Or maybe a new route altogether. Who knows?

coalminecanary
Aug 1, 2008, 1:51 PM
5) While a cable car sounds cool, realistically it will cost a good deal of money.


Maybe not - it's a short stretch. Lots of places build gondolas strictly for tourism and they must turn a profit...

And check out this article where Winnipeg looks at a gondola because it's cheaper than building a pedestrian bridge!
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2008/01/07/gondola.html

And not only would we get a nice fast up/down transit link, we'd have something pretty nice for the city image too :-)

SteelTown
Aug 13, 2008, 4:16 PM
"The Conservative source said Harper will also make stops in Ontario next week, joining Premier Dalton McGuinty to make an infrastructure funding announcement."

Fingers crossed for MoveOntario 2020!!

ryan_mcgreal
Aug 13, 2008, 4:40 PM
Fingers crossed for MoveOntario 2020!!

My understanding is that the feds won't commit to MoveOntario funding until after Metrolinx releases its regional transportation plan, probably in December or January.

As it is, there's no plan for the feds to commit to.

SteelTown
Aug 13, 2008, 4:44 PM
How often do you see Harper and Dalton together to make a funding announcement? NEVER!

So this must be a big infrastructure funding announcement next week.

raisethehammer
Aug 13, 2008, 4:57 PM
maybe more high speed rail to stupid places like Peterborough.
I really think Tillsonburg needs high speed rail to Toronto.

JoeyColeman
Aug 13, 2008, 5:16 PM
I know St Joe's has a shuttle service from the Mountain hospital next to Mohawk College so they could provide a shuttle service from TH&B station once the LRT for A-Line is complete.

Or the city could get the neat electric mini shuttle buses like in Quebec City.

St. Joe's has an on-call "shuttle service" between Charlton and CMHS but it is not a scheduled service and is limited.

DC83
Aug 21, 2008, 8:47 PM
Anyone see the new View Mag issue (out today)?

Great full front-page shot of a mock-up HSR LRT car! Very neat.
I'd post the image from their website, but it's not working:(

www.viewmag.com

raisethehammer
Aug 21, 2008, 8:52 PM
yup... I read it. pretty good piece. Pro-LRT obviously.

Coalmine saw me standing at the bus stop at King/James with my LRT shirt on and gave me a nice honk! Lol. I'll be wearing that thing when I take the first ride on our new LRT in 5 years (or so).

raisethehammer
Sep 4, 2008, 1:47 PM
woohoo! Mayor Fred is on a Light Rail tour through the US including a stop in Portland!
This is the best news I've heard in years from city hall! I'll happily pay for such an excursion with tax dollars. I'd love the entire council to go as well.

I hope he is blown away by what he sees. Hopefully the folks down there show him some older photos of the areas around the streetcar and LRT so he can see how much has changed in terms of development.

Go Fred!!

DC83
Sep 4, 2008, 2:58 PM
^^ He was just in Charlotte, NC. That new LYNX system is awesome! The best designed I've seen yet (design-wise; like shelters, stations, etc).

He is going to come back wide-eyed and drop-jawed saying "why the F didn't we invest in this YEARS ago?"

He was talking about how amazed he was at the development going on in the LRT corridors, commenting on all he sees is 'cranes everywhere!'

ryan_mcgreal
Sep 4, 2008, 3:31 PM
woohoo! Mayor Fred is on a Light Rail tour through the US including a stop in Portland!

So is Councillor Ferguson. :)

raisethehammer
Sep 4, 2008, 3:35 PM
Serious??
I'm sure he'll come back steaming mad at the way LRT takes up road space.
Why would they send him?? Geez...send someone from the city where LRT is actually proposed.

DC83
Sep 4, 2008, 3:39 PM
^^ imo, if they had to send any councillors, it'd be him.
Talking about LRT is one thing... seeing it in motion incl all the developments around it is the best idea I can think of to convert a non-believer.

Who else is there?

SteelTown
Sep 4, 2008, 4:13 PM
I'm glad Ferguson went down. Maybe he'll have a different viewpoint.

raisethehammer
Sep 4, 2008, 4:55 PM
you guys are probably right.
I don't give him enough credit to change his opinion regardless of mounds of evidence. I think he's beyond that point.

SteelTown
Sep 4, 2008, 6:59 PM
Based on the Star's Map Metrolinx will fund 3 rapid transit lines in Hamilton. Later on I'll copy and paste the map here. There's A-Line, B-Line and I think Metrolinx called it T-Line.

T-Line route looks new. Connects from B-Line somewhere in Central Hamilton, perhaps Wellington up along Upper Wellington to Limeridge Mall and along Mohawk Road to Medowlands.

SteelTown
Sep 4, 2008, 7:08 PM
For now here's the link

http://multimedia.thestar.com/acrobat/14/ad/3dd5eba74c5aa7ca10bf4dfba94c.pdf

raisethehammer
Sep 4, 2008, 7:37 PM
that's an old map. It's been around for a while.

DC83
Sep 4, 2008, 9:21 PM
neat I don't remember seeing that version of that map. last one I remember was just drawn up quick.

by that map it looks like Eglinton in Toronto is getting a subway?? Interesting... to the airport.

Would there be BRT for Dundas/Hwy5 to Waterdown?

I think the Hamilton version is a lil out of date tho.

matt602
Sep 5, 2008, 3:38 AM
Yep, Eglinton was originally penciled in for LRT but they recently changed that plan to a subway line. I'm not really sure if it's necessary, but it would probably do better than the Sheppard line does. Looks like Oakville and Burlington are also getting BRT. I can't imagine where to be honest. Mississauga is also getting BRT but I think they should be pushing for LRT.

DC83
Sep 5, 2008, 11:59 AM
^^ Wow completely unnecessary and expensive!! IMO, Eglinton should be LRT until about Dufferin or Bathurst to the West/ Bayview'ish in the East -- THEN go underground between those two streets as Eglinton in the Yonge St area is crazy busy!

I can't wait to see the version the Public Works Dept. submits later this month :)

raisethehammer
Sep 5, 2008, 12:48 PM
this is pretty exciting stuff....LRT might be running through our city in 5 years!!! just think about that!
Let's keep educating people and keep the momentum going.

SteelTown
Sep 5, 2008, 12:53 PM
I've been here since 2004 and still waiting patiently for King Street West streetscape, which was approved in 2004, so I can certainly wait 5 years to ride on the new LRT lol.

LikeHamilton
Sep 9, 2008, 3:00 PM
From "Raise the Hammer"
Mayor Reflects on LRT Tour
By: RTH Staff
Published: 2008/09/08 (Category: Light Rail)

Mayor Fred Eisenberger agreed to an email interview with Raise the Hammer to share his insights on his tour of light rail systems in Calgary, Portland OR and Charlotte NC.

He explained that the purpose of the trip was "to get a firsthand knowledge of the experience in each of these cities from an infrastructure, political, and funding point of view to see how Hamilton should proceed on this project."
They are all mid-sized cities in various timeframes of having LRT (Charlotte – opened last year, Portland and Calgary around 20-30 years). Portland and Charlotte were very good comparators for Hamilton in terms of scale. City population were around 500,000-600,000 (metro population is larger); the scale of buildings was similar; and ridership in Charlotte was comparable.

Charlotte LRT has exceeded expectations in terms of first year ridership, yet it is still below what current Hamilton East-West ridership is when you take into account all the busses that travel on that route.

Calgary was a useful case study as it was in the Canadian context and not one of the big-three cities.

Eisenberger said of the impact in those cities that "Light rail is transformational – it's about rejuvenating a city, promoting growth and intensification. Four- and five-storey condo buildings were being constructed all along the LRT lines and office uptake in the core was substantial."

He added, "One thing that stood our is how proud each of these Cities were: of their LRT systems, but also of their communities in general. There was a real sense of optimism, ownership, and pride in the systems they had built."

The mayor concluded, "This is a tremendous opportunity for Hamilton. Given the experience and advice from other cites, we are on the right track and ready to go to the next step. We are pushing hard to get in to the first phase of the Metrolinx Regional Transportation Plan."

DC83
Sep 9, 2008, 3:58 PM
^^ Nice. I can't wait to see how other Councilors (esp Ferguson) felt about LRT after the trip!

SteelTown
Sep 11, 2008, 7:09 PM
  Rapid Transit Feasibility Study – Public Consultation Update

http://www.myhamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/267BC6B2-DB52-41F1-8CBF-FDEB22DD68A9/0/Sep15PW08043b.pdf

Enjoy the reading.

raisethehammer
Sep 11, 2008, 7:38 PM
good stuff.
I personally don't care what Ferguson thought of the trip.
It'll all drain right out of his brain the second we start discussing lane reductions on Main and King.
The mayor is the most important one in this process and he really seems to get urban living and wants Hamilton to turn the corner.
it's exciting stuff!

LikeHamilton
Sep 12, 2008, 8:26 AM
I love this picture. Can anyone else do something like this?

Rendering of a possible light rail line in Hamilton (Image Credit: Trey Shaughnessy)

From September 11, 2008 “Raise The Hammer”.com

http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/5691/lightrailrenderka1.jpg

omro
Sep 12, 2008, 11:20 AM
I love this picture. Can anyone else do something like this?

Rendering of a possible light rail line in Hamilton (Image Credit: Trey Shaughnessy)

From September 11, 2008 “Raise The Hammer”.com

http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/5691/lightrailrenderka1.jpg

Very cool, great article in raisethehammer.com too, it's all very exciting :-)

That map from the Toronto paper looks like it has LRT on Barton and an interchange at Centre Mall?

astroblaster
Sep 12, 2008, 11:59 AM
great article guys!

geoff's two cents
Sep 21, 2008, 10:19 PM
But that's the thing, they won't be losing this ridership. Rather, this ridership will be served by either the B-Line to the southern end of the campus, or by the local service to the northern end of the campus.A trip on the B-line from downtown to Mac takes 10 minutes. On the University bus, the same trip takes 14 minutes. Not a big deal at all. And those who wish to take the B-line to Mac from futher afield can always get off at Main and Emerson and transfer onto the eastbound University bus, which will drop them off at the Sterling Street entrance to the campus.

The local service is at present hideously and dangerously overcrowded, and the B-line doesn't go where the majority of people who take westbound transit go. It is primarily this factor, not the minute difference in travel time, that makes the new configuration less palatable and less convenient to transit-taking students, faculty and staff than it was before. For those who have to commute from greater distances (ie downtown, east Hamilton, and beyond), can afford to drive, and have been up to this time taking transit for the sake of convenience, taking the car instead might become a viable option.

A temporary stop-gap measure might in this case consist of replacing some single-tier buses (the 51 route, for instance) with articulated models. In my opinion, given the underutilized 10s, this would be a poor use of tax dollars. However, in the best case scenario, it might allow the city to build ridership and density along Main without impairing service along the previous route (as it is currently doing). In fact, maintaining regular and adequate service of some sort along the previous corridor would also allow for the possibility of constructing an alternate or additional LRT route along said corridor at a later (probably much later) date.

adam
Sep 21, 2008, 10:21 PM
With regards to the LRT/McMaster discussion started in the other thread.... I wonder if Mac would pay for tracks to be extended into campus? Would this be violating some kind of rule since the campus is private property?

SteelTown
Sep 21, 2008, 10:48 PM
Taking the car isn't really a viable option. You have to park way out of the campus. Hop on a shuttle bus and it drops you off near the GO terminal. Takes me 10-15 minutes to walk to my campus building from the drop off area from the shuttle bus. So it takes me almost 20 to 30 minutes from getting out of my car to work. Driving from home to work is faster than from the parking lot to McMaster.

adam
Sep 22, 2008, 2:25 AM
I remember the days of undergrad at mac taking parking zone 6 bus to main campus. A parking garage on main campus would be great.. Too bad campus wasn't integrated into the city like at Queen's, U of T, etc...

SteelTown
Sep 22, 2008, 10:59 AM
Vast majority support a rapid transit system

September 22, 2008
The Hamilton Spectator

More than 90 per cent of Hamiltonians the city has heard from support developing some kind of rapid transit system.

City staff say they have heard from more than 1,600 people, from all wards, and 94 per cent support a rapid transit system.

In total, 66 per cent backed light rail transit, 8 per cent favoured bus rapid transit, and 20 per cent supported either move.

The numbers are current as of Aug. 11.

City staff have been working on a Rapid Transit Feasibility Study and public consultation is part of that process. Part of the goal is to ensure the city can access funding dollars from regional transportation body Metrolinx, which releases its first five-year capital budget in November.

Metrolinx will be releasing its draft Regional Transportation Plan and Investment Strategy tomorrow. City staff intend to report back to councillors in October with the results of Phase 2 of the feasibility study.

highwater
Sep 22, 2008, 1:36 PM
I agree with you, expanding service is great... BUT why take away service from a large demographic that spends money like its going out of style? .. even if its OSAP or parents' funds .. the city should be trying to get this demographic downtown, and the reduced fare is just one way to encourage it.

The idea of students as big spenders is a bit of a myth, I'm afraid. All the Acuras and SUV's parked in the driveways of student houses give a false impression. The majority of students are living on very tight budgets and don't have much in the way of discretionary income, not to mention that they're gone for 4 months out of the year. With the exception of the Pita Pit, all the other Westdale businesses that tried to cater solely to students found this out the hard way. Don't be betting the farm on this demographic.


I partially agree with what you say above regarding reaching a new demographic of transit riders on Main and south of Main. If the city had plans to re-zone and densify this corridor, thus making it a more transit-oriented community, this might make some sense. Otherwise, it does not. The city would run the risk of losing some substantial Westdale-to-downtown and downtown-to-campus ridership, in order to achieve the meagre gains of running rapid transit down what is by comparison a sparsely-populated and car-oriented corridor.

The city does have plans to densify this corridor. The Ainsley Woods/Westdale Secondary Plan allows for low-rise apartments/condos along Main W. I believe the max is 6 storeys, but the precedent-setting West Village Condos has already exceeded that at 9 storeys. They are trying to encourage similar developments.


I'm afraid it's wishful thinking to think that the University will allow LRT on the campus under the current administration. The University seems intent on continuing its 'suburban island' mentality to planning. The urban landscape is changing however, both in the immediate geographical vicinity, and psychologically, so I don't know how long they'll be able to keep up with their outdated approach. They could sure use some new blood in there, and some senior officials who live somewhere other than Ancaster.

DC83
Sep 22, 2008, 1:57 PM
Why did it take The Spec 11 days to publish the exact same info raisethehammer.org published on Sep 11?

I write for my company newsletter every quarter, and I'll be writing it on LRT this term. Can't wait to educate everyone!

geoff's two cents
Sep 22, 2008, 7:59 PM
The city does have plans to densify this corridor. The Ainsley Woods/Westdale Secondary Plan allows for low-rise apartments/condos along Main W. I believe the max is 6 storeys, but the precedent-setting West Village Condos has already exceeded that at 9 storeys. They are trying to encourage similar developments.

So there's somewhat of a silver lining to this dark cloud. That's good to hear, at least.

I'm afraid it's wishful thinking to think that the University will allow LRT on the campus under the current administration. The University seems intent on continuing its 'suburban island' mentality to planning. The urban landscape is changing however, both in the immediate geographical vicinity, and psychologically, so I don't know how long they'll be able to keep up with their outdated approach. They could sure use some new blood in there, and some senior officials who live somewhere other than Ancaster.

Indeed, hopefully some positive development downtown and on Main will change the way most of the entire west end of the city views downtown. There's actually already a lot more here than there was when we first arrived a year ago - mostly in the form of restaurants. The Mac administrative culture unfortunately appears to fit in quite neatly with the existing east/centre-west/Dundas divide.

SteelTown
Sep 25, 2008, 3:32 PM
You are invited to an Open House – Updating McMaster's Campus Master Plan

Oct. 2nd, 2008 12:00 - 2:00 pm - Convocation Hall

Last year the University Planning Committee established a working group to refresh the original Campus Plan. The plan, drafted by a collaborative group of McMaster stakeholders (with input from students, faculty, staff, city officials, community members), was approved by the Board of Governors in 2002 .

The working group has focused on updating the Campus Plan by acknowledging new buildings and projects on campus, updating statistical data, adding new information to enhance the understanding of the plan, while improving the pictures and diagrams to make the report easier to read.

The McMaster community is invited to an Open House to learn more about the updated document and to ask questions of the committee members responsible for recommending these changes.

Sincerely,
Members of the Campus Plan Working Group

SteelTown
Sep 25, 2008, 3:33 PM
I'll try and attend and ask them about public transit inside the campus.

DC83
Sep 25, 2008, 3:44 PM
Good counter-argument on RTH re: taking B-Line off Mac Campus:
http://www.raisethehammer.org/index.asp?id=769

raisethehammer
Sep 25, 2008, 5:08 PM
I heard Bill Kelly interview a host of city folks today (Ferguson, Powers, Fred etc...) about LRT.
Kelly of course went on and on about the massive 'gridlock' that already exists at King and Wellington and Main/Dundurn etc....and how will we ever sacrifice a lane for LRT without sheer pandemonium. Lol. Could only shake my head listening to him.