Rapid Transit [Archive] - Page 12 - SkyscraperPage Forum

emge

Jun 9, 2009, 9:51 PM

Just got back from the 4pm presentation. Sorry I'm missing you guys.

Nothing much new if you've been following things and have already seen the survey. Still, it was interesting to see how far ahead (or not, as the case may be) they're thinking is on design, impacts, etc. For example they are already working with the MTO on alternative ramps for the 403 if and when King and Main go back to two-way.

I'm glad I didn't miss much.. I went at the very beginning, but my hubby got off work early, so we both went back so he could do the survey too... but people are coming over for Game 6, so we decided to head home and get ready! I suppose my citizen participation only goes so far... at least today. :D

It's good to hear that they're already working with the MTO with the highway considerations, etc. highwater - thanks for posting that.

holymoly

Jun 9, 2009, 10:40 PM

I was hoping to get to it but couldn't take time away from work. I did the survey online, though.

omro

Jun 9, 2009, 11:55 PM

highwater

Jun 10, 2009, 12:46 AM

My impression was side road access would only be cut off with the LRT in the outside lane option. With LRT in the median, side streets would be right turn only.

Jon Dalton

Jun 10, 2009, 1:07 AM

I ran into Astroblaster and Fairhamilton on the way out. Good to see some others on here showed up. I was there around 6 and it was sparse, but apparently they had a better crowd earlier on.

I used all the space on the comment section of the form to express my support of the 2-way median LRT / 2-way traffic option. The curb lane / one way option would hurt accessability for the benefit of traffic flow, an obvious step in the wrong direction.

I'm also pleasantly surprised with the level of progress the city has made. What impresses me is that they are proposing a fully exclusive right of way system that radically alters vehicle traffic and the way the street is used. This is exactly what a well implemented system will accomplish.

astroblaster

Jun 10, 2009, 2:23 AM

nice to see to you jon and omro.... i didn't have a ton of time, just wanted to add a body to the count

:)

drpgq

Jun 10, 2009, 2:44 AM

I was there between five and five thirty. I talked to Jill and it seemed to me that King rather than Main is pretty much locked up and seems unlikely to change.

FairHamilton

Jun 10, 2009, 3:04 AM

We got there right at 7pm, and ran into Jon Dalton on his way out. We were there after the presentations, and were able to ask a few questions and read the literature on the easels.

Good to be out and put interest towards the process. But did they really need to use a Long Branch TTC streetcar for the literature?

Jon Dalton

Jun 10, 2009, 3:35 AM

Hahaha. I was really tempted to ask Jill that. Like of all the sexy new light rail vehicles today they have to use the old CLRV on the drawings? Don't get me wrong, I love streetcars in any shape and form, but it is important that people who read this stuff know the difference.

Jon Dalton

Jun 10, 2009, 4:09 AM

My question was regarding the property acquisition required to make a true ROW along King St., and are there any potential showstoppers that have been identified. The response was that the feasibility study has already identified and addressed them and deemed the proposed alignments to be feasible, all implications duly considered. Jill mentioned specifically the bottleneck at King and Wellington, and the prospect of replacing street parking with intermittent small parking lots that would need to be acquired by the city.

The impression I got was that our hundreds of thousands of dollars being spent on consultants' reports is actually going towards working out the details of how to make this work in the best possible way for the city. I had feared that too much would be squandered trying to prove the obvious and that the truly revolutionary aspects of the system would be suppressed by the sheer inertia of our current single occupancy vehicle bill of rights.

The latest report has shown me that the Rapid Transit office is looking at the big picture. The next big hurdle is getting that big picture across to the other 90% who just need to hit Blockbuster Video on their way home and don't care much about the scenery either way.

drpgq

Jun 30, 2009, 12:35 AM

Anyone know why they moved that one bus stop to Main between John and Bowen, where previously it had been between John and Hughson? I saw people waiting when I walked by on Sunday and it just looked weird.

SteelTown

Jun 30, 2009, 1:23 AM

^ That's because the main McNab terminal is closed for renovations and most buses ending at McNab has been permanently relocated to the GO Station.

mic67

Jun 30, 2009, 1:49 AM

/////////////////Wtf/////////////////////

Ok Retardness for the next year.

Great if you are going to Toronto.

Mic67

drpgq

Jun 30, 2009, 2:25 AM

^ That's because the main McNab terminal is closed for renovations and most buses ending at McNab has been permanently relocated to the GO Station.

Thanks

SteelTown

Jun 30, 2009, 3:14 AM

More info here
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?p=4331996#post4331996

markbarbera

Jun 30, 2009, 4:06 PM

I like the new alignment for King, Cannon and Barton. I think this is a permanent rerouting, but perhaps someone can confirm?

The Barton re-route effectively offers a transit option that would link the potential VIA/GO station on the CN track with the Hunter Street GO Centre. Once a station is back on the CN track, the westbound Barton route can be rejigged to head North on John to Murray, west to James, then south on James up to the GO Centre. Eastbound Barton can be rerouted north on John to Murray, east to Mary, south to Barton, then head east on Barton as usual.

SteelTown

Jun 30, 2009, 4:20 PM

...
Permanent route changes effective June 28, 2009......

Routes 1-King, 2-Barton and 3-Cannon end-of-line be changed from the current MacNab Street Terminal to the Hunter GO Station.

SteelTown

Jul 9, 2009, 11:24 PM

Metrolinx's new board members have their first meeting on July 13th.

Hamilton Rapid Transit Study is part of Metrolinx Big 5 Projects....
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a382/hammer396/MetrolinxLRT.jpg

There's 30 agenda items and I don't see the Benefits Case Analysis for the B-Line on the agenda. Perhaps at another meeting or it's buried under the closed sessions.

omro

Jul 10, 2009, 3:53 AM

SteelTown

Jul 10, 2009, 1:15 PM

Yea it appears King St has the upper hand.

omro

Jul 10, 2009, 1:24 PM

Yea it appears King St has the upper hand.

A pre-bias before any actual assessments?

Will 2way LRT on Main not even be considered?

SteelTown

Jul 10, 2009, 1:57 PM

No, they would have done their own study if Metrolinx determined King St is the best option.

omro

Jul 10, 2009, 2:31 PM

So this is official now, LRT won't be on Main or am I reading too much into a graphic?

SteelTown

Jul 10, 2009, 3:38 PM

You might find out if it's official on July 13th, Metrolinx meeting.

drpgq

Jul 10, 2009, 3:58 PM

Looks very likely that it won't be on Main. I talked to the city engineer at the last meeting at the Sheraton and from talking to her I got the impression only King is being considered.

omro

Jul 10, 2009, 4:01 PM

I spoke to her too, however I was under the impression that Metrolinx was going to evaluate both options fairly before making a choice, not being told by the city which route to take.

bigguy1231

Jul 11, 2009, 7:07 AM

I went, missed most of the second presentation. Didn't like the idea of cutting off access to the road with the LRT from the side roads she mentioned a few times. Don't quite see how that's necessary. I did get to chat to the lady for a short while and she did point out that nothing had been decided as of yet, these were all mainly just differing options/thinking out loud.

My impression was side road access would only be cut off with the LRT in the outside lane option. With LRT in the median, side streets would be right turn only.

From what I read of the report that is exactly what they are proposing to do. Area residents would no longer be able to cross King St. in their vehicles from one side to the other. It would essentially cut the lower city in half other than the main streets. Once the residents of the neighborhoods affected find this out this proposal will be dead in the water.

Jon Dalton

Jul 11, 2009, 1:14 PM

omro

Jul 11, 2009, 2:17 PM

I'm trying to think of a tram system in the UK where putting the trams in place has caused access to and from side roads to be cut off. I personally thought that a very unusual proposal. I can only suggest that it is being considered because they fear local drivers will not respect the LRT's right of way.

As for putting LRT on King, I still favour Main as the more direct and wider route on a road that needs far for regeneration spin off than King.

Blurr

Jul 11, 2009, 7:44 PM

^^

King goes through the heart of the city, having the LRT go through the downtown core will bring visibility and status to one of the most unique downtowns in Canada.

One of the biggest complaints with Hamilton's image I have come across is the poor state of the downtown core. LRT along King will deal with this issue head on.

Jon Dalton

Jul 11, 2009, 10:32 PM

Somehow I doubt it's the residents of the downtown neighbourhoods who will oppose this. The businesses I can understand, just like Spadina in the 70's and St. Clair today. I think the city should offer assistance to the established, legitimate and desireable businesses on the corridor and that should be part of the cost of implementing the system. They could also route it down Wellington, along Main and up John back to King, avoiding the narrow section of King. Routing like this is common in European cities without long straight continuous streets. That would of course disrupt the 4 lane 2 way Main St. that would replace the 1 way system for traffic flow. They could also use King William, a useless street for vehicle traffic, for that stretch.

flar

Jul 12, 2009, 1:31 AM

Cutting off traffic across King is suicide for downtown. One of the current problems with the one ways is that it's difficult for cars to get where they need to go without driving around and around. So yes, let's get rid of the defacto expressways and slow things down, but be realistic: for downtown to be successful, it does have to be easy to get around by car. No matter how good the transit system becomes, people will still want to drive downtown, and if there are downtown destinations, I think it's in the best interests of everyone to make them accessible to all means of transportation.

bigguy1231

Jul 12, 2009, 3:48 AM

How practical is it to cross King Street in a vehicle today other than the main streets? That one way wall of cars doesn't make it easy. I'm a resident of the area and I drive a car and I'm in favour of the proposal. Anyone else here?

Take the blinders off and look around, cars cross King St. easily any time of the day. As for you being a resident of the area that may be so, but your only 1 of 100,000 give or take a couple of thousand. Your opinion isn't going to matter much when people realize that they are not going to be able to navigate their neighborhoods in their cars.

Somehow I doubt it's the residents of the downtown neighbourhoods who will oppose this. The businesses I can understand, just like Spadina in the 70's and St. Clair today. I think the city should offer assistance to the established, legitimate and desireable businesses on the corridor and that should be part of the cost of implementing the system. They could also route it down Wellington, along Main and up John back to King, avoiding the narrow section of King. Routing like this is common in European cities without long straight continuous streets. That would of course disrupt the 4 lane 2 way Main St. that would replace the 1 way system for traffic flow. They could also use King William, a useless street for vehicle traffic, for that stretch.

Your dreaming again.

Cutting off traffic across King is suicide for downtown. One of the current problems with the one ways is that it's difficult for cars to get where they need to go without driving around and around. So yes, let's get rid of the defacto expressways and slow things down, but be realistic: for downtown to be successful, it does have to be easy to get around by car. No matter how good the transit system becomes, people will still want to drive downtown, and if there are downtown destinations, I think it's in the best interests of everyone to make them accessible to all means of transportation.

Finally, a voice of reason. Someone who understands what I am trying to point out.
As for the de facto expressways, there is a reason we have them. We don't have an actual expressway running through downtown like most larger cities. That was a decision made in the 50's. Maybe if they actually built one back then we wouldn't have to worry about through traffic using Main and King Sts. to pass through the downtown.
Unfortunately, slowing down those two roads it is going to cause problems on other streets when people try to avoid the inevitable bottleneck that will occur. Streets like York, Aberdeen, Wilson, Cannon and Barton will be swamped with traffic seeking to avoid the downtown.
Anyone who thinks that this streetcar system being proposed is going to be the salvation of the downtown is just dreaming. When all is said and done, the only people who will use it are the same people using it now. So it will be of no benefit to the 90% of the population that never uses public transit now. It's going to be an uphill battle trying to win approval for something that will disrupt the lives of many to benefit a few.

SteelTown

Jul 12, 2009, 3:56 AM

No traffic will be cut off from King St, period. No traffic will be cut off from Main St as well. In fact no traffic will be cut off from building LRT for the B-Line.

Jon Dalton

Jul 12, 2009, 3:14 PM

Your dreaming again.

Have you seen a real LRT system, ever?

omro

Jul 13, 2009, 2:24 AM

No traffic will be cut off from King St, period. No traffic will be cut off from Main St as well. In fact no traffic will be cut off from building LRT for the B-Line.

The woman at the meeting was saying that this was being considered, she didn't say it would definitely happen.

Jon Dalton

Jul 13, 2009, 3:56 AM

bigguy1231

Jul 13, 2009, 5:00 AM

No traffic will be cut off from King St, period. No traffic will be cut off from Main St as well. In fact no traffic will be cut off from building LRT for the B-Line.

If you take 4 lanes of roadway and cut it down to two lanes to add two way LRT with one traffic lane in each direction then you are cutting off traffic. If you prevent vehicular traffic from crossing King St. on anything but main streets you are cutting off traffic. Thats what they are proposing to do. It's in the report.

bigguy1231

Jul 13, 2009, 5:55 AM

The feasibility study did say that crossings would be blocked off on minor side streets. This isn't necessarily a given, it's the result of a rather preliminary study. One of the reasons I asked bigguy1231 if he's ever seen a real LRT system is that signalised and unsignalised crossings are employed in such systems. There's a train coming every 5 minutes. For the one minute that the train is approaching, there's a red light. For the next 4 minutes, there's a green one. Amazing, eh? So there'll be an uproar about having to drive 30 more seconds to cross King St. Great, they'll find a way to put in more of those green and red lights.

Your assuming that people are willing to wait that extra minute while a streetcar passes. Considering the majority of citizens never use public transit why would you assume that they would be willing to be inconvenienced for the benefit of the few.

Strategic routing is also employed in every system I've seen. There is nothing to say it has to be on one street only. King or Main will be the main route, when it comes to the details, there may be variations. It's not likely that they will use King William for any part of the stretch, that is only an example of how detailed design can respond to the unique issues presented by the route. I don't think I've ever seen an LRT line that only uses one street. Maybe it will here. But to call that 'dreamin' is a blatant display of ignorance.

Ignorant of reality I am not. I know what citizens of this city are going to say once they see these proposals and not just business people. They will realize that they are being sold something that is not what they have been told it would be. They have been told they are getting LRT. When people envision that they see something other than streetcars running down main streets.

Big guy, I'm just telling you what exists in real life and that I've personally seen. What you call rose coloured glasses or dreaming, is just stuff that already exists dude. I dare say you're the one with the blinders.

I don't care what exists elsewhere, I know how the people in this city think and thats all that is going to matter. Once the plans become more public, there is going to be a huge uproar and all those politicians that are onboard right now will change their minds. Oh and yes I have seen LRT's in Toronto, Calgary and just this past spring in Charlotte, North Carolina. I actually made a conscious effort to see the one in Charlotte. It's nothing more than a short streetcar route, and just for informational purposes Charlotte has a number of actual expressways running through their downtown, something this city doesn't have, to alleviate traffic congestion on city streets.

SteelTown

Jul 13, 2009, 11:27 AM

Cutting off traiffc to me means removing all car traffic. Cars will still be able to cross along King St even with LRT. They aren't proposing what Buffalo has, no cars on Main St just LRT.

markbarbera

Jul 13, 2009, 11:36 AM

There is already grumbling coming from local businesses over the consultant report favouring a route along King Street. The head of the International Village BIA, the BIA most directly affected by a potential LRT route along King (outside of the downtown BIA), has expressed concern over a plan that would place two-way LRT on King. She is concerned (rightly) about the complete loss of streetside parking in order to accomodate LRT along this stretch, as well as the impact reconstruction will have on pedestrian-friendly area, her fear being that some of the recent improvements such as wider sidewalks would be sacrificed to accomodate the LRT as well as street traffic.

Honestly, the push to force LRT onto King rather than Main is short-sighted. It is casting division among a group that should be uniting in support for this initiative, and for no good reason. Why not go with an option that will be acceptable to all parties involved rather than create an opposition that can grow into a deal breaker that could cost the city an LRT?

SteelTown

Jul 13, 2009, 11:46 AM

SteelTown

Jul 13, 2009, 1:09 PM

From my understanding the timeline goes like this...

Soon Metrolinx release the findings for BRT or LRT for the B-Line, Business Case.

Rapid Transit office will take the finding for either LRT or BRT for Open Houses with proposed routes, perhaps late August or early September.

Rapid Transit office will finalize a preferred route for the B-Line.

City Council will vote in the Fall for the final route for the B-Line.

Metrolinx will carry on the $3 million Environment Assessment for the B-Line after City Council determined the route.

EA will take 8 or 9 months.

omro

Jul 13, 2009, 1:32 PM

Considering the majority of citizens never use public transit why would you assume that they would be willing to be inconvenienced for the benefit of the few.

That's a very sweeping statement. Someone please quote the ridership statistics for this city, as the buses here rarely seem to be empty.

They have been told they are getting LRT. When people envision that they see something other than streetcars running down main streets.

Can you please define (preferably with a photo) what you mean by "streetcar" in this instance?

BrianE

Jul 13, 2009, 2:04 PM

markbarbera

Jul 13, 2009, 3:58 PM

There must be a strong case to put LRT on King if both the City and Metrolinx suggest it. Both have done separate reports and it appears they both came to the same conclusion, two way LRT on King St.
Metrolinx completed their report and it recommended LRT on King? When was this released - I have missed this somehow

The city's consultant report identified King but did not offer its rationale for deciding King over Main, other than a one-line statement claiming more economic benefit (with no supporting evidence to support the claim)

highwater

Jul 13, 2009, 5:28 PM

Metrolinx completed their report and it recommended LRT on King? When was this released - I have missed this somehow

I haven't seen anything to indicate that Metrolinx has made any recommendations re route either.

The city's consultant report identified King but did not offer its rationale for deciding King over Main, other than a one-line statement claiming more economic benefit (with no supporting evidence to support the claim)

The city rep I spoke to at the open house also only mentioned the economic argument for preferring King. I don't think that's nearly persuasive enough, especially when the King option entails the loss of street parking in the International Village.

Zaz

Jul 13, 2009, 5:35 PM

I know what citizens of this city are going to say...

... I know how the people in this city think...

OK everybody relax and let bigguy handle this on our behalf.

I am a new resident of Hamilton, and I like the 2-way LRT on King option -- perhaps because I don't own property around Main St, (Omro :)). I agree with what was said before about the LRT going through the downtown core. I also believe that public transport ridership will quickly increase and fill up whatever capacity is offered by the LRT. With the lower city being so stretched out from East to West and gas/insurance costs going up even during this recession, there is no other way. Crossing King/Main by car to go get groceries 2 blocks away should not be an option.

In any case, it's nice to see movement on this initiative -- definitely a great thing for Hamilton.

Jon Dalton

Jul 13, 2009, 5:44 PM

Charlotte, NC (where ridership far surpassed expectations and is now approaching the goal for the year 2025) is the most comparable to what Hamilton will get.

Somehow I doubt that an overwhelming majority of downtown residents will oppose LRT because it would add a minute or two to car trips, given that it will increase their property values and bring investment to their neighbourhoods (like it does in every other city). Are we really that stupid?

What you're really telling me is that Hamilton's future will be decided by the ignorant and disinterested, rather than the well-informed and ambitious. Preventing that is pretty much whole point of civic advocacy.

Jon Dalton

Jul 13, 2009, 5:47 PM

When all is said and done, the only people who will use it are the same people using it now.

Pure bullshit. Every bit of research into the matter indicates otherwise.

realcity

Jul 13, 2009, 6:11 PM

That's ridiculous. I don't see how it will fit between Wellington and James. They'll likely remove the onstreet parking along the International Village which will hurt that stretch.

The parking makes for large walkable sidewalks and the cars make a buffer between pedestrians and vehicle traffic.

SteelTown

Jul 13, 2009, 6:27 PM

You could elevate or tunnel the LRT section from the International Village.

flar

Jul 13, 2009, 6:55 PM

Ottawa is building a downtown tunnel as it replaces its current on-street BRT with rail. I doubt there will be enough money in the budget to do that in Hamilton.

An interesting comparison for the Hamilton case: Ottawa's BRT is currently split along two one-way streets downtown (Albert westbound and Slater eastbound).

jgrwatson

Jul 13, 2009, 7:49 PM

I don't get why anyone on this forum is even contemplating the idea of loss of car movement. Or even talking about losing lanes...

WHO CARES.

Downtown Hamilton caters to the suburban people who want to fly through DT hamilton and fly up the mountain to go to their suburban homes.

I can't wait to see Main street down to 3 lanes, one for bike and then one for LRT. I can't wait to see all those motorists complaining about increased traffic. I also want to see all cube trucks and bigger banned from downtown streets.

The old saying is, if you built it, they will come. If you look at York street. I STILL Ride my bike down York and cars STILL move and I get home the same time either vehicle or by bike. Yet two lanes are gone due to Libraray construction...people will find new routes.

Personally, I say close King Street off completely! King has more of a chance then Cannon for by-pass. Radical, but true.

omro

Jul 13, 2009, 8:34 PM

Walking down Main today, I really do hope someone rethinks the plan to put LRT solely down King. Main so needs the revitalisation investment dollars more than King does, because it has an existing structure that will naturally come up as an overspill.

However, as long as LRT goes on either I'll be happy, but still think Main makes a whole lot more sense than King, even though King makes a more visual statement as a choice.

I've never been on an LRT that has dedicated lanes through a downtown before, so I can't comment on the effect that will have. Most tram systems in the UK generally co-exist in the downtown sections with cars and other street traffic, only having dedicated lanes to reach faster speeds when connecting with more distant areas.

While I want LRT in the downtown and I will never not support having it, I fear that the implementation is potentially short-sighted.

Dedicated lanes throughout the city should be on Main.
If on King, the route should share lanes while through the downtown section and return to dedicated lanes on the wider and more distant stretches.

Jon Dalton

Jul 13, 2009, 8:51 PM

I believe the reasoning for King vs. Main is to maintain traffic flow via a 2-way, 2-lane Main St. That's what was said at the meeting. I do buy the arguments about street parking, it is a benefit to the street life as well as business. Would LRT be even better for business, that's what needs to be determined. Though I personally favour LRT on King, I'm open minded about it and look forward to seeing how the debate plays out. Opposition from residents is being greatly exaggerated here. Opposition from business may be significant and I hope it's given due consideration and a compromise is reached, even if it means changing the route.

omro

Jul 13, 2009, 9:58 PM

My main oppositions to the Main vs King route can be found here: (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=158810)

I don't think my position has changed that much. If only King were wider in certain places then I would whole heartedly support this route, but the way they seem to be favouring dedicated lanes on the entire length, I can't see King downtown being able to support that without significant reworking of the streetscape, which would mean the loss of some of the wider sidewalks and embellishments such as the "welcome to downtown" signage at the entrance to international village on Wellington/King, especially if they want to maintain car traffic east/west.

If they were to pedestrianise the length, then...

emge

Jul 13, 2009, 11:02 PM

Regardless of whether Main or King would see more benefit for LRT, I think there will be few problems. I live near IV and as well as some of the shops are doing, the shops that need foot traffic to survive will benefit greatly from the LRT stops.

International Village will lose some curb parking and likely sidewalk width, but there aren't many other stretches that will have to worry about it. Side lots becoming well-signed, with bright signs and obvious arrows can be utilized to compensate, though it's not quite as convenient. However, the detriment to International Village will be offset by several of LRT and two-ways' benefits.

One, by having an LRT stop in proximity (unlike the B-line, which does not stop anywhere near it now, but I'm guessing there will be one Wellington-ish and perhaps another further down the street)

Two, as traffic slows down, having people actually stop and see what's on the street. I can't tell you how many times I've pointed out restaurants or shops to people who drive through downtown daily and say "huh, I never noticed that before!"

And three, the effect of economic development as a whole.

So yes, IV will lose out on some of the parking and likely some of the wide sidewalks, but it won't be the death of that area... nor any other area that loses out on some of its desirable features due to LRT.

SteelTown

Jul 18, 2009, 4:54 PM

The next Metrolinx meeting is Nov 16th. So I guess that pushes everything for the B-Line construction, either it be LRT or BRT.

The Business Case for the B-Line was suppose to happen this summer but with the merge of GO Transit/Metrolinx and a new committee setup things will get delayed. Which is no surprise but the amount of delay seems like a lot from July to November.

bigguy1231

Jul 19, 2009, 7:03 AM

I think Bigguy may suffer from a form of short term amnesia. A few pages back a number of us already called him out on his bullshit 'Hamilton is building a sooper sekret streetcar system and when everybody finds out they're gonna be pissed' argument.

So I'll just copy and paste from a previous post that I made.

Hamilton is not building this. (http://www.roncastle.com/images/new-orleans-pictures/st-charles-street-car.jpg)

It is building this. (http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/3612825/2/istockphoto_3612825-modern-light-rail-transit.jpg)

Or this. (http://www.ansaldo-sts.com/EN/Common/files/AnsaldoSTS_img_proj_big/proj_dublin_tram_big.jpg)

Or maybe something like this. (http://www.cooltownstudios.com/images/fr-strasbourg-transit.jpg)

The last 3 may be a little newer than the first but they are all streetcars anyway you look at it. Stringing a couple of them together isn't going to change that. Light rail is not rapid transit, it is mass transit. We already have that, it's called the HSR.

Spending a billion dollars to run rails down the middle of one of the busiest streets in the city and calling it rapid transit is ridiculous. Taking traffic lanes from that same busy street is also ridiculous especially when no thought has been put into where that traffic will go. It's not going to go away magically just because we have streetcars. It will only force that traffic onto other streets causing the same problems that most of the pro LRT people here are trying to fix on Main and King Sts.

hamiltonguy

Jul 19, 2009, 8:14 AM

The last 3 may be a little newer than the first but they are all streetcars anyway you look at it. Stringing a couple of them together isn't going to change that. Light rail is not rapid transit, it is mass transit. We already have that, it's called the HSR.

Spending a billion dollars to run rails down the middle of one of the busiest streets in the city and calling it rapid transit is ridiculous. Taking traffic lanes from that same busy street is also ridiculous especially when no thought has been put into where that traffic will go. It's not going to go away magically just because we have streetcars. It will only force that traffic onto other streets causing the same problems that most of the pro LRT people here are trying to fix on Main and King Sts.

To be honest I don't know where to start.

1) Transit service is exceeding capacity in this corridor all the time, to the point where not only does it limit number of passengers, but also massively slows down service.
2) Transit gets stuck trying to merge into traffic after stops, and because it does not move with the synchronized lights, often gets caught at lights.
3) LRT solves both these problems and are also far more cost efficient, spurs development, and increases ridership. These are facts only disputed by either (i) those who oppose government entirely (ii) those who make assumptions without examining the experience of other North American cities and (iii) those with ties to the auto/oil/bus industries.
4) Traffic will either (i) suck it up and deal with the slightly slower times because in reality it will still be pretty fast (ii) try alternate routes INCLUDING our fabulous ring road system (iii) switch to transit or (iv) a mixture of the three.

mic67

Jul 19, 2009, 11:57 AM

Rock-on BigGuy123 with the reality check....

How about some 24 hour service - more frequent service on the bline and Barton in off peak, rather than every 1/2hr.

mic67

realcity

Jul 19, 2009, 3:35 PM

You can walk faster through IV then drive sometimes. What would be the point of taking rapid transit that gets stuck at a red light every 50 meters from Wellington to MacNab?

Main makes more sense. The road capacity is exceeds the traffic now. If it's on Main is still benefits King street, it's like a 1 minute walk north.

What will happen if it runs on King when it hits the Westdale branch in the road? continue into the village or turn onto Main? if it's the latter then just run the entire line on Main. It'll give brilliant access to Mac Medical. as well the campus. Along King it'll what? run along Stirling via the village? King street is so ridiculous for LRT when Main St is another option.

SteelTown

Jul 19, 2009, 5:35 PM

^ It's called signal priority. The traffic light turns green as soon the LRT approaches a traffic light. So it doesn't stop until it reaches a station.

SABBATICAL!

Jul 19, 2009, 8:15 PM

3) LRT solves both these problems and are also far more cost efficient, spurs development, and increases ridership. These are facts only disputed by either (i) those who oppose government entirely (ii) those who make assumptions without examining the experience of other North American cities and (iii) those with ties to the auto/oil/bus industries.

Hey, where would one find solid documentation of the success of LRT vs bus systems elsewhere? I'd love to do a little readin' up on it.

realcity

Jul 19, 2009, 11:07 PM

^ It's called signal priority. The traffic light turns green as soon the LRT approaches a traffic light. So it doesn't stop until it reaches a station.

in theory. but i've been like 6 cars back at a red light and it turned green and maybe 3 cars got through before it turned red again. What's an LRT to do when that happens? The train can turn the light green but that's no guarantee in the morning rush that that will do anything to prevent it being stuck in traffic.

We'll see. If LRT happens. If it goes on King. They'll realize the mistake, and one of the reasons people will be saying so is for that stretch of King between Wellington and MacNab.

realcity

Jul 19, 2009, 11:08 PM

Sabbatical
check this
http://hamiltonlightrail.com/

SteelTown

Jul 19, 2009, 11:16 PM

Jon Dalton

Jul 20, 2009, 12:36 AM

Amazing. On page 59 we're still explaining what Light Rail Transit (LRT) means. And to the same people.

Jon Dalton

Jul 20, 2009, 12:45 AM

The last 3 may be a little newer than the first but they are all streetcars anyway you look at it. Stringing a couple of them together isn't going to change that. Light rail is not rapid transit, it is mass transit. We already have that, it's called the HSR.

We need the tractive force of 750VDC through 6 powered trucks to pull your head out of your ass.

mic67

Jul 20, 2009, 12:55 AM

Jon Dalton Amazing. On page 59 we're still explaining what Light Rail Transit (LRT) means. And to the same people.

--------------------------------------

What it means vs what it is are 2 different things....BigGuy provides a reality check.

Maybe, just maybe LRT isnt for hamilton? Or at least in the manner in which some choose to define it.

But to spend a billion on a street car system is totally retard and seems to suit many in Ham.---- go figure. Me, I no longer bother.

What it means is vested interests and those that figure that ....oh this is so stupid, response seems to be just a means to justify it.

It would not suprise me that there are individuals that have a vested interest in and LRT sytem that they are "shilling" for it, which is apparently standard proceedure these days - FU - we know who you are.

mic67

FairHamilton

Jul 20, 2009, 1:20 AM

in theory. but i've been like 6 cars back at a red light and it turned green and maybe 3 cars got through before it turned red again. What's an LRT to do when that happens? The train can turn the light green but that's no guarantee in the morning rush that that will do anything to prevent it being stuck in traffic.

We'll see. If LRT happens. If it goes on King. They'll realize the mistake, and one of the reasons people will be saying so is for that stretch of King between Wellington and MacNab.

In practice the signal priority for an LRT is 100% separate from the light you know in your car.

realcity

Jul 20, 2009, 3:10 AM

realcity

Jul 20, 2009, 3:11 AM

Elevate the train like Chicago, that would be cool.

SteelTown

Jul 20, 2009, 11:21 AM

^ Well that's good to know. King IV is two lanes right now. I would hate to see the sidewalks and streetscape destroyed to widen the road.

Does that mean there will be two dedicated lanes, one westbound one east bound? As well two lanes of vehicle traffic? I can't see that happening in IV, without dinky sidewalks like there is on Main. That would wreck IV, LRT or not. Since the vehicles will be in the curb lanes right? Pedestrians will feel unsafe walking.

There's actually 4 lanes, 2 lanes for traffic and 2 lanes for parking. The parking lanes will be eliminated for the LRT lanes for East and West bound. That's the only major issue and really it shouldn't have to be a major issue.

If you ever go to Portland check their LRT. Some of their LRT track is levelled with the sidewalk so it's shared.

You can kinda tell from this picture...
http://www.inekon-trams.com/images/portland-inekon-streetcar-500x333.jpg

MalcolmTucker

Jul 20, 2009, 2:07 PM

^ You have to be careful with pictures from Portland, since that is not their LRT. That is their streetcar. The streetcars have no signal priority or exclusive ROW unlike the LRT which runs in reserved lanes and exclusive ROW.

realcity

Jul 20, 2009, 4:15 PM

Eliminating the curbside parking is WRONG. It'll make it feel like Main St. That parking is very convenient and the best type of parking, because it acts as a barrier between pedestrians and vehicles.

I'm not walking down that sidewalk if it's level with the street. This is Hamilton. Drivers will think they can drive on the sidewalk to pass the LRT.

I understand the benefits of accessibility with level grading but there better be traffic bollards if it's level.
http://traffic-management.polite.com.au/images/landing/bollards.jpg

adam

Jul 20, 2009, 4:26 PM

This is exactly why LRT should be on Main St.... King St is simply too narrow for 2 lanes of traffic, a sidewalk befitting of a downtown, LRT and curbside parking.

SteelTown

Jul 20, 2009, 4:34 PM

I believe the plan for International Village area is to have.....

| sidewalk | Westbound LRT lane | Westbound traffic | Eastbound traffic | Eastbound LRT lane | sidewalk |

Now remember the LRT lane won't be used constantly like a traffic lane. I believe the plan is to have a frequency of every 10 minutes for LRT. So really you've doubled the space for the sidewalk. The LRT will take what 10 seconds to pass and it won't return for another 10 minutes.

Hope that helps to understand it better.

Jon Dalton

Jul 20, 2009, 5:15 PM

LRT vehicles tend to have pretty loud bells (or are those gongs?) that they ring when approaching a pedestrian area. In cities I've seen with pedestrian crossings allowed on the LRT tracks this isn't an issue. But of course that's other cities. This is Hamilton and everyone knows our average IQ is so much lower not to mention so many more of us are overweight, deaf, blind, or too spaced out on drugs to know there's a train coming.

LikeHamilton

Jul 21, 2009, 12:34 AM

Can you say LRT crashes...here is a great video on LRT crashes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CV2rdGX4JYc

and a couple of other ones.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ld6BhZSdLKg&feature=related

MalcolmTucker

Jul 21, 2009, 1:26 AM

^ That is why centre lanes on a two way street make much more sense. (unless your going to give the LRT full signal control, like it has in Calgary)

realcity

Jul 21, 2009, 1:53 AM

sweet vids.... love the last one the most... ///.... sorry... but it kinda makes me think of Darwin's Law.

That and snowmobile accidents.

LikeHamilton

Jul 25, 2009, 2:27 AM

From July 24th CATCH

Province will own rapid transit lines
Jul 24, 2009

The provincial transit agency has announced it will own and control the rapid transit projects it is backing, rather than municipal governments. Metrolinx has already formally notified Toronto and York region of its operating principles and it appears these would also apply to any Hamilton light rail or bus rapid transit projects funded by the agency.

A report to the first board meeting of the reconstructed agency earlier this month set out “five key principles” including “Metrolinx ownership and control of the new, designated transit projects” as well as “clear project governance” that could include public-private partnership agreements.

“Metrolinx will be responsible for approving project scope and budget, and for approving the terms and conditions of owning, constructing, operating and maintaining the new assets,” states the report. “The procurement of construction services, transit vehicles and other project capital requirements will also be the responsibility of Metrolinx, working closely with municipal partners.”

The report also says that “municipally-requested changes to project scope, and the corresponding impacts on construction costs and schedules, will require Metrolinx Board approval”, while promising a cooperative approach with local transit authorities. Another prerequisite of Metrolinx funding is a fare card system that can be used across the golden horseshoe.

Letters detailing these conditions were sent last month to Toronto and York officials where the five priority Metrolinx properties costing an estimated $10 billion are located. The Toronto projects are all rail-based, while in York, the existing VIVA bus rapid transit network will be substantially expanded.

The Metrolinx board heard that $3 million has been allocated to Hamilton for rapid transit studies, but whether that will be light rail or buses has not been determined, and the expected completion date is still blank. The description does promise “service frequency of five minutes or less”.

Several options for the east-west route between Eastgate and McMaster have been proposed and city officials are asking for public comment up to the end of this month.

At the end of June, Waterloo regional council endorsed a $790 million light rail system for the Kitchener-Waterloo-Cambridge urban area expected to be operational in the first two cities in 2014.

“In future years, people will look on this decision as doing more than anything else to manage growth and shape Waterloo Region,” said Waterloo regional chair Ken Seiling. “Our ability to cope with growth and ensure our future quality of life will depend on providing a transportation system that encourages intensification, limits urban sprawl to protect our agricultural and environmentally sensitive lands, and avoids gridlock by providing alternatives to the dependence on cars as we grow.”

Federal officials immediately announced a $160 million “first instalment” of funding for the project.

SteelTown

Sep 3, 2009, 11:17 AM

McMaster, city to consult students and faculty over LRT station

September 03, 2009
Nicole Macintyre
The Hamilton Spectator
http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/627985

McMaster University wants rapid transit coming to its campus -- but where it stops is the big question.

The city sees tremendous benefits in locating a transit terminal in the heart of the university.

But Mac's current campus plan protects its core for pedestrians and pushes transit to the perimeter.

Rather than locking horns, both sides have agreed to ongoing talks and consultation with students and faculty this fall.

"Working with Mac, we want to make sure we locate at the best spot," said Jill Stephen, Hamilton's director of strategic and environmental planning. "Mac is a key destination point."

The city is still waiting to find out if Metrolinx will pick light rail or rapid buses for Hamilton. A decision is expected this fall.

West-end Councillor Brian McHattie said he fears if Mac insists on a location that isn't supported by Metrolinx, it could jeopardize the project's funding.

"Mac could be responsible for the whole project being killed," he said, noting his concerns are based on past precedent when the university asked that the city remove bus routes from campus after a disagreement over truck routes.

Downtown councillor Bob Bratina first raised the alarm about the potential clash with the university over rapid transit on his blog.

He's since heard from the university and believes a compromise is possible. Though he would prefer to see the transit stop near the campus core, he's open to a location on the edge, like the GO Transit terminal near Cootes Drive.

"I hope there's still room for dialogue," Bratina said, noting a prime location will increase ridership and boost the connection to downtown. "It's an image issue."

Vice-president Roger Trull said the university remains committed to rapid transit and finding the right spot for a terminal.

"Our plan is to work with the Metrolinx folks and the city to determine the best location."

If there's a strong case for changing its plan, Mac is open to the idea, said Trull, adding he's confident they will find a solution that works for both.

Nicholas Kevlahan, co-founder of the citizens' group Hamilton Light Rail and a Mac professor said he was initially worried but now feels discussions are going well.

"I don't want things to get confrontational," he said, noting a location on the edge of campus would still work as long as students aren't forced to cross Main Street.

"We have the luxury of a compact campus, so no matter where they put it, it's going to be a short walk."

highwater

Sep 3, 2009, 2:00 PM

Wow. Fightin' words coming from McHattie. Guess there's no love lost there.

SteelTown

Sep 8, 2009, 11:39 AM

A-Line is up and running. They hardly make any noise, kinda eerie.

matt602

Sep 8, 2009, 11:54 PM

Yah the new artics are incredibly quiet due to a different engine and a diesel particulate filter on the muffler that the '06's don't have. They also have a slimmer hybrid battery housing which looks much nicer. The new artics were also on the B-Line today since theres more than enough to fully serve both A and B Lines.

SteelTown

Sep 10, 2009, 2:44 PM

Rapid Transit Feasibility Study, Phase 3 – Public Consultation Update

http://www.myhamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/F7F5AA59-B0C2-41A7-B768-8EDEE33F79BA/0/Sep14Item58PW08043f.pdf

95% support Rapid Transit
79% want LRT for B-Line
Majority support two way LRT

emge

Sep 10, 2009, 2:52 PM

Nice to have some good news there.

realcity

Sep 10, 2009, 6:01 PM

If anyone of those lines ends up a Bus, I'm not riding it. Nor will anyone else who doesn't already ride those bus routes

I don't even know why at this point we are still discussing the Bus vs Train option. FORGET THE BUS it won't do squat. Hopefully this report finally ends the BRT as an option

Jon Dalton

Sep 10, 2009, 6:35 PM

So where's all this opposition that's supposed to stop the project dead in its tracks? I guess it's all those 'regular' folk who don't you know, read the spec or anything and still haven't heard. We'll have to wait until construction to find out how impossible it actually is.

markbarbera

Sep 10, 2009, 7:53 PM

The questionnaire was designed to gauge support for the concept of LRT vs BRT. Certainly LRT is overwhelmingly supported. The devil is in the details, and the details are yet to be sorted.

If the city rapid transit team blindly moves forward with the idea of two way LRT on King between Paradise and the Delta (as opposed to Main), then things will get ugly I'm afraid. King Street's IV business association has already expressed concern about that. The survey was designed in a manner where public opinon on a preferred central route path was not addressed in a quantifiable manner, porbably to avoid any kind of controversy during this early stage of discussion.

emge

Sep 11, 2009, 1:54 AM

I live near the IV and I don't think it'll be that big of a deal in the end. They may be vocal, but it's not going to ruin business.

It's a relatively short section of King where there's already lots at Denningers and a municipal lot (parking smack dab in the middle of the IV, not to mention side streets).

mishap

Sep 11, 2009, 5:16 AM

The new artics were also on the B-Line today since theres more than enough to fully serve both A and B Lines.
Maybe, but you also have to serve University, and there aren't enough artics to serve all three routes. You would need 24 buses to fully cover 10, 20 and 51. The HSR has 25, and assigns 20 of them between those routes, putting some 40-footers on B-Line.

matt602

Sep 11, 2009, 6:29 AM

That is very true, I totally forgot about the 51 which I learned today makes FULL use of the articulated buses. I took it around 4pm today and we got a crush load before even leaving the campus. The other 09 artic going the other way was also crushloaded. Our bus stayed that way all the way to downtown. I had no idea the 51 was used so much since it leaves from downtown so empty. Made the B-Line seem sparsely used in comparison.

SteelTown

Sep 15, 2009, 2:30 AM

Public backing for LRT hinges on tax hit

September 14, 2009
Nicole MacIntyre
The Hamilton Spectator
http://www.thespec.com/News/BreakingNews/article/633868

Hamiltonians support rapid transit — as long as it doesn’t cost them too much.

The city’s latest public consultation with about 1,100 residents reveals nearly 80 per cent are in favour of the $650-million project if local taxpayers are expected to pay less than 5 per cent.

Support drops to 70 per cent when the city’s cost jumps to 15 per cent. Enthusiasm begins to plummet when the expense increases to 20 per cent or more.

“Cost is the biggest factor,” said Jill Stephen, director of strategic and environmental planning.

The city is still waiting to find out if its plans for rapid transit, preferably light rail (LRT), will be selected by Metrolinx this fall. It will also learn its expected share of the tab.

SteelTown

Sep 15, 2009, 11:01 AM

Public backing for LRT hinges on tax hit

September 15, 2009
Nicole Macintyre
The Hamilton Spectator
http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/633898

Hamiltonians support rapid transit -- as long as it doesn't cost them too much.

The city's latest public consultation with about 1,100 residents reveals nearly 80 per cent are in favour of the $650-million project if local taxpayers are expected to pay less than 5 per cent.

Support drops to 70 per cent when the city's cost jumps to 15 per cent. Enthusiasm begins to plummet when the expense increases to 20 per cent or more.

"Cost is the biggest factor," said Jill Stephen, director of strategic and environmental planning.

The city is still waiting to find out if its plans for rapid transit, preferably light rail (LRT), will be selected by Metrolinx this fall. It will also learn its expected share of the tab.

Observers have estimated the city's cost at around 15 per cent, but there's been no official indication. Metrolinx chair Rob MacIsaac has stated the agency plans to fund "bare-bones" transit lines and cities would be "prudent" to put money aside.

Several councillors have tied their support to the city's cost.

Downtown Councillor Bob Bratina said it's clear the city should be prepared to invest capital dollars.

"Anyone who thinks we're going to get a free LRT, forget it," he said, noting transit projects in other cities have been divided into thirds between government levels.

Mayor Fred Eisenberger said he's confident Metrolinx will pick up the "lion's share" of the cost, "well in excess of 75 per cent."

Nicholas Kevlahan, co-founder of the citizens' group Hamilton Light Rail, cautioned against putting too much weight on the survey results, noting it's difficult to gather informed opinions until the real costs are known. At this point, he suspects it only shows residents don't want their taxes to increase.

He added that Metrolinx has announced it will own and control rapid transit systems, suggesting they will pick up most of the cost.

"They're really taking ownership."

SteelTown

Sep 17, 2009, 7:40 PM

On October 29, 2008, Council approved Report PW08043d pursuing the B-Line as the first line to move to design and construction. Staff have continued to stress with Metrolinx that the B-Line is well suited to be an early success for Hamilton, the Province and Metrolinx, and by having the B-Line open by Summer 2015, it would be available for residents, employees, athletes, fans and tourists and residents to use should the Toronto 2015 Pan Am Games bid be successful.

Metrolinx is currently completing the Benefits Case Analysis (BCA) for the B-Line. When this is presented to the Metrolinx Board, it is anticipated that they will also be making a decision on the technology, funding and timing for rapid transit on the B-Line. While we do not know what Metrolinx staff will recommend to their Board for the B-Line, staff have been strongly encouraged by Metrolinx to have a preliminary design for the B-Line complete by March 2010. This date is important because it aligns with the announcement of the Provincial Budget for 2010/11.

http://www.myhamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/23B513E4-F824-4797-B4C3-71008783A9B6/0/Sep21PW09085.pdf