Rapid Transit

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Beedok

The Calgary street with the C-Train still had a level of commercial activity from what I saw, so it shouldn't be too big a deal.

I wouldn't apply Calgary's lessons too closely. Downtown has a huge office population that makes commercial success just a tad bit easier since almost everyone is walking.

[The Gore]

Still not sure why Main St wasn't considered instead of King.

[davidcappi]

There's going to be a huge shift of traffic to Cannon St I guess... Not exactly the best plan as far as I'm concerned.

Motorists have the choice between Hunter, Cannon, Barton, Wilson, Cumberland, and Charlton as well as Aberdeen & Burlington streets & the Sherman Access to get across the city.

[thistleclub]

Originally Posted by davidcappi

Motorists have the choice between Hunter, Cannon, Barton, Wilson, Cumberland, and Charlton as well as Aberdeen & Burlington streets & the Sherman Access to get across the city.

They have those crosstown options today, of course.

I think the observation was intended to apply to accommodating those who would have chosen King by default. And for those drivers, Cannon is the most likely choice as it runs roughly 6km from Kenilworth to Queen and most closely parallels King in terms of geographic proximity along its entire length (Barton is 1km and Burlington is 2km north of King). The other solutions are rather more piecemeal. Charlton 3.5km from Wentworth to Dundurn; Hunter runs 3km from Emerald to Hill St. Park; Cumberland runs 1.7km between Gage and Kenilworth; Wilson’s westbound capacity runs 1.1km from Victoria to James; Hunter runs 3km from Emerald to Hill St. Park.

Cannon’s an imperfect stand-in for King because it only offers two westbound lanes for half of its length. Even so, its latent capacity is considerable and it would most easily absorb re-routed crosstown traffic. In 1999, King west of Wentworth was carrying an average of 27,000 vehicles per day, while Cannon west of Sherman was carrying an average of 11,000 vehicles per day — both streets measured over 4 westbound lanes. By comparison, Hunter west of John was carrying 11,000 vehicles per day on just two westbound lanes while Barton west of Wentworth posted 13,000 vehicles a day given 1 lane each way.

[Dr Awesomesauce]

If you make it more difficult to drive, some people will find another way. In other words, some of that traffic will disappear, will it not?

[matt602]

Originally Posted by Dr Awesomesauce

If you make it more difficult to drive, some people will find another way. In other words, some of that traffic will disappear, will it not?

If there exists a better alternative, this definitely rings true. In it's current state however, the HSR definitely isn't a more convenient alternative.

[mishap]

Originally Posted by matt602

If there exists a better alternative, this definitely rings true. In it's current state however, the HSR definitely isn't a more convenient alternative.

That's why the LRT has to be well-designed, or it won't be a better alternative either. I'm still a little leery, but maybe less so after reading this.

[thistleclub]

Originally Posted by Dr Awesomesauce

If you make it more difficult to drive, some people will find another way. In other words, some of that traffic will disappear, will it not?

Faced with reliable congestion, most people will probably give it a second thought before hopping in the car to go across town. That's true of parades, for example.

The original advantage was that the LRT route extended from University Plaza to Eastgate, then McMaster to Eastgate — areas with abundant parking and transit synergies, making a case for shifting out of cars. McMaster to Queenston Traffic Circle is less of a slam-dunk — the final 1.5km from Ottawa Street/Gage Park presumably has sufficient ridership to warrant that call, but there's no tentpole destination, which is partly why Rapid Ready identified MacU to QTC as the second-best option. And if you're not travelling to a stop immediately on that line, getting out of your car becomes a harder sell. Even some transit users will be tested: Where now you can go from Dundas to Stoney Creek on a single express bus, the higher-order solution will require two transfers to move in that straight line.

The running assumption through Rapid Ready etc. was also that the City of Hamilton/HSR would be operating the LRT, and presumably capturing a substantial share of revenue. That scenario is no longer in play, and it will be interesting to see how that impacts the City's willingness to redeploy displaced B-Line buses and prioritize transit-supportive investment.

[BaconPoutine]

Originally Posted by davidcappi

Motorists have the choice between Hunter, Cannon, Barton, Wilson, Cumberland, and Charlton as well as Aberdeen & Burlington streets & the Sherman Access to get across the city.

Sure, but for access to West Hamilton and the 403 the only options are King or Aberdeen. And since the LRT is proposing a closing of King between Walnut and Wellington, Cannon is the obvious choice for traffic to re-direct to for access to the 403 and the West end of the city. (North on Victoria, West on Cannon, South on Queen to reconnect to King is superior to South on Wellington, West on Hunter, and North on Bay to re-connect to King, in my opinion)

Both Cannon and Aberdeen are more residential than King, so I would prefer traffic to be kept on King.

Main has more lane capacity and doesn't have any bottlenecks in the same way that King does. I'm flabbergasted that Main is not the purposed route for the LRT.

[Bubba9000]

Main has more lane capacity and doesn't have any bottlenecks in the same way that King does. I'm flabbergasted that Main is not the purposed route for the LRT.

Main Street must be converted to 2-way. Problem solved.

[thistleclub]

Originally Posted by Bubba9000

Main Street must be converted to 2-way. Problem solved.

Outside of the one-way stretch between Paradise and Kensington, Main & King are already two-way for most of their lengths. Because of King's wandering line, a Main route would require slightly fewer kilometers of rail.

[markbarbera]

Main Street has an allowance that can accommodate dedicated multi-modal transportation lanes, while King Street does not. Anyone truly dedicated to bringing complete streets to Hamilton should be pressing for LRT on Main and not King.

[CaptainKirk]

Originally Posted by BaconPoutine

There's going to be a huge shift of traffic to Cannon St I guess... Not exactly the best plan as far as I'm concerned.

I'm sure that the International Village business owners will be displeased as well.

I think the will be good for business.

Also, Main going 2 way should help with traffic flow.

I like the plan.

[HillStreetBlues]

Originally Posted by BaconPoutine

Sure, but for access to West Hamilton and the 403 the only options are King or Aberdeen. And since the LRT is proposing a closing of King between Walnut and Wellington, Cannon is the obvious choice for traffic to re-direct to for access to the 403 and the West end of the city. (North on Victoria, West on Cannon, South on Queen to reconnect to King is superior to South on Wellington, West on Hunter, and North on Bay to re-connect to King, in my opinion)

Both Cannon and Aberdeen are more residential than King, so I would prefer traffic to be kept on King.

Main has more lane capacity and doesn't have any bottlenecks in the same way that King does. I'm flabbergasted that Main is not the purposed route for the LRT.

Hamiltonian motorists seem pretty fond of rat-running, so the fact that the only options for the 403 are Aberdeen and King is not relevant. They have choices to take west: they can rat-run on Charlton (they already do), they can rat-run on Hunter (ditto), they can take whatever bizarre "short-cut" through Strathcona they conjure up and just speed to make up for lost time. Most will take Cannon, but not all.

CaptainKirk, is Main going two-way in this plan? I had thought not. As BaconPoutine (along with others) says, Main is the place to put LRT.

[thistleclub]

Haven't heard anything substantial about Main being converted to two-way.

February 2013's Rapid Ready - Expanding Mobility Choices in Hamilton (PW13014):

'Many of the Escarpment crossings are projected to experience some congestion. Major expansions to the Downtown road network are not consistent with the coals of promoting a pedestrian and transit supportive environment; therefore other approaches will be required:

• Accept some congestion as part of a successful Downtown
• Implement aggressive Transportation Demand Management (i.e. parking pricing)
• Additional transit improvements
• Postpone proposed conversion of east-west streets to two-way”

December 2013’s Five Year Plan Regarding Two Way Street Conversions (PW13097) listed Main Street West from Dundurn Street to the Delta among its “Future Conversions Under Consideration,” though by that point the City had implemented just 10 of the 18 two-way conversions planned in 2001, so take such forecasts with a grain of salt.

[CaptainKirk]

Originally Posted by HillStreetBlues

.... is Main going two-way in this plan? I had thought not. As BaconPoutine (along with others) says, Main is the place to put LRT.

Not that I know of, but it just makes sense to me seeing how wide it is around Wellington St and International village.

[BaconPoutine]

Originally Posted by HillStreetBlues

Hamiltonian motorists seem pretty fond of rat-running, so the fact that the only options for the 403 are Aberdeen and King is not relevant. They have choices to take west: they can rat-run on Charlton (they already do), they can rat-run on Hunter (ditto), they can take whatever bizarre "short-cut" through Strathcona they conjure up and just speed to make up for lost time. Most will take Cannon, but not all.

CaptainKirk, is Main going two-way in this plan? I had thought not. As BaconPoutine (along with others) says, Main is the place to put LRT.

Are you proposing that this rat-running is a good thing? I think it is not. Which is why I would prefer to keep King as an artery to accommodate the traffic and promote traffic calming measures on the more residential streets.

[HillStreetBlues]

Originally Posted by BaconPoutine

Are you proposing that this rat-running is a good thing? I think it is not. Which is why I would prefer to keep King as an artery to accommodate the traffic and promote traffic calming measures on the more residential streets.

The rat-running that happens in a number of lower city neighbourhoods is terrible. I moved in part because my lower city, purely residential street could at times be a race track for the least considerate drivers out there, who would take my street at excessive speeds for the perception of saving a few seconds on their commute.

The solution to rat-running is thorough traffic-calming measures on non-arterial streets. I wasn't about to hold my breath for that in Hamilton, though.

Note that the last sentence you quoted of mine was agreeing with you that LRT should be on Main. Main is wider, and offers more development opportunities. If King is closed (and the rest of the network is left the same), motorists wanting to go westbound will get there by any means necessary, and many will have no qualms about driving down residential streets at high speeds. Unless, of course, Main is converted to two-way traffic, which as CaptainKirk says makes perfect sense.

[NortheastWind]

I think the train needs to go down King then swing over to Main just west of Walnut.
[IMG]LRT Route Proposal by Glenn Sollie, on Flickr[/IMG]

[NortheastWind]

I created a Flickr account, added the url for a pic but it doesn't show up.

Any advice?