The future of Hamilton's public transit - Page 12

DC83 · #1 Posted **Jan 17, 2008, 5:36 PM**

^^ I don't think we need to worry about an East-End Stn (or ANY Niagara Stn for that matter) for a while still.
GO & The Ont. Gov't need to worry about getting decent train service downtown first.

But that was one awesome visual u made, Go_Leafs_Go!!

miketoronto · #2 Posted **Jan 17, 2008, 9:12 PM**

But you gotta get service out to the east, so Stoney Creek people don't have to come to scary downtown Hamilton. When I worked for GO Transit, we had this one customer who kept calling in, trying to get information on alternative GO Transit routings to Toronto, so she would not have to go to the Hunter Street Station in scary Downtown Hamilton and be threatened by drug dealers every 10 feet

I think an East End station would be great, because people could use it to commute to downtown Hamilton.

go_leafs_go02 · #3 Posted **Jan 17, 2008, 9:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DC83

^^ I don't think we need to worry about an East-End Stn (or ANY Niagara Stn for that matter) for a while still.
GO & The Ont. Gov't need to worry about getting decent train service downtown first.

But that was one awesome visual u made, Go_Leafs_Go!!

thanks...it's kinda just a pipe dream...would be ridiculous in costs...but I think it would be the most benifactory to all Hamiltonians, especially those in the East End/Stoney Creek.

I would love to see the NIMBY's who would live close to that neighbourhood that I propose to take over. That would be a hurdle, but i know in Mississauga close to Port Credit, there is a spot on the QEW where a whole city street in a subdivison was taken over, demolished, to provide expansion to the QEW. It's close to Bronte Creek Rd. I believe.

raisethehammer · #4 Posted **Jan 17, 2008, 10:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02

thanks...it's kinda just a pipe dream...would be ridiculous in costs...but I think it would be the most benifactory to all Hamiltonians, especially those in the East End/Stoney Creek.

I would love to see the NIMBY's who would live close to that neighbourhood that I propose to take over. That would be a hurdle, but i know in Mississauga close to Port Credit, there is a spot on the QEW where a whole city street in a subdivison was taken over, demolished, to provide expansion to the QEW. It's close to Bronte Creek Rd. I believe.

sadly, you're right - it would be ridiculous in costs. this city and province will gladly spend that kind of money on highways and roads, but not transit. no sir!
only people with cars deserve that kind of investment.

HAMRetrofit · #5 Posted **Jan 18, 2008, 2:29 AM**

I was originally in favor in consolidating the stations at TH&B. I think I have changed my mind. Perhaps having two train stations will be the best in the long term. They could each become hubs with access into different regions to the east. The first into the East Mountain, Welland, Fort Erie, and Buffalo axis. The second into the Stoney Creek, Grimsby, and St. Catharines axis.

Manhattan has two trains stations in separate locations: Penn Station and Grand Central Station. The 43rd Steet bus terminal is in a separate location as well. Perhaps as Hamilton grows up having multiple major stations will be a major benefit since it will have far greater infrastructural capacity. Perhaps this will be a slight inconvenience but if the downtown becomes worth it then it does not matter.

In Toronto I wish there was two separate stations to serve uptown as well as downtown. Union is not actually the best model of a train station anyways.

Jon Dalton · #6 Posted **Jan 18, 2008, 4:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02

thanks...it's kinda just a pipe dream...would be ridiculous in costs...but I think it would be the most benifactory to all Hamiltonians, especially those in the East End/Stoney Creek.

I would love to see the NIMBY's who would live close to that neighbourhood that I propose to take over. That would be a hurdle, but i know in Mississauga close to Port Credit, there is a spot on the QEW where a whole city street in a subdivison was taken over, demolished, to provide expansion to the QEW. It's close to Bronte Creek Rd. I believe.

That's not exactly a quality neighbourhood and I wouldn't expect residents to be that attached to it. Worse has been done in the name of highways as raisethehammer pointed out. I'm sure everyone would complain if that were proposed today, even people who would never dare to venture into that area by foot, because these days rail is seen as a leftist agenda rather than infrastructure.

the dude · #7 Posted **Jan 21, 2008, 1:18 AM**

i've got a stupid question about LRT. how do you calculate the cost per km? for example, a route from eastgate to mac would be approximately 12.5km one-way. so, would it work out to x[12.5] or [25], taking into account both directions? thanks.

SteelTown · #8 Posted **Jan 21, 2008, 1:33 AM**

That's not a stupid question.

For Hamilton it's times 2 because it's King/Main therefore on two streets. But you have to calculate the distance from Eastgate to the Delta square as one and then the distance from from Delta square to McMaster as two.

Edit: Well no because the cost per km includes two tracks for one going West/East and another going East/West. For Hamilton instead it's just one track along King and Main so really it's 12.5km times whatever the cost it.

DC83 · #9 Posted **Jan 18, 2008, 2:54 AM**

^^ Toronto used to have the North Toronto Station in Summerhill. Now it's an LCBO. so I see what ur saying.

SteelTown · #10 Posted **Jan 18, 2008, 3:45 AM**

Glad to see someone seeing the benefits of two Stations in the core. A big complaint is the lack of North-South route in the lower end of Hamilton well having two stations will definitely force the HSR to re-evaluate some routes to improve North-South connections.

Once there's a GO Station in Stoney Creek it'll definitely be at Centennial Parkway if using the CN line.

raisethehammer · #11 Posted **Jan 21, 2008, 3:42 AM**

cost per km if we did it both ways on Main St would be much lower than running a line on King and a line on Main.
it's not just the tracks, but overhead wires, electrical boxes etc.... much more efficient to do the tracks 2-way on one-street and use the same overhead and underground infrastructure instead of doubling the cost from the Delta to Mac just because Hamilton city hall refuses to allow Main and King to function as proper city streets.

go_leafs_go02 · #12 Posted **Jan 21, 2008, 4:05 AM**

i heard King & Main were going to 2 way streets in 2009 anyways.

raisethehammer · #13 Posted **Jan 21, 2008, 1:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02

i heard King & Main were going to 2 way streets in 2009 anyways.

unless Hamiltonians elect a mayor and council with big enough balls to run Public Works (instead of Public Works running the city) you'll never see that happen.

flar · #14 Posted **Jan 21, 2008, 5:05 AM**

King goes 2way in 2010, but just right downtown

LikeHamilton · #15 Posted **Jan 21, 2008, 2:54 PM**

You can run a LRT the wrong way on Main Street. I have seen it all over Europe. On large one-way streets (and yes they have one-way streets) where they would take the curb lane and make it a streetcar or LRT in the opposite direction.

markbarbera · #16 Posted **Jan 21, 2008, 6:31 PM**

I agree totally. Hamilton's east-west LRT, should it ever become a reality, should have both directions built on Main Street, since Main is wider and could accomodate both tracks. Under these circumstances, the remaining three lanes can remain one-way eastbound, with one lane metered-parking during off-peak weekdays and all weekend. King Street can also remain in its current configuration.

This kind of configuration has been highly successful in European cities.

SteelTown · #17 Posted **Jan 21, 2008, 7:15 PM**

If we go with two tracks for Main St wouldn't lets say the East bound LRT be on the right side next to the sidewalk and the West bound LRT be on the left side next to the sidewalk and have two or three lanes for cars in the middle. Or would it be two LRT lanes on the right side and three or two lanes for cars on the left of the LRT lane?

raisethehammer · #18 Posted **Jan 21, 2008, 8:15 PM**

I'd suggest both LRT lanes on the north curb where it's one-way. then the trains could run along the sidewalk on the 2-way portion out to Eastgate.
This is done all over the world and could easily be done here.
Plus it's less convenient for transit users to have to walk from King to Main, especially in the Gage/Sherman/Wentworth area where King and Main are pretty far apart.
2-way on Main should be simple and no-brainer.

SteelTown · #19 Posted **Jan 21, 2008, 8:23 PM**

I'd leave Main and certain parts of King one way as it'll require millions more to build new overpass bridges to the 403 for both King and Main, and it's not your typical overpass bridge so probably in the high double or triple millions.

go_leafs_go02 · #20 Posted **Jan 21, 2008, 8:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteelTown

I'd leave Main and certain parts of King one way as it'll require millions more to build new overpass bridges to the 403 for both King and Main, and it's not your typical overpass bridge so probably in the high double or triple millions.

that would be the province's responsibility though, since Highway 403 is provinically owned, and last time I checked, they are responsible for all construction and maintenance of the structure.

I don't think Hamilton chipped in for the Red Hill/QEW interchange, as it was on MTO domain.

Same could apply on the 403, and i think those bridges are needed to be rehabbed changed in the future anyways.

I would be all for removing the one-way designation on Main & King if I had the option. Slow down traffic, divert truck traffic off it, towards the Linc/Red Hill Expressway.