Rapid Transit

[Millstone]

Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02

from the 403 connecting to downtown really they are the only ones. I guess you could include York, but that really doesn't go anywhere in alot of ways.

Lower mountain, I guess you could include Barton and Burlington of course, but none of those run straight across Hamilton, only King and Main techincally connect across the city.

That's what I meant. And when I think of King & Main, honestly, I usually visualize the area between the 403 and downtown. I just do.

York Blvd connects to Cannon and Wilson, which in turn connect to the Claremont access, among other things. "York Blvd" was created in the 60s or 70s to make it easier for cars to get to and from 403, 6 and 2.

[DC83]

Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02

from the 403 connecting to downtown really they are the only ones. I guess you could include York, but that really doesn't go anywhere in alot of ways.

Lower mountain, I guess you could include Barton and Burlington of course, but none of those run straight across Hamilton, only King and Main techincally connect across the city.

That's what I meant. And when I think of King & Main, honestly, I usually visualize the area between the 403 and downtown. I just do.

People don't like York/Cannon, Barton, etc as they're not as fast as Main. So generally people never even think to take these routes despite the fact that they're probably just as quick as Main... just not as 'pretty'.

If one-way LRT on each Main & King is going to happen, wouldn't it be that much easier to convert to two-way?

[FairHamilton]

Originally Posted by SteelTown

Draft Investment Strategy

http://www.metrolinx.com/Docs/1/Board/Se...stment%20Strategy%20-%20Appendix%20A.pdf

Link doesn't work for me, but anyways they have strategies posted; http://www.metrolinx.com/en/projectsAndInvestments.aspx, but no plan. Stategies are easy to create, I once had a strategy to launch a hostile takeover bid for Canadian Tire using their own money........

I'm not going to argue whether their is money, or not, because we'll be here all day (year). I'm going back to my original point, which is I hope that whatever they choose to do, it takes into account the return of Main & King Streets to 2-way. Anything less will be an incomplete project/solution.

[SteelTown]

Here's the proper link, others might be interested to read the Draft Investment Strategy.............

http://www.metrolinx.com/Docs/1/Board/Se...stment%20Strategy%20-%20Appendix%20A.pdf

[omro]

Originally Posted by DC83

If one-way LRT on each Main & King is going to happen, wouldn't it be that much easier to convert to two-way?

You'll have to forgive me if I get this wrong, because I've only been to Hamilton once so far....

As I recall, parts of King are down to only two lanes. I remember the area with the Downtown Hamilton sign looks like the road reduces to only two lanes here or barely bigger than two lanes (I may be wrong and I'm fine with being wrong if I am ), see below:



From Flar's awesome phototour: Downtown in Canada's worst major city

From the above, it looks like putting even one lane of LRT on this part of the street will prevent it from being two lanes for cars, without perhaps sacrificing the sign, pavement (sidewalk) etc.

I still think put both lines on Main through the downtown, that still leaves at least three lanes on Main.

As I said earlier in the thread, it really only requires a minimum of two lanes to have 2-way traffic. Three lanes on Main would allow for 2-way and even when it gets narrow on King there are still two lanes and would allow for 2 way traffic.

[SteelTown]

I can't wait to see a picture of LRT passing through the Downtown gateway.

[omro]

Originally Posted by SteelTown

I can't wait to see a picture of LRT passing through the Downtown gateway.

As long as they don't have to knock the bugger down to give the car fanatics two lanes for cars AND the LRT lane

[SteelTown]

Nah, they'll probably just remove curb side parking on the right side of King (North).

[DC83]

^^ if they put LRT along King, especially thru International Village, they're going to have to a) knock down that Gateway, and b) get rid of the sidewalk bumps which they currently use to slow traffic. That strecth near the Gate would be a MAJOR bottleneck for both LRT and cars.

[omro]

Originally Posted by SteelTown

Nah, they'll probably just remove curb side parking on the right side of King (North).

I wasn't really thinking about before and after it, more the going through it.

Is there enough room between the posts to allow an LRT and two lanes of car/bus traffic?

If not, then:

- LRT should not go on this road.
or
- LRT will go on this road and there will only be one lane of car/bus traffic going between the posts and King will probably only ever be one way.
or
- LRT will go on this road and they'll knock the sign down to make the space for the two lanes of car/bus traffic.

[raisethehammer]

I think it will be fine to have both sides with parking, 1 traffic lane and 1 LRT lane in that stretch of King. Portland has several downtown streets with only 1 lane for car traffic.
If people are simply heading to the 403 from central Hamilton they only need to jump up to Cannon at Sherman. King, Wilson and Cannon all come very close together at Sherman. No reason for someone to shortcut through downtown on King.
If they're heading to Westdale, all they need to do is use Charlton from Wentworth right over to Aberdeen which takes you to Westdale.
In reality we only have 2 options to access westdale from downtown - Aberdeen and King. If King/Main were two-way we'd have 3 options. For some reason, all these one-way addicts love having less choices and ease of movement.
Lose 2 lanes on Main, add LRT and street parking and watch how fast people will start using Wilson or Charlton to move through downtown. We can't continue to hijack the success of our entire city because a bunch of people are too lazy to move a few blocks over as they take their shopping dollars out of town.

[raisethehammer]

Originally Posted by DC83

^^ if they put LRT along King, especially thru International Village, they're going to have to a) knock down that Gateway, and b) get rid of the sidewalk bumps which they currently use to slow traffic. That strecth near the Gate would be a MAJOR bottleneck for both LRT and cars.

no it wouldn't. It would be a fabulous, urban vista with the narrow street, nice renovated buildings forming the streetwall, one slow lane of traffic, lots of parking and trees and a shiny LRT zooming through.

[omro]

Originally Posted by DC83

^^ if they put LRT along King, especially thru International Village, they're going to have to a) knock down that Gateway, and b) get rid of the sidewalk bumps which they currently use to slow traffic. That strecth near the Gate would be a MAJOR bottleneck for both LRT and cars.

Ultimately, the whole issue of lanes and 2way streets aside, I still think it would be MUCH cheaper to just put LRT on ONE street, such as Main.

- You only have to modify one street.
- You only have to build one set of stations/stops.

To my mind, it just seems cheaper, easier and more sensible.

They haven't suggested putting the North/South line on two streets also have they?

[SteelTown]

Based on the rep I talked to they said some curb side parking will be removed. King along International Village will likely be mixed ROW like James St North. BIA don't want curb side parking removed.

[ryan_mcgreal]

Originally Posted by FairHamilton

Again, they don't have the money.

Yes they do.

They have $11 billion already committed by the provincial government. Metrolinx is going to go ahead and fund as many projects as they can with the money they already have, and work in parallel to secure additional funding once that runs out.

Metrolinx has also acknowledged that the B-Line rapid transit system is one of their top 15 big priority projects to be completed first with the money they already have.

All they still need to do is determine whether it should be BRT or LRT, based on economic, environmental and political factors.

Since Metrolinx is committed to "transformational" and not merely "incremental" change, the economic and environmental cases for LRT are very strong, the demand is already there, and Hamilton has very strong public (citizens, community organizations and business groups) and political (staff and council) support, it's entirely reasonable to believe that they will decide LRT is the way to go.

This is a viable, going concern, not an unfunded pipe dream.

[omro]

Originally Posted by raisethehammer

no it wouldn't. It would be a fabulous, urban vista with the narrow street, nice renovated buildings forming the streetwall, one slow lane of traffic, lots of parking and trees and a shiny LRT zooming through.

Unfortunately in your scenario you've just upset the people who want King to be 2way.

I must point out that I'm totally neutral in the whole oneway/twoway debate. I don't drive, so really don't care

[adam]

Convert Main to 2 way traffic and King to LRT. Divert ALL automobile traffic just before the 2 lane bottleneck to Main. Reserve these narrower parts of King for LRT exclusively. Think of all the potential for outdoor patios and storefronts.

[omro]

Originally Posted by adam

Convert Main to 2 way traffic and King to LRT. Divert ALL automobile traffic just before the 2 lane bottleneck to Main. Reserve these narrower parts of King for LRT exclusively. Think of all the potential for outdoor patios and storefronts.

That would be cool, a nice pedestrian stretch along King downtown for the lunchers and shoppers. I like pedestrian oriented town centres

However, that eliminates the investment into Main that LRT would bring and from what I recall, Main is the street that needs more investment than King.

[markbarbera]

You are exactly right, omro. It makes much more sense logisticly and financially to have the east-west LRT run on one roadway rather than two. And main street has the width to allow both lanes of LRT on dedicated lines (provided it remains one-way). In this scenario, King could return to two-way traffic.

The North-South route is less defined than the east-west route, but its route on the hill will dfinitely be two-way along Upper James. The lower city is not as clear as James is such a narrow road. Certainly even one dedicated lane of LRT on James would be impossible to manage. Any LRT on James would have to be shared traffic lanes.

Personally I would suggest the following north-south route: Upper James down to Fennel then north on West 5th, down the Claremont to Hunter, west on Hunter, north on Hughson to Burlington. Hughson could be closed to all traffic except LRT and local service/delivery.

[DC83]

Originally Posted by adam

Convert Main to 2 way traffic and King to LRT. Divert ALL automobile traffic just before the 2 lane bottleneck to Main. Reserve these narrower parts of King for LRT exclusively. Think of all the potential for outdoor patios and storefronts.

This could work in theory, aslong as Cannon/Wilson/York are also converted two-way and WB King traffic has an option to go either along Main or Wilson/Cannon.

But then there would be ZERO cars travelling thru King St, which isn't a good thing. LESS Cars = good. No cars = no passer-by exposure.

Why not instead divert LRT to Main st at this point? Having them seperate again at Bay?

The whole thing would be way less complicated if they just stuck with BOTH trains traveling down Main, forgetting King altogether!