Rapid Transit

[markbarbera]

Judging by this article in the Spec, it sounds like there isn't much enthusiasm for the current King Street route proposal among city councillors:

What are council members saying about running LRT down King Street?
January 30, 2010
The Hamilton Spectator

The following responded to a request for comment:

Councillor Brian McHattie, Ward 1

"I'm very supportive of the staff direction to go with two-way traffic on King. Think of all the European examples where they have the pedestrian areas ... and I think we can get there, too."

Councillor Bob Bratina, Ward 2

"My personal belief is that Main Street is a better route and I would have to hear more arguments to convince me otherwise."

Councillor Bernie Morelli, Ward 3

"It will create some issues we need to deal with. Although I believe in light rail, I'm not about to do anything at any cost."

Councillor Sam Merulla, Ward 4

"I support and endorse the LRT, but the fine details still need to be worked out. The BIAs are speaking pretty vocally against it. I don't think council should be in the business of putting business out of business."

Councillor Chad Collins, Ward 5

"I understand the importance of LRT and the benefits that come with it -- but I think that most people feel there need to be some design changes."

Councillor Tom Jackson, Ward 6

"I am just keeping an open mind. I think the two keys for me will be the business community's overall consideration and the general public's that we're trying to entice downtown."

Councillor Scott Duvall, Ward 7

"I'm not very comfortable with closing down King Street. Everybody should be working together to figure out whether these negatives can be turned into positives."

Councillor Terry Whitehead, Ward 8

"There's no question that there's going to be unhappy people. The question is, 'What plan can we put forward that has the least amount of negative impact?'"

Councillor Maria Pearson, Ward 10

"I still support it going down King -- it's a question of whether it becomes only on King. That basically eliminates any vehicular traffic. That affects the businesses."

Councillor Lloyd Ferguson, Ward 12

"It's already very difficult to get downtown during rush hour. If they take it down to two lanes, it's going to be more congested. That part really worries me."

Councillor Russ Powers, Ward 13

"The first thing is we have to get the determination from Metrolinx that we're getting LRT. If it's BRT it changes the dynamic. We all realize there is a strangulation point between Wellington Street and James Street and there are some challenges and major decisions that need to be made."

[bigguy1231]

Originally Posted by SteelTown

Isn't KW getting LRT? So why can't Hamilton? Ridership must be doubled compared to KW.

They are still studying the idea. But from what I have read and heard they are still debating the issue. They haven't decided whether to run it on it's own right of way or down city streets like being proposed here. From what I have heard it will connect the three cities that make up the KW area.

[bigguy1231]

Originally Posted by markbarbera

Judging by this article in the Spec, it sounds like there isn't much enthusiasm for the current King Street route proposal among city councillors:

They are just seeing which way the political winds blow. In this case the group that screams the loudest will get their way.

[SteelTown]

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

They are still studying the idea. But from what I have read and heard they are still debating the issue. They haven't decided whether to run it on it's own right of way or down city streets like being proposed here. From what I have heard it will connect the three cities that make up the KW area.

But it is LRT so why should we be afraid to get BRT.

[flar]

I think Mississauga wants LRT too. And Ottawa, and several lines in Toronto. Meanwhile the province is broke...

[SteelTown]

The province been broke before and still managed to get subways, highways, hospitals, international events, etc.

[emge]

Originally Posted by markbarbera

average spacing of LRT stops tend to be more like 500m in downtown service areas and at least 1km apart beyond the city core, and that is a tad more than just a one or two block walk.

I passed an 84-year-old lady earlier today walking all the way downtown because the fourth bus in a row had just passed both of us by at King/Wellington, jammed to capacity at 8:30 a.m. I'm not sure where she started walking, but it would have been a lot faster for her to have LRT than to walk the entire way to her destination... which happens more than just early in the morning.

Not to be too nitpicky, but I believe for city LRT systems, LRT stop spacing is an average of 200 m in the core and 400m-800m outside of it. That's significantly different for speed and walking time. If you have resources that say otherwise please let me know. (There are suburban LRT systems as feeders to cities which only have stops every 1-2 km, but that's not what we'd be talking about here except perhaps an extension far on each end).

[bigguy1231]

Originally Posted by flar

I think Mississauga wants LRT too. And Ottawa, and several lines in Toronto. Meanwhile the province is broke...

Most big public works projects are built with borrowed money during bad economic times. It helps stimulate the economy. Put people to work. Working people pay taxes which helps the government pay it's bills.

[DHLawrence]

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

They are still studying the idea. But from what I have read and heard they are still debating the issue. They haven't decided whether to run it on it's own right of way or down city streets like being proposed here. From what I have heard it will connect the three cities that make up the KW area.

The study's complete; it will run down streets and along a rail corridor from Waterloo to Kitchener, and will be extended to Cambridge whenever they feel like it--Cambridge will be getting buses and traffic lights in the meantime. They know what they're going to do with it; what's missing is the funding.

http://rapidtransit.region.waterloo.on.ca/

I think Hamilton deserves LRT just as much as KW. You have a much larger and denser downtown than either Kitchener or Waterloo (albeit a little more decrepit than Kitchener's, but the potential is definitely there).

[Jon Dalton]

KW was working on it well before Metrolinx, which should get them points for diligence. They also have a rail corridor to use - which is the sole determining factor in whether a system is separate ROW versus median. Hamilton won't be separate ROW because we don't have one. The CP line was eliminated in round 1 of the feasibility study for multiple reasons.

[bigguy1231]

Originally Posted by DHLawrence

The study's complete; it will run down streets and along a rail corridor from Waterloo to Kitchener, and will be extended to Cambridge whenever they feel like it--Cambridge will be getting buses and traffic lights in the meantime. They know what they're going to do with it; what's missing is the funding.

http://rapidtransit.region.waterloo.on.ca/

I think Hamilton deserves LRT just as much as KW. You have a much larger and denser downtown than either Kitchener or Waterloo (albeit a little more decrepit than Kitchener's, but the potential is definitely there).

The last I heard they were studying it. Thanks for the update.

I like the idea of running it along railway rights of ways. Much less intrusive and controversial than what is being proposed here. The potential for development is still there, but it won't disrupt current uses along the thoroughfares. My impression of the initial reports on the subject was that they were looking at it more as a commuter train concept rather than LRT.

Kitchener has a nice compact downtown, I used to enjoy walking around there when in town for business years ago.

[markbarbera]

Originally Posted by emge

I passed an 84-year-old lady earlier today walking all the way downtown because the fourth bus in a row had just passed both of us by at King/Wellington, jammed to capacity at 8:30 a.m. I'm not sure where she started walking, but it would have been a lot faster for her to have LRT than to walk the entire way to her destination... which happens more than just early in the morning.

Not to be too nitpicky, but I believe for city LRT systems, LRT stop spacing is an average of 200 m in the core and 400m-800m outside of it. That's significantly different for speed and walking time. If you have resources that say otherwise please let me know. (There are suburban LRT systems as feeders to cities which only have stops every 1-2 km, but that's not what we'd be talking about here except perhaps an extension far on each end).

Actually, station spacing in an urban environment averages 500-800m, and this increases to 1-2.5 km in the suburban setting

http://www.edmonton.ca/transportation/20090513_LRTExpansionNetworkPresentation.pdf

http://ubcskytrain.wordpress.com/skytrain-truths/realities-of-ground-level-light-rail/

http://www.lightrailnow.org/news/n_lrt-europe_2004-01.htm

200m spacing is for urban bus stop spacing.

[emge]

Fair enough on the core stuff - my mistake. I don't have time to find the other links I was looking at again, but I do think there are areas where it's well less than 500m in the core.

I'm not seeing the 2.5 km on any of those links in particular though.

This is what I'm seeing.

The Light Rail now link:
23 stations over 14 km in Nottingham
28 stops over 15.8 km in the Traimbaix in Barcelone (connecting university area to suburbs)
Trambesos in Barcelona has 27 stops over 13.5 km
26 km with 47 stops in the new line in Athens...
Other line in athens does have stops over 1 km apart

the UBC link (also be aware this is a pro-Skytrain, anti-LRT site)
Shooting for 400m spacing (2-3 blocks) in the denser area and double that in the less dense area, still under a km.

The Edmonton link
suburban system style: 1000m to 2500m spacing, urban system style 400m to 800 km spacing
Their current system is "suburban style" with more benefits noted for the 'urban style'


Either way, it's still less than how far that 84-year-old had to walk this morning to be on time.

[markbarbera]

Originally Posted by emge

Either way, it's still less than how far that 84-year-old had to walk this morning to be on time.

Yes, well once we have our LRT with its 500m-800m average spacing up and running along Main the crowding on buses will be relieved and that 84-year old lady can board the bus with the 200m stop-spacing and get close to where she's going a whole lot easier and a lot faster!

[omro]

Originally Posted by highwater

I completely agree. I've always preferred Main for this reason.

If LRT goes solely onto King. Main will see very little benefit and it's not a pleasant place for people anyway

[SteelTown]

Here's the Benefit Case

http://www.metrolinx.com/Docs/Agendas/Feb19_10/Hamilton_BCA_FNL_DRAFT.pdf

[coalminecanary]

Originally Posted by markbarbera

The development potential would be amazing. Imagine an opportunity to develop a proper streetwall along Main Street should LRT be positioned along Main. The potential for King would be pratically the same be it on King or on Main.

Originally Posted by highwater

I completely agree. I've always preferred Main for this reason.

I disagree. First of all, a major problem with main is that there is a lack of streetwall there, especially along the most important stretch (downtown)

Our current bylaws essentially forbid the building of proper streetwall. So before anything decent could be constructed, the laws would need to be rewritten (and I sincerely hope they are regardless of where LRT goes).

But King already has the streetwall, ripe for renovation. I know that king will still benefit if LRT was on main, but nobody can pretend that the level of revialization wouldb e anywhere near what it would be if the tracks were on king.

Building on King will allow for much quicker development, and higher quality streetwall. LRT on Main will require a lot of new construction and demolition of houses and other non-streetwall friendly buildings - and we'd still end up with a modern, sub-par streetwall devoid of feeling. It will be a lot more work for a lot less gain... and a lot less beauty.

Please read this comment on RTH for an even more convincing argument:
http://www.raisethehammer.org/article/1005#comment-37382

...Strange as it may sound, its wider carriageway is not an asset – it was the cause of our downfall for decades. And if we are lured or seduced into looking at it as an asset to justify laying the LRT tracks there – we will only be perpetuating our blithe for a longer time...

I used to be 100% for Main Street but the more time I spend looking at other cities' examples, and the consideration of what Hamilton will look like under each option, the more I lean toward king.

[SteelTown]

$784 million for LRT for the B-Line.

"Overall, the results indicate that an investment in LRT in Hamilton will generate significant benefits and support the City’s broader objectives to revitalize, redevelop and reshape its most significant east-west corridor. While the lowest cost option, Option 1 (BRT), produces the highest benefit-cost ratio of 1.4, both LRT options generated benefit-cost ratios that are greater than 1.0. The highest cost option, Option 2 (Full LRT), also produced the greatest benefits in all accounts, all of which make an important contribution towards achieving the objectives and goals of both the City and the Province."

Option 1 - BRT
Option 2 - Full LRT
Option 3 - Phased LRT

[SteelTown]

Stops at (for either LRT or BRT - to be in operations at 2015):

East Section
(Eastgate to Ottawa Street)
1. Eastgate Square
2. Nash Road
3. Parkdale Road
4. Queenston Traffic Circle
5. Kenilworth Avenue

Downtown
(Ottawa street to Longwood Road South)
6. Ottawa Street
7. Gage Avenue
8. Sherman Avenue
9. Wentworth Street
10. First Place
11. Gore Park
12. Bay Street
13. Queen Street
14. Dundurn Road

West Section
(Longwood Road South to University)
15. Westdale
16. Longwood Road/Main Street
17. McMaster University

[Jon Dalton]

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

I like the idea of running it along railway rights of ways. Much less intrusive and controversial than what is being proposed here.

Railway rights of way work great where they exist - the northeast section of Edmonton's LRT is a good example. They conveniently had an underused CN line running straight downtown and past two planned Commonwealth Games venues (a big part of why the LRT was built). The residential areas surrounding the original stations remain very much low density. Nonetheless, future expansion planned for Edmonton's LRT includes on street rights of way.

Also don't forget that the development stimulus angle is heavily emphasized in Hamilton's LRT case, and street level LRT is far superior in that regard.

Intrusive and controversial, you still haven't explained why this is so in Hamilton versus any of the hundreds of other cities that did the same thing. Remember we have more lanes of traffic than just about anywhere else and we're talking about 2 lanes for LRT. You have not addressed these counterarguments, you just keep repeating the same thing. Seriously, how is such fear and uncertainty justified in the face of so much success? What makes Hamilton unique?