HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Hamilton > Transportation & Infrastructure


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #3141  
Old Posted Jul 27, 2016, 6:30 PM
Beedok Beedok is offline
Exiled Hamiltonian Gal
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,829
Quote:
Originally Posted by markbarbera View Post
Alternatively, we could have BRT here next year if we run it along the intended LRT route with dedicated lanes following the route planned for LRT. Should we do that, we can actually gauge the route's viability and make routing adjustments based on that experience before putting expensive track down. This is basically what OC Transpo did in Ottawa. It also gives the HSR the chance to build up feeder lines and overall ridership on the B-line route so, once converted to LRT, it will be a more viable system and much less painful a transition.
That's not what Ottawa did. Ottawa built an extensive separate road network with large stations, often in trenches, then set the bus routs up so basically every route went along the transitways. Now that they've run into capacity issues at the downtown chokepoint and need to upgrade the system to a light metro they have to reroute almost every bus route in the city. The end result has been confusion, areas that used to get good levels of transit being cut off for years, protests over bus rerouting, and a construction bill about the same as if they'd built LRT in the first place (on top of the fact the initial BRT system's build cost probably wasn't that far below LRT). They basically did the worst option possible.

I do however think that dedicated bus lanes might be the best step for Hamilton at this time. The city isn't big enough for an actual metro at this stage, but that thresh hold isn't too far away. The pseduo-streetcar proposed right now will take too long and not increase capacity enough in the longterm (Calgary's C-Train is a lot more grade separated downtown than what's proposed for any part of the B-Line and is starting to see issues and the need for tunneling, Hamilton isn't that much smaller than Calgary or Ottawa. Or Edmonton which has successfully run a light metro for years).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3142  
Old Posted Jul 28, 2016, 2:17 PM
thistleclub thistleclub is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,729
BRT abstract from publictransit.us’ Ottawa: Transit Productivity and Bus Rapid Transit (July 1, 2005):

Ottawa, Canada’s capital, has the most extensive bus rapid transit (BRT) services in North America. The core “Transitway” network includes busways, reserved lanes and mixed traffic operation totalling 46.3 km (28.7 mi), opened in stages from 1983.

Most performance indicators revealed significant negative trends as transitway service expanded. Ridership did not grow as anticipated prior to construction. Ridership declined during 1984-1997 despite increasing population and employment; ridership per-capita fell by almost 40 percent. The previous doubling of ridership during 1971-1984 was not sustainable absent major productivity gains: bus-km per capita tripled, inflation-adjusted operating expense per capita increased 2.5 times, and the revenue : cost ratio fell from 98 to 60 percent.

Productivity did not increase as transitway service expanded. Real wage rates remained stable during 1982-2002 but operating cost per revenue service hour rose by nearly 60 percent. Maintenance costs, fuel consumption, non-revenue (“deadhead”) km and road calls all increased while labor utilization became less efficient. Available data suggest, but merely suggest, a sharp increase in customer complaints coinciding with a period of decreasing service reliability and declining ridership. However, the undertaking managed to improve service effectiveness and so moderated the negative trends in cost-effectiveness.

The 1984-1997 ridership decrease is unfortunate but less troubling than productivity declines during the same period. These suggest “inherent” or “structural” inefficiencies associated with Ottawa’s transitway program. The implied annual cost is (2002 CAD) 65 million (2002 USD 42 million) based on 2002 service levels; the implied cumulative cost during 1982-2002 is (2002 CAD) 1,360 million (2002 USD 865 million). Additional research is indicated to identify underlying causal factors and possible counter-strategies.
__________________
"Where architectural imagination is absent, the case is hopeless." - Louis Sullivan
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3143  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2016, 4:55 PM
drpgq drpgq is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Hamilton/Dresden
Posts: 1,859
^ Yeah that certainly doesn't make me disposed towards BRT for Hamilton.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3144  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2016, 5:43 PM
CaptainKirk CaptainKirk is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,449
Look, you don't choose BRT when you've been offered LRT. You just don't.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3145  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2016, 8:05 PM
markbarbera markbarbera is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 3,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainKirk View Post
Look, you don't choose BRT when you've been offered LRT. You just don't.
Absolutely. And when $1 billion dollars is being granted for something, be damned sure you are building something that will work with what you have where you are, and not simply because it is shiny and new and everyone else is getting one. I am simply not convinced the solution we are being offered in the way it is being planned meets that expectation.
__________________
"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul"
-George Bernard Shaw
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3146  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2016, 8:16 PM
MalcolmTucker MalcolmTucker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 11,556
Well, adding any high capacity transit to an area without congestion or even really parking scarcity is hardly going to be trans-formative in the short term. Over time it will really shape where university and health sciences students and staff settle when they move though, along with supporting businesses to grow beyond their local walk/parking shed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3147  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2016, 4:26 AM
CaptainKirk CaptainKirk is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker View Post
Well, adding any high capacity transit to an area without congestion or even really parking scarcity is hardly going to be trans-formative in the short term. Over time it will really shape where university and health sciences students and staff settle when they move though, along with supporting businesses to grow beyond their local walk/parking shed.
Yes, at the earliest, this is 8 years away. It will also coincide with new land use planning principles which are vital.

It is not about current congestion levels, it's about future ones, and current street design which needs improving. These de facto freeways of portions of King and Main simply have to go. Those stretches are needlessly god awful.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3148  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2016, 1:51 PM
markbarbera markbarbera is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 3,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainKirk View Post

It is not about current congestion levels, it's about future ones, and current street design which needs improving. These de facto freeways of portions of King and Main simply have to go. Those stretches are needlessly god awful.
Unfortunately, decisions on the LRT route are being made to preserve the status quo. It is being routed along King so that Main can be preserved as a truck route. King could very well transform away from a de facto freeway condition, but at the expense of locking Main into its current format, and, I suspect, reverting York/Cannon/Wilson in as its replacement westbound throughway. The upcoming traffic impact study will shed more light on this.

My biggest issue is how Dixon's report on how HSR must be transformed in order to support LRT has been basically ignored by council. Dixon had encouraged establishing a more extensive express bus system in advance of LRT so that ridership levels can be brought up to the level that would support LRT. But now Dixon is gone, as is the opportunity to get HSR designed to provide an effective feeder system and ridership levels that would have supported an LRT system in this city.
__________________
"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul"
-George Bernard Shaw
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3149  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2016, 5:02 PM
thistleclub thistleclub is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by markbarbera View Post
My biggest issue is how Dixon's report on how HSR must be transformed in order to support LRT has been basically ignored by council. Dixon had encouraged establishing a more extensive express bus system in advance of LRT so that ridership levels can be brought up to the level that would support LRT. But now Dixon is gone, as is the opportunity to get HSR designed to provide an effective feeder system and ridership levels that would have supported an LRT system in this city.
This was a recommended strategy articulated two years earlier, as noted on the Executive Summary to the Ten Year Local Transit Strategy:

Following the approval of Rapid Ready, on June 26, 2013 staff were directed to report back during the 2015 budget process on "a ten-year Hamilton local transit service level strategy, including specific route recommendations and a financial strategy, with reference to the role played by rapid transit, and with a goal of reaching 80 - 100 rides per capita by 2025."

Rapid Ready notes:

"The first key contributor to becoming Rapid Ready in Hamilton is to invest in improving transit services and reconfigure the transit network in anticipation of rapid transit. These early investments would increase ridership, elevate the role of public transit in Hamilton, and prepare customers for rapid transit implementation.

Increasing transit ridership in Hamilton should be a key component of a strategy to get Rapid Ready in order to grow the market of transit riders that would be eventual rapid transit users. This ensures that new rapid transit services are well utilized, increases transportation user benefits, and provides a more attractive financial business case for rapid transit investment. While there are many measures to increase transit ridership, the proven approach is to provide more hours of service. Increasing service makes transit more frequent and attractive to riders, with a direct correlation between revenue service hours per capita and transit ridership per capita."



Note the generic "rapid transit." It goes without saying that preparing to optimize BRT would also benefit from a more intelligent, efficient and robust transit network.

Council has a demonstrable aversion to three things: taking bold action, raising taxes, and spending money on transit. Dixon's sales pitch to council, sweetened though it was by making the first two years of his Ten Year Transit Strategy all about revenue generation through fare hikes, was a bold plan that proposed eight years of tax levies dedicated to enhancing conventional bus service. That Dixon's initial gambit appears to have driven ridership down substantially (and with it, anticipated revenues) will likely do little to change council's traditional biases, and it will put a dent in gas tax revenues as well.

Ridership growth is not a new concern, of course: Established circa amalgamation, council's Vision 2020 ridership targets for per capita transit ridership are basically double what they are today. 2010 HSR Operational Review:

"There are no magic strategies to grow transit ridership without incurring increased costs or sacrificing minimum service standards.

Vision 2020 calls or a doubling of transit ridership from the current level of approximately 50 rides per capita to 100 riders per capita. If this ridership growth was to be generated entirely through service improvements, it would require at least a doubling of transit service hours, and likely more, and associated funding increases. In other words, HSR should be adding a minimum of 15 more buses each year to meet this target by 2021.

Fortunately, there are many ways that the City can leverage investments in transit to maximize growth in ridership. First and foremost, an integrated approach to planning and operation of public transit is required, including strong links between the City's existing transit services (HSR) and the shaping of land use around major transit corridors. At the same time, there are opportunities to increase service levels, pursue niche markets and reduce revenue leakage by reducing the number and value of discounted fares.

In essence, transit ridership growth needs to be considered in all aspects of City planning and decision making."


The same 2010 report advocated for Transit Priority Measures like jump lanes and signal priority in areas like the King/Main/James/John nexus, Upper James & Mohawk, Lime Ridge Mall, and Main & Longwood.
__________________
"Where architectural imagination is absent, the case is hopeless." - Louis Sullivan

Last edited by thistleclub; Aug 4, 2016 at 3:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3150  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2016, 5:22 PM
lucasmascotto's Avatar
lucasmascotto lucasmascotto is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 356
Hamilton council still seeks to make transit a BLAST for residents
(The Hamilton Spectator, Matthew Van Dongen, Wednesday, August 03, 2016)

City councillors are resurrecting calls for cash to support a long-planned web of rapid transit corridors to compliment and feed LRT.

Just where that cash will come from remains uncertain, however.

The city's master transportation plan in 2007 envisioned a so-called BLAST network to connect the lower city east-to-west, link the airport to the harbour north to south, send express buses whizzing to Waterdown and across the Mountain.

So far, only the "B" line of that network has funding — $1 billion in provincial cash for a light rail transit line that will link McMaster University and the Queenston traffic circle along Main and King streets. (A short north-south spur to the James Street GO station is also planned and technically part of the "A" line.)

Now, both political fans and critics of the LRT project are promising to ramp up lobbying efforts for the rest of the oft-forgotten network.

"There is clearly a growing public interest in growing transit and personally I'm in support of greater investment in transit across our city," said Mayor Fred Eisenberger, who supported a motion last week to more "aggressively" pursue government funding for the long-planned BLAST network.

Coun. Terry Whitehead also supported renewed emphasis on building the greater transit network, arguing without that investment "this (LRT) plan will fail." The Ward 8 councillor argued in a recently released report from his office that the LRT line won't have the ridership to succeed unless it is "fed" by a more robust system that lures Mountain and suburban riders into the system.

Technically, the city already has a 10-year strategy designed to create express bus service along parts of the BLAST routes — but it depends on an unfunded plan to build a $200-million new garage.

The city will need to build a new home for buses soon, even if it doesn't cost the originally estimated $200 million, said HSR operations head Murray Hill.

Hill said the expansion plan remains on the books — and a fare hike that will bring cash fares to $3 this fall will help meet short-term goals to fix existing problem routes in the lower city and on the Mountain. But he added proposed fare hikes over the next few years and "incremental" increases in the tax levy for transit won't cover the cost of express bus corridors.

"Until another funding source is identified, we're sort of in a holding pattern," he said.

Metrolinx and the province have so far indicated the funding priority right now is LRT, not conventional bus service.

The new Liberal federal government has also unveiled a transit infrastructure program that is estimated to be worth about $36 million to Hamilton over three years.

The Canadian Urban Transit Association says new bus purchases, design and engineering studies for rapid transit expansion are all expected to be eligible expenses under the program.

Nitty-gritty eligibility details won't be public until Ontario and the federal government come to an agreement on how the money will be doled out.

But transit is one of the city's four "major priorities" for federal government relations, said Eisenberger, along with social housing, poverty and Hamilton's $3-billion infrastructure backlog.

Once eligibility details are known, Eisenberger said council will need to prepare a priority list of projects to submit for potential federal funding.

Even if money becomes available for bus infrastructure, council will also need to consider proposed transit spending hikes of between $4.5 million and $6 million a year going forward if it wants to meet the objectives of the 10-year strategy.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3151  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2016, 5:37 PM
thistleclub thistleclub is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,729
Ancaster councillor stands by LRT project
(Ancaster News, Kevin Werner, Aug 3 2016)

Ancaster Councillor Lloyd Ferguson refused to get on Hamilton’s light-rail transit project early in council’s debate on the issue.

But after seeing how light rail transformed the downtowns of Portland, Ore., and Charlotte, N.C., by attracting businesses and prompting economic benefits to those North American cities, Ferguson decided it was time to get on board.Ferguson has said the $1 billion project will not directly impact Ancaster residents, but if Hamilton’s downtown properties can benefit from increased value, that means higher tax revenues for the city and maybe lower taxes for Ancaster residents.

“(In Charlotte) I saw the economic uplift happen,” he said. “King Street could see a revival.”

During the last light rail transit subcommittee meeting July 26, Ferguson expressed his frustration at the attempt by some councillors to revive the LRT debate.

He said politicians a few years ago decided on LRT over bus rapid transit.

“This train has left the station,” said Ferguson. “What we need to do is focus our energies now on how we can make the construction less inconvenient for the businesses. I don’t know why we are reconsidering this thing.”


Read it in full here.
__________________
"Where architectural imagination is absent, the case is hopeless." - Louis Sullivan
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3152  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2016, 5:55 PM
thistleclub thistleclub is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,729
Coming up in the August 8 GIC: Hamilton Light Rail Transit (LRT) Project – Traffic Modeling Update (PED16180).

Road Network Design Changes:

The current alignment of the LRT determines the overall traffic model and therefore the following road network design changes, based on the most recent design, are as follows:
 Two lanes in each direction on Main Street West, west of Hwy 403 (to accommodate bike lanes);
 New eastbound lane on King Street from Dundurn Street to the Delta (except from Queen Street to Hess Street and James Street to John Street);
 One lane westbound on King Street from Dundurn Street to the Delta (except from Wellington Street to Catharine Street);
 One lane in each direction on Main Street East from the Delta to the Queenston Traffic Circle (currently two lanes in each direction);
 Minimized number of locations where road vehicles are permitted to cross the LRT tracks. The majority of side road intersections thus become right-in/right-out only;
 U-turns at signalized intersections are permitted to maintain local access; and,
 Provide ‘Far Side’ stops where possible. Far side stops are platforms that allow the Light Rail Vehicle (LRV) to “pull through” an intersection, so that advance notice of a LRV arrival can be provided to the traffic signal controllers, maximizing the opportunity for LRT priority through the signals. This layout also allows left turn lanes and U-turn traffic movements to be provided ahead in the ‘shadow’ of the platforms.


Average 2031 vehicle control delay for signalized intersections along the route anticipated to decrease lag time in 16 cases, increase it in 19 cases and remain equal with or without LRT in 19 cases.
__________________
"Where architectural imagination is absent, the case is hopeless." - Louis Sullivan

Last edited by thistleclub; Aug 3, 2016 at 6:31 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3153  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2016, 6:00 PM
Beedok Beedok is offline
Exiled Hamiltonian Gal
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,829
Quote:
Originally Posted by drpgq View Post
^ Yeah that certainly doesn't make me disposed towards BRT for Hamilton.
Hamilton couldn't build an Ottawa style transitway though. There's no empty corridors for it. Just as the LRT system couldn't really mimic Calgary's or Edmonton's.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3154  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2016, 6:43 PM
thistleclub thistleclub is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,729
LRT would have mixed results on car traffic: study
(Hamilton Spectator, Matthew van Dongen, Aug 3 2016)

Early studies suggest light rail transit would not bring area car traffic to a screeching halt.

In some areas, it may even improve traffic movement compared to a city without LRT, said a summary of consulting work to date on the $1-billion project.

The report going to the general issues committee next week outlines preliminary information on traffic impacts in 2011 and 2031, with and without light rail.

The summary by consultant Steer Davies Gleave says traffic congestion is expected to increase by 2031 even without the 11-kilometre light rail line proposed to run along Main Street and King from McMaster University to the Queenston traffic circle.

If the project goes ahead, the consultant expects more traffic to be pushed off King Street, which would be reduced to two lanes or less, and onto parallel routes like Aberdeen Avenue, Cannon Street, Wilson Street and Barton Street.

The lane reductions associated with the project are also expected to reroute traffic and cause congestion at intersections like York Boulevard and Dundurn Avenue.

The consultants are also using models in an effort to measure changes in "level of service" at intersections along the route and in the nearby area.

The models predict longer "vehicle control delays" at most major intersections along the LRT route by 2031. But it also suggests 16 intersections would see longer average delays by 2031 without LRT, compared to if the transit service goes ahead.

The summary report doesn't specify reasons for the findings at each intersection, but notes population increases, employment changes and gradual changes to the streetscape like "road diets" and bike lanes are also expected to affect how traffic flows over time even without light rail.
__________________
"Where architectural imagination is absent, the case is hopeless." - Louis Sullivan
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3155  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2016, 7:02 PM
SteelTown's Avatar
SteelTown SteelTown is offline
It's Hammer Time
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 20,304
LRT won't have much impact on congestion in Hamilton: new report
LRT may mean average intersection waits of as long as 80 seconds, but more cars will bring those too

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilt...port-1.3705816

There will be changes to traffic patterns. The average wait time at some intersections may be longer, and some shorter. But overall, Hamilton's streets can accommodate light rail transit (LRT) without it significantly adding to congestion, a new city report says.

LRT will impact traffic throughout much of the lower city, as vehicles choose alternate routes because of a narrowed King Street, or Main Street running two ways, the report says.

But "what we found from this initial run of the model is we have enough capacity within our existing street network to accommodate the increase in traffic to 2031 with LRT," said Trevor Horzelenberg, the city's manager of LRT.

The new traffic modeling report from consultant Steer Davies Gleave says that a proposed system on Main and King Streets, as well as down James Street North to possibly the waterfront, will have a ripple effect on driving in much of lower Hamilton.

With reduced capacity on King Street, for example, westbound drivers will head down Aberdeen, Wilson, Cannon and Barton Streets instead.

The report also includes how long the potential average wait will be at intersections along the route.

In some cases, such as King Street at Locke, vehicles could have average waits of longer than 80 seconds with LRT, while right now, it's only 10 to 20 seconds. Without LRT, waits would be an average of 20 to 35 seconds in 2031. Hunter at Wellington, King at Bay and King at Gage could also mean signals that take longer than 80 seconds with LRT.

Horzelenberg says the city will make efforts to mitigate that, such as dedicated turn lanes. The report numbers don't reflect that.

The report also says Hamilton's projected population will be 660,000 in 2031, so there will be increased congestion and longer waits even without LRT. It predicts LRT will actually decrease waits at intersections such as Dundurn at Chatham and King at Emerald.

"By 2031, regardless of whether or not LRT is built in Hamilton, congestion will increase as a result of population growth and other planned changes to the road network," the report says.

Terry Whitehead, Ward 8 councillor, is skeptical of the report's findings. He's looked at numerous LRT systems across North America, he said. He's found that LRT does increase congestion.

"People aren't going to jump out of their cars and into a half-baked LRT system," he said.

"Expect to spend more time in your cars and away from your families."

Aidan Johnson, Ward 1 councillor, says the report was "not terribly surprising." The estimates aren't conservative either.

"This isn't a candy coated or spun set of predictions," he said. "This is a set of predictions that's as truthful as possible."

LRT will complicate driving in the city, he said. "That's regrettable. I regret that very much.

"I am pro LRT because I think that the positive aspects of LRT significantly outweigh the challenges."

The report is preliminary. City councillors will discuss it at a general issues committee on Monday. A full traffic design is due later this year.

Hamilton city council is in the midst of debating the planned LRT system, with a vote expected in September to accept the $1 billion system from the province. Metrolinx is building it with input from the city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3156  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2016, 7:24 PM
thistleclub thistleclub is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,729
Via CHML's Bill Kelly Show:

City councilors are looking at bringing back calls for cash to support the BLAST Network, a long planned project. The BLAAST Network could connect the lower city from the east to west as well as link the airport to the harbor, and have express buses to Waterdown and Meadowlands. Terry Whitehead. City Councillor, Ward 8, City of Hamilton

RTW is on 17:14-32:13.
__________________
"Where architectural imagination is absent, the case is hopeless." - Louis Sullivan
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3157  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2016, 7:24 PM
interr0bangr interr0bangr is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Landsdale
Posts: 559
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelTown View Post
LRT won't have much impact on congestion in Hamilton: new report
LRT may mean average intersection waits of as long as 80 seconds, but more cars will bring those too

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilt...port-1.3705816

There will be changes to traffic patterns. The average wait time at some intersections may be longer, and some shorter. But overall, Hamilton's streets can accommodate light rail transit (LRT) without it significantly adding to congestion, a new city report says.

LRT will impact traffic throughout much of the lower city, as vehicles choose alternate routes because of a narrowed King Street, or Main Street running two ways, the report says.

But "what we found from this initial run of the model is we have enough capacity within our existing street network to accommodate the increase in traffic to 2031 with LRT," said Trevor Horzelenberg, the city's manager of LRT.

The new traffic modeling report from consultant Steer Davies Gleave says that a proposed system on Main and King Streets, as well as down James Street North to possibly the waterfront, will have a ripple effect on driving in much of lower Hamilton.

With reduced capacity on King Street, for example, westbound drivers will head down Aberdeen, Wilson, Cannon and Barton Streets instead.

The report also includes how long the potential average wait will be at intersections along the route.

In some cases, such as King Street at Locke, vehicles could have average waits of longer than 80 seconds with LRT, while right now, it's only 10 to 20 seconds. Without LRT, waits would be an average of 20 to 35 seconds in 2031. Hunter at Wellington, King at Bay and King at Gage could also mean signals that take longer than 80 seconds with LRT.

Horzelenberg says the city will make efforts to mitigate that, such as dedicated turn lanes. The report numbers don't reflect that.

The report also says Hamilton's projected population will be 660,000 in 2031, so there will be increased congestion and longer waits even without LRT. It predicts LRT will actually decrease waits at intersections such as Dundurn at Chatham and King at Emerald.

"By 2031, regardless of whether or not LRT is built in Hamilton, congestion will increase as a result of population growth and other planned changes to the road network," the report says.

Terry Whitehead, Ward 8 councillor, is skeptical of the report's findings. He's looked at numerous LRT systems across North America, he said. He's found that LRT does increase congestion.

"People aren't going to jump out of their cars and into a half-baked LRT system," he said.

"Expect to spend more time in your cars and away from your families."

Aidan Johnson, Ward 1 councillor, says the report was "not terribly surprising." The estimates aren't conservative either.

"This isn't a candy coated or spun set of predictions," he said. "This is a set of predictions that's as truthful as possible."

LRT will complicate driving in the city, he said. "That's regrettable. I regret that very much.

"I am pro LRT because I think that the positive aspects of LRT significantly outweigh the challenges."

The report is preliminary. City councillors will discuss it at a general issues committee on Monday. A full traffic design is due later this year.

Hamilton city council is in the midst of debating the planned LRT system, with a vote expected in September to accept the $1 billion system from the province. Metrolinx is building it with input from the city.
No shit. There's enough lane capacity in Hamilton to handle an absurd amount of non-existent traffic. Taking a lane or two away for LRT will make no major impact and/or would greatly improve things because it forces two-way conversions that are long overdue.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3158  
Old Posted Aug 9, 2016, 12:55 PM
thistleclub thistleclub is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,729
Hamilton’s LRT will impact mountain, residential roads, say councillors
(Hamilton Mountain News, Kevin Werner, Aug 8 2016)

Hamilton’s $1-billion light-way transit project will disrupt traffic patterns not only in the downtown, but also across the city, say suburban councillors.

Even though the traffic modeling study, produced by consultants Steer, Davies and Gleaves reveals congestion will increase in the downtown by 2031, neighbourhood streets will also feel the brunt of vehicles avoiding the core as they move about the city.

But Mountain councillor Terry Whitehead during a heated moment at the Aug. 8 general issues committee meeting, said the report doesn’t take into consideration how the downtown traffic patterns will be impacted if the Red Hill Valley Parkway, the Lincoln Alexander Parkway or Highway 403 are backed up, which he says occurs all the time.

“We are talking about an every day experience,” said Whitehead. “These are major corridors of commerce.”

Stoney Creek councillor Doug Conley told LRT staff and consultants the LRT will create traffic problems on the mountain and within residential neighbourhoods as drivers use local roads to avoid the downtown to get to their destinations.

Paul Johnson, LRT director, said the preliminary modeling stud, is a “worst-case” scenario for how the project will impact traffic in the downtown. The study did not include any mitigation efforts.



Read it in full here.
__________________
"Where architectural imagination is absent, the case is hopeless." - Louis Sullivan
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3159  
Old Posted Aug 10, 2016, 12:00 AM
Dr Awesomesauce's Avatar
Dr Awesomesauce Dr Awesomesauce is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: BEYOND THE OUTER RIM
Posts: 5,889
Hysterical a$$holes.

Good luck funding your next campaign, Ter. Have you considered selling cookies door to door? Might be your next vocation...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3160  
Old Posted Aug 15, 2016, 2:31 PM
thistleclub thistleclub is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,729
LRT crew scanning and drilling to prepare for construction
(CBC Hamilton, Samantha Craggs, Aug 15 2016)

It's a milestone of sorts — the first time crews are drilling into the ground for Hamilton's planned light trail transit (LRT) system.

Engineers are moving along the LRT route, scanning the ground to mark the exact locations of utilities running underneath. When they want to get a better look, they're drilling bore holes, said Andrew Hope, Metrolinx's director for Hamilton LRT.

This work will help Metrolinx determine which utility lines need to be moved to build the $1 billion system, Hope said. The workers with T2 Utility Engineers started Aug. 2 and will finish this spring.

"Until you open up the road, there are always hidden surprises," he said. But "this is the best you can do without tearing up the road."

Metrolinx is paying for the work as part of the $1 billion budget, as well as any complications that arise from it, Hope said. Under the memorandum of agreement with the city, Metrolinx will also pay to relocate utility lines or pipes that the city doesn't already plan to replace. The city pays if it wants to do any upgrades.

The city website says the work will cause occasional lane closures from Kingsmount Street to Longwood Avenue between now and Oct. 11.



Read it in full here.
__________________
"Where architectural imagination is absent, the case is hopeless." - Louis Sullivan

Last edited by thistleclub; Aug 15, 2016 at 2:47 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Hamilton > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:51 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.