Hamilton's B-Line LRT construction

[catcher_of_cats]

The Longwood bridge over the 403 requires replacement no matter if there are tracks on it or not and it is better for this city to have another level of government pay for it.

[TheHonestMaple]

Originally Posted by TheRitsman

"Surplus" apparently according to one of the reports. Likely a park or city housing.

Which report did you see this in? It would be really bizarre for them to actually just rip up the bus terminal. Looking at the map again, it looks to me like it will just be the "James Street terminal", even though its not quite on James.

[TheRitsman]

It was the written report that came before the McMaster engineering report and the map documents. The map also shows nothing between King and Main at MacNab St S.

[ScreamingViking]

With such drastic changes coming, there is sure to be a local news story about someone unhappy with how their route is affected.

But this is very necessary to maximize the usage of B-Line LRT and rapid/express transit across the city.

Re: that portion of MacNab, maybe they can close the street to vehicles, keep a pedestrian walkway, and use some of the rest for convention centre expansion? Make the southern end a park, or an outdoor music venue attached to FO Concert Hall?

[jonny24]

Originally Posted by ScreamingViking

With such drastic changes coming, there is sure to be a local news story about someone unhappy with how their route is affected.

But this is very necessary to maximize the usage of B-Line LRT and rapid/express transit across the city.

Re: that portion of MacNab, maybe they can close the street to vehicles, keep a pedestrian walkway, and use some of the rest for convention centre expansion? Make the southern end a park, or an outdoor music venue attached to FO Concert Hall?

I'd like to see a few different areas try out a pedestrian-only format as part of the LRT overhaul. While we're changing —, let's change —.

[Innsertnamehere]

For those who haven't seen it yet, the city has posted their update on the LRT:

https://pub-hamilton.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=365021

The design updates unfortunately are text-based descriptions of the changes laid over the old 2017 plan for the LRT.. most of them are shifting around signal locations and lane configurations.

There seems to be a lot of signal removals replaced with ped signals, which should mean that the LRT will be a lot faster than the 2017 plan. Ped signals are very easy to let the LRT have priority over.

For example - the LRT will now only have 3 full signals between Victoria and the Delta. That will make for some very quick travel times along there.

[TheRitsman]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

For those who haven't seen it yet, the city has posted their update on the LRT:

https://pub-hamilton.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=365021

The design updates unfortunately are text-based descriptions of the changes laid over the old 2017 plan for the LRT.. most of them are shifting around signal locations and lane configurations.

There seems to be a lot of signal removals replaced with ped signals, which should mean that the LRT will be a lot faster than the 2017 plan. Ped signals are very easy to let the LRT have priority over.

For example - the LRT will now only have 3 full signals between Victoria and the Delta. That will make for some very quick travel times along there.

A full updated map should be shared at the next LRT subcommittee (after the one next week) according to Mike Field from the city at last night's Main St 2-way conversion meeting.

[zeroday]

Why am I still frustrated about not having a stop at Bay Street...City Hall, Art Gallery, First Ontario etc...makes no sense in my opinion.

[ZTrade]

Originally Posted by zeroday

Why am I still frustrated about not having a stop at Bay Street...City Hall, Art Gallery, First Ontario etc...makes no sense in my opinion.

Yeah it's wack. The James stop is east of James, they can place the Bay st stop west of Bay to add some distance.

All those condos too ontop of what you mentioned... Plus probably more to come in that A&W parking lot in the future.

[Corktowner]

Originally Posted by ZTrade

Yeah it's wack. The James stop is east of James, they can place the Bay st stop west of Bay to add some distance.

All those condos too ontop of what you mentioned... Plus probably more to come in that A&W parking lot in the future.

It looks like the plan now is to move the James stop west of James, closer to MacNab, which is good. But it’s still idiotic that there’s no stop at Bay. In addition to all the stuff right there, it would also be walking distance from a lot of the high-rises in Durand that aren’t really walking distance from James or Queen. It’s such a missed opportunity.

[catcher_of_cats]

Originally Posted by Corktowner

It looks like the plan now is to move the James stop west of James, closer to MacNab, which is good. But it’s still idiotic that there’s no stop at Bay. In addition to all the stuff right there, it would also be walking distance from a lot of the high-rises in Durand that aren’t really walking distance from James or Queen. It’s such a missed opportunity.

I feel that anyone who complains that its such a shame that there is no Bay stop obviously has never ridden on LRT anywhere in the world. Seriously! Complaining that there should be a stop that would literally be about 400m from one stop and 400m to another, a distance that can be slowly walked in 2 minutes is asinine. It is supposed to be rapid transit, not add a stop so that a few riders can walk less while inconveniencing every other rider an extra 90-120 seconds per trip everyday. The argument should have been do we require a stop at Queen and should it have been moved east possibly to Bay while consolidating James and Mary near Hughson.

[Berklon]

Yeah, It would be nice to have a stop at Bay... but you have to cut something to make LRT work as it should.

You MUST have a stop at James, so that's non-negotiable. And you can't have stops at James, Bay and Queen... so naturally Bay has to be sacrificed as it's between the two.
Considering the James stop is closer to McNab makes the distance between the James/McNab stop to Bay a pretty short of a walk.

[Corktowner]

I can assure you I have in fact ridden many rapid transit systems around the world, and a lot of them have at least some stops in high-density areas that are as close together as James/Bay/Queen. In Toronto, King/Queen, St Andrew/Osgoode, and Bay/Yonge are all even closer. So are the downtown stops of the Calgary CTrain. The Paris metro has an average station spacing of less than 600 metres across the entire network, and some stations are much closer. I could go on. The point is there's nothing ridiculous or insane about proposing a stop at Bay.

When you're thinking about stop spacing, it's not just a question of the walking distance between stations; it's also about how many residents, businesses, and attractions are within the walking radius around each station. And there can be other considerations like spreading out passenger loads to prevent platform crowding and unnecessarily long dwell times, for example.

There's definitely a trade-off of speed vs. convenience, and I wouldn't recommend adding extra stops anywhere else on the Hamilton LRT. But given the high current and future density around Bay, I think one extra stop there can be justified.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by catcher_of_cats

The argument should have been do we require a stop at Queen and should it have been moved east possibly to Bay while consolidating James and Mary near Hughson.

Or have a stop between Hess and Caroline to cover both Bay and Queen.

There are a number of options. And as the downtown evolves, so will transit demand. Some people are averse to walking a few hundred metres... some are not.

[eatboots]

Originally Posted by ScreamingViking

Or have a stop between Hess and Caroline to cover both Bay and Queen.

There are a number of options. And as the downtown evolves, so will transit demand. Some people are averse to walking a few hundred metres... some are not.

Walking, one of the few instances where the problem and the cure are the same*

*obviously not talking about people with actual mobility issues, just mobility averse issues.

[mikevbar1]

I find it very interesting how they are going for speed along the alignment. At first I was unsure why they were routing so many bus routes to the stops (not that it’s a bad thing- just that if it wasn’t faster than a bus I found it a bit ambitious in some instances). However, it seems this really will be “rapid” transit if it can justify those decisions, especially alongside the signal changes. Seems this is somewhere between Finch and the Crosstown in terms of system integration, and closer to the latter… which only means good things. The movement of some stops also makes me very curious.

It all really makes me wonder what else has changed about the project now. Aren’t we supposed to see the updated design that was presented to council soon?

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by mikevbar1

I find it very interesting how they are going for speed along the alignment. At first I was unsure why they were routing so many bus routes to the stops (not that it’s a bad thing- just that if it wasn’t faster than a bus I found it a bit ambitious in some instances). However, it seems this really will be “rapid” transit if it can justify those decisions, especially alongside the signal changes. Seems this is somewhere between Finch and the Crosstown in terms of system integration, and closer to the latter… which only means good things. The movement of some stops also makes me very curious.

It all really makes me wonder what else has changed about the project now. Aren’t we supposed to see the updated design that was presented to council soon?

the "updated design" is what I linked - as I said, it's the 2017 design with text-based descriptions of what changed.. not sure why an updated actual drwaing can be released, but alas.

The changes are generally positive so far - honestly, the 2017 design had a lot of issues in it and these changes seem to be fixing a lot of them.

[mikevbar1]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

the "updated design" is what I linked - as I said, it's the 2017 design with text-based descriptions of what changed.. not sure why an updated actual drwaing can be released, but alas.

The changes are generally positive so far - honestly, the 2017 design had a lot of issues in it and these changes seem to be fixing a lot of them.

Thanks, for some reason I was expecting some drawings, pictures etc but I’ll scan through that first. I’m fairly interested how the physical infrastructure will be changing.

[HamiltonPlanning]

It's not uncommon to have Rapid Transit stops close together in dense urban cores. If you look at the spacing between the King & Queen subway stops in Toronto along Line 1, its approximately 370m apart. Buffalo same thing. Density can justify it, and with the current and future density at Bay St (as mentioned above), I really don't think a Bay St. stop is unreasonable at all.

[TheRitsman]

Just an fyi, (I thought I posted this here) but Mike Field confirmed that updated drawings should be available at the next LRT Subcommittee meeting, whenever that is.