Rapid Transit

[FairHamilton]

Originally Posted by Jon Dalton

BRT is dedicated right of way so it would have the same effect as LRT on possible future 2-way conversions.

Thanks, I think you are the first person to clarify the setup of the BRT. I don't recall any source detailing a separated right of way. I'd assumed it would be in a HOV type lane during certain times of the day (i.e. rush hour).

Originally Posted by Jon Dalton

What is the root cause of the one way street problem, is it the fact that cars can only go one direction, or is it the scale and speed of traffic? As a pedestrian trying to cross the street, are 3 lanes of traffic moving one way scarier than 3 lanes of traffic moving both ways? Keep in mind that LRT would mean no more green wave for cars and fewer traffic lanes.

Root cause of issue:
1. Decibels, one way traffic creates a higher decibel reading then 2 way traffic when 4 lanes of traffic is racing down the street. The environment is one of tranquility then all hearing senses are assaulted with a high decibel rate.

2. Speed, one way streets were created to move traffic. Need more need to be said.

3. Weird sensory feelings of noise behind when all in front is clear. Perhaps it goes back to our primeval beings that we worried about things getting us from behind.

4. Flow of the street. Busy, then still, busy, then still, busy, then still, bus, then still, busy then still. 7 minutes on King Street East, so much for a vibrant feeling.

5. Wouldn't taking a lane out just compress more cars into less lanes?

Agree with me, disagree with me, it really doesn't matter to me. I for one would prefer both King and Main to be 2 way and then look at public transit options. But this isn't a perfect world........

[FairHamilton]

Originally Posted by HAMRetrofit

Anyway you slice it one way streets are bad for Hamilton and should be systematically eliminated. It is just the nature of one way streets. They do not support healthy retail activity. Please just accept this reality and move on to more productive things. It does not matter if the lights are synced or not. Two way streets are better for business plain and simple.

Here, here! Nothing would be worse than having a beautiful LRT zipping past the vacant storefronts on King Street.

[adam]

I agree. I think 1 way is bizarre, unnatural and out of a science fiction movie. Not the kind of neighbourhood anyone with a choice wants to live on. That's why there are so many subsidized residences close to or on Main and King. These people simply have no choice.

[raisethehammer]

Originally Posted by FairHamilton

Always with the comments.

The speed and noise level of traffic makes the street one to avoid as a pedestrian at all cost. The atmosphere is one of peaceful tranquility until the light at Gage goes green. Then forget trying to have a discussion with the person you are walking with.

Walking westbound leaves one with an uneasy sense as all sound sensory approaches from the rear.

I agree completely.
I'd love to see LRT and two-way. But even if it's LRT and one-way, keep in mind, that stretch of King will likely have LRT on the south curb lane. Lots of new trees planted as well involved in streetscaping. 2 traffic lanes without timed lights and still local bus service (keeping traffic slower in the right lane) and street parking during off-peak hours on the north curb (at least, this is how I would do it...I'm sure some wonk at city hall will recommend losing all street parking so they can maintain 3 blasting lanes of one-way).

[SteelTown]

Mayor: we must move fast on LRT

October 01, 2008
Rob Faulkner
The Hamilton Spectator

Mayor Fred Eisenberger and city staff have less than a month to convince council the city needs light rail.

Then the focus will turn to persuading transportation agency Metrolinx to fund it.

A Metrolinx draft plan last month shortlisted an east-west rapid transit line from Centennial Parkway to McMaster University for funding -- but it didn't specify whether it would be a rail or bus line.

Eisenberger told The Spectator editorial board yesterday city staff are actively pursuing the light rail option.

"I'm confident the majority of councillors will be completely on board," he said.

On Oct. 20, the public works committee votes on whether city staff should continue to work with Metrolinx to make LRT a reality. Council votes Oct. 29.

Metrolinx is expected to decide what projects will be funded in its initial five-year budget in November.

The city wants the east-west line -- using Main and King in some combination -- to be named in the that funding envelope.

Eisenberger said that decision is crucial.

"We've got very close connections with Metrolinx staff. I see (Metrolinx chair Rob MacIsaac) often. I want to keep it that way ..."

Eisenberger is also on the Metrolinx board.

After touring LRT systems in Charlotte, N.C., Portland, Ore., and Calgary, initially skeptical Ancaster Councillor Lloyd Ferguson is now convinced it's the way to go, if Metrolinx assumes all capital costs.

LRT is cheaper to operate than a bus fleet, it could change the entire city's image, and may bring Hamilton the kind of construction boom Charlotte saw, Ferguson said yesterday.

By city estimates, a two-line light rail system will cost about $1.1 billion but promises to boost land values and revive the downtown.

[raisethehammer]

they keep tossing around this $1.1 billion price tag, but that included tunneling up the escarpment which we aren't doing anymore.
Hopefully a new estimate is being worked on to present to the public and Metrolinx.

[BrianE]

Actualy the more people that quote this rediculous $1.1 billion price tag for 2 LRT lines the more impressed people will be when they come out and say... "Good news! LRT is only going to cost $700 Million"

That, my friends, is what you call a bargain!

[coalminecanary]

Originally Posted by FairHamilton

Never did I say the I was choosing cars over LRT, if you read my post again I stated I would choose buses (BRT) and 2-way, over LRT and one way.

No, but LRT has been shown time and time again to get peoploe out of cars and BRT has shown time and time again to effect a negligible transit use increase. So while not directly saying you support cars, by choosing 2-way/BRT over 1-way/LRT there is an implication of maintaining status quo as far as car usage versus transit usage.

Again, I'll stress that I agree the ideal solution is LRT/2-way but I think a smarter compromise (if one has to be made) is to put off the 2-way conversion to keep drivers happy if it means we can put LRT through.

Originally Posted by FairHamilton

And after walking King Street from Sherman to Scott Park and back last night my opinion on one way traffic is unchanged. I'm 100% against the LRT if it means no 2-way, and 100% for 2-way traffic with buses (or LRT if possible).

OK, but try walking from wellington to walnut on King - that is closer to the feel that LRT shared with one-way will give us. Because LRT will have dedicated signalling, maintaining the "Green wave" for cars will not be possible.

ANd once LRT is in and more and more people are on it, the need for the timed lights and highway feel will be reduced, and THEN we can start lobbying for calming measures, or 2 way conversions.

LRT is such a catalyst for so many things, it is dangerous to come this close and then be willing to give it up for a 2 way conversion.

Another thing to consider - Upper James is two way and it's a horrendous walk. What would make Main any different? It's about WAY more than traffic direction. And while 2-way is a great step in the right direction, if it's 2-way alone and no calming or street scaping - or dense development - it's not going to make much difference to pedestrians. Meanwhile LRT will mean streetscaping, development AND calming all associated with its installation. BRT only offers limited improvements along these lines.

Originally Posted by FairHamilton

1. Decibels
2. Speed
3. Weird sensory feelings of noise behind when all in front is clear.
4. Flow of the street.
5. Wouldn't taking a lane out just compress more cars into less lanes?

1 and 2 - I would argue that LRT would do more to fix these than a simple direction change. Again look at Upper James - a 2 way which suffers from these. It's the calming and reduction in traffic that will affect this more than just opposing traffic.

3 - LRT can't fix this, you are right.

4 - Start-stop flow will not be so prevalent with LRT because the lights will favour the train meaning the green waves will be stifled.

5 - taking a lane out and dedicating to BRT, which has minimal effect on ridership, will result in similar volume in less lanes. Taking a lane out and giving it to LRT boosts ridership significantly, with gets cars off the road, resulting in fewer cars (compressed into fewer lanes).

Anyway - let's do 2-way all the way in the long run. But if we can use "keeping 1-way" as a bargaining chip to get the vote on side for LRT, it is well worth it!

[omro]

Maybe...

If the budgetted cost is $1.1b and this is what they ask for, but the two lines will cost only $0.7b, then at 0.35b per line approximately, by my maths the remaining 0.4b could be spent on a third line

[go_leafs_go02]

I would rather spend 1.1 bill on a 0.7 bill line than cheaping out on a 3rd line. Honestly don't do this in cheap Hamilton fashion. Go to the nines on this. Budget for landscaping, proper ROWs, good signage, great system maps and infrastructure.

Sure it'll cost more, but give Hamiltonians something to be proud of. If it's cheap like almost everything else in this city in how they are designed, then yeah, it will soon come rundown and dilapidated.

[omro]

Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02

I would rather spend 1.1 bill on a 0.7 bill line than cheaping out on a 3rd line. Honestly don't do this in cheap Hamilton fashion. Go to the nines on this. Budget for landscaping, proper ROWs, good signage, great system maps and infrastructure.

Sure it'll cost more, but give Hamiltonians something to be proud of. If it's cheap like almost everything else in this city in how they are designed, then yeah, it will soon come rundown and dilapidated.

Do you really think two $350m lines are going to be done so poorly, that the only solution is two $550m lines instead?

I would have hoped that for $350m each two high quality lines and the landscaping, ROWs (though I don't know what that means), good signage and great system maps and infrastructure would have been included.

I still like the idea of a third line or a revisited "belt line" as per my earlier post: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...&postcount=592

[raisethehammer]

Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02

I would rather spend 1.1 bill on a 0.7 bill line than cheaping out on a 3rd line. Honestly don't do this in cheap Hamilton fashion. Go to the nines on this. Budget for landscaping, proper ROWs, good signage, great system maps and infrastructure.

Sure it'll cost more, but give Hamiltonians something to be proud of. If it's cheap like almost everything else in this city in how they are designed, then yeah, it will soon come rundown and dilapidated.

read my post above. the bill will come down because they aren't considering tunneling anymore. the Claremont Access goes directly to West 5th/Mohawk College on a grade easy for LRT to climb and at much less cost with no tunnel required.

[Jon Dalton]

I believe all options are under consideration right now, both the tunnel and the claremont access have their pros and cons.

[raisethehammer]

yes, you're right....I'm guessing that they'll use the Claremont though considering they can just close that West 5th access ramp at the top and make it for LRT-only right to the college.

So, I've been thinking about possible routing of these lines and the only real 'problem' areas I can see are King at Wellington and James in the Wilson-King area.

King, I'm wondering if the train shouldn't go left onto Wellington, right on Main and back up to King via Catharine?
For James, I'm thinking that the northbound line can come from the Claremont to Hunter to Hughson, north to King and right onto James North.
The southbound line can come south on James and take one of the 3 southbound lanes as an LRT-only lane from King William to Hunter. Left on Hunter and back up the Claremont.

Any thoughts?

[BrianE]

Don't foget traveling east on Main at Queen St, there is a bottle neck there when the right hand lane exits onto Southbound Queen St. Reducing Main St to 4 lanes with buildings right next to the curb.

[coalminecanary]

i think they should use john in stead of james - especially on the south leg.

[coalminecanary]

or hughson as was mentioned earlier

[go_leafs_go02]

Originally Posted by omro

Do you really think two $350m lines are going to be done so poorly, that the only solution is two $550m lines instead?

I would have hoped that for $350m each two high quality lines and the landscaping, ROWs (though I don't know what that means), good signage and great system maps and infrastructure would have been included.

I still like the idea of a third line or a revisited "belt line" as per my earlier post: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...&postcount=592

I'm just saying if we want this to be attractive to that average Hamiltonian, don't cheap out. I have no clue how much this would cost to build, I can't even come close to estimating a price on building a LRT line.

I just would prefer a top-notch LRT line (2 of them) instead of 3 average LRT lines.

Originally Posted by raisethehammer

read my post above. the bill will come down because they aren't considering tunneling anymore. the Claremont Access goes directly to West 5th/Mohawk College on a grade easy for LRT to climb and at much less cost with no tunnel required.

In terms of using the Claremont Access. How much delay in running time are we using by going alot more to the East all the way to Victoria St. just to save costs in building a tunnel. From Hughson St east to Victoria ave along Young St. gives me a distance of 960 metres that must be covered.

This has to be efficient as possible. Going around in a roundabout way just to save costs on tunneling purposes is going to add a bit of time on the run time along with higher electricity usage for having to cover more track instead of going the most direct way possible.

So in the long run, is cheaper to build up the Claremont, take the W5th ramp, and go all the way BACK to Fennell Ave & W 5th ave, and then back on Upper James road. OR is it smarter to build along Hughson St, jog on over to James st, and create a private ROW tunnel that comes out somewhere near the psychiatric hospital and runs down W5th with a major hub at MOhawk College connecting to most of the Mountain buses. (I think conserving fuel by funneling the vast majority of HSR mountain buses so they have to connect at Mohawk College, jump on the A-Line, and go downtown is the way to go)

Here's the distances using the Claremont..from Hughson & Main, along Main, to Victoria, up victoria, up the clarement, to the W5th ramp, ending at Fennell and W5th.

the tunnel takes from Hughson and Main, along Main to James, up James, up an approximate tunnel access ending at Fennell and W5th.

CLAREMONT: 3.92 km
TUNNEL OPTION: 2.30 km.

I used Google Earth for the measurements.

So 1.6 km of rail line would be saved (3.2 km of trackage for both ways)

So the question is, is it cheaper to build 1.6 km of more track to keep it all aboveground, and avoid having to tunnel. OR is it cheaper to build a 1.0 km or so tunnel instead.

[raisethehammer]

Originally Posted by BrianE

Don't foget traveling east on Main at Queen St, there is a bottle neck there when the right hand lane exits onto Southbound Queen St. Reducing Main St to 4 lanes with buildings right next to the curb.

I'm sorry, but I don't look any any stretch of Main as having a bottleneck.
The 5th lane turns right on Queen, only to be re-introduced with a new 5th lane on the other side of Queen.

[omro]

Originally Posted by BrianE

Don't foget traveling east on Main at Queen St, there is a bottle neck there when the right hand lane exits onto Southbound Queen St. Reducing Main St to 4 lanes with buildings right next to the curb.

Again, 4 lanes = 2 for LRT and 2 for car and bus traffic. King narrows down to 2 and 3 lanes in places.

I still think Main makes a better candidate for LRT than King, though that's mainly, because I think the idea of splitting the lines is a bit pointless and because I think Main could benefit from the investment more than King.