Rapid Transit - Page 32

adam · #**621** Posted **Oct 2, 2008, 1:01 AM**

and in reality, people will walk from main to king or vice versa to get to their destinations regardless of where its placed. it won't be an inconvenience. LRT will rejuvenate the broader area, not just the direct streetscape where it is placed.

omro · #**622** Posted **Oct 2, 2008, 7:41 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by adam

and in reality, people will walk from main to king or vice versa to get to their destinations regardless of where its placed. it won't be an inconvenience. LRT will rejuvenate the broader area, not just the direct streetscape where it is placed.

That's true with two caveats:

1) People are inherently lazy.
2) The epicentre of the rejuvenation will occur on the street LRT is placed on.

I'm actually trying to think of or find a city where the LRT in differing directions is split onto two streets over such a broad stretch. Most that I have seen or been on, both ways were on the same street for the majority if not the entirety of the journey.

I still feel that both directions on Main through the downtown make more sense because of:

cost
simplicity
wider road
needs greater investment
closer to the current GO station (though this point will be irrelevant)

SteelTown · #**623** Posted **Oct 2, 2008, 11:10 AM**

Councillors offer early support for light rail

October 02, 2008
Rob Faulkner
The Hamilton Spectator

City council appears to be lining up behind Mayor Fred Eisenberger to support the bid for light rail transit.

Eisenberger is hoping to line up votes for an Oct. 20 public works meeting and subsequent Oct. 29 council decision.

A draft plan from Metrolinx, a provincial Crown agency, shortlisted an east-west rapid transit line from Centennial Parkway to McMaster University for funding -- but didn't say if it'll be rail or bus.

City staff have been actively pursuing light rail as their preferred option, and are poised to update council this month and get support to do more work with Metrolinx.

A poll of council by the Spectator found most support the continued pursuit. Of 15 councillors, 12 replied. All but two gave clear support, though several had conditions.

Margaret McCarthy and Bernie Morelli are undecided until they hear the staff presentation. Lloyd Ferguson will be in support if Metrolinx pays capital costs. Chad Collins is supportive but wants a lot of community input before traffic is affected or land is expropriated.

Other councillors supporting light rail are Bob Bratina, Brad Clark, Scott Duvall, Brian McHattie, Sam Merulla, Dave Mitchell, Maria Pearson and Russ Powers.

The positions of Tom Jackson, Robert Pasuta and Terry Whitehead were unknown at press time.

Metrolinx is expected to reveal projects it will fund in its initial five-year budget in November. The city wants the east-west line -- using Main and King in some combination -- to make it into this funding envelope so work can begin in 2011.

raisethehammer · #**624** Posted **Oct 2, 2008, 11:23 AM**

my goodness.
Has Bernie Morelli stepped outside in the past 3 decades?? His ward is in horrible shape. I guess he figures the residents like it that way since they keep voting him back in.

omro · #**625** Posted **Oct 2, 2008, 11:40 AM**

If the Eastern most point of the East/West LRT is going to be the Eastgate Square Mall, then from there you are going to get two lines going east and west along Queenston road and then both carry on to Main up to the Delta. As I understand it, at this point they are intended to split the lines, with one carrying on along King and one carrying on along Main.

If you look at how King and Main are shaped, from the Delta to Wentworth the distance along King (thanks to the google maps tool) is approximately 2.36km vs 2.17km along Main. OK, so that's only 200 metres, but that's still 200 metres more track that you pay for and have to lay and have to pay for to be laid. Plus you have to have different stations/stops on King and Main, whereas if all are on the same road they can double up and save money in the construction. Also you're going to disrupt two roads, rather than just one, during the construction period.

And then you get to the Western most point of the LRT, are the two lines going to converge again and run parallel on the same road before reaching a terminus or are there going to be two end points?

To my mind that's absurd, carry them both on down Main. Keep the two lines together the entire length of the way.

I still think a third line from Dundurn Park down Barton past James North and Centre Mall and to or past the Mohawk College STARRT Institute would be a great idea for that area of the city.

Wouldn't it be great if the first two or three LRTs were such a success that they immediately start work on third, fourth, fifth, etc lines.

raisethehammer · #**626** Posted **Oct 2, 2008, 1:04 PM**

I'm with you....but Hamilton is addicted to one-ways. people always talk about the 403 ramps. minimal work would be required to make them compatible with 2-way streets using the current ramps.

The plan for the line is be two-way on Main from McMaster to Longwood/Macklin, then split onto King, then back to two-way on Main at the Delta. It is stupid. Especially considering the fact that Main is friggin huge - 4 and 5 lanes. King goes down to 2 in the international village and they want to keep it that way, as do I.
We'll see what happens, but the old geezer-guard in Hamilton will be out in full force fighting for a one-way system (even though none of them will probably ever set foot on an LRT).

omro · #**627** Posted **Oct 2, 2008, 2:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by raisethehammer

We'll see what happens, but the old geezer-guard in Hamilton will be out in full force fighting for a one-way system (even though none of them will probably ever set foot on an LRT).

I don't see why LRT also automatically means Main and King will also become one way. Taking two lanes out of main still leaves three, which is plenty for one or two way use.

The LRT can be built on Main, leaving it one way and the two-way conversion happen, if it ever will, separately and totally unrelated to the implementation of an LRT.

SteelTown · #**628** Posted **Oct 2, 2008, 3:10 PM**

Rapid Transit Feasibility Study – Phase 2 is up!

Go find it and read it. I can't get the link on this computer.

SteelTown · #**629** Posted **Oct 2, 2008, 3:14 PM**

Claremont Access

The Claremont Access has been reviewed in terms of structures and crossings and the suitability of accommodating LRT on this access in order to traverse the escarpment. In general, in has been determined that using the Claremont Access would be feasible from an engineering perspective, with some improvements and widenings required. At a minimum, 2 lanes would be maintained in each direction for vehicular traffic and the West 5th ramp would be required to be restricted to exclusive one-way transit vehicles.

However, there are significant impacts to the overall rapid transit system in terms of utilizing the Claremont Access over James Mountain Road. There would be a significant increase (6 minutes) in route timing and the key nodes of St. Joseph’s Healthcare (James Street North and St. Joseph’s Drive site) and the Hunter Street GO Terminal would be missed. There is a significant cost to utilizing the Claremont Access in terms of the additional 3.5 km of track required for this alternative routing, as well as costs associated with required widenings, and the loss of potential ridership associated with missing the Hunter Street GO Terminal and St. Joseph’s Healthcare. However, this option would be approximately $100M less to implement than using James Mountain Road as an LRT route.

astroblaster · #**630** Posted **Oct 2, 2008, 3:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteelTown

The positions of Tom Jackson, Robert Pasuta and Terry Whitehead were unknown at press time.

Looks like my buddy Terry needs another email.

SteelTown · #**631** Posted **Oct 2, 2008, 3:17 PM**

Subject to funding, it is anticipated that the A-line detailed planning and construction would take place immediately following the completion of the required process to ensure that the B-line is ready for construction in Spring 2011, such that once the B-line is operational, the construction for the A-line would commence.

SteelTown · #**632** Posted **Oct 2, 2008, 3:19 PM**

This is for RTH.......

"The proposed service will initially operate on limited service hours, but is expected to expand to full 24/7 all day service comparable to the existing B-line."

raisethehammer · #**633** Posted **Oct 2, 2008, 5:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteelTown

Claremont Access

The Claremont Access has been reviewed in terms of structures and crossings and the suitability of accommodating LRT on this access in order to traverse the escarpment. In general, in has been determined that using the Claremont Access would be feasible from an engineering perspective, with some improvements and widenings required. At a minimum, 2 lanes would be maintained in each direction for vehicular traffic and the West 5th ramp would be required to be restricted to exclusive one-way transit vehicles.

However, there are significant impacts to the overall rapid transit system in terms of utilizing the Claremont Access over James Mountain Road. There would be a significant increase (6 minutes) in route timing and the key nodes of St. Joseph’s Healthcare (James Street North and St. Joseph’s Drive site) and the Hunter Street GO Terminal would be missed. There is a significant cost to utilizing the Claremont Access in terms of the additional 3.5 km of track required for this alternative routing, as well as costs associated with required widenings, and the loss of potential ridership associated with missing the Hunter Street GO Terminal and St. Joseph’s Healthcare. However, this option would be approximately $100M less to implement than using James Mountain Road as an LRT route.

having read this, chalk me down in support of using James Mtn road. I thought it would save several hundred million.
It's not worth it to only save $100mil. I don't know what kind of routing they're looking at that skips the GO Station...I always assumed Hunter. I guess they're thinking of using Main.
We're talking a total price tag of $1.1 billion or $1 billion?? easy choice IMO.
Skipping St Joes, James South and the GO Station and adding 6 minutes is NOT worth $100 million.

raisethehammer · #**634** Posted **Oct 2, 2008, 5:06 PM**

where can I find the report?? It's not on the rapid transit site.

SteelTown · #**635** Posted **Oct 2, 2008, 5:07 PM**

I felt like the report was siding with BRT for B-Line.

SteelTown · #**636** Posted **Oct 2, 2008, 5:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by raisethehammer

where can I find the report?? It's not on the rapid transit site.

Public Works. I can't get the link with this computer or else I would have provided the link.

raisethehammer · #**637** Posted **Oct 2, 2008, 5:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteelTown

I felt like the report was siding with BRT for B-Line.

they've been very clear in the media lately that they want LRT.
B-Line planning has been going on for a while, but now it will ramp up to LRT planning once we get approval.
Should know by the end of the month.

raisethehammer · #**638** Posted **Oct 2, 2008, 5:12 PM**

can you at least link us to the main page where I can find it?? the city's website is so bad, I can't find it.

SteelTown · #**639** Posted **Oct 2, 2008, 5:19 PM**

http://www.myhamilton.ca/myhamilton/...tteeAgenda.htm

Look near the bottom or search for "Rapid Transit Feasibility Study – Phase 2".

ryan_mcgreal · #**640** Posted **Oct 2, 2008, 5:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteelTown

Go find it and read it. I can't get the link on this computer.

It would be nice if the city posted the link on its rapid transit feasibility study page, but you can find it under Agendas & Minutes » Public Works » October 6, 2008 meeting:

http://www.myhamilton.ca/myhamilton/...tteeAgenda.htm

The PDF of the document is here:

http://www.myhamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyre...06PW08043c.pdf