HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #641  
Old Posted Oct 2, 2008, 5:43 PM
Jon Dalton's Avatar
Jon Dalton Jon Dalton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 1,778
http://www.myhamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyre...06PW08043c.pdf

Done and done. 22 pages - better leave this one for the GO train ride home.

The A-line tunnel would be sweet if they actually did it. Problem with the Claremont access is everyone who is used to catching the bus on James and being up the mountain in 5 minutes, will be disappointed.


Upper James?
__________________
360º of Hamilton
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #642  
Old Posted Oct 2, 2008, 5:48 PM
raisethehammer raisethehammer is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,054
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #643  
Old Posted Oct 2, 2008, 5:51 PM
raisethehammer raisethehammer is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,054
Awesome report!! Wow. This is truly exciting stuff.
Full LRT from University Plaza-Eastgate as Phase 1!

I'm glad they are finally chilling out with all the 'lane reduction' BS and realizing that there's no reason they can't have LRT-exclusive lanes from Queenston Traffic circle to Eastgate.
Although, I'm still baffled at their comments about lane constraints between the 403 and downtown??? Have any of them actually travelled that strip? The very last words I would use to describe it is 'lane constrained'. geez.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #644  
Old Posted Oct 2, 2008, 6:02 PM
ryan_mcgreal's Avatar
ryan_mcgreal ryan_mcgreal is offline
Raising the Hammer
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 527
http://raisethehammer.org/blog/1114

Breaking: City Publishes Rapid Transit Feasibility Study Phase 2
By Ryan McGreal
Published: 2008/10/02

The City's Public Works Department has just published its report Rapid Transit Feasibility Study - Phase 2 (PDF link) in anticipation of the Public Works Committee meeting on October 6, 2008 (you can read the agenda).

Its conclusion: build light rail, integrate with community and economic development policies, start with the east-west line, and move quickly and decisively to get priority fundingn from the Province.

The report summarizes public works staff research into the economic development potential of Light Rail (including a fact-finding trip to Calgary AB, Portland OR and Charlotte NC), a study of possible alternate routes up the mountain, a recommendation on possible staging options for construction.

Perhaps most important is the economic development review, which was missing from the initial Rapid Transit Feasibility Study (PDF link) published last May.

The report concludes that LRT "has great potential to influence urban growth and revitalize a city's central area", by strengthening existing neighbourhoods and attracting new development clusters around transit stations. The strongest development potential is in the downtown core.

The report also identified the need for "appropriate land use policies" to encourage transit-oriented development in the LRT corridor. It acknowledges the importance of a holistic approach by stating, "The implementation of the LRT system is not just about a new transit system, but rather creating a synergy with the city as a whole."

It draws particular reference to the fact-finding LRT tour of Calgary, Portland and Charlotte, which gave public works and economic development staff, plus the Mayor and Councillor Lloyd Ferguson, opportunities to see LRT in operation firsthand and to discuss the development of the systems with their counterparts in those cities.

The study recommends developing the plan in cooperation with planning, economic development, engineering and tourism to achieve the most benefit.

Additional benefits include increasing population and employment densities in the transit corridor and particularly around stations, which supports the city's Nodes and Corridors growth strategy under GRIDS.

It also notes the positive effect on land values, pointing out that this effect begins as soon as the decision is made to build LRT, before the system is even built.

LRT and transit-oriented development also support the city's goal of reducing car trips and increasing transit ridership.

A "staging evaluation" recommends that if the rapid transit system is built in stages, it makes sense for the east-west B-Line route to be constructed first, as it is cheaper to build and will produce a better rate of return.

The report also weighs in on using the Claremont Access instead of tunneling under James Mountain Rd. This route is technicially feasible and would save $100 million from the construction costs, but would suffer from the fact that key nodes - including St Joseph's Healthcare and the Hunter Street GO Terminal - would be missed.

The report concludes that the LRT plan is supported by Provincial and municipal policies, including the Metrolinx Regional Transportation Plan, the city's GRIDS growth strategy, and the Public Works Strategic plan.

The study concludes that the city needs to move quickly and decisively to take advantage of the unique opportunity that exists right now to build light rail in Hamilton:

Quote:
[A]s a result of Provincial timelines, which impact the potential funding for rapid transit projects in Hamilton, it has been made clear by Metrolinx that Provincial project priorities, will in part, depend on projects that have strong political support and that can be completed under aggressive timelines. Rapid Transit Team Staff are dedicated, from a technical standpoint and subject to Council pproval at a future date, of making rapid transit in Hamilton happen with an anticipated ground breaking scheduled for Spring 2011, subject to Provincial and Federal funding commitments through the MoveOntario 2020 plan.
This is the city's best shot at achieving real transformation in the near future. Now it's up to the Public Works Committee on October 6 and then full council on October 20, to demonstrate the political leadership this occasion requires.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #645  
Old Posted Oct 2, 2008, 6:06 PM
go_leafs_go02 go_leafs_go02 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: London, ON
Posts: 2,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelTown View Post
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.
Ahh..Just what I pointed out on the last page, in terms of added travel time. 6 minutes is quite significant in the grand scheme of things, especially if you are aiming for travel frequencies of 5-10 minute headways.

James Mtn Road, or even a tunnel going along that is I think the appropriate idea to do. 100 million extra cost, is worth it in my books. And again I'll focus on my main idea to make the Hunter GO stn. the central hub of this system if possible. A broken record, but this is like having GO trains in Toronto stop at Yonge & Dundas instead of Union Station, and you have to walk the rest of the way to connect to the TTC or GO (depending on what system you plan on using)

Last edited by go_leafs_go02; Oct 2, 2008 at 6:29 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #646  
Old Posted Oct 2, 2008, 6:12 PM
go_leafs_go02 go_leafs_go02 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: London, ON
Posts: 2,406
Also. Expect the 403/King/Main Interchange to be rebuilt in the next little while. I think if Hamilton proposes to revert back to two-way on both of those roads, the MTO will assist in redeveloping that interchange as technically, the bridges and ramps all are under their jurisdiction (although I wouldn't be surprised if King & Main are Hamilton) the ramps definitely are MTO's. We get the MTO on board, work out a timeline with them (I'm saying 10-15 years down the road) have have a complete overhaul of this interchange. In reality, Hamilton can afford to have this interchange shut down for a period of 1 to 2 years, as alternative accesses using Aberdeen Rd. from the west and York Blvd. from the east on the 403 are possible and quite easy to navigate.

Man, I'm getting excited. I'm aiming for a co-op job with Metrolinx starting in January for 8 months, and hey, I know my focus will be specifically on the LRT developments.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #647  
Old Posted Oct 2, 2008, 6:14 PM
Blurr Blurr is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 131
From the report;

"In addition, local government can benefit from light rail’s additional value such as increased property taxes, benefits assessment programs and joint development initiatives. The economic value of light rail should further take into account the resultant revenue streams which occur due to increased access, increased land values and public-private partnerships in developments along transit nodes. Indirect benefits such as increased property taxes and direct benefits such as public-private partnerships or betterment taxes translate into revenues for the municipal sector. When this is coupled with provincial and federal investment in capital, light rail is a feasible and desirable transit option."

To me that is reason enough to make sure that the system is designed correctly. Any decision to avoid the go station would have negative economical impact that will exceed the additional cost.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #648  
Old Posted Oct 2, 2008, 6:17 PM
DC83 DC83 is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,430
^^ To use Hunter/Clairmont Access as dedicated lanes for LRT would be WAY faster than going up James St (ever taken a bus up James???).

Hunter was actually reduced to one lane this AM (rush hour), and yet ALL vehicles made it thru the John St lights with time to spare. To permantly reduce Hunter to 1 lane, the other lane is really overly wide, and give that wide 'lane' to LRT will not only save time, but millions in cost savings. It's a no brainer.

Great news tho
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #649  
Old Posted Oct 2, 2008, 6:29 PM
go_leafs_go02 go_leafs_go02 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: London, ON
Posts: 2,406
Hypothetically, let's say the crossroads of the LRT's B-Line & A-Line are at Hunter & Hughson. Would it be ridiculous to consider tunneling the A-Line along Hughson St. under the GO station? Like I think keeping the LRT off James and John in the downtown is a smart idea, and Hughson is a perfect alternative as it is right in the middle, and honestly it ends RIGHT at the LIUNA station on the north end as well.

Why I ask this is because I just don't know how wise is it to cut off a lane or two on either the James St. or John St. bridge by the GO station. It is already ridiculously tight there to get 2 vehicles side by side down there in many cases.

So burrowing the A-Line briefly under the GO stn, would that be wiser in the long run you think?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #650  
Old Posted Oct 2, 2008, 6:55 PM
DC83 DC83 is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,430
^^ James & John are both rediculously tight as they're the most popular North-South mountain access routes downtown.

I agree 110% with putting A-Line on Hughson from York/Wilson, with a new attractive covered transit way (like the new McNab terminal) along Huhgson between Hunter & Main -- it's in my lrt dream map http://maps.google.com/maps/mm?ie=UT...99308,67.5&z=4
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #651  
Old Posted Oct 2, 2008, 7:05 PM
go_leafs_go02 go_leafs_go02 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: London, ON
Posts: 2,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC83 View Post
i got a blank map of the USA with that link. :S
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #652  
Old Posted Oct 2, 2008, 7:25 PM
DC83 DC83 is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,430
Quote:
Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02 View Post
i got a blank map of the USA with that link. :S
Yes, that was my detailed LRT plans hahahaha
Sorry, here's the actual map (I had so many maps open on my desktop, sorry): http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UT...24633&t=h&z=16
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #653  
Old Posted Oct 2, 2008, 7:42 PM
omro's Avatar
omro omro is offline
Is now in Hamilton, eh
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 1,127
Who would the downtown express serve? It's route seems a little random, but I'm not from Hamilton so what do I know :-P

No line on Barton in your scheme?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #654  
Old Posted Oct 2, 2008, 7:43 PM
raisethehammer raisethehammer is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,054
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC83 View Post
^^ To use Hunter/Clairmont Access as dedicated lanes for LRT would be WAY faster than going up James St (ever taken a bus up James???).

Hunter was actually reduced to one lane this AM (rush hour), and yet ALL vehicles made it thru the John St lights with time to spare. To permantly reduce Hunter to 1 lane, the other lane is really overly wide, and give that wide 'lane' to LRT will not only save time, but millions in cost savings. It's a no brainer.

Great news tho
James already has a 3rd southbound lane that can be converted to LRT only from King-Hunter.
South of Hunter, James would be one-lane each way and 1-LRT lane each way. James Mtn Road would be closed to all traffic except LRT.
To me, it's a straight-forward and simple design. Queen St and Claremont can take overflow car traffic.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #655  
Old Posted Oct 2, 2008, 7:47 PM
DC83 DC83 is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,430
^^ to me, that's a rediculous waste of $100 million!!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #656  
Old Posted Oct 2, 2008, 7:55 PM
go_leafs_go02 go_leafs_go02 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: London, ON
Posts: 2,406
To me, taking an extra 1.3 km of track and 6 minutes run time to save 100 million dollars is cheaping out.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #657  
Old Posted Oct 2, 2008, 8:25 PM
DC83 DC83 is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,430
I don't really understand where this additional 6 mins is coming from? How can even know what the times would be at this point?
If you had an LRT-ONLY Hughson between Wilson & Hunter, there would be no cars to compete with like on James (and we ALL know City Staff would NEVER shut James for LRT, it will most def be mixed traffic/lrt).
Then stop at TH&B-area, then dedicated lanes from Hunter/Hughson along Hunter to Clairmont, Dedicated Lanes along Clairmont including an exclusive right of way to West 5th via that lil bypass which would be LRT-only!

With these dedicated lanes alone the trip should be quicker than battling Cars & Peds on James. Mix-LRT/Regular Traffic along Jamesville would be good for that area though, and Hughson is residential down there, so that's why I left LRT on James in that part.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #658  
Old Posted Oct 2, 2008, 8:55 PM
go_leafs_go02 go_leafs_go02 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: London, ON
Posts: 2,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC83 View Post
I don't really understand where this additional 6 mins is coming from? How can even know what the times would be at this point?
If you had an LRT-ONLY Hughson between Wilson & Hunter, there would be no cars to compete with like on James (and we ALL know City Staff would NEVER shut James for LRT, it will most def be mixed traffic/lrt).
Then stop at TH&B-area, then dedicated lanes from Hunter/Hughson along Hunter to Clairmont, Dedicated Lanes along Clairmont including an exclusive right of way to West 5th via that lil bypass which would be LRT-only!

With these dedicated lanes alone the trip should be quicker than battling Cars & Peds on James. Mix-LRT/Regular Traffic along Jamesville would be good for that area though, and Hughson is residential down there, so that's why I left LRT on James in that part.
I believe that 100 million dollars savings will be made if the tunneling option isn't used. The tunnel cost is included already.

They've already established that James Mtn. Rd is too steep a grade to use.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #659  
Old Posted Oct 2, 2008, 9:19 PM
SteelTown's Avatar
SteelTown SteelTown is online now
It's Hammer Time
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 20,304
Originally I was against the tunnel because I was afraid the price tag would put people off for LRT. But seeing that with no tunnel you would only save $100 million from a one billion total price tag I think its worth to construct a tunnel.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #660  
Old Posted Oct 2, 2008, 9:51 PM
omro's Avatar
omro omro is offline
Is now in Hamilton, eh
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 1,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelTown View Post
Originally I was against the tunnel because I was afraid the price tag would put people off for LRT. But seeing that with no tunnel you would only save $100 million from a one billion total price tag I think its worth to construct a tunnel.
I'm a bit shocked that it's only $100m saving, that seems a bit small. However, I guess it would be a more direct route and thus save construction and track laying, but only $100m of it....
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 1:23 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

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