Rapid Transit

[hamtransithistory]

If Main and King were less than 200 m apart for the entire length, then I'd go with one track on each street. As you all know, the distance varies considerably. Here's a short list of approximate distances between King & Main

@Longwood 450 m
@Paradise 350 m
@Dundurn 275 m
@Queen 200 m
@James 150 m
@Wellington 90 m (The closest)
@Wentworth 215 m
@Sherman 415 m
@Barnesdale 490 m (The farthest apart)
@Gage 350 m

So at least in the east end the two roads are too far apart. Lots of people have advocated putting the LRT on Main. Well, I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest putting the LRT on King in the downtown, instead of Main.

Starting from University Plaza, the LRT would run along Main, then turn north on either Longwood or Paradise to King, and then east on King all the way to the Delta, and then along Main and Queenston to Eastgate Mall. Conversion of both Main and King to two-way traffic is also part of the plan.

So why King instead of Main?

In the downtown area, Main & King are close enough to each other than it really wouldn't matter which street got the LRT, from the view of a person riding the LRT. City Hall, Jackson Sq, Copps, all of these places are close enough for either street.

A major traffic source that seems to have been ignored in the east end is Ivor Wynne. I think we need LRT service along King as close to Ivor Wynne, in order to deal with pre and post event crowds.

As for cars, Main should be the downtown route for cars, while King should be used primarily for transit. If both streets were two-way, wouldn't drivers use Main over King anyway, as it runs from Dundas & Ancaster through to Stoney Creek?

I can see that the biggest problems with a King LRT is the distance from Hunter St station, and Gage park access is poor.

[omro]

Originally Posted by hamtransithistory

As for cars, Main should be the downtown route for cars, while King should be used primarily for transit. If both streets were two-way, wouldn't drivers use Main over King anyway, as it runs from Dundas & Ancaster through to Stoney Creek?

I think if you put both LRT tracks on King you'd effectively prevent cars from being on it west of Wellington for a stretch, something which I was lead to believe would be seriously unpopular because apparently no car access would mean no shoppers downtown...

[go_leafs_go02]

Interesting concept. I would be for King if it wasn't so narrow in that one area east of John. however, I want it definitely running side by side in both directions.

AS for Ivor Wynne. Can anyone even guarantee that stadium will be there by the time the LRT opens? really?

[thistleclub]

Originally Posted by hamtransithistory

A major traffic source that seems to have been ignored in the east end is Ivor Wynne. I think we need LRT service along King as close to Ivor Wynne, in order to deal with pre and post event crowds.

Possibly factored out due to talk of the stadium being essentially irreparable five years from now. It's not yet known where a replacement stadium will stand.

Two separate lines seems to raise as many negatives as it solves if not more, and I think it would ultimately be a lower priority than an efficient twin line along Main, which passes McMaster, MUMC and Innovation Park, Columbia College, Westdale and the Fortino's Plaza, Locke South and Hess Village, City Hall and Hamilton Place, the timeless titans of Main and John, the Sopinka Courthouse and McMaster's downtown campus (where it's a quick stroll to to the Hunter Street GO Station) and nightclub standbys like LTH, Slainte and Tailgates, eventually terminating at Eastgate Square (rather than Memory Mausoleum). True, it doesn't suggest as many picture-perfect moments at the moment, but then it's a number of years hence. (And BTW: What MacIssac was suggesting about the number of lines of LRT being up in the air... how would that impact Hamilton’s rapid transit hopes and dreams?) I understand the appeal of King, but I still see it as less ideal than Main. One reason is that having LRT in the face of our local leaders day after day as it zips past council chambers may have a beneficial effect on their collective vision and ambition for the city.

[omro]

Originally Posted by thistleclub

One reason is that having LRT in the face of our local leaders day after day as it zips past council chambers may have a beneficial effect on their collective vision and ambition for the city.

You're assuming that they'll ever get back into City Hall

[thistleclub]

Originally Posted by omro

You're assuming that they'll ever get back into City Hall

Well, you gotta have hope. I know it's a bit intangible as benefits go, but (naively perhaps) I think it would have a positive impact.

[omro]

Originally Posted by thistleclub

Well, you gotta have hope. I know it's a bit intangible as benefits go, but (naively perhaps) I think it would have a positive impact.

I'm all for LRT passing in front of City Hall, if they use really cool stylised trams, it would look even more like a futuristic Thunderbirds Set bigature :-)



Not quite the one I remember, but hey it's FAB.

[raisethehammer]

Originally Posted by hamtransithistory

If Main and King were less than 200 m apart for the entire length, then I'd go with one track on each street. As you all know, the distance varies considerably. Here's a short list of approximate distances between King & Main

@Longwood 450 m
@Paradise 350 m
@Dundurn 275 m
@Queen 200 m
@James 150 m
@Wellington 90 m (The closest)
@Wentworth 215 m
@Sherman 415 m
@Barnesdale 490 m (The farthest apart)
@Gage 350 m

So at least in the east end the two roads are too far apart. Lots of people have advocated putting the LRT on Main. Well, I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest putting the LRT on King in the downtown, instead of Main.

Starting from University Plaza, the LRT would run along Main, then turn north on either Longwood or Paradise to King, and then east on King all the way to the Delta, and then along Main and Queenston to Eastgate Mall. Conversion of both Main and King to two-way traffic is also part of the plan.

So why King instead of Main?

In the downtown area, Main & King are close enough to each other than it really wouldn't matter which street got the LRT, from the view of a person riding the LRT. City Hall, Jackson Sq, Copps, all of these places are close enough for either street.

A major traffic source that seems to have been ignored in the east end is Ivor Wynne. I think we need LRT service along King as close to Ivor Wynne, in order to deal with pre and post event crowds.

As for cars, Main should be the downtown route for cars, while King should be used primarily for transit. If both streets were two-way, wouldn't drivers use Main over King anyway, as it runs from Dundas & Ancaster through to Stoney Creek?

I can see that the biggest problems with a King LRT is the distance from Hunter St station, and Gage park access is poor.

Longwood and Barnsedale don't matter. There won't be a stop at Barnsedale and Longwood is two-way. The stops will be across the street from each other.
Paradise also doesn't matter since there won't be any stops there.
Sherman at 415 and Gage at 350 are the only ones that this affects, as I mentioned previously.
That's why I'm starting to think that the tracks should go on two-streets. I see potential for crummy, ghettoized neighbourhoods north of King/Sherman and King/Gage if the tracks are both on Main.
The rest of the system, the streets are close enough to warrant having the tracks on both King and Main.

[thistleclub]

Originally Posted by raisethehammer

I see potential for crummy, ghettoized neighbourhoods north of King/Sherman and King/Gage if the tracks are both on Main. The rest of the system, the streets are close enough to warrant having the tracks on both King and Main.

So you'd have a ghetto 400 meters further north of King by moving an LRT line that distance? Or would it be half the distance since it's only one line you're moving? Being cheeky, of course (do forgive me, I'm waiting on takeout and my blood sugar is crashing). But with proximity determining single or twin lines, i would suggest that since King skews away from Main dramatically at the delta (almost a km apart by Kenilworth) a compromise would be to have the tracks twinned for high efficiency from the delta to Eastgate, while the service would split to accommodate walking-averse individuals west of Gage (the core is full of them). That way you have one system for the lower city that will serve as a control case for the relative revitalization benefits of LRT. Transit scholars will be over the moon.

Another positive to having twinned lines on Main is that the street most traditionally associated with speedily crossing the city is already branded that way – it's how would-be drivers think of the street. But by giving primacy to LRT along that stretch, and making trip times favourably comparable to a car, the symbolism of a dedicated line is driven home (no pun intended) by what is a visibly superior mode of transit.

[omro]

I can't see LRT turning any part of the downtown into a ghetto, any investment into the downtown will result in an improvement of the area on the whole. Putting LRT on Main solely will not make any of the areas north of it worse!

When LRT is a success and draws in investment along a major corridor like Main. I am confident that the city will see the benefit LRT has upon neighbourhoods and areas in general and that they will seriously consider building new lines beyond the A line. In this case, we will all seriously need to lobby them to build something along Barton or Cannon or any of the other major roads North of Main, which would have the effect of enhancing those areas too.

[thistleclub]

I was thinking much the same thing re: Barton. Given the rich infill potential of that strip and its proximity to north end neighbourhoods, a bold investment on that strip could spur a revival that would shock even the LRT converts.

Agreed on the "ghetto" issue. Although, with all due respect to the potential of LRT as a social justice tool, this will probably be seen as a transit system first and foremost, and its success or failure will hinge upon how well it serves all of those along its route. In order to be judged a success and be embraced enthusiastically across the board, this rapid transit system will be evaluated in how it stacks up against a car, not against a bus. In other words, it will be measured in terms of speed and convenience. Proximity is important but so is regularity and rate of speed.

If you sever the lines with the intent of spreading the goodness around but end up making the LRT lines only as swift and efficient as the #10s (and unidirectional from the fork onward), you’ve basically spent a fortune on stylish bus surrogates. Which is maybe why twinned lines have seen almost four times as much support as a two-street scenario support in the LRT poll in the other thread. And as this initial route will set the tone for additional lines in the city, one would think it best to have the initial foray be judged an unqualified success.

Granted, this debate may well be moot – the political influence of HHS and McMaster would seem to privilege Main over King.

[LikeHamilton]

LRT could fast-track real estate values

Rob Faulkner The Hamilton Spectator Oct 10, 2008

Eva Ewaskiw remembers the day she and her husband bought their house on east-end Kenora Avenue 38 years ago for ... well, she thinks it was about $16,000.

"My husband was saying, 'We got a mortgage! We got a mortgage!'" recalled Ewaskiw, who left the then-Yugoslavia after the Second World War.

Since they bought it, the home near Eastgate Square has risen in value above $200,000.

It will rise again soon, suggested a real estate report yesterday. Older properties near King, Main and James streets will gain the most in value if Hamilton gets light rapid transit, as city staff hope.

So says the Vancouver-based Real Estate Investment Network, which looked at the housing value added by big transportation projects in Hamilton and Kitchener.

Study co-author Don Campbell says the value of homes within 800 metres of new rapid transit or GO stations will rise 15 to 20 per cent more than homes in non-transit areas. He's excited by the prospect.

"It's such a breath of fresh air because when we put Hamilton on the top 10 towns to invest in ... people thought, 'What are you talking about?'" said Campbell, president of the real estate research firm.

A draft plan from provincial transportation agency Metrolinx shortlisted a rapid transit line from Centennial Parkway to McMaster University in the next 15 years, but didn't say if it will be rail or bus. Other proposed lines link the waterfront to the airport via James, and go up the Mountain from Main Street East to Ancaster.

LRT station locations have not been identified because routes are still being planned. Eastgate Square is a likely east-end anchor.

When Ewaskiw, 77, moved to the area, it was a sea of cherry trees. If an LRT hub is built there, it will be interesting but not vital for her.

"I'm going to stay in my house as long as I can," Ewaskiw said. "For me, if I don't want to take the car, I can walk to Eastgate and take the bus uptown.

"For me, a train would be a good idea for young people ... We have all the time in the world," she added with a laugh.

Jeff Wingard, a senior social planner at the Social Planning and Research Council of Hamilton, says despite the real estate boost, new LRT may bring affordable development, too. He said it will also help people get to jobs.

But community activist Tom Cooper said LRT can't be priced like a "Cadillac service" -- it must be affordable.

Campbell studied the impact of the Red Hill Valley Parkway, as well as the impact of the MoveOntario 2020 plan, which Metrolinx is refining and implementing.

He said investing in real estate near new LRT stations or proposed expanded GO stations at Hunter Street and LIUNA Station would be "speculation" today because they may not happen.

But he said property near the Red Hill Valley Parkway will see real estate increases in the years ahead. Being one to three kilometres from easy highway access can give you a 10 to 12 per cent premium on your home's value, he said.

Transportation-related premiums -- which insulate homeowners from market downturns -- appear a year after a project is done, he added.

Jill Stephen, manager of strategic planning in the public works department, said Campbell was wise to report that commutes are measured in minutes, not kilometres.

"Time is precious these days," she said, adding she was pleased he confirms research the city has done.

The LRT has some negative impacts on home values, however. Noise, nuisance, crime and increased traffic can combine to pull down property values right beside stations. Construction can temporarily pull down home values.

Campbell said values rise most in established neighbourhoods and lower-income areas where transit users live, due to improved accessibility and demand from newcomers.

"If you are at or below median income for the city, you will have the biggest increase in demand for homes, and the biggest rise in value increases," he said. "You are not going to see people buy that million-dollar home right beside an LRT station. That's not part of their decision."

Stephen says her anecdotal observations in Charlotte, N.C., were that LRT riders included the whole spectrum of society.

[raisethehammer]

for the record, I want to keep the LRT lines both ways on Main east of the Delta. Not swing them south down King.
According to the research in this report, property value increases take place within 800 metres of an LRT stop. I say let's spread the love - We'd see that type of increase 800 metres south of Main, in between King and Main, and 800 metres north of King by using both streets.
And again, to repeat the data provided above by hamtransithistory, the only 2 stops that are slightly further apart than you'd like are Sherman and Gage. The rest of the system is very manageable with a line on King and a line on Main.
And again, let's remember that this only affects the downtown/central Hamilton stops. East and west of the core the LRT will be both ways on Main. Heck, I'd even like to suggest that the King St line join up with Main via Dundurn instead of Paradise, but I digress.

[omro]

Surely cost effectiveness and overall efficiency and doing a decent job of it and making a transit system to be proud of for the next generations is worth far more than increasing the house prices a few metres north or south.

Both on Main, make it a roaring success Have another set of lines further north in the future. Splitting the lines will most likely prevent any future more northerly line being considered.

[thistleclub]

Agreed. Pointedly routing a system in an attempt to raise all boats at the cost of efficiency of service seems like a compromise. (And as the study's hypotheticals aren't immediately apparent, it's unclear whether the appreciation cited inheres to a twin line or a single, no?)

[SteelTown]

Light rail transit adds new proposed routes

By Kevin Werner
News
Oct 10, 2008

The provincially-financed Metrolinx surprised councillors this week by suggesting two additional light-rail lines on Hamilton Mountain besides the two lines that have already been approved.

City staff provided an update to members of the public works committee this week on the Rapid Transit Feasibility study that included new rapid transit lines from the Ancaster Business Park to Elfrida, and along Centennial Parkway, and another line from the Ancaster Meadowlands, to Mohawk, down through the Kenilworth Access.

"I'm a bit concerned about this," said Hamilton Mountain councillor Tom Jackson. "Using the Kenilworth Access, for me that is brand new to me."

Mr. Jackson was concerned the two new lines, dubbed, T and S, had not been presented to the public for debate.

Public Works Manager Scott Stewart cautioned councillors the proposed two new lines to go with the A and B lines from Upper James to the waterfront, and from University Plaza in Dundas to Eastgate Square in Stoney Creek are long-term proposals.

"There is a tonne of flexibility here," said Mr. Stewart. "This needs a tonne of study."

Jill Stephen, manager of strategic planning, added any further rapid transit lines won't be aggressively looked at for 25 years. She confirmed that Metrolinx, in its draft regional plan, had included the two additional lines.

Mayor Fred Eisenberger, a Metrolinx board member, said Metrolinx has conducted its own public meetings on the new lines.

"It has not been consulted with this council, but there has been consultations," he said.

Meanwhile, although committee members remained optimistic about introducing a light rail transportation service to Hamilton, politicians stated that without the province and Metrolinx providing the bulk of the $1.1 billion in funding, the service won't happen.

"If we don't get capital funds, it's a non-starter," said Ancaster councillor Lloyd Ferguson, who has become a convert to establishing light rail transit in the city.

"This is very futuristic. It would be completely irresponsible for us not to get ready. It is absolutely the right thing for Hamilton."

Hamilton councillor Chad Collins expressed the same concerns. Just look, he said, at the funding promises various provincial governments provided Hamilton for the Red Hill Creek Parkway construction. But after it was completed, he said, the result was the city had to pay more than its share.

"We had at the end of the day left holding a larger share of the cost," he said.

Glanbrook councillor Dave Mitchell looked at the proposed new lines for Elfrida and along Centennial Parkway with a smile on his face.

"I'd love to see it happen in 10 years," he said.

Mr. Eisenberger continued to push for light rail transit, arguing it would be an economic revitalization for the city.

"I haven't heard one person say this is a bad plan," said Mr. Eisenberger. "It appeals to everyone."

He pointed out people still have a "stigma" about taking a bus. But that attitude isn't apparent when people take light rail, he said. During a recent four-day visit to Charlotte, North Carolina, Portland, Oregon, and Calgary, all types of people, carrying briefcases and lunch bags took the system, "no matter your income strata," he said.

He also noticed the economic development that has occurred within those cities after the establishment of light rail transit.

"There is an economic uptick you do not get with a bus," he said.

Metrolinx recently released its "Big Move" report that involves the largest public transportation expansion since the 1950s.

Metrolinx is scheduled to release its five-year capital budget in late November that includes about $11.5 billion through 2015.

Metrolinx chair, Rob MacIsaac, has already identified Hamilton as a priority for funding a rapid transit project.

Hamilton is involved in drafting its two projects involving the A and B lines within a 15 year period. The B-line is one of the top 15 priorities for early implementation because, city staff say, they believe there is enough people that will use the service along the route.

Councillors will be debating whether to support a rapid transit project in Hamilton at the Oct. 20 public works meeting.

"October 20 will be a critical time frame for us," said Mr. Eisenberger.

[go_leafs_go02]

Let the proposals for 2 more MOUNTAIN lines start. haha, really that surprised me. I'm scared that Metrolinx is going to get overambitious with this plan in some ways.


I don't see that happening though..anytime soon.

[thistleclub]

Someone sure knows how to woo suburban councillors.

[raisethehammer]

it's time for Tom Jackson to retire...along with Morelli and a whole bunch of these relics.

[MsMe]

That can be a catch 22 issue. With the LTR raising the prices of houses, that will also raise the property taxes as well. Like we don't pay enough of that already uggg.