Rapid Transit - Page 6

raisethehammer · #**101** Posted **Apr 16, 2008, 11:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon Dalton

Ferguson writes back: "I agree public transit is important to Hamilton and my support of many enhancements in HSR service demonstrates that. However it must co-exist with the motoring pubic. To shut Main street down to two lanes for motorist is not practical or sustainable."

Him using the word 'sustainable' makes me want to barf.
Especially when his model of sustainability is a 5-lane Main Street.
What a joke.

coalminecanary · #**102** Posted **Apr 17, 2008, 1:40 AM**

the tunnel is 175 million of that proposal, so eliminating that brings it down closer to 900 million. airport extension is like 250 million, so doing bayfront-limeridge (without a tunnel) AND mac to eastgate would be like 650 mil -- plus getting up claremont, so maybe 700 mil? WHAT A DEAL!

raisethehammer · #**103** Posted **Apr 17, 2008, 2:00 AM**

I've got modern streetcar research that has trams able to climb an 8.5% grade as well as vehicles that operate with their pantograph lowered to a minimum height of 12 feet - short enough to fit under TH&B and the King St overpass.

AND they are light-weight vehicles that have capital costs at roughly $13-$17million per km to construct.
We CAN do this.

The press has been positive, the blogs have been positive. Keep writing letters!

Anyone see the great piece in the Spec today by the RTH editor?? awesome piece (no Goldfinger, I didn't write it. lol)

JT Jacobs · #**104** Posted **Apr 17, 2008, 3:18 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by raisethehammer

I've got modern streetcar research that has trams able to climb an 8.5% grade as well as vehicles that operate with their pantograph lowered to a minimum height of 12 feet - short enough to fit under TH&B and the King St overpass.

AND they are light-weight vehicles that have capital costs at roughly $13-$17million per km to construct.
We CAN do this.

The press has been positive, the blogs have been positive. Keep writing letters!

Anyone see the great piece in the Spec today by the RTH editor?? awesome piece (no Goldfinger, I didn't write it. lol)

Indeed, the Ryan McGreal piece was spectacular--probably the best piece I've ever read in the Spec.

In all honesty, we need more letters to the editor at the Spec. We need to bury them in an avalanche of letters that clamor for LRT. Two weeks ago I emailed the publisher and managing editor and asked them to do a profile of light rail. Suddenly we're seeing all kinds of press coverage of the issue. I'm not saying that my tiny email did anything, only that it adds up with others and reinforces certain editorial ideas at the Spec. Finally, if we don't say more, then we abdicate the field to the ignorati who love one-way streets, urban sprawl, and buses, and no speed limits, and et cetera.

raisethehammer · #**105** Posted **Apr 17, 2008, 11:13 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JT Jacobs

Indeed, the Ryan McGreal piece was spectacular--probably the best piece I've ever read in the Spec.

In all honesty, we need more letters to the editor at the Spec. We need to bury them in an avalanche of letters that clamor for LRT. Two weeks ago I emailed the publisher and managing editor and asked them to do a profile of light rail. Suddenly we're seeing all kinds of press coverage of the issue. I'm not saying that my tiny email did anything, only that it adds up with others and reinforces certain editorial ideas at the Spec. Finally, if we don't say more, then we abdicate the field to the ignorati who love one-way streets, urban sprawl, and buses, and no speed limits, and et cetera.

you're bang on.
your letter most certainly DID do something.
Along with the many others that have probably been coming in.
I can't wait for the meeting on May 1.

realcity · #**106** Posted **Apr 17, 2008, 11:51 AM**

I don't think anyone is taking Ferguson seriously.... ever since he was oppossed to the Pesticide by-law and publicly commented he's didn't think it's harmful.

Now his moronic comments are even making regular Hamiltonians notice his intelligence level. A few letters to Ed in The Spec show this.

I agree, Fergusson using the word 'sustainable' is backwards. What he really wants more then anything is the status quo and for Hamilton to continue being the butt-end of every joke. Anything that advances Hamilton he's oppossed, so is Mitchell and McCarthy and Pearson is showing it now.

flar · #**107** Posted **Apr 17, 2008, 12:02 PM**

I can't stand petty politics. Ancaster has been amalgamated, it won't be undone, get over it Ferguson, you live in Hamilton now.

the dude · #**108** Posted **Apr 17, 2008, 2:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JT Jacobs

Indeed, the Ryan McGreal piece was spectacular--probably the best piece I've ever read in the Spec.

what happens when the spec offers mcgreal a job?

incidentally, i agree that we shouldn't run a line all the way to the airport. that's a lot of extra track and there's no demand right now...which brings into question the whole idea of running lrt on upper james. don't have an answer for that one.

SteelTown · #**109** Posted **Apr 17, 2008, 2:18 PM**

I think for the A-Line the LRT should be done in phases. Phase 1 waterfront to Mohawk, Phase 2 Mohawk to Rymal. Than Phase 3 from Rymal to Airport, I know the Airport in the past said they would be willing to help fund rapid transit to the Airport so maybe they could help Phase 3.

raisethehammer · #**110** Posted **Apr 17, 2008, 2:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by the dude

what happens when the spec offers mcgreal a job?

incidentally, i agree that we shouldn't run a line all the way to the airport. that's a lot of extra track and there's no demand right now...which brings into question the whole idea of running lrt on upper james. don't have an answer for that one.

easy. turn it around at the mountain transit centre.
believe it or not, 27-upper james is the busiest route on the mountain.
LRT would be great along there.

I'd say Mohawk Rd could use one too.

If Mcgreal gets a job at the Spec he can infiltrate from within and put them out of business. lol

Jon Dalton · #**111** Posted **Apr 17, 2008, 2:49 PM**

Marseille France - 8% grade, while accelerating fast and turning corners smooth

Surely the consultants and the decision makers in this process know that Hamilton is not unique in having railway underpasses and pedestrian walkways.

JT Jacobs · #**112** Posted **Apr 17, 2008, 3:06 PM**

Implementing an Upper James line would probably transform that ribbon-fringe development-style street into something more urban in appearance. The commerce would change gradually.

I agree that adding a Mohawk line, say to Ancaster to Upper Kenilworth, or something, would be utterly brilliant for the upper city.

raisethehammer · #**113** Posted **Apr 17, 2008, 3:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon Dalton

Marseille France - 8% grade, while accelerating fast and turning corners smooth

apologize for garbage quality, but you get the picture.

Surely the consultants and the decision makers in this process know that Hamilton is not unique in having railway underpasses and pedestrian walkways.

Hey, that looks like Hamilton!! Lol.

realcity · #**114** Posted **Apr 17, 2008, 5:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JT Jacobs

Implementing an Upper James line would probably transform that ribbon-fringe development-style street into something more urban in appearance. The commerce would change gradually.

I agree that adding a Mohawk line, say to Ancaster to Upper Kenilworth, or something, would be utterly brilliant for the upper city.

Mohawk would be nice but don't end it at Kenilworth, take into the Mohawk Sports Park.

Also I would like to the Main East West travel along Cannon for part of the route. Canon would really benefit from the economic spin off. But I'm also glad it's on Main... removing some of these streets might slow down the traffic and make the street livable.

DC83 · #**115** Posted **Apr 17, 2008, 9:56 PM**

^^ Mohawk line would be great, but I think it's totally necessary. Hopefully the city decides on it for the east-west mountain RT line. Meadowlands - Mohawk Sports Park. It would really transform the Meadowlands for the best!

If 2-way Main isn't possible, the 3 lanes of LRT & 2 lanes for east-bound traffic would be even better. IV has flourished b/c of the traffic slowing of King, so it will def work at Main... plus it'll have a sexy LRT!

FairHamilton · #**116** Posted **Apr 17, 2008, 10:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DC83

^^ Mohawk line would be great, but I think it's totally necessary. Hopefully the city decides on it for the east-west mountain RT line. Meadowlands - Mohawk Sports Park. It would really transform the Meadowlands for the best!

If 2-way Main isn't possible, the 3 lanes of LRT & 2 lanes for east-bound traffic would be even better. IV has flourished b/c of the traffic slowing of King, so it will def work at Main... plus it'll have a sexy LRT!

3 Lanes of LRT??? Are you against proper bicycle lanes???? How about 2 lanes for LRT, 1 for dedicated bicycle lane, and 2 lanes for cars.

Bike shorts on the right person can be sexy too you know...........

hamiltonguy · #**117** Posted **Apr 17, 2008, 11:36 PM**

I think personally for the Mohawk LRT it should follow the route to Downtown rather than Mohawk Sports park.

I was thinking though that possibly it could have Two Branches.

Meadowlands to Sports Park and Chedoke Branch to East End.

DC83 · #**118** Posted **Apr 18, 2008, 2:18 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by FairHamilton

3 Lanes of LRT??? Are you against proper bicycle lanes???? How about 2 lanes for LRT, 1 for dedicated bicycle lane, and 2 lanes for cars.

Bike shorts on the right person can be sexy too you know...........

hmm I dunno bout those shorts... But from the report it seemed like it was going to be 2 widened 'general purpose' lanes (driving), one lane for drop off/stations/platforms, the other 2 lanes for RT. But I think a bicycling lane should be worked in somehow for sure.

sbwoodside · #**119** Posted **Apr 18, 2008, 2:50 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by coalminecanary

the tunnel is 175 million of that proposal, so eliminating that brings it down closer to 900 million. airport extension is like 250 million, so doing bayfront-limeridge (without a tunnel) AND mac to eastgate would be like 650 mil -- plus getting up claremont, so maybe 700 mil? WHAT A DEAL!

Where did you get the $175m figure for the tunnel?

Also, it's not a big deal, but what's wrong with going up the jolley cut? It could turn left off of James at St Jo's, go up the cut, and then zip right back over to Upper James. The deviation from the prescribed A-Line route would be minimal, it seems like the deviation would be less than going up claremont.

Or is there another advantage to Claremont that I'm missing?

--simon

beanmedic · #**120** Posted **Apr 18, 2008, 3:28 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sbwoodside

Where did you get the $175m figure for the tunnel?

Also, it's not a big deal, but what's wrong with going up the jolley cut? It could turn left off of James at St Jo's, go up the cut, and then zip right back over to Upper James. The deviation from the prescribed A-Line route would be minimal, it seems like the deviation would be less than going up claremont.

Or is there another advantage to Claremont that I'm missing?

--simon

The grade. I believe the Claremont Access is less steep than the Jolly Cut.