Rapid Transit

[flar]

Originally Posted by harls

Sorry.. I wasn't trying to be an ass. I know Sparks is empty most of the time.. didn't mean any ill-will. If I had taken that photo an hour later, it would be a ghost town!

No worries, we're never sure when people are joking or being serious (or both) in the Hamilton local.

[eemy]

You have to keep in mind that Hamilton isn't saddled with the plague of urbanity known as the NCC. The failure of Sparks Street is as much a symptom of the NCC's control as it is an emblem of the failure of pedestrian malls.

[coalminecanary]

what if it ducked over to king william at wellington - that street could be a cool pedestrian/transit/cycling corridor. king could be 2 way traffic. and at jackson square, blow the LRT right through diagonally and have an indoor platform there before it hooks back up onto King in front of the convention centre.

does that make everyone happy? haha

[emge]

The Spec's milking this for all it's worth. Pedestrianization of the IV is still a tiny "maybe" in the overall plan, not THE plan.

Everyone's jumping on it as the one sticking point - because the rest of this LRT plan is too stinkin' good for the city to complain about.

Originally Posted by thistleclub

A two-lane LRT line makes IV car-free without question, unless you remove sidewalks, that stretch is essentially two-lane as it stands.

This seems to be a common assumption (not to pick on you personally) but I don't think this is the case. Currently, the bump-outs for street parking are currently the only thing making the IV two-lane. Remove them and you can get one lane of traffic in either direction and LRT in the middle.

The choice will really be between
- taking out the parking bump-outs to allow LRT in the median with one lane of traffic each way
- re-routing the LRT along KW for that stretch.

You won't keep the bump-outs without cars being able to drive and park there (its nice to have that extra space for pedestrians, but they were put in for parking purposes, correct?) and you won't take the bump-outs out unless you're trying to maintain traffic flow down the street.

[omro]

I have to debate you there Emge,


I'm referencing one of Flar's awesome pics again from this tour.

The entrance to IV at Wellington will have to be lost if you put two lines of LRT down King and still want to get two lanes of traffic, you will have to have significant clearance. Plus there may have to be a huge infrastructure cost of taking down all the lights and putting them back up again and the sidewalks may have to be narrowed to allow sufficiant clearance for two lanes of traffic and LRT.

Also, do you really want, what is essentially a two lane road in places, turned back into a 4 lane road? Even with the car parking spaces, the moving cars are a good distance away from pedestrians. Your suggestion will have the cars and pedestrians right next to each other again.

Just curious, would you be happy to see LRT on Main?

I have to point out I'm still not a fan of LRT in the centre of a roadway. That means people have to cross both sides of a road to stand in the middle of traffic waiting for the streetcar. Plus to build the stops in the centre of a road will take up space from the road, which could easily be incorporated into the space used on an existing sidewalk.

[thistleclub]

Originally Posted by emge

Currently, the bump-outs for street parking are currently the only thing making the IV two-lane. Remove them and you can get one lane of traffic in either direction and LRT in the middle.

The choice will really be between
- taking out the parking bump-outs to allow LRT in the median with one lane of traffic each way
- re-routing the LRT along KW for that stretch.

You won't keep the bump-outs without cars being able to drive and park there (its nice to have that extra space for pedestrians, but they were put in for parking purposes, correct?) and you won't take the bump-outs out unless you're trying to maintain traffic flow down the street.

Certainly not taking it personally. Appreciate the courtesy, though.

I overlooked the southern bumpouts. I concede that by tearing out all of the streetscaping and trees along that half-kilometer stretch, that you could make IV more respectful of traditional traffic flow. Preferable to this -- and I would think no more complicated than a dogleg along KW -- might be reducing twin lines to a single for that six-block stretch, and sorting the schedule so that that corridor would only ever be frequented by a single train. That way you might even be able to broaden the sidewalks and make the neighbourhood more consumer-friendly.

[highwater]

I'd prefer to see LRT on Main, but if having it on King means we lose that embarrassing arch, then I'm all for King.

[crhayes]

Originally Posted by highwater

I'd prefer to see LRT on Main, but if having it on King means we lose that embarrassing arch, then I'm all for King.

What's wrong with the arch? I don't see anything wrong with it...

[emge]

As long as we get LRT, it can go on either street

Main has advantages for traffic flow and revitalization through parts of the downtown and proximity to MacNab. (And probably just having a node on the outside of McMaster, not having to be routed through, which I think is quite unnecessary).

For King, I like the visibility and connection it has to Gore and King/James, and there's significantly more retail improvement that could happen on the downtown stretch, though I concede east/west of downtown that point loses value.

I'm not sure what's the best in the end for the city as far as LRT route, but I wouldn't find the IV to be my main consideration in where it goes.

The arch... I'm OK with losing the arch - in the big picture I don't think it matters much. CRHayes, I believe Highwater was speaking to the "boundary" it creates between downtown and not-downtown (am I correct?) I also find that pigeons also crap all over the sidewalk on the north side from the arch, which is more than a little unpleasant.

The bump-outs... I wasn't here when the bump-outs were put in, so I can't speak to it before - but from what I understand, the bump-outs were a relatively new addition - so losing them doesn't faze me. The relative losses from removing the curb area/trees/etc would be regrettable, but I think more than counterbalanced by the benefits of LRT (and some creative new streetscaping - all is not lost without that space). It can't handle pedestrianization at this point IMHO but that's pretty much a moot pouint.

I live a couple minutes' walk away, and IV is still in one of the poorest neighbourhoods in Canada, and what thrives in the IV is largely destination businesses, not locally-frequented ones. An influx of new customers at a node will help them more than anything else.

[realcity]

I prefer Main too. Look on a map, Main is perfectly straight and turns into Queenston. It'd be the fastest and most direct route from Mac to Centennial.
Main St needs the help more the King. And King will still benefit 100 meters away. Main could have 2-way dedicated LRT rails, two-lanes of traffic each direction and bigger side-walks.


ANd I also hate that stupid arch.. so bush league. Can't people see that's downtown?

[highwater]

Originally Posted by realcity

ANd I also hate that stupid arch.. so bush league. Can't people see that's downtown?

Bingo.

It's parochial, patronizing, and far from adding to the streetscape, it just calls attention to what our downtown is still lacking, starting with confidence.

It's out of scale, a giant waste of resources, and was done with little or no public consultation.

I could go on, but I think you get the drift.

[Jon Dalton]

Here's what Sparks Street looked like when I was there.


I'm not convinced one way or the other on pedestrianization at this point but a few points to add to the debate:

Where's the residential around Sparks? It's surrounded by government and office buildings and far from any residential neighbourhoods but I'm not sure of the state of condo development in the vicinity. How about upper floor apartments?

King Street on the other hand, as far as the buildings that are occupied, is mostly residential upper floors and has residential neighbourhoods immediately to the north and south. Not high income neighbourhoods, but a source of pedestrian traffic and good housing stock to fuel a resurgence in middle income homebuying if LRT kickstarts the investment cycle.

The fervency of some of these business owners' objections also begs the question - is your business really worth saving? We do have some gems in the IV but for the most part the retail is pure bottom of the barrel. If pedestrianization may fail, there might not be much to lose in trying. Either way, LRT construction won't happen without a few casualties.

King St. between Catharine and Wellington already has a pretty good streetscape: Ample sidewalks, only two traffic lanes, curbside parking, street furniture, mostly continuous streetwalls, and a reasonable ratio of building height to street width. It already has enough urbanity points that we can't blame its design for its lack of business success. This particular stretch of King has the exact same layout as thriving commercial streets in other Canadian cities - two lanes of one-way traffic, two lanes of street parking, and mostly three storey buildings. Yet it struggles, and demographics are the only reasonable answer as to why.

The question in my mind is whether the full transit / pedestrian mall treatment would offer enough improvement aesthetically and functionally to alter the demographics enough for this district to finally turn the corner.

[coalminecanary]

Demographics could be one reason for the struggle, but there's something else... I live closer to IV than to any other downtown "area", but I rarely shop there. Meanwhile, I do shop at other downtown destinations.

A serious problem with IV is that there are no essentials offered there. How about a small grocery store? Hardware store? Drug store? Bank? These kinds of places could draw people form the surrounding neighbourhoods who are currently more likely to go east or west to get their day-to-day errands done.

Many of our downtown strips have the same problem, but others (especially locke, and to a lesser extent james north) have built a marketable "theme" that draws people in, where IV has not (yet).

Another problem is that IV is a little too far from the major employers which surround king and james. So the people that live near IV probably do not work there. This would intensify the problem with the lack of essential services because people may be more likely to do their shopping near work than near home.

I'm certain it's not just demographics, though that probably does play a role as well.

Part of the hope for LRT is that as people are drawn toward living near the line, the need for services increases and we see a better spread of these essentials along the line..

[SteelTown]

What are council members saying about running LRT down King Street?

January 30, 2010
The Hamilton Spectator
http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/714880

The following responded to a request for comment:

Councillor Brian McHattie, Ward 1

"I'm very supportive of the staff direction to go with two-way traffic on King. Think of all the European examples where they have the pedestrian areas ... and I think we can get there, too."

Councillor Bob Bratina, Ward 2

"My personal belief is that Main Street is a better route and I would have to hear more arguments to convince me otherwise."

Councillor Bernie Morelli, Ward 3

"It will create some issues we need to deal with. Although I believe in light rail, I'm not about to do anything at any cost."

Councillor Sam Merulla, Ward 4

"I support and endorse the LRT, but the fine details still need to be worked out. The BIAs are speaking pretty vocally against it. I don't think council should be in the business of putting business out of business."

Councillor Chad Collins, Ward 5

"I understand the importance of LRT and the benefits that come with it -- but I think that most people feel there need to be some design changes."

Councillor Tom Jackson, Ward 6

"I am just keeping an open mind. I think the two keys for me will be the business community's overall consideration and the general public's that we're trying to entice downtown."

Councillor Scott Duvall, Ward 7

"I'm not very comfortable with closing down King Street. Everybody should be working together to figure out whether these negatives can be turned into positives."

Councillor Terry Whitehead, Ward 8

"There's no question that there's going to be unhappy people. The question is, 'What plan can we put forward that has the least amount of negative impact?'"

Councillor Maria Pearson, Ward 10

"I still support it going down King -- it's a question of whether it becomes only on King. That basically eliminates any vehicular traffic. That affects the businesses."

Councillor Lloyd Ferguson, Ward 12

"It's already very difficult to get downtown during rush hour. If they take it down to two lanes, it's going to be more congested. That part really worries me."

Councillor Russ Powers, Ward 13

"The first thing is we have to get the determination from Metrolinx that we're getting LRT. If it's BRT it changes the dynamic. We all realize there is a strangulation point between Wellington Street and James Street and there are some challenges and major decisions that need to be made."

[SteelTown]

Metrolinx ruling won't mention money
Bus-or-train decision expected Feb. 19

January 30, 2010
Emma Reilly
The Hamilton Spectator
http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/714882

When Metrolinx decides next month whether Hamilton should receive dedicated bus lanes or light rail, it won't be doing so based on the city's controversial route proposal.

Neither will it be handing out any money to fund the proposed $650-million project.

Metrolinx, the provincial agency that oversees transit throughout the Toronto-Hamilton region, is expected to make a decision about what kind of rapid transit the city will get at its Feb. 19 board meeting. Its staff will present a business case analysis that will take a "high-level" look at how rapid transit will integrate into the city, as well as its social, economic and environmental impacts.

That decision won't be a verdict on the city's rapid transit plans, said Metrolinx spokesperson Jacquie Menezes.

"This will be information that will feed into design, construction and funding decisions in the future," Menezes said.

The report also won't include information about what kind of funding the city can expect for rapid transit. That decision will be the sole responsibility of the Ontario government and will come at a later date, Menezes said.

The city has told Metrolinx that a light rail line running east and west on King Street is its top priority for funding.

The city's plan for rapid transit has received mixed reaction from the community. The proposal includes the possibility of removing all street parking along the route from Eastgate Square to McMaster University, eliminating traffic on King between Wellington and Mary, and restricting any left turns to intersections with traffic lights.

Though council has endorsed light rail, several councillors have expressed concern about the current plans. Some details of the proposal -- particularly the pedestrian-only area -- have been unpopular among council. It is also not popular with both downtown BIAs.

Jill Stephen, the city's director of strategic planning and rapid transit, said it's too early for council members to make a call about the proposed transit details.

"It is very soon for council to be able to say whether or not they like King Street or Main Street, because they don't have the businesses case analysis. Nobody does," she said.

Menezes said council's lukewarm response to the city's plan will have "no effect" on Metrolinx's decision on the 19th.

[highwater]

January 30, 2010
David Serwatuk
The Hamilton Spectator
(Jan 30, 2010)

I have been a business owner for 15 years at King St. East and Queenston Road -- Hollywood Sunspot, Little Caesars and Wash Me Carwash. The currently proposed light rail transit (LRT) route will have a huge impact on my businesses and other businesses and homeowners along the way.

Who has really heard about the LRT? The city has not done any scientific surveys. They have all been random, via the Internet, mall surveys, tables at McMaster etc. Demographics have not been taken into consideration.

I do not see the need for the LRT. Is there a congestion problem? Are we a metropolis catering daily to 100,000 jobs downtown? ( Chicago and Detroit, are both home to LRT failures and there many more worldwide.)

Is King East and Queenston Road a tourist destination compared to Europe? It seems that the catalyst is the Pan Am Games. Please, how many people have watched the Games before? Can you name five events?

LRT in Hamilton would not exist if the Games were not coming. Metrolinx (the provincial transit agency) has not determined how much it is putting toward the project. Guess who is going to flip the rest of the millions and millions? Us, local taxpayers.

Let's look at reality. Do you think people are going to walk or drive to the LRT and jump on it? Most people will not give up a car in Hamilton. Twenty per cent of the area's employment is within 800 metres of the LRT line, which means if you take the LRT, you may have to walk almost a kilometre to work through rain and snow. Statistics show we only walk 200 to 400 metres at best in these situations.

You can drive to downtown and park without a problem. As for time savings -- yes you will save five to seven minutes from Centennial to downtown, but how much time do you save getting to the LRT and then waiting for it -- still having to park somewhere before you get on).

We do not pay European gas prices (double ours or more), therefore savings is not an issue. The cost to ride the LRT in other cities for 19 kilometres is $5, more than double the bus and very comparable to the 407.

With downtown being closed off, it will now be more unaccessible and more of a hangout, where crime will thrive. How do you feel about driving to the outskirts of downtown, then walking in or paying $5 to ride six blocks?

What about all the downtown underground parking garages? Do they have to be rebuilt at cost of the taxpayers? They won't be accessible by cars anymore, nor will our downtown hotels and new condos. I guess our tourists will catch the LRT with their luggage after they are dropped off on the outskirts.

Let's talk about business. Business is built on 25 per cent convenience and 25 per cent impulse, that leaves you with a 50 per cent customer loss. The design now proposed makes a driver pass your business or street a kilometre and do a U-turn -- at certain intersections only -- and backtrack.

If I want to grab a coffee, stop at a variety store, get gas, a car wash, a slice of pizza, do you actually think, I'm going to backtrack? No, I go on. Do you actually think jewellery, and fashion stores a la Versace are going to pop up at King and Wentworth because of the LRT?

What about the four-to-five-year construction time with streets closed, traffic nightmares, business loss? Here come the lawsuits. What about the noise and vibration from the construction and the LRT itself? How about our sidewalks and street parking being taken away?

I'm sure residents near the LRT line will love the overflow on their streets. The residents won't even be able get home properly. They have to once again drive past their street and make a U-turn only to come back. Talk about fuel wastage.

Oh, wait. They can pay $5, take the LRT home only to go past their street get off and walk back six blocks.

Bylaws will have to be changed. Is it fair that a store on the Mountain requires parking spots according to the city and the same store along the LRT route does not? We cannot make provisions for some and not the others.

In conclusion, the design is terrible. If you think the LRT has merit then redraw it. Make it overhead (since we are paying for it) or put it on Main Street which is much wider (five lanes) and we don't have to close downtown. LRTs require 20 metres in width; King Street is only 15 to 17 metres.

Better yet make the LRT go north/south from the city to the Mountain, to Upper James or our growing airport. Maybe that will help our tourists. Or how about a route to serve our factories.

The design now will flop. I think they are trying to fasttrack the LRT (no pun intended).

Let me leave you with only one question: What would be the worst thing that could happen if we did not go through with this LRT? EXACTLY.

David Serwatuk is an east Hamilton business owner and city resident.

[FRM]

wow great perspective from someone who doesn't live or do business anywhere near downtown . I wish all these idiots making comments about our downtown would stay out of it.

[coalminecanary]

Wow. This "article" is so full of misinformation, I don't even know where to begin. How can they print these lies with a straight face?

"How do you feel about driving to the outskirts of downtown, then walking in or paying $5 to ride six blocks?"

Huh?

They are talking about MAYBE, POSSIBLY closing a few blocks of ONE STREET to traffic. Not putting ropes around the entire downtown and making it all pedestrian only.

The spectator really sucks. If they hate Hamilton so much they should MOVE THE F OUT!

[coalminecanary]

Let's cancel LRT.. the owner of a suburban car wash is against it!

AAARGHHH

[Jon Dalton]

Just read this, it's easier:

LRT works in good cities. But we're a crappy one. And that's the only reason I make money running a crappy business. So please lets not change.