Ban new-roads, parking lots: Environment Hamilton

[adam]

Only a portion of commuters want 5 lanes of traffic in the city. I commute out of the city and want fewer lanes on Main and King. Many friends who commute out of the city are also wondering when the city will take steps to limit speed on Main/King/Cannon/etc. A lot of younger families would prefer to live near an urban area. I don't think this was such a prevalent trend 10 years ago... seems like if you could afford it you got a house on the mountain ASAP. This is no longer as desired for younger families. They remember growing up in isolated gated communities with no amenities and don't want that for their children. So the city has to change eventually. Best place to raise a family? Not a chance until we get rid of inner-city highways.

[emge]

Originally Posted by adam

Only a portion of commuters want 5 lanes of traffic in the city. I commute out of the city and want fewer lanes on Main and King. Many friends who commute out of the city are also wondering when the city will take steps to limit speed on Main/King/Cannon/etc. A lot of younger families would prefer to live near an urban area. I don't think this was such a prevalent trend 10 years ago... seems like if you could afford it you got a house on the mountain ASAP. This is no longer as desired for younger families. They remember growing up in isolated gated communities with no amenities and don't want that for their children. So the city has to change eventually. Best place to raise a family? Not a chance until we get rid of inner-city highways.

Landsdale's pretty much the poster neighbourhood for that in my books

[ryan_mcgreal]

Originally Posted by adam

Here's an article that discusses how commuting on a bicycle actually improves quality of life and is safer than driving a car on the highway. Imagine getting to work fully awake and happy from getting fresh air, avoiding road rage, etc. without needing a coffee.

I can personally attest to this (except the part about not needing a coffee...). Every single day I get to work in a better mood than when I left home. I defy any driver to make the same claim with a straight face.

[sofasurfer]

Originally Posted by omro

The "developing" world is developing faster than the "developed" world did (seeing as they don't have to reinvent the wheel, just be taught how to make it). While this isn't widespread, some bright people in those countries (or from other countries working there), are actually working to implement green technologies now, during that country's development, rather than having to build "dirty" technologies now, rip them out and reimplement them green later, like the "developed" world has to.

Yup. In a former job, I worked with folks who did some interesting projects in developing countries across different sectors - and a common theme was how these countries are poised to not only take advantage of innovations to develop more efficient infrastructures, but to use them in innovative ways that appropriate the most from the technology in the face of real-life economic constraints.

So not only do you see more efficient tech being used, but in a smarter way - because poorer countries can see they can get more out of it at micro- and macro-levels. Food for thought?

[highwater]

We are dinosaurs who are about to get leapfrogged.

[bigguy1231]

Originally Posted by emge

It also fails to take into account a great many cities where public transit is a viable option for the majority, not just a certain cross-section of the population who is environmentally committed, works in a very specific area, or is financially unable to make another choice, as it still largely is in Hamilton today. Light rail can and will change that due to speed, comfort, and many other factors that have been better said by others. Do you truly not care about any of that, if your convenience is even slightly compromised?

I am not saying that I completely object to LRT. The problem as I see it, is they are going to take away traffic lanes for what in effect will be a glorified bus or street car system. It will not be a clear unfettered road for the public transit. They will still have to stop at each stop light, they will still get slowed down by traffic in intersections. Dedicated lanes are not the same as a dedicated right of way. As long as the system is at street level it will be no different than what we have right now.

[ryan_mcgreal]

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

The problem as I see it, is they are going to take away traffic lanes for what in effect will be a glorified bus or street car system.

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is a glorified bus system. LRT is a significantly higher order of transit: faster, smoother, quieter, more accessible, more permanent, longer-lasting, cheaper to operate, and proven in city after city to attract both new riders and new private transit-oriented investment in a way that buses and BRT simply cannot.

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

It will not be a clear unfettered road for the public transit. They will still have to stop at each stop light, they will still get slowed down by traffic in intersections. Dedicated lanes are not the same as a dedicated right of way. As long as the system is at street level it will be no different than what we have right now.

That's incorrect. Because LRT will run on dedicated lanes, it will not get stuck behind traffic. It will also feature signal priority at intersections, so lights automagically turn green as the tram approaches.

Finally, as I noted earlier, a lane of LRT carries significantly more people than a lane of automobiles, so it will actually facilitate a gross* reduction in automobile traffic.

* N.B. I write "gross" because at the same time that LRT takes cars off the road, it also draws billions of dollars in new private investment, which will significantly increase the number of people living, working and recreating in the transit corridor (400-800 metres to either side of the line, depending on how you calculate it).

As a result of all that new activity, overall net traffic will probably increase. However, that traffic is best understood as an indicator of successful urban revitalization, not a problem to be solved by rationalizing traffic flows.

[Jon Dalton]

Also, BRT takes it's own lane so even if we half-ass it, we are going to lose traffic lanes. This was a City of Hamilton initiative even before LRT was discussed.

Hamilton has more traffic lanes per capita than ANY other Canadian city. We are about to lose 2 of them, that's all, we can deal with it.

[adam]

if cutting back lanes doesn't work for you, maybe you should get a smaller vehicle... or simply use the 403 and Red Hill. There are plenty of other options

OR (this is my favourite one)... leave your car at home and take the LRT!

[flar]

Hamilton has way too many lanes of traffic, the system was built when there were tens of thousands of jobs in the industrial north end. With the demographic shift to smaller household sizes in that part of the city and the loss of those thousands of industrial jobs, it's no longer necessary to move that many people.

[adam]

If its true what you say and there is no need to move that many people anymore, why is light rail such a good idea? Remember the lower city is over 300,000... much higher than the population way back when the roads were built.

[flar]

The lower city has been losing population in recent decades. It's mainly due to a demographic shift to smaller household sizes. Light rail would go toward reintensifying the lower city, especially on the business and commercial side of things, where the biggest losses have occurred. (industrial will never see the employment figures it once did).

[ryan_mcgreal]

Originally Posted by flar

The lower city has been losing population in recent decades.

That trend started to reverse in the last census. The lower city is now gaining population. LRT will only help to accelerate that growth.

[flar]

Originally Posted by ryan_mcgreal

That trend started to reverse in the last census. The lower city is now gaining population. LRT will only help to accelerate that growth.

Actually that's only the case in a few census tracts around downtown that saw decent growth (that's great news of course). Unfortunately, large areas of the east end declined in population by upwards of 10% between the last two censuses.

[adam]

Hamilton never needed all those lanes of traffic. New York City's density is many times higher and they have PLENTY of roads that are 3 lanes or less. Its not really a matter of population, its a matter of shifting from cars to more efficient modes of transportation AND because we need room on the roads (vast amounts of public space) for other activities and walking. On most sidewalks in Hamilton there isn't even enough width for two people to pass two other people coming the opposite way.

[bigguy1231]

Originally Posted by ryan_mcgreal

That's incorrect. Because LRT will run on dedicated lanes, it will not get stuck behind traffic. It will also feature signal priority at intersections, so lights automagically turn green as the tram approaches.

Finally, as I noted earlier, a lane of LRT carries significantly more people than a lane of automobiles, so it will actually facilitate a gross* reduction in automobile traffic.

* N.B. I write "gross" because at the same time that LRT takes cars off the road, it also draws billions of dollars in new private investment, which will significantly increase the number of people living, working and recreating in the transit corridor (400-800 metres to either side of the line, depending on how you calculate it).

As a result of all that new activity, overall net traffic will probably increase. However, that traffic is best understood as an indicator of successful urban revitalization, not a problem to be solved by rationalizing traffic flows.

Like I said in an earlier post I am not opposed to LRT or any other form of rapid transit for that matter. I actually think it would be a great thing for this city. But alot of questions are going to have to be answered before the people in this city get on board. If the proposed LRT in any way inhibits current traffic patterns, people are going to oppose it. Polls have shown people support it in principle, but when it comes right down to it they will support or not support it based on how it will effect them.

Now some of you may argue that the city should go ahead regardless of whether or not people oppose it. The reality is politicians want to keep their jobs. Anything that raises the ire of the public will be a hard sell to the politicians of this city.

Most people in this city and in most others do not use public transit. Public transit for the most part is used by the young, the old and those who cannot afford to own a car. A small percentage of the population actually choose to use public transit. I can count on one hand the number of times I have been on a bus since I first began to drive. Building an LRT is not going to change my preference.

This is not the field of dreams. If it is built it doesn't mean people are actually going to use it. It doesn't mean there is going to be billions of dollars in developement. It's all speculative. Hamilton is not like most other cities. What works elsewhere won't neccessarily work here. Because of our proximity to Toronto and our topography we are limited in what can be done and the possible benefits that may be realized.

[flar]

^^I agree with some of what you said, but I don't think Hamilton is so different from other cities. For example, in Ottawa the transit system is very extensive and it is used by many people who have cars or could easily afford to drive. The difference is that Ottawa's transit system offers the kind of service that people can use. So basically, if you build it they will come. That has been the experience in other cities and I see no reason why Hamilton should be so different.

[ryan_mcgreal]

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

Like I said in an earlier post I am not opposed to LRT or any other form of rapid transit for that matter. I actually think it would be a great thing for this city. But alot of questions are going to have to be answered before the people in this city get on board.

The community is already strongly on board. The massive and overwhelmingly positive public response to the city's public consultations on rapid transit is simply unprecedented.

As far as I know, not a single organization in the city opposes it (the Hamilton Halton Home Builders Association has not yet made a formal statement about LRT, but they generally agree with the Chamber of Commerce, which has formally endorsed LRT).

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

If the proposed LRT in any way inhibits current traffic patterns, people are going to oppose it.

The whole point is to change current traffic patterns.

In just about every North American city that has built LRT in the past decade, public support has increased steadily once the line was in operation. Once people can see with their own eyes how successful LRT is at attracting new riders and spurring economic development, even the detractors come around.

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

Hamilton is not like most other cities.

This is straightforward exceptionalism, and the squelchers of every city try to use it ("that might work somewhere else, but we're different!") to stop progress. Go back and read a history of Portland over the past few decades - the detractors in business, real estate and so on fought every step of Portland's transformation to a pedestrian, bicycle and transit-friendly city.

They said canceling the highway construction and building light rail instead would be a disaster. They said setting a firm urban boundary would kill the real estate business. They said sidewalk widening and bike lanes would infuriate motorists and spark a rebellion (Councillor Ferguson said something similar last year when he heard that the B-Line would run on a dedicated lane). They said no one would ever use the streetcars or buy condos in the Pearl District.

They were spectacularly wrong on all accounts. Portland is a thriving, vital city and its trajectory of urban revitalization and sustainability just gets more and more popular. (Watch RTH for jason's upcoming photo essay on Portland.)

The real estate industry quickly figured out how to make more money building condos than they ever made building suburban houses. Motorists figured out how to take the streetcar. Cyclists figured out how to use the bike lanes (Portland has by far the fastest growth in cycling of any North American city - field of dreams, indeed).

Portland has among the fastest rates of population growth of any American city as people flock there from all over the country to enjoy a quality of life that their own cities are too myopic or fearful to implement. Those people are mainly young, well-educated, and creative, and a high percentage of them start their own businesses in innovative fields.

People are people, and people respond to incentives. What seems impossible or implausible or impractical in a given political context can change dramatically when the framework changes.

[emge]

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

This is not the field of dreams. If it is built it doesn't mean people are actually going to use it. It doesn't mean there is going to be billions of dollars in developement. It's all speculative. Hamilton is not like most other cities. What works elsewhere won't neccessarily work here. Because of our proximity to Toronto and our topography we are limited in what can be done and the possible benefits that may be realized.

(as I preview my post, I see Ryan has again said it much better than myself, as he's directly involved with Hamilton Light Rail. But I'll still offer my "bystander's perspective")

I have been to a light rail meeting or two. But in general, I'm just someone who's been watching, reading, listening. I've certainly learned a lot by doing that. And some of the things you're saying are just plain inaccurate.

I simply want to help clear a few things up. I do hope you look into this yourself and get a bit better informed.

I think you'd be pleasantly surprised.

There's many case studies done in cities (and many are far more similar to Hamilton than Toronto) looking at ridership and economic benefits. There's well-documented evidence that LRT does draw in new ridership and cause development. Looking only at the cities with similar populations (or even less people) than Hamilton, you still see the same benefit. Our suburbs are well-positioned for endpoints and stations on light rail. We're in a good place to do this.

It is rather surprising how many people thought they would never ride transit, and never use anything besides their cars, but once light rail was built they found themselves using it. But to state that "the people of the city" aren't on board yet to get it in Hamilton isn't accurate - overwhelmingly, the city is already on board, and you might be the one missing the train (somewhat literally...?).

One of the reasons it's a good idea is because it HAS worked in cities very much like ours.

LRT began to change the mentality towards transit in those cities also, a mentality you've so well-summarized in your final eight or nine sentences. And like you said, it's the mentality of many in this city also. And like other cities, the LRT will only change things if there's real benefits to it. If light rail wasn't faster, cleaner, more efficient, and well... sexier than ye olde bus.. it wouldn't change anyone's mind or bring any development around it. But it is... and it does.

The so-called "topography" issue is one tunnel through the escarpment. That's it. Leaving aside any much-less-useful option using an existing mountain access, even that is an issue to be dealt with after the construction of a successful B-line that's proven its benefits well before a second one is in the works.

[adam]

Take it a step further and convert lanes on either side of multi-lane streets to parking lanes. Increased revenue for the city with parking meters. Come on, this is a no brainer. Every city worth its salt has parking lanes on wide streets. This would eliminate the need for urban parking lots downtown.