[omro]

http://i367.photobucket.com/albums/oo116/MerBot/128857780816385979.png

This pic made me laugh :haha:

[omro]

http://www.raisethehammer.org/images/lrt_route_preferred_option_2009_03.jpg


How much more expensive will this route be to implement rather than running the LRT along Main, which looks like a much shorter, straighter route and therefore faster and cheaper to build route?

BTW: I am biased towards LRT solely on Main. However, I'm also biased towards LRT in Hamilton in general. This city needs it!

[adam]

So let me get this straight, we are NOT getting a high speed rickshaw lane?? Mic? BigGuy? Are you disappointed now?

[mishap]

How much more expensive will this route be to implement rather than running the LRT along Main, which looks like a much shorter, straighter route and therefore faster and cheaper to build route?

Apparently, it's $25M/km for two-way, and the King routing is 1km long than Main, so an extra $25M. Given the size of the project, not a huge difference if it better suits the city's objectives.

For one-way, the difference would have been about $45M more, given $15M/km each way where the rails are split. Costs east and west of the split would remain the same. That's getting a bit expensive.

BTW: I am biased towards LRT solely on Main. However, I'm also biased towards LRT in Hamilton in general. This city needs it!
I prefer Main as well, but King is the next best thing. At least it's not the one-way split.

[go_leafs_go02]

From RTH....

Rapid Transit Office now has a perferred B-Line route....

http://www.raisethehammer.org/images/lrt_route_preferred_option_2009_03.jpg

Two way LRT for it's entire route, using King St instead of Main St from Paradise Road to the Delta Square. Convert Main and King St back to two way car traffic.
did they ever consider then the major upgrades changes needed to the 403/King/Main interchange if it is to be put through there, and traffic direction is 2-way?

I totally am in favour of using King Street over Main, and of course, 2-way traffic for both.

EDIT: Actually looks like that map has some 'new' ramps in that location.

[SteelTown]

You can read the entire report, LRT FUNCTIONAL PLANNING ANALYSIS:
B – LINE CORRIDOR......

http://www.myhamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/D621ED86-7308-4E4D-A389-CAD7CEE8583B/0/FunctionalPlanningAnalysis.pdf

You can see the map more clearly on page 14. Page 23 is the best overview.

[bigguy1231]

Everything in the previous post about streetcars is misinformation. Whether this was done deliberately or out of ignorance is anyone's guess

What misinformation, if you run rails down a main street and put streetcars on it thats exactly what it is, a streetcar. It is not rapid transit. It will be subject to the limitations of the current and future traffic patterns. It doesn't matter whether you sychronize traffic lights or not. Just because a light is red doesn't mean traffic is going to move to give these streetcars the right of way, they will still have to pass through intersections. If you think traffic is bad now just wait until King and Main Sts become 2 way, then we will see traffic congestion like we have never seen before in this city.

Just because you build something and tell people its a better way to do things doesn't make it better. The reality is 80% of the people in this city will never use these streetcars just as 80% don't use the HSR now.

[emge]

Glad a few posters found the picture funny. I had a little fun making it.

Re: the differences between streetcars and light rail.

The differences are a bit bigger than just signal priority, there's also capacity, speed, and frequency of stops. I'm sure there's more but that's what immediately comes to mind:

Signal priority
Typically streetcars work with the current turning and passing lanes, sometimes with signal priority.

In addition to signal priority, light rail has an active barrier from the street and an exclusive lane. Cars have to flow around them, it's not a shared right-of-way.

Frequency/design of stops
Streetcars stop much more often than light rail and are designed for lighter corridors. For streetcars, speed isn't a priority, like it is with light rail. Streetcars function like buses - light rail goes between hubs. Light rail generally has dedicated platforms, not just posts with signs.

Capacity
Streetcars are single vehicles, while light rail operates with multiple cars linked together, significantly increasing capacity. The individual cars also usually hold more people than a streetcar. The difference in design affects speed as well.

Vehicle design and speed
The vehicle design is different, and top speed is higher for light rail than streetcars: along with less frequent stops, higher capacity, and a much better priority system, light rail is a far faster system

There's more differences, but that's a start. And for drivers that's a good thing, because a fast, efficient system like light rail will get lots of other cars off the street and enable you to zoom down King just fine ;) One line of light rail has about 8x the capacity of a line of freeway traffic in peak hours, so a well-used light rail system will actually help traffic quite a bit.

[FairHamilton]

If you think traffic is bad now just wait until King and Main Sts become 2 way, then we will see traffic congestion like we have never seen before in this city.

Simply put, people will have to alter their driving patterns.

With the opening of the Red Hill Parkway drivers who are west of the 403 should not be driving through Hamilton to get the east end of the city, i.e Stoney Creek. They should be taking the 403, Linc, Red Hill. And vice-versa.

I live in Ward 3, and it's a drive-thru Ward. So much so, that Tim Horton's is replacing sit down locations with drive-thru's. Anything that reduces drive-thru's in my Ward is a positive in my opinion.

[omro]

I live in Ward 3, and it's a drive-thru Ward. So much so, that Tim Horton's is replacing sit down locations with drive-thru's. Anything that reduces drive-thru's in my Ward is a positive in my opinion.

I've walked past that TH they've bulldozed on Main (forget the cross-street) in favour of building a drive-thru. Sad. Very sad. It's a sign that that Main is seen more for cars than for people, which is one of the reasons why I want LRT on that Main, as it needs the biggest change in focus. More so than King. Hopefully, when Main is less of a highway through the city, whether thanks to LRT or two-way conversion, they'll change it back to include seating or it'll become something else.

[bigguy1231]

Simply put, people will have to alter their driving patterns.

With the opening of the Red Hill Parkway drivers who are west of the 403 should not be driving through Hamilton to get the east end of the city, i.e Stoney Creek. They should be taking the 403, Linc, Red Hill. And vice-versa.

I live in Ward 3, and it's a drive-thru Ward. So much so, that Tim Horton's is replacing sit down locations with drive-thru's. Anything that reduces drive-thru's in my Ward is a positive in my opinion.

I totally agree with you, people will alter their driving patterns. They won't go anywhere near downtown Hamilton. But just remember, if people don't go downtown we will not have a downtown. You cannot force people to use public transit if they don't want to.

All this will do is shift traffic from one area of the city to another. The reason that people just drive through the downtown now is that there is nothing there to stop for. There are no department stores, very few chain stores and basically very little commercial activity. Adding streetcars is not going to change that. The only difference is going to be the noise of empty streetcars passing through the same areas of empty storefronts. Maybe they can build a drive through Timmies that the streetcars can pull up to. At least they would have a reason to stop there then.

[bigguy1231]

Emge, I do understand the difference between the 2. My point is the system as proposed will have to pass through hundreds of intersections along the route. It does not matter if they have a dedicated right of way East and West. They still have to cross the North/South streets.

What you are assuming is that people will yield the right of way in those intersections. We all know that is not going to happen. All it's going to take to throw a monkey wrench into the whole system is for a car to breakdown on the tracks or an accident to happen. Even traffic getting backed up through an intersection will slow the system down.

I am not opposed to rapid transit, but to me this just isn't rapid transit. To me rapid transit would be trains on rails with dedicated thorough fares, no cross streets, no obstructions. The only way that is going to happen in this city is to either go underground, my preference, or elevate it.

I cannot see wasting a couple of billion dollars for something that is essentially no better than what we already have. The other concern I have is who is going to pay to operate this system once it is built. The people who are advocating this system are assuming that there is going to be a 30-40% increase in ridership. What if that does not happen? Who is going to pay? I know I am not willing to subsidize something that will be a moneypit if the projections are wrong.

[mic67]

bigguy1231

Regardless you still have it right.

Like you said you are NOT against rapid transit, it would be great for Hamilton, and I would embrace it. but right of way or not it can not be considered rapid transit. The StClair line in toronto is dedicated, that will probably work?

If they can create something like the new center mall just imagine how they can mess up a rapid transit system.

I have no bias, but what they are trying to justify as rapid transit in Ham. is about as close to retarded as you can get - for an LRT rail system. Too many falsely believe or have bias.

bigguy1231 - Right On.

Mic67

[omro]

If they can create something like the new center mall just imagine how they can mess up a rapid transit system.

I thought Centre Mall was built by a big box development corporation, not a regional transporation authority. :shrug:

[SteelTown]

I'd suggest you read this report, LRT Technology Analysis for B-Line......

http://www.myhamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/A5E6E5F1-C6AD-4745-A733-166A3EDF079F/0/TechnologyAnalysis.pdf

[emge]

Perhaps there's some confusion on right-of-way and signal priority? (Read page 28 in the aforementioned document if need be).

Of course, if it were up to motorists to yield, those problems identified would be correct, and it would be silly to hypothesize an LRT like that would be "rapid." You can't depend on the goodwill/patience of drivers to make your transit system work.

But the percentage of drivers that fail to understand one can't drive through an intersection when facing a red light is pretty minimal, and I imagine it might decrease further when driving through means being obliterated by a train, not "just" T-boning by a Honda Civic.

[bigguy1231]

I read the information regarding the signal priortization and thats fine for signalled intersections which only represent about 10% of the intersections along the proposed route. What about the other 90% that are not controlled.

If the proponents of this system are suggesting that all other intersections be closed then this system is dead in the water. It will never be approved. It would essentially divide the lower city in half which would not be acceptable to people who live in those neighborhoods or others who have to travel in those areas for whatever reason.

I am afraid the those of you who are proponents of this system in your zeal have forgotten that the majority of people in this city will not use this system and will not take kindly to being inconvenienced for the benefit of the few who will use it. Votes matter, and when it comes right down to it politicians will do what their constituents want. I can guarantee you something that will disrupt peoples lives as much as this will, will not be approved.

[FairHamilton]

I totally agree with you, people will alter their driving patterns. They won't go anywhere near downtown Hamilton. But just remember, if people don't go downtown we will not have a downtown. You cannot force people to use public transit if they don't want to.

These people don't go anywhere near downtown now, so downtown is losing nothing. They drive through with no intention of ever stopping, period. I'd argue even as they drive through in their cars they are not in downtown. They are in fact in their insulated 60+km/hr car on a road. And that road could be anywhere in the country to their mindset.

All this will do is shift traffic from one area of the city to another. The reason that people just drive through the downtown now is that there is nothing there to stop for. There are no department stores, very few chain stores and basically very little commercial activity. Adding streetcars is not going to change that. The only difference is going to be the noise of empty streetcars passing through the same areas of empty storefronts. Maybe they can build a drive through Timmies that the streetcars can pull up to. At least they would have a reason to stop there then.

I agree, that adding streetcars will not miraculously attract new commercial activity. I think it will be one part of a greater change, and 2 way street conversion is also part of that greater change.

What the changes will do is set the foundation for change to occur, and the streetcars will not be empty, just as the buses are not empty today.

I'll extend an invitation to you, and anyone else, to walk large stretches of King/Main Streets between Gage & Wellington to observe and talk about what works and doesn't work along those streets.

[BrianE]

Where's McGreal when you need him?

Someone needs to inform Bigguy and Mic67 that this "Streetcar" system that they're so opposed to is not even what is being proposed. Wake up guys. Read the some of the previous 50 pages in this thread and get an idea of the Rapid Transit that is in the planning stages right now.

"The reason that people just drive through the downtown now is that there is nothing there to stop for."

This reasoning is unfortunately shared by many people in Hamilton. Nobody stops to think that maybe the opposite is true.

-The reason there is nothing to stop for downtown is due to a road network that is 100% geared towards driving through.-

Also, consider the outmoded idea that downtown's are only possible when suburban residents have easy access by car. This was widely believed to be true in 1950's and 1960's, hence the whole sale conversion to one way streets. Given the decline of Hamilton's downtown since then I think partial blame rests on this philosophy. (Yes I know, socio economic factors, migration to the suburbs throughout North America... all true as well).

How about trying this idea on for size? How about if businesses downtown made a living off of the people that actualy live downtown? I know! Crazy isn't it? Who would want to live downtown? It's so cramped and all that through traffic and road noise and nowhere to park your car (need that car you know, its the fastest way to get where you're going in this town). It's Terrible!

What if you could get somewhere in Hamilton by public transit faster than you could by car? Everybody knows that's impossible! But nobody stops to consider why? The reason is 40 years of building a road network with the single purpose of getting Car "A" from McMaster to Eastgate in 20 minutes flat. A feat that would take twice as long in any other city in North America.

One last thing. Like FairHamilton, I live in Ward 3. This means that of all the people in Hamilton we will be affected most by lane reductions on Main and King St. And yet I'm 100% in favor of LRT and or converting Main to 2 way. Sure I won't be able to blast through downtown from the 403 to my house in 5 minutes during rush hour anymore. But a calmer Main St. will most likely mean I'll eventualy be able to walk to a decent restaurant along Main or do some other shopping at future businesses that don't have to contend with a roaring 4 lane highway just feet from their doors..

[adam]

LRT at street level is a big plus. Isolating one element in the city from others was tested out in the 1970's when they built Jackson Square. Big failure. If we want a vibrant downtown then the model we have to look at is in Europe. Seldom will you find more than 2 lanes of automobiles, but you will find bike lanes, wide sidewalks and cars that YIELD to pedestrians. Transit brings you to the city centre where there are all the amenities including grocery stores, department stores, markets, theatres, etc, etc. The city has life and it is impossible for cars to go above 50km/h. The time of the automobile is gone, check out Chrysler, they are mothballing, heck, even Honda is going to barely break even this year. The younger generation that is coming up to the work force isn't buying cars in droves. They want to be close to amenities, be able to walk to get a bag of milk, they want to run into friends downtown. Different mindset. Either teach yourself a new trick or be considered an old dog.

We have to remember that automobiles that overrun all of our public space is a relatively new phenomenon. It hasn't always been that way, and it won't always be that way. People are still people... everyone is miserable in traffic jams. People who are on the street walking past shops and tree lined streets are living a lifestyle that is conducive to some kind of culture. You can buy a $60k car but you'll still be sitting in traffic, you'll be disconnected from your environment. That model is out of date.

[emge]

My husband and I picked Florence to honeymoon in because of its amazing walkability and scale (as well as history)... and coming back to Ontario was such a rude awakening. We're so impoverished for vision (and beauty in design) here it's scary.

(It's also kind of scary some folks think its impossible to stop at your stop sign and look both ways when going through an intersection. That said, with signal priority I'm guessing there has to be some system in place at currently unsignaled intersections?)

[oldcoote]

If you think traffic is bad now just wait until King and Main Sts become 2 way, then we will see traffic congestion like we have never seen before in this city.

Traffic is bad?

[highwater]

I am afraid the those of you who are proponents of this system in your zeal have forgotten that the majority of people in this city will not use this system and will not take kindly to being inconvenienced for the benefit of the few who will use it. Votes matter, and when it comes right down to it politicians will do what their constituents want. I can guarantee you something that will disrupt peoples lives as much as this will, will not be approved.

You really shouldn't go around making these assertions when you clearly have not been following the debate. You are at least correct when you state that politicians will do what their constituents want, which is why the majority of councillors support LRT. All public consultations to date have shown overwhelming public support for LRT. Even Lloyd Ferguson has seen the writing on the wall.

[Millstone]

The time of the automobile is gone, check out Chrysler, they are mothballing, heck, even Honda is going to barely break even this year. The younger generation that is coming up to the work force isn't buying cars in droves. They want to be close to amenities, be able to walk to get a bag of milk, they want to run into friends downtown. Different mindset. Either teach yourself a new trick or be considered an old dog.

The "time of the automobile" is not "gone", that's completely preposterous. You're conveniently ignoring the global financial crisis that has more to do with this than you're allowing. And most cars don't cost $60k, they cost more like $20-30k. But you wouldn't know that, you're anti-car and shouldn't speak on the subject anyway.

[highwater]

But you wouldn't know that, you're anti-car and shouldn't speak on the subject anyway.

By that logic, bigguy and mic67 shouldn't speak about LRT.

[flar]

After a month in Ottawa, it is truly disturbing to hear some of the comments about transit/roads in Hamilton.

First, Ottawa has more traffic congestion than Hamilton (by far), yet people here somehow still manage to accept bus only lanes (not just a few, they are all over the city--both downtown and suburban areas). There are bike lanes everywhere too.

Second, I've changed my mind about middle class suburbanites using transit. In Ottawa there are plenty of people with big fat salaries who leave their cars at home and take a bus to work. If you build transit that people can actually use, they will in fact use it. Ottawa is a more suburban oriented city than Hamilton too.

[ryan_mcgreal]

Where's McGreal when you need him?

Somebody on the Internet needs me!

The reality is 80% of the people in this city will never use these streetcars just as 80% don't use the HSR now.

The evidence does not support your assertion. In every city that has buildt a system in the past decade, LRT is much better at attracting and retaining new riders than buses or BRT.

people will alter their driving patterns. They won't go anywhere near downtown Hamilton.

People said exactly the same thing about the King-Spadina Secondary Plan in Toronto: How will people get there? The answer is that people:

a) Moved into the neighbourhood in droves; and
b) Took the streetcar. *

* Note: the Spadina streetcar really is a streetcar, riding on the traditional TTC gauge, making frequent stops, and running in mixed traffic. Hamilton's LRT system will run on dedicated lanes with signal priority.

What you are assuming is that people will yield the right of way in those intersections.

People generally stop when the light turns red.

All it's going to take to throw a monkey wrench into the whole system is for a car to breakdown on the tracks or an accident to happen.

So you're basing your assessment of the entire system on an uncommon edge case? Your argument smacks of desperation.

I am not opposed to rapid transit, but to me this just isn't rapid transit. To me rapid transit would be trains on rails with dedicated thorough fares, no cross streets, no obstructions. The only way that is going to happen in this city is to either go underground, my preference, or elevate it.

My understanding is that Hamilton is ill-suited to underground transit, and above-grade transit would severely degrade the neighbourhoods over which it towers. The idea is for the transportation system to benefit neighbourhoods, unlike the situation today with our urban expressways.

In any case, you can't just redefine "rapid transit" arbitrarily so that the proposed system - whatever it is - doesn't conform. Frankly, it sounds like you're rationalizing here.

I cannot see wasting a couple of billion dollars for something that is essentially no better than what we already have.

1. The system is projected to cost around $1 billion, not "a couple of billion dollars".

2. Considerably faster than buses (notwishstanding the slew of broken down cars that you anticipate crossing the rail lines).

3. Operating costs 25-75% lower than buses.

4. Longer vehicle life and lower lifecycle costs.

5. Much higher net ridership gains than buses or BRT.

6. Dramatically higher rates of private investment along the transit corridor (developers seem to know something about LRT that you aren't seeing).

7. Less susceptible to energy price volatility.

8. No emissions at the tailpipe.

The people who are advocating this system are assuming that there is going to be a 30-40% increase in ridership. What if that does not happen?

Why would the ridership gains experienced in every other city that has built LRT in the past decade not materialize here? Note: garden variety exceptionalism disallowed as a response.

I know I am not willing to subsidize something that will be a moneypit if the projections are wrong.

The normal course is for ridership gains to exceed projections significantly.

[ryan_mcgreal]

And most cars don't cost $60k, they cost more like $20-30k.

The average small car costs some $10,000 per year in total operating costs, even with the massive public subsidies that make mass car ownership economically viable.

[Jon Dalton]

Bigguy1231: Have you ever been to a city that has light rail similar to what is proposed here? I've been to several. The trains don't stop at intersections. Drivers do yield the right of way. Traffic mayhem does not occur. 80% of people are not opposed to it.

[mic67]

On Friday at about 3pm I was going east bound to eastgate mall and from - just before - Nash Rd. it took almost as long to get to the mall as it did to get to that point from the delta.

Point being right of way would be useless in such a situation.

Neither big guy nor I am against rapid transit but the only way that a true rapid transit would work is as big guy first pointed out.

Why didnt they go with right of way on StClair in Toronto?

Ha...the Ham. LRT only cost 1 billion, very unlikely.

When I think of Ham. LRT, I think of the horrendous link that Ham. has to Canada's financial capital Toronto, a 15 minute link via rapid transit is possible, why hasnt that happened it will do more for Ham. than any local LRT.

Like I said before they havent got a link from Pearson to Union station, and Toronto is a world class city.

Ormro, those that built center mall wont build an LRT system, that ought to be obvious - the stupidity of what center mall now is but stands an excellent chance of being carried over into an LRT sys. for Ham.

I cant think of any place like center mall - say in Toronto, the only other place sort of like it was the Medowlands and I did not even get off the bus for that.

If there is no dedicated land for an LRT, its not rapid transit. If you make dedicated lanes on King or Main, that wont work either.

The rail line just north of Barton is really very wide, dont know much about it...utilize it?

It seems that many 1/2 of those who get on at mcnab go all the way to eastgate???

mic67

[drpgq]

I'm for LRT, but if you really want to help downtown, even out the mill rates for multi-residential versus houses. 4.05% versus 1.65% is frankly ridiculous.

[ryan_mcgreal]

On Friday at about 3pm I was going east bound to eastgate mall and from - just before - Nash Rd. it took almost as long to get to the mall as it did to get to that point from the delta.

That pertains to LRT on Main and King ... how, exactly?

Ha...the Ham. LRT only cost 1 billion, very unlikely.

Why? Pricing for LRT is pretty well understood.

When I think of Ham. LRT, I think of the horrendous link that Ham. has to Canada's financial capital Toronto, a 15 minute link via rapid transit is possible, why hasnt that happened it will do more for Ham. than any local LRT.

You're talking about long-distance high speed rail, not rapid transit. I would support both, but a transit system that links Hamilton to Toronto would not, by itself, provide Hamilton with the local higher order transit it needs. It's certainly not a replacement for a fast, comfortable means of getting around Hamilton.

Ormro, those that built center mall wont build an LRT system, that ought to be obvious - the stupidity of what center mall now is but stands an excellent chance of being carried over into an LRT sys. for Ham.

Why? Different people are responsible for it, city staff working on it are demonstrating understanding of the issues, and the province has final jurisdiction over technology, routing and so on. Also, LRT is a citizen-based initiative, not a developer initiative.

I cant think of any place like center mall - say in Toronto, the only other place sort of like it was the Medowlands and I did not even get off the bus for that.

Last time I was in the Beaches neighbourhood, local activists were campaigning against a big box development planned for Queen St E. Stupidity is everywhere - Hamilton hardly has a monopoly on bad planning.

If there is no dedicated land for an LRT, its not rapid transit. If you make dedicated lanes on King or Main, that wont work either.

Why? No one has made a convincing argument for why dedicated lanes with signal priority on Main and King somehow magically don't qualify as "dedicate land for an LRT".

The rail line just north of Barton is really very wide, dont know much about it...utilize it?

AFAIK freight rail has first priority on those rails, so using them for regular LRT service is a non-starter.

[ryan_mcgreal]

I'm for LRT, but if you really want to help downtown, even out the mill rates for multi-residential versus houses. 4.05% versus 1.65% is frankly ridiculous.

Why not both? The latter doesn't preclude the former.

[mic67]

That pertains to LRT on Main and King ... how, exactly?

Well if the road is filled with cars right of way is useless, if it is dedicated land then traffic jams are of no matter.

Pricing for LRT may be understood by some but not others and certainly the greed factor, not many such projects come in on budget.

Point - a link to TO is more important than an LRT for Hamilton.
The HSR makes the TTC look like amatures.
Point - if they can not get a decent link to TO or from Pearson to union you think they and get an LRT right in Ham???ha

Whether citizen or developer based - stupidity is universal - given the above I dont have the faith.

Hamilton hardly has a monopoly on bad planning.

Center mall, medowlands are mighty fine examples.

Why? No one has made a convincing argument for why dedicated lanes with signal priority on Main and King somehow magically don't qualify as "dedicate land for an LRT".

Ok...your "dedicated lanes" is land that at no time will cars ever be able to use, if it is on level with the car lanes then I doubt it, has "right of way" now been changed to dedicated?

AFAIK freight rail has first priority on those rails, so using them for regular LRT service is a non-starter.

Not one HSR driver thinks - it, or will there be an LRT in Hamilton, that I have asked.

Then change it,pretty simple.

[adam]

LRT is increasingly important for attracting the new working generation that is replacing the baby boomers.. (and replacing the steel industry that is leaving/has left Hamilton)

Many in the younger generation think it is ridiculous to spend a whole year's after-tax salary on a car that is going to break down in 5-6 years. These folks are quickly filling up condos in urban centres because they would rather take mass transit and put their hard-earned money into things that are more important to them like hobbies and entertainment.

So.... is Hamilton going to be left behind and give up now that the steel industry is gone, or will it attract the right kind of people for economic growth and utilize its potential as an urban destination?

[bigguy1231]

You really shouldn't go around making these assertions when you clearly have not been following the debate. You are at least correct when you state that politicians will do what their constituents want, which is why the majority of councillors support LRT. All public consultations to date have shown overwhelming public support for LRT. Even Lloyd Ferguson has seen the writing on the wall.

Just because I don't agree with the few who post here and have a different point of view regarding rapid transit doesn't mean I have not been following the debate. I have stated numerous times that I am in favour of rapid transit for this city.Unfortunately, like most narrowminded zealots, many of you figure your way is the only way.

As for public support for LRT, I agree, there is overwhelming support for it, for now. The problem is people were expecting one thing but are going to get something totally different than what they expect. People expect something other than streetcars. They expect rapid transit. What is being proposed is not rapid transit, it is mass transit. There is a difference.

The public consultation process is not a good indicator of support, since the only people who usually attend these meetings are the most ardent supporters. The people that will oppose this proposal will deal directly with their councillors through phone calls, emails and their votes. Next year is an election year. As for the politicians, of course they are going to support the idea of rapid transit, especially when most of the funding is comming from elsewhere. But they are only supporting it in principle for now. They will make up their minds yea or nay once the final proposal is presented and they hear from their constituents.

[ryan_mcgreal]

Well if the road is filled with cars right of way is useless, if it is dedicated land then traffic jams are of no matter.

Then you'll be glad to know that the LRT will run on dedicated lanes.

Pricing for LRT may be understood by some but not others and certainly the greed factor, not many such projects come in on budget.

Nope (http://www.lightrailnow.org/myths/m_lrt009.htm).

Point - a link to TO is more important than an LRT for Hamilton.

They're both equally important, and serve different goals.

Remember, despite the received wisdom Hamilton is not a bedroom community for Toronto. We have our own local economy, and one of the goals of LRT is to increase local business investment in the city, leading to more local jobs.

The HSR makes the TTC look like amatures. Point - if they can not get a decent link to TO or from Pearson to union you think they and get an LRT right in Ham???ha

Good thing the TTC isn't running Metrolinx.

Whether citizen or developer based - stupidity is universal - given the above I dont have the faith.

Yet numerous cities have turned their downtowns and fortunes around by building LRT systems and establishing a regulatory TOD corridor around it. Your cynicism is not supported by the evidence.

Ok...your "dedicated lanes" is land that at no time will cars ever be able to use, if it is on level with the car lanes then I doubt it, has "right of way" now been changed to dedicated?

Whatever you do, don't conduct any research before drawing conclusions. The inentiona has always been to put LRT on "dedicated" lanes with a clear demarcation from vehicular traffic.

Not one HSR driver thinks - it, or will there be an LRT in Hamilton, that I have asked.

???

I have stated numerous times that I am in favour of rapid transit for this city.Unfortunately, like most narrowminded zealots, many of you figure your way is the only way.

In fact, it is you who persists in harbouring an impossibly narrow definition of "rapid transit" that is calculated to exclude every plausible rapid transit option for Hamilton.

The public consultation process is not a good indicator of support, since the only people who usually attend these meetings are the most ardent supporters.

Normally, this is true. But normally, the public consultation process for a city project draws ten or fifteen people.

The public meetings back in May of last year drew hundreds of participants, and the ongoing public consultation has drawn well over two thousand responses - plus overwhelmingly positive direct contact with councillors across the city. That's absolutely unprecedented for any city consultation with the public - it's right off the charts. The staffers working on this have never seen anything like it before.

[mic67]

When you say "dedicated lanes", it seems that you are being purposely vague. That is why I tried to be very specific>>>

Originally Posted by mic67
Ok...your "dedicated lanes" is land that at no time will cars ever be able to use, if it is on level with the car lanes then I doubt it, has "right of way" now been changed to dedicated?

The discussion was about "right of way".

Now what I am understanding is there will be dedicated lane - meaning that the LRT will always occupy that space consistently when needed, but when not used by the LRT it will be used by cars?

Dedicated lanes with "right of way", if that is the truth, meaning that cars can also use those lanes when right of way is not in use the LRT - then you calling dedicated lanes for the LRT is very misleading, that is why I was very specific "that at no time will cars ever be able to use".

As you said " The inentiona has always been to put LRT on "dedicated" lanes with a clear demarcation from vehicular traffic."

-----------------

not many such projects come in on budget - sorry that is fact.

-----------------

Good thing the TTC isn't running Metrolinx. Yep they can probably screw it up without the TTC's help.

----------------

Originally Posted by mic67
Not one HSR driver thinks - it, or will there be an LRT in Hamilton, that I have asked.

Of all the drivers I have asked none think that an LRT will happen or be viable.

---------------

" narrow definition of "rapid transit" that is calculated to exclude every plausible rapid transit option for Hamilton."

No, bigguy made the distinction between rapid transit and mass transit. What I understood he said was that for it to be rapid transit it lanes (above or below ground, or possibly slightly raised like the StClair line in Toronto) and not just right of way dedicated lanes.

--------------

Fact is I agree with bigguy, the public will think they are getting one thing but infact will get something totally different.

Look and understand what and why they did what they did with the Stclair Line in TO, no cars will ever be able to use that land to drive on, so I would consider that rapid transit.

Mic67

[mic67]

Humm after a little more consideration.

Ok...the LTR will be one the same grade (level) as cars and the lane that they use will be dedicated meaning that cars can not ever use that lane (??an assumption for now), and a painted line on the road is what makes that lane dedicated.

Great now, or when it is realized that this will not work, hey no problem they will make the rapid transit into a street car system, right? And the public will get something different.


"In fact, it is you who persists in harbouring an impossibly narrow definition of "rapid transit" that is calculated to exclude every plausible rapid transit option for Hamilton."

If a raise LRT is not an option, if an underground LRT is not an option and a dedicated NO CAR USE on grade option is not viable. Then there is no viable rapid transit option for Hamilton, it just a street car system.

How come hamilton doesn have any rickshaws?

What would bigguy see as possiblities?

mic67

[SteelTown]

Humm after a little more consideration.

Ok...the LTR will be one the same grade (level) as cars and the lane that they use will be dedicated meaning that cars can not ever use that lane (??an assumption for now), and a painted line on the road is what makes that lane dedicated.


Hell even the A-Line will have dedicated lanes even if it'll turn out to be BRT instead of LRT.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v384/Aallen396/UpperJames.jpg
You'd look like an idiot if your driving a car on the dedicated lane, plus you instatly would get a fine, probably worth $150.

[adam]

LRT at the same grade as the rest of the road works fine in many cities. I've experienced it firsthand. It is accessible and adds to the street life. Keep in mind LRT is very quiet and is a welcome addition for shopping areas, restaurants, living areas, condos, etc.

[ryan_mcgreal]

When you say "dedicated lanes", it seems that you are being purposely vague.

sigh "Dedicated lanes" means only LRT vehicles are allowed to use them - as has been clarified multiple times in these pages. There's nothing vague about it.

Ok...your "dedicated lanes" is land that at no time will cars ever be able to use, if it is on level with the car lanes then I doubt it, has "right of way" now been changed to dedicated?

The only time cars will be able to cross the rail lines are at signalized intersections. Otherwise, LRT vehicles are the only vehicles allowed to travel on the dedicated lanes. To claim that this means the lanes aren't "dedicated" is to claim similarly that sidewalks aren't "dedicated" to pedestrians because cars can cross them at intersections.

but when not used by the LRT it will be used by cars?

No, if cars were allowed to use the lanes, they wouldn't be "dedicated" to LRT.

not many such projects come in on budget - sorry that is fact.

No, the empirical, verifiable fact is that most LRT projects come in on (or under) budget.

Of all the drivers I have asked none think that an LRT will happen or be viable.

So? They're probably used to the transit status quo that has prevailed since the 1980s, a status quo of declining real budgets and curtailed service. LRT is meant to be transformative - to change the status quo.

I'm not surprised that some HSR operators need to see it to believe it, but that sentiment certainly isn't universal. The operators I've talked to have generally gone from being dismissive to skeptical to cautiously optimistic over the past year.

Of course, both your and my experiences talking to operators are anecdotal, not representative - and in any case, whether a majority of operators think LRT is going to happen has no influence over whether the project goes ahead.

No, bigguy made the distinction between rapid transit and mass transit. What I understood he said was that for it to be rapid transit it lanes (above or below ground, or possibly slightly raised like the StClair line in Toronto) and not just right of way dedicated lanes.

That's an arbitrarily narrow definition, and it breaks with the common use of the term in transportation planning. It's nothing but grasping at straws - and at this point, it probably represents sheer stubborn refusal to "lose face" and give up an increasingly ridiculous opposition to a plausible, feasible, achievable project that has excellent prospects for success.

If [A] a raise LRT is not an option, if [B] an underground LRT is not an option and [C] a dedicated NO CAR USE on grade option is not viable. Then there is no viable rapid transit option for Hamilton, it just a street car system. [option numeration added]

You have absolutely no basis on which to conclude that option [C] is not viable. You're engaging in pure speculation now - speculation totally unsupported by the abundant evidence of other jurisdictions that have built LRT systems.

How come hamilton doesn have any rickshaws?

My guess is that our downtown is not densely populated or busy enough to provide a market for rickshaw operators. New transit-oriented development will help to change that. :)

[highwater]

Just because I don't agree with the few who post here and have a different point of view regarding rapid transit doesn't mean I have not been following the debate.

I didn't say that you hadn't been following the debate because you have a different point of view re LRT, I said it because you made an incorrect statement. As Ryan has pointed out, public support has been overwhelming and unprecedented. No one who had been following the debate would suggest otherwise.

As for public support for LRT, I agree, there is overwhelming support for it, for now. The problem is people were expecting one thing but are going to get something totally different than what they expect.

Nice goalpost move. So now you're saying that people support it now because they think it will be like other successful examples we've seen, but when they get a load of the system you have in your imagination, well, then they won't support it anymore. Nice try.

The public consultation process is not a good indicator of support, since the only people who usually attend these meetings are the most ardent supporters.

DiIanni? Is that you?

[bigguy1231]

Nice goalpost move. So now you're saying that people support it now because they think it will be like other successful examples we've seen, but when they get a load of the system you have in your imagination, well, then they won't support it anymore. Nice try.


I just re read my post, and I said nothing like that, maybe you should work on your English comprehension skills.

People support it now because they are expecting rapid transit, not the streetcar system being proposed. They don't expect to see a major tranportation artery in this city, King St., being rendered useless either.

The successful examples people keep citing are succesful because they were run into what were already for the most part, vibrant downtowns. We do not have a vibrant downtown, and there is no guarantee this will help. We do not have a large white collar work force in the downtown, we do not have many high paying jobs in the downtown, we do not have a vibrant retail sector in the downtown and other than Hess Village in the summer we do not have much of a social scene in the downtown. Spending a billion dollars on a streetcar system is not going to change a thing. If we build it they will not neccessarily come.

[FairHamilton]

in the summer we do not have much of a social scene in the downtown.

A group of us are planning to get together for some drinks and take in the James Street North Art Crawl this coming Friday night. I (and others) believe, only people can change the social scene by participating in that change.

Here's my invitation for you to join us. in the past, I've challenged others to join in social outings, but they always seem to have something 'better' to do. Will you break that trend, and accept the invitation?

Details on the gathering will follow.

[ryan_mcgreal]

People support it now because they are expecting rapid transit, not the streetcar system being proposed.

As has been argued to death on these pages, Hamilton is getting a rapid transit system - notwithstanding your attempt to define it away arbitrarily.

What I'd really like to see is something like this for the LRT lanes themselves:

http://raisethehammer.org/images/grenoble_transit_suburban_line.jpg

They don't expect to see a major transportation artery in this city, King St., being rendered useless either.

The fact that Main-King is a "major transportation artery" is the problem, not the solution. Most Hamiltonians understand that - they can see the deleterious effects of urban expressways and support the loss of lane capacity in exchange for rapid transit.

The successful examples people keep citing are succesful because they were run into what were already for the most part, vibrant downtowns.

On the contrary. Many recent LRT projects were specifically targeted to revitalize downtowns that were suffering disinvestment. Portland's Pearl District comes to mind - before the Portland Streetcar was built, it made downtown Hamilton look like midtown Manhattan. This is also true of the many LRT projects in European cities in the past few decades, who have revitalized their downtowns and intensified their suburbs.

We do not have a vibrant downtown

Spend some time around King and James- the sidewalk is thick with people from all walks of life going about their business. Downtown is running below capacity but is not nearly the basket case you seem to think.

We do not have a large white collar work force in the downtown,

Yes we do.

we do not have many high paying jobs in the downtown,

Yes we do.

we do not have a vibrant retail sector in the downtown

The retail sector is still hit and miss, but the trajectory is positive. Jackson Square (a suburban plan shoehorned into the downtown core) is under-invested but the Farmers' Market is bustling and vibrant. Business on James North is thriving, business on James South is picking up, business through the International Village is growing, business on King West past Bay is doing well, and business on John South is coming back to life.

other than Hess Village in the summer we do not have much of a social scene in the downtown.

I'll second FairHamilton's suggestion to attend the next James North Art Crawl. There are lots of social events downtown that are well-attended, and things will only get better as more people and businesses move downtown to take advantage of the new LRT system.

[BrianE]

I just re read my post, and I said nothing like that, maybe you should work on your English comprehension skills.

People support it now because they are expecting rapid transit, not the streetcar system being proposed. They don't expect to see a major tranportation artery in this city, King St., being rendered useless either.

Wow. You just did it again. THE PROPOSED RAPID TRANSIT PLAN IS NOT A STREETCAR SYSTEM! YOU JUST THINK IT IS BECAUSE YOU HAVN'T TAKEN THE TIME TO INFORM YOURSELF.

Hamilton is not building this. (http://www.roncastle.com/images/new-orleans-pictures/st-charles-street-car.jpg)

It is building this. (http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/3612825/2/istockphoto_3612825-modern-light-rail-transit.jpg)

Or this. (http://www.ansaldo-sts.com/EN/Common/files/AnsaldoSTS_img_proj_big/proj_dublin_tram_big.jpg)

Or maybe something like this. (http://www.cooltownstudios.com/images/fr-strasbourg-transit.jpg)

The successful examples people keep citing are succesful because they were run into what were already for the most part, vibrant downtowns.

Well that's completely untrue, a simple search on google is enough to convince me that you don't know what you're talking about.

[highwater]

I just re read my post, and I said nothing like that, maybe you should work on your English comprehension skills.

People support it now because they are expecting rapid transit, not the streetcar system being proposed.

You're the only one proposing a streetcar system. Hence my remark about your imagined public opposition to your imaginary system.

[oldcoote]

It's clear that bigguy is a typical Hamilton pessimist. This city is rife with them.

We really need to move on as a community beyond the 'glass half empty' thinking.

[adam]

So I was told by someone working on the cycling master plan thatthey are going to wait for LRT to be finalized before they propose any bike lanes or pedestrian infrastructure (ie proportionately wide sidewalks) along Main and King. What do people think about that move?

[crhayes]

That pertains to LRT on Main and King ... how, exactly?

Well if the road is filled with cars right of way is useless, if it is dedicated land then traffic jams are of no matter.

Pricing for LRT may be understood by some but not others and certainly the greed factor, not many such projects come in on budget.

Point - a link to TO is more important than an LRT for Hamilton.
The HSR makes the TTC look like amatures.
Point - if they can not get a decent link to TO or from Pearson to union you think they and get an LRT right in Ham???ha

Whether citizen or developer based - stupidity is universal - given the above I dont have the faith.

Hamilton hardly has a monopoly on bad planning.

Center mall, medowlands are mighty fine examples.

Why? No one has made a convincing argument for why dedicated lanes with signal priority on Main and King somehow magically don't qualify as "dedicate land for an LRT".

Ok...your "dedicated lanes" is land that at no time will cars ever be able to use, if it is on level with the car lanes then I doubt it, has "right of way" now been changed to dedicated?

AFAIK freight rail has first priority on those rails, so using them for regular LRT service is a non-starter.

Not one HSR driver thinks - it, or will there be an LRT in Hamilton, that I have asked.

Then change it,pretty simple.

The King/Main LRT line should have it's own dedicated lane traveling East/West and is given the "right of way" when approaching North/South intersections.
Painted lanes would be perfectly fine for LRT. By comparison, how many vehicles with a single occupant do you see using the express lanes on the 403? I have never seen any (although I am sure they exist, but in very small numbers). The fact is, for the most part people obey the laws of the road (especially the larger they are). Furthermore it would be very simple to have police officers monitor the area and give out tickets to those who offend.

BigGuy
You are missing the distinction between this proposed LRT and a streetcar. Many people have already stated that this will not be classified as a streetcar because it has it's own dedicated lane, it has the right of way at street crossings, it travels faster, it makes less frequent stops and usually has dedicated boarding stations.

[Jon Dalton]

BigGuy
You are missing the distinction between this proposed LRT and a streetcar. Many people have already stated that this will not be classified as a streetcar because it has it's own dedicated lane, it has the right of way at street crossings, it travels faster, it makes less frequent stops and usually has dedicated boarding stations.

It's too bad we have to keep beating the dead horse but I guess bigguy can't stop throwing it back in front of us and handing us clubs.

LRT is flexible and diverse in its implementation and can be run in many configurations to suit the environment. The rights of way can be separated by a curb or fence, in a raised median, elevated, tunneled or in a separate right of way altogther. Most systems use more than one configuration. Factors such as speed, safety, accessibility and revitalization impact are weighed to determine section by section which is most appropriate.

Street level installation is by far the most dominant and for good reason. It is the least expensive and provides the maximum economic benefit. It is also as fast as a subway or elevated outside of core areas. Generally speaking, spacing between stops determines running speed, not the method of installation.

[crhayes]

It's too bad we have to keep beating the dead horse but I guess bigguy can't stop throwing it back in front of us and handing us clubs.

LRT is flexible and diverse in its implementation and can be run in many configurations to suit the environment. The rights of way can be separated by a curb or fence, in a raised median, elevated, tunneled or in a separate right of way altogther. Most systems use more than one configuration. Factors such as speed, safety, accessibility and revitalization impact are weighed to determine section by section which is most appropriate.

Street level installation is by far the most dominant and for good reason. It is the least expensive and provides the maximum economic benefit. It is also as fast as a subway or elevated outside of core areas. Generally speaking, spacing between stops determines running speed, not the method of installation.

It's just funny that the argument "it's not rapid" is used because even if it has a dedicated lane that is flush with the road people (for the most part) would not dare use it. Furthermore I think it would be fairly easy to install sensors that turn the lights green as the LRT trains approach intersections, meaning they wouldn't ever have to stop for a red light.

[bigguy1231]

What I'd really like to see is something like this for the LRT lanes themselves:

http://raisethehammer.org/images/grenoble_transit_suburban_line.jpg

I'd love to see something like that as well, but we will never see that on King St. It's not wide enough to accomodate 4 lanes of traffic and 2 streetcar lines.

The fact that Main-King is a "major transportation artery" is the problem, not the solution. Most Hamiltonians understand that - they can see the deleterious effects of urban expressways and support the loss of lane capacity in exchange for rapid transit.

The only people who are advocating such nonsense are social activists types like you who think that their view of the world is the only view that matters. If everyone thought like you, we would all be walking, biking or using public transit to get around. The fact of the matter is most people use their cars and want to use their cars.


On the contrary. Many recent LRT projects were specifically targeted to revitalize downtowns that were suffering disinvestment. Portland's Pearl District comes to mind - before the Portland Streetcar was built, it made downtown Hamilton look like midtown Manhattan. This is also true of the many LRT projects in European cities in the past few decades, who have revitalized their downtowns and intensified their suburbs.

I am sure there are just as many examples that have been failures. Just a couple off the top of my head would be Buffalo's LRT that was on the verge of bankruptcy a couple of years ago and Detroit. Neither one of those cities can be said to have used LRT to revitalize their downtowns.



Spend some time around King and James- the sidewalk is thick with people from all walks of life going about their business. Downtown is running below capacity but is not nearly the basket case you seem to think.

I am sorry, but compared to when I used to work downtown in the late 70's through to the early 90's downtown Hamilton is a dead zone. I was recently downtown on a weekday at about 1 pm at King and James. I was walking to an appointment at the CIBC building. There was maybe 20 people waiting to cross the street on all 4 corners. Back when I worked downtown at that time of day in that same intersection it was like a mosh pit with people jostling to get across the street. The downtown is but a shadow of what it was even 20 years ago. 40 years ago it was even worse than that and you know what the streets were all 1 way just as they are today. The downtown died when the department stores closed up or moved out. Some closed because of corporate bankruptcy, others found it cheaper to build elsewhere in the city rather than rebuilding aging stores downtown.

The retail sector is still hit and miss, but the trajectory is positive. Jackson Square (a suburban plan shoehorned into the downtown core) is under-invested but the Farmers' Market is bustling and vibrant. Business on James North is thriving, business on James South is picking up, business through the International Village is growing, business on King West past Bay is doing well, and business on John South is coming back to life.

There's alot more miss than hit. A hand full of independant retailers locating throughout the downtown is far from positive. The Farmer's market which I used to shop at weekly is nothing more than an overpriced supermarket nowadays. Not too many real local farmers there anymore. On James S. other than the traffic kaos nothing much has changed for years. James N. is just another dingy downtown street. Just because you add a few new stores or bars doesn't make it thriving. Hess village is thriving James N. is surviving. The only thing worth visiting in the International village is Denninger's the rest could be bulldozed and nobody would even notice it was gone.


I'll second FairHamilton's suggestion to attend the next James North Art Crawl. There are lots of social events downtown that are well-attended, and things will only get better as more people and businesses move downtown to take advantage of the new LRT system.

I appreciate the offer, but I am not a big fan of looking at inanimate objects, I much prefer people watching. Contrary to what you may think I do spend quite a bit of time downtown, because I choose to do my business and entertaining there as much as I can. I don't spend nearly as much time there as I used to, simply because it just not what it used to be. I remember what it was like, thats why I can make the comments I do about downtown, because I remember what we had.

To me having differences of opinions about this city and whats best for it with other Hamiltonians is like a family squabble. It stays in house. When speaking to outsiders I am a Hamilton booster and a proud Hamiltonian. I have had the chance to leave many times over the years but have chosen to stay because warts and all this is still a great city to live in.

[FairHamilton]

I appreciate the offer, but I am not a big fan of looking at inanimate objects, I much prefer people watching.

That's actually perfect that you prefer people watching, because there are lots of people to watch on James during an Art Crawl. Come on take up my invite. Change my opinion, my point-of-view, or stay home with your computer. Hey, it's your call. And I'm pretty sure I already know what you'll do tonight...........

To me having differences of opinions about this city and whats best for it with other Hamiltonians is like a family squabble. It stays in house. When speaking to outsiders I am a Hamilton booster and a proud Hamiltonian. I have had the chance to leave many times over the years but have chosen to stay because warts and all this is still a great city to live in

Psst, the internet goes worldwide now.

[ryan_mcgreal]

I'd love to see something like that as well, but we will never see that on King St. It's not wide enough to accomodate 4 lanes of traffic and 2 streetcar lines.

I was referring to the green median, not the four lanes of traffic.

The only people who are advocating such nonsense are social activists types like you who think that their view of the world is the only view that matters. If everyone thought like you, we would all be walking, biking or using public transit to get around. The fact of the matter is most people use their cars and want to use their cars.

No, the fact is that when you build infrastructure for pedestrians cyclists and transit users, you get more pedestrians, cyclists and transit users. When you only build infrastructure for cars almost exclusively, you get almost exclusively drivers.

This has been proven over and over again in every city that has invested in improving infrastructure for pedestrians, cyclists and transit users.

In the past decade, for example, Portland has increased its rate of cycling from the usual (for North American cities) negligible level to some 15 percent of commuter trips, simply by building a safe, continuous network of bike lanes.

Some European cities (notably Copenhagen and Amsterdam) have committed more resources to cycling and have consequently increased their share of cycling trips to around 50%.

This tells me two things:

1. Most people today drive because we have designed our cities to require extensive driving, not because everyone wants to drive everywhere.

2. Many people would prefer to walk, cycle or take transit if only they had an opportunity to do so.

The current system narrowly and arbitrarily restricts the choices of citizens in how they can travel around the city - so it is you, in fact, who thinks your "view of the world is the only view that matters".

I am sure there are just as many examples that have been failures. Just a couple off the top of my head would be Buffalo's LRT that was on the verge of bankruptcy a couple of years ago and Detroit. Neither one of those cities can be said to have used LRT to revitalize their downtowns.

Those two are actually the only two failures, and it's easy to see why they are special cases:

1. Both cities tried to build rapid transit systems while they were in the midst of catastrophic population declines.

Buffalo, for example, lost 44 percent of its population (http://hamiltonlightrail.com/article/light_rail_lessons_from_buffalo/) in just a couple of decades. Detroit has seen a similarly devastating (http://raisethehammer.org/blog/537) economic decline.

Nothing even remotely similar has happened in Hamilton. The population of the lower city never collapsed the way it did in many US cities, and the downtown economy is still moderately vibrant, with functioning neighbourhoods, downtown office workers and generally surviving streetfront retail. We're a long way from, say, Flint, Michigan (http://raisethehammer.org/article/860/), which is in a similar economic boat to Detroit and Buffalo.

2. The Buffalo and Detroit systems are technically very different from the proposed Hamilton system.

Buffalo's line runs underground through the downtown, under a street that was closed to all vehicle traffic, rather than at-grade and integrated with the street. Similarly, Detroit's system runs above grade in a one-way loop around a downtown with very few remaining corporate offices.

Yet even so, the Buffalo and Detroit systems are still used by thousands of people a day, and property values are higher near the stations.

I was recently downtown on a weekday at about 1 pm at King and James. I was walking to an appointment at the CIBC building. There was maybe 20 people waiting to cross the street on all 4 corners.

I work near King and James so I see the area on a daily basis. It's generally lively during business hours. Of course it's not as busy as it was in decades gone by - after all, part of the point of building LRT and creating a TOD zone is to increase the density and vitality of the area. But it's ingeniously self-fulfilling to conclude that we can't bring more people back downtown because there aren't more people downtown right now.

[emge]

The only thing worth visiting in the International village is Denninger's the rest could be bulldozed and nobody would even notice it was gone.


I'd invite you to take another walk down there sometime. I live in the Stinson neighbourhood and I walk through the International Village every day. There's several cafes, most worth visiting, some with live music and community events.

There's a great Caribbean place, there's Arts Hamilton, there's Brownies, there's a concert venue that's busy quite often. There's Tundra Leather. There's the former Zack's furniture that is now Bizclip, filled with workers now at most hours of the day and night. And until recently, there was Three16 lounge, which I am very sad to see go, as that was one of my favorite spots on the whole street. There`s computer shops, a bike store, jewellers and a new hair place that just opened up. And of course Black Forest Inn, a few good Chinese restaurants too.

There's also a gaming centre that every night has scores of teenagers come in from the suburbs and charges them a pretty penny to do so while being supervised by adults. (I don't think anyone else could tell me of a place in the entire downtown that does that legitimately every night!!)

Not to mention events like the Mustard Festival on Labour Day weekend - that was fantastic last year.

Take a walk down there sometime when, as you say, you're "entertaining downtown." I think you'd be pleasantly surprised.

[highwater]

I appreciate the offer, but I am not a big fan of looking at inanimate objects, I much prefer people watching.

We're not inanimate in real life! :) Please do come out and meet us tonight. Pepperjack's at 7:30pm, then on to the crawl. We don't bite, and we'd really like to meet you, because ultimately we all care about this city, even if we have different ideas about how healthy cities function. Of course, if you prefer, you could always sit at another table and just watch us. ;)

[sofasurfer]

Like I said before they havent got a link from Pearson to Union station, and Toronto still keeps thinking it is a world class city and those of us that are from a real world class city try not to point and laugh.


Corrected :)

[mic67]

Why did they build the StClair LRT on dedicated lanes on a slightly raised platform? Why not Just paint lines on the road like proposed of the Hamilton LRT? for the dedicated lanes?

It seems to me that all those posting here regarding the LRT for Hamilton are mostly new commers, as am I, although I did live here in the mid 60's to mid 70's - a great time to live here, they had trolleys, Robinsons dept. store, real theatre's.....

There are very few white collar jobs downtown, look who the biggest employers are, and how many citizens actually work out of town.

If there was a rapid transit link to TO. they Ham might stand a chance of getting more of those jobs. Ya sure mertolinx and all that, and ya they are going to do both, (in whose lifetime)? The link to TO is way more important to this city than a local LRT.

The B-line bus on Main/King reduces the trip time in 1/2, I think they have something simular in TO but I havent used any. LRT with dedicated lanes in Hamilton will not work, and that is why instead of a St.Clair raised model they wil paint lines so that when the LRT fails they can then call it a street car -mass transit line.

Ok before they commit to any system the can try a BRT with dedicated lanes as proposed for the LRT and actually see and know how the system for an LRT will work. I doubt they will do that it makes to much sense, and then we will see how many hamiltonians are behind an LRT system. Hey all it will cost is marking the road, use existing buses, they are getting 18 new doubles soon. Come on lets give it a try...

I live in Hamilton and use the HSR - rapid transit is in my interest, stupidity is not. And I do not regularly travel to TO.


Bigguy is right about downtown, pepperjacks closing is just another fine example, the list and issues is huge, get the link to TO, it is the only thing that will save Hamilton.

mic67

[Jon Dalton]

Why did they build the StClair LRT on dedicated lanes on a slightly raised platform? Why not Just paint lines on the road like proposed of the Hamilton LRT? for the dedicated lanes?


Correction: That has not been proposed, in fact nothing has been proposed but there will 100% certainly be a physical barrier for the main LRT corridor, most likely a raised platform.


It seems to me that all those posting here regarding the LRT for Hamilton are mostly new commers, as am I, although I did live here in the mid 60's to mid 70's - a great time to live here, they had trolleys, Robinsons dept. store, real theatre's.....


This is the problem. The 60's aren't coming back, even though we keep planning like they are. We need to recognize what makes great cities in the 2020's and plan accordingly.

[FairHamilton]

This is the problem. The 60's aren't coming back, even though we keep planning like they are. We need to recognize what makes great cities in the 2020's and plan accordingly.

Looking forward, not backward. What a novel idea. :cheers:

[ryan_mcgreal]

There are very few white collar jobs downtown, look who the biggest employers are, and how many citizens actually work out of town.

You might be surprised at how many people come to Hamilton to work. Hamilton is not a suburb of Toronto.

If there was a rapid transit link to TO. they Ham might stand a chance of getting more of those jobs.

I strongly support better rapid transit connections between cities in the GTAH. You seem to be positing a false alternative between an interurban transit link to Toronto and an intraurban link inside Hamilton. We need both.

Ya sure mertolinx and all that, and ya they are going to do both, (in whose lifetime)?

The province has made an unprecedented (at least in Ontario) commitment to improving rapid transit across the GTAH - after decades of myopic underunvestment.

The link to TO is way more important to this city than a local LRT.

They're both vital. It's not either/or.

The B-line bus on Main/King reduces the trip time in 1/2, I think they have something simular in TO but I havent used any. LRT with dedicated lanes in Hamilton will not work, and that is why instead of a St.Clair raised model they will paint lines so that when the LRT fails they can then call it a street car -mass transit line.

Wow, there's an awful lot of fail packed into that one paragraph:

The B-line bus on Main/King reduces the trip time in 1/2

And that runs in mixed traffic. Can you imagine how much more, er, rapid a vehicle would be running on dedicated lanes with signal priority?

LRT with dedicated lanes in Hamilton will not work

You have yet to present a single plausible argument why that might be the case.

that is why instead of a St.Clair raised model they will paint lines

You're speculating blindly. The city has not made a decision yet, though they are clearly looking at best practices - including the lessons from Toronto.

when the LRT fails

You have no evidence to support this claim.

Ok before they commit to any system the can try a BRT with dedicated lanes as proposed for the LRT and actually see and know how the system for an LRT will work.

Why? A BRT costs almost as much to build as an LRT, costs a lot more to operate than an LRT, and is proven not to attract nearly as many riders or property developers? You would be setting it up to fail.

I doubt they will do that it makes to much sense

Actually it makes no sense.

and then we will see how many hamiltonians are behind an LRT system

The number of Hamiltonians behind a BRT system does not equal the number of Hamiltonians behind an LRT system. Many people who would never ride on a bus will happily board a modern tram. [edit: thanks to adam for helpfully calling out my geek notation]

It seems you will stop at no rhetorical device to rationalize your ongoing opposition to LRT.

[adam]

For those of you who may not be familiar with the notation in Ryan's post,
!= means not equal to

this is how you might use it;

LRT DOES NOT EQUAL BRT
or LRT != BRT

:cheers:

[highwater]

Thanks, Adam. Us old folks need these translations.

[markbarbera]

I'd like to know how the Rapid Transit office thinks it will get buy-in from local businesses along the proposed King Street route. If it is indeed a dedicated two-way LRT running throught the core, there cannot possibly be any curbside parking on King Street between the Delta and Dundurn. If that is the case, rest assured there will be much resistance to the plan from King Street business owners whose business relies heavily on curbside parking. Also, a dedicated LRT lane leaves just one lane of traffic in either direction, which all but eliminates a local bus service along King.

Given the resulting restrictions from dedicating two-way LRT on King, I suspect that if this route is adopted, the stretch between the Delta and Dundurn will not be set up as dedicated right of way. Personally, if this is the case, this significantly limits the benefits of LRT to the city, seeing it would simply operate as a slow-moving streetcar through this large segment of its route.

Has anyone heard directly from the Rapid Transit Office as to why they did not even consider Main Street for the route? Main could be 100% dedicated right of way LRT and still allow for sufficient curbside parking, it would not impact on the existing local bus service that runs along King Street, and, with Main Street's wider roadway allowance, the construction phase would be much less disruptive for the city.

I hold out hope that the Metrolinx BCA will do a more thorough route option analysis that is more objective in nature.

[ryan_mcgreal]

I'd like to know how the Rapid Transit office thinks it will get buy-in from local businesses along the proposed King Street route.

I have since learned that the report we have been discussing here is a consultant's recommendation but has not yet been endorsed by staff, the public works committee or council. They will not make any decisions on routing until after the Metrolinx Benefits Case Analysis (BCA) is ratified by the Metrolinx board (expected to take place in July).

If it is indeed a dedicated two-way LRT running throught the core, there cannot possibly be any curbside parking on King Street between the Delta and Dundurn.

There are certainly stretches where that is the case (International Village comes to mind), but King gets extremely wide in other places.

If that is the case, rest assured there will be much resistance to the plan from King Street business owners whose business relies heavily on curbside parking.

They'll come around once their (significantly improved) business relies more heavily on pedestrians and transit. :)

Also, a dedicated LRT lane leaves just one lane of traffic in either direction, which all but eliminates a local bus service along King.

So? Why run a bus on the same road as an LRT line - especially when Main will be two-way?

Has anyone heard directly from the Rapid Transit Office as to why they did not even consider Main Street for the route?

Again, staff have not yet made a recommendation on the route. However, I know that the consultant report did consider Main Street but concluded that it has less potential for economic development through the downtown core.

[adam]

Thanks, Adam. Us old folks need these translations.

Hey don't feel bad, its computer science speak

[markbarbera]

They'll come around once their (significantly improved) business relies more heavily on pedestrians and transit. :)



So? Why run a bus on the same road as an LRT line - especially when Main will be two-way?


I'd like to address these two assumptions which are actually directly related to each other. First off, the impact LRT will have on local retail business is directly proportional to the location of the LRT stations. The further a business is from a LRT station, the less significant the impact will be on that business. Simply having a pair of LRT tracks running in front of your business will not improve retail business flow. An establishment would need to be within short walking distance of the LRT station to notice a significant increase in business.

If the current LRT system adopts station locations in alignment with the current B-Line route, the downtown stops will likely be at Wentworth, at James, and at Queen. While additional stops could be introduced, each additional stop slows down the system and makes the rapid transit, well, less rapid. I expect businesses in close proximity to these stations would enjoy the most impact from the LRT, but impact will diminish as the distance from the station decreases.

This is why local bus service should (must) remain on King Street. There is a disproportionate amount of lower city residents with mobility issues who will still need transit service that can get them closer to their destination. A local bus route has many more intermediate stops than a LRT designed as a rapid transit service. That's why the TTC, despite having a subway running below Yonge Street in Toronto, also has a local bus service running along the surface of Yonge Street. And that is also why we should still have local transit service along with LRT on King.

[omro]

They'll come around once their (significantly improved) business relies more heavily on pedestrians and transit. :)

I really don't know what the issue Hamilton has with pedestrianisation. Lots of British cities have pedestrianised areas purely to improve the shopping experience for people walking from shop to shop.

[emge]

I'd like to address these two assumptions which are actually directly related to each other. First off, the impact LRT will have on local retail business is directly proportional to the location of the LRT stations. The further a business is from a LRT station, the less significant the impact will be on that business. Simply having a pair of LRT tracks running in front of your business will not improve retail business flow. An establishment would need to be within short walking distance of the LRT station to notice a significant increase in business.

If the current LRT system adopts station locations in alignment with the current B-Line route, the downtown stops will likely be at Wentworth, at James, and at Queen. While additional stops could be introduced, each additional stop slows down the system and makes the rapid transit, well, less rapid. I expect businesses in close proximity to these stations would enjoy the most impact from the LRT, but impact will diminish as the distance from the station decreases.

This is why local bus service should (must) remain on King Street. There is a disproportionate amount of lower city residents with mobility issues who will still need transit service that can get them closer to their destination. A local bus route has many more intermediate stops than a LRT designed as a rapid transit service. That's why the TTC, despite having a subway running below Yonge Street in Toronto, also has a local bus service running along the surface of Yonge Street. And that is also why we should still have local transit service along with LRT on King.

Assuming the option is 2-way LRT on King, the secondary buses could instead go on the now-2-way Main Street and function fine. That would probably be the option, would it not?

For the current B-line, it has seemed strange to me that there's no stop between Wentworth and James - Wellington and Bay would make good stops too and make it much more functional through the downtown - also it would mean I actually USE the B-line - but with the many buses that still run we don't need those stops right now. I'd really hope they add one or two more stops on an LRT, but I'll admit I don't know if that would significantly interfere with its functionality. It making more frequent stops through the downtown and speeding up/making longer stops outside the downtown seems to be how it works in other cities though (I think)

[Jon Dalton]

It making more frequent stops through the downtown and speeding up/making longer stops outside the downtown seems to be how it works in other cities though (I think)

Exactly. Through the dense city centre, stops are closer together, typically aorund 500m. This brings everything within walkable distance. We would have a stop somewhere between King and Wellington.

If you google map other cities with LRT, you can see how the stop spacing changes according to the area. For example: http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=44.844368,-0.559616&spn=0.02842,0.054932&z=14

[sofasurfer]

Exactly. Through the dense city centre, stops are closer together, typically aorund 500m. This brings everything within walkable distance.

This is certainly the case in Manchester, England.

[adam]

I really don't know what the issue Hamilton has with pedestrianisation. Lots of British cities have pedestrianised areas purely to improve the shopping experience for people walking from shop to shop.

I think it has a lot to do with people living on the mountain who want nothing to do with the downtown and only see it as a conduit to get to work and back (in their cars)

[markbarbera]

I think it has a lot to do with people living on the mountain who want nothing to do with the downtown and only see it as a conduit to get to work and back (in their cars)

Actually, this state of mind is not specific to residents of any given area in Hamilton, or even Hamilton as a whole. This is a North American mentality. For the most part, North American cities were built during the heydey of the automobile and are designed with the car in mind, while European cities were founded centuries before the invention of the internal combustion engine, and are therefore designed with the pedestrian in mind.

Why must we blame the state of our downtown on the mountain all the time?

[FairHamilton]

Why must we blame the state of our downtown on the mountain all the time?

Agreed, the mental walls that divide downtown and all the surrounding areas, i.e. Dundas, Westdale, Stoney Creek, Mountain must be torn down.

The saying; "Together we stand, divided we fall", holds a lot of truth to Hamilton's being.

[emge]

Couldn't agree more with the last two posts.

Division seems to be the sad status quo in Hamilton - everything's framed in "us vs them" mentality so much of the time, and not just on urban planning topics.

One thing Hamilton has going for it is that we have a lot of great old architecture, and great pedestrian-scaled streets. That gives us a great advantage as we move forward as a city instead of having to artificially introduce that type of scaling in future development or "new urbanist" communities. The stuff we need to do - wide sidewalks, lower speed limits, etc. are all relatively minor and easy to do - once they get going.

[SteelTown]

The Community Update Meetings are scheduled at the locations and dates noted below and on the Notice attached as Appendix D. This notice will appear in the Hamilton Spectator, View Magazine, Hamilton Magazine and all six Hamilton Community Newspapers on May 22nd and May 29th, 2009.

West B-Line Location
Date: Monday, June 1, 2009
Time: 3 pm to 8 pm (brief presentation at 4 pm and 6pm)
Location: St. Paul Anglican Church
1140 King Street West

East B-Line Location
Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Time: 3 pm to 8 pm (brief presentation at 4 pm and 6pm)
Location: Church of the Nativity
1831 King Street East

Central B-Line Location
Date: Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Time: 3 pm to 8 pm (brief presentation at 4 pm and 6pm)
Location: Sheraton Hotel
116 King Street West

[SteelTown]

Public input on proposed line

June 04, 2009
The Hamilton Spectator
http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/577232

City staff are recommending King Street and Main Street revert back to two-way traffic for the new rapid transit line proposed to cross Hamilton between McMaster University and Eastgate Square.

Staff prefer a typical transit system running along the median of King Street, with vehicle traffic in the north and south curb lanes. The two main arteries would convert to two-way traffic between Paradise Road in the west and the Delta in the east.

Council and citizens have overwhelmingly backed a Light Rail Transit (LRT) for the line, but that still has to be decided by the provincial agency MetroLinx and it could support a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system.

Residents can learn more about the staff preference at an open house next Tuesday at the Sheraton Hotel, between 3 p.m. and 8 p.m.

The city wants to hear what residents think about the proposed operation and also to confirm support for a LRT. It held two open houses this week, one held in west Hamilton Monday that was attended by 20 people.

Lisa Zinkewich, senior project manager, said a transit line running down the median would disrupt the least traffic and has also been shown to boost economic development.

One resident, Larry Berberick, said at an open house last night he prefers to have the system in the south curb lanes and keep Main and King as one way streets.

"My thinking is this would be safer."

[omro]

Could they not have included more than one member of the public's opinion?

Writing it like this makes it sound like: bureaucrats want it "this way" and residents want it "that way". And of course the resident wants to keep the one-way system! It's like priming the public opinion subliminally. Ah the power of the press. They can take down banks, you know.

[emge]

The next open house is the only one I could attend, but I'll be there..

Letters to the editor in the Spec do occasionally get published too - not that I have any great hopes for mine, but that's another form of providing input in the time left. And the fact of safety can be specifically addressed with data to back it up.

Then again, I suppose it could have been worse - they could have run two articles, one for each open house, talking about how people were surprised, unsure, angry, etc.

[ryan_mcgreal]

"My thinking is this would be safer."

His thinking is incorrect (http://raisethehammer.org/blog/1082/).

[adam]

Actually, this state of mind is not specific to residents of any given area in Hamilton, or even Hamilton as a whole. This is a North American mentality. For the most part, North American cities were built during the heydey of the automobile and are designed with the car in mind,

Incorrect in this context. The lower city was designed and built many years before automobiles. The layout and design is all there to support multiple forms of transportation. It is no coincidence that there are more pedestrians and cyclists in the lower city than there are in a suburb that was designed in the 1970's onwards, for example.

[FairHamilton]

I'll commit to attending the next Open House next Tuesday. I'll step off the GO Bus at City Hall at 7pm and walk straight to the Sheraton.

Let's try to get more than 20 people. But I get the sinking feeling the only reason the number was provided in the article was to show it was low. If it was say 200 people nothing about the number of people would have been mentioned.

Also, it's quite easy to get a letter in The Spec. I'm 5 for 5, so it's definitely achievable.

[ryan_mcgreal]

It is no coincidence that there are more pedestrians and cyclists in the lower city than there are in a suburb that was designed in the 1970's onwards, for example.

Notwithstanding the best efforts of city traffic planners to retrofit downtown streets so everyone other than motor vehicle operators feel unwelcome.

[astroblaster]

i should be able to make it.

[markbarbera]

Incorrect in this context. The lower city was designed and built many years before automobiles. The layout and design is all there to support multiple forms of transportation. It is no coincidence that there are more pedestrians and cyclists in the lower city than there are in a suburb that was designed in the 1970's onwards, for example.

Actually, to be more correct in context, only a portion of the lower city pre-dates the automobile, roughtly the area bounded by the escarpment, Dundurn Avenue, the waterfront, and Ottawa Street. The design of the lower city beyond was heavily influenced by the automobile.

Your post implies the automobile's popularity and its influence on urban design was a 70's phenomena. Actually, car culture and car-centric urban planning hit its heyday in the postwar period of the 50's. The influence of the automobile in urban planning even predates this post-war period. Hamilton installed its first traffic light the summer of 1925 at the Delta, heralding the new age of the automobile and its influence on the city's urban setting.

So, in proper context, only a small portion of our city was designed in a period that pre-dates North American car culture.

I question your opinion that the layout and design of the lower city supports multiple forms of transportation, and that this has resulted in more pedestrians and cyclists. Are we really making the arguement that the downtown is designed to be pedestrian friendly? Perhaps a better description is that it is less pedestrian-unfriendly than the suburbs. I think you'd find that population density and demographics have a greater influence on the degree of pedestrian and cyclist activity in the downtown core.

[omro]

I shall do my best to show up next Tuesday.

[markbarbera]

...and be sure to ask why two-way LRT on Main isn't being considered by the Rapid Transit Office. I know I will.

[adam]

I think you'd find that population density and demographics have a greater influence on the degree of pedestrian and cyclist activity in the downtown core.

Great point mark barbera. So we agree that population density and demographics are contributing factors as to why downtowners see the lower city as a destination and not just a mere conduit to get to and from work.

[adam]

I think you'd find that population density and demographics have a greater influence on the degree of pedestrian and cyclist activity in the downtown core.

Great points mark barbera. So we agree that population density and demographics are contributing factors as to why those living in the lower city see the downtown as more of a destination than just a simple conduit to drive thru?

[markbarbera]

I think the greatest challenge to this city is the fact that the downtown is not viewed as a destination by most of the city residents, including those who live in the lower city.

[omro]

...and be sure to ask why two-way LRT on Main isn't being considered by the Rapid Transit Office. I know I will.

Indeed I shall. I was on the corner of James/Main yesterday, which is actually a really nice spot and thinking how much better the whole road could be with LRT.

[FairHamilton]

I think the greatest challenge to this city is the fact that the downtown is not viewed as a destination by most of the city residents, including those who live in the lower city.

I agree.

At a recent BBQ with people from the neighbourhood some were commenting on how good the burgers and dogs were and asked where they were from. I said Reardon's and they said, "Where's Reardon's"? I said on King William, and they said "Where's King William?"

Reardon's has been in Hamilton since 1912, and these were people who'd lived in my neighbourhood (less than 2kms from downtown) for 20 years. Clearly, they never ventured downtown. Or if they did, they didn't get out of their car, or leave Jackson Square.

Sad, but true.

[ryan_mcgreal]

...and be sure to ask why two-way LRT on Main isn't being considered by the Rapid Transit Office. I know I will.

The newspaper article wasn't entirely correct. The report that recommends two-way LRT on a two-way King in conjunction with a two-way Main is a consultant report by IBI Consulting. Staff have not made a recommendation on whether to endorse the IBI report, and have not presented this report to the Public Works committee or to Council.

The Rapid Transit office tells me they won't even start the process of deciding what configuration to recommend until after the Metrolinx board accepts the Benefits Case Analysis (BCA) on the B-Line, which will assess whether the route warrants BRT or LRT and is due to be presented to the Metrolinx board in July.

[omro]

Call me paranoid, but it's almost like warming up the audience. They have put this report out there, and potentially created a bias towards one configuration over the other.

[emge]

I was just reading over some of the city's more recent reports. Some good information is reiterated, but I can't believe no one bothered to proofread it. Pictures captioned "Cleaveland" ? People living "below the property line"? Is that the best we can do as a city on our professional reports?!?

Oh well. I'm sure Tuesday's meeting numbers will beat the 20 people who showed up to the West Hamilton meeting. On the one hand it's too bad to see the lower numbers at this point, but on the other hand it means that each person who shows up has a better chance of having their voice heard/reported.

As for what potential configuration happens... in my mind that's a fine point to be debated later, once the big BRT-vs-LRT question is answered.

[FairHamilton]

HAMILTON, ON – June 8, 2009 – As Hamilton moves forward with plans to implement rapid transit in Hamilton, we want your thoughts on how you think the rapid transit initiative will best serve Hamilton. Help us by completing a short survey to provide your feedback and identify your preferred rapid transit alignment along the Main King corridor through downtown.

Access the survey online at www.hamilton.ca/rapid-transit or pick up a hard copy at some City of Hamilton offices, local libraries or municipal service centres. Comments are welcome at any time, but responses received by July 31, 2009 will be included in the September 2009 staff report to Council.

[FairHamilton]

This is today/this evening!!! Actually it's on right now.

Residents can learn more about the staff preference at an open house next Tuesday at the Sheraton Hotel, between 3 p.m. and 8 p.m.

Omro, his brother, Deborah and I will be there tonight. If traffic is normal, Deb and I expect to be there around 7pm.

[highwater]

Just got back from the 4pm presentation. Sorry I'm missing you guys.

Nothing much new if you've been following things and have already seen the survey. Still, it was interesting to see how far ahead (or not, as the case may be) they're thinking is on design, impacts, etc. For example they are already working with the MTO on alternative ramps for the 403 if and when King and Main go back to two-way.