[FairHamilton]

BRT is dedicated right of way so it would have the same effect as LRT on possible future 2-way conversions.

Thanks, I think you are the first person to clarify the setup of the BRT. I don't recall any source detailing a separated right of way. I'd assumed it would be in a HOV type lane during certain times of the day (i.e. rush hour).

What is the root cause of the one way street problem, is it the fact that cars can only go one direction, or is it the scale and speed of traffic? As a pedestrian trying to cross the street, are 3 lanes of traffic moving one way scarier than 3 lanes of traffic moving both ways? Keep in mind that LRT would mean no more green wave for cars and fewer traffic lanes.

Root cause of issue:
1. Decibels, one way traffic creates a higher decibel reading then 2 way traffic when 4 lanes of traffic is racing down the street. The environment is one of tranquility then all hearing senses are assaulted with a high decibel rate.

2. Speed, one way streets were created to move traffic. Need more need to be said.

3. Weird sensory feelings of noise behind when all in front is clear. Perhaps it goes back to our primeval beings that we worried about things getting us from behind.

4. Flow of the street. Busy, then still, busy, then still, busy, then still, bus, then still, busy then still. 7 minutes on King Street East, so much for a vibrant feeling.

5. Wouldn't taking a lane out just compress more cars into less lanes?

Agree with me, disagree with me, it really doesn't matter to me. I for one would prefer both King and Main to be 2 way and then look at public transit options. But this isn't a perfect world........

[FairHamilton]

Anyway you slice it one way streets are bad for Hamilton and should be systematically eliminated. It is just the nature of one way streets. They do not support healthy retail activity. Please just accept this reality and move on to more productive things. It does not matter if the lights are synced or not. Two way streets are better for business plain and simple.

Here, here! Nothing would be worse than having a beautiful LRT zipping past the vacant storefronts on King Street.

[adam]

I agree. I think 1 way is bizarre, unnatural and out of a science fiction movie. Not the kind of neighbourhood anyone with a choice wants to live on. That's why there are so many subsidized residences close to or on Main and King. These people simply have no choice.

[raisethehammer]

Always with the comments.

The speed and noise level of traffic makes the street one to avoid as a pedestrian at all cost. The atmosphere is one of peaceful tranquility until the light at Gage goes green. Then forget trying to have a discussion with the person you are walking with.

Walking westbound leaves one with an uneasy sense as all sound sensory approaches from the rear.

I agree completely.
I'd love to see LRT and two-way. But even if it's LRT and one-way, keep in mind, that stretch of King will likely have LRT on the south curb lane. Lots of new trees planted as well involved in streetscaping. 2 traffic lanes without timed lights and still local bus service (keeping traffic slower in the right lane) and street parking during off-peak hours on the north curb (at least, this is how I would do it...I'm sure some wonk at city hall will recommend losing all street parking so they can maintain 3 blasting lanes of one-way).

[SteelTown]

Mayor: we must move fast on LRT

October 01, 2008
Rob Faulkner
The Hamilton Spectator

Mayor Fred Eisenberger and city staff have less than a month to convince council the city needs light rail.

Then the focus will turn to persuading transportation agency Metrolinx to fund it.

A Metrolinx draft plan last month shortlisted an east-west rapid transit line from Centennial Parkway to McMaster University for funding -- but it didn't specify whether it would be a rail or bus line.

Eisenberger told The Spectator editorial board yesterday city staff are actively pursuing the light rail option.

"I'm confident the majority of councillors will be completely on board," he said.

On Oct. 20, the public works committee votes on whether city staff should continue to work with Metrolinx to make LRT a reality. Council votes Oct. 29.

Metrolinx is expected to decide what projects will be funded in its initial five-year budget in November.

The city wants the east-west line -- using Main and King in some combination -- to be named in the that funding envelope.

Eisenberger said that decision is crucial.

"We've got very close connections with Metrolinx staff. I see (Metrolinx chair Rob MacIsaac) often. I want to keep it that way ..."

Eisenberger is also on the Metrolinx board.

After touring LRT systems in Charlotte, N.C., Portland, Ore., and Calgary, initially skeptical Ancaster Councillor Lloyd Ferguson is now convinced it's the way to go, if Metrolinx assumes all capital costs.

LRT is cheaper to operate than a bus fleet, it could change the entire city's image, and may bring Hamilton the kind of construction boom Charlotte saw, Ferguson said yesterday.

By city estimates, a two-line light rail system will cost about $1.1 billion but promises to boost land values and revive the downtown.

[raisethehammer]

they keep tossing around this $1.1 billion price tag, but that included tunneling up the escarpment which we aren't doing anymore.
Hopefully a new estimate is being worked on to present to the public and Metrolinx.

[BrianE]

Actualy the more people that quote this rediculous $1.1 billion price tag for 2 LRT lines the more impressed people will be when they come out and say... "Good news! LRT is only going to cost $700 Million"

That, my friends, is what you call a bargain!

[coalminecanary]

Never did I say the I was choosing cars over LRT, if you read my post again I stated I would choose buses (BRT) and 2-way, over LRT and one way.

No, but LRT has been shown time and time again to get peoploe out of cars and BRT has shown time and time again to effect a negligible transit use increase. So while not directly saying you support cars, by choosing 2-way/BRT over 1-way/LRT there is an implication of maintaining status quo as far as car usage versus transit usage.

Again, I'll stress that I agree the ideal solution is LRT/2-way but I think a smarter compromise (if one has to be made) is to put off the 2-way conversion to keep drivers happy if it means we can put LRT through.


And after walking King Street from Sherman to Scott Park and back last night my opinion on one way traffic is unchanged. I'm 100% against the LRT if it means no 2-way, and 100% for 2-way traffic with buses (or LRT if possible).

OK, but try walking from wellington to walnut on King - that is closer to the feel that LRT shared with one-way will give us. Because LRT will have dedicated signalling, maintaining the "Green wave" for cars will not be possible.

ANd once LRT is in and more and more people are on it, the need for the timed lights and highway feel will be reduced, and THEN we can start lobbying for calming measures, or 2 way conversions.

LRT is such a catalyst for so many things, it is dangerous to come this close and then be willing to give it up for a 2 way conversion.

Another thing to consider - Upper James is two way and it's a horrendous walk. What would make Main any different? It's about WAY more than traffic direction. And while 2-way is a great step in the right direction, if it's 2-way alone and no calming or street scaping - or dense development - it's not going to make much difference to pedestrians. Meanwhile LRT will mean streetscaping, development AND calming all associated with its installation. BRT only offers limited improvements along these lines.





1. Decibels
2. Speed
3. Weird sensory feelings of noise behind when all in front is clear.
4. Flow of the street.
5. Wouldn't taking a lane out just compress more cars into less lanes?


1 and 2 - I would argue that LRT would do more to fix these than a simple direction change. Again look at Upper James - a 2 way which suffers from these. It's the calming and reduction in traffic that will affect this more than just opposing traffic.

3 - LRT can't fix this, you are right.

4 - Start-stop flow will not be so prevalent with LRT because the lights will favour the train meaning the green waves will be stifled.

5 - taking a lane out and dedicating to BRT, which has minimal effect on ridership, will result in similar volume in less lanes. Taking a lane out and giving it to LRT boosts ridership significantly, with gets cars off the road, resulting in fewer cars (compressed into fewer lanes).

Anyway - let's do 2-way all the way in the long run. But if we can use "keeping 1-way" as a bargaining chip to get the vote on side for LRT, it is well worth it!

[omro]

Maybe...

If the budgetted cost is $1.1b and this is what they ask for, but the two lines will cost only $0.7b, then at 0.35b per line approximately, by my maths the remaining 0.4b could be spent on a third line :)

[go_leafs_go02]

I would rather spend 1.1 bill on a 0.7 bill line than cheaping out on a 3rd line. Honestly don't do this in cheap Hamilton fashion. Go to the nines on this. Budget for landscaping, proper ROWs, good signage, great system maps and infrastructure.

Sure it'll cost more, but give Hamiltonians something to be proud of. If it's cheap like almost everything else in this city in how they are designed, then yeah, it will soon come rundown and dilapidated.

[omro]

I would rather spend 1.1 bill on a 0.7 bill line than cheaping out on a 3rd line. Honestly don't do this in cheap Hamilton fashion. Go to the nines on this. Budget for landscaping, proper ROWs, good signage, great system maps and infrastructure.

Sure it'll cost more, but give Hamiltonians something to be proud of. If it's cheap like almost everything else in this city in how they are designed, then yeah, it will soon come rundown and dilapidated.

Do you really think two $350m lines are going to be done so poorly, that the only solution is two $550m lines instead?

I would have hoped that for $350m each two high quality lines and the landscaping, ROWs (though I don't know what that means), good signage and great system maps and infrastructure would have been included.

I still like the idea of a third line or a revisited "belt line" as per my earlier post: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=3831382&postcount=592

[raisethehammer]

I would rather spend 1.1 bill on a 0.7 bill line than cheaping out on a 3rd line. Honestly don't do this in cheap Hamilton fashion. Go to the nines on this. Budget for landscaping, proper ROWs, good signage, great system maps and infrastructure.

Sure it'll cost more, but give Hamiltonians something to be proud of. If it's cheap like almost everything else in this city in how they are designed, then yeah, it will soon come rundown and dilapidated.

read my post above. the bill will come down because they aren't considering tunneling anymore. the Claremont Access goes directly to West 5th/Mohawk College on a grade easy for LRT to climb and at much less cost with no tunnel required.

[Jon Dalton]

I believe all options are under consideration right now, both the tunnel and the claremont access have their pros and cons.

[raisethehammer]

yes, you're right....I'm guessing that they'll use the Claremont though considering they can just close that West 5th access ramp at the top and make it for LRT-only right to the college.

So, I've been thinking about possible routing of these lines and the only real 'problem' areas I can see are King at Wellington and James in the Wilson-King area.

King, I'm wondering if the train shouldn't go left onto Wellington, right on Main and back up to King via Catharine?
For James, I'm thinking that the northbound line can come from the Claremont to Hunter to Hughson, north to King and right onto James North.
The southbound line can come south on James and take one of the 3 southbound lanes as an LRT-only lane from King William to Hunter. Left on Hunter and back up the Claremont.

Any thoughts?

[BrianE]

Don't foget traveling east on Main at Queen St, there is a bottle neck there when the right hand lane exits onto Southbound Queen St. Reducing Main St to 4 lanes with buildings right next to the curb.

[coalminecanary]

i think they should use john in stead of james - especially on the south leg.

[coalminecanary]

or hughson as was mentioned earlier

[go_leafs_go02]

Do you really think two $350m lines are going to be done so poorly, that the only solution is two $550m lines instead?

I would have hoped that for $350m each two high quality lines and the landscaping, ROWs (though I don't know what that means), good signage and great system maps and infrastructure would have been included.

I still like the idea of a third line or a revisited "belt line" as per my earlier post: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=3831382&postcount=592
I'm just saying if we want this to be attractive to that average Hamiltonian, don't cheap out. I have no clue how much this would cost to build, I can't even come close to estimating a price on building a LRT line.

I just would prefer a top-notch LRT line (2 of them) instead of 3 average LRT lines.

read my post above. the bill will come down because they aren't considering tunneling anymore. the Claremont Access goes directly to West 5th/Mohawk College on a grade easy for LRT to climb and at much less cost with no tunnel required.

In terms of using the Claremont Access. How much delay in running time are we using by going alot more to the East all the way to Victoria St. just to save costs in building a tunnel. From Hughson St east to Victoria ave along Young St. gives me a distance of 960 metres that must be covered.

This has to be efficient as possible. Going around in a roundabout way just to save costs on tunneling purposes is going to add a bit of time on the run time along with higher electricity usage for having to cover more track instead of going the most direct way possible.

So in the long run, is cheaper to build up the Claremont, take the W5th ramp, and go all the way BACK to Fennell Ave & W 5th ave, and then back on Upper James road. OR is it smarter to build along Hughson St, jog on over to James st, and create a private ROW tunnel that comes out somewhere near the psychiatric hospital and runs down W5th with a major hub at MOhawk College connecting to most of the Mountain buses. (I think conserving fuel by funneling the vast majority of HSR mountain buses so they have to connect at Mohawk College, jump on the A-Line, and go downtown is the way to go)

Here's the distances using the Claremont..from Hughson & Main, along Main, to Victoria, up victoria, up the clarement, to the W5th ramp, ending at Fennell and W5th.

the tunnel takes from Hughson and Main, along Main to James, up James, up an approximate tunnel access ending at Fennell and W5th.

CLAREMONT: 3.92 km
TUNNEL OPTION: 2.30 km.

I used Google Earth for the measurements.

So 1.6 km of rail line would be saved (3.2 km of trackage for both ways)

So the question is, is it cheaper to build 1.6 km of more track to keep it all aboveground, and avoid having to tunnel. OR is it cheaper to build a 1.0 km or so tunnel instead.

[raisethehammer]

Don't foget traveling east on Main at Queen St, there is a bottle neck there when the right hand lane exits onto Southbound Queen St. Reducing Main St to 4 lanes with buildings right next to the curb.

I'm sorry, but I don't look any any stretch of Main as having a bottleneck.
The 5th lane turns right on Queen, only to be re-introduced with a new 5th lane on the other side of Queen.

[omro]

Don't foget traveling east on Main at Queen St, there is a bottle neck there when the right hand lane exits onto Southbound Queen St. Reducing Main St to 4 lanes with buildings right next to the curb.

Again, 4 lanes = 2 for LRT and 2 for car and bus traffic. King narrows down to 2 and 3 lanes in places.

I still think Main makes a better candidate for LRT than King, though that's mainly, because I think the idea of splitting the lines is a bit pointless and because I think Main could benefit from the investment more than King.

[adam]

and in reality, people will walk from main to king or vice versa to get to their destinations regardless of where its placed. it won't be an inconvenience. LRT will rejuvenate the broader area, not just the direct streetscape where it is placed.

[omro]

and in reality, people will walk from main to king or vice versa to get to their destinations regardless of where its placed. it won't be an inconvenience. LRT will rejuvenate the broader area, not just the direct streetscape where it is placed.

That's true with two caveats:

1) People are inherently lazy.
2) The epicentre of the rejuvenation will occur on the street LRT is placed on.

I'm actually trying to think of or find a city where the LRT in differing directions is split onto two streets over such a broad stretch. Most that I have seen or been on, both ways were on the same street for the majority if not the entirety of the journey.

I still feel that both directions on Main through the downtown make more sense because of:

cost
simplicity
wider road
needs greater investment
closer to the current GO station (though this point will be irrelevant)

[SteelTown]

Councillors offer early support for light rail

October 02, 2008
Rob Faulkner
The Hamilton Spectator

City council appears to be lining up behind Mayor Fred Eisenberger to support the bid for light rail transit.

Eisenberger is hoping to line up votes for an Oct. 20 public works meeting and subsequent Oct. 29 council decision.

A draft plan from Metrolinx, a provincial Crown agency, shortlisted an east-west rapid transit line from Centennial Parkway to McMaster University for funding -- but didn't say if it'll be rail or bus.

City staff have been actively pursuing light rail as their preferred option, and are poised to update council this month and get support to do more work with Metrolinx.

A poll of council by the Spectator found most support the continued pursuit. Of 15 councillors, 12 replied. All but two gave clear support, though several had conditions.

Margaret McCarthy and Bernie Morelli are undecided until they hear the staff presentation. Lloyd Ferguson will be in support if Metrolinx pays capital costs. Chad Collins is supportive but wants a lot of community input before traffic is affected or land is expropriated.

Other councillors supporting light rail are Bob Bratina, Brad Clark, Scott Duvall, Brian McHattie, Sam Merulla, Dave Mitchell, Maria Pearson and Russ Powers.

The positions of Tom Jackson, Robert Pasuta and Terry Whitehead were unknown at press time.

Metrolinx is expected to reveal projects it will fund in its initial five-year budget in November. The city wants the east-west line -- using Main and King in some combination -- to make it into this funding envelope so work can begin in 2011.

[raisethehammer]

my goodness.
Has Bernie Morelli stepped outside in the past 3 decades?? His ward is in horrible shape. I guess he figures the residents like it that way since they keep voting him back in.

[omro]

If the Eastern most point of the East/West LRT is going to be the Eastgate Square Mall, then from there you are going to get two lines going east and west along Queenston road and then both carry on to Main up to the Delta. As I understand it, at this point they are intended to split the lines, with one carrying on along King and one carrying on along Main.

If you look at how King and Main are shaped, from the Delta to Wentworth the distance along King (thanks to the google maps tool) is approximately 2.36km vs 2.17km along Main. OK, so that's only 200 metres, but that's still 200 metres more track that you pay for and have to lay and have to pay for to be laid. Plus you have to have different stations/stops on King and Main, whereas if all are on the same road they can double up and save money in the construction. Also you're going to disrupt two roads, rather than just one, during the construction period.

And then you get to the Western most point of the LRT, are the two lines going to converge again and run parallel on the same road before reaching a terminus or are there going to be two end points?

To my mind that's absurd, carry them both on down Main. Keep the two lines together the entire length of the way.

I still think a third line from Dundurn Park down Barton past James North and Centre Mall and to or past the Mohawk College STARRT Institute would be a great idea for that area of the city.

Wouldn't it be great if the first two or three LRTs were such a success that they immediately start work on third, fourth, fifth, etc lines.

[raisethehammer]

I'm with you....but Hamilton is addicted to one-ways. people always talk about the 403 ramps. minimal work would be required to make them compatible with 2-way streets using the current ramps.

The plan for the line is be two-way on Main from McMaster to Longwood/Macklin, then split onto King, then back to two-way on Main at the Delta. It is stupid. Especially considering the fact that Main is friggin huge - 4 and 5 lanes. King goes down to 2 in the international village and they want to keep it that way, as do I.
We'll see what happens, but the old geezer-guard in Hamilton will be out in full force fighting for a one-way system (even though none of them will probably ever set foot on an LRT).

[omro]

We'll see what happens, but the old geezer-guard in Hamilton will be out in full force fighting for a one-way system (even though none of them will probably ever set foot on an LRT).

I don't see why LRT also automatically means Main and King will also become one way. Taking two lanes out of main still leaves three, which is plenty for one or two way use.

The LRT can be built on Main, leaving it one way and the two-way conversion happen, if it ever will, separately and totally unrelated to the implementation of an LRT.

[SteelTown]

Rapid Transit Feasibility Study – Phase 2 is up!

Go find it and read it. I can't get the link on this computer.

[SteelTown]

Claremont Access

The Claremont Access has been reviewed in terms of structures and crossings and the suitability of accommodating LRT on this access in order to traverse the escarpment. In general, in has been determined that using the Claremont Access would be feasible from an engineering perspective, with some improvements and widenings required. At a minimum, 2 lanes would be maintained in each direction for vehicular traffic and the West 5th ramp would be required to be restricted to exclusive one-way transit vehicles.

However, there are significant impacts to the overall rapid transit system in terms of utilizing the Claremont Access over James Mountain Road. There would be a significant increase (6 minutes) in route timing and the key nodes of St. Joseph’s Healthcare (James Street North and St. Joseph’s Drive site) and the Hunter Street GO Terminal would be missed. There is a significant cost to utilizing the Claremont Access in terms of the additional 3.5 km of track required for this alternative routing, as well as costs associated with required widenings, and the loss of potential ridership associated with missing the Hunter Street GO Terminal and St. Joseph’s Healthcare. However, this option would be approximately $100M less to implement than using James Mountain Road as an LRT route.

[astroblaster]

The positions of Tom Jackson, Robert Pasuta and Terry Whitehead were unknown at press time.

Looks like my buddy Terry needs another email.

[SteelTown]

Subject to funding, it is anticipated that the A-line detailed planning and construction would take place immediately following the completion of the required process to ensure that the B-line is ready for construction in Spring 2011, such that once the B-line is operational, the construction for the A-line would commence.

[SteelTown]

This is for RTH.......

"The proposed service will initially operate on limited service hours, but is expected to expand to full 24/7 all day service comparable to the existing B-line."

[raisethehammer]

Claremont Access

The Claremont Access has been reviewed in terms of structures and crossings and the suitability of accommodating LRT on this access in order to traverse the escarpment. In general, in has been determined that using the Claremont Access would be feasible from an engineering perspective, with some improvements and widenings required. At a minimum, 2 lanes would be maintained in each direction for vehicular traffic and the West 5th ramp would be required to be restricted to exclusive one-way transit vehicles.

However, there are significant impacts to the overall rapid transit system in terms of utilizing the Claremont Access over James Mountain Road. There would be a significant increase (6 minutes) in route timing and the key nodes of St. Joseph’s Healthcare (James Street North and St. Joseph’s Drive site) and the Hunter Street GO Terminal would be missed. There is a significant cost to utilizing the Claremont Access in terms of the additional 3.5 km of track required for this alternative routing, as well as costs associated with required widenings, and the loss of potential ridership associated with missing the Hunter Street GO Terminal and St. Joseph’s Healthcare. However, this option would be approximately $100M less to implement than using James Mountain Road as an LRT route.


having read this, chalk me down in support of using James Mtn road. I thought it would save several hundred million.
It's not worth it to only save $100mil. I don't know what kind of routing they're looking at that skips the GO Station...I always assumed Hunter. I guess they're thinking of using Main.
We're talking a total price tag of $1.1 billion or $1 billion?? easy choice IMO.
Skipping St Joes, James South and the GO Station and adding 6 minutes is NOT worth $100 million.

[raisethehammer]

where can I find the report?? It's not on the rapid transit site.

[SteelTown]

I felt like the report was siding with BRT for B-Line.

[SteelTown]

where can I find the report?? It's not on the rapid transit site.

Public Works. I can't get the link with this computer or else I would have provided the link.

[raisethehammer]

I felt like the report was siding with BRT for B-Line.

they've been very clear in the media lately that they want LRT.
B-Line planning has been going on for a while, but now it will ramp up to LRT planning once we get approval.
Should know by the end of the month.

[raisethehammer]

can you at least link us to the main page where I can find it?? the city's website is so bad, I can't find it.

[SteelTown]

http://www.myhamilton.ca/myhamilton/CityandGovernment/CityDepartments/CorporateServices/Clerks/AgendaMinutes/PublicWorks/2008/October6PublicWorksCommitteeAgenda.htm

Look near the bottom or search for "Rapid Transit Feasibility Study – Phase 2".

[ryan_mcgreal]

Go find it and read it. I can't get the link on this computer.

It would be nice if the city posted the link on its rapid transit feasibility study page, but you can find it under Agendas & Minutes » Public Works » October 6, 2008 meeting:

http://www.myhamilton.ca/myhamilton/CityandGovernment/CityDepartments/CorporateServices/Clerks/AgendaMinutes/PublicWorks/2008/October6PublicWorksCommitteeAgenda.htm

The PDF of the document is here:

http://www.myhamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/611C477D-5060-4260-AB89-1E29E527D68D/0/Oct06PW08043c.pdf

[Jon Dalton]

http://www.myhamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/611C477D-5060-4260-AB89-1E29E527D68D/0/Oct06PW08043c.pdf

Done and done. 22 pages - better leave this one for the GO train ride home.

The A-line tunnel would be sweet if they actually did it. Problem with the Claremont access is everyone who is used to catching the bus on James and being up the mountain in 5 minutes, will be disappointed.

http://i272.photobucket.com/albums/jj194/jondalton/trip/55080331.jpg?t=1222969303
Upper James?

[raisethehammer]

http://www.myhamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/611C477D-5060-4260-AB89-1E29E527D68D/0/Oct06PW08043c.pdf

[raisethehammer]

Awesome report!! Wow. This is truly exciting stuff.
Full LRT from University Plaza-Eastgate as Phase 1!

I'm glad they are finally chilling out with all the 'lane reduction' BS and realizing that there's no reason they can't have LRT-exclusive lanes from Queenston Traffic circle to Eastgate.
Although, I'm still baffled at their comments about lane constraints between the 403 and downtown??? Have any of them actually travelled that strip? The very last words I would use to describe it is 'lane constrained'. geez.

[ryan_mcgreal]

http://raisethehammer.org/blog/1114

Breaking: City Publishes Rapid Transit Feasibility Study Phase 2
By Ryan McGreal
Published: 2008/10/02

The City's Public Works Department has just published its report Rapid Transit Feasibility Study - Phase 2 (PDF link) in anticipation of the Public Works Committee meeting on October 6, 2008 (you can read the agenda).

Its conclusion: build light rail, integrate with community and economic development policies, start with the east-west line, and move quickly and decisively to get priority fundingn from the Province.

The report summarizes public works staff research into the economic development potential of Light Rail (including a fact-finding trip to Calgary AB, Portland OR and Charlotte NC), a study of possible alternate routes up the mountain, a recommendation on possible staging options for construction.

Perhaps most important is the economic development review, which was missing from the initial Rapid Transit Feasibility Study (PDF link) published last May.

The report concludes that LRT "has great potential to influence urban growth and revitalize a city's central area", by strengthening existing neighbourhoods and attracting new development clusters around transit stations. The strongest development potential is in the downtown core.

The report also identified the need for "appropriate land use policies" to encourage transit-oriented development in the LRT corridor. It acknowledges the importance of a holistic approach by stating, "The implementation of the LRT system is not just about a new transit system, but rather creating a synergy with the city as a whole."

It draws particular reference to the fact-finding LRT tour of Calgary, Portland and Charlotte, which gave public works and economic development staff, plus the Mayor and Councillor Lloyd Ferguson, opportunities to see LRT in operation firsthand and to discuss the development of the systems with their counterparts in those cities.

The study recommends developing the plan in cooperation with planning, economic development, engineering and tourism to achieve the most benefit.

Additional benefits include increasing population and employment densities in the transit corridor and particularly around stations, which supports the city's Nodes and Corridors growth strategy under GRIDS.

It also notes the positive effect on land values, pointing out that this effect begins as soon as the decision is made to build LRT, before the system is even built.

LRT and transit-oriented development also support the city's goal of reducing car trips and increasing transit ridership.

A "staging evaluation" recommends that if the rapid transit system is built in stages, it makes sense for the east-west B-Line route to be constructed first, as it is cheaper to build and will produce a better rate of return.

The report also weighs in on using the Claremont Access instead of tunneling under James Mountain Rd. This route is technicially feasible and would save $100 million from the construction costs, but would suffer from the fact that key nodes - including St Joseph's Healthcare and the Hunter Street GO Terminal - would be missed.

The report concludes that the LRT plan is supported by Provincial and municipal policies, including the Metrolinx Regional Transportation Plan, the city's GRIDS growth strategy, and the Public Works Strategic plan.

The study concludes that the city needs to move quickly and decisively to take advantage of the unique opportunity that exists right now to build light rail in Hamilton:

[A]s a result of Provincial timelines, which impact the potential funding for rapid transit projects in Hamilton, it has been made clear by Metrolinx that Provincial project priorities, will in part, depend on projects that have strong political support and that can be completed under aggressive timelines. Rapid Transit Team Staff are dedicated, from a technical standpoint and subject to Council pproval at a future date, of making rapid transit in Hamilton happen with an anticipated ground breaking scheduled for Spring 2011, subject to Provincial and Federal funding commitments through the MoveOntario 2020 plan.

This is the city's best shot at achieving real transformation in the near future. Now it's up to the Public Works Committee on October 6 and then full council on October 20, to demonstrate the political leadership this occasion requires.

[go_leafs_go02]

Claremont Access

The Claremont Access has been reviewed in terms of structures and crossings and the suitability of accommodating LRT on this access in order to traverse the escarpment. In general, in has been determined that using the Claremont Access would be feasible from an engineering perspective, with some improvements and widenings required. At a minimum, 2 lanes would be maintained in each direction for vehicular traffic and the West 5th ramp would be required to be restricted to exclusive one-way transit vehicles.

However, there are significant impacts to the overall rapid transit system in terms of utilizing the Claremont Access over James Mountain Road. There would be a significant increase (6 minutes) in route timing and the key nodes of St. Joseph’s Healthcare (James Street North and St. Joseph’s Drive site) and the Hunter Street GO Terminal would be missed. There is a significant cost to utilizing the Claremont Access in terms of the additional 3.5 km of track required for this alternative routing, as well as costs associated with required widenings, and the loss of potential ridership associated with missing the Hunter Street GO Terminal and St. Joseph’s Healthcare. However, this option would be approximately $100M less to implement than using James Mountain Road as an LRT route.
Ahh..Just what I pointed out on the last page, in terms of added travel time. 6 minutes is quite significant in the grand scheme of things, especially if you are aiming for travel frequencies of 5-10 minute headways.

James Mtn Road, or even a tunnel going along that is I think the appropriate idea to do. 100 million extra cost, is worth it in my books. And again I'll focus on my main idea to make the Hunter GO stn. the central hub of this system if possible. A broken record, but this is like having GO trains in Toronto stop at Yonge & Dundas instead of Union Station, and you have to walk the rest of the way to connect to the TTC or GO (depending on what system you plan on using)

[go_leafs_go02]

Also. Expect the 403/King/Main Interchange to be rebuilt in the next little while. I think if Hamilton proposes to revert back to two-way on both of those roads, the MTO will assist in redeveloping that interchange as technically, the bridges and ramps all are under their jurisdiction (although I wouldn't be surprised if King & Main are Hamilton) the ramps definitely are MTO's. We get the MTO on board, work out a timeline with them (I'm saying 10-15 years down the road) have have a complete overhaul of this interchange. In reality, Hamilton can afford to have this interchange shut down for a period of 1 to 2 years, as alternative accesses using Aberdeen Rd. from the west and York Blvd. from the east on the 403 are possible and quite easy to navigate.

Man, I'm getting excited. I'm aiming for a co-op job with Metrolinx starting in January for 8 months, and hey, I know my focus will be specifically on the LRT developments.

[Blurr]

From the report;

"In addition, local government can benefit from light rail’s additional value such as increased property taxes, benefits assessment programs and joint development initiatives. The economic value of light rail should further take into account the resultant revenue streams which occur due to increased access, increased land values and public-private partnerships in developments along transit nodes. Indirect benefits such as increased property taxes and direct benefits such as public-private partnerships or betterment taxes translate into revenues for the municipal sector. When this is coupled with provincial and federal investment in capital, light rail is a feasible and desirable transit option."

To me that is reason enough to make sure that the system is designed correctly. Any decision to avoid the go station would have negative economical impact that will exceed the additional cost.

[DC83]

^^ To use Hunter/Clairmont Access as dedicated lanes for LRT would be WAY faster than going up James St (ever taken a bus up James???).

Hunter was actually reduced to one lane this AM (rush hour), and yet ALL vehicles made it thru the John St lights with time to spare. To permantly reduce Hunter to 1 lane, the other lane is really overly wide, and give that wide 'lane' to LRT will not only save time, but millions in cost savings. It's a no brainer.

Great news tho :)

[go_leafs_go02]

Hypothetically, let's say the crossroads of the LRT's B-Line & A-Line are at Hunter & Hughson. Would it be ridiculous to consider tunneling the A-Line along Hughson St. under the GO station? Like I think keeping the LRT off James and John in the downtown is a smart idea, and Hughson is a perfect alternative as it is right in the middle, and honestly it ends RIGHT at the LIUNA station on the north end as well.

Why I ask this is because I just don't know how wise is it to cut off a lane or two on either the James St. or John St. bridge by the GO station. It is already ridiculously tight there to get 2 vehicles side by side down there in many cases.

So burrowing the A-Line briefly under the GO stn, would that be wiser in the long run you think?

[DC83]

^^ James & John are both rediculously tight as they're the most popular North-South mountain access routes downtown.

I agree 110% with putting A-Line on Hughson from York/Wilson, with a new attractive covered transit way (like the new McNab terminal) along Huhgson between Hunter & Main -- it's in my lrt dream map http://maps.google.com/maps/mm?ie=UTF8&hl=en&ll=37.0625,-95.677068&spn=39.099308,67.5&z=4

[go_leafs_go02]

it's in my lrt dream map http://maps.google.com/maps/mm?ie=UTF8&hl=en&ll=37.0625,-95.677068&spn=39.099308,67.5&z=4

i got a blank map of the USA with that link. :S

[DC83]

i got a blank map of the USA with that link. :S

Yes, that was my detailed LRT plans hahahaha
Sorry, here's the actual map (I had so many maps open on my desktop, sorry): http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=115978337128192551626.000452f453e3577c5dd05&ll=43.256206,-79.86876&spn=0.008798,0.024633&t=h&z=16

[omro]

Who would the downtown express serve? It's route seems a little random, but I'm not from Hamilton so what do I know :-P

No line on Barton in your scheme?

[raisethehammer]

^^ To use Hunter/Clairmont Access as dedicated lanes for LRT would be WAY faster than going up James St (ever taken a bus up James???).

Hunter was actually reduced to one lane this AM (rush hour), and yet ALL vehicles made it thru the John St lights with time to spare. To permantly reduce Hunter to 1 lane, the other lane is really overly wide, and give that wide 'lane' to LRT will not only save time, but millions in cost savings. It's a no brainer.

Great news tho :)

James already has a 3rd southbound lane that can be converted to LRT only from King-Hunter.
South of Hunter, James would be one-lane each way and 1-LRT lane each way. James Mtn Road would be closed to all traffic except LRT.
To me, it's a straight-forward and simple design. Queen St and Claremont can take overflow car traffic.

[DC83]

^^ to me, that's a rediculous waste of $100 million!!!

[go_leafs_go02]

To me, taking an extra 1.3 km of track and 6 minutes run time to save 100 million dollars is cheaping out.

[DC83]

I don't really understand where this additional 6 mins is coming from? How can even know what the times would be at this point?
If you had an LRT-ONLY Hughson between Wilson & Hunter, there would be no cars to compete with like on James (and we ALL know City Staff would NEVER shut James for LRT, it will most def be mixed traffic/lrt).
Then stop at TH&B-area, then dedicated lanes from Hunter/Hughson along Hunter to Clairmont, Dedicated Lanes along Clairmont including an exclusive right of way to West 5th via that lil bypass which would be LRT-only!

With these dedicated lanes alone the trip should be quicker than battling Cars & Peds on James. Mix-LRT/Regular Traffic along Jamesville would be good for that area though, and Hughson is residential down there, so that's why I left LRT on James in that part.

[go_leafs_go02]

I don't really understand where this additional 6 mins is coming from? How can even know what the times would be at this point?
If you had an LRT-ONLY Hughson between Wilson & Hunter, there would be no cars to compete with like on James (and we ALL know City Staff would NEVER shut James for LRT, it will most def be mixed traffic/lrt).
Then stop at TH&B-area, then dedicated lanes from Hunter/Hughson along Hunter to Clairmont, Dedicated Lanes along Clairmont including an exclusive right of way to West 5th via that lil bypass which would be LRT-only!

With these dedicated lanes alone the trip should be quicker than battling Cars & Peds on James. Mix-LRT/Regular Traffic along Jamesville would be good for that area though, and Hughson is residential down there, so that's why I left LRT on James in that part.
I believe that 100 million dollars savings will be made if the tunneling option isn't used. The tunnel cost is included already.

They've already established that James Mtn. Rd is too steep a grade to use.

[SteelTown]

Originally I was against the tunnel because I was afraid the price tag would put people off for LRT. But seeing that with no tunnel you would only save $100 million from a one billion total price tag I think its worth to construct a tunnel.

[omro]

Originally I was against the tunnel because I was afraid the price tag would put people off for LRT. But seeing that with no tunnel you would only save $100 million from a one billion total price tag I think its worth to construct a tunnel.

I'm a bit shocked that it's only $100m saving, that seems a bit small. However, I guess it would be a more direct route and thus save construction and track laying, but only $100m of it.... :shrug:

[SteelTown]

It's likely LRT will still use James Mt access until it gets too steep and have a tunnel. I doubt it'll be a complete tunnel from the base of the Escarpment to the top, likely halfway than a tunnel.

[DC83]

That $100 Million is for the tunnel alone! That doesn't include the price to dig out under the James St TH&B bridge. Not to mention definate over-runs that is always associated with boaring (Hi, Big Dig).

So $100 was a cost that Public Works threw out there back in May. Pretty much pulled it out of their butts. So let's say it's acually double, $200 Million incl. James St grading under the bridge + tunnel costs.
The project (both lines) was estimated to be $1.8 Billion in May '08. So if We give people a $1 Billion million pricetag (for both lines) rather a $1.2 Billion price tag, I can guarantee (esp in THIS City) we'd choose the cheaper... it's Hamilton, "...we're not a wealthy community" ;)

[raisethehammer]

I don't really understand where this additional 6 mins is coming from? How can even know what the times would be at this point?
If you had an LRT-ONLY Hughson between Wilson & Hunter, there would be no cars to compete with like on James (and we ALL know City Staff would NEVER shut James for LRT, it will most def be mixed traffic/lrt).
Then stop at TH&B-area, then dedicated lanes from Hunter/Hughson along Hunter to Clairmont, Dedicated Lanes along Clairmont including an exclusive right of way to West 5th via that lil bypass which would be LRT-only!

With these dedicated lanes alone the trip should be quicker than battling Cars & Peds on James. Mix-LRT/Regular Traffic along Jamesville would be good for that area though, and Hughson is residential down there, so that's why I left LRT on James in that part.

using James would be easy IMO. start routing ALL buses on John and LRT on James. The curb lane northbound only has a few parking spots and southbound nobody drives in the curb lane because cabs, delivery trucks and buses are always sitting there.
I think it's totally worth $100 mil to service the GO Station, James South, Durand, Corktown and St Joes. Plus putting all local buses 2-way on John would be great for that street and for the bus system.

[raisethehammer]

That $100 Million is for the tunnel alone! That doesn't include the price to dig out under the James St TH&B bridge. Not to mention definate over-runs that is always associated with boaring (Hi, Big Dig).

So $100 was a cost that Public Works threw out there back in May. Pretty much pulled it out of their butts. So let's say it's acually double, $200 Million incl. James St grading under the bridge + tunnel costs.
The project (both lines) was estimated to be $1.8 Billion in May '08. So if We give people a $1 Billion million pricetag (for both lines) rather a $1.2 Billion price tag, I can guarantee (esp in THIS City) we'd choose the cheaper... it's Hamilton, "...we're not a wealthy community" ;)

I'd suggest we just go with their numbers instead of playing a guessing game as to what they might really be.
They've been doing a bang-up job in prepping for this plan. Let's assume they know what they're talking about.
They have to tunnel. It's too steep to run on the street as far as I know.

[go_leafs_go02]

using James would be easy IMO. start routing ALL buses on John and LRT on James. The curb lane northbound only has a few parking spots and southbound nobody drives in the curb lane because cabs, delivery trucks and buses are always sitting there.
I think it's totally worth $100 mil to service the GO Station, James South, Durand, Corktown and St Joes. Plus putting all local buses 2-way on John would be great for that street and for the bus system.
Do you really think that all the buses will be kept the same. do you think the HSR really will run the 21, 25, 26, 27, 33, 34, 35 bus routes up and down the mountain within 2 km the A-Line if there is a rapid transit connection with a higher capacity?

Let's see with a system map. Let's make Mohawk College - Fennell the Central Hub.

The 34 - Upper Paradise (would have to drive down Fennell Ave from Garth) DISTANCE: 1.00 km

The 33 - Sanatorium, 35 - College.
DISTANCE: 0.00 km (already go right by Mohawk College)

The 21 - Upper Kenilworth
DISTANCE: 0.21 km (From Fennell & West 5th to the College)

All Jolley Cut Access buses:
DISTANCE: 1.77 km (From Concession St. & Upper Wellington)
And you would rework I'm sure several routes to connect through Fennell instead of Concession

I really hope that we see a major elimination of up and down the mountain buses and adding an extra transfer onto someone trip. If you have 5 minutes headways between Mohawk College and downtown, that transfer is easy and simple to make.

Coming up the mountain. I would hope there will be a nice, indoor transit waiting area at Mohawk College where route schedules and timing are worked into a great efficient manner. Beats the crap out of Gore Park, where I don't even think there is a SINGLE bus shelter there for passenger protection.

[ryan_mcgreal]

Do you really think that all the buses will be kept the same.

Public Works staff have stated clearly that if LRT is built, the entire transit network will have be be reconfigured.

[raisethehammer]

buses won't be kept the same, but there will still be local bus service.
I assume many of the east mountain buses will still come downtown via the jolley cut. my suggestion is they can use john st, go west on king, south through macnab terminal and east on main back to john and go back up that way instead of continuing with this stupid one-way bus system we have on two-way streets.

[realcity]

oops

[omro]

The McNab Terminal is going to service both lines of the east/west LRT service or just one?

[SteelTown]

Both as it is sandwiched between King and Main.

[go_leafs_go02]

You really think the A-Line is gonna jump over a block or two from either Hughson or James St?

The straighter north-south path we get, the better this line will be. It's gotta be a efficient as possible. That's why I encourage tunneling directly up James St. Too bad Mohawk College isn't along Upper James, but in my books, that is the only shift of north south routing that should be made.

EDIT: Nevermind, I realize a walkway connecting from James over to MacNab would work well. I just don't want the tracks routed onto King, over to MacNab, and back over to James or whatever.

[omro]

Both as it is sandwiched between King and Main.

Assuming the LRT is on both Main and King, which I hope it will not be.

That will dictate that the LRT is on the north side of Main and possibly that south side of King, correct? If so, will this have implications further down the roads if the LRT is tied into these sides?

So the design for the hub is going to be updateable to allow for an LRT stop/station to be bolted on or will the design include it from day one of construction?

Also, will this hub service the north/south LRT lines also?

[omro]

Too bad Mohawk College isn't along Upper James, but in my books, that is the only shift of north south routing that should be made.

There's nothing to say that spur lines off the A and B lines could happen in the final design or in the future. Many London Underground lines have two or more start and end points, with every other train going to a different destination, but sharing the bulk of the route.

[SteelTown]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v384/Aallen396/downtownterminal5.jpg

That's the plan for the MacNab terminal. You can see a walkway from the terminal to James St, which A-Line will pass by. MacNab is also sandwiched between King and Main for B-Line.

With the white space you see, currently a parking lot, when funding is available from Metrolinx the city would like to purchase the lot and expand the MacNab terminal, making it a much bigger terminal.

[omro]

When our council demolished our Bus Station and built a new one, we thought we were going to get something similar to that, just stands on street, but instead we actually got a rather nice building out of it. It's much nicer than what was there!

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/121/287154043_844674499a.jpg

[raisethehammer]

we're supposed to be getting a glass terminal building too...won't be as nice as that, but it's not really visible from that above rendering.
Also, the 'stands on the street' are actually covers over the entire length of the walkway, not individual bus shelters.
If they design it properly, it could be really great.

[SteelTown]

Hamilton ready to move on LRT

October 03, 2008
The Hamilton Spectator

It’s not definite yet, but plans for a light-rail transit system in Hamilton are barrelling full steam ahead.

City staff have been studying what a system would mean and how it could be put into place.

Here’s a snapshot of the situation so far, with new staff suggestions on how the city could move forward on light-rail transit and what rapid transit has meant for other cities.

The plan so far
Develop light-rail transit east to west along King and Main and a north-south route up the Mountain. The Mountain line could use either James Mountain Road or the Claremont Access.

Winding up
To use the Claremont Access, the route would run from James Street to Main, then along Wellington and up the Claremont.
The route would avoid constructing a tunnel on James Mountain Road, but would also miss key spots such as the GO Station. It would cost $100 million less to climb the Claremont.
“In the long run … you’re always better off if you build around hubs or around places of employment,” said Pavlos Kanaroglou, director of the McMaster Institute for Transportation and Logistics.

Timeline
City staff project construction on the east-west line could begin in spring 2011. The city is waiting for the final word from regional transportation body Metrolinx as to where the project stands on the priority list.

In the median
The idea of a “median transitway” concept has been proposed for the north-south line.
That means exterior lanes of a road would be used for traffic, while the interior would be used for rapid transit, with the median as the station.

Economic benefits
- In Dallas, Texas, and St. Louis, Mo., property values near rapid transit stations rose by 32 per cent.
- In Portland, Ore., there’s been more than $2 billion US in development surrounding the downtown stations.
- In Santa Clara, Calif., office space sold for two to five cents more per square foot if it was within half a kilometre of an light-rail transit station.

[raisethehammer]

so, where does this tunnel go? from James St to Mohawk College?
That would be sweet.
I remember in Portland they had to construct a portion of their LRT underground in the west hills just west of downtown. I think they have the deepest 'subway' station in the US. You have to take an elevator out.

[SteelTown]

Rapid Transit Video

http://www.myhamilton.ca/myhamilton/CityandGovernment/ProjectsInitiatives/RapidTransit/RapidTransitVideo.htm

[omro]

Rapid Transit Video

http://www.myhamilton.ca/myhamilton/CityandGovernment/ProjectsInitiatives/RapidTransit/RapidTransitVideo.htm

Cool video, up to the simulation. That's an eight lane wide - three lanes in each direction for cars and two lanes wide for one LRT. Didn't think there were any roads like that in Hamilton. But that's merely a nitpick. Great to see it getting so much support!!

[raisethehammer]

according to Tom Jackson in todays paper...too much support, too quick.
He doesn't think people know what's going on.
Then get off your duff and go talk to them!

[omro]

A little diversion.

What do canadians call their LRTs?

We British call them trams.

Would the LRT trains in Hamilton be trams, trolleys, streetcars, or something else? What's the correct term?

[DC83]

^^ Calgary & Edmonton both refer to them as 'The LRT' or 'Light Rail'.
ie: "Hey, let's take the LRT to Commonwealth Stadium for tonight's Esks game!"

Hamiltonians would most likely do the same, since that's what media has stuck to. Hamiltonians love the media.

I would like for it to be called 'The HSR' since we're bringing rail back to the streets!
"I'm just gonna jump on the HSR to Lancaster Memorial Waterfront Stadium for the TiCats game"

Montreal will call theirs Trams, most likely. Torontonians will probably still refer to their LRTs as 'Streetcars' still.

[highwater]

I always loved TO's 'Red Rockets', or just 'The Rocket'.

[DHLawrence]

Unless I'm referring to the streetcars in Toronto, I call them all trams because it's easier to say than either light rail or streetcar, and they don't exactly meet the definition of 'trolley.'

[SteelTown]

People will likely just call it B-Line. "Take the B-Line to McMaster"

[raisethehammer]

people will use 'train' or 'light rail' most likely.
unless we name it...in Portland it was called 'The Max'.
Everyone would just say "let's take the Max downtown" etc....

[omro]

Just curious, is there a consensus of belief that the Centre Mall should be connected up to Hamilton's LRT? Or that its worth/survival are not remotely tied together with the LRT?

[raisethehammer]

eventually that would be nice, but the mall is currently being redeveloped to accommodate single occupancy cars almost exclusively.
I'd love to see an LRT on Barton though. Or at least a modern streetcar.

[markbarbera]

Just curious, is there a consensus of belief that the Centre Mall should be connected up to Hamilton's LRT? Or that its worth/survival are not remotely tied together with the LRT?

The Metrolinx plan touched on the possibility of a connection down the road, towards the end of the Metrolinx plan in 2025. They suggest a third LRT line that would run from Ancaster eatward along Mohawk Road to Upper Ottawa, then north down Upper Ottawa following the Kenilworth access to Kenilworth Avenue, continuing north to connect with the B-line then on to a northern terminus abutting the Centre Mall site.

TO clarify RTH's comment about the Centre Mall's redevelopment, I believe it would be fairer to say that the redeveloped site's accessibility remains identical to its previous incarnation, that being accesible primarily by automobile with the Barton Street HSR line providing accessibility from the southern edge of the development.

[omro]

The Metrolinx plan touched on the possibility of a connection down the road, towards the end of the Metrolinx plan in 2025. They suggest a third LRT line that would run from Ancaster eatward along Mohawk Road to Upper Ottawa, then north down Upper Ottawa following the Kenilworth access to Kenilworth Avenue, continuing north to connect with the B-line then on to a northern terminus abutting the Centre Mall site.

I remember seeing that depicted.

Is that a worthwhile line to have opposed to one that runs the length of Barton via the James Street station?

[markbarbera]

The thing with Barton Street is its width through the old city from James to Kenilworth doesn't really allow for a dedicated LRT line. It would have to be a shared route with autos. LRT isn't really worth much more than a traditional bus route if it doesn'e have right of way on dedicated lanes.

[omro]

The thing with Barton Street is its width through the old city from James to Kenilworth doesn't really allow for a dedicated LRT line. It would have to be a shared route with autos. LRT isn't really worth much more than a traditional bus route if it doesn'e have right of way on dedicated lanes.

So what was the original belt line? I understand that ran down Barton. Was it on tracks or electrical buses with overhead wires?

[markbarbera]

The beltline was a streetcar line, retired from service in 1951. It ran on rail among all other road traffic. After the rail was removed, it did continue as an electrified bus trolley system until they too were retired in 1992.

Streetcars and LRT are fundamentally different in design and function. If rail was returned to Barton Street it could not function as LRT but simply as regular transit service based on rail, or once again as electrified trolley buses on rubber tires.

[Millstone]

Also the median on Barton is now landscaped.

[raisethehammer]

a return of the beltline would be awesome.
This time it could be done with a modern streetcar, like Portland's mixed-traffic streetcar.
HSR ridership really dropped off once they got rid of the streetcars and trollies.

[markbarbera]

I am not sure what you mean, RTH. Yearly ridership levels consistently increased with the exception of the period following the 1998/99 strike.

[raisethehammer]

I'm talking about when the removed all the overhead wires.
Ridership plummeted by almost 10 million per year.
Recent years it's begun to go back up, but nowhere near it's highest levels.

[omro]

Nottingham's Trams and cars can exist on the same roads, as can Manchester's. I can't see why the LRT has to have a dedicated lane necessarily.

Having some form of LRT, Streetcar, etc on Barton would be a very symbolic gesture, it would show that the city wants to improve that area, it would give the people who live there something to be proud of and hopefully work to improve the area themselves, it would attract better quality people to live there, who would normally discount the area.

[thistleclub]

people will use 'train' or 'light rail' most likely.
unless we name it...in Portland it was called 'The Max'.
Everyone would just say "let's take the Max downtown" etc....

I find that people generally go with the fewest syllables... "car" over "auto," for example, or "bus" over "HSR" (except in semi-formal talk, when directing newcomers, or cases where you want to make a branding distinction, "bus" is intra-urban and "GO" is inter-urban... Burlington gets the short end of the stick but whatever). Portland's handle is smart in that regard.