Rapid Transit

[eatboots]

It's usually buried in the story but Main being converted to two ways has been mentioned numerous times. It will become the main(no pun intended) route across the city for cars just like it is from the Delta to Queenston circle. The two way conversion will probably happen before LRT construction starts. All the East/Wests in the Lower City are really close together so traffic should not be horrible like it is in some spots in KW where there are no parallel streets to divert to.

[NortheastWind]

Originally Posted by markbarbera

The interchange configuration at the 403, complicated by an additional bridge span to accommodate the LRT (an expensive element not required if LRT ran on Main), and it will make reconfiguration for two way virtually impossible. Cannon will replace King as the westbound one-way thoroughfare.

The configuration is a simple fix. It will likely change from a lane where traffic merges with Main St to a traffic intersection with a light.

[markbarbera]

Originally Posted by NortheastWind

The configuration is a simple fix. It will likely change from a lane where traffic merges with Main St to a traffic intersection with a light.

Width restriction of the 403 in this area could not accommodate signalized acess ramps without adding signifcantly to the gridlock issues that already exist on the highway during peak traffic periods

[thistleclub]

No rushing on LRT: Bratina
(Hamilton Spectator, June 11 2016)

RE: LRT in Hamilton


Unlike Ottawa, Hamilton council had not contemplated LRT in its transit planning until the province came forward with the offer of a fully funded project under the so-called Big Move in 2007. The seeming reluctance to give final approval is partly the absence of critical funding details, serious problems related to the province's preferred route and the failure to address the city's immediate and documented transit needs.

Metrolinx proposes to expropriate Hamilton's best performing transit route to build, own and operate an LRT. Council has not been told what will happen to the revenues that now help subsidize underperforming routes in other parts of the city. In fact the city's unanimously approved transit plan called Rapid Ready calls for enhanced service throughout Hamilton to address the poor current ridership levels.

The uncertainty around future transit growth is likely the reason that at this critical time the director of transit David Dixon handed in his resignation. The notion by others that we need to "get our act together" is a rush to judgment council is not currently willing to take until important questions are answered.


Bob Bratina, Liberal MP, Hamilton East-Stoney Creek

[king10]

Very good question that needs to be answered. What happens if the LRT replaces our most profitable route (while metrolinx keeps the lrt profits) which subsidizes most of the system?

[MalcolmTucker]

Profitable really? I highly doubt that. Revenue making? Sure. These are very different things.

It isn't like metrolinx is going to introduce it own lrt only fares like caisse is in Montreal. LRTs do cost money to operate and need capital renewal.


Does someone on price is right refuse to take the car because it will still take gas (though less than their current car) and might need a repair in 5 years?

[king10]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Profitable really? I highly doubt that. Revenue making? Sure. These are very different things.

It isn't like metrolinx is going to introduce it own lrt only fares like caisse is in Montreal. LRTs do cost money to operate and need capital renewal.


Does someone on price is right refuse to take the car because it will still take gas (though less than their current car) and might need a repair in 5 years?

Theres talk lrt fares will be higher than hsr fares. And the student and senior ridership would have to be subsidized to a greater degree.

Even if its the highest revenue maker and not profit maker, we still take off our line thay makes the most revenue at one of the lowest avg costs. That is going to effect the rest of the system. Also isnt gas tax handed out by ridership numbers. If the HSR loses its busiest line, ridership numbers will be less for the hsr. Does this mean we get less gas tax money?

These things need to be clarified.

Also, love the price is right analogy but this isnt a gameshow. And i bet there are some ppl who win a new boat on the show but make minimum wage and cant maintain it so they sell it and take the cash. Or they have no use for a boat and sell it....

Im not saying no LRT. Im saying issues need to be addressed to ensure we arent worse off. Ie. Gas tax payout. Ridership. Subsidizing. Operating maintenance. Effect on businesses during construction. Upgrading the hsr system to feed into lrt.

[Jon Dalton]

It's exceptionally rare for an LRT fare to be higher than the bus fare in any transit system. The overwhelming trend is toward proof of payment fare systems allowing travel on all vehicles. Bigger cities charge higher fares for travel further out of the city but not for rail vs. bus. It would be politically impossible to impose a higher fare on the most traveled bus route used disproportionately by people of lower income. There would be an uproar if they tried to do that here.

[king10]

Originally Posted by Jon Dalton

It's exceptionally rare for an LRT fare to be higher than the bus fare in any transit system. The overwhelming trend is toward proof of payment fare systems allowing travel on all vehicles. Bigger cities charge higher fares for travel further out of the city but not for rail vs. bus. It would be politically impossible to impose a higher fare on the most traveled bus route used disproportionately by people of lower income. There would be an uproar if they tried to do that here.

That makes sense. Lets hope this is the case.

[MalcolmTucker]

This isn't a GO Train LRT. Is it possible that a super weird contract will come forth? Yes. Is there any case where metrolinx would want more than an availability fee along with an agreement on how to staff non shared and shared services? (Which is how eglinton is) I can't imagine that being the case.

Little details like this aren't usually handled through the media. Why? Because if you actually want a project done you find solutions instead of creating road blocks. All these little objections are a classic FUD campaign: attempting to increase fear, uncertainty and doubt.

[mishap]

Originally Posted by Jon Dalton

It's exceptionally rare for an LRT fare to be higher than the bus fare in any transit system. The overwhelming trend is toward proof of payment fare systems allowing travel on all vehicles.

Hopefully, this is no different than YRT (local) and VIVA (BRT), with service provided through three different organisations, and you transfer seamlessly between buses. YRT itself was once three different transit agencies with three separate service providers.
Why not roll out the HSR+ branding for the LRT line?

[LikeHamilton]

So why is everyone getting upset about the fares of bus/LRT and bus routings now? LRT is 8 to 10 years away before the first one moves. There is lots of time to figure out and discuss fares and where the extra buses will go.

By then the HSR may not exist. Metro links may take over all transit systems in the GTHA and run them as one seamless system and we may have very little say.

[thistleclub]

LRT ‘full steam ahead’
(Hamilton Spectator, Andrew Dreschel, June 12 2016)

LRT versus BRT. Main-King versus Main end-to-end. More buses for the Mountain versus feeding the LRT line.

Given the raging debate around these and other opposing views, it's easy to think the $1 billion LRT project is now mired in the political mud.

It isn't. Work hasn't stopped for a moment.

"It's full steam ahead," says city manager Chris Murray.

"We have a memorandum of understanding with Metrolinx and the province which spells out the things we're going to work on.

"The province is investing money right now in the positions that are part of the city's LRT office, and they are spending money on evolving this thing."

That means design work, traffic impact and expropriation studies, zoning changes, and community consultation are all chugging along and will continue to do so unless city council gives staff directions to stop.

That hasn't happened and, chances are, it won't.

At this Wednesday's general issues meeting, Sam Merulla intends to defer his controversial motion to reaffirm support for the project until the fall.

Merulla's motion not only exposed major cracks in council's support, it kick-started the intense community debate, a debate Merulla argues needs to be heard sooner than later.

"If there are issues, let's deal with them now," he says.

That's exactly what's happening. When he does bring forward his motion again, Merulla fully expects some councillors to propose amendments spelling out conditions for their support.

Some see all this talk and manoeuvring as rank indecision. Even the mayor of Ottawa recently seemed to be accusing councillors of dithering.

Murray doesn't buy it. "I don't see this as dithering. There are important questions that I know they have in their minds and I know they're hearing from their constituents."

Read it in full here.

[thistleclub]

Your questions answered: Why not a Main Street-only LRT route?
(Hamilton Spectator, Matthew Van Dongen, June 13 2016)

King Street has been a fixture in the city's preferred LRT route for years — even if arguing about alternatives never goes out of style.

The latest 11-kilometre proposal starts and ends on Main Street, but travels King in the middle from Dundurn Street to the Delta. Variations on that east-west route have been discussed in public meetings, news stories and technical reports since 2008.

The rationale for ruling out a Main-only alignment, though, is not as well-documented. And with LRT planning in high gear — thanks to $1 billion in provincial cash — businesses and even some councillors are resurrecting questions about the route.

For example: why squeeze LRT through the narrow International Village — shrinking car traffic to one lane — when wider Main Street follows a parallel downtown path? Why build a dedicated LRT span over Hwy 403 when Main boasts a built-in bridge?

Raise the Hammer website founder Ryan McGreal, a vocal LRT booster, was once a fan of an all-Main alignment. But call him a King Street convert now.

"There are going to be trade-offs no matter where you put it. And frankly, I can't see Main being so much better that it would make sense to scrap all the work we've done and set the project back years," said McGreal, who also embraces the proposition that King is the best bet to maximize transit-spurred economic development.

Coun. Terry Whitehead, by contrast, approved the King Street design along with the rest of council in 2013 as part of a funding request to the province.

But the councillor now says his own research casts doubt on lofty "economic uplift" predictions for King. Both he and new Coun. Donna Skelly have publicly questioned why Main Street was ruled out in the first place.

So when did the Main versus King debate actually happen?

A 2009 information report shows a working group of city staffers internally considered and rejected Main-only rapid transit routes before making a recommendation to council. It doesn't say much about the rationale.

But the report does list public meetings that year and a special gathering of B-line businesses where project work to date was presented.

Paul Johnson, the city's LRT point person, said early planners saw Main Street as a better bet for maintaining vehicle traffic flow. Having LRT travel on King through the "true downtown" — think Gore Park — was also considered a plus.

Later, a Metrolinx analysis picked the Main-King combo as the clear winner to spur dense residential and economic development. (That's if we convert Main Street to two-way traffic — a debate that deserves its own story.)


Read it in full here.

[markbarbera]

Herein lies the biggest problem with Council today. Decisions are made internally without presenting the rationale for making that decision. Now that we are full steam ahead, and some are (rightfully) asking for clarification on the rationale for the route, instead of presenting the rationale supporting that decision, the questions are labelled at FUD and dismissed. The end result is we still have no answer to these questions, and we are just supposed to blindly accept this route as-is and live with whatever shortcomings that could have been addressed now, just so that the LRT can be started before 2018.

Adding to the issue is the sudden add-on of the spur along James North, which will be the less desirable mixed traffic format. Options for that spur was never studied, or at least the results of that study were never publicly presented. Has any consideration been given to the impact that multi-year construction will have on the emerging James North commercial area, with its renaissance still very much in its vulnerable infancy? Are we willing to see the economic and cultural benefits of Supercrawl displaced for several years, when a spur line could easily be placed along Hughson (which could be pedestrianized and made a dedicated transit only route)

With the city's "new" media's alleged commitment to promoting open and transparent governance, it is amazing how accepting they are to this closed door approach to sharing the data city staff (allegedly) collected and reviewed when the route options were (allegedly) studied back in 2009.

[SteelTown]

Get on board Hamilton LRT, past mayors and regional chairs implore council

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/67...plore-council/

[king10]

Originally Posted by markbarbera

Herein lies the biggest problem with Council today. Decisions are made internally without presenting the rationale for making that decision. Now that we are full steam ahead, and some are (rightfully) asking for clarification on the rationale for the route, instead of presenting the rationale supporting that decision, the questions are labelled at FUD and dismissed. The end result is we still have no answer to these questions, and we are just supposed to blindly accept this route as-is and live with whatever shortcomings that could have been addressed now, just so that the LRT can be started before 2018.

Adding to the issue is the sudden add-on of the spur along James North, which will be the less desirable mixed traffic format. Options for that spur was never studied, or at least the results of that study were never publicly presented. Has any consideration been given to the impact that multi-year construction will have on the emerging James North commercial area, with its renaissance still very much in its vulnerable infancy? Are we willing to see the economic and cultural benefits of Supercrawl displaced for several years, when a spur line could easily be placed along Hughson (which could be pedestrianized and made a dedicated transit only route)

With the city's "new" media's alleged commitment to promoting open and transparent governance, it is amazing how accepting they are to this closed door approach to sharing the data city staff (allegedly) collected and reviewed when the route options were (allegedly) studied back in 2009.

Very good point.

[Dwils01]

While I think Hughson could be a good alternative route going north, the reason that it was not a final choice was the street ending at Hunter and at Liuna Station. You would have to go to either John Street or James Street to get across the tracks to the waterfront. Now the the West Harbour Go Station is there James was the best choice to have the A-Line spur on because of the short walking distance pedestrians would take to get from the Go Station to the LRT.

When I was in the Transportation course at Mohawk we had a presentation on the LRT for the A-Line and the B-Line in early 2011. Hughson street was discussed then aswell but we were told that They want to keep it on James to avoid it turning onto a different street just to turn back onto James again at Murray Street which they said would greatly increase the cost of construction for it at that time. They would have to make the LRT turn at two intersection up on the mountain and they didn't want the LRT to turn onto any different streets in the Lower part of the city.

[lucasmascotto]

All that these supposed concerns and questions have done is create dissent and needless worry - which is exactly what naysayers want.

Regardless of where its built, there will be frustrations, traffic, and seemingly endless construction. Get over it. It sucks, your commute might be slowed down by a few minutes, and some business in the period of four years might possibly be effected.

However, as we all know, the economic benefits and the investment (which is already happening under the promise of construction) will be far greater than any possible economic deficits under the guise of four years of construction.

Denningers has a large parking lot that partially fronts onto Main Street and a patio entrance on the side of the store which can be accessed by cars and the patrons coming in. Sidewalks during construction on King Street will remain open so its pedestrian base can still access the store and other stores as well. With additional temporary signage it wouldn't be difficult to direct both vehicles and walking on-lookers into the store. Additional advertising would also help to encourage business. I also find it funny, how Denningers doesn't complain about the construction happening next to its Jackson Square location, which has cut off the Farmer's Market and Food Court access to their store and has also been occurring for over a year now but rails against LRT.

Furthermore, both in Portland and Toronto, some LRT lines and routes run either entirely or partially with vehicle traffic. It does have its downsides, yes. Particularly if there's accidents or loads of traffic on the road, however, for the most part these lines don't cause much fuss and still allow for vehicular travel and still hold sustainable ridership levels. We don't even have to look that far back to understand what James Street was like with a fixed transit system. Think of the trolley bus, which ended service in 1992. Traffic operated normally when those were in and the only issues that came up with their service was due to sheer maintenance decline of the vehicles themselves.

As for Super Crawl, there are ways around the construction. Also, lets be real here, the attendees and the stands of seriously outgrown the capacity of James Street North and some of the venues now are located away from the northern strip. Venues could easily be located to the Jackson Square rooftop, to the Gore Park promenade, and even to James south. I'm sure Jackson Square and the Gore would benefit immensely from an influx of patrons. Again, the sidewalks on James Street will remain open so regular Art Crawl could still function. Also, there are plenty of infill lots that could also stage larger pieces of work or groups of people.

These aren't permanent solutions to the construction issues that come up with LRT, but there are ways to supplement problems and instead of complaining we should be devising plans of action that not only guarantee pragmatic success during four years of building but also long after the completion of the project.

[markbarbera]

Originally Posted by lucasmascotto

All that these supposed concerns and questions have done is create dissent and needless worry - which is exactly what naysayers want.

Regardless of where its built, there will be frustrations, traffic, and seemingly endless construction. Get over it. It sucks, your commute might be slowed down by a few minutes, and some business in the period of four years might possibly be effected.

However, as we all know, the economic benefits and the investment (which is already happening under the promise of construction) will be far greater than any possible economic deficits under the guise of four years of construction.

Denningers has a large parking lot that partially fronts onto Main Street and a patio entrance on the side of the store which can be accessed by cars and the patrons coming in. Sidewalks during construction on King Street will remain open so its pedestrian base can still access the store and other stores as well. With additional temporary signage it wouldn't be difficult to direct both vehicles and walking on-lookers into the store. Additional advertising would also help to encourage business. I also find it funny, how Denningers doesn't complain about the construction happening next to its Jackson Square location, which has cut off the Farmer's Market and Food Court access to their store and has also been occurring for over a year now but rails against LRT.

Furthermore, both in Portland and Toronto, some LRT lines and routes run either entirely or partially with vehicle traffic. It does have its downsides, yes. Particularly if there's accidents or loads of traffic on the road, however, for the most part these lines don't cause much fuss and still allow for vehicular travel and still hold sustainable ridership levels. We don't even have to look that far back to understand what James Street was like with a fixed transit system. Think of the trolley bus, which ended service in 1992. Traffic operated normally when those were in and the only issues that came up with their service was due to sheer maintenance decline of the vehicles themselves.

As for Super Crawl, there are ways around the construction. Also, lets be real here, the attendees and the stands of seriously outgrown the capacity of James Street North and some of the venues now are located away from the northern strip. Venues could easily be located to the Jackson Square rooftop, to the Gore Park promenade, and even to James south. I'm sure Jackson Square and the Gore would benefit immensely from an influx of patrons. Again, the sidewalks on James Street will remain open so regular Art Crawl could still function. Also, there are plenty of infill lots that could also stage larger pieces of work or groups of people.

These aren't permanent solutions to the construction issues that come up with LRT, but there are ways to supplement problems and instead of complaining we should be devising plans of action that not only guarantee pragmatic success during four years of building but also long after the completion of the project.

There are also ways to minimize impact of construction, and if there are alternate routes that have less of an impact on commercial activity, then those routes should be considered. The goal should be to maximize benefit while minimizing cost.

There should be a discussion to address concern and worry, and it should be encouraged. This is not naysaying, it is called due diligence, a concept often ignored or avoided in this city, which does an incredible disservice to us all.