Rapid Transit

[SteelTown]

Listen to the interview yourself

http://www.900chml.com/Channels/Reg/...spx?ID=1192631

Premier McGuinty talks about LRT during the last 4 minutes. He never mentioned about how the Pan Am bid won’t help Hamilton’s LRT odds. He simply said he'll wait for the business case from Metrolinx regarding the B-Line before deciding about funding.

[SteelTown]

City looks to Europe for light rail plans

February 05, 2010
Meredith Macleod
The Hamilton Spectator
http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/717530

City planners don't want to follow in the tracks of other North American cities when it comes to light rail.

The consultant hired to figure out how Hamilton should move forward with a hoped-for rail line will be expected to have experience in designing a modern European-style rapid transit system.

That's a clear indication of the direction city planners intend to take with a proposed LRT corridor stretching 16 kilometres from Eastgate Square to McMaster University.

The vision is to emulate the way European cities built their LRT systems.

That means:

* giving priority to transit, pedestrians, cyclists and service vehicles rather than cars;

* making LRT fit the existing streetscape and adapting the design to fit each neighbourhood;

* having minimal or no property acquisition;

* putting the transit line close to buildings and sidewalks.

Jill Stephen, Hamilton's acting director of strategic planning and rapid transit, says the typical North American approach has been to try to give priority to both traffic and transit and drastically change the streetscape. Often LRT lines have been built on abandoned rail corridors or greenfield space at the periphery of the city.

"We have a lot of similarities to European cities," Stephen said. "We don't have a greenfield corridor or an old highway or a rail corridor like some North American cities have used."

Instead, Hamilton must contend with a set right-of-way and a streetscape built alongside. In some areas of the proposed route along Main and King, the corridor is narrow.

"European cities have used what they had available and maximized it," Stephen said. "There are models for making this work."

The tendering for the year-long planning, design and engineering study to lay out the details of an east-west LRT line will close Monday.

A team of city and Metrolinx staff will choose a consultant based on a scoring system and bid price.

Metrolinx, the provincial agency charged with transportation planning in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area, is expected to make a recommendation about whether Hamilton should get LRT or bus rapid transit Feb. 19.

Stephen says Hamilton's transit team has studied transit systems from around the world.

"We're trying to get a sense of what has worked, what hasn't and what lessons can apply to Hamilton."

A delegation from Hamilton visited Portland, Ore., Charlotte, N.C., and Calgary about 18 months ago to see transit systems in action and talk to the people who built and use them.

The team is studying the types of vehicles in use elsewhere, how they're powered, the routes they take, and how other municipalities have built ridership and consulted with the community.

Stephen said a goal of the Hamilton system will be to reflect the character and history of individual neighbourhoods through the design of vehicles and stations and the use of public art.

"This is a chance to celebrate Hamilton," she said.

"It gives people a sense of ownership."

MODEL TRAINS

Here are some of the city transit systems Hamilton is looking to emulate and some it wants to avoid.

THE GOOD

DUBLIN, IRELAND

* Sleek trains

* Boarding at street level

* Building entrances built specifically for LRT users

* Stations integrated into existing streetscape and landscape

LYON, FRANCE

* Branded car, made to look like a silkworm, to represent Lyon's silk industry

PORTLAND, ORE.

* Cars, buses, LRT mingle together

* System reflects history and character of individual neighbourhoods

STRASBOURG, GERMANY

* LRT runs down the middle of a busy street

* Stations are located where people are anywayy

EDMONTON (future plan)

* Low-level boarding

* Runs at curbside on well-travelled road

THE BAD

EDMONTON (present)

* Runs on fenced-off tracks behind residential neighbourhoods

* Concrete platforms

* Doesn't mingle with city life

* No opportunity for economic development alongside stations

TORONTO

* Streetcars can't be joined together to increase capacity

* Streetcars don't have priority within mix of traffic

* Don't run on dedicated tracks

SACRAMENTO, CALIF.

* Boxy, chunky vehicle

* Raised platforms for boarding

* Stops have nothing around them

CALGARY

* Boxy train

* Barren, concrete stops

* Away from main streets

SAN DIEGO, CALIF.

* LRT is on periphery, not on main streets

[bigguy1231]

If they even think of giving priority to pedestrians, transit, cyclists and service vehicles the proposal is dead in the water. These people at city hall are clueless when it comes to what the public in this city will accept. They will not accept closing either of the 2 busiest streets in the city. This is not Europe.

I like the present Edmonton option. Thats the only way it is going to get supported in this city. King or Main Sts. will cause too many problems. It has to be a dedicated transit corridor.

[mdsweet]

Originally Posted by SteelTown

City looks to Europe for light rail plans

DUBLIN, IRELAND

* Sleek trains

* Boarding at street level

* Building entrances built specifically for LRT users

* Stations integrated into existing streetscape and landscape

Having lived in Dublin in 2004-05 when the first two lines of Dublin's LRT opened, its very popular, runs at street level and occasionally in mixed traffic, and outside the centre runs separated and more like commuter rail in spots. But in the centre its not that fast, yet is still packed all the time. Imagine that! Their expansion plans are very exciting too. A good model to look at! Another interesting point, they help pay for it by adding development levies along the lines.

[sofasurfer]

Originally Posted by mdsweet

Having lived in Dublin in 2004-05 when the first two lines of Dublin's LRT opened, its very popular, runs at street level and occasionally in mixed traffic, and outside the centre runs separated and more like commuter rail in spots. But in the centre its not that fast, yet is still packed all the time. Imagine that!

Sounds like Metrolink in Manchester, too. Which is worth mentioning because the area around Manchester Victoria train station and Shudehill (which aspired to becoming a sh1tty part of downtown, prior to Metrolink and the consequent redevelopments that went in hand with it) may have some analogies (if not parallels) to what could happen in Hamilton.

btw, bigguy1231 - indeed, this may not be Europe: but given the macroeconomic trends and consequent strong opportunity that Hamilton's more likely as not gonna have staring in its face in the next decade or two (IMO, at least), some planning that reflects good ideas had elsewhere in the world in general are probably worth considering!

[bigguy1231]

Originally Posted by sofasurfer

btw, bigguy1231 - indeed, this may not be Europe: but given the macroeconomic trends and consequent strong opportunity that Hamilton's more likely as not gonna have staring in its face in the next decade or two (IMO, at least), some planning that reflects good ideas had elsewhere in the world in general are probably worth considering!

I am not opposed to the idea of LRT, I just don't like the options or should I say option being presented to us. Using King St. or Main St. for that matter are totally unacceptable the way the concept has been presented. The proposal as it stands right now will basically close King St. . We cannot have one of our main thoroughfares shut down to vehicular traffic. Where is that traffic going to go. Advocates of this proposal can't be nieve enough to believe that people are going to give up their cars to use the LRT. The same people that use buses now will be the ones that use LRT and maybe a few percent more.

[mdsweet]

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

The proposal as it stands right now will basically close King St.

For a block and a half.

Where is that traffic going to go

Meanwhile Main will be converted to two-way operations, therefore alot of traffic can divert to Main. Nevermind Cannon, Hunter, Wilson and Burlington. Note another of the indirect goals is to make downtown more than just a thoroughfare.

[BrianE]

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

The same people that use buses now will be the ones that use LRT and maybe a few percent more.

You say this with such authority and confidence but seem to be unaware that this statement is contrary to the vast majority of LRT projects that have been undertaken by other cities.

Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not trying to be insulting or sarcastic, It's just the number of cities that have seen ridership increases above and beyond the predicted 'few percent more' is quite stagering.

[turner]

Originally Posted by mdsweet

For a block and a half.

Meanwhile Main will be converted to two-way operations, therefore alot of traffic can divert to Main. Nevermind Cannon, Hunter, Wilson and Burlington. Note another of the indirect goals is to make downtown more than just a thoroughfare.

Has this changed? The last I read, in the Rapid Transit FAQs from Public Works last month, Main and Cannon will remain one-way pairs and King and York would be two-way pairs. It says "The issues of conversion of Main Street to two-way traffic will be reviewed in the future, once rapid transit on King Street has been implemented and changes in traffice patterns established."

[coalminecanary]

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

The proposal as it stands right now will basically close King St. .

This is absolutely wrong. There is a possibility of removing vehicular traffic from a tiny stretch of King Street. This is not the same as "closing king street".

I am about as pro-LRT as they come, and I am actually opposed to the removal of cars on that small stretch because I think it is unnecessary. For that small stretch, the cars and transit can share the lanes.

Let me explain the reality to you as it stands right now: King narrows to 2 lanes at wellington and it is already a bitch to get through there in a car during rush hour. The vast majority of drivers have ALREADY CHANGED THEIR HABITS. They take Cannon if they need to get to the west from the east. They take king if they know they are going to head south on wellington.

People find a way through - and there are SO MANY ways through, it will not be a problem.

Those that use king and main to get from stoney creek to the 403 will no longer do so - they will take the purpose-build highways which will only cost them a couple of minutes compared to the old way of using the through-town through-streets. Their trips are supposedly the reason we built the highways in the first place. From where I am standing, it makes total sense to change traffic patterns to put more through trips on the underused highways that we already built and paid for.

Fear of LRT based on "where will traffic go" is completely unfounded. We have a mind boggling number of traffic lanes through the city, and reducing 2 lanes of King to one, or even to zero for those short blocks will have absolutely no effect on anyone's ability to get through town.

But it will have a huge positive effect on the shops along the line who will now have a new wave of customers coming through their business district at a more human speed and a more human scale.

[SteelTown]

Hopefully I can get an advanced copy on Friday. Usually Metrolinx release advanced copies a week before the meeting. Though I'm not sure since the big shake up at Metrolinx. Things are more private and less open to the public.

[Jon Dalton]

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

We cannot have one of our main thoroughfares shut down to vehicular traffic. Where is that traffic going to go. Advocates of this proposal can't be nieve enough to believe that people are going to give up their cars to use the LRT. The same people that use buses now will be the ones that use LRT and maybe a few percent more.

[mdsweet]

Originally Posted by Jon Dalton

This.

[Jon Dalton]

If ridership only goes up a few percent I will shove all those Mexican hot dogs down my throat. Raw.

[crhayes]

Originally Posted by Jon Dalton

If ridership only goes up a few percent I will shove all those Mexican hot dogs down my throat. Raw.

Can we sticky this thread/post please?

[bigguy1231]

Originally Posted by Jon Dalton

If ridership only goes up a few percent I will shove all those Mexican hot dogs down my throat. Raw.

I wouldn't want to see you hurt yourself.

[bigguy1231]

I am about as pro-LRT as they come, and I am actually opposed to the removal of cars on that small stretch because I think it is unnecessary. For that small stretch, the cars and transit can share the lanes.

According to the plans cars will not share the transit right of way.

Those that use king and main to get from stoney creek to the 403 will no longer do so - they will take the purpose-build highways which will only cost them a couple of minutes compared to the old way of using the through-town through-streets. Their trips are supposedly the reason we built the highways in the first place. From where I am standing, it makes total sense to change traffic patterns to put more through trips on the underused highways that we already built and paid for.

There are no highways to get people into the downtown. As for the purpose built highways being under used, check out the usage statistics. They are already exceeding the projected numbers.

Fear of LRT based on "where will traffic go" is completely unfounded. We have a mind boggling number of traffic lanes through the city, and reducing 2 lanes of King to one, or even to zero for those short blocks will have absolutely no effect on anyone's ability to get through town.

We have the number of lanes we do because there is a need for them, thats why they were built.

But it will have a huge positive effect on the shops along the line who will now have a new wave of customers coming through their business district at a more human speed and a more human scale.

Prove it. It's all speculation at this point.

[SteelTown]

Dundas will have to wait for LRT
Not included in physical and financial plans detailed in current phase

February 10, 2010
Meredith Macleod
The Hamilton Spectator
http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/719115

If Hamilton lands light rail, Dundas will have to wait to jump aboard.

The current design of a proposed line along Main and King streets starts at Eastgate and ends at McMaster University.

But the current B-line bus route to be replaced by a future light rail line ends at University Plaza in Dundas.

That has some valley residents wondering why they're out of the light rail loop.

Well, they're not out entirely, says Councillor Russ Powers, who represents Dundas.

The first phase of the light rail line will stop at Mac, but the design clearly calls for an extension along Main Street and down through Binkley Hollow to the plaza, he says.

"The challenge is that there is only a certain envelope of money," said Powers.

"It requires, in the opinion of staff and engineers, a substantial investment to get across there," Powers said of the incline on Osler Drive.

"I would love nothing more than to have it happen all at one time but it's not physically or financially viable."

Jill Stephen, director of strategic planning for the city, says Metrolinx's Big Move plan outlining transit priorities for the next 25 years, calls for Hamilton's rapid transit corridor to run from Eastgate to Mac.

She said the line will be designed so that it can easily be extended east into Stoney Creek and west into Dundas.

"It's certainly not off the table, but it's not in this phasing."

Powers said it will be important to have bus service increased into Dundas to take riders to and from the LRT.

Metrolinx, the provincial agency charged with transportation planning in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton area, is expected to make a recommendation about whether Hamilton should receive a LRT line or bus rapid transit on Feb. 19.

Funding decisions will come later.

The city is strongly advocating for an investment in LRT.

Darlyne Mills, a Dundas realtor, says she would be happy to see better bus service to the former town.

"It would be much easier for people to move into a lovely community like Dundas with good transit. A lot of people don't want to have two cars and would use transit more often."

James Gaulton would hop on a bus more often to get to his job in Hamilton if they came more regularly to Dundas and weren't always so packed.

"It's a half-hour between buses in the morning ... They have to improve services to improve ridership. The B-Line stops at University Plaza but most people live in town.

"That's a long walk to the plaza," he said.

[BrianE]

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

We have the number of lanes we do because there is a need for them, thats why they were built.

I'm just going to take a second here and blow your mind! What if it's really like this:

We have the number of cars we do because we built a large number of lanes to encourage their use.

I think this is probably the fundamental issue that separates most of us on this board and Raisethehammer.org with yourself and many other Hamilton residents.

I believe in psychology this is called cognitive dissonance someone else can maybe find a better term.

Noticing and acknowledging this way of thinking could lead to negative emotions. I've seen and heard many comments like this: "I NEED my car to get around in this town, there's just no other options." or "I NEED to drive from Stoney Creek to Dundas everyday so there has to be enough lane capacity to accomodate me at all hours of the day." To acknowledge that this isn't true would be very embarassing for many people.

Surely everyone that drives on Main St., King ST, Cannon Etc. must realize that their style of driving is identical to when they're on the Highway. So they must realise that living near these streets would be akin to living next to the QEW. And surely everyone who's ever bought a house or rented a place knows that when they're too close to a highway it lowers the value of the property and ruins their enjoyment of said property. Yet there's this disconnect where if there is ever a proposal to fix these obvious problems with 4 and 5 lane highways through a dense urban city. There is a knee jerk reaction of but where will the traffic go?

[coalminecanary]

So it's come down to a point-by-point breakdown I guess...

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

According to the plans cars will not share the transit right of way.

I was just stating my personal opinion - never claimed the plan called for shared lanes. But the plan is so far just a proposal. It is not set in stone. It is totally appropriate to discuss potential changes to the plan, and inappropriate to take any of it as gospel, like you have with the "removal of cars" hot button.

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

There are no highways to get people into the downtown.

Well, actually, we essentially have two: Main and Cannon. But my point was not about highways to downtown. What percentage of drivers on Main/Cannon/King/Wilson are going to downtown as a destination versus simply driving through? My point was that our true highways can be utilized for getting across town. Currently, the downtown is being used as a giant through-access which is entirely inappropriate. We need to make it less convenient to drive through the core, and more convenient to get to it. Which enhanced transit will absolutely do.

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

We have the number of lanes we do because there is a need for them, thats why they were built.

Wrong. It's possible there was a need for them at one time, but the need has long passed. These lanes were built in a completely different era. If you want an extreme example of this, look at claremont... 7 lanes built for an era where thousands had to get to the industrial sector - now virtually barren of cars day and night... map link

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

Prove it. It's all speculation at this point.

This has been proven time and again in every city that has implemented light rail. Pick a city that has installed it and you will see financial success along the line. Here is a list to get you started. Please feel free to share with us your list of LRT financial failures. Remember that elevated lines, grade-separated lines, dedicated right of ways and old fashioned streetcars are not light rail, so cherry picking a failed monorail is not going to help your case.