HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Hamilton > Transportation & Infrastructure


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #121  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2008, 4:48 AM
NuclearNerd NuclearNerd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by the dude View Post
...which brings into question the whole idea of running lrt on upper james. don't have an answer for that one.
Mohawk College. Besides which, Lime Ridge Mall isn't the start and end of the world. There's lots of destination spots on Upper James - movies, shopping, restaurants. With rapid transit, there'll be lots more in the future. It makes sense for the city to lead the market a little. It's called "transit-oriented development"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #122  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2008, 4:51 AM
NuclearNerd NuclearNerd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Dalton View Post
Marseille France - 8% grade, while accelerating fast and turning corners smooth
Betcha it couldn't climb that grade if the tracks were icy. Marseilles rarely gets below 0deg. Steel wheels really don't do hills well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #123  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2008, 12:34 PM
Jon Dalton's Avatar
Jon Dalton Jon Dalton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 1,778
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Dalton View Post
There are LRT vehicles that handle well over 5% grade, for example the system in Sheffield, England has a maximum grade of 10%. During one severe winter storm, traffic was halted throughout the city but the LRT kept running up and down those hills.
The vehicles that do it:

Source - transportimages.com

Source - bathtram.org

These are similar to what's used in Edmonton, Sacramento, San Diego, Portland, etc. 8 axles, all driven.
Specs:
http://www.supertram.net/uploads/vehicleinfo.pdf
__________________
360º of Hamilton

Last edited by Jon Dalton; Apr 18, 2008 at 3:05 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #124  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2008, 2:36 PM
realcity's Avatar
realcity realcity is offline
Bruatalism gets no respec
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Williamsville NY
Posts: 4,059
I'm afraid just because it's done in other cities is no guarantee Hamilton will do the same.... It seems the arguement is already slanted to favour busses.
__________________
Height restrictions and Set-backs are for Nimbys and the suburbs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #125  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2008, 3:44 AM
coalminecanary coalminecanary is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,421
Quote:
Originally Posted by sbwoodside View Post
Where did you get the $175m figure for the tunnel?
Report says 405 mil for b line LRT, 620 mil for a line LRT, 75 mil for a servicing yard and 80 mil for lrt vehicles.

of the 620 mil for a line, the things that i think could be considered "very negotiable" by simply being more picky about the route and the cars used, include the tunnel (175 mil), rebuilding the th&b structures (30 mil) and the airport link which I think should be a separate proposal (247 mil)
__________________
no clever signoff.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #126  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2008, 11:59 AM
raisethehammer raisethehammer is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,054
Quote:
Originally Posted by sbwoodside View Post
Where did you get the $175m figure for the tunnel?

Also, it's not a big deal, but what's wrong with going up the jolley cut? It could turn left off of James at St Jo's, go up the cut, and then zip right back over to Upper James. The deviation from the prescribed A-Line route would be minimal, it seems like the deviation would be less than going up claremont.

Or is there another advantage to Claremont that I'm missing?

--simon

I think they could close down the West 5th access ramp from the Claremont for transit only. this would bring the A-line right to Mohawk College. There are 4 upbound lanes on the Claremont. 2 of them on the northern edge of the bridge could be converted to LRT and run down to Main. It could use the existing B-line tracks on Main St from Hunter to Wellington and right up to the college.
Eventually it would be nice to have a local streetcar route running up/down James St from the escarpment to waterfront.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #127  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2008, 2:25 PM
markbarbera markbarbera is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 3,050
Jolley cut has a slightly higher rate of incline than Claremont and the turn radius at the top would be challenging for rail.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #128  
Old Posted Apr 20, 2008, 5:56 PM
hamiltonguy hamiltonguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by markbarbera View Post
Jolley cut has a slightly higher rate of incline than Claremont and the turn radius at the top would be challenging for rail.
I still don't think it'd be that challenging.

Hamilton only has a few Accesses.

Beggers can't be choosers.
__________________
My Blog:

http://forwardhamilton.blogspot.com/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #129  
Old Posted Apr 20, 2008, 6:47 PM
markbarbera markbarbera is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 3,050
LRT generally require minimum 60 feet clearance for turning radius. The hairpin curve at the top of Jolley Cut would require 120 feet clearance to do the full 180 degree turn. The tram would be swinging out into the abutting lane as it negotiates this turn, which would make it impossible for a lane of automobile traffic to travel alongside it. Jolley really cannot be exclusively LRT, which is probably why it is precluded as a potential site for the route. James Mountian road is planned to be closed to all traffic to accomodate the BRT for similar reasons, but closing this access is much more manageable than closing Jolley. Claremont, on the other hand, does not have any tight turning radius and enough clearance to allow both LRT and automobile lanes. That's why I think it is probably the best candidate for LRT access to the upper city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #130  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2008, 4:00 PM
Jon Dalton's Avatar
Jon Dalton Jon Dalton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 1,778
I believe Ferguson is now in support of light rail running in mixed traffic. It's not LRT, or rapid transit for that matter, without its own right of way, but it's good to know he's at least partially on board.
__________________
360º of Hamilton
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #131  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2008, 4:29 PM
raisethehammer raisethehammer is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,054
who cares what he thinks in all honesty.
When you see stupidity like his and the crap from Dolbec in today's Spec it gives you a great glimpse into the old, creaky antiques that have been the power-brokers in the Hammer for too long.
They need to just enjoy living their lives like it's 1950 and stop embarassing themselves in public.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #132  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2008, 4:35 PM
flar's Avatar
flar flar is offline
..........
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Southwestern Ontario
Posts: 15,184
Dolbec's piece was ridiculous. Too many so-called "leaders" simply parrot anecdotal nonsense they've heard from people who don't know what they're talking about. He says the perimeter road idea is dead, didn't they just complete the last leg of the the ring road in November? I'm sure trucks will still be able to get to the 403 if LRT is built. Besides, it's a lot more difficult for trucks to move around in Toronto, but that city seems to be doing fine.
__________________
RECENT PHOTOS:
TORONTOSAN FRANCISCO ROCHESTER, NYHAMILTONGODERICH, ON WHEATLEY, ONCOBOURG, ONLAS VEGASLOS ANGELES
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #133  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2008, 4:52 PM
HAMRetrofit's Avatar
HAMRetrofit HAMRetrofit is offline
Pro Urban Degenerate
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto-Hamilton Mega Region
Posts: 839
Trucks are prevalent on many of Toronto's downtown roads. This is especially important to bring material to the multitude of construction projects ie. Avenue/University, Jarvis, Adelaide, and Richmond all function as de facto arteries for trucks.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #134  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2008, 5:40 PM
JT Jacobs JT Jacobs is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by flar View Post
Dolbec's piece was ridiculous. Too many so-called "leaders" simply parrot anecdotal nonsense they've heard from people who don't know what they're talking about. He says the perimeter road idea is dead, didn't they just complete the last leg of the the ring road in November? I'm sure trucks will still be able to get to the 403 if LRT is built. Besides, it's a lot more difficult for trucks to move around in Toronto, but that city seems to be doing fine.
I sent this letter to the Spec today in response to Dolbec's claims. The example of Toronto's lively commerce with reduced traffic is the crux of the argument. We'll see if the Spec prints it (I didn't write it with a red crayon, after all):

To the Editor,

Mr. Dolbec's limited understanding of what constitutes a thriving commercial downtown core is disappointing. As a former (and returning) resident of Hamilton, I wish to contribute to this important issue.

Naturally, trucks are an essential aspect of any contemporary North American city for the transportation of commercial goods. However, I must take issue with Mr. Dolbec's claim that implementing traffic-calming measures ("diminishing lanes") in urban centres is "jumping on the bandwagon."

I would ask Mr. Dolbec to examine other North American cities' cores. Toronto's Queen Street West and Bloor Street both have traffic calming measures that allow only one lane of traffic in either direction and one lane each for limited parking and commercial stops. Neither street, quite clearly, suffers economically from limiting vehicular traffic. On the contrary, both streets enjoy a bustling and burgeoning economy. Trucks still drive down Bloor Street and unload goods for Hermes, Louis Vuitton, and Lacoste, after all. That they do so more slowly does not disrupt Bloor Street's robust economy.

There is a direct correlation between traffic volume and healthy urban commerce. Paradoxically, reducing traffic enhances commerce. Otherwise, Hamilton--a national leader in one-way, inner-city expressways like King Street, Main Street, Cannon Street, and York Boulevard--would also be a leader in downtown commerce. But we know that Hamilton currently isn't, and won't ever be until authenticated planning practices like traffic calming are implemented.

Traffic-calming practices like lane reduction, two-way traffic, speed-limit reduction, dedicated car-pooling and transit lanes, are sound, proven urban planning techniques for enhancing downtown environments, revitalizing communities, and stimulating commerce, that have been endorsed and implemented by leading cities for over twenty years now. A quick glance at Portland, Toronto, Vancouver, and Calgary will confirm this. I encourage Mr. Dolbec to look beyond Hamilton's borders and then to reconsider his view.

Regards,
Tim Jacobs
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #135  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2008, 5:44 PM
DC83 DC83 is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,430
Quote:
Originally Posted by flar View Post
Dolbec's piece was ridiculous. Too many so-called "leaders" simply parrot anecdotal nonsense they've heard from people who don't know what they're talking about. He says the perimeter road idea is dead, didn't they just complete the last leg of the the ring road in November? I'm sure trucks will still be able to get to the 403 if LRT is built. Besides, it's a lot more difficult for trucks to move around in Toronto, but that city seems to be doing fine.
I think 'The Perimeter Road' was the name of a proposed inner-city expressway, pretty much an extension of Burlignton Street to the 403 around Cootes Paradise. I think the plan was to follow the train tracks... THAT 'perimeter road' is dead, HOWEVER, they did just complete a perimeter highway this fall. You're new'ish to Hamilton, Flar... sad thing is, Dolbec should know. Unfortunately, he's one of the many uneducated Hamiltonians who (like you said) just repeat what they've been hearing for decades w/ no willingness to readapt to the 21stC.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #136  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2008, 6:31 PM
flar's Avatar
flar flar is offline
..........
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Southwestern Ontario
Posts: 15,184
I know about the old perimeter road idea, it's just unnecessary now that there is a ring road around Hamilton-Burlington, or should I say Burlington-Hamilton
__________________
RECENT PHOTOS:
TORONTOSAN FRANCISCO ROCHESTER, NYHAMILTONGODERICH, ON WHEATLEY, ONCOBOURG, ONLAS VEGASLOS ANGELES
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #137  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2008, 7:19 PM
DC83 DC83 is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,430
Quote:
Originally Posted by flar View Post
I know about the old perimeter road idea, it's just unnecessary now that there is a ring road around Hamilton-Burlington, or should I say Burlington-Hamilton
Oh hellll ya hahaha Completely unnecessary!

There are, however, some powers that think it's still needed: Hamilton Chamber of Commerce & Hamilton Port Authority come into mind... but they are also stuck in the 50's. Hell, if it were profitable, I'm sure they'd still be dumping in the bay! What else would that body of water be there for? Recreation? haha
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #138  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2008, 8:30 PM
hamiltonguy hamiltonguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by markbarbera View Post
LRT generally require minimum 60 feet clearance for turning radius. The hairpin curve at the top of Jolley Cut would require 120 feet clearance to do the full 180 degree turn. The tram would be swinging out into the abutting lane as it negotiates this turn, which would make it impossible for a lane of automobile traffic to travel alongside it. Jolley really cannot be exclusively LRT, which is probably why it is precluded as a potential site for the route. James Mountian road is planned to be closed to all traffic to accomodate the BRT for similar reasons, but closing this access is much more manageable than closing Jolley. Claremont, on the other hand, does not have any tight turning radius and enough clearance to allow both LRT and automobile lanes. That's why I think it is probably the best candidate for LRT access to the upper city.
Getting on to Claremont from Carlton, as some have proposed, would require a much tighter curve than the Jolley Cut.

But yes I see your point. they could still run in mixed traffic though.
__________________
My Blog:

http://forwardhamilton.blogspot.com/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #139  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2008, 10:40 PM
raisethehammer raisethehammer is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,054
Hunter or Main St to Wellington would be the best way to access the Claremont.
Then it can run right up to Mohawk College.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #140  
Old Posted Apr 21, 2008, 11:09 PM
hamiltonguy hamiltonguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 316
My Only Concern is bypassing St. Joes and James South.
__________________
My Blog:

http://forwardhamilton.blogspot.com/
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Hamilton > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:35 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.