Transportation

Breaking - Rapid Transit Feasibility Study

By RTH Staff
Published April 10, 2008

Update - HLR has just posted a quick look at the report's highlights.

The agenda for the public works committee meeting on April 14 includes a presentation of the rapid transit feasibility study conducted by McCormack Rankin Consulting for the city.

The report is available to download here:

More information will shortly be posted on the Hamilton Light Rail website.

9 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By Frank (registered) | Posted April 10, 2008 at 15:22:15

I like Jason's cross section from a while back. They say that having BRT/LRT will preclude changing Main and King to two way street as well as adding bike lanes. Why? Also...holy repetitive!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted April 10, 2008 at 15:49:15

interesting stuff! this issue has finally made it. exciting.

A few points. 1. There is PLENTY of space on Queenston from Eastgate to Red Hill area for transit-only lanes. The centre turning lane is almost 2-lanes wide. The city could slightly expand the roadway into the little median/sidewalk ROW and have transit lanes along both curbs with 2-lanes each way for traffic. No centre turning lane.

  1. I don't like the ROW idea for King/Main. Put LRT both ways on Main on the north side of the street...then have 2 eastbound car lanes, and the south curb reserved for parking/loading.

  2. Alternatively, if they insist on keeping transit on both streets instead of 2-way, put the LRT lane on the NORTH side of Main and SOUTH side of King with 2 traffic lanes and then the loading/parking on the right curb (south curb of Main, north curb of King). Here's my reasoning for this: you don't want people parking/loading having to cross the transit only lane all the time. The ROW for transit needs to be as exclusive as possible. Both BRT and LRT vehicles now come equipped with doors that open on both sides of the vehicle. There's no requirement to have the transit on the 'right side' of the road like we currently do. Secondly, if they keep this 1-way design it eliminates the need for people to cross both King and Main in order to catch the train in the opposite direction. It moves the lines closer to each other, even though they are on separate streets.

Closing James Mtn Road to all but transit/emerg vehicles is a great idea. Let's not tunnel - do BRT up the escarpment and LRT east/west. Plus, LRT could eventually go up the escarpment via the Claremont Access.

Finally, they need to look into the smaller, modern streetcar vehicles we've mentioned on RTH in the past.

http://www.raisethehammer.org/index.asp?...

Modern streetcars are lighter and slightly smaller than full sized LRT vehicles. The construction costs are much lower and they wouldn't have issues with height on King St at Summers Lane.

This is an historic moment for Hamilton. The more people involved the better. If we make this decision properly, we could set ourselves up for many years and decades of revival and growth. LRT can do all of that, and more. Buses can't.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted April 10, 2008 at 16:00:15

$15-$18 million per km seems to be more appropriate for the modern streetcar type of vehicle instead of full-sized LRT:

http://www.lightrailnow.org/news/n_por-s...

These new vehicles are lighter and only require the top 6-8 inches of roadway to be dug up instead of the whole thing.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Frank (registered) | Posted April 10, 2008 at 20:13:56

I might be alone in liking the tunnel but that might be because I like things like that. I agree with Jason. I think the cross sections that the report came up with can be modified to make them much better as well as moving to the other type of cars which would reduce the unsightly electrical supply. Would it be possible to, instead of having an A and B line that go perpendicular to each other (one up and down the mountain) to have two LRT lines parallel to each other one up and one below the mountain? It'd change the potential of Mohawk or Fennell. BRT can easily run up and down the mountain in several locations and to the airport if necessary.

A good roundtable discussion with open minds would be a great thing to have...

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Frank (registered) | Posted April 10, 2008 at 20:15:56

I guess the analysis on the Hamilton Light Rail site kinda summarizes the whole thing eh?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted April 10, 2008 at 23:05:36

I love the idea of an LRT line from Eastgate to Mac and another one along Mohawk Road. The A-Line can be BRT from downtown to the airport. Mohawk is farily high density and could use some renovation and new streetfront uses. It's time to write letters to the Spec. The people who believe that public tax money should only be spent on them and their car will be out in full force. Education re: the EcDev potential of LRT is essential.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Frank (registered) | Posted April 11, 2008 at 14:38:50

Jay, I'm going to need one of those LRT shirts lol!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By cheemart (anonymous) | Posted April 12, 2008 at 12:23:15

First they want to slow down people downtown with two way streets...........now they want to speed them up with rapid transit!!! Brother Baldesaro looks better all the time!!!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Ted Mitchell (registered) | Posted April 12, 2008 at 15:03:12

if occupancy and efficiency and utilization have suddenly lost their meaning then a comment like the above might make sense.

Permalink | Context

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to comment.

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds