Comment 37812

By frank (registered) | Posted February 04, 2010 at 09:51:28

Ryan, makes sense. I just thought it might be nice to have it both places because you'd have people walking between and outside both streets which would theoretically increase the area of influence.

Sniffy, an increase of 4' isn't a big deal assuming that we're talking ROW widths (which we in fact are). I've designed roads with 30m ROW and left the outside 10m on each side untouched. Just because it says that's the width doesn't mean there will be a track at the those numbers. Using my own common sense and having seen some drawings and pictures of LRT in other places, I can see how a 2 way line can run on King Street. Reading the Rapid Transit FAQs, it says "Rapid Transit Team staff is considering various ways that the corridor design can be modified to minimize impacts. This includes considering single tracks in some areas, minimal platform widths, minimal lane widths, minimal boulevard treatments and sidewalk widths. In some cases, substandard lane widths and sidewalk widths may be required when property acquisition opportunities are restricted by heritage and archeology features."

In the same document, they state that current ROW widths are minimum 17.3m in the downtown corridor, minimum overall is 15.8m around Sherman Ave. Take a look here... http://www.lrta.info/photos/Germany/de-m... From the Hamilton Rapid Transit site, plans here are to use vehicles with a width of 2.65m and a minumum required clearance of 1m. That means a minimum 6.3m is required for the actual rail lines and cars - the actual visible part of the rail line. The rest is boulevards, sidewalks and treatments.

I can only assume you enjoy the status quo but I have to ask, what are you so scared of?

Comment edited by frank on 2010-02-04 08:57:30

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds