Hamilton Hamilton Line B LRT | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx

[DKsan]

A mixed-traffic A-Line could work. Is there space at the proposed stops to segregate them from traffic somehow?

That's how some mixed traffic LRT lines in Europe work.

 

[DC83]

Just thinking, won't Phase 2 construction be detrimental to ridership?
If there's a bus running from Eastgate to the Traffic Circle Terminal (Tragina Terminal?) and half of Queenston is tore up for LRT construction, it's going to slow that bus down significantly..?
Metrolinx just needs to build this to Eastgate now!

 

[DC83]

A mixed-traffic A-Line could work. Is there space at the proposed stops to segregate them from traffic somehow?

That's how some mixed traffic LRT lines in Europe work.

There's a tiny bit of room at WestHarbour, but not Cannon.
Now, if the A-Line approached Cannon from the east (ie turning off of Hughson to get to James) Metrolix could expropriate a terrible 1980's plaza and replace it with an angled station stop (I attached a google maps screenshot of said plaza).

 

[mdrejhon]

Major Mistake(s):
-Replacing Gage Ave with Scott Park. If Hamilton wants to create a true grid/ feeder transit system, where buses feed into B-Line LRT, there should be a stop at Gage Ave as well.

As early as 2011, it was long already moved from Gage to Scott Park -- this isn't new to me.
Ideally, both should exist. But Scott is far more important than Gage.

This is because of both the upcoming new school and the stadium.

 

[DC83]

It was long moved from Gage to Scott Park -- this isn't new to me.
Ideally, both should exist. But Scott is far more important than Gage.
This is because of both the new school and the stadium.

It's not important at all! LOL It should be a 'special events / school extra' stop at most. Only stopping there during school hours and/ or special events at Tim Horton's Field.

Gage would be a much more logical stop. Never understood for my life why it was never a B-Line bus stop (0r Wellington for that matter as the bus always gets stuck at that light anyway).

 

[mdrejhon]

Attachment images inserted.

The new school plans and community centre includes integration with the stadium station...

Gage is important -- we agree
Scott unimportant? -- we disagree

Timing/extra stops, is a worthy discussion. Previously the assumption was that all stops are treated equally, but the consideration of stops being "special extra" is something that interestingly needs to be brought up.

 

[DC83]

I'm getting worried now that this line is being controlled by Metrolinx with little to no regard for what Hamilton and/or the HSR thinks or needs.

What the HSR needs to do is create north-south bus routes feeding into the B-Line LRT.
An LRT stop @ King & Melrose doesn't connect to a north-south arterial.

A Gage Ave bus would have to travel 5 blocks west, then back 5 blocks east to access the Scott Park stop. That bus would also have to share those 10 blocks with cars in the newly limited general traffic lanes.

Put the stop at Gage, teenagers can walk 5 blocks to their school! Football fans can walk to the game (and back), they currently park further anyway.

 

[mdrejhon]

What the HSR needs to do is create north-south bus routes feeding into the B-Line LRT.

Strongly agree.

We learned that Andrae Griffith wrote a thesis about this, and invited him to chat with our citizen advocacy team...

Although apparently a Gage bus wasn't part of this particular design pass, I did mention I recommended a Gage bus be added.

 

[mdrejhon]

So, on that Gage LRT station topic.... ultimately most would agree to both stations existing in some form whatsoever, might only disagree on details (station size, specials, etc).

I do honestly have mixed feelings about the lack of a good Gage bus route intermingling with an LRT station. A bunch of people will need to do some thinking on how to address that Gage-vs-ScottPark LRT station situation -- but everyone's also got big fish to fry simultaneously. We have to make sure we get the best benefits from the LRT. The Davenport Bridge team is a good example of how citizen advocacies can encourage Metrolinx to improve their initial plans. I'm looking forward to what Wednesday brings. It's going to increase everybody's workload, but that's good!

Scott Park LRT station (IMHO) is an important surge station, so even if it's only a special-only station, I would not scale back the station size, as I hear 6 LRV's will be dwell simultaneously for boarding passengers (24 open doors!) -- though the distance between crossovers in the newer 2016 diagram appear to show platforms might be lengthened in future to allow 9 LRV's to dwell.

Shortening walking distance to the LRT station and making the LRT a subway-ish experience of many open level-boarding doors -- will encourage people to leave cars at home during stadium events. Even if it's only a "special" station (despite its big size).

Thus, I feel any battle that any advocate should do here in this section, station-wise, is simply adding a Gage station, and whether Scott is a special stop status.

 

[DC83]

Strongly agree.

We learned that Andrae Griffith wrote a thesis about this, and invited him to chat with our citizen advocacy team...

Although apparently a Gage bus wasn't part of this particular design pass, I did mention I recommended a Gage bus be added.

View attachment 73826

Yes. So which is why we need a Gage Ave stop before a Scott Park stop.

I say a Gage stop is needed before a Scott Park stop for a truly cohesive, rapid, reliable transit network.
You say a Scott Park stop is needed before a Gage stop because it's close to a high school and minimally-used sports field.

Things that make you go hmmmmm

 

[Markster]

We both say a Gage stop is needed for a truly cohesive, rapid, reliable transit network.

I fixed that for you. Remember, you and mdrejhon agree about that. And mdrejhon is not saying that Scott is needed before Gage.

 

[mdrejhon]

I fixed that for you. Remember, you and mdrejhon agree about that. And mdrejhon is not saying that Scott is needed before Gage.

+1

I never said Scott Park or Gage should be built first.

I merely said that the Scott Park definitely is important and should continue to exist (even if it's a special-only station or otherwise).
Yes, maybe Gage should be built first.
Yes, maybe various advocates (maybe even us too) need to lobby for that.

But Scott Park is important too, nonetheless, and its thoughtful surge-friendly design should not be wastefully discarded. Even if it's a Special-only stop, 6 LRVs moves only 5% of the stadium, and a single 6-LRV turnover cycle would only move 10% (not including stadium employees and school). Special stations doesn't preclude the need for convenience, safety, and surge capacity.

 

[DC83]

Ideally, both should exist. But Scott is far more important than Gage.

This is because of both the upcoming new school and the stadium.

I fixed that for you. Remember, you and mdrejhon agree about that. And mdrejhon is not saying that Scott is needed before Gage.

I digress.

 

[mdrejhon]

Also, this station is also concidentially a short-turn location, allowing vehicles to switch all tracks and reverse direction in situation of service imbalances or issues.

The station purpose, very importantly, also goes beyond being, well, a station. The triple tracking nature (siding capability) and the crossovers, also provides service flexibility during many categories of disruptions on B-Line.
-- Short turns fixes imbalances, or accident blocking parts of B-Line. LRVs are reversible without turning loop.
-- Third track "siding" nature also permits nearby dead LRVs being towed out of the way. Also allows a working-but-malfunctioning/out-of-service LRV to limp out of the way (with less disruption than needing to go all the way to the MSF spur).

This is all critical, Gage and some select nearby locations can't provide enough space (space between 4-way intersections, as well as vacant streetside land) to easily/safely to add all these mudane LRT logistics/operation flexibility without many compromises. Also, towing can easily be done by another LRV -- TTC does this too with streetcars -- to keep service moving, too (Flexity Freedoms have coupler ability too, to form train consists -- and more modern/easier/automatic than older streetcars). The Hamilton LRVs are double-ended and can execute service bidirectionally without a turning loop -- simply by switching tracks as seen in the diagram. You need several short-turn and siding points on a sufficiently long linear LRT corridor that has no detour options (like TTC has), and Scott Park is one of them.

That's also why it's far more important than Gage, for other reasons than people boarding at Scott Park.
Without it, the other stations will have worse service during several kinds of B-Line disruptions.

Gage may very well be the more important station from an AD2W station service perspective (all-day-2-way) and transfers...
...but operationally, the Scott Park station actually is more important than Gage, due to its short-turn & siding capability.

 

[mdrejhon]

Regarding A-Line:

Let's consider:
- B-Line is traffic-dedicated to LRT, because you need fast crosstown movement.
- A-Line (future extension) should be traffic-dedicated to LRT south of King to allow fast journeys between Mountain and downtown.

However, A-Line being mixed traffic north of Wilson, actually isn't too bad if that preserves practically everything on James -- trees, light standards, heritage. You'd just put up a cross wire across the existing light standards, and wire catenary right underneath -- practical utilization of existing road infrastructure without tearing up anything on James except the LRT. Even all the existing public artwork would stay. It's a tough compromise but it's the apparently best-possible outcomes preserving James, if there's no other feasible route. Certainly, you do have mixed feelings, but I clearly see it's the most street-heritage-preserving outcome if the LRT stays on James St N. That big advantage needs to, at the very least, be acknowledged, even with mixed feelings.

It actually even keeps the door open to eventual pedestrianization of James. The trees/lights/arts/etc stay, the tracks get installed, simple crosswires between light poles.

So, if LRT runs on James, this was actually apparently one of the best possible outcomes for James St N: mixed-traffic -- the only way to fully preserve James St N north of Wilson. With the silver lining of potentially becoming LRT-dedicated by pedestrianization (after sufficient densification & gradual diversion of cars to other routes such as John St) once sufficient LRT ridership allows. It'd still be fast crosstown (east-west) and southwards (A-Line dedicated extension south), just slow through James St N north of Wilson.

Otherwise if you separate while keeping cars, you've just converted James St N back into an ugly 4-lane stroad (shades of the early 90s) by tearing down trees, ripping up the light standards, narrowing the sidewalks, just to let 2 car lanes and 2 LRT lanes co-exist. Ouch.

Personal opinion only. Not shared by the whole team of LRT advocates. But one needs to see this couild have been easily a lot worse for James. A LOT worse.