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

[Markster]

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 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.

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.

The only kink in that plan are the practical realities of LRT construction. In KW, we're seeing the entire road right of way being dug up wherever the LRT is going. In Uptown Waterloo, for a single direction of side-running LRT, they've gone sidewalk-to-sidewalk, even taking out street trees on the opposite side of the road.. It will have to be an exceptional preservation effort to convince them to work around existing trees.

Uptown Waterloo. LRT will be on the left, roughly where the corduroy road is.

(Source)

 

[DC83]

I (shockingly) completely disagree about the A-Line being mixed with traffic is a good thing. Like, you're joking right?!

Have you ever been on James St? Thanks to previous work, I spent much time overlooking (the north end of) that street which is jammed during the day and especially rush hour.

Slowing a LRV takes away the whole point of having LRT.
Toronto coverted St Clair, Spadina, and Queens Quay to LRV ROW because they wanted transit to be a convenient & rapid alternative to the car.
Putting a streetcar mixed with traffic on a busy street will not attract anyone looking for a quick alternative to the car, and will then hinder A-Line's ridership potential.

Hamilton isn't looking for a cute streetcar system to gussy up EcDev's model street, Hamilton is looking for a true transit option that results in FAST, reliable, convenient and attractive transit options!

 

[DC83]

The only kink in that plan are the practical realities of LRT construction. In KW, we're seeing the entire road right of way being dug up wherever the LRT is going. In Uptown Waterloo, for a single direction of side-running LRT, they've gone sidewalk-to-sidewalk, even taking out street trees on the opposite side of the road.. It will have to be an exceptional preservation effort to convince them to work around existing trees.

Uptown Waterloo. LRT will be on the left, roughly where the corduroy road is.
View attachment 73891
(Source)

This will likely be the case in Hamilton, too. They just haven't figured out how big each chunk of King St being shut down should be.

This is a two-birds-getting-stoned situation here in the Hammer as most sections of the LRT route need road/ sewer work done anyway (not to mention how desperately King St needs streetscaping!), so it will be welcome construction that's for sure!

 

[DC83]

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.

Your rants are quite difficult to follow.

 

[mdrejhon]

I (shockingly) completely disagree about the A-Line being mixed with traffic is a good thing. Like, you're joking right?!

Again -- It's not my favourite scenario.

But it's far, far better than the 4-lane James St N scenario that required destroying far more what's already done on James St N. Plus, it's the silver lining I also see. It keeps the door open to James St N pedestrianization in the future. (After enough TOD has happened, and traffic is divertable).

I spend a lot of time on James St N, and have frequently visited events at 294 James St N, to places like Mulberry's Cafe, my favourite poutine at Charred, to the various yummy places like Mesa, Saltlick, Knead, and I pick up some syrups/coffee equipment at Faema for home use, and I've strolled the whole length from St. Joes to Bayfront Park, and, yes, I've done it on SoBi too.

The above is why I am glad the 4-lane James scenario wasn't chosen, which would decimate and destroy the street, cutting out all the bumpouts, removing the trees, public art, etc. They may still have to do some of that temporarily if there's sewer work (trees being the most contentious issue). But with the opportunity to do things like brick-accenting the ROW and other "enhanced" streetscaping, a 2-lane streetscape is better than a 4-lane streetscape for James.

There were many other preferred scenarios, but if the LRT had to go north of Wilson on James St N. But was actually one of the better outcomes for a "Must Stay On James St N" scenario.

The only kink in that plan are the practical realities of LRT construction. In KW, we're seeing the entire road right of way being dug up wherever the LRT is going. In Uptown Waterloo, for a single direction of side-running LRT, they've gone sidewalk-to-sidewalk, even taking out street trees on the opposite side of the road.. It will have to be an exceptional preservation effort to convince them to work around existing trees.

Uptown Waterloo. LRT will be on the left, roughly where the corduroy road is.

Now when you look at many other systems where preservation is important -- the installation of an LRT route in France for example -- a lot more care has been taken.

For example, the probably can rip up like that to Wilson, and north of GO station, but stage it carefully through James. That said, I'm not aware how terrible shape the under-infrastructure such as sewers are in James St N. Some interesting/factual/statistics would be very interesting reading. This will determine how much ripping up needs to be done, and whether the trees goes anyway.

Even if this happens and James gets temporarily destroyed, the 2-lane scenario means James comes back looking much better.

My opinion only -- not shared by the whole LRT advocacy team but we love discussing amongst ourselves of all the scenarios, keeping an open mind why one scenario may actually be better or worse than others, and what possible future outcomes can lead out of it.

 

[mdrejhon]

Also, just because James St N ends up being mixed traffic, doesn't mean it's a streetcar the whole way.

The Hurontario LRT (Brampton) was actually supposed to be that way only for the final few blocks through Brampton's downtown -- mixed traffic for a tiny segment "at the north end of line" -- but dedicated fast LRT otherwise.

On the topic of A-Line, it can be subject to incremental extensions. One hypothetical scenario is an incremental extension to Mohawk/StJoes on Fennel. Then an A/T hybrid to Limeridge. Then when enough TOD/densification occurs, A/T becomes two separate lines and A goes to the Airport (when it makes sense).

As seen below, both Ottawa/Waterloo have been planning/funding incrementals.
Hamilton can do the same, beginning with Eastgate (if able to break through the politics there) as well as southwards A-Line to Mohawk College.

Yes, the economics of the escarpment is difficult.
But we have to be fair to both sides of the escarpment and let all of us dream.
Given sufficient densification, TOD, and economics -- it may be a matter of time.

A fast connection between Mountain and the central downtown area.
Definitely should not be mixed traffic to get between Mountain and downtown/B-Line.

 

[muller877]

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.
....
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.
.

I've always wondered why just James St. To keep James at 2 lanes plus a sidewalk you can only install one track. So here is a proposal:
Phase 1 - single track along James from Waterfront to Hunter GO station. One LRT acts as a shuttle back and forth.
Phase 2 - single track along John from Waterfront to Hunter GO. Connects to James via Leadner/Brock St at Waterfront. Either through bus terminal or extends to St Josephs Dr to connect near the Mountain
Phase 3 - Mountain

This would give John a huge push and hopefully would spur redevelopment of all the parking lots. It's also pretty silly not to extend it right away to the Hunter Go

 

[mdrejhon]

I've always wondered why just James St. To keep James at 2 lanes plus a sidewalk you can only install one track. So here is a proposal:
Phase 1 - single track along James from Waterfront to Hunter GO station. One LRT acts as a shuttle back and forth.
Phase 2 - single track along John from Waterfront to Hunter GO. Connects to James via Leadner/Brock St at Waterfront. Either through bus terminal or extends to St Josephs Dr to connect near the Mountain
Phase 3 - Mountain

This would give John a huge push and hopefully would spur redevelopment of all the parking lots. It's also pretty silly not to extend it right away to the Hunter Go

A merger of Phase 1/2 would be a loop.
I actually mentioned the James-John loop idea before, as a possible compromise for preventing the 4-lane James St N decimation scenario.

This allows theoretical operational flexibility:
- Back and fourth operation on James offpeak
- Loop operation for higher traffic (e.g. bringing people to Bayfront on Canada's Day)
- John back-and-fourth during Supercrawl and busy events

With a single track dedicated to the LRT, and signal prioritized, it probably takes only 12-15 minutes to cycle a 4-stop route. That would be an okay off-peak schedule. But the challenge is peak/events/surge. How do you run 5-minute service in such a scenario -- and that would require a loop if using only a single track on James.

 

[gweed123]

A merger of Phase 1/2 would be a loop.
I actually mentioned the James-John loop idea before, as a possible compromise for preventing the 4-lane James St N decimation scenario.

This allows theoretical operational flexibility:
- Back and fourth operation on James offpeak.
- Loop operation for higher traffic (e.g. bringing people to Bayfront on Canada's Day)
- John back-and-fourth during Supercrawl and busy events

I wouldn't mind a loop, but if that's the case I'd like to see James and John returned to one-ways north of King or Main. That way you can have one dedicated LRT lane, and at least one general traffic lane (adding or removing depending on the streetscape). In the first phase, loop it through the Hamilton GO Centre bus area in the back of the station. In the north, loop it off of John at the old Liuna station, and run it two-way on James to the Waterfront.

I might even keep that loop operationally independent from the A-Line that goes up the Mountain, and have it act as a downtown circulator type of route. That would allow greater flexibility of operations and routing for the A-Line going up the Mountain.

As for the B-Line, I still prefer using Main instead of King, but I'm not going to let the great be the enemy of the good.

 

[mdrejhon]

I might even keep that loop operationally independent from the A-Line that goes up the Mountain, and have it act as a downtown circulator type of route. That would allow greater flexibility of operations and routing for the A-Line going up the Mountain.

That's an interesting concept -- I hadn't thought of that.
So theoretically three routes -- A-Line and B-Line as true LRT lines, plus a Downtown-WestHarbour-Waterfront loop (that may or may not operate in mixed traffic for portions of that loop).

As for the B-Line, I still prefer using Main instead of King, but I'm not going to let the great be the enemy of the good.

Same. As long as B-Line is all dedicated lines all the way through downtown, and the lanes stay together on the routing.

Separating directions (in a permanent config) would have its cons:

(Credit: Andrae Griffith)

 

[Markster]

Separating directions (in a permanent config) would have its cons:

As we are seeing in KW, separating the directions is also highly disruptive during construction. Instead of closing 1 major throughfare for LRT construction, now you have to close 1 major throughfare and its closest detour route as well. Construction is notably more disruptive.

 

[gweed123]

That's an interesting concept -- I hadn't thought of that.
So theoretically three routes -- A-Line and B-Line as true LRT lines, plus a Downtown-WestHarbour-Waterfront loop (that may or may not operate in mixed traffic for portions of that loop).

Yup, exactly. Splitting them removes the need to do short turns and stuff in order to balance the frequencies on the two sections out, since in reality the two serve very different trip patterns. And since they're split, the circulator can have more of a local stop spacing pattern, since it doesn't have to cater to the long-distance commuters as well. Realistically, most GO-bound commuters will be accessing GO via Hamilton Centre anyway, so having a thru line to West Harbour isn't a must. There just needs to be some kind of connection there.

Same. As long as B-Line is all dedicated lines all the way through downtown, and the lanes stay together on the routing.

Yup, which is one of the main reasons why I prefer Main: the wider ROW. It's consistently 5 lanes wide through much of Hamilton. King does a yo-yo in terms of the number of lanes in carries. Main would keep 3 one-way lanes going EB, and King would remain unchanged.

 

[mdrejhon]

I talked to Paul Johnson yesterday at the TMP meeting.
They confirmed it would only be mixed traffic on a short stretch of A-Line.

The A-Line extension (when funded eventually) south of King would not be mixed traffic. This keeps trips from Mountain to Downtown very fast -- it only slows down on the fancy part of James St N.

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

I talked to Paul Johnson yesterday at the TMP meeting.
They confirmed it would only be mixed traffic on a short stretch of A-Line.

The A-Line extension (when funded eventually) south of King would not be mixed traffic. This keeps trips from Mountain to Downtown very fast -- it only slows down on the fancy part of James St N.

Well I'd wonder how they would handle the escarpment anyway. Considering the elevation change and grade limits for LRT vehicles, I would think either a switchback or tunnel solution would be necessary; it'd have to go off the road.

 

[jcam]

As seen below, both Ottawa/Waterloo have been planning/funding incrementals.

Add to that list:
-Edmonton - building Valley Line stage 1, planning started on stage 2
-Vancouver - building Evergreen Line, planning started on Broadway and Surrey LRT