Chris R.
Senior Member
I'd like to see the spur and make James St from King to West Harbour pedestrian transit only. That would be a dream.
Hamilton Hamilton Line B LRT | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx
- Thread starter Kiwi
- Start date
Sunnyside
Active Member
Small extensions make a lot of sense for Hamilton imo. The James spur made/makes a lot of sense given the importance of the corridor and cements it as LRT—at least in the lower city— instead of BRT.
I actually think there’s a lot of places where small extensions/spurs could be introduced, lending the LRT to becoming a trunk line. By comparison with KW-C/iON, Hamilton’s travel demand doesnt taper off nearly as quickly from their respective King Street’s given the city’s morphology. With more city control over the LRT’s ops and expansion, we’d likely prefer service flexibility akin to the TTC’s streetcars, and favour piecemeal growth. This would be pragmatic and precise for a cash-strapped Hammer, especially given the intimate knowledge of travel demand the HSR has.
That’s opposed to Metrolinx, who will wait on entire corridors to be transit ready. Full RT BL(E)AST is decades off, but branches to Dundas, Centre mall, Confederation, Meadowlands, and a phased A-line to Limeridge, etc. is much more actionable. It can be less track-kms than a single new line, but hit more of BLAST’s key nodes than any single line would. It also allows for the fabled “continuous work” expansion model.
Aside from initially helping sort/fund this arrangement with the city, Metrolinx can come in and help us out again (in their typical style) when we need a line to climb the escarpment. Save future once-a-generation funding for projects of corresponding scope, like this project itself.
DC83
Senior Member
Hamilton LRT Transit Corridor Lands Announced
BRIEF: Hamilton LRT Transit Corridor Lands Announced
Special permission now required for any building permits or construction within 30 metres of B-Line LRT corridor
www.thepublicrecord.ca
Maps can be found here:
Order in Council 1448/2023
Essentially, the TOD ‘zone’ only extends 30 meters in either direction of the line, meaning Main Street downtown will not be included in this. That’s unfortunate.
Also, The Province (via Metrolinx) has control over developments in this zone, ‘to limit disruptions for LRT construction’. Yikes.
DC83
Senior Member
*Slowed* vehicles are good for James Street.
It’s Hughson that should be pedestrianized from Young to Cannon.
Would create a great bikeway and pedestrian path parallel to James Street’s future (by year 2067) A-Line Light Rail corridor.
Hughson Street is so lightly used by cars as is, and Metrolinx also has ‘plans’ to ‘improve the pedestrian experience’ between King and Ham GO Ctr.
Combined with the u/c and potential residential devs along this street, it would be a much better idea than pedestrianizing James.
James Street has few alleyways behind its stores, so trucks would need to use the street for product deliveries anyway.
It would look like Gore Park’s attempt at pedestrianization (despite there being ample alleyway room for rear deliveries there… but I digress).
DC83
Senior Member
HSR just made the 20 A-Line a 7-day-per-week route, with increased frequency during day times. This connects West Harbour to the 10 B-Line and Hamilton GO Centre.
The 2 Barton and 4 Bayfront also travel along James between West Harbour - B-Line - Hamilton GO Centre.
So there are a few good short connections at West Harbour today, with even more coming whenever the City gets its new bus barn built!
(https://www.hamilton.ca/home-neighbourhood/hsr/riding-hsr/reenvision-hsr)
The City/ HSR should also extend the current 34 Upper Paradise down Queen to West Harbour like tomorrow! A new M&SF wouldn’t even be required!
But this is Hamilton / HSR, the same people who installed Enhanced B-Line Station/Shelters in front of their Mount Hope head office rather than along the B-Line.
Sunnyside
Active Member
This is a strange way to intensify but I guess it’ll work. If LRT is a development vessel then you’d definetely want more going on, but I have a feeling something is going to ensure that there’s a much larger catchment for development- MTSAs of some sort. Downtown is also a UGC, so it’s not like Main isn’t gonna be developed, either. Time will tell, but typically development comes in this city whether the city plans for it or not…Hamilton LRT Transit Corridor Lands Announced
BRIEF: Hamilton LRT Transit Corridor Lands Announced
Special permission now required for any building permits or construction within 30 metres of B-Line LRT corridor
Maps can be found here:
Order in Council 1448/2023
www.ontario.ca
Essentially, the TOD ‘zone’ only extends 30 meters in either direction of the line, meaning Main Street downtown will not be included in this. That’s unfortunate.
Also, The Province (via Metrolinx) has control over developments in this zone, ‘to limit disruptions for LRT construction’. Yikes.
Still, I can’t shake the feeling that this is the equivalent of a “fine-grain” approach that would be more appropriate for say, a streetcar “LRT” line where the catchment is hyper local. Yet, the HSR service plan indicates this is going to be as close to full RT as one can get. So I guess the question is, is it the stops or the King corridor that’s the destination?
SaugeenJunction
Senior Member
I don't think that this is about intensifying, rather ensuring that construction doesn't interfere with LRT construction works in the near-term.
MTSAs will apply to the HLRT stops just like other transit projects.
Last edited:
TheHonestMaple
Active Member
Map of properties included in the transit corridor that were sent letters last week.
www.ontario.ca
Order in Council 1448/2023
Bureaucromancer
Active Member
I’m not even convinced that the grand planning full corridor approach would be needed for the escarpment. Starting with just an escarpment crossing ending at a Mohawk College bus terminal which the western mountain routes could all get redirected into would do real good, and open the door to multiple branches beyond the terminal.
A related point about the James North spur is that I’m sorely tempted to suggest it should accommodate tram trains. A single seat service from Aldershot to West Harbour then McMaster and potentially out to Brantford (presumably using pieces of the rail trail to get back to the Dundas Sub) eventually would go a long way to dealing with the multiple GO stations and lack of direct Via service to Hamilton.
Last edited:
urbancog
Active Member
Anyone know whether a light rail vehicle could climb 10% gradient that's about 650m long?
Wikipedia states that the maximum gradient for friction-based rail is 10% after that a rack-cog system is needed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rack_railway
Wikipedia states that the maximum gradient for friction-based rail is 10% after that a rack-cog system is needed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rack_railway
Bureaucromancer
Active Member
My assumption is that any escarpment crossing will need a new right of way. Reasonable grades would be quite possible with either a diagonal crossing or a tunnel.
Chris R.
Senior Member
Not a chance. The escarpment here is a national biosphere protection area. No additional cuts will be made without a massive amount of cost and assessment.
drum118
Superstar
Yes they can if the right car is used. This has been raised a number of time on the another board that I am on for professional transit planers, especially related to stops on grades.
Bureaucromancer
Active Member
or a tunnel.
That was the approach ICTS was intended to take, and it wasn’t bad at all. If we WERENT dealing with escarpment protections a surface alignment is wholly viable technically and much cheaper, and with thing was they are it’s worth comparing the pain level of the assessment that is actually needed to the price of a tunnel.
Theres even a certain attractiveness to the idea of putting an underground terminal at Fennel & West 5th so the transfer can be weather protected… though I don’t like proposing a terminal that may create the Edmonton issue of needing a very short, very expensive extension to get the line back out of its hole… it ought to be possible to get a tunnel back to the surface by Fennell though.
and as above, no the Existing cuts aren’t a COMPLETE non-starter.
Chris R.
Senior Member
Even a tunnel cut would rip up a bunch of the protected area. Still likely a non-starter today.
I think this was discussed elsewhere but I believe if the LRT was tunnelled it would be the deepest transit tunnel in North America. It would have to move up hill incredibly steep to get anywhere near a reasonable depth station.