Raise the Hammer

Don't forget that the traffic has to exit the highway and make it in to the parking lot so you'd have to look at the narrowest point. If the traffic is exiting the highway to the same ramp then the four lanes would go down to one or two and you'd probably only be getting 1000 cars through each lane per hour under optimal conditions. Transit wouldn't seem to be any better because it would be vying for the same lanes in the suburban super blocks surrounding the stadium and be stuck in the same congestion.

From the cities websiste the IBI study assumed 2.6 people per vehicle under a normal event so, to be fair, the vehicle count should be 7,692.

The other item I haven't seen much consideration given is around the cost of parking. So, assuming that 7,692 people would be driving and parking and using figures obtained from the first site listed from googling "how much does a parking lot cost per space?"
means that...
a surface parking lot for 7,692 spaces at $4,000/space would cost: $30,768,000.
an above ground structure for 7,692 spaces at $20,000/space would cost: $153,840,000.
I will save the agony of listing what a below ground structure would cost.

Not sure what it would cost to maintain such a large area of parking by I think it wouldn't be so cheap!?!

If I recall correctly, Young only wanted parking for 6,000 vehicles, so the cost of the parking lot would be a steal at $24,000,000. So much for the $15m.

Hopefully it doesn't rain.

Take a look at the Wikipedia entry for the Coliseum at Richfield built between Akron and Cleveland with great highway access.
This arena pre-dated the new Quicken Loans Arena, which was built downtown.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coliseum_at_Richfield

Another interesting piece popped up in the Star yesterday and today regarding the Portlands rink complex. Good to see it is possible to correct a mistake.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/835412--hume-new-rink-proposal-makes-all-the-right-moves
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/835536--portlands-arena-two-visions-one-preference

Ugh. This is exactly the kind of stuff which makes me hate the economics of car culture. Creating a situation where people must drive (or have a friend who does) to take part in these kind of things just makes everything vastly more expensive for everyone.

For this stadium to be successful, people will have to come. Are they going to run charter buses downtown for 20 000 people? Or a light rail line and at what cost? If they go for green "permeable surfaced" parking lots, what will that add to the price?

Downtown sites would work much better because we have a networked street pattern. Overflow can be handled easily, and because there are so many mathematically possible routes in a grid like this, parking and transportaion will undoubtedly be easier, even if everyone does drive.

There are a lot of people in this city without access to cars. Creating a situation where only people with cars can go see a Ti-Cats game is a slap in the face to working class Hamiltonians.

Here's a term I'm surprised no one has brought up yet considering the whole topic of transit and car access..... who says the entire trip needs to be in one mode of transport! Just like how many people catch the GO or subway in TO to catch a leaf or jays game........ You won't get stuck in the parking lot, and then you can still drive home.

"Park 'n' Ride"

Simple....

JM

Think of it as a public safety measure: The overpriced beer buzz will have worn off by the time you clear the parking lot.

To anyone who uses the Linc it is obvious that it is already at capacity. The traffic during the day is bumper to bumper and quite often never moves at more than 60 kph.

I read somewhere a few years ago that it was built to handle 50k cars a day and had reached that capacity only a few years after being built. I am sure the city has the numbers if anyone wants to check it out.

If you drive the road you will also see alot of out of towners now using it as a shortcut to the QEW Niagara. I always see American plates on cars using the road.

If the stadium were to be built on the East Mountain I can just imagine the mess with the additional traffic trying to exit onto 2 lane country roads to get to the stadium. It would be gridlock for a couple of hours before and after every event.

Like I said on another thread, I can actually see the Ticats drawing fewer fans, esp. once it becomes obvious what a major pain in the ass it is to even get there...I'm certainly not going.

A couple of points for consideration:

First off, traffic to games will be taking place typically at current non-peak traffic times. While the Linc may have heavy traffic during weekday rush hours, weekend and holiday traffic is extremely light.

RHVP is designed for daily traffic capacity of more than 90,000 (about 4,000 cars per hour). Capacity for the Lincoln Alexander Parkway is similar.

Given the generally accepted AVO of 2.6 passengers/car a 20,000 crowd would generate just over 7600 cars under the assumption that 100% will arrive by personal vehicles (it is safe to say the amount will be lower as there will no doubt be some level of GO Transit and/or HSR shuttle service on game days). Most of those cars will arrive via the parkways, but 10-15% of the car trips likely would be arriving by other feeder roads (Mud Street, Stone Church, Hwy20, Rymal Road).

Given that I would assume that, while pushing capacity on game days, generally speaking the existing infrastructure would be able to handle the traffic. Granted, some tweaking of the Mud/Stonec Church on/off ramps would likely need to be done.

Having said that, the same scrutiny will need to be placed on West Harbour. Does the road infrastructure in the West Harbour have the capacity to handle a similar amount of vehicular traffic? While existing and future public transit could have the potential capacity to deliver 4000 to the games, that leaves 16,000 arriving by car (if we are still working with average 20,000 attendance). Do Barton and Bay Streets have a combined hourly capacity of 6,000 cars?

I understand city staff are instructed to deliver a detailed traffic analysis by August 10. It will be interesting to see what their findings will indicate.

"Do Barton and Bay Streets have a combined hourly capacity of 6,000 cars?"

Barton and Bay wont see 6,000 cars.... those cars would be spread out throughout the downtown and won't have to funnel through one tiny little offramp. What Bay and Barton do have is the capacity to handle a flood of pedestrians as it would be the easiest and fastest route out of the stadium area.... Just like Balsam and Beechwood after the game. You can try all you want to drive through that. Oh yea, and what about the flood of people walking through a massive parking lot? Cars are going to have to wait for them anyways - so it really won't be any easier/faster to drive out of the EM stadium. Remember that....

On the parking lot topic, here's a GREAT comparison..... has anyone ever left Canada's Wonderland right when the park closes at 10:00pm?! They have DIRECT access to Hwy 400 (and a couple exits to Jane, Major Mac, Rutherford i think). It takes almost an hour to get out of that lot! I know its not the same amount of cars were talking, but its the same concept!

JM

@realitycheck

Remember what the city of Hamilton looks like on Canada Day - an estimated 25,000 people come down to Bayfront Park to watch the fireworks. While the traffic is bad, mobs of Hamiltonians get in and out just fine because they _walk_ there or take the busses.

On the other hand, Canada Day is on July 1st, which is nice weather for walking.

"The West Harbour location also suffers limited vehicle access, but has the significant compensating benefits of a diverse set of multi-modal options - walking, cycling, transit, GO Train, and driving - not to mention a lively downtown full of amenities in which to wait out the rush."

Ryan, there is nothing stopping people from walking, cycling, and taking transit to an east mountain stadium site. As for GO Transit. I have been going to Cat games for years and nobody takes the GO Train to Cats games.

I think that having the stadium at East mountain is a good compromise which will allow the city to plan for more appropriate uses at west harbour, such as a combo of residential/commercial/parkland.

Wasn't there talk of utilizing an old rail line for the LRT? That would help in transit.

Ryan, LRT may not be a good fit along the rail trail, but regional GO Transit service would be an excellent fit. The existing Hamilton GO service to Hunter GO Station could be extended to a station at Dartnall and Stone Church, where there would be excellent potential for transit-oriented development around a natural multi-modal transit node at that location.

Of course, if the rail trail was left as is, it would provide a direct-access cycling route from downtown to the stadium site. Either way, it offers an alternative mode of arrival to the potential site.

Ryan wrote "How the economics of an LRT line works is that the line itself catalyzes dense new infill investments along the transit-oriented development (TOD) corridor, usually ~400 m on either side, with density (and property values) getting higher as you approach each station."

I know this is a bit off-topic, but shouldn't this read that the development is usually in a 400m radius of stations along the corridor? I don't think it is the corridor itself that attracts development, but the access points along the corridor (i.e. stations).

@realitycheck

"First off, traffic to games will be taking place typically at current non-peak traffic times. While the Linc may have heavy traffic during weekday rush hours, weekend and holiday traffic is extremely light."

Generally, at least half of home games occur on weeknight evenings (Thurs and Friday). The Linc is not the only issue, so is the RHVP, the QEW from Oakville and Burlington and the QEW Niagara, all of which are extremely slow at rush hour. To my mind this makes this site unattractive.

Excellent discussion. As I read somewhere else the East Mountain will be a "bumper to bumper" experience, not a "driveway to driveway" experience. Are there any traffic professors at Mohawk or another college who could review these numbers?