Rapid Transit

[thistleclub]

Transit funding: Board of trade suggests raising $2B a year through sales, gas and parking taxes (http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/transportation/2013/03/18/sales_gas_tax_to_build_transit_recommended_by_business_group.html)
(Toronto Star, Tess Kalinowski, Mar 18 2013)

Toronto region commuters already suffer some of the longest commutes in North America. Now the Toronto Region Board of Trade is recommending (http://www.bot.com/Content/NavigationMenu/Policy/TransportationCampaign/DiscussionPaperAGreenLight_March18_2013.pdf) aggressive taxes that will add pain to their pockets.

In an unusual step for a business group, the board is recommending a slate of four new revenue tools (http://www.bot.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=News_Releases&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=8472) — a regional sales tax, a gas tax, a commercial parking levy and high-occupancy toll lanes — to raise $2 billion annually that would be dedicated exclusively to better transit.

The taxes and fees could be a 905-area commuter’s nightmare, warned regional politicians, who said they won’t support them if the revenue is devoted primarily to Toronto transit improvements.

Even in Toronto, the board’s tax recommendations drew immediate and predictable criticism from Toronto Mayor Rob Ford’s anti-tax allies on city council.

But board of trade CEO Carol Wilding said she expected divergent opinions. Consensus on new taxes is difficult to achieve. But the fed-up public seems prepared to pay and businesses are ready to step up.

“It will be hard for all of us, but all of us have to contribute. All of us will benefit when the new transportation is in place,” she said.

The alternative — doing nothing — will results in dwindling competitiveness for the region as traffic congestion sucks $15 billion annually in lost productivity out of the economy by 2031, she said Monday.

The board isn’t recommending what combination of the tax tools should be used, or even the tax rates that should be applied. But it estimates that a regional sales tax of 1 per cent or a $1-per-day commercial parking levy could each raise at least half the $2 billion annually that Metrolinx says it needs to build the Big Move regional transportation plan.

A gas tax of 10 cents/litre would raise $640 million to $840 million. Asking lone drivers to pay tolls for using high-occupancy vehicle lanes on area highways at 30 cents/km would provide $25 million to $45 million. The latter charges are less lucrative but have the benefit of reaching directly into the wallets of road users.

Increased income tax, property tax and employer payroll taxes, as well as general road tolls, were among a dozen ideas rejected by the board.

Funding from senior governments, public-private partnerships and land-value capture in new transit corridors will still be necessary, “but they’re not going to raise the $40 billion that we need,” said Wilding.

[Dr Awesomesauce]

$40,000,000,000...I didn't know numbers went that high.

[thistleclub]

And then some, Royson James contends (http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2012/10/11/james_its_time_to_tell_the_truth_about_transit.html).

[Dr Awesomesauce]

Ouch.

You have to wonder how cities like Melbourne manage with their massive public transport network.

Perhaps we'll strike oil in Southern Ontario...could happen.

[thistleclub]

Toronto’s business community calls for taxes and fees to expand transit (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/torontos-business-community-calls-for-taxes-and-fees-to-expand-transit/article9871262/)
(Globe and Mail, Oliver Moore, Mar 18 2013)

Toronto’s business community has thrown its support behind broad-based new taxes and fees to expand transit, a shot in the arm for plans to ease regional congestion over the next generation.

But the Toronto Region Board of Trade proposals immediately sparked criticism from those who believe that the private sector should play a bigger role, instead of citizens being asked to pay more. And the mayor of Hamilton, one of the biggest cities in the region, is unsure whether his community will want to participate in the transit plans....

Another dissenting voice was Hamilton mayor Bob Bratina, who has concerns in spite of what he called “sound” proposals from the board. He noted that his community wants to use transit to spur development, which could lead others to believe that their needs are less important than congestion-reducing projects in Toronto. And he does not want there to be the sense that Hamiltonians are paying for Toronto’s transit expansion.

“I think we still need to have the discussion here in Hamilton about the extent of our participation, depending on how our needs are going to be met under the Metrolinx plan,” he said by phone. “Would we, in taking part in this funding strategy, see a return right away, or would there be a prioritized list?”


Oakville’s Rob Burton has also expressed angst about potential asymmetry (http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/transportation/2013/02/28/from_oakville_big_questions_about_the_big_move.html).

[Dr Awesomesauce]

In spite of his early-onset Alzheimers, I'm now absolutely convinced that he's intentionally trying to derail (pardon the pun) LRT in Hamilton.

Essentially what he's just said is we don't need LRT for moving people around and that it's just a vehicle (again, pardon the pun) for development. First and foremost, it's a people mover; secondarily, it'll attract investment (of all kinds), not to mention all the other benefits of LRT.

As was previously mentioned, we need Glen Murray to speak on our behalf because our mayor is completely out of his aged mind.

We've nobody to blame but ourselves. The blue hairs in this city voted for him because they like his voice/ CHML, etc. This is what you get. Even Di Ianni would be preferable (gasp!).

[SteelTown]

Ontario premier pitches "revenue tools" for road repairs, transit

The Canadian Press
Posted: Mar 25, 2013 1:53 PM ET
http://www.cbc.ca/hamilton/news/story/2013/03/25/hamilton-wynne-revenue-tools.html

Ontario needs a dedicated fund for roads and bridges, Premier Kathleen Wynne said Monday as she hinted at new tolls or taxes to pay for badly-needed repairs and upgrading.

While people in the Toronto-Hamilton area may face road tolls or some other kind of levy to help fund public transit and ease road congestion, municipalities in other parts of the province can't afford to repair roads and bridges, said Wynne.

"The discussion around new revenue tools has been specific to transit at this point, but we need to find a way to create dedicated revenue streams for roads and bridges, i.e. a fund that would allow us to continue to work with municipalities to make sure those infrastructure needs are met," she said.

"The fact is whether we find those dedicated funds within the revenue that exists right now or whether there's a new revenue stream as I'm talking about vis-a-vis transit, I'm very aware that infrastructure is a challenge for us."

Wynne has talked about the need for what she calls new revenue tools — road tolls or some kind of tax — for transit improvements in southern Ontario, but this was her first hint that taxpayers in other regions could also face new charges.

"There are tolls, there are taxes, there are fees, there are a whole lot of names, words for these mechanisms," she said. "Tools is the word that's being used, and I'm not using it as a euphemism. I'm using it as a catchphrase for all the different ways that we can raise new revenue."

'The reality is a lot of that infrastructure in municipalities is aging, so those roads and bridges have to be dealt with.'—Premier Kathleen Wynne

Wynne said there would have to be some new way to help municipalities pay to repair infrastructure that in many cases is up to a half-century old.

"The reality is a lot of that infrastructure in municipalities is aging, so those roads and bridges have to be dealt with," she said. "We need to be cognizant of the infrastructure revenue across the province. In the Greater Toronto-Hamilton Area that translates largely into transit funding, but beyond the GTHA it's about that broader transportation network."

The New Democrats, who have opposed new taxes or road tolls to pay for public transit improvements, said the government should close corporate tax loopholes before imposing tolls or a new tax.

"Everyday families in Ontario cannot afford more Liberal taxes that hurt their family budgets," said NDP Leader Andrea Horwath.

Wynne warned "another generation of transit building" would be lost if the government followed the NDP's advice and did not look for new revenue streams.

[thistleclub]

Transit – Taking a political TOLL (http://mayorbratina.com/2013/03/26/transit-taking-a-political-toll/)
(mayorbratina.com, Mayor Bob Bratina, March 26, 2013)

The Province is embarking on the next phase of the so-called “Big Move,” which is intended to provide solutions to gridlocked roads and highways in the Greater Toronto Hamilton Area (GTHA). Hamilton has already benefited immensely because of the Province’s commitment to build a new GO Train station at James Street North as well as an all-day two way service to Toronto. Also, in the plans is a second station in the Centennial Parkway area of Stoney Creek. Premier McGuinty made this commitment to me personally, and Premier Wynne has confirmed that service should begin in time for the 2015 Pan Am games. This has fallen under Phase 1 funding of “Quick Win” projects totaling $744 million dollars. The next phase includes Hamilton’s “Rapid Ready” transit plan, including Light Rail Transit, and will require new funding of an estimated $34 Billion dollars.

This is the subject of intense discussion among the mayors and councils of the GTHA because of the need for new revenue not currently available within the Provincial treasury; now struggling with a multi-billion dollar deficit. We will soon learn what strategies the government will propose to generate the dollars needed for transit expansion and enhancement, and just as important, the public’s willingness to participate through road tolls, gas tax, parking fees, or whatever is brought forward by June 1st as legislated. My thanks to CHCH TV news for accurately reporting my thoughts in the following telecast story:

http://www.chch.com/home/item/12173-tolls-tax-hike-may-fund-roads-transit

One thing to remember is that the best laid plans of mice and men…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4F4yT0KAMyo#t=44s

[thistleclub]

Via Metrolinx:

Find a Big Move Kiosk near you! (http://www.bigmove.ca/investing-in-our-future/learn-more/find-a-big-move-kiosk-near-you)

Metrolinx’s Interactive #BigMove Activity is now available on kiosks making their way through each part of the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area.


Hamilton Public Library (55 York Blvd, Hamilton) Mar 18-Apr 7

Tansley Woods Community Centre (1996 Itabashi Way, Burlington) Mar 18-Apr 7

Lister Information Centre (28 James St. N., Hamilton) Apr 8-28

Burlington City Hall (426 Brant St., Burlington) Apr 8-May 5

Hamilton Farmer’s Market (35 York Blvd, Hamilton) Apr 29-May 12

[durandy]

Ontario Liberals to back NDP plan to slash auto insurance

CBC News Posted: Mar 27, 2013 2:11 PM ET
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2013/03/27/toronto-ontario-auto-insurance.html

"The Ontario Liberal government will move to support an NDP motion to reduce auto insurance rates in the province by 15 per cent.

The reduction in premiums was one of the NDP's budget demands and the party says they will not support the minority Liberals' budget unless the motion is passed.

"Ontarians' auto insurance premiums are the highest in Canada and they need to come down," NDP leader Andrea Horwath said.

"New Democrats have been very clear that we want to see a 15 per cent reduction."

The motion, calling for the province's insurance regulator to gradually cut the premiums, was presented Wednesday.

Premier Kathleen Wynne said she would support the motion.

"Because the underlying principle is we need lower rates for drivers in Ontario and that's what we're working on," Wynne said.

Although Wynne said the Liberal government would support the measures, such motions are non-binding.

Progressive Conservative insurance critic Jeff Yurek said his party will vote against it.

"We can't just support a motion that doesn't have a plan behind it, this is just bumper sticker politics," Yurek said."

[Innsertnamehere]

hopefully they take a concession with the Liberals and let their transit taxes go through.. would be nice.

[Dr Awesomesauce]

Time for the NDP to stop pandering and actually do something that matters. As a party, they've become completely irrelevant to me.

[thistleclub]

The Big Move: A sneak peek at Metrolinx’s short list of ‘revenue tools’ for expanded transit (http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013/04/02/the_big_move_a_sneak_peek_at_metrolinxs_short_list_of_revenue_tools_for_expanded_transit.html)
(Toronto Star, Tess Kalinowski, Apr 2 2013)

The rubber hits the road on transit funding Tuesday, as Metrolinx releases a short-list of tools it favours to pay for a massive expansion of the Toronto region’s long-neglected transportation system — possibly including such inventive ideas as an employer payroll tax or even GPS-tracked mileage fees.

The list provides the clearest picture yet of how residents and corporations will dig into their pockets to fund a war on the traffic congestion that’s sapping the region’s prosperity.

The list will include traditional ideas such as property taxes, fare increases and parking levies, including parking at GO Transit stations. It also shows Metrolinx is still considering some innovative schemes that might be piloted locally. One — an odometer tracking or GPS-based technology system — would see Toronto area motorists charged for each kilometre they travel in the region.

Many of the ideas on the list, including highway tolls, sales and gas taxes, have been discussed at length in public roundtables Metrolinx has hosted across the region.

Others, such as a Parisian-style employer payroll tax, and land-value capture along new transit routes, are less widely understood.

A downtown congestion charge, corporate income tax, carbon taxes, a parking sales tax and vehicle registration fees are among more than a dozen revenue tools Metrolinx has already crossed off its list as being too expensive, too punitive or too risky.

The short list is expected to reflect the findings of the regional public discussions and also those of a broad study Metrolinx commissioned of revenue tools being used to fund transit and infrastructure in other jurisdictions.

The report by AECOM KPMG, titled Big Move Implementation Economics: Revenue Tool Profiles, looked at 24 potential money-makers and ranked them by criteria such as their sustained money-making potential, cost of implementation, and whether they might result in positive changes to commuting habits.

Not all the short-listed ideas will make it into the final investment strategy Metrolinx submits to the province in June. That’s when the agency gives Queen’s Park its final recommendations for raising $2 billion annually for the next 25 years — the amount estimated in Metrolinx’s 25-year, $50-billion Big Move regional transportation plan.


Revenue tools Metrolinx short-listed

Some mix of the following revenue tools could be dedicated to a $2 billion annual transit expansion fund.

Development charges: Municipalities already charge fees to developers. But they can be increased on a per-project basis; for instance, a recent bump in fees in Toronto is helping to pay for the Spadina subway extension. A boost of $2,000 to $3,000 per new residential unit would generate $25 million to $50 million per year. If a development charge was applied to several projects in the region, the tool has the potential to raise $100 million. But the increase can’t be so high it drives development elsewhere.

Employer payroll tax: Used in Paris, France, and in Portland, Ore., this tax can be based on the employer’s proximity to transit lines. Based on 2009 employment figures, a 0.5 per cent employer payroll tax could raise between $810 million and $920 million by 2021.

Gas tax: A 0.5-cent/litre fuel tax could raise $300 million to $400 million a year by 2021. It could encourage motorists to cut fuel consumption, buy fuel-efficient cars and reduce their greenhouse-gas emissions. But it would also boost the cost of moving goods, affecting business.

High-occupancy toll lanes: Vehicles carrying more than one person would still be allowed to use HOV lanes for free. But single-occupant cars could also use them for a fee. Converting existing HOV lanes and those slated to be built this decade could generate between $160 million and $250 million. Implementing HOT lanes would be costly, but less so than tolling the entire highway.

Highway tolls: Tolls would be applied to 400-series highways and some city-owned roads such as the Gardiner and DVP. Completely phased in, they could raise up to $1.5 billion a year at a cost of 10 cents/km. Installing and administering tolling technology on highways would be costly, but could help reduce congestion.

Land value capture: Developers could end up paying more for land in the vicinity of specific transit improvements. Developers or land owners could be required to provide facilities (such as transit stations), cash or infrastructure; they could be taxed on revenue generated by the property; or the property tax could rise to reflect the increased value of the site.

Parking space levy (including transit stations): A charge per day on all non-residential, off-street parking could be based on the total area rather than number of parking spots, much like a property tax. Based on an estimate of 4.1 million parking spaces in the region and a charge of $1 per space per day, it could generate $1.4 billion to $1.6 billion. No new infrastructure would be required, but municipalities would have to do an inventory of available space. GO Transit, the region’s largest parking operator, drew stiff objections from customers when it floated the idea earlier this month. Ontario Transportation Minister Glen Murray has already suggested charging for GO parking could drive some transit commuters back to their cars.

Property tax: Based on the assumption of $7.7 billion in property taxes raised in 2010, a 5.2 per cent increase could raise up to $650 million in 2021.

Sales tax: A 1 per cent sales tax applied to all consumer goods in the region could generate up to $1.6 billion. Because it would be applied to the 8 per cent provincial portion of the HST, it could be complicated to limit the tax to the region and might have to be implemented province-wide, in which case the revenue would also need to be more widely shared.

Transit fare increase: Transit officials fear raising fares to help fund system improvements could drive down ridership. A 10-cent increase on 618 million annual transit trips in the Toronto region could generate up to $45 million, given population growth and the likelihood of some ridership drop-off, according to the AECOM report.

Vehicle kilometres travelled: Tracked through odometer readings or GPS transponders, this method of road charging would have to go through a pilot phase. Based on total kilometres travelled in the region in 2009, a charge of .03 cents/km might generate up to $1.9 billion by 2021, taking into account the inevitable reduction in trips as drivers adjust their habits. Implementing such a system would be costly but could dramatically affect driver behaviour as well as raising funds.

Source: AECOM KPMG Big Move Implementation Economics: Revenue Tool Profiles

Revenue tools that didn’t make the short-list
- Tax on car insurance
- $2 per day car rental fee
- Carbon tax
- Downtown cordon fee similar to London and Stockholm
- Corporate income tax
- Vehicle registration taxes
- New car tax
- Land transfer tax
- Parking sales tax
- $10-a-night hotel room levy
- Income tax
- Tax increment financing
- Utility levy
- Driver's licence tax

[realcity]

ie. you can forget about Hamilton being a part of the big move for 15 years

[SteelTown]

Once they find the revenue they'll start spending right away. It'll be like a mortgage. They do the same for hospitals, build em and pay over 25 years.

[bigguy1231]

I don't think any of those new taxes will ever see the light of day. It would be political suicide for any government that imposes new taxes for public transit or roads. We already pay taxes and even special gas taxes for roads. Rather than using that money for other purposes as they have been doing for years it should be put back into funding roads and public transit as it was intended.

[Jon Dalton]

Noone wants more taxes, just as I'm sure noone did in London or Stockholm where they introduced congestion charges (which didn't make our list as it's apparently a tougher sell than anything else)

But how else to raise the money? Whatever we are spending our gas taxes on now, which is mostly infrastructure, it has been known for some time that they do not cover the costs of infrastructure. In fact, both roads and transit have been partially subsidized by general revenues.

When it gets to the point that people can't get to work and businesses can't move goods, people will accept that improvement costs money. We have one toll road, Highway 407, which people do pay to use even though they already pay gas tax, insurance, etc. If that's the case, why not a toll lane on the 403 or 401? At least you have the option to move if you can afford it. And with the Metrolinx projects paid for, there will be options to avoid the highway altogether.

[durandy]

I don't think any of those new taxes will ever see the light of day. It would be political suicide for any government that imposes new taxes for public transit or roads. We already pay taxes and even special gas taxes for roads. Rather than using that money for other purposes as they have been doing for years it should be put back into funding roads and public transit as it was intended.

It used to be political suicide to even mention new taxes but now people like Andrew Coyne, the Board of Trade, developers are talking about the need. People are starting to understand that there's a cost to inaction. And when we start to have the most congested cities in the continent then something's got to give. Plus tolls are already a fact of life on the 407 and south of the border - they really won't be that hard to get used to.

[bigguy1231]

It used to be political suicide to even mention new taxes but now people like Andrew Coyne, the Board of Trade, developers are talking about the need. People are starting to understand that there's a cost to inaction. And when we start to have the most congested cities in the continent then something's got to give. Plus tolls are already a fact of life on the 407 and south of the border - they really won't be that hard to get used to.

The tolls South of the border are much more reasonable than they are or would be here. I travel to Florida a couple of times a year and the only two areas where I hit tolls are in New York state between the Buffalo city limits and the state line with Pennsylvania and a small stretch of the West Virginia Turnpike. The New York section costs $2.10 for a 90 mile trip and the West Virginia toll just went up to .50 cents for a 75 mile trip. New York has already voted to drop the tolls, they just haven't set a date. Most states don't have any toll roads and I have yet to see tolls in any of the larger cities I have travelled through on many trips in the US.

[mattgrande]

You clearly haven't driven through Chicago... That place is toll central.

[CaptainKirk]

You clearly haven't driven through Chicago... That place is toll central.

Tools are avoidable there if you opt for I-94, but the I-80/90 route has a fair amount of tolls, but all reasonably priced.

It's seems much more fair than the exorbitant prices of the 407, which is nothing but a highway sold for the rich.

[mattgrande]

I kinda feel like the 407 is "luxury priced." I'm hoping that if they implement tolls on the 401/403/QEW that they will be priced cheaper than the 407...

[NortheastWind]

I kinda feel like the 407 is "luxury priced." I'm hoping that if they implement tolls on the 401/403/QEW that they will be priced cheaper than the 407...

Well that's one way of reducing traffic congestion.

[Jon Dalton]

Metrolinx suggested that a 10 cent per km highway toll on 400 series highways would provide $1.5 billion in revenue - almost enough to cover the Big Move. That doesn't seem outrageous to me, considering the dual benefit of reduced traffic congestion and transit alternatives.

Doing some quick Google mapping, driving the 401 from 427 to DVP would cost $2.33 with a 10 cent/km toll. If you did that trip today, how much would you waste in traffic? (stop and go driving guzzles gas). I would not be surprised if it could be empirically proven that this toll would pay for itself through increased fuel economy due to improved traffic flow.

Not to mention that even if your time is worth minimum wage, paying the toll would give you a few hundred percent return in saved time. I drove this stretch several times a week during the late afternoon for a stretch in the mid-2000's, and it was not uncommon to spend an hour on the 401. Every GTA driver knows this.

[durandy]

Ontario needs road pricing, not more revenues

By Andrew Coyne, Postmedia News April 3, 2013 7:06 PM

http://www.canada.com/Ontario+needs+road+pricing+more+revenues/8191448/story.html#ixzz2PRpYihSx

Could road tolls be part of Ontario’s future? Remarkably, an idea long derided as outlandish, political suicide at best, is shaping up to be one of the central issues in the next provincial election. Yet such are the ways of politics that both sides have managed to get it wrong.

...

The point of a toll, like any price, is to charge people the full cost of their use of resources. The point of a subsidy is to hide the true costs from them: in this case, to induce more people to use transit than would do if they had to pay the full price.

But that’s a good thing, isn’t it? Don’t we want to encourage more people to use transit? No, we don’t. What we are trying to do, remember, is to reduce congestion. Paying people to ride the bus or the train, most of whom would have done so anyway, is a costly and roundabout way to go about it, with horrendous side-effects.

It’s unnecessary, for starters. Start charging drivers the full cost to use the roads, and you will automatically tip the balance in favour of transit for many of them (and, as a bonus, speed up the trip: Not only do drivers pay now to use the “free” roads, in the form of time stuck in traffic, so do bus passengers).

What is more, subsidizing transit contributes to another problem more typically blamed on private cars: sprawl. If people had to pay the full cost to use the roads, they would be less likely to live miles out of town, more likely to want to live near where they worked, with all of the associated benefits of density. But just as subsidizing the roads artificially encourages the commuter lifestyle, so does subsidizing transit. The Metrolinx scheme would help to create the very problem it seeks to “solve.”

Indeed, subsidizing transit isn’t even a very good way to get people to use transit. The biggest reason most people don’t take the bus isn’t the price. It’s the deep unpleasantness of the experience. If we were really serious about encouraging transit use, we wouldn’t entrust it to clanking great statist monopolies like (God save us) the Toronto Transit Commission. We’d turn it over to entrepreneurs whose livelihoods depended on finding ways to make it more comfortable and convenient.

Or if the province is determined to underwrite the Metrolinx adventure, it can find the revenues within its existing budget: on this I am with Wynne’s critics. She is brave and right to raise the subject of tolls, and they are wrong to oppose it. But she is wrong to allow a perfectly good idea to be painted as a revenue grab. The province doesn’t need more revenues. It needs road pricing.

[bigguy1231]

I wouldn't be opposed to tolls if the price was right. At .10 cents a km it would cost me $30 per week to get to work and back, a price I am not willing to pay. I would avoid using the highway and take city streets at that price and I am sure alot of others would do the same. All tolls are going to do is take people off the express routes and cause further congestion on streets not equipped for that volume of traffic.

[flar]

^^And when it takes three times as long to get to work people would start to reconsider taking the back roads

[CaptainKirk]

^^And when it takes three times as long to get to work people would start to reconsider taking the back roads

I'm ok with paying and those rates sound reasonable.

I'd much prefer to have it "hidden" at the pump in a gas tax.

It's more efficient in that it wouldn't cost as much to administer, and it essentially has the same people paying.

But then again, I wonder if any toll would create an incentive to use public transit but deterring highway use a little

[SteelTown]

I'd prefer quick and easy 1 percent sales tax, either a separate sales tax or increase the HST. No up front cost associated like installing tolls. All municipalities would get funding for infrastructure money and those within the Metrolinx area all or a portion goes to them.

Dalton really missed the boat when Harper reduced the GST. He should have increased the PST by 1 percent.

[thistleclub]

It will be interesting to see how this discussion unfolds over the next couple of months.

Courtesy StatsCan's Commuting to work: Results of the 2010 General Social Survey (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2011002/article/11531-eng.htm):

Satisfaction with time spent commuting to work, 2010 (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2011002/t/11531/tbl003-eng.htm)

Census metropolitan areas of 250,000 to 999,999 residents

Very dissatisfied or dissatisfied: 14%
Satisfied: 48%
Very satisfied: 38%

When 86% of your working-age population is happy with their commute, promising escape from gridlock purgatory has no real meaning, and “revenue tools” becomes a challenging sell. We saw that reflected in August/September 2011 polling from Metrolinx/Environics (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/residents-remain-skeptical-on-metrolinx-funding/article4633703/
), wherein 70% of those surveyed indicated that they saw no need for new transit levies, a finding most pronounced outside of the City of Toronto: “rejection of all four [ie. parking levy, sales tax, gas tax, road tolls] is most evident among those living in Hamilton and York Regions”.

This attitude may be shaped by Hamilton residents’ habitual movements. The Centre for Community Study's StatsCan reheat Where Hamilton Works (http://www.communitystudy.ca/pdfs/Where_Hamilton_Works.pdf), which shows that, as of the 2006 census, almost five in six Hamilton workers remained in the Hamilton CMA for work.

In order to close the sale in the GHA, Metrolinx needs to demonstrate a holistic understanding of the idiosyncratic regional concerns at this end of the 905.

[HillStreetBlues]

I agree completely with Coyne's editorial posted above. It shouldn't be framed as being about revenue, it should be about finding a way to make the beneficiary pay a higher proportion of the cost of a service. Right now, costs of roadways are hidden to motorists, and subsidized by other taxpayers- so how can road-users be expected to make sound decisions about their usage?

Ten cents a kilometre sounds reasonable. Okay, that's twenty dollars a week for someone who lives twenty kilometres from work, which is a considerable sum, but there are options to reduce that. One could take non-arterial roads, lengthening the trip. Or take public transit. Or carpool. Or live closer to work. Different people will choose a different option, but it will all serve to reduce congestion and make things more efficient.

[coalminecanary]

I wouldn't be opposed to tolls if the price was right. At .10 cents a km it would cost me $30 per week to get to work and back, a price I am not willing to pay. I would avoid using the highway and take city streets at that price and I am sure alot of others would do the same. All tolls are going to do is take people off the express routes and cause further congestion on streets not equipped for that volume of traffic.

This kind of selfish thinking is so typical. Who's paying that $30 now? People who don't commute 300km/week to work. On your behalf.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_D_Z-D2tzi14/S8TONhrAPgI/AAAAAAAACvw/zTQ0fyvjAy8/s400/ALOT11.png

[bigguy1231]

This kind of selfish thinking is so typical. Who's paying that $30 now? People who don't commute 300km/week to work. On your behalf.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_D_Z-D2tzi14/S8TONhrAPgI/AAAAAAAACvw/zTQ0fyvjAy8/s400/ALOT11.png

I'd like not to commute to work at all, unfortunately there are no decent paying jobs in this city.

Selfish, your dam right, I already pay ridiculous amounts of taxes for certain services that I am not getting so we can support the welfare losers who live in this city. I am also paying 11.9 cents a liter in provincial gas taxes that are supposed to be going to roads in this province, but are being redirected elsewhere. I don't enjoy paying half my earnings in taxes of one form or another and getting nothing in return.

[bigguy1231]

^^And when it takes three times as long to get to work people would start to reconsider taking the back roads

Better three hours in my own car than three hours on buses.

[thistleclub]

Again from StatsCan's Commuting to work: Results of the 2010 General Social Survey (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2011002/article/11531-eng.htm):

Commuting takes longer by public transit than by car (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2011002/article/11531-eng.htm#a6)

How someone gets to work is associated with how long it takes to get to work. Workers who walk or bicycle to work have shorter trips (14 minutes on average) while public transit users spend considerably more time travelling to work (44 minutes). Car users, including passengers, fall somewhere in the middle. Since the vast majority of workers travel in private vehicles, their average commuting time of 24 minutes is very close to the average for all workers.

It makes sense to compare the commuting times of car users and public transit users based on the size of the metropolitan area. In 2010, in the six largest metropolitan areas, car users took an average of 27 minutes to get to work, while public transit users took 44 minutes. In mid-sized metropolitan areas (areas with between 250,000 and 1 million residents), the difference in average commuting times was larger—23 minutes for car users and 46 minutes for public transit users.

Public transit users are more tolerant of longer commuting times (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2011002/article/11531-eng.htm#a13)

In larger metropolitan areas, 6% of workers who used an active mode of transportation (walking or bicycling) to get to work were dissatisfied with their commuting time. Public transit users were more likely than car users to be dissatisfied with their commuting times (23% versus 18%). Public transit users’ higher level of dissatisfaction was primarily due to the fact it took them longer on average than car users to get to work.

However, when commuting times were taken into account, a complex relationship between transportation mode and satisfaction level emerged (Chart 4 ( http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2011002/c-g/11531/c-g004-eng.htm)). For shorter commuting times, public transit users were less satisfied than car users. Yet, as commuting time increased, the pattern was reversed. For example, 21% of car users with commuting times between 30 and 44 minutes said they were dissatisfied, compared with 10% of public transit users.

[CaptainKirk]

^^^ Thistleclub, great info.

As far as the satisfied commuters, that's nation wide, no?

In places where they have public transit right like out west.

Wonder how satidfied soutern Ontariio commiuters are in comparison.

Statistics Canada pegs Toronto’s 66-minute daily commute as the worst in the country,

http://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2012/10/11/its_not_your_imagination_rush_hour_is_getting_worse.html

Also for Toronto --- “What jumps out from this study is the terrible public transit time,” Schiller said. “And that 85 per cent of car drivers have never considered public transit.”
To decrease congestion, Schiller said, public transit times must drop to give a real alternative to motorists. Commuters must also have other options such as dedicated bike lanes, which increase cycling and reduce the number of vehicles on the road.
http://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2011/08/25/canadas_slowest_rush_hour.html

[thistleclub]

The RCCAO issued a new transit funding report this week.

Congestion Mitigation Technologies Offer Solutions for the Greater Toronto, Hamilton Area (http://www.rccao.com/news/files/April2013newsrelease.pdf
)

TORONTO - April 3, 2013 - When and where the volume of commuters exceeds the capacity of infrastructure, traffic congestion is the inevitable result. Ask any driver in Southern Ontario and they are sure to have traffic nightmare stories to tell.

Transportation failure is gradual and it becomes worse with time at an increasing rate.

More demand and less capacity, due to volume, accidents or construction means more spread of congestion over wider spaces and longer times. This results in lower service quality, as well as rising economic and social costs in this region.

These findings come from the report entitled Congestion Management in the GTHA: Balancing the Inverted Pendulum. ( http://www.rccao.com/news/files/RCCAO_Apr2013_CongestionManagement_LOWRES.pdf) It was prepared for the Residential and Civil Construction Alliance of Ontario and authored by a team from the University of Toronto’s Intelligent Transportation Systems Centre, led by its Director, Professor Baher Abdulhai.

"Transit expansion and road improvements are clearly required in this region, but we must also address congestion in smarter ways. This report makes a strong case for investing in technology to improve the capacity of both existing and new infrastructure," said Andy Manahan, Executive Director of the RCCAO.

Among Abdulhai's recommendations:

• Introduce Intelligent Transportation Systems to maximize infrastructure efficiency. For example, smart, self-learning traffic lights will cut down intersection delay and improve traffic flow across the whole road network.

• Manage congestion using road pricing to reduce capacity loss, moderate road use and generate revenues for reinvestment in the transportation system. Solutions are being developed to implement “dynamic congestion pricing” as a way to influence travel behaviour and spread travel demand more evenly across modes (e.g., transit, bike, walk, carpool), over time and along alternative routes.

• Encourage an open service innovation model to harness the collective intelligence of the community, including the public, private and academic sectors as well as the travellers. Open innovation can create an eco-system of solution providers that creates innovative solutions faster, at less cost and lower risk.

• Optimize large-scale emergency evacuation that could cut down evacuation time by as much as 75%.

RCCAO and the Canadian Automobile Association are part of a coalition that has been providing input to Metrolinx, an agency of the Government of Ontario, created to improve the coordination and integration of all modes of transportation in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area.

[Jon Dalton]

I'd like not to commute to work at all, unfortunately there are no decent paying jobs in this city.

Selfish, your dam right, I already pay ridiculous amounts of taxes for certain services that I am not getting so we can support the welfare losers who live in this city. I am also paying 11.9 cents a liter in provincial gas taxes that are supposed to be going to roads in this province, but are being redirected elsewhere. I don't enjoy paying half my earnings in taxes of one form or another and getting nothing in return.

But would you pay $30 a week if that got you congestion free roads 90% of the time? That would save you several hours per week to spend with family, hobbies, or anything more enjoyable than traffic. And the one thing you can't buy is time.

I used to work in the same area you do and I would have gladly paid that. The stop and go traffic on the QEW was what drove me onto public transit for the last 5 years I worked there. I guess some people have a higher tolerance for traffic than I do.

[thistleclub]

FWIW, the Toronto Region Board of Trade has rejected blanket toll roads but is in favour of high-occupancy toll lanes ( http://www.bot.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=News_Releases&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=8472 ). With a mid-range rate of 30¢/km for single drivers, TRBoT estimates HOT revenue potential could be something on the order of $25m to $45m. The report's authors write:

Single occupant vehicles can pay a toll for the use of otherwise restricted high occupancy lanes (typically on expressways). High occupancy vehicles use the lanes for free. This tool requires the existence, creation or designation of high occupancy lanes, which can be used free of charge by vehicles with a minimum of passengers (i.e. high occupancy vehicles with two or more people (HOV2+) or three or more people (HOV3+))

Revenue: $25m-45m ($0.30/km) *estimate based on conversion of existing HOV lanes (http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/graphics/english/traveller/hov/map417_english.jpg) in Toronto Region to HOT lanes

Advantages
• Reduced congestion, especially if combined with dynamic pricing
• Directly targets driver behaviour and traffic congestion

Jurisdictions Where Tools Utilized
• Houston, TX
• Orange County, CA
• San Diego, CA


My guess is that HOT lanes will serve as a gateway measure for broader implementation of toll roads a few years hence.

[thistleclub]

XKCD has done a continental subway mash-up (http://xkcd.com/1196/large/).

[Beedok]

Monorail!!!

[flar]

Better three hours in my own car than three hours on buses.

I actually really enjoy my time on the bus. Every afternoon I get 35 minutes of tranquility after a busy day. I'm happy to let someone else battle rush hour traffic while I sit back and read the news, surf the web, do my email, read a book, etc.

[the905sDW]

I actually really enjoy my time on the bus. Every afternoon I get 35 minutes of tranquility after a busy day. I'm happy to let someone else battle rush hour traffic while I sit back and read the news, surf the web, do my email, read a book, etc.

Same here! I can say that for definite sure on the GO bus, and subway from Kennedy to Union. I do enjoy most HSR rides but the 1 King through central Hamilton can be a bit of a circus show.
I too like not having to worry about the driving.

[thistleclub]

Transit taxes: Poll shows split on who should pay for gridlock relief (http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013/04/12/transit_taxes_poll_shows_split_on_who_should_pay_for_gridlock_relief.html)
(Toronto Star, Tess Kalinowski, Apr 12 2013)

Nearly half of Toronto-area residents believe the region needs new funding to tackle the crippling road congestion that sucks $6 billion a year out of the economy.

More than two-thirds, 71 per cent, say they’re fed up with the traffic that has them gripping the steering wheel or sitting on the bus longer than commuters in nearly every other North American city.

But a Forum Research poll for CivicAction (http://www.civicaction.ca/) suggests the region is still split on where the money should come from.

Fifty-two per cent of respondents indicated it was “unfair” to ask residents to contribute to The Big Move (http://www.bigmove.ca/what-is-the-big-move), Metrolinx’s regional transportation plan. Only 39 per cent said it was “fair” to ask residents to pay.

The results show that there’s room for more education, said CivicAction CEO Mitzie Hunter....

The interactive telephone poll of 1,491 Toronto and Hamilton area residents was conducted on March 28 and April 3. It is considered accurate within 3 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Previous Forum Research polls (https://www.forumresearch.com/forms/News%20Archives/News%20Releases/63852_GTA_Issues_-_Metrolinx_Funding_%28Forum_Research%29%2804052013%29.pdf) showed that more than half of region residents disapproved of Metrolinx’s short-listed taxes and tolls. A parking levy and tolled high-occupancy vehicle lanes received the most support.

Congestion poll results

71% said they were fed up with traffic congestion
39% said that “as far as they knew” the Big Move regional transportation plan will be built with existing government funds
43% said new funds would be needed
52% said it would be unfair to ask residents to contribute to the Big Move
39% said it was fair to ask residents
26% said improving quality of life was the most important reason to improve transportation
21% said cutting the economic cost was the key reason
14% said the environmental benefit was the chief reason to cut gridlock

[thistleclub]

Hamilton’s tough choice: LRT or all-day GO (http://www.thespec.com/news/local/article/919936--hamilton-s-tough-choice-lrt-or-all-day-go)
(Hamilton Spectator, Meredith MacLeod, Apr 17 2013)

Mayor Bob Bratina says Hamilton will have to choose between a light-rail transit line running through the lower city and extending all-day GO service to Stoney Creek.

The mayor says that was made clear by Premier Kathleen Wynne at a private fundraiser for local cabinet minister Ted McMeekin last weekend. Her senior staff confirmed that when pressed by Bratina later.

“I think we would have to look at that. GO trains stopping on Centennial Parkway could take 5,000 cars off the road,” said Bratina.

But Nicholas Kevlahan, a Hamilton LRT advocate, said he found Bratina’s statement that the city would have to make a choice “very surprising,” and urged caution in interpreting what it means.

Kevlahan, a McMaster University professor, noted there have been many mixed messages in the last few years about what this city will or will not have to do to get LRT and all day GO service.

“I know the mayor has previously had private conversations with ministers and premiers and people in Metrolinx and these comments have later been reversed or adjusted,” Kevlahan said.

Hamilton is getting all-day GO to downtown, plus Metrolinx “has been very clear that LRT for Hamilton is a top priority.”

“To switch things at the last moment would overturn almost seven years of planning by the city and by Metrolinx.”


UPDATE: A revised story was posted at 3:32pm.

Premier says LRT and all-day GO not competing projects (http://www.thespec.com/news/local/article/919936--premier-says-lrt-and-all-day-go-not-competing-projects)
(Hamilton Spectator, Meredith MacLeod & Emma Reilly, Apr 17 2013)

Mayor Bob Bratina says Hamilton will have to choose between a light-rail transit line running through the lower city and extending all-day GO service to Stoney Creek.

The mayor says that was made clear by Premier Kathleen Wynne at a private fundraiser for local cabinet minister Ted McMeekin last weekend. Her senior staff confirmed that when pressed by Bratina later.

“I think we would have to look at that. GO trains stopping on Centennial Parkway could take 5,000 cars off the road,” said Bratina.

The commitment to all-day GO coming in to Hamilton's James Street North station has already been made and was not part of the premier's remarks.

But the premier’s office issued a statement after Bratina’s comments Wednesday saying Hamilton LRT and the expansion of GO “are not competing projects.”

“Metrolinx has already committed to providing two-way, all-day GO service to Hamilton,” a spokesperson for Wynne said in an e-mail.
“Metrolinx will bring forward recommendations for dedicated, sustainable funding for this project and others in June as part of its forthcoming Investment Strategy.”

Bratina’s comments raised almost immediate reaction from councillors.

Councillor Lloyd Ferguson said he attended the same fundraiser last week and specifically spoke to Wynne about LRT. Ferguson says she expressed great support for Hamilton LRT and didn't specifically mention GO service.

"Never was it ever suggested at that meeting - because I was there - that it was one or the other," Ferguson said.

Councillor Brian McHattie, one of council's most vocal supporters of LRT, said Bratina has committed a "highly irresponsible act" and is "disrespecting" council's position.

"For a long time now, the mayor has been focused on the GO train, and he's decided that it's an either/or situation. That's not based on any facts. That's based on his own opinion that LRT is not important and that GO is the only thing that Hamilton needs," McHattie said at City Hall Wednesday.

"We've got a situation where a mayor of a city is totally ignoring his council, and totally ignoring Hamiltonians and their support for LRT. The real downside is that he is the guy portraying these positions to the province of Ontario."

(h/t to mattgrande)

[SteelTown]

Well that's easy, LRT. People from Stoney Creek can take the LRT to the GO Station.

Anyways I doubt the above article is accurate.

[mattgrande]

The Spec has changed the title (but not the content) of the article to "Premier says LRT and all-day GO not competing projects"

[CaptainKirk]

Well that's easy, LRT. People from Stoney Creek can take the LRT to the GO Station.

Anyways I doubt the above article is accurate.

Yup, I live near Eastgate, and I'd prefer the LRT over GO to Centennial. I think LRT has huge potential for the lower, older city if planned effectively.

[SteelTown]

Bob Bratina will be on the Agenda tonight

http://twitter.com/spaikin/status/324646088365727744/photo/1

[durandy]

ok he's officially a moron. Must have been off the meds again. At least Rob Ford is predictable, this guy is all over the place.

[SteelTown]

Hamilton won't have to choose between all-day GO, LRT: province

By Cory Ruf, CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/hamilton/news/story/2013/04/17/hamilton-bratina-go-lrt.html

Hamilton will not have to choose between all-day GO Train service to Stoney Creek and an east-west LRT, according to the province.

“The government is committed to all-day GO Service, and that is unrelated to our plans for the Hamilton LRT,” said Kelly Baker, a spokesperson for the Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne.

This statement conflicts with comments Mayor Bob Bratina made about a conversation he had with the premier at a recent fundraiser for local MPP Ted McMeekin.

He told the Hamilton Spectator the city “would have to look at” whether it wants the province to extend all-day, two-day GO Train service to Stoney Creek or to reaffirm its commitment to lower-city LRT line that would run east-west from Eastgate Square and McMaster University.

Council voted in February to ask the province to cover all of the capital costs associated with the construction of the 13.5 km line, an $800-million price tag.

Sam Merulla, councillor for Ward 4, called Bratina's comments "a distraction" and said "there's a disconnect between what's council's position is and what the mayor believes it to be."

"We need to focus on communicating our wishes to provinces without any obstruction or confusion," he added.

Metrolinx, a provincial agency that coordinates transit expansion in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA), has already committed to creating all-day, two-day GO service to a new James North GO station in downtown Hamilton by 2015. And the body announced in November that rapid transit for downtown Hamilton is one its top priority for the “next wave” of the Big Move, the $50-billion plan to build rapid transit across the region.

An environment assessment has already been completed on the possible expansion of GO service to the Niagara region, which would include at least one stop in Stoney Creek. The province has yet to decide on whether to proceed with the project.

Province to move ahead with tolls, taxes to pay for transit: Wynne

Bratina's comments came on the same day Wynne announced her plans for the province to move ahead with new levies to raise money for public transit upgrades in the GTHA area — even if some municipalities oppose the measures.

She says she'd prefer to have their support to raise the $2-billion a year that's needed for transit in the region.

But she says the governing Liberals will take action. Provincial transport agency Metrolinx is suggesting highway tolls, raising the sales tax and a half-cent-a-litre tax on gasoline.

Toronto Mayor Rob Ford has already made it clear that he'll oppose them all. Other municipal politicians outside Toronto — including several Hamilton councillors — have been concerned about paying for improvements to services their residents don't use.

“[My constituents] would be very angry, they would be strongly opposed to it,” Brad Clark, councillor for Ward 9 and an opponent of the LRT plan, told CBC Hamilton in March.

Last week, Wynne suggested in an interview with The Canadian Press that she won't hike property taxes, saying it's not enough to pay for all the transit infrastructure that's needed in the region.

She said she'll consider all the options, but won't make a decision until she looks at Metrolinx's final report in June.

[Dr Awesomesauce]

Bob Bratina will be on the Agenda tonight

http://twitter.com/spaikin/status/324646088365727744/photo/1

Nooooooooooooooooooooo!

He's gonna make this city look absolutely ridiculous.

Hopefully he takes a double-dose of ginkgo biloba before opening his mouth on TV.

[SteelTown]

Mayor’s comment on LRT takes wrong turn

http://www.thespec.com/news/local/article/919936--mayor-s-comment-on-lrt-takes-wrong-turn

An erroneous comment by Mayor Bob Bratina about how the premier views the future of Hamilton transit left city politicians aghast Wednesday, prompting one to question whether Bratina was being “wilfully stupid.”

Bratina told The Spectator that Premier Kathleen Wynne made clear at a private event last weekend that Hamilton will have to choose between a light-rail transit line through the lower city and extending all-day GO service to Stoney Creek.

During the interview Wednesday at a transit forum in Toronto, Bratina also said Wynne’s senior staff confirmed Hamilton will have to make that choice.

“I think we would have to look at that,” Bratina told The Spectator. “GO trains stopping on Centennial Parkway could take 5,000 cars off the road.”

But it emerged later Wednesday that Bratina did not attend the event where Wynne spoke last Sunday — a $500-per-ticket fundraiser for Hamilton cabinet minister Ted McMeekin at the Hamilton Golf & Country Club.

McMeekin said the premier spoke about transit in general, but did not convey any expectation that Hamilton would have to make such a choice.

“I’m a little confused because he (Bratina) wasn’t at the fundraiser,” McMeekin said Wednesday, noting only a member of the mayor’s staff attended.

Bratina did not respond to The Spectator’s requests for a second interview to clarify his comments.

McMeekin said Wynne did not indicate any projects were in competition.

The premier’s office also confirmed in an email statement that the long-planned Hamilton LRT and the expansion of GO “are not competing projects.”

Bratina’s comment prompted questions about his motivation.

“It’s no secret that Mr. Bratina has been pretty cool on LRT,” said Nicholas Kevlahan, a Hamilton LRT advocate and McMaster University professor.

“Over the past few years, he’s not lost any opportunity to try to cast doubt or confusion or set up false choices that Hamilton has to choose LRT or something else, or that Hamilton would have to pay for it ourselves, which is clearly not the case.”

Councillor Lloyd Ferguson attended the McMeekin fundraiser and spoke to Wynne about transit. He said the premier expressed great support for Hamilton LRT and didn’t specifically mention GO service.

“Never was it ever suggested at that meeting — because I was there — that it was one or the other,” Ferguson said.

Councillor Brian McHattie, one of council’s most vocal supporters of LRT, said Bratina has committed a “highly irresponsible act” and is “disrespecting” council’s position.

“For a long time now, the mayor has been focused on the GO train, and he’s decided that it’s an either/or situation. That’s not based on any facts. That’s based on his own opinion that LRT is not important and that GO is the only thing that Hamilton needs,” McHattie said Wednesday at City Hall.

“We’ve got a situation where a mayor of a city is totally ignoring his council, and totally ignoring Hamiltonians and their support for LRT.”

McHattie said that during a private meeting with the mayor and several councillors last week, Bratina denied council had endorsed the east-west LRT B-Line. (That endorsement happened in February, when councillors approved Hamilton’s pitch to Metrolinx for 100-per-cent funding of the $800-million project.)

“He didn’t think council chose the B-Line. It appeared to be news to him,” McHattie said. “I think it’s only because he’s being wilfully stupid, because he doesn’t support that (LRT).”

McHattie says he plans to raise this issue at next week’s council meeting.

Other councillors were also critical.

“Bob often forgets that when we take a corporate position, that position provides the marching orders to the mayor. It’s not the premier that provides the marching orders to the mayor,” said Councillor Terry Whitehead.

“I think he’s a little confused about his role.”

[SteelTown]

^ Wow after reading that article I'm speechless.

[Pearlstreet]

It would only seem natural to me that once LRT is started, the GO-train connection would follow suit. More reason to be here and to connect that missing GO-Train link.

[thistleclub]

...it emerged later Wednesday that Bratina did not attend the event where Wynne spoke last Sunday...

Some next-level backroom heresay. Meta, even.

It occurs to me that Wynne was Minister of Transportation for 19 months, and most of Mayor Bratina’s first year. Just after she came in, Metrolinx was weighing whether Hamilton would be a candidate for BRT or LRT (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=4674270&postcount=1355). Wynne was also Minister of Transportation during the conspicuous (http://www.thespec.com/news/elections/article/594321--bratina-mixing-city-with-party-politics) Lib-pimping (http://www.thespec.com/news/elections/article/604414--hamilton-mayor-bob-bratina-endorses-liberals) that Bratina engaged in during the run-up to the 2011 provincial election, which of course is when all of this all-day GO vs LRT nonsense ( http://www.thespec.com/news/local/article/602245--mayor-bratina-may-be-going-rogue) got started in earnest.

I find it hard to shake the suspicion that there's more to the picture. I don’t think either side can be taken at face value.

[SteelTown]

Tim Hudak not convinced Hamilton needs LRT....

http://www.thespec.com/news/business/article/919921--hudak-not-convinced-hamilton-needs-lrt

[CaptainKirk]

Tim Hudak not convinced Hamilton needs LRT....

http://www.thespec.com/news/business/article/919921--hudak-not-convinced-hamilton-needs-lrt

The TimBob show
http://www.thespec.com/opinion/editorial/article/920207--the-spectator-s-view-clearing-the-air-on-lrt-yet-again

So, how did this go so wrong? Who told Bratina that Wynne said it was one or the other? Bratina claims he later talked to provincial staff who confirmed that. Who were they? And why is the premier’s office now so clearly contradicting that position?

The mayor needs to explain, even if he does nothing other than acknowledge he was misinformed. Anything less will give the strong impression that he continues to work against LRT — while publicly offering lukewarm support — in stark contrast to his city council colleagues who have made a clear and firm commitment to continue the pursuit until there is a valid reason to change that strategy.

Can Hamilton afford LRT in the end? We don’t know that yet. We do know we can’t afford to give up on a project with game-changing potential until it is fully explored. City council, business and labour groups, developers and progressive citizens know this. Does the mayor?

[durandy]

Some next-level backroom heresay. Meta, even.

It occurs to me that Wynne was Minister of Transportation for 19 months, and most of Mayor Bratina’s first year. Just after she came in, Metrolinx was weighing whether Hamilton would be a candidate for BRT or LRT (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=4674270&postcount=1355). Wynne was also Minister of Transportation during the conspicuous (http://www.thespec.com/news/elections/article/594321--bratina-mixing-city-with-party-politics) Lib-pimping (http://www.thespec.com/news/elections/article/604414--hamilton-mayor-bob-bratina-endorses-liberals) that Bratina engaged in during the run-up to the 2011 provincial election, which of course is when all of this all-day GO vs LRT nonsense ( http://www.thespec.com/news/local/article/602245--mayor-bratina-may-be-going-rogue) got started in earnest.

I find it hard to shake the suspicion that there's more to the picture. I don’t think either side can be taken at face value.

That seemed the case during the election when Bob seemed to be offering the libs a way out of their promises to fund LRT. But when Wynne and McMeekin and Murray are contradicting him, and when the whole spectrum of councillors, Merulla, Clark, McHattie, and Whitehead all despise him, it becomes pretty hard to see any reason behind this. He's actually acting a lot like Rob Ford but minus an agenda.

[SteelTown]

Council pushing back against mayor’s LRT gaffe

http://www.thespec.com/news/local/article/921054--council-pushing-back-against-mayor-s-lrt-gaffe

Councillor Brian McHattie says he’ll introduce a motion at next Wednesday’s council meeting “to make it clear that our No. 1 priority is LRT on the B-Line.”

McHattie says he’s still working out the specifics of his motion, but his intention is to clarify council’s support of LRT and remind Mayor Bob Bratina he must endorse that position.

The motion is in response to comments Bratina made Wednesday. The mayor said he was informed by Premier Kathleen Wynne’s office that Hamilton will have to choose between LRT and extending all-day GO service to Stoney Creek. However, soon after Bratina made those comments, the premier’s office said that wasn’t the case.

During an appearance on the Bill Kelly Radio show Thursday, Bratina categorically denied speaking to Wynne about LRT and accused The Spectator of fabricating the story.

McHattie says the motion will also include a stipulation that Bratina must include members of the Chamber of Commerce LRT task force — McHattie and fellow councillors Lloyd Ferguson and Jason Farr — in any LRT meetings he has with the province.

“It’s my feeling that we need to get the record straight,” said Ferguson, who supports McHattie’s plan. “In my view, it is straight, but let’s say it one more time.”

This incident is the latest in a string of episodes revolving around Bratina’s tendency to backtrack, speak off the cuff or communicate a position that differs from council’s corporate stance.

“The only consistency Bob is displaying is inconsistency in communicating and following council’s will,” said Councillor Sam Merulla. “Bob’s antics are a distraction from the real issues we are working on, and it is becoming an epic embarrassment. I implore him to seek out guidance to facilitate the necessary action to prevent this from happening in the future.”

In an email sent Thursday, Bratina refused to speak to The Spectator.

“I have nothing further to add to this. I stand by my comments and consider the matter closed,” wrote Bratina, without clarifying exactly which comments he was referring to.

One of the earliest examples of Bratina’s pattern of behaviour came a few months after he was elected mayor. In March 2011, Bratina told The Spectator he would like to see the complete removal of the toxic goo in Randle Reef rather than move ahead with a plan to isolate and seal off the mess — a council-endorsed solution that was decades in the making.

At that time, he said, “Maybe someone is going to find something that eats it up” now that Hamilton is the “innovative centre of the universe,” thanks to the McMaster Innovation Park.

In October 2011, council passed a motion barring the mayor from meeting with senior levels of government, making financial commitments and negotiating, unless he was in the company of other councillors and the city manager.

That move was in response to Bratina’s behaviour in and around the 2011 provincial election campaign, when the mayor endorsed the Dalton McGuinty Liberals the day before the election — without council’s knowledge or approval. Bratina also told local radio station CHML that LRT “was not a priority,” a comment McGuinty referenced when the premier appeared to back away from LRT.

Bratina also became the first mayor in Hamilton’s history to face a unanimous censure from his council colleagues after a series of flip-flops over a $30,000 raise he gave his chief of staff, Peggy Chapman.

On three occasions, Bratina changed his story about who requested the raise. When the story first broke in December 2011, Bratina denied requesting the raise, saying it came from the city’s human resources staff. However, he later apologized and took responsibility for the decision, heading off a planned in camera debate about whether he contravened the city’s code of conduct.

But a few months later, Bratina once again argued in an email to The Spectator that human resources requested the hike. That led to council’s March 2012 decision to censure the mayor.

In June 2012, Bratina once again denied asking for the raise in a subsequent email to The Spectator, stating “nowhere does it state in any document that I requested a pay hike.”

[Dr Awesomesauce]

Where are the Bobra supporters now?

It used to be that you couldn't question Bratina in the slightest without somebody on this forum labelling you hysterical.

I'm not going to rip him too seriously because I think he must suffer from some sort of undiagnosed form of dementia. Seek help and please, for the love of God, don't run for public office ever again.

BTW, what are the ramifications of accusing a newspaper of fabricating a story? I wonder if there will be any fall out from that.

[thistleclub]

He's actually acting a lot like Rob Ford but minus an agenda.

In light of the increasingly (http://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2012/11/21/arguments_wrap_up_in_libel_case_against_mayor_rob_ford.html) Ford-like (http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/03/26/doug-ford-absolutely-denies-report-that-mayor-rob-ford-has-a-drinking-problem-staff-wants-him-in-rehab/) cast of the mayor's comments since the story broke, I am inclined to agree.

[thistleclub]

Bratina off the rails with LRT (http://www.thespec.com/opinion/columns/article/920871--dreschel-bratina-off-the-rails-with-lrt)
(Hamilton Spectator, Andrew Dreschel, April 19 2013)

It’s an open secret at City Hall that councillors often refer to Mayor Bob Bratina being either on or off “his meds,” depending upon his mood of the moment.

I’ve largely interpreted the references to be a metaphor for Bratina’s sometimes erratic temperament and behaviour.

But after hearing his strenuous denials that he said Hamilton has to choose between LRT or extending all-day GO to Stoney Creek, now I’m starting to wonder if there’s something more at play than a figure of speech.

For the record, Bratina told CHML’s Bill Kelly that The Spectator fabricated the story that’s landed him in hot water with councillors and elicited a speedy denial from the premier’s office.

He said he didn’t tell Spectator business reporter Meredith MacLeod that Premier Kathleen Wynne made it clear that Hamilton was facing an either/or choice.

“It’s not true. It’s a complete Giller Prize for fiction,” Bratina said.

The Spec isn’t apologizing, retracting or correcting anything.

“We stand by the story and the reporter,” said editor-in-chief Paul Berton.

Perhaps some context is in order. Councillor Sam Merulla is arguably the most quoted politician in Hamilton.

He says he may disagree with The Spec on issues, but he’s never been misquoted, hence “the probability is that Bob is in the wrong.”

Having watched Bratina in action for some five years as a councillor and for more than two years as mayor, there’s no doubt in my mind that’s the case.

It fits a pattern. When he gets in political trouble, his first response is to blame shift. He never accepts immediate responsibility for his own actions or words.

That appears to be what’s happening here.

Fortunately, a couple of things are clear and beyond dispute.

First, Wynne never said Hamilton is facing an either/or transit choice during a recent political fundraising event. We know that from multiple sources.

Second, Bratina wasn’t at the event.

Third, his chief of staff, Peggy Chapman, was there.

Chapman was also present and chiming in during MacLeod’s interview with Bratina at a Toronto transit forum Wednesday.

Is it possible Chapman passed on a garbled version of Wynne’s comments to Bratina or that he misinterpreted what she told him?

The problem with that reading is anyone who’s been following transit issues in Hamilton knows that the province has never linked all-day GO and light-rail funding. Surely both Bratina and Chapman must know that.

That brings us to Councillor Brian McHattie’s theory that Bratina is being “wilfully stupid” on the issue because he doesn’t support LRT.

There’s no question that during his time as mayor, Bratina has intermittently waged an active, snide and shifty campaign against light rail.

But in February, he also went along with the rest of council and endorsed the so-called light-rail B-line from McMaster University to Eastgate Square and a request to the province for 100 per cent funding.

Somewhat disturbingly, McHattie told The Spec that during a private meeting with Bratina and several councillors last week, Bratina then denied that endorsement had taken place.

If you don’t buy McHattie’s theory that Bratina is playing dumb on purpose so he can continue to politically undermine the proposal, what other explanation is there?

Frankly, this incident brings to mind the queasy feeling I had last year watching Bratina’s denials and disordered explanations for why he was once again evading responsibility for the $30,000 raise he had given Chapman, the very thing that landed him in unholy trouble some three months earlier.

Council ended up censuring him the second time.

Three months later, Bratina was denying responsibility yet again.

[Innsertnamehere]

Hudak not convinced Hamilton needs LRT

Mayor’s comment on LRT takes wrong turn
Apr 18, 2013
Bob Bratina muddles premier’s message on light-rail transit and all-day GO train service.
The Spectator’s View: Clearing the air on LRT — yet again
Toronto LRT starts with giant Hamilton-made vault
Better rail transportation for Hamilton is a priority for Progressive Conservative leader Tim Hudak — just not light rail.

The provincial Opposition leader told a Spectator editorial board Wednesday improved regional transportation is critical to job creation in Hamilton and the GTA.

Hudak said he supports better highway links to Hamilton and beefed-up GO Transit service, options he called “the spines of future development.”

But he questioned whether the proposed $1-billion, 14-kilometre LRT line that would connect McMaster University to Eastgate Square is good value for provincial money.


http://www.thespec.com/news/business/article/919921--hudak-not-convinced-hamilton-needs-lrt

[Beedok]

http://www.thespec.com/news/business/article/919921--hudak-not-convinced-hamilton-needs-lrt

So he wants Hamilton to be a suburb?

[Dr Awesomesauce]

Perhaps Bratina will start wearing blue to council meetings now.

As per the comments that BoBra is like Ford without the agenda, we're probably all being naive if we think Bratina isn't angling towards something. There's definitely an agenda there, we just have to figure out what it is. He obviously has something to gain personally/ politically by stifling LRT in Hamilton.

[thistleclub]

Excerpt from a 1981 magazine feature on the "Intermediate Capacity Transit System" proposed for Hamilton back in the day (http://goo.gl/Lvxww).

[Jon Dalton]

Excerpt from a 1981 magazine feature on the "Intermediate Capacity Transit System" proposed for Hamilton back in the day (http://goo.gl/Lvxww).


That's awesome, thanks for that.

Here is a quote about viable alternatives to the ICTS:

Moreover, former manager Frank Cooke
wisely retained and rebuilt the electric trolleybus routes which
now provide basic trunk service along the east-west axis of the
City. They form the foundation of the system for the heavy Barton
and King-Main routes supplemented by the Cannon line.
The trolleybus, with its good acceleration, lower maintenance
costs and pollution-free operation is now being recognized as a
sound transit tool throughout North America and in Europe.


Though the route and technology were not ideal, part of me wishes we had said yes to the ICTS. 30 years later, we're still a bus - only transit system, only minus the trolley buses.

[Pearlstreet]

"Ham Chamber expects to release statement on The Big Move next week." - Lisa Marr (Spec Hamilton Business Writer via Twitter)

[Dr Awesomesauce]

That's awesome, thanks for that.

Here is a quote about viable alternatives to the ICTS:



Though the route and technology were not ideal, part of me wishes we had said yes to the ICTS. 30 years later, we're still a bus - only transit system, only minus the trolley buses.

What a great thing it would have been if we'd gone ahead with the ICTS system and kept/ expanded trolley bus service.

I like LRT. I like rails in the ground at street level. But an elevated rapid transit network and trolley buses would have been great, too. Very Vancouvery.

[SteelTown]

Tonight's council session was one of the worst, yelling, bullying and Farr stormed out.

Ultimately council passed a motion stating B-Line LRT is the city's top transit priority. But eventually the motion was sent back to clerks for further reviewing.

[SteelTown]

Merulla and Farr is accusing Bratina bullying Chris Murray, City Manager. There may be an integrity investigation against Bratina.

You can see before the vote for the motion Bratina walked over to Chris Murray, apparently he said something and passed a note to Murray. Merulla and Farr was standing right behind Bratina so they said he was bullying Murray.

I think what happened was that Brenda Johnson asked Murray if the motion would in any way hinder the Rapid plan council approved a few weeks ago. Eventually Murray said no the motion would not and you can see that ticked off Bratina. Right after answering Johnson's question it was time to vote for the motion. All those agreed to the motion stood up and Bratina got up and talked to Murray and handed him a note.

[durandy]

Perhaps Bratina will start wearing blue to council meetings now.

As per the comments that BoBra is like Ford without the agenda, we're probably all being naive if we think Bratina isn't angling towards something. There's definitely an agenda there, we just have to figure out what it is. He obviously has something to gain personally/ politically by stifling LRT in Hamilton.

I'd say it's ego not agenda. The man has simply convinced himself LRT is a bad idea. He spent the whole meeting complaining that McHattie called him stupid. Right now I bet the likes of Whitehead, Jackson, Clark and Ferguson are just laughing in the back corridors at city hall.

[bluevue]

something really needs to be done about this council. I don't know how or what, but every single person in this city is worse off with this dysfunctional, ego centric council. It is absurd. Why do we put up with this?

[Dr Awesomesauce]

I'd say it's ego not agenda. The man has simply convinced himself LRT is a bad idea. He spent the whole meeting complaining that McHattie called him stupid. Right now I bet the likes of Whitehead, Jackson, Clark and Ferguson are just laughing in the back corridors at city hall.

His ego is shocking, it's true. Perhaps it's as simple as that.

[SteelTown]

http://www.thespec.com/news/local/article/923969--council-meeting-goes-off-the-rails-with-angry-outbursts-accusations

[movingtohamilton]

Is it too cynical to say that voters get the mayor they deserve?

Surely there is someone with abundant intelligence, critical thinking skills, and leadership abilities who could step forward for the 2014 election.

[Dr Awesomesauce]

^I certainly won't argue with you there.

For a little reference, here's a breakdown of the 2010 municipal election:

i) Bratina - 37.32%
ii) Di Ianni (charged under the Provincial Offences Act of Ontario in 2006 for violating the Municipal Elections Act of Ontario) - 28.4%
iii) Fred Eisenberger - 27.43%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilton,_Ontario_municipal_election,_2010

I'm sorry to bore people to tears with my 'I love Fred/ I miss Fred' nonsense again but he was a good mayor. Aside from being intelligent and thoughtful, he seemed to have a good idea of where he wanted Hamilton to be - he was a great spokesman for the city. Some people seemed to think he was weak but I couldn't care less about that kind of bullsh*te. A corrupt and divisive politician and a pencil-thrower got more votes than him - that says it all, Hamilton.

[durandy]

anyway, if we're seeing this kind of conflict before the funding has even been announced, and the motion was for unanimous funding, what does that say for when Metrolinx comes out and says Hamilton you have to pay $250 million for this. I'm thinking LRT is dead. The Metrolinx money will go to other Rapid Ready projects.

[Dr Awesomesauce]

Excerpt from a 1981 magazine feature on the "Intermediate Capacity Transit System" proposed for Hamilton back in the day (http://goo.gl/Lvxww).

A great collection of articles - some very familiar themes.

A recent fact sheet from Metro Canada states, "Rapid
Transit is a proven tool to attract new development to support
economic growth and to increase the commercial tax base to
relieve the tax burden on homeowners."

^We've certainly heard that before.

------

A recommendation to add dedicated transit lanes in lieu of the proposed elevated transit line:
Bus lanes: As an immediate step, opening bus lanes on King,
Main, the Jolley Cut, James, John, Hughson and around Gore
Park would vastly facilitate the movement of H.S.R. vehicles.
Although bus lanes are especially effective in congested core
areas, their provision along the one-way street sections of the
King-Main route would vastly improve transit service along this
important axis.

------

Earlier, in 1969, the Ontario government...picked Krauss-Maffei AG,
a West German heavy transportation vehicle company, as having a
system with the most promise for future development.

Unfortunately, in December of 1974, shortly after the province picked
the mag-lev system and had begun preliminary work on the
project, the West German government which had been funding
Krauss-Maffei's research into mag-lev technology, withdrew its support.

I love the reference to West Germany (haven't heard that in a while) and
'mag-lev' - interesting. Krauss-Maffei AG, incidentally, now specialises in
the manufacturing of tanks, artillery and the like.

------

There's also a great map in one of the articles that shows the proposed
route - I'd never seen that before. The line was to run from Mohawk and
Upper James north to Fennel where it would move underground popping
out from the escarpment at James. From there it would continue north on
Hughson to the TH&B where it would loop around downtown via Catharine,
King William, McNab, then back to the TH&B. Fascinating.

------

Anyway, what I gleaned from these articles is that UTDC
(Urban Transit Development Corporation) wanted to use Hamilton as a
guinea pig/ springboard for its ICTS system (Intermediate Capacity
Transit System). I wonder what effect it would have had on the city.
Would we have embraced it and continued to invest in it like in Vancouver,
for example? Or would it have been an embarrassment and a failure like
Detroit's system? We'll never know.

[Dr Awesomesauce]

anyway, if we're seeing this kind of conflict before the funding has even been announced, and the motion was for unanimous funding, what does that say for when Metrolinx comes out and says Hamilton you have to pay $250 million for this. I'm thinking LRT is dead. The Metrolinx money will go to other Rapid Ready projects.

^Betcha Hazel would cough up the dough.

[SteelTown]

Metrolinx – Regional Funding Tools

http://www.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/9623ACFB-5C17-462F-B1E1-5D3EECF4511C/0/May0171FCS13002_Metrolinx__Regional_Funding_Tools.pdf

[thistleclub]

Noteworthy sidebar to FCS13002 (http://www.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/9623ACFB-5C17-462F-B1E1-5D3EECF4511C/0/May0171FCS13002_Metrolinx__Regional_Funding_Tools.pdf):

"Metrolinx is also proposing to allocate 25% of the $2 billion/year to support local transportation including roads, transit and bridges, active transportation and municipal controlled-access expressways. The municipal allocation formula and eligibility criteria have yet to be determined."

I suspect this is how they'll be able to mute/moot the politics of project scheduling. Every GTHA municipality paying into the kitty will derive millions in gas-tax-like benefits every year (and presumably see visible infrastructure improvements) whether they’ve broken ground on a Big Move project or not.

[thistleclub]

After bitter blowup, council to debate LRT funding (http://www.thespec.com/news/local/article/924765--after-bitter-blowup-council-to-debate-lrt-funding)
(Hamilton Spectator, Emma Reilly, April 26 2013)

In the aftermath of a heated showdown at Wednesday’s council meeting about light rail transit, city staff are poised to send a recommendation to the province on how to fund future transportation projects.

A report going before councillors at next week’s General Issues Committee meeting evaluates the 11 tools the province’s transportation agency, Metrolinx, is considering to generate revenue for massive transit projects.

Hamilton’s east-west LRT B-Line is on the list of Metrolinx’s 10 major projects, expected within the next 15 years under the second wave of its Big Move initiative.

Metrolinx has proposed several possible revenue-generators for these 10 projects, including road tolls, increased taxes and transit fares. Hamilton city staff say they’re amenable to all but four of the proposed fee avenues: local transit fare increases, property tax hikes, development charges and parking space levies.

In February, council voted to forward a pitch to the province in hopes of securing 100 per cent funding for the $800-million B-Line. Other cities, including Toronto, have seen the province pay the entire cost of rapid transit construction.

However, the staff recommendation is taking place in the shadow of what is, arguably, the most divisive and bitter exchange of this council term, which revolved around that February vote.

At Wednesday night’s meeting, a motion intended to reaffirm council’s support of an east-west LRT line became a heated and nasty debate that led to accusations that Mayor Bob Bratina was bullying City Manager Chris Murray.

That motion was ultimately tabled and is expected to resurface at the May 8 council meeting.


METROLINX’S PROPOSED REVENUE TOOLS

1. Employer payroll tax
2. Fuel tax
3. Highway tolls
4. Parking space levies (opposed by the City of Hamilton)
5. Property tax (opposed by Hamilton)
6. Sales tax
7. Vehicle kilometres travelled
8. Development charges (opposed by Hamilton)
9. High occupancy toll lanes
10. Land value capture
11. Transit fare increase (opposed by Hamilton)


Mississauga council, meanwhile, only opposed two revenue tools (http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/transportation/2013/04/24/mississauga_says_yes_to_most_transit_tax_options_and_fie_on_ford.html): property tax increases and transit fare increases.

[Dr Awesomesauce]

That Council meeting was one of the most brilliant bits of television I've seen in a long time.

[SteelTown]

Hamilton council says it’s all or nothing on LRT funding

http://www.thespec.com/news/local/article/927157--hamilton-council-says-it-s-all-or-nothing-on-lrt-funding

Councillors have rejected a range of funding tools, fees and taxes intended to help pay for transit projects in the hope that the province will pick up the tab for 100 per cent of Hamilton’s light rail system.

But it’s a decision one councillor says puts the LRT line in jeopardy.

Metrolinx, the province’s transportation agency, has asked municipalities to weigh in on several possible revenue-generators to fund 10 major transit projects, expected to be built in the GTHA within the next 15 years. Metrolinx’s suggestions include road tolls, increased taxes and transit fare increases.

But city councillors say they’re not willing to accept any extra fees. Instead, they want the province to pay the full cost of Hamilton’s east-west LRT line — estimated to cost about $800 million — without facing any extra fees.

“It really is creating a tax,” said Councillor Sam Merulla. “How in God’s name would I ever support that?”

But Councillor Brian McHattie, the lone opposing vote in Wednesday’s decision, says that’s a dangerous move. He argues there are other municipalities vying for transit dollars that will be more than willing to “play ball” with the province when it comes to additional fees. He also says it makes him question whether his council colleagues are truly on board with LRT.

“I think what we’ve seen from council is that support for LRT is about a centimetre deep,” McHattie said. “While they support the reports, the concept of LRT, when it comes to taxpayers funding the programs with new dollars, there’s no support.”

Metrolinx is asking municipalities to comment on their proposed revenue tools in advance of its May 27 board meeting. Hamilton city staff recommended accepting all but four of the proposed fee avenues: local transit fare increases, property tax hikes, development charges and parking space levies.

Councillors say because the province paid 100 per cent of the capital costs for the first wave of its so-called Big Move projects, it should do the same for Hamilton. Council has always maintained that the province should pay the entire capital cost of the B-line LRT.

City manager Chris Murray says he’s received no indication from Metrolinx that Hamilton will be penalized for rejecting the proposed funding tools, as McHattie suggests.

“I appreciate his fears. But at the end of the day, Metrolinx was seeking input. And I believe that the committee has provided that funding.”

Still, Murray also pointed out that Hamilton council has little control over what, if any, fees the province ultimately decides to impose to pay for transit upgrades.

“The simple answer is, we’re in their hands. They can do what they want.”

[Dr Awesomesauce]

So desperate to hold on to their stupid jobs. That 'no new taxes' mantra is so tiresome, really. Get a new idea, Council, please.

So really, the Province could go forward with a new tax or user fee no matter what Council has to say - of course, who's listening to them anyway - and Hamilton taxpayers would have to deal with that fact and not enjoy any of the net benefits of those taxes to boot. Great idea, Hamilton. Can you smell where this is going?

[Jon Dalton]

What a pointless vote. They all know we will get new tolls or taxes if the Liberals get them through and council has nothing to do with it. This is just another bad message to the province that shows we are talking out both sides of our mouth on the issue. As it has been mentioned, Mississauga will shell out for tolls without complaining, and that is consistent with their LRT message.

Lloyd Ferguson is the only one here making sense. We will either pay for other cities' transit, or our own.

[Dr Awesomesauce]

I'm not Lloyd fan but he deserves credit for his professionalism and his unwavering support of b-line LRT. He is deputy mayor, after all, so I'd expect nothing less. His worship on the other hand...

[thistleclub]

Councillors clarify stance on LRT (http://www.thespec.com/opinion/columns/article/928197--dreschel-councillors-clarify-stance-on-lrt)
(Hamilton Spectator, Andrew Dreschel, May 3 2013)

Councillor Brian McHattie may be right.

The brush-off councillors gave to Metrolinx’s array of potential taxes and fees to pay for transit projects in the GTHA may indicate softening support for LRT.

But the flip side to the rejection is councillors brought some much-needed clarity to where they stand on financing the proposed $811-million light rail system.

For more than two months, they’ve been coasting by on a resolution that calls upon the province to provide 100 per cent capital funding without spelling out exactly what they mean by that.

Until this week, they never had that direct discussion. It was almost as if both politicians and city staff either hadn’t thought of it or preferred to keep it ambiguous in order to maintain maximum buy-in around the council table and in the community.

That led to some political confusion, faulty assumptions and mixed messages. Thanks to the motion from Chad Collins and Sam Merulla, that fuzziness is ended.

The request for 100 per cent funding doesn’t mean the city is open to financing LRT by tolling Hamiltonians for driving on the Red Hill Valley Parkway or the Linc, or by slapping a new tax on the gas they buy or any other squeeze play the province might implement.

It means council expects the province to foot the complete bill, exclusive of any new taxes, fees and charges — just like it did when Metrolinx unveiled the first round of big transit projects back in 2008.

Collins noted that the so-called revenue raising tools Metrolinx is floating may be a trial balloon to find out exactly what GTHA municipal councils are willing to stomach. If so, the signal from this council is they have no appetite for cramming new taxes down the throats of Hamilton residents.

This basically solidifies the city’s position that we deserve special treatment from the provincial government because we’re a fiscally fragile municipality with a reduced ability to pay. Period.

How realistic is this line in the sand? Probably not very.

The province has repeatedly stated it can no longer afford to bankroll the next wave of big projects from its existing operating budget and municipalities won’t be given special consideration.

In sum, the province needs to raise $2 billion a year through new fees and taxes in order to finance some $34 billion worth of transit projects intended to reduce congestion, create jobs and stimulate growth.

As much as Hamilton may want to be part of this so-called Big Move, it’s dawning on councillors that all their efforts to keep a lid on local taxes over the past three years may be swamped in the face of this gathering wave. Councillors want to do the transit dance, but they don’t want to pay the fiddler.

The fact that Toronto city staff estimate $10 billion or more of the required $34 billion could be spent in Toronto certainly doesn’t help matters. That makes Hamilton’s $811-million LRT or the alternative $265-million express bus system, known as BRT, pale by comparison.

Problem is, neither Metrolinx nor the province has been clear whether potential fees and taxes imposed on Hamiltonians would be used solely for local transit projects or across the GTHA.

Doubtless some councillors recognize it’s in Hamilton’s economic interest to reduce inter-regional highway congestion. But the possibility of paying to help relieve Toronto’s inner city traffic woes for an unspecified number of years only makes an unpalatable scenario worse.

Consider this: Merulla is calling the new fees and taxes a “manipulative” form of downloading from a government which has wasted tens of millions of dollars through the Ornge air ambulance, eHealth and cancelled gas plants fiascos.

He also points out that provincially mandated programs already account for some 20 per cent of the city’s operating budget — about $600 per household. In other words, any form of transit taxation is just more piling on.

It remains to be seen whether McHattie’s fears for LRT’s survival are exaggerated or prescient. But clearly the rules of engagement have stiffened and changed.

[HillStreetBlues]

"the signal from this council is they have no appetite for cramming new taxes down the throats of Hamilton residents."

Sigh. I hate to see language like that in a "news" article. In what respect would a toll on the Linc or Red Hill be a tax? A toll is a toll. I don't like taxes any more than most, and really question councillors' supposed "efforts to keep a lid on local taxes." But revenue tools that charge actual users of a piecee of infrastructure a proportion of the actual costs to operate them are not taxes, and we shouldn't allow council or anyone else to mistakenly frame them as such.

We're not going to get anywhere with this one until the next municipal election when we can try to throw out some of this council. For supporters of LRT, the plan should now be to organize and get enough resources together to effectively campaign on behalf of truly pro-transit candidates in a year and a half. That's not far off, and it's silly to waste emotional energy hoping that the current officials will smarten up at some point between now and then.

[durandy]

"the signal from this council is they have no appetite for cramming new taxes down the throats of Hamilton residents."

Sigh. I hate to see language like that in a "news" article. In what respect would a toll on the Linc or Red Hill be a tax? A toll is a toll. I don't like taxes any more than most, and really question councillors' supposed "efforts to keep a lid on local taxes." But revenue tools that charge actual users of a piecee of infrastructure a proportion of the actual costs to operate them are not taxes, and we shouldn't allow council or anyone else to mistakenly frame them as such.

We're not going to get anywhere with this one until the next municipal election when we can try to throw out some of this council. For supporters of LRT, the plan should now be to organize and get enough resources together to effectively campaign on behalf of truly pro-transit candidates in a year and a half. That's not far off, and it's silly to waste emotional energy hoping that the current officials will smarten up at some point between now and then.

If there really are enough LRT supporters out there they should be banding together to toss out the NDP stronghold in this city, who cares about what a bunch of pothole fillers like Merulla complain about.

[Dr Awesomesauce]

^I can't help but think the winds of change are starting to blow already.

[thistleclub]

NDP won’t support Ontario budget (http://www.thespec.com/news/ontario/article/928968--ndp-won-t-support-ontario-budget)
(Hamilton Spectator, Maria Babbage, May 3 2013)

NDP Leader Andrea Horwath said Friday she can’t support the budget unless there are changes to make the government more accountable for things like the $585 million spent to cancel gas plants to save Liberal seats in Oakville and Mississauga where local citizens lobbied for cancellation.

“If we don’t think the budget’s going to deliver for people, we can’t support it,” Horwath said....

Horwath also complained the Liberals adopted the weakest idea of the many so-called revenue tools that could be used to fund public transit with their budget proposal to allow drivers without passengers pay a premium to use car pool lanes.

“You’re telling people who are trying to do the right thing by car pooling that they might get squeezed out by those who can pay to drive in those lanes,” said Horwath.

“The last thing I think Ontarians want is another Lexus lane boondoggle.”

[realcity]

I guess that $811 million figure is in today's dollars not in 2030 when it gets built

[Jon Dalton]

Sigh. I hate to see language like that in a "news" article. In what respect would a toll on the Linc or Red Hill be a tax? A toll is a toll. I don't like taxes any more than most, and really question councillors' supposed "efforts to keep a lid on local taxes." But revenue tools that charge actual users of a piecee of infrastructure a proportion of the actual costs to operate them are not taxes, and we shouldn't allow council or anyone else to mistakenly frame them as such.


Right. It's not a new tax, it's a reduction in subsidies.

[thistleclub]

Glen Murray muddies Metrolinx transit plan for Toronto, Hamilton: Hume (http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013/05/03/glen_murray_muddies_metrolinx_transit_plan_for_toronto_hamilton_hume.html)
(Toronto Star, Christopher Hume, May 3 2013)

The first thing you need to know about Ontario Transportation Minister Glen Murray is that he’s a talker.

The second thing to understand is that he’s big on cities. Indeed, Murray first came to national prominence because, as mayor of Winnipeg, he would speak often and openly about the importance of Toronto to that city and the province of which it is capital, Manitoba.

That may not have endeared him to Winnipeggers, but it made him a popular guy here in the centre of the universe.

Now the two-term MPP from downtown Toronto and senior provincial transportation official has committed the cardinal political sin of telling the media what he really thinks, in this case, about the province’s much-parsed transit plan, The Big Move.

Speaking to a reporter Wednesday, Murray questioned the scheme’s overall lack of connectivity and wondered aloud about how well it serves regional transit needs.

His points, especially the connectivity part, are valid. But what Murray apparently forgot is that transit plans for the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area are more about moving politicians than passengers.

Murray’s remarks fly in the face of the endless discussion and compromise that got The Big Move to where it is today. The realities with which Metrolinx has to deal are more political than physical or economic. The provincial transportation agency must negotiate a landscape shaped by municipal rivalries, civic jealousies and voter resentment. It is an inhospitable topography on which many such plans have foundered.

In an ideal world of political enlightenment and bottomless budgets, the GTHA would be seamlessly serviced by a transit network that connected one part of the region to another.

Alas, such is not the case.

One day later, the result of his outburst is a minister in full retreat. “We’re not revisiting the projects or revisiting the plan,” Murray told the Star Thursday. “The Big Move is foundational to reducing congestion and increasing mobility. Once we build the 15 projects, we’ve got to think about connecting them better. We’ve got to make sure we’re optimizing the projects. I’ve led a municipal government; I’m very good at getting things done.”

Sadly, Murray’s good intentions are the stuff with which the road to decent transit, like the one to hell, is paved. The minister’s timing couldn’t have been worse. Just weeks before Metrolinx releases its menu of revenue-raising options, he has introduced an element of uncertainty into the process, which this transit-starved region needs like a hole in the head.


Shades of March 8's mixed (http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/1590569--ontario-to-pay-for-hamilton-s-lrt-minister-says) messaging (http://www.mississauga.com/news/article/1590708--hamilton-will-have-to-pay-for-lrt-says-minister).

[thistleclub]

Unease over LRT funding (http://www.thespec.com/opinion-story/2874005-unease-over-lrt-funding/)
(Hamilton Spectator, Andrew Dreschel, May 13 2013)

Russ Powers of Dundas has become the first city councillor to formally bail on the $811 million LRT project.

Powers says his support has "shifted" on the basis of Hamilton's ability to pay.

"From an affordability standpoint, I don't think we can afford LRT."

Powers jumped ship at the last council meeting while the rest of his colleagues voted to reaffirm their support and directed Mayor Bob Bratina to toe the line on LRT for King Street.

Whether his defection is premature or the shape of things to come in Hamilton remains to be seen.

But there's no question Tom Jackson keeps looking for assurances that there's still an "exit ramp" available.

And Chad Collins has signalled he's not prepared to offer "blind support."

All this underlines growing uncertainty about how the proposed project will be funded and by whom.

In other words, what will Hamiltonians be on the hook for and for how long?

That's the $811 million question. Or maybe the $34 billion question.

Hamilton is asking for 100 per cent funding from the province with no strings attached in the form of new taxes, fees or levies.

The province says it can't afford that deal, that it needs to create new revenue tools to finance 15 transit projects in the Greater Toronto Hamilton Area costing $34 billion, which includes a light rail line from McMaster to Eastgate.

On June 1, Metrolinx, the provincial transportation agency, is giving the province its recommendations on which funding tools to use.

But after that, answers to some key questions disappear into a thickening mizzle.

We don't know what the provincial government will do with the recommendations or how long it will take to make a decision.

Premier Kathleen Wynne is a strong advocate of new revenue streams to tame the GTHA's economically debilitating congestion and grow the regional transit network.

But whatever new taxes and fees are imposed, it's not clear how they'll be rolled out.

That brings us back to Hamilton.

Will Hamiltonians be expected to contribute to the entire $34 billion package of projects or just the portion that impacts this city?

To put it another way, once we've helped pay for either a $811-million LRT system or a $265-million bus rapid transit (BRT) system, will Hamiltonians still be taxed to pay for projects in Toronto, Brampton, Mississauga, Oshawa etc.?

"That's not clear," says Hamilton city manager Chris Murray.

"It's not clear what we're getting, it's not clear whether the fund, however it's structured, will pay for the things that we receive or be put into the broader pot and pay for the other 14 items, including ours that are on the list of the next round of big investments."

Bruce McCuaig, president and CEO of Metrolinx, was unavailable.


Elsewhere...

Toronto City Council bungles the transit file (http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2013/05/12/toronto_city_council_bungles_the_transit_file_editorial.html)
(Toronto Star, May 12 2013)

So much for an “adult conversation” on transit funding. Toronto City Council looked more like an unruly kindergarten class playing a chaotic game of dodge ball this past week than leaders discussing the fate of transportation for decades to come.

When it was over, after two days of incoherent debate, council achieved nothing apart from exposing its own inadequacy in handling complex transit files. Of course that didn’t stop Mayor Rob Ford from declaring this debacle “one of the greatest days in Toronto’s history.”

Council now stands revealed as so feckless and inept in considering the future of Greater Toronto transit that its views can safely be ignored by provincial decision-makers....

The province, once laughter fades, is likely to respond the way Metrolinx did to councillors’ ill-judged call to convert the Scarborough RT line into a subway. The agency made it clear that won’t be happening.

Two factors account for this dysfunction. First, by this time next year an election will be underway. With that contest looming, most councillors didn’t want to be on record supporting any sort of tax or toll, preferring instead to call for subways to their particular ward regardless of how absurd the option. Second, without a strong mayor guiding debate along productive channels discussion easily descended into anarchy.

Sadly, Toronto has forfeited standing in a crucial debate on transit expansion and how best to pay for it. The real misfortune here isn’t that a bunch of feckless councillors abdicated their responsibilities. It’s that the city they represent will be denied its full voice in shaping our common transit future.

[HillStreetBlues]

I think that it is very possible that Powers comes to question this decision. Even if no one notices how ridiculous it is to say that something can't be afforded before we even know the price tag (and while most are still saying that we want it for free), no matter how things pan out, it might not be a popular thing to have been the first councillor to formally give up on LRT.

Dundas is a well-educated community with (this is only my opinion) a lot of urban-focused residents interested in sensible city building. A number of them would actually use LRT, so it's not as though this guy is representing Binbrookers who may well never even see it (even though they will benefit in indirect ways). How many students and professors live in Dundas who would like to live in a city with better transit?

I can say from experience that, in Kitchener-Waterloo, the 2010 municipal election was for many people about LRT (whether they were in favour of it or opposed to it). Other issues were on people's minds, of course, and it would be an overstatement to say that the election was a referendum on LRT, but it was one of the first questions posed to council candidates. This was when it was already known that the Region would be paying up to $300 million for the system, when commitments were in place from the provincial and federal governments.

How might Powers be vulnerable in 2014 if the Hamilton Light Rail Initiative or a group like it can successfully make LRT a big election issue? Would it really be a good situation to be running for re-election in a well-educated, partly urban riding after you were the first councillor to say that you are not interested, even if it came at no cost?

[Dr Awesomesauce]

I don't know, Russ Powers is an institution in Dundas politics. He was a member of Town Council a million years ago and served with the Region as well. He also did a term as MP before that right-wing Christian took over. Anyway, people get used to ticking the same box every election - it's a tough habit to break. Look at Bernie Morelli for God's sake. A more inappropriate representative of Ward 3 I can not imagine and yet election after election he finds himself at City Hall. Some things are just inexplicable...not unlike Whitehead's hair. :slob: