Rapid Transit

[flar]

If you start with buses, ridership will never "warrant" light rail. Not in Hamilton at least. In Hamilton, buses are unreliable, trips take way longer than driving, and parking is plentiful and cheap. Not having a car is the only reason to take the bus, they are essentially the domain of the poor, disabled, elderly and students.

[mattgrande]

Has that ever been the plan? I thought the original plan was to have LRT in place before the Pan-Am Games. This is the first I'm hearing of "BRT first, then LRT later."

I was under the impression that the B-Line was already at capacity...

[ScreamingViking]

In Hamilton, where a future LRT could be nixed by Mr. Hudak’s plan, Mayor Bob Bratina said the current plan is to begin with buses and that it would be “likely many years” before ridership warranted light rail.

“The Ministry is well aware that our Rapid Ready transit plan begins with enhanced bus service to grow ridership to ultimately support LRT,” he said in an e-mail. “Our first concern therefore is a funding partnership with the province to set the plan in motion.”

What a fool. Another perfect opportunity to show leadership on a major city issue... wasted.

Then again, it was also an opportunity to throw out some pre-campaign re-election rhetoric. ;):rolleyes:

[ScreamingViking]

Has that ever been the plan? I thought the original plan was to have LRT in place before the Pan-Am Games. This is the first I'm hearing of "BRT first, then LRT later."

It's the first anyone is hearing of it.

[Jon Dalton]

"The plan" is to complete engineering / design on the B-Line LRT and request full funding from Metrolinx to build it. This plan is backed up by several council votes and references our own and Metrolinx' feasibility studies. The first study we did indicated that ridership on buses is already high enough.

[markbarbera]

There was an study of LRT in North America conducted for the city by McMaster University last year. It can be found here (http://mitl.mcmaster.ca/B6C6A74E-0BFB-4C4D-94F2-4ACAC2631370/FinalDownload/DownloadId-8ED5A60160FEDFCD6A602AF43C2F204B/B6C6A74E-0BFB-4C4D-94F2-4ACAC2631370/documents/MITL_LRT_August.pdf).

Here are the conclusions made by the study:

Conclusions
The concluding section of the report offers some interpretation of what the findings mean for Hamilton. Some of the main points are as follows:

Light rail transit has the potential to succeed in Hamilton under the right set of circumstances but it will be a long, challenging and expensive process.

There is evidence that light rail developments stand a better chance for success in Canadian cities than U.S. cities.

While traffic congestion helps to drive the case for LRT elsewhere, a comparative lack of congestion in Hamilton offers less support to the local case for LRT. One concern for B-Line LRT and the attraction of new riders is that movements along the corridor are fairly efficient for automobile commuters. Meanwhile, parking in the downtown core is cheap and abundant.

The system of one-way streets along the prospective corridor, while good for auto commuting, is not ideal for LRT or for encouraging TOD. In contrast, to support their LRT system, policies in Calgary have made it more challenging to commute downtown by car.

Success will require a long-term time horizon, strong leadership and strong public support. Even in favourable locations, ridership increases and new developments associated with light rail may proceed slower than anticipated. For example, it is only recently, after thirty years, that ridership on Edmonton's LRT has shown considerable gains.

Investments in light rail often take place in an auto-oriented environment where the path of least resistance is the status quo. As such, the need for a high degree of vision, conviction and strong support from the public is clear
as all parties contemplate a time when the automobile is less dominant than at present.

Many cities have experienced success with their LRT systems by exceeding ridership estimates and attracting new TOD. But other light rail projects have exceeded construction cost estimates, fallen short of ridership and land use expectations, and maintain a low overall share of regional trips. As such, planners and policymakers must exercise care and caution in preparing plans and setting expectations for a light rail project.

LRT itself should be understood as a tool to guide development more so than one that generates development in and of itself, and likewise TOD is not a product of transit alone, but the interaction between a complex set of local factors.

Apart from making travel by private automobile less attractive, a comprehensive array of planning incentives will likely be necessary to induce new investment along the route. To that end, the City of Hamilton is currently
engaged in land use planning in advance of rapid transit and appears to be adhering to sound principles for the most part. However, the ultimate driver of success for development and redevelopment projects lies in strong local economic and real estate market conditions.

[SteelTown]

Ontario to issue ‘green bonds’ to help fund public transit expansion

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4182209-ontario-to-issue-green-bonds-to-help-fund-public-transit-expansion/

TORONTO Premier Kathleen Wynne says the Ontario government will issue so-called green bonds next year to help fund public transit expansion.

Wynne says the program will be unveiled in next week's fall economic update, and will allow people to invest in Ontario's future.

It's the first of the so-called revenue tools Wynne has promised to help raise the billions of dollars needed to expand public transit in the heavily congested Toronto-to-Hamilton corridor.

Wynne says green bonds are a great tool to raise capital for projects with specific environmental benefits.

She says the global market for green bonds doubled in the past year to US$346 billion.

Finance Minister Charles Sousa says the green bond program will help to fix Ontario with fixed returns.

[mattgrande]

Chad Collins posted this on Twitter last night (https://twitter.com/Chad_Collins5/status/395731541793316864):


How long will it be before someone who voted for the dedicated Bus Lanes decides to reconsider? #Hamont #trafficchaos


He's gotten a few responses, I'd say ten in favour of the lanes, three against.

[Dr Awesomesauce]

^I'm a bit slow on the uptake...

If he's trying to stir up sh*t then it's a total dick move on his part, even for a politician. If he's just musing aloud then, well, it's still a dick move, actually.

Worst council ever.

[movingtohamilton]

^I'm a bit slow on the uptake...

If he's trying to stir up sh*t then it's a total dick move on his part, even for a politician. If he's just musing aloud then, well, it's still a dick move, actually.

Worst council ever.

I assume he voted against it, and is hoping for a self-fulfilling prophesy. Chaos? Hyperbole of the worst kind.

[drpgq]

Typical of someone whose job before becoming a councilor was video store clerk. Well done Chad.

[Dr Awesomesauce]

That's one hell of a CV. And his current gig, well, I'm pretty sure mummy got him that one. Sure, he had to win an election but, really...

[ScreamingViking]

And this is the shite some on council will refer back to when the debate about whether to continue the lane experiment happens. :rolleyes:

Hopefully within a couple of weeks the limited furor that exists will get muffled amid other issues and we can continue with a properly evaluated trial without the hyperbole.

[LikeHamilton]

Found this video on Youtube.

Hamilton Bus Lane Causes Congestion of Traffic- UN Agenda 21

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pv2XwaOOv8

[movingtohamilton]

CHCH 6:00pm newscast today will be doing a hatchet-job on the bus lane. Word is HH BBQ owner will be featured, along with others.

[ScreamingViking]

Found this video on Youtube.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pv2XwaOOv8

Ahhh, I get it now. It's all part of a global conspiracy to track us and control what we eat, say, and do! Clearly this transit lane is the culmination of decades of scheming. Sheer diabolical genius! :stunned:

Who are these guys? :koko:

While the bald guy is talking, I love the way the traffic is moving when it has a green light. But those reds... so much congestion. :rolleyes:

Kind of reminds me of this (tried to embed but it wasn't working)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPMS6tGOACo

[Dr Awesomesauce]

^Damn, I wish I hadn't watched that video. Angers the blood.

[flar]

The United Nations, just unbelievable.

[ScreamingViking]

The UN hasn't been the same since the extraterrestrial takeover.

[thistleclub]

Shop owners say transit-only lane hurting their downtown businesses (http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4190533-shop-owners-say-transit-only-lane-hurting-their-downtown-businesses/)
(Hamilton Spectator, Steve Arnold, Nov 3 2013)

Two weeks after the opening of a new bus-only lane through Hamilton's core, downtown merchants say their worst fears have been realized.

Business operators have expressed a fear throughout the transit experiment that making it tougher for cars to navigate the core will keep people out of their stores — and that's what they fear is starting to happen.

Barry Sobel, whose Rainbow Bridal has been a King Street fixture for 36 years, said he is already hearing from longtime customers that traffic congestion resulting from the bus lane is keeping them out of the core, especially on weekdays.

"Saturday isn't so bad, traffic is moving well, but at 11 a.m. on a weekday cars will be backed up all the way to Wellington," Sobel said in an interview Saturday. "During weekdays, traffic is backed up as far as I can see."

Late in October the city launched a one-year pilot project to test the effect on traffic congestion in the core from converting one lane of King to transit-only. The far right lane of King between Mary and Dundurn streets is now buses-only except for cars trying to turn right.

The experiment is being viewed as a test of the impact of a proposed light rapid transit rail line through the area. Provincial transit agency Metrolinx has put $300,000 into the project.

Backers of the plan say it has the potential to increase business for core-area merchants by slowing traffic, giving drivers a chance to look around and maybe discover a downtown shop they didn't know existed.

"It gives people a chance to see that dress in the window or that guitar in the pawnshop," said downtown Councillor Jason Farr. "This plan was well thought out but it's also a pilot project and we know that means it will have to be tweaked a little."

[KDP]

I was standing in front of Jackson Square yesterday waiting for the bus at 10 to 4pm, and the street was EMPTY. It was just like it was before the bus lanes went in.

[beanmedic]

Shop owners say transit-only lane hurting their downtown businesses (http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4190533-shop-owners-say-transit-only-lane-hurting-their-downtown-businesses/)
(Hamilton Spectator, Steve Arnold, Nov 3 2013)

Two weeks after the opening of a new bus-only lane through Hamilton's core, downtown merchants say their worst fears have been realized.

Business operators have expressed a fear throughout the transit experiment that making it tougher for cars to navigate the core will keep people out of their stores — and that's what they fear is starting to happen.

Barry Sobel, whose Rainbow Bridal has been a King Street fixture for 36 years, said he is already hearing from longtime customers that traffic congestion resulting from the bus lane is keeping them out of the core, especially on weekdays.

"Saturday isn't so bad, traffic is moving well, but at 11 a.m. on a weekday cars will be backed up all the way to Wellington," Sobel said in an interview Saturday. "During weekdays, traffic is backed up as far as I can see."

Late in October the city launched a one-year pilot project to test the effect on traffic congestion in the core from converting one lane of King to transit-only. The far right lane of King between Mary and Dundurn streets is now buses-only except for cars trying to turn right.

The experiment is being viewed as a test of the impact of a proposed light rapid transit rail line through the area. Provincial transit agency Metrolinx has put $300,000 into the project.

Backers of the plan say it has the potential to increase business for core-area merchants by slowing traffic, giving drivers a chance to look around and maybe discover a downtown shop they didn't know existed.

"It gives people a chance to see that dress in the window or that guitar in the pawnshop," said downtown Councillor Jason Farr. "This plan was well thought out but it's also a pilot project and we know that means it will have to be tweaked a little."

It's not. But maybe all the erroneous reporting of traffic chaos by CHCH and The Spectator ARE convincing people to avoid downtown...

[thistleclub]

The Transit Investment Strategic Advisory Panel (http://transitpanel.ca/) has released its report on rapid transit funding recommendations.

Read it in full (http://transitpanel.ca/uploads/Final%20paper/TISAP%20Making%20the%20Move,%20Choices%20and%20Consequences%20Full%20Report%20-%20reduced%20size%20for%20website.pdf), short (http://transitpanel.ca/uploads/Final%20paper/TISAP%20Making%20the%20Move,%20Choices%20and%20Consequences%20Report-short.pdf) and shorter versions (http://transitpanel.ca/uploads/Final%20paper/TISAP%20Making%20the%20Move,%20Choices%20and%20Consequences%20Executive%20Summary.pdf).

[thistleclub]

Golden panel's transit revenue plan appears simple, doable, fair (http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/transportation/2013/12/13/golden_panels_transit_revenue_plan_appears_simple_doable_fair_james.html)
(Toronto Star, Royson James, Dec 13 2013)

Phew! We’re getting off easy, Toronto.

Facing a controversial list of “funding tools” to cover a $50-billion transit bill, residents could avoid most of them, including road tolls, parking fees and property tax hikes, under recommendations from a provincial transit panel released Thursday.

The panel, established by Premier Kathleen Wynne to advise the government, is recommending Ontario adopt three tools to pay for Metrolinx’s Big Move transit plan:

• An initial 3-cent hike in gas tax, with a penny added each year to a maximum 10 cents a litre;
• A half a per cent increase in Ontario’s general corporate income tax rate;
• Provincial contribution of approximately $80 million a year from the harmonized sales tax (HST). In essence, the higher gas and corporate income taxes would generate an extra $80 million in HST, and the panel recommends the province divert that windfall to the transit fund.

(Another option would see the gas tax hike capped at 5 cents but bolstered by a 0.5 per cent hike in sales tax.)

In general, the measures would cost the average resident an extra $80 to $155 to start, rising to between $260 and $300.

The measures would be implemented province-wide, but money generated in Timmins would stay in Timmins, not be used in the GTA and Hamilton (GTAH).

The panel further recommends that the province enact legislation to set aside the new revenues — just under $2 billion in the GTAH — in a special fund dedicated to transit.

All told, this is as good as it gets. The tools are simple, doable, spread the pain around and set us on a path of sustainable funding.

The plan also avoids the more politically toxic options that might be unpalatable to a government, especially the minority provincial Liberals.

Still, the ideas will become a political football in any upcoming provincial election. As such, the proposals may be doomed to the dustbin.

[drpgq]

"The measures would be implemented province-wide, but money generated in Timmins would stay in Timmins, not be used in the GTA and Hamilton (GTAH)."

This sentence makes me pause. Does money generated in Hamilton stay in Hamilton? By past experience with Metrolinx I would guess the answer is not really.

I found a Globe and Mail article with the stat that 38,208,346,000 liters of gasoline were sold in Canada last year. For Hamilton that would be roughly 545,000,000 liters based on population. So that's around $54.5 million per year plus the 13% HST charged on that for a ten cent additional tax. That much funding per year could easily fund the downtown LRT line over 20 years.

However given the past history of Metrolinx, I'm doubting Hamilton will get its fair share based on population. I'm really starting to think that Hamilton being part of Metrolinx hasn't worked out in our favour at all. I'm also disappointed that local media hasn't squawked more about Hamilton getting shortchanged by Metrolinx on a population basis.

[Innsertnamehere]

how much is the LRT going to cost? Because it will require 18 years to fully implement the big move, and 18 years at 55 million annually is around 950 million. Once you include all day GO that will be in the plan for the new GO station, you are probably getting your monies worth.

[drpgq]

how much is the LRT going to cost? Because it will require 18 years to fully implement the big move, and 18 years at 55 million annually is around 950 million. Once you include all day GO that will be in the plan for the new GO station, you are probably getting your monies worth.

I would say that 950 million is a decent guess for LRT. However the problem I see is that Metrolinx has been around for a while and has spent almost nothing on Hamilton to date while considerable sums have been spent in Toronto.

There are no real plans for all day GO. There's two additional trains each way planned for the new station. No idea when there will be more, which is kind of depressing in itself considering how hard can it be to run a few extra trains from Aldershot?

I just can't see Hamilton getting value for this new gas tax. If there was something that said it had to be proportionately for Hamilton rather than Metrolinx I would have less concern.

[Beedok]

Well maybe long term Hamilton will benefit more, Toronto's just more desperate right now.

[ScreamingViking]

Well maybe long term Hamilton will benefit more, Toronto's just more desperate right now.

Toronto will always be more desperate.

Even if everyone comes to some agreement about how to fund the Big Move, it will be interesting to see how future politicking plays with the plans.

[thistleclub]

Transit Investment Strategic Advisory Panel Recommendation #18 (http://transitpanel.ca/uploads/Final%20paper/TISAP%20Making%20the%20Move,%20Choices%20and%20Consequences%20Report-short.pdf)

That all projects approved by Metrolinx and elected officials must have up-to-date, publicly available business case analyses that validate the investment, taking into account life-cycle capital, operating, maintenance and financing costs.

[drpgq]

Toronto will always be more desperate.

Even if everyone comes to some agreement about how to fund the Big Move, it will be interesting to see how future politicking plays with the plans.

That's the thing I'm afraid of. Toronto will always have some project that has to be done.

[Beedok]

That's the thing I'm afraid of. Toronto will always have some project that has to be done.

Toronto's growth won't always be higher than Hamilton's. My guess is that most years Hamilton will be losing out on this deal, but when Hamilton does build something it will probably happen more often and be bigger than Hamilton could afford on it's own. It's like healthcare, most of the time you're paying for someone else's treatment, but when you do get sick you're dang happy you aren't left with a sudden massive bill.

[Innsertnamehere]

Hamilton won't lose out on the deal. If anything, toronto Is the one loosing out big time. $8.5 billion of the plan is going to be spent in toronto but probably 11-12 billion will be collected in the city.

Hamilton is going to get roughly 1 billion of the funds, which very closely reflects what it will be paying. (For the LRT and actual all day GO in Hamilton, 15 minute electrified service as a full extension of the lakeshore west line)

Remember that Hamilton also falls under Metrolinx's wing and therefor is seen as the same "place" as toronto anyway. It's included in the big move, and like it or not it is treated as part of the GTA. I wouldn't call it a toronto suburb per-say, but it's commuting patterns certainly indicate it isn't its own isolated city like Timmins. The discussion is that municipalities outside of the big move can get the funds as well to help their projects, which would allow places like Ottawa expand their LRT system or allow London to build an LRT.

[Beedok]

Hamilton isn't being treated as GTA, it's being treated as GTHA. We get our own letter in the acronym. :P

[drpgq]

Hamilton won't lose out on the deal. If anything, toronto Is the one loosing out big time. $8.5 billion of the plan is going to be spent in toronto but probably 11-12 billion will be collected in the city.

Hamilton is going to get roughly 1 billion of the funds, which very closely reflects what it will be paying. (For the LRT and actual all day GO in Hamilton, 15 minute electrified service as a full extension of the lakeshore west line)

Remember that Hamilton also falls under Metrolinx's wing and therefor is seen as the same "place" as toronto anyway. It's included in the big move, and like it or not it is treated as part of the GTA. I wouldn't call it a toronto suburb per-say, but it's commuting patterns certainly indicate it isn't its own isolated city like Timmins. The discussion is that municipalities outside of the big move can get the funds as well to help their projects, which would allow places like Ottawa expand their LRT system or allow London to build an LRT.

I do remember that Hamilton falls under Metrolinx's wing, but my point is that I don't think it has worked out very well for Hamilton. Considerable sums have already spent by Metrolinx in Toronto for projects without a gas tax. Hamilton's Metrolinx' projects so far are the A line bus along Upper James during rush hour, the bike share and the announced two trains back and forth from the new station by LIUNA which is obviously no where near all day GO. There's no concrete plans for LRT as of yet. I probably missed some other small projects.

Frankly I wish Bill Kelly would have a segment about Hamilton being ripped off by Metrolinx on a per capita basis.

[Beedok]

It's just starting out. Toronto has an extreme transit deficit. Hamilton needs a bit of help, but it's more of a restructuring than desparation.

[ScreamingViking]

It's just starting out. Toronto has an extreme transit deficit. Hamilton needs a bit of help, but it's more of a restructuring than desparation.

That's not a bad way to characterize it. Meeting existing demand with an eye to setting things up better for future growth.

Imagine where transit demand in Hamilton might be today if the massive cuts to the HSR had not been made in the 1980s. Or with an adequate level of annual investment in the service.

[CaptainKirk]

That's not a bad way to characterize it. Meeting existing demand with an eye to setting things up better for future growth.


That's why I'm somewhat puzzled by the shortsighted view of some naysayers that say we're fine right now, no congestion, 20 minute city, blah, blahs, blah.

This is long term planning. It's like they can't see even 5 years into the future, never mind decades.

It's an investment that will realized later. for longer term benefit

[thistleclub]

Omen or outlier?

No guarantees on more LRT money for Ottawa: Finance minister (http://www.ottawasun.com/2014/01/13/no-guarantees-on-more-lrt-money-for-ottawa-finance-minister)
(Ottawa Sun, Jon Willing, Jan 13 2013)

Ontario Finance Minister Charles Sousa was making no commitments Monday that the province will offer nearly $1 billion to help pay for rapid transit extensions across Ottawa.

Sousa, who gave a speech to Ottawa’s business community at City Hall, wouldn’t address whether the province will give provide the $975 million the city wants to stretch rail to Bayshore Shopping Centre, Algonquin College, Place d’Orléans and Riverside South.

“We’re going to have a lot of initiatives going forward,” Sousa said in response to questions from reporters after his speech.

“I would tell you Ottawa is a principle city in the province and it’s critical for its competitiveness and Ontario has always been a supporter of initiatives here in Ottawa.”

Sousa said the city has been squirrelling money in the Ontario Trillium Trust, which earmarks revenues from asset sales for infrastructure projects, and emphasizing greater investment from the business sector through public-private partnerships.

Plus, the province hopes its new “green bonds” will raise more money for transit.

[Beedok]

Those are the next phase of growth for Ottawa though, I don't think they're even planning to start until like 2018, likely after an election. Making promises that far in the future is a bit difficult.

[thistleclub]

Support for LRT dwindles (http://www.thespec.com/opinion-story/4373035-dreschel-support-for-lrt-dwindles/)
(Hamilton Spectator, Andrew Dreschel, Feb 19 2014)

Hamilton council's support for LRT is fading rapidly.

If the province doesn't provide full capital funding with no strings attached, several councillors say they'll no longer support the proposed $811-million lower city project.

"There is no appetite in the community at large for Hamilton to pay on its own," said Stoney Creek Councillor Brad Clark.

Clark says his community feels light rail would be a "waste of money" which could be better spent on improving regular bus services.

"We have to fix our basics first."

Councillor Tom Jackson agrees. He says without full capital funding from the province, he'll vote no and get off the LRT train.

According to Jackson, his east Mountain constituents have no interest in paying for a downtown LRT line when there's a big need for improved HSR routes elsewhere.

"Beyond the downtown and an enlightened progressive group that has been strong advocates for it, it's not generating any discussion."

For councillors, full provincial funding means exempting Hamiltonians from paying special gasoline taxes, fees, road tolls or any other levies the Liberal government might implement to finance Metrolinx's $34 billion GTHA transit strategy, including a light rail line from McMaster to Eastgate....


East end Councillor Sam Merulla says LRT would spark urban redevelopment and assessment growth, but residents simply can't afford a new layer of taxes.

Merulla sees the prospect of dedicated transit taxes and fees as another form of downloading provincial responsibilities on to municipalities.

"It's another way of screwing us over financially."

Some councillors think if LRT was put to a referendum during the October municipal election, it would lose hands down.

"I would think the majority would not see value in taking on the burden of financing LRT on the backs of property taxpayers," said Terry Whitehead.

Lloyd Ferguson also believes public support for LRT is extremely thin.

"My guess is there would be limited support in Wards 1 through 5 and very little outside that."

Council reaffirmed its support for LRT based on demands-free funding from the province last spring. The only dissenting vote was Dundas Councillor Russ Powers who bailed because he didn't think Hamilton can afford the project.

Clearly, Powers was the canary in the coal mine.


Read it in full here (http://www.thespec.com/opinion-story/4373035-dreschel-support-for-lrt-dwindles/).

[bigguy1231]

It doesn't surprise me that thinking has changed. I have been saying all along that it was going to be a hard sell.

[coalminecanary]

No thinking has changed. The same people who didn't get it 5 years ago still don't get it today. The city will suffer from the Spectator's utter disdain for its home town.

[Jon Dalton]

These councillors don't appear to understand how the funding works. It's not either the province pays or Hamilton pays. It's either everyone pays or noone pays. The issue of LRT is separate.

Don't vote down LRT because you don't like taxes. You could end up with the worst of both worlds - new taxes and no LRT (actually, an LRT somewhere else).

If you don't want new taxes, road tolls, etc., vote PC or NDP, write your MPP and ask them to vote against the budget. Which they will anyways.

Jesus, you'd expect politicians to at least read the news or otherwise have some grasp on current events.

[Beedok]

Why would you say that you don't want something local now that you're going to be paying money for a regional project? That's like finding out that you're splitting the bill rather than one person paying so you decided you won't eat anything. If anything finding out that the city will be paying as part of the region should be a rallying event. Before there was no risk of paying either way, now you're paying either way.

[thistleclub]

Council is certainly myopic, but the Liberals aren't blameless.

The province has done its best to insulate itself from blowback around revenue mechanisms, first creating an arm's-length agency (ie. Metrolinx (http://www.metrolinx.com/en/)) to determine funding strategy -- an agency which then crowdsourced a menu of palatable mechanisms from GTHA municipal councils (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/news/hamilton-councillors-divided-on-transit-funding-recommendations-1.1302057) -- then second-guessed the input of that agency (http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regionalplanning/funding/investment_strategy.aspx) through the creation of a panel with Metrolinx DNA (ie. Transit Investment Strategy Advisory Panel (http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/news/backgrounder/transit-review-panel.shtml)). That panel drafted its own report (http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/news/transit-reports/TISAP%20Report%20Dec10_Report%20Full%20x.pdf) for consideration, but is no more binding than the recommendations of Metrolinx.

The Wynne government has yet to fully reveal its favoured revenue mechanisms, let alone the legislation defining the implementation of those mechanisms. The premier has announced that she is prepared to go to the polls over the issue (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/kathleen-wynne-will-run-on-promise-to-raise-taxes-for-transit-in-next-election/article15943546/), but it is unlikely that the so-called "revenue tools" would be finalized before then. It has been hoped that the first of these measures would be laid out formally in the Spring Budget, which pundits predict could fall on want of confidence, forcing a general election (http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/02/18/horwath_dares_wynne_to_force_election_over_taxes_and_tolls.html) -- and making the measures moot, at least until the next government is formed.

Assuming that political postures don't soften in the near future, the Liberals just have to campaign on raising new dedicated revenue streams for transit infrastructure and win a majority (and picking off NDP-held ridings in the GTHA could give them urban seats). Anything less than a majority and the conversation is back where it started.

[LikeHamilton]

The Spec online poll (Right side a third of the way down)

http://www.thespec.com/hamilton/

Hamilton city council support for LRT is weakening without a guarantee that the province will cover capital costs. What's your view on the subject?


Forget LRT period
Support if province pays all
Support LRT regardless

[durandy]

Assuming that political postures don't soften in the near future, the Liberals just have to campaign on raising new dedicated revenue streams for transit infrastructure and win a majority (and picking off NDP-held ridings in the GTHA could give them urban seats). Anything less than a majority and the conversation is back where it started.

Liberals to be erased from the map in the spring...transit nightmare looms...

[CaptainKirk]

You could end up with the worst of both worlds - new taxes and no LRT (actually, an LRT somewhere else)

Bingo!

[HillStreetBlues]

Clark says his community feels light rail would be a "waste of money" which could be better spent on improving regular bus services.

"We have to fix our basics first."




I actually agree quite strongly with this statement. I think that LRT would be a much better proposition replacing an extremely frequent express bus along the King/Main corridor which is fed properly (extremely properly) by north-south routes.

Unfortunately, we’ve had plenty of opportunity, and the municipal government has neglected transit. If we keep waiting to make dramatic improvements to our regular bus services to invest in higher-order transit, that’s quite likely to never happen.



Merulla sees the prospect of dedicated transit taxes and fees as another form of downloading provincial responsibilities on to municipalities.

"It's another way of screwing us over financially."


Besides the fact that this is an unprofessional way of putting it to say the least, I don’t understand how new taxes could possibly be construed as “downloading.” If anything, the provincial government is now saying that it is going to take a leading role in regional transit, rather than making the municipal level deal with it. Is it surprising that to do that it needs new taxes? To me, this seems like the exact opposite of downloading. Then again, I might easily be missing something.

[thistleclub]

There is no end of speculation around this issue. It could well be that the terrain will change more than once before it is resolved.

Remember that these councilors, declared or not, are in the throes of reelection bids (Councillor Merulla, for one, filed papers several weeks ago), and that provincial politicians are similarly on pre-election footing. When incumbent politicians are seeking re-election, they will say a great deal, and promise many things, most of it salted with qualifiers. Intention is not the same as action. Support is not the same as commitment.

What some councillors appear to be objecting to is the possibility that the LRT promised during the 2007 general election would not technically be 100% paid by the province – that is, out of general revenue -- but that it would be funded from the pool of the forthcoming revenue streams, which is to say potentially 100% funded from the municipality. (It is unclear how existing provincial gas tax funding would factor into the equation, a significant consideration since it might subsidize transit operating costs.) But it's just one of many possibilities.

Councillor Merulla's reflexive characterization of the situation as a screw job is partly a result of his political affinities (https://raisethehammer.org/blog/689/), partly his penchant for theatre (http://www.thespec.com/opinion-story/4152396-dreschel-merulla-calls-premier-a-liar-for-shock-effect/), and partly a result of popular assumptions made around the Liberals’ 11th-hour campaign pledge (http://councillorbradclark.blogspot.ca/2011/09/i-am-hamilton-champion-are-you.html), specifically that Hamilton would receive the same treatment as Toronto. This has arguably turned out to be questionable, underlined a week after the 2011 election when a Metrolinx investment veep suggested Hamilton LRT was technically unfunded ( http://www.thespec.com/news-story/2220686-waiting-for-the-money-train/), four years after the promise was made. (For his part, Councillor Clark has previously pressed for clarity (http://www.hamiltonnews.com/news/liberal-mpps-leave-city-at-lrt-station/) from the province over LRT.)

It’s also possible that these revenue tools could be imposed province-wide (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/gta-transit-pitch-leaves-premier-with-dilemma/article12897939/), making opt-out impossible.

Furthermore, the criteria for use of these forthcoming funds is ill-defined. In March 2013, Premier Wynne expanded the end uses of these revenue tools to include all transportation infrastructure ( http://www.news.nationalpost.com/2013/03/25/ontario-premier-hints-at-new-tolls-taxes-to-fix-crumbling-roads
), though in the GTHA she anticipated that it would translate “largely ( http://toronto.ctvnews.ca/wynne-hints-at-tolls-taxes-to-repair-crumbling-roads-bridges-1.1209998)” – which is to say, not exclusively -- into transit funding. It is conceivable that all-day GO service and further provincial capital investment into the HSR would be funded out of the same revenue pool.

Project financing is also a matter of speculation: Would revenue tools rewrite the traditional cost-sharing ratios, and if so, how?

And of course, the province calls the dance: If they don’t see a compelling case for investing in Hamilton LRT, they may well opt for Plan B.

Council needs common voice and clarity of focus now more than ever.

[HillStreetBlues]

I still that I may be missing something. Why would new types of taxes or increased taxes (what the provincial government is calling “revenue tools”) change cost-sharing ratios, for instance? Firstly, I don’t think it can be claimed that there are such things as traditional ratios, since they vary depending on the capital project, and the types of projects we are talking about are uncommon. If we had a traditional cost split between the province and municipalities, why would they change just because the province raises taxes to fund its share of the costs?

If councillors are objecting to the provincial government’s use of new taxes or increased taxes (again, what everyone has allowed the Liberals to call “revenue tools”), I think that is foolish. Is Mr. Merulla saying “we want the provincial government to pay for LRT and we want them to do it with debt, no new taxes”? Is he saying “we want LRT but we want someone else to pay for it, we don’t want a cent of contribution from any Hamiltonians”?

My own personal opinion is that the City of Hamilton should pay for a portion of an LRT here from property taxes. I say that as a Hamilton taxpayer. I have no idea how it has any bearing on that fact that the provincial government has decided to introduce new taxes dedicated to funding transit, some of which will also be paid by Hamiltonians (as residents of the province). It’s to the provincial government’s credit that they have identified a problem, and are trying to find reasonably fair ways of funding the solutions to that problem. I say this as someone who usually has little good to say about the current provincial government.

Hamilton’s municipal government has every ability to explore fairer ways of raising the revenue to fund transit, and its share of capital projects that might be part-funded by other levels of government. It has every ability to divert a portion of (for instance) the roads budget to improving transit. Instead, the council we have is more interested in complaining about not getting something for free.

I agree that council needs a common voice. However, I think the common denominator on this council could only wind up being one that would rather do nothing because it seems cheap, than to do something because it provides real and lasting value.

[thistleclub]

I still that I may be missing something. Why would new types of taxes or increased taxes (what the provincial government is calling “revenue tools”) change cost-sharing ratios, for instance? Firstly, I don’t think it can be claimed that there are such things as traditional ratios, since they vary depending on the capital project, and the types of projects we are talking about are uncommon. If we had a traditional cost split between the province and municipalities, why would they change just because the province raises taxes to fund its share of the costs?

I was referring towhat I'll call "the thirds formula", though you're correct that there is no "traditional" ratio per se. What I question is whether revenues raised in Hamilton would exclusively be used in Hamilton, or whether a portion would go into a GTHA reserve, to be used as the province sees fit. We are told it is to be a dedicated funding stream, but that's still pretty abstract.

Point being that prior to the advent of the new "revenue tools", the province was at one point said to have been up for covering 100% of direct capital costs (https://www.raisethehammer.org/article/1650/lrt_funding_forecast_still_hazy). Then the City was expected to commit an as-yet-undefined share (http://raisethehammer.org/article/1800/more_mixed_messaging_on_lrt_funding), with ability-to-pay reportedly improving our place within a project prioritization framework (http://www.thespec.com/opinion-story/2221403-dreschel-metrolinx-says-local-funding-counts/).

The rub with LRT, I was suggesting, is that Council wants the $1 billion capital investment without having to chip in. More than that, I beleive some councillors even want the province to subsidize annual operating costs. And they want that investment independent of the new tools.

What I was wondering about was whether the "new" automated revenue mechanisms would replace the familiar formulations, and if so, how. If revenues are all going to the province, would the municipality be expected to commit additional funds above and beyond? Would the revenues pool be administered locally, in whole or in part? The most detail we've seen is in trial balloons from Metrolinx, for example (http://globalnews.ca/news/591889/metrolinx-report-recommends-gas-tax-increased-hst-to-fund-public-transit/):

Metrolinx says all the revenues would be dedicated to public transit projects, with 25 per cent carved out for municipalities in the area to spend on local transit and transportation projects.

Again, I'm not predicting any specific outcome(s), just pointing out that there is not much detail on the road ahead at this point.

[CaptainKirk]

..this seems like the exact opposite of downloading.

Exaclty!

How often could Hamilton reap the benefit of a huge infrastructure project paid for by "others" in the province.

[thistleclub]

NDP’s Andrea Horwath on track to derail transit (http://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2014/02/20/ndps_andrea_horwath_on_track_to_derail_transit_cohn.html)
(Toronto Star, Martin Regg Cohn, Feb 20 2014]

It’s morning rush hour, the subway is packed and I’m late: NDP Leader Andrea Horwath is about to announce her political agenda at a Queen’s Park news conference.

The Bloor-Yonge platform is brimming with commuters, slowing down our train. Time enough to stare back at a transit ad, bemoaning gridlock, from CivicAction:

“Demand action from your elected officials,” it exhorts us....


CivicAction, a non-partisan NGO, tells me it emailed all MPPs 10 months ago, and followed up with Horwath by phone several times. All of her Toronto MPPs have signed the petition, which states:

“I pledge to support new ways to raise funds for a better transportation network in the GTHA — ways that are dedicated, efficient, transparent & accountable, regional, fair, and sustainable.”

But not Horwath. One can only imagine how awkward the NDP’s six-hour caucus meeting earlier this week must have been.

At first, Horwath’s office tells me it can’t find any sign of the request. Four hours later, her spokesperson confirms that Horwath declined to sign, but won’t say why; it takes another half-hour for the full explanation:

“The office of the leader of Ontario’s New Democrats endeavours to respond to all correspondence, but generally does not sign petitions, and instead focuses on delivering results for people.”


….Horwath may be cynical, but she is not stupid. She sees how Premier Kathleen Wynne’s minority Liberal government has painted itself into a corner on transit expansion, because it has candidly told voters that the money must come from somewhere.

You don’t have to be a political mastermind to know that proposing new transit taxes would prove unpopular. And opposing them would boost the NDP’s popularity.

She is also tapping into an anti-Toronto strain that leaves the Liberals vulnerable. After all, people outside of the GTA are tired of hearing about gridlock in the province’s biggest city.

But Toronto New Democrats are uncomfortable with Horwath’s hostility to transit revenues. And lest we forget, the GTHA’s Big Move plan includes her own Hamilton riding, whose economy is directly affected by gridlock across the region.

Transit advocates say they need politicians who will champion their cause. Horwath aspires to be a different kind of champion — not an advocate, but a victor in the political sweepstakes.

[ScreamingViking]

I liked this point made in that editorial too:
Her plan: Just make corporations pay.

But that bounty goes only so far — and won’t bankroll the $2 billion that’s needed for transit expansion annually — especially if you double-count corporate taxes. The NDP has already earmarked any future revenues to pay for everything from health care to child care. Pretending it can repurpose corporate taxes twice to create a dedicated transit revenue stream is a shell game.

Bringing the issue down to taxes is never a bad political strategy. Save people money. Cut government spending. Stop the gravy train (which helped get Ford elected)

But when the realities of making those spending decisions hits, and the government starts dealing with all the competing priorities and has to consider the bigger picture and longer term impacts, it's not so simple.

[thistleclub]

In the spirit of "LRT case more than numbers (http://hamiltonlightrail.ca/lrt_case_more_than_numbers)" (Feb 4 2010):

LRT is about more than transit (http://www.thespec.com/opinion-story/4379410-the-spectator-s-view-lrt-is-about-more-than-transit/)
(Hamilton Spectator, Feb 22 2014)

The debate over a light rapid transit system for Hamilton has simmered for years. The plan has been discussed, assailed, criticized, championed, sidetracked, fast-tracked, avoided, ignored and postponed.

It has always been a debate about transit, but really it is about money. Who will pay? At a cost of nearly $1 billion, it is likely too much for Hamilton alone. An extra $500 per household per year for 20 years is a frightening prospect for most taxpayers.

Still, given the importance of transit not just to the economic development of Hamilton, but also to the province and country, it is money worth spending.

The federal and provincial governments have contributed equally with the city to the building of the Pan-Am stadium; why would they not do the same for LRT? The province needs to pony up more than the mere $200 million they have already committed, and the federal government needs to get on board also.

Experts argue about the need for such a service, but there are several factors beyond debate. Hamilton is poised to grow, likely more than most Canadian cities, in coming years. Our transit woes, such as they are, will get worse, not better.

We cannot allow transportation challenges to slow down this growth and prosperity, so some kind of long-term solution is required.

It's true, a better bus system will help, and we must work at that regardless of the fate of LRT. But LRT is not just about transit; it is about economic development. LRT has the ability to transform the Hamilton economy. We know from the experience in other cities that it will spur development along the route, create its own environment of investment, and that these businesses will pay taxes.

So it's important to remember an LRT line in the lower city will benefit not just the lower city. Those taxes paid by commercial development along the line (not to mention intensified residential development that also follows such routes) will benefit those on the Mountain by keeping their taxes lower.

There is a huge potential for a higher tax base in the lower city that is not at present being realized. It is just waiting for a catalyst. And LRT is a proven catalyst in other cities, some as close as Kitchener and Waterloo.

An LRT in the lower city, if properly integrated with the citywide system as a whole, will benefit those living in the upper city.

To be sure, it is a big decision for Hamilton, but we have not shied away in the past from big decisions to improve roads or water, for example, and we should not shy away from this important decision now. We are indeed an ambitious city, and ambition means dreaming big.

[thistleclub]

Minister Glen Murray tweets (https://twitter.com/Glen4ONT/status/438379289939959809):

Government supports Metrolinx GO expansion LRT A & B lines. Need to work with city, Mlx and community leaders.

While acknowledging the limited elbow room of 140 characters, there's still abundant latitude in that affirmation.

The government supports (by funding EAs, for example, and by general enthusiasm for higher-order transit) but defers to the judgement of Metrolinx, City officials and community leaders (however you choose to define that). And the implementation timeline still potentially extends to 2031.

[lucasmascotto]

Ontario Liberals Clarify Position on LRT Funding
Raise the Hammer
By: Ryan McGreal

On Monday, Ontario Liberal candidates Ivan Luksik (Hamilton East-Stoney Creek) and Javid Mirza (Hamilton Mountain) wrote an opinion piece in the Hamilton Spectator arguing that Hamilton's planned east-west LRT line is too expensive and that Hamilton should focus on all-day GO transit service with enhanced express bus service instead. (You can read responses on RTH here and here.)

RTH contacted representatives of the Ontario Liberal Party to ask whether this piece represents a change in Liberal policy seven years after promising full capital funding for two light rail transit lines in Hamilton.

Ted McMeekin, Liberal MPP for Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Westdale and Minister of Community and Social Services, responded on twitter, writing, "In our party (unlike others), Mirza and Luksik are free to express an opinion. They are not articulating Liberal policy."

Asked to clarify what the Liberal policy is, McMeekin wrote, "we're [content] to work with City - don't want to build if not wanted. Will depend on revenue tools and a realistic view about same."

City Council voted unanimously in 2013 to submit its LRT plan to the Province, based on the promise of full capital funding.

Glen Murray, Ontario Minister of Transportation, also responded on twitter, writing, "Government supports Metrolinx GO expansion LRT A and B lines. Need to work with city, Metrolinx and community leaders."

Murray will be in Hamilton on Friday to speak at a luncheon organized by the Hamilton Chamber of Commerce.

Monday's op-ed by Mirza and Luksik is full of inaccurate, misleading claims and closely echoes the messaging of Hamilton Mayor Bob Bratina, who has spent the past three years undermining Hamilton's LRT plan after campaigning in support of it in 2010.

Bratina has claimed that Hamilton would have to choose between LRT and extending all-day GO service to Stoney Creek; that the city was "not hearing any kind of clamour from the public" and "no solid interest" from developers; that it was not clear where new infill developments might fit along the B-Line; that LRT would only make sense "if somehow a million people move to Hamilton over the next five years"; that the province never actually promised LRT to Hamilton; that ridership on the B-Line is not high enough to support LRT; and that the City's Rapid Ready LRT implementation plan is not actually a plan to implement LRT.

Bratina has often mentioned the LRT study by McMaster Institute for Transportation and Logistics (MITL) which concluded that LRT can be successful in Hamilton but needs a political champion to "realize success by marshaling resources, building coalitions, and resolving disputes."

The report goes on, "Coordinating institutions, streamlining processes, and minimizing red tape are seen as crucial in implementing TOD projects and are dependent on strong political leadership."

After last year's unanimous Council vote to support the City's Rapid Ready LRT plan, Bratina confirmed that he would begin to champion it. "Council has now provided direction with the expectation of 100 percent of capital funding and that will be our position dealing with the government."

Asked specifically whether he will "champion" LRT, Bratina responded, "Yes." But that didn't happen. Instead, Bratina just continued to misrepresent the facts, undermine the case for LRT and play divisive politics.

More recently, a few councillors have been quoted saying they won't support LRT if the City has to help pay for it. A few have even suggested that they would reject LRT if Hamiltonians have to participate in Provincial revenue-generating tools - like development charges, tolls, levies or fees - to raise the money to pay for the next phase of transit projects.

This, of course, is utterly absurd. It would be like refusing a hospital expansion in Hamilton because Hamiltonians have to pay the Ontario Health Premium.

It is extremely unlikely that the Province would exempt Hamilton from regional and provincewide funding mechanisms, so if we reject the LRT - or if we come across as diffident enough that the Province can use that as an excuse not to fund it - Hamiltonians will end up helping to pay for LRT in Mississauga and subways in Toronto while Hamilton gets left behind yet again.

Unfortunately, in the absence of political leadership or clear messaging, the public discussion has become overwhelmed by misinformation and silliness.

[Innsertnamehere]

Great article.

[CaptainKirk]

McHattie to Premier: Hamilton Ready for LRT Funding

Councillor Brian McHattie reiterates Council's position on the east-west B-Line LRT and reminds the Province of its commitment to provide full capital funding.

By Ryan McGreal
Published February 27, 2014

Ward 1 Councillor and mayoral candidate Brian McHattie has written an open letter to Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne to reiterate Council's position on the proposed east-west B-Line light rail transit (LRT) system and remind the Province of its commitment to provide full capital funding.

The letter, issued as a news release this morning, calls on the Province to "ensure that Hamilton receives its fair share from the province for transit funding, whether from the province's general revenues, or from special revenue tools being considered currently."

It adds that Hamiltonians will not be happy to have to contribute to transit funding only to see their money used to build LRT in other cities but not Hamilton.

The letter also notes that some of the claims being made in the media recently about LRT are not accurate. One of the false claims circulating is that the B-Line does not have ridership to warrant LRT. McHattie writes, "If introduced today, LRT along our preferred route would already have ridership comparable with many successful North American systems including San Francisco, Portland and Minneapolis.

The letter concludes, "someone has to stand up for all Hamiltonians when it comes to ensuring promises made to our citizens are kept."

Background

The Province has spent the past several years trying to decide on a set of "revenue tools" to pay for the next wave of Metrolinx regional transportation projects. The first wave, concentrated almost entirely in Toronto, was funded from general Provincial revenues.

Hamilton's B-Line LRT is included in Phase One of the Next Wave projects. Detailed planning and design for the line is already complete, including a required environmental assessment and a complementary land use study to ensure that the area around the line is zoned for transit-oriented economic development.

Last year, Council unanimously voted to support the city's Rapid Ready LRT plan, which was then submitted to the Provincial government for final approval and funding.

Recently, however, Premier Wynne told Nicholas Kevlahan she didn't know whether Hamilton wants LRT or bus rapid transit (BRT).

Mayoral Misinformation

Hamilton Mayor Bob Bratina has steadfastly refused to champion Hamilton's LRT plan or, indeed, even to represent Council's position accurately, despite supporting LRT in his 2010 mayoral campaign. Instead, he has re-interpreted the city's Rapid Ready plan, which he voted for, to claim that it is not actually a plan to implement LRT.

When Councillor McHattie introduced a motion to reaffirm Council's support for LRT, the meeting turned into a debacle with Mayor Bratina insisting that Rapid Ready is not an LRT plan and having an altercation with City Manager Chris Murray after Murray confirmed that the report really is an LRT plan.

Murray told the councillors:

So in terms of where we've been all along, we've been focused all along on the B-Line and advancing the detail of that B-Line so the Province can make a decision on the B-Line. Okay? ... [The Rapid Ready report] puts the ball certainly in the Province's court to make a decision. We've done our homework, we are ahead of everyone else. You know, we think investing in transit, LRT specifically, in the City of Hamilton is something fundamental to our growth, and that, you know, it's really at the end of the day up to the Province to make a decision about what it is it wants to invest here in Hamilton.

Afterward, Bratina approached Murray and spoke aggressively, prompting Councillor Jason Farr to retort, "I heard what you said. I got it verbatim. You're being awful nasty, awful nasty." Councillor Sam Merulla introduced a motion calling on Integrity Commissioner Earl Basse to investigate the incident.

When Basse eventually submitted his report, he concluded that Bratina's "tone and comments to the City Manager ... were not appropriate" should not face a censure because he later apologized to Murray and Murray later said he did not feel intimidated or threatened.

More Mixed Messaging

This past Monday, Ontario Liberal candidates Ivan Luksik (Hamilton East-Stoney Creek) and Javid Mirza (Hamiton Mountain) penned an opinion piece in the Hamilton Spectator arguing against LRT and saying the city should focus instead on GO stations on James North and Centennial Parkway and BRT lines on the north-south A-Line, Centennial and the B-Line.

Between the misinformation in Luksik and Mirza's letter, Wynne's recent comments and Bratina's ongoing games, some people are wondering if the fix is in for Hamilton's LRT plan. The Province promised Hamilton two LRT lines back in 2007, and seven years later it is still not clear whether that promise will be kept.

Two prominent Ontario Liberals have said that Monday's op-ed does not reflect Liberal policy. Transport Minister Glen Murray, who is speaking in Hamilton tomorrow at a luncheon organized by the Hamilton Chamber of Commerce, wrote: "Government supports Metrolinx GO expansion LRT A and B lines. Need to work with city, Metrolinx and community leaders."

However, Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Westdale MPP Ted McMeekin wrote, "we're [content] to work with City - don't want to build if not wanted. Will depend on revenue tools and a realistic view about same."

Text of McHattie's Letter

Following is the full text of the letter:

Hon Kathleen Wynne, MPP
Premier
Legislative Building
Queen's Park
Toronto ON M7A 1A1

February 26, 2014

RE: Support for LRT in Hamilton

Dear Premier Wynne,

As you are aware, a lot is currently being said in the media, both mainstream and social, about Hamilton's LRT plans. Some of it is accurate. Some of it isn't.

Perhaps the most troubling statements are the ones suggesting that the provincial government will not honour its commitment to providing 100% of the capital costs of Phase 1 of Hamilton's LRT system.

While I have no reason to believe that the commitment made by your government will not be kept, I feel it necessary to assure you that Hamilton City Council stands by our stated support for LRT as approved by unanimous vote on February 27th, 2013.

Other GTHA cities, particularly Toronto, are already receiving provincial funding for their transit needs, with other cities also in line. Hamilton has a place in that funding line, and we intend to keep our place very near the front. Hamilton has spent the last several years completing its due diligence in planning for LRT so we will be ready to take the next steps as part of the Metrolinx strategy.

Hamilton must remain competitive, not only internationally and nationally, but also regionally. As you are well aware, modern transit is one important contributor to being competitive.

We want to ensure that Hamilton receives its fair share from the province for transit funding, whether from the province's general revenues, or from special revenue tools being considered currently. We know that such revenue tools will generate funding from Hamiltonians and we won't accept a lower quality transit investment locally, only to see our money go towards building higher quality subways in Toronto or LRT in Mississauga.

We want and need the province to be our partners in success. We are ready for LRT. If introduced today, LRT along our preferred route would already have ridership comparable with many successful North American systems, including San Francisco, Portland and Minneapolis. However, Hamiltonians simply can't afford to modernize our transit system and to achieve the benefits of moving more of our people throughout our city, nor can we afford to realize the proven economic development benefits of LRT, by ourselves. We need the provincial government to honour the funding commitments that have already been made.

I'm writing to you because I believe someone has to stand up for all Hamiltonians when it comes to ensuring promises made to our citizens are kept. In my view, we have to reduce the level of noise and mixed messages you have been receiving and increase the clarity and consistency in the communication of Hamilton's democratically approved priorities. I know my Council colleagues want the same thing.

Finally, I would appreciate hearing from you with an update as to where Hamilton stands in your plans for LRT funding.

Yours truly,

Brian McHattie
Ward 1 Councillor
City of Hamilton

cc Hon Ted McMeekin, MPP, Minister of Community and Social Services
cc Hon Glen Murray, MPP, Minister of Infrastructure

(h/t to @HSRTransit (an unofficial feed for transit news run by a private citizen) for posting the letter this morning on Twitter.)

http://www.raisethehammer.org/article/2104/mchattie_to_premier:_hamilton_ready_for_lrt_funding

[thistleclub]

Maybe Metrolinx will split the difference and go with Door #3 ( http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pdf/board_agenda/20100219/Hamilton_BCA_FNL_DRAFT.pdf): Phased LRT (LRT McMaster to Ottawa Street, BRT to Eastgate until such time as ridership warrants the additional capital investments). They could do so with bare-bone implementation (eg. single-car "trains") and still technically honour the Liberals' 100% LRT capital funding campaign commitment.

Related: Ontario NDP leader and Hamilton Centre MPP Horwath asked Premier Wynne two (http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/house-proceedings/house_detail.do?Date=2014-02-26&detailPage=%2Fhouse-proceedings%2Ftranscripts%2Ffiles_html%2F26-FEB-2014_L106.htm#P292_80128
) questions ( http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/house-proceedings/house_detail.do?Date=2014-02-26&detailPage=%2Fhouse-proceedings%2Ftranscripts%2Ffiles_html%2F26-FEB-2014_L106.htm#P319_85249
) related to transit infrastructure yesterday.

As part of her responses, Premier Wynne averred:

"I’m not going to back away from a plan to build transit. We have not brought forward our plan in terms of the revenue stream. The leader of the third party and the members of the Conservative caucus who are interested in focusing on a tool and an issue within a broader discussion—fine; that’s their prerogative. The fact is that we have not brought forward our plan, but will I back away from building transit? I will not.... as I have said, we are committed to continuing to build transit. I have not said what the plan will be. We are going to bring the plan forward in our budget. There are a number of suggestions that have been made about how to put in place a revenue stream to build transit. We are going to bring forward a plan to do that."

[markbarbera]

I hope Mc Hattie will resist the temptation to use LRT as a wedge issue to forward his Mayoral campaign. If the November election gets framed as a referendum on LRT, I fear it will actually diminish the chances of it becoming a reality.

[ScreamingViking]

I hope Mc Hattie will resist the temptation to use LRT as a wedge issue to forward his Mayoral campaign. If the November election gets framed as a referendum on LRT, I fear it will actually diminish the chances of it becoming a reality.

He won't have to resist it. Other candidates who have yet to announce their candidacy will use it as a wedge first. ;)


Very ballsy sending that letter - a good thing IMO. Council has been very silent on this file, too much so, in spite of the mayor's continued attempts to belittle and befuddle. It may have been better to get a few other councillor names on there too, but that may have been too divisive.

I wonder how many pens will be launched in reaction to this. :D

[thistleclub]

LRT questions demand more clarity (http://www.thespec.com/opinion-story/4389728-lrt-questions-demand-more-clarity/)
(Hamilton Spectator, Feb 28 2014)

The debate over Hamilton's light rail transit ambitions is taking on new life, and that's a good thing. But as long as key questions remain unanswered — or at least without clear unequivocal answers — the debate will remain mired in ambiguity.

Our editorial position on the subject is well known, and was restated last Saturday by editor-in-chief Paul Berton. But while we remain firmly behind LRT, it's clear huge hurdles remain to be overcome, perhaps most important the question of who pays for what.

Hamilton city councillor and mayoral candidate Brian McHattie, the most vocal LRT advocate on council, raised the temperature on those questions by sending a letter to Premier Kathleen Wynne emphasizing council's formal support, and calling on the province to honour its commitment to funding 100 per cent of the capital costs of LRT, estimated at close to $1 billion.

Was McHattie electioneering to a point? No doubt. But his seizing the role of LRT champion isn't a bad thing, provided he accurately reflects the city's official position that Hamilton will welcome LRT based on the key assumption that those upfront costs would be borne by somebody other than local taxpayers. Repeatedly it has been observed that the city's chances of staying in the chase depend in part on having an effective advocate for the cause, and given that has been lacking from the mayor's office, there's no reason another municipal leader shouldn't take charge.

Back to that ambiguity. On the question of capital funding, the province's most recent position is that it will, under the umbrella of The Big Move transit strategy, put in place revenue tools — development charges, fuel surtaxes, tolls and other options have been suggested. The revenue from those tools would flow back to the province and be funnelled to municipalities to pay capital costs. But does that count as the province paying all the upfront cost? (Bear in mind city council said it didn't like any of the tools when asked.) Provincial transportation authority Metrolinx has said in the past that the revenue raised in a geographic region would flow back to that region, so revenue from Hamilton wouldn't help build bridges in Sudbury.

For the purposes of The Big Move, Hamilton is part of the GTHA. Does that mean that revenue generated here would go to local transit priorities, or be pooled with revenue from the rest of the GTHA? Could Hamilton-generated revenue go toward Toronto subways?

Metrolinx has also said there won't be any opting out of the revenue-tools strategy, so Hamilton might be part of this equation, like it or not. Might that impact the way council eventually votes on LRT or other transit options, the main one being Bus Rapid Transit?

Thankfully, the provincial budget is coming soon, and Wynne has pledged it will include revenue generation for The Big Move. Hopefully, the budget will offer some needed clarity on these and other questions. Such clarity is overdue.

[SteelTown]

Minister Murray says #hamont doesn't need to contribute Tax dollars 4 LRT: Prov $ can flow via Tax Increment $ frm development benefits.

https://twitter.com/BrianMcHattie

[Dr Awesomesauce]

I can't help but think that some councillors are against LRT just for the sake of being against it. I just wonder if announcements like the above will make any difference to that sort whatsoever.

[thistleclub]

@BrianMcHattie (https://twitter.com/BrianMcHattie/status/439436836511821824): Minister Murray says #hamont doesn't need to contribute Tax dollars 4 LRT: Prov $ can flow via Tax Increment $ frm development benefits.

It'll be interesting to get full details, but on the face of it, this seems like land value capture (http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regionalplanning/funding/Land_Value_Capture_Discussion_Paper_EN.pdf) (LVC), something Minister Murray apparently proposed during his tenure as Mayor of Winnipeg and which he touched on a year ago (http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/transportation/2013/02/20/transportation_minister_glen_murray_claims_fresh_ideas_for_transit_investment.html), shortly after being named to his MTO post.

It's one of the minor funding mechanisms that figure in CivicAction's Time To Get Serious: Reliable Funding for GTHA Transit / Transportation Infrastructure (http://www.civicaction.ca/sites/default/files/AllianceReliableFundingPaper.pdf) (July 2010):

Value Capture Levy (provides revenue from higher property values/taxes in areas served by higher-order transit)
Net Additional Revenue to GTHA: $50 – 100 M/year
Policy Advantages: Encourages compact development and increased transit use; May reduce land speculation; Easy to administer
Implementation Issues: Uncertainty in estimating increased value; Upward pressure on rents; May force out small business and low-income residents

Metrolinx was more conservative, estimating that LVC might bring in $20 million annually (http://www.bigmove.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/LandValueCapture.pdf) from the GTHA (~1.3% of Big Move capital costs).

The Transit Investment Strategy Advisory Panel (http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/news/transit-reports/TISAP%20Report%20Dec10_Report%20Full%20x.pdf) also recommends LVC as a supplementary investment tool, writing (in part):

It is important to differentiate between Negotiated Land Value Capture and Legislated Land Value Capture. Negotiated Land Value Capture involves a discussion with land owners and businesses prior to the development of a new transit line. The increased value of benefits to land owners and businesses of locating on a new transit line can be documented, and allow for a direct negotiated financial contribution. In contrast, Legislated Land Value Capture is applied to new transit stations after the new transit line is already built.

As it turns out, the City of Hamilton commissioned the Canadian Urban Institute to explore the potential of value planning. CUI's findings are detailed in Hamilton B-Line Value Uplift & Capture Study ( http://www.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/8EB54D92-FC44-45AB-B072-BAC6CA830455/0/RR2B_A4_Appendix_CUI_Hamilton_BLine_Vaule_Uplift.pdf
) (June 2010), which projected that within the influence area of the 16 proposed stations, LRT would unlock roughly 350,000 additional square feet of development over the course of 15 years (about 45% of that within the Downtown CIPA). Along the entire route, at the upper limit, an additional 3.8m square feet of development forecast as attributable to LRT over the course of 15 years.

The report describes a hypothetical value capture model and the relative uplift:

An “LRT Premium” recognizes the tendency for vacancy rates to decline, rents to increase, and property sale prices to escalate along an LRT corridor as a result of the benefits provided by enhanced transit service.

This premium is highest for properties immediately adjacent to the LRT line where access to the LRT service and the visibility of the property to LRT riders is highest. The value of visibility is of particular significance to commercial and residential rental properties. Based on the findings of previous studies, an LRT premium of 4% was applied to all properties within a one-block depth of the LRT alignment. A 2% premium was applied to all properties located beyond the first block but within a 400-metre radius of each station. Properties within the 400-metre distance enjoy enhanced accessibility, but not direct visibility from the LRT line.

In its February 2010 Rapid Transit Benefits Case Analysis (http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regionalplanning/projectevaluation/benefitscases/Benefits_Case-Hamilton.pdf) (BCA) for the B-Line, Metrolinx used a range of different premiums (termed “property value uplift factors” in the BCA) that could be applied, based on an extensive literature review. Ranges for developed properties spread between 2% and 4% while vacant lands had a much wider range of between 8% and 14%.

The 8% to 14% range is the generalized premium used by Metrolinx in the BCA to account for development that would likely occur on vacant parcels. The Value Planning approach used during this study addresses vacant and underused properties on a parcel-by-parcel basis as part of the LRT “development response” (discussed next). Accordingly, we have adopted the 2% to 4% range as the general property uplift for developed properties along the corridor, but dealt with the property value uplift on vacant and underused properties as individual cases in our development projection…..

Over the 15-year horizon, the total increase in taxable assessment due to the LRT investment is estimated at $281 million (i.e. the difference between “Without LRT” and “With LRT”). The additional tax benefit generated by this increase in taxable assessment, accumulated over the 15-year horizon, is estimated at $22.4 million.

The suggestion seems to be that instead of paying into the pot, the City would just cede LVC tax revenues to the province. In light of the above numbers, that arrangement would presumably be permanent.

Minister Murray also seems to allude to tax increment financing, which was another of the tools he reached for in February 2013 (http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/transportation/2013/02/20/transportation_minister_glen_murray_claims_fresh_ideas_for_transit_investment.html) and which Metrolinx defines thus (http://www.bigmove.ca/investing-in-our-future/learn-more/glossary):

Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Special Assessment Districts: Special District Charge/TIFs work by leveraging future property tax revenue increases to finance current infrastructure projects. The mechanism dedicates the incremental tax revenue between the assessed value of designated areas (“TIF zones”) prior to the development and its assessed value after the developments are completed. By doing this, future tax gains are used to finance the present costs of eligible improvements in designated areas.

Note: Not to be confused with a property tax hike. (http://www.thespec.com/news-story/2550879-wynne-says-no-to-property-tax-hike-for-transit)

[thistleclub]

What Metrolinx Says About LRT in Hamilton (http://bayobserver.ca/metrolinx-says-lrt-hamilton/)
(The Bay Observer, John Best (http://www.johnbest.ca/index.html), Feb 25 2014)

One of the challenges the average Hamiltonian faces in trying to sort out the LRT question is the explosion of facts and figures being cited to support opposing positions.

In a recent article, Raise the Hammer’s Ryan McGreal – an LRT supporter – writes (http://raisethehammer.org/article/2099/misinformation_and_fearmongering_in_anti-lrt_op-ed_by_liberal_candidates):

By attracting hundreds of millions of dollars in new dense, urban, mixed-use developments along the transit corridor, LRT helps us achieve the goal of raising the density of uses on our existing infrastructure – and generating more money to help pay for it.

Writing in a similar vein, the Hamilton Spectator’s Paul Berton wrote (http://www.thespec.com/opinion-story/4379410-lrt-is-about-more-than-transit/):

…LRT is not just about transit; it is about economic development. LRT has the ability to transform the Hamilton economy. We know from the experience in other cities that it will spur development along the route, create its own environment of investment, and that these businesses will pay taxes.

We went to Metrolinx’s Hamilton Main-King Benefits Case (http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regionalplanning/projectevaluation/benefitscases/Benefits_Case-Hamilton.pdf) February 2010 to see what the transit agency itself had to say about potential development along the LRT route. The benefits cited by Metrolinx are over a 30-year period (2009-2038). Referring to Option 2–the full implementation of LRT along the “B” Line route from Eastgate to McMaster – Metrolinx reports:

the full LRT option will create a larger overall impact area than the BRT option and therefore implies that more land value uplift benefits will accrue to the project. Within the area impacted under this option, the average uplift is between 1.5% and 3.2% It is estimated that the potential uplift in assessment value as a result of this Option may result in between $50 million to $144 million.

Given that Hamilton’s commercial tax rate is about 3.4 percent of assessed value, $144 Million would produce about $5 Million per year in incremental tax revenue. Metrolinx makes no assumptions about potential new development, possibly because much of the route is already fully developed as largely commercial assessment with some medium density high rise between the Queenston Traffic circle and Eastgate. There is no compelling reason for existing property owners along the route to demolish and build new, although undoubtedly there is some potential for redevelopment of the most distressed section of King Street from Gage Avenue to Victoria Street. But to try to assign a value or a timetable to such redevelopment would be speculative, and has to be weighed against an investment of approximately $800 Million with an annual carrying cost of between $30 and $40 Million per year.

[thistleclub]

Light Rail Transit, Leadership and Democracy (http://raisethehammer.org/article/2107/light_rail_transit_leadership_and_democracy) (Raise the Hammer, Nicholas Kevlahan, Mar 3 2014)

[SteelTown]

Maybe Metrolinx will split the difference and go with Door #3 ( http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pdf/board_agenda/20100219/Hamilton_BCA_FNL_DRAFT.pdf): Phased LRT (LRT McMaster to Ottawa Street, BRT to Eastgate until such time as ridership warrants the additional capital investments). They could do so with bare-bone implementation (eg. single-car "trains") and still technically honour the Liberals' 100% LRT capital funding campaign commitment.


Honestly I would be happy if we got LRT funding from McMaster to Ottawa. I believe the Metrolinx's report said it would cost $800 million.

However, given Ontario's tough financial situation I would pleased if we got LRT funding from McMaster to downtown. The whole B-Line LRT funding is $1 billion. So I'm guessing it'll cost $350 million from McMaster to downtown. Probably another $50 million for new LRT bridges over 403, so total of $400 million. This is doable from Queen's Park and likely could get built ASAP.

Once that happens and all the success would further increase funding to complete B-Line LRT.

Even if we get full funding commitment for B-Line LRT it likely doesn't mean they'll open the LRT from McMaster to Eastgate, it'll probably be built in phases. So why not get phase 1 LRT done now?

[ScreamingViking]

I could see the phased option happen too.

I really don't think the people saying that BRT is the better, cheaper, and more flexible option realize that the BRT system will involve reserved lanes for the buses. And that also makes converting those lanes to LRT in the future a bigger headache, because they won't shut down the BRT to install tracks and power lines... they'll keep the buses running but in the general purpose traffic lanes.

[HillStreetBlues]

I could see the phased option happen too.

I really don't think the people saying that BRT is the better, cheaper, and more flexible option realize that the BRT system will involve reserved lanes for the buses. And that also makes converting those lanes to LRT in the future a bigger headache, because they won't shut down the BRT to install tracks and power lines... they'll keep the buses running but in the general purpose traffic lanes.

An express bus line or BRT is I think a very good possibility for the B Line. It can have many of the features that make people like LRT, but cheaper. I'm not sure if anyone is under the impression that "BRT" will operate in mixed traffic, but you could be right about that.

There's a thousand ways to slice it. Some people seem to be doing a fairly effective job of framing the debate as "full LRT versus status quo," which is a shame but I understand why it seems expedient.

Tackling the project in phases makes a lot of sense...even just McMaster to downtown would be a good start.

[ScreamingViking]

An express bus line or BRT is I think a very good possibility for the B Line. It can have many of the features that make people like LRT, but cheaper. I'm not sure if anyone is under the impression that "BRT" will operate in mixed traffic, but you could be right about that.

There's a thousand ways to slice it. Some people seem to be doing a fairly effective job of framing the debate as "full LRT versus status quo," which is a shame but I understand why it seems expedient.

Tackling the project in phases makes a lot of sense...even just McMaster to downtown would be a good start.

One of the arguments for BRT over LRT I often see posted is the ability for buses to go around accidents and blockages. Hard to say how many people really understand what the BRT option entails though based on a few online comments.

It would help if the city was actively communicating details and facts... not sure some politicians would appreciate that too much though. ;)

While I can see phasing happen, I really think it would be an unfortunate fallback (especially if it ends up just being McMaster to downtown) and I'd rather the city push for the full monty.

[Dr Awesomesauce]

I don't think there's any point to implementing half-measures i.e. phased LRT. A stubby, little line won't be successful and will provide ammo to LRT naysayers. And the thing about BRT, aside from not having anywhere near the same ROI as LRT, is that it's actually REALLY expensive. It's not a 'cheap' alternative. Add to that the fact that BRT just doesn't attract ridership like LRT does and you can see there are only two real options: B-line LRT from Mac to Eastgate or status quo. BRT would be a massive waste of time and money.

[thistleclub]

Province will find ‘affordable solution’ for Hamilton’s transit debate (http://www.hamiltonnews.com/news/province-will-find-affordable-solution-for-hamiltons-transit-debate/)
(Hamilton Mountain News, Kevin Werner, Mar 3 2014)

Ontario Transportation Minister Glen Murray tried to be a neutral observer when it comes to deciding if light-rail or bus rapid transit is the best fit for Hamilton.

But at times, it seemed the minister veered off into one direction.

The former mayor of Winnipeg pointed out the province is investing in municipal infrastructure again, an area where the federal government has ignored, he told about 100 people at Sarcoa Restaurant last week while he was in town for a $44-million GO Transit announcement. But that infrastructure investment needs full value to benefit the municipality. He pointed out in Edmonton, and Portland, LRT has resulted in millions of dollars in commercial and residential investment.

Hamilton politicians are wrestling with the estimated $1 billion cost of a LRT, which has been endorsed by council and city officials. But that approval is contingent on the province providing 100 per cent of the cost of the project. A decision has to be made on how to raise the revenue for the project, and who will pay for it.

“We will find an affordable solution,”Murraytold reporters after his speech, which was hosted by the Hamilton Chamber of Commerce. “There is only one citizen that pays taxes. We like what Hamilton and the mayor is doing. That works more toward a LRT solution.

“Hamiltonians have to figure that out,” he added.

The decision between LRT and BRT, Murray said, should be based on economics, which hasn’t been properly reviewed yet.

“A lot of people know the price of it, but not the value of it,” he said.

Still, Murray pointed out that an LRT system would assist in buildingHamilton’s tax base by increasing the value of the surrounding lands.

“We need to change the context from cost to value,” he said.

Murraysaid the province is paying up to 100 per cent for infrastructure projects in some municipalities based upon their ability to pay. How the province treats Hamilton will be based on any financial arrangement the city and province agree to that makes sure the municipality gets its fair share, he said.

“It has to be within the means of the city,” said Murray. “It’s situational.”

Murray and Hamilton Liberal cabinet minister Ted McMeekin, who joined the minister during his tour of the city, dismissed the idea that other local Liberals have said a BRT is better suited for Hamilton.

They also downplayed a recent letter sent by Ward 1 councillor Brian McHattie that seeks to reinforce council’s support for LRT. McHattie, who is running for mayor, was prompted to send the letter to Premier Kathleen Wynne believing Mayor Bob Bratina hasn’t been as forceful to the province to pursue LRT funding as he should be. Bratina has acknowledged he has some questions about the LRT cost.

“We are all Liberals,” said Murray. “We like discussion. (Premier Wynne) actually likes conversation. Let people write letters and go on the record (and) you have an open discussion and you don’t force people to drink the Kool-Aid before signing up to be on your team.”

Murraysaid the differing views on LRT and how to improve the city’s transportation infrastructure is healthy and instructive for the province.

“I think they reflect the views of a lot of Hamiltonians,” he said.

Murray told the crowd that it will be up to residents to determine what type of transportation system they want.

McMeekin chimed in saying there is no reason for Liberal MPP candidates Ivan Luksic (Hamilton East-Stoney Creek) and Javid Mirza (HamiltonMountain) to face any backlash from the party for their actions.

“They wanted to stimulate discussion,” said McMeekin. “They did that.”

[HillStreetBlues]

One of the arguments for BRT over LRT I often see posted is the ability for buses to go around accidents and blockages. Hard to say how many people really understand what the BRT option entails though based on a few online comments.

It would help if the city was actively communicating details and facts... not sure some politicians would appreciate that too much though. ;)

While I can see phasing happen, I really think it would be an unfortunate fallback (especially if it ends up just being McMaster to downtown) and I'd rather the city push for the full monty.

It’s a fact that a train is never able to leave its tracks, whereas a bus can be flexible and change routes. It’s true that, if there is an accident in a transit lane, a bus can briefly go into mixed traffic to avoid it, whereas a train will simply be waiting for it to be cleared. And, if the system operates in mixed traffic for any segment, it can be delayed by other traffic accidents or blockages, and buses have more flexibility in those cases. Anyway, I think you’re right that there is misconception about both LRT and BRT.

I’m a bit concerned when I hear people say that there’s no point to half-measures, even though I understand the sentiment. Buying a few more articulated buses to put on Main and King now; or improving the 10 to actually act more like a BRT; those are not even close to half-measures, but they would be useful things to do that would improve mobility for a lot of Hamiltonians. We shouldn’t be ruling anything out, and I include stubby little lines (actually, McMaster to Downtown is 4 kilometers, which is not such a bad place to start); BRT; some BRT “light” that operates in mixed traffic most of the way. Going for LRT is great, but I hope we don’t wind up spiting ourselves, saying “if we can’t have LRT, we don’t want anything better than what we’ve got now.”

Two realities as I see them:

1) The status quo is really, really bad. It’s hard to overstate how bad. When riders are being passed by several buses multiple times every week, and where commuters are routinely asked to ride in crush loads, you have a transit system that is not performing adequately at all. Any improvement at all (almost any change at all) should be welcomed, I think.

2) Ridership is not the problem in the Lower City at all. We have plenty of ridership: attracting riders is good, but serving the riders who already use the system is the first step, and HSR does not do that.. I think that, what people mean to say when they say that LRT attracts ridership is that it attracts middle-class ridership. It’s true that people like LRT better than BRT (I’m not sure why, besides that it’s a smoother ride), but I’m not sure why it’s an excellent idea to spend hundreds of millions of dollars extra so that we can say to comparatively affluent people that it’s not a bus any longer and they shouldn’t feel ashamed to take it.

[Innsertnamehere]

People always throw out that "flexibility" argument about buses, but the simple fact is that buses aren't attractive. that was a big argument for ripping out streetcars across the continent half a century ago (and still is today in Toronto), and all that did was have ridership plummet. the fact is that rail has a rather unique "aura" around it that makes it extremely desirable, even if it isn't "flexible". The ridership and redevelopment along rail lines will ALWAYS be larger.

[HillStreetBlues]

People always throw out that "flexibility" argument about buses, but the simple fact is that buses aren't attractive. that was a big argument for ripping out streetcars across the continent half a century ago (and still is today in Toronto), and all that did was have ridership plummet. the fact is that rail has a rather unique "aura" around it that makes it extremely desirable, even if it isn't "flexible". The ridership and redevelopment along rail lines will ALWAYS be larger.

It can’t be a “fact” that something isn’t attractive. The aesthetics of something are subjective. Buses are attractive to some people, and some buses are more attractive than some trains.

If people had felt about streetcars in the 1940s and 50s the way that they feel about LRT now, they wouldn’t have been all ripped out. In retrospect, we realize the folly. Opinions change, so it’s not at all correct to say that the ridership and development will “always” be greater with rail than with bus. I think it’s just as possible to do LRT really poorly as it is to do BRT really well.

[Innsertnamehere]

no it won't, unless you want to built an ottawa style transitway which isn't possible.

BRT lines don't attract the same ridership.

remember the 3 Cs of transportation choice:

Comfort
Convenience
Control

Buses may be slightly more convenient as they run into less issues with blocked trackage, but the comfort portion is thrown out the window for a marginal increase in reliability. you can sleep on an LRT, you can read a book, etc. doing that on a bus is all but impossible. a LRT will have much higher ridership for that simple reason, no matter how fast it is compared to a bus, a bus feels like you are being shipped around as human cattle, but a LRT feels like you are actually comfortably going somewhere on your own accord. that is huge for ridership, ridership isn't just how fast it is.

[ScreamingViking]

It’s a fact that a train is never able to leave its tracks, whereas a bus can be flexible and change routes. It’s true that, if there is an accident in a transit lane, a bus can briefly go into mixed traffic to avoid it, whereas a train will simply be waiting for it to be cleared. And, if the system operates in mixed traffic for any segment, it can be delayed by other traffic accidents or blockages, and buses have more flexibility in those cases. Anyway, I think you’re right that there is misconception about both LRT and BRT.

I’m a bit concerned when I hear people say that there’s no point to half-measures, even though I understand the sentiment. Buying a few more articulated buses to put on Main and King now; or improving the 10 to actually act more like a BRT; those are not even close to half-measures, but they would be useful things to do that would improve mobility for a lot of Hamiltonians. We shouldn’t be ruling anything out, and I include stubby little lines (actually, McMaster to Downtown is 4 kilometers, which is not such a bad place to start); BRT; some BRT “light” that operates in mixed traffic most of the way. Going for LRT is great, but I hope we don’t wind up spiting ourselves, saying “if we can’t have LRT, we don’t want anything better than what we’ve got now.”

Yes it's less flexible in some ways, but that is outweighed by increased reliability and capacity IMO. Some people don't see both sides of the argument, sometimes because they don't want to, but more often I think because they just aren't aware of them both. So I wish the city would do a better job explaining the details so that the average person has a more informed picture of the transit alternatives. Costs and benefits of each of them... operational details... how often problems like blockages occur vs. buses in general purpose lanes being affected by heavy traffic... what they mean to transit users, and what they mean for other street users... what they mean for the longer-term future of the transit system... etc.

I think too many opinions are being formed based on too little information (or on misinformation). Detractors exaggerate the negatives. Many advocates exaggerate the positives, or are not able to explain the positives in a concise enough way or in terms that people can relate to. The city should be active communicating a balanced, factual story about transit in plain language. They stopped doing that long ago.

My fear regarding partial implementation or partial measures is the risk that they will become full measures by default, because we won't end up taking the next steps or putting any "savings" from building a BRT on the B-Line into the other options that have been brought up. It's easy to say "let's invest in better transit across the whole city" but how many people really mean it?

[HillStreetBlues]

no it won't, unless you want to built an ottawa style transitway which isn't possible.

BRT lines don't attract the same ridership.

remember the 3 Cs of transportation choice:

Comfort
Convenience
Control

Buses may be slightly more convenient as they run into less issues with blocked trackage, but the comfort portion is thrown out the window for a marginal increase in reliability. you can sleep on an LRT, you can read a book, etc. doing that on a bus is all but impossible. a LRT will have much higher ridership for that simple reason, no matter how fast it is compared to a bus, a bus feels like you are being shipped around as human cattle, but a LRT feels like you are actually comfortably going somewhere on your own accord. that is huge for ridership, ridership isn't just how fast it is.

Some people choose to feel like human cattle when riding a bus. I don’t feel that way: I feel like a person choosing to ride a bus that’s taking me somewhere I want to go. You can have a bus that’s nearly as comfortable as a train, and as dignified. Our belief that buses are for shipping cattle is part of the reason the HSR as it is now provides such poor and unpleasant service.

It is not impossible to build an Ottawa-style transitway or any other type of BRT. It is challenging, like many things. We choose to label things as “impossible” because we have other preferences. We could choose something like the BRT in Curitiba or Transmilenio in Bogota or the BRT in Brisbane.

There is little objective reason for preferring LRT over quality bus service. The fact that some people have that subjective preference is important, but it’s only one factor. I don’t mean to knock LRT. I mean to say that my personal fear is that we are going to praise LRT to the exclusion of all else, and then when LRT is not an option, all of the city’s transit advocates will have got themselves into the frame of mind that everything else is not worth doing.

Another thing worth saying is that the full measure for a city of this size is higher order transit serving every corner of the city. One approximation of that is that BLAST map. You can frame anything less as a half measure and you’d be right. You could also frame it as a step in that direction. If what can be done is a BRT on King, are we going to say “no”? If what can be done is a BRT on King and another on James, are we going to say “no”? What about along only part of the B Line? If it’s “LRT or bust,” I’m concerned that it’s really going to be bust.

[MalcolmTucker]

There is little objective reason for preferring LRT over quality bus service.
The big difference is operating costs, if your passenger volumes are high enough. Look at the budgets for Calgary Transit versus OC Transpo if you want evidence.

[HillStreetBlues]

The big difference is operating costs, if your passenger volumes are high enough. Look at the budgets for Calgary Transit versus OC Transpo if you want evidence.

When I said “there is little reason for preferring LRT over quality bus service,” I meant as a rider. If you’re a rider on one or the other, the only reasons you’ll have a preference is subjective.

Lower operating costs are one real advantage of LRT over BRT.

[Innsertnamehere]

maybe for you as an individual rider, but rail in the same location as a bus will always attract more people.

Ottawa style BRT is all but impossible, the amount of city you would have to rip up to make it completely grade seperated is insane.

I'm not saying LRT or bust, simply saying that we shouldn't settle for BRT on King. you may be able to do it on James, but sticking it on King beyond what is currently built is foolish.

[markbarbera]

no it won't, unless you want to built an ottawa style transitway which isn't possible.

BRT lines don't attract the same ridership.

remember the 3 Cs of transportation choice:

Comfort
Convenience
Control

Buses may be slightly more convenient as they run into less issues with blocked trackage, but the comfort portion is thrown out the window for a marginal increase in reliability. you can sleep on an LRT, you can read a book, etc. doing that on a bus is all but impossible. a LRT will have much higher ridership for that simple reason, no matter how fast it is compared to a bus, a bus feels like you are being shipped around as human cattle, but a LRT feels like you are actually comfortably going somewhere on your own accord. that is huge for ridership, ridership isn't just how fast it is.

Being someone who has ridden the King, Spadina and St. Clair lines in Toronto, I would not agree with the equation of LRT and comfort. King may be an extreme example and not really an LRT implementation, but Spadina and St. Clair are both implementations similar to that proposed for Hamilton B-Line, and neither have been particularly successful at delivering the three c's you cite. From my experience riding transit systems in North America, Asia and Europe, the difference in convenience and comfort between BRT and LRT is marginal.

[matt602]

Even the Spadina and St. Clair streetcars are not really good examples of what we'd get in a Hamilton LRT line. The stations would be more spread out than in those examples and the equipment would be modern, low floor, articulated light rail vehicles, not urban streetcars that were built 40 years ago. There really is nothing that exists in Toronto right now that you can compare to what our LRT would be. The Spadina and St. Clair dedicated lines are similar but even still I'm sure ours would be even more modern with larger stations since they would be spread farther apart.

[Innsertnamehere]

exactly, its because the TTC uses 30-40 year old run down trains. come back and ride Spadina in September when the new streetcars are out. even then the spadina streetcar is a world away from the bay bus, which is technically a "BRT". you would be complaining even more if it was a 30 year old bus.

[Dr Awesomesauce]

If people had felt about streetcars in the 1940s and 50s the way that they feel about LRT now, they wouldn’t have been all ripped out. In retrospect, we realize the folly. Opinions change, so it’s not at all correct to say that the ridership and development will “always” be greater with rail than with bus. I think it’s just as possible to do LRT really poorly as it is to do BRT really well.

Who is to say people didn't feel the same way as many do now? Fact of the matter is, GM made a concerted effort to hasten the demise of North America's streetcar network. Some might even suggest it was a conspiracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy) by various players in the automobile, petroleum and rubber industries but I digress.

I'm a little confused about why you're arguing in favour of BRT anyway. It's not the best option available and as already stated, it's quite expensive. In fact, it's operating costs (http://raisethehammer.org/article/1428/myths_and_facts_about_light_rail_transit) are greater than LRT. And the inflexibility you refer to is an advantage, not a hindrance. When a city puts rails in the ground, people notice. Money flows to the areas closest to LRT because of the permanence that rails represent. BRT just doesn't attract investment in the same way. Buses are big, noisy, noxious and let's not forget, bloody uncomfortable! These are facts which developers are keenly aware of.

LRT from Eastgate to Mac would be a boon to public transit users and to the City's coffers via increased investment along the line. BRT, in contrast, would not provide the financial return to rationalise the massive expenditure required. Furthermore, the B-line already has the ridership to warrant LRT - no need to phase it in as BoBra likes to say. It's time public transit was considered a city building initiative and not just a social service. We need this. We deserve this.

[thistleclub]

IBI Group’s 2010 Operational Review (http://www.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/9D868772-92BE-4A69-B874-42A1081726CD/0/TTRFinalReport.pdf ) of the Hamilton Street Railway focused on user load in the weekday afternoon peak period (3pm-7pm), with the bulk of the ridership survey conducted in Nov 2008 (the remainder of samples were concentrated between Sept-Nov and Jan-Apr). As a result, there appears to be no recent, rigorous third-party information regarding HSR ridership outside of the post-secondary school year – or, for that matter, on weekends. The peak period referenced in the IBI report features the highest service frequency of the entire week – an average of 30 buses per hour – but that’s obviously atypical of the system’s performance. Even so, there is reason to be encouraged.

Studying traffic frequency on the HSR’s schedules for routes 1/5/10/51 offers some broad-brush hints as to existing ridership.

Sept-Apr
Mon-Fri: Average of 21 buses an hour (30% below peak)
Sat: Average of 12 buses an hour (60% below peak)
Sun: Average of 8 buses an hour (74% below peak)

AFAIK, 51 University doesn’t run during the summer, leading to a modest decline in weekday frequency.

May-Aug
Mon-Fri: Average of 18 buses an hour (40% below peak)
Sat: Average of 11 buses an hour (63% below peak)
Sun: Average of 8 buses an hour (74% below peak)

From May to August, it seems safe to assume that ridership among the postsecondary cohort would also dip. Unfortunately, the HSR’s limited operational budget makes it impossible to know how much latent demand they are failing to capture even now through the disincentive of mediocre service levels.

Metrolinx’s 2010 Benefits Case Analysis (http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regionalplanning/projectevaluation/benefitscases/Benefits_Case-Hamilton.pdf ) uses reference capacities of 90 passengers per articulated bus and 1,950 riders per operating hour of a single-car train on a four-minute headway. In other words, 15 single-car trains gives you the approximate ridership capacity of 21 articulated buses. (Coincidentally, this is the current average hourly service frequency from Monday to Friday during the school year, though obviously not all 1/5/10/51 buses are artics.)

[Jon Dalton]

exactly, its because the TTC uses 30-40 year old run down trains. come back and ride Spadina in September when the new streetcars are out. even then the spadina streetcar is a world away from the bay bus, which is technically a "BRT". you would be complaining even more if it was a 30 year old bus.


Toronto didn't do signal priority very well either. They always seem to be trying to fix it but the streetcars are stopped at red lights too many times. On a modern LRT system (and I've been on several), the train only stops to pick up passengers.

[Jon Dalton]

exactly, its because the TTC uses 30-40 year old run down trains. come back and ride Spadina in September when the new streetcars are out. even then the spadina streetcar is a world away from the bay bus, which is technically a "BRT". you would be complaining even more if it was a 30 year old bus.


Toronto didn't do signal priority very well either. They always seem to be trying to fix it but the streetcars are stopped at red lights too many times. On a modern LRT system (and I've been on several), the train only stops to pick up passengers.

Even saying that I found the newest St. Clair line smooth and fairly quick. It will be even better with the new streetcars.

[markbarbera]

From May to August, it seems safe to assume that ridership among the postsecondary cohort would also dip. Unfortunately, the HSR’s limited operational budget makes it impossible to know how much latent demand they are failing to capture even now through the disincentive of mediocre service levels.

Metrolinx’s 2010 Benefits Case Analysis (http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regionalplanning/projectevaluation/benefitscases/Benefits_Case-Hamilton.pdf ) uses reference capacities of 90 passengers per articulated bus and 1,950 riders per operating hour of a single-car train on a four-minute headway. In other words, 15 single-car trains gives you the approximate ridership capacity of 21 articulated buses. (Coincidentally, this is the current average hourly service frequency from Monday to Friday during the school year, though obviously not all 1/5/10/51 buses are artics.)

There is an assumption being made that LRT ridership will capture all 1/5/10/51 ridership. I would like to point out once again that this is not a correct assumption. While ridership on 10 and 51 would obviously transfer to an LRT, the same assumption cannot be made for people who ride the 1 and 5. These routes serve people making short trips specifically along these routes that LRT will not serve. The King bus makes frequent stops over short distances on King that the LRT in its current configuration would bypass, and it won't serve any of the route along Main that the King bus currently provides. Most of the route the Delaware bus covers is considerably further south than the planned LRT line, so its ridership is even less likely to migrate from it to LRT.

This leaves LRT capturing practically all the current ridership for routes 10 and 51 and probably 60-70% of the current routes 1 and 5, plus any new ridership attracted by the shiny new trains. Considering that the demographic currently riding routes 10 and 51 are primarily a subsidized student fare, the potential for operational cost recovery is somewhat compromised by this demographic, making independent operational viability not very likely.

The challenge here is clearly demonstrating that perceived gains from capital reinvestment along the LRT route will more than compensate for its operational cost. This would be a much easier sell if the route was planned along Main Street, where arguably there is a greater potential for intensification, as Main has a more significantly underdeveloped street wall than King. A route along Main would also capture more of the current ridership of the current Delaware and King bus route. Main also offers enough space for LRT and car traffic to co-exist with significantly less impact on current traffic patterns.

Exactly why are we insisting on the LRT being routed on King when Main is a much better fit? No one seems to want to answer that question. It seems everyone is more content to keep it on King and have a rather unnecessarily inflamed and protracted "car vs. transit" debate left to fester.

[matt602]

I actually would have preferred to see it on Main as well since I feel that it needs the reduction in lane capacity a lot more than King does. It also doesn't suffer the severe bottleneck at Wellington like King does.

[thistleclub]

There is an assumption being made that LRT ridership will capture all 1/5/10/51 ridership. I would like to point out once again that this is not a correct assumption.

Appendix A (http://www.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/1E7072FF-6193-4895-8BEB-64751818B26E/0/RR2_Rapid_Ready_Appendix_A.pdf ) of the Rapid Ready report notes: “Public transportation industry consultants have stated that two-thirds of ridership from the existing B-Line corridor can be expected to transfer to the LRT B-Line.”

Even so, I agree that this is speculative territory.

[HillStreetBlues]

Who is to say people didn't feel the same way as many do now? Fact of the matter is, GM made a concerted effort to hasten the demise of North America's streetcar network. Some might even suggest it was a conspiracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy) by various players in the automobile, petroleum and rubber industries but I digress.

I'm a little confused about why you're arguing in favour of BRT anyway. It's not the best option available and as already stated, it's quite expensive. In fact, it's operating costs (http://raisethehammer.org/article/1428/myths_and_facts_about_light_rail_transit) are greater than LRT. And the inflexibility you refer to is an advantage, not a hindrance. When a city puts rails in the ground, people notice. Money flows to the areas closest to LRT because of the permanence that rails represent. BRT just doesn't attract investment in the same way. Buses are big, noisy, noxious and let's not forget, bloody uncomfortable! These are facts which developers are keenly aware of.

LRT from Eastgate to Mac would be a boon to public transit users and to the City's coffers via increased investment along the line. BRT, in contrast, would not provide the financial return to rationalise the massive expenditure required. Furthermore, the B-line already has the ridership to warrant LRT - no need to phase it in as BoBra likes to say. It's time public transit was considered a city building initiative and not just a social service. We need this. We deserve this.

I’m a little familiar with how the streetcar networks of the past were dismantled, and I wouldn’t argue that it was anything but senseless. I just mean to say, not everyone in every place in all time periods will be such true believers about the inherent superiority of rail. We might be surprised in twenty years by what people “know” is better.

I’m not arguing in favour of BRT for the B Line. Given ridership along the B Line, LRT probably is the better option. I’m just wary of statements like “buses are big, noisy, noxious and let’s not forget, bloody uncomfortable!” I can clearly envision the possibility of being unable to push LRT through, and then taking another look and thinking “Well, we can’t get a train, and buses are big and noisy, so guess we’ll just leave things as is.” These are not facts: buses need not be noisy or noxious and they are less noisy and noxious with every generation.

We don’t need to frame things this way. I find it a little dishonest and I fear very counter-productive. There is every possibility of saying “Rapid buses are great (in a lot of cases); Light Rail is better (in some cases).” Again, I have to repeat your opinion that buses are “big, noisy…noxious.” Does that mean we shouldn’t be pursuing Transit-Oriented Development in the many parts of the City that are nowhere close to the ridership that would justify LRT? I really hope not. But I get nervous when even transit advocates are slagging off transit, because any and all improvements should be heartily embraced in this city.

[flar]

The problem with BRT, as we know, is that it's buses. And buses are for poor people, as in, "You had to take the bus? What's the matter, you don't have a car?"

[thistleclub]

While ridership on 10 and 51 would obviously transfer to an LRT, the same assumption cannot be made for people who ride the 1 and 5. These routes serve people making short trips specifically along these routes that LRT will not serve.

I agree that it is equally problematic to make similar assumptions around ridership capture on feeder routes such as 52/55/55A/58, which are tangential to the western and eastern terminus of the proposed B-Line yet frequently lumped into the existing ridership counts for the trunk corridor.

[drpgq]

When I said “there is little reason for preferring LRT over quality bus service,” I meant as a rider. If you’re a rider on one or the other, the only reasons you’ll have a preference is subjective.


That's just not right. Have you ridden the HSR lately? Buses are way less uncomfortable than they were 30 years ago. With the low floor buses, most of the seats are on the side of the bus, often with poles separating the seats and in any case if those seats are all filled they are not at all comfortable if yourself or the people beside you are not tiny. Further there's way less seating than on buses 30 years ago.

I split my time between Dresden and the Hammer and just returned to Hamilton on Saturday. I used the Dresden light rail system (whose Bombardier trains I'm guessing will be pretty close to what Hamilton would get) every day for two weeks and the difference in comfort between them and a Hamilton bus ride is night and day. The vast majority of seating is in pairs and quite roomy compared to Hamilton low floor bus seating. If people had the option I'm sure the vast majority would pick the LRT experience. And I say that as someone with experience riding transit systems in North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa and Australia.

[Dr Awesomesauce]

^There's the rub. Most people in this discussion (city-wide) have not had the opportunity to enjoy the European LRT experience. If they could, they'd quickly change their tune.