Rapid Transit [Archive] - Page 24 - SkyscraperPage Forum

flar

Apr 17, 2014, 1:14 PM

The city is not going to make a decision until they know exactly what it is going to cost the taxpayers of this city. They have been asking for the last year and the province has failed to give them an answer. Until the province lets them know a decision won't be made.
At the same time if it ends up costing the city a dime it will be rejected. There is no desire to saddle the city with more debt when we already have huge infrastructure costs coming up over the next number of years.

That's not how it works. Higher levels of government don't just give a lump sum to do whatever with. There needs to be a plan and the province is not going to dictate to the municipality. The province has already suggested what the money is for, and that's as far as they'll go. If Hamilton doesn't have a plan or make priorities, they won't get the money. Yet another game of chicken with the province is not going to be helpful.

The key point is that Hamiltonians will pay for this no matter what. Half the money is earmarked for the GTHA, and there are lots of takers. Do Hamiltonians want to pay for light rail in other cities, or would they like improvements in their own city?

matt602

Apr 17, 2014, 5:35 PM

The key point is that Hamiltonians will pay for this no matter what. Half the money is earmarked for the GTHA, and there are lots of takers. Do Hamiltonians want to pay for light rail in other cities, or would they like improvements in their own city?

This is what it's all about right here. We're gonna be paying into this thing regardless of whether we want it or not, so lets actually get something out of it for once and not be left in the GTA's dust.

bigguy1231

Apr 17, 2014, 7:26 PM

This is what it's all about right here. We're gonna be paying into this thing regardless of whether we want it or not, so lets actually get something out of it for once and not be left in the GTA's dust.

The problem is you and others are assuming that this going to move forward. It still has to get through the legislature which is highly doubtful at this point considering what the opposition party's have been saying regarding new taxes.

The Liberals can make all of the announcements they want, but getting it passed into law is another story. If an election is called over this the Liberals are going to have a very tough time trying to sell higher taxes for public transit considering less than 10% of the voting public ever use it.

bigguy1231

Apr 17, 2014, 7:31 PM

That's not how it works. Higher levels of government don't just give a lump sum to do whatever with. There needs to be a plan and the province is not going to dictate to the municipality. The province has already suggested what the money is for, and that's as far as they'll go. If Hamilton doesn't have a plan or make priorities, they won't get the money. Yet another game of chicken with the province is not going to be helpful.

The key point is that Hamiltonians will pay for this no matter what. Half the money is earmarked for the GTHA, and there are lots of takers. Do Hamiltonians want to pay for light rail in other cities, or would they like improvements in their own city?

They are not asking for a lump sum, they are asking what the city's share is going to be. The province is asking the city to approve something without telling the city what their share of the costs will be. They are essentially asking for a blank cheque. I think it's prudent of councilors to ask how much and make a decision based on facts rather than speculation.

lucasmascotto

Apr 18, 2014, 2:27 AM

Glen Murray's tough LRT talk snags him invite to city hall
CBC News: Hamilton

After publicly challenging Hamilton decision-makers to meet with him to discuss the future of rapid transit in the city, Glen Murray is getting his wish.

Councillors on the city’s general issues committee voted Wednesday to invite Ontario’s transportation minister for a question-and-answer session in council chambers on a funding partnership for a planned light-rail transit line for the city.

On Tuesday, a day after Premier Kathleen Wynne announced a plan to fund $15 billion in public transit projects in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA), Murray urged Hamilton councillors and Mayor Bob Bratina to meet with him to work out a deal.

"I need something a little more clear from Hamilton City Council than, ‘Pay for it all,' " Murray said on CHML’s Bill Kelly Show.

He suggested the city could put “skin in the game” without having to dip into property tax revenues to raise money.

“We need to sit down and give the people in Hamilton the kind of creative leadership to solve these problems without putting any great burden on them,” he said. “I need that process to start soon and I need these meetings to start happening soon so we can do a deal.”

On Wednesday, councillors on the city’s general issues committee said they’re frustrated at the suggestion that the city has been lagging on the transit file.

Council vote

More than one mentioned that council voted in February 2013 to tell the province that Hamilton wants an 14-kilometre LRT line along the B-line corridor — which runs King Street from McMaster University to Eastgate Square — under the condition that the province pick up 100 per cent of the estimated $800 million in capital costs.

“It is kind of unusual to hear minister of transportation telling us to roll up our sleeves and put the coffee pot on to work this out,” said Ward 2 Coun. Jason Farr.

And Ward 4 Coun. Sam Merulla said it would be “incredibly delusional” to think that it’s council’s fault that a deal hasn’t been reached on LRT.

However, interim Ward 3 Coun. Bob Morrow, who is filling the post until the next in the wake of the death of Bernie Morelli, offered a “slightly different take” on Murray’s comments.

“I think we should welcome the minister’s initiative and respond accordingly,” he said. “He’s inviting us to take part in discussions. I think we should do that.”

Ultimately, councillors voted unanimously to ask Murray to defend his position in council and also to invite Metrolinx CEO Bruce McCuaig to meet with city managers to discuss funding options.

Budget announcement

The province is set to announce in its spring budget how it plans to pay for a slate $29-million slate of transit and transportation projects. Wynne has said the funding tools won’t include a hike in the gas tax or an increase in income taxes for low-and-middle-income earners.

Supporting documents for Wynne's announcement say rapid transit in Hamilton is one of the next major projects that the province is looking to fund. Those documents talk about "rapid transit" and not specifically LRT, leaving some confusion about the province's intentions for Hamilton. However, some councillors said they believe it’s unlikely Queen’s Park will pay for the full cost of an LRT line — leading some to push for a cheaper bus-rapid transit option.

“We have to manage our expectations," Stoney Creek councillor and mayoral hopeful Brad Clark said earlier this week.

"Premier Wynne has realized that her predecessor over-promised and she's doing what she can with a finite amount of money."

thistleclub

Apr 21, 2014, 12:08 PM

Transport minister spins pure blarney on LRT (http://www.thespec.com/opinion-story/4474927-dreschel-transport-minister-spins-pure-blarney-on-lrt/)
(Hamilton Spectator, Andrew Dreschel, Apr 21 2014)

"Delusional" and "nonsensical" and "moronic."

Councillor Sam Merulla's response to Transportation Minister Glen Murray's comments about council's stance on light rail transit won't win any awards for diplomacy.

But it's a welcome corrective to the propaganda Murray was serving up on CHML's Bill Kelly Show last week.

To be fair, Murray is an affable yapper by any measure. So it's not entirely clear if he was garrulously pushing the Liberal party line or was simply carried away by his own fast-talk. Either way, much of what he had to say was pure blarney.

In essence, Murray claimed the province has been looking to sit down with council to lock in a funding partnership for either an $800-million LRT system or BRT, a bus rapid transit system with an estimated $260-million pricetag.

Murray said the province wants to close the deal but council isn't helping.

"I need something a little more clear from Hamilton city council than 'Pay for it all,'" he said, referring to council's request that the province pick up 100 per cent of LRT's capital cost without any taxes, fees or charges to Hamiltonians.

Murray went on to say he's "pressing so hard" for an agreement so the city can enjoy an economic development bounce.

If Murray has been pressing hard, it's with the force and effect of a marshmallow. According to city officials, not council, senior staff or the mayor's office has received a single request from Murray or his minions for a sit down to discuss rapid transit.

Worse, what Murray neglected to say is the province still hasn't formally responded to the city's official position on 100 per cent funding. Council unanimously staked that out in February, 2013, more than a year ago. It reaffirmed it in May, 2013, though Russ Powers broke ranks and voted against. On both occasions a copy of the resolution was sent to Murray.

His only response has been silence. Yes, Murray and other provincial officials have frequently been quoted in the media about the need for new revenue streams to bankroll the next wave of GTHA transit projects. But the province has never formally responded to Hamilton as one government to another.

Whether the province's failure to say yea or nay is the result of political cowardice or condescension, the result is the same: LRT is in limbo. Why would council have a debate about possibly contributing to the project when Murray has neither replied nor asked for a meeting?

Read it in full here (http://www.thespec.com/opinion-story/4474927-dreschel-transport-minister-spins-pure-blarney-on-lrt/).

Dr Awesomesauce

Apr 22, 2014, 12:01 AM

Hey, regardless of whether or not there's any news happening, you've still gotta write a story, right? Not easy being an ink-stained wretch.

thistleclub

Apr 23, 2014, 12:07 AM

Graeme McKay makes light of the situation (http://mackaycartoons.net/2014/04/21/monday-april-21-2014/) while Minister Murray tweets (https://twitter.com/Glen4ONT/status/458397775135522817):

If #HamOnt wants a BRT or LRT, that is up to them. Mlx has made commitments to #HamOnt. That is their job. It is not mine.

Ambiguity has dogged this file almost from the outset. Council has supported LRT, but attached notable conditions with regard to funding. The mayor has failed to advocate for the city’s Rapid Ready plan (and even done a two-step of his own on occasion), and the province has been less than clear or consistent, forever hedging and pivoting.

June 15, 2007’s “Two rapid transit lines across Hamilton (http://news.ontario.ca/opo/en/2007/06/mcguinty-government-action-plan-for-rapid-transit-will-move-the-economy-forward.html)” -- “east-west rapid transit on King/Main Streets from Eastgate Mall to McMaster University (http://news.ontario.ca/opo/en/2007/06/moveontario-2020-projects.html); north-south rapid transit on James/Upper James Streets from Rymal Road to King Street (http://news.ontario.ca/opo/en/2007/06/moveontario-2020-projects.html)” -- was upgraded three months later to “two light rail lines across Hamilton (http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/16659/ontario-liberals-fighting-to-keep-ontario-moving-forward).” But by April 2009, this was de-escalated to “potential rapid transit on two corridors in Hamilton (http://news.ontario.ca/mto/en/2009/04/province-moving-transit-projects-forward.html)”, a position that a little over a year ago was once again being described generically as rapid transit (http://www.bigmove.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/NxWave_HamiltonRT.pdf), allegedly (http://www.thespec.com/opinion-story/2203805-dreschel-what-the-l-is-going-on-with-the-city-s-lrt-file-/) “because studies have not yet landed on a preferred technology.” That fluidity was still evident as recently as February ( https://www.raisethehammer.org/article/2080/why_doesnt_premier_wynne_know_hamilton_wants_lrt) of this year ( http://www.hamiltonnews.com/news/province-will-find-affordable-solution-for-hamiltons-transit-debate/).

Metrolinx has indicated that “$1 billion for this project will be funded through the Investment Strategy,” but of course “Investment Strategy (http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regionalplanning/funding/investment_strategy.aspx)” is an abstract term because it remains hypothetical. There is technically no funding commitment in place (http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/04/14/kathleen-wynne-ontario-transit/). Even the teaser solution offered by the province a week or so ago only generated $15 billion in total, roughly half of what will be required to complete The Big Move, and even those measures will be contingent upon (a) the measures appearing in the budget; (b) the budget being passed; and (c) the government following through on its word. In last year’s budget speech, government announced that in service of the Big Move it would be expediting the conversion of select high-occupancy vehicle lanes into high-occupancy toll lanes ( http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/budget/ontariobudgets/2013/statement.pdf ). And last week they recommitted themselves to that May 2013 action item (http://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2014/04/14/subways_but_no_new_taxes_vows_pc_leader_tim_hudak.html
), along with the Oct 2013 “green bonds” proposal (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ontario-to-sell-green-bonds-to-help-fund-transit-plans/article15153870/
) (details TBD). Will 2014 be another lost year (http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2013/12/27/a_year_of_lost_opportunity_on_public_transit_editorial.html)?

thistleclub

Apr 23, 2014, 12:20 AM

Elsewhere, Will LRT change the way Ottawa works? (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/property-report/will-lrt-change-the-way-ottawa-works/article18084523/) (The Globe & Mail, Josh O'Kane, Apr 21 2014)

Dr Awesomesauce

Apr 23, 2014, 12:51 AM

There will almost assuredly be a new mayor on the throne later this year but I wonder if it will be too late to mend this relationship.

thistleclub

Apr 23, 2014, 12:54 AM

Via CBC Hamilton (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/news/vision-2020-hamilton-s-sustainability-plan-gets-reality-check-1.2618423):

Keanin Loomis, president and CEO of Hamilton Chamber of Commerce, brought his business expertise to the table and advocated for downtown renewal....

He also weighed in on the precarious future of Hamilton's light-rail transit and said Hamiltonians need to be prepared if the LRT proposal falls through.

While a plan B is needed, Loomis said that downtown Hamilton doesn't need an LRT to realize its potential.

“Our streets have that latent potential to provide that vibrancy we need,” he said. “All we have to do is to bring the balance to our downtown, and that's where our greatest economic development opportunities are.”

Things were framed somewhat differently in September 2013 (http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4073109-chamber-president-says-population-growth-will-spur-transit-plan/).

ScreamingViking

Apr 23, 2014, 4:35 AM

There will almost assuredly be a new mayor on the throne later this year but I wonder if it will be too late to mend this relationship.

So long as the provincial parties keep doing their dance, I think there's time. It helps that Bratina has grown very silent recently. If Murray does pay council a visit for a frank discussion, I think it will clear up quite a lot or lay some groundwork for more talking (at least until councillors start mucking about with messaging during the run-up to the election)

I think this Liberal commitment to transit investment is going to get a rough ride anyway, even if the remainder of the funding behind it is sensible (assuming there actually is a plan for that in the budget, as they said). I can't imagine it will move ahead that quickly, but it would be smart for the city to keep a dialogue open with the province even just at the staff level. Not going to hold my breath over that though, given the history of this file.

thistleclub

Apr 23, 2014, 11:37 AM

Rob MacIsaac makes a cameo in Andrew Dreschel's column (http://www.thespec.com/opinion-story/4478176-transport-minister-murray-strikes-again/) in today's Spectator:

Fresh from blaming city council for dragging its feet on light trail transit, Ontario's transportation minister has now fingered former Metrolinx chair Rob MacIsaac as the guy who promised 100 per cent funding to Hamilton.

Murray claimed MacIsaac was behind the controversial commitment in a Saturday Twitter conversation with a Hamilton resident....

MacIsaac, now president and CEO of Hamilton Health Sciences, never said any such thing. Quite the opposite, in fact.

MacIsaac, who saw Murray's tweet, contents himself with a mild email response:

"The Spectator has me on record from an ed board meeting years ago saying that Hamilton should be setting aside some money for LRT. At the time, I saw it as a prudent action and, in retrospect, was probably goodadvice."

He's correct. As chair of Metrolinx from 2006 to the end of 2008, MacIsaac did tell the paper's editorial board in the fall of 2008 that the agency would only be funding "bare bones" rapid transit lines and that Hamilton should be putting money away for capital upgrades.

thistleclub

Apr 23, 2014, 2:37 PM

Ontario NDP leader Andrea Horwath tackles transit in an open letter to Premier Wynne (http://ontariondp.com/en/transitletter). Of particular interest to locals, she writes:

I am committed to the Big Move. Projects like light rail lines in Brampton, Mississauga, Hamilton, and along the Finch and Sheppard corridors need committed funding. But we will need to prioritize.

SteelTown

Apr 24, 2014, 12:00 AM

Jason Thorne is the new General Manager of Planning, replaces Tim McCade. Jason was Metrolinx's Director of Transportation Policy and Planning.

Dr Awesomesauce

Apr 24, 2014, 1:04 AM

^That seems like a smart move.

Re Murray/ MacIssac/ City Council

Does anybody actually pick up the phone and have a conversation these days? I find it fascinating that grown men and women are content to tweet and instant message rather than engage in real dialogue. This is an affliction that's sweeping the world unfortunately.

Pick up the phone! Drop by for a chat! Be an adult for God's sake!

thistleclub

Apr 24, 2014, 1:12 AM

Task force opens door to LRT funding from city sources (http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4480393-task-force-opens-door-to-lrt-funding-from-city-sources/)
(Hamilton Spectator, Matthew van Dongen, Apr 23 2014)

Two councillors and a local business task force say they're willing to use city cash to build the $800-million LRT line if the province won't cover the entire tab.

An LRT task force created by members of the Hamilton Chamber of Commerce passed a motion Wednesday requesting 100 per cent provincial funding for a light-rail line from McMaster University to Eastgate Square.

But the motion goes on to say if a municipal contribution is required, the province should front-end the capital costs and allow the city to use "alternative funding strategies" for its portion.

Chamber head Keanin Loomis said the emergency meeting and resulting motion were needed to "show leadership" on LRT ahead of the early-May provincial budget....

The task force motion will be forwarded immediately to the provincial government, Loomis said.

Read it in full here (http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4480393-task-force-opens-door-to-lrt-funding-from-city-sources/).

ScreamingViking

Apr 24, 2014, 3:32 AM

Jason Thorne is the new General Manager of Planning, replaces Tim McCade. Jason was Metrolinx's Director of Transportation Policy and Planning.

Interesting.

LikeHamilton

Apr 24, 2014, 3:43 PM

Today's poll @ 900 CHML

Featured Poll

Do you want the city to spend any money on the construction of a light rail line connecting McMaster University to Eastgate Square?

Yes
No

http://www.900chml.com/

Please vote!

Present results

Yes (21%)
No (79%)

thistleclub

Apr 25, 2014, 4:03 PM

Heavy haze obscures LRT forecast (http://www.thespec.com/opinion-story/4483522-the-spectator-s-view-heavy-haze-obscures-lrt-forecast/)
(Hamilton Spectator, Howard Elliott, Apr 25 2014)

The LRT task force made up of members of the Hamilton Chamber of Commerce and four members of city council is being criticized because it passed a motion this week that opens the door to some local tax dollars being used for LRT if the province won't foot the entire bill — estimated to be about $800,000 million.

That irks other councillors because council's stated position is that it wants 100 per cent of funding to come from the province. As Councillor Lloyd Ferguson puts it: "Council has a position on funding. Why would we want to undermine it?" It's a fair criticism.

If the task force was speaking on behalf of the chamber only, or other nongovernmental stakeholders, it wouldn't be a problem.

But the fact that councillors Brian McHattie and Jason Farr supported the motion creates the impression that some members of council are open to tapping local tax dollars while others aren't, and that council isn't unified in its position.

But to be fair, the motion begins by calling for 100 per cent funding for LRT from McMaster to Eastgate Square. Clearly, that would be the outcome preferred by the task force. The motion goes on to say that if full funding isn't an option, the province should provide all required capital costs up front, and allow the city to use "alternate funding strategies" to repay its portion.

What would that look like? It might look like the city developing an audited, viable business case that shows the economic growth potential from LRT. The province would then approve the business case and provide funding, waiting for future development dollars to start flowing before collecting. That would probably take years, but that's the nature of a long-term investment and is justifiable considering the potential urban, economic and environmental benefits of LRT.

Here's the unvarnished bottom line: The province is probably not going to offer 100 per cent funding. Yes, it did so for several Toronto transit projects but that was prior to the recession in 2008, and the province's financial position was much stronger than it is now.

Chances are the upcoming budget will provide some funding, will use new so-called "revenue tools" to generate some new money and move some money around from other areas. And it will probably also call for some local investment.

Where does that leave us? The prevailing mood among councillors is that there is little or no public appetite for local tax dollars to be spent on LRT. So don't expect to see them campaigning hard on the issue come October. Even those who understand the transformative potential of LRT aren't going to risk losing their seat on council to support it.

That may be understandable to a point, but it's unfortunate because giving up on LRT for the sake of political expediency isn't in Hamilton's best interest.

oldcoote

Apr 25, 2014, 5:00 PM

Sounds perfectly responsible to me. Leaders tackle issues. They don't avoid them.

Beedok

Apr 25, 2014, 5:15 PM

$800 000 million?

$800 billion?

matt602

Apr 25, 2014, 5:55 PM

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/16/Drevil_million_dollars.jpg

riiiiiiiight.

Dr Awesomesauce

Apr 26, 2014, 12:56 AM

$800 000 million?

$800 billion?

Ha ha I didn't even notice that. To most City Councillors, it might as well be $800,000,000,000.

SteelTown

May 1, 2014, 12:56 PM

It's Budget day! Hopefully it'll include $900 million for Hamilton's LRT.

thistleclub

May 1, 2014, 8:31 PM

Via Budget 2014, Building Modern Infrastructure (http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/budget/ontariobudgets/2014/bk2.pdf):

Sources of Dedicated Funding

About two-thirds of the dedicated funds for public transit and transportation infrastructure would be supported by:

•Dedicating proceeds from 7.5 cents of the existing provincial gasoline tax to public transit and transportation infrastructure priorities, starting in 2014–15. This would be over and above the existing gas tax funding provided to municipalities, with no increase to the tax rate from its current level

•Repurposing revenues from the existing HST charged on the current provincial taxes on gasoline and road diesel across the province towards public transit, transportation infrastructure and other key infrastructure priorities

•Dedicating proceeds from the following proposed targeted revenue measures to public transit, transportation infrastructure and other priority projects by:
> Restricting large corporations from claiming the small business deduction
> Restricting the fuel tax exemption for road-building machines
> Phasing in an increase of four cents per litre to the tax rate on aviation fuel over four years.

•Allocating net revenue gains from certain asset sales through the proposed Trillium Trust

•Dedicating net revenue gains from high-occupancy toll lanes when they become available.

The remaining balance would be supported by:

•Leveraging provincial borrowing, when needed, including proceeds from green bonds

•Working with the federal government to secure federal funding through the Building Canada Plan for key transportation-related projects throughout the province.

thistleclub

May 1, 2014, 8:37 PM

Via Budget 2014 (http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/budget/ontariobudgets/2014/ch1b.html#s1-26):

The Province will work with Metrolinx and municipalities on how best to prioritize transit investments through the use of rigorous business-case analyses. These analyses will help prioritize Next Wave projects that could be accommodated within the Province’s dedicated fund for the GTHA and provide the best value for Ontarians.

Priority Projects within the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA)

Beyond the existing GO network, priority projects within the GTHA would be drawn from the Next Wave of Metrolinx projects included in The Big Move:
•GO Rail Service Expansion (more two-way, all-day and rush-hour service);
•GO Lakeshore Express Rail Service (including electrification);
•Electrification of the GO Kitchener line and Union Pearson Express;
•Brampton Queen Street Rapid Transit;
•Dundas Street Bus Rapid Transit;
•Durham-Scarborough Bus Rapid Transit;
•Hamilton Rapid Transit;
•Hurontario-Main LRT linking Mississauga and Brampton;
•Relief Line; and
•Yonge North Subway Expansion to York Region

ScreamingViking

May 1, 2014, 11:26 PM

Well that clarifies things. :rolleyes:

I've got this feeling that the province will agree to full funding, but for BRT - the "bonus" being A-Line funding as well as B-Line.

Innsertnamehere

May 1, 2014, 11:30 PM

I've got this feeling Metrolinx will fund what it feels is needed the most. Whether this means LRT or not, I don't know. Metrolinx will stick this money to where it believes it is needed most.

ScreamingViking

May 1, 2014, 11:37 PM

I've got this feeling Metrolinx will fund what it feels is needed the most. Whether this means LRT or not, I don't know. Metrolinx will stick this money to where it believes it is needed most.

Which is why I think A-Line funding will happen sooner than expected (with the lower level of investment on the B-Line) - to feed the improved GO service.

The politics make sense for the Liberals too.

HillStreetBlues

May 2, 2014, 12:07 AM

Well that clarifies things. :rolleyes:

I've got this feeling that the province will agree to full funding, but for BRT - the "bonus" being A-Line funding as well as B-Line.

I'm not sure I agree with that prediction (I mean: I have no clue), but that would be pretty good, wouldn't it? Twice as many kilometers of higher-order transit?

ScreamingViking

May 2, 2014, 12:22 AM

I'm not sure I agree with that prediction (I mean: I have no clue), but that would be pretty good, wouldn't it? Twice as many kilometers of higher-order transit?

I'm an LRT supporter, but pragmatically I can see how it would be viewed as providing better transit across more of the city.

From a "city building" perspective LRT advocates would be extremely disappointed. But in terms of service gained for the total expenditure, I can see how it makes sense (even if current demand on the B-Line corridor warrants the capacity LRT can provide). Politically, it would face less opposition, though I still don't believe most people who argue against the expense and "disruption" of LRT understand what BRT would look like.

Metrolinx might question whether they should be in the "city building" business, and leave it up to the city to fill the gap between funding B-Line BRT and LRT (which will be a non-starter with council)

SteelTown

May 2, 2014, 12:29 AM

Remember Metrolinx did a Rapid Transit Business case for Hamilton and concluded LRT is the best option. After that it was just a matter of funding, while we finally got funding.

Now it's time for council to green light LRT.

ScreamingViking

May 2, 2014, 12:37 AM

SteelTown

May 2, 2014, 12:39 AM

^ Council gonna have to look at it this way....Hamilton is gonna pay for transit either for the GTA or we can pay for our own LRT. If council says no than they agreed to funnel our money towards GTA transit projects.

SteelTown

May 2, 2014, 12:45 AM

Dr Awesomesauce

May 2, 2014, 12:47 AM

All those pushing for BRT because it's 'cheaper' and less 'disruptive' will spaz out once they realise it also requires dedicated lanes. Sta-tus quo! Sta-tus quo! Yay Hamilton!

Sorry. :slob:

ScreamingViking

May 2, 2014, 1:41 AM

Transportation minister Glen Murray will meet with Hamilton city council soon, said McMeekin, who is also the Minister of Community and Social Services. And those meetings will help determine how much Hamilton receives, and for what.

“We don’t want to spell out something that’s not in keeping with what the minister and council will arrive at,” McMeekin said.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/news/transit-budget-announcement-for-hamilton-missing-the-l-1.2628955

I see the Lord Mayor is continuing to spell it out this way :rolleyes: :
The Rapid Ready plan, Bratina said, outlines that the city will grow its ridership with BRT and eventually implement LRT. He expects the discussions to revolve around “rapid transit which sometime in the future will lead to LRT.”

CaptainKirk

May 2, 2014, 3:53 AM

Who would "own", or operate a B-line LRT? HSR or Metrolinx?

bigguy1231

May 2, 2014, 5:33 AM

They still haven't told the city what our share will be. City council will not vote on anything until that is spelled out. Then there is the issue of just how much longer the present government will be in power. This whole plan will be dropped if the Liberals lose the next election.

matt602

May 2, 2014, 5:57 AM

I have almost no belief that it's going to happen any more. The lack of leadership has taken it's toll and 3-4 lower city councilors aren't going to be enough to push forward without 100% funding. It really is going to come down to 100% funding or it doesn't happen at all.

drpgq

May 2, 2014, 7:58 AM

All those pushing for BRT because it's 'cheaper' and less 'disruptive' will spaz out once they realise it also requires dedicated lanes. Sta-tus quo! Sta-tus quo! Yay Hamilton!

Sorry. :slob:

Exactly. This is a pretty bad day for Hamilton. It is telling that Mississauga actually got the L (strangely in the Spec article I read this morning that point wasn't made). Council hasn't done us any favours on this issue either. I'm not really looking forward to paying for other regions's transit systems.

thistleclub

May 2, 2014, 12:05 PM

The government will doubtless be quick to point out that Metrolinx will continue to invest in Hamilton. It cannot be entirely accidental that Minister Murray assigned a $2 billion (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=6476613&postcount=676) price tag to rail line purchase/upgrade while promoting the $44 million James North train station (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=6474507&postcount=663). (The city’s share of expenses like new rolling stock and operating costs for all-day two-way GO is, as yet, unclear.)

Using the standard Liberal semantics, there’s $2 billion in local spending that was made possible by partnership with the City of Hamilton. Local taxpayers reaping the benefit of investing in local spans of Ontario’s transit infrastructure.

I expect that we’ll get the requisite conversation about sitting down at the table to make LRT/BRT partnership ( https://twitter.com/Glen4ONT/status/455815713748303873 ) possible, and that buys the province time. Even without the new requirement of a “rigorous business plan” the 10-year implementation time frame also grants the government a fair bit of latitude.

And failing that, MTO/Metrolinx might throw money at enhancements to highways/regional roads as well as cycling infrastructure. That outcome seems just as likely as Hamilton paying in but getting nothing.

Again, however, there are more immediate hurdles. The budget needs to get passed, the additional revenue streams need to be formalized and produce the anticipated funding levels, and the Second Wave priorities will still have to survive the Big Move's 2016 strategic review. Then we'll see what those 11th hour campaign promises are really worth.

HillStreetBlues

May 2, 2014, 12:45 PM

All those pushing for BRT because it's 'cheaper' and less 'disruptive' will spaz out once they realise it also requires dedicated lanes. Sta-tus quo! Sta-tus quo! Yay Hamilton!

Sorry. :slob:

You’re right: that’s the problem. If Hamilton was composed of serious transit advocates discussing what type of rapid transit would best serve the city, I think that BRT would be the decision we may opt for, considering we can extend it to many more areas of the city. Realistically, I think a lot of Hamiltonians hear “Bus Rapid Transit” and just think “bus.” Real BRT on the A and B Lines would be wonderful. It would be disruptive. It would have dedicated lanes; signal priority at each and every intersection; stations with platforms at door level; fares paid before entering the vehicle; entry by any door… But you’re right that it’s not what we would get. We’d get something watered down, which is the best argument for LRT over BRT here in Hamilton, that LRT is inherently more difficult to make crummy.

Beedok

May 2, 2014, 1:38 PM

Why would fares be paid before entering the vehicle? That's certainly not the case with Ottawa's transitway. Entry at any door isn't a transitway thing in Ottawa either, it's dependent on the type of bus and whether it has Presto-swipe things at the other doors.

Lastly, wouldn't 'door level' just be sidewalk level?

flar

May 2, 2014, 1:59 PM

You’re right: that’s the problem. If Hamilton was composed of serious transit advocates discussing what type of rapid transit would best serve the city, I think that BRT would be the decision we may opt for, considering we can extend it to many more areas of the city. Realistically, I think a lot of Hamiltonians hear “Bus Rapid Transit” and just think “bus.” Real BRT on the A and B Lines would be wonderful. It would be disruptive. It would have dedicated lanes; signal priority at each and every intersection; stations with platforms at door level; fares paid before entering the vehicle; entry by any door… But you’re right that it’s not what we would get. We’d get something watered down, which is the best argument for LRT over BRT here in Hamilton, that LRT is inherently more difficult to make crummy.

The ONLY reason BRT works in Ottawa is because of the dedicated Transitway where buses get to coast through the city at 80-90km/h with no lights and no bottlenecks. As soon as the buses hit city streets, it is no longer rapid transit and it takes longer than driving your car. Dedicated bus lanes and priority signals don't offset the time spent making stops, and can't entirely mitigate slowdowns from heavy traffic.

HillStreetBlues

May 2, 2014, 2:07 PM

I know that’s not the case in Ottawa, but it is elsewhere, and there’s no reason it can’t be. Paying fares to access a station area (instead of paying fares on the bus) reduces boarding times, making the whole system quicker and more reliable. That’s also the case with allowing boarding and alighting at all doors. Think about how long it can sometimes take for people to board a bus at only the front door, count out change for the driver or show him their passes or whatever else.

No, not sidewalk level. Most buses have steps up to the door from sidewalk level, and steps up to the cabin. This is why we now have ‘low floor’ buses, buses with ramps for disabled passengers, and kneeling buses. Even for able-bodied passengers, climbing up to the cabin increases boarding times. High floor buses (which avoid some of the disadvantages some low floor models have) can be used at stations, but still allow completely level boarding from a platform.

HillStreetBlues

May 2, 2014, 2:08 PM

Both of you quoted me and then started talking about Ottawa. When did I say a thing about Ottawa?

I’m not unhappy to argue about the relative merits of LRT and BRT, but I'm not sure that's why this thread is here, and I only brought it up (actually, I didn’t, this time) because someone speculated that BRT might be what we’re getting. I wanted to express my agreement with Dr. Awesomesauce that, even if the decision is BRT, it’s probably not going to be good BRT. I don’t think it’s especially good BRT in downtown Ottawa, as pointed out…

I don’t understand the statement “Dedicated bus lanes and priority signals don't offset the time spent making stops, and can't entirely mitigate slowdowns from heavy traffic.” Don’t all forms of transit have to make stops?

thistleclub

May 2, 2014, 2:09 PM

Horwath has just pulled the plug: "We do not support this government any longer... We will not vote in favour of this budget."

flar

May 2, 2014, 2:19 PM

Both of you quoted me and then started talking about Ottawa. When did I say a thing about Ottawa?

Because Ottawa has an established BRT system. I'm just giving you an example of why BRT would be a waste of time in Hamilton. Unless there is somewhere that a dedicated Transitway can be built (I don't know of anywhere except the rail corridors, which would mean removing the rail).

The B-Line is already BRT. They could spend millions building new platforms and signals, but the bus will not be noticeably faster than it is now. And it will not attract any new riders.

SteelTown

May 2, 2014, 2:42 PM

NDP won't support the budget. Spring election time.

HillStreetBlues

May 2, 2014, 2:54 PM

Because Ottawa has an established BRT system. I'm just giving you an example of why BRT would be a waste of time in Hamilton. Unless there is somewhere that a dedicated Transitway can be built (I don't know of anywhere except the rail corridors, which would mean removing the rail).

The B-Line is already BRT. They could spend millions building new platforms and signals, but the bus will not be noticeably faster than it is now. And it will not attract any new riders.

The B-Line is not BRT in almost any sense. That’s a ridiculous thing to say. It also makes little sense since you seem to think that BRT needs a Transitway. It needs to operate apart from other traffic, but why shouldn’t it be given road space to do that?

If the B Line was properly branded, operating on its own right of way and prioritized signalling, and using stations that allow for fast boarding, it would be appreciably faster than the current service, and able to carry more riders. And, faster and more reliable, of course it will attract new riders.

bigguy1231

May 2, 2014, 3:42 PM

The whole debate is academic now that the NDP has pulled their support for the Liberals. Chances are we will end up with a PC minority with what the polls are showing now. If that happens the big move will be scrapped and we will all be starting from scratch.

movingtohamilton

May 2, 2014, 3:46 PM

...Chances are we will end up with a PC minority with what the polls are showing now. If that happens the big move will be scrapped and we will all be starting from scratch.

....and some of us will be fighting a Hudak-announced downtown casino, perhaps!

bigguy1231

May 2, 2014, 3:53 PM

....and some of us will be fighting a Hudak-announced downtown casino, perhaps!

With a Hudak led government that would be the least of our worries.

flar

May 2, 2014, 4:00 PM

The B-Line is not BRT in almost any sense. That’s a ridiculous thing to say. It also makes little sense since you seem to think that BRT needs a Transitway. It needs to operate apart from other traffic, but why shouldn’t it be given road space to do that?

If the B Line was properly branded, operating on its own right of way and prioritized signalling, and using stations that allow for fast boarding, it would be appreciably faster than the current service, and able to carry more riders. And, faster and more reliable, of course it will attract new riders.

Are there not currently dedicated bus lanes through downtown? Are the traffic lights no longer synchronized? Does the B-line no longer skip over most of the stops? Do they not already have articulated buses on that route? Isn't Presto implemented in Hamilton?

The only thing missing is 5min frequency. But even in Ottawa doesn't have that frequency on all of its BRT routes.

I'm not sure what else you think BRT entails. How does having stations make boarding faster? There is still a speed limit on Main and King and major limitations on how much traffic signal prioritization can help because traffic already flows freely along Main and King. The bus still has to make stops. BRT is absolutely going to be slower than driving.

Sorry to bring up Ottawa again, but nobody would take BRT in Ottawa without the transitway. For the Transitway parts, trips take about the same time as driving, or are slightly faster. But the system completely breaks down when it hits city streets. That's why Ottawa is spending a billion dollars to build a tunnel and LRT.

HillStreetBlues

May 2, 2014, 5:05 PM

Are there not currently dedicated bus lanes through downtown? Are the traffic lights no longer synchronized? Does the B-line no longer skip over most of the stops? Do they not already have articulated buses on that route? Isn't Presto implemented in Hamilton?

The only thing missing is 5min frequency. But even in Ottawa doesn't have that frequency on all of its BRT routes.

I'm not sure what else you think BRT entails. How does having stations make boarding faster? There is still a speed limit on Main and King and major limitations on how much traffic signal prioritization can help because traffic already flows freely along Main and King. The bus still has to make stops. BRT is absolutely going to be slower than driving.

Sorry to bring up Ottawa again, but nobody would take BRT in Ottawa without the transitway. For the Transitway parts, trips take about the same time as driving, or are slightly faster. But the system completely breaks down when it hits city streets. That's why Ottawa is spending a billion dollars to build a tunnel and LRT.

There are not currently dedicated bus lanes through downtown. There is a bus lane for approximately two kilometers, that is open to turning cars (and all kinds of cars, in practice). Do you think that is the same as having transit-only lanes?

The traffic lights are synchronized for car traffic, not for the 10.

Wait a minute…do you think LRT will be “faster than driving”?

flar

May 2, 2014, 5:29 PM

There are not currently dedicated bus lanes through downtown. There is a bus lane for approximately two kilometers, that is open to turning cars (and all kinds of cars, in practice). Do you think that is the same as having transit-only lanes?

Wait a minute…do you think LRT will be “faster than driving”?

No, LRT will be the same speed but has a greater potential to increase ridership (mainly because it's not a bus). It's clean, quiet, comfortable and has lower long term costs.

I'm not against BRT, I just don't see it attracting more riders or having any advantage over the current b-line. Like I said, the bus lane and traffic signal priority won't help much because traffic already flows freely through Hamilton. The biggest improvement would be to make the b-line run 24/7 with 5 min frequency during rush hour.

The strength of BRT is the flexibility in routing. That makes it the correct option for the mountain, where local routes can aggregate into core routes running to major destinations (eg: Downtown, McMaster) during rush hour. But for the lower city, the route is just a long straight east-west corridor. There is a higher initial cost for LRT, but just do it right once and for all.

ScreamingViking

May 3, 2014, 2:11 AM

With a Hudak led government that would be the least of our worries.

Perhaps this time he'll actually have more of a platform, rather than just slagging the Liberals, so we'll know better what to worry about (though we can probably make some good guesses)

Let the election rhetoric begin... but the public is pretty weary of all three parties at this point so it will be hard to impress the voters.

thistleclub

May 5, 2014, 2:41 PM

Making a sound case for BRT over LRT (http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4500232-dreschel-making-a-sound-case-for-brt-over-lrt/)
(Hamilton Spectator, Andrew Dreschel, May 5 2014)

For years, we've been bombarded with the case benefits of light rail transit for Hamilton.

But what about the less expensive alternative of a bus rapid transit (BRT) system?

Since city council staked its preference for LRT in 2008, BRT has all but fallen off the planning table.

But Ted Gill, who was a senior director of transportation with the former Hamilton-Wentworth region, says it's time to reassess BRT in the light of new economic and technical realities.

"Basically, my point is Hamilton needs to get on with implementing a rapid transit system, but is LRT the right technology?"

Gill, who submitted a report to council calling for the re-evaluation of BRT, takes his power point case to the general issues committee Wednesday.

It should make for an interesting and timely presentation given LRT's funding limbo and the fresh uncertainties of the provincial election.

The estimated capital cost for the 14-kilometre LRT line from McMaster University to Eastgate Square is $811 million. It's about $265 million for BRT.

But Gill stays away from directly tackling the construction costs in favour of examining the other benefits of BRT and challenging the argument LRT provides greater economic development opportunities.

Gill worked as part of a consulting crew on the Hamilton Rapid Transit Feasibility Study, which evaluated routes and systems back in 2008. He rejects the widely accepted belief that the economic and land use benefits of LRT versus BRT are "totally conclusive."

"I think LRT may not necessarily result in greater economic benefits than BRT, all things being equal. And that's an important phrase — 'all things being equal.'"

Read it in full here (http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4500232-dreschel-making-a-sound-case-for-brt-over-lrt).

flar

May 5, 2014, 3:01 PM

markbarbera

May 5, 2014, 3:48 PM

So, what are the advantages of BRT?

Right now, the only one I see is cost. $265 million vs $811 million for LRT.

So basically, cheap out now and waste $265 million to build stations for the existing service, then spend $811 million plus inflation later to build the system they should have built in the first place.

Ted Gill discusses what he sees as BRT's advantages further on in that same article by Dreschel (http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4500232-dreschel-making-a-sound-case-for-brt-over-lrt):

"I think LRT may not necessarily result in greater economic benefits than BRT, all things being equal. And that's an important phrase — 'all things being equal.'"

By that, he means if the same system designs — station locations, dedicated lanes, traffic signal priorities, high quality urban style, streetscaping, fare collection methods and modern vehicles — are used for BRT, there's reason and research to believe wheeled vehicles are every bit as good as rail lines for seeding redevelopment and investment opportunities.

He acknowledges that operating costs for LRT are cheaper than BRT, but maintains BRT has more flexibility than a fixed route and may very well be able to operate at higher frequencies. In other words, instead of an electrified streetcar hitting a stop every 15 minutes, he says a bus could do it every seven minutes or even less.

Additionally, Gill contends BRT implementation is less disruptive than LRT. He points out there's no need to remove, repair or replace all infrastructure located metres below and beside LRT lines due to vibrations or the corrosive effect of stray electrical currents.

Nor is there a need for electrical substations and overhead wires.

Gill says another advantage is that key BRT elements such as stations can be built so they can be converted to an LRT function in the future, the very thing York Region is doing.

He also argues that new bus and fuel technologies now challenge environmental and, to some extent, lower vehicle capacity arguments that have been used against BRT.

A central premise for Gill is LRT moved to the front of the transit line before the global recession fundamentally altered provincial government funding. He points out LRT might have been the right decision at the time but, since then, the political and fiscal climate has changed while bus technologies are evolving.

coalminecanary

May 6, 2014, 8:19 PM

Wow, this is just weird... if you start out assuming the highest end BRT and associated features, you can't also say it's cheaper and more flexible then LRT - because you are basically building a rubber tire LRT system....

"I think LRT may not necessarily result in greater economic benefits than BRT, all things being equal."

Evidence says otherwise. But an "all things being equal" system might come close. Problem is it would cost almost as much to install as LRT.... with stations, level loading, fixed seaparated busways... and we'd lose out on other benefits.

"BRT has more flexibility than a fixed route" - not if its built to the standard touted in his preceding paragraph!

"and may very well be able to operate at higher frequencies" - "may?" - but why and how? This seems to be just made up... the vehicles hold a lot fewer people so we'd need a lot more of them to offer the same service level.

"instead of an electrified streetcar hitting a stop every 15 minutes" where did the 15 minute headway number come from? made up?

"a bus could do it every seven minutes or even less" - not at the lower end of the cost estimates!

"BRT implementation is less disruptive than LRT". - full scale BRT is just as disruptive during construction.

"Nor is there a need for electrical substations and overhead wires.", but buses would be tied to fuel price fluctuations and the emissions would be focussed within the urban core contributing to our already dismal air quality

"key BRT elements such as stations can be built so they can be converted to an LRT function in the future" so we can pay to build 2 systems instead of doing it right the first time?

There are so many conflicting points made in this piece that it's hard to take any of it seriously...

markbarbera

May 6, 2014, 8:57 PM

I believe the argument that BRT construction is less disruptive than LRT construction is a reference to the significant disruption to sub-surface utilities (excavation of roadwork and relocation of sewars, gas lines) that results from rail being laid in addition to surface level construction disruption, which would occur along the entire length of the line. This kind of disruption would not be experienced during typical road reconfiguration for BRT, which would not require much more to be done in the way of construction other than the construction of stations and installation of right-of-way traffic light standards.

With reference to the fluctuation of fuel prices for buses, anyone who has had to pay a hydro bill in the past year or so should be keenly aware that the price of electricity is increasingly volatile.

The compelling argument for a phased "BRT now, LRT later on" approach is that it would allow gradual adoption and acceptance of a rapid transit system in the city, with the cost of doing so laid out in incremented phases, making the concept both more affordable and practical. There are new economic realities since the onset of the recession in 2008, which makes a phased approach more economically sustainable. It also gives the ridership levels more of a chance to grow into a sustainable level.

I fear the headstrong drive for LRT is driven more by vanity rather than practicality. It simply isn't enough to say that Hamilton must have LRT because other cities are getting it, or because it is 'more fun' to ride a train as opposed to a bus. I have always preferred the concept of LRT, but my pragmatic self keeps reminding me that there is nothing unacceptable with building up to LRT via BRT, much like Ottawa and York regions are doing.

SteelTown

May 6, 2014, 10:51 PM

Glen says Queens Park will fund 100% capital cost

https://twitter.com/glen4ont/status/463788422264397824

matt602

May 6, 2014, 11:04 PM

Another election promise...

lucasmascotto

May 7, 2014, 2:06 AM

City to receive 100 per cent funding for rapid transit: Wynne
The Hamilton Spectator
By: Teri Pecoskie

BURLINGTON Premier Kathleen Wynne says her party is committed to funding rapid transit in Hamilton "100 per cent" — a statement that's left everyone from mayoral candidates to a transit advocate parsing her words.

Following a campaign stop at the Appleby GO Station Tuesday, the premier told The Spectator the Liberals' commitment to fully funding rapid transit "hasn't changed."

"The capital costs are what we've always committed to," she said in an interview. "It's the same way we worked with other municipalities."

But Wynne's statement, though simple at a glance, left stakeholders with more questions than answers — everything from what the funding strategy means for local taxpayers to what happened to the "L" in LRT.

"It still isn't any more clear," said former mayor and mayoral candidate Fred Eisenberger. "Right now, the province has said they're prepared to pay 100 per cent funding for public transit, but they haven't said whether it's BRT [bus rapid transit] or LRT.

"That is fundamentally the question and that's the question the city has to answer," he added.

Ryan McGreal, a blogger and transit advocate, said it's encouraging to hear Wynne recommit to full capital funding for rapid transit but, like Eisenberger, he'd like more clarity on what that means.

"Does this mean if Hamilton says we're going with LRT that they're going to provide 100 per cent for LRT, or will they only provide 100 per cent funding if we go with something cheaper?" he asked.

McGreal also raised concerns about the Grits' funding strategy, which relies, in large part, on reallocating existing gas tax revenues and leveraging provincial loans.

"If they're going to reallocate money to this, that's great," he said. "But where are they taking the money from?"

Hamilton council is on record backing an $811-million light-rail line from McMaster University to Eastgate Square, provided it's fully funded with no strings attached. That means no new taxes, tolls or levies and no clawbacks of existing funding. And some councillors, including former Tory transportation minister and mayoral candidate Brad Clark, have argued reallocating gas tax dollars means the city will lose out on cash that normally goes to infrastructure, such as roads.

Councillor Brian McHattie, another contender for mayor, said he was heartened by Wynne's apparent funding commitment, noting he'd heard rumours cities would be asked to put up as much as 15 per cent of the cash.

But he was also disappointed the government didn't respond to the city's request for funding clarity before the provincial election campaign began, noting council will now have to wait for its requested face-to-face meeting with Wynne's transportation minister, Glen Murray.

Wynne was in town Tuesday to tout the Liberals' plan to connect Burlington and the rest of the region through all-day, two-way GO trains every 15 minutes. She also pushed her party's $29-billion transportation plan — $15 billion of which would be earmarked for the GTHA. Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak also plans to make a stop in Burlington Wednesday.

As Wynne talked transportation in Burlington, Eisenberger issued his own statement in Hamilton on the increasingly acrimonious debate around rapid transit.

Noting concerns by some residents over the cost and impact of the proposed east-west light-rail line, he suggested that council create a citywide citizen forum — similar to the one formed during the contentious area rating debate — to review options such as LRT and BRT, in addition to other unresolved issues, such as how amalgamated communities pay for transit.

"Over the last three or four years, there's been a lack of information in terms of return on investment on any of the options," he said. "I think that has left the community at large in a bit of a muddled state in terms of their understanding and appreciation of what the benefits are for enhanced public transportation."

McHattie, meanwhile, noted the city has completed extensive public consultation on rapid transit already.

CaptainKirk

May 7, 2014, 5:05 AM

Ontario’s transportation minister has promised via Twitter that a Liberal government would pay the full capital costs for Hamilton's proposed “rapid transit” line.

Glen Murray tweeted on Tuesday evening that a Liberal government “will fund 100 per cent of the capital costs” of a “rapid transit line.”

That had some questioning if he meant light rail transit (LRT) or bus rapid transit (BRT), and what would be required from the city.

It also shocked Monique Taylor, NDP MPP for Hamilton Mountain, who read the tweets at a school board meeting Tuesday night.

“Wow,” she said. “I’m really shocked to see that. I’m going to take it back to my team and see what’s going to happen with that.”

The Liberals announced $15 billion for transit in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA) during their budget last week. While it specified an LRT line for Mississauga, for Hamilton, it said only “rapid transit.”

It used that terminology, MPP Ted McMeekin said then, because that’s the term used in the city’s 2011 Rapid Ready transit plan.

Conservative and NDP MPPs voted down the budget, triggering a June 12 election. And the budget didn’t include a dollar value for Hamilton transit.

It had some tweeting Murray, wondering if he meant the province fully funding a proposed $800-million LRT line from McMaster University to Eastgate Square.

“LRT was not mentioned, Rapid Transit was mentioned, what does that mean?” Hamilton resident William Mehlenbacher tweeted. “Do we always have to come begging?”

Coun. Brad Clark, a mayoral candidate for the October municipal election, said it’s clear to him now that Murray is talking about BRT.

“He is no longer talking about LRT,” Clark said.

“I’m reading the tea leaves pretty clearly. They don’t have the money. The $15 billion they have set aside won’t cover all the expenditures they have for the 12 or 13 communities across the GTHA."

Murray’s tweets are “frustrating, but it’s still specious,” he said. “We need a clear answer from the government in terms of what they’re expecting.”

Coun. Brian McHattie, a mayoral hopeful and vocal LRT advocate, said he was heartened by talk of full funding, even if it’s obvious campaigning.

He also doesn’t rule out that Murray is talking about LRT.

“If there’s some controversy and I don’t have to action the thing in the short term, I’ll just say rapid transit,” he said. “That’s just being a smart politician.”

If the Liberals are elected, McHattie said, the city should hold Murray to his tweet, which is a promise in writing.

“He shouldn’t be saying that if it’s not true,” he said. “That’s very definitive. We’ve been looking for that.

“Once the election’s over, if the Liberals are in place, we’ll call them on it.”

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/news/murray-tweets-promise-to-fully-fund-hamilton-rapid-transit-1.2634292

CaptainKirk

May 7, 2014, 5:09 AM

It simply isn't enough to say that Hamilton must have LRT because other cities are getting it, or because it is 'more fun' to ride a train as opposed to a bus.

Agreed. And I don't see that argument. The argument I see time and again is that other cities have successful LRTs. No reason Hamilton shouldn't either.

I have always preferred the concept of LRT, but my pragmatic self keeps reminding me that there is nothing unacceptable with building up to LRT via BRT, much like Ottawa and York regions are doing.

Knowing how successful other LRTs are, the existing ridership, and the associated economic uplift, going with BRT first would be a waste of both time and money.

thistleclub

May 7, 2014, 12:18 PM

April 12, 2014 (http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4462434-lrt-likely-to-be-really-big-election-issue/): [Councillor Brian McHattie] says, based on past practice, Hamilton should be entitled to 100 per cent funding for LRT. But if the province came back and said the city had to kick in, say 10 per cent, "I'd like to think we'd listen to that."

May 6, 2014 (http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4502948-city-to-receive-100-per-cent-funding-for-rapid-transit-wynne/): Councillor Brian McHattie, another contender for mayor, said he was heartened by Wynne's apparent funding commitment, noting he'd heard rumours cities would be asked to put up as much as 15 per cent of the cash.

With council resistant to the idea of opening the door to new funding from Hamilton’s populace, the ball is in the province’s court. If MTO/Metrolinx look at the city’s case and see a rationale for LRT, they will recommend LRT. If they look at the city’s analysis and see a rationale for BRT, they will recommend BRT. If council insists on standing firm on their earlier zero-funding tools stance (a rigidity not shared by municipalities like Mississauga, Brampton, Kitchener or Waterloo) the province will only be more hard-nosed about where it puts its money. The City would naturally be entitled to argue for LRT even if the province is only inclined to fund BRT, but it would probably be obligated to step up with a funding commitment.

I wish I were more optimistic about LRT's economic case swaying minds, but given the history, anything seems possible. The Pan Am Stadium "debate" was a fiasco and that money was coming from the Future Fund. An ask of 10-15% of the cost of B-Line LRT could be roughly two or three times that and hitting people in the pocketbook to some extent. As with the Pan Am Stadium shambles, the rapid transit debate is liable to be more emotional than rational.

flar

May 7, 2014, 3:12 PM

Opting for BRT and phasing in LRT is widely considered a mistake in Ottawa (even though the BRT system in Ottawa is as good as it gets with the dedicated Transitway). Plus it has taken more than 30 years, and the LRT we are getting will be incomplete for probably another 15-20 years. The mixed BRT/LRT system might even cause a drop in commuters due to extra transfers (it will make the commute worse for most users of the system).

thistleclub

May 7, 2014, 4:34 PM

Didn't some iteration of the BLAST map prescribe BRT servicing Dundas and Stoney Creek, as econo branches of the LRT trunk line? Or am I imagining that?

Jon Dalton

May 7, 2014, 6:31 PM

This sounds awfully familiar. Weren't we told the same thing before the last election, before we got jerked around for 3 years? I expect only more of the same.

On the other hand, who else are we going to vote for?

Oh and enough with the news being delivered by twitter. If it's news, it should be in the news. It's just more believable. After that, tweet away.

HillStreetBlues

May 7, 2014, 7:35 PM

Wasn't "Phase 1" meant to be Ottawa Street to McMaster at one point or another?

I agree about the tweets...when spending the better part of a billion dollars, a few words about details could be important.

How I generally feel about all this is that the perfect might be the enemy of the good. I'll be curious as to what point it will be realized that LRT is very unlikely, and how much time we will have lost in improving our existing transit.

Dr Awesomesauce

May 8, 2014, 12:20 AM

Tweeting isn't real communication. Ergo, any promises made via Twitter aren't real either.

CaptainKirk

May 9, 2014, 1:14 AM

Andrea Horwath is urging Hamilton to stick with its light rail transit plan.

The NDP leader and past downtown councillor says she would "absolutely" support the $811-million LRT project in Hamilton if her party comes out on top in the June 12 provincial election.

Some city councillors are having second thoughts about the 14-kilometre light rail line between McMaster University and Eastgate Square, with several speaking in favour Wednesday of re-examining bus rapid transit instead.

Horwath emphasized she will always be "respectful of municipal decisions," but added she's no fan of switching gears to BRT.

"I would urge them to stick with LRT," she said, noting she's long supported both light rail and the east-west B-line corridor as the first and best rapid transit priorities for Hamilton.

The Liberals included the city's rapid transit project on a list of priorities in its failed pre-election budget, which set aside $15 billion for rapid transit expansion in the GTA and Hamilton over a decade.

Liberal Leader Kathleen Wynne then promised 100 per cent capital funding for Hamilton during an election stop in Burlington earlier this week, but didn't specify whether it would be for LRT or bus rapid transit.

Incumbent transportation minister Glen Murray has spoken glowingly in Hamilton about the potential of light rail — but two local Liberal candidates have also gone on record calling BRT the more affordable option.

A spokesperson for Tim Hudak said Thursday the Conservative leader won't comment on whether he would support bus rapid transit until after the release of the party's transportation plan.

But Hudak told The Spectator earlier this week he isn't convinced LRT is needed in Hamilton, instead suggesting residents want improvements to GO train service to the city and improved highways. He said his job creation plan will result in more tax revenue, which in turn will help pay for transportation upgrades.

Horwath, who also said she supports 100 per cent capital funding for the LRT line, said the party's detailed transit plan has yet to be rolled out publicly.

But she pointed to a "modest rollback" of past corporate tax cuts as one source for new rapid transit cash.

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4510141-stick-with-lrt-plan-for-hamilton-horwath-urges/

LRT is an investment in Hamilton’s success
Realtors Association remains unwaveringly in favour of light rail

The Ambitious City. Coined in the 1800s, this Hamilton moniker has resurfaced in the past few years and is an encouraging sign that our city is ready to boldly tackle the 21st century challenges it faces. Along with other deindustrializing cities in North America, Hamilton is discovering that success relies on a combination of factors: a diverse economy with job opportunities, quality housing and vibrant, livable neighbourhoods. First and foremost, a successful city must be one in which people want to live.

Hamilton is a city on the rise. We're attracting attention from all sectors and our economic development department has been busier than ever, but there is still much work to do. Our property taxes are high, our downtown is still in recovery and the city is still trying to move beyond its industrial past.

We need to be forward thinking in our plans for the future, and we believe that light rail is one of the best ways to achieve many of the city's goals. These include continued revitalization of the downtown core, intensification along main corridors, further economic development and a broadening of the tax base.

That's why in 2008, the Realtors Association of Hamilton-Burlington (RAHB) took an official position in support of light rail. In the six years since, our position hasn't wavered. This is because, even in the early days, it was apparent to us that this is more than just a state of the art transportation system, it is an investment in the future.

The city has been studying LRT since 2008, and study after study has concluded there will be a return on investment for the B-line.
The issue then, and the issue now, is money; how much and from where are key concerns. These concerns are absolutely legitimate. Large-scale infrastructure is expensive, however, unlike invisible infrastructure (water mains, sewers, etc.), LRT will reshape the communities through which it passes. Permanent investment spurs development. But not overnight.

The city has been studying LRT since 2008, and study after study has concluded there will be a return on investment for the B-line. The city's own Rapid Ready report provides some very positive numbers, with the following financial benefits from LRT:

• Reduction of scheduled and unscheduled backlog capital works in the order of approximately $79 million.

• Tax benefit from new development by LRT estimated at $22.4 million.

• Potential for 6,000 construction jobs (provincial); 3,500 directly in Hamilton.

• Potential for 1,000 permanent jobs (provincial); 300 jobs in Hamilton to deliver regular operations and maintenance.

• B-Line LRT investment may result in an estimated increase of more than $443 million in Ontario's GDP.

The Chamber of Commerce LRT task force recently passed a motion requesting the province commit to funding light rail in Hamilton. We would like to echo this request, as investment in light rail will be good for Hamilton, and for the province as a whole. What is needed most now from our leaders is the foresight and ambition necessary to champion LRT as an investment in Hamilton's future success. We are the Ambitious City, after all.

Tim Mattioli is 2014 president and Ross Godsoe is CEO of the Realtors Association of Hamilton-Burlington.

http://www.thespec.com/opinion-story/4503552-lrt-is-an-investment-in-hamilton-s-success/

Jon Dalton

May 9, 2014, 4:51 PM

If we end up with Tim Hudak for our premier, switching to BRT would be the practical thing to do. Hudak seems to hate all transit except GO (I suppose people will teleport to the stations?) and maybe we'd be stuck with him for 8 years.

I would not want to see money wasted for stations, low floor buses and things that try to mimic LRT. Stick with the essentials - bus only lanes, traffic signal priority and good headways - that will grow ridership. Then maybe the next time the stars align with a decent government we can dust off our engineering and design reports (although I'm sure they'd want to do them all over) and make the case for LRT. By the time that happens, our BRT would be over capacity and there would be no argument for it.

lucasmascotto

May 9, 2014, 6:46 PM

Deleted.

CaptainKirk

May 10, 2014, 5:34 AM

^^^^^

Article already posted, 2 posts back

Dr Awesomesauce

May 10, 2014, 6:57 AM

ScreamingViking

May 10, 2014, 7:11 AM

:previous: That may fall under the DRP's mandate. ;)

markbarbera

May 10, 2014, 10:53 AM

Howarth is such a hypocrite. If she truly wants LRT here, why was she so silent on the file until election time? Why did she engineer an election that brought down a government with the most transit-centric infrastructure program in this province's history, setting the stage for a new government who will shelve it all and replace it with a mid-Pen highway? And why did she do it at such a critical moment in this city's rapid transit strategy development if she was so interested in seeing it move forward? Of all politicians, hers is the word I trust least on this file.

Beedok

May 10, 2014, 2:35 PM

I get the impression she dropped support for the Liberals due to political reasons not policy reasons. The Liberals have had a fair number of scandals, she didn't want to be seen as propping up a corrupt government against the will of the people.

Jon Dalton

May 10, 2014, 5:39 PM

thistleclub

May 12, 2014, 12:31 PM

LRT becoming ‘political circus’ (http://www.thespec.com/opinion-story/4513604-dreschel-lrt-becoming-political-circus-/)
(Hamilton Spectator, Andrew Dreschel, May 12 2014)

Councillor Sam Merulla wants to slap a moratorium on council LRT debates until after the June 12 provincial election.

"It's becoming a political circus,' Merulla said.

"The city has a lot of important issues to deal with; we do not need this distraction."

He intends to table a notice at Wednesday's council meeting.

His proposal comes on the heels of a revivified debate over the economic uplift of BRT versus LRT and confusion over Premier Kathleen Wynne's campaign claim the Liberals are committed to full capital funding for rapid transit.

Merulla argues enough is enough.

He says council's official position of no-strings 100 per cent funding stands and unless a councillor wants to force a reconsideration vote there's no point in discussing it until the provincial election dust settles.

"I'm not playing the stadium game again where a wedge issue is created for nothing more than political purposes."

If Merulla's motion gets pickup, that could sidetrack a wish by Councillor Russ Powers to have a "very pointed discussion, very soon' about possibly reconsidering council's position.

Merulla's exasperation dovetails with councillor and mayoral candidate Brian McHattie's view that lack of clarity and the province's failure to directly respond to the city's official position is eroding council support for LRT.

Read it in full here (http://www.thespec.com/opinion-story/4513604-dreschel-lrt-becoming-political-circus-/).

thistleclub

May 12, 2014, 7:46 PM

During Q&A at an election stump at Mohawk's Stoney Creek campus, Premier Wynne was asked a question on Hamilton's transit and spoke of integrated regional transit connections, all-day GO trains and "providing the base funding" for Hamilton's rapid transit system. CHCH is looping the clip in their news coverage this aft.

drpgq

May 13, 2014, 1:09 PM

To be honest, the LRT is a political circus, but all day Hamilton GO trains should be considered one as well. There's plans for two trains each way, but no real commitment to more just repeating of the mantra of all day GO over and over. Why the media isn't questioning this part more is curious.

And also why only the two trains to start. The government can say that due to sharing the tracks only two was possible, but I find it difficult to believe that another train couldn't have been fit in the morning somewhere and certainly a train later in the night would be even less difficult. The likely answer is that Metrolinx wanted to spend the bare minimum for Hamilton to be seen doing something.

ScreamingViking

May 13, 2014, 8:01 PM

The likely answer is that Metrolinx wanted to spend the bare minimum for Hamilton to be seen doing something.

Metrolinx is just carrying out its mandate.

If anyone is trying to be "seen doing something" it's at the senior political level, helped along by the inaction of certain local politicians willing to just stand back and wait... It's one thing for Bratina to fail to support council's position and avoid advocating for LRT. But with all of his fanfare about new GO service and his photo ops with the Liberals we should have expected him to be lighting a fire at Queen's Park to follow through on GO transit expansion in a bigger way.

MalcolmTucker

May 13, 2014, 8:05 PM

A big problem is track capacity at Union Station. There needs to be a whole lot more upgrades before they can do a big boost.

markbarbera

May 13, 2014, 8:25 PM

Exactly. There is also a significant upgrade required at Hamilton Junction underneath the high level bridge before all day/two way service can begin. It is easy to play the blame game, but there are practical issues that require attention, which in turn require time to address. A lot that happens behind the scenes and is not impacted at all by grand-standing. Those career politicians that make a show of themselves by "lighting fires" in a public fashion generally do so solely to advance their personal political career, and those public displays should not be automatically equated with any genuine interest or effectiveness in getting the job done. An "open letter" is not so much written for the addressee as it is for the people you want to vote for you.

ScreamingViking

May 13, 2014, 9:02 PM

ScreamingViking

May 13, 2014, 9:17 PM

A big problem is track capacity at Union Station. There needs to be a whole lot more upgrades before they can do a big boost.

Service could be extended at existing arrival frequencies, without having to increase Union's ability to handle it. So the pressure would be on improvements beyond Aldershot, including extra trains to service the much longer LSW corridor if the all-day service goes beyond James North.

15 minute all-day service would definitely create a congestion issue at Union, especially applied on multiple corridors. I've had questions about how they'd be able to handle that, because they can't add tracks... beyond adjusting timing, I suppose they could put two trains on each platform but they'd have to do a lot of work to accommodate that too.

MalcolmTucker

May 13, 2014, 9:23 PM

^The answer to the track issue as proposed right now is a Bathurst Station with fare integration to the downtown relief line. EMUs running through services should hep a bit too.

ScreamingViking

May 13, 2014, 9:43 PM

Some tracks are there now, with the yard. A station built above with stairways down to new platforms would work. The way downtown Toronto is growing, it may not seem as far west of Union as it does today (if it even does... Front and Spadina aren't far removed)

markbarbera

May 13, 2014, 9:44 PM

Yes there are hurdles. It's not a matter of flipping a switch. But it's do-able. The Liberals came out of nowhere and announced high-speed rail to KW and London. So why not this, which has been mulled for a long time?

Other cities have politicians that do put pressure on senior levels of government, successfully. Why not Hamilton's?

I am not sure what your point is here. The announcement for high speed rail for K-W is about as firm and specific as the announcement for all day two way GO service to Hamilton. You clearly have an axe to grind against Bratina, but I really don't see any other mayor in Ontario that has been putting pressure on the province or the feds and been successful at landing results from it.

ScreamingViking

May 13, 2014, 9:50 PM

markbarbera

May 14, 2014, 12:29 AM

And I'm not sure why you don't seem to want to argue for good things for Hamilton.

McCallion seems able to do it... KW landed some big money for LRT... Ottawa gets its share of attention... it may just be my opinion, but Hamilton politicos are too timid and quiet when it comes to rattling the chains.

Sam Merulla dose more than enough rattling of chains on behalf of the , and it has got us nowhere thus far.

Hazel is a straight forward, calculating, mayor who achieves things quietly without rattling chains. She also is a pragmatist who knows what she can and cannot gain. LRT money seems to be landing in KW despite the council backpeddling on its commitment. Ottawa had its LRT funding withdrawn by the feds and the plan sent back to the drawing board, so I don't see how their council has 'got' anything of significance lately. At any rate, the municipal voices truly have little or no clout within the legislative bodies at Queens Park or in Ottawa.

If people in this city genuinely feel its interests are not being fairly represented at Queens Park or in Ottawa, lay blame squarely where it belongs: on the people they have chosen to represent them in those legislatures. We have an opportunity to replace our ineffective MPP's this month, and our MP's next year. Hamilton has consistently shut itself out of the Federal and Provincial halls of power for nearly two decades now. Perhaps it is time we send representatives to those houses who will deliver for the city.