Rapid Transit

[drpgq]

I think the easiest solution is not to bother with the spur, until they are willing to do a full A-line up the Mountain. I'm curious as to how many now take the A-line bus past downtown in the morning. I'm guessing not many.

[lucasmascotto]

if there are alternate routes that have less of an impact on commercial activity, then those routes should be considered

Actually, no. These routes are suppose to serve already bustling centres of commercial activity and connect already existing transit services. Simply putting them in areas of least traffic or even public concern ends up wasting money and servicing areas that don't have the ridership levels, businesses, or even investment potential. Take a look at Pheonix's LRT line or even the Gold Line in Los Angeles. Furthermore, looping the LRT around certain quieter streets and then back on to the arterial roads, is not only incredibly expensive, but actually slows down vehicular traffic and the transit commute itself. I'd rather have four years of construction, then a vastly useless line that will drop me off nowhere and take longer to connect with other commercial districts then the initial bus routes in the area. I have nothing against putting the LRT on Main Street - I can live with that. Fine. However, looping the A-Line around Hughson or John, or wherever, makes no financial or long-term sense when James is already densifying with condo construction.

[thistleclub]

I'm curious as to how many now take the A-line bus past downtown in the morning.

Not comprehensive, but you can get a sense of ridership patterns in Steer Davies Gleave’s 2011 Preliminary Design & Feasibility Study (https://www.hamilton.ca/sites/default/files/media/browser/2015-09-17%2014%3A46/lrt-submission-book6-integrated-transit-system-operations-plan.pdf).

See Table 6.2 (http://imgur.com/4X16HRi.png) Forecast Line Flows A-Line 2031 and Figure 6.4 (http://imgur.com/QCuenv8.png) A-Line AM Peak Line Flows & Capacity 2031 (LRT, 4-min Headway).

[matt602]

I have no idea about the morning but I've noticed a surprising amount of people on SB A-Line buses that pass me while I'm waiting for a Barton or a Cannon bus on James North. The North End seems to be a decent trip generator for the A-Line bus. I'm not sure if those people are just taking it down to MacNab terminal or actually proceeding up the mountain, though.

[thistleclub]

The North End seems to be a decent trip generator for the A-Line bus. I'm not sure if those people are just taking it down to MacNab terminal or actually proceeding up the mountain, though.

SDG's projections suggest that James North’s southbound in morning peak is nearly twice as high as northbound ridership in the same period.

And that's with the line extending all the way to the airport, accompanied by the retirement of the 20 (shifting most if not all of the route's ridership to A-Line LRT/BRT).

But what if you're running the 20 against a 1km spur?

[mishap]

Has any study looked into the potential for higher-order transit along Barton St along with current rapid transit plans? What gets left out of the discussion is that Barton will almost directly connect Confederation and West Harbour GO stations. And right in between is the Centre on Barton, also the potential end of the future S(?)-line.
Given the current frequent service, along with possible future improvements to north-south routes (Ottawa/Upper Ottawa combined, separate Kenilworth service, Parkdale and Rymal peak increases) feeding more passengers into the corridor, I would think that upgrades are in order in the future. I don't know if LRT will ever come about, but BRT would be justified. BRT can also be implemented very quickly, simply by adding the bus service, and the amenities like platforms and transit priority measures can be added as you go.
However, if the B-Line is run along King Street, I could see planners balking at the idea of any form of rapid transit along Barton, arguing that it is "close enough" to the B-Line, especially near Sherman. For all practical purposes, it isn't. If one of the main ideas of rapid transit - really the main one from the initial plans - is to foster renewal, why is there so little consideration for a corridor that has incredible potential for improvement?

[matt602]

I'm definitely down with rapid transit on Barton Street, being a frequent Barton bus rider myself but it does seem like that would be a challenge going through the Barton village between Wentworth and Victoria. If they can make LRT work in the International Village through King Street though, I'm sure something can be figured out for Barton.

A good trial of this service could be something like a 2A Barton short turn route that turns back at either the Centre on Barton or Melvin and Talbot, much like the old trolley bus used to. Could even do a straight up Barton Express, extended into Stoney Creek past Bell Manor Loop with a detour up to the Centennial GO once it's done.

[drpgq]

I've argued for a Barton B-line on this site for years during rush hour. As it is now, the Barton stops at pretty much every stop with a fair number of scooter and buggy boardings. Only doing limited stops would result in a way faster ride from Centre Mall, although Barton Village could suck if you got stuck behind the regular 2.

I was more interested in the traffic in the morning Northbound for the A-line but good that it gets good traffic Southbound.

[thistleclub]

Ancaster Community Council gives nod to LRT (http://www.hamiltonnews.com/news-story/6722642-ancaster-community-council-gives-nod-to-lrt/)
(Ancaster News, Kevin Werner, June 14 2016)

Ancaster will get “absolutely nothing” from Hamilton’s $1-billion light-rail transit project, says Councillor Lloyd Ferguson.

But the Ancaster politician still supports building the controversial system because it will increase the property values along the LRT corridor along Main Street, which will mean higher taxes to the city, which will provide some relief to weary overtaxed Ancaster homeowners.

(“LRT) will transform the city,” Ferguson told members of the Ancaster Community Council June 6. “It will rejuvenate the downtown, increase land values. That’s what’s in it for Ancaster.”

Ferguson, who has indicated he will throw his support behind the vote to keep the $1 billion from the province, said he believes the politically-charged discussion surrounding the LRT funding scheduled for June 15’s general issues committee meeting, will be pushed back to the fall. If it happens it will be the third time councillors delayed voting on Ward 4 councillor Sam Merulla’s motion to support the provincial funding for LRT. There is also the belief pro-LRT supporters are concerned they could lose the vote.

“They will bring it back in the fall,” said Ferguson.

He said one of the reasons some of his political colleagues are getting cold feet in their support for the LRT is because a municipal election is looming in the fall of 2018, and “they want to get elected.”

Ferguson said a few suburban councillors, who in the past have supported seeking the LRT funding, are realizing that during the next municipal election there will be candidates challenging council incumbents who supported LRT.

“Some of my colleagues are trying to get elected,” he said.


Read it in full here (http://www.hamiltonnews.com/news-story/6722642-ancaster-community-council-gives-nod-to-lrt/).

[Beedok]

Really should see more efforts to sell to the suburbs that this will help the downtown pay more taxes.

[thistleclub]

LRT debate? Just call it a game of blitz chess (http://www.thespec.com/opinion-story/6730936-dreschel-lrt-debate-just-call-it-a-game-of-blitz-chess/)
(Hamilton Spectator Andrew Dreschel, June 19 2016)

The LRT debate is starting to resemble a game of blitz chess in which each move is rapidly countered by the other side.

Consider some of the latest ploys.

Coun. Chad Collins, who believes LRT is a misguided project, asked staff to investigate the claim that some $80 million of city money would be freed up as a result of Metrolinx picking up the cost of replacing aging infrastructure along the route.

Collins was skeptical about the claim and didn't like the fact there was talk of redirecting the presumed savings to suburban and Mountain infrastructure projects to lure council doubters and fence-sitters back aboard.

It turns out Collins is right.

After reviewing the 10-year capital forecast, staff did not find any significant capital projects along the LRT corridor that would result in budget savings that could be used elsewhere.

In other words, there is no $80 million to be freed up because no money has been earmarked for work along the route.

"I guess it's important to do your homework," says Collins.

Not so fast, ripostes Coun. Sam Merulla, who happily admits he's orchestrating efforts to dangle inducements before vacillating councillors.

Merulla says there may not be any immediate savings but there will be avoided costs down the road, which still saves local taxpayers money.

In other words, even though replacing things like water and sewer lines along the LRT corridor is not part of the 10-year capital budget, those services will still eventually need attention.

"Whether we're saving it today or we're saving it years from now, it's all taxpayers' money," says Merulla. "The difference is we don't have to budget for the local taxpayer to pay for it, the province will."

Not surprisingly, Collins has a countermove.

Avoiding costs 15 or 20 years down the road still doesn't free up money to redirect elsewhere, he says.

For the record, the estimated $80 million stems from the 2013 Rapid Ready report, which notes that replacing roads and water lines along the LRT corridor may not be in the capital budget but are part of the overall infrastructure repair backlog.

Additionally, general manager of finance Mike Zegarac says staff have yet to calculate what the avoided costs along the current corridor will be, but he figures there's likely a financial benefit to extending the life and value of some of the infrastructure pieces.

In any event, Merulla is already working on another line of attack.

During the LRT construction phase, he wants to divert to the Mountain and suburbs all the money that would normally be spent on infrastructure projects across Wards 1 through 4.

Since LRT will go through those four lower city wards, he says they won't be able to close down other streets for major road or sewer work because of traffic disruptions and displacements. So why not redirect that money as an "incentive" to shore up LRT support?

Incentive is one word for it. Buyoff is another. Other equivalents abound.

Meanwhile, Coun. Terry Whitehead is plotting a new offensive of his own.

Whitehead, who says he'll support LRT "if it meets the right conditions," is drafting a motion to study the merits of running the line down Main East instead of King East.

Arguing there is no "empirical data" showing which route is better, Whitehead wants council to consider hiring an independent consultant to report on the potential cost of moving the route to Main.

"We've got one chance to get this right and I think we owe it to the taxpayers to do that."

According to a 2009 report, city staffers internally considered and rejected Main before making a recommendation to council. But there's little documentation on why.

Whitehead last week withdrew a similar motion because some councillors thought the wording was provocative. He says he's not trying to be "obstructionist."

"I want to be on solid ground. If we're stuck with LRT, I want to make sure it's the best it can be. I think we need to ask the right questions, and I think the community expects us to ask the tough questions so we can come back with the best product under the circumstances."

Come to think of it, the debate is actually more like a multiplayer chess variant than simple blitz chess.

[matt602]

Gotta love how Whitehead claims to be a supporter, but then uses words like "If we're stuck with LRT".

At least Chad isn't a flip flopper.

[mishap]

I'm definitely down with rapid transit on Barton Street, being a frequent Barton bus rider myself but it does seem like that would be a challenge going through the Barton village between Wentworth and Victoria.
I think queue jumps would be very viable along Barton, allowing buses to get a head start at certain stoplights. And not diverting onto Melvin (which was once a part of Barton St for those of you wondering why it does that) will shave even more time off the run. As for Barton Village, how long is the current Route 2? About 12 km? The Village only represents a very small portion of that, less than a kilometre. And passing opportunities arise whenever a Barton bus pulls into a local stop, which is often.

I could see a route that runs from Confederation Go, past The Centre, a slight hook to serve West Harbour GO, and then to the downtown GO Station. Sure, there could be crowding issues at the GO, but platform space can be freed up by removing 1 King or 51 University buses, or extending this route to Mohawk College. The possibility of a 51 extension to the college has been mentioned in planning documents; I'm not sure if there are any plans to run all King buses to the west end. Maybe in the east end, this route can also serve Eastgate, providing higher-level service between two major connection points.

It is very likely that the Confederation GO station will become a another hub, mainly serving the northern east end and Stoney Creek, plus the beach strip. I could see some serious route realignments when that station opens (projected 2019-2020).

[ScreamingViking]

At least Chad isn't a flip flopper.

Aside from his previous votes in support of LRT, anyway. ;)

[SteelTown]

The Hamilton Tiger-Cats say they want LRT
The team adds its voice to several MPs, MPPs and former mayors - but others aren't so sure about the project
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/news/ticats-lrt-1.3649991

The Hamilton Tiger-Cats have come out in favour of a planned light rail transit (LRT) system.

The CFL team issued a one-sentence statement Thursday supporting the much-debated $1 billion project in Hamilton, one of the highest profile institutions to do so.

"The Tiger-Cats support LRT because it is a significant investment in Hamilton's future that will improve transit infrastructure," the team said in an email.

The team is the latest voice in a growing chorus of those who want the system.

[thistleclub]

Local anti-LRT critics like to harsh on Metrolinx as vague and evasive, but at least they've been present and engaged.

Going off fresh coverage from The Public Record (https://www.thepublicrecord.ca/2016/07/hamilton-disability-committee-meets-with-lrt-office-some-questions-answer-many-not-due-to-lack-of-info-from-hsr/), HSR is pointedly MIA on the transit file. If Council takes issue with grey areas around implementation, they can train their sights on city employees.

Example:

"Numerous times during the meeting, members of ACPD asked questions about service changes to HSR and integration of HSR feeder buses into the LRT system.

The answer from Metrolinx staff was they didn’t have the answer, HSR hasn’t made any concepts public, and HSR staff were not present at the meeting.

What about those who presently use the 1-King and can’t walk up to 400 metres? HSR not present.

Will there be stretches of the LRT route with local HSR buses that are feeder routes from elsewhere? HSR not present and doesn’t have those answers.

After the meeting, I asked City of Hamilton LRT communications manager why the HSR has not been present at these meetings and when the public can expect some answers from the HSR. (Prior to her promotion to LRT communications manager, Anderson was Public Works spokesperson.)

Anderson says the HSR will be joining the LRT conversation in September and will start providing answers to questions related to the future of HSR as it relates to integration with the LRT. The HSR will have representatives at all public consultations as well."


Despite this, some new detail. The entire piece (https://www.thepublicrecord.ca/2016/07/hamilton-disability-committee-meets-with-lrt-office-some-questions-answer-many-not-due-to-lack-of-info-from-hsr/) is worth a read.

[thistleclub]

Via The Public Record, LRT No Side Holds First Organizational Meeting [Full Video] (https://www.thepublicrecord.ca/2016/07/lrt-no-side-holds-first-organizational-meeting-full-video/)

[thistleclub]

LRT traffic study coming in for landing (a bumpy one?) (http://www.thespec.com/opinion-story/6768252-lrt-traffic-study-coming-in-for-landing-a-bumpy-one-/)
(Hamilton Spectator, Andrew Dreschel, July 14 2016)

Coun. Chad Collins' theory that opposition to LRT will grow when more impact information is released may soon be tested.

City staff are delivering a highly anticipated preliminary report on the traffic repercussions of the project at the Aug. 8 meeting of the general issues committee.

"It's not going to have all the granular details or all the solutions," says LRT co-ordinator Paul Johnson, adding the complete report won't be ready until the fall.

"It will show in general where impacts are. It's not all the solutions to it, but it gives a sense of where we are on the path toward dealing with the traffic situation."

The so-called traffic modelling looks at LRT's impact on side roads and vehicle movement and how to deal with the upheaval along the 11-kilometre corridor from McMaster University to the Queenston Traffic Circle.

The $1 billion provincially-funded project is expected to disrupt current traffic patterns because the two centre lanes along much of the Main-King route will be taken up by LRT tracks, reducing carrying capacity and eliminating King as an arterial road.

Restricted access to downtown's International Village and Westdale, plus severely prescribed left-hand turns along the route to minimize vehicles crossing the tracks and slowing down the trains, will also have a ripple effect on traffic circulation.

Collins, LRT's most vocal critic on council, has previously predicted that opposition and the clamour for an LRT referendum is bound to grow once the public becomes more aware of the fallout on businesses and traffic patterns.

Certainly to date LRT supporters who view the project as an economic development and urban revitalization godsend have been far more active and organized than the opposition.

From the Hamilton Chamber of Commerce to the reinvigorated Hamilton Light Rail citizens' group and from the support of seven local MPs and MPPs to activist Graham Crawford's logo collection of 291 (and counting) endorsing local companies and organizations, the pro-camp is efficiently working to win hearts and minds and keep malleable members of council onside.

But there are signs the anti-LRT crowd is finding its organizational legs.


Read it in full here (http://www.thespec.com/opinion-story/6768252-lrt-traffic-study-coming-in-for-landing-a-bumpy-one-/).

[drpgq]

"But there are signs the anti-LRT crowd is finding its organizational legs."

Maybe, although it strikes me that the few people involved are kind of clowns and their organizational skills will prove pretty weak. Apart from some business owners who think they will lose out (which certainly could be true) I can't see other members of the community being particularly passionate about turning down $1 billion from the province.

[eatboots]

Well those guys over at Weird Stuff are big time Tesla groupies and the same ones who got Hamilton to change the upper part of Burlington to Nicola Tesla Blvd so I wouldn't underestimate their organizational skills. You'd think they would be down with the electrical aspect of the LRT but that may be the thing they don't like about it.

The arguments here are pretty vague and the participants seem to just grab whatever suits them, but there are lots of cracks that show some true colors. The guy in front wants to keep driving fast around Hamilton and loves the one way streets, Skelly is a conservative and doesn't want to take liberal money. The old guy has owned a store for 30 years but somehow also doesn't like downtown. There also seems to be the confused well meaning people who don't understand why the billion dollars can't be spent elsewhere. All the usual suspects when it comes to a group like this.

[thistleclub]

More partisan fear-mongering in this recent fact-challenged op-ed (http://www.hamiltonnews.com/opinion-story/6774734-community-columnist-lrt-is-simply-a-street-car-not-desired/), courtesy the president of the Hamilton Mountain Conservatives provincial and federal riding associations.

Those prejudices are in step with a recent Hamilton Mountain News editorial (http://www.hamiltonnews.com/opinion-story/6769133-all-of-hamilton-needs-economic-development-help/) that contained this gem:

"It seems the economic strategy to revitalize the core has trumped all other strategies to expand, innovate and assist businesses across the city. Even the light-rail transit project is being diverted along King Street — what some city advocates say is the “heart of the city” — for the sole purpose of economic benefit to the downtown core."

"Diverted" from where, exactly?

[eatboots]

This guy is misguided but he doesn't like the LAP either so he seems like a general conservative doesn't want any money spent on anything type.

[thistleclub]

International Village LRT stop possible (http://www.thespec.com/news-story/6776338-international-village-lrt-stop-possible/)
(Hamilton Spectator, Matthew Van Dongen, July 20 2016)

Hamilton's light rail transit planners are pitching a new downtown stop to assuage concerns of merchants in the International Village.

The city and project lead Metrolinx unveiled a draft alignment for the $1-billion planned LRT line earlier this year. The plan called for only one lane of car traffic on King Street through the narrow downtown pinch point and LRT stops at Catharine Street and Victoria Avenue.

But even downtown fans of the contentious project bridled at the idea of skipping a stop within the International Village. "Years of pain and anguish for what? ... A plan that doesn't even put us on the map," said International Village BIA head Susie Braithwaite at the time.

Planners heard those concerns, said city LRT director Paul Johnson, and are pitching a Wellington Street stop rather than one further east at Victoria.

"We looked at it and figured there was a viable way to essentially bookend the village," he said, noting the Catharine stop would be so close to Mary Street that it can be renamed for that street, which is considered the border of the BIA.

Braithwaite said she was pleased with the change — and with the way project planners consulted with the BIA.

"It was really important to us to have something within the (International Village) boundaries," she said.

At the same time, Braithwaite cautioned she can't speak on behalf of all businesses within the area when it comes to LRT support.

"There are so many different opinions out there," she said.


Read it in full here (http://www.thespec.com/news-story/6776338-international-village-lrt-stop-possible/).


LRT Public Information Centres

Sept. 12, 5-8 p.m. at McMaster Innovation Park, 175 Longwood Rd. S;

Sept. 13, 3-5 p.m. and 6-8 p.m. at City Hall, 71 Main St. W;

Sept. 14, 5-8 p.m. at LIUNA Station, 360 James St. N;

Sept. 15, 5-8 p.m. at Dr. John Perkins Centre, 1429 Main St. E;

Sept. 20, 5-8 p.m. at Battlefield House Museum, 77 King St. W;

Sept. 21, 5-8 p.m. at Sackville Hill Seniors Rec Centre, 780 Upper Wentworth St;

Sept. 22, 5-8 p.m. at Dundas Town Hall, 60 Main St. in Dundas.

[thistleclub]

Hamilton reaches out to residents on LRT project (http://www.hamiltonnews.com/news-story/6779156-hamilton-reaches-out-to-residents-on-lrt-project/)
(Stoney Creek News, Kevin Werner, July 22 2016)

Hamiltonians will have another chance to jump on the light-rail transit project conversation in September.

The city will be holding seven open houses across Hamilton, encouraging residents to ask questions and seek answers about the controversial $1-billion project.

“Residents will see a lot more details,” said Paul Johnson, director of LRT project coordination. “There will be new information. We are entering a phase (of the project) that is getting real.”

Johnson says the public should expect to see preliminary work begin on the LRT project soon with workers digging bore holes along the corridor from McMaster University to the Queenston circle searching for utilities.

“This is a mammoth project for Hamilton, one of the largest in its history,” said Johnson.

In an attempt to education and prepare residents for it, he said preliminary information will be presented from the city’s traffic study, and up-to-date facts about LRT design for the public to see and comment on. In addition, there will be a wide range of staff available for residents to talk to, from HSR, real estate and the traffic departments.

“All of the solutions (to the LRT issues) will not be solved here,” said Johnson. “But we will be able to drill down on some issues that we haven’t been able to before. We are continuing to work to refine this project.”


Read it in full here (http://www.hamiltonnews.com/news-story/6779156-hamilton-reaches-out-to-residents-on-lrt-project/).

[thistleclub]

Get ready for some next-level confirmation bias.

@terrywhitehead (https://twitter.com/terrywhitehead/status/756583571184234497):

On Monday July 25, I will publish the results of the research done by my office on LRT on my website.

[Dr Awesomesauce]

Done by my orifice, more like.

Go get 'em, Terry, ya big dummy. :cheers:

[ScreamingViking]

@terrywhitehead (https://twitter.com/terrywhitehead/status/756583571184234497):

On Monday July 25, I will publish the results of the research done by my office on LRT on my website.

Cool Terry! Hope you engage with people about that... fully, openly, intelligently, open-mindedly....

[Gurnett71]

Get ready for some next-level confirmation bias.

@terrywhitehead (https://twitter.com/terrywhitehead/status/756583571184234497):

On Monday July 25, I will publish the results of the research done by my office on LRT on my website.

And Whitehead's report is in:

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/6781248-whitehead-report-gives-lrt-thumbs-down/

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/terry-whitehead-lrt-1.3693863

An interesting counterpoint/critique, by Professor Higgins of McMaster, who wrote some of the studies that Whitehead cites in his paper:

https://onedrive.live.com/?authkey=%21ACYf_tYsni3lmw8&cid=268B1C6A7CC8090D&id=268B1C6A7CC8090D%2112216&parId=268B1C6A7CC8090D%21671&o=OneUp

Source was provided by Glen, one of the commenters on the Spec website.:tup:

[Dr Awesomesauce]

Somebody's put a bug in Terry's ear. Somebody's got to him and asked him to derail this project. Either that or he's a complete idiot. I vote for both.

[thistleclub]

Tory leader says PC government would still fund LRT if that’s what city wants (http://www.thespec.com/news-story/6782792-tory-leader-says-pc-government-would-still-fund-lrt-if-that-s-what-city-wants/)
(Hamilton Spectator, Steve Arnold, July 25 2016)

Ontario Opposition Leader Patrick Brown says he'll carry through with a provincial pledge of $1 billion for Hamilton's controversial light rail transit system.

The Conservative party leader told a Flamborough Chamber of Commerce meeting Monday if he's elected premier next year, he'll back whatever transit option Hamilton councillors decide they want.

"Being a former city councillor myself, I respect the autonomy of municipalities. If the mayor and council have stated very clearly that's where they want the provincial partnership to be, that's where it will be," he said after a wide-ranging question-and-answer session with local businesspeople. "If the mayor and council say they want that investment to be in another transportation project, then it's incumbent on the province to be flexible on what is the clear municipal will."

Read it in full here (http://www.thespec.com/news-story/6782792-tory-leader-says-pc-government-would-still-fund-lrt-if-that-s-what-city-wants/).

[thistleclub]

Whitehead's report has also received an abbreviated fisking (https://fightgridlock.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/fight-gridlock-in-brampton-review-of-annotated-page-3-of-councillor-terry-whiteheads-report-25july16.pdf) from Brampton transit activists.

[Jon Dalton]

I guess that's good news that Patrick Brown won't yank the LRT funding but I hope that's not an excuse to drag on and delay the project. I'd still worry because Brown has claimed not to support LRT in the past and either way it's still a politician talking and you never take their word as gospel.

[markbarbera]

Notwithstanding this debate, Bombardier's recent woes trying to actually deliver their light rail trains to Metrolinxfor the routes in Toronto (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/bombardier-metrolinx-delays-1.3686742)and Waterloo (http://www.unlockgridlock.ca/bombardier-delays-waterloo-ion-lrt-and-toronto-is-worried/)is bound to have a higher impact on delayed delivery of a LRT here.

Alternatively, we could have BRT here next year if we run it along the intended LRT route with dedicated lanes following the route planned for LRT. Should we do that, we can actually gauge the route's viability and make routing adjustments based on that experience before putting expensive track down. This is basically what OC Transpo did in Ottawa. It also gives the HSR the chance to build up feeder lines and overall ridership on the B-line route so, once converted to LRT, it will be a more viable system and much less painful a transition.

[MalcolmTucker]

Route building is a good thing, but destroying your network for an upgrade is a pretty annoying thing. There are other manufacturers than Bombardier, and there is a long time between now and when Hamilton would need a few vehicles. Calgary's system transition worked like this:

To position the city for eventual implementation of a rapid transit system, a new
“Blue Arrow” express bus service was recommended, paralleling the proposed rapid
transit lines. The Blue Arrow expresses included complimentary park and ride and feeder
bus routes to mimic the characteristics of the future rapid transit system that was
envisioned.

http://i.imgur.com/DxindPC.png > http://i.imgur.com/hoJXIaH.png
source: https://www.calgarytransit.com/sites/default/files/reports/calgarys_lrt_1st_25years_trb_revised.pdf

[thistleclub]

I guess that's good news that Patrick Brown won't yank the LRT funding but I hope that's not an excuse to drag on and delay the project. I'd still worry because Brown has claimed not to support LRT in the past and either way it's still a politician talking and you never take their word as gospel.

Slightly different shading and detail in the Stoney Creek News (http://www.hamiltonnews.com/news-story/6783224-ontario-pc-leader-patrick-brown-backs-mid-pen-corridor-revival/):

[Progressive Conservative leader Patrick] Brown accused the Liberals and Premier Kathleen Wynne of announcing infrastructure projects without the money needed to build them. Brown included Hamilton’s $1-billion light-rail transit project as among those projects.

“We have an infrastructure plan that is not funded,” said Brown. “The province has made promises to Hamilton that are not funded and that is inherently wrong.”

Under a Progressive Conservative government every infrastructure promise made to municipalities will be built into province’s budget.

Even though he didn’t want to weigh in on the current LRT debate among Hamilton politicians, Brown said if elected he would “work with the city of Hamilton on their number one transit priority.”

And he said any commitments the province has made to allocate the $130 billion in infrastructure projects to municipalities, he will honour them.

“We will keep those promises,” he said.

[matt602]

Alternatively, we could have BRT here next year if we run it along the intended LRT route with dedicated lanes following the route planned for LRT. Should we do that, we can actually gauge the route's viability and make routing adjustments based on that experience before putting expensive track down. This is basically what OC Transpo did in Ottawa. It also gives the HSR the chance to build up feeder lines and overall ridership on the B-line route so, once converted to LRT, it will be a more viable system and much less painful a transition.

I was very against this idea a few years ago but now I'm really starting to think it would be the more practical solution for the exact reasons you outlined. The only problem would be the funding of a future LRT conversion. Something the provincial and/or federal government isn't likely to pick up the tab for. Even if the B-Line BRT route ended up being highly successful, it would be incredibly difficult or even impossible to try to sell the idea of 100% municipal funding.

[thistleclub]

LRT and King St. route reaffirmed (http://www.thespec.com/news-story/6784560-lrt-and-king-st-route-reaffirmed/)
(Hamilton Spectator, Carmela Fragomeni, July 26 2016)

Planning for Hamilton's light rail transit project is rolling full steam ahead despite a recent councillor's report challenging it, another councillor suggesting a lack of public support, and a business leader decrying the confusion over whether it is proceeding.

The LRT, and its route on King Street — which continue to be debated notwithstanding repeated approvals — were reaffirmed at Tuesday's five-hour LRT committee meeting. But not before there were heated discussions caused by disagreement by Mountain councillors Terry Whitehead and Donna Skelly.

Whitehead released a report Monday challenging the $1 billion lower city project from Queenston Traffic Circle to McMaster, but on Tuesday, said it was a political report meant to promote careful oversight.

"To make it work, we better understand the good, the bad and the ugly," he said about the construction impacts on businesses and traffic, and if there will be enough ridership.

Skelly said she is hearing "a tremendous amount of opposition" and questioned the support the committee has been shown. "If you really want to gauge public support, put it to a referendum," she said.

Mayor Fred Eisenberger reminded everyone the committee's purpose is to implement the LRT.

Committee member Susan Braithwaite of the International Village BIA, however, said businesses on King Street are unsure the project is going ahead.

"There is confusion based on what we hear and read in the media," she said, adding businesses need better leadership on preparing for the impact of the street dug up for an extended time. "We need to hear that the LRT is happening — 100 per cent."

Debate then ensued among councillors on whether the project was "a done deal."

Ancaster Coun. Lloyd Ferguson urged the committee not to go "down that track."

"We've been having this debate for several years. This train has left the station," he pleaded. "A majority of council supported this … so please, can we get on with this …"

City manager Chris Murray said the city has an agreement with Metrolinx to build the LRT.

Businessperson Mary Aduckiewicz of Denninger's told the committee her store and others wanted the LRT to go on Main Street where construction won't hurt as many businesses as it will on King.

"We've weathered a lot of storms, ups and downs over 62 years," she said of Denninger's. "We're not sure if we can weather another extended construction period."

City LRT project manager Paul Johnson said King is the approved route since 2011, when the province approved an environmental assessment on the city's original LRT route that extended to Eastgate Square. Among the reasons for rejecting Main is that it is a truck route, and that the LRT is incompatible with the 403 interchange in the west end.

[ScreamingViking]

Alternatively, we could have BRT here next year if we run it along the intended LRT route with dedicated lanes following the route planned for LRT. Should we do that, we can actually gauge the route's viability and make routing adjustments based on that experience before putting expensive track down. This is basically what OC Transpo did in Ottawa. It also gives the HSR the chance to build up feeder lines and overall ridership on the B-line route so, once converted to LRT, it will be a more viable system and much less painful a transition.

I don't think Ottawa is a fair comparison -- they may have built up ridership over several decades but OC Transpo basically built their own road network for a large part of their system.

But I might agree with you if the short bus-lane experiment had not been prematurely killed off the way it was. I think there would be lots of fear, trepidation, and endless debate about reserving TWO lanes across the whole 11km route (or more).

Plus I think the construction is at the root of a lot of worry -- people hear and read that it will be implemented between 2019-2024 and think the entire stretch will be dug up for 5 years of constant construction work. One of the next things the city and Metrolinx should be doing is explaining how the construction staging is likely to actually happen, and allay some of those fears.

That aside, there is no reason why B-Line bus service cannot be improved in the next few years, reserved lanes or not. This should be combined with improvements to connecting routes, with a vastly increased service ramped up on the A-Line. But it will take local municipal money to do it, because the province is not likely to buy new buses (and has basically told the city it needs to use its gas tax funding to do that, when the ask for buses and a new barn was added to the list of wants). Perhaps some federal money can be applied toward the broader transit network, though there will be an expectation the city will ante up too.

If city councilors are actually serious about alternative ways to spend transit money and actually believe in budgeting for them, there is no reason many of those improvements can't happen as well. But given council's track record, that's a very big if.

[markbarbera]

Among the reasons for rejecting Main is that it is a truck route, and that the LRT is incompatible with the 403 interchange in the west end.

This is a new spin with little merit. Why is maintaining Main as a truck route a bigger precedent than LRT on Main? What makes the two mutually exclusive anyway?

The alleged interchange issue is a bit of a red herring too. The same could be said about the King route, which already calls for a new bridge to be constructed because of the current interchange incompatibility there.

[NortheastWind]

This is a new spin with little merit. Why is maintaining Main as a truck route a bigger precedent than LRT on Main? What makes the two mutually exclusive anyway?

Trucks are a necessary evil in this day and age. They have to be routed somewhere.

[Beedok]

Alternatively, we could have BRT here next year if we run it along the intended LRT route with dedicated lanes following the route planned for LRT. Should we do that, we can actually gauge the route's viability and make routing adjustments based on that experience before putting expensive track down. This is basically what OC Transpo did in Ottawa. It also gives the HSR the chance to build up feeder lines and overall ridership on the B-line route so, once converted to LRT, it will be a more viable system and much less painful a transition.

That's not what Ottawa did. Ottawa built an extensive separate road network with large stations, often in trenches, then set the bus routs up so basically every route went along the transitways. Now that they've run into capacity issues at the downtown chokepoint and need to upgrade the system to a light metro they have to reroute almost every bus route in the city. The end result has been confusion, areas that used to get good levels of transit being cut off for years, protests over bus rerouting, and a construction bill about the same as if they'd built LRT in the first place (on top of the fact the initial BRT system's build cost probably wasn't that far below LRT). They basically did the worst option possible.

I do however think that dedicated bus lanes might be the best step for Hamilton at this time. The city isn't big enough for an actual metro at this stage, but that thresh hold isn't too far away. The pseduo-streetcar proposed right now will take too long and not increase capacity enough in the longterm (Calgary's C-Train is a lot more grade separated downtown than what's proposed for any part of the B-Line and is starting to see issues and the need for tunneling, Hamilton isn't that much smaller than Calgary or Ottawa. Or Edmonton which has successfully run a light metro for years).

[thistleclub]

BRT abstract from publictransit.us’ Ottawa: Transit Productivity and Bus Rapid Transit (http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp90v1_cs/Ottawa.pdf) (July 1, 2005):

Ottawa, Canada’s capital, has the most extensive bus rapid transit (BRT) services in North America. The core “Transitway” network includes busways, reserved lanes and mixed traffic operation totalling 46.3 km (28.7 mi), opened in stages from 1983.

Most performance indicators revealed significant negative trends as transitway service expanded. Ridership did not grow as anticipated prior to construction. Ridership declined during 1984-1997 despite increasing population and employment; ridership per-capita fell by almost 40 percent. The previous doubling of ridership during 1971-1984 was not sustainable absent major productivity gains: bus-km per capita tripled, inflation-adjusted operating expense per capita increased 2.5 times, and the revenue : cost ratio fell from 98 to 60 percent.

Productivity did not increase as transitway service expanded. Real wage rates remained stable during 1982-2002 but operating cost per revenue service hour rose by nearly 60 percent. Maintenance costs, fuel consumption, non-revenue (“deadhead”) km and road calls all increased while labor utilization became less efficient. Available data suggest, but merely suggest, a sharp increase in customer complaints coinciding with a period of decreasing service reliability and declining ridership. However, the undertaking managed to improve service effectiveness and so moderated the negative trends in cost-effectiveness.

The 1984-1997 ridership decrease is unfortunate but less troubling than productivity declines during the same period. These suggest “inherent” or “structural” inefficiencies associated with Ottawa’s transitway program. The implied annual cost is (2002 CAD) 65 million (2002 USD 42 million) based on 2002 service levels; the implied cumulative cost during 1982-2002 is (2002 CAD) 1,360 million (2002 USD 865 million). Additional research is indicated to identify underlying causal factors and possible counter-strategies.

[drpgq]

^ Yeah that certainly doesn't make me disposed towards BRT for Hamilton.

[CaptainKirk]

Look, you don't choose BRT when you've been offered LRT. You just don't.

[markbarbera]

Look, you don't choose BRT when you've been offered LRT. You just don't.

Absolutely. And when $1 billion dollars is being granted for something, be damned sure you are building something that will work with what you have where you are, and not simply because it is shiny and new and everyone else is getting one. I am simply not convinced the solution we are being offered in the way it is being planned meets that expectation.

[MalcolmTucker]

Well, adding any high capacity transit to an area without congestion or even really parking scarcity is hardly going to be trans-formative in the short term. Over time it will really shape where university and health sciences students and staff settle when they move though, along with supporting businesses to grow beyond their local walk/parking shed.

[CaptainKirk]

Well, adding any high capacity transit to an area without congestion or even really parking scarcity is hardly going to be trans-formative in the short term. Over time it will really shape where university and health sciences students and staff settle when they move though, along with supporting businesses to grow beyond their local walk/parking shed.

Yes, at the earliest, this is 8 years away. It will also coincide with new land use planning principles which are vital.

It is not about current congestion levels, it's about future ones, and current street design which needs improving. These de facto freeways of portions of King and Main simply have to go. Those stretches are needlessly god awful.

[markbarbera]

It is not about current congestion levels, it's about future ones, and current street design which needs improving. These de facto freeways of portions of King and Main simply have to go. Those stretches are needlessly god awful.

Unfortunately, decisions on the LRT route are being made to preserve the status quo. It is being routed along King so that Main can be preserved as a truck route. King could very well transform away from a de facto freeway condition, but at the expense of locking Main into its current format, and, I suspect, reverting York/Cannon/Wilson in as its replacement westbound throughway. The upcoming traffic impact study will shed more light on this.

My biggest issue is how Dixon's report on how HSR must be transformed in order to support LRT has been basically ignored by council. Dixon had encouraged establishing a more extensive express bus system in advance of LRT so that ridership levels can be brought up to the level that would support LRT. But now Dixon is gone, as is the opportunity to get HSR designed to provide an effective feeder system and ridership levels that would have supported an LRT system in this city.

[thistleclub]

My biggest issue is how Dixon's report on how HSR must be transformed in order to support LRT has been basically ignored by council. Dixon had encouraged establishing a more extensive express bus system in advance of LRT so that ridership levels can be brought up to the level that would support LRT. But now Dixon is gone, as is the opportunity to get HSR designed to provide an effective feeder system and ridership levels that would have supported an LRT system in this city.

This was a recommended strategy articulated two years earlier, as noted on the Executive Summary to the Ten Year Local Transit Strategy (https://www.hamilton.ca/sites/default/files/media/browser/2015-07-19/transit-strategy-report-march-6-2015.pdf):

Following the approval of Rapid Ready, on June 26, 2013 staff were directed to report back during the 2015 budget process on "a ten-year Hamilton local transit service level strategy, including specific route recommendations and a financial strategy, with reference to the role played by rapid transit, and with a goal of reaching 80 - 100 rides per capita by 2025."

Rapid Ready (http://www2.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/1EF0629C-3003-4FC2-A286-8ECACE07BB0E/0/RR1_Rapid_Ready_Report.pdf) notes:

"The first key contributor to becoming Rapid Ready in Hamilton is to invest in improving transit services and reconfigure the transit network in anticipation of rapid transit. These early investments would increase ridership, elevate the role of public transit in Hamilton, and prepare customers for rapid transit implementation.

Increasing transit ridership in Hamilton should be a key component of a strategy to get Rapid Ready in order to grow the market of transit riders that would be eventual rapid transit users. This ensures that new rapid transit services are well utilized, increases transportation user benefits, and provides a more attractive financial business case for rapid transit investment. While there are many measures to increase transit ridership, the proven approach is to provide more hours of service. Increasing service makes transit more frequent and attractive to riders, with a direct correlation between revenue service hours per capita and transit ridership per capita."


Note the generic "rapid transit." It goes without saying that preparing to optimize BRT would also benefit from a more intelligent, efficient and robust transit network.

Council has a demonstrable aversion to three things: taking bold action, raising taxes, and spending money on transit. Dixon's sales pitch to council, sweetened though it was by making the first two years of his Ten Year Transit Strategy all about revenue generation through fare hikes, was a bold plan that proposed eight years of tax levies dedicated to enhancing conventional bus service. That Dixon's initial gambit appears to have driven ridership down ( http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=7386212&postcount=2467
) substantially ( http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=7502828&postcount=2504) (and with it, anticipated revenues) will likely do little to change council's traditional biases, and it will put a dent in gas tax revenues as well.

Ridership growth is not a new concern, of course: Established circa amalgamation, council's Vision 2020 ridership targets for per capita transit ridership are basically double what they are today. 2010 HSR Operational Review (https://www.raisethehammer.org/static/images/hsr_operational_review_2010.pdf):

"There are no magic strategies to grow transit ridership without incurring increased costs or sacrificing minimum service standards.

Vision 2020 calls or a doubling of transit ridership from the current level of approximately 50 rides per capita to 100 riders per capita. If this ridership growth was to be generated entirely through service improvements, it would require at least a doubling of transit service hours, and likely more, and associated funding increases. In other words, HSR should be adding a minimum of 15 more buses each year to meet this target by 2021.

Fortunately, there are many ways that the City can leverage investments in transit to maximize growth in ridership. First and foremost, an integrated approach to planning and operation of public transit is required, including strong links between the City's existing transit services (HSR) and the shaping of land use around major transit corridors. At the same time, there are opportunities to increase service levels, pursue niche markets and reduce revenue leakage by reducing the number and value of discounted fares.

In essence, transit ridership growth needs to be considered in all aspects of City planning and decision making."

The same 2010 report advocated for Transit Priority Measures like jump lanes and signal priority in areas like the King/Main/James/John nexus, Upper James & Mohawk, Lime Ridge Mall, and Main & Longwood.

[lucasmascotto]

Hamilton council still seeks to make transit a BLAST for residents
(The Hamilton Spectator, Matthew Van Dongen, Wednesday, August 03, 2016)

City councillors are resurrecting calls for cash to support a long-planned web of rapid transit corridors to compliment and feed LRT.

Just where that cash will come from remains uncertain, however.

The city's master transportation plan in 2007 envisioned a so-called BLAST network to connect the lower city east-to-west, link the airport to the harbour north to south, send express buses whizzing to Waterdown and across the Mountain.

So far, only the "B" line of that network has funding — $1 billion in provincial cash for a light rail transit line that will link McMaster University and the Queenston traffic circle along Main and King streets. (A short north-south spur to the James Street GO station is also planned and technically part of the "A" line.)

Now, both political fans and critics of the LRT project are promising to ramp up lobbying efforts for the rest of the oft-forgotten network.

"There is clearly a growing public interest in growing transit and personally I'm in support of greater investment in transit across our city," said Mayor Fred Eisenberger, who supported a motion last week to more "aggressively" pursue government funding for the long-planned BLAST network.

Coun. Terry Whitehead also supported renewed emphasis on building the greater transit network, arguing without that investment "this (LRT) plan will fail." The Ward 8 councillor argued in a recently released report from his office that the LRT line won't have the ridership to succeed unless it is "fed" by a more robust system that lures Mountain and suburban riders into the system.

Technically, the city already has a 10-year strategy designed to create express bus service along parts of the BLAST routes — but it depends on an unfunded plan to build a $200-million new garage.

The city will need to build a new home for buses soon, even if it doesn't cost the originally estimated $200 million, said HSR operations head Murray Hill.

Hill said the expansion plan remains on the books — and a fare hike that will bring cash fares to $3 this fall will help meet short-term goals to fix existing problem routes in the lower city and on the Mountain. But he added proposed fare hikes over the next few years and "incremental" increases in the tax levy for transit won't cover the cost of express bus corridors.

"Until another funding source is identified, we're sort of in a holding pattern," he said.

Metrolinx and the province have so far indicated the funding priority right now is LRT, not conventional bus service.

The new Liberal federal government has also unveiled a transit infrastructure program that is estimated to be worth about $36 million to Hamilton over three years.

The Canadian Urban Transit Association says new bus purchases, design and engineering studies for rapid transit expansion are all expected to be eligible expenses under the program.

Nitty-gritty eligibility details won't be public until Ontario and the federal government come to an agreement on how the money will be doled out.

But transit is one of the city's four "major priorities" for federal government relations, said Eisenberger, along with social housing, poverty and Hamilton's $3-billion infrastructure backlog.

Once eligibility details are known, Eisenberger said council will need to prepare a priority list of projects to submit for potential federal funding.

Even if money becomes available for bus infrastructure, council will also need to consider proposed transit spending hikes of between $4.5 million and $6 million a year going forward if it wants to meet the objectives of the 10-year strategy.

http://i67.tinypic.com/98ccqq.jpg

[thistleclub]

Ancaster councillor stands by LRT project (http://www.hamiltonnews.com/news-story/6792349-ancaster-councillor-stands-by-lrt-project/)
(Ancaster News, Kevin Werner, Aug 3 2016)

Ancaster Councillor Lloyd Ferguson refused to get on Hamilton’s light-rail transit project early in council’s debate on the issue.

But after seeing how light rail transformed the downtowns of Portland, Ore., and Charlotte, N.C., by attracting businesses and prompting economic benefits to those North American cities, Ferguson decided it was time to get on board.Ferguson has said the $1 billion project will not directly impact Ancaster residents, but if Hamilton’s downtown properties can benefit from increased value, that means higher tax revenues for the city and maybe lower taxes for Ancaster residents.

“(In Charlotte) I saw the economic uplift happen,” he said. “King Street could see a revival.”

During the last light rail transit subcommittee meeting July 26, Ferguson expressed his frustration at the attempt by some councillors to revive the LRT debate.

He said politicians a few years ago decided on LRT over bus rapid transit.

“This train has left the station,” said Ferguson. “What we need to do is focus our energies now on how we can make the construction less inconvenient for the businesses. I don’t know why we are reconsidering this thing.”

Read it in full here (http://www.hamiltonnews.com/news-story/6792349-ancaster-councillor-stands-by-lrt-project/).

[thistleclub]

Coming up in the August 8 GIC: Hamilton Light Rail Transit (LRT) Project – Traffic Modeling Update (http://hamilton.siretechnologies.com/sirepub/cache/2/jbslt0oqdhdkuzabunvldcib/1510820803201601540429.PDF) (PED16180).

Road Network Design Changes:

The current alignment of the LRT determines the overall traffic model and therefore the following road network design changes, based on the most recent design, are as follows:
 Two lanes in each direction on Main Street West, west of Hwy 403 (to accommodate bike lanes);
 New eastbound lane on King Street from Dundurn Street to the Delta (except from Queen Street to Hess Street and James Street to John Street);
 One lane westbound on King Street from Dundurn Street to the Delta (except from Wellington Street to Catharine Street);
 One lane in each direction on Main Street East from the Delta to the Queenston Traffic Circle (currently two lanes in each direction);
 Minimized number of locations where road vehicles are permitted to cross the LRT tracks. The majority of side road intersections thus become right-in/right-out only;
 U-turns at signalized intersections are permitted to maintain local access; and,
 Provide ‘Far Side’ stops where possible. Far side stops are platforms that allow the Light Rail Vehicle (LRV) to “pull through” an intersection, so that advance notice of a LRV arrival can be provided to the traffic signal controllers, maximizing the opportunity for LRT priority through the signals. This layout also allows left turn lanes and U-turn traffic movements to be provided ahead in the ‘shadow’ of the platforms.

Average 2031 vehicle control delay for signalized intersections along the route anticipated to decrease lag time in 16 cases, increase it in 19 cases and remain equal with or without LRT in 19 cases.

[Beedok]

^ Yeah that certainly doesn't make me disposed towards BRT for Hamilton.

Hamilton couldn't build an Ottawa style transitway though. There's no empty corridors for it. Just as the LRT system couldn't really mimic Calgary's or Edmonton's.

[thistleclub]

LRT would have mixed results on car traffic: study (http://www.thespec.com/news-story/6793951-lrt-would-have-mixed-results-on-car-traffic-study/)
(Hamilton Spectator, Matthew van Dongen, Aug 3 2016)

Early studies suggest light rail transit would not bring area car traffic to a screeching halt.

In some areas, it may even improve traffic movement compared to a city without LRT, said a summary of consulting work to date on the $1-billion project.

The report going to the general issues committee next week outlines preliminary information on traffic impacts in 2011 and 2031, with and without light rail.

The summary by consultant Steer Davies Gleave says traffic congestion is expected to increase by 2031 even without the 11-kilometre light rail line proposed to run along Main Street and King from McMaster University to the Queenston traffic circle.

If the project goes ahead, the consultant expects more traffic to be pushed off King Street, which would be reduced to two lanes or less, and onto parallel routes like Aberdeen Avenue, Cannon Street, Wilson Street and Barton Street.

The lane reductions associated with the project are also expected to reroute traffic and cause congestion at intersections like York Boulevard and Dundurn Avenue.

The consultants are also using models in an effort to measure changes in "level of service" at intersections along the route and in the nearby area.

The models predict longer "vehicle control delays" at most major intersections along the LRT route by 2031. But it also suggests 16 intersections would see longer average delays by 2031 without LRT, compared to if the transit service goes ahead.

The summary report doesn't specify reasons for the findings at each intersection, but notes population increases, employment changes and gradual changes to the streetscape like "road diets" and bike lanes are also expected to affect how traffic flows over time even without light rail.

[SteelTown]

LRT won't have much impact on congestion in Hamilton: new report
LRT may mean average intersection waits of as long as 80 seconds, but more cars will bring those too

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/lrt-preliminary-traffic-report-1.3705816

There will be changes to traffic patterns. The average wait time at some intersections may be longer, and some shorter. But overall, Hamilton's streets can accommodate light rail transit (LRT) without it significantly adding to congestion, a new city report says.

LRT will impact traffic throughout much of the lower city, as vehicles choose alternate routes because of a narrowed King Street, or Main Street running two ways, the report says.

But "what we found from this initial run of the model is we have enough capacity within our existing street network to accommodate the increase in traffic to 2031 with LRT," said Trevor Horzelenberg, the city's manager of LRT.

The new traffic modeling report from consultant Steer Davies Gleave says that a proposed system on Main and King Streets, as well as down James Street North to possibly the waterfront, will have a ripple effect on driving in much of lower Hamilton.

With reduced capacity on King Street, for example, westbound drivers will head down Aberdeen, Wilson, Cannon and Barton Streets instead.

The report also includes how long the potential average wait will be at intersections along the route.

In some cases, such as King Street at Locke, vehicles could have average waits of longer than 80 seconds with LRT, while right now, it's only 10 to 20 seconds. Without LRT, waits would be an average of 20 to 35 seconds in 2031. Hunter at Wellington, King at Bay and King at Gage could also mean signals that take longer than 80 seconds with LRT.

Horzelenberg says the city will make efforts to mitigate that, such as dedicated turn lanes. The report numbers don't reflect that.

The report also says Hamilton's projected population will be 660,000 in 2031, so there will be increased congestion and longer waits even without LRT. It predicts LRT will actually decrease waits at intersections such as Dundurn at Chatham and King at Emerald.

"By 2031, regardless of whether or not LRT is built in Hamilton, congestion will increase as a result of population growth and other planned changes to the road network," the report says.

Terry Whitehead, Ward 8 councillor, is skeptical of the report's findings. He's looked at numerous LRT systems across North America, he said. He's found that LRT does increase congestion.

"People aren't going to jump out of their cars and into a half-baked LRT system," he said.

"Expect to spend more time in your cars and away from your families."

Aidan Johnson, Ward 1 councillor, says the report was "not terribly surprising." The estimates aren't conservative either.

"This isn't a candy coated or spun set of predictions," he said. "This is a set of predictions that's as truthful as possible."

LRT will complicate driving in the city, he said. "That's regrettable. I regret that very much.

"I am pro LRT because I think that the positive aspects of LRT significantly outweigh the challenges."

The report is preliminary. City councillors will discuss it at a general issues committee on Monday. A full traffic design is due later this year.

Hamilton city council is in the midst of debating the planned LRT system, with a vote expected in September to accept the $1 billion system from the province. Metrolinx is building it with input from the city.

[thistleclub]

Via CHML's Bill Kelly Show:

City councilors are looking at bringing back calls for cash to support the BLAST Network, a long planned project. The BLAAST Network could connect the lower city from the east to west as well as link the airport to the harbor, and have express buses to Waterdown and Meadowlands. Terry Whitehead. City Councillor, Ward 8, City of Hamilton

RTW is on 17:14-32:13 (http://omnyapp.com/shows/bill-kelly-show/blast-network-real-estate-in-canada-and-donald-tru).

[interr0bangr]

LRT won't have much impact on congestion in Hamilton: new report
LRT may mean average intersection waits of as long as 80 seconds, but more cars will bring those too

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/lrt-preliminary-traffic-report-1.3705816

There will be changes to traffic patterns. The average wait time at some intersections may be longer, and some shorter. But overall, Hamilton's streets can accommodate light rail transit (LRT) without it significantly adding to congestion, a new city report says.

LRT will impact traffic throughout much of the lower city, as vehicles choose alternate routes because of a narrowed King Street, or Main Street running two ways, the report says.

But "what we found from this initial run of the model is we have enough capacity within our existing street network to accommodate the increase in traffic to 2031 with LRT," said Trevor Horzelenberg, the city's manager of LRT.

The new traffic modeling report from consultant Steer Davies Gleave says that a proposed system on Main and King Streets, as well as down James Street North to possibly the waterfront, will have a ripple effect on driving in much of lower Hamilton.

With reduced capacity on King Street, for example, westbound drivers will head down Aberdeen, Wilson, Cannon and Barton Streets instead.

The report also includes how long the potential average wait will be at intersections along the route.

In some cases, such as King Street at Locke, vehicles could have average waits of longer than 80 seconds with LRT, while right now, it's only 10 to 20 seconds. Without LRT, waits would be an average of 20 to 35 seconds in 2031. Hunter at Wellington, King at Bay and King at Gage could also mean signals that take longer than 80 seconds with LRT.

Horzelenberg says the city will make efforts to mitigate that, such as dedicated turn lanes. The report numbers don't reflect that.

The report also says Hamilton's projected population will be 660,000 in 2031, so there will be increased congestion and longer waits even without LRT. It predicts LRT will actually decrease waits at intersections such as Dundurn at Chatham and King at Emerald.

"By 2031, regardless of whether or not LRT is built in Hamilton, congestion will increase as a result of population growth and other planned changes to the road network," the report says.

Terry Whitehead, Ward 8 councillor, is skeptical of the report's findings. He's looked at numerous LRT systems across North America, he said. He's found that LRT does increase congestion.

"People aren't going to jump out of their cars and into a half-baked LRT system," he said.

"Expect to spend more time in your cars and away from your families."

Aidan Johnson, Ward 1 councillor, says the report was "not terribly surprising." The estimates aren't conservative either.

"This isn't a candy coated or spun set of predictions," he said. "This is a set of predictions that's as truthful as possible."

LRT will complicate driving in the city, he said. "That's regrettable. I regret that very much.

"I am pro LRT because I think that the positive aspects of LRT significantly outweigh the challenges."

The report is preliminary. City councillors will discuss it at a general issues committee on Monday. A full traffic design is due later this year.

Hamilton city council is in the midst of debating the planned LRT system, with a vote expected in September to accept the $1 billion system from the province. Metrolinx is building it with input from the city.

No shit. There's enough lane capacity in Hamilton to handle an absurd amount of non-existent traffic. Taking a lane or two away for LRT will make no major impact and/or would greatly improve things because it forces two-way conversions that are long overdue.

[thistleclub]

Hamilton’s LRT will impact mountain, residential roads, say councillors (http://www.hamiltonnews.com/news-story/6800714-hamilton-s-lrt-will-impact-mountain-residential-roads-say-councillors/)
(Hamilton Mountain News, Kevin Werner, Aug 8 2016)

Hamilton’s $1-billion light-way transit project will disrupt traffic patterns not only in the downtown, but also across the city, say suburban councillors.

Even though the traffic modeling study, produced by consultants Steer, Davies and Gleaves reveals congestion will increase in the downtown by 2031, neighbourhood streets will also feel the brunt of vehicles avoiding the core as they move about the city.

But Mountain councillor Terry Whitehead during a heated moment at the Aug. 8 general issues committee meeting, said the report doesn’t take into consideration how the downtown traffic patterns will be impacted if the Red Hill Valley Parkway, the Lincoln Alexander Parkway or Highway 403 are backed up, which he says occurs all the time.

“We are talking about an every day experience,” said Whitehead. “These are major corridors of commerce.”

Stoney Creek councillor Doug Conley told LRT staff and consultants the LRT will create traffic problems on the mountain and within residential neighbourhoods as drivers use local roads to avoid the downtown to get to their destinations.

Paul Johnson, LRT director, said the preliminary modeling stud, is a “worst-case” scenario for how the project will impact traffic in the downtown. The study did not include any mitigation efforts.


Read it in full here (http://www.hamiltonnews.com/news-story/6800714-hamilton-s-lrt-will-impact-mountain-residential-roads-say-councillors/).

[Dr Awesomesauce]

Hysterical a$$holes.

Good luck funding your next campaign, Ter. Have you considered selling cookies door to door? Might be your next vocation...

[thistleclub]

LRT crew scanning and drilling to prepare for construction (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/lrt-scanning-1.3718938)
(CBC Hamilton, Samantha Craggs, Aug 15 2016)

It's a milestone of sorts — the first time crews are drilling into the ground for Hamilton's planned light trail transit (LRT) system.

Engineers are moving along the LRT route, scanning the ground to mark the exact locations of utilities running underneath. When they want to get a better look, they're drilling bore holes, said Andrew Hope, Metrolinx's director for Hamilton LRT.

This work will help Metrolinx determine which utility lines need to be moved to build the $1 billion system, Hope said. The workers with T2 Utility Engineers started Aug. 2 and will finish this spring.

"Until you open up the road, there are always hidden surprises," he said. But "this is the best you can do without tearing up the road."

Metrolinx is paying for the work as part of the $1 billion budget, as well as any complications that arise from it, Hope said. Under the memorandum of agreement with the city, Metrolinx will also pay to relocate utility lines or pipes that the city doesn't already plan to replace. The city pays if it wants to do any upgrades.

The city website says the work will cause occasional lane closures from Kingsmount Street to Longwood Avenue between now and Oct. 11.


Read it in full here (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/lrt-scanning-1.3718938).

[thistleclub]

From Transport Action Ontario (http://movethegtha.com/2016/08/16/are-we-there-yet/):

Are We There Yet? The State of Transit Investment in the Geater Toronto & Hamilton Area (http://movethegtha.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/AreWeThereYet-Move-the-GTHA-Transit-Investment-Report.pdf) (PDF)
Are We There Yet? Backgrounder (http://movethegtha.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/AreWeThereYet_Backgrounder.pdf) (PDF)

[thistleclub]

Council LRT critics biding their time (http://www.thespec.com/opinion-story/6811960-dreschel-council-lrt-critics-biding-their-time/)
(Hamilton Spectator, Andrew Dreschel, Aug 16 2016)

Aside from some heavy sniping on social media, Hamilton's LRT debate is in a phoney war phase.

While the planning and designing of the $1 billion provincially-funded project is chugging steadily along, council critics are biding their time, trying to decide what steps to take.

None of the big three — Donna Skelly, Terry Whitehead, Chad Collins — are willing at this stage to push the issue to a crisis by formally testing the political support among their less clear-cut colleagues.

In fact, it's an open question when — and if — that moment will come.

Take Skelly, for example. She's become an increasingly vocal critic of the project, which will see LRT on Main and King Streets from McMaster to the Queenston traffic circle, with a spur line on James to the West Harbour Go Station.

Skelly doesn't buy claims that light rail is a transformative project that will be catalyst for economic uplift and an environmentally-friendly means of getting ahead of the city's congestion curve.

She argues, among other things, that LRT is an "archaic technology" that will create upheaval in the core and do nothing to tackle the more pressing problem of congestion on the Toronto-to-Niagara highway.

Problem is, she hasn't decided what to do about it. Skelly says she hasn't ruled out pushing for a referendum. But she's not there yet.

"I need to have a little more time to gauge the feeling of people outside the downtown core."

Skelly figures her next steps may become clear in September when summer vacations are over and people are more engaged. Convinced that the majority of Hamiltonians are against the project, she's hoping they and reticent members of council find their voices.

"People have to weigh in on this. Councillors who are struggling with it have to start speaking up."


Read it in full here (http://www.thespec.com/opinion-story/6811960-dreschel-council-lrt-critics-biding-their-time/).

[SteelTown]

LRT proposal now includes east end underpass

Hamilton Spectator
By Matthew Van Dongen
http://www.thespec.com/news-story/6849268-lrt-proposal-now-includes-east-end-underpass/

Project designers are now proposing to build a pricey King Street underpass to allow Hamilton's LRT line to travel under an east end industrial rail spur.

The city's original environmental assessment for light rail transit envisioned a negotiated agreement with Canadian Pacific Railway to allow LRT vehicles to drive overtop the industrial spur that crosses King Street near East Bend Avenue.

Those talks, however, have not yielded a workable agreement, said city LRT point person Paul Johnson. "We were looking at a variety of options, but at this point the latest proposal is to look at going under the rail spur," he said.

Johnson declined to discuss the specifics of the negotiations, but said both railway requirements and Metrolinx concerns about rapid, reliable LRT service timelines played into the decision to pitch a Plan B.

The Spectator has yet to receive comment from CPR officials.

The current, tentative proposal would see a LRT-only underpass at the spur. Car traffic would continue to drive over the rail spur at a controlled crossing, as it does today.

Johnson conceded digging under the tracks would be "a bigger cost" than simply negotiating a surface crossing, but added no firm cost estimate is yet available.

The news comes as the city continues negotiations with landowners over a preferred LRT maintenance facility site in the west end.

While early planning suggested the facility could be built on Wentworth Street North, the latest targeted site is 15 to 20 acres of industrial land owned by McMaster University and businessperson Albert Samee near Longwood Road and Aberdeen Avenue.

The newly envisioned spur line feeding the facility would cross the Longwood bridge and dramatically shorten the distance LRT cars would have to travel from the main line to the storage facility.

Ward Coun. Aidan Johnson said he feels "joyous" about the latest plan, which he suggested could mean provincial funding to rehabilitate the aging Longwood bridge.

"My understanding is within a few years from now that bridge would need serious work to maintain it as a safe structure," he said. "This has been a huge source of stress for me."

At the same time, the councillor said the new plan also ends neighbourhood fears that the maintenance facility would be built atop popular Kay Drage Park — one of about 30 sites along the route considered so far.

Basic details about both plans are expected to be made public in LRT information sessions starting Monday evening. Slide decks used for the meetings should be posted online at hamilton.ca Monday morning.

Despite the new bridge-fixing and underpass-building costs, Paul Johnson said project planners still believe the original $1 billion budget will suffice.

"If (Metrolinx planners) thought it would break the bank, they wouldn't be considering it," he said.

[eatboots]

Wow, that spur is basically useless in 2016 as there are no actual places along it that have anything delivered by train anymore. The city really should have it removed. Even the tracks along the bottom of the escarpment should be removed past where the GO train comes in. They could actually put in a new spur out by ED Smith farms that would be shorter and not go through the city and still have the same amount of customers on it ie. zero

[matt602]

Wow, that spur is basically useless in 2016 as there are no actual places along it that have anything delivered by train anymore. The city really should have it removed. Even the tracks along the bottom of the escarpment should be removed past where the GO train comes in. They could actually put in a new spur out by ED Smith farms that would be shorter and not go through the city and still have the same amount of customers on it ie. zero

Not at all true. The spur's main customer is National Steel car. A train comes through at least once a day to bring new train cars from the plant up to CP's Kinnear Yard. It's still a pretty important rail link for CP since the only other trackage that serves Hamilton's industrial sector doesn't link up with CP tracks.

The CP Hamilton sub which the GO trains use to enter Hunter Street GO are part of CP's most important link to the US. A lot of high priority, important trains run through Hamilton on the way to Welland and the US border.

[mattgrande]

Wow, that spur is basically useless in 2016 as there are no actual places along it that have anything delivered by train anymore. The city really should have it removed. Even the tracks along the bottom of the escarpment should be removed past where the GO train comes in. They could actually put in a new spur out by ED Smith farms that would be shorter and not go through the city and still have the same amount of customers on it ie. zero

Probably five or six trains come through that area per day... It's a pretty well-used stretch of track.

[king10]

No way those tracks are removed. As posters mentioned they are important pieces of CPs operations.

Also correct me if im wrong but the city cant just "remove" CP or CN rail tracks can they?

[MalcolmTucker]

Nope. Railroads have specific powers set by the federal government that can't be overruled by other levels of government.

[eatboots]

I realize this stretch is still used as I have seen trains on it, but it's a few trains a week, not a day and there are no actual customers on the spur, it's just a shortcut. Even National Steel Car is off the other line that runs parallel to Barton. Niagara Falls has had tracks removed so it is possible. Also I was suggesting moving the spur into a rural area so that it could hook up with the line to the U.S on the other side of Hamilton. The bottom of the escarpment line is just a track running through the city, trains do not stop anywhere except in the yard.

[ScreamingViking]

I realize this stretch is still used as I have seen trains on it, but it's a few trains a week, not a day and there are no actual customers on the spur, it's just a shortcut. Even National Steel Car is off the other line that runs parallel to Barton. Niagara Falls has had tracks removed so it is possible. Also I was suggesting moving the spur into a rural area so that it could hook up with the line to the U.S on the other side of Hamilton. The bottom of the escarpment line is just a track running through the city, trains do not stop anywhere except in the yard.

Shortcut to where? It's a spur into Hamilton's industrial area.

The CP line cuts under CN's tracks (the "parallel to Barton" line you mention?) west of Ottawa St. near Beach Rd. Both this CP line and the CN main line connect with east-west tracks that are just south of Burlington St., with multiple spurs up into the industrial areas north, including those leading into National Steel Car.

I'm not sure how you figure the main east-west CP corridor through the lower city can be re-routed into rural areas. This is CP's main line to the Niagara Peninsula and the U.S.; it runs south from the Galt Sub through Halton and Waterdown and does not split anywhere except to the yard off Aberdeen Ave. and this north spur near Gage into Hamilton's north end. To re-route it would mean building a new line west and south around Hamilton (above the escarpment), an enormous expense. Whether the trains stop elsewhere in Hamilton or not is irrelevant -- the issue is this being CP's main line and the necessity of the Gage spur to industrial customers north of Burlington St.

[NortheastWind]

I realize this stretch is still used as I have seen trains on it, but it's a few trains a week, not a day and there are no actual customers on the spur, it's just a shortcut. Even National Steel Car is off the other line that runs parallel to Barton. Niagara Falls has had tracks removed so it is possible. Also I was suggesting moving the spur into a rural area so that it could hook up with the line to the U.S on the other side of Hamilton. The bottom of the escarpment line is just a track running through the city, trains do not stop anywhere except in the yard.

My friend's house backs onto the tracks and I own a property across from him. It's a few trains a day.

[eatboots]

Rail lines are a mess in Hamilton! I was under the impression that CN owned all the rails between Toronto to Burlington and then CP from Hamilton to Niagara which is why Aldershot has been the endpoint for so long and all day GO has not happened yet. Also I saw a train last night by Gage but it was just a few engines and that is all I've ever seen go through there. Obviously CP uses that line, but it definitely feels pretty archaic to have a slow moving train running through town like that.

[bigguy1231]

Rail lines are a mess in Hamilton! I was under the impression that CN owned all the rails between Toronto to Burlington and then CP from Hamilton to Niagara which is why Aldershot has been the endpoint for so long and all day GO has not happened yet. Also I saw a train last night by Gage but it was just a few engines and that is all I've ever seen go through there. Obviously CP uses that line, but it definitely feels pretty archaic to have a slow moving train running through town like that.

The railways can basically do whatever they want without city approval. The only way they would shut down that right of way is if they had an alternative and even then they would be very hesitant. They already shut down the Ferguson line at the request of the city.

[Bubba9000]

Levels of jurisdiction in Canada, ranked lowest to highest:
municipal
provincial
federal
railroads

[thomax]

LRT maps and public information boards were released:

- Hamilton LRT Maps (PDF, 56 MB) (https://d3fpllf1m7bbt3.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/media/browser/2016-09-12/lrt-pic-maps-boards.pdf)

- Hamilton LRT Presentation Boards (PDF, 16 MB) (https://d3fpllf1m7bbt3.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/media/browser/2016-09-12/lrt-pic-boards.pdf)

[markbarbera]

LRT proposal now includes east end underpass

Hamilton Spectator
By Matthew Van Dongen
http://www.thespec.com/news-story/6849268-lrt-proposal-now-includes-east-end-underpass/

Project designers are now proposing to build a pricey King Street underpass to allow Hamilton's LRT line to travel under an east end industrial rail spur.

The city's original environmental assessment for light rail transit envisioned a negotiated agreement with Canadian Pacific Railway to allow LRT vehicles to drive overtop the industrial spur that crosses King Street near East Bend Avenue.

Those talks, however, have not yielded a workable agreement, said city LRT point person Paul Johnson. "We were looking at a variety of options, but at this point the latest proposal is to look at going under the rail spur," he said.

Johnson declined to discuss the specifics of the negotiations, but said both railway requirements and Metrolinx concerns about rapid, reliable LRT service timelines played into the decision to pitch a Plan B.

The Spectator has yet to receive comment from CPR officials.

The current, tentative proposal would see a LRT-only underpass at the spur. Car traffic would continue to drive over the rail spur at a controlled crossing, as it does today.

Johnson conceded digging under the tracks would be "a bigger cost" than simply negotiating a surface crossing, but added no firm cost estimate is yet available.

The news comes as the city continues negotiations with landowners over a preferred LRT maintenance facility site in the west end.

While early planning suggested the facility could be built on Wentworth Street North, the latest targeted site is 15 to 20 acres of industrial land owned by McMaster University and businessperson Albert Samee near Longwood Road and Aberdeen Avenue.

The newly envisioned spur line feeding the facility would cross the Longwood bridge and dramatically shorten the distance LRT cars would have to travel from the main line to the storage facility.

Ward Coun. Aidan Johnson said he feels "joyous" about the latest plan, which he suggested could mean provincial funding to rehabilitate the aging Longwood bridge.

"My understanding is within a few years from now that bridge would need serious work to maintain it as a safe structure," he said. "This has been a huge source of stress for me."

At the same time, the councillor said the new plan also ends neighbourhood fears that the maintenance facility would be built atop popular Kay Drage Park — one of about 30 sites along the route considered so far.

Basic details about both plans are expected to be made public in LRT information sessions starting Monday evening. Slide decks used for the meetings should be posted online at hamilton.ca Monday morning.

Despite the new bridge-fixing and underpass-building costs, Paul Johnson said project planners still believe the original $1 billion budget will suffice.

"If (Metrolinx planners) thought it would break the bank, they wouldn't be considering it," he said.

If you need an underpass here, let's go the extra mile and make the LRT run underground from Gage to Dundurn, much like the central section of the Crosstown Eglinton LRT in Toronto. Sure it is much more expensive, but it would be well worth the extra money as it would resolve the CP right of way issue, as well as eliminating potential restricted lane issue for King Street length of the route. Metrolinx can use the same boring machines they are using for Crosstown , which would save a large portion of the extra cost.

[MalcolmTucker]

If you need an underpass here, let's go the extra mile and make the LRT run underground from Gage to Dundurn, much like the central section of the Crosstown Eglinton LRT in Toronto. Sure it is much more expensive, but it would be well worth the extra money as it would resolve the CP right of way issue, as well as eliminating potential restricted lane issue for King Street length of the route. Metrolinx can use the same boring machines they are using for Crosstown , which would save a large portion of the extra cost.

No, the machines are not a large portion of the cost of going underground.

[king10]

Do you know how much money that would cost?

[NortheastWind]

Do you know how much money that would cost?

Enough money that Donna Skelly would say no to LRT (SARC). ;)

[markbarbera]

Do you know how much money that would cost?

Well, the Crosstown Eglinton has a cost of $5.3 billion for a 19km route with 25 stops, 10km of which is underground. This works out to an average cost of $280/km

The Hamilton LRT is 11km long and is costed at $1b for a surface-only route.
If the portion from Gage to Dundurn was placed underground, as is being done in Toronto, that would put 6km of the 11km route underground, making the surface:underground about the same for the two projects. Using the cost of Crosstown as a frame of reference, we can estimate the cost of a partially underground route similar to the LRT being built in Toronto to cost about $3 billion.

[markbarbera]

Enough money that Donna Skelly would say no to LRT. ;)

She is going to say no regardless to the amount

[thistleclub]

“Frustrated” Mountain residents turn LRT open house into a scrum at Sackville (http://www.hamiltonnews.com/news-story/6871550--frustrated-mountain-residents-turn-lrt-open-house-into-a-scrum-at-sackville/)
(Hamilton Mountain News, Kevin Werner, Sept 21 2016)

A Hamilton Mountain light-rail transit open house turned into a scrum as a group of residents demanded answers to their questions over the $1 billion project.

Paul Johnson, LRT co-coordinator, was the centre of attention Sept. 21 during what was scheduled to be a three-hour open house at Sackville Hill Seniors Recreation Centre on the LRT project.

He patiently answered about 40 residents’ questions, including from Mountain councillors Donna Skelly and Terry Whitehead.

Whitehead said later it became a “free-for-all” as people peppered Johnson with questions.

Most of the people demanding answers from Johnson were against the project. There have been a small number of anti-LRT people who have attended the previous five open houses, wearing anti-LRT buttons and handing out information about the project to attendees. They have not in the past disrupted the events.

This was the first LRT open house where Johnson had to directly answer questions from a group of participants.

“This is the worst (LRT) system except for Detroit’s,” said Ron Johnson, who lives in the Gage Park area in the lower city, and who has visited various cities that have LRT systems, including Portland, Oregon. “It’s about the same as Buffalo’s (LRT). There is no economic benefit. The merchants are going to get screwed.”

Skelly, who is an opponent of the LRT project and was wearing one of the anti-LRT buttons, told the crowd that Hamilton isn’t prepared for the system.

“We don’t have the ridership. We’re years and years away from it. In the end everyone here is going to pay for this,” she said.


Read it in full here (http://www.hamiltonnews.com/news-story/6871550--frustrated-mountain-residents-turn-lrt-open-house-into-a-scrum-at-sackville/).

+

Final LRT open house takes place 5-8pm tonight at Dundas Town Hall (https://www.hamilton.ca/city-initiatives/priority-projects/community-engagement-lrt). Expect a cameo from Councillor Arlene Vanderbeek, who has indicated that "LRT is not a priority for me (http://www.thespec.com/opinion-story/4901993-arlene-vanderbeek-my-roots-are-deep-in-dundas/)" and framed rapid transit in terms of her husband's toy train sets (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/news/fully-funded-lrt-half-of-hamilton-council-still-won-t-say-yes-1.2933984). More theatre.

[eatboots]

One of the big problems that Hamilton has is that it's a city divided, no one here will tell you they live in Hamilton. They live in Dundas or Ancaster or Stoney Creek or the Mountain etc. They will often vote against things that don't directly affect where they live. Toronto has done a much better job of integrating all the different communities into one whole city.

The No No LRT was out in force last night, if it was only mountain residents it probably would have been just a regular meeting. Even the guy quoted doesn't live on the mountain, he was just there to stir up shit.

[thistleclub]

Via Metrolinx…

Capital Projects Group Quarterly Report: September 2016 (http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pdf/board_agenda/20160909/20160909_BoardMtg_Capital_Projects_Report_EN.pdf):

The technical advisor for the Hamilton LRT is working towards completing two key components of the tender documents: the Reference Concept Design and the Project Specific Output Specifications. These technical documents will be part of the RFP, which will be released in Summer 2017.

A preferred Maintenance and Storage Facility (MSF) location has been identified and discussions with property owners are proceeding.

Metrolinx and the City of Hamilton, as co-proponents, continue to advance work on an addendum to the 2011 Environmental Assessment (EA) to address changes to the announced project scope. The EA addendum is currently on track to be completed by Spring 2017. A series of public information sessions will take place across Hamilton in September 2016 to provide the public with details on the proposed project design and seek public feedback.

Previously:

Capital Projects Group Quarterly Report: June 2016 (http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pdf/board_agenda/20160628/20160628_BoardMtg_Capital_Projects_Report_EN.pdf)

A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between Metrolinx and the City of Hamilton was executed in March 2016.

A preferred location of the Maintenance and Storage Facility (MSF) was presented to the Metrolinx/City of Hamilton Steering Committee at the end of March. The final location will depend on the outcome of discussions with the property owners, which are currently underway.

Initial alignment details were released to the public at the Hamilton Council LRT Subcommittee meeting on May 2, 2016. Metrolinx and the City of Hamilton are working collaboratively on community and stakeholder engagement over the coming months.

A Realty Protocol between Metrolinx and the City of Hamilton was endorsed by Hamilton City Council on May 25, 2016, which established the roles and responsibilities for property acquisition activities related to the project.


Capital Projects Group Quarterly Report: February 2016 (http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pdf/board_agenda/20160210/20160210_BoardMtg_Capital_Projects_Report_EN.pdf)

Metrolinx is continuing to work with the City of Hamilton to obtain the required Environmental Assessment (EA) approvals to reflect the revised project scope coming out of the May 2015 provincial announcement. This includes amendments to the original Environmental Project Reports and to seek approval for the Maintenance and Storage Facility.

Metrolinx has established a joint project office with the City of Hamilton at the Hamilton GO Centre.

Additionally, Metrolinx is now working with the City of Hamilton to complete a Memorandum of Agreement.

[NortheastWind]

Not at all true. The spur's main customer is National Steel car. A train comes through at least once a day to bring new train cars from the plant up to . It's still a pretty important rail link for CP since the only other trackage that serves Hamilton's industrial sector doesn't link up with CP tracks.

The CP Hamilton sub which the GO trains use to enter Hunter Street GO are part of CP's most important link to the US. A lot of high priority, important trains run through Hamilton on the way to Welland and the US border.

This train heading south to CP's Kinnear Yard came through on Saturday with at least 60 new rail cars from National Steel Car.

https://c7.staticflickr.com/6/5061/29674228350_42dd84c088_o.jpg (https://c7.staticflickr.com/6/5061/29674228350_42dd84c088_o.jpg20160924_075624 by , on Flickr)20160924_075624 (https://flic.kr/p/MddbfJ) by Glenn (https://www.flickr.com/photos/139580364@N05/), on Flickr
https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8122/29933811136_9a5401be7d_o.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/MB9Bb1)20160924_092602 (https://flic.kr/p/MB9Bb1) by Glenn (https://www.flickr.com/photos/139580364@N05/), on Flickr

[thistleclub]

Brenda Johnson, Oct 2016 (http://brendajohnson.ca/2016/10/lrt-message-from-councilor-johnson/):

I appreciate everyone taking the time to write your concerns regarding the LRT.

I have always stated that we need to upgrade our HSR system in order to sustain the LRT

We had 2 requests to the Province
1) $1 Billion for ALL costs for the LRT
2) $300 million to upgrade the HSR

We received #1 but denied #2

I have consistently asked
1) who maintains/repairs/upgrade the system
2) who hires/fires staff
3) who collects the revenue

To date, I haven’t received an answer to any of the above

At this time, I cannot support the LRT in its current form and ‎the lack of information



A bit of an over-reach given that it took almost 10 years for LRT to go from request to funded, and there were pretty detailed studies done along the way. The HSR's request was hastily assembled and poorly argued.

The HSR expansion request came about in early 2015 and subsquent estimates on the garage have suggested that it was twice as expensive as it needed to be — the $300M garage has since been forecast at $150M.

Ironically, Brenda's stubborn defence of area rating has helped hobble the HSR's ability to make good on its potential and tap into underserved communities.



Brenda Johnson, Oct 2010 (http://elections.raisethehammer.org/candidate/142/1):

Q: Do you support Hamilton's LRT proposal? If so, what will you do to ensure Hamilton's success in building LRT? If not, why do you oppose it?

A: Yes I support the LRT but we also need to support an efficient and easily accessible public transit (HSR) to ensure the LRT is sustainable.

[SteelTown]

Chad Collins won't try for an LRT referendum after all
A municipal lawyer says two thirds of council would have to vote to revisit LRT first

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/lrt-no-referendum-1.3812804

So much for a referendum on LRT in Hamilton.

That's the view of Chad Collins, Ward 5 councillor, who is opposed to Hamilton's $1 billion transit project.

Collins had planned to introduce a motion to hold a 2018 referendum on LRT. But last week, a municipal lawyer said two thirds of city council would have to vote to reopen the issue first.

Now, Collins said, he has no choice but to drop it. Eleven of 16 council members would have to vote for it, and the six staunchly pro-LRT ones won't.

"Now that the litmus test is stronger, we're not even close to 11," he said.

Collins said he accepts that. Procedural rules exist for a reason, and "for us to say we're going to move on anyway is, I think, a politically slippery slope."

"There's no getting around that, and there shouldn't be."

The legal opinion is a possible saving grace for the Metrolinx project, which several councillors are skeptical about.

Last week, municipal lawyer George Rust D'Eye — also the city's integrity commissioner and lobbyist registrar — told council in a closed-door report that the reconsideration vote is required. Councillors will discuss this at a special committee meeting about LRT on Oct. 25.

Councillors have voted numerous times over the years to look into LRT and ask for money to build it. Most recently, they voted earlier this year to sign a memorandum of understanding with Metrolinx.

That vote, while passed fairly casually at the time, seems to be key now. Council can't reverse a decision it's already made during the same term, Rust D'Eye said, without two thirds of them voting to revisit it.

This doesn't sit right with Maria Pearson, city councillor for Ward 10 in lower Stoney Creek. From what she understood, she said, the memorandum wasn't binding.

"So what happened now that everything's carved in stone and we have no say on anything?" she said.

Pearson said she regularly takes HSR, so she understands the importance of good transit. But she questions, for example, how the route was determined.

Regardless, at least two of the pro-LRT councillors say they don't plan to switch sides.

"I'm not changing my mind," said Coun. Lloyd Ferguson of Ancaster.

Sam Merulla, Ward 4 councillor, isn't either. But he doesn't think the new legal opinion means the project is saved.

"I don't feel this issue is going to be settled until the (construction) contract is actually granted," he said. "That is going to be the point of no return."

"It's not done until it's over."

[thistleclub]

Via The Public Record: SPECIAL Hamilton City Council GIC Meeting on Light Rail Transit for October 25, 2016 (https://www.thepublicrecord.ca/2016/10/special-hamilton-city-council-gic-meeting-on-light-rail-transit-for-october-25-2016/).

[Dr Awesomesauce]

If LRT goes through (why is this even an 'if'?!) and is a success, Collins should be pressured to step down from his lofty perch. He's an obstructionist and a dinosaur whom, I strongly feel, has not earned his position in this City. He's a Tyrannosaurus Wrecks. Lame. :slob:

[MalcolmTucker]

The MOU might not be entirely binding but Council should at least have a basic understanding of rules of procedure. Council is bound to its own decisions. This is a pretty standard procedural thing.

[LikeHamilton]

Hamilton at risk of having to repay $70M if it rejects LRT, mayor says

Toronto repaid Metrolinx $75M after it voted down an LRT system

By Samantha Craggs, CBC News Posted: Oct 27, 2016 8:11 AM ET

Metrolinx has spent as much as $70 million on Hamilton light rail transit (LRT) so far. And if city council kills the project, the mayor says, there's a good chance local taxpayers will have to pay that back.

Mayor Fred Eisenberger says Hamilton could end up like Toronto, which had to repay Metrolinx $75 million when it cancelled a Scarborough LRT project.

Metrolinx and the city have been working together on the $1 billion system "in good faith," Eisenberger said. Last summer, council voted to establish a joint LRT office. Earlier this year, they signed a memorandum of agreement.

Show-stopping details could still emerge, Eisenberger said. Otherwise, it's "not unusual" that the city would have to pay the money back. In this case, the amount is nearly twice Hamilton's contribution to its new Tim Hortons Field stadium.

"There's a reasonable expectation that, if the will of council is to walk away from this thing, there's a bill to be paid," he said.

Metrolinx doesn't deny this. Spokesperson Anne Marie Aikins said Wednesday that the agency would analyze the situation if Hamilton backed away.

But Scarborough is an example of how the agency handles such cases, she said.

"There were costs we couldn't get back," she said, and "they had signed a contract."

Aikins said a memorandum of agreement would qualify. Paul Johnson, the city's LRT project head, assured councillors this year that the memorandum was "non-binding," but "that doesn't mean that it isn't important."

This month, municipal lawyer George Rust D'Eye warned council not to reverse its LRT decisions without "thorough consideration and legal advice with respect to the implications."

$75 million to build nothing

There were certainly implications in Toronto. The city planned a Scarborough LRT line to replace an older rapid transit line. It also wanted to extend the line to Sheppard Avenue.

The project got as far as a request for qualifications for companies to build it. Then in October 2013, Toronto city council voted 24-20 to extend the subway system instead. (As of July, the LRT debate still raged.)

The city had to repay $75 million to Metrolinx for work it did on the project, the Toronto Star reported. One headline dubbed it "$75 million spends to build … nothing."

Hamilton councillors asked staff this week about potential off ramps. In the spring, for example, council will vote on an updated environmental assessment. And procurement won't start until next year.

But the costs Toronto is repaying include staff salaries and money for consultants. Those are the same costs Johnson cited this week when he said Metrolinx has spent $60 million to $70 million so far.

It would be "an astronomical amount of money for nothing," said Coun. Sam Merulla of Ward 4, who wants LRT. Aidan Johnson, a Ward 1 pro-LRT councillor and lawyer, called it "an argument for not abandoning LRT."

Dollar figure would 'hold us hostage'

"Once you've spent $60 million on a plan," he said, "you have to have a really good reason for abandoning that plan."

Even with the money spent, Coun. Chad Collins of Ward 5 said it's important to know what Hamiltonians think. Collins stopped supporting the project after the last municipal election, when he says residents overwhelmingly told him they were against it.

Collins wanted to push for a referendum. He dropped that after Rust D'Eye said it required two thirds of council to vote to reconsider LRT. But he still thinks there should be one.

As for repaying the money, "it wouldn't surprise me if they held us hostage with that figure, whatever that figure is," he said.

"I think they're intent on moving forward with this project irrespective of how we feel locally."

samantha.craggs@cbc.ca | @SamCraggsCBC

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/will-hamilton-have-to-pay-back-lrt-money-1.3823451

[ScreamingViking]

The MOU might not be entirely binding but Council should at least have a basic understanding of rules of procedure. Council is bound to its own decisions. This is a pretty standard procedural thing.

They should. But a few of them don't seem to feel they are bound by their own previous votes and decisions ("off-ramps" galore, and such)

And hey, it's Hamilton. Things are different in Hamilton, don'tcha know? What works elsewhere won't work here ;)

[Jon Dalton]

If LRT goes through (why is this even an 'if'?!) and is a success, Collins should be pressured to step down from his lofty perch. He's an obstructionist and a dinosaur whom, I strongly feel, has not earned his position in this City. He's a Tyrannosaurus Wrecks. Lame. :slob:

Not to mention he is partially responsible for the route change keeping it out of Eastgate which is then used as justification by other councillors to withdraw their own support. When they start building this a lot of his constituents will be asking why the hell it stops there.

[markbarbera]

Meanwhile, the other shoe has dropped in Toronto, when the anticipated operational cost for their four new "free" LRT lines should they come online by 2026 has been reported to their city council for the first time this week.


The City of Toronto is on the hook for tens of millions of dollars in transit costs that many believed the province would pay for.

According to a city report released on Monday, Toronto will be responsible for funding the operation and day-to-day maintenance of new LRT lines that the province is paying to build.

The report outlines the outcomes of negotiations between the province and city on a number of transit projects, including the Eglinton Crosstown, Finch West, and Sheppard East LRT lines, as well as Mayor John Tory’s SmartTrack plan. It was originally supposed to go before Tory’s executive committee last week but wasn’t completed in time. The terms of the agreement have still to be approved by council.

The report estimates that the gross operating and maintenance costs for the Eglinton Crosstown LRT will be $80 million a year when it opens in 2021. The cost will be offset by increased fare revenue and savings the TTC will reap by not running bus service on Eglinton, bringing the net cost to the city down to $39 million a year.

Estimates for the gross operating costs of the other provincially funded LRT lines are: $51.5 million in 2022 dollars for the Finch West LRT, and $38.1 million in 2025 for the Sheppard East LRT.
It’s not clear how the city will raise the funds to operate and maintain these lines.
“These operating and maintenance costs will have a direct impact on the city's operating budget and that impact has not been quantified to date,” the report notes.
http://www.metronews.ca/news/toronto/2016/10/31/new-toronto-transit-lines-cost-report.html

It is all fine and good that we stand to get a brand new $1B LRT. It is a shame that how the city intends to fund its operation, and how it will impact the current HSR service routes, transit fares, and annual tax hasn't even been considered by council.

Buried in the 2010 Metrolinx report (http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regionalplanning/projectevaluation/benefitscases/Benefits_Case-Hamilton.pdf), the economic uplift for LRT is estimatd at an increase of about $15 million in annual GDP for Hamilton. It is estimated to generate $6 million in direct revenue (presumably through fares). $50-$140 million in new developments around the line is also highlighted as an economic uplift.

If we go with the high end of the new development estimate, this will generate about $5 million in new tax revenue. When this is coupled with anticipated income of $6 million dollars, the city's coffers will be increasing by about $11 million dollars.

This leads to some important questions that one would have expected our council to ask before this point.

1) How much will it actually cost to operate the LRT annually? If we are to use the Toronto report as a referential baseline, we can assume our LRT will have an operational cost about half that of the Eglinton LRT. That gives us a ballpark figure of $40 million annual operational cost.

2) Does the revenue it generates for the city through fares and new property tax revenue cover the operational cost? If we assume a similar cost savings by not running B-Line bus route anymore, we could anticipate up to $20 million recovered . Of course, that isn't really an apples to apples comparison because the B-Line bus route will have to still be kept in place east of the Queenston traffic circle, so the cost savings will likely be significantly lower. For the sake of argument, let's keep it at $20 million. If you add in the anticipated new revenue through fares and property taxes, you still have an operational shortfall of about $9 million dollars annually.

3) How does the city make up for this $9 million shortfall? The shortfall will have to be made up through a combination of an increase in property tax rates, paired with a significant fare box increase.



The city is being silent about the budgetary impact the LRT out of fear it will fan the flames of those opposed to it being built. This lack of full disclosure is doing the city a big disservice. The city should be open and forthright and say that this is going to cost the city, and present the case on how the extra $9 million annual cost will be financed.

Where are the journalists that claim to fight for open and balanced reporting? Why aren't they asking these hard questions, instead of just lobbing the usual softballs designed simply to promote the positive aspects of LRT?

[thistleclub]

Eglinton Crosstown LRT
Project Type: Design, Build, Finance and Maintain (http://www.infrastructureontario.ca/Templates/Project.aspx?id=2147491907&langtype=1033
)

Finch West LRT
Project Type: Design, Build, Finance and Maintain ( http://www.infrastructureontario.ca/Templates/Project.aspx?id=2147492917&langtype=1033
)

Sheppard East LRT
Project Type: Design, Build, Finance and Maintain (https://www.p3ingenium.com/project/sheppard-east-lrt)

If these were DBFOM projects (like the Hurontario LRT (http://www.infrastructureontario.ca/Request-for-Qualifications-Issued-Hurontario-LRT/) or Waterloo’s ION (http://rapidtransit.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/projectinformation/frequentlyaskedquestions.asp#s)), I would better understand the astonishment.


PW13014 (http://www2.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/76D38C17-DC96-4C54-8E55-3A6EA1C71D73/0/Feb25EDRMS_n414203_v1_5_1_PW13014.pdf) (February 2013):

"With implementation of LRT, an increase between $2.9 million (no increased ridership and 6.5 minute LRT headway) and $3.5 million (assumes an 8% city-wide increase in ridership and a four minute LRT headway) in the transit portion of the City operating budget levy can be expected.… There is expected to be an additional non-transit City operating budget levy impact in the order of $8.7 million, due to costs such as snow removal, street lighting, parking enforcement and loss of parking revenue."

[MalcolmTucker]

TTC and council insisted on keeping operations in house, causing costs to be a bit higher due to complexity, and a bit more because odds are operating procedures for the lowest possible maintenance cost are different than what is in the TTC's interest as operator.

[thistleclub]

Another misguided funding projection on the Toronto transit file:

Mississauga fumes over $470 million Toronto LRT funding assumption (https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2016/11/02/mississauga-fumes-over-470-million-toronto-lrt-funding-assumption.html)
(Toronto Star, San Grewal, Nov 2 2016)

Mayor John Tory and senior city staff are being condemned in Mississauga after Toronto made public a $470 million LRT funding expectation of the local airport authority and Mississauga — without telling officials in the neighbouring city…

“There has been no request of us,” said Mississauga mayor Bonnie Crombie. After the meeting, Crombie, Tovey and Mississauga city manager Janice Baker voiced their incredulity over the note in a public report from Toronto’s city manager this week that assumes Mississauga and the Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA) will fund $470 million toward the extension of the Eglinton West LRT into Mississauga and Pearson airport. The report assumes a $1.18 billion contribution from Toronto, and a $822.9 million contribution from the federal government toward the $2.47 billion cost of the Eglinton West LRT extension.

Read it in full here (https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2016/11/02/mississauga-fumes-over-470-million-toronto-lrt-funding-assumption.html).

[thistleclub]

Metrolinx says it intends to cancel Bombardier LRV contract (https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2016/11/03/metrolinx-to-cancel-bombardier-lrv-contract.html)
(Toronto Star, Ben Spurr, Nov 3 2016)

Ontario has put Bombardier on notice that it intends to cancel the contract it has with the company for light rail vehicles.

The ministry of transportation confirmed to the Star on Thursday that Metrolinx, the provincial transit agency, has issued a formal notice of intent to terminate its $770-million contract for up to 182 Bombardier LRVs.

Metrolinx signed the deal with the Quebec-based plane and train manufacturer in 2010, and the vehicles were to be used on planned LRT lines in Toronto, including the $5.3-billion Eglinton Crosstown, and potentially other transit projects in Ontario as well.

The order has been repeatedly delayed, however, and the province has grown increasingly impatient. The company has yet to deliver the pilot vehicle for the Crosstown, which was originally supposed to arrive in 2014. Since then Bombardier has blown several new deadlines for the pilot.

“I know that there has been some concerns about Bombardier’s performance as there have been significant quality and manufacturing issues that, to-date, have not been resolved. As a result, we have taken the next step available to us through our contract. We will continue to work with Bombardier on this issue and we will deliver on our transit commitments,” said Transportation Minister Steven Del Duca in an emailed statement.

Read it in full here (https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2016/11/03/metrolinx-to-cancel-bombardier-lrv-contract.html).

[NortheastWind]

Doesn't bode well for Thunder Bayites

[SteelTown]

York, Main must be widened for LRT: project lead

By Carmela Fragomeni
http://www.thespec.com/news-story/7061893-york-main-must-be-widened-for-lrt-project-lead/

Parts of York Boulevard and Main Street West will have to be widened to accommodate traffic flow with Hamilton's future LRT line, the city's project lead says.

"We realized there's a need for more capacity for cars," Paul Johnson, director of LRT project co-ordination told a forum about the $1-billion project at the Sackville Seniors Centre Wednesday night. "We know we will have to increase lanes there."

Another new project detail Johnson mentioned is that passengers getting off at McMaster University will be dropped right off on the sidewalk, rather than at a centre median, which had been contemplated.

He also confirmed a Gage Park stop is being added to the mix as the B-line makes it way to Ottawa Street and eventually the Queenston Traffic Circle.


An operations and maintenance facility will be built on undeveloped land beside McMaster Innovation Park with LRT cars leaving and entering from an extended Frid Street, which will be joined with Longwood Avenue, Johnson noted.

....



LRT public information sessions

To learn what's new about the project and provide input

Monday, Jan. 16, 4-8 p.m. at Dr. John Perkins Centre, 1429 Main St. E.

Tuesday, Jan. 17, 4-8 p.m. at David Braley Health Science Centre, 100 Main St. W.

Wednesday, Jan. 18, 4-8 p.m. at McMaster Innovation Park, 175 Longwood Rd. S.