I've been thinking about the comments that have been brought up lately. Firstly, let me agree with Moncton - awesome map alps! It's a great starting point to get people thinking.
While I would normally agree with Waye about getting this up and running sooner rather than later, in this case I don't think cheap is the answer. Like any municipal infrastructure, its an investment. So it's meant to be something that lasts a long time and is well used. But I think we're stuck in a contemporary funding model and don't often think outside of the box in how to fund something like an LRT. Let me give you an example.
I've been harping on about Portland and their streetcar. I have totally fallen for Portland and I am doing a road trip there this summer, I can't wait. Anyway, for those of you who may have an interest and can find it - I highly recommend downloading or purchasing E squared (from PBS) and watching the Portland episode.
When they built their streetcar, it cost about $70 million for the full system and cars. While the city fronted the money to build the system inititally, as time passed the operator approached businesses along the line to get involved in sponsoring the service to reduce operating costs. They ended up getting something like 97% of restaurants in the pearl district and about 80% of businesses along the line sponsor in someway. So they could sponsor a streetcar, a station/stop, buy advertising - you name it. But the revenue from that is what is funding a good portion of the latest expansion of service (which of course will see more sponsorship on those lines).
Now the catch with this was that they built the system and then development came - $3 Billion of mixed use development within 2 blocks of the line. HRM is probably going to be a different story, given it's debt situation and population. So what might have to happen in order to get an LRT system running, is you might have to do the planning work and get developments in first before building the line.
Case in point: Agricola and Quinpool area easy areas where you could change policy and zoning regulations to encourage high densiy mixed use development (and when I say high density, I mean tower up to 30 stories or even higher) and then use where these are to establish lines. I'm sure there are areas in Dartmouth where this could occur too, like Highfield Park. Total opportunity area right there.
Once you have that, then you can establish connection with the businesses along the line and get sponsorship to help defray costs. I'm not talking about just applying a transit tax to their property but genuinly work with them and get them onboard as sponsors. This is what Portland did and when you get on the streetcar, it says - 'Welcome aboard the Portland streetcar - sponsored by Powell's books' (example). This can help offset the cost of an LRT.
The other thing I'd say and repeat, which seems against the way some people think, is that investing in an LRT and creating debt to build it - isn't a bad thing (for me). When you combine that with policy that encourages high density residential or mixed use at the stations, you can easily recoup the cost and pay down the debt with the increased property taxes and business taxes from the commercial element. Just imagine an LRT and streetcar running up and down Hollis and Lower Water going out to Mumford and Lacewood and somehow across to Dartmouth and then up to Burnside? You could easily see huge mixed use Transit villages popping up in Highfield Park, Shannon Park, at Bayer's Road and a better level of multi-residential at Lacewood, with the right policy and zoning regs.
Just my 2...well, probably 25 cents in this case.
Prev
Linear Mode
