Rapid Transit

[thistleclub]

Support for LRT dwindles
(Hamilton Spectator, Andrew Dreschel, Feb 19 2014)

Hamilton council's support for LRT is fading rapidly.

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

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

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

"We have to fix our basics first."

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clearly, Powers was the canary in the coal mine.


Read it in full here.

[bigguy1231]

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

[coalminecanary]

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

[Jon Dalton]

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

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

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

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

[Beedok]

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

[thistleclub]

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

The province has done its best to insulate itself from blowback around revenue mechanisms, first creating an arm's-length agency (ie. Metrolinx) to determine funding strategy -- an agency which then crowdsourced a menu of palatable mechanisms from GTHA municipal councils -- then second-guessed the input of that agency through the creation of a panel with Metrolinx DNA (ie. Transit Investment Strategy Advisory Panel). That panel drafted its own report for consideration, but is no more binding than the recommendations of Metrolinx.

The Wynne government has yet to fully reveal its favoured revenue mechanisms, let alone the legislation defining the implementation of those mechanisms. The premier has announced that she is prepared to go to the polls over the issue, but it is unlikely that the so-called "revenue tools" would be finalized before then. It has been hoped that the first of these measures would be laid out formally in the Spring Budget, which pundits predict could fall on want of confidence, forcing a general election -- and making the measures moot, at least until the next government is formed.

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

[LikeHamilton]

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

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

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

• Forget LRT period
• Support if province pays all
• Support LRT regardless

[durandy]

Originally Posted by thistleclub

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

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

[CaptainKirk]

Originally Posted by Jon Dalton

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

Bingo!

[HillStreetBlues]

Originally Posted by thistleclub

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

"We have to fix our basics first."

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

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

Originally Posted by thistleclub

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

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

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

[thistleclub]

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

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

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

Councillor Merulla's reflexive characterization of the situation as a screw job is partly a result of his political affinities, partly his penchant for theatre, and partly a result of popular assumptions made around the Liberals’ 11th-hour campaign pledge, specifically that Hamilton would receive the same treatment as Toronto. This has arguably turned out to be questionable, underlined a week after the 2011 election when a Metrolinx investment veep suggested Hamilton LRT was technically unfunded, four years after the promise was made. (For his part, Councillor Clark has previously pressed for clarity from the province over LRT.)

It’s also possible that these revenue tools could be imposed province-wide, making opt-out impossible.

Furthermore, the criteria for use of these forthcoming funds is ill-defined. In March 2013, Premier Wynne expanded the end uses of these revenue tools to include all transportation infrastructure, though in the GTHA she anticipated that it would translate “largely” – which is to say, not exclusively -- into transit funding. It is conceivable that all-day GO service and further provincial capital investment into the HSR would be funded out of the same revenue pool.

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

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

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

[HillStreetBlues]

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

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

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

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

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

[thistleclub]

Originally Posted by HillStreetBlues

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

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

Point being that prior to the advent of the new "revenue tools", the province was at one point said to have been up for covering 100% of direct capital costs. Then the City was expected to commit an as-yet-undefined share, with ability-to-pay reportedly improving our place within a project prioritization framework.

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

What I was wondering about was whether the "new" automated revenue mechanisms would replace the familiar formulations, and if so, how. If revenues are all going to the province, would the municipality be expected to commit additional funds above and beyond? Would the revenues pool be administered locally, in whole or in part? The most detail we've seen is in trial balloons from Metrolinx, for example:

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

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

[CaptainKirk]

Originally Posted by HillStreetBlues

..this seems like the exact opposite of downloading.

Exaclty!

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

[thistleclub]

NDP’s Andrea Horwath on track to derail transit
(Toronto Star, Martin Regg Cohn, Feb 20 2014]

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

[ScreamingViking]

I liked this point made in that editorial too:

Her plan: Just make corporations pay.

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

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

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

[thistleclub]

In the spirit of "LRT case more than numbers" (Feb 4 2010):

LRT is about more than transit
(Hamilton Spectator, Feb 22 2014)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[thistleclub]

Minister Glen Murray tweets:

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

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

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

[lucasmascotto]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Innsertnamehere]

Great article.