Rapid Transit

[CaptainKirk]

McHattie to Premier: Hamilton Ready for LRT Funding

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

By Ryan McGreal
Published February 27, 2014

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

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

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

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

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

Background

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

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

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

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

Mayoral Misinformation

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

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

Murray told the councillors:

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

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

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

More Mixed Messaging

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

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

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

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

Text of McHattie's Letter

Following is the full text of the letter:

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

February 26, 2014

RE: Support for LRT in Hamilton

Dear Premier Wynne,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours truly,

Brian McHattie
Ward 1 Councillor
City of Hamilton

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

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

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

[thistleclub]

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

Related: Ontario NDP leader and Hamilton Centre MPP Horwath asked Premier Wynne two questions related to transit infrastructure yesterday.

As part of her responses, Premier Wynne averred:

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

[markbarbera]

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

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by markbarbera

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

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


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

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

[thistleclub]

LRT questions demand more clarity
(Hamilton Spectator, Feb 28 2014)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[SteelTown]

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

https://twitter.com/BrianMcHattie

[Dr Awesomesauce]

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

[thistleclub]

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

It'll be interesting to get full details, but on the face of it, this seems like land value capture (LVC), something Minister Murray apparently proposed during his tenure as Mayor of Winnipeg and which he touched on a year ago, shortly after being named to his MTO post.

It's one of the minor funding mechanisms that figure in CivicAction's Time To Get Serious: Reliable Funding for GTHA Transit / Transportation Infrastructure (July 2010):

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

Metrolinx was more conservative, estimating that LVC might bring in $20 million annually from the GTHA (~1.3% of Big Move capital costs).

The Transit Investment Strategy Advisory Panel also recommends LVC as a supplementary investment tool, writing (in part):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Minister Murray also seems to allude to tax increment financing, which was another of the tools he reached for in February 2013 and which Metrolinx defines thus:

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

Note: Not to be confused with a property tax hike.

[thistleclub]

What Metrolinx Says About LRT in Hamilton
(The Bay Observer, John Best, Feb 25 2014)

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

In a recent article, Raise the Hammer’s Ryan McGreal – an LRT supporter – writes:

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

Writing in a similar vein, the Hamilton Spectator’s Paul Berton wrote:

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

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

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

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

[thistleclub]

Light Rail Transit, Leadership and Democracy (Raise the Hammer, Nicholas Kevlahan, Mar 3 2014)

[SteelTown]

Originally Posted by thistleclub

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

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

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

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

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

[ScreamingViking]

I could see the phased option happen too.

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

[HillStreetBlues]

Originally Posted by ScreamingViking

I could see the phased option happen too.

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

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

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

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

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by HillStreetBlues

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dr Awesomesauce]

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

[thistleclub]

Province will find ‘affordable solution’ for Hamilton’s transit debate
(Hamilton Mountain News, Kevin Werner, Mar 3 2014)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[HillStreetBlues]

Originally Posted by ScreamingViking

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

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

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

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

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

Two realities as I see them:

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

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

[Innsertnamehere]

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

[HillStreetBlues]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

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

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

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

[Innsertnamehere]

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

BRT lines don't attract the same ridership.

remember the 3 Cs of transportation choice:

Comfort
Convenience
Control

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