HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Hamilton > Transportation & Infrastructure


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #3041  
Old Posted May 30, 2016, 5:06 PM
drpgq drpgq is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Hamilton/Dresden
Posts: 1,859
How do you want to word the referendum? "Do you want to turn down $1 billion from the province and have them spend it somewhere else in the GTA?"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3042  
Old Posted May 30, 2016, 5:57 PM
king10 king10 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 2,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by drpgq View Post
How do you want to word the referendum? "Do you want to turn down $1 billion from the province and have them spend it somewhere else in the GTA?"
sure
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3043  
Old Posted May 30, 2016, 7:20 PM
markbarbera markbarbera is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 3,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by drpgq View Post
How do you want to word the referendum? "Do you want to turn down $1 billion from the province and have them spend it somewhere else in the GTA?"
To quote the Premier "It's never been LRT or nothing".
__________________
"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul"
-George Bernard Shaw
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3044  
Old Posted May 30, 2016, 7:32 PM
MalcolmTucker MalcolmTucker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 11,556
If the same amount of money dropped in the city's lap tomorrow would they build the LRT? Hasn't it been on the books as part of BLAST for a decade? What is the alternative?

Opponents have had more than a decade to either not approve blast in the first place or reverse the approval.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3045  
Old Posted May 30, 2016, 8:03 PM
markbarbera markbarbera is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 3,050
BLAST is higher order transit concept, and is not exclusive to LRT implementation.
__________________
"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul"
-George Bernard Shaw
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3046  
Old Posted May 30, 2016, 8:23 PM
MalcolmTucker MalcolmTucker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 11,556
So, some of council has the position of: supportive of a higher order transit network in principle, but in practice decry the plan they approved as unworkable? I doubt they'd be ok with BRT lanes either. What did they think they were laying the groundwork for?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3047  
Old Posted May 31, 2016, 12:01 AM
Beedok Beedok is offline
Exiled Hamiltonian Gal
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,829
Quote:
Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker View Post
So, some of council has the position of: supportive of a higher order transit network in principle, but in practice decry the plan they approved as unworkable? I doubt they'd be ok with BRT lanes either. What did they think they were laying the groundwork for?
Fully bored subways that in no way impact drivers?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3048  
Old Posted May 31, 2016, 12:42 AM
Dr Awesomesauce's Avatar
Dr Awesomesauce Dr Awesomesauce is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: BEYOND THE OUTER RIM
Posts: 5,889
I'm fully bored by all this nonsense...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3049  
Old Posted May 31, 2016, 4:30 AM
ScreamingViking's Avatar
ScreamingViking ScreamingViking is offline
Ham-burgher
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 7,397
Quote:
Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker View Post
If the same amount of money dropped in the city's lap tomorrow would they build the LRT?
If a billion dollars dropped out of the sky with no limits or terms regarding how it could be budgeted, Hamilton city council would spend a few years squabbling over what to do with it and eventually decide that the only course of action they can agree on would be to divide it among the wards to be spent as each sees fit. Then they'd spend another couple years squabbling over the terms of the distribution (equal, vs. proportional to population, vs. proportional to property tax base, etc.). Then when project lists finally get drawn up, there would be quibbling and in-fighting over that, with a return to the idea of doing something big with it (not "transformational" big mind you) before debate eventually settles on the division arrangement.

Eventually, the value of the billion would have been so eroded by inflation that it would be enough for each councilor to point to their success at filling some potholes and adding a new splash-pad or two.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3050  
Old Posted May 31, 2016, 5:15 AM
eatboots eatboots is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 243
There are a few problems the LRT is facing when it comes to this council, general disdain for downtown, councillors with hands out who are upset their wards are not receiving anything, conservative councillors who do not want to be known as taking Liberal money, and councillors who think that Hamilton's car centric one way highways through the city are great just the way they are. A referendum on this is useless, it's just a way to pass off the responsibility of leadership on to a public that is uninformed at best and really could care less at worst. For someone in Ward 11 the LRT might as well be in Oakville.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3051  
Old Posted May 31, 2016, 12:50 PM
thistleclub thistleclub is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,729
Perspective: $1B is basically three years’ worth of provincial gas tax revenues, province-wide — split among 95 municipalities.

From Hamilton’s POV, the status quo is a slow drip that mostly just replaces aging buses without significantly expanding service.

The City received $10.7M in provincial gas tax revenues in 2015 (roughly the city's 2011-2015 average).

Ignoring inflation, at current levels of provincial gas tax revenues, it would take Hamilton 94 years — or, if you prefer, 24 council terms (or, alternately, three Tom Jacksons) to amass $1B in gratis transit infrastructure.

And because of the HSR's lopsided replace-to-expand ratio, I suspect that that the end result would more or less resemble the HSR of today.
__________________
"Where architectural imagination is absent, the case is hopeless." - Louis Sullivan

Last edited by thistleclub; May 31, 2016 at 7:38 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3052  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2016, 12:32 AM
Dr Awesomesauce's Avatar
Dr Awesomesauce Dr Awesomesauce is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: BEYOND THE OUTER RIM
Posts: 5,889
More Tom Jackson!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3053  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2016, 1:05 PM
SteelTown's Avatar
SteelTown SteelTown is offline
It's Hammer Time
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 20,304
LRT can ‘activate’ downtown Hamilton: McMaster study concludes

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/67...udy-concludes/

A new McMaster study concludes the controversial LRT plan is the catalyst needed to ignite downtown economic development.

Chris Higgins, the post-doctoral fellow who authored the paper, told a transit seminar sponsored by the McMaster Institute for Transportation and Logistics Tuesday morning that the much-debated light rail line is proposed to run through the most densely populated part of the city – exactly the kind of neighbourhood needed to get the best economic result from the system.

"It's a question of activation and LRT can activate the downtown," he said after his presentation. "It's in our power to achieve the maximum uplift from this investment."

Higgins' study concludes the LRT system will deliver the best economic impact around its stations where high-density mixed-use development is clustered. In plain language, that means more people per hectare living in buildings that combine residential and commercial uses.

In Hamilton, his report adds, that impact will be expanded by the viability of core-area land that can be turned into the kinds of projects that will draw transit riders.

"In general, the biggest opportunity for growth is in the downtown core, where a number of large parcels presently used for surface parking lots permit larger-scale implementations of (transit-oriented development)," he wrote. "This type of development should help the downtown core reach its targeted density levels and further anchor movements along the lines in the future."

That's important, he said, because transportation will be critical as the Greater Toronto-Golden Horseshoe Area's population swells to meet provincial intensification targets.

For Hamilton, that target is growth of 40 per cent by 2041.

Transportation is already a challenge in the area, and building more roads is not the answer.

"As you build more roads, it just means more people drive," Higgins said.

Municipal Affairs Minister Ted McMeekin reinforced that idea, saying the tortured commute to Toronto would be impossible if he didn't have a driver on the public payroll.

"I just couldn't do it if I had to drive back and forth to Toronto every day on my own," he said. "It's bad today and it's only going to get worse if we don't do something."

McMeekin said it's clear the traffic congestion the area experiences today is crippling – estimates have concluded the Greater Toronto-Hamilton Area loses $6 billion a year in productivity as employees sit in traffic, along with environmental and other costs.

"Transit is going to be crucial to our continued economic viability," he said. "Hamilton needs to be concerned about this or economic growth just isn't going to happen."

The proposed LRT system is Hamilton is proposed to run east-west roughly between the Queenston traffic circle and McMaster University with a spur line running down James Street North to the waterfront.

The Ontario government has committed $1 billion to finance construction of the system, but Hamilton city council remains mired in debate about whether to accept the money.

McMeekin, for his part, says $1 billion "is a lot of economic development" the city badly needs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3054  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2016, 2:58 PM
markbarbera markbarbera is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 3,050
I recently found an eye-opening article published by Forbes which speaks to rapid transit related development benefits:

Quote:
Bus Rapid Transit Spurs Development Better Than Light Rail Or Streetcars: Study

Bus rapid transit, in which buses in dedicated lanes perform like rail lines, can not only spur development, but can do so far more efficiently than light rail and streetcars, according to a study due out later this month from the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy.

“Both BRT and LRT can leverage many times more development investment than they cost. Now we can say that for sure,” according to the institute’s director for the U.S. and Africa, Annie Weinstock, who previewed the findings at a Metropolitan Planning Council Roundtable in Chicago last week.

“Per dollar of transit investment, and under similar conditions, BRT can leverage more (development) investment than LRT or streetcars.”

For example, Cleveland’s Healthline, a BRT project completed on Cleveland’s Euclid Avenue in 2008, has generated $5.8 billion in development —$114 for each transit dollar invested. Portland’s Blue Line, a light rail project completed in 1986, generated $3.74 per dollar invested.

BRT’s efficiency makes sense—bus rapid transit lines are generally cheaper to develop than rail lines (though some transportation experts balk at the comparison)—but the difference has never before been documented, Weinstock said.

“The first conclusion we’re able to draw here is that actually BRT is able to leverage development. This is the first time we have an analysis to say that definitively,” she said.

“And it can leverage a lot of development. Three of the corridors (studied) leveraged more than a billion dollars in development.”
Read the full article here.

The report it references can be found here.

For what it would cost to implement an LRT for one of the BLAST routes, we could implement BRT that covers all BLAST routes, and actually increase the amount of development opportunity it would generate.
__________________
"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul"
-George Bernard Shaw
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3055  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2016, 3:12 PM
MalcolmTucker MalcolmTucker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 11,556
Hamilton would probably have trouble covering the operating costs of a full BLAST BRT network though, at least politically.

Last edited by MalcolmTucker; Jun 1, 2016 at 3:36 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3056  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2016, 3:33 PM
oldcoote's Avatar
oldcoote oldcoote is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 627
Quote:
Originally Posted by king10 View Post
Disagree on your first point. Many people did not elect their councilors or mayor based on their position on the LRT. I know I didn't. It wasn't an issue that was in the spotlight in 2014 like it is now.
Wrong. LRT and the Casino were the big issues in 2014. Brad Clark ran for mayor on an anti-LRT platform and lost.

I know I specifically didn't vote for a neighbour because he was anti-LRT.

This is just another ploy by the vocal minority to shelve the process. First a downscale to BRT, then *poof* nothing.

We elect our councillors to lead. They should do that.
__________________
There are no great cities in the world that are easy to drive through.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3057  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2016, 3:43 PM
movingtohamilton movingtohamilton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 994
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelTown View Post
...Municipal Affairs Minister Ted McMeekin reinforced that idea, saying the tortured commute to Toronto would be impossible if he didn't have a driver on the public payroll.

"I just couldn't do it if I had to drive back and forth to Toronto every day on my own," he said...
I have one of those too! My GO bus or train driver. Get on the GO, Minister Ted
__________________
Keep your hands and feet inside the virtual machine at all times.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3058  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2016, 3:52 PM
eatboots eatboots is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 243
Ministers have drivers so they can do work while en route, at least that's the idea.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3059  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2016, 3:55 PM
king10 king10 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 2,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldcoote View Post
Wrong. LRT and the Casino were the big issues in 2014. Brad Clark ran for mayor on an anti-LRT platform and lost.

I know I specifically didn't vote for a neighbour because he was anti-LRT.

This is just another ploy by the vocal minority to shelve the process. First a downscale to BRT, then *poof* nothing.

We elect our councillors to lead. They should do that.
no its not wrong. the statement "many people did not elect their councilors based on their LRT stance" is not "wrong"

because I and many other people I know did not vote based on LRT stance.

I'm sure some people like yourself voted in their councilor based on LRT but "many people" did not. that statement is not "wrong"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3060  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2016, 3:57 PM
movingtohamilton movingtohamilton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 994
Quote:
Originally Posted by eatboots View Post
Ministers have drivers so they can do work while en route, at least that's the idea.
Then he should have said that.

The article is all about how transit "activates". His statement is full of such rich irony
__________________
Keep your hands and feet inside the virtual machine at all times.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Ontario > Hamilton > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:56 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.