Rapid Transit

[Beedok]

Here's a question, will the LRT be run by the HSR? It would just be bizarre if Hamilton got a street railroad again and the HSR wasn't in charge.

[SteelTown]

^ I think that largely depends on who's paying for the LRT. If Metrolinx's is paying 100% than they'll obviously run the LRT.

[drpgq]

I think Barton could really use its own Beeline type service. It is overcrowded as it is and really really slow.

[matt602]

It definitely could. Even today on a Sunday afternoon there were buses following each other and both times I took the Barton bus it was delayed at least 10 minutes. The walkers/strollers and scooters really throw it off schedule badly.

[Dr Awesomesauce]

^Here's something that hasn't been discussed in a while.

Inasmuch as I want to see LRT on the B-line corridor, Barton is a close second. LRT, street cars or even trolley buses would be a great addition to that street; there's a tremendous need for transit along that line and it would help turn an otherwise derelict part of the city into a thriving and livable area again. Dedicated lanes would be a challenge along most of its length but it could be accomplished in certain places.

Anyway, rapid transit on Barton would be a difficult thing to sell as few of our elected officials have set foot down there this millennium.

[thistleclub]

Clr McHattie Chats with The Hamiltonian About LRT
(The Hamiltonian, June 23 2013)

Q1. Many have formed an impression that council's support for LRT is somewhat tentative. Clearly, funding mechanisms are a significant consideration and may account for a reluctance to provide unwavering commitment for LRT. At the same time, big projects do not materialize without clear leadership and commitment. Short of unconditional commitment to LRT, are their other steps or decision points that you believe council should be pursuing so as to strengthen their commitment to LRT and make it more meaningful? If so, what might those steps be? Or are you of the view that you either plunge in or you don’t?

For now, Council has taken the key step of approving the Rapid Ready report that contains the 30% King Street LRT design that was requested by Metrolinx and makes the $811M request for full 100% Provincial funding. Having received the funding tool recommendations from Metrloinx, the ball now lies with the Province of Ontario to outline their plans on how the Big Move projects across the GTHA will be funded, including priority projects etc. I anticipate this will occur as part of their 2014 Provincial Budget process late
next winter. As part of the Provincial Government process, I would anticipate that the NDP will come forward with an alternative funding strategy but that remains to be seen. I remain very supportive of a King Street LRT believing that it is critical to allowing housing intensification along our main corridors, King and Main, incorporating the population growth to 690,000 people that the Province has asked Hamilton to plan for by 2031.

Q2. What play, if any, do you think the election/re-election horizon might have on public positioning councillors may take with respect to LRT? Are you concerned if some or many councillors believe that any movement toward new taxes or increased taxes to contribute toward LRT would be a bad personal political direction to support- particularly in light of an approaching election? If there is some of that at play, do you have any views on how Hamiltonians can be better served in decisions like this?

City Council has made it very clear that they do not support any funding tools that include new taxes. The vehemence of Council's position on that will only increase during 2014, an election year. I am hopeful that Council will be open to considering alternative funding mechanisms should they be presented in the months ahead.

Q3. What of those councillors who may be reluctant to provide support based on their constituents not having as much need or interest in LRT, as compared to other wards in Hamilton? To the extent that you believe that LRT is a good Hamilton decision, regardless of where one resides, how do you provide those who may resist such a notion with food for thought?

This City Council has consistently supported policy and projects that benefit the entire City of Hamilton. An example of that is the support for incentive programs targeted at encouraging new development in downtown Hamilton. Council knows that a rejuvenated downtown Hamilton raises more tax revenue for the City as a whole and improves Hamilton's image, important for folks in Ancaster as much as it is in Ward 2. Investment in the King Street LRT will spur on extensive land use development, ensure that traffic congestion does not occur with a rising population, and improve Hamilton's image right across Canada. As Canada's 10th largest city, Hamilton deserves no less.

[thistleclub]

Taxes for transit 'absolutely essential,' Glen Murray says
(Toronto Star, Richard J. Brennan, June 24 2013)

Transportation Minister Glen Murray says the greater Toronto and Hamilton area has to build transit if it hopes to remain competitive.

“If we don’t we will simply become immobile,” he told the Toronto Region Board of Trade on Monday.

And Murray said in order to pay for it the province is going to have to raise money through taxes or other means.

“We don’t have the ability to pay for something of this scale without raising revenue,” he told the business breakfast.

The province is facing the challenge to find billions of dollars over several years if it hopes to meet the future transit requirements as laid out in the Metrolinx Big Move.

Murray said he can’t understand the transit detractors who say the province can’t afford to raise taxes, adding that it can’t afford not to.

“It is absolutely essential,” he said.

Toronto Mayor Rob Ford has said under no circumstances will Toronto raise taxes or impose fees or tolls to pay for massive transit improvements.

Murray noted for example that Paris has a payroll tax and London has a congestion charge that goes toward transit and transportation improvements.

“I want us to be most mobile and beautiful city in the world,” he said.

Murray said there could legislation as early as this fall committing the government to moving forward on a detailed and expensive multi-year transit and transportation plan.

[thistleclub]

Opinion piece from former Spec publisher David Estok on YourHamiltonBiz.com: Why we don't need LRT

Counterpoint from Raise the Hammer editor Ryan McGreal: Hamilton Cannot Afford Not to Invest in LRT

[Dr Awesomesauce]

^Ah yes, the 20 minute city and the miracles of all-day GO service again. If you're going to argue against LRT better to not be so obviously in line with a certain senile mayor.

[Dr Awesomesauce]

Oh, and I love the line 'Thank goodness for Russ Powers.' Never thought I'd hear that.

[Jon Dalton]

I'm glad David Estok is not the editor of the Hamilton Spectator anymore.

His '20 minute city' argument (which Bratina also uses) echoes the sense of driving entitlement that reframes every transit debate to make the relief of automobile congestion the central issue. This argument divides citizens into 2 classes, those with and without a vehicle.

The line of reasoning is basically this: For those with a vehicle, driving is faster anyways, so no need for more transit. For those without, the bus ought to be good enough, so no need for more transit. This argument is invariably used by those who do not use or do not rely on public transit.

What if transit users were treated like first class citizens whose mobility is important, and transit was seen as a mobility issue in and of itself, and not just a tool to service the motoring class?

[c@taract_soulj@h]

They'd love David Estok in Saskatoon lol, not...

Moreover though;

I'm no tree hugger or such but imagine all the paper wasted if this falls through? The fact we're a split-level city makes things so much harder to implement city-wide projects. Unless you're on the mountain, you really have to combine things together to make them work. GO/Via/LRT, combining old with new, retrofitting etc.

Because half the population lies below and the other half is on the hill, double the amount of studies are being done. Secondly, we cant work with unused rail corridors and wide streets since both don't really exist in the lower city that we could use for LRT stops.

However, I was in Cleveland last month on its RedLine (heavy rail) and some of the stations reminded me of the rail line that goes from the Chedoke Yard along the bottom of the escarpment. Unless you're near downtown, some of the stops aren't really on major intersections that could really help skirt traffic issues if you had park-and-ride lots at the east and west terminus's.

It's just an alternative idea if the city doesn't pull it's head out of its ass in time but in addition, I agree the current line should at least extend into Dundas to the plaza or perhaps down Cootes Drive and finish near Canadian Tire/Desjardans Canal. That would seem like the ideal terminus.

Here's alternative to whats currently being suggested. Keep open minded but it's just fantasy at best

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by c@taract_soulj@h

Here's alternative to whats currently being suggested. Keep open minded but it's just fantasy at best

I've often thought about whether this could work. It's not optimal from the standpoint of following the main commercial strips and connecting key nodes of the lower city, but from a cost perspective it must be fairly attractive (even if using the heavy rail right-of-way for electrified LRT). If you connected the north-south HSR lines accordingly, would it work? I don't know.

I've also thought about whether it would be better to run all-day GO service from our existing downtown station up the line that runs between Gage and Ottawa with a switch to the CNR. There are a lot of issues with that idea, not the least of which is running more trains through neighbourhoods and possibly needing to double the track, but I much prefer having GO services centralized right downtown (and I admit the Hunter St. tunnel may be a limiting factor but I think the technology to widen it would not create problems, it would just... ... cost money). I think it's great that there will be service to the north end mind you, but in terms of connectivity to local-transit the GO Centre on Hunter makes so much more sense.

[c@taract_soulj@h]

Well for one of course, Hamilton should be represented as an all-day service city seeing as this is the terminus for the Lakeshore West line. The reason why stops like Burlington, Oakville, Miss. have constant service is because they sit right in the middle but Hamilton is no 'burg' though and its commuters to and from need convenient anytime service.

We should also be represented as a multiple stop city too because again, who wants to drive all in from East Hamilton/Stoney Creek? Therefore the preceding idea of a stop in E.Hamilton/St. Creek is ideal. Having 2 GO stops on the same street a few kilometers apart is a bit ludicrous so the city really needs to figure out what model works best. Bringing VIA rail to the city is crucial too (James N.) but that's a whole other bag of tricks.

As for RT, I don't think Hamilton's screwed in the sense of the fact that we can't implement it or this wouldn't be in the plans right now. It just comes down to a- what works best, b- how much money we have to spend and c-will it benefit the city in the longrun. I'd at least like to agree with a) and c). We could be worse off but the time is now since we have the opportunity

[Berklon]

I don't see how that would make any sense. It may be cheaper, but it won't offer much convenience either. It really doesn't serve the population very well.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by c@taract_soulj@h

As for RT, I don't think Hamilton's screwed in the sense of the fact that we can't implement it or this wouldn't be in the plans right now. It just comes down to a- what works best, b- how much money we have to spend and c-will it benefit the city in the longrun. I'd at least like to agree with a) and c). We could be worse off but the time is now since we have the opportunity

I agree. But b) is a biggie. That political football is going to get kicked around a while, by both the province and the city (it would help if the Feds realized there actually is benefit to investing in urban areas and the infrastructure that makes them work)

And there are costs and lost opportunities by not implementing rapid transit.

Originally Posted by Berklon

I don't see how that would make any sense. It may be cheaper, but it won't offer much convenience either. It really doesn't serve the population very well.

It's definitely not a great route to serve demand.

[Beedok]

So, here's something that I recently began to wonder: with the LRT going two ways down King will King have to be made two way or will we have a lane with a train going east while everything else goes west? (If this has already been adressed then please excuse my brain fart)

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by Beedok

So, here's something that I recently began to wonder: with the LRT going two ways down King will King have to be made two way or will we have a lane with a train going east while everything else goes west? (If this has already been adressed then please excuse my brain fart)

I don't think they've planned on two-way conversion. It will be tight in the International Village even with one-way flow - maybe 1 lane of traffic?

Anyone know which side of King the tracks would be on? I assume there would be some kind of barrier, even a short raised curb, along the lane-side of the track?

[thistleclub]

Developers warn Metrolinx Big Move transit plan will add thousands of dollars to cost of new homes
(Toronto Star, Robert Benzie, Aug 23 2013)

Metrolinx’s $50-billion Big Move public-transit expansion will unfairly add thousands of dollars to the price of a new home, property developers warn.

The provincial agency has recommended a one per cent sales tax, a five-cent-a-litre gas tax, parking levies, and a 15 per cent increase in development charges to raise $2 billion annually for transportation infrastructure over the next 25 years.

It would boost rapid transit in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA) from the current 500 kilometres of lines to 1,700 kilometres, and improve access so that 75 per cent of residents would be within two kilometres of a stop.

But the Ontario Home Builders’ Association, the Building Industry and Land Development Association and the Hamilton-Halton Home Builders’ Association say the scheme “makes transit-oriented communities less affordable by imposing additional charges, levies and taxes on new home buyers and new businesses.”

“We strongly oppose the proposed revenue (tax) tools which disproportionately target new home buyers and new businesses across the GTHA,” the industry groups say in a July 8 letter to Metrolinx president CEO Bruce McCuaig obtained by the Star.

“This is an inequitable and unfair approach that will embed the cost of infrastructure, meant to last upwards of 75 years, into the… mortgages of new home purchasers or onto the costs of new employment centres,” the missive said.

Metrolinx countered that “developers are a major beneficiary of growth therefore it is not unreasonable to ask them to help pay for it.”

[Katrillion]

Okay, are we getting LRT or not? If yes, then when?