Rapid Transit - Page 152

king10 · #**3021** Posted **May 19, 2016, 6:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteelTown

Whitehead just wants better bus service on the Mountain and as a councilor from the Mountain he seems to be the sole real passionate advocate for better transit on the Mountain. Looks like it's working anyways, Mayor Fred wants to review at improving bus service on the Mountain once the LRT is operational.

Mayor wants to offer more buses to Mountain in bid to get LRT support
Olive branch offered as LRT supporters look to address reservations

Hamilton's mayor is offering an olive branch to Mountain councillors uncertain about light rail transit (LRT).

Next month, he'll push for any buses freed up by the new system to go to helping serve the Mountain.

Fred Eisenberger said Wednesday that he'll ask city council to redeploy buses currently running along King Street to run on the Mountain instead.

It's a move designed to quell the fears of Mountain councillors who say they're uncertain about Hamilton's planned $1 billion LRT system. It's hard to sell to residents, they say, without ways to explain how their wards would benefit.

Until now, HSR transit head David Dixon says it's unlikely those buses will be redeployed. Eisenberger wants the city to reconsider.

"Rather than debating whether to move forward or not, let's just deal with the specifics" of their concerns, said Eisenberger, who'll bring it forward on June 1.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilt...port-1.3587553

so 10 years from now?

SteelTown · #**3022** Posted **May 19, 2016, 8:01 PM**

Pretty much. Unless we pull out some magic trick to get $300 million and build a new bus barn. We're currently maxed out on capacity unless serious coins are spent.

markbarbera · #**3023** Posted **May 20, 2016, 4:02 PM**

It is completely mind boggling that this city would feel entitled enough to expect the province to give them $1 billion worth of new higher order transit, yet refuses to acknowledge and address the obvious shortcomings of its existing transit system. If the province is ponying up $1 billion for LRT in the lower city, for God's sake at least put some capital into the system that will feed it, or it will be nothing more than a white elephant once it is up and running.

Jon Dalton · #**3024** Posted **May 20, 2016, 5:06 PM**

Yeah those councillors are acting like spoiled brats here. We're getting something for nothing and they complain that it isn't more. They're also talking out both sides of their mouths when they complain about B-line revenue being lost (a real issue) but also that there isn't enough bus service on the mountain - the same service that is unprofitable and being supported by the B-line profits. Moving displaced buses to the mountain will have a cost and yes we should invest in it. It's the least we can do given the billion dollars is being handed to us.

Berklon · #**3025** Posted **May 20, 2016, 5:21 PM**

At this point, is there still a chance we could lose LRT funding?

MalcolmTucker · #**3026** Posted **May 20, 2016, 5:58 PM**

Well, I don't think the province would take it off the table, but it won't be there whenever the city wants it - the city would have to wait for an appropriate place in the funding cycle again.

And who knows if a new government would even want Metrolinx to play in service delivery within cities at all!

markbarbera · #**3027** Posted **May 20, 2016, 6:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon Dalton

Yeah those councillors are acting like spoiled brats here. We're getting something for nothing and they complain that it isn't more. They're also talking out both sides of their mouths when they complain about B-line revenue being lost (a real issue) but also that there isn't enough bus service on the mountain - the same service that is unprofitable and being supported by the B-line profits. Moving displaced buses to the mountain will have a cost and yes we should invest in it. It's the least we can do given the billion dollars is being handed to us.

The best way to make a route profitable is to ensure it offers service that will attract ridership. Meandering routes with sporadic service does the opposite.

Should transit even be expected to be profitable? Does the city have a profitability prerequisite on all the services it offers, or just transit? Do the libraries need to be profitable? Do the parks?

king10 · #**3028** Posted **May 20, 2016, 7:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by markbarbera

The best way to make a route profitable is to ensure it offers service that will attract ridership. Meandering routes with sporadic service does the opposite.

Should transit even be expected to be profitable? Does the city have a profitability prerequisite on all the services it offers, or just transit? Do the libraries need to be profitable? Do the parks?

The more services that are profitable or at least break even the better. Because if everything is a money loser or subsidized it means property taxes and usage rates will have to go up to balance the books.

Beedok · #**3029** Posted **May 20, 2016, 8:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by markbarbera

Should transit even be expected to be profitable? Does the city have a profitability prerequisite on all the services it offers, or just transit? Do the libraries need to be profitable? Do the parks?

I don't think public services should be pressed to be profitable, but no one wants to pay taxes so sadly there must be a push for it on services where it is possible.

ScreamingViking · #**3030** Posted **May 21, 2016, 5:41 AM**

I could respect some of the questions from councilors about things like transferring buses to other areas of the city and operational costs... IF COUNCIL HAD BEEN CONSISTENTLY SUPPORTING AND APPROVING TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS THROUGHOUT THE CITY OVER THE LAST COUPLE DECADES! If it came to making a decision on implementing alternative transit improvements I highly doubt anything would happen except extended debate, waffling, and nitpicking them into indecision oblivion.

Difficult questions have to be asked and answered, but it's hard not wonder if this thing will die because the shorter-term issues and worry outweigh the long-term gain to the city's transportation system. The ghosts of 1981 are lurking.

LikeHamilton · #**3031** Posted **May 23, 2016, 8:02 PM**

Check out the straddling bus.

https://www.facebook.com/CollectiveE...4185262878908/

johnnyhamont · #**3032** Posted **May 26, 2016, 11:26 PM**

Two things I'm wondering:
- Why a new bridge over the 403 for LRT? Obviously it's a big, big strain on the budget but it also seems unnecessary to me when the King St bridge has so much existing lane capacity... Can anyone explain why the existing bridge (or a renovation of it) has been deemed not usable by the LRT?
- And this may not be known yet, but will the James spur line be its own train separate from the E-W line trains, or will the E-W trains take a break to go up and down James before continuing in the E-W directions? In other words, will one need to transfer if they want to take LRT from a stop on James to a stop on the E-W corridor?

CaptainKirk · #**3033** Posted **May 26, 2016, 11:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnnyhamont

Two things I'm wondering:
- Why a new bridge over the 403 for LRT? Obviously it's a big, big strain on the budget but it also seems unnecessary to me when the King St bridge has so much existing lane capacity... Can anyone explain why the existing bridge (or a renovation of it) has been deemed not usable by the LRT?
- And this may not be known yet, but will the James spur line be its own train separate from the E-W line trains, or will the E-W trains take a break to go up and down James before continuing in the E-W directions? In other words, will one need to transfer if they want to take LRT from a stop on James to a stop on the E-W corridor?

AFAIK...

403 ramps complicated matters
2 trains/lines, need transfer

thistleclub · #**3034** Posted **May 29, 2016, 11:03 PM**

Moves afoot to stiffen LRT support
(Hamilton Spectator, Andrew Dreschel, May 29 2016)

The wheeling and dealing is beginning at Hamilton city hall to stiffen support for LRT by offering up goodies to complainers and fence-sitters.

Some councillors like the pragmatic Tom Jackson, who represents the east Mountain, have made it clear their continued backing is contingent on a number of conditions being met, including improved bus service for the Mountain.

Presto.

Mayor Fred Eisenberger has already stepped up to the plate with a proposition to redeploy buses displaced by LRT to the Mountain.

On top of that, there's now backroom talk about finding ways to show teetering Mountain and suburban councillors that their wards can directly benefit from the provincially-funded lower city project.

The ideas being kicked around include possibly allocating to those areas millions of city dollars expected to be freed up as a result of the province picking up the tab for replacing aging infrastructure along the LRT route.

These fledgling attempts at rallying support are a direct result of the cracks exposed by a motion, now postponed, intended to reaffirm the previous council's backing of the $1 billion project.

Meanwhile, LRT supporters are taking an even stronger line against the idea of holding a referendum. Some councillors previously dismissed the prospect as ridiculous and a shirking of political responsibility. The mayor has his own dim view on it.

"I think it's a way to throw the project off the rails," he says.

Eisenberger thinks referendums are generally advocated by opponents of a project to thwart the normal political process.

"I think it's used to derail the process itself and I'm not a fan."

Coun. Sam Merulla not only agrees, he goes one step further.

"Anyone who asks for a referendum is being cute. It's not about being democratic," he says. "It's political gamesmanship. That's all it is. And I've played it."

Merulla notes he agitated for a referendum in 2012 over the issue of whether Hamilton should host a new casino.

"I was being obstructionist. My intent was to kill the casino. I was opposed from Day One. I was never willing to accept a casino in this town and I knew a referendum would kill it, hence I proposed it."

Whether council will decide the public should be given the opportunity to cast a ballot in the intensifying debate remains to be seen.

A few councillors — Donna Skelly, Robert Pasuta, Jackson — are willing to entertain the idea floated by Chad Collins, who's come out strongly against LRT.

But Collins himself doesn't believe serious support will materialize until late summer or early fall when reports on the traffic impacts and expropriations are released.

Collins thinks new information on how the 11-kilomtere B-line from McMaster University to the Queenston traffic circle will disrupt and divert traffic may raise red flags and change people's understanding of the ripple effects of the project, which is expected to begin major construction in 2019.

Maybe so, but a referendum is likely still a long shot.

Despite a huge surge of public and political misgivings about the Kitchener-Waterloo LRT plan, when push came to shove in 2011 the regional municipality voted 7-3 against a motion to hold a referendum.

The 19-kilometre LRT line between Kitchener and Waterloo is now slated to open in early 2018.

Read it in full here.

Beedok · #**3035** Posted **May 30, 2016, 3:38 AM**

I do wonder how the LRT would do with a referendum. It might well see more popular support than political support.

bigguy1231 · #**3036** Posted **May 30, 2016, 5:59 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beedok

I do wonder how the LRT would do with a referendum. It might well see more popular support than political support.

I don't think so.

king10 · #**3037** Posted **May 30, 2016, 11:30 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beedok

I do wonder how the LRT would do with a referendum. It might well see more popular support than political support.

There is a very strong opposition to it in the burbs. I dont think it would pass. And the pro lrt councilours know it which is why they are against a referendum.

Some councillours are on the fence about LRT because their constituents are against it. It may cost them their job at the next election. It really is a huge decision.

oldcoote · #**3038** Posted **May 30, 2016, 1:25 PM**

There was a referendum. It's called an election.

And it's not a huge decision. It's a $1 billion opportunity.

thistleclub · #**3039** Posted **May 30, 2016, 1:51 PM**

Has anyone suggested area-rating votes?

king10 · #**3040** Posted **May 30, 2016, 3:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by oldcoote

There was a referendum. It's called an election.

And it's not a huge decision. It's a $1 billion opportunity.

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.