Rapid Transit

[Beedok]

You have to build the first line to build the network??

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by Beedok

You have to build the first line to build the network??

Most reasonable people understand that.

Some on council want it all at once. OR they actually want nothing and are just using the "but BRT would serve the entire city" to ensure nothing happens, because the transit improvements wouldn't serve their wee kingdom anyway (since nobody who matters among their incumbent-voting peasants and serfs uses transit)

[TheHonestMaple]

If the operation of the LRT is only going to cost between 6.5 and 16.5 million dollars per year to operate, how can Brad Clark, Maria Pearson and Chad Collins possibly reject this? What type of argument could they come up with?

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by TheHonestMaple

If the operation of the LRT is only going to cost between 6.5 and 16.5 million dollars per year to operate, how can Brad Clark, Maria Pearson and Chad Collins possibly reject this? What type of argument could they come up with?

$6.4 to $16.5 million dollars would pay for a lot of affordable housing every year. In other wards such as 1 through 4, not theirs.

Not that those residents would ever need transit service, but that's a moot point. Our bus system is more than capable.

[TheHonestMaple]

Originally Posted by ScreamingViking

$6.4 to $16.5 million dollars would pay for a lot of affordable housing every year. In other wards such as 1 through 4, not theirs.

Not that those residents would ever need transit service, but that's a moot point. Our bus system is more than capable.

I would much rather pay for an LRT project that will encourage market rate developments in the core, that will house more people with meaningful employment that will pay tax and attract other businesses downtown.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by TheHonestMaple

I would much rather pay for an LRT project that will encourage market rate developments in the core, that will house more people with meaningful employment that will pay tax and attract other businesses downtown.

Including some affordable unit rules in those new developments would be good. Mixed income neighbourhoods mean keeping the artists that make the neighbourhoods attractive.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by TheHonestMaple

I would much rather pay for an LRT project that will encourage market rate developments in the core, that will house more people with meaningful employment that will pay tax and attract other businesses downtown.

Me too. With provisions for affordable units and mixed-uses with first-floor commercial/retail.

But given the way some on council look at the city, lower-Hamilton is a strange dystopia enveloped in a thick grey mist, only useful for its one-way streets that connect to the freeways.

[TheRitsman]

Originally Posted by ScreamingViking

$6.4 to $16.5 million dollars would pay for a lot of affordable housing every year. In other wards such as 1 through 4, not theirs.

Not that those residents would ever need transit service, but that's a moot point. Our bus system is more than capable.

But this is kind of the problem though. Council seems to have this what if attitude. The money to put people on the moon could feed children in Africa, money for finding dead children at residential schools could feed children in Africa, and money funding education of our students could feed children in Africa.

We could always find something more ethical for money, but that's not how our society works.

[jeicow]

Originally Posted by Beedok

Including some affordable unit rules in those new developments would be good. Mixed income neighbourhoods mean keeping the artists that make the neighbourhoods attractive.

Won’t the developers just pass on the cost of subsidizing the affordable units to the other purchasers, thereby pushing the average rental market rates higher? Isn’t that counter intuitive? It’s a great policy is theory, but it would make far more sense for municipalities and their partners to fund the at-cost construction of affordable units to avoid inadvertently pushing market rates up further. The market based approach you propose only means that the market gets more expensive.

[TheRitsman]

Originally Posted by jeicow

Won’t the developers just pass on the cost of subsidizing the affordable units to the other purchasers, thereby pushing the average rental market rates higher? Isn’t that counter intuitive? It’s a great policy is theory, but it would make far more sense for municipalities and their partners to fund the at-cost construction of affordable units to avoid inadvertently pushing market rates up further. The market based approach you propose only means that the market gets more expensive.

More and more I've been seeing that inclusionary zoning is being recognized as not the best solution to housing issues. It just means subsidizing cheaper units with an increased cost to others. This creates housing for low income people lucky enough to get a spot, and housing for wealthy. Middle income people get hurt by this a lot. Supply and demand is the simple issue. If housing was being built fast enough to keep up with demand, people couldn't fill the housing, and prices would stagnate, allowing wages to catch up.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by jeicow

Won’t the developers just pass on the cost of subsidizing the affordable units to the other purchasers, thereby pushing the average rental market rates higher? Isn’t that counter intuitive? It’s a great policy is theory, but it would make far more sense for municipalities and their partners to fund the at-cost construction of affordable units to avoid inadvertently pushing market rates up further. The market based approach you propose only means that the market gets more expensive.

It definitely depends on how many affordable housing units you ask for in ratio to market rate ones. 100 units with 30 affordable? Yeah, that’ll up the prices. 100 units with 5 affordable? Not really going to make a big difference. But applying that small amount consistently to all developments would help with affordable supply.

Also an option would be the city paying market rates (with some sort of reasonable bulk discount) to acquire a set number of units and then offering them out.

A third option, of course, is the city building it’s own partially market rate buildings, getting the revenue from that. I just know that fully affordable city run stuff tends to get repairs put off and slowly fall apart (I’m sure Hamilton is better about it than Thunder Bay, but… Thunder Bay’s go full horror story), so I’d like the people in affordable units to have the better living standards that comes from a mixed building.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by TheRitsman

But this is kind of the problem though. Council seems to have this what if attitude. The money to put people on the moon could feed children in Africa, money for finding dead children at residential schools could feed children in Africa, and money funding education of our students could feed children in Africa.

We could always find something more ethical for money, but that's not how our society works.

I was being sarcastic, but many of them are definitely very good at "what ifs" when it comes to bigger decisions... until it's something they want (bypass road in Waterdown, performing arts centre in Ancaster, etc.)

The political games are maddening.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by Beedok

It definitely depends on how many affordable housing units you ask for in ratio to market rate ones. 100 units with 30 affordable? Yeah, that’ll up the prices. 100 units with 5 affordable? Not really going to make a big difference. But applying that small amount consistently to all developments would help with affordable supply.

Also an option would be the city paying market rates (with some sort of reasonable bulk discount) to acquire a set number of units and then offering them out.

A third option, of course, is the city building it’s own partially market rate buildings, getting the revenue from that. I just know that fully affordable city run stuff tends to get repairs put off and slowly fall apart (I’m sure Hamilton is better about it than Thunder Bay, but… Thunder Bay’s go full horror story), so I’d like the people in affordable units to have the better living standards that comes from a mixed building.

A fourth is the city offering a financial incentive tied to the affordable units -- e.g., a reduced development charge, a longer-term property tax reduction, sale of city land at a very low price, etc. -- or a subsidy for the construction of the portion of units that are geared to lower incomes. It would be cheaper than the city building and maintaining its own housing complex, and there'd have to be strong legal agreements that the building owner (and future ones) must keep those units affordable.

[Innsertnamehere]

Approved 9-6.

[TheHonestMaple]

Never thought we would see the day. Hamilton will finally be getting this LRT.

[ScreamingViking]

Another step in the right direction.

I can see a 9-6 vote happening when the MOU is up for approval. Hopefully the terms are more palatable to a couple of those dissenters.

[ScreamingViking]

Here is the CBC's story about it. Read the comments at your peril... or if you want to get worked up.

City takes a major step toward accepting $3.4B offer for LRT in Hamilton
City estimates running LRT would cost between $6.4M and $16.5M per year

CBC News
Jun 16, 2021
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/lrt-hamilton-mou-1.6066257


The city of Hamilton will take its first step in hammering out an agreement to accept a $3.4-billion offer from the federal and provincial governments for a light-rail transit (LRT) system.

In a vote of 9-6, city councillors voted Wednesday morning to enter into a memorandum of understanding with Metrolinx and government officials for LRT. The decision still has to be ratified by city council a week from now.

While Ontario and Ottawa are each offering $1.7 billion to cover costs of building the LRT, Hamilton would be required to pay for operation and maintenance.

A new report from the city going before councillors today estimates those costs could be between $6.4 million and $16.5 million per year. The range depends on ridership and how many buses are removed.

It's the second time the city has made an agreement with Metrolinx for LRT. Staff have been directed to report back to the committee "as soon as possible" with the draft, which would also require a vote.

City councillors were divided on whether they want to take the multi-billion dollar deal, which the governments have specified is only for LRT.

City councillors who are supportive of the project say it would bring economic uplift that would benefit outlying areas and reduce long-term congestion, among other benefits.

Those opposed to LRT say they worry about the costs of operating the system and the impacts on residents' taxes.

The line proposed is a 14-kilometre route from McMaster University to Eastgate, running alternately on King and Main streets.

While Hamilton would foot the operating bill, the province has said it would retain ownership of the LRT assets and cover life-cycle costs.

The origins of an LRT system in Hamilton date back to 2007, when the city used a Metrolinx grant for an environmental assessment. In 2015, the then-Liberal Ontario government earmarked $1 billion for the project.

In December 2019, Minister Caroline Mulroney and her PC provincial government cancelled the LRT project, saying it had gone over budget and Hamilton couldn't afford it.

In February, the province announced it would pitch in $1 billion, as long as the federal government helped out too.


How they voted
Who voted to draft a memorandum of understanding:
Mayor Fred Eisenberger, Maureen Wilson (Ward 1), Jason Farr (2), Nrinder Nann (3), Sam Merulla (4), John-Paul Danko (8), Arlene VanderBeek (13), Esther Pauls (7), Lloyd Ferguson (12).

Who was opposed:
Chad Collins (5), Tom Jackson (6), Brad Clark (9), Maria Pearson (10), Brenda Johnson (11), Judi Partridge (15).

[durandy]

Originally Posted by ScreamingViking

$6.4 to $16.5 million dollars would pay for a lot of affordable housing every year. In other wards such as 1 through 4, not theirs.

Not that those residents would ever need transit service, but that's a moot point. Our bus system is more than capable.

But...the operating costs replace those of the B Line...is that the incremental cost? Surely that basic concept was in the report.

[TheHonestMaple]

Really happy to see Brad Clark agree to get this thing moving forward..... "“My role then is to provide advice on ways to help the project succeed". Although he personally opposes it, at least he is willing to understand the majority of councillors want it and will ensure it's a success.

[HamiltonBoyInToronto]

Members of council who oppose the LRT should have their faces plastered all over the city with a banner that reads "I opposed billions of dollars of investment and thousands of jobs for the city of Hamilton and I want my ward to pay for infrastructure upgrades along King Street "