The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[caltrane74]

Not only that, but Hamilton's suburbs are super-rich, guys like Billionaire Micheal Lee-Chin owning mansions in Ancaster, Dundas and Waterdown.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by caltrane74

Not only that, but Hamilton's suburbs are super-rich, guys like Billionaire Micheal Lee-Chin owning mansions in Ancaster, Dundas and Waterdown.

Yeah, the difference between (some of) Hamilton's suburbs and the inner-city is particularly stark.

Just looking at the ward map of Hamilton now you have 4 rural wards (including rural-suburban communities), 7 wards I would consider suburban, and only 4 urban wards. The split between urban and suburban wards could be debatable.

[SteelTown]

During amalgamation they thought it was a good idea to have equal number of urban and rural/suburban councilors. So basically urban councilors are representing sometimes 5 times more people than a rural councilor say from Flamborough. For example Ward 7 population is 58,395 while Ward 14 population is 15,920.

City council is trying to get one additional urban ward to help balance the representation issue but it'll be an uphill battle.

I believe they did the same in Ottawa but they changed that recently.

[GreatTallNorth2]

I'm not sure it's fair to say that London has no plan if you are implying the city is twiddling it's thumbs just waiting for cash. Tonight marks the next phase in Shift London where details of the 2 rapid transit corridors will be revealed. The Shift London group is working at light speed with the community to sell rapid transit to the citizens. It is a different approach to some of the other cities where the route and technology were basically announced with little imput (and then backlash as a result). The EA is well under way and I think London could move fast on this.

So, no..there is not a final document that has everything in stone, but we are getting there fast. On the other hand, I have heard nothing whatsoever from both Windsor and Niagara on any type of transit improvement, let alone RT.

[Dr Awesomesauce]

Originally Posted by SteelTown

Hamilton City Council voted unanimously for LRT in Hamilton, not once but twice.

I'd forgotten that, actually. Cheers.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by niwell

It's also worth noting that Hamilton was one of the municipalities that was particularly screwed over by amalgamation. You already had a big urban / suburban divide, but now you have a massive rural area on top of that. It's incredibly difficult to get anything with a pro-urban agenda passed in that environment. Ottawa has a similar situation of course, but I don't think it's quite as pronounced.

Ottawa's a bit different because it doesn't have Hamilton's insane urban-suburban divide and suburban elitist culture. Really, most Canadian cities don't... Hamilton is almost USA-like in this.

Originally Posted by SteelTown

During amalgamation they thought it was a good idea to have equal number of urban and rural/suburban councilors. So basically urban councilors are representing sometimes 5 times more people than a rural councilor say from Flamborough. For example Ward 7 population is 58,395 while Ward 14 population is 15,920.

City council is trying to get one additional urban ward to help balance the representation issue but it'll be an uphill battle.

I believe they did the same in Ottawa but they changed that recently.

The OMB has ruled that wards have to be drawn according to population, so that would affect the future of this issue.

In Kingston, even though we're in a unicity that includes the urban core, the suburbs, and a large swath of rural land, the urban core has a lot of political power. Because Kingston's boom periods were 1790-1840 and 1890-1920 with very slow growth since 1920, a much smaller proportion of Kingston's metro population lives in the suburbs compared to most other Canadian cities. As a result, 5/12 of the wards are urban, 6/12 are suburban, and 1/12 is rural. With an OMB ruling in effect requiring the consideration of transient students in population counts, downtown's share of the ward count is assured into the future.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by GreatTallNorth2

I'm not sure it's fair to say that London has no plan if you are implying the city is twiddling it's thumbs just waiting for cash. Tonight marks the next phase in Shift London where details of the 2 rapid transit corridors will be revealed. The Shift London group is working at light speed with the community to sell rapid transit to the citizens. It is a different approach to some of the other cities where the route and technology were basically announced with little imput (and then backlash as a result). The EA is well under way and I think London could move fast on this.

So, no..there is not a final document that has everything in stone, but we are getting there fast. On the other hand, I have heard nothing whatsoever from both Windsor and Niagara on any type of transit improvement, let alone RT.

In the case of Niagara Falls, the greatest need is to have a rapid transit connection to Toronto. In other words, an extension of the GO rail network, which is in the long-term plan. With the QEW becoming increasing congested, and Niagara Falls and Toronto being the provinces two biggest tourist attractions, we need to allow and encourage the movement of tourists between these two locations. Countless Americans cross the border to see the Canadian side of Niagara Falls and quickly return. If there was a good rail connection, many would extend their stay and visit Toronto as well. In my case, coming from Ottawa, we now have a good rail connection to Toronto, but if I want to go to Niagara Falls, I have to drive. This would give me a choice, a much more relaxing choice that is not practical today.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

In the case of Niagara Falls, the greatest need is to have a rapid transit connection to Toronto.... In my case, coming from Ottawa, we now have a good rail connection to Toronto, but if I want to go to Niagara Falls, I have to drive. This would give me a choice, a much more relaxing choice that is not practical today.

You can thank the federal government over the years for reducing Via's frequency from 5 trains per day in the 1970's to the pathetic 1 train per day today. You can also thank Hunter Harrison the ex CEO of CN for ripping up much of the double track and sending it south to the USA. This is all part of the government's logic that if you make trains service slow, inconvenient and unreliable then nobody will ride it then you can get rid of it.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

You can thank the federal government over the years for reducing Via's frequency from 5 trains per day in the 1970's to the pathetic 1 train per day today. You can also thank Hunter Harrison the ex CEO of CN for ripping up much of the double track and sending it south to the USA. This is all part of the government's logic that if you make trains service slow, inconvenient and unreliable then nobody will ride it then you can get rid of it.

A lot of the double tracking wasn't useful anymore when the system had to be modified to carry three level autoracks and double stacked containers. All of a sudden tunnels and some bridges that could carry two tracks could only carry one.

[Beedok]

I still find it amusing that Hamilton has only now succeeded after years of struggle to get the same treatment given to GTA cities (after a prolonged period where it seemed like it would have to pay into the revenue system but not get the benefit), and now that it's succeed in setting the precedent that cities outside the GTA can finally hope for equal treatment people are acting like it's been chilling in the honey pot for decades.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

You can thank the federal government over the years for reducing Via's frequency from 5 trains per day in the 1970's to the pathetic 1 train per day today. You can also thank Hunter Harrison the ex CEO of CN for ripping up much of the double track and sending it south to the USA. This is all part of the government's logic that if you make trains service slow, inconvenient and unreliable then nobody will ride it then you can get rid of it.

And this really is what is going on, the federal government is gradually downloading responsibility for passenger rail service in Ontario to the provincial government. After all, it is a higher priority to fund boutique tax credits than to fund infrastructure. So if we want decent rail service, the province will have to pay for it.

[ssiguy]

I want everyone from the GTHA to imagine something for a moment.

Queen's Park all of a sudden decides to build 6 new universities and the size of those schools is related to the size of the cities so Toronto would get a huge new school and London the smallest. Everyone in those cities is of course ecstatic as Wynne rightfully says that education is an essential service and will help the province prosper in the future and everyone totally agrees.

Then Wynne comes out and says but there's a catch. London, Ottawa, and KWC will get theirs paid for 100% but Toronto, Missisauga, and Hamilton have to pay one third the cost of their new schools and have to pray to god that Ottawa also throws in one third the cost. This is justified because the GTAH already has more schools than anyone else.

Can you imagine the response? Torontonians and company would faint and tell everyone that you cannot discriminate against them due to their size. Of course they would be right but the analogy is exactly the same.

[caltrane74]

The Union-Pearson trains are coming with enough frequency, I can just walk by and take a picture

[TorontoDrew]

The TTC should be doing test runs of the new streetcar tracks through the Canary District in a few days. Also I wish they would open the King Queen split already. It`s been closed for what seems a few years now.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Again my issue is not with Hamilton getting transit funds but rather it getting 100% infrastructure funding that that Kitchener and London will not enjoy despite having higher ridership and faster growing ridership.

How can this be justified?

How can you possibly assume that what happens from this point in cities outside the GTHA will reflect the old funding formula? You blather on and on about a double standard. How about you wait and see with an open mind for a change?

We've seen projects in Toronto get full funding, and now projects in Mississauga and Hamilton too. Just perhaps, the provincial government recognizes the political issues around future funding announcements in the cities beyond.

And remember that the funding agreements for the first round of big transit investments in Ottawa and KW happened long ago, in a previous government.

And also, now there is a huge pot of money for cities and towns outside the GTHA, comparable in size to the GTHA pot, which is largely yet to be dispensed. Who is to say the older funding standards will hold?

Additionally, don't forget there has been a commitment made to high speed rail as well. Who knows yet what that will look like, or what it will cost, but the Toronto-KW-London-Windsor corridor is planned to get it.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by ScreamingViking

How can you possibly assume that what happens from this point in cities outside the GTHA will reflect the old funding formula? You blather on and on about a double standard. How about you wait and see with an open mind for a change?

We've seen projects in Toronto get full funding, and now projects in Mississauga and Hamilton too. Just perhaps, the provincial government recognizes the political issues around future funding announcements in the cities beyond.

And remember that the funding agreements for the first round of big transit investments in Ottawa and KW happened long ago, in a previous government.

And also, now there is a huge pot of money for cities and towns outside the GTHA, comparable in size to the GTHA pot, which is largely yet to be dispensed. Who is to say the older funding standards will hold?

Additionally, don't forget there has been a commitment made to high speed rail as well. Who knows yet what that will look like, or what it will cost, but the Toronto-KW-London-Windsor corridor is planned to get it.

Sure it's a new government but this has been going on for a longer time. There is no formal declaration 100% funding is new policy. This is ad hoc and political opportunism policy that can be changed on a whim. Cities need some stable funding and policies.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

Sure it's a new government but this has been going on for a longer time. There is no formal declaration 100% funding is new policy. This is ad hoc and political opportunism policy that can be changed on a whim. Cities need some stable funding and policies.

Yes, they do. The Moving Ontario Forward plan is about as stable as it gets now (and probably the most stable there has ever been, in Ontario). I just see no sense in anybody whining about double standards and such.

This "whim" has at minimum 3 more years under Wynne. Cities that want progressive transportation infrastructure investment need to start making their case NOW.

[wg_flamip]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I want everyone from the GTHA to imagine something for a moment.

Queen's Park all of a sudden decides to build 6 new universities and the size of those schools is related to the size of the cities so Toronto would get a huge new school and London the smallest. Everyone in those cities is of course ecstatic as Wynne rightfully says that education is an essential service and will help the province prosper in the future and everyone totally agrees.

Then Wynne comes out and says but there's a catch. London, Ottawa, and KWC will get theirs paid for 100% but Toronto, Missisauga, and Hamilton have to pay one third the cost of their new schools and have to pray to god that Ottawa also throws in one third the cost. This is justified because the GTAH already has more schools than anyone else.

Can you imagine the response? Torontonians and company would faint and tell everyone that you cannot discriminate against them due to their size. Of course they would be right but the analogy is exactly the same.

Different cities have different needs - a one-size-fits-all solution to many provincial funding schemes just doesn't make sense. Toronto has a sixty year-old subway system to maintain, high and growing transit ridership and a system that gets a lot of use from out-of-towners who don't pay property taxes to the city. Toronto also has a huge transportation problem that is costing the provincial economy billions of dollars every year.

If we look at other provincial funding, we see that Toronto often does get the short end of the stick. If we look at higher education (since you brought it up) we see that university towns get way more per capita funding for higher education than Toronto. I don't think that's a bad thing - university towns offer young people the chance to live on their own for the first time in an environment geared more towards them, and these schools provide smaller centres an important economic boost. Some back-of-the-napkin calculations tell me that the province would have to double university enrollment in Toronto to even approach the per capita student spaces available in London. It would have to increase enrollment in Toronto by a factor of six to match Kingston.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I want everyone from the GTHA to imagine something for a moment.

Queen's Park all of a sudden decides to build 6 new universities and the size of those schools is related to the size of the cities so Toronto would get a huge new school and London the smallest. Everyone in those cities is of course ecstatic as Wynne rightfully says that education is an essential service and will help the province prosper in the future and everyone totally agrees.

Then Wynne comes out and says but there's a catch. London, Ottawa, and KWC will get theirs paid for 100% but Toronto, Missisauga, and Hamilton have to pay one third the cost of their new schools and have to pray to god that Ottawa also throws in one third the cost. This is justified because the GTAH already has more schools than anyone else.

Can you imagine the response? Torontonians and company would faint and tell everyone that you cannot discriminate against them due to their size. Of course they would be right but the analogy is exactly the same.

Hamilton would probably grumble about getting the short end of the stick as it usually does.

Content removed