Rapid Transit

[CaptainKirk]

Originally Posted by markbarbera

... it makes no sense to try to introduce LRT when so much of the transit system meant to feed it is providing embarassingly substandard service.

If LRT was greenlit today, it still might take up to 10 years for it to be up and running. Surely we can do both concurrently and expect the greater HSR service to be upgraded within a decade.

[markbarbera]

Originally Posted by CaptainKirk

If LRT was greenlit today, it still might take up to 10 years for it to be up and running. Surely we can do both concurrently and expect the greater HSR service to be upgraded within a decade.

Are suggesting there is enough money being made available by Metrolinx to build LRT and ramp up the city's under-served transit routes concurrently right now? If you truly believe this to be the case, why has the entire debate been framed as "LRT or nothing" up until this point?

[ScreamingViking]

Rapid Ready covered a lot of bus service improvements too, didn't it? Improvements that did not hinge on provincial investment in local transit?

Whether the next council has any appetite to finally agree to a substantial long-term increase in the HSR's budget is an open question though. The current council couldn't do it when it came down to making the decisions.

[CaptainKirk]

Originally Posted by markbarbera

Are suggesting there is enough money being made available by Metrolinx to build LRT and ramp up the city's under-served transit routes concurrently right now?

No, but why not go after it, or have the city upgrade it's own HSR service?

Once LRT goes online, it will free up buses and drivers, and provide more revenue to support better HSR service.

If you truly believe this to be the case, why has the entire debate been framed as "LRT or nothing" up until this point?

I don't see the entire LRT debate framed like that at all. Maybe by a few that resort to FUD politics, but not the entire debate.

This "either/or" BS has got to stop. Get on with leading, and lobbying for our city.

[markbarbera]

It is those who have been militant-like with their pro-LRT position that have framed it as a "LRT or nothing" discussion. They have equated those who want to explore alternative uses for the Metrolinx cash to saying "no thanks" to the money Metrolinx is offering, implying the Metrolinx cash is for LRT only, which simply is not true.

[HillStreetBlues]

Markbarbera, I’m with you that the “very pro” LRT crowd has mischaracterized the Metrolinx money, and framed the debate (as you correctly say, as “LRT or nothing”) in a very negative way. We have no idea about the Metrolinx money, none. We can negotiate hard for it in any way we like- if we decide we want LRT, we can push for that; if we want expanded transit across the city, we can push for that. The provincial government has given little solid reason to believe they will only fund LRT.

You asked “Are suggesting there is enough money being made available by Metrolinx to build LRT and ramp up the city's under-served transit routes concurrently right now?” I think that, if we were serious about rapid transit along certain corridors with local bus lines designed to feed those corridors, we could make a lot of improvements with the municipality’s own resources. The 10 itself should be fed by lines specifically designed to connect with it- instead, we have a jumble of neighbourhood lines whose routings cannot be explained without a history lesson, and are not useful for most riders. Correcting those is low-cost, and can be done quickly. Improving service (adding more frequency) is something that the city of Hamilton should be doing (and should have been doing), with or without Metrolinx.

[markbarbera]

Originally Posted by HillStreetBlues

Markbarbera, I’m with you that the “very pro” LRT crowd has mischaracterized the Metrolinx money, and framed the debate (as you correctly say, as “LRT or nothing”) in a very negative way. We have no idea about the Metrolinx money, none. We can negotiate hard for it in any way we like- if we decide we want LRT, we can push for that; if we want expanded transit across the city, we can push for that. The provincial government has given little solid reason to believe they will only fund LRT.

You asked “Are suggesting there is enough money being made available by Metrolinx to build LRT and ramp up the city's under-served transit routes concurrently right now?” I think that, if we were serious about rapid transit along certain corridors with local bus lines designed to feed those corridors, we could make a lot of improvements with the municipality’s own resources. The 10 itself should be fed by lines specifically designed to connect with it- instead, we have a jumble of neighbourhood lines whose routings cannot be explained without a history lesson, and are not useful for most riders. Correcting those is low-cost, and can be done quickly. Improving service (adding more frequency) is something that the city of Hamilton should be doing (and should have been doing), with or without Metrolinx.

I agree wholeheartedly. This should be the case, yet council could not even agree on expanding the much needed Rymal service a couple months ago, one very small piece of the overall transit inefficiencies. If they can't even get that right, how can anyone seriously be considering adding the responsibility of designing, implementing and operating a LRT system into the mix and expect success?

[thistleclub]

Originally Posted by CaptainKirk

Once LRT goes online, it will free up buses and drivers, and provide more revenue to support better HSR service.

In theory. Then there's the default scenario laid out in Rapid Ready (page 3 of PW13014), which assumes that 18 buses currently operating on the B-Line corridor would simply be removed from service as an operating cost efficiency.

There may be room within the RT funding envelope to address two fronts of transit modernization. Going back to the 2007-era election promises, whatever they're worth, consider a hypothetical scenario wherein $1 billion has been earmarked for capital investment in public transit within the City of Hamilton (over and above GO Transit enhancements). If B-Line LRT were to cost $850 million, that might leave $150 million that could be redeployed to enhancements elsewhere in the HSR.

The City may be shuffling in this direction already. As noted by Hamilton Transit earlier this year:

Purchasing articulated buses will allow the HSR to increase capacity on several routes that continue to experience overcrowding and bypassing of intending transit users, most notably 2 Barton and in the King-Main corridor. Articulated buses allow for extra capacity without the extra expenditure of more buses on the road and more drivers.

Renewing rolling stock on the most heavily trafficked routes in this way allows the HSR to increase ridership, and the accompanying rider revenue might in turn support the increased operating costs that go hand in hand with service expansion elsewhere in the system without requiring much additional budget bravery from staff or council.

Again, hypothetical. But such investment is overdue. It's worth noting that back in 1996, a decade before Metrolinx was formed, the City aimed to reach 100 rides per capita by 2021.

[thistleclub]

Wynne cabinet builds in option to drain Ontario transit funds
(The Globe and Mail, Adrian Morrow, Oct 17 2014)

Ontario’s Liberal government has created a legal loophole that would allow it to divert money away from transit construction.

During the June election, Premier Kathleen Wynne repeatedly promised to sell off government assets – such as buildings, land and parts of government-owned electricity companies – and put the money into the Trillium Trust, a new fund dedicated to paying for transit.

But the legislation governing the Trillium Trust gives Ms. Wynne’s cabinet and Treasury Board the executive power to decide how much revenue from asset sales, if any, is actually put in the Trust. This allows the government to choose to redirect the money away from transit and into other spending files.

In an interview, Finance Minister Charles Sousa suggested asset sales are too complicated to handle with a single hard-and-fast law. For instance, some asset-sale proceeds must be used for other purposes, such as to pay transaction costs, and cannot be put into the Trust. Mr. Sousa said handling such things is best left up to cabinet.

“Most everything that we sell as an asset goes to the Trillium Trust; that’s the intent,” he said.

But critics charge the law still gives cabinet too much freedom to do what it wants with the money. And the cash-strapped government could be tempted to use some of the funds to erase its $12.5-billion deficit instead of building transit....

On top of asset sales, Ms. Wynne also promised to divert 7.5 cents per litre of the gas tax to transit.

It is not clear, however, how this will work. Mr. Sousa said the gas tax is not going into the Trillium Trust, and he was vague on what mechanism the province will use to ensure it gets put toward transit.

“That’s at our discretion already,” he said. “We put it in the budget, we made clear what it is that we’re dedicating.”

Read it in full here.

[thistleclub]

Election melting away council support for LRT
(Hamilton Spectator, Matthew Van Dongen, Oct 21 2014)

[SteelTown]

Originally Posted by thistleclub

Election melting away council support for LRT
(Hamilton Spectator, Matthew Van Dongen, Oct 21 2014)

And that's the scary part. It's council not the Mayor who will pick LRT/BRT/more buses option for the B-Line.

[Jon Dalton]

Metrolinx is funding rapid transit lines whether BRT or LRT. I don't believe we can buy $200 million or whatever worth of buses and stick them anywhere and call it rapid transit. It wouldn't qualify for the funding.

That said, I would rather see a Brad Clark type plan than full BRT on the B-line. This approach would improve service everywhere while leaving the door open to LRT in the future with a smarter council.

LRT is not dead though. We are almost certain to have a pro LRT mayor as well as pro LRT ward 1 and ward 3 councillors. If the Metrolinx funding comes through, it's not hard to imagine enough of those flip-flopping councillors to fall in line.

We aren't the only municipality to eff up on LRT. Ottawa is finally getting their system underway after it was canned back in 2007. That's when Hamilton started the debate. http://www.raisethehammer.org/articl...owntown_update

[markbarbera]

Originally Posted by Jon Dalton

Metrolinx is funding rapid transit lines whether BRT or LRT. I don't believe we can buy $200 million or whatever worth of buses and stick them anywhere and call it rapid transit. It wouldn't qualify for the funding.

I don't think Metrolinx funding is that strictly qualified. I think it is much more fluid. They have proven themselves rather flexible as to what qualifies for funding in the past, and there is no readson to think that flexibility is no longer there. They have financed the purchase of articulated buses for the (non-BRT) B-line in the past, and it was Metrolinx funding that paid for the bike share project in Hamilton. The interpretation of higher order transit seems rather loose.

By the way, does anyone know where we are on the implementation of the bike share program? It was supposed to be in place this summer, wasn't it?

[CaptainKirk]

Originally Posted by Jon Dalton

I would rather see a Brad Clark type plan than full BRT on the B-line. This approach would improve service everywhere while leaving the door open to LRT in the future with a smarter council.

3 major problems with this:

• BRT will be more costly for the city to operate
  Upgrading to LRT later would create a huge disruption to the b-Line BRT during "retrofit"
  Upgrading to LRT creates a much bigger expense

I'd rather see a scaled down LRT, perhaps a T-shape, Mac to King @James, and up and down James from the waterfront, past both GO stations to St Joes / future mountain access point.

[Beedok]

Upgrading Ottawa's BRT to LRT is proving to be somewhat of a nightmare because there's huge numbers of buses that need to be redirected while their corridors are being upgraded.

[HillStreetBlues]

Originally Posted by CaptainKirk

I'd rather see a scaled down LRT, perhaps a T-shape, Mac to King @James, and up and down James from the waterfront, past both GO stations to St Joes / future mountain access point.

One of the arguments against the proposed LRT line is that it is a stub (people have argued that here)- I can’t agree with that since it seems to be on par in length with many lines elsewhere. But this ‘T’ really would be short, and would not serve that many riders- I don’t think the Bayfront is a big trip generator. The Go stations would be only at very specific times of the day.

4 Bayfront has really low ridership for a lower city line. I don’t have much idea about the A-Line, but the few times I have taken it at rush hours, the loads were not even comparable to the 1 or the 10.

[CaptainKirk]

Originally Posted by HillStreetBlues

One of the arguments against the proposed LRT line is that it is a stub (people have argued that here)- I can’t agree with that since it seems to be on par in length with many lines elsewhere. But this ‘T’ really would be short, and would not serve that many riders- I don’t think the Bayfront is a big trip generator. The Go stations would be only at very specific times of the day.

4 Bayfront has really low ridership for a lower city line. I don’t have much idea about the A-Line, but the few times I have taken it at rush hours, the loads were not even comparable to the 1 or the 10.

Keep in mind, if LRT were to be greenlit now, it wouldn't come on line for about 7-10 years. Would GO service be upgraded enough by then to warrant such connections? Would we have all day and express GO service by then?

[thistleclub]

City Issues: Hey, Toronto! Transit Isn't Just Your Issue
(The Inside Agenda Blog, John Michael McGrath, Oct 21 2014)

The City of Toronto's transit issues are well-known: the region's choking congestion costs the city anywhere from $6 billion to $11 billion a year, but consensus on the solution is elusive: Toronto's transit plans were changed in each of 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013. And 2015 could bring further changes.

But cities across the province are working on their own transit plans, both inside the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (in concert with Metrolinx, the regional transit planning body) and beyond.

Hamilton voters might have the starkest transit choice this election cycle, where the incumbent Bob Bratina has opted out of the race in favour of a federal run next year. That's left former mayor Fred Eisenberger and councillors Brian McHattie and Brad Clark (a former Tory MPP and Minister of Transportation) battling for the open mayor's seat. Eisenberger and McHattie back a proposed light rail transit (LRT) line through Hamilton's downtown (the B-Line), while Clark says the city can't afford it.

"For Hamilton, it's not primarily a congestion issue right now. It's primarily about the economic uplift that comes with investment all along the line. That's where the big win is for Hamilton, but it's different in every community," Eisenberger says. A recent McMaster University study noted that Hamilton's relatively-uncongested streets pose "challenges" for the B-Line LRT, as commuters may be unwilling to abandon their cars for the line.

That study struck a more cautious, but not dismissive, tone than the City of Hamilton's "Rapid Ready" report in 2013 or Metrolinx's 2010 business case assessment, which were both bullish on the project.

Clark says Hamilton's transit ridership isn't high enough to support the proposed LRT, and worries that Hamilton is pursuing something because of a mistaken idea of what a growing mid-sized city "should" have, instead of what he says is a more realistic assessment of Hamilton's needs.

"It's an aspiration that's not grounded with financial support, that's not grounded with the ridership that's required to make it a success," Clark says. "I've argued we should increase our ridership first. We've put together a smart transit plan that does just that."

One hitch in the entire plan to date is that even Eisenberger says his support is conditional on the province paying for 100 per cent of the LRT line's roughly $800 million construction cost (with Hamilton paying to operate the new line.) While the province paid the full cost of some major transit projects in the GTA (notably Toronto's Eglinton Crosstown LRT, currently under construction) more recently the provincial Liberal government has said they're looking for more "clarity" from Hamilton....

One of the running themes in all discussions of local transit improvement, at least in Metrolinx's jurisdiction, is where the money will come from. Premier Kathleen Wynne led her Liberals to re-election this summer in part on a promise to spend $15 billion on transit infrastructure over 10 years in the GTHA.

That's a lot of money, but the Liberals have said their priority is shifting GO Train service to all-day, two-way, electrified service. The estimated cost for the transformation of GO train service? $12 billion, according to an estimate earlier this summer. The Liberals hope that number will come down as Metrolinx refines its planning, but there are still big-ticket projects like Toronto's proposed downtown relief line or mayoral candidate John Tory's SmartTrack plan that could eat up much of the remainder.


Read it in full here.

[thistleclub]

Kevin Werner tweets:

Liberal MPP Ted McMeekin says Hamilton needs to decide which way to go on LRT. He says he knows Eisenberger and can work with him.#HamOnt

"Hamilton needs to clarify just where it stands on" LRT," says McMeekin. #HamOnt

[matt602]

Here we go with this song and dance again. Fred is going to have to fix the mess that Bob created at council if LRT is going to go forward.