Raise the Hammer
With this announcement, every major Ontario political party supports Hamilton's LRT plan and is committed to funding it.
By Ryan McGreal
Published July 29, 2016
It has been an interesting week on the light rail transit (LRT) front, but not for the reason you might think. Overlooked in the nonsense about Ward 8 Councillor Terry Whitehead's immediately-discredited [PDF] LRT "report" (about which the fewer words spilled, the better) was a much more important piece of news that clears one of the last remaining political hurdles for a successful implementation.
Patrick Brown, leader of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party, announced this week that his party, if elected to form the provincial government after the 2018 election, would honour Hamilton's LRT funding commitment.
CBC Hamilton reports:
If the Conservative party wins the 2018 provincial election, Ontario party leader Patrick Brown says, it will still pay for Hamilton's $1 billion light rail transit (LRT) system — as long as that's still what city council wants.
The article quotes Brown responding to a question at the Flamborough Chamber of Commerce lunch this past Monday.
"It's incumbent on the province to be flexible about what the clear municipal will is," Brown said.
"But I think in this case, we have to respect the fact that there's a commitment to LRT, and I would honour that."
With this announcement, every major Ontario political party supports Hamilton's LRT plan and is committed to funding it. This eliminates the fear that the project could get de-funded based on the outcome of the next election, given that construction is set to start the following year, in 2019. It also undercuts the potential to entangle the LRT project into a partisan wedge issue.
This is a smart, pragmatic move for Brown and the PC Party. As I argued earlier this summer if the Tories want to convince Ontarians they are fit to govern, they need to stop trying to be the angry anti-urban party and demonstrate that they can represent the values and interests of a citizenry that now mostly lives in cities.
Philosophically, this should be a fairly easy sell. Cities are the main engines of economic development, and a combination of strategic infrastructure and sound policy unlocks the unique power of cities to multiply human ingenuity and productivity by bringing people into productive contact and leveraging the essential urban economies of scale, agglomeration, density, association and extension.
As economist Edward Glaeser wrote in his book Triumph of the City, "Cities are the absence of physical space between people and companies. They are proximity, density, closeness. They enable us to work and play together, and their success depends on the demand for physical connection."
LRT feeds into that dynamic, not only by attracting new dense developments that bring a higher concentration of uses into close proximity, but also by making it easier for large numbers of people to travel quickly and conveniently between destinations in a highly space-efficient way.
Hamilton City Council began studying rapid transit in early 2008 after the Province established Metrolinx, an arms-length agency to coordinate rapid transit and regional express rail across the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area, and committed to funding an ambitious new regional transportation plan.
Over the next several months, city staff conducted an extensive feasibility study comparing LRT and bus rapid transit on the east-west B-Line and the north-south A-Line, consulting with nearly 2,000 residents from across the City. They concluded that LRT would provide the biggest overall benefit, and that the B-Line should proceed first because it already had the highest transit ridership in the city.
Council agreed, and directed staff to begin designing an LRT plan to submit to the Province for funding. The Province provided $3 million in funding for the City to undertake the required Class Environmental Assessment. In 2011, Metrolinx released a Benefits Case Analysis that validated the City's LRT plan, and in 2013, Council formally voted to submit the plan to the Province for funding consideration.
However, constant political obstructionism from then-Mayor Bob Bratina sent the Province a signal that Hamilton was not ready for a funding commitment. A project as big and transformative as LRT needs a political champion to ensure success, and Hamilton did not have that champion in the mayor's office.
After a provincial election in 2014 that saw the Liberals win a majority, followed by the Mayoral election of LRT supporter Fred Eisenberger in late 2014, the local political context changed again and the Province announced full capital funding for a modified LRT plan in May 2015.
The approved and funded line runs east-west from McMaster University to Queenston Traffic Circle and north-south on James from King to the Waterfront.
After the funding announcement, Council voted to establish an LRT office and hire staff to work with Metrolinx on implementing the line. They also voted to sign a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Province, committing the City to work with the Province to streamline necessary approvals and also to establish land use and transportation policies that support the success of the LRT system.
In fact, Council has voted literally dozens of times in favour of LRT since this project began.
For those very few councillors who are suddenly asking whether the City should be looking at alternatives to the current plan, we must ask: what on earth did they think they were voting for over the past eight years?
By Haveacow (registered) | Posted July 29, 2016 at 16:47:08
This happened in Ottawa back in 2006 with the canceling of the North-South LRT line. They (Browne and the Tories) are for it as long as the city is for it. The second they can convince the majority of the conservative minded councilors in your city with some kind of political crumb. They will take it and you will have a slim majority against LRT on council and if they are elected bye, bye LRT funding! The federal Conservatives did it to us back in 2006, when they said they would with hold their share of the funding until after the municipal elections. They made sure that many Conservative councilor candidates were well funded and were offered the possibility of federal jobs, if they played ball. They got their wish and the line was cancelled by the then new mayor Larry O'Brien.
By ergopepsi (registered) | Posted July 29, 2016 at 17:19:13 in reply to Comment 119752
I am very concerned with the 'as long as that's still what city council wants' part of the statement. Do not trust those people.
By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted July 30, 2016 at 14:13:27
I have to say, I'm impressed with how Brown has pulled his party back to the centre despite campaigning for leadership from the right. As much as I dislike the Ontario PCs, it's important to have a conservative voice in the House to hold the Liberals accountable for the deficit and weak private sector growth (outside of the real-estate bubble and finance sectors, I mean).
That said, with Brown's previous actions as a social conservative, I can't say I trust this new shift as earnest, much less the entire Ontario PC party.
Also, after the b-line is underway, would there be any chance of the a-line under the PCs? Any way we could follow in Ottawa's footsteps where they have one lrt under construction, a second approved for funding,and a third being sketched out? I doubt it.
Comment edited by Pxtl on 2016-07-30 14:14:18
By ASmith (registered) | Posted July 31, 2016 at 14:31:59
"Cities are the main engines of economic development, and a combination of strategic infrastructure and sound policy unlocks the unique power of cities to multiply human ingenuity and productivity by bringing people into productive contact and leveraging the essential urban economies of scale, agglomeration, density, association and extension."
Since Feb 2005, when Ontario's Greenbelt legislation was enacted, Canada's (which Ontario GDP accounts for approx 38% of) productivity has averaged 0.72%/annum. In the 11 years prior to the pro-urban Greenbelt legislation, Canada's productivity averaged 1.53%.
Between 1994-2005, the number of people employed in Canada increased by 2.05%/annum. After 2005, it has averaged 1.1%.
From 1994-2005, public debt fell from 98%/gdp to 73%/gdp. It's now at 92%. While household debt did increase from 58%/gdp to 67.5%/gdp from 1994-2005, it has since climbed to 97.6%/gdp. If you combine public + household debt/gdp, we see that it fell from 156%/gdp to 140.5% between 1994-2005. After the Greenbelt became law, it has since climbed to 189.6%/gdp.
Where are the actual stats that show pro-urban (anti-free market) laws make our economy more productive?
By Streeter (registered) | Posted August 02, 2016 at 10:10:29 in reply to Comment 119757
Ontario's share of the Canadian GDP has been falling rapidly since around 2000, which was before the Greenbelt Legislation was in place. https://www.fraserinstitute.org/blogs/po...
Meanwhile, Ontario GDP per capita has increased from $43,345 in 2005 ($2016) to $52,126 in 2014 ($2016). Canada's GDP is surely decreasing since 2013, but in 2005 it was $1169.36B in ($US2015) and is now 1550.54B in ($US2015). Interestingly enough, the GDP shape over those years pretty much mirrors oil prices...
I'm no economist but I would say the change in Ontario's GDP share, the rise and fall of manufacturing and the rise and fall of Canadian GDP have a lot more to do with oil prices and the Canadian dollar than with greenbelt legislation.
Also comparisons to all of Canada do not really relate to one provinces development related legislation, for example since 2005, Alberta has gone from a Assets to GDP % of 12.6% in 2005 to 1.2% 2015 and is projected to hit deficit this year. Quebec debt has increased from 2005 to now, BC has remained relatively flat, Saskatchewan has decreased (still deficit), Manitoba has increased, etc. And the increase in Ontario hit in 2009 which coincides with the recession, not the greenbelt legislation...
By KevinLove (registered) | Posted August 02, 2016 at 09:00:37 in reply to Comment 119757
Since Feb 2005...
So Ontario caused a world-wide global recession? Wow! I did not realize we had that kind of power.
By ASmith (registered) | Posted August 05, 2016 at 15:50:48 in reply to Comment 119759
I see, so when leftie policies don't work, you blame the rest of the world. Makes sense. Communism would have worked, but we just didn't do it correctly. Venzuela should be doing great, but the U.S. became too good at producing oil. QE (aggregate demand Keynsian nonsense) monetary policy is doing nothing for the real economy, so let's do more.
There's always an excuse. Conversely, when Ont/Can boom because we go back to limited government, lefties claim it has nothing to do with domestic policies, it's because the world is doing great.
If that's the case, that the world determines our outcomes, then why enact pro-urban policies?
By Deleted User (anonymous) | Posted July 31, 2016 at 18:10:31
$350 billion in debt by 2020. 38% of Ontario's debt matures in the same year. A one percent increase in interest rates means Ontario will pay another $350 million a year in interest alone on top of the current $11 billion annual expenditure. Most of Ontario's spending in the last 8 years represented rollover of existing debt.
Do you honestly think the province can afford to build this LRT? Keep in mind that growing the economy is the last thing the province wants to do now since it will mean an increase in interest rates. The province is bankrupt and could actually default by 2020. And you guys are debating how to spend "the money." What money? Any realists left out there? Anyone capable of seeing the big picture?
You must be logged in to comment.
There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?