Raise the Hammer

thanks for the update Nicholas. I just read the report and it's very interesting. LRT would be an 8 minute shorter trip than BRT. That alone is HUGE. The spinoff in EcDev is really the key though. BRT can't hold a candle to LRT. If it could, all of these cities that have been building LRT systems would have stopped wasting their money and just gone with buses. People from Hamilton travel the continent and the world and ride trains in cities all over the place. Not buses though. They'll ride trains in Hamilton too, but not buses.

I hope the right decision is made. It's very rare for Hamilton to have such a huge opportunity at such a transformational project. Usually we're funding these sorts of projects in Toronto. It would be nice to build one here for once....maybe Toronto tax payers will actually have to chip in a little too. Gasp!!

I enjoyed the read, as well. It seems to stress Two-Way Conversion of Main & King a lot.

I'm fearing they're going to go with Option 3: Phased LRT (Mac to Ottawa St). Obviously I'm praying & hoping for Full LRT... but with the state the Prov is in, you just never know!?

I love how they make the statement that Hamilton will certainly make the two-way conversion of King and Main due to the obvious benefits. LOL.
Oh, if they only knew.......

It sure is a good thing that the Metrolinx board was changed "for efficiency." How many deferred decisions and cancelled board meetings have there been now?

I read the report too, and I'm not all that impressed. Hamilton will be on the hook for millions and millions of dollars on top of the base price. Hamilton is $600 million in debt and needs almost a billion dollars to upgrade the water and waste water sewage system to even remotely continue with development of any sort. We also are asking for another $14.5 million to cover increased administration costs of government programs and salary increases for staff such as EMS, fire and police services. The only way LRT will come to Hamilton is when Metrolynx pays 100% of the costs to build it. Most present Councilors will be long-gone by then. I predict half will be gone in the fall at the ballot box.

this is one of the rare times where the upfront public investment actually results in the city MAKING money in the long run. Lots of it.

That's right, buy now, pay later. That's what Bob Rae did to Ontario in the early nineties and it crushed tax revenues. The fact is, increasing public debt does not lead to increased tax revenues, it decreases them.

According to the 2008 financial report pg 2-18...

(d) Total charges for the year for long term debt which are reported on the Consolidated Statement of Financial Activities are as follows:
2008 2007
Principal repayments $ 23,355 $ 19,773
Interest 14,421 13,207
$ 37,776 $ 32,980

(c) Total charges for the year for long term debt - housing corporations are as follows:
2008 2007
Principal repayments $ 2,527 $ 2,424
Interest 3,736 4,018
$ 6,263 $ 6,442

... That's $18.16M every year just on interest. In contrast, the entire 2008 transit budget was $41.3M.

If the city had chosen to save these amounts...

2008
Long term debt – Municipal Operations (Note 7) 329,026
Long term debt – Housing Corporations (Note 8) 74,168

...instead of borrowing them, it could be earning $18.16M every year on interest. That's a difference of $36.32M every single year, or roughly the amount we spend every year on transit.

yawn, a smith, yawn, scroll scroll scroll, yawn, numbers, yawn, scroll scroll scroll, is he done et, scroll scroll scroll.

i've got a great idea, if the poor sold their babies to rich people for food they could afford to buy cars and then we could solve all our problems! no more nasty taxes! no more public transit! no more public debt! free market at its best!

i would show you how it works with made up statistics and baseless redundant math predicated on fiction that no one will bother to read, but only douche bags do that, right? right?

It seems to me that a lot of the opposition to two-way traffic on Main and King would go away if there were another reasonable way to get from east of downtown to west of downtown or the other way around in a car. Notice that I didn't say "to 'bypass' downtown". People are concerned that the two way streets would create a bottleneck even worse then that which now exists between Victoria and James on King St. If Cannon and Wilson Sts. could remain one-way that would provide motorists with an east-west route, and the proposed LRT the two way traffic and revised streetscape which it ideally requires. It's well to remember that most Hamiltonians don't live anywhere near the proposed LRT line. Even if one of its stops is somewhere near where they're going, they're not going to endure the walk to a bus stop, the wait for the bus and a 20 or 30 minute bus ride to connect with it.

Methinks there's logic in A. Smith's numbers...keep it up Mr. Smith! Maybe we should send you to city hall.

@davidsfawcett,

There are two "reasonable way[s] to get from east of downtown to west of downtown or the other way around in a car" without taking Cannon, Wilson, Main, or King. They're called the 403/QEW and Linc/Red Hill. In fact, one of the major justifications for the RHVP was that it would reduce car traffic in the lower city.

Two other "reasonable ways to get from east of downtown to west of downtown or the other way around" include driving on two-way city streets (even with two-way conversion, traffic speeds in Hamilton will not likely be slower than in other major Ontario cities) or taking the HSR.

Those of us who live near Wilson and Cannon don't particularly like the idea of having even more traffic dumped in our backyard.

Some debt is good. Does anyone have a mortgage?

Just posting to clarify that I meant my earlier comment not as an argument against LRT on King/Main, but rather as an argument an LRT implementation that shifts even more car traffic to Wilson/Cannon. (Particularly one that keeps the latter two streets one-way with synchronized lights because, well, we can't actually expect people to use the LRT to get across town, can we?)

Does anybody else find it strange that any posts talking about fiscal responsibility get down voted?

and the only people making posts on 'fiscal responsibility' are the ones who have supported spending billions on roads in the last 15 years....

As for a route from east to west through the city, what is wrong with a 2-way Main??
Fennell and Mohawk are 4-lane two-ways across the mountain. surely a two-way street that is 'reasonable' on the mountain can also be considered reasonable downtown. A small, quiet street in Toronto called Yonge is also a 4-lane two way. Seems pretty reasonable there too.

@jason: amen. No other city that I can think of requires a network of four-lane one-way streets to get people around. The expectation that one should be able to drive from Dundurn to Ottawa on urban streets in ten minutes needs to be abandoned.

Does anybody else find it strange that any posts talking about fiscal responsibility get down voted?

You name me an enterprise that became successful without making any strategic investments. Go on. I'll wait.

Yeah, thought so.

It's well to remember that most Hamiltonians don't live anywhere near the proposed LRT line

The proposed LRT line runs through the densest neighborhoods in the city.

davidsfawcett

Don't even try to make sense. The people here have tunnel vision. It's their way or the highway. They have the misguided notion that people in this city will suddenly abandon their cars to use the LRT. That will be their downfall. We will not get LRT in this city until vehicular traffic concerns are addressed. The politicians are already hedging their bets. When you hear the mayor say not so fast about two way conversions, you know the whole idea is in trouble.

"The proposed LRT line runs through the densest neighborhoods in the city."

That may be so, but the fact of the matter is most people in this city live nowhere near the proposed route.

In order to get support for the project the pro LRT people are going to have to convince the majority that don't live near the route that it should be built.

the pro LRT people are going to have to convince the majority that don't live near the route that it should be built.

From here:

Investment in Light Rail Transit (LRT) will:

• Reduce operating costs per passenger compared to buses.

• Alleviate congestion by taking up to 300 people out of their cars and into one vehicle.

• Increase municipal tax assessments due to transit oriented economic development.

• Reduce pressure to intensify suburban neighbourhoods.

I love how people who don't bother to study the thing sit back and go, Yah well you pro-LRT people will have to convince me. You also have a responsibility to educate yourself before commenting publicly.

Comment edited by nobrainer on 2010-02-15 07:10:10

Don't even try to make sense.

Don't worry. He's not trying to make sense.

The people here have tunnel vision.

Yeah, because studying how the world's cities solve their development and transportation problems is more narrow and close minded than defending the status quo at all costs.

They have the misguided notion that people in this city will suddenly abandon their cars to use the LRT.

No. we have the well guided notion that some people in this city will chose high quality transit if they have a choice. They'll chose to live and work near the transit line and that will spur developers to give them the kinds of facilities they're looking for.

You need to leave the GTA once and a while and see how the rest of the world looks. It's not all ten lane highways you know.

We will not get LRT in this city until vehicular traffic concerns are addressed.

What vehicular traffic concerns? You can drive right through the city from end to end in 10 minutes. No city should ever allow that - and most don't. The healthy cities with good economies certainly don't.

If I were just a troll, I'd accuse you now of being anti business. But I'd rather try and stick to the issues, tempting as it is.

The politicians are already hedging their bets. When you hear the mayor say not so fast about two way conversions, you know the whole idea is in trouble.

When you're actually bragging that the lunatics are running the asylum, you know you've lost the argument.

z jones >> You name me an enterprise that became successful without making any strategic investments.

Debt/Equity
Google (GOOG) 0.125
Apple (AAPL) 0.508
Research in Motion (RIMM) 0.423
City of Burlington 0.762
US Steel (X) 2.298
City of Hamilton 2.824

If it is so obvious on this forum that we need the LRT, then why is it not done. I guess it's not so obvious after all. Issues to content with are:

1) How much will Hamilton have to pay? I would suspect at least one-third.

2) Will the LRT mess up Hamilton's synchronized traffic light system on Main Street and result in a downtown traffic nightmare like Toronto's.

3) If it is much more cost-effective to use Bus Rapid Transit, why not save the $600 to $800 million and improve the downtown in other ways. Why choose a method that is not most cost-effective. We can improve Hamilton a great deal with the other $600 million.

4) Hamilton downtown is not Toronto downtown! Until the area is cleaned up, nobody is going to want to move here or shop here.

I live right downtown on Main Street, so I would benefit from the LRT, but I still don't think it is the right decision. Our top priority should be to clean up the area. For all those who are in favour of the LRT, why don't you move downtown and see how you like it in its current condition?

Lastly, if I thought the downtown would be cleaned up, I may well support the LRT, but City Hall has created, and then ignored, the downtown situation, and I don't have any hope yet that they will start taking real action to clean up the area.

My, how City Hall loves to spend our money, without dealing with the big picture.