Special Report: Light Rail

Why Doesn't Premier Wynne Know Hamilton Wants LRT?

If we fail to articulate our commitment to LRT today, Hamilton could easily end up left out of the next wave of Metrolinx projects, even as we help pay for LRT in other parts of the GTA.

By Nicholas Kevlahan
Published February 07, 2014

Yesterday I attended the Toronto Region Vision (TRV) 2014 Conference, as half-day series of presentations hosted by John Tory, Sarah Thomson and Geoff Cape. There were some interesting presentations, and their goal is to get all the provincial and municipal candidates aware of the urgent need to upgrade infrastructure, especially transit, now.

To my surprise, I was able to have a good conversation with Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne about light rail transit (LRT) in Hamilton. She was doing some setup for her keynote lunch speech on transit and infrastructure ("Building Sustainable Cities") when she came up to my table and introduced herself.

Since there were only two of us, I had the chance to have a fairly good chat with the Premier.

She seems pretty interested in Hamilton, to the extent that a picture of Hess Village featured in her presentation, along with an anecdote about young people at Communitech in Waterloo wanting to be able to easily get to Hess Village for events.

Why Doesn't Premier Wynne Know What Hamilton Wants?

Once I had introduced myself, she immediately asked, "Has Hamilton decided whether they want BRT [bus rapid transit] or LRT?"

I was taken aback, but assured her that LRT is our choice. We've completed the 30% engineering design, the class environmental assessment, the land use study and broad public consultation, and there is deep public support.

I also said that there is some nervousness over cost and disruption. She laughed, as this is obviously a common theme.

It was clear that she sees Hamilton as a very important part of the overall plan, but I am dismayed that she thought we are still arguing over whether we want enhanced bus service or light rail transit, despite the various studies, Metrolinx support and Council's unanimous approval of the Rapid Ready LRT plan last February.

LRT has been Hamilton's official preferred choice for at least five years, subject to funding details. How on earth is it possible that Hamilton has done such a poor job of communicating this to a Premier whose main priority is regional transit?

Of course, it is possible that she is just not well-informed, but she knew enough to ask the question.

Hamiltonians Should Be Furious

Hamilton Mayor Bob Bratina has, of course, spent the past three years clouding the issue, speaking publicly against LRT and refusing to communicate Council's clearly-stated position clearly in its dealings with the province.

If Hamilton Mayor Bob Bratina has been telling Premier Wynne that Hamilton doesn't know what it wants, Hamiltonians should be furious!

This is $1 billion in capital funding from the Province, and the Premier obviously wants to avoid the sort of mess that they got into with Toronto over the Scarborough LRT/subway fiasco.

My advice is that Hamilton's Council immediately has to make it crystal-clear to the Premier herself that we want LRT, not BRT. The fact that even supporters are musing that you can do a lot with dedicated bus lanes does not help.

Elections are the time for clear messages. If we fail to articulate our commitment to LRT today, Hamilton could easily end up left out of the next wave of Metrolinx projects, even as we end up helping to pay for LRT in other parts of the GTA.

Nicholas Kevlahan was born and raised in Vancouver, and then spent eight years in England and France before returning to Canada in 1998. He has been a Hamiltonian since then, and is a strong believer in the potential of this city. Although he spends most of his time as a mathematician, he is also a passionate amateur urbanist and a fan of good design. You can often spot him strolling the streets of the downtown, shopping at the Market. Nicholas is the spokesperson for Hamilton Light Rail.


View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By Noted (anonymous) | Posted February 07, 2014 at 13:00:32


Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Cailou (anonymous) | Posted February 07, 2014 at 13:10:35

I was a bit shocked to hear that the LRT has been shelved in the Transportation Planning DEPT at the City of Hamilton because of broken communications for funding. Mayor Bratina needs to step out of the way and stop holding back the development of the New Hamilton.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By lurtee (anonymous) | Posted February 07, 2014 at 13:28:52

This is an outrage! People need to write to council and tell them to bypass Bratina and send Kathleen Wynne a direct message on their support for LRT. Enough is enough.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted February 07, 2014 at 14:03:55

I just sent the following letter to Council and Premier Wynne, and encourage others to do the same.

Dear Council,

Yesterday, Hamilton resident Nicholas Kevlahan had an occasion to chat with Premier Kathleen Wynne about transit in Hamilton. He was surprised and taken aback when Premier Wynne asked, "Has Hamilton decided whether they want BRT or LRT?"

It is outrageous that the Premier has not already gotten a clear statement about Hamilton's support for LRT, which has been consistent since 2008 throughout the planning process.

Staff completed a feasibility study in 2008 that strongly recommended proceeding to design and build LRT with a compatible land use plan to encourage economic development around the line. The study was extensive and wide-ranging and included direct community engagement with over 1,600 Hamiltonians.

Council approved the recommendation and staff began working on a system design, environmental assessment and land use study. Ongoing community engagement found overwhelming support across the city.

In 2010, Metrolinx published a Benefits Case Analysis on LRT that concluded it will produce a large net benefit in economic development, urban revitalization, environmental protection and superior user experience.

An independent 2012 study by McMaster Institute of Transportation and Logistics (MITL) also concluded that LRT can provide a real net long-term benefit to the city as long as it is integrated with supportive land use planning - and, crucially is guided to completion by a political champion.

Last year, staff presented the Rapid Ready LRT report and Council overwhelmingly approved it, submitting the plan to the Province.

So why is Premier Wynne still not clear on whether Hamilton supports LRT? She is clearly apprised on the general transit situation in Hamilton and sees Hamilton as an important part of the GTHA.

Council needs to send a clear message to the Premier that LRT has been studied exhaustively and planned extensively and is overwhelmingly the preferred choice of Council and the City of Hamilton.

To ensure the message does not get mixed in transit, Council should send the message to Premier Wynne directly and collectively.

If we do not make our intentions clear now, we may well end up helping pay for LRT investments in other cities while Hamilton gets left behind.


Here is a list of email addresses for Council and the Premier:

Bob.Bratina@hamilton.ca, Brian.McHattie@hamilton.ca, Jason.Farr@hamilton.ca, Bernie.Morelli@hamilton.ca, Sam.Merulla@hamilton.ca, Chad.Collins@hamilton.ca, Tom.Jackson@hamilton.ca, Scott.Duvall@hamilton.ca, Terry.Whitehead@hamilton.ca, Brad.Clark@hamilton.ca, Maria.Pearson@hamilton.ca, Brenda.Johnson@hamilton.ca, Lloyd.Ferguson@hamilton.ca, Russ.Powers@hamilton.ca, Robert.Pasuta@hamilton.ca, Judi.Partridge@hamilton.ca, kwynne.mpp@liberal.ola.org, kwynne.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org

Comment edited by administrator Ryan on 2014-02-07 14:10:30

Permalink | Context

By TheBaldasaro (registered) - website | Posted February 07, 2014 at 16:46:44 in reply to Comment 97446

What Hamilton Needs Is a MONORAIL linking all of the G.H.A. to the downtown. I bet Burlington and Oakville would want a piece of that action!

All that LRT does as in Toronto, is cause more grid lock as Trollies stop in the middle of the street to let passengers on and of.

Be well and prosper. In peace bless us all! Michael Baldasaro, 2014 Mayoral Candidate

Comment edited by TheBaldasaro on 2014-02-07 16:52:19

Permalink | Context

By AnjoMan (registered) | Posted February 10, 2014 at 12:59:33 in reply to Comment 97457

Yes, lets ignore the people who are completing trips when they get off the _streetcar_, since only trips made by drivers matter.

Permalink | Context

By JustinJones (registered) - website | Posted February 07, 2014 at 15:01:32 in reply to Comment 97446

Take Bernie Morelli's email off of that list.

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted February 07, 2014 at 15:06:04 in reply to Comment 97449

I left it on for now because I don't know what Bob Morrow's email address will be (I'm assuming either Robert.Morrow@hamilton.ca or Bob.Morrow@hamilton.ca) and I assume emails to Bernie Morelli with Councillor-related issues will be forwarded to him.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By randomguy (anonymous) | Posted February 07, 2014 at 14:54:50

I think the point that needs to get through to Hamiltonians is that if we don't fight to get our fair share of provincial transit funding, it will just get spent elsewhere in the GTA, primarily in the City of Toronto.

Personally since the population of Hamilton is about one fifth of that of the City of Toronto, I think we should be fighting to ensure Hamilton gets one fifth the funding of Toronto. I know to some that sounds crazy, but why not? There's no law of thermodynamics that says that residents of Toronto have to get higher per capita transit funding than Hamilton, London, Windsor or any other Ontario community.

Permalink | Context

By Keith (anonymous) | Posted February 07, 2014 at 15:46:36 in reply to Comment 97447

It really should be based on where there's a need based on trip demand and infrastructure available. Transportation isn't a one-size-fits-all thing and funding should reflect actual needs, not arbitrary political boundaries.

Permalink | Context

By randomguy (anonymous) | Posted February 07, 2014 at 20:27:31 in reply to Comment 97453

By that logic, Toronto will always get more money than everywhere else. That's not fair to the rest of province if the province is contributing.

Permalink | Context

By RobF (registered) | Posted February 08, 2014 at 13:41:33 in reply to Comment 97461

You need to look at the big picture, not just funding for new transit infrastructure.

Permalink | Context

By randomguy (anonymous) | Posted February 10, 2014 at 00:05:54 in reply to Comment 97479

The big picture where there's always a Toronto priority like the Scarborough subway and Hamilton never gets proper funding?

Permalink | Context

By Keith (anonymous) | Posted February 07, 2014 at 21:59:19 in reply to Comment 97461

The only funding tool that will generate money outside of the GTHA will be the HST increase, and that money will remain in their local municipalities to invest in local transit and transportation projects. That's done to 1) reduce the complexity of introducing an HST to only one part of the province, and 2) ensure the GTHA remains competitive and retailers don't face unfair disadvantages. You should really read over the report before commenting.

In terms of assuming per capita funding, that's a mistake because travel goes over political borders. For instance, the majority of commuters using GO Transit/Union Station are from outside Toronto so "Toronto" would never agree to spending their share to improvements along the rail corridor or in Union Station that doesn't benefit them. Most of the transportation problems that we've had in the region stem from the "us" vs "them" mentality and people like you and many on RTH seem to advocate around. Projects need to move forward on how well they support travel with both a local and regional perspective. Much like a bike network, building in unconnected stages does nothing for commuters and instead we need to ensure that the trunk lines exist first and build from there.

Permalink | Context

By randomguy (anonymous) | Posted February 10, 2014 at 00:02:46 in reply to Comment 97462

Perhaps you need to become more familiar with Hamilton commuting patterns and the history of provincial funding of non-Hamilton versus Hamilton transit projects. What has the province already funded over the years for Hamilton since Metrolinx's inception and what are the actual concrete plans? If Hamiltonians don't fight for our share of funding from the province, whoever is in power at Queen's Park will be more than happy to dole it out to GTA projects.

Hamilton's main transit need is LRT that serves local commuters.

Permalink | Context

By Keith (anonymous) | Posted February 10, 2014 at 16:58:01 in reply to Comment 97511

The funding Metrolinx has provided to Hamilton includes:

Fall 2009- $17 Million
- the purchase of new hybrid-electric buses for A & B Line corridors. I believe all this went to purchasing the articulated buses the HSR currently operates.

2012- $13 Million
- $4.3 million for the Mohawk College multi-modal terminal
- $4.5 million for the MTC Park-N-Ride
- $1.4 million for the upcoming A&B Line amenities
- $ 1.6 million for the Bike Share
- $565,000 for the passenger information screens at MacNab terminal
- $300,000 for the King Street bus lane

- $3.0 million for the James Street North GO Station
+ the ongoing plans for Centennial GO Station and expansion of service into Niagara

Except for the last projects, that's $30 million of support for expansion of the BLine and the creation of the ALine. I'd call that support for local commuters.

While I do want to see LRT move forward, there are significant improvements that could be made to the existing system to make it better for commuters. While Rapid Ready is good, the improvements in the 2009/2010 operational review would make significant strides towards reducing complexity in the system, reallocating resources to where they have the largest ROI, and making the system operate better. Grand River Transit has been making significant progress on developing a transit culture, and has managed to double ridership since 2001. While 50% of that is due to student usage, the rationalization of routes, the relationship with uWaterloo's Civil Engineering and Urban Planning departments to support research about changes they're making and the introduction of limited-stop routes has managed to grow ridership across all areas of the population spectrum.

Permalink | Context

By KevinLove (registered) | Posted February 08, 2014 at 17:54:44 in reply to Comment 97462

Another tool that will generate money outside of the GTHA is the 10 cent gasoline tax increase. This also leads to considerable savings in the health car system, as it discourages car drivers from launching their lethal cancer poison attacks upon our people.

Permalink | Context

By Keith (anonymous) | Posted February 08, 2014 at 18:03:45 in reply to Comment 97483

The fuel tax, as presented in the Investment Strategy, would only be applied within the GTHA.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By frustrated (anonymous) | Posted February 07, 2014 at 15:21:57

Is council going to take this lying down? Didn't they strip the mayor of his power to represent Hamilton at queens park? Why is this still going on?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Capitalist (anonymous) | Posted February 07, 2014 at 15:53:25

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

By JustinJones (registered) - website | Posted February 07, 2014 at 22:56:34 in reply to Comment 97454

Tell me, Capitalist, what's your solution to the question of moving people around our city now and into the future? How do you propose that we bring another 200,000 people into Hamilton and move them around effectively, as we are expected to do under the Places to grow Act? How do you propose that we reign in the costs of sprawl, and stem the tide of increasingly expensive outward expansion of our city? Are you willing to pay the taxes to continue to extend road, sewer, utility and civic services to the far-flung areas of our community that will continue to be the primary nodes of growth if automobile transportation remains the easiest way to get around? Because what I hear from people of your ilk is a lot about what you're NOT willing to spend money on, but nothing about what the solutions are. The status quo is costing us, as a region, BILLIONS a year. And last I checked, unless you want to start getting rid of pesky things like sidewalks and buildings downtown, you're not going to be building any more lane capacity anywhere. Stop stamping your foot and telling us what you're not willing to pay for and start proposing some FUCKING SOLUTIONS. Until then, STFU.

Permalink | Context

By Capitalist (anonymous) | Posted February 13, 2014 at 17:51:13 in reply to Comment 97463


I won't STFU because I live in a free country and will say what I want. If you don't like what I have to say you can either ignore it, or provide a response but telling people to STFU only displays your lack of class.

Please learn some manners. I am ashamed for you.

Permalink | Context

By JustinJones (registered) - website | Posted February 18, 2014 at 16:41:08 in reply to Comment 97602

Still no solutions offered. Thanks for coming out.

Permalink | Context

By Crapitalist (anonymous) | Posted February 13, 2014 at 19:51:58 in reply to Comment 97602

Yes we all know how free speech works. You have the right to say dumb stuff and others have the right to call B.S. (hope that doesn't offend you). Justin DID provide a response to what you wrote. A long detailed response that was better than you deserved. He didn't just tell you to STFU, he said he thinks you should STFU if you don't have anything better to offer than lazy name calling. You can be rude no problem but soon as someone gives it back you turn into a delicate snowflake who Wiltshire at an acronym. Boo hoo.

Permalink | Context

By banned user (anonymous) | Posted February 08, 2014 at 11:38:43 in reply to Comment 97463

comment from banned user deleted

Permalink | Context

By fmurray (registered) | Posted February 08, 2014 at 13:17:22 in reply to Comment 97475

These are good points but what happens when you "feed the B line" -- it becomes even more crowded and the need for LRT more evident. Why would we choose to have a line of 10 - 15 buses driving between Mac and Eastgate in place of a clean, quiet train? It just makes no sense. The ridership to justify LRT is already there. I've ridden the B line to Mac and, believe me, it's no place for a relatively small, non-muscular person...LRT will get people out of their cars who would like to have a the transit option but don't want to put up with the bus ride experience.

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted February 08, 2014 at 13:14:34 in reply to Comment 97475

We need more residents living in the core which LRT really won't directly create

Actually, that is precisely what LRT will do, and a major reason to prefer it over buses. LRT not only attracts far more new riders than BRT, but more importantly attracts hundreds of millions of dollars in new private investment around the line, which increases the density of people and jobs, improves the productivity of existing civic infrastructure, and adds tens of millions of dollars a year in new property tax revenue.

and we need to get people from the mountain out of their cars and onto public transit which LRT won't promote in any way

First of all, LRT on the B-Line frees up buses and drivers to boost service levels on the mountain. Longer term, the next phase of LRT is the north-south A-Line that will connect the airport with the waterfront via downtown.

Permalink | Context

By banned user (anonymous) | Posted February 08, 2014 at 15:42:48 in reply to Comment 97476

comment from banned user deleted

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted February 08, 2014 at 17:55:28 in reply to Comment 97480

Thats the claim and it isn't based on any fact.

You are misinformed. The impact of LRT on private investment, economic development and ridership growth is based on strong, consistent evidence from cities all across North America, and is supported by the City's Feasibility Study, the Province's Benefits Case Analysis and the independent McMaster Institute for Transportation and Logistics (MITL) study.

Ridership on the B-Line today would immediately put Hamilton in the middle of the pack for LRT ridership, and there is considerable evidence both locally and from other cities that ridership will grow significantly once the LRT is operational.

Consider: today, ridership demand on the B-Line already overloads the system's capacity. The unfortunate phenomenon of "pass-bys", in which packed buses proceed past passengers waiting to board, is well-documented. Many more people have given up using the bus because the congestion on the buses means they cannot guarantee they will arrive at their destinations (e.g. work) in time.

In other words, there is plenty of room for ridership on the B-Line to grow even with the current population living and working around the B-Line, while the significant increase in new residences and jobs that would accompany an LRT line means the long-term ridership growth prospects are even stronger still.

Again, this is all based on strong evidence from cities all across North America and is supported by the City's research, the Province's research and independent research by a university department specializing in transportation and logistics.

Permalink | Context

By CaptainKirk (anonymous) | Posted February 07, 2014 at 23:58:58 in reply to Comment 97463


Permalink | Context

By AlHuizenga (registered) | Posted February 07, 2014 at 17:19:47 in reply to Comment 97454

It's become automatic for me. I see 'lefty' in a comment, I think: Oops, a moron, move on.

Permalink | Context

By The Anti-Capitalist (anonymous) | Posted February 07, 2014 at 16:48:37 in reply to Comment 97454

I'm a tax payer of Hamilton. I want to foot the bill.

Permalink | Context

By MattM (registered) | Posted February 07, 2014 at 16:25:10 in reply to Comment 97454

Apparently you ignored the articles about packed buses driving by people along the B-Line corridor.

Permalink | Context

By banned user (anonymous) | Posted February 08, 2014 at 09:55:45 in reply to Comment 97456

comment from banned user deleted

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted February 09, 2014 at 00:25:30 in reply to Comment 97468

LRT is a huge development magnet. You'll see many new condos/housing built along it's route, bringing more people into the urban core. I would prefer to see LRT on the B-Line, and BRT for the A-Line as well as a cross-Moutain BRT on Mohawk Rd.

Our BRT can be real BRT, like this:


Permalink | Context

By CaptainKirk (anonymous) | Posted February 08, 2014 at 11:38:12 in reply to Comment 97468

In the long term, LRT is cheaper than buses, and it's not just the cost of drivers. Again, over the long term, LRTs are cheaper to maintain than buses, their life span is much longer, so much so that they are cheaper, energy costs are cheaper. And then there are all non-cost advantages too. All you have to do is look at other cities across north America. Lucky for us, we have that advantage,

Permalink | Context

By Robert D (anonymous) | Posted February 08, 2014 at 11:26:22 in reply to Comment 97468

The main problem with HSR service is not more buses, but more drivers. It's relatively inexpensive to buy a bus as compared to paying the salary of a few drivers to keep it operating all day (and their pensions when they retire).

If we can carry more people on King with fewer drivers (i.e. LRT) then we can free up those drivers for other routes.

Permalink | Context

By mikeonthemountain (registered) | Posted February 08, 2014 at 10:18:44 in reply to Comment 97468

Oh my yes I'm just dying to experience even more bus tailpipes on King. That will really get me wanting to shop along there, perhaps even buy a condo, sit at Gore Park in the patio cafes that don't exist. The air is already literally (in the truest sense of the word) nauseating along King and Main. Let's listen to capitalist and add even more buses. Instead of working with the province to electrify it, creating an outbreak of development and densification, which then feeds back as new tax revenue. Having nice things and a clean healthy city really doesn't make sense to you, does it.

Comment edited by mikeonthemountain on 2014-02-08 10:19:50

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By outrageous!! (anonymous) | Posted February 07, 2014 at 16:23:12

outrageous!! premier doesn't know!! good thing rth ryan not going out for diplomatic core. his kids should edit his letters, which anyway contain important points.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Noted (anonymous) | Posted February 08, 2014 at 09:44:24

This would be the same Kathleen Wynne who served as Minister of Transportation from Jan 18, 2010–Oct 20, 2011, yes?


Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted February 08, 2014 at 16:01:54

The Feb 2013 report Rapid Ready: Expanding Mobility Choices in Hamilton prescribed a Transit Fleet Expansion of 100 buses. That's a significant bump from the current stable of 217 buses and would almost certainly go toward expanding service in un(der)served neughbourhoods. The cost for this initiative has been estimated at $50 million, with funding possible through Metrolinx as it’s a capital line item.

There obviously would be considerable operational costs associated with a 46% bump in service, but it would be partially offset by retiring redundant buses from service: The Rapid Ready default scenario assumes that 18 buses along the B-Line corridor would be thus removed (mainly 1 and 10, since the Delaware family – and the 55/55A service that merges with the 10 – will need to be operational in order to feed the trunk line and service the southern and western periphery).

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Noted (anonymous) | Posted February 11, 2014 at 15:21:53

Two LRT lines by 2025, and three more LRT lines sometime after 2035. That’s the concept.


Permalink | Context

By Keith (anonymous) | Posted February 11, 2014 at 16:51:48 in reply to Comment 97552

Technically the BLAST plan only focused on corridors for rapid transit and doesn't specify a technology. It's most likely that in the medium term, most of those will see some form of aBRT similar to what the Region of Waterloo is developing from Fairview Mall to Ainsile Terminal.

Permalink | Context

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to comment.

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools