[mdrejhon]

I see both the pros and cons from many local residents about this topic.

It's hard to say at this stage, but what I definitely know: HSR needs to expand even without LRT. And good riddance to area rating, too, while we're at it. There are cases where some suburbs pay taxes on transit -- then 1 block away -- the next suburb pays reduced or no taxes and the HSR route pretty much ends right there (or at greatly reduced service at the very edge only, with a poor bus stop pole with no map / no route numbers).

At this stage, it depends on what kind of relationship there will be -- e.g. Hiring and training of HSR union drivers under a contract (while Metrolinx continues to maintain, etc.) -- without knowing what kind/extent of operations is going to be discussed.

What will be very important, NOW, is #FixTheHSR -- to fully properly fund it -- expand the bus system -- and get it ready to integrate with the LRT. While HSR has its inefficiencies, we have to keep in mind that also HSR has long been funding-starved and area-rating-hamstring. If a Brampton Züm style renewal can happen quickly (and it could, given proper funding withn the next 3 years), that would be great, and start off some of the routes of the BLAST network under HSR operation. But, there's a lot of "ifs" for that.

 

[mdrejhon]

Meanwhile, on another topic.

While I already knew this, the recent Metrolinx agenda clearly outlines it again:

The $1B Hamilton LRT from McMaster to Queston Traffic Circle, is budgetted at $892M in February when the A-line got chopped, and re-upped to $1B again, now clearly shown in the June agenda, the first quoted budget after B-Line got extended to Eastgate.

The cancellation of the A-Line stub / A-Line BRT freed up $108M which will be used towards the Eastgate extension which results in the "reset" back to $1B budget.

The question is whether Eastgate extension can fit in this $108M add-on, or requires a funding top-up later. They have definitely warned already that it might not (that additional funding may be required), but at the very least, all of $108M is now confirmed re-allocated to Eastgate.

Image1 - Hamilton LRT reduced to $892M after A-Line LRT stub cancelled (Feb)
Image2 - Hamilton LRT increased back to $1B after B-Line LRT extended to Eastgate (June)

The current state of A-Line is now back to a proposed unfunded rapid transit system, as part of the master plan of a 5-line BLAST network. It could still be an LRT (again), such a future full-length-to-airport LRT, instead of a stub. That said, it should instead now become an upgraded HSR-run A-Line express bus at least in the interim.

(Allandale25, cross-quoted from 407 Freight Bypass Thread)

 

[Steve X]

Meanwhile, on another topic.

While I already knew this, the recent Metrolinx agenda clearly outlines it again:

The $1B Hamilton LRT from McMaster to Queston Traffic Circle, is budgetted at $892M in February when the A-line got chopped, and re-upped to $1B again, now clearly shown in the June agenda, the first quoted budget after B-Line got extended to Eastgate.

The cancellation of the A-Line stub / A-Line BRT freed up $108M which will be used towards the Eastgate extension which results in the "reset" back to $1B budget.

The question is whether Eastgate extension can fit in this $108M add-on, or requires a funding top-up later. They have definitely warned already that it might not (that additional funding may be required), but at the very least, all of $108M is now confirmed re-allocated to Eastgate.

Image1 - Hamilton LRT reduced to $892M after A-Line LRT stub cancelled (Feb)
Image2 - Hamilton LRT increased back to $1B after B-Line LRT extended to Eastgate (June)

The current state of A-Line is now back to a proposed unfunded rapid transit system, as part of the master plan of a 5-line BLAST network. It could still be an LRT (again), such a future full-length-to-airport LRT, instead of a stub. That said, it should instead now become an upgraded HSR-run A-Line express bus at least in the interim.

(Allandale25, cross-quoted from 407 Freight Bypass Thread)

What is this madness? Figures have a values in different year. Can't they just use present value? Are they trying to misguide someone Finch and Hamilton lines are worth they same? There's no way they know the final cost until the construct is signed. It's going to include the 30 year maintenance cost in the contract in which Queen's Park would make the city pays for it.

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

Let's hope the province ignores this request, since it's coming from an organization (the HSR) that has had no idea how to run transit for the past 30 years:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/lrt-hsr-operators-1.4169535

This is exactly the same skirmish that happened over the operation of the Eglinton Crosstown in Toronto.

I don't have a strong position on whether or not HSR should operate it, but I do want to rebuke a sh-t part of the argument:

Having a third party operate LRT through a public-private partnership would be privatizing transit, which "we know from multiple examples doesn't work," said [ATU] president Eric Tuck.

GO Transit is operated through a public-private partnership with Bombardier and it works quite well, so Tuck can go shove it.

 

[rbt]

What is this madness? Figures have a values in different year. Can't they just use present value?

Unfortunately not. The press would jump on it every single year and write a story about ever increasing cost of Project X, despite it being the same cost (with a different dollar value) every annual report.

In fact, we get those on SSE with every new estimate. Some folks (including councillors) still try to use cost estimates from 2010 and earlier as comparables.

Time-Value of money is a concept lost on the majority of the population.

 

[drum118]

Hamilton News
Ontario Transportation Ministry official says Hamilton LRT will remain in public hands

 

[Amare]

For Hamilton's sake, the province should continue to ignore these requests.

 

[muller877]

Hamilton News
Ontario Transportation Ministry official says Hamilton LRT will remain in public hands

Funny article.

The province then says it will still be "public". Of course that is just the underlying asset they are leasing out for 30 years. Which of course means that the 407ETR is technically public as well (it reverts back after a 99? year lease)

I feel like the Ministry of Transportation is becoming the "Ministry of Truth" from 1984. And the tone of course is driven from the upper leadership.

Locals (or should I rather say special interest groups including unions) want HSR to run the LRT. Which is 100% opposite of what the Transportation ministry is planning.

 

[innsertnamehere]

the 407 is different than the modern P3. the 99 year lease is that, an actual lease of the asset. The 30 year AFP contracts are just contracts, 30 year agreements to operate and send in maintenance crews to maintain an asset that the government still owns.

 

[muller877]

the 407 is different than the modern P3. the 99 year lease is that, an actual lease of the asset. The 30 year AFP contracts are just contracts, 30 year agreements to operate and send in maintenance crews to maintain an asset that the government still owns.

The 407 is a DBFM for certain sections and FM for the initial portion. It includes minimum service levels and volume requirements.

The main difference between this lease and the current ones is that the 407ETR charges the consumer directly vs the Province paying a fixed fee for the length of the contract.

A bit confused at your comment. A lease is a form of a contract (and the devil is always in the detail). The gov't still owns the 407ETR and will own the various LRT projects. Whether you call it a AFP or a lease does not change who does what. What matters is not the title but all the terms.

 

[Steve X]

The 407 is a DBFM for certain sections and FM for the initial portion. It includes minimum service levels and volume requirements.

The main difference between this lease and the current ones is that the 407ETR charges the consumer directly vs the Province paying a fixed fee for the length of the contract.

A bit confused at your comment. A lease is a form of a contract (and the devil is always in the detail). The gov't still owns the 407ETR and will own the various LRT projects. Whether you call it a AFP or a lease does not change who does what. What matters is not the title but all the terms.

The 30 year agreement should have the possibility for MTO to revoke the contract if requirements aren't met oppose to they are free to do whatever with the 407ETR. The 407ETR is responsible to spending money on building more lanes to ease congestion where as the MTO is responsible for such on the 407 EAST. The 407ETR keeps their toll while MTO keeps 407EAST tolls.

The government has pretty much 0% control over the 407ETR for something they own. It's like they don't own even it till 2098.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

The 407ETR is responsible to spending money on building more lanes to ease congestion where as the MTO is responsible for such on the 407 EAST. The 407ETR keeps their toll while MTO keeps 407EAST tolls.

Who determines if and when 407 ETR can expand add or remove lanes to the highway? Surely the Government wouldn't allow them to add lanes at will, as that could have negative impacts on infrastructure across the region

 

[Steve X]

Who determines if and when 407 ETR can expand add or remove lanes to the highway? Surely the Government wouldn't allow them to add lanes at will, as that could have negative impacts on infrastructure across the region

The 407 ETR has turn that 6 lane highway into 10-12 lanes across York Region in the last 15 years. They can't do more without building new bridge structures which requires an EA. I'm pretty sure they can add 2-3 lanes easily as long as it's within the highway ROW. The MTO reserved the rights to the 407 transitway ROW. That is not leased to them and they can't extend the highway to overlap the transitway ROW.

 

[muller877]

The 407 ETR has turn that 6 lane highway into 10-12 lanes across York Region in the last 15 years. They can't do more without building new bridge structures which requires an EA. I'm pretty sure they can add 2-3 lanes easily as long as it's within the highway ROW. The MTO reserved the rights to the 407 transitway ROW. That is not leased to them and they can't extend the highway to overlap the transitway ROW.

As part of the lease the 407ETR was granted the right to increase lanes as the volume of traffic increased (but only when specified demand warrants it). Future growth of lanes depends on the term on the contract. I assume that the contract has a set maximum amount of lanes/space that they can occupy (but I have not read the contract to know if that is true or the number of lanes they can grow to).

Remember, the 407ETR was sold when there was virtually zero volume on it and as such the bidders had no guarantee of income. Hence the favourable terms of the contract. The province was so worried about volume they specified that the 407ETR had to pay them if there was not enough traffic (goal was to de-congest the 401)

 

[TheTigerMaster]

As part of the lease the 407ETR was granted the right to increase lanes as the volume of traffic increased (but only when specified demand warrants it).

Tying the expansion of lanes with increase in demand seems like horrible network design, considering induced demand.

1. New lanes induce demand
2. New lanes must be built to accommodate demand

Repeat until all of Ontario is paved over