Hamilton’s extended debate begs the question why Queen’s Park remains willing to spend a billion dollars for light rail transit across the lower city. Their major reasons include alleviating poverty, cutting the municipal infrastructure deficit, curbing urban sprawl and highway congestion, tackling climate change and rapid population growth, as well as ensuring economic competitiveness.
These are the key arguments presented by the province for the $70 billion in transit investments dubbed the Big Move – and all appear to apply specifically to the Hamilton LRT. One reason is the high poverty levels in Hamilton. In 2009, then Metrolinx chair Rob MacIsaac said the spending would target “areas with large senior and low-income populations who rely on transit” in establishing rapid transit lines within two kilometres of 80 percent of GTHA residents.
“There are many people in the GTHA who cannot afford to own a car and many more who stretch their available resources to do so,” the background report stated. “As energy costs increase, the potential for social exclusion grows, as more people are unable to afford to participate in activities due to the high cost of travel. Access to frequent, fast and affordable transit is therefore crucial for equity and social cohesion.”
The Big Move objective “to improve the mobility options for people in these areas, connecting at-risk, vulnerable and disadvantaged communities to the jobs, social services, and health care facilities which can improve people’s lives” illustrated in its mapping of social need areas explains the selection of the lower-city B-line route over one connecting the waterfront to the airport.
The provincial plan is particularly intended to limit urban sprawl and preserve agricultural lands in the face of annual GTHA population growth of about 125,000 new residents. Hamilton’s expected growth to 660,000 by 2031 would accommodate just one of those years – and those projections are starting to be achieved.
A legacy of low-density sprawl in Hamilton is the city’s $3.5 billion infrastructure maintenance debt. Queen’s Park wants to avoid worsening that by directing and attracting growth to rapid transit corridors. The massive transit investments are also the province’s response to road congestion largely generated from car-dependent suburbs that a decade ago was costing commuters and the regional economy $6 billion a year and was heading towards $15 billion a year by 2031.
The Big Move expressed vision for that date is that “the distance that people drive every day will drop by one-third compared to today [while we] accommodate 50 percent more people in the region with less congestion than we have today.” It expects that, “on average, one-third of trips to work will be taken by transit and one in five will be taken by walking or cycling.”
The transit focus is also very much about climate change. With the elimination of coal-fired electricity generation in the province, transportation is the single largest source of the greenhouse gas emissions that drive warming and all its consequences, including already significant financial impacts.
When he was in Hamilton this spring, provincial minister of the environment and climate change Glenn Murray pointed to the hit on government finances imposed by the Toronto-centred flooding in 2013 “that cost us $600 million which could basically pay for half of [Hamilton’s] LRT.” Total damages exceeded $1.5 billion and the Calgary floods the same year cost over $6 billion with insurance covering little more than a third.
“The challenge of adding 2.6 million people to our region while trying to reduce or even hold the line on transportation energy use and emissions should not be underestimated,” warned the energy conservation background paper. “Given the magnitude of the reductions required, a broad spectrum of strategies for reducing transportation GHG emissions will be required.”
The climatic strategy includes “reducing vehicle kilometres travelled through transit improvements, land use changes, and transportation demand management measures” as well as “encourage[ing] a greater mix of uses and higher densities to reduce the distances that people need to travel – by concentrating development within the existing built-up area, and especially around major transit station areas and intensification corridors, and by building complete communities where people can live and work.”