With Clr. Whitehead - on LRT

Clr. Terry Whitehead

We checked in with Ward 8 Councillor and friend of The Hamiltonian, Terry Whitehead on LRT. Enjoy our chat with the Clr.

1. With the addition of Eastgate Square as a destination, how comfortable are you with LRT as it is currently being envisioned. Has the Eastgate addition and perhaps other adjustments made, moved you significantly from a place of extreme concern to a new perspective on the matter?

My role as a councillor is to ensure that we understand the risks, the consequences and mitigate those issues as much as practical when making decisions. The LRT system moving from McMaster to the Queenston traffic circle was the worst case scenario for a comprehensive transit system. With no North/South connectivity this plan was not consistent with the city endorsed plan and would have put taxpayers of this community at great financial risk. When we were dealing with the EA report at council I knew that the vote would be tight. In good conscience I could not allow the LRT plan in its incomplete design, pass or be supported. I chose to leverage the original plan to Eastgate which provided a greater level of connectivity in our transportation plan. It would increase possible success, but for sure would mitigate the higher risk plan that was in play. I still have misgivings. I believe the uplift argument is overinflated especially when the Canadian Urban Institute indicated that after all is said and done we’re still only looking at only a 1% assessment increase and this projection was made before the Scott Park lands became a non-tax generating revenue property. Ridership is sitting at 444 passengers at peak hour in peak direction. The growth projections for Hamilton have not been met for the last 10 years and I doubt they will be met for the next 10 years therefore these numbers should not be relied on for ridership projections on ridership, uplift, and the operating and maintenance costs. As a metaphor, I believe that this is a plan tantamount to us buying a size 10 shoe when we’re only a size 2; knowing that someday we will grow into it.

Unfortunately so many things can change in that time frame and the costs will still be borne by the
taxpayer. In the end, the operating and maintenance agreement coming forward will be the ultimate test. It will determine for the 14 km’s of LRT service whether we are getting value for the dollar or if it will be cost prohibitive to the taxpayers of this community.

2. With a recent report that highlights concerns regarding HSR ridership being down, absenteeism being a problem and the net effect on the bottom line, does this give you pause? Do you believe options such as uber etc. will continue to frustrate efforts to promote transit uptake and do you believe these types of trends can prove to be devastating to the success of LRT? Or are you of the view that uber and other options will simply serve as a menu item of transit options in our city, without necessarily causing issues for LRT?

Ridership in many urban transit centres have dropped in recent years. Some experts would point at uber, ride share or the introduction of bike programs as a contributing factor. The reality is; the lower the ridership the higher the subsidy needed to provide the same level of service. Even today we see autonomous vehicles providing direct services for many individuals in some cities. These types of technologies will further impact our ridership making the public transit system more convenient and also cost competitive. One could argue that the LRT would be just one of many options for transit and it’s great to have options but if the ridership is not there, there will be a greater financial impact to the taxpayer.

3. It appears that Hamilton City Council is increasingly sensitized to the plight of ATU and union employees in the implementation plans for LRT. Do you believe that the interests of unionized employees should have been given greater consideration earlier in the process and do you believe that the city should ensure that unionized employees service the LRT system?

At the onset of this discussion, Councillor Jackson raised questions regarding ATU and their fit into the LRT plan. The Memorandum of Agreement clearly contemplates changes in opportunity. The request for HSR to operate and maintain the LRT system is prudent at this time and should be considered. Currently, the Request for Qualifications went out to define scope and to determine qualified professionals both from a financial and experiential point of view. Nowhere in the RFQ did it define with any specificity what would be contained in the Request for Proposals. The RFQ sets out a wide net looking at build, operating and maintenance of the project but does not restrict itself to any commitments. After all, the RFQ is about determining qualified applicants to apply for the RFP. I believe that the RFP can include an option for HSR to be the operator and I also believe that the proponent could provide detailed analysis of two options within the RFP for consideration of council.

I believe that essential public services should be within the city’s purview, period. I also believe that we can’t completely rely on Metrolinx to solve our transportation needs of the future. Therefore the request for HSR to operate and maintain is also about capacity building and allows us to control our own destiny.

4. Is there anything else you’d like Hamiltonians to know about your thinking, concerning LRT, at this point in time?

Although I have a lot of misgivings about the LRT, I am a team player. I will identify shortfalls but I will do everything I can to make the plan under the current circumstances the best it can be. 

Thanks Clr. Whitehead for engaging with Hamiltonians via The Hamiltonian.