Feasibility LRT

Appendix A:
Light Rail Transit
A1: List of Associated Reports

A2: List of Planning, Design and Engineering Reports
A3: Hamilton B-Line Project Phasing Options
A4: LRT Benefits and Cost Report
A5: Comparative Summary of LRT Systems (CD)
A6: McMaster Institute of Transportation and Logistics: The North American Light Rail Experience:
Insights for Hamilton (CD)
A7: Light Rail Transit in Hamilton: Health, Environmental and Economic Impact Analysis (CD)
A8: Rapid Transit Workplans
A1. List of Associated Reports
RAPID TRANSIT FEASIBILITY PHASE 1
• Phase 1 Rapid Transit Feasibility Report
» Assessment of Rapid Transit Technologies
» Description of Representative Alignments
» Estimated Capital Costs
» Transit Supportive Development Policies
» Ontario Environmental Assessment Act

• Phase 2 Rapid Transit Feasibility Report
» Terms of Reference: Preliminary Design Analysis and Environmental Project Report
» Staging Analysis
» Niagara Escarpment Crossing Functional Investigation
» Traffic Operations Analysis

• Acoustic Assessment Report
• Air Quality Assessment Report
• Stage 1 Archeologically Assessment
• Cultural Heritage Assessment Report: Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes
• Community Impact & Economic Analysis of Light Rail Transit
• Economic Potential Study
• Functional Planning Analysis: B-Line Corridor
• Hydrogeology Report
• Water Resources Memo
• LRT Underground (Subsurface) Impact Study
• Maintenance Facility – Site Assessment Study
• Light Rail Technology Overview & Analysis
• Terrestrial and Avian Ecology Report
RAPID TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY PHASE 1, 2 & 3 OVERALL SUMMARY
METROLINX BENEFITS CASE ASSESSMENT

RAPID TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY PHASE 4
• McMaster University: LRT alignment and stop locations
• Rapid Transit Transition Study
• Parking and Loading Study
• Accessibility Implications Analysis
• Analysis of Innovation Park Options
• Preliminary Design Study
• Preliminary Assessment of LRT Operations
• A-Line BRT Feasibility Study
• B-Line Opportunity and Challenges Study
• Hamilton LRT – Underground Life Cycle Assessment Report
• B-Line Value Uplift Study
HAMILTON RAPID TRANSIT 70% DESIGN REPORT: PREPARATION OF ENGINEERING DRAWINGS FOR
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY REPORT
MAKING THE CASE:

• Transportation Case Review – Working Paper
• B-Line Funding, Financing and Procurement Options – Final Working Paper
• Making the Case Summary Document
A2. List of Planning, Design and Engineering Reports
A-LINE REPORTS:
• Acoustic and Air Quality Report
• Built Heritage & Cultural Landscapes Inventory
• Consultation Report
• Economic Potential Report
• Initial Feasibility & Opportunities Report
• LRT Feasibility Assessment
• Natural Environment Inventory & Impact Identification
• Record of Public Consultation
• Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment
• Utilities Assessment Report
A AND B LINE REPORTS

• System Design Guide
• Integrated Transit System Operations Plan
B-LINE REPORTS:
• Construction Phasing Strategy & Traffic Management Report
• Cost Estimate Report
• Environmental Project Report
» Appendix A
» Appendix B
» Appendix C
• Highway 403 Bridge Crossing Options
• Maintenance and Storage Facility Requirements and Location Analysis
• Post Consultation Alignment Changes Memo
• Preliminary Drainage Report
• Preliminary Operations & Maintenance Plan
• Project Constraints Assessment
• Project Implementation Plan
• Red Hill Valley Parkway Structural Design Brief
• Risk Assessment Report
• Safety and Security Plan
• Signalling System Design Brief
• Structural Assessment Design Brief
• Track Plan Report
• Trackwork Design Brief
• Traction Power Design Brief
• Traffic Lane Widths Report
• Utility Strategy Guidelines
Appendix A:
Light Rail Transit
A3: Hamilton B-Line Project Phasing Options

\
\
\
\
\.
C1 Ill
3
I
0
Ill
0
0 Ill
Ill
-r
oÿ
-r-
Qm
C I'N
0
I'M
E
C
im
121
"x
m
• • I-I'1 • oÿ -r
mG
J ÿ ÿ II
-- 0 ÿ1
{J1
O
__..ÿ O 'ÿ_.O o 3>
<ÿ ÿ
C
J iI
{j1
- ÿ {'I)
n
o
io
O
C
J
€,-I.
NJ
N. 5"
-r"
"1-
Om
"0
>
0
L.
O.
O.
O.
E
oo
cO rÿ
0
am 0
L_ €-
O
2s C
oÿ U
-,:,ÿ
1,,0'1
t"1) oÿ
• • I-I'1 • • ÿ' I'--"
o I'D
.. ÿ 1"1)
No
3 ÿ-- 0 IX,)
0
n LD
"ÿ ÿ 0 -'xÿ
. ÿ" o_ _ÿ < --0
Q.
cÿ" ÿ m tl) °
= .-, ÿ €"i)
(,-)
H- ÿ mo
0
'ÿ
0
-, X ÿ
H ÿ-.H"
i'D ÿ L/"I
r-I-
L"") ÿ e,-t,
o ÿ-'ÿ"
7-
N
9
"-m-
m
QN
C
0
U
oo
o
0
QN
C
U
• • I'1"1 r--
T ÿ CL) €-i-
II
-- 0 ÿ
0
"9_. --ÿ
o '20
m
D 0 .-ÿ
-ÿ ÿ ..
Pÿ
-ÿ ÿ 0 ÿ 0 3
o m O-Q 0
5" t- '-ÿ r-l"
tD - ,- 0
_o
3
0
0 --o
0
0
N •
0
g
m
N
3
E r-t-
I'D
C
€=,!-
-r
C
0
@m
t
u_n
C 0
÷
0
o
E
o
Qm
\
\
E
v 8
o
oB.
DO
0
i
DO
.o . !
nN
Dÿ-
"r
:'!,ÿ,_ - ,'t
:: ,% ,... ÿ ÿ, .
(ÿ ÿ, • •
e-
s
13"
oS-
19"1 ÿ
0
C
,,,ÿ- => .§" ÿ
ea
3
.8°ÿ.
,,e,
o: 8 °
8
°
o 0ÿ
_>. -t
• ,, '-.. [ Fÿ8oÿ
.-- ._[
t,-
-- . [
m °
m
°
iÿ ' i
o T o
-1-
v
N _ÿ.
." ÿ
o
° ÿ
----ÿ
0
g; -'r-
_m ÷ ÷ ÷ + ÷
Eÿ
r- .,, ' ;
0
_ uÿ 0
O_ Q; 0 ÿ ÿ.
>m
C
,-ÿ._ N°
E
--ÿ ÿ.ÿ
> (- (-
C:
mini
ol
0
0
-" j
m
4-$ oÿ
• ;- .v)_
Q.
0
Q;
L_ 0
tn tO
0
tn ÿ'0 tÿ
r- ÿ- o
O. (U
0 o
- o ÿ-
0
.m tÿ
0
oÿ
oÿ 4-' 0
E'n "o
o ÿ°- o
• - 0
• 2 O- 0 _ÿÿ_ÿ- m
.. 04-,-0
-ÿ ÿ E ÿ'r-
em tÿ
2ÿ0
--" _i
t')
mI
t')
@
C
tO
mI
C
G
m tD
@
m
3
tD
-1-
6?.
-r
Ill
III
E
llm
lJl
I,Ll
III
I--
m
:3
L_ I=
111
¢I
I-I
0
0
U
m
U
llm
tÿ
€-
€-
z
C
-o
c c ÿ"
_ÿÿ
8g
i,n
• ÿ =,- ml
W
r--
0 ,'4" 1>
-t
0
mD
m
0
A
0 C
i-ÿ LD OO
OO O7 I-ÿ :1:1:
0 Lÿ
00ÿ OO
tD
0
o LD
C
o bJ -M
w
"0
m
o ÿ o
oÿ
o
(.-
-r"
.._J
o I
(.-
o
o°
C
CL) "--
o
0
E
4.J
vÿ --Q C)
(13 ÿ_
. o r'J
ut
>
C (.J
4ÿ 0
ul m
0
l.J
I:,0
iim
4ÿ
L_
Q.
L_
0
q.. 0
:3 0 ,m
A
!/1 !,11 r-
I11 o
0 o uÿ
(-
(,n
(- .iÿ
el
..c:
U £1.
C 0 0 r-
:3 q.. EE
0 ,1,.o ÿ
U (1)
U £1.
0
0 0 ÿ
0
0 0
o 0 tu tu
...J
J
HI
0
C
0 C
,,.,, , ,
" i" ]
ZK
m
"1-
E
€
a.
o
E
o
u i-
€
eÿ
E ra
0
-I-
I-.
.,,I
Im
C
C ml
I
..Q
0
U 0
U
................ J
Im
U 8
C
cÿ
o--
0
C
Qm
rÿ
e--
mi
<
--I
e--
8'
0
C
O
O
0
N
O
-I m
..<
ill °
C
i/I
11)
0
-ÿ.
f I
O -ÿ
ill .-i
0
-i m
3
"o
0"o ÿ °
0 IO
OO
°
O
c
0
"o
3
<
I'D
e-- .
I'D
"F"
0
e--
ell
N
U
88
o o
Om
__.!
I
0
C
llJ
Om
tO
ul
0
U
C
0
U
U
Im
U
";2
C
f- r-
+ + ÿ"
' ÿ" rÿ
e- i- 0
o ""
0 ÿ ÿ
t'D C ÿ
mQ
W
...... ml
w
m
I-ÿ 0 O0 0
C
3
° ÿ 3
o 0 oo
J-: !
n
1"ÿ om
E oÿ
0 oi
"1-
A E ÿ
-1"
0
v 1. 'iÿ,ÿ ;ÿ,'.
L E °I
oi
oÿ
. ';iÿ .iÿ :i
> [
......... J
a,}:
€-
.4.,ÿ
€--
0
8ÿ
0
e- "1ÿ,
u') €'ÿ
'ÿ' Eÿ
Q ,,ÿ .
";"8
"ÿ' O, 4,ÿ om
"ÿw gs 1 8ÿ 8ÿ
Nÿo,
€-
.ÿ 0,.
C
0
U
U
Qm
E
--.ÿi 0 E
Iÿ(I_- - 0
U
I O ÿ
O O
m
°° °°
e,-i-
O O O O
o r'r"l
m
I
o
o 0
I
0
o 3
o
'-,x
3
C
nO
a-I'
0
C
'-I-
"I-
o
÷
o
E
a.i
tl_l
o
: //
.ÿ ÿ. .
g
(ÿ
ÿ
O ('D o
I mmo ÿJl
0J nl 9ÿ
uÿ n -ÿ. n
--ÿ tÿ
(1)
m
°° o° °" t'F" ""
m
r-I- 0
(1)
0 0 0
r'rl o r'rl
9.) (- 9.)
uÿ uÿ
rÿJ ('D
I 9ÿ
('1
9ÿ 9ÿ ft.
o 0
tÿ
0 Uÿ
£1. ..Q ..Q 0
r-
9J 9.)
t"l C
('D
=3
I Ut
>
I,,.)
m
<
9ÿ
m
I
C
o
9ÿ
o mo
C)
I,,J
,<
(1)
mo
9ÿ
-r"
('1
mo
9.)
Nÿ m
Om
-r
E
E
¢Y')
t'N €'r)
>.
E
E (',4
Qm
tÿ o
o
I
14.1
t'N
C
::3
O
I
U qJ
U
OJ o
4-i t'13
oD
(U (,.) O-
O" qJ
L/3
O qJ o
m
qJ u3 o
aJ
t't3 (13
o.0 k9
0.0
t't3
qJ I
(,/3 4-i (U u3
(13
Q.
it3 ILl
ILl c) o"
O O O O
oo oo
a3 Cÿ ÿ-
qJ (]J qJ
O O
om l,ÿ
O
om (,ÿ OO
it]
qJ qJ u qJ gÿ0 I
(J')
o o
I ('l)
mo
'-ÿ 0.)
0 ÿ" o o
m
0 0 0 0 (,I)
I-I"I NO
m p
(.-
0 0.)
I
(TQ 0,)
o
o
(,-)
0 (-m).
(,-) (m.
I
o
0.) (,m)
('0
('I)
0
I
<
('l) m
i
m-mml
I
o
o
C
imlm
mmo
1',,3
Nÿ
I
0
>- o
÷
o
C .Q
E
tÿ
.C
I-
\
"i
E
Appendix A:
Light Rail Transit
A4: LRT Benefits and Cost Report

City of Hamilton – LRT Benefit and Cost Report
Prepared by: City of Hamilton Rapid Transit Staff

Date: January 30, 2013
Table of Contents
1.0 Executive Summary ................................................................................................ 1

2.0 The Rapid Transit Vision ........................................................................................ 6
3.0 City of Hamilton Strategic Plan – 2012–2015 ........................................................ 6
4.0 History of Rapid Transit in Hamilton ..................................................................... 7
5.0 What is Light Rail Transit and What Can it Do? .................................................... 8
6.0 LRT – Stimulating the Economy ............................................................................ 9
7.0 B-Line Corridor – McMaster to Eastgate ............................................................. 13
8.0 Hamilton’s Rapid Transit Network....................................................................... 14
9.0 Background ........................................................................................................... 16
10.0 Triple Bottom Line ............................................................................................... 18
11.0 B-LINE Corridor Capital Works – Status Quo ..................................................... 22
12.0 LRT Project Operating Costs / Cost per Passenger .............................................. 24
13.0 Hamilton B-Line LRT Phasing Alternatives Analysis ......................................... 31
14.0 Economic Uplift .................................................................................................... 32
15.0 Employment Growth............................................................................................. 40
16.0 Health .................................................................................................................... 42
17.0 Environment.......................................................................................................... 43
18.0 Social / Tourism .................................................................................................... 44
19.0 LRT – Image ● Connectivity ● Community Pride ............................................... 47
20.0 Conclusion - The Cost of Not Implementing LRT ............................................... 48
Appendix A – Day One Operating Budget Impacts with/without LRT
Appendix B – 2031 Operating Budget Impacts with/without LRT
Appendix C – Canadian Urban Institute Report (CD)
i
1.0 Executive Summary
This report is provided to update Council on a motion emerging from the October
13, 2011 General Issues Committee meeting (Report CM11016/
PW11064/PED11154/FCS11072), in which staff received direction to:
 Undertake a complete Light Rail Transit (LRT) project Benefit and Cost
Report including the cost of not completing LRT and a triple bottom line
analysis;
 Provide a full review of capital costs;
 Provide a recommended funding request to Metrolinx for capital and
operating costs for LRT vs. the City’s existing HSR bus system including
the cost per passenger.
This report will provide Council with a full breakdown of tangible and intangible
benefits and costs (from existing consultant reports and other published sources)
related to the possible construction and implementation of an LRT system along
the B-Line in Hamilton.
The report also provides an overview of the LRT Phasing Strategy which focuses
on several construction/implementation scenarios for the B-Line and related
current activities. The report responds to Council’s request for further updated
financial impact information on the costs and benefits associated with an LRT
system for Hamilton.
The City’s Transportation Master Plan reflects the approved nodes and corridors
land use structure for the City and relies on aggressive transit improvements and
an urban fabric with a high degree of connectivity. Rapid Transit is a key element
for implementing the City’s growth strategy and land use structure.
Hamilton’s current ridership in the B-Line corridor and its projected ridership
growth, requires the development of a Rapid Transit system to ensure efficient
and effective connectivity for citizens who want to move throughout the city and
connect to inter-regional travel modes. Successful planning for higher order
transit (i.e.: LRT, BRT) must be completed through an integrated approach which
includes planning for other travel modes (walking, cycling, conventional transit,
cars, goods movement), land use planning and financial analysis.
This report presents a summary of the work completed to date categorized by

costs and benefits (Financial, Health, Environment, Social/Tourism).
-1-
Summary of Costs & Benefits (Full B-Line LRT McMaster to
Eastgate)
Costs
 Project Capital is $811 million - (plus/minus 20% $649M to $973M).
 City Capital cost is approximately $1.8 million (includes articulated aerial

device – Fire Department).
 Day One Stand-Alone Project Operating is $14.5 million with an

organizational structure of approximately 182 staff.
 Day One In-house Project Operating is a net levy increase of $2.9 to $3.5
million with the removal of redundant transit fleet and the use of in-house
staff.
 City Operating costs (over and above LRT operating) are approximately
$8.7 million (e.g. winter control, parking, By-law services).
 Day One Startup: System-Wide Bus and LRT Net operating cost per
passenger ranges from $2.13 (no increase in ridership) to $2.00 (with
increase ridership). Current Bus System-Wide costs: $2.00 per passenger.
 Day One Startup: B-Line only LRT Net operating cost per passenger
ranges from $1.80 (no increase in ridership) to $0.45 (with increase
ridership). This assumes an 8% increase in ridership plus the transfer of
two-thirds of all passengers on the B-Line corridor route to the LRT (based
on industry consultants). The $1.80 cost per passenger assumes no
ridership growth and the transfer of one-third of the King and Delaware
passengers to LRT. Current B-Line only Bus costs = $1.07 per passenger.
 Future Projections - Year 2031, indicates a Bus and LRT system may cost
approximately $7million less than the Bus only system, utilizing the
existing fleet sizes. Net operating cost per passenger estimates are $2.28
per passenger for the existing Bus system compared to $1.51 per
passenger for the Bus and LRT system. Net operating cost per passenger
along the B-Line only are estimated at $1.12 per passenger for the
existing Bus system compared to $(0.75) per passenger for the Bus and
LRT system.
-2-
Benefits
Financial:
 B-Line Corridor Capital Works – a reduction of scheduled and

unscheduled backlog of capital works in the order of approximately $79 million.
 The Canadian Urban Institute (CUI) Study found:

o that three times the number of developments were likely to occur
(e.g. 108 projects vs. 32) within the same timeframe with LRT as
compared to without LRT1
o Tax Benefit from new development by LRT estimated at $22.4
million.2
o Building permit fees and development charges (existing
development exemptions removed) estimated at $30.2 million.3
o Residential property value premium estimated at $29 million (Net
Value $0). This uplift premium increases the property taxes paid by
property owners benefiting from the LRT and reduces taxes for all
other tax payers.4
 Potential for 6,000 construction jobs (provincial); 3,500 directly in Hamilton.
 Potential for 1,000 permanent jobs (provincial); 300 jobs located in Hamilton
to deliver regular operations and maintenance.
 B-Line LRT investment may result in an estimated increase of more than

$443 million in Ontario’s GDP.
 Annual accident costs are expected to reduce by $3.48 million over 22

years.
Health
 Investments in public transportation such as LRT can help shape a city’s

built environment into a more walkable, complete and compact community.
 Individuals who walk an additional kilometre per day reduce their chances of
becoming obese by 5%, compared to motorists driving an additional hour
daily who are 6% more likely to become obese.
1
Hamilton B-Line Value Uplift and Capture Study, Canadian Urban Institute, June 2010, page 44
2
3
4
-3-
Environment
 Public transportation produces on average (per person) 50-95% lower

emissions than driving.
 A 30%-50% reduction in car traffic (GTA) can lower emission rates and
have the potential to save an estimated 200 lives and $900 million per year.
 Auto-dependent communities require 20-50 times more space than transit-

friendly communities, resulting in storm water management challenges.
Social/Tourism
 LRT has the potential to connect people living in downtown

neighbourhoods with job opportunities and amenities, including health and
social facilities.
 Investment in LRT and transit can help reduce poverty by providing

economical transportation options.
 In Hamilton, 17% of the existing population and 20% of employment

opportunities are located within 800 metres of the B-Line Corridor. 80% of
the city’s population is serviced by HSR transit routes that connect directly
with the B-Line.
 High quality light rail systems have an iconic value that is attractive to
tourists, commuters and residents because transportation is a key element
in the visitor experience. An efficient public transportation system can
significantly enhance a city’s reputation among travelers.
In conclusion, Light Rail Transit along the B-Line is a worthwhile investment. The
benefits captured within this report have used conservative values (i.e. worst
case scenario values to ensure that the benefits are cautious rather than
optimistic). Summed up the City of Hamilton should see a direct benefit of
approximately $130M (reduction in backlog, building permits and tax benefits
from development).
In addition, there are a number of spin off benefits associated with the
construction of LRT. The Benefits Case Assessment estimates that 3500
temporary jobs will be created in Hamilton during the construction period and 300
permanent jobs. This also affects Ontario’s Gross Domestic Product providing a
value of $443 million.
Health, Environment and Social Tourism are difficult to quantify without extensive
and costly studies. This report recognizes that LRT does provide benefits within
these areas and offers enhanced quality of life for residents.
-4-
A fundamental consideration of the benefits of this type of project, which aligns
with the findings of the McMaster Institute of Transportation and Logistics study,
is the ability for LRT to refocus growth within the community. This is in keeping
with Places to Grow, the City of Hamilton Official Plan and the City of Hamilton
Transportation Master Plan and allows the City to capitalize on existing
infrastructure while achieving population and employment growth.
-5-
2.0 The Rapid Transit Vision
In January 2009 (Report PW09007), Hamilton City Council adopted the following
vision statement for Rapid Transit:
Rapid Transit is more than just moving people from place to place. It is about
providing a catalyst for the development of high quality, safe, sustainable and
affordable transportation options for our citizens, connecting key destination
points, stimulating economic development and revitalizing Hamilton. Rapid transit
planning strives to improve the quality of life for our community and the
surrounding environment as we move Hamilton forward.
Council also directed that the Rapid Transit vision statement be applied as the
guiding principle behind the planning for and delivery of a rapid transit system for
Hamilton. As such, this vision statement has been used to guide decisions made
in the development of the Planning, Design and Engineering work for B-Line
Rapid Transit.
3.0 City of Hamilton Strategic Plan – 2012–2015

OUR Vision
To be the best place in Canada to raise a child, promote innovation, engage
citizens and provide diverse economic opportunities.
OUR Mission
WE provide quality public services that contribute to a healthy, safe and
prosperous community, in a sustainable manner.
OUR Values
Honesty ‐ WE are truthful and act with integrity.

Accountability ‐ WE are responsible for our actions ensuring the efficient, cost
effective and sustainable use of public resources.
Innovation ‐ WE are a forward thinking organization that supports continuous
improvement and encourages creativity.
Leadership ‐ WE motivate and inspire by demonstrating qualities that foster
effective decision making and promote success at all levels.
Respect ‐ WE treat ourselves and others as we would like to be treated.
Excellence ‐ WE provide municipal services through a commitment to meeting
and exceeding identified standards.
Teamwork ‐ WE work together toward common goals, through cooperation and
partnership.
Equity ‐ WE provide equitable access to municipal services and treat all people
fairly.
Cost Consciousness – WE must ensure that we are receiving value for
taxpayer dollars spent.
-6-
4.0 History of Rapid Transit in Hamilton
Figure 1 – Rapid Transit Timeline
-7-
5.0 What is Light Rail Transit and What Can it Do?
For Hamilton, Rapid Transit is more than just a transit project; it is a community
shaping initiative and potentially the largest capital project the City will have ever
constructed.
Modernized public transportation (including LRT) is a key, corporate strategic
priority that supports the concept of community building and economic
development while enhancing connections to the Greater Toronto Hamilton Area
(GTHA) through improved transportation networks and linkages to the planned
GO Transit expansions at James Street North and Confederation stations.
LRT infrastructure includes the following features:
o Electrically-powered, clean and green vehicles with no emissions at street
level
o Bi-directional
o Provides predictable journey times
o Operates in dedicated transit lanes
o Offers a smooth, comfortable and quiet ride
o Fully accessible; level boarding with easy access for all
o High capacity
o Affordable
o Reliable – can operate even in heavy snow or icy conditions
o Integration with the current streetscape
LRT also provides a platform for future investments such as upgraded water and
sewer infrastructure, roads, utilities, and public realm contributing to quality of life
benefits.
In addition, LRT supports the City’s Strategic Priority of becoming A Prosperous
& Healthy Community and enhancing Hamilton’s image, economy and well-being
by demonstrating that Hamilton is a great place to live, work, play and learn.
This will be accomplished through a Corporate Strategic Objective that commits
to improving the City’s transportation system to support multi-modal mobility and
encourage interregional connections. As such, the Strategic Actions will focus on
the following:
Complete the design and develop an implementation and financial plan for
the delivery of higher order transportation and enhanced transit service
including all-day GO Transit service and rapid transit
Develop an integrated, multi-modal, public transportation program
including implementation of rapid transit, conventional transit, active
transportation (e.g. pedestrian, cycling) and the associated transportation
demand management (TDM) plan
 Develop a strategy to enhance conventional transit service levels within
the A Line and B Line corridors
-8-
6.0 LRT – Stimulating the Economy
LRT is often a catalyst for stimulating the economy through investment in
infrastructure. LRT has been found to stimulate the economy by:
o Increasing land value –In Hamilton, the increase is estimated from 8%

to14% within 800m of the B-Line, particularly within close proximity to
station areas.5
o Increasing assessment value – High value, high density, mixed use land
parcels may produce higher assessment which can assist in paying for
capital and operating costs of the system.
o Creating jobs – In the initial design and construction stage and in the
ongoing operations and maintenance phase. Estimates show that some
6,000 construction jobs would be created with more than 1,000 (provincial)
permanent jobs (300 local) associated with regular operations and
maintenance.6
o Encouraging urban development – Permanence of an LRT line allows

both riders and developers to have a vision, plan ahead and helps create
compact urban communities with confidence in long term viability.
o Attracting private investment – Focused on building new

neighbourhoods and renewing those in need of improvement. Studies
show that LRT may support local economic development attracting more
consumers to local businesses.7
5
Metrolinx Benefits Case Analysis, February 2010, Land Value Changes, page 43
6
Hamilton Rapid Transit Initiative: Economic Potential Study, March 2009, page 3
7
Metrolinx Benefits Case Analysis, February 2010, Land Use Shaping, page 46
-9-
LRT has the potential to help Revitalize Hamilton by:
o Supporting the concept of “community building” which will

eventually lead to:
 A more attractive downtown core
 A waterfront that continues to serve the growing needs of the
community
 Inner-city neighbourhoods that benefit from revitalization
 Better integration and focus between the City and community
groups
o Increasing potential and concentration of community development
that will revitalize Downtown Hamilton resulting in a greater increase in
property values and greater potential for economic spin-offs
o Stimulating mixed-use, higher density communities within walking
distance of a transit stop making it convenient to travel to a multitude of
destinations by walking, cycling or using public transit instead of a car.
o Increasing populations and employment densities adjacent to the LRT
line specifically in the vicinity of LRT stations
o Reducing auto traffic in the downtown core
o Transforming our community through spurring economic activity by
creating unique streetscapes that support adjacent neighbourhoods
o Contributing to vibrant streets where all road uses can co-exist
o Promoting new development and investment along its key corridors
o Supporting opportunities to redevelop and intensify existing
developments
o Attracting new residents and skilled workers to develop creative and
knowledge-based industries
LRT can potentially improve Quality of Life by:
o Making Hamilton more accessible – LRT will be located within 800

metres of 20% of Hamilton residents and employment 8
o Offering time savings of $647 million annually for existing transit users,
new transit users and auto users 9
o Offering competitive journey times and reliability
o Increasing passenger comfort
o Increasing public access to employment areas, residential properties,
commercial districts and municipal services, increasing the connectivity
and vibrancy of urban areas
o Connecting Hamilton’s priority neighbourhoods to more employment,
educational, healthcare, recreational and cultural opportunities (as
outlined in the Code Red Study10
o Encouraging healthier lifestyles by promoting walking & cycling as
regular daily commutes
8
Hamilton Rapid Transit Initiative: Economic Potential Study, March 2009, page 2
9
Metrolinx Benefits Case Analysis, February 2010, Travel Time Savings, page 33
10
The Hamilton Spectator, Code Red Special Report, May 11, 2010
- 10 -
o Reducing collisions as a result of declining automobile use with
estimated savings of $18 million over a 30-year period11
o A more reliable transit service where riders do not need to consult a
schedule, making their journey more convenient
LRT will lead to Environmental Benefits by:
o Reducing air pollution from vehicle emissions and greenhouse gases

o A transit rider creating 65% fewer greenhouse gas emissions
compared to an auto user based on the same trip 12
o Decreasing total vehicle use
o Reducing the number of annual automobile traveled kilometres by 17
million in 202113
o Contributing to clear air helping meet Hamilton’s Clean Air and Green
House Gas emissions targets14
o Reducing noise pollution
LRT will Connect Key Destination Points by:
o Improving public access to employment areas, residential properties,

commercial districts and municipal services with the provision of faster,
more frequent service (see figure 2).
o Providing choice of travel modes that support and interconnect to each
other at the local level (trails, cycling and walking) and interregional
transportation (GO Transit).
11
Metrolinx Benefits Case Analysis, February 2010, Safety Benefits, page 34
12
The Benefits of LRT Expansion in Edmonton, City of Edmonton, June 2010, page 4
13
Metrolinx Benefits Case Analysis, February 2010, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, page 39
14
Corporate Air Quality & Climate Change Strategic Plan Phase II, Clean Air Hamilton
- 11 -
Figure 2 – A-Line and B-Line Corridors
- 12 -
7.0 B-Line Corridor – McMaster to Eastgate
Hamilton’s B-Line is identified as a “Top 15 Priority Project” in the Metrolinx
Transportation Plan, “The Big Move.” Metrolinx completed a Benefits Case
Analysis (BCA) demonstrating full LRT (starting with the B-Line) as the option
that would generate the highest benefits for Hamilton and also be capable of
accommodating the long-term travel demand growth in the corridor. Full LRT is
also the highest cost option. While full BRT may cost considerably less to build
and can generate a strong benefits-cost ratio, the benefits of BRT are less
extensive as compared to the potential benefits of LRT.
A $3 million Planning, Design and Engineering (PDE) study was initiated in

March 2010, funded by Metrolinx. The study produced the preliminary design for
an LRT B-Line (see Figure 3 for study area) and a Preliminary Feasibility Study
for the A-Line (Waterfront to Airport). The PDE study was completed in October
2011 and, in January 2012, staff completed the Environmental Process for rapid
transit along the B-Line Corridor.
Figure 3 – B-Line LRT McMaster to Eastgate
- 13 -
8.0 Hamilton’s Rapid Transit Network
BLAST Network
Hamilton has focused its rapid transit planning (BRT/LRT) on a city-wide system
referred to as B-L-A-S-T. This system includes five corridors (please see map of
the B-L-A-S-T network – Figure 4.)
The B-Line corridor is the first part of the City of Hamilton’s rapid transit network.
As part of the network, the A-Line would be the next line to develop operating
from the Waterfront to the Airport.
The Planning, Design and Engineering (PDE) Study initiated in March 2010
included the pre-feasibility study for the A-Line, completed in March 2012. It is
anticipated that a full feasibility study and Benefits Case Analysis for the A-Line
will be completed in Q4 2013.
The City of Hamilton is committed to applying a strategic, forward thinking

approach to all public transportation initiatives. Completing the A-Line in
conjunction with the B-Line would create a strong connection between Hamilton’s
interregional network connections (GO), Downtown, McMaster University,
Mohawk College and the East end including Confederation. This strategic
approach would significantly enhance the following benefits of LRT in Hamilton
by:
Stimulating the Economy
Revitalizing Hamilton
Improving Quality of Life
Increasing Environmental Benefits
 Connecting Key Destination Points
Hamilton’ current ridership in the B-Line corridor and its projected ridership
growth, requires the development of a Rapid Transit system to ensure efficient
and effective connectivity for citizens who want to move throughout the city and
connect to interregional travel modes. Successful planning for rapid transit must
be completed through an integrated approach which includes planning for other
travel modes (walking, cycling, conventional transit, car sharing, bike sharing ,
park-n-ride, cars, goods movement), land use planning and financial analysis.
The City of Hamilton’s public transportation network is comprised of five major

components:
 Interregional integration (GO bus and rail, Burlington Transit, Niagara
Region)
 Conventional HSR transit
 Specialized transit ATS/DARTS
 Rapid Transit
 Active Transportation (Walking, Cycling, Bike Share)
- 14 -
All network components, including Light Rail Transit, must be integrated to the
greatest extent possible to provide the most effective and seamless public
transportation system for the citizens of Hamilton.
Figure 4 – BLAST Network
- 15 -
9.0 Background
The Official Plan (glossary) defines Higher Order Transit as:

Transit that generally operates in its own dedicated right-of-way,
outside of mixed traffic where possible, and therefore can achieve
a speed and frequency of service greater than conventional
transit. Higher order transit can include heavy rail (i.e.: subways),
light rail transit and buses in dedicated rights-of-way and is
typically referred to as rapid transit (Growth Plan, 2006).
Chronology
In 2007, the Province of Ontario announced that, through its MoveOntario 2020
Plan, Hamilton had emerged as a short-term candidate for Rapid Transit funding.
Since then, evolving and shifting funding priorities have impacted the momentum
of Rapid Transit development in Hamilton and other Greater Toronto and
Hamilton Area (GTHA) municipalities.
At its October 7, 2008 meeting, the Public Works Committee approved a
recommendation directing staff to study rapid transit with Light Rail Technology
as the preferred option. Hamilton City Council endorsed Report PW08043D on
October 29, 2008, approving the following recommendation:
a) Request Metrolinx to undertake the appropriate benefits case
analysis required in order to include the functional design, detailed
design and construction of the B-Line Rapid Transit Corridor for the
City of Hamilton in their 2009-2013 five year capital budget utilizing
Light Rail Technology;
b) Request Metrolinx to undertake the Rapid Transit Feasibility Study
(Phase 3) in order to continue the planning and design for the A-
Line Rapid Transit Corridor utilizing Light Rail Technology in
conjunction with the design and construction of the B-Line Rapid
Transit Corridor for the City of Hamilton as part of their 2009-2013
capital budget with design and construction funds to be included in
a future five year capital budget;
c) Continue its undertaking of required rapid transit initiatives studies
and an aggressive public consultation program for rapid transit in
Hamilton.
On April 1, 2009, the Province of Ontario included $3 million in the Provincial
Budget for the City of Hamilton to study Light Rail Transit on the B-Line and to
determine the feasibility of rapid transit (either LRT or BRT) on the A-Line.
Hamilton was the only municipality to receive such funding.
On October 13, 2009, Hamilton City Council gave its approval for the City of
Hamilton to enter into a Contribution Agreement with Metrolinx for $3 million in
funding for Rapid Transit studies and for the General Manager of Public Works
- 16 -
and the City Treasurer to be authorized and directed to negotiate and sign the
final terms of the Agreement in a form acceptable to the City Solicitor. (Report #
PW09088).
On February 19, 2010, Metrolinx presented its Benefits Case Analysis (BCA) for
Hamilton rapid transit to its Board of Directors.
Although the BCA identified full LRT as the highest cost option, it also noted that
LRT in Hamilton would generate the highest transportation user benefits
comprised of travel time savings, ridership attraction and overall qualitative travel
experience. LRT also carries a stronger potential to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and generate more significant economic development impacts
including employment, income, and Gross Domestic Product growth for the city
and region. The BCA also identifies LRT as having greater potential to shape
land uses and uplift land values along the King-Main corridor.
On September 22, 2011, a joint Metrolinx/City of Hamilton meeting was held for
the purpose of providing a status update on the Planning, Design and
Engineering (PDE) study and project benefit and cost report (Making the Case).
At this meeting, Metrolinx indicated that it was encouraged with Hamilton’s
progress on the Rapid Transit initiative and urged the City to complete the work
plan outlined for 2012. This work provides further necessary information allowing
Metrolinx to put forth a positive recommendation stating that Hamilton’s Rapid
Transit initiative has reached a maximum state of implementation readiness.
On October 26, 2011, City Council approved recommendations in the report:
Conventional, Rapid and Inter-Regional Transit: Technical, Financial and Land
Use Considerations (CM11016/PW11064/PED1154/FCS11072). Included in the
amended recommendations, Council directed staff to complete the project benefit
and cost report including the cost of not doing LRT and a triple bottom line
analysis and also that, in its report back, staff include firm capital costs and a
recommended funding request to Metrolinx for capital and net change in
operating costs in LRT vs. the existing HSR bus system including the cost per
passenger. Also on October 26, 2011, staff presented the City of Hamilton
contributions to the Rapid Transit initiative.
City of Hamilton Contributions to the Rapid Transit Initiative: The Rapid Transit
Initiative began in 2008. Since that time, the City of Hamilton has spent over
$5,000,000. City Capital expenditures total approximately $2 million which
included earlier Rapid Transit Feasibility studies for the A&B Line, preliminary
assessment of LRT Operations, economic potential study, development
opportunities & model development. Operating expenditures have totalled
approximately $3 million which included staffing and resources of the rapid transit
office. Yearly Rapid Transit budgets have been submitted to Council for approval,
since 2008.
In January 2012, staff completed the Environmental Process for rapid transit
along the B-Line corridor.
- 17 -
10.0 Triple Bottom Line
Economic/Financial
Project Capital
The following table provides the Capital Cost estimate for LRT on Hamilton’s B-
Line as prepared by consultant, Steer Davies Gleave. Cost estimates were
prepared in February 2012, based on 2011 dollars.
TOTALS ($2011)
Preparatory Works $ 95,578,021
Guideway $ 79,811,694
Trackwork & Stations $115,586,465
Systems $ 90,750,250
Maintenance Facility $ 48,480,143
Vehicles $110,000,000
Construction Sub-total $540,206,573
Design & Management $120,431,493
Property Allowance $ 34,557,000
Sub-total $695,195,066
Contingency (17%) $ 116,190,893
Total $811,385,960
Figure 5 – Project Capital
On October 26, 2011, City Council was presented with Project Capital Estimates
totaling approximately $875.5 million. The updated Project Capital estimates are
approximately $811.4 million. The reduction of approximately $64.1 million is
primarily due to $27million in construction costs, $16million in Design & Mgmt,
$20million in Contingency.
As summarized in the Steer Davies Gleave Cost Estimate report, the estimates
pertain to the construction of a 13.8 kilometre LRT system from McMaster
University to Eastgate Square on dedicated and shared right of way. Figures
include construction of power sub-station buildings, power distribution through a
catenary system, guideway, construction of an ‘LRT only’ bridge at the 403
crossing, modifications or removal of the skywalk pedestrian bridge (as required)
and structural reconditioning of the Red Hill Valley Parkway bridge. The route
accounts for eighteen LRT stops which include terminal stops at McMaster and
Eastgate. Each cost category is described in detail below:
o Preparatory Works: Includes the removal of existing pavement surfaces
along the corridor for the construction of the guideway, relocation of signs,
- 18 -
signal heads, controllers, etc. Also includes cost estimates to
remove/relocate/install all structures for municipal services (water, sanitary
& storm water) and the relocation of infrastructure for hydro,
communications and gas.
o Guideway: This item includes the concrete guideway, guideway curb,
track cross gutter drain and weep drain. In addition, the LRT-only bridge
(at the 403 crossing) and structural reconditioning of the Red Hill Valley
accounts for approximately $14.5 million of the cost estimate.
o Trackwork & Stations: Includes cost of installing embedded track for the
guideway and all special trackwork for the system. This includes an
allowance for the guideway connection from a Maintenance Storage
Facility to the main line (approximately 1.25 km). Also includes the cost for
the construction of all eighteen stops (side running and centre) and the
termini at McMaster and Eastgate.
o Systems: Includes the installation of the guideway electrical cable and
catenary poles, major modification of 69 existing signals, construction of a
system wide communications duct bank and street lighting. This also
provides an allowance for the construction and equipping of seven (7)
traction power sub stations buildings. This estimate also includes
signaling, communications and fare equipment (ticket vending/validation
machines).
o Maintenance Facility: A Maintenance Storage Facility is not defined in
the preliminary engineering phase of the project. Therefore, this cost
estimate is presented at a higher level and will be confirmed during the
next phase of the project.
o Vehicles: Includes the provision of 22 low floor light rail vehicles and is
based on a recent procurement cost of light rail vehicles for Metrolinx.
o Design & management: Includes the cost for final design, construction
administration, insurance, permits, surveys, testing, investigation,
inspection, and startup based on the consultant’s best estimate.
o Property Allowance: The purchase or lease of real estate may be
required. This is an estimated cost of the property requirements for the
construction of the project and is based on property values in Hamilton.
o Contingency: An overall price contingency is provided at approximately
17% of total costs.
These cost estimates are based on preliminary engineering at 30% detailed
design and, as such, are subject to a plus/minus variance of 15% to 20%. Taking
this into account, the Project Capital costs in 2011 dollars are estimated to range
from $649,108,768 to $973,663,152 (as illustrated below).
- 19 -
Range of Project Capital Costs in 2011 dollars
-20% +20%
$811 mil
$649M $973M
LOW END HIGH END
Figure 6 - Range - Project Capital Costs
Depending on the timing of construction, these figures would increase based on

rate of inflation (assuming 2% annually) by a range of $675 million in 2013 to
$1.2 billion in 2023 (as illustrated below).
Range of Project Capital Costs due to

Construction Startup
HIGH ESTIMATES
$1,012M $1,118M $1,234M
2013 2018 2023
$745M $823M
$675M
LOW ESTIMATES
Figure 7 – Range of Project Capital Costs - Construction Startup
- 20 -
A recent example of another LRT system and its respective Project Capital Costs
include:
Waterloo LRT/BRT Project:
19km of LRT + 17km of BRT = $818 million (in 2014 dollars)
While the breakdown of costs remains confidential at this time, it is expected that
a significant amount of the $818 million is related to Waterloo Region’s LRT.
Assuming $750 million (in 2014 dollars) is LRT related, this equates to
approximately a cost of $39.5 million per kilometre (in 2014 dollars).
Capital cost estimates provided for a Hamilton B-Line LRT system seem to be
high in comparison to other systems. Assuming that $811M (2011 dollars) is a
reasonable estimate, a 13.8km LRT line would equate to $860M in 2014 (based
on 2% inflation), approximately $61 million per kilometre. When considering the
lower end estimate of $675M (2013 dollars) and the respective increase to
$689M (2014 dollars), the resulting $49 million per kilometre remains relatively
high compared to other systems.
Included in the 2013 rapid transit work plan is an opportunity to undertake a

Value Engineering assessment to review capital cost estimates. This evaluation
may uncover savings not already accounted for in the current capital cost
estimates. For example, a Value Engineering assessment undertaken by the
Region of Waterloo for its LRT system resulted in a project cost savings of
approximately 18%.
With the introduction of an LRT system on Hamilton’s B-line corridor, there may
be changes in the service delivery of other City services which could result in
additional City capital costs of approximately $1.8 million (as identified in report
CM11016/PW11064/PED11064/FCS11072.) Much of the additional cost would
be dedicated to the purchase of an articulated aerial device for the Hamilton Fire
Department valued at approximately $1.5 million. The remaining $300,000 would
be dedicated to such anticipated services as enhanced litter control and concrete
curb repairs.
- 21 -
11.0 B-LINE Corridor Capital Works – Status Quo
LRT capital cost estimates include the removal of existing pavement surfaces
along the corridor and the removal/relocate/install of municipal sewer and water
services. LRT roads will have a life cycle of 35 years and LRT subsurface
infrastructure will have a life cycle of 50 years. Assuming that all capital works
associated with the implementation of Hamilton’s LRT B-Line are funded by other
levels of government, a reduction in the overall backlog of City rehabilitation,
replacement and reconstruction needs along the corridor would be realized.
Due to budget constraints, all City capital works noted below are not necessarily
programmed within the capital budget. The budget is determined based on risk
assessment. However, these capital works are part of the overall backlog of
rehabilitation and reconstruction needs contributing to the accumulation of the
City’s infrastructure deficit annually. The following summary is provided in order
to quantify the backlog of capital works that would be reduced.
Roadworks
Capital works associated with Roads are identified as either road resurfacing or
road reconstruction.
To determine which capital work is necessary on a segment of road, an overall

condition index (OCI) is determined. The need for a road reconstruction is
triggered when an OCI index of 0 to 20 is identified. When the OCI index is
between 21 and 60, road resurfacing is required.
There are 157 road segments on the B-Line corridor, or approximately 58.6 lane
kms. At present, ninety segments (or 35.3 lane kilometres) require road
resurfacing. City staff recognizes that the B-Line corridor is a main artery in
downtown Hamilton with significant road usage.
Within a 35 to 50-year period, it is anticipated that one (1) road reconstruction of

the entire B-Line corridor would potentially be addressed. As noted in the chart
below, this equates to approximately a $38.1 million reduction in backlog of City
road works.
Sewermains
Capital works associated with Sewermains are identified as either sewer Cured
in Place Pipe (CIPP) Lining or sewer replacement.
Sewermain conditions are assessed by using a closed circuit television (CCTV)

video. There are five condition levels : 1 (very good) through to 5 (critical). When
a sewermain has a condition level of 3, 4 or 5, sewer lining is recommended
provided that no capacity upgrades are required. A condition level-5 may require
- 22 -
full sewer replacement, depending on the severity of the structural defects that
could prevent the installation of a liner.
There is approximately 37 kilometres of sewermain along the B-Line corridor.

At present, 4 kilometres of sewermain have a need for full replacement. Once a
sewer is replaced or relined, the life expectancy of that sewermain increases to
the original 50 year life span. It is presumed that the remaining 33 kilometres of
sewermain will require, at the very least, a relining over a 50-year period. These
costs are illustrated in the chart below.
Watermains
Watermain capital works is primarily a replacement. Watermain conditions are

determined by reviewing and analyzing the break history, pipe material and age
of the infrastructure.
There is approximately 37 kilometres of watermain along the B-Line corridor. It is

the assumption of City staff that, over a 50-year period, at least 19 kilometres of
watermain (approximately half of the total kilometres) will have a need for
replacement. The chart below quantifies the reduction in backlog that would be
addressed.
CAPITAL UNIT COST LANE KMS OR Reduction in

WORKS (2011 $s) KMS Backlog
ROADS
Reconstruction $650,000 / lane km 58.6 lane kms $38.1 M
SEWER
CIPP Lining $325,000 / km 33 kms $10.7 M
Replacement $1,625,000 / km 4 kms $ 6.5 M
WATER
Replacement $1,250,000 / km 19 kms $23.7 M
TOTAL $79 M
Figure 8 – Reduction in Backlog
As stated above, not all City Capital works noted are programmed within the
Capital budget. However, these capital works are part of the overall backlog of
rehabilitation, replacement and reconstruction needs accumulating and adding to
the City’s annual infrastructure deficit. The implementation of the LRT B-Line
system will potentially address the future backlog of capital work totaling an
estimated $79 million (in 2011 dollars).
- 23 -
12.0 LRT Project Operating Costs / Cost per Passenger
LRT Project Operating Costs
A Preliminary Operations and Maintenance plan for the 13.8 kilometre LRT
system along the B-line corridor was completed by Steer Davies Gleave.
The report highlights a preliminary organizational structure and estimated costs

associated with labour, maintenance, power for the vehicles and the LRT system.
This information is based on typical operations and maintenance practices used
worldwide. The preliminary operations and maintenance plan assumes the LRT
system is a direct operating division of the City of Hamilton.
The preliminary organizational structure identifies approximately 182 staff

members. Current existing staff may be qualified to carry out some of the
functions identified, therefore, reducing the number of staff required for the LRT.
However, for the purposes of conservative costing, a stand alone structure has
been maintained.
As illustrated below, the organizational structure is broken down into five

departments that report to a General Manager.
Figure 9 – Organizational Structure
The General Manager’s Office provides management direction, coordinates the

activities of the Operations and Administration departments and is responsible for
the performance of all aspects of the transit service. FTE = 2.
The Transportation Department is responsible for operating LRT vehicles and

monitoring and controlling service from the Control Centre. FTE = 86.
The Equipment Department is responsible for vehicle maintenance and servicing.

On a scheduled basis, all vehicles will undergo preventive maintenance, safety
tests, major overhauls and inspections. Maintenance staff will handle LRT vehicle
problems during revenue service. FTE = 27.
- 24 -
The Plant Department will look after the maintenance of all fixed assets including
stops, tracks/right-of-way, offices and yards. FTE = 29.
The Safety and Security Department is responsible to ensure the safety and
security of all passengers and staff of the transit system and its facilities. It will
oversee the auditing, quality assurance and environmental monitoring for the
transit system. FTE = 17.
The Administration Department will provide financial management, revenue

collection, legal, human resources, procurement, marketing and IT support.
In summary, the report identifies a total operations and maintenance cost of

approximately $14,459,522 annually to include labour, maintenance, and power
for the LRT vehicles and the LRT system.
COST ITEM PER YEAR

($2011)
Labour Costs $ 12,050,200
Vehicle Maintenance Costs $ 395,340
Track Maintenance $ 84,260
Power Costs $ 488,900
Cost for parts for maintenance of Catenary and TPSS $ 60,000
Cost for parts for maintenance of Communications & fare $ 30,000
collection equipment
Office Supplies $ 36,320
SUB-TOTAL $ 13,145,020
10% (Contingency -insurance, rates, property taxes, etc) $ 1,314,502
TOTAL $ 14,459,522
The Labour component is primarily driven by the Transportation department

accounting for 50% of the labour costs equating to $6,045,000. Eighty six
employees will work shifts seven days a week and provide services to meet the
traveling demand of the public.
To accommodate a 4-minute headway for morning and afternoon peak periods,

22 LRT vehicles are required (19 operational, 3 stand-by spares). Non-labour
maintenance costs per vehicle are estimated at $17,970 per year.
Various components of the track system will need to be replaced at different

periods of time. A Track Maintenance annual budget of $84,260 will ensure the
track is continuously maintained. If the track is neglected and maintenance
deferred, higher costs will be incurred in a shorter time frame. This will result in
replacement costs having to be capitalized.
- 25 -
Annual Power consumption costs are made up of a total of three components
including:
o Traction Power Consumption

o Stop Power Consumption
o Maintenance Storage Facility Power Consumption
Based on estimated kWh for each component and published rates from Horizon
Utilities, the resulting estimate is $488,900 per year for Power Costs.
Similar to track maintenance, it is important that scheduled inspections and

periodic replacements are carried out annually for the maintenance of the
catenary, communications and fare equipment systems. If these systems are well
maintained on an annual basis, replacement costs can be accommodated within
the operations and maintenance budget.
Operating Budget Impacts and Operating Cost per Passenger
To determine estimated financial impacts LRT would have on the operating

budget, staff prepared a comparable analysis of the existing Bus system (HSR)
vs. Bus and LRT system.
The analysis included the following assumptions:
o LRT system is operated by the existing Transportation Division of the City

of Hamilton
o Existing staff will be utilized where possible
o 18 buses are removed from service
As illustrated in Table-1, (Day 1 – Existing Ridership with LRT - LOW), the BUS
column reflects current HSR expenditures and revenue actuals projected for
2012 with a net levy impact of $44M (excluding Gas Tax Revenues). The current
system-wide ridership is approximately 22 million. This results in a system-wide
net operating cost per passenger of $2.00. On the existing bus B-Line route only,
a net operating cost per passenger is estimated at $1.07. The detailed analysis
can be found in Appendix A.
The BUS and LRT column represents the implementation of an LRT system
along the B-Line corridor including HSR bus route integration on Day 1. This
scenario accounts for an LRT headway of 6 minutes and a shift of one third of
service hours and riders from the King and Delaware routes to the B-Line route.
This results in a decrease to the operating costs for both the King and Delaware
lines, and an increase to the operating cost of the B-Line route.
Assuming total ridership remains the same, the gross and net levy will increase
by $2.9 million. With a higher net levy compared to the existing bus system (i.e.
$44M to $46.9M), the resulting net operating cost per passenger for both system-
- 26 -
wide and B-line-Only have increased to $2.13 and $1.80 respectively. The
detailed analysis is provided in Appendix A.
It is worth noting that, if a decision is made to redeploy the 18 buses to other

routes within the network, there would be an increase of $6 million in gross
operating costs. This figure does not include revenue from ridership which would
occur and, to some degree, offset these costs.
TABLE 1
DAY 1 – EXISTING RIDERSHIP WITH LRT - (LOW)
Existing BUS & LRT VARIANCE %
BUS VARIANCE
Service
GROSS
EXPENDITURES $79M $81.9M $2.9M 3.6%
REVENUES * ($35M) ($35M) ($0) 0%
NET LEVY $44M $46.9M $2.9M 6.5%
Ridership 22 M 22 M 0M 0%
Net Operating Cost
per $2.00 $2.13 $0.13 6.5%
passenger(System
wide)
Net Operating Cost
per passenger(B-Line $1.07 $1.80 $0.73 68%
only)
* Average Fare rate per passenger $1.59 and does not include Gas Tax monies
Note: Assumes the existing $6million bus B-Line costs are NOT redeployed.
Public transportation industry consultants have stated that two-thirds of ridership

from the existing B-Line corridor can be expected to transfer to the LRT B-Line
causing an immediate 8% city-wide ridership increase to potentially occur with
the implementation of an LRT system.
As illustrated in Table-2, (Day 1 – Increase Ridership with LRT HIGH) these

assumptions result in an increase of approximately 1.8 million riders. With the
increased ridership along the B-Line, an LRT headway of 4 minutes would be
implemented. This results in a net levy impact of $3.5M or 7.9% increase to the
current existing HSR Budget. Net operating cost per passenger system-wide
remains the same as existing cost per passenger $2.00, and the B-Line-Only net
operating cost per passenger equates to $0.45. The detailed analysis is provided
in Appendix A.
- 27 -
TABLE 2
DAY 1 – INCREASE RIDERSHIP WITH LRT - (HIGH)
Existing BUS & LRT VARIANCE % VARIANCE

BUS
Service
GROSS
EXPENDITURES $79M $85.3M $6.3M 7.9%
REVENUES * ($35M) ($37.8M) ($2.8M) 8.0%
NET LEVY $44M $47.5M $3.5M 7.9%
Ridership 22 M 23.8 M 1.8 M 8.0%

Net Operating Cost
per passenger $2.00 $2.00 $0 0%
(System wide)
Net Operating Cost
per passenger(B-Line $1.07 $0.45 $(0.62) (58%)
only)
* Average Fare rate per passenger $1.59
Note: Assumes the existing $6million bus B-Line costs are NOT redeployed.
The above-noted analysis provides an estimate of net operating budget impacts

and net operating cost per passenger for Day 1 with LRT for two ridership
scenarios (Low & High). In summary, a Bus and LRT system would result in a
system wide net operating cost per passenger ranging from $2.00 to $2.13
compared to the existing system-wide net operating cost per passenger of $2.00.
The LRT B-Line-Only would result in a net operating cost per passenger ranging
from $1.80 to $0.45, compared to the existing B-Line-Only net operating cost per
passenger of $1.07. Net levy impacts on Day 1 would also range from $2.9
million (no increased ridership) to $3.5 million (increase in ridership).
While Table 1 and Table 2 examine a Day 1 scenario, it is also important to

consider the future operations of the system. Table 3 compares the Existing Bus
system and Bus and LRT system to year 2031. Gross Expenditures for each
were inflated by 2% annually to year 2031. Revenues were determined by the
ridership projections for 2031. The existing average Fare rate per passenger of
$1.59 has been increased by 40% to $2.23 based on a 10-year historical
average increase of 20%. The detailed analysis is provided in Appendix B. For
the Bus system, consultant Hatch Mott McDonald recommended 16% ridership
growth over the 20 year period which equates to less than 2% a year. For the
Bus and LRT system, 2031 ridership projections were provided by Consultants
- 28 -
Steer Davies Gleave. The LRT ridership estimate includes a 30% uplift based on
optimizing routes to complement LRT, 31% uplift based on quality and reliability
associated with LRT and an additional 30% based on growth (assuming full 2031
GRIDS growth is achieved).
TABLE 3
FUTURE 2031 – INCREASE RIDERSHIP WITH LRT
BUS - 2031 BUS & LRT- VARIANCE % VARIANCE
2031
GROSS
EXPENDITURES $115M $126.6M $11.6M 10%
REVENUES* $(56.8M) $(75.3M) $(18.5M) 32.5%
NET LEVY $58.2M $51.3M $(6.9M) (11.9%)
Ridership 25.5M 33.9M 8.4M 32.9%

Net Operating Cost
per passenger $2.28 $1.51 $(0.77) (33.7%)
(System wide)
Net Operating Cost
per passenger(B-Line $1.12 $(0.75) $(1.87) (167%)
only)
* Estimated Average Fare per passenger $2.23 in 2031 (based on 10-year history of rate
increases)
The results indicate that a combined Bus and LRT system would operate at a
lower net levy impact in year 2031, compared to existing Bus service in year
2031. Net operating cost per passenger for both system-wide and B-Line is also
significantly lower. Consultants have reported that LRT will bring a greater
increase in ridership to the system.
Other City Cost Impacts: With the implementation of a B-Line LRT system,
consideration must be given to operating implications of all other divisions and
City Departments. Winter control, street tree trimming, street lighting, water and
sewer and parking/By-law services all contribute to the approximate $8.7 million
city operating cost implications from other areas (as identified in report
CM11016/PW11064/PED11064/FCS11072) . These proposed changes would
require Council approval and proceed through the normal operating budget
process.
Ridership
The chart below shows LRT daily ridership displayed by TRK index. (TRK index
=daily ridership/route length (km) / 1000)
- 29 -
Therefore, as illustrated in the chart below, Day 1 LRT ridership in Hamilton is
within range of the majority of successful LRT systems. This analysis shows that
B-Line LRT is viable from a ridership perspective.
Figure 10 – LRT Boardings
- 30 -
13.0 Hamilton B-Line LRT Phasing Alternatives Analysis
As part of the 2012 Rapid Transit Work Plan, staff received direction to undertake
an evaluation of phasing options for Hamilton’s B-Line LRT initiative to inform
and assist Council in the decision making process related to B-Line LRT phasing
alternatives.
The analysis will outline the advantages, disadvantages and trade-offs

associated with a number of phasing alternative scenarios including:
 Scenario A - Business as Usual - Bus Routes: 1, 1A, 5 group, 10, 10A, 51,
52, 55, 55A, 58
 Scenario B - TPAP Approved – McMaster University to Eastgate Square –
13.8 km
 Scenario C - McMaster University to Ottawa Street – 9.1 km
 Scenario D - McMaster University to Queenston Circle – 10.8 km
 Scenario E – Downtown (MacNab Street) to Eastgate Square – 9.2 km
McMaster to Downtown option was not included since it does not connect to the
potential Maintenance Storage Facility which was assumed to be 330 Wentworth
Street North.
A multiple accounts evaluation (MAE) approach was applied including an

assessment and evaluation of specific measures related to Community Benefits
Account (User, Environmental, Economic Development, Community, and Urban
Development) and Financial Considerations Account (e.g. Capital Costs,
Operating Costs, Cost Effectiveness).
Findings from the MAE analysis show that Scenario B–McMaster University to
Eastgate Square received the highest ranking for both the Community and
Financial Accounts. Following closely behind is Scenario D–McMaster University
to Queenston Circle.
Details of the Hamilton B-Line LRT Phasing MAE analysis and findings are
included in the attached staff reports.
- 31 -
14.0 Economic Uplift
Land Value and Property Taxes
LRT is considered to be one of the fundamental elements in the successful

redevelopment of downtown cores in urban centres. As identified in the Canadian
Urban Institute’s (CUI) Hamilton B-Line Value Uplift and Capture Study (June
2010, see Appendix C), private investment often follows public investment. The
fixed nature of LRT lines and stations attract investment by developers which
often results in new infill development for mixed use, commercial or residential
purposes. The heightened development supports regeneration by bringing
people back to the core to live, work, learn and play. Revitalizing the core will
attract creative talents by offering a high quality of life at a relatively low cost of
living.
LRT stations in downtown cores often attract more office and retail development.
According to the City of Hamilton Office Study (December 2009), the office
vacancy rate in Hamilton was 15% and, while demand for office space has been
strong, that is not the case in the downtown core. While neighbouring
municipalities have experienced growth in their occupied space, Hamilton has
struggled. Therefore, in order to compete, Hamilton needs to build amenities
such as LRT to offer an urban form that will attract new office tenants.
Three of the key drivers supporting office development include:
 Clustering of services
 Economic factors (i.e.: competitive lease rates, operating costs, taxes)
 Amenities (i.e.: access to services, good quality housing, and recreational
opportunities.)
LRT would contribute to these main drivers by enhancing mobility and making
such amenities more accessible.
As noted in the Hamilton B-Line Value Uplift and Capture Study, “higher order
transit has the potential to enhance the value of land and lead to economic
development along the transit corridor.” The greatest increase in land value is
focused on properties located within a reasonable walking distance from the
station (e.g. 5 minute walk, 400m from station) and properties that are visible
from the transit line. Conservative estimates indicate a 10-to-20% value premium
for real estate located within easy access to the station.
To estimate an uplift value for Hamilton, the CUI study identified vacant and
underused parcels of land within 400 metres of the B-line, likely to be
redeveloped. This analysis included both vacant public and private parcels of
land (e.g. surface parking lots).
- 32 -
Researchers identified prototypes of typical Hamilton buildings and determined
future development potential for each of the vacant or underused parcels of land.
A workshop was held with the participation of a wide cross section of City staff
and Councillors to obtain feedback on the likelihood and timing of development.
The analysis of the development potential on the identified properties

determined:
o 32 development projects were likely to proceed along the B-line corridor

without LRT
o 108 development projects were likely to proceed along the B-line corridor
with LRT
Three times the number of developments are likely to occur within the same
timeframe with LRT than without LRT. Given current market conditions in
Hamilton, it was determined that 60% of these developments would be
residential buildings and 40% non-residential.
The study also shows that, over the coming 15 years, approximately 2.1 million
square feet of development is likely to occur without LRT, compared to 5.7 million
sq.ft of development that is likely to occur with LRT. The difference equates to
3.6 million square feet of additional development that could occur with a City of
Hamilton public investment in LRT.
The two figures below highlight the difference in property tax assessment for the
two scenarios, Without LRT and With LRT.
Figure 11 – CUI - Distribution of New Taxable Assessment “With” and “Without” LRT15
15
CUI Analysis, page 46, Figures 7 & 8
- 33 -
More recently, the City’s Planning and Economic Development Department
analyzed the potential for the properties along the corridor to transform into a
different built form consistent with recent land use policy directions for the Main-
King-Queenston corridor. Phase one of the Main-King Queenston Corridor Study
(2012) looked at the properties within 400m on either side of the corridor and
estimated that with a transformation of the properties to an appropriate built form
(generally, multi-story mixed use buildings), the corridor would accommodate
approximately a 1.2 million square feet increase in commercial space and 11.4
million square feet increase in residential space throughout the corridor (not
including Downtown). These estimates assumed a certain percentage of the
building stock would redevelop within the planning period (to 2031).
The CUI analysis was a more conservative approached, estimating 3.6 million
square feet, compared to 12.6 million square feet estimated by the Main, King
Queenston Corridor Strategy. The City’s development estimates are considered
optimistic and may not occur within the 2031 period as it is recognized that
redevelopment and transformation will require more than the construction of an
LRT line. Pace of redevelopment will be affected by market trends, the demand
for residential and commercial, availability of suitable sites for redevelopment
along the corridor. A multifaceted strategy would have to be in place to
encourage and facilitate intensification and development along the corridor.
To illustrate, note the more detailed work completed by the City’s Planning and
Economic Development Department Nodes and Corridors study compared to the
CUI Value Uplift and Capture Study:
- 34 -
To illustrate
Dundurn:
CUI: Total New Floor Space = 228, 110 sq. ft
Figure 12 – Total New Floor Space CUI – Dundurn
- 35 -
City of Hamilton: Total New Floor Space = 1,309,179 sq. ft
Figure 13 - Total New Floor Space – City Of Hamilton
- 36 -
To illustrate:
Nash Road:
CUI: Total New Floor Space = 184,600 sq. ft.
Figure 14 – Total New Floor Space CUI – Nash
- 37 -
City of Hamilton Total New Floor Space = 2,208,740 sq. ft.
Figure 15 – Total New Floor Space City of Hamilton – Queenston
- 38 -
As noted previously, the CUI study shows very conservative development
projections. CUI also used a conservative approach when determining the
revenue estimates generated by the additional development.
CUI summarizes the estimates of the financial benefits of the B-line as follows:
Estimate of B-Line Financial Benefits

Source of additional tax benefit for Amount over 15 years
Hamilton (based on 3.6 million sq. ft.)
Tax Benefit from new development by LRT $22.4 million
on evaluated vacant and underused parcels
(New Tax $s collected by the City)
Building permit fees and development $30.2 million
charges for this new development (New $s
collected by the City)
LRT value premium – Homeowner Benefit Net Value $0
$29 million
TOTAL $52.6 million
The increase in taxable assessment and tax benefit resulting from new
development (by location in the corridor) indicated that approximately 71% of the
uplift occurred within a one block range for a total of $16 million. The remaining
$6.4 million was beyond 1-block but within a 400 metre radius for a total of $22.4
million.
Building permit fees and development charges for the new development equates
to approximately $30.2 million. This model assumed that existing development
charge exemptions in the City of Hamilton were discontinued.
An LRT value premium was also calculated on properties within 400 metres of an
LRT line because of its increased accessibility relative to other properties
elsewhere in the City. This uplift premium increases the property taxes paid by
the property owners benefiting from the LRT and reduces the taxes for all other
taxpayers.
Blue = 2% LRT premium

Purple = 4% LRT premium
Figure 16 – LRT Premium areas
- 39 -
Of the $29 million of LRT value premium, 60% is attributed to properties located
within a 1-block depth (4% premium).
A total of $52.6 million is an estimate of the financial benefits of the development

potential of a B-line LRT system, based on the 3.6 million square foot increase in
development as shown in the CUI study, not the City of Hamilton’s estimates.
The Hamilton B-line Value Uplift and Capture study suggests that, over time, LRT
stations would become the focus of new development and economic activity,
similar to what has occurred in Portland, Dallas and Minneapolis.
It is worth noting that “The North American Light Rail Experience: Insights for
Hamilton” report, prepared by the McMaster Institute for Transportation &
Logistics (MITL) concludes that LRT itself is “a tool to guide development more
than a generator of development. Even in favourable locations, ridership
increases and new developments associated with light rail may proceed slower
than anticipated. Planning incentives will likely be necessary to induce new
investment along the route. To that end, the City of Hamilton is currently engaged
in land use planning in advance of rapid transit and appears to be adhering to
sound principles for the most part.” MITL also concluded that light rail transit has
the potential to succeed in Hamilton under the right set of circumstances.
15.0 Employment Growth
As stated previously, LRT is often a catalyst for stimulating the economy through
investment in infrastructure. This includes job creation in both the initial design
and construction stage and in the ongoing operations and maintenance phase.
Estimates show that approximately 6,000 construction jobs (provincial) would be

created with the implementation of a B-Line system, 3,500 directly in Hamilton.
Approximately 1,000 jobs (provincial) would be created to deliver regular
operations and maintenance, including 300 jobs in Hamilton.16
16
Hamilton Rapid Transit Initiative: Hamilton Economic Potential Study
- 40 -
Employment generated by the LRT initiative would create further increases in
spending which could have local (Hamilton) and provincial impacts. As noted in
the A-Line Economic Potential Impact study (Steer Davies Gleave), such
spending permeates through the economy by way of direct, indirect and induced
impacts:
 Direct impact relates to the direct spending and employment created in

each industry (i.e.: on-site construction jobs, rolling stock manufacturing
jobs).
 Indirect impact relates to the spending and employment created in other

industries further down the chain that would produce materials and
services required for direct inputs.
 Induced impacts relate to additional spending generated by both direct

and indirect impacts from higher wages and employment.
According to the Hamilton Rapid Transit Initiative: Economic Potential Study, a

B-Line LRT investment is estimated to result in an increase of more than $443
million in Ontario’s GDP.
- 41 -
16.0 Health
Investments in public transportation such as LRT can help shape a city’s built
environment into a more walkable, complete and compact community. Transit
friendly communities have positive impacts on human health. For instance, a
2009 study states that “80% of cardiovascular diseases and type 2 diabetes
along with 40% of cancers could be avoided if major risk factors associated with
the environment were eliminated.” 17
In fact, for each additional hour spent in a car per day, the likelihood of a person
becoming obese increased by 6%.18 By contrast, people who each walked an
additional kilometre per day reduced their chances of becoming obese by 5%.
According to Statistics Canada, the number of overweight and obese people in

Hamilton is higher on average than levels in similar cities. This has become an
increasingly greater public concern and is impacting the health care system.
In 2010, another study was conducted both before and after the construction
phase of the Charlotte North Carolina Light Rail Line. The study concluded that
“public transit systems can generate positive health impacts by encouraging
greater numbers of users to walk to station stops and maintain more physically
active lives on top of the general transportation benefits accrued.” 19
According to the 2010 Hamilton B-Line Benefits Case Assessment completed by

Metrolinx, annual accident costs are expected to be reduced by $2.48 million
over a period of 22 years, primarily because transit is found to be a safer mode of
travel compared to driving. Upon further evaluation, Steer Davies Gleave
estimates this cost savings to rise to $3.48 million during the 2008 to 2031
evaluation period.
17
Metcalfe, O., & Higgins, C. (2009). Healthy public policy – is health impact assessment the cornerstone? Public
Health, 123, 296-301
18
Frank, L., Andresen, M., & Schid, T. (2004). Obesity relationships with community design, physical activity and
time spent in cars. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 27(2), 87-89.
19
MacDonald JM, Stokes RJ, Cohen DA, Kofner, A, Ridgeway GK. The Effect of Light Rail Transit on Body Mass
Index and Physical Activity. American Journal of Preventative Medicine. 2010. 39(2)105-112.
- 42 -
17.0 Environment
Light rail transit has the ability to improve air quality by shifting mode choice from
single occupancy vehicles to transit. Data collected by Clean Air Hamilton
indicates that particulate matter and other toxins are most highly concentrated
along roadways and intersections than compared to any other locations
elsewhere in the city. This shows that transportation traffic in Hamilton
contributes either as much or more significantly to air pollution than does
surrounding industry. These emissions are directly related to acute and chronic
heart disease.
According to Shapiro et al 2002, “Moving a person a given distance by public
transportation produces, on average, only about 5% as much carbon monoxide,
less than 10% as much volatile organic compounds, and nearly half as much
carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxides, as moving a person the same distance by
private automobile, SUV, or light truck.” 20
In terms of energy intensity, automobiles including cars, sport utility vehicles and
light trucks required an average of 5,255 British Thermal Units (BTUs) per
passenger mile, while transit BTUs ranged from 911 to 1,612 for heavy rail, light
rail and commuter rail in 1998.21
In the Toronto area, taxpayers pay approximately $2.2 billion in mortality related
issues arising from traffic pollution. A 30% to 50% reduction in car traffic can
lower emission rates, saving an estimated 200 lives and $900 million per year.22
According to Topalovic et al. 2012, local transit can reduce total vehicle use by
2% to 12%. However, LRT combined as an integral part of “transportation
planning, commute trip reduction, smart growth policy and parking management
may be able to reduce total vehicle use by 18 to 58%.”23
According to the Victoria Transportation Policy Institute (VTPI 2007)24, auto-
dependent communities require 20 to 50 times more space than transit-based
communities. That means 66 to 80% of the land must be devoted to roads and
parking facilities. This pavement deflects rain water causing storm surges which
places a large burden on the sewer system. This infrastructure also requires
constant maintenance (resurfacing, lining, replacement and dredging), impacting
the overall municipal budget.
20
Shapiro RJ, Hassett KA, Arnold FS. Conserving Energy and Preserving the Environment: The Role of Public
Transportation. Washington, DC: APTA: 2002;2. Available at:
http;//www.apta.com/research/info/online/Shapiro.cfm Accessed October 21, 2012
21
Zimmerman R. Mass Transit Infrastructure and Urban Health. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York
Academy of Medicine, Vol. 82, No.1. 2005
22
McKeown, D. (2007). Air pollution burden of illness from traffic in Toronto: Problems and solutions. Toronto:
Public Health Office.
23
Topolovic, P., Carter, J., Topolovic, M., Krantzberg, G. Light Rail Transit in Hamilton: Health, Environmental &
Economic Impact Analysis. Soc Indic Res DOI 10.1007/s1 1205-012-0069-x
24
VTPI. (2007). Transportation Costs and Benefit Analysis. Retrieved from the Victoria Transportation Policy
Institute, http://www.vtpi.org/tca.
- 43 -
18.0 Social / Tourism
Within the Greater Golden Horseshoe area, Downtown Hamilton has been found
to have the highest level of social need (dark purple as outlined in figure 17).
Figure 17 – Big Move Areas of Social Need Map
Category Corridor Hamilton GTHA Ontario Canada

Government transfers as a 20.6% 12.9% 9.3% 9.8% 11.1%
proportion of total income
Population over 65 14.8% 14.2% 12.2% 13.6% 13.7%
Single Parents 23.6% 14.7% 14.2% 15.8% 15.9%
No High School certificate 38.5% 28.7% 24.1% 22.2% 25.5%
Low Income 35.6% 16.2% 12.4% 14.7% 15.3%
Unemployment rate 10.4% 5.8% 5.2% 6.4% 6.6%
Comparison of Social Need Indicators (Source: Hamilton Rapid Transit Initiative:
Economic Potential Study)
The proposed LRT corridor scores high in each category with the exception of
population over 65 relative to the entire City of Hamilton, Greater Toronto and
Hamilton Area, Ontario and Canada. Figures for the corridor are based on areas
within an 800 metre radius of the proposed LRT route.
LRT has the potential to connect people living in downtown neighbourhoods with
job opportunities and amenities, including health and social facilities which can
lead to improved quality of life and accessibility benefits.
- 44 -
Access to high quality public transportation also increases travel reliability and
can help reduce overall household transportation expenditures by reducing the
need for multiple household vehicles. In 2011, the Canadian Automobile
Association estimated the average annual cost of auto ownership to be
approximately $12,000 inclusive of insurance, depreciation, financing and costs
for fuel and maintenance.
Low income or disadvantaged populations can be vulnerable when inadequate

transportation options are available. This is because of greater dependence on
automobile travel and ownership of older vehicles, which strengthens the need
for a strong, integrated local and regional transportation system.25
The proposed B-Line route connects a number of key destinations within the
City. These include:
 McMaster University
 McMaster Innovation Park/West Hamilton Innovation District
 Westdale
 Locke Street
 Downtown/Central Business District
 Copps Coliseum
 Hamilton Farmers’ Market
 Hamilton Public Library Central Branch
 Jackson Square
 International Village
 Ivor Wynne Stadium
 Ottawa Street
 Eastgate Square, and
 A number of existing neighbourhoods.
In Hamilton, 17% of the existing population and 20% of employment

opportunities are located within 800 metres of the B-Line corridor. In addition,
80% of the city’s population is serviced by HSR transit routes that connect
directly with the B-Line.
“In order to attract new urbanite companies, Hamilton will have to respond to the
needs of young graduates, who, through focus groups and web-based survey,
shared their frustrations with the car dependant nature of the city and a lack of
transit facilities and opportunities for active transportation.”26
The City Manager of Cincinnati, Ohio summarized this by saying, “…today,

young, educated workers move to cities with a sense of place and if businesses
see us laying rail down on a street, they’ll know that it is a permanent route that
25
Murakami E, Young J. Daily travel by persons with low income. In: Proceedings from the Nationwide Personal
Transportation Survey Symposium, October 29-31, 1997. Washington, DC: U.S. DOT; 1999:69
26
- 45 -
will have people passing by 7 days a week…Cincinnati has to compete with other
cities for investment…talent and for a place of national prominence.”27
Research conducted by Richard Florida, professor and head of the Martin

Prosperity Institute at the Rotman School of Management (University of Toronto)
indicates that a number of strategies are required to attract and retain the
creative workforce. These include downtown core renewal, heritage building
preservation, smart growth, inner urban investment, space conversion, park and
trail design, efficient rapid transit and growth in the entertainment sector.
Further, the 2012 study authored by Topolovic et al states that “sustainable

development is no longer just the right thing to do; it is a business decision
motivated by financial interests and the need for community well being, and that
the evidence indicates that LRT can be a key enabler of downtown renewal and
sustainable urban planning and would therefore help to attract the creative
class.”
The report analysis also recommends “that LRT be considered as:
 A viable and desirable transit option;

 A catalyst for transit oriented, high density, mixed use development;
 An economically sound investment opportunity, providing a return on
investment to property owners, businesses and the municipality and;
 A catalyst for social change; improving the health, environment,
sustainability and connectivity of the community.
These recommendations hold true provided that supportive Smart Growth and
Transit Oriented Development policies are in place and that there is significant
population, transit ridership and development potential to warrant the investment
in the corridor of interest.” 28
27
Driehaus, B. (2008). Downtowns Across the US See Streetcars in Their Future. New York Times. Retrieved
from: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/14/US/14streetcar.html
28
- 46 -
19.0 LRT – Image ● Connectivity ● Community Pride
High quality light rail systems often have an iconic value that is attractive to
tourists, commuters and residents. While bus routes can sometimes be difficult
for domestic and international visitors to navigate, LRT networks are often
perceived to be simpler and more reliable, largely because routes are permanent
and highly visible. Because transportation is a key element in the visitor
experience, an efficient public transportation system can significantly enhance a
city’s reputation among travelers.

Photographs courtesy of Dan Banko
Surrounded by nature, Hamilton is rich in history and culture. Exceptional in its

distinctive urban feel and vibrant arts and culture, Hamilton has deep roots and a
proud history. In order to create a livable city, people must first feel a sense of
pride in where they live.29
29
Shaker, P., Centre for Community Study, Hamilton and the Creative Class
- 47 -
20.0 Conclusion - The Cost of Not Implementing LRT
The benefits captured within this report have used conservative values (i.e. worst
case scenario values to ensure that the benefits are cautious rather than
optimistic). Summed up the City of Hamilton should see a direct benefit of
approximately $130M (reduction in backlog, building permits and tax benefits
from development).
In addition, there are a number of spin off benefits associated with the
construction of LRT. The Benefits Case Assessment estimates that 3500
temporary jobs will be created in Hamilton during the construction period and 300
permanent jobs. This also affects Ontario’s Gross Domestic Product providing a
value of $443 million.
Health, Environment and Social Tourism are difficult to quantify without extensive
and costly studies. This report recognizes that LRT does provide benefits within
these areas and offers enhanced quality of life for residents.
A fundamental consideration of the benefits of this type of project, which aligns

with the findings of the McMaster Institute of Transportation and Logistics study,
is the ability for LRT to refocus growth within the community. This is in keeping
with Places to Grow, the City of Hamilton Official Plan and the City of Hamilton
Transportation Master Plan and allows the City to capitalize on existing
infrastructure while achieving population and employment growth.
- 48 -
APPENDIX A
DAY 1 ‐ TODAY PROJECTIONS
Bus Only ‐ DAY 1 ‐ TODAY BUS & LRT ‐ DAY 1 (Low) BUS & LRT ‐ DAY 1 (High)
Transfer of 1/3 service hours Per SDG Assumptions: 2/3 of ridership
from Delaware & King TO B‐line from all routes TO B‐Line Only route
+8% city wide increase
Annual Service Hours
King 63,040 Annual service hours 42,026 Reduced by 1/3 42,026 Reduced by 1/3
Del 100,864 based on % of daily service hours 67,242 Reduced by 1/3 67,242 Reduced by 1/3
B‐Line 32,465 per route 93,600 As per SDG report ‐ Capital/Operating pg. 10 93,600 As per SDG report ‐ Capital/Operating pg. 10
Univ 25,846 25,846 25,846
Dun 2,522 2,522 2,522
St.Cr. Cent 17,336 17,336 17,336
St.Cr. Loc 7,880 7,880 7,880
HSR B‐Line Corridor 249,953 256,453 256,453

HSR Non‐B‐Line Corridor 480,047 480,047 480,047
HSR System Wide 730,000 Based on HSR Budgetted hours 736,500 736,500
Annual Operating Costs
King $ 6,822,107 Annual Operating Costs $ 5,002,879 80% DIRECT COSTS REDUCED BY 1/3 $ 5,002,879 80% DIRECT COSTS REDUCED BY 1/3
Del $ 10,915,371 based on % of totals from above $ 8,004,606 80% DIRECT COSTS REDUCED BY 1/3 $ 8,004,606 80% DIRECT COSTS REDUCED BY 1/3
Reduced from $14.5million. Reduced 22 vehicles to 16
B‐Line $ 3,513,385 $ 11,205,646 vehicles. Increased headway from 4 mins to 6 mins. $ 14,500,000 As per SDG
Univ $ 2,797,064 $ 2,797,064 $ 2,797,064
Dun $ 272,884 $ 272,884 $ 272,884
St.Cr. Cent $ 1,876,079 $ 1,876,079 $ 1,876,079
St.Cr. Loc $ 852,763 $ 852,763 $ 852,763
HSR B‐Line Corridor $ 27,049,655 $ 30,011,921 $ 33,306,275

HSR Non‐B‐Line Corridor $ 51,950,345 $ 51,950,345 $ 51,950,345
HSR System Wide $ 79,000,000 Based on 2012 Restated Budget/Projected Actuals $ 81,962,266 $ 85,256,620
Increase in Gross Cost over Bus only $ 2,962,266 $ 6,256,620

Annual Ridership (passengers)
King 3,080,000 Based on actual % of ridership 2,053,330 Reduced by 1/3 & transferred to B‐Line 1,108,800 1/3 of Bus only + 8% city wide increase
Del 2,860,000 per route X system wide 1,906,670 Reduced by 1/3 & transferred to B‐Line 1,029,600 1/3 of Bus only + 8% city wide increase
B‐Line 1,320,000 passengers 3,300,000 B‐Line + 1/3 from Delaware & King 7,112,113 Bus Only + 2/3 of routes + 8% city wide incr.
Univ 1,320,000 1,320,000 475,200 1/3 of Bus only + 8% city wide increase
Dun 88,000 88,000 31,680 1/3 of Bus only + 8% city wide increase
St.Cr. Cent 440,000 440,000 158,400 1/3 of Bus only + 8% city wide increase
St.Cr. Loc 110,000 110,000 39,600 1/3 of Bus only + 8% city wide increase
HSR B‐Line Corridor 9,218,000 9,218,000 9,955,393

HSR Non‐B‐Line Corridor 12,782,000 12,782,000 13,804,560 Bus only +8% increase system wide
HSR System Wide 22,000,000 Based on IBI report ‐ Services review 22,000,000 23,759,953
Annual Revenue
King $ 4,900,000 Based on actual % of ridership $ 3,266,662 $ 1,764,000 Above ridership #s X $1.59 per passenger
Del $ 4,550,000 per route X system wide revenues $ 3,033,338 $ 1,638,000 which is based on Bus Only
B‐Line $ 2,100,000 $ 5,250,000 $ 11,314,726
Univ $ 2,100,000 $ 2,100,000 $ 756,000
Dun $ 140,000 $ 140,000 $ 50,400
St.Cr. Cent $ 700,000 $ 700,000 $ 252,000
St.Cr. Loc $ 175,000 $ 175,000 $ 63,000
HSR B‐Line Corridor $ 14,665,000 $ 14,665,000 $ 15,838,126

HSR Non‐B‐Line Corridor $ 20,335,000 $ 20,335,000 $ 21,961,800
HSR System Wide $ 35,000,000 Based on 2012 Restated Budget(less Gas Tax Rev.) $ 35,000,000 $ 37,799,926
rate per passenger $ 1.59 $ 1.59 $ 1.59
NET COST ‐ TOTAL $ 44,000,000 $ 46,962,266 $ 47,456,695

(System Wide) $ 2,962,266 $ 3,456,695
Gross Cost per Passenger
King $ 2.21 Annual Operating Cost / Annual $ 2.44 $ 4.51
Del $ 3.82 passengers per route $ 4.20 $ 7.77
B‐Line $ 2.66 $ 3.40 $ 2.04
Univ $ 2.12 $ 2.12 $ 5.89
Dun $ 3.10 $ 3.10 $ 8.61
St.Cr. Cent $ 4.26 $ 4.26 $ 11.84
St.Cr. Loc $ 7.75 $ 7.75 $ 21.53
HSR B‐Line Corridor $ 2.93 $ 3.26 $ 3.35

HSR Non‐B‐Line Corridor $ 4.06 $ 4.06 $ 3.76
HSR System Wide $ 3.59 $ 3.73 $ 3.59
Net Cost per Passenger
King $ 0.62 Annual Operating Cost ‐ Annual Revenue $ 0.85 $ 2.92
Del $ 2.23 per route / Annual passengers per route $ 2.61 $ 6.18
B‐Line $ 1.07 $ 1.80 $ 0.45
Univ $ 0.53 $ 0.53 $ 4.30
Dun $ 1.51 $ 1.51 $ 7.02
St.Cr. Cent $ 2.67 $ 2.67 $ 10.25
St.Cr. Loc $ 6.16 $ 6.16 $ 19.94

HSR System Wide $ 2.00 $ 2.13 $ 2.00
NOTE: NOTE:
INCREASE IN HEADWAY FROM 4 ‐ 6 MINS Increase in Ridership based on
NO INCREASE IN RIDERSHIP SDG assumptions
APPENDIX B
2031 PROJECTIONS $79 Mil Exp & $35mil Rev
Bus Only ‐ DAY 1 ‐ TODAY Bus Only ‐ 2031 BUS & LRT ‐ Year 2031
Annual Service Hours
King 63,040 Annual service hours 63,040 Annual service hours 42,026 Reduced by 1/3
Del 100,864 based on % of daily service hours 100,864 based on % of daily service hours 67,242 Reduced by 1/3
B‐Line 32,465 per route 32,465 per route 93,600 As per SDG report ‐ Capital/Operating pg. 10
Univ 25,846 25,846 25,846
Dun 2,522 2,522 2,522
St.Cr. Cent 17,336 17,336 17,336
St.Cr. Loc 7,880 7,880 7,880
HSR B‐Line Corridor 249,953 249,953 256,453

HSR Non‐B‐Line Corridor 480,047 480,047 480,047
HSR System Wide 730,000 Based on HSR Budgetted hours 730,000 Based on HSR Budgetted hours 736,500
Annual Operating Costs
King $ 6,822,107 Annual Operating Costs $ 9,938,522 Annual Operating Costs $ 7,434,015 Inflated to 2031 dollars ‐ 2% annually
Del $ 10,915,371 based on % of totals from above $ 15,901,635 based on % of totals from above $ 11,894,423 Inflated to 2031 dollars ‐ 2% annually
B‐Line $ 3,513,385 $ 5,118,339 $ 21,546,237 Inflated to 2031 dollars ‐ 2% annually

Univ $ 2,797,064 $ 4,074,794 $ 4,156,290 Inflated to 2031 dollars ‐ 2% annually
Dun $ 272,884 $ 397,541 $ 405,492
Inflated to 2031 dollars ‐ 2% annually
St.Cr. Cent $ 1,876,079 $ 2,733,094 $ 2,787,755 Inflated to 2031 dollars ‐ 2% annually
St.Cr. Loc $ 852,763 $ 1,242,315 $ 1,267,162 Inflated to 2031 dollars ‐ 2% annually
Inflated to 2031 dollars ‐ 2% annually
HSR B‐Line Corridor $ 27,049,655 $ 39,406,239 $ 49,491,374 Inflated to 2031 dollars ‐ 2% annually
HSR Non‐B‐Line Corridor $ 51,950,345 $ 75,681,844 $ 77,195,480 Inflated to 2031 dollars ‐ 2% annually
HSR System Wide $ 79,000,000 Based on 2012 Restated Budget/Proj. Actuals $ 115,088,083 Based on 2012 Budget/Actuals inflated by 2% ‐to 2031 $ 126,686,854 Inflated to 2031 dollars ‐ 2% annually
Annual Ridership (passengers)
King 3,080,000 Based on actual % of ridership 3,572,800 Based on actual % of ridership 1,286,208 same as Day 1 High riders + 16% growth
Del 2,860,000 per route X system wide 3,317,600 per route X system wide 1,194,336 same as Day 1 High riders + 16% growth
B‐Line 1,320,000 passengers 1,531,200 passengers 14,553,000 as per SDG ‐ 18.9M boardings = 14.5 rev pas.
Univ 1,320,000 1,531,200 551,232 same as Day 1 High riders + 16% growth
Dun 88,000 102,080 36,749 same as Day 1 High riders + 16% growth
St.Cr. Cent 440,000 510,400 183,744 same as Day 1 High riders + 16% growth
St.Cr. Loc 110,000 127,600 45,936 same as Day 1 High riders + 16% growth
HSR B‐Line Corridor 9,218,000 10,692,880 17,851,205

HSR Non‐B‐Line Corridor 12,782,000 14,827,120 16,013,290 same as Day 1 High riders + 16% growth
HSR System Wide 22,000,000 Based on IBI report ‐ Services review 25,520,000 Based on IBI report ‐ Services review X 16% growth 33,864,494
Annual Revenue
King $ 4,900,000 Based on actual % of ridership $ 7,953,053 Based on ridership+ 16% growth (above ) X $ 2,863,099 Above ridership X $2.23 per passenger
Del $ 4,550,000 per route X system wide revenues $ 7,384,978 $2.23 per rider $ 2,658,592 Rate is 40% increase over 20 years.
B‐Line $ 2,100,000 $ 3,408,451 $ 32,394,978 (Historical average over 10‐years resulted in
Univ $ 2,100,000 $ 3,408,451 $ 1,227,042 20% increase)
Dun $ 140,000 $ 227,230 $ 81,803
St.Cr. Cent $ 700,000 $ 1,136,150 $ 409,014
St.Cr. Loc $ 175,000 $ 284,038 $ 102,254
HSR B‐Line Corridor $ 14,665,000 $ 23,802,351 Above ridership totals X $2.23 per passenger $ 39,736,782

HSR Non‐B‐Line Corridor $ 20,335,000 $ 33,005,169 Above ridership totals X $2.23 per passenger $ 35,645,583
HSR System Wide $ 35,000,000 Based on 2012 Restated Budget/Proj. Actuals $ 56,807,520 Above ridership totals X $2.23 per passenger $ 75,382,365
rate per passenger $ 1.59 current average $ 2.23 $ 2.23
NET COST ‐ TOTAL $ 44,000,000 $ 58,280,563 $ 51,304,489

(System Wide) $ 14,280,563 $ 7,304,489
Gross Cost per Passenger
King $ 2.21 Annual Operating Cost / Annual $ 2.78 Annual Operating Cost / Annual $ 5.78
Del $ 3.82 passengers per route $ 4.79 passengers per route $ 9.96
B‐Line $ 2.66 $ 3.34 $ 1.48
Univ $ 2.12 $ 2.66 $ 7.54
Dun $ 3.10 $ 3.89 $ 11.03
St.Cr. Cent $ 4.26 $ 5.35 $ 15.17
St.Cr. Loc $ 7.75 $ 9.74 $ 27.59

HSR System Wide $ 3.59 $ 4.51 $ 3.74
Net Cost per Passenger
King $ 0.62 Annual Operating Cost ‐ Annual Revenue $ 0.56 Annual Operating Cost ‐ Annual Revenue $ 3.55
Del $ 2.23 per route / Annual passengers per route $ 2.57 per route / Annual passengers per route $ 7.73
B‐Line $ 1.07 $ 1.12 $ (0.75)
Univ $ 0.53 $ 0.44 $ 5.31
Dun $ 1.51 $ 1.67 $ 8.81
St.Cr. Cent $ 2.67 $ 3.13 $ 12.95
St.Cr. Loc $ 6.16 $ 7.51 $ 25.36

HSR System Wide $ 2.00 $ 2.28 $ 1.51
Appendix A:
Light Rail Transit
A8: Rapid Transit Workplans

Appendix A8
2013 Workplan
Program
Light Rail Transit B-Line
Context and Purpose
The B-Line has been identified as a 15-year priority project within the Big Move (2008). Significant
advancement has been made on the B-Line with the completion of the Environmental Project Report and
Planning, Design and Engineering work; however, additional work is required to advance the project to an
implementation ready project. Some items may only be taken forward pending a funding recommendation
from the Metrolinx Board and are noted below.
Responsibility
Director of Transportation, Manager of Mobility Programs and Special Projects, Manager of Rapid Transit
Activities
 LRT Vehicle Optimization Modeling – optimization of LRT headways to maximize operational
efficiencies
 Value engineering of the B-Line – A value engineering exercise will critically evaluate the costing
and the items included in the LRT implementation plan. Other municipalities have been able to trim
implementation costs by approximately 18 percent. Value engineering is a process where key city
and technical staff review the plans through a series of workshops and determine the level of
implementation detail outlined in the design plates to evaluate elements that can be reduced in
scope or refined for overall cost reductions.
 Modifications to the Overhead Power Supply Design – Mitigation measures required for the
Scanning Electron Microscope at McMaster may allow for the removal of overhead power at
locations along the B-Line. Further work is required to determine where the overhead power
supply could be removed and the cost savings
 Advanced B-Line Utilities Coordination – while consultation has occurred with utilities full
agreements will be required and utility coordination requires a significant amount of lead time.
 Additional B-Line Geotechnical Investigations – to confirm areas that are missing borehole
logs to minimize financial risk during the bid process.
 Early enabling works (utility relocates before design build contract) – Advanced utilities
coordination can also save costs where utilities that are up for relocation prior to LRT construction
are placed out of the LRT construction impact zone.
 Environmental Project Report and Consultation (Maintenance Storage Facility) – Completion
of this component is required to obtain approvals for the construction of the facility.
 Conduct property by property impact assessment (B-Line) – general land-take requirements
have been identified along the B-Line. This component further refines the land impact.
 Power substation site selection – The B-Line Environmental Project Report has identified
general alignments for power substations. Further work is required to determine the exact location
within the ranges provided.
 Delivery model assessment strategy – Infrastructure Ontario is completing a value for money
exercise. The City of Hamilton should conduct its own assessment to ensure that Hamilton’s
interests are protected in the preferred delivery model.
Internal Linkages
 Mobility Corporate Working Team

 SMT
 Divisions/Departments as required to support program areas
 Ward Councillors
-1-
Appendix A8
Timelines
 LRT Vehicle Optimization Modeling – 4 months, Q1
 Value engineering of the B-Line – 4 months, Q1
 Advanced B-Line Utilities Coordination – 6 months, Q1
 Modifications to the Overhead Power Supply Design – 8 months, Q2
 Additional B-Line Geotechnical Investigations – 2 months, Q2
 Early enabling works (utility relocates before design build contract) – Ongoing
 Environmental Project Report and Consultation (Maintenance Storage Facility) – 7 months,
starting Q3
 Conduct property by property impact assessment (B-Line) – 2 months, Q3
 Power substation site selection – 6 months, Q3
 Delivery model assessment strategy – 6 months, Q3
City Strategic Plan Link

 1.4 Improve the City’s transportation system to support multi-modal mobility and
encourage inter-regional connections.
o i) Complete the design and develop an implementation and financial plan for the delivery
of higher-order transportation and enhanced transit service, including all-day GO Transit
service and rapid transit
o iii) Develop an integrated, multi-modal, public transportation program, including
implementation of rapid transit, conventional transit, active transportation (e.g. pedestrian,
cycling) and the associated transportation demand management (TDM) plan
o iv) Develop a Land Use Strategy, Urban Design Guidelines and implementation plans for
the lands surrounding the James Street GO Station and along the A and B-line transit
corridors
o v) Development of a strategy to enhance conventional transit service levels within the A
Line and B Line corridors
Budget Impact
Staff Resource (Full time as well as partial staff support to administer the program), consulting
($500,000 – to be approved through staff reports to Council)
Resources Required
 1 FTE to manage the programs

 External consultants for technical components
 Assistance from 3 existing FTE’s
Performance Criteria
 Maintain strong partnership with Metrolinx/Province
 Successful completion of 2013 work plan elements
o LRT Optimization Report
o Value Engineering Report
o B-Line Utilities Memo Report
o Overhead Power Modifications Report
o Geotechnical Report and Borehole Logs
o Terms of Reference Document for MSF Transit Project Assessment Process
o Property Impact Assessment Document
o Power Substation Location Report
o Delivery Model Assessment Report
-2-
Appendix A8
2013 Workplan
Program
Rapid Transit A, L, S, T Lines
Context and Purpose
The A-Line has been identified as a 15-year project within the Big Move (2008), while the L, S, and T
lines are each identified as 25 year + projects.
Responsibility
Director of Transportation, Manager of Mobility Programs and Special Projects, Manager of Rapid Transit
Activities
 A-Line Technology and Route Development – Feasibility study identified general routing and
evaluated BRT and LRT technology and pros and cons. Further refinement is required following
Council Reporting to determine the preferred technology for the A-Line
 HSR Network Optimization to support integrated transit and future BLAST Rapid Transit –
Routing modifications are required to support rapid transit. Existing bus routes will be evaluated
using systems optimization techniques to determine route modifications and headways to
maximize system efficiency.
Internal Linkages
 Mobility Corporate Working Team

 SMT
 Divisions/Departments as required to support program areas
 Ward Councillors
Timelines
 A-Line Routing and Technology Development – 12 months, Q3

 HSR Network Optimization to support integrated transit and future BLAST Rapid Transit–
12 months, Q2
City Strategic Plan Link
 1.4 Improve the City’s transportation system to support multi-modal mobility and
encourage inter-regional connections.
o i) Complete the design and develop an implementation and financial plan for the delivery
of higher-order transportation and enhanced transit service, including all-day GO Transit
service and rapid transit
o iii) Develop an integrated, multi-modal, public transportation program, including
implementation of rapid transit, conventional transit, active transportation (e.g.
pedestrian, cycling) and the associated transportation demand management (TDM) plan
o iv) Develop a Land Use Strategy, Urban Design Guidelines and implementation plans for
the lands surrounding the James Street GO Station and along the A and B-line transit
corridors
o v) Development of a strategy to enhance conventional transit service levels within the A
Line and B Line corridors
-3-
Appendix A8
Budget Impact
Staff Resource (Full time as well as partial staff support to administer the program), consulting
($100,000)
Resources Required
 1 FTE dedicated to managing the programs
Performance Criteria
 A-Line Technology and Route Development Report

 System Optimization Report
-4-

Feasibility LRT

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Feasibility LRT

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Feasibility LRT

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Appendix A:

Light Rail Transit

A1: List of Associated Reports

RAPID TRANSIT FEASIBILITY PHASE 2

RAPID TRANSIT FEASIBILITY PHASE 3

RAPID TRANSIT FEASIBILITY STUDY PHASE 1, 2 & 3 OVERALL SUMMARY

METROLINX BENEFITS CASE ASSESSMENT

MAKING THE CASE:

A AND B LINE REPORTS

A3: Hamilton B-Line Project Phasing Options

,,,ÿ- => .§" ÿ

A4: LRT Benefits and Cost Report

Prepared by: City of Hamilton Rapid Transit Staff

1.0 Executive Summary ................................................................................................ 1

Appendix A – Day One Operating Budget Impacts with/without LRT

Appendix B – 2031 Operating Budget Impacts with/without LRT

Appendix C – Canadian Urban Institute Report (CD)

This report presents a summary of the work completed to date categorized by

 Project Capital is $811 million - (plus/minus 20% $649M to $973M).

 City Capital cost is approximately $1.8 million (includes articulated aerial

 Day One Stand-Alone Project Operating is $14.5 million with an

 B-Line Corridor Capital Works – a reduction of scheduled and

 The Canadian Urban Institute (CUI) Study found:

 B-Line LRT investment may result in an estimated increase of more than

 Annual accident costs are expected to reduce by $3.48 million over 22

 Investments in public transportation such as LRT can help shape a city’s

 Public transportation produces on average (per person) 50-95% lower

 Auto-dependent communities require 20-50 times more space than transit-

 LRT has the potential to connect people living in downtown

 Investment in LRT and transit can help reduce poverty by providing

 In Hamilton, 17% of the existing population and 20% of employment

3.0 City of Hamilton Strategic Plan – 2012–2015

Honesty ‐ WE are truthful and act with integrity.

Figure 1 – Rapid Transit Timeline

o Increasing land value –In Hamilton, the increase is estimated from 8%

o Encouraging urban development – Permanence of an LRT line allows

o Attracting private investment – Focused on building new

o Supporting the concept of “community building” which will

LRT can potentially improve Quality of Life by:

o Making Hamilton more accessible – LRT will be located within 800

LRT will lead to Environmental Benefits by:

o Reducing air pollution from vehicle emissions and greenhouse gases

LRT will Connect Key Destination Points by:

o Improving public access to employment areas, residential properties,

A $3 million Planning, Design and Engineering (PDE) study was initiated in

Figure 3 – B-Line LRT McMaster to Eastgate

The City of Hamilton is committed to applying a strategic, forward thinking

The City of Hamilton’s public transportation network is comprised of five major

Figure 4 – BLAST Network

The Official Plan (glossary) defines Higher Order Transit as:

Figure 5 – Project Capital

LOW END HIGH END

Figure 6 - Range - Project Capital Costs

Depending on the timing of construction, these figures would increase based on

Range of Project Capital Costs due to

$1,012M $1,118M $1,234M

2013 2018 2023

Figure 7 – Range of Project Capital Costs - Construction Startup

Waterloo LRT/BRT Project:

19km of LRT + 17km of BRT = $818 million (in 2014 dollars)