A mayoral legacy built on false hope
Over the last few weeks, there’s been an incredible amount of noise around LRT. Recently, an article by blogger and LRT advocate Ryan McGreal caused quite a stir. In it, he describes what he felt were ‘falsehoods’ of a certain anti-LRT mayoral candidate. Though not a transit expert, Mr. McGreal provides a passionate opinion on LRT; I will do the same.
The BLAST network goes back almost a decade, but it was the Metrolinx Business Case Analysis that’d evaluate the most feasible option for Hamilton. Despite being outmatched in various ategories, LRT was justified for provincial funding because of a ‘travel time savings’ of 26 minutes, eight minutes faster than BRT.
What’s strange is that outside this case analysis, LRT ‘travel time’ is actually only two minutes faster, wiping out any benefits that qualified it for funding. Even more odd is an exchange between former rapid transit director Jill Stephen and Mayor Eisenberger, stating BRT was actually Hamilton’s ‘top performing system.’ Though most likely just a major gaffe, it calls into question the ‘detailed planning’ of the project at a critical juncture, as well as the Mayor’s dedication to serve in Hamilton’s best interests. Still, ignoring expert suggestions seems to be a common theme during the Mayor’s two terms.
Former transit directors Don Hull and Dave Dixon stressed the importance of doubling ridership to ensure full capacity of LRT. Dixon was a cautious supporter, and his “Ten Year Transit Strategy” expressed a fundamental need to improve HSR before any type of rapid transit could be considered. He demonstrated that ridership across the entire transit system wasn’t enough for LRT, and a pragmatic, measured approach was necessary. This ‘slow to grow’ method did not sit well with the Mayor, and though he acknowledged, “Hamilton doesn’t have the necessary ridership to justify building an LRT,” he believed it would “generate an economic windfall for the downtown.”
So, despite expert recommendations and campaign promises to create a citizen’s panel, Mayor Eisenberger instead provided Hamiltonians with a billion-dollar LRT ultimatum. Considered a coup by advocates, it created a culture of division at City Hall and across Hamilton. Residents had to accept the project, or lose the investment. In that same time, HSR entered into a period of massive underfunding, declining ridership, absenteeism and missed routes. Just last year, in only year three of a loosely adopted 10-year strategy, council deferred funding for HSR. Some will argue that this is a result of area rating, and though this may or may not ring true, it again, calls into question the priorities of an incumbent fighting for a third term.
Yet, when you consider that Mayor Eisenberger has tried to make LRT about city building, this lack of interest in basic public transit starts to make sense. It also provides context to his claims that LRT is Hamilton’s “single greatest infrastructure project.” The opportunity to replace sewers and pipes, which according to the City are in “good condition,” is seen as the biggest benefit to “LRT as infrastructure.” However, what Mayor Eisenberger doesn’t mention is that Metrolinx will only replace and relocate existing infrastructure, any ‘upsizing’ or ‘enhancements’ will need to be paid for by Hamiltonians.
Of course, the argument is that LRT is necessary to encourage future growth. However, billion-dollar building permits have been issued across the entire city, consecutively, for several years. Communities around Hamilton are already growing quickly, some without even basic forms of infrastructure like sidewalks or bike lanes. Though it may not be as lucrative or en vogue as LRT, it is this type of city building that will foster an intermodal transit culture, capable of shifting daily commuter habits to appropriately justify rapid transit. This lack of commitment to properly prepare for LRT is perhaps the biggest folly of the Mayor’s two terms in office.
That is what’s most frustrating about Mayor Eisenberger’s city building approach. He is adamant that Hamilton is ready; however, the reality is that we are a city struggling with: basic transit, gentrification, unaffordable housing, precarious work environments, consecutive Code Zero’s, decaying infrastructure, income inequality, one in four children living in poverty, and a growing number of seniors who require necessary services to age successfully.
Instead of creating pragmatic and effective solutions specific to Hamilton, Mayor Eisenberger has desperately tried to replicate those found in other cities. Most times, this has resulted in millions of dollars being overspent on consultants for one-size-fits-all solutions. Instead of progressive, on-the-ground changes, the mayor has opted for a few potential ‘big wins’ and a calendar of ribbon cutting ceremonies.
Paolo Russumanno’s thesis, “Art is The New Steel: Marketing Creative Urbanism in Twenty-First Century Hamilton, Ontario” was published in 2015, and he often writes on local city matters.