Hamilton Rapid Transit Benefits Report Final November 2020

Disclaimer • The City of Hamilton was not consulted through the 2020 Hamilton Rapid Transit study and the compiling of this Benefits Report. • The document and study relied on available information pertaining to the previous Hamilton LRT project, including but not limited to the Reference Concept Design completed for the project, and the Class D Cost Estimate completed in October 2019 by Turner and Townsend. • The estimates for the options identified within this Benefits Report were developed by IBI Group Inc. based on the preliminary information available at the time of this report. • The study was undertaken by Metrolinx with support and input from Infrastructure Ontario and the Ontario Ministry of Transportation. • This Benefits Report incorporates the latest developments in Metrolinx’s business case methodology since the previous Benefits Case analysis in 2010. Therefore, the results of this analysis are not directly comparable against the previous results. • Further design, refinement and optimization of the options through an Initial Business Case (IBC) is recommended before proceeding with an investment option.

Contents

Executive Summary 1

Scope 1 Method of Analysis 2 Preliminary Findings 2 Strategic Case 2 Economic Case 2 Financial Case 3 Delivarbility and Operations Case 3 Summary 3

Introduction 6

Background 7 Benefits Report Overview 11

Problem Statement 13

Case for Change 14 Definition of Problem or Opportunity 14 Key Drivers 14 Strategic Outcomes 16 Alignment with Broader Policy 18 Urban Hamilton Official Plan (2013) 18

City of Hamilton 10 Year (2015-2024) Local Transit Strategy (2015) 18 2016-2025 Strategic Plan (2016) 19 City of Hamilton Transportation Master Plan (2018) 19 Metrolinx 2041 Regional Transportation Plan (2018) 19 Places to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2019) 19

Investment Options 21

Introduction 22 Option Development 22 Study Area 23 Option Definition 25 Business As Usual 25 Option 1 LRT: McMaster to Dundurn 26 Option 2 B-Line BRT 28 Option 3 B-Line BRT and A-Line Transit Priority 30 BRT Service Plan 33 Assumptions for Analysis and Travel Demand Modelling 33 Feasibility of GO Service Extension Option 34

Strategic Case 35

Introduction 36 Strategic Goal 1: STRONG CONNECTIONS 38 Objective 1: Improve Connections to Opportunities and Key Destinations 39 Objective 2: Improve Access to Areas of Employment and Employment Growth 44 Objective 3: Deliver Rapid Transit to Hamilton 46 Objective 4: Integration within Existing Transit Network 53 Strategic Goal 2: COMPLETE TRAVEL EXPERIENCES 55 Objective 5: Improve Customer Experience on Transit 56 Objective 6: Create Rapid Transit Corridor(s) to Improve Travel Time and Reliability 58 Objective 7: Provide Equitable and Affordable Transportation 63 Strategic Goal 3: SUSTAINABLE AND HEALTHY COMMUNITIES 69 Objective 8: Improve Liveability through Reduction in Traffic Delays, Auto Dependency and Air Pollution 70 Strategic Goal 4: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 72 Objective 9: Support Community Prosperity 73

Objective 10: Expand Opportunities for Employment Growth 78 Strategic Case Summary 79

Economic Case 82

Introduction and Assumptions 83 Modelling Assumptions 84 Costs 85 User Impacts 88 External Impacts 89 Economic Case Summary 89 Benefit-Cost Ratio Floor 92 Potential Future Analysis 92 LRT Extension Options 92 Project Cost Optimization 92 Road Network Modifications 93 Bus Network Modifications 93 Electric Bus Fleet 94 Economic Parameters Sensitivity Tests 95

Financial Case 97

Introduction 98 Capital Costs 98 Operating and Maintenance Costs 100 Revenue Impacts 101 Financial Case Summary 101

Deliverability and Operations Case 102

Introduction 103 Delivery Requirements and Constraints 103 Environmental Assessment 103

iii

Properties 103 Utilities 104 Roads and Traffic 105 Operating Requirements 105 Roles and Responsibilities 105 Fleet 106 Fleet Maintenance and Storage Facilities 106 Transit Terminals 107 Other Ancillary Infrastructure 107 Interfaces with Traffic 107 Procurement Options 108 Delivery Timelines 108 Conclusion 109

Executive Summary Scope The Hamilton Rapid Transit study is a planning and design study based on the recommendations from the Hamilton Transportation Task Force (HTTF) Report1. The study’s focus was the development of rapid transit options that can be delivered within a $1 billion capital budget envelope, as committed by the Province of Ontario. Rapid transit would benefit Hamilton by improving the capacity, reliability and travel time of transit along the City’s main travel corridors; thereby optimizing the transportation network, creating a more sustainable compact urban core, encouraging mixed-use developments, and accommodating the projected population and employment growth. The HTTF recommended consideration of light rail transit (LRT) or bus rapid transit (BRT) projects that can be delivered within the committed capital funding. Initial project planning and development identified three investment options for consideration: • Option 1 LRT: LRT on the B-Line from McMaster to Dundurn (3.2 km); • Option 2 B-Line BRT: Two-way curbside BRT infrastructure from Dundurn to Parkdale on King Street (8.5 km) with transit priority measures at intersections between McMaster University and Eastgate Square (14.0 km); and • Option 3 B-Line BRT + A-Line Transit Priority: o B-Line: One-way curbside BRT infrastructure from Dundurn to Ottawa along Main Street and King Street (6.2 km), with transit priority measures at intersections between McMaster University and Eastgate Square (14.0 km). o A-Line: Conversion of James Mountain Road to a transit-only roadway (0.7 km) and transit priority measures at intersections between Mohawk College and Rymal Road (4.5 km). Options were developed using existing information, designs and cost estimates from the original Hamilton LRT project. This was supplemented with experience from other rapid transit projects in the GTHA and rest of Ontario. While the previous Hamilton LRT project had advanced to the procurement phase and had significant preliminary design works completed, the options in this Benefits Report have not reached a level of design development that would be expected for an Initial Business Case. If a rapid transit investment in Hamilton is selected to advance following this report, it is expected to then proceed through the standard business case and approvals process, starting with an Initial Business Case. The capital budget envelope limited the ability to develop a more optimal LRT option that connected two areas with high ridership and key destinations. (e.g. McMaster to Downtown Hamilton). For this reason, the LRT option does not perform well in this study, but could improve substantially if additional funding would be made available for the delivery of a longer LRT alignment. The HTTF also recommended consideration of more frequent GO rail service to Hamilton GO Centre, if intra-city transit options were not feasible. Initial investigations found that this option would likely require over $1 billion in capital investment, and would not realize benefits until 2028-2030 at the

1 Hamilton Transportation Task Force Report (2020) available at: https://www.ontario.ca/page/hamilton-transportation-task-force-report

earliest. Therefore, this option was not further considered in this study. However, Metrolinx estimates increased service to West Harbour GO station is more feasible and cost effective to obtain through existing infrastructure and smaller future infrastructure investments.

Method of Analysis This Benefits Report provides an indication of how the options would perform under a typical business case evaluation framework. The evaluation is completed using the methodology from the Metrolinx Business Case Guidance Volume 22. The investment options are evaluated across four key categories: the strategic, economic, financial and deliverability and operations cases. Investment options are compared against a Business As Usual (BAU) scenario, which assumes there is no rapid transit system in Hamilton for the A- and B-Lines and reflects the existing and in delivery networks under the 2041 RTP, with the exception of the cancelled Hamilton LRT.

Preliminary Findings Strategic Case The strategic case identifies the desired strategic outcomes of the investment in relation to the 2041 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) goals, and outlines the criteria for each of the objectives, and evaluates the three investment options through indices that are relevant to each specific criterion. • Option 1 LRT: McMaster to Dundurn has negative impacts due to the short distance it covers, forcing riders to transfer in all but the shortest trips. • Both BRT options provide enhanced coverage and access, time savings, community improvements, and expanded opportunities for economic growth and development. Option 3 B-Line BRT + A-Line Transit Priority generally outperforms the other options due to the greater coverage that it provides.

Economic Case Option 1 LRT: McMaster to Dundurn resulted in negative net benefits relative to the BAU; while both BRT options resulted in positive net benefits that do not outweigh costs. These are driven by: • Transit travel time disbenefits for Option 1 LRT: McMaster to Dundurn; which indicates that the LRT provides less utility than the current bus service. This is likely due to the short length of the alignment and the transfer required for trips to and from other major destinations in Hamilton. • Both BRT options generate transit travel time benefits and crowding / reliability benefits for transit users as a result of the higher level transit service provided in the City of Hamilton. • Congestion disbenefits for all options, due to the conversion of general purpose traffic lanes to dedicated transit right-of-ways which results in longer and more congested auto trips.

2 Metrolinx’s Business Case Manual Volume 2: Guidance (2019)

Financial Case All options resulted in a negative financial net present value. • Option 1 LRT: McMaster to Dundurn and Option 2 B-Line BRT requires a subsidy for operations; while Option 3 B-Line BRT + A-Line Transit Priority generates an operating surplus. • All options have a negative net present value once capital costs are taken into account.

Deliverability and Operations Case The Deliverability and Operations Case completed an initial review of the requirements to implement, operate and maintain the service. All options are found to be technically feasible but face challenges in delivery and operations. • All options require further review of the roles and responsibilities of various stakeholders in the delivery and operations of the service. These may incur additional costs that are not currently captured within the current cost estimates for the project. • Option 1 LRT can likely be implemented faster since project development is further advanced, including a completed Reference Concept Design and environmental assessment approvals. • Both BRT options are anticipated to require new preliminary and detailed designs, as well as amendments to existing environmental assessments to evaluate the impacts of changes in the technology and / or route. These options may encounter challenges in meeting the 2022 construction start date recommended by the HTTF. • Option 1 LRT requires new specialized facilities, equipment, systems and expertise that is not currently available in the City of Hamilton. • Operations and maintenance of the BRT options could be integrated with the City’s current road, traffic and transit operations.

Summary The table below summarizes the findings for each option in the four key cases analyzed in this benefits report.

Table 1: High-Level Summary of Hamilton Rapid Transit Benefits Report Findings

Option 1 LRT: McMaster Option 3 B-Line BRT + A- Option 2 B-Line BRT to Dundurn Line Transit Priority

Strategic Case

Downtown 2% decrease compared to 2% increase compared to 3% increase compared to connectivity by the BAU the BAU the BAU transit

Access to the Access to 5,300 less jobs Access to 8,600 more jobs Access to 9,900 more jobs City’s jobs by compared to the BAU compared to the BAU compared to the BAU transit

Strong Rapid and 10,400 people and 10,600 108,000 people and 171,700 people and Network priority transit jobs within a 10 minute 62,700 jobs within a 10 94,800 jobs within a 10 Connections coverage walk of rapid and priority minute walk of rapid and minute walk of rapid and transit priority transit priority transit

Local transit 500 net new transit riders 1,100 net new transit 1,300 net new transit attractiveness in the morning peak hour riders in the morning peak riders in the morning peak hour hour

Connections to 54 connecting HSR trips in 175 connecting HSR trips 223 connecting HSR trips HSR routes the morning peak hour in the morning peak hour in the morning peak hour

Transit travel Increased transit travel Reduced transit travel time Reduced transit travel time time savings time (34,100 additional (29,900 person-minutes (32,600 person-minutes person-minutes) in the saved) in the morning saved) in the morning morning peak hour peak hour peak hour

Vehicle Additional crowding, Reduced crowding, Reduced crowding, decongestion / resulting in 2,570 more resulting in 12,990 less resulting in 19,140 less Complete crowding person-minutes of person-minutes of person-minutes of Travel perceived delay in the perceived delay in the perceived delay in the Experiences morning peak hour morning peak hour morning peak hour

Average • McMaster to James: • McMaster to James: • McMaster to James: journey time +6 min -4 min -4 min from end to end • Eastgate to McMaster: • Eastgate to McMaster: • Eastgate to McMaster: -1 min -10 min -7 min • Lime Ridge Mall to • Lime Ridge Mall to • Lime Ridge Mall McMaster: -3 min McMaster: -6 min toMcMaster: -5 min

Overall 1,285 more Vehicle 5,665 more Vehicle 2,280 more Vehicle Sustainable reduction in Kilometres Travelled in the Kilometres Travelled in the Kilometres Travelled in the and Healthy GHG emissions morning peak hour morning peak hour morning peak hour Communities compared to the BAU compared to the BAU compared to the BAU

Option 1 LRT: McMaster Option 3 B-Line BRT + A- Option 2 B-Line BRT to Dundurn Line Transit Priority

Development Some adjacent mixed use, High volume of adjacent Highest volume of supports residential and mixed use, residential and adjacent mixed use, current and commercial development commercial development residential and future applications applications. Some commercial development community employment applications. Some needs developments employment developments

Economic Employer’s Downtown Hamilton Downtown Hamilton Downtown Hamilton Development access to employers have 15,100 employers have 67,600 employers have 61,700 regional labour fewer GGH workers within more GGH workers within more GGH workers within market a 45 minute commute by a 45 minute commute by a 45 minute commute by transit, relative to the BAU transit, relative to the BAU transit, relative to the BAU

Support new Least future development Some future development Most future development transit oriented opportunities opportunities opportunities community developments

Economic Case (all dollar values in $2020, present value)

Total Impacts -$789.7M $161.2M $173.5M

Total Costs $775.7M to $817.1M $814.7M to $890.8M $773.5M to $830.6M

Benefit-Cost Ratio All Loss 0.34 to 0.38 0.41 to 0.44

Financial Case (all dollar values in $2020, present value)

Total Revenue $58.8M $110.3M $124.6M

Total Costs $766.6M $744.3M $736.9M

Incremental Network Cost 0.07 0.12 0.15 Recovery Ratio

Deliverability and Operations Case

Faster implementation by Expected to require new Expected to require new using existing environmental environmental assessments environmental assessments Deliverability assessment approvals and and preliminary designs. and preliminary designs. preliminary designs.

Requires new specialized Operation and maintenance Operation and maintenance facilities, equipment and could be integrated into the could be integrated into the Operations systems to operate and City of Hamilton’s existing City of Hamilton’s existing maintain the LRT road and transit operations. road and transit operations

1 Introduction

Background The Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA) is one of North America’s fastest growing regions, projected to grow by over 40% between 2016 and 20413. As part of Metrolinx’s 2008 the Big Move plan and the updated 2041 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), rapid transit in Downtown Hamilton from McMaster University to Eastgate Square, referred to as the B-Line, was identified as a top 15 transit priority project for early implementation in the GTHA. Metrolinx along with the City of Hamilton progressed project planning and development on the premise that rapid transit in Hamilton, starting with light rail transit (LRT) on the B-Line corridor, the “Hamilton LRT” would help achieve the goals of the RTP, the Provincial Growth Plan, the Hamilton Transportation Master Plan and the City’s new Official Plan. Rapid transit would provide improved transit to encourage economic development, environmental sustainability and improved quality of life in Hamilton. The “BLAST Network” is a rapid transit strategy for Hamilton conceived as part of the City’s 2007 Transportation Master Plan, and further developed in the 2008 Rapid Transit Feasibility Study and 2011 Rapid Ready report. The commitment to the BLAST network was reiterated in the City’s 2015 Ten-Year (2015-2024) Local Transit Strategy and the 2018 Transportation Master Plan. Furthermore, the rapid transit corridors in the BLAST network were identified as priority projects in Metrolinx’s 2041 RTP. Shown in Figure 1, the BLAST network plan is currently comprised of the following projects: • B-Line: LRT or bus rapid transit (BRT) from McMaster University to Eastgate Square, with future extension to University Plaza to the west and Fifty Road to the east. • A-Line: BRT from Waterfront/West Harbour GO to Rymal, and Priority Bus from Rymal to Hamilton Munro International Airport • L-Line: Priority Bus from Downtown Hamilton to Waterdown. • S-Line: Priority Bus from Ancaster Business Park to Confederation GO Station. • T-Line: Priority Bus from Centre Mall to Meadowlands Terminal.

3 Statistics Canada 2016 Census; Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019

Figure 1: Hamilton Proposed BLAST Rapid Transit System4

In May 2015, the Province of Ontario announced $1 billion in capital funding to deliver the Hamilton LRT project on the B-Line. The Hamilton LRT project, shown in Figure 2, was a 14 km LRT line from McMaster University to Eastgate Square, and included 17 stops. The LRT line included an operation, maintenance and storage facility (OMSF) next to Longwood Road near Highway 403 and an enhanced pedestrian streetscape on Hughson Street creating a high-order pedestrian connection between the LRT stop on King Street and Hamilton GO Centre. Metrolinx and Infrastructure Ontario (IO) advanced the procurement and delivery of the project from 2015 to late 2019. On December 16, 2019 the Province of Ontario announced the cancellation of the Hamilton LRT project based on Class D cost estimates developed by Turner and Townsend, showing a substantial increase over the $1 billion in committed funding. The Province maintained its $1 billion capital

4 City of Hamilton. Ten Year (2015 to 2024) Local Transit Strategy. March 2015.

commitment to Hamilton transportation and established the Hamilton Transportation Task Force (HTTF) on January 23, 2020 with a mandate to review existing transportation plans and provide recommendations on how to invest the available funding. The HTTF’s overarching recommendation was to invest in higher-order intra-city transit to bring substantial benefits to the current and future residents and businesses in the City of Hamilton. The HTTF recommendations included: • A truncated LRT on the B-Line corridor; or • BRT on the A- and B-Line corridors, supported by priority bus measures on the broader BLAST network. Should these options not be feasible, frequent two-way all-day GO rail service to Hamilton GO Centre could also be explored. Figure 2: The Previously Proposed Hamilton LRT Project

A timeline of events in the development of rapid transit in Hamilton is presented in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Hamilton Rapid Transit Timeline

Benefits Report Overview Business case analyses are mandated by Metrolinx for all projects that exceed $50M in capital costs. As projects develop in scope and construction, business cases are completed to define the rationale and requirements for delivering said investment. Business cases provide evidence to decision makers, stakeholders, and the public as a crucial part of transparent and evidence based decision making processes. To ensure consistent evaluations between projects, evaluations are completed based on a common methodology outlined in the Metrolinx Business Case Guidance Volume 25. The evaluation process consists of four key cases: • The Strategic Case, which determines the value of addressing a problem or opportunity based on regional development goals, plans and policies. • The Economic Case, which uses standard economic analysis to detail benefits and costs of the options to individuals and society as a whole, in economic terms. • The Financial Case, which assesses the overall financial impact of the options, its funding arrangements and technical accounting issues and financial value for money. • The Deliverability and Operations Case, which considers procurement strategies, deliverability risks, and operating plans and risks. As project development continues and new information becomes available, business cases are completed to reaffirm that the project continues to be technically feasible, meet strategic objectives, and deliver good value for money. Figure 4 illustrates a typical project development process and the points at which a business case evaluation is required. Approvals for the Hamilton LRT project pre-date the current business case process. The project was assessed through a Benefits Case Analysis report in 2010 and a draft update in 2015, and had advanced to the procurement phase (Step 5) of project development. With the cancellation of the Hamilton LRT project in December 2019, revised options for transit investment in the City of Hamilton require further analysis and new approvals before proceeding. Due to the unique circumstances around the Hamilton project, Metrolinx completed this Benefits Report to provide an indication of how each option identified in the HTTF report (feasible with the committed budget) is expected to perform. The analysis done for this study uses consistent methodology with a typical business case; however, some options considered in this Benefits Report have not reached a level of design development that would be expected for an Initial Business Case. Where possible, the analysis used available information from the previous Hamilton LRT project; while other parts relied on experience from comparable rapid transit projects in Ontario. If a rapid transit investment in Hamilton is selected to advance following this report, it is expected to then proceed through the standard business case and approvals process, starting with an Initial Business Case.

5 Metrolinx’s Business Case Manual Volume 2: Guidance (2019)

Figure 4: Metrolinx Business Case Development Process

2 Problem Statement

Case for Change Definition of Problem or Opportunity Rapid transit on the B-Line corridor is a priority project for both the City of Hamilton and the Province of Ontario, recognizing that there are many problems and opportunities to address with a transit investment. The City of Hamilton is expecting rapid growth in population, employment and development. Transit ridership growth is slow and auto dependency is high. Improving transit travel time, capacity and reliability along the City’s main travel corridors will increase transit attractiveness and competitiveness. This would support a more sustainable compact urban core, encourage mixed-use developments and further accommodate the expected growth. Furthermore, there is an opportunity to provide a significant improvement to Hamilton’s transit system by delivering a project of strategic importance with the $1 billion funding committed by the Province. Aggressive re-zoning that occurred in advance of the Hamilton LRT project along with properties purchased by Metrolinx for the project left a corridor in need of a rapid transit project to make use of the acquired properties and support transit friendly developments that are planned and/or in construction. In order to provide substantial benefits to the residents and economy of the City of Hamilton, the City requires transportation solutions and investments that connect people and destinations in a fast and seamless way, and addresses current and future demand and congestion. This study will continue from the work and recommendations put forward by the HTTF and will focus on analyzing the best way to address Hamilton’s transportation issues and opportunities with the committed funding.

Key Drivers Table 2 outlines the key issues and considerations (both internal and external to the transportation network) for the current and future state of transportation in the City of Hamilton. These issues / opportunities highlight the need for this transportation investment.

Table 2: Key Driver Analysis

How does this Driver influence the What is the impact of not addressing the Driver problem/opportunity? problem/opportunity?

• More competitive higher order transit services • Slower and less reliable bus service along in the city will support a mode shift from auto congested corridors will limit transit to transit. attractiveness and ridership growth. Travel • Higher-order transit will support the expected • Increasing population and employment will Behaviour growth in population and employment in a strain the road system with high congestion healthy, sustainable manner. and result in a greater need for expensive road expansions.

• Cost-effective delivery of higher quality transit • The City will be burdened by the increasing services will improve the City’s economic cost of auto dependency, particularly

prosperity. reduced accessibility to jobs and services • Improvement in reliability and travel time of the that are fundamental to support the local Transport transit service will further accommodate the economy.

Internal Service City’s expected population and employment • Hamilton transit services will continue to Provision growth. operate solely in mixed traffic, impacting • Higher-order transit in a dedicated right of way transit service provision through congestion would allow Hamilton Street Railway (HSR) to and delays. provide more reliable, frequent service

• Prioritization of transportation investment • While not yet at capacity, existing surface Transport towards higher order, better quality surface transit network does not make optimal use of Infrastructure transit will ensure optimal utilization of present the present road infrastructure, and hence and road network and meet the needs of future will not be attractive enough to achieve Technology travel demands. future ridership growth aspirations.

Stakeholder • The City’s A and B-Line routes are part of the • A Frequent Rapid Transit Network component Policy and Frequent Rapid Transit Network under the under the 2041 RTP will not be realised. Planning 2041 RTP. • The City’s transport network will be less • The City of Hamilton regards the two lines as integrated with the region’s Frequent Rapid key components of its transportation plan that Transit Network. will provide reliable transit service to its citizens • The City’s main corridor on the planned rapid and support the City’s growth and its transit network “B-L-A-S-T”, the B-Line (and downtown rejuvenation goals. possibly A and T Lines) will not be delivered, • Hamilton LRT was cancelled, leaving Hamilton leaving the City’s transit network without with $1 billion in funding for a transportation higher-order transit service, promoting auto- project. dependency.

• Investment for a better transit network will • Future developments in the City will continue equitably support healthier, safer and more to be predominantly shaped by private

External prosperous communities. vehicle travel needs. The continuous cycle of • Urban intensification opportunities along the A less efficiently built urban environment and and B-Lines will help to boost the much- auto dependency will result in congestion needed economic and social vitality in the core and worsening travel times for all modes. Economic parts of the City and discourage unsustainable • Transit travel times will remain too Activity, Land suburban sprawl. uncompetitive to encourage the shift to Use, and • Following aggressive rezoning along the B- compact and mixed use developments that Demographics Line corridor, in preparation for the now are critical towards creating a more cancelled Hamilton LRT project, many transit sustainable and efficient built environment. friendly developments were planned and are in • Downtown Hamilton is identified as an Urban construction. Growth Centre (UGC), residential and employment targets may be missed without rapid transit.

Strategic Outcomes The Hamilton Rapid Transit investment is intrinsically tied to the 2041 RTP goals of creating strong connections, completing travel experiences and sustainable and healthy communities, as detailed in Table 3. Figure 5 is a context map of Hamilton, showing regional transit and key destinations. The Hamilton Rapid Transit investment will form the first part of Hamilton’s planned “BLAST” rapid transit network.

Table 3: Hamilton Rapid Transit Strategic Outcomes

RTP 2041 Goals Hamilton Rapid Transit’s Strategic Outcomes

People connected to the places that make their lives better, Strong connections such as homes, jobs, community services, parks and open spaces, recreation, and cultural activities

An easy, safe, accessible, affordable and comfortable door- Complete travel to-door travel experience that meets the diverse needs of experiences travelers

A transportation system that supports the health and well- Sustainable and healthy being of current and future generations by encouraging communities land use intensification, climate resiliency and a low – carbon footprint, while leveraging innovation

Economic Development Hamilton is an attractive place to live, work, and invest in.

Figure 5: Hamilton Context Map

Alignment with Broader Policy The project stakeholders at the provincial, regional, and municipal levels of government are aiming to improve quality of life, safety, guide economic growth and development and advance environmental sustainability for their respective jurisdictions. The Hamilton rapid transit project generally aligns with the following policies: • City of Hamilton Official Plan (2009) • Urban Hamilton Official Plan (2013) • City of Hamilton Ten-year Local Transit Strategy (2015) • City of Hamilton 2016-2025 Strategic Plan (2016) • City of Hamilton Transportation Master Plan – Updated (2018) • Metrolinx 2041 Regional Transportation Plan (2018) • Places to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2019)

Urban Hamilton Official Plan (2013) An Official Plan is a guiding document – its goals and policies move the City towards achieving its visions for the future. The Official Plan provides direction and guidance on the management of communities, land use change and physical development over the next 30 years. The City is now reviewing the Official Plan and is at the process of a municipal comprehensive review (MCR). The City of Hamilton’s Official Plan policies direct growth in areas classified under its urban structure. The Plan identifies the Downtown UGC as an urban node, major employment centre and residential neighborhood with different housing types. Urban nodes provide for a variety of land uses and densities supported by higher order transit. The Growth Centre functions as a major transit hub for the City with higher order transit systems extending out from the Centre. The Plan also classifies Urban Corridors as major streets that link communities together. Primary Corridors within the Urban Corridors have a range of higher density land use and mixed use, while being supported by high order transit. The Urban Hamilton Official Plan also encourages public transit be supportive of new developments and redevelopments and required facilities in the road patterns of secondary/subdivision plans to allow for easy access to transit services. It calls for the establishments of rapid transit within its Primary and Secondary corridors.

City of Hamilton 10 Year (2015-2024) Local Transit Strategy (2015) Hamilton’s 10 Year Local Transit Strategy adopted in 2015, builds upon Rapid Ready: The City’s 5-Year Multi Modal Transportation Plan. It summarizes immediate actions that can be undertaken by the City to develop the local transit network, including how to accommodate future growth, increase transit modal split, improve the customer experience and improve transit priority measure amongst other initiatives. It also proposes an express bus service across the BLAST network.

2016-2025 Strategic Plan (2016) The 2016 - 2025 Strategic Plan is a 10-year plan. It articulates seven Strategic Plan Priorities including “Built Environment and Infrastructure”. One of the key directions under this priority is associated with transportation network and includes the following: • Develop complete streets that meet the needs of pedestrians, cyclists, transit users, motorists and movement of goods. • Create a well-connected transportation network that allows people to get around conveniently with a car. • Ensure strong transit connections to postsecondary institutions and other significant locations to support accessibility for members of our community and enable growth. It is also one of the eight Term of Council Priorities for 2018 to 2022 to “achieve a 48% non-single occupant vehicle modal split by 2031 with a target of 15% for Walk/Cycle, 12% for Transit and 21% auto passenger and shared modes, in accordance with the Transportation Master Plan.”

City of Hamilton Transportation Master Plan (2018) Hamilton’s Transportation Master Plan guides multi-modal planning for walking, cycling, automobiles, goods movements and transit. It is a strategic framework that provides direction on future projects and studies for 2031 and beyond. To achieve a sustainable and balanced transportation system, the City’s 2007 TMP identified the need to operate higher order transit to support growth corridors and nodes as part of its Growth Management Strategy. The 2007 TMP also identified a higher-order transit network also known as the BLAST network, which has since adopted the Ten-Year Local Transit Strategy (2015). The TMP acknowledges the role of rapid transit in connecting nodes and higher density corridors such as employment centres, to better connect people with their various destinations. The TMP also has an aspirational modal target of 12% for transit from the current 7% transit mode share.

Metrolinx 2041 Regional Transportation Plan (2018) The 2041 Regional Transportation Plan is a guide for a multi-modal regional transportation network that will support communities across the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area. It also supports the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe which sets out transportation planning and growth policies across the GTHA. The RTP’s second strategy: Connect More of the Region with Frequent Rapid Transit supports the addition of BRT, LRT, and Priority Bus, etc. to connect urban centres, employment nodes and regional destinations, while making rapid transit more accessible to GTHA residents.

Places to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2019) The Growth Plan under the Places to Grow Act is a framework for implementing the Government of Ontario’s vision for better managing growth in this region. Downtown Hamilton is identified as an UGC in the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. The provincial plan outlines that Downtown Hamilton will be planned to achieve a minimum density target

of 200 residents and jobs combined per hectare by 2031. The proposed B-Line corridor alignment connects stops along the Downtown Hamilton UGC. The Growth Plan directs municipalities to plan for intensification around transit in which Major Transit Station Areas (MTSAs) refer to areas within a 500-800 m walking distance (representing about a 10- minute walk) of a transit stop serviced by light rail or rapid transit. It also mentions that MTSAs should be planned with a minimum density target of 160 residents and jobs combined per hectare when served by LRT or BRT.

3 Investment Options

Introduction This chapter introduces the options to be evaluated and compared against the Business As Usual (BAU) scenario (which includes projects “In Delivery” and assumes reasonable improvements to existing surface transit) through the four cases that constitute the Benefits Report. Three options will be considered here, based on the HTTF Report, available funding, and strategic goals and objectives.

Option Development The HTTF Report recommended the following higher-order rapid transit options for further consideration: • A truncated LRT on the B-Line corridor; and • BRT on the A- and B-Line corridors, supported by priority bus measures on the broader BLAST network. These recommendations served as the starting point and guideline of options development in this study. From these recommendations, options development focused on infrastructure solutions that achieve one of three strategic goals, as outlined in Table 4. Table 4: Hamilton Rapid Transit Option Development Objectives and Outcomes

Objective Outcomes

Deliver LRT • Use existing Hamilton LRT design • Meet Truncated LRT HTTF recommendation • Provide highest reliability, capacity and economic development potential along infrastructure

Maximize reliability • Use existing Hamilton LRT route and studies along the corridor and economic • Maximize length of dedicated right of way on the B-Line corridor from the rapid transit development investment potential of BRT • Provide the most improved service end to end from McMaster University to Eastgate Square. • Provide dedicated bus lanes for improved service from Hamilton Street Railway (HSR) and GO Transit routes.

Maximize transit • Match the level of infrastructure investment (high-transit only lanes, medium-transit priority, or coverage and none-mixed traffic) to the need of each segment of the corridor(s) network • Meet transit improvements on the B-Line and A-Line HTTF recommendation integration • Implement bus priority measures on two corridors (A- and B- Lines) • Provide dedicated bus lanes and transit priority for improved service from HSR and GO Transit routes.

The options development process consisted of three steps: 1. Developing a long list of LRT and BRT alternatives for consideration; 2. High level screening of alternatives based on known project constraints, available ridership projections, City of Hamilton plans and priorities, and strategic goals outlined in the 2041 RTP; 3. Further scope and cost refinement, and finalization of short list options for consideration in this Benefits Report.

The inputs for option development were derived from existing information on LRT and BRT projects in Hamilton and the rest of the GTHA. The LRT was previously in procurement and has more certainty for parameters used during option development and evaluation. The BRT options also used the previous LRT designs to determine the existing corridor conditions. This was supplemented with information from comparable projects in the GTHA and Ontario. This study aims to evaluate and present project options that meet the HTTF recommendations, while remaining within the capital funding commitment of $1 billion, expressed in year of expenditure terms (YOE$). Options that cannot be delivered within the funding envelope were excluded from consideration, or descoped to fall within the budget constraints. Whichever option is selected by decision makers, further option refinement, based on conceptual design through an Initial Business Case (IBC) is recommended.

Study Area The area of study in this benefits report is the two following planned rapid transit corridors in the City of Hamilton depicted in Figure 6: 1. The B-Line corridor, spanning 14 km from McMaster University to Eastgate Square running along Main Street, King Street and Queenston Road, with future extensions to University Plaza to the west and Confederation GO Station in the east and;

2. The A-Line corridor, spanning 16 km from the Hamilton waterfront, to the John C. Munro Hamilton International Airport, running along James Street, James Mountain Road, West 5th Street, Fennell Avenue, and Upper James Street.

Figure 6: Hamilton Rapid Transit Study Area

Option Definition This Benefits Report evaluates three investment options for the Hamilton Rapid Transit project against a BAU scenario. All options were modelled using the Metrolinx Greater Golden Horseshoe Transportation Model (GGHM) version 4. The options are as follows:

Business As Usual The BAU scenario assumes there is no rapid transit system in Hamilton for the A- and B-Lines. This reflects the existing and in delivery networks under the 2041 RTP, with the exception of the cancelled Hamilton LRT. The base case for this study will use the horizon year 2041, with regular surface transit service in Hamilton. The BAU scenario is shown in Figure 6. It will have local HSR buses, the No. 1/1A and 10 on the B-Line and 20 on the A-Line. These buses will continue to operate along this corridor with service headways of 10 minutes or higher.

Option 1 LRT: McMaster to Dundurn The LRT option for this study will be a truncated B-Line LRT from McMaster University to Dundurn Street. The option addresses the first strategic goal to “Deliver LRT”, and is based on the HTTF recommendation for a truncated version of the previous Hamilton LRT that can be delivered within the available funding. The LRT would serve as a first phase of rapid transit implementation on the B-Line. Option 1 LRT: McMaster to Dundurn operates along 3.2 km of revenue track between McMaster University and Dundurn Street. It is connected to the OMSF by a 0.6 km non-revenue run-in track. This option is the furthest advanced in the project planning and development process and would be able to make use of previous design, environmental studies and procurement documents. This alignment of a truncated LRT was chosen due to several factors: • This segment provides service to the area with the most significant urban barriers in Hamilton, crossing Highway 403 and the freight rail corridor. • The OMSF requires a significant amount of space, and needs to be close to the alignment to minimize the length of non-revenue track. A thorough analysis conducted as part of the Hamilton LRT project identified the current Longwood site as the preferred location. Any truncated LRT alignment must start at or be very close to the Longwood OMSF location. • Previous studies and modelling showed the highest ridership was in the western section of the alignment, especially between McMaster University and Downtown Hamilton. McMaster University was also the highest ridership stop. • LRT service is limited to the extent of track infrastructure, and trips extending past the infrastructure will require a transfer. Since McMaster University has the highest ridership, moving the alignment eastward would result in a transfer and travel time penalty for a significant portion of potential users. There is opportunity to refine cost estimates and provide value engineering in further studies to extend the truncated LRT option to the Downtown Hamilton UGC. Option1 LRT: McMaster to Dundurn is detailed in Table 5 and shown in Figure 7. Table 5: Option 1 Configuration

Option 1 LRT: McMaster to Dundurn

Service Termini McMaster University (west) to Dundurn Street (east)

Configuration Separated right-of-way with signal priority at signalized intersections

Stops 3

Infrastructure • Total Track: 3.8 km Length o Revenue Track: 3.2 km o Non-Revenue Track: 0.6 km

Figure 7: Hamilton Rapid Transit Option 1 LRT: McMaster to Dundurn

Option 2 B-Line BRT The second option evaluated in this study will be a mix of curbside BRT and transit priority measures along the same alignment as the Hamilton LRT project. This option assesses the extent of infrastructure that can be delivered solely on the B-Line within the funding envelope and the benefits of an investment along the same corridor as the previous Hamilton LRT with BRT technology. Option 2 B-Line BRT: McMaster to Eastgate includes: • 8.5 km of dedicated curbside transit lanes in both directions through the core section of the corridor from Dundurn Street to Parkdale Avenue; and • Transit signal priority at signalized intersections between McMaster University and Eastgate Square. Additionally, the primary bus service using the infrastructure would continue in mixed traffic to University Plaza Terminal in the west and Confederation GO station in the east, extending service to key destinations past the corridor. The BRT alignment and infrastructure for this option was selected based on the range of possible BRT infrastructure, and the constraints and needs of the corridor. The constrained and congested downtown segment is served by dedicated curbside transit lanes, while less congested segments will only have transit priority. This provides improved transit service along the same corridor as the Hamilton LRT, while remaining within the available funding envelope. The configuration for this option is detailed in Table 6 and shown in Figure 8. Table 6: Option 2 B-Line BRT Configuration

Option 2 B-Line BRT: University Plaza to Confederation GO

Service Termini University Plaza (west) to Confederation GO (east)

Configuration • University Plaza Terminal to McMaster University: Mixed traffic • McMaster University to Dundurn Street: Mixed traffic with transit signal priority • Dundurn Street to Parkdale Avenue: Dedicated curbside lanes • Parkdale Avenue to Eastgate Square: Mixed traffic with transit signal priority • Eastgate Square to Confederation GO station: Mixed traffic

Stops • 19 total stops o 13 on segments with dedicated BRT lanes o 4 on segments with transit signal priority o 2 on segments with no priority

Infrastructure • Total length of enhanced transit infrastructure: 14.0 km Length o Curbside dedicated BRT lanes: 8.5 km o Mixed traffic with transit signal priority at intersections: 5.5 km

Figure 8: Hamilton Rapid Transit Option 2 B-Line BRT: University Plaza to Confederation GO

Option 3 B-Line BRT and A-Line Transit Priority The third and final option to be evaluated in this study is a mix of BRT and transit priority on the B-Line along with transit priority for a segment of the A-Line. This option will provide improvements to service on both the B-Line and A-Line and was developed to meet the recommendation from the HTTF to improve service on the A- and B-Line. This option will explore the benefits of taking some of the funding envelope and improving service on the A-Line. Improvements on the B-Line under this option include: • 5.8 km of westbound dedicated curbside transit lanes on King Street between Dundurn Street and Gage Park; • 5.6 km of eastbound dedicated curbside transit lanes on Main Street between Dundurn Street and Gage Park • 0.3 km of dedicated curbside transit lanes in both directions on Main Street between Gage Park and Ottawa Street; • 14 km of transit signal priority at signalized intersections between McMaster University and Eastgate Square, including sections with dedicated transit lanes; • Transit signal priority at signalized intersections between McMaster University and Eastgate Square; and • Queue jump lanes at Woodman Drive, Nash Road and Kenora Avenue. The couplet alignment through downtown mitigates traffic and streetscape impacts on King Street by dividing the transit infrastructure footprint across two right-of-ways. Similar to Option 2 B-Line BRT the primary bus service using the infrastructure would continue in mixed traffic to University Plaza in the west and Confederation GO Station in the east. This option will also deliver improvements on the A-Line including: • Conversion of James Mountain Road to a transit-only roadway; • Transit signal priority at all intersections from Mohawk College to Fennel Avenue; and • Queue jump lanes at Mohawk Road, Stone Church Road and Rymal Road along Upper James Street. Dedicated BRT infrastructure is not provided for the A-Line through Downtown Hamilton since the constrained corridor limits what is deliverable without significant capital cost impacts. Service on the A-Line would be split into two different branches. The first branch would follow the current A-Line Route 20 and terminate at the James C. Munro Hamilton International Airport. The second branch would follow the same route from the Waterfront to Aldridge/Linc, it would route to Lime Ridge Mall via the Lincoln Alexander Parkway. This option is detailed in Table 7 and shown in Figure 9.

Table 7: Option 3 B-Line BRT and A-Line Transit Priority Configuration

Option 3 B-Line BRT: University Plaza to Confederation GO

Service Termini University Plaza (west) to Confederation GO (east)

Configuration • University Plaza Terminal to McMaster University: Mixed traffic • McMaster University to Dundurn Street: Mixed traffic with transit signal priority • Dundurn Street to Gage Park: Dedicated curbside lanes on King St (westbound) and Main St (eastbound) • Gage Park to Ottawa Street: Dedicated curbside lanes • Ottawa Street to Eastgate Square: Mixed traffic with transit signal priority at all signalized intersections and queue jump lanes at Kenora Avenue, Nash Road, and Woodman Drive • Eastgate Square to Confederation GO station: Mixed traffic

Stops • 19 total stops o 10 on segments with dedicated BRT lanes o 7 on segments with transit signal priority o 2 on segments with no priority

Infrastructure • Total length of enhanced transit infrastructure: 14.0 km Length o Curbside dedicated BRT lanes: 6.2 km o Mixed traffic with transit signal priority at intersections: 7.8 km, including queue jump lanes at three intersections

Option 3 A-Line Transit Priority: Waterfront to Airport / Lime Ridge Mall

Service Termini Waterfront (north) to Hamilton Airport (south, branch 1) or Lime Ridge Mall (south branch 2)

Configuration • Guise Street to bottom of James Mountain Road: Mixed traffic • James Mountain Road: Transit-only roadway • Top of James Mountain Road to Mohawk College: Mixed traffic • Mohawk College to Rymal Road: Mixed traffic with transit signal priority at all signalized intersections and queue jump lanes at Mohawk Road, Stone Church Road and Rymal Road • Rymal Road to Hamilton Airport: Mixed traffic • Aldridge Street to Lime Ridge Mall: Mixed traffic (via Lincoln M Alexander Parkway)

Stops 21

Infrastructure • Total length of enhanced transit infrastructure: 5.2 km Length o Transit-Only Roadway: 0.7 km o Mixed traffic with transit signal priority at intersections: 4.5 km, including queue jump lanes at three intersections

Similar to Option 2 B-Line BRT, this option will require further design development to confirm the scope and assumptions.

Figure 9: Hamilton Rapid Transit Option 3 B-Line BRT and A-Line Transit Priority

BRT Service Plan As part of Options 2 B-Line BRT and Option 3 B-Line BRT + A-Line Transit Priority, the BRT right-of-way and transit priority measures being proposed would allow for other HSR and GO routes to use this infrastructure. This would increase the benefits arising from the investment and improve the reliability and travel time of many bus routes along the corridor. To illustrate this additional benefit a conceptual service plan for these was developed, as shown in Figure 10. Figure 10: Conceptual B-Line BRT Service Plan for Options 2 and 3

Assumptions for Analysis and Travel Demand Modelling In order to develop the business case evaluation and undertake the modelling and analysis that support it, a number of assumptions were made with respect to future conditions (see Table 8). These are consistent with the standard assumptions generally applied to Metrolinx studies and are inferred from both policy and observed trends. Table 8: Summary of Analysis and Travel Demand Modelling Assumptions

2041 Assumptions (Source)

Population and Expanded Market Land Use based on 2011 Census (Statistics Canada) and existing development Employment applications

Base Rapid Transit 2041 Regional Transportation Plan “In-Delivery Network” Network

GO Network GO Expansion Full Business Case, 2019

Surface Transit Surface transit network assumptions were developed by Metrolinx Network

Feasibility of GO Service Extension Option The HTTF report recommended further investigation for Metrolinx and the Province into the feasibility of frequent two-way all-day GO rail service extension into Hamilton GO Centre as a secondary recommendation behind the intra-city higher-order transit projects, if they are found to be unfeasible. Metrolinx owns and operates the rail corridor between Toronto Union Station and Burlington GO station. Service continues on two branches to Hamilton GO Centre and West Harbour GO station via corridors owned by freight rail companies. Of these, Hamilton GO Centre is better positioned to serve Downtown Hamilton; however, past investments have focused on the West Harbour corridor due to its connection to Niagara Region. The GO Expansion program will deliver frequent two-way all-day electrified service up to Burlington GO station and hourly two-way diesel service to West Harbour GO station. Hamilton GO Centre will continue to be served by peak period, peak direction diesel service. A frequent two-way, all-day GO rail service extension to Hamilton GO Centre would require additional train trips on corridors owned by both major Canadian freight rail companies, including: • 8.4 km of CN’s Oakville Subdivision between Burlington GO station and Hamilton Junction; and • 4.7 km of CP’s Hamilton Subdivision, between Hamilton Junction and Hamilton GO Centre. As a result, this will require negotiations with both operators for greater track access, and may drive new infrastructure to manage the increased traffic, such as: • New tracks in freight rail corridors or new dedicated passenger rail corridors; • Rail-to-rail grade separation at Bayview and / or Hamilton Junction; and • Modifications to the Hunter Street Tunnel. There are also potential downstream capacity impacts on the Metrolinx-owned portions of the Lakeshore West corridor and Union Station Rail Corridor. Confirmation of the infrastructure to enable this service increase would require further consultation with the freight rail companies. Based on a preliminary assessment of infrastructure needs, Metrolinx anticipates that this option would exceed the available capital funding. It would also require extensive new Environmental Assessment work and significant property acquisitions. Based on available information, it is expected that 18-24 months would be required to fully develop the scope and confirm feasibility, with delivery by 2028-2030 at the earliest. Due to the cost and delivery timelines, this option is not considered in this study; however, it is recommended that separate analysis be undertaken to confirm the feasibility, costs, and benefits of delivering frequent two-way all-day service to Hamilton GO Centre. In the meantime, Metrolinx will continue to explore increased service to West Harbour station through existing infrastructure and current funding commitments.

4 Strategic Case

Introduction The Strategic Case evaluates each of the three Hamilton Rapid Transit investment options against the identified strategic objectives to understand if the investment addresses the problem statement and the opportunity at hand to improve local transportation needs. This chapter aims to evaluate the options based on the following key strategic benefits in pursuit of the 2041 RTP goals:

STRONG CONNECTIONS

Assessment of how the options would improve people’s mobility and access to opportunities and destinations.

COMPLETE TRAVEL EXPERIENCES

Review of how the options would allow people to travel faster, more comfortably, more conveniently and more reliably.

SUSTAINABLE AND HEALTHY COMMUNITIES

Examination of how the options would support sustainable travel patterns and public health.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Analysis of the options would stimulate, encourage, and support economic growth and development.

Table 9: Summary of Hamilton Rapid Transit Strategic Objectives

2041 RTP Goals Strategic Objectives

1. Improve connections to opportunities and key destinations in Hamilton

2. Improve access to areas of employment and employment growth Strong Connections 3. Deliver rapid transit to Hamilton within the allocated funding to provide competitive transit to more people and more places

4. Integrate with existing transit network

5. Improve customer experience on transit Complete Travel 6. Create rapid transit corridor(s) to improve travel time, and reliability Experiences 7. Provide equitable and affordable transportation

Sustainable and Healthy 8. Improve livability through reduction in traffic delays, auto dependency and air pollution Communities

9. Support community prosperity Economic Development 10. Expand opportunities for employment growth

Strategic Goal 1: STRONG CONNECTIONS

The first strategic goal from the RTP the Hamilton investment options will be evaluated against is “Strong Connections”. This goal focuses on connecting people to the places that make their lives better, such as homes, schools, jobs, community services, parks and open spaces, recreation, and cultural activities. The investment options will be evaluated on their ability to improve the connections between people and the places where they live, work and play. This section will compare the options’ ability to deliver four objectives that support the realization of Goal 1 “Strong Connections”. • Improve connections to opportunities and key destinations in Hamilton; • Improve access to areas of employment and employment growth; • Deliver rapid transit to Hamilton within the allocated funding to provide competitive transit to more people and more places; and • Integration within existing transit network.

Objective 1: Improve Connections to Opportunities and Key Destinations Rapid transit in Hamilton must provide a significant improvement in connecting key destinations and getting people from where they are to where they need to go. This is one of the main objectives put forward by the 2041 RTP and the City of Hamilton’s planned BLAST network. The planned urban structure in Hamilton coupled with intensification increases set out by provincial policy in the UGC highlight the need for increased connectivity between all parts of the city and with regional transportation options. This objective will be evaluated based on two criteria: 1. Downtown connectivity by transit. 2. Quality of connections to hospitals, universities, green spaces, and other key destinations from the investment option.

Criterion 1: Downtown Connectivity by Transit Improvement This criterion will measure the impact of the investment on connectivity to Downtown Hamilton, which is a Provincially-designated UGC, and the City’s main residential, commercial and employment area. Figure 11 compares the BAU with the investment options on the percentage of residents within 30 minute transit travel time of Downtown Hamilton. Figure 11: Hamilton Rapid Transit Access to Downtown Analysis

Criterion 2: Quality of connections to key destinations This criterion will evaluate what important areas and destinations are being served by the investment. Only destinations serviced by improved transit infrastructure (LRT guideway, dedicated BRT lanes, or transit priority measures) will be listed. Table 10, Table 11 and Table 12 present the key destinations that may attract ridership for Options 1, 2, and 3 respectively. Since all corridors in the study area currently have express bus service, to best quantify improvements in connections to key destinations, any key destination benefitting from a dedicated transit right-of-way will be highlighted to represent a higher quality of connection. Table 10: Option 1 LRT McMaster to Dundurn Key Destinations Served

Table 11: Option 2 B-Line BRT Key Destinations Served

Destination Type Closest Stop Key Destination Hospital (1) McMaster McMaster Children’s Hospital McMaster McMaster University University/College Campus (2) Longwood McMaster Innovation Park Columbia International College Longwood Westdale Secondary School Wentworth Cathedral High School Secondary School (5) Scott Park Bernie Custis Secondary School Parkdale Sir Winston Churchill Secondary School Nash Glendale Secondary School Canadian Martyrs Catholic Elementary School McMaster Dalewood Middle School Elementary/Middle School (5) Scott Park Prince of Wales Elementary School Viscount Montgomery Public School Parkdale St. Eugene Catholic Elementary School Dundurn Victoria Park James Gore Park Gage Park Gage Park Parks (6) Kenilworth Montgomery Park Parkdale Parkdale Park Nash Sam Manson Park Art Gallery of Hamilton Hamilton Convention Centre James Entertainment/Cultural (5) First Ontario Centre First Ontario Concert Hall Scott Park Tim Horton’s Field Jackson Square Mall James Commercial (3) Hamilton City Centre Mall Eastgate Eastgate Square Mall Other (1) James Hamilton City Hall Bold indicates the destination is served by transit with a dedicated right-of-way

Table 12: Option 3 B-Line BRT + A-Line Transit Priority Key Destinations Served

Destination Type Closest Stop Key Destination B-Line Hospital (1) McMaster McMaster Children’s Hospital McMaster McMaster University University/College Campus (2) Longwood McMaster Innovation Park Columbia International College Longwood Westdale Secondary School Wentworth Cathedral High School Secondary School (5) Scott Park Bernie Custis Secondary School Parkdale Sir Winston Churchill Secondary School Nash Glendale Secondary School Canadian Martyrs Catholic Elementary School McMaster Dalewood Middle School Elementary/Middle School (5) Scott Park Prince of Wales Elementary School Parkdale Viscount Montgomery Public School St. Eugene Catholic Elementary School Dundurn Victoria Park James Gore Park Gage Park Gage Park Parks (6) Kenilworth Montgomery Park Parkdale Parkdale Park Nash Sam Manson Park Art Gallery of Hamilton Hamilton Convention Centre James Entertainment/Cultural (5) First Ontario Centre First Ontario Concert Hall Scott Park Tim Horton’s Field Jackson Square Mall James Commercial (3) Hamilton City Centre Mall Eastgate Eastgate Square Mall Other (1) James Hamilton City Hall

Destination Type Closest Stop Key Destination A-Line Charlton St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton (Charlton) Hospital (2) Brantdale St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton (West 5th) University/College Campus (1) Mohawk College Mohawk College Elementary/Middle School (1) Mohawk Calvin Christian School Mohawk Norwood Park Parks (2) Stone Church Dr. William Bethune Park Commercial (1) Lime Ridge Lime Ridge Mall Bold indicates the destination is served by transit with a dedicated right-of-way

For criterion 1, the investment options fare very similarly to the BAU when evaluating whether they improve downtown connectivity by transit. The existing bus service provides 20% of Hamilton residents with a 30 minute peak transit travel time to downtown. The LRT option reduces this to 18%, likely due to the time lost during transfers for residents from the western part of the corridor. The BRT options provide some improvement, to 22% and 23% for Option 2 B-Line BRT and Option 3 B-Line BRT + A- Line Transit Priority respectively. This is due to the slightly improved travel time from the dedicated lanes and prioritization for buses at intersections. However, this is a very small percentage increase for an investment of this scale. The Hamilton Rapid Transit investment options do not substantially increase downtown connectivity by transit. Evaluating the quality of connections served by each option gives some further insight into how the options compare to one another. The LRT option provides a much improved connection to the small number of destinations within the space it occupies, connecting to the key destinations near McMaster University, and other schools along the western part of the B-Line. Due to its short length, the number of destinations that it serves is low. Option 2 B-Line BRT provides improved connections to a wide range of destinations along the B-Line, and has the greatest number of destinations served by transit with a dedicated right-of-way. Option 3 B-Line BRT + A-Line Transit Priority connects to the greatest number of destinations, including key locations on the upper part of Hamilton; however, the quality of the connection is lower compared to Option 2 B-Line BRT. The additional destinations are on segments where buses operate in mixed traffic. Compared to the existing express bus service, this option only provides marginal improvements in the quality of transit service. This is reflected in the relatively low impact on travel times, as shown in the first criteria. Option 2 B-Line BRT and Option 3 B-Line BRT + A- Line Transit Priority provide enhanced connections to key destinations along their alignment, however, when compared to the express bus service in the BAU, there is only marginal improvement.

Objective 2: Improve Access to Areas of Employment and Employment Growth In 2019, the City of Hamilton reported a total of 223,490 jobs in their annual employment survey6. This illustrates a growth rate of 4%, or an additional 8,060 jobs added from the 2018 employment survey. With the growing economy within the city, it is critical any transit investment improves the access and service to areas of employment and employment growth in Hamilton. As more jobs are created within the city limits, more transit options will be needed to provide access to residents seeking employment and enable employees to travel to and from work efficiently. Transit investments in Hamilton have to improve transit connections to Hamilton’s major employment centres and planned future employment growth areas. This objective will be evaluated based on two criteria: 1. Access to the City’s jobs by transit. 2. Access to the City’s employment growth areas by transit.

Criterion 1: Access to the City’s jobs by transit This criterion will compare how much easier and accessible it will be for residents and workers in Hamilton to access the City’s jobs by transit, compared to the BAU. Figure 12 provides the change in number of Hamilton jobs accessible to Hamiltonians within 45 minutes by transit in the morning peak hour. Figure 12: Change in Number of Hamilton Jobs Accessible within 45 Minutes by Transit (morning peak hour, 2041)

Criterion 2: Access to the City’s Employment Growth areas by Transit This criterion will evaluate if the City’s identified employment growth areas are being supported by the transit investment. Table 13 compares the investment options on whether they improve service to Hamilton’s identified business parks and business improvement areas.

6 City of Hamilton. Planning and Economic Development Department. Planning Division. City of Hamilton Annual Employment Survey 2018 and 2019 Tables and Charts. January 6, 2020

Table 13: Hamilton Business Parks and Business Improvement Areas serviced by Hamilton Rapid Transit Options

Business Park/Business Improvement Option 1 LRT: McMaster Option 3 B-Line BRT + Option 2 B-Line BRT Area7,8 to Dundurn A-Line Transit Priority

Airport Employment Growth District 

East Hamilton Industrial Area  

West Hamilton Innovation District   

Downtown Hamilton  

International Village  

King Street West  

Locke Street 

Main West Esplanade  

Ottawa Street  

Westdale Village   

Evaluating this objective it is very clear the LRT option performs poorly. Option 1 LRT McMaster to Dundurn has less accessibility to Hamilton jobs by transit than the BAU. It additionally only provides access to one of Hamilton’s business parks or business improvement areas, the West Hamilton Innovation District. The BRT options perform very similarly as they increase the number of jobs accessible by transit, and provide access to all the employment growth areas along their respective corridors. Among the key employment areas served by the BRT options are Downtown Hamilton, International Village, West Hamilton Innovation District, and East Hamilton Industrial Area among others. For Option 3 B-Line BRT + A-Line Transit Priority, improved access through transit priority is also provided to the Airport Employment Growth District.

7 City of Hamilton. Business Improvement Areas, Business Parks. January 2020 8 Business Parks and Business Improvement Areas not in the A and B-Line corridors were not included

Objective 3: Deliver Rapid Transit to Hamilton Rapid Transit in Hamilton has been a long standing priority for the Province and the City of Hamilton. Hamilton has been planning for the implementation of rapid transit in the city with the Rapid Ready study (2011) and the BLAST network plan. Rapid transit on the B-Line is a top-15 priority project under the 2041 RTP, and BRT on the A-Line is a proposed project, along with priority bus on the rest of the BLAST network. Any investment made with the committed $1 billion in funding should provide competitive transit to more people and more places. This objective will be evaluated with the following criterion: 1. Rapid transit and priority transit coverage.

Criterion 1: Rapid Transit and Priority Transit Coverage This criterion will evaluate how many residents and jobs will be directly served by the investment. As shown by the walkshed analysis and maps in Figure 13 to Figure 19, this criterion demonstrates the much higher coverage that can be achieved from a BRT investment compared to an LRT investment of the same budget. This criterion also shows the higher coverage that can be provided by extending transit prioritization measures past BRT infrastructure as is seen in Option 3 B-Line BRT + A-Line Transit Priority. The service improvement provided in Option 2 B-Line BRT is stronger than in Option 3 B-Line BRT + A-Line Transit Priority, but Option 3 B-Line BRT + A-Line Transit Priority provides an improvement to more of the population. Figure 13: Employment and Population in Hamilton within a 10-minute walk of Rapid Transit Stops

Figure 14: Hamilton Rapid Transit Option 1 LRT Walkshed

Figure 15: Hamilton Rapid Transit Option 1 LRT Employment Density, 2041

Figure 16: Hamilton Rapid Transit Option 2 B-Line BRT Walkshed

Figure 17: Hamilton Rapid Transit Option 2 B-Line BRT Employment Density, 2041

Figure 18: Hamilton Rapid Transit Option 3 B-Line BRT + A-Line Transit Priority Walkshed

Figure 19: Hamilton Rapid Transit Option 3 B-Line BRT + A-Line Transit Priority Employment Density, 2041

Objective 4: Integration within Existing Transit Network The transit investment in Hamilton must integrate seamlessly and improve the transit and transportation network. It must attract new ridership and provide easy and quick connections to local and regional routes and services. This objective will be evaluated based on two criteria: 1. Local transit attractiveness. 2. Connection to HSR routes.

Criterion 1: Local Transit Attractiveness This criterion will compare the options on the total forecasted increase in HSR ridership arising from the investment. Figure 20 compares the options on how many net new transit riders there are in the morning peak hour. Figure 20: Hamilton Rapid Transit Increase in Ridership

Option 3 B-Line BRT + A-Line Transit Priority attracts the most new transit riders; however, accounting for the percentage increase in ridership, all the options perform poorly in attracting new ridership.

Criterion 2: Connection to HSR Routes This criterion will evaluate how often transit routes connect to the investment option during the morning peak hour. Figure 21 compares the options on the number of HSR routes connecting to the rapid transit line at the morning peak hour. Figure 21: Hamilton Rapid Transit Connecting HSR Trips

The connections to HSR routes made by the investment options are all strong, given each option’s length, and demonstrate all options would be providing adequate integration within the existing network. Option 1 LRT McMaster to Dundurn, provides a high number of connections relative to its length; however, it does not extend into the downtown area where HSR’s operations converge. In addition, some of these connecting trips can be attributed to connecting buses at either end of the LRT, providing necessary transfers for the majority of passengers going to or coming from destinations outside the LRT alignment. Option 2 B-Line BRT provides seamless integration to all routes that can be transferred to and from the B-Line and at either terminus. Option 3 B-Line BRT + A-Line Transit Priority has the highest number of connecting HSR routes due to the higher coverage it provides.

Strategic Goal 2: COMPLETE TRAVEL EXPERIENCES

A transit investment in Hamilton must improve the travel experience of the customer. Improving travel time, reliability, comfort, and service headway are all key in delivering a successful project that provides substantial benefits to the residents and businesses of Hamilton. The strategic goal “Complete Travel Experiences” aims to provide an easy, safe, accessible, affordable and comfortable door-to-door travel experience that meets the diverse needs of travellers. This section will compare the options’ ability to deliver three objectives that support the realization of Goal 2 “Complete Travel Experiences”. • Improve customer experience on transit; • Create rapid transit corridor(s) to improve travel time and reliability; and • Provide equitable and affordable transportation.

Objective 5: Improve Customer Experience on Transit In order to realize the benefits of a transit investment in Hamilton, the customer’s experience while using the service must improve. This will encourage increased ridership as well as accommodate growth and lower auto dependency. A transit investment’s core improvement is at the customer level and this objective quantifies improvements arising from the different investment options. This objective will be evaluated with two criteria: 1. Transit travel time savings. 2. Vehicle crowing / decongestion.

Criterion 1: Transit Travel Time Savings A main criterion in evaluating the benefits of a rapid transit investment is how much travel time is saved because of the transit improvement. A lower travel time also plays a crucial role in attracting new ridership, improving transit mode share and lowering auto dependency. This criterion will compare the investment options based on the resulting total travel time savings. Figure 22: Hamilton Rapid Transit Total Travel Time Savings

Relative to the BAU, Option 1 LRT McMaster to Dundurn provides negative travel time savings (i.e. increases the time required to complete a trip by transit). This is due to the increased transfer time at either end of the LRT for trips to and from destinations on the B-Line that are not covered by the LRT. Both BRT options provide travel time savings, with Option 3 B-Line LRT + A-Line Transit Priority performing the best out of the BRT options due to the greater coverage that it provides.

Criterion 2: Vehicle Crowding/Decongestion Improvements in the reliability, headway and vehicle capacity as a result of a rapid transit investment will provide additional capacity to accommodate transit ridership. This is offset by net new ridership attracted by service improvement. This metric focuses on the cumulative impacts of an investment on transit vehicle crowding. Crowded transit vehicles negatively impact the customer’s experience while on their transit trip. For the purpose of evaluation, the customer experience impact is expressed as an equivalent perceived delay metric. This criterion will evaluate the change in vehicle crowding compared to the BAU for each investment option. Figure 23: Hamilton Rapid Transit Increase in Crowding

Option 1 LRT McMaster to Dundurn attracts net new riders to the system, but does not significantly increase transit capacity along the majority of the B-Line corridor. This results in an increase in transit vehicle crowding. Both BRT options reduce transit vehicle crowding by providing increased bus service along key corridors in Hamilton, as well as through the use of 60-foot articulated buses for service which provide a greater capacity relative to standard 40-foot buses. Option 3 B-Line LRT + A-Line Transit Priority provides the greatest benefit since it improves the level of service on both the B-Line and A-Line corridors.

Objective 6: Create Rapid Transit Corridor(s) to Improve Travel Time and Reliability Creating a new rapid transit line in Hamilton will improve the travel time and reliability of transit service along the corridor. These two metrics are crucial in creating an attractive and competitive transit line. More competitive transit will increase ridership and lower auto dependency, necessary for land use intensification in Downtown Hamilton and for accommodating the expected population and job growth Hamilton is forecasted to undergo. This objective will be evaluated with two criteria: 1. Average transit journey time to key destinations. 2. Expected reliability.

Criterion 1: Average Transit Journey Time to Key Destinations An improvement in transit travel time from one key destination to another will encourage transit use, as well as improving the transit experience of current transit users. This criterion will compare the transit travel time of the BAU case along with the three investment options along several of the highest demand trips in Hamilton. (Refer to Figure 24, Figure 25, and Figure 26)

Figure 24: Hamilton Rapid Transit Travel Time - McMaster to James/King

Figure 25: Hamilton Rapid Transit Travel Time - Eastgate Square to McMaster

Figure 26: Hamilton Rapid Transit Travel Time - Lime Ridge Mall to McMaster

Criterion 2: Expected Reliability Transit infrastructure improvements are limited by how much service can feasibly be run through them. Different corridors and areas may be constrained by road width, number of intersections, drive-ways, rail crossings, etc. It is important to look at what the reliability of the transit service being provided would be. The reliability of mixed traffic bus service can be highly impacted during the congested peak hour times, and although fully dedicated infrastructure in rapid transit lines alleviate most of the reliability constraints, there are still many factors that can impact the reliability of a surface rapid transit line. This criterion will evaluate the options based on how reliable the service could be and what the minimum achievable headway is, taking into consideration the constraints present in the corridors in the study area. All options presented as part of the Hamilton Rapid Transit investment will provide rapid transit to Hamilton. This means the options as planned will aim to provide Hamiltonians with a very high level of capacity and a high level of reliability. The service headways combined with the capacity of the vehicles mean passengers will not have to worry about schedules or missing a vehicle. Table 14 presents the service frequencies assumed for each of the investment options along with the estimated maximum vehicle capacity.

Table 14: Hamilton Rapid Transit Service Headway and Vehicle Capacity

Option 1 LRT: Option 3 B-Line BRT + A-Line Transit Priority Option 2 B-Line McMaster to BRT Dundurn B-Line A-Line

10 minutes 5 minutes 5 minutes • Waterfront to Aldridge: 10 minutes Service Headway • Aldridge to Airport: 20 minutes • Aldridge to Lime Ridge: 20 minutes

Vehicle Capacity9 160 - 292 45 - 85 45 - 85 45 - 85

All headways are equal to or below 10-minutes and provide passengers with the reliability expected from a rapid transit investment. Option 1 LRT McMaster to Dundurn service headway reflects a modified version of the transit service plan from the previous Hamilton LRT project. Detailed traffic and ridership demand studies informed this transit plan, and was carried forward for this study. Traffic and the volume of intersections along the corridor constrain the service headway of LRT to a minimum of 5 to 6 minutes. Although the LRT has the lowest service frequency it is nonetheless over 6 trains per hour, and the LRT vehicle has much more capacity than an articulated bus. In addition, the completely separated LRT guideway removes most traffic impacts apart from left turning vehicles. The guideway and train control system are also better at controlling acceleration, speed and breaking compared to a bus on a curbside BRT lane. The headway for the BRT options will have to be refined and confirmed in further project development. For this study a five minute headway minutes was used, as a bus is not as long as an LRV and can clear an intersection faster. The lower capacity also means a higher frequency is needed to provide an equivalent level of transit capacity. Given the known constraints on the corridor from the previous Hamilton LRT studies, five minute headways remain feasible while not being overly optimistic. The reliability on the curbside BRT lanes can be impacted by right and left running traffic into roads or driveways, and since the curbside lanes are not physically separated from traffic lanes, high congestion will impact the speed of the vehicle. In addition, the volume of intersections or impacts from traffic may cause “bus bunching”, further affecting the reliability. The five minute headway, coupled with dedicated lanes should mitigate most reliability impacts in all but the most extreme cases, and the service has a high enough frequency that if the reliability is impacted, a delay of about five minutes is the worst case scenario. For transit priority segments on the B-Line in the BRT options, and on the A-Line in Option 3, the reliability can be heavily impacted by traffic congestion. The service runs as a regular bus service, with the exception of priority at intersections, and queue jump lanes to leap ahead of traffic in some intersections. This means that in a highly congested segment of road the service will be heavily impacted and transit priority will not provide much improvement in these scenarios.

9 Vehicle capacity varies depending on manufacturer, model, and seating configuration.

Objective 7: Provide Equitable and Affordable Transportation A key objective that must be met by any transit investment is to provide attractive, transformative yet affordable and equitable transportation solutions. The investment in Hamilton must ensure that operations and maintenance of the system will be cost effective and affordable for the City of Hamilton and its tax payers. More importantly, any transit investment and the transit system must also be affordable, and provide service to low-income households. The areas of Hamilton with relative high percentage of low-income households must be prioritized for any future transit investment.

This objective will be evaluated with one criterion: 1. Access to Rapid Transit for Low-Income Households.

Criterion 1: Access to Rapid Transit for Low-Income Households This criterion will analyze how the investment options compare on providing access and improved service to the city’s low-income population. In evaluating how a transit investment serves Hamilton’s low-income population it is important to recognize the different areas of Hamilton, how they interact with one another and how people travel within Hamilton. The central area, below the Niagara escarpment, referred to as the downtown core of Hamilton is a built up, dense urban area with a diverse mix of housing, and industrial and commercial areas. The area in upper Hamilton, above the escarpment resembles a suburb, being occupied by larger dwellings and strip malls. To the east in Stoney Creek and west in Dundas and Ancaster these areas resemble suburbs as well, with a much lower density and large residential and commercial areas. The 3 outer areas of Hamilton feed into the Downtown core for work, school, or entertainment, largely via an automobile or single occupancy vehicle (SOV). The last area of Hamilton is the outermost parts that are very low density and rural. Hamilton has a relatively high SOV mode share at 67%, and a low local transit mode share of 7%10. This is further worsened by the travel patterns and economic disparities that are found in Hamilton. As shown in Table 16, the outer suburb areas of Hamilton have a much lower percentage of low-income population compared to Central Hamilton, these suburban and rural areas travel into the central core largely by automobile, and would likely continue to use an automobile even with an improved transit service. The higher density central area with a combined over 25% prevalence of low-income residents must be the primary focus of any rapid transit investment in Hamilton, as this is where the most impact and benefits to the residents and businesses of Hamilton will occur.

10 City of Hamilton. Transportation Master Plan Review and Update. October 2018.

Table 15: Hamilton Prevalence of Low-Income Population per Federal Riding11

Hamilton Hamilton Hamilton West – Hamilton East – Flamborough- Central Mountain Ancaster-Dundas Stoney Creek Glanbrook

Total Population (2015) 97,165 103,785 110,010 107,175 109,800

Prevalence of low income based on the Low-income 29.2% 14.7% 11.7% 15.5% 7.1% measure, after-tax (LIM-AT)

Prevalence of low income based on the low-income 25.1% 11.6% 9.8% 11.9% 4.3% cut-offs, after tax (LICO-AT)

The low-income 2016 census numbers for federal ridings in Hamilton confirm the priority for a transit investment in Hamilton should be to provide an improved transit service to the Hamilton Central area, as well as connect to areas with a high prevalence of low-income residents in the other three suburban areas of Hamilton. Figure 27, Figure 28, Figure 29 and Figure 30 present the number of Low-Income Cut-Off (LICO) population served by each investment option, and walkshed maps with the prevalence of LICO households. Figure 27: Low Income Cut-Off (LICO) Population within a 10-Minute Walk

11 Statistics Canada 2016 Census; Census Profile (Hamilton Centre, Hamilton Mountain, Hamilton East – Stoney Creek, Hamilton West – Ancaster and Dundas, Flamborough – Glanbrook)

Figure 28: Hamilton Rapid Transit Option 1 LICO Walkshed

Figure 29: Hamilton Rapid Transit Option 2 LICO Walkshed

Figure 30: Hamilton Rapid Transit Option 3 LICO Walkshed

Option 1 LRT McMaster to Dundurn does not provide improved service to the crucial central area in Hamilton. Option 2 B-Line BRT performs the best out of all the options as it provides the most improved service through the most in need areas. Option 2 provides dedicated transit lanes through the areas with the highest prevalence of low-income households, as well as providing transit priority service to areas outside of central Hamilton with a higher prevalence of low-income households. Option 3 B-Line BRT + A-Line Transit Priority also performs well, although marginally less so than Option 2. Option 3 B- Line BRT + A-Line Transit Priority does provide improvement in the Downtown core, but to a lesser degree with less infrastructure investment. In terms of the A-Line, the improved service is in the Upper James area where there are less low-income households. Although the investment options may not provide much improvement in travel time savings, the BRT options will provide an improved transit experience, especially to the low-income residents of Hamilton. During congested peak hours the transit service will provide much more reliable and on-time service, along with providing some travel time savings. A dedicated lane for buses will provide much more reliable service, meaning more buses with more capacity, and shorter wait times in-between buses. The investment options provide higher-order transit platforms and stops with improvements in shelters and access, providing a better customer experience at stops. A higher-order transit investment impacting this area of the City coupled with programs such as the Affordable Transit Pass Program from the City of Hamilton will ensure the low-income residents in Hamilton are prioritized in transit improvements, and are able to afford to use this transit to equitably move throughout the city to their destinations and make their lives better.

Strategic Goal 3: SUSTAINABLE AND HEALTHY COMMUNITIES

A very important aspect of a transit investment is improving the safety, and well-being of the community in which it resides. The strategic goal “Sustainable and Healthy Communities” aims to ensure transit investments are made for today and for future generations by supporting land use intensification, climate resiliency and a low-carbon footprint. This section will compare the options’ ability to deliver two objectives that support the realization of Goal 3 “Sustainable and Healthy Communities”: • Improve liveability through reduction in traffic delays, auto dependency and air pollution; and • Deliver a project that can be easily extended in the future.

Objective 8: Improve Liveability through Reduction in Traffic Delays, Auto Dependency and Air Pollution The introduction of higher order, frequent rapid transit in Hamilton along the B-Line corridor (with transit priority on the A-Line in Option 3) will improve the quality of life in the surrounding communities through greater transportation and environmental benefits. Rapid transit will support a cost effective, sustainable and safe mobility environment, and will encourage more sustainable urban design practices and streetscape planning decisions that prioritize walking, cycling, transit and public space. Higher order rapid transit in Hamilton will support the expected growth in population and jobs, and will improve the safety and sustainability of the transportation network by lowering auto use. This objective will be evaluated with two criteria: 1. Overall Reduction Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

Criterion 1: Overall Reduction in Greenhouse Gas Emissions This criterion will evaluate how effective the options are at reducing overall vehicle kilometres travelled (VKT) in the morning peak rush hour in 2041. (Refer to Figure 31) Figure 31: Change in Vehicle Kilometres Travelled (morning peak hour, 2041)

All Hamilton Rapid Transit investment options increase VKT during the morning rush hour in 2041. This means the transit options are poor at reducing auto distance traveled, and therefore poor at providing a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. The overarching issue with the proposed rapid transit projects is that due to the constrained corridor, interventions in Hamilton are converting two general traffic lanes into a transit right-of-way. The capacity of each traffic lane has to be completely accommodated by the transit line, otherwise there is an increase in traffic congestion and both regular vehicle traffic and the rapid transit line will be negatively affected. With the proposed options, the ridership is increasing, showing that some travel demand is being converted from a general traffic lane to the transit line. However, the increase in ridership, to a point where the crowding is significantly

worse is still not nearly enough to successfully replace two general traffic lanes and produce positive benefits in travel time, congestion and VKT. The LRT option does not successfully accommodate all the additional demand from removing a general traffic lane. Although the capacity and reliability on an LRT line can easily accommodate the additional demand, this configuration performs poorly due to the truncated segment which it serves, and the time penalties incurred by transferring to a bus that would operate in mixed traffic at either end of the LRT. The LRT option removes two general traffic lanes on Main Street West and this causes vehicle traffic to divert to adjacent roads, leading to an increase in VKT. Similarly, the BRT options remove two general traffic lanes on King Street and/or Main Street through the congested downtown where the curbside BRT lanes are proposed. This causes vehicle traffic to divert to adjacent roads, leading to an increase in VKT. The BRT options do not successfully accommodate the additional demand from removing general traffic lanes due to the marginal travel time savings, and capacity and reliability that is feasible with the infrastructure proposed. An investment through this corridor in Hamilton must provide a high level of capacity, reliability and travel time savings to encourage a large enough mode shift to transit from automobiles. It must also have a large area of impact, providing connections to as far as possible to encourage even travel demand from further away areas to consider taking transit. Lastly, the impacts of any conversion of general traffic lanes to transit-only right-of-way must be carefully studied, considered, and mitigated to ensure any rapid transit project in Hamilton has the greatest positive impact.

Strategic Goal 4: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

The final strategic goal of the Hamilton Rapid Transit Study is assessing the potential for the investment options to support and drive ongoing and future economic development opportunities. Economic development is a key factor in attracting development along the B-Line and A-Line corridors in the City of Hamilton. Economic development is also a driver of employment, residential settlement and commercial activity. This section will compare the options’ ability to deliver two objectives that support the realization of Goal 4 “Economic Development”. • Support community prosperity • Expand opportunities for employment growth

Objective 9: Support Community Prosperity Community prosperity ensures the continued support of growth in a City. In Hamilton, it ensures that residents benefit from additions to their communities such as investment in transit. It also ensures that transit and development support each other to present the best benefits for residents in terms of proximity and access to transit and a wide mix of developments to encourage diversity of uses. This objective will be evaluated with three criteria: 1. Support high population densities 2. Support local growth policies 3. Supports current and future community needs

Criterion 1: Support High Population Densities This criterion describes the options’ ability to support high population densities in the City of Hamilton, particularly along the corridors where the investment options are proposed. Rapid transit will be accessible to a greater number of residents given its proximity to where most people live and/or work. This criterion compares the options against the percentage of Hamilton residents living within 800 m of the transit investments. Figure 32 demonstrates how each investment option supports population densities along the B-Line and A-Line corridors. Figure 32: Hamilton Rapid Transit: Percentage of Population within 10-Minute Walkshed of Options

Option 3 B-Line BRT + A-Line Transit Priority is within a 10-minute walk for the highest percentage of residents due to the length and geographic span of the investment (both on the A-Line and B-Line corridors), and is therefore accessible to more residents who are interested in taking transit.

Criterion 2: Support Local Growth Policies This criterion describes the options’ ability to support the City of Hamilton’s local growth policies. Hamilton’s growth policies largely describe the links between future development, population growth and transit.

Table 16: Alignment of Local Growth Policies with Proposed Project Options

Policy / Plan Alignment with Option 1 Alignment with Option 2 Alignment with Option 3

The area around McMaster Proposed stops from Queen - Proposed stops from Queen - University is planned for mixed- Wellington fall under the Wellington fall under the use and high-density Downtown UGC boundaries. The Downtown UGC boundaries. development. B-Line is also a Primary Corridor Pockets of the A-line corridor Urban planned for higher density and towards John C Munroe Hamilton mixed uses supported by higher Hamilton International Airport Official Plan order transit. McMaster and are designated medium density (2013) Eastgate are also planned for mixed use and arterial mixed-use and high-density commercial. The Airport area is development. designated as an employment growth district.

The Downtown UGC is the City’s The Downtown UGC is the City’s preeminent node due to its preeminent node due to its scale, density, function and scale, density, function and Downtown range of uses. Stops from Queen range of uses. Stops from Queen Hamilton – Wellington on the B-Line – Wellington on the B-Line Secondary Plan corridor are supported by the corridor are supported by the (OPA 102) Downtown Secondary Plan Downtown Secondary Plan which also stipulates the need which also stipulates the need for an integrative transportation for an integrative transportation system. system.

Proposed stops between Nash Proposed stops between Nash and Eastgate fall under the and Eastgate fall under the Centennial Neighborhoods Centennial Neighborhoods Secondary Plan. The Centennial Secondary Plan. The Centennial Centennial Node will feature a higher order Node will feature a higher order Neighborhoods transit corridor and two major transit corridor and two major Secondary Plan transit hubs, which are transit hubs, which are (OPA 92) supported by compact, mixed supported by compact, mixed use development along the use development along the Queenston Road and Centennial Queenston Road and Centennial Parkway corridors. Parkway corridors.

Proposed B-Line LRT stops from Proposed B-Line BRT stops from Proposed B-Line BRT stops from McMaster to Dundurn are Wentworth to Parkdale are Wentworth to Parkdale are identified as Major Transit identified as Major Transit identified as Major Transit GRIDS 2 Station Areas with planned Station Areas with planned Station Areas with planned Mobility intensification in Hamilton’s intensification in Hamilton’s intensification in Hamilton’s Planning: A Growth Management Strategy. Growth Management Strategy. Growth Management Strategy. Primer (2018) Longwood and Dundurn stops The Wentworth stop will meet The Wentworth stop will meet will meet the density target of the density target of the Growth the density target of the Growth the Growth Plan. Plan. Plan.

City of Hamilton Growth Management Strategy (2006) Hamilton’s Growth Management Strategy (GRIDS) is an integrated planning process that has identified a broad land use structure, associated infrastructure, economic development strategy and financial

implications for growth options to serve Hamilton for 25-30 years (up to 2031). Hamilton’s first growth strategy involved analysis on intensification near Major Transit Station Areas along the original LRT study. GRIDS is being updated to allocate forecasted population and employment growth from 2031 to 2041. This update will be known as GRIDS 2. A municipal comprehensive review (MCR) is also a requirement of the Growth Plan and the provincial policy Statement (PPS). Since many of the studies that are required as part of the MCR are also part of a growth strategy, the MCR is being completed concurrently with GRIDS 2. The Growth Plan directs municipalities to plan for intensification around transit.

GRIDS 2 Mobility Planning: A Primer (2018) In 2018, the City of Hamilton completed a study to determine whether it is possible to meet the density target for each of the MTSAs along the LRT route in order to meet Provincial regulations (160 residents and jobs combined per hectare) or if an alternative target is required. This study has examined 11 potential Major Transit Station Areas across the previously introduced LRT corridor. Stops from Queen – Wellington and Nash – Eastgate are part of secondary plans, and therefore excluded from the study (see Figure 33 and Table 17). Based on the City’s findings, only three of these 11 MTSAs will meet the density target of the Growth Plan: Longwood, Dundurn, and Wentworth. Given the change in the scope of the rapid transit project, the City of Hamilton may revaluate its intensification efforts around each MTSA based on the type of technology and length of rapid transit on each corridor. Figure 33: Major Transit Station Areas Along the LRT Corridor Examined by the City of Hamilton in 2018

Table 17: City of Hamilton’s Estimated Density within Potential Major Transit Station Areas along the LRT Corridor (2018)

Potential Alignment Alignment Alignment Anticipated Intensification Area LRT Stops12 with Option 1 with Option 2 with Option 3

McMaster along Leland St and Main St W   

Longwood along Main St W and a portion of King St W   

Dundurn along King St W, Main St W, Dundurn St N and S   

along King St E and Wilson St with some local Wentworth residential growth near the stop  

Sherman along King St E  

Scott Park along King St E  

Gage Park along King St E and Main St E  

Ottawa along Main St E and Ottawa St N  

Kenilworth along Kenilworth Ave N and Main St E  

Queenston along Main St E and Queenston Rd  

Parkdale along Queenston Rd and Parkdale Ave N  

The level of intensification planned for the B-Line and A-Line corridors will ultimately be determined by the City of Hamilton. Many existing studies are based on the previous LRT design. The City's vision for growth on each corridor will depend on the type of alignment, type of services (i.e. BRT, LRT) and the location of stations as compared to the BAU scenario.

Criterion 3: Investment Supports Current and Future Community Needs This criterion describes the options’ ability to support ongoing developments along the B-Line and A- Line corridors.

12 Source: City of Hamilton’s Primer on Mobility Planning for GRIDS2

Table 18: Hamilton Rapid Transit: Number of Developments within Proximity to Options13

Adjacent Developments to Adjacent Developments to Adjacent Developments to Type of Development Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

Residential ~3 ongoing developments ~18 ongoing developments ~19 ongoing developments

Commercial ~5 ongoing developments ~10 ongoing developments ~16 ongoing developments

Employment ~1 ongoing development ~3 ongoing developments ~8 ongoing developments

Mixed-Use ~3 ongoing developments ~19 ongoing developments ~33 ongoing developments

A variety of developments benefit when in proximity to transit. Residential developments allow people to move easily within the community for work or leisure. Commercial or employment related developments increase the ability of residents and workers to move easily for jobs, leisure and other opportunities. Option 1: LRT from McMaster to Dundurn has the lowest number of ongoing development applications as the length of the project is shorter compared to Option 2 and 3. Options 2 and 3 are proposed to run through the Downtown Urban Growth area, and therefore have more commercial and mixed-use developments proposed along the B-Line Corridor. Option 3: B-Line and A-Line BRT has the highest volume of adjacent developments given the length of the B-Line and A-Line corridors within the scope of this option.

13 Source: City of Hamilton Development Applications Web Map: https://www.hamilton.ca/develop-property/planning- applications/development-applications-mapping

Objective 10: Expand Opportunities for Employment Growth Expanding opportunities for employment growth will allow both Hamilton and GGH residents to access jobs with ease. It ensures Hamilton is attracting a variety of talent to its employment sectors as well as transit-oriented development opportunities that function as places where residents can “live, work and play”. Transit plays a key role in connecting workers to employers and encouraging developments that may increase employment opportunities. This objective will be evaluated with two criteria: 1. Employer’s access to regional labour market 2. Support new transit-oriented community developments

Criterion 1: Employer’s Access to Regional Labour Market This criterion describes options’ ability to attract talent pools in the GGH by transit. With a rapidly growing Downtown and increasing population, Hamilton’s employment growth is a key driver of community prosperity and economic benefit. Attracting talent from across the GGH ensures Hamilton benefits from diverse skillsets and experiences growth in a variety of employment markets. A rapid transit network will help link employers to workers across the region. Figure 34: Hamilton Rapid Transit: Change in Number of GGH Workers Accessible within 45-Minutes by Transit from Hamilton Employers

Downtown Hamilton’s employment opportunities attract varying amounts of workers based on the investment options. Option 1 LRT McMaster to Dundurn attracts the least number of workers with a change in -18,700 GGH workers. Option 2 B-Line BRT and Option 3 B-Line BRT + A-Line Transit Priority fare the same, with a change in +57,100 GGH workers accessible within 45 minutes by transit to Downtown Hamilton employers. The BRT options are proposed to run through Downtown Hamilton, and therefore provide immediate access to employment opportunities and attracting more workers overall.

Criterion 2: Support New Transit Oriented Community Developments This criterion describes the opportunities available to create transit-oriented and ridership-sustaining benefits for each investment option. The following are recommendations put forward by Metrolinx’s Transit Oriented Communities team based on the option proposed for this study: Option 3: B-line + A-Line BRT supports the most future development opportunities as well as ridership numbers. While higher order transit such as the LRT would bring significant economic development, in its truncated form of three stops, there is less overall benefit in the longer term compared to the original alignment. Looking at the properties from a disposition perspective they are similar assuming that Metrolinx would be able to obtain the same value that was paid for the properties originally. The value, however, in the disposition of the MSF lands could be upwards $21 million plus the TOC opportunities for residual and consolidation opportunities that will lend themselves to development opportunities. Maximum value is associated with Option 3 B-Line BRT + A-Line Transit Priority from a TOC perspective that allows for the disposition of the MSF property as well as consolidating Metrolinx owned property for future development along the corridor as well as providing transportation to an underserved market.

Strategic Case Summary Table 19 provides a summary of the performance of each scenario and option against the strategic outcomes and objectives.

Option provides marginal Option provides Option provides substantial  - improvement over BAU  - improvement over BAU  - improvement over BAU

Table 19: Strategic Case Summary

Option 1 LRT: McMaster to Option 3: B-Line BRT + A-Line Strategic Criteria Option 2: B-Line BRT Dundurn Transit Priority

Strategic Objective 1: Improve connections to opportunities and key destinations in Hamilton

Downtown connectivity 2% decrease compared to the 2% increase compared to the 3% increase compared to the by transit BAU BAU BAU

Quality of connection to key destinations   

Strategic Objective 2: Improve access to areas of employment and employment growth

Access to the City's Access to 5,300 less jobs Access to 8,600 more jobs Access to 9,900 more jobs jobs by transit compared to the BAU compared to the BAU compared to the BAU

Access to the City's employment growth    areas by transit

Option 1 LRT: McMaster to Option 3: B-Line BRT + A-Line Strategic Criteria Option 2: B-Line BRT Dundurn Transit Priority

Strategic Objective 3: Deliver rapid transit to Hamilton to provide competitive transit to more people and more places

10,400 people and 10,600 108,000 people and 62,700 171,700 people and 94,800 Rapid and priority jobs within a 10 minute walk of jobs within a 10 minute walk of jobs within a 10 minute walk of transit coverage rapid and priority transit rapid and priority transit rapid and priority transit

Strategic Objective 4: Integration with existing transit network

Local transit 500 net new transit riders in 1,100 net new transit riders in 1,300 net new transit riders in attractiveness the morning peak hour the morning peak hour the morning peak hour

Connections to HSR 54 connecting HSR trips in the 175 connecting HSR trips in 223 connecting HSR trips in routes morning peak hour the morning peak hour the morning peak hour

Strategic Objective 5: Improve Customer Experience on Transit

Increased transit travel time Reduced transit travel time Reduced transit travel time Transit travel time (34,100 additional person- (29,900 person-minutes (32,600 person-minutes savings minutes) in the morning peak saved) in the morning peak saved) in the morning peak hour hour hour

Additional crowding, resulting Reduced crowding, resulting Reduced crowding, resulting Vehicle Crowding / in 2,570 more person-minutes in 12,990 less person-minutes in 19,140 less person-minutes Decongestion of perceived delay in the of perceived delay in the of perceived delay in the morning peak hour morning peak hour morning peak hour

Strategic Objective 6: Create rapid transit corridors to improve travel time, and reliability

• McMaster to James: • McMaster to James: • McMaster to James: +6 min -4 min -4 min Average transit journey • Eastgate to McMaster: • Eastgate to McMaster: • Eastgate to McMaster: time for key -1 min -10 min -7 min destinations • Lime Ridge Mall to • Lime Ridge Mall to • Lime Ridge Mall to McMaster: -3 min McMaster: -6 min McMaster: -5 min

Expected reliability   

Strategic Objective 7: Provide equitable and affordable transportation

Access to RT for low- income households   

Strategic Objective 8: Improve livability through reduction in traffic delays, auto dependency and air pollution

Overall reduction in 1,285 more Vehicle Kilometres 5,665 more Vehicle Kilometres 2,280 more Vehicle Kilometres Greenhouse Gas Travelled in the morning peak Travelled in the morning peak Travelled in the morning peak Emissions hour compared to the BAU hour compared to the BAU hour compared to the BAU

Option 1 LRT: McMaster to Option 3: B-Line BRT + A-Line Strategic Criteria Option 2: B-Line BRT Dundurn Transit Priority

Strategic Objective 9: Support community prosperity

1% of Hamilton population 14% of Hamilton population 22% of Hamilton population Support high within 10-minute walk of within 10-minute walk of within 10-minute walk of population densities option option option

Connects MTSAs and the Connects MTSAs through the Connects MTSAs through the primary corridor from Downtown UGC Downtown UGC as well as Support local growth McMaster to Dundurn which primary corridors and the policies are planned for future Airport Employment Growth intensification Area

Some adjacent mixed use, High volume of adjacent Highest volume of adjacent Development supports residential and commercial mixed use, residential and mixed use, residential and current and future development applications commercial development commercial development community needs applications. Some applications. Some employment developments employment developments

Strategic Objective 10: Expand opportunities for employment growth

Downtown Hamilton Downtown Hamilton Downtown Hamilton employers have 15,100 fewer employers have 67,600 more employers have 61,700 more Employer's access to GGH workers within a 45- GGH workers within a 45- GGH workers within a 45- regional labour market minute commute by transit, minute commute by transit, minute commute by transit, relative to the BAU relative to the BAU relative to the BAU

Support new transit- Least future development Some future development Most future development oriented community opportunities opportunities opportunities developments

Overall Evaluation   

5 Economic Case

Introduction and Assumptions The Economic Case is one of two chapters focused on the rationale for pursuing an investment (the other being the Strategic Case). While the Strategic Case evaluates options based on a project specific policy/plan oriented evaluation framework, the Economic Case determines if the expected benefits of this investment exceed the costs required to deliver it, and articulates the overall benefit to society of pursuing each investment option. This analysis considers the magnitude of costs and benefits for a 60- year lifecycle (the evaluation period) as well as: • Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) – the net benefits divided by the net costs, which is used to indicate benefits that are realized per dollar spent • Net Present Value (NPV) – the net benefits minus net costs, which is used to indicate total net benefits to the region. Assumptions set out in Table 20 are based on the Metrolinx Business Case Guidance (2019). This economic case focuses on comparing the three alignment representative/ modelling scenario options that were introduced in the Investment Options chapter of this Benefits Report. At this stage, representative scenarios were used in the Economic Case to inform the development of investment alternatives. The IBC for the Hamilton Rapid Transit project will explore how to further optimize the investment.

Table 20: Economic Case Assumptions

Input Impact Type

Analysis Approach • All benefits/costs are expressed in real terms in 2020$. • Appraisal begins in 2020. • Construction period: o Option 1: from 2023 to 2025, with an opening year of 2025 and 60 years of operation (2025 to 2084) o Option 2: from 2025 to 2028, with an opening year of 2028 and 60 years of operation (2028 to 2087) o Option 3: from 2023 to 2029, with an opening year of 2029 and 60 years of operation (2029 to 2089)

Evaluation Period Over 60 years of Operation: • Option 1: 2020-2084 • Option 2: 2020-2087 • Option 3: 2020-2089

Economic Discount Rate 3.5%

Value of Time (VoT) (2020$) $18.42/hour

VoT Growth Rate 0%

Ridership Growth Rate 1%, capped after 30 years from year of evaluation (2020 to 2049).

Auto Occupancy 1.077

Auto Operating Cost Savings • Marginal operating cost: $0.09/km (2018$) • Total operating cost: $0.66 km

Decongestion Benefit Evaluated using Auto Travel Time Savings, monetized using VoT

Safety Improvements (Accident $0.10/km Mitigation/ Relief) (2018$)

GHG Emissions (2018$) $0.01/km

Modelling Assumptions The GGHMv4 model takes into account changes in land use patterns and the transportation network to estimate ridership with a forecast horizon of 2041. Table 21 summarizes the assumptions for the model.

Table 21: Modelling Assumptions

Option 3 B-Line BRT + A-Line Transit Priority Option 1 LRT: Input Option 2 B-Line BRT McMaster to Dundurn B-Line A-Line

Headway 10 min per direction 5 min per direction 5 min per direction 10 min per direction

70 seated passengers 55 seated passengers 55 seated passengers Vehicle Capacity 160 total passengers 85 total passengers 85 total passengers

Varies by segment Varies by segment Speed between 21km/h to between 6km/h to Varies by segment between 6km/h to 70km/h 26km/h 45km/h

• McMaster • McMaster • McMaster • Waterfront • Longwood • Longwood • Longwood • Guise • Dundurn • Dundurn • Dundurn • West Harbour GO • Queen • Queen • Cannon • James • James • King • Mary • Mary • Hunter • Wellington • Wellington • Charlton • Wentworth • Wentworth • Brantdale • Sherman • Sherman • Mohawk College • Scott Park • Scott Park • Fennell Stations • Gage Park • Gage Park • Mohawk • Ottawa • Ottawa • Aldridge/Linc • Kenilworth • Kenilworth • Stone Church • Queenston • Queenston • Rymal • Parkdale • Parkdale • Twenty Mountain • Nash • Nash Transit Centre • Eastgate • Eastgate • Dickenson • English Church • Mount Hope • Airport • Lime Ridge Mall

Costs The costs or ‘required investment’ to deliver the Hamilton Rapid Transit project are divided into the following categories: • Capital Costs: fixed one-time costs incurred during the implementation of the investment. The capital costs include the labour and materials required for construction; as well as contingency. Property acquisition costs are excluded from the economic analysis. • Fleet: initial cost to procure fleet to operate the service. Fleet cost growth per year is assumed as 0%. Assumed changes in fleet requirements for each option are as follows: o Option 1 LRT: McMaster to Dundurn: . 4 additional light rail vehicle train sets to operate the LRT . reduction of 2 standard buses from HSR fleet requirements

o Option 2 B-Line BRT: . 29 articulated buses to operate the BRT . reduction of 12 standard buses from HSR fleet requirements o Option 3 B-Line BRT + A-Line Transit Priority: . 36 articulated buses to operate the BRT . reduction of 25 standard buses from HSR fleet requirements • Rehabilitation Costs: Rehabilitations to restore infrastructure to ensure operational conditionals throughout the project’s lifecycle are assumed as follows: o Option 1 LRT: McMaster to Dundurn:

Periodic Rehab & Refurbishment Unit Costs Year % of initial cost

Minor Rehab (track and bed) 7 2%

Major Rehab (track and bed) 25 10%

Full Rebuild 50 80%

Traction Power/Supply LRT 25 25%

Stations 25 25%

Light Rail Vehicles (refurb) 10 15%

Light Rail Vehicles (replace) 30 100%

Maintenance Facility 30 30%

o Option 2 B-Line BRT and Option 3 B-Line BRT + A-Line Transit Priority

Periodic Rehab & Refurbishment Unit Costs Year % of initial cost

Minor rehab BRT running way 7 5%

Major rehab BRT running way 20 10%

Full Rebuild 50 80%

Stations 25 25%

BRT vehicles (refurb) 7 12%

BRT vehicles (replace) 12 100%

Maintenance Facility 30 30%

• Operating and Maintenance Costs: ongoing costs required to operate the service, and provide day to day maintenance based on the LRT / bus service hours and LRT / bus service kilometres.

The capital, operating, maintenance and rehabilitation costs for the entire lifecycle of the Hamilton Rapid Transit project investment are listed in Table 22. These costs are incremental to the BAU scenario and have been discounted based on the approach defined earlier in this chapter. Metrolinx has applied a standardized approach to account for uncertainty in project costing. This approach applied to all projects with adjustment to recognize the nature of the project and where it stands in the design development process. All cost estimates, including fleet, include contingency of 20% for Options 1 and 2, and a range of 20% to 30% for option 3 (applied according to design stage) to cover unknown risk events. The capital costs include consideration of optimism bias. Optimism bias is the tendency of individuals to expect better than average outcomes. In the context of infrastructure projects, optimism bias can lead to underestimation of costs and project duration. This Benefits report includes an uplift to the expected value of capital costs in order to balance optimism bias. The uplift associated with optimism bias decreases as the level of design of the project increases (i.e. reduces in future iterations of the work). Since the options considered in this report have been advanced to various levels of design development, a different optimism bias has been applied to each option. The previous Hamilton LRT project had reached the procurement phase and had completed a preliminary design to support the procurement process. These designs and associated cost estimates were used to develop the cost estimate for Option 1 LRT. A 9% optimism bias, corresponding with a 21- 30% design development, was applied to this option. Both BRT options considered in this report have not advanced to the same level of design development as the previous Hamilton LRT; however, the previous LRT designs provide significant information on the corridor to support cost estimates for the BRT option. This includes information on utility and property impacts that would not be typically available at the conceptual design phase. Therefore, an 18% optimism bias, corresponding with an 11-20% design development was applied to both BRT options. Operating and maintenance costs do not carry any optimism bias. Exclusions from the analysis: • Property costs are excluded from the economic analysis, and as such, do not require rehabilitation • Transit-Oriented Communities are not reflected outside the growth assumptions in the land use model in the costs or benefits.

Table 22: Economic Costs ($2020, present value)14

Option 1 LRT: Option 3 B-Line BRT + Input Option 2 B-Line BRT McMaster to Dundurn A-Line Transit Priority

Capital Costs $676.5M to $717.8M $647.6M to $723.8M $655.5M to $712.6M

Infrastructure $598.5M to $639.5M $567.3M to $642.5M $568.7M to $625.1M

Fleet15 $45.1M to $51.4M $54.7M to $63.6M $55.6M to $66.2M

Rehabilitation $34.4M $29.5M $35.9M

Terminal Value -$4.6M -$7.6M -$9.5M

Operating Costs $99.3M $167.1M $118.0M

Total Present Value of Costs16 $775.7M to $817.1M $814.7M to $890.8M $773.5M to $830.6M

User Impacts User Impacts are a key area of analysis for transport investments. They capture how the investment will improve the welfare of transport network users or travelers. This includes both Hamilton Rapid Transit project riders and all other transportation network users since both groups benefit from travelers switching to transit from other modes. The modelling runs indicate impact of the investment on users of the transportation network, including its effects on: • Existing Passengers • New Passengers • Auto Users The analysis includes the impacts on transit travel times as a result of changes in the transit service, as well as the impacts on road users as a result of the proposed lane reductions. In the case of the Hamilton rapid transit project, all options will result in significant congestion disbenefits as a result of the reduction in road capacity. All user impacts included in this analysis, which is summarized in Table 23, are “net impacts” across the investment, that is, the sum of benefits and disbenefits to users.

14 The range displayed for capital costs represent the variability in the sum of the infrastructure, fleet, rehabilitation costs and terminal value (i.e. the range of capital costs are not a simple sum of the ranges, but rather is the 80% confidence interval of the capital costs, which is a variable that is dependent on infrastructure, fleet, rehabilitation costs and terminal value). 15 Includes costs of new light rail vehicles (if applicable), as well as capital costs of bus fleet requirements relative to the BAU 16 Cost estimates reflect a range representing low to high forecasts to account for optimism bias at the early stages of project design, 80% confidence intervals are presented

Table 23: User Impacts (2020$, present value)

Option 1 LRT: Option 3 B-Line BRT + User Type Impact Type Option 2 B-Line BRT McMaster to Dundurn A-Line Transit Priority

Travel Time Benefits -$467.6M $359.1M $377.4 Transit Crowding Impacts -$11.6M $80.7M $120.9M

Congestion Reduction -$303.0M -$249.1M -$313.3M Automobile Operating Cost Reduction -$4.9M -$19.8M -$7.8M

External Impacts The Hamilton Rapid Transit project would also generate external (also known as ‘societal’) impacts based on well-being and environmental impacts. The benefit categories are health, safety (accident reductions on the road network) and environmental greenhouse gas emission reductions. External impacts are estimated through the mode changes generated by the proposed investment. If travelers move from another mode to the Hamilton Rapid Transit corridors (B-Line and A-Line) in each option there is an impact equivalent to the externalities per trip on the new Hamilton Rapid Transit options, minus the externalities on their previously used mode. All options reduce road capacity in Hamilton, which increases congestion and results in some auto users choosing more circuitous routes to avoid congested areas, which increases vehicle kilometres travelled and associated negative externalities. Table 23 summarizes the health and safety benefits and environmental benefits are calculated based on the change in automobile Vehicle Kilometres Travelled (VKT). Table 24: External Impacts (2020$, present value)

Option 1 LRT: Option 3 B-Line BRT + User Type Impact Type Option 2 B-Line BRT McMaster to Dundurn A-Line Transit Priority

Health & Safety Accident Reduction -$1.8M -$6.3M -$2.4M

Environment Greenhouse Gas -$0.8M -$3.4M -$1.3M Emissions Reduction

Economic Case Summary Option 1 LRT McMaster to Dundurn results in negative net benefits in economic terms, relative to the BAU scenario, which indicates that the disbenefits generated by the program outweigh any benefits generated. Both BRT options result in positive net benefits that do not outweigh the costs of the program. Option 1 LRT McMaster to Dundurn generates a net increase in transit travel times due to the short length of the LRT alignment, which forces a transfer for passengers travelling east of Dundurn Street

and provides less utility relative to the bus service that it would replace. Both BRT options generate transit travel time benefits and crowding / reliability benefits for transit users as a result of the higher level transit service provided in the City of Hamilton All options result in significant congestion disbenefits due to proposed lane closures, and their impact on the local road network and congestion. Option 1 LRT McMaster to Dundurn and Option 2 B-Line BRT both remove two lanes from King Street, which significantly reduces westbound traffic capacity. Option 3 B-Line BRT + A-Line Transit Priority, which removes one lane from King Street and Main Street, mitigates the east-west traffic impacts; however, the option converts James Mountain Road to a transit- only roadway, which results in congestion on north-south routes. It should be noted, however, that the GGHM is a macro-level transportation demand model focused on the morning peak period, and may overstate the congestion impacts of the project. Figure 35, Figure 36, and Figure 37 summarize the economic impacts of each option, and illustrate the major drivers of the economic impact analysis. Figure 35: Option 1 LRT: McMaster to Dundurn Economic Impacts

$0.0 M

-$250.0 M

-$789.7 M -$500.0 M 59.2% of 1.5% of disbenefits disbenefits -$750.0 M

38.4% of 0.6% of 0.2% of 0.1% of disbenefits disbenefits -$1,000.0 M disbenefits disbenefits Travel Time Crowding Congestion Auto Accident GHG Total Impacts Benefits Benefits Reduction Operating Cost Reduction Reductions

Figure 36: Option 2 B-Line BRT Economic Impacts

$750.0 M

18.3% of 89.4% of $500.0 M 81.7% of benefits disbenefits benefits

7.1% of 2.3% of 1.2% of disbenefits $250.0 M disbenefits disbenefits

$161.2 M $0.0 M Travel Time Crowding Congestion Auto Accident GHG Total Impacts Benefits Benefits Reduction Operating Cost Reduction Reductions

Figure 37: Option 3 B-Line BRT + A-Line Transit Priority Economic Impacts

$750.0 M

24.3% of 96.5% of benefits disbenefits $500.0 M 75.7% of benefits

2.4% of 0.7% of 0.4% of $250.0 M disbenefits disbenefits disbenefits

$173.5 M $0.0 M Travel Time Crowding Congestion Auto Accident GHG Total Impacts Benefits Benefits Reduction Operating Cost Reduction Reductions

Table 24 summarizes the option’s costs and benefits and their overall performance through the Benefit Cost Ratio and the Net Present Value calculation. Table 25: Economic Case Summary (2020$, present value)

Option 1 LRT: McMaster Option 3 B-Line BRT + A- Impact Type Option 2 B-Line BRT to Dundurn Line Transit Priority

Total Costs $775.7M to $817.1M $814.7M to $890.8M $773.5M to $830.6M

Capital Costs $642.0M to $683.4M $618.2M to $694.3M $619.6M to $676.7M

Rehabilitation Costs $34.4M $29.5M $35.9M

Operating and Maintenance $99.3M $167.1M $118.0M Costs

Total Impacts -$789.7M $161.2M $173.5M

User Impacts -$787.1M $170.9 $177.2M

External Impacts -$2.6M -$9.7M -$3.7M

Fare Revenue Adjustment $70.7M $144.4M $165.9M

Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR) All Loss 0.34 to 0.38 0.41 to 0.44

Expected BCR All Loss 0.36 0.42

Net Present Value -$1,536.1M to -$1,494.8M -$585.2M to -$509.1M -$491.1M to -$434.1M

Benefit-Cost Ratio Floor The BAU scenario used for this analysis represents current bus service in Hamilton; however it is anticipated that bus service levels can be increased independent of significant investment in dedicated BRT infrastructure. Table 26Table 25 shows the BCR for each of the BRT project options excluding the wait time benefit and the crowding and reliability benefit, assuming that those benefits can be achieved by optimising the BAU scenario. Due to the performance of the LRT, the absolute floor for the BCR is undetermined. The BCR floor figures do not include the portion of operating costs and bus fleet costs that can be attributed optimizations of the BAU service levels, and would improve if those are properly attributed to the BAU scenario. Table 26: Benefit-Cost Ratio Floor

Option 1 LRT: McMaster Option 3 B-Line BRT + A- Impact Type Option 2 B-Line BRT to Dundurn Line Transit Priority

Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR) Undetermined 0.18 to 0.19 0.21 to 0.22

Expected BCR Undetermined 0.19 0.22

Potential Future Analysis There are opportunities to further optimize the program to reduce costs and deliver greater benefits. These can be investigated through further project development and future analysis.

LRT Extension Options If additional capital funding is identified, updated analysis of an optimal LRT project in Hamilton should be completed. The LRT option was developed primarily based on the financial constraints, rather than transportation needs and planning priorities. In particular, the current LRT option only serves a single major ridership generator at McMaster University, and does not connect to any other notable destinations. If additional funding is available, an LRT option in Hamilton has the potential to provide greater benefits, relative to the results presented in this report. Additional funding would allow for the delivery of an LRT that connects two or more high ridership areas, expands the LRT ridership catchment area, and provides reliability, capacity and travel time improvements to more of the corridor.

Project Cost Optimization There are opportunities to further optimize and refine the option to reduce the economic costs of the program. One area of refinement is the attribution of costs between the BAU scenario and investment options. All options carry significant costs for works utilities and other municipal infrastructure along the rapid transit alignment, including reconstruction, rehabilitation and relocation of existing assets; as well as delivery of new assets. Due to the ongoing planning of the previous Hamilton LRT project, the City of

Hamilton has deferred capital work along the alignment in order to coordinate their works with LRT construction. Given the length of the deferral, it is likely that some renewal and rehabilitation works will still be required regardless of whether a rapid transit project proceeds on the corridor. The economic case, which considers the costs to society regardless of who pays, would typically include these costs in the BAU scenario. This would, in turn, reduce the incremental cost associated with each investment option. Attribution of these costs to the BAU would require additional information on the scope and timing of works that the City and other utility owners would complete if a rapid transit investment does not advance. In particular, the BRT options assumed utility costs are based on the designs in the RCD for the Hamilton LRT project. With the greater flexibility offered by bus transit, and the removal OCS infrastructure form the scope, there may be some overhead and underground utility relocations that are no longer required.

Road Network Modifications The transportation modelling included reductions in general purpose lanes in Hamilton in order to deliver dedicated transit right-of-ways. For Option 1 LRT: McMaster to Dundurn and Option 2 B-Line BRT, this involved removal of two westbound lanes on King Street, while eastbound lanes on Main Street were left intact. Previous traffic studies for the original Hamilton LRT project indicated that the greatest impact on traffic operations is on the west side of the network, due to the reduction of capacity on the westbound section of King Street between Downtown Hamilton and Dundurn Street. This results in a reassignment of traffic onto the York Boulevard westbound link, and the subsequent southbound route along Dundurn Street North, to reach the King Street/Dundurn Street intersection. The primary destination zones for this traffic are the University area and the residential areas to the west, such as Dundas and Greensville, as well as Highway 403 westbound. A portion of traffic bound for Highway 403 eastbound will divert to the York Boulevard access, moderating the increase in this pattern. Option 3 B-Line BRT + A-Line Transit Priority operates on a couplet alignment which mitigates the impact on westbound capacity; however, it introduces additional traffic impacts in the City through the conversion of James Mountain Road to a transit-only roadway. The traffic study for the original Hamilton LRT project considered a number of interventions to mitigate the traffic impacts of the project, such as changes in signal timing and two-way conversions of one-way roads in Downtown Hamilton. These mitigation measures have not been considered of the light of the changes in scope to the LRT and BRT options in this report. Further study through meso- and micro- level transportation models could identify and develop transportation network optimizations to reduce the congestion impacts as a result of any proposed rapid transit project.

Bus Network Modifications The economic analysis assumed adjustments to the local bus network to rationalize service along the corridor. BRT and LRT stops are typically spaced further apart compared to local bus services. Passengers that previously used local bus stops may have longer wait times or further walking distances

to access transit, and results in travel time disbenefits for these users. Further refinement of the local transit network could provide additional coverage for local bus stops, which could mitigate these disbenefits. Further realignment of the local transit network could also increase the number of routes that feed into the rapid transit service, or allow more local routes to make use of the dedicated right-of-way and transit priority measures provided through the BRT options. This could increase the attractiveness and travel time benefits provided by the investment.

Electric Bus Fleet This benefits report assumed the use of conventional bus technologies for the delivery of BRT services. There is an opportunity to consider the use of battery electric bus technologies to increase the benefits delivered by the program. Battery electric buses store power via an onboard battery to drive electric motors, rather than using a conventional diesel engine. Variations include models that exclusively charge overnight at the MSF, and those that utilize wireless on-route chargers to supplement the battery capacity and increase the operating range of the buses. The technology has begun rapid adoption by local transit agencies in Ontario, including the Toronto Transit Commission, Brampton Transit, York Region Transit, Oakville Transit, Guelph Transit and Grand River Transit. While these are typically for standard 40-foot variants, transit agencies in the United States have also begun rollout 60-foot articulated models to provide an option for high capacity electric bus operations. Electric buses typically require a larger initial capital investment, relative to conventional diesel buses. Capital costs for a 40-foot conventional diesel bus is approximately $620K each, whereas recent procurement of electric buses in Ontario was between $860K to $1.3M per bus. Implementation of electric bus technology in Hamilton will also include additional capital costs for charging facilities in the MSF and on-route, if applicable. Operating and maintenance costs for electric buses are generally less than a comparable diesel bus. A feasibility study commissioned by the Edmonton Transit System found estimated a 68% reduction in fuel costs and 42% reduction in maintenance costs. Over a 20-year evaluation period, the lifecycle costs of an electric bus fleet were found to be approximately equivalent to those of an equivalent diesel fleet. These results are dependent on local operations and conditions, such as assumed route length, service blocks and fuel / energy costs. Extending this to the standard 60-year evaluation period in the Metrolinx business case process would also need further consideration of rehabilitation and replacement costs for the fleet. With relatively recent adoption of electric bus technology in the North American context, there is limited information on service life and the cost of major rehabilitation works over the life of the bus. The costs of batteries have also substantially decreased in recent years. An annual report on battery prices has recorded a drop from over $1,100 per kilowatt-hour in 2010 to $156 per kilowatt-hour in 2019, with further decreases forecasted in the future through further technological innovation. This could lead to decrease in capital costs for electric buses, and the associated replacement costs during the 60-year evaluation period.

The feasibility, performance and cost benefits implications of electric buses will need to be further evaluated and assessed in the context of Hamilton’s local conditions. In particular, the operations on the A-Line will require buses to climb a significant gradient on James Mountain Road. Quantification of electric bus technology’s additional benefits is also underway. These could include: • Greater torque at low speeds, which improves acceleration rate • Reduced noise and air pollution, which provides benefits for passengers; pedestrians, cyclists and other road users; as well as properties along the ROW; • Reduced greenhouse gas emissions; in particular for options using overnight charging since nighttime power generation in Ontario is primarily from low-carbon sources, such as nuclear, hydro and wind.

Economic Parameters Sensitivity Tests The sensitivity tests are focused on uncertainties that have a substantial impact on the business case. The values of key economic parameters were varied to determine how the options would perform under different circumstances to reflect these uncertainties. The tests noted that none of the parameters tested impacted the range of outcomes significantly.

Table 27: Sensitivity Analysis

Option 1 LRT: Option 3 B-Line MX Tested Option 2 B-Line Parameter McMaster to BRT + A-Line Assumption Value BRT Dundurn Transit Priority

Using Standard Metrolinx -$1,536.1M to -$585.2M to -$491.1M to Assumptions (2020 Net Present -$1,494.8M -$509.1M -$434.1M

Value) EV: -$1,515.3M EV: -$547.5M EV: -$462.6M

Value of Time Growth Rate -$1,667.8M to -$551.6M to -$458.1M to A parameter used to escalate the -$1,623.8M -$476.4M -$398.9M Value of Time across the investment lifecycle. Value of Time is a factor EV: -$1,646.9M EV: -$512.8M EV: -$428.1M 0.0% 0.7% used to monetize changes in generalized time to determine the overall welfare benefit to transport network users.

Economic Discount Rate -$1,827.4M to -$602.2M to -$477.4M to Over time, the value of a cost or -$1,781.4M -$518.8M -$411.7M benefit will decrease – as a result, an economic discount rate is 3.5% 2.5% EV: -$1,804.6M EV: -$558.5M EV: -$444.1M applied. The economic discount rate reflects society’s time preference for money.

Ridership Growth Rate -$1,540.9M to -$587.7M to -$497.5M to A parameter used to escalate -$1,500.0M -$511.3M -$439.5M 0% ridership throughout the investment lifecycle EV: -$1,520.7M EV: -$550.5M EV: -$467.4M 1.3% -$1,535.1M to -$578.6M to -$486.9M to -$1,494.0M -$507.8M -$428.0M 2%

EV: -$1,515.2M EV: -$543.0M EV: -$456.3M

Operating Cost Growth Rate -$1,514.4M to -$552.4M to -$468.7M to A parameter used to escalate -$1,475.9M -$474.2M -$406.7M 0% operating costs throughout the investment lifecycle. EV: -$1,496.4M EV: -$513.2M EV: -$437.9M 1% -$1,589.9M to -$683.1M to -$563.5M to -$1,550.2M -$613.4M -$505.9M 3%

EV: -$1,569.9M EV: -$647.2M EV: -$534.7M

6 Financial Case

Introduction The Financial Case assesses the overall financial impact of proposed investment options. While the Strategic Case and Economic Case outline how an investment achieves organizational goals and social value, the Financial Case is one of two cases (the other being the Deliverability and Operations Case) that focuses on the requirements to successfully deliver an investment. This includes a review of total revenue (fares) gained and expenditures (capital, operating and maintenance) required over the lifecycle of the investment incremental to the base case scenario. The Financial Case is agnostic with regard to procurement and delivery method but cost estimates are prepared based on a traditional design-bid-build approach. As previously noted, the Financial Case analysis was conducted based on the representative alignment and modelling scenarios outlined in the Investment Options chapter and reviewed in the Strategic and Economic Cases Table 28 sets out the assumptions used in this Financial Case. Table 28: Financial Case Assumptions

Parameter Value

Discount Rate 5.5% (nominal)

Inflation Rate 2%

Capital Costs The capital cost of building and delivering the proposed investment options forms the largest component of overall project costs. Estimates of probable capital costs were estimated in 2020$ (see Table 29). They include an allowance for property acquisition, as well as a professional services allowance to account for the completion of designs, procurement activities and support activities during construction. Cost estimates were developed by IBI Group Inc. and are considered Class 5 estimates. Cost estimates reflect contingency to cover unknown risk events as follows: • Option 1 LRT: McMaster to Dundurn: 20% contingency on all cost elements • Option 2 B-Line BRT: 20% contingency on all cost elements • Option 3 B-Line BRT + A-Line Transit Priority: 20% contingency on for works on King Street as well as property, vehicle and professional services costs; and a 30% contingency on for works on Main Street and the A-Line corridor due to the greater uncertainty around existing conditions. The capital costs also include incremental fleet costs for each option. This includes fleet required to operate the new service, as well as any incremental changes to the conventional transit network relative to the BAU scenario.

Table 29: Capital Cost in Financial Terms (present value, discounted)

Option 1 LRT: Option 3 B-Line BRT + Line Item Option 2 B-Line BRT McMaster to Dundurn A-Line Transit Priority

Infrastructure $652.0M $640.1M $619.8M

Guideway $31.4M $30.7M $40.2M

Stations, Stops, Terminals, Intermodals $14.8M $28.2M $44.8M

Support Facilities: Yards, Shops and $86.1M $9.7M $11.9M Admin Buildings

Site Work and Special Conditions $97.2M $43.9M $58.0M

Utility Costs $80.3M $178.6 $112.0M

Systems $69.4M $54.6M $66.3M

ROW, Land and Existing Improvements $40.3M $45.8M $48.3M

Property Acquisition Cost to date (Aug $28.2M $41.3M $33.6M 2020)

Professional Services $89.1M $88.2M $85.0M

Contingency $101.7M $95.9M $102.7M

Early Works $0.0M $9.7M $3.5M

Tax $13.3M $13.7M $13.6M

Fleet $48.2M $47.2M $46.4M

Rehabilitation $70.3M $63.3M $78.7M

Terminal Value -$3.9M -$6.4M -$8.1M

Total Capital Costs $766.6M $744.3M $736.9M

Table 30: Capital Cost in Financial Terms (year of expenditure, undiscounted)

Option 1 LRT: Option 3 B-Line BRT + Line Item Option 2 B-Line BRT McMaster to Dundurn A-Line Transit Priority

Infrastructure $807.8M $912.5M $889.9M

Fleet $122.5M $138.5M $100.7M

Rehab $582.6M $608.7M $590.7M

Terminal Value -$261.3M -$310.6M -$314.0M

Total Capital Costs $1,251.5M $1,349.3M $1,267.3M

Operating and Maintenance Costs The operation and maintenance of the Hamilton Rapid Transit options was assessed against the BAU scenario. Option 1 LRT: McMaster to Dundurn calculated LRT operating costs based on additional service kilometres and additional service hours. In addition, for all options, the incremental bus operating costs were calculated using the bus service kilometres and bus service hours output from the GGHMv4 model. Table 31: Operating and Maintenance Costs in Financial Terms (present value, discounted)

Option 1 LRT: McMaster Option 3 B-Line BRT + A- Line Item Option 2 B-Line BRT to Dundurn Line Transit Priority

LRT Operating Impacts $136.8M $0.0M $0.0M

Bus Operating Impacts -$35.2M $170.3M $120.3M

Total Operating Costs $101.6M $170.3M $120.3M

Table 32: Operating and Maintenance Costs in Financial Terms (year of expenditure, undiscounted)

Option 1 LRT: McMaster Option 3 B-Line BRT + A- Line Item Option 2 B-Line BRT to Dundurn Line Transit Priority

LRT Operating Impacts $825.3M $0.0M $0.0M

Bus Operating Impacts -$215.9M $1,193.5M $886.7M

Total Operating Costs $609.4M $1,193.5M $886.7M

100

Revenue Impacts Revenue impacts quantified in Table 33 are derived from the transportation demand model used to estimate ridership. Revenue impacts include revenue resulting from changes in fare paid and number of trips taken. Revenue impacts assume current fare structures with a 0% real growth rate in fares. Table 33: Revenue Impacts in Financial Terms (present value, discounted)

Option 1 LRT: McMaster Option 3 B-Line BRT + A- Line Item Option 2 B-Line BRT to Dundurn Line Transit Priority

Incremental Fare Revenue $58.8M $110.3M $124.6M

Financial Case Summary All options are forecasted to generate additional ridership and fare revenue relative to the BAU scenario; however, due to the project costs, the overall financial net present value is negative for all options. Under Option 1 LRT McMaster to Dundurn and Option 2 B-Line BRT, the incremental fare revenue does not outweigh the incremental operating cost for the transit network, and the system is expected to require additional annual subsidies. Under Option 3 B-Line BRT + A-Line Transit Priority, the incremental revenue slightly exceeds the additional operational and maintenance costs, resulting in an annual operating surplus for the project. The surplus is not sufficient to pay back the capital costs of the program. Table 34 provides a summary of the overall financial impact of the investment. Table 34: Financial Case Summary (present value, discounted)

Option 1 LRT: McMaster Option 3 B-Line BRT + A- Line Item Option 2 B-Line BRT to Dundurn Line Transit Priority

Total Revenue Impacts $58.8M $110.3M $124.6M

Total Capital Costs $766.6M $744.3M $736.9M

Total Operating and Maintenance $101.6M $170.3M $120.3M Costs

Total Costs $868.3M $914.6M $857.2M

Net Present Value (NPV) -$809.5M -$804.3M -$732.6M

Incremental Network Cost Recovery 0.07 0.12 0.15 Ratio (R/C Ratio)

101

7 Deliverability and Operations Case

Introduction The Deliverability and Operations Case is an analysis of investment delivery, operations and maintenance, service plans and any other issues required for the realization of an option. This includes delivering the project from original concept through planning, design, environmental assessment, stakeholder engagement, procurement, construction and operations. The Deliverability and Operations Case is one of two cases focused on requirements for delivering the investment.

Delivery Requirements and Constraints Environmental Assessment The Hamilton LRT project was previously assessed through the B-Line LRT Environmental Project Report (EPR), completed in 2011. An EPR Addendum was completed in 2017, which updated the project approvals to account for changes in the scope. Any proposed works that were not considered in these reports may require further environmental reviews and approvals, due diligence studies, and public consultations prior to construction. Option 1 LRT McMaster to Dundurn assumes the delivery of a truncated version of the Hamilton LRT. The scope and design will remain the same between McMaster University and Dundurn. Therefore, this option is not expected to require new environmental assessment approvals. Since construction is not anticipated to begin within 10 years of initial approval in 2011, a gap analysis will be conducted to identify if there are any changes to the existing environmental conditions, and if further study is required. In addition, due diligence studies and environmental permitting may need to be completed or updated prior to construction. Option 2 B-Line BRT proposes the delivery of curbside BRT infrastructure along the King Street corridor. The change in transit technology, as well as the shift from centre-running to curbside transit infrastructure may trigger the need for further environmental assessment reviews. These include changes in the project footprint, and the associated impacts on the natural environment, archaeology and cultural heritage; as well as air quality, noise and vibration, traffic, socio-economic and land use impacts. These reviews are expected to be carried out through an Addendum to the existing EPR. Option 3 B-Line BRT + A-Line Transit Priority will deliver dedicated BRT infrastructure on both King Street and Main Street, as well as transit priority measures on the A-line corridor. Main Street and the A- line have not been studied in any previous environmental assessments. Major infrastructure changes on these corridors are expected to require additional assessment, consultation, and review through the Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP). While a TPAP is assumed for all improvements under this option, there is a potential for some works to be separately assessed through a Municipal Schedule “A+” assessment, such as intersection improvements for Transit Priority Measures on the A-line. The cost and schedule impacts of this approach will be further explored as project development advances.

Properties The B-Line corridor traverses a built-up urban environment with a narrow right-of-way. Property acquisitions are required to provide sufficient space for the footprint of the proposed rapid transit investment, particularly within the station areas.

103

The property impacts of Option 1 LRT McMaster to Dundurn are assumed to remain consistent with the requirements of the Hamilton LRT project between McMaster University and Dundurn Street. As the project advances, further review is required to determine if there are further property impacts associated with terminating the service at Dundurn. Option 2 B-Line BRT will deliver BRT infrastructure within the B-line corridor. An equivalent centre- running BRT system requires a slightly larger footprint compared to an LRT system, especially at stations. Therefore, Option 2 B-Line BRT proposes to deliver curbside BRT on the corridor in order to mitigate property impacts. Based on conceptual plans for the corridor, the curbside BRT is expected to require less property acquisitions compared to the previous Hamilton LRT design. Property acquisitions are typically required at stations, where additional right-of-way is required to provide station facilities and enhanced streetscaping. Option 3 B-Line BRT + A-Line Transit Priority proposes to operate a couplet through downtown Hamilton on both King Street and Main Street. This option will have similar property requirements relative to Option 2 B-Line BRT; however, impacts will be divided between both corridors. Option 3 B- Line BRT + A-Line Transit Priority also includes some road widening on the A-line corridor for queue jump lanes at intersections. These works are proposed at suburban intersections, where the right-of- way is expected to have sufficient width to accommodate this infrastructure without additional property acquisitions.

Utilities The Hamilton LRT project included the replacement and relocation of private and public utilities. Utilities would be moved away from the guideway of the LRT in order to minimize the risk of service disruption as a result future works by the City of Hamilton and other utility owners. Completing utility relocations and rapid transit infrastructure through one construction project also reduces the overall disruption to traffic as a result of construction. Option 1 LRT McMaster to Dundurn will continue this approach and complete proposed utility works between McMaster University and Dundurn. Similar to LRT, BRT systems typically relocate utilities away from dedicated bus lanes to mitigate the risk of disruptions to bus service. In contrast to LRT however, buses have the option to divert onto other roadways or operate on general traffic lanes if needed. Therefore, there are opportunities to reduce initial capital costs by only relocating utilities in critical portions of the network, such as station areas. During future works that require closure of the BRT lanes, the service can divert onto alternate lanes or roadways, though this would result in a temporary reduction in the quality of transit service. Option 2 B-Line BRT aims to deliver the highest feasible level of service on the B-line corridor. Similar to LRT, this option will relocate utilities out of the BRT lanes between Dundurn Street and Parkdale Avenue. Utilities will remain in place for segments that only have transit priority measures or mixed traffic operations. Option 3 B-Line BRT + A-Line Transit Priority seeks to maximize the coverage of BRT infrastructure for the City of Hamilton, but will deliver a lower level of service on the B-line corridor. This option proposes to only relocate utilities within the station areas on King Street and Main Street between Dundurn Street and Ottawa Street. Utilities will remain in place for all other segments of the B-line and A-line corridors.

104

Roads and Traffic All options will involve road and transit service closures / disruptions to accommodate construction works. Each option will require a detailed construction staging and traffic management plan to reduce the impacts, provide access for local and emergency vehicles to all buildings along the alignment, and carry out construction on schedule. Option 1 LRT McMaster to Dundurn will require road closures and construction staging throughout construction. The structural work on Longwood bridge and the construction of the Hwy 403 flyover will generate the most substantial impacts. Longwood Road will be closed during the reconstruction of the bridge, creating disruptions to GO bus and local transit service and local traffic flow. Designated detour routes will be used to redirect transit and traffic in the area. The Longwood bridge work and the construction of the flyover may also have impacts on Hwy 403 traffic with potential lane reductions or construction staging required around the on and off ramps along Main Street and King Street. During construction of the LRT guideway along Main Street, the width or number of lanes will be reduced to accommodate for general construction and areas with intersecting utilities, typically at intersections. Under Option 2 B-Line BRT, construction of dedicated BRT lanes from Dundurn Street to Parkdale Avenue on King Street will require redirecting traffic and transit services to designated detour routes. A traffic management plan will consider the construction schedule and methods to minimize impacts to local traffic and transit service. The plan will also focus on maintaining access to businesses along the corridor. In constrained areas, such as around Holton Avenue, the road may need to be closed to all traffic and transit services to accommodate for road reconstruction. The couplet alignment for Option 3 B-Line BRT + A-Line Transit Priority will provide opportunities to better manage traffic and transit flow through the corridor compared to Option 2 B-Line BRT. Designated detour routes will be utilized when required to support the implementation of BRT lanes on King Street and Main Street. The traffic management plan will focus on maintaining access to businesses along the corridor and provide staging approaches for constrained areas along the corridor.

Operating Requirements Roles and Responsibilities The options considered in this Benefits Report assume that the City of Hamilton will be responsible for the operation and maintenance of new rapid transit infrastructure. The City has extensive experience operating bus transit services through Hamilton Street Railway, but would need new specialized facilities, equipment, systems and expertise to assume operations of an LRT system. The LRT option may require the project to adopt a procurement method that includes operating and maintenance responsibilities, or the procurement of a separate third party operator following the completion of the infrastructure works. Costs required for other procurement methods, such as financing costs or operating and maintenance costs, have not been included the $1 billion capital funding envelope assumed in the options development process. This Benefits Report maintains the HTTF recommendation for further refinement of the operating and maintenance responsibilities and associated costs as the project advances.

105

Fleet Option 1 LRT McMaster to Dundurn will operate the service using new light rail vehicles. The shorter alignment will only require four light rail vehicles to operate the service at the proposed frequencies. The BRT options assume operations using 60-foot articulated diesel buses. The proposed service levels Option 2 B-Line BRT will require 29 buses to operate, while the service levels under Option 3 B-Line BRT + A-Line Transit Priority will require 36 buses to operate. The costs to procure new vehicles are considered as part of the funding envelope constraint. For all options, parallel HSR bus routes are assumed to be rationalized once rapid transit service in place, which results in a reduction in HSR bus fleet requirements relative to the BAU scenario. Cost savings from these reduced requirements are included in the economic and financial analysis, but not in the funding envelope constraint. There is also an opportunity to consider the use of electric buses. Local transit agencies in the GGH have begun to adopt the technology, including the Toronto Transit Commission, Oakville Transit and Guelph Transit. Electric buses typically require a larger initial capital investment but provide savings through reduced maintenance and energy costs. Findings from a study commissioned by the Edmonton Transit System found that that the overall lifecycle costs of electric buses can be equivalent to diesel buses. They also generate additional benefits including improved acceleration, reduced noise and lower air pollution and carbon emissions. The fleet choice will be further reviewed if the BRT options advance for further development.

Fleet Maintenance and Storage Facilities Option 1 LRT McMaster to Dundurn continues to assume the delivery of an OMSF at the proposed site near Chatham Street and Frid Street, including a new Highway 403 crossing to allow trains to access the site. While the truncated route will require a significantly smaller fleet relative to the original Hamilton LRT project, the facility will still need to house all equipment needed to maintain and operate the vehicles. The capacity of the facility has been scaled down to reflect the reduced scope, but the programming of the facility will need to be further reviewed in further detail to confirm the size of the OMSF. The BRT options assume the operation of BRT services, with fleet and systems that are fully compatible with HSR’s current operations. These options assume that the BRT fleet will be stored and maintained at the City of Hamilton’s proposed bus maintenance and storage facility, located on Birch Street between Rosemary Avenue and Brant Street in downtown Hamilton. The facility is designed for an initial capacity of 200 buses, and can be expanded to accommodate an additional 100 buses in the future. The facility also includes provisions for future conversion to an electric bus fleet. These options assume that the Downtown Hamilton Bus Maintenance and Storage Facility is available and has sufficient capacity to accommodate BRT service. Costs are carried to expand the facility to accommodate the additional buses. The capacity will be further reviewed, in conjunction with potential rationalizations of parallel HSR bus routes, as the project advances. If the facility does not have sufficient capacity even with the expansion or if the facility is not delivered by the City of Hamilton, then a new bus maintenance and storage facility will need to be delivered at additional cost.

106

Transit Terminals None of the options identified will involve the delivery of a new transit terminal. Under Option 1 LRT McMaster to Dundurn, the LRT will operate alongside parallel bus services that will continue to provide one-seat rides to major origin-destination pairs outside the LRT alignment. Transfers between LRT and the HSR bus network will be facilitated by on-street bus stops in the vicinity of the LRT stations. Both BRT options will operate a BRT service that will replace and enhance current B-line express bus operations. The bus service will primarily operate between the B-line’s current termini at University Plaza in the west and Eastgate Square in the east. Option 3 B-Line BRT + A-Line Transit Priority also includes service on the A-line corridor that will make use of existing transit terminal facilities at Lime Ridge Mall and Hamilton Airport in the south, and an on-street loop in the north.

Other Ancillary Infrastructure The Hamilton LRT project included the delivery of new systems and ancillary facilities to support the operation of LRT in the City of Hamilton. • Track maintenance equipment and associated facilities; • Traction power substations and overhead catenary systems; and • Train control and communications systems. This infrastructure is assumed to be required for Option 1 LRT McMaster to Dundurn, despite the shorter length of the LRT. Similar to the maintenance and storage facility requirements, there are potential savings that can be achieved by reducing the scale and capacity of the infrastructure. For the BRT options, communications, transit control and intelligent transportation systems are assumed to be operated out of HSR’s existing facilities, while new transit priority signals and the dedicated bus lanes are assumed to operated and maintained through the City of Hamilton’s existing road and traffic operations.

Interfaces with Traffic LRT under Option 1 operates in a semi-dedicated right-of-way. The service only interfaces with general traffic at signalized intersections, in particular, conflicting movements from cross street and left turn traffic. Combined with transit signal priority to optimize LRT movements through intersections, this option can provide a highly reliable service that is unaffected by road congestion. The BRT options provide dedicated curbside BRT lanes through the most congested parts of the B-line corridor. The curbside lanes also provide a semi-dedicated right-of-way, however, this configuration results in greater interfaces and points of conflict with general traffic on the corridor. In particular, these lanes would be occupied by right-turn traffic at signalized and unsignalized intersections, as well as property accesses. On less congested portions of the network, only transit priority measures at intersections are proposed. This includes transit priority signals and queue jump lanes that allow transit services to bypass congestion near signalized intersections. Between intersections, the buses will operate in mixed traffic.

107

Procurement Options The information presented in this report is based on a Design-Bid-Build delivery method for all options identified. Future phases of project development will examine how the preferred project option should be procured and delivered. The analysis of the various procurement options will identify the optimal procurement strategy to ensure the timely implementation of the preferred project option. The procurement options analysis typically considers traditional (e.g. design-build, design-bid-build), collaborative (integrated project delivery / alliance) and public private partnership (P3) delivery models (e.g. design-build-finance, design-build-finance-(operate)-maintain) against key project objectives and constraints to recommend the optimal model for approval. In the review, tolerances for factors such as schedule, complexity, cost certainty, scope flexibility, integration and risk transfer are tested to create a profile against which models are assessed. Traditional models can be faster to procure, but typically achieve delayed or reduced cost certainty with greater Owner risk retention than a P3. P3 models prioritize scope integration, construction schedule and price certainty balanced with reduced scope flexibility and capacity for innovation. Collaborative models suit highly complex projects where scope, cost and schedule uncertainty can be resolved over time, but require an elongated procurement schedule. The procurement model recommendation for the project will derive from a qualitative assessment of these and other project-specific factors.

Delivery Timelines High level timelines were developed for the delivery of each option based on information from the Hamilton LRT project and comparable BRT projects in the GTHA and the rest of Ontario. Timelines for the LRT option assume a reduction of the previous Hamilton LRT project schedule to reflect the truncated alignment, while still maintaining sufficient time for items with fixed timescales such as the OMSF, testing and commissioning. Timelines for BRT options were developed by benchmarking against other BRT projects undertaken in Ontario. All timelines assumed a design-bid-build delivery model, with project approval in late 2020 and the start of project development in 2021. Timelines are subdivided into the lead time to the start of construction, which includes the time required to complete due diligence studies and designs, obtain approvals and permits, and carry out the procurement process for a constructor. This is followed by the construction period, during which, physical works will be completed on the corridor. These timelines, especially for the BRT options which have not undergone preliminary design, will be further refined as project development advances. Delivery timelines are subject to change as the project advances. Potential sources of delay include: • requirements for further study identified through the gap analysis or approvals process, • delayed receipt of required permits and agreements for construction; • discovery of unexpected ground conditions or soil contamination, previously unidentified environmentally sensitive areas or species, unknown utilities, or other conditions requiring further assessments or mitigations; • excessive construction impact on the local community, such as dust, noise or traffic, requiring a change to the construction schedule or methodology; and • market conditions, including construction resources and labour market capacity Table 34 summarizes the delivery timelines for each option.

108

Table 35: Delivery Timelines

Option 1 LRT: Option 3 B-Line BRT + A-Line Transit Priority Option 2 B-Line Schedule Items McMaster to BRT Dundurn B-Line A-Line

Lead Time to Start of Construction 2 years 4 years 5 years 2 years

Construction Period 3 years 4 years 4 years 2 years

Total Time to Completion 5 years 8 years 9 years

The HTTF recommended advancing options that can reach contract award or begin construction by 2022. The LRT option could meet this timeline if approvals are received in a timely manner, and there is limited requirement for new due diligence studies or redesigns. While Option 1 only includes a short segment of LRT, there are several items with long construction times that cannot be reduced, including major structures over Highway 403, the new maintenance facility and the testing and commissioning the new system. Delays in these tasks or significant rework of the previous Hamilton LRT designs or studies could push the start of construction beyond 2022. Both BRT options are expected to require longer lead time to complete preliminary and detailed designs and obtain new EA approvals. In particular, Option 3 includes work on Main Street and the A-line corridor that have not been studied in detail. Additional lead time is required to complete investigations and due diligence studies on these corridors, as well as complete the TPAP for these works. These times to construction assume all works are carried out under a single large contract. There may be opportunities to carry out some tasks as early works that would allow significant work to advance on the BRT program within the 2022 timeframe recommended by HTTF. This includes: • Utility relocations and replacements; • Site clearing and remediation; and / or • Implementation of transit priority measures in sections without dedicated BRT lanes. It should be noted that while the BRT options have a longer timeline to full project completion, buses provide greater flexibility to phase in operations on the BRT infrastructure as sections are completed. Service improvements and benefits accrual could begin in advance of full completion of the project.

Conclusion All options are expected to be technically feasible, but face challenges in their delivery and operation. The LRT option’s main challenges lie in the operations, due to the limited expertise in the City of Hamilton to operate an LRT system and the specialized facilities, equipment and systems that will be required for operations. The BRT options are challenging to deliver within the timescale recommended by the HTTF. These options will require new approvals, designs and due diligence work prior to construction. While some of this could be mitigated by advancing early works, the full in-service date for both BRT options is expected to be significantly later than the LRT option. Table 36 provides a summary of the deliverability and operations considerations for all options.

109

Table 36: Deliverability and Operations Case Summary

Option 1 LRT: McMaster to Option 3 B-Line BRT + A-Line Option 2 B-Line BRT Dundurn Transit Priority

Delivery Requirements and Constraints

EA No additional EA approvals EPR Addendum due to the New TPAP due to new linear Approvals anticipated change in technology and design infrastructure on Main St corridor

Properties Property acquisitions between Property acquisitions along King Property acquisitions along both McMaster and Dundurn as per St, where dedicated BRT lanes are King St and Main St, where Hamilton LRT RCD proposed dedicated BRT lanes are proposed

Utilities Relocation of utilities within the Relocation of utilities within Relocation of utilities in station LRT guideway; low risk of impact dedicated BRT lanes; low risk of areas only; high risk of impact from future works impact from future works from future works

Roads and Road closures during construction Road closures during construction Road closures during construction, Traffic potential mitigation through Downtown couplet alignment

Operating Requirements and Impacts

Fleet 4 light rail vehicles required for 29 articulated buses required for 36 articulated buses required for service, and reduction of 2 buses service, and reduction of 12 buses service, and reduction of 25 buses from HSR fleet requirements from HSR fleet requirements from HSR fleet requirements

Fleet LRVs will require a dedicated Bus fleet c be accommodated Bus fleet can be accommodated Maintenance OMSF through an expansion of HSR’s through an expansion of HSR’s and Storage planned downtown MSF. A planned downtown MSF. A separate BRT MSF would result in separate BRT MSF would result in additional costs additional costs

Transit Does not serve any transit Serves existing HSR transit Serves existing HSR transit Terminals terminals; transfers facilitated terminals terminals through on-street stops

Ancillary Requires new facilities for train Transit control and infrastructure Transit control and infrastructure Infrastructure control and maintenance of LRT maintenance can be integrated maintenance can be integrated infrastructure with the City’s existing road and with the City’s existing road and transit operations transit operations

Interfaces Potential conflicts with cross-street Potential conflicts with right-turn Potential conflicts with right-turn with Local traffic and left turn movements at movements at intersections and movements at intersections and Traffic signalized intersections driveways driveways

Other Considerations

Procurement To be further reviewed as the To be further reviewed as the To be further reviewed as the Options project advances project advances project advances

Delivery 2023-2025 construction; service 2025-2028 construction; potential 2023-2029 construction; potential Timelines cannot begin until all to phase works and service to to phase works and service to infrastructure is completed accelerate delivery timelines accelerate delivery timelines

110