;;

Saturday, April 2, 2016

LRT- The Political Perils of Transformative Change

LRT for Hamilton denotes a transformational change. The primary and secondary impacts it will have on many aspects of commerce and our everyday lives, will be undeniably significant.

One of the preconditions of successful transformation is the presence of a state of disharmony. Said simply, it is a lot easier getting people to accept transformational change, if the present conditions are unbearable. Optimally, that degree of unbearability ought to be universally shared. If people willingly accept that there is a pressing need for change, that change will be generally welcomed and easier to implement.

But is this the case for LRT? Certainly it cannot be denied that the LRT lobby in Hamilton has been loud, clear and persistent- ultimately and arguably pressing governments to the edge, culminating in a commitment and funding to make LRT happen. It is credible to think that with LRT comes many primary and secondary benefits; albeit not in a predictable one size fits all way, but in a location specific way. Meaning, that its ensuing benefits for Hamilton can best be understood as we consider its placement , cost of implementation and function in Hamilton specifically, using other case studies as reference points rather than an assurance of identical outcomes. 

So, back to the question. Is there a understood need for change? Is there a present condition that is indigestible to many and that has resulted in a state of disharmony? 

In some ways, the notion of LRT really goes to a notion of less reliance on cars and more uptake in public transit. Thus not making it a response to a universal pressing demand, but to a new envisioned state whereby public transit becomes more the norm.

It is somewhat ironic that recently, data harnessed by Tom Tom, makers of GPS systems, revealed that Hamilton scores well on the driveable cities scale; unlike neighbouring Toronto whose degree of congestion caused it to score poorly. 

And with that comes the political problem with this particular transformation effort.  If we accept the premise that LRT is not a response to a universal feeling of disharmony with a present condition, it will be understood as a choice made by politicians to move toward a heavier investment in public transit at the expense of available road space to drivers of vehicles. 

Some may legitimately argue that investing in LRT is a smart short, medium and longer term investment and the transitional pain ought to be taken as par for the course. There are others however who may cry foul when their drive to or from their destinations is severely impeded, or even marginally so. 

LRT appears to be a deliberate attempt to shift the habits of people away from a car centred culture, to a public transit centered culture. Will it work? Will Hamiltonians embrace such a change in transportation culture? Only time will tell. 

Your thoughts?

The Hamiltonian

71 comments:

  1. Excellent article, I believe you have characterized the competing viewpoints succinctly.

    Although I do see a need for improved local transit efforts, I am not convinced LRT will provide the benefits being promoted.I do not believe this will move us away from our dependence on the automobile, which appears to be the preferred choice for the majority. Much needed improvements to HSR would have been a much better choice for these funds,and I have the sense a strong majority of Hamiltonian's hold similar views

    I resent these sorts of decisions being made on our behalf without a clear mandate-"leadership" in opposition to community service.

    This may well become a scar that divides us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with Mr. Graham here and with the article itself. This has been a classic case of the tail wagging the dog. Certain people and their websites did a good job of getting a lot of attention on the LRT front. The rest, went about their days oblivious to anything political (that explains why the municipal council we have now is an oligarchy).

      I don't think the car culture will stand for this and I predict that in timer we will have LRT cars riding empty with graffiti
      Sorce

      Delete
    2. It's important to define "move away from the automobile". If LRT simply doubles or triples transit ridership, it would still be a success -- even though that's an increase from -- let's say less than 1% to something like 2-3% taking transit -- Even by those numbers, those would be an unqualified success by Hamilton standards. There is reportedly increased communications from the city/Metrolinx late this year.

      Delete
    3. Sorce -- empty LRTs with grafitti is silly. Knowing Jim Graham's past comments elsewhere, not even Jim would agree with that, despite his skepticism. Also scratch-graffiti films are standard on all public transit vehicles nowadays. And there's been surprisingly little vandalism on the successful SoBi bike-share bikes.

      Delete
    4. jimbo, how many times has council voted unanimously in favour of lrt? twice? three times? give it a rest. its over. lrt is coming. there not enough of you and your ilk to elect patrick brown for another of your "common sense revolutions". so be real. ANY combination of elected hamilton council officials, a liberal or ndp government and lrt is done.

      Delete
    5. I know and accept "it is coming" and am convinced with advocates such as yourself who do not possess the fortitude to own their opinions that this will result in failure. Absolutely convinced. I wish it were done. All aboard

      Delete
    6. cool.

      Delete
    7. LRT doesnt address a need. In fact it many peoples view it diverts money from a need for better overall transit service in favour of delivering a service designed not for transit but for secondary investment. Weve all been down this road before and seen nothing but failures. To be honest the LRT isnt even being sold as a transit initiative by its boosters. Where it may not fail as a stand alone it most certainly fails the needs of Hamiltons transportation needs

      Delete
    8. where you at ANY of the 100s of meetings and forums that proceeded rapid ready report? where you involved in ANY of the 100s of procedures and exercises in the process that resulted in rapid ready? ANY involvement in the 1000s of hours civic minded citizens spent choosing, vetting, researching and decision making process that resulted in lrt? cause it was a wide open process that went on for over ten plus years. i dont remember anyone named allan taylor contributing or being involved. oh well. another member of the self identified silent majority.

      Delete
    9. Actually I have been very informed and went to a presentation where I raised my concerns and was totally ignored. The fact remains LRT doesnt address a need and the math is not based on a condition we find ourselves in or will find ourselves in but rather a created condition that wont otherwise happen. Even advocates say its about city building not transportation and like all projects in the past I believe the ROI projections are nonsense

      Delete
    10. "...went to a presentation where I raised my concerns and was totally ignored" good effort. come to one presentation, you dont get the respect you think youre entitled to, so you bail. "Even advocates say its about city building not transportation" show me ONE, ONE example were a hamilton lrt advocate said lrt is about city building ONLY and not transportation. you have made this bogus claim before, many have asked for a verifiable quote, and you have NEVER provided one. and you cant so you wont.

      Delete
    11. still waiting.

      Delete
    12. Please stop with the personal attacks. Thats what happened and no amount of lying on your part will change that fact

      Delete
    13. "Even advocates say its about city building not transportation" where the quote, mr taylor.

      Delete
  2. Someone said to me that a lower city straight LRT line is useless. They went on to say that shat's really needed is an LRT that goes to Binbrook on the old rail-trail, and then swings over to the Airport, hits Ancaster and then loops back downtown. Solve the transportation link problems faced by our outlying communities. Get them downtown fast, and then hopefully they'll get on the GO (or maybe shop downtown?)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. the residents of glanbrook ancaster and stoney creek have all rejected transit improvements in their communities over tax increase of as little as 30$ p/year. residents in areas of the mountain have lobbied AGAINST public transit cause they dont want "undesireables" hanging about. the area you mention have many things in common: most houses have massive driveways and multi vehicle garages, no sidewalks, people seem to own an avergae 2.9 vehicles p/household. these people clearly dont need or want to walk cycle or use public transit. give this fantasy a rest.

      Delete
  3. your entire premise is flawed. there is a burning need for better transit. that is undeniable. economics and the environment alone mean a shift away from more cars towards mass transit is required. sensible people know this. clearly the hamiltonian admin does not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your statement is flawed. During the last election I helped certain candidates go door to door in two different non core wards. People were miffed about all the ruckus about LRT. No-one identified it as an issue. When we brought it up, they either had little to say or said, it better not increase my taxes. This article is accurate about there being no universal burning platform. There exists one in certain lobbies. Good job in writing a balanced article. You may have been a little optimistic as to the benefits, but other than that i thought it was excellent.

      Delete
    2. please name the two non core areas.

      Delete
    3. 9 and 13

      Delete
    4. ward 9? many in stoney creek pay their fair share of the transit tax levy. they can use the hsr in a quick convenient manner. they deserve upgrades and improvements in their hsr service cause they pay as much in transit tax as my family in corktown but they dont have as good a service as we do. they should get immediate upgrades, in a priority manner. then there are many many people in stoney creek that are transit freeloaders. they pay little or no transit levy yet use the hsr ALL THE TIME. some of these freeloaders have the nerve to complain about poor hsr service. they vote in anti transit councillors like brad clark and doug conley. these people and their deadbeat ways in ward 9 are a big part of the problem. ward 13? really? not my experience. dundas town people want improved hsr service. they want what they are already paying for. more routes, more options. im surprised you spoke to more than a few people in ward 13 that didnt want to pay thier fair share for public transit.

      Delete
  4. How would an older person, who now drives, get their groceries home using LRT?

    ReplyDelete
  5. they would buy a ticket and get on the lrt with their groceries. if they are to old to get on public transit they clearly are to old to drive.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. no they would continue to take a taxi or get a ride with a younger family member with a car or take the seniors home bus. Transit for older people is physically challenging enough without toting groceries and its really not an option for most

      Delete
    2. fine. if they take a taxi or get a ride with family, they will be free to so. lrt is FAR FSR easier to board with a rolly cart thann current hsr buses. so again allan, so your not kept up at night worrying. no on is going to force you or anyone else to take lrt to the mall for shopping. if you drive or walk or taxi now, you can do it after lrt comes right? right? no response? good. so quit setting up starw men and boogey men that lrt is gonna stop anyone from doing what the do today. and quit making stuff up, since you know full well lrt will be an upgrade for current hsr users.

      Delete
    3. Not at all. every public transportation option is difficult for the elderly. Thats why my mother fractured her pelvis at age 70 boarding a TTC subway non rush hour. You sir are the strawman

      Delete
    4. again. since youre having youre own "seniors moment" lrt is easier and safer for the elderly than hsr bus's. you know it, the whole world knows it. if your mom cant handle a subway station boarding at non rush hour, she CANT handle the king pr barton or main west or bayfornt hsr bus.

      Delete
    5. Please stop with the pêrsonal attacks, particularly since you are completely wrong

      Delete
  6. @Rejhon- I think you should rethink your ROI scenario. If we are digging up streets and disrupting the city to install LRT, it better have a better uptake than 1 or 3%. Who would ever invest in something with that pitiful a return?

    Anon- just because council voted it in, doesn't amount to a lot. With poor voter turn out, I can't imagine that they can claim they represent the will of the people. Again, tail wagging the dog.

    In terms of older people- I soon to be one of them, many use cars to get their groceries home because they can manage lifting them out of a grocery cart into their trunk. Sometimes, they get help from those who work at the store. To suggest that if you are too old to use LRT , you're too told to drive, is just ignorant. It's also ageism.

    I found the article that has been written here to be balanced. It even allowed that their will be short, medium and long term benefits to LRT. What the main message that I took away is that it is a choice made politically rather than a choice made in response to everyone screaming for it. All that is fair. The LRT lobby always loses credibility when they use this us vs them attitude. Some have a lot of growing up to do.

    In terms of graffiti, if you wish to paint on something- do it in your own homes. Do not assume you can marr public property that the public pays for, Don't assume we prefer your "art" on LRT cars or any public space. And don't marr private property. It's lawless not "cool"
    Sorce

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. low voter high voter, they are the elected council. and there have been numerous elections and new councillors have replaced old councillors and they STILL vote unanimously FOR lrt OVER and OVER again. and if you seem to think some silent majority is opposed to lrt. well its WAY past time for them to have their say. this process was open to ALL, and anyone that didnt participate in the choosing and planning of the system will rightfully be ignored during the implementation. any senior driving to market TODAY will be able to drive to market when the lrt comes. no one will be confiscating keys and herding seniors onto trams at gunpoint. why is it either or for you? however, that you would be able to drive to a store AND lift a grocery cart into your trunk of your car and NOT be able to take the lrt to market and NOT be able to wheel your cart on or off the lrt is laughable and ridiculous. regarding help for you and seniors or other, here a scene i witness on the hsr ALL THE TIME: we come to a stop where a senior or parent has a cart or stroller. several people hop up, grab the cart/stroller, get it on the bus, make way for senior or mom, and away we go. the lrt to will be EASIER and SAFER to board than the present hsr, so thats a big plus for you in your golden years.

      Delete
  7. I live in stoney creek and this art business does not matter to me. We don't have adequate transit out here and we have never had a counselor out here who cared, so we just got used to having cars.

    Sylvia (the Hockey Mom)

    ReplyDelete
  8. "...LRT is not a response to a UNIVERSAL feeling of disharmony with a present condition, it will be understood as a CHOICE made by politicians to move toward..." that anyone needs to point out that this is how parliamentary democracy works is kind of silly. since when is "universal" consent been the benchmark for change in Canada? never. replace lrt with "converting streetlights from gas to electric" or "converting to city wide public water system". these changes were not universal, they were opposed by many. replace lrt with "converting private transportation with a city wide public transportation system" was this a concept with universal support in hamilton? of course not. these were all choices. good choices. and the naysayers and thier pennywise poundfoolish cohorts were rightfully ignored. as we have and will continue to ignore the flat earthers and cul de saccers that are anti lrt.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. your attitude is a good refection of the mindset of most of the supporters, and the catalyst for the groundswell of opposition which is picking up steam. It is going to be interesting watching you and yours unravel this opportunity with your foolishness. Carry on comrade

      Delete
    2. Jim: I am glad you said it because I didn't have the patience to.

      Delete
    3. i wasnt displaying a mindset. you know that. i used documented historical events in hamilton to show that universal support is a straw man myth. opposition to public water system was strong, and the initial investment in the hsr. yet we did them. true, documented facts. will you dispute them? no, you cant, so you will trump up and use insults to deflect. and who cares about "groundswell" of opposition. you and your band of brothers can grumble and type and post with double the fervor. big deal. WE, not YOU, were there at the planning, choosing, designing stages. WE not YOU did the hard work. YOU had YOUR chance and YOU didnt take it so WE were smart, informed, prepared, organized,heard, listened too. YOU didnt show up, cause YOU never do and never will. bratina nation, ford nation, trump nation whatever. lots of noise and bluster but no action. so the best system was heard, and the whingeing continues. hows that "groundswell" of "grassroots" support for your gasification plant coming jimbo? sinkhole of astroturf as usual.

      Delete
    4. You not US with take the blame when the thing is a bloody mess.

      Delete
  9. "heavier investment in public transit at the expense of AVAILABLE ROAD SPACE to drivers of vehicles" this premise is demonstrably false. hamilton has a documented OVERCAPACITY of available road space. hamilton traffic flow is documented to be at the lowest possible level of congestion. hamilton has just about the highest rate of pedestrian, cyclist injuries and fatalities due to auto accidents in Canada. the dollar figure per kilometre to service and maintain this overbuilt underused network is astronomical. what part of the status quo do you think we should maintain? so to ensure that drivers wont have to use an extra 10 minutes travel time and to make sure they can use all the turns they want when they want hamilton cant have an lrt?

    ReplyDelete
  10. When LRT is here, if in fact it succeeds, I will try using it. It's the least i can do. I don't see myself using it as my primary source of travel. I quite like driving to work in my beamer, pulling into my parking space and unloading my documents into my office. I doubt that calling them onto a LRT train, that will then require me to walk to my office hauling a bunch of stuff, is going to be alluring. Worse in the winter I'd imagine. I think there will be many people like me who will still drive their vehicles. And everything will be fine and good so long as there is a good balance between transit and road space. But if LRT impedes traffic significantly or runs over budget and requires additional tax dollars, I doubt our local politicians will be re-elected. Remember what the stadium issue did to Eisenberger 1.0
    Sorce

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. or if we only get 2% uptake for a huge investment.....

      Delete
    2. "It's the least i can do" sounds like what your usually willing to contribute.

      Delete
  11. I don't know why the article is causing some people so much upset. I thought it was right on the money. I find the hamiltonian to be a taste maker in the city and maybe its why some people are upset?

    ReplyDelete
  12. wow. I am amazed at the thick headedness of some. You can't compare changing streetlights from gas to electric to this. This is just saying that it is easier to make a transformation change when near EVERYONE is clamoring for it. Not everyone is clamoring for it. That's a fact and many people, who I agree, could not be bothered to organize and properly express their views, are going to end up pissed off. That's on them. But I think politicians are going to pay a price unless this thing is wildly successful. If we have these trains running and a 1 or 2 % increase in ridership, it will be a disaster.

    Rog

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "You can't compare changing streetlights from gas to electric to this" i can and do. the conversion from gas to electric was CITY wide. the lrt is one transportation corridor of many. electricity was a new invention with no proven history. lrt is working successfully in dozens of cities. the gas electricity conversion costs were paid for by the city . lrt is being built with (mostly) provincial and federal monies and private partnerships and small portion of costs for the city. what about the comparison to the conversion to public managed city water and sewage from private septic beds and area resivours and holding tanks? this conversion, again city wide, used new technology to replace hold city wide. everyone had to buy new plumbing fixtures, everyone had to have renos in their homes, the streets were dug up for years, and everyones taxs went up. was "near EVERYONE is clamoring for it"? no, not at all. google it. but we still did it. and again, at one time a private transpo company ran city buses. was there "..near EVERYONE is clamoring for it" no. many many people said " i work too damn hard to buy a nice car and i wouldnt be caught dead on a smelly bus for a million dollars". the city still invested in a public transit system.

      Delete
    2. whoever you are, you are starting to prove that you are in your own little world. Again you missed the point . The argument is that it is easier to do this sort of thing when there is a clamoring for it. That simple. look it up,

      Delete
    3. i live in the real world, and you keep missing my point, perhaps intentionally. yes change is EASIER when there is overwhelming support. but i have given you two historical examples of change in hamilton that happened WITHOUT overwhelming support. the community was evenly divided over these changes. many liked the idea, many didnt. change for the better still happened. we didnt wait till people "clamoured" for it. so correct one aspect of my point. dont respond with a slur. respond with a correction or counter fact or move on.

      Delete
    4. Agree Rog, and those of us who do object are mocked as being out of touch, uneducated selfish and a myriad of other factually untrue things. You cant have a point because you dont have an organized group really isnt a valid point

      Delete
  13. it all clear now. when socre and his cadre clamours for lrt, then the public has truly spoken. socre cant/wont/isnt going to use lrt to get his marketing or shopping done. he might have to exert himself. socre isnt going to give up his luxury auto or personal parking space. he might have to carry documents or get chilly. dont make socre late for squash or rotary, and dont you dare think about raising his tax's to pay for public transit. what a sorry, pathetic display of entitlement and privilege. and socre thinks we should consider him and his cohorts "needs".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "dont make socre late for squash or rotary," no rotary or squash for me, but I don't want to be late for dinner or CNN's The Situation Room. And it's Sorce, not socre.

      I don't have a cadre. I have opinions that seem to be agreeable with other people. Either we're nuts or you may be.

      I am trying to give you a sense of reality. Not everyone makes their life's goals and aspirations a LRT line.

      Cars are still cool
      Sorce

      P.S. It is not a crime to be well off. Much of my time and money is spent helping the less fortunate.

      Delete
  14. WEST HARBOUR RESIDENTApril 02, 2016

    I truly enjoy using my car every day. I need it for my business. I do not believe that the LRT will help me out in any of my business or personal activities. Yet another silly notion that panders to 'the few' (who have the time to lobby for this) and will cost 'the many' much money. I completely agree with all who say that this could become a political nightmare unless it's a great and overwhelming success. I just don't see it becoming one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. we like using our car. we park it during the week and use it to do errand or get out of the city on weekends. the majority of hamltonians DO NOT engage in daily personal automobile use for work or business. many do, a large percentage do, but most dont. you are in the minority. your desire/need to have a network of road and streets built and maintained for your daily use is irrelevant to me and many many hamiltonians. we dont want to pay for you and other car culture road warriors.

      Delete
    2. Actually the vast majority of Hamiltonians engage in daily personal automobile use. To suggest otherwise isnt based on fact or even personal experience

      Delete
    3. Allan. Do not confuse things with facts ;-)
      Sorce

      Delete
    4. facts are easy to find. the majority of people in hamilton that are employed use personal automobiles. the majority of hamiltonians are comprised of people too young or to old to be employed, or are unemployed or underemployed, retired, infirm, etc etc. it doesnt surprise me that people driving luxury autos with personal work parking spaces dont realize that the majority of people in hamilton dont engage in daily autmobile use.

      Delete
    5. Don't join a debating team

      Delete
    6. Sorce, sadly some people refuse to acknowledge the facts and resort to personal insults as a defense

      Delete
  15. Could we get rid of anonymous trolls that are only intent on personal attacks on anyone who dares thinks LRT doesnt serve a need or that people arent clamouring for it

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hamiltonian AdminApril 03, 2016

      We are watching this closely. So far, there is some spirited debate. We would ask that people refrain from using names like "Jimbo" as that seems improper. Let's continue the conversation on a pros and cons basis and not personal attacks please. Everyone is welcome here.

      Delete
    2. i wonder if this why allan taylor only went to a grand total of ONE of the literally thousands of panels, forums, discussion groups, planning teams involved in choosing lrt. did mr taylor ask the moderators at the lrt presentation to remove anyone that didnt agree with him? mr taylors says his concerns were ignored. was his "concern" that people werent "clamouring" for public transit investment so everyone should all go home till allan taylor TELLS them to care? im not saying that happened, but based on the comments posted, i have no problem picturing it.

      Delete
    3. see that is personal attack Hamiltonian Admin. Thats the stuff that needs to stop

      Delete
  16. I use my car every day to go to work and back. During the day, I can usually walk to places, but if I need to go somewhere else, I'll drive. At night, I prefer to stay in but will use my vehicle to go out. On weekends, I use it extensively. It's funny. Each time I use my car, I see other people using cars, trucks, vans, SUVs etc. And many times, I see busses running near empty, save for certain busses during the rush. Maybe over time, when i'm long gone, we'll get a "cool" generation that likes to use transit and pack their belongings wherever they go. But I doubt that as well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "we'll get a "cool" generation that likes to use" previous comment by socre: "Cars are still cool" i get it now. care are COOL. public transit is not COOL. is that is the REAL reason you are so fixated on car culture at the expense of everyone elses needs? that youre COOL?. and those that arent driving are what? square? should we "sit on it". you should change your name to "the fonz" if youre going to evaluate the worth of civic initiatives using "happy days" era concepts. ayyyyy!

      Delete
    2. Sorry. Won't stoop to your level.
      Sorce

      Delete
  17. "Each time I use my car, I see other people using cars, trucks, vans, SUVs etc" you see what you want to see. "And many times, I see busses running near empty, save for certain busses during the rush" probably not true for most routes. anyway, when me and the ONE HUNDRED other people riding ONE vehicle look over we see ONE person in a bimmer, ONE person in a chev, ONE person in a suv, another lone person in a hummer another lone person in a pickup. all going to same way. no one sharing a ride. and they dont seem to be able to beat the king bus downtown. "Maybe over time, when i'm long gone, we'll get a "cool" generation that likes to use transit.." you dont know that time is NOW? you really dont do you? sorry socre, we havent waited for you and your cadre to move on. we moved you out. last year.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Again can we have Mr Anonymous who repeatedly attack on a personal level removed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I consider him an asset, every time he opens his mouth he does a disservice to his "cause" Lacking in conviction and original thought he is a good reflection of the principles guiding the pro LRT camp. Even his "friends" seem to be distancing themselves from his vitriol- I don't see much support here.

      So continue barking at the moon little friend, you are doing us all a favour

      Delete
    2. mr graham: i am not a lrt "advocate" in any sense of the word. i am just a good old fashioned "lets spend massive amounts of money on public transportation and if we have to raise tax's to do it so be it and anyone who isnt on board should be ignored" kinda person. i suggest you take your own wise advice from earlier in this thread: "All aboard"

      Delete
    3. mr graham, please be honest. you have your "mindset", i have mine. you have your "cause", i have mine. you have your 'friends", i have mine. you have your "camp", i have mine. your stated position, and mr socres stated position, quotes: "our dependence on the automobile, which appears to be the preferred choice for the majority" or "I don't think the car culture will stand for this" or "Cars are still cool" or "Maybe over time, when i'm long gone, we'll get a "cool" generation that likes to use transit". your love of automobiles and car culture is clear. though one of your most telling comments is where you agrre with me "The rest, went about their days oblivious to anything political" its not an insult or smear that you dont take public transit, and it wasnt an issue for you because you didnt take it, you knew SOMETHING was going on with transit, but not being a transit user, you werent interested. fair enough. however, now that the hard work has been done and the tough decisions have been made you say you want a voice. tooooo late. if we are to believe you, youre not anti public transit investments. youre just against public transit investments if your tax's dont go up and youre driving is inconvenienced. from another quote of mr socres: "It's the least i can do" this would appear to be a large or sole part your decision making matirx.

      Delete
  19. mr jim graham is a self professed supporter of the "gasification" plant being proposed for hamilton. this project does NOT have "universal" support. no one is "clamouring" for it. yet jim graham says the project should go ahead regardless of the opposition. could mr graham please clarify his contradictory statements?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ok, let's be honest. You do not come here to express your opinion, but rather to denigrate the opinions of others, apparently unable to present and defend your position based on it's particular merit.

      Yes, we are very different individuals, and I am comfortable with the distinction. I respect your dissent.

      Of course I do not believe my comments are contradictory, nor do they require clarification, but I can appreciate why you would require further explanation. I feel no obligation in this respect.

      Try to stay on topic Mike, it will make it easier for your friends to follow along

      Delete
  20. Cost-effective, efficient and attractive transit choices are part of a long-running provincial plan to support employment and residential intensification in urban centres. The status quo is more of the kind of sprawl-positive thinking that plops 21K residents in Fruitland-WInona. Pick your allegiance.

    ReplyDelete
  21. AnonymousMay 29, 2016

    "It is somewhat ironic that recently, data harnessed by Tom Tom, makers of GPS systems, revealed that Hamilton scores well on the driveable cities scale; unlike neighbouring Toronto whose degree of congestion caused it to score poorly."

    That's fantastic. No need to spend $90M on Hamilton roads this year, then.

    ReplyDelete

Your comments are welcome. Please abide by the blog's policy on posting. This blog facilitates discussion from all sides of issues. Opposite viewpoints, spirited discussion and even pointed comments are welcome, provided they are respectful. Name calling is not allowed and any posts that violate the policy, will simply not be authorized to appear. This blog also reserves the right to exclude comments that are off topic or are otherwise unprofessional. This blog does not assume any liability whatsoever for comments posted. People posting comments or providing information on interviews, do so at their own risk.


Comments posted on this blog, may be used as excerpts in whole or in part, in other media sources .
This blog believes in freedom of speech and operates in the context of a democratic society, which many have fought and died for.

Views expressed by commentators or in articles that appear here, cannot be assumed to be espoused by The Hamiltonian staff or its publisher.