;;

Friday, May 27, 2016

Episode 6 of "As Hamilton Twists and Turns" - the Billion Dollars

It's been some time since we've released an episode of "As Hamilton Twists and Turns" but with the inspiration of LRT, we thought it was time.

In this episode "the one with the billion dollars" we find Mayor Eisenberger shooting himself in the foot with his Clint Eastwood style edict "Put up or shut up", intended to call his council to commit to LRT or else put a cork in it. It turns out the Mayor had to turn the cork around and recall his words, adding his regret for the phrasing.

Meanwhile Light Rail advocates sense turbulence and reignite a call to action, reminding others of the decision points and debates already exhausted. It's groundhog day all over again according to them, while far from the glare of an election, some politicians  engage in what appears to be a rethink.

LRT champion Ryan McGreal appears on The Hamiltonian, re-explaining the evolution of this issue and the anticipated benefits of proceeding. He'd later call the questions posed, "pointed". 

With one billion dollars on the line (pardon the pun),  some appear miffed that the issue is even being debated while others appear to be making room for what they perceive to be a giant white elephant coming our way.

So what to do, in light of all this? Call a referendum? Wait, no. Not a referendum.  Let's kick the can  and delay the vote for a few months, sending troubling messages to the Premier in terms of a solidified and final commitment to LRT.

Current Transit Director, Dave Dixon, soon to be flying the coop in favour of a new position elsewhere, in an interview with The Hamiltonian, says the following  "Operational economies of scale are directly proportional to ridership – ie. rail has much higher operational costs per hour than bus, but also has the potential to carry a far greater number of customers (through train-lining) – so cost per customer will vary depending on what ridership ultimately materializes." likely creating worry lines on several foreheads (cue Botox ad).

And in an op ed in The Hamiltonian, we find this statement "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."

Will Hamilton City Council move forward with LRT? Will the vote be deferred again? Do we have the necessary ridership for ROI purposes? Will the Mayor prevail? Can the 1 Billion be repurposed or it is strapped to LRT? When will it all appear on Netflix?

Stay tuned and find out as this episode of As Hamilton Twists and turns concludes. 

Cue the tape (preview of next episode appears) Fade to black as Clr. Whitehead is seen standing and making a point......

49 comments:

  1. AnonymousMay 27, 2016

    LOL.thanks for brining these back. They make me howl. Yet so true.

    Only in Hamilton

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousMay 27, 2016

    too funny

    ReplyDelete
  3. McGreal's sense of urgency is personal, not civic, cars make him anxious. That such an irrational and unreasonable position has lead the conversation is remarkable, until you consider the current status. Perhaps his "twin" will appear in the next episode and be forced to take an extended road trip to Portland-or Bogota-or Amsterdam, with his new pals Terry and Lloyd. Peace in the valley

    ReplyDelete
  4. Cathy N.May 28, 2016

    This is better than a soap opera. If you can't laugh about it, it will drive you crazy. I am at the edge of my seat for the next episode.

    Cathy N.

    ReplyDelete
  5. AnonymousMay 28, 2016

    "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." this is an example of the type of loaded statement that makes some question whither the hamiltonian is actually editorially neutral on the matter of lrt. some would read this as pretzel logic designed to sway opinion rather than provide information.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousMay 28, 2016

      So are you saying that we should ignore the fact that the statement is true? Did you read the entire article seems pretty fair to me. And why give McGreal all this space to get his views out?

      Kepp doing what you do Teresa. Your site is a taste maker and that's why some people are so nervous.

      As jack said ' truth?you can't handle the truth. '


      Against white elephants

      Delete
    2. AnonymousMay 28, 2016

      "So are you saying that we should ignore the fact that the statement is true?" the premise is flawed. is there a "UNIVERSAL feeling of disharmony" with the current state and condition of our public transit? no. many people dont care about public transit, many feel our current transit needs are being met, many dont. many want to plan for the future. a small but vocal minority wants no money spent on public transit and wants the hsr to have its budget cut. so should we wait until EVERYONE wants improvements to public transit? or until 80% of hamiltonians want transit improvements? ot 70% or just a simple majority? the whole "wait till we have a organically grown solution that a 100% of people agree on before we move ahead on transit improvements" is stunningly short myopic and doomed from the jump.

      Delete
    3. First, I agree with the others. These "episodes" are funny and yet informative. I think you should continue these.

      In terms of the comments above, i re-read the entire article. I think you said that a transformation is a lot easier to implement if there is a universal consensus that change is needed. So, as is typical with the LRT lobby, they miss the point entirely and try to twist it up. Then you wonder why their credibility is dwindling.

      From the people I have spoken to, noone is clamouring for LRT. Many people tell me that even if LRT is implemented, it would not change how they get to where they are going. So, you have to face the fact that most people will still drive cars.

      What is more likely to change though, is that there will disruptions and roads will be constrained, casuing the people who couldn't give a hoot about LRT, to be pissed.

      And what Dixon is saying (wake up folks) is that LRT only makes sense when the degree of ridership is there, to offset its costs.

      I doubt that will happen, and if it does not, we will in fact have a white elephant whose focus of service is marginal.

      So, if I was the councillors and or the mayor, I think there is a lot of wisdom in this article. Read it 15 times before making a mistake.

      Read it here http://www.thehamiltonian.net/2016/03/lrt-political-perils-of-transformative.html , then read Dixon;s statements and then connect the dots. There is only one logical conclusion. If you can't be assured of the uptake and if your feeling is that LRT will not get people using transit, then you will be supporting a disaster that your constituents will not forget come election.
      Sorce (oakav)

      Delete
    4. AnonymousMay 29, 2016

      Dixon wanted to spend $16.5 million on marketing and branding, but only got as far as the $410K for the "HSR+" branding exercise.

      Dixon plotted a transit strategy that drew 95% of its funding in its first two years from the farebox, but failed to deliver the service improvements riders were allegedly paying for.

      Dixon presided over the deepest year-over-year drop in HSR ridership drop in two decades, one 55 times larger than predicted in his 10-Year Strategy… that came out the same year as the drop.

      I salute Mr. Dixon’s bravery in advocating for more bus-only lanes (*plural*) across Hamilton but he bailed before the heavy lifting — advocating for council to hold to his investment strategy that required tax levies in years 3-10 — could begin.

      History may judge him as inferior to Don Hull, who was increasingly submissive to the funding mindset of a transit-averse council. (FWIW, he was allegedly axed from the TTC because he didn’t fit with a push to modernize and innovate.)

      https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013/10/03/ttc_axes_two_senior_execs.html

      Delete
  6. AnonymousMay 28, 2016

    2010-2015, HSR ridership growth on the Main-King-Queenston Corridor was four times that of the HSR average, and the east-west routes represent 42% of city-wide HSR ridership. This would suggest that there is a respectable growth trend at a time when the total HSR ridership is moribund. The question becomes, how to harness that dynamic to support transit city-wide. And in scenarios where ridership is substantive, operational efficiencies appear to be more pronounced under LRT. This is because of the technology's two key advantages: longer lifecycle and higher passenger-to-driver ratios, meaning that the cost recovery has the potential to improve dramatically in an LRT scenario.

    If there's worry about the costs of inefficiency, it would be in stubbornly clinging to a technology with lower passenger capacity (i.e. that requires more drivers and hence higher operational costs) and dramatically lower lifespan (i.e. 12-year lifespan for a bus vs 25-30 year lifespan for LRV means higher capital costs — a cost borne by riders and taxpayers alike — meaning that new HSR buses go to replacing units rather than expanding service).

    Another consideration is that both Dixon (in his Ten-Year Transit Strategy) and IBI (in its 2010 HSR Operational Review) advocate for dedicated bus lanes, jump lanes and signal priority in order to optimize conventional bus transit.

    As with many issues that come before council, the biggest barrier to change is council's reluctance to let go of the status quo. Unfortunately, as HSR directors have noted many times over the last 25-30 years, the City's status quo on transit is unsustainable.

    ReplyDelete
  7. AnonymousMay 28, 2016

    major civic players and power brokers in favour of lrt: darko vranich, hamilton chamber of commerce, liuna, head of mcmaster health sciences, dean of mcmaster. who are the major civic players and power brokers AGAINST lrt? no one. not one. explain that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. yes sir mikey, that is quite the rogue gallery you have rolled out here, criminal convictions, enormous unexplained pension shortfalls, my personal favorite-Keanin "if you are struggling, this will kill you" Loomis, all standing around with their hands out waiting for a checque to arrive, united in their need for our cash. Better get back to the kiddie table mikey,Heckle and Jeckle have the knives out

      Delete
    2. AnonymousMay 29, 2016

      could be ignorance or a pathology, undiagnosed or otherwise, that makes someone like jim think that just saying the opposite of what everyone else thinks makes them right.

      Delete
    3. it is clearly desperation and frustration that compels you to believe and act as you do. One day you'll win one Mikey, and perhaps the world will look a little brighter to you, until then, continue tilting at windmills little friend, you are an amusement

      Delete
  8. wow. I am so not impressed. Most of those "power brokers" have special interests. Many will make a lot of money off this. Don't be naiive.

    It's funny because the true power brokers are people like you and I
    Sorce(oakav)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousMay 28, 2016

      really. ok. name anyone. ANY ONE person in hamilton that is on record as opposing lrt that isnt a member of city council or a anonymous commenter on a public forum. dont give me two give me one. one. one. REAL people. not chad collins. not patriot or mush from the spec comment section. or hamiltonluv1 from the cbc comment section. or socre or jim from the hamiltonian comment section.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousMay 28, 2016

      "Most of those "power brokers" have special interests. Many will make a lot of money off this." you have a vested interest. your stated verifiable position: you dont want your tax dollars spent on lrt cause you dont use it. you dont want your driving times or routes disrupted. you are ther worst type of special interest group, cause its only you in the group.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousMay 29, 2016

      cf. Multi Area Developments + Red Hill Valley Parkway

      Delete
  9. AnonymousMay 28, 2016

    When it comes to the question of low-ridership transit service, let’s not forget that most suburban HSR routes are white elephants.

    Turn to the 2010 HSR Operational Review, which found that the 58 Stoney Creek Local has a Revenue/Cost (R/C) ratio half that of 55 Stoney Creek Central (and, like 16 Ancaster, 18 Waterdown, 43 Stone Church, 44 Rymal and 52 Dundas Local, fails to meet the HSR’s minimum R/C service level guideline). 55 Stoney Creek Central in turn has a R/C Ratio half that of the 51 University.

    Average passenger load in afternoon peak (3-7pm): 16 Ancaster = 1.4; 18 Waterdown = <0.1; 52 Dundas Local = 0.9; 44 Rymal = 2.8; 58 Stoney Creek Local: 4.3; 55 Stoney Creek Central: 6.1. Average passenger load, system-wide? 12 per bus.

    If the B-Line corridor is not efficient, the low-functioning routes could be pruned in the name of fiscal responsibility. They certainly recommend themselves as marginally useful relative to their associated costs.

    ReplyDelete
  10. So, you have just confirmed the dismal state of ridership. Not very inspiring is it?

    Dixon says you have to have a healthy uptake or the cost of LRT is not going to pan out on the ROI.

    Noone is going to change their preferences just because we have a shiny LRT train that goes from Mac to the traffic circle.

    Mayor Eisenberger better start talking to the Premier about BRT. This disastrous direction was the result of butting a flame to politicians during the ramp up to an election year.

    Think about how much service and flexibility a billion dollars of BRT will buy. Without tearing up any streets. Of course the special interests groups will be crying foul at their missed chance to make money on a white elephant, but that will be nothing compared to what LRT will do to Hamilton.

    At the anon above- do you really think it's only me that thinks this way? Really? Then you wonder why the LRT lobby's support is dwindling away.

    Mayor Eisenberger needs to get out of dreamland and be realistic about what Hamilton really needs- in the context of all of its people and not just those who hang around a certain blog that has a very narrow focus.
    Sorce (oakav)


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousMay 28, 2016

      BRT all the way for me as well.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousMay 29, 2016

      The 2010 Metrolinx Benefits Case Analysis noted that LRT would generate the highest transportation user benefits. The same BCA considered BRT on the same corridor, attaching a price tag of $220M, roughly a third of the cost of LRT for the same route. That’s the choice here.

      From the province’s standpoint this is not about the dollar figure, just the business case — and if Hamilton would rather have $300M in BRT, that’s its prerogative, The remaining $700M would just go back into the GTHA funding pool, and if the City wanted to expand service to another corridor it would just do what it did for the B-Line: Study it for years and wait for the province to make it a funding priority.

      BTW, the BRT option studied by Metrolinx "includes an on-street exclusive BRT system running along a median within the existing road right of way…(operating) within an exclusive right of way." Just like LRT.

      But if Hamilton wants more conventional buses (even for the BRT-Lite service like the 10 Express), it has its answer: “Ontario Transportation Minister Steven Del Duca says Hamilton will have to use its portion of the provincial gas tax money to help fund its 10-year bus transit strategy instead of relying in direct provincial help.” http://www.hamiltonnews.com/news-story/6376718-hamilton-s-302-million-bus-transit-funding-request-crashes/

      Delete
    3. AnonymousMay 29, 2016

      Mar 01, 2016:

      One of Mississauga’s greatest transportation initiatives is also its biggest mistake, says Gil Penalosa, a world-renowned expert on creating vibrant and healthy cities.

      A former business analyst for the City of Mississauga, Penalosa was referring to the Mississauga Transitway, the bus rapid transit (BRT) line running east-west along Highway 403. Considered a white elephant by critics, Penalosa called it an example of “doing the right thing, but not doing things right.”

      And he places the blame on former mayor Hazel McCallion.

      “Under Hazel there was a culture of fear between staff and the mayor, and to some degree between staff and councillors,” said Penalosa, founder of sustainable urbanization group 8 80 Cities.

      Penalosa, who worked for the City for three years while McCallion was in power, said “staff didn’t have the guts to go to the mayor and tell her (the BRT) was being built in the wrong place.”

      “I don’t see how it will work on the 403. It’s horrible. It should have been built along Burnamthorpe, the heart of the city.”

      Already a six-lane roadway, dedicating two lanes for BRT wouldn’t have had a huge impact on existing traffic and it would have connected more people to key destinations, said Penalosa.

      For instance, he said, it could have provided a rapid transit route from UTM to the City Centre and given 12,000 to 15,000 students easy access to downtown amenities.…

      The problem, said Penalosa, is that in order for people to access the Transitway along Highway 403, they have to drive to it, defeating the whole purpose of its existence.

      “We need to make public transit accessible by walking or cycling.”

      http://www.mississauga.com/news-story/6370323-mississauga-s-transitway-a-white-elephant-in-the-eyes-of-city-building-expert-gil-penalosa/

      Delete
    4. AnonymousJune 05, 2016

      The province has committed to funding baseline rapid transit on the B-Line corridor.

      B-Line LRT is a $1B investment with dedicated lanes and a vehicular lifespan of 25-30 years, possibly longer. (Waterloo’s ION system is being operated by Keolis under a 33-year design, build, finance, operate and maintain contract.) Assuming that it starts operation in 2024, council would have to reckon with the replacement costs of B-Line LRT circa 2049-2054.

      B-Line BRT is a $300M investment with dedicated lanes and a vehicular lifespan of 12 years. Assuming that it starts operation in 2024, council would have to reckon with the replacement costs circa 2036. They could save potentially money by axing low-performing routes and reassigning those buses to the B-Line.

      Delete
  11. AnonymousMay 28, 2016

    LRT year 1 http://tinyurl.com/j9nz7ct

    ReplyDelete
  12. AnonymousMay 29, 2016

    the waterdown bypass? heard of it? 43 million, hamilton taxpayer money. any UNIVERSAL clamouring for it? no. staunch opposition to it? yes. is it happening? yes. aerotropolis. heard of it? 100's of millions of hamilton taxpayer dollars. any UNIVERSAL clamouring for it? no. staunch opposition to it? yes. is it going ahead? yes. ANY talk of a referendum from the car/sprawl crowd on these two issues? not a chance. referendums are only for issues socre DOESNT like.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousMay 29, 2016

      HSR 2016 Budget Slides:

      “Hamilton’s investment in transit service has been low: Low overall fare; Lowest average municipal contribution increase per year.”

      http://hamiltoncatch.org/download.php?id=468

      “In those five years, road spending in Hamilton’s capital budget has jumped over $20 million a year – a 37.5% increase – with three quarters of that coming directly out of property taxes. In the same period there has been no additional tax dollars allocated to bus purchases and other HSR capital spending which has remained at $3.7 million a year. Three million of that comes from the city’s annual federal gas tax share, with the remaining $29 million going to roads. Rather than alter that division, council chose last year to start correcting HSR “system deficiencies” entirely by raising fares an average of 8 to 12 percent in each of 2015 and 2016.”

      http://hamiltoncatch.org/view_article.php?id=1400

      Delete
    2. AnonymousMay 29, 2016

      "…there has been no additional tax dollars allocated to bus purchases and other HSR capital spending which has remained at $3.7 million a year. Three million of that comes from the city’s annual federal gas tax share…"

      $700K per year in municipal-specific capital funding isn't much, but most of the City's costs with the HSR are on the operating side of things: $59M in 2016.

      Delete
  13. Cite whatever you want but most of us who have leadership and managerial common sense know that there is an inner voice that warns you when a decision is wrong.

    It happens in my practise and it has never lead me wrong. In this case it comes down to this.

    Will we get enough ridership out of a relatively narrow area. If so then lrt may make sense. But if not it will be seen as the biggest poltical blunder. Worse than the stadium fiasco

    If I were a betting man I would bet against a sudden interest in public transit. Just won't happen
    Sorce (oakav

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousMay 29, 2016

      again. here are the people that want lrt in hamilton. planners, developers, investor groups, business people, the heads of our universities and colleges, one of the biggest unions in the world, civic leaders, the city newspaper editorial board, the board of trade, the chamber of commerce, builders, the hamilton tourist board, the consortium that runs our entertainment facilities, architects, and the heads and members of EVERY civic organization in hamilton that has taken a lrt position. and who is opposed to the lrt? pennywise poundfoolish councillors pandering to their spendthrift constituents. and their "commons sense" constituents like socre and jim graham. i dont know if tragic or sad is the word im looking for here.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousMay 29, 2016

      Re: "relatively narrow"

      The population within 1km of the proposed 14km east-west rapid transit line is about 130K Hamiltonians.

      The population within 1km of a hypothetical 24km East-west Mountain Line running along Mohawk/Mountain Brow/Paramount/Mud/Centennial from Meadowlands Power Centre to Lime Ridge Mall to Paramount big box park to Eastgate Square is about 125K Hamiltonians.

      The 41, 43 and 44 routes collectively have the ridership of the 10 Express. So maybe BRT is the solution there. Rather than three low-functioning routes, just have one really streamlined one and discard two-thirds of the stops. And once that's a raving success, the province will see the case for LRT.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousMay 30, 2016

      The population within 1km of the proposed *11km* east-west rapid transit line is about 130K Hamiltonians. (The 14km route was the original McMaster-Eastgate iteration.)

      In other words, lower-city east-west rapid transit boasts more than twice the population density within 1km of the line than a hypothetical east-west mountain route.

      Delete
    4. AnonymousJune 05, 2016

      …and that hypothetical east mountain route, would be more than twice as expensive to build.

      Delete
  14. I love the article. :D

    ReplyDelete
  15. AnonymousMay 29, 2016

    "Cite whatever you want but most of us who have leadership and managerial common sense know that there is an inner voice that warns you when a decision is wrong" shorter version: facts be damned, i listen to the voices in my head.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And another example why the LRT lobby is coming across as desperate and ridiculous.

      The voices in my head are telling me this:

      Why would I want to tear up streets and infrastructure, on a white elephant that will only run part way through Hamilton and will likely only peave off the majority?

      Why woud I not do BRT. It is highly flexible and can be deployed and redeployed in a very modular way./ Try ripping up tracks to do that.

      I think some of more enlightened politicians are starting to realize that they had been pressured during an election year to do things they otherwise would not.

      Mayor E. start talking to Wynne about a change in plans. She'll be open to it. Don't jump each time the LRT lobby turns the rope.
      Sorce

      Delete
    2. AnonymousMay 29, 2016

      Once again, the BRT option studied by Metrolinx "includes an on-street exclusive BRT system running along a median within the existing road right of way…(operating) within an exclusive right of way." Just like LRT.

      Of course the Premier would be open to B-Line BRT. It would cost the province one-third as much to run BRT on the B-Line route. Again, the 2010 Metrolinx Benefits Case Analysis noted that LRT would generate the highest transportation user benefits. The same BCA considered BRT on the same corridor, attaching a price tag roughly a third of the cost of LRT for the same route. So that’s the choice here. It’s not $1B on whatever public transit solution you can dream up. The only corridor that has been studied to Metrolinx’s satisfaction is the B-Line. Anything else sends you back to the starting blocks. That’s another trade-off here.

      From the province’s standpoint this is not about the dollar figure, just the business case. They apparently see a business case, and they're the ones dropping $1B, but and if Hamilton would rather have $300M in BRT, that’s entirely its prerogative, The remaining $700M would just go back into the GTHA funding pool, and if the City wanted to expand service to another corridor it would just do what it did for the B-Line: Study it for years, submit their strongest case to Metrolinx and wait for the province to make it a funding priority. If that even happens, since 40% of the HSR’s total ridership demand is found in the B-Line trunk line.

      If BRT to you just means new buses more often (i.e. BRT-Lite service like the 10 Express), the province can make that dream come true as well: “Ontario Transportation Minister Steven Del Duca says Hamilton will have to use its portion of the provincial gas tax money to help fund its 10-year bus transit strategy instead of relying in direct provincial help.” http://www.hamiltonnews.com/news-story/6376718-hamilton-s-302-million-bus-transit-funding-request-crashes/

      Delete
    3. AnonymousMay 29, 2016

      "Why would I want to tear up streets and infrastructure, on a white elephant that will only run part way through Hamilton and will likely only peave off the majority?" you were 100% in favour of spending 10's of milions of taxpayer money on ivor wynne stadium. what hypocrisy.

      Delete
    4. AnonymousMay 29, 2016

      "Why woud I not do BRT. It is highly flexible and can be deployed and redeployed in a very modular way" no brt system works like that. only in your head. the words "flexible" and "redeployed" are your code words for shrink the system and reduce costs.

      Delete
    5. No- those words mean what they say. You are not me- remember?
      Sorce

      Delete
  16. Sylvia (the hockey mom)May 29, 2016

    I think this lrt stuff is garbage. noone wants it.

    Sylvia (the hockey mom)

    ReplyDelete
  17. AnonymousMay 29, 2016

    Big ideas, big ambitious projects need to be embedded within culture at a level deeper than the political winds. It needs to be deeper than the economic fluctuations that could turn people against an expensive project because they're on an unemployment line and can't feed their families.
    From TH quote. I agree with this and we do not have this level of commitment to lrt in Hamilton. Give it up

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousMay 29, 2016

      "embedded within culture at a level deeper than the political winds" whatever. ive lived in hamilton my entire 48 years. hamilton has a culture of do nothing, sit around, argue. we let a few whiners and bed wetters scare us out of anything other than the status quo. we have been stagnant for 50 years. but we cant have any change. oh no. we cant have hundreds of news business employing people and generating tax's along a lrt line. why? cause ma and pa have had a shoe repair shop on king street for five thousand years and how are they going to survive and lrt build.

      Delete
    2. Like the gentleman (woman?) said up above. Give it up. You are embarrassing yourself and your lobby
      Sorce

      Delete
    3. "you were 100% in favour of spending 10's of milions of taxpayer money on ivor wynne stadium. what hypocrisy."

      Really? Where did I say that?
      Sorce

      Delete
  18. AnonymousMay 29, 2016

    "I think some of more enlightened politicians are starting to realize that they had been pressured during an election year to do things they otherwise would not" wrong. so wrong. verifiably worng. http://raisethehammer.org/article/2976/how_councillors_have_voted_on_light_rail_transit

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What i said was "I think some of more enlightened politicians are starting to.."

      starting to.....

      I am assuming you can read.
      Sorce

      Delete
    2. And why are many starting to rethink their prior support? Because it is now dawning on them the risks. Those that are salivating at the mouth are the ones that stand to gain the most. Trust me, some of them are or have been clients of mine. Noone is in it for the greater good. Stop being so naive.
      Sorce

      Delete
  19. why would Freddie now find it necessary to offer "incentives" to "whiners and fence sitters"? Why wouldn't he be able to sell the vision on it's particular merit, broad community appeal, and enormous financial impact? Desperation is beginning to appear pervasive in this camp. Negotiations should prove interesting, who will break Freddy's bank?

    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.