;;

Monday, August 1, 2016

Mayor Eisenberger Responds to Clr. Whitehead's Work

1. Mr. Mayor:  Recently Councillor Terry Whitehead published information he has gathered with respect to LRT. This material appears to raise some serious doubts around whether LRT can succeed in Hamilton, as it is currently envisioned without a further significant injection of funds. Clr. Whitehead’s work came under fire in certain circles within social media, and has also earned the ire of some councillors who are known to be pro LRT supporters, as well as a researcher. Recently, Member of Parliament Bob Bratina also weighed in on The Hamiltonian, suggesting that the Province would be wiser to expedite construction of a Stoney Creek GO station and implement all-day serviced. M.P. Bratina suggested that according to experts "Heavy rail is thought to provide the largest capitalization of accessibility benefits into property values followed by commuter rail. Light rail is third.

Given that Clr. Whitehead and M.P. Bratina’s input are but two examples of sitting politicians who may have a different take on the appropriateness of LRT in Hamilton, how will you, as mayor, ensure that there is room for these conversations and that elected representatives are not simply cast aside as obstructionists or contrarians. Or, of you of the belief that the window for such debate is over and that people need to resign themselves accordingly.

2. Have you studied the material that Clr. Whitehead has brought forward. If so, what is your reaction to it. If not, why not?


Mayor Eisenberger's reponse:

Councillor Whitehead's report advanced a point of view and I receive it in that manner. It does not represent however a balanced representation of the facts, nor an understanding of the full scope of the project. Rather, disingenuously the Councillor poses questions to which he already knows the answers or is aware will be forthcoming in Staff reports.

We cannot lose sight of the fact that the project is a $1-billion fully-funded initiative by the Province of Ontario. LRT will serve as a catalyst for economic uplift along the corridor and to spur development throughout Hamilton, advancing the redevelopment already realized in so many neighbourhoods. The LRT spur line connecting to the West Harbour GO station will provide stronger links to the GTHA and support regional prosperity. Connectivity is supported at the Provincial government level, through the Metrolinx support for West Harbour GO station and planning the Centennial GO station in Stoney Creek, with bridge changes now complete, and construction set to begin in 2017 as a link to later reach Niagara.

Overall, this is 1.2 Billion dollar investment in our entire transit system. $200 million for GO - with $150 million to address the in-line capacity issue from Aldershot and $50 Million for the Centennial Parkway Station.

The LRT initiative is a starting point that will mean growth for our entire transit system city-wide. Will more funding be needed to maintain the LRT line and expand the train network across Hamilton? Absolutely. On July 26, the LRT implementation subcommittee voted to re-affirm the City’s commitment and work to secure additional funding to build the balance of Hamilton’s BLAST network; part of Hamilton’s transportation master plan and the Metrolinx Regional Transportation Master Plan.

Trepidation around a project of this magnitude is normal, we are committing to transformational change for future generations; planning today for tomorrow. This is an opportunity for us to plan a transit system now to avoid future congestion issues and managing smart growth.

We have the political will and support required to move the project forward. We have an outpouring of community support; my office has received 1,202 letters, calls and emails in favour of LRT, while only 55 have been received in opposition to LRT. We demanded a fully funded solution for LRT, and that has been delivered. We are moving ahead in earnest, continuing to build a world class city worthy of our collective pride.

Thanks Mayor Eisenberger for engaging with Hamiltonians on The Hamiltonian. 

84 comments:

  1. Mr Mayor, I welcome you to demonstrate that there is city wide approval for this project and challenge to to rethink your position given how many facts have been ignored in drawing conclusions and how we have no credible data on the routes as presented but rather a completely new plan

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousJuly 29, 2016

      He was elected on a pro-LRT platform. There's citywide approval. Just because you don't think so doesn't make it so

      Delete
    2. He was elected as someone who would ask the people. McHattie was pro finished 3rd Clark anti finished 2nd Eisenberger no position 1st. Pretty much reflects the population more against than for but even more undecided or uncaring

      Delete
    3. "He was elected as someone who would ask the people." asking or consulting isnt letting them decide. mayor eisenberger was on record as being behind lrt, as was brian mchattie. together they got twice as many votes as brad clark. the people have spoken. its yes for lrt no to the status quo.

      Delete
  2. 1202 letters in support vs 55 against and you want more evidence of "city wide" support? Did you even read the response?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes less than 2% an indication of support

      Delete
    2. AnonymousJuly 29, 2016

      and at 55 letters against what % of the citizenry if AGAINST lrt? so the score so far 2% support for lrt, 0.00000000? against lrt. the yeas carry. thanks allan.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousJuly 29, 2016

      There were 366,124 eligible voters in the last election.

      366,124

      and Fred got 1,202 letters and he thinks that means something?

      Really?

      P.S. and he only got 39% of a 34% voter turn out.

      Delete
    4. AnonymousJuly 30, 2016

      some say the vast majority of hamiltonians are anti lrt... that by a huge margin the citizens are against lrt, and want nothing to do with it....yet mayor eisenberger was a pro lrt candidate, and brad clark was a anti lrt candidate. mayor fred may have gotten only 39% of a 34% voter turn out, bu why didnt the other 300,000 people in hamilton that dont want lrt get out and vote against mayor fred? the largest single issue last election was lrt. allan and jim and socre didnt do a very good job of mobilizing the tsunami of anti lrt people that are out there. according to them of curse.

      Delete
    5. nonsense,Fred ran on a promise to let you and I decide, something he has reconsidered after his victory. McHattie was the only one on the ticket to publicly support LRT going into the election. How did Brian fare?

      Delete
    6. AnonymousJuly 31, 2016

      he did not promise to let you and i decide. show me one quote from any source where mayor or candidate eisenberger said he would let anyone decide anything in regards to lrt. the most you will find is "consultation" or "dialogue" or some other such language. since we are still waiting for any proof of your previous unprovable comments, i wont be surprised when you fail to produce this time.

      Delete
    7. not done of course.

      Delete
    8. "How did Brian fare?" better question is "how did brad do?" brian mchattie, pro lrt from jump street got only 20. something %. mayor fred, pro lrt advocate, got almost 40%. together, the pro lrt mayoral candidates got 60% of the votes. brad clark was the only serious mayoral candidate that was anti lrt candidate. how did brad do? 32%. almost half of what the pro lrt candidates received. the people have spoken.

      Delete
    9. Fred ran on no opinion not pro

      Delete
    10. google mayor eisenbergers 2014 mayoral run. he makes no secret of his support for lrt, loudly and clearly. he publicly endorsed it, and chided brad clark for running his campaign on an anti lrt bent. yes, candidate eisenberger promised to convene a citizens forum to discuss and plan rapid transit. you and others have been asked over and over and over again to produce the quote you can attribute to candidate eisenberger where he promises to let this citzens panle or anyone else other than council decide lrt over brt or any other option. IF mayor eisenberger had actually made such an offer, allan or jim or sorce would produce it and say "told you so" but they wont cause they cant. just cause they heard what they wanted to hear when candidate said citizens forum, doesnt mean they can produce facts to back up their fantasy.

      Delete
  3. Mr. Mayor,

    Thank you again for your continued leadership on this matter. Do not let the small minority of loud and disingenuous voices disrupt this once in a generation opportunity.

    ReplyDelete
  4. All I can say is that you are naking a big mistake. Don't get taken with the 1Billion dollar shiny coin, or those who are salivating at the mouth to make a buck at the expense of future generations. Think about what it will take to sustain this and you will see that it is a disaster. Go with BRT.
    Sorce

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stephanie RobinsonJuly 29, 2016

      There is no BRT option. The Province will provide $1 Billion for LRT only. Period. Pointe finale.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousJuly 29, 2016

      That naaive

      Delete
    3. AnonymousJuly 30, 2016

      B-Line BRT would require 2-3 times as many buses to be dedicated to King-Main-Queenston service. This means 2-3 times as many drivers, and 2-3 times the replacement cost when you need new buses in 12 years (or, if you prefer, three election terms), possibly less when they are being used so intensively. Not cheap, and it seems destined to mean that capital budget would be more or less dedicated to the trunk line while the feeder network reverts to something like the old-school HSR's 18-year replacement cycle.

      Delete
    4. BRT is still on the table per Wynn

      Delete
    5. 2-3 times the number of drivers assumes incorrectly 4 times the ridership.

      Delete
    6. AnonymousJuly 30, 2016

      The system is past capacity half the time now, and has been for years. If you want to have more frequent bus service, you need more buses. Pretty elementary stuff. If you're not doubling the number of buses then you're pulling a Pan Am Stadium: Replicating the status quo from scratch. And if that's your proposed solution, it's fair to ask if you're pro-transit in any way.

      Delete
    7. AnonymousJuly 30, 2016

      "BRT is still on the table per Wynn" if you are trying to make it sound like we get to keep the 1 billion for lrt and spend it on something else or hold onto it till we make up our mind you are confused or a liar. what details did PREMIER wynne give about options? none. nada. zilch. what did her minister, another minister, and under secrteary and a provincial spokesperson say about options "if you want to reject the money being ffered to day for lrt, no problem. we will spend that 1 billion somewhere else, and hamilton can RE_APPLY in the future to be considered"

      Delete
    8. Yes we need an upgrade, that's not in dispute. What is in dispute is the need to quadruple capacity on one line while ignoring the rest of the system. The idea that this is the first phase and other projects will follow isn't realistic. If we can parlay this into 2 complete BRT lines instead of a single incomplete LRT route that's what we should be pushing. At the least B line needs to be completed in full and BRT more than fulfils our capacity requirements. The 2 issues with LRT are fixed operating costs regardless of ridership numbers and the much higher capital costs that has forced the shorter route funding.

      Delete
    9. AnonymousJuly 30, 2016

      If you're advocating the kind of headways that would make service demonstrably better than it is at present, then yes, you would need to dramatically expand capacity. You would be welcome to double service levels system-wide, but that would require adding not just 18-20 buses to a single corridor (and merging 3 or 4 routes) but doubling the number of buses on 34 routes. And that would require massive capital and operational investment. There are around 225 buses in the HSR fleet at present. The HSR had hoped to add 25 buses to the fleet last year at a capital cost of
      $15.6M. do the math. The difference is that the province asserts that the City is responsible for bus purchases, assisted by gas tax revenues:

      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. Del Duca, who was attending the unveiling of the new $24 million GO Transit bus facility in Flamborough March 4, said when asked about Hamilton council’s March 2015 request for $302 million for bus funding, said the province is “focused on the LRT and expansion of GO.” “We provide all of our communities across the province with on-going gas tax support,” said Del Duca.

      http://m.hamiltonnews.com/news-story/6376718-hamilton-s-302-million-bus-transit-funding-request-crashes

      Given everyone's concerns about tying transit investment to ridership numbers, it seems only reasonable to expect that if it came to BRT, the investment would be calibrated accordingly, in relation to ridership numbers.

      Incidentally the "if" in "if we can parlay" is the critical thing in the above paragraph.

      There is only one corridor that has received official scrutiny to date and that's the B-Line. Every other proposed line on the 25-year development horizon (i.e. LAST) have yet to undergo the decade of study and debate that the B-Line has received. No doubt they will be stronger and more sustainable on the other side, but until such time as they have run that gauntlet, there is nothing in the rapid transit development stream for Hamilton. The choice is between serving McMaster to Queenston with LRT and doing so with BRT. That the latter costs a third as much does not mean that we can redirect the savings. We would construct the initial phase and then submit the equivalent of "Rapid Ready" for the LAST lines — unfunded studies as yet, but nevermind — to the province for funding consideration. Assuming that there is any funding left, and that the province is willing to make infrastructure investments without some level of matching funds from the municipality. (The City covered around 40% of the cost of the football stadium, for example.)

      And as has been pointed out, the operational unknowns regarding BRT are the same as for LRT.

      Delete
    10. "BRT is still on the table per Wynn" anyone here remember brt funding approval from the province? no? me neither.

      Delete
  5. AnonymousJuly 29, 2016

    This will be another stadium. Only this time, it won't just be embarrassing, it will cost us for a very long time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Everyone agrees, what we don't agree on is what the smart choice is, partial LRT full BRT University Plaza to Eastgate full BRT A and B together or no rapid transit. Too many zealots not enough honest conversation all around

      Delete
    2. AnonymousJuly 30, 2016

      A&B simultaneously, for BRT or LRT, will mean assembling a second EA and BCA and resubmitting the project for funding consideration. The B-Line study cost $3M+ and took a couple of years to complete: it was finished in 2008, with the Metrolinx Benefits Case Analysis following in 2010, then council approved the Rapid Ready report for submission to Metrolinx in 2013. So let's say 5 years end-to-end for the City's end of things and then another couple of years for the province to determine if it will fund it or not. SO if we start today we might know if two lines are possible by 2025. Honest conversation.

      Delete
  6. Stay the course Mayor. I believe this will be transformational for the city and the benefits have been studied in depth. I fully support LRT although there still remains questions in my mind which I'm sure will be answered as time goes on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousJuly 29, 2016

      its refreshing to see optimism. lrt will be great, and problems are just to be expected and overcome, not used and excuse to do nothing.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousJuly 29, 2016

      Hope is a great breakfast but a crappy supper

      Delete
    3. AnonymousJuly 30, 2016

      I prefer Weetabix

      Delete
  7. AnonymousJuly 29, 2016

    "I welcome you to demonstrate that there is city wide approval for this project" in his piece posted here, the mayor never said he has city wide approval. he said "We have an outpouring of community support; my office has received 1,202 letters, calls and emails in favour of LRT, while only 55 have been received in opposition to LRT." he said COMMUNITY support. who cares about where the support comes from or which community supports lrt? irrelevant.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 2 letters, 4 phone calls, and 1,188 emails from someone named anonymous

      Delete
    2. AnonymousJuly 30, 2016

      compared to the excellent showing of the angry mob of anti lrt hamiltonians jim graham says exist. hey jim, only 55 letters against. quite a dedicated bunch of passionate anti lrts you got there. remember folks, jim and allan and socre think the lrt will doom hamilton it will be the end of us, but what have they done to prevent this catastrophe they know is coming? well the commented on social media. thanks for the efforts in saving hamilton.

      Delete
  8. AnonymousJuly 29, 2016

    Does Fred Eisenberger use public transit to go to work? Does anyone else on council use public transit routinely to go to work and back?

    Didn't think so.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Both Councillor Aidan Johnson and Matthew Green do regularly.

      Delete
    2. At least 2 councillors use public transit on a daily basis -- Aiden Johnson and Matthew Green. Not sure if any others do.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousJuly 29, 2016

      Wow,,,that's astonishing. Yiou mean all these councillors and the mayor who are clamoring for LRT don't even use public transit. And you think public transit riders will increase?

      Delete
    4. AnonymousJuly 30, 2016

      Re: Mayors use of public Transit... while most of counsel can claim to use the HSR to varying degrees, the mayor has to temper the practicality of public transportation with a daily itinerary that would frighten most. If you want to be mayor prepare to have your every move and word scrutinized, your recycling bin analyzed and your shopping cart contents commented on. Why anyone would want that job i have no idea. Our mayors have given so much on behalf of this city. Lets continue to hold them to task but lets keep in mind our counselors and mayor have given up their private lives for this public office.

      For mayor Freds part, read his resume on city building and google the success of LRT in so many citys before you touch your keyboard

      Delete
  9. The anti-LRT crowd is so predictable and unbalanced. So when every other city in the country has LRT, these selectively "fiscal conscious" individuals will be trying to pave more roads at everyone's expense.

    This predictable "I'm just asking questions" point of view can be seen in moon landing conspiracy buffs and chemtrailers. You can safely ignore these opinions since they are impervious to mountains of data.

    ReplyDelete
  10. AnonymousJuly 29, 2016

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hamiltonian AdminJuly 30, 2016

      This comment has been removed as it did not meet our site policy.

      Delete
  11. We cannot lose sight of the fact that the project is a $1-billion fully-funded initiative by the Province of Ontario.

    he forgot to say this:

    We cannot lose sight of the fact that the project is a $1-billion fully-funded initiative by the Province of Ontario, and then, we're on our own to pay for it ongoing.

    You';re welcome

    Mr. Sarc

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousJuly 30, 2016

      It's a little perplexing why this needs to be pointed out so many times.

      CORRECTION

      The matter of who is responsible for the operation and maintenance costs associated with provincial infrastructure projects is decided at the RFP stage. This is a cornerstone element of the way that the province approaches infrastructure investment.

      Hamilton LRT's RFP has yet to be issued, and indeed is still under negotiation — with the City of Hamilton as an active participant in that authorship. The LRT project timeline posted on this site six months ago makes it abundantly clear that the RFP/RFQ will not be issued before December 2016 — and given that RFQ process comes first, possibly not until the first half of next year.

      http://www.thehamiltonian.net/2016/01/lrt-project-plan-timelines-for-hamilton.html

      In light of this fact, any assumptions about who will be responsible for the ongoing O&M costs of the infrastructure in question are just that: Assumptions, usually based on nothing more than the bias of the speaker. This is evident in the recent hand-wringing of Councillors Skelly and Whitehead. That either elected official is ignorant of this elementary bit of project implementation undercuts their claims to seriousness and substantially erodes their credibility.

      Delete
    2. Without that information there can be no agreement signed by a responsible city government. Pass

      Delete
    3. AnonymousJuly 30, 2016

      I am a PMI accredited Project Manager who admittedly, has a bunch of concerns about this LRT thing. It takes a lot to make a project of this size successful, and most of them fail.

      My main concern is that people seem to be do==going to great lengths to sway down some legitimate questions and concerns. That, is a recipe for disaster.

      You would be better off conceding that there are great risks.

      In terms of a RFP/RFQ, that is ordinarily done when governments want to pass off a risk to a third party. Dont kid yourself though. There will be a great cost to that, and any third party would build in an escape clause if the project does not yield the benefits it should.

      So keep your eyes open. Just because you will have an RFP or RFQ to start, does not guarantee much. The ridership has to...has to...has to.. be there, and grow.

      And that's the issue.

      Sorry, face the facts. I don't care who you are, including the Mayor. The issues are real and you are losing confidence when people keep denying them or try to explain them away.

      Blaine

      Delete
    4. AnonymousJuly 30, 2016

      Blaine

      Don't bring project management into this. It has not even passed any sort of proof of concept, as far as I am concerned. The whole thing is just responding to the billion dollars and people are lining up to make their fortunes off the work. But the whole thing will be a great expense to us and our children as we find that it is grossly under used. Site all the links you want but people are not going to be convinced. Some things are just common sense and all the excuses in the world won't cover it.

      Delete
    5. what is truly perplexing is anonymous posters inability to grasp that the general public puts no stock in commenting forwarded by those lacking the conviction to accept responsibility for their opinions

      Delete
    6. AnonymousJuly 30, 2016

      Not saying that the RFQ/RFP is a silver bullet, just that the process is standardized enough that ignorance of it speaks to a lack of interest in the subject matter at hand. Are there great risks attached to the largest infrastructure project ever undertaken in the City of Hamilton? Unsurprisingly, yes. Would it be realistic to expect otherwise? Frankly, no.

      Re: Ridership
      “Transit Ridership - The most recent ridership counts for the Main-King-Queenston corridor suggest that transit ridership along the corridor has grown by approximately 20% over five years (2009 to 2014), or an average of about 4% per year. Ridership in the Main-King-Queenston corridor accounts for approximately 42% of the system wide ridership. Between 2009 and 2013 transit ridership across the HSR system grew by 4% (from 20,930,770 to 21,817,842), an average of approximately 1% per year. Based on the data, the Main-King-Queenston corridor carries a significant proportion of transit ridership in the City and ridership in this corridor is growing at a faster rate than the overall system. There is evidence that, from a transit ridership perspective, greater investment in this corridor is warranted.”

      http://hamilton.siretechnologies.com/sirepub/cache/2/jbslt0oqdhdkuzabunvldcib/5676707302016061817780.PDF

      The B-Line ridership is fine. It’s the rest of the HSR that’s sucking wind. But because of the "everybody sees investment or nobody sees investment" school of thought that governs City policy, the HSR is struggling under the weight of a system that is not growing to accommodate demand.

      The question remains: Can the City reasonably expect to see enhanced service while being absolved of any responsibility to invest in that service? Honestly, when it comes to so many things the City of Hamilton is living out “The Little Red Hen,” wanting to operate a successful mid-sized city without having to take responsibility for the actions and disciplined decision-making that emables such an outcome. Better to indulge laissez-faire planning, aim for targets that everyone understands to be unrealistic hypotheticals, then go to senior government with a beggar’s bowl, pleading our “exceptional circumstances,” which is really just that we’re apparently incapable of operating $1B corporation.

      Delete
    7. AnonymousJuly 30, 2016

      Jim and Blaine are right. Who care about facts when we know the score. The whole system is rigged. It;s everyone for themselves. That's the kind of full-blooded competition that breeds an ambitious city. The strong will survive and the survivors will dictate history.

      Jim Jones

      Delete
  12. AnonymousJuly 29, 2016

    @ The Hamiltonian Admin. Can you tell us how Terry Whitehead ended up meeting with you. And where did this take place?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousJuly 30, 2016

      cool. was mayor eisenberger invited to the publishers home for his q and a? thanks in advance for your response.

      Delete
    2. Hamiltonian AdminJuly 30, 2016

      The mayor is welcome to contact us at any time, and we have an excellent and respectful relationship with him- as we have had with other mayors.

      Delete
    3. Hamiltonian AdminJuly 30, 2016

      From time to time councillors or others approach us to convey their view and perspectives on matters. Sometimes, a meeting is requested. Clr. Whitehead met with our Publisher .

      Hamiltonian Admin

      Delete
  13. @ The Hamiltonian. I am a new follower. I appreciate this opportunity. I have combed through several months of material and I am impressed with your openness to have everyone speak here. Do you publish in print?

    Sara Johnson

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hamiltonian AdminJuly 30, 2016

      Welcome Sara. No, we do not have a print version.

      Please spread the good word about TH. We are non profit and appreciate word of mouth advertisements.

      The Hamiltonian Admin

      Delete
  14. AnonymousJuly 30, 2016

    Does anyone know why only 2 councillors use public transit. Isn't that a very bad example?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fred's new bff Miss Kathy is a big supporter of LRT and public transit. She regularly rolls into town in her stretch limo-with police escort-to make funding announcements. The absence of credible leadership and outright hypocrisy have badly damaged to "pro" argument.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousJuly 30, 2016

      You're lying big time here. Fred was pro-LRT in his term before this one, and was only being diplomatic this time around. You anti-LRT people really love to play with facts, all the while demanding "the truth." It's to a point now where it's comical in a "Curb Your Enthusiasm" way

      Delete
    3. Freddies "gift basket" diplomacy. Who needs consensus when you have tremendous vision, and enormous ego, and absolutely no regard for consequence.

      Delete
  15. The Mayor's comments are well considered. I look forward to this project advancing through its stages until completion. It will be a boon to our city, part of its evolution toward the future.

    ReplyDelete
  16. AnonymousJuly 30, 2016

    Oh yay. More baby boomers telling future generations how to save money. You know, there's a lot of evidence that suggests you were the worst generation at being fiscal, so why don't you just step aside and let our generation decide for ourselves. Don't start beating the drum about your concern about the children of the next generation - your approach didn't work last time.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Crystal LavigneJuly 30, 2016

    While it’s great to hear Mayor Eisenberger state that we are “planning today for tomorrow… to avoid future congestion issues…”, I still can’t help but wonder why we are even considering building a very expensive, big, shiny, semi-permanent bus without fixing all the aging infrastructure BELOW that new shiny, fancy bus first. How does he even consider this “managing smart growth”? Ah, maybe I’m just ignorant, but I wouldn’t plant my tomatoes in a bed of rock and expect them to grow to their full potential. I would fix that bed first and make sure a good foundation was laid.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousJuly 30, 2016

      Respectfully, you're in the minority if you'd like your taxes to go up so that roads can get ripped up in order that $200M be spent on something that is invisible when completed. Councillors like ribbon-cuttings. They like growing the tax base. The nuts-and-bolts of city-building? Not so much.

      CBC HamIlton: "Metrolinx is responsible for relocating city-owned and third-party infrastructure, the city says. The city contributes if the infrastructure is already slated for replacement in the city's capital plan, or if it wants to do upgrades. Many councillors have questioned various potential scenarios around this."

      http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/news/lrt-questions-1.3586590

      This, to my mind, is a key reason for resistance to the B-Line LRT: Because it will require the City to make necessary infrastructure enhancements in a compressed time frame, rather than dragging it out until basements are flooded with raw sewage, which is the typical "Made In Hamilton Solution" (souvenir t-shirts coming soon).

      Delete
    2. AnonymousJuly 30, 2016

      For the ski lifts, amirite?

      Delete
    3. I'm against the entire LRT project to begin with. My point in the above, in regards to infrastructure below ground, is just that- it's an entire waste of money all around.

      Delete
    4. AnonymousJuly 31, 2016

      Infrastructure gets fixed at the same time, IIRC.

      Delete
  18. AnonymousJuly 30, 2016

    Public Works Report PW11079g
    Table 1 - Transportation Master Plan Targets (2001 reality/2011 reality/2011 target/2021-2031 target)

    Share of daily trips made by single occupant
    drivers: 68% / 67% / 58% / 52%

    Share of daily trips made by using municipal transit:
    5% / 7% / 9% / 12%

    Annual transit rides per capita: 40 / 45.1 / 60 / 80-100

    http://hamilton.siretechnologies.com/sirepub/cache/2/jbslt0oqdhdkuzabunvldcib/5676707302016095051973.PDF

    It is abundantly clear that council has been derelict in implementation of official plans, and that municipal investment in the HSR will need to double in order for the City to achieve its stated vision for the city's transportation system. With or without rapid transit. With or without investment from senior government.

    ReplyDelete
  19. AnonymousJuly 31, 2016

    I don't think this city is ready for this project. i don't think it is right for this city. And I know that there are too many questions that are very important, and have not been addressed.

    If I had to make a Stop/Go decision at this juncture, it would have to be a STOP.

    Blaine

    ReplyDelete
  20. according to Higgins, the LRT will serve as a catalyst for nothing that would not occur anyway. Will more money be required-absolutely. Where will it come from? Where do you think?

    Claiming trepidation while witnessing outrage displays how far you are prepared to reach to dictate your vision. Claiming support you are frightened to request confirms your contempt for the electorate.

    Frustration and embarrassment are what you have fostered Fred, any legacy, at any cost, appears your motivation. Bravo.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "...according to Higgins, the LRT will serve as a catalyst for nothing that would not occur anyway" not true. he says using lrt to encourage development that would occur anyway is not a wise use of lrt resources. all agree. doctor higgins has said NOTHING about that being the case with the king street lrt route. produce the source of what you attribute to doctor higgins work, link it or be exposed as someone else being creative with doctor higgins work. again, know you wont cause you cant but lets give ya a chance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LRT will not provide the economic uplift you have promoted, unto itself, ever. No upside, a reduction in service to those with mobility issues, increased congestion. 10 years of careful planning. Thanks for your help.

      Delete
    2. deflect, distract, deny. the usual jim graham. you said "i have hard proof of my position" when asked to produce it you say "no. but i cant. i wont. im still right" typical anti lrt tactic.

      Delete
    3. no benefit, huge downside, your fault

      Delete
  22. LRT will be a dismal failure in Hamilton because we have not bothered with all the preconditions. And try as you may, not everyone will be using public transit. In fact, many people will continue to drive their cars and many will be looking to new technologies in cars such as self driving cars. Also, electric cars and other hybrids will continue to be popular amongst the environment sensitive drivers. To think that there will be an increase in transit users in Hamilton, and to rely on that, is a foolish assumption and is an assumption that is setting us up for failure.
    Sorce

    ReplyDelete
  23. you post here time and time again that you want to build a brt network across all of hamilton. a brt network which would cost hundreds of millions of dollars. why would you SAY you dont want to build a lrt because you would rather build a brt but you ALSO say why are building ANY public transit at all because "To think that there will be an increase in transit users in Hamilton, and to rely on that, is a foolish assumption and is an assumption that is setting us up for failure" which one of these views do you hold? cause some contradict one another.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because BRT is a complete system whereas LRT is a very small piece

      Delete
    2. are you answering for sorce or are you in fact one in the same?

      Delete
    3. I am always amazed on how many people claim to speak for me, claim to be me.

      There is only one Sorce.

      The others are just poor imitations
      Sorce

      Delete
  24. “What would it take for public transit staff to say no to bus lanes? Would it be short of a nuclear bomb going off?" – Terry Whitehead, January 2015

    ReplyDelete
  25. I'm answering for me. I'm not Anonymous or sorce

    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.