;;

Monday, September 12, 2016

Let's Put the Brakes On LRT- by NOHAMILTONLRT


Let's Put the Brakes on LRT

When it comes to Hamiltons LRT there are two very different trains of thought. There are a few very vocal groups who seem to think they know what is good for all of us and think they speak for the masses. But there is a silent anger brewing for those who feel their voice has been ignored, who think this is some legacy project that caters to a few thousand, will cost a fortune and will radically change the landscape of city that is just now coming into its own.

No one is against good sensible transportation, but when it serves only a few, one has to ask , is this what Hamilton really needs? More growth is happening on the city's mountain, and yet they have virtually been shut out of this debate.

In a time when technology and ride shares, like Uber and autonamous vehicles have expanded transportation around the world, that will virtually change the way we move around, does it make sense to spend a billion dollars on a system that is already outdated?

In urban centres like Toronto and Vancouver density and population demand high speed track service. 1.8 million riders are moved in Toronto every day. Hamilton simply doesn’t have that ridership to successfully sustain an LRT profitably.

"It will be great for area businesses proponents argue." Nonsense. The proposed route reveals stops don’t even go near existing businesses, eliminating over 34 bus stops from the main bus route , as well as the other buses that travel the route.. And of course we are assuming those businesses will survive the many years long construction. In Toronto, the St Clair track construction lasted 5 years. Many years longer than scheduled, marred by unforeseen infrastructure issues and cost over runs that went 40 million over the initial 60 million dollar budget.

Customers avoiding traffic jams disappeared and hundreds of businesses were shuttered. Today businesses along St Clair track face a repeat of interrupted business as the tracks are torn up again because of mistakes made during that original construction.

Along Eglinton, construction of new subway tracks has been going on for more than 2 years. Traffic is snarled 24 hours a day. Businesses are being decimated. That project is also delayed and nowhere near finished, and already it too is over budget. For 6 months residents put up with the constant drum of jack hammers and the hum of boring machines. Traffic in the area is terrible. Motorists and heavy construction vehicles anxious to avoid it have turned once quiet residential streets into busy thorough fares. Lawn signs warning of children at play are everywhere. This is a reality facing Hamiltonians.

Need more proof of Metrolinx’s failures? The UP express, a link from Union Station to Pearson Airport, a must have built for the Pan American games has been rife with problems. It doesn’t serve anywhere near the 2.5 million people that it was intended to service. Daily ridership is actually less than current daily ridership of the HSR B-line bus which is the reason it costs so much and loses money.Trains sit empty and prices are simply too high. For $ 12.00 one way ,taxis and Uber are the better way to go. Already Ontario tax payers are out of pocket half a billion dollars for the ill thought project. And its now you, the tax payer who are subsidizing it to the tune of 20 million a yr. Requests for the Ombudsman to review what went wrong have been shuttered. An investigation by the Toronto Sun revealed Metrolinx, the government agency responsible for building Hamilton's LRT, revealed through leaked emails that they told the transportation minister a review was “unwelcome”. How does an agency with a spotty record of incompetence since 2006, that has been the subject of several auditors reports showing a record of being late, and running over budget avoid such scrutiny?

In a recent radio interview Sam Merulla, a proponent of the LRT, was asked what due diligence the city has taken to avoid a repeat of such mistakes with Metrolinx. His response; “he trusts Kathleen Wynne and Metrolinx to do the job right”.. Really? What an incredulous statement given the failed track records of both. It makes one wonder how Hamilton City council can go ahead with something so expensive without a thorough investigation into previous mistakes that will cost the tax payers hundreds of millions of dollars for years to come.

Last week expropriation notices went out to 45 Hamilton land and business owners who will be told the government is taking their land for track construction. Up to 250 letters will go out in total. Owners should be paid market value for their land, but that is still to be determined. Some will welcome the purchase , others won’t. For them it’s tough luck. As stated by LRT proponents it is “short term pain for long term gain”. Expropriation is almost impossible to fight unless of course you have more money than the government.

My family owns Gilbert's Big and Tall which has been part of Hamilton's landscape for 63 yrs . To date it is uncertain as to what will happen with respect to expropriation but our concern is how will the many years of construction affect our business which is our livelihood? And while some derelict properties wont be missed, there will be historical landmarks that will be demolished that will forever change this city. Are Hamiltonians ok with the wrecking ball taking that kind of History from our city?

Everyone wants good transit. Growing cities need it, Hamilton is no exception. But simple, logical questions must be answered before city streets are dug up and traffic and local business disrupted. Have city officials reviewed Metrolinx projects to assure past mistakes aren’t repeated? Have provisions been put in place guaranteeing tax payers wont be on the hook for late construction. A third party will own and operate the LRT system while Metrolinx will receive the revenue .

Will city officials be sourcing LRT cars from Bombardier which has a terrible track record? They are now 2 years late delivering Toronto 204 street cars, and 50 million over budget. Is this the company Hamilton Council plans to get LRT cars from? Have contracts been written with clauses protecting tax payers if delivery of product is late? As well as project cost overruns?

Have officials factored in traffic impact, not just to main thruways able to deal with construction vehicles and increased traffic, but to small communities along the LRT Route that will be flooded with motorists trying to make up for lost time? Already changes along the arterial routes such as Herkimer, Charlton and Cannon streets have become limited due to bike lanes and parking, what will happen when more traffic is diverted onto them?

But the real question is whether the $ 1 billion should be used for an LRT which is already an antiquated system that will need continuous repair , upkeep and maintenance where costs will fall on the shoulders of all the Hamilton tax payers even though the LRT will service a small portion of the population. Or should we consider implementing newer more progressive technology such as BRT or autonomous vehicles? Can Hamiltonians accept seeing local businesses struggle or shuttered, buildings and landmarks demolished? Does Hamilton really need this, or is this simply a legacy project for a few politicians anxious for a ribbon to cut and a photograph to hang on their wall? Who will ultimately be accountable for this project if it proves to be a mistake?

If you would like to contact the No Hamilton LRT Group, you can do by accessing one or more of the following:

Web Site: www.NOHAMILTONLRT.WIX.COM/MYSITE
Email: NOHAMILTONLRT@OUTLOOK.COM
Facebook: NOHAMILTONLRT

Please note. People who submit comments and solely use the handle "anonymous" will not have their posts appear. To have your post appear, you must abide by the site policies and either use your real name, or choose a handle.

129 comments:

  1. I guess this puts an end to those who say that groups are not organizing to oppose this ridiculous LRT idea. All the power to this group. I am sure there will be many others.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There goes that Damm Hamiltonian again allowing all sides to speak. Dan you hamiltonian. Damm you lol

      Cheers

      Delete
    2. the initial stage of the lrt build is taking place as we speak. this group started the petition 3 months ago. they have only 49 supporters. very timely, very effective. yes, we are all very worried now.

      Delete
  2. Interesting article from a different angle that makes some valid points and certainly something to think about. I value these opinions more so than those from politians or the people just looking out for themselves. Not everyone lives downdown. In fact, the majority of Hamiltonians don't. How will LRT benefit me? It won't and our councillor could care less. Speak out people. We need to be our own voice and together we can be darn loud. Thank you Bes

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mr. Merulla has also claimed Ms. Wynne is "a liar", "in denial" and "willfully stupid". The cost of Sam's new found faith?

    ReplyDelete
  4. "There are a few very vocal groups who seem to think they know what is good for all of us and think they speak for the masses." a few? a few hundred groups. almost three hundred groups in fact. mcmaster, mohawk, the chamber of commerce, vrancor - the most active builder/developer in hamilton, liuna - one of the biggest labour unions in the world, clean air hamilton, environment hamilton, the hamilton halton homebuilders association, the hamilton burlington association of architects, several bia's, over a hundred business and merchants in hamilton small medium large and extra large, almost a dozen neighbourhood associations and community councils, various places of faith and worship, and so on and so on and so on. these groups, numbering almost three hundred have written letters of suuport for lrt to council and other senior levels of government. these groups represent collectively untold tens of thousands of ordinary citizens and accredited professionals alike. your groups anti lrt petition has been in circulation over three months now. you have less than fifty supporters. nuff said. for now.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Not everyone lives downdown" that right. but the lrt will run from queenston traffic circle to mcmaster. hundreds of thousands of people live in this service area today, and many tens of thousands more in the next few years. so your point isnt valid.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "More growth is happening on the city's mountain, and yet they have virtually been shut out of this debate" the east mountain voted against improved transit in their area. the west mountain voted against improved transit service. the central mountain has had terry whitehead as a councillor for what 15, 20 years now? have you examined councilor whiteheads voting record on hsr funding or his efforts for improved hsr service for central mountain? please do so then get back to us where blame should be placed on poor bus service on the mountain. the past and present/ yes to multi million dollar transit facilities but not so much for transit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please do me a favour and post a list of all of the times councillors voted against improving transit funding.

      Delete
    2. you are some sort of assistant to councilor whitehead, yea? please assist him and us and provide his voting record on transit FUNDING. not IMPROVING transit, as that would be subjective.

      Delete
    3. Metrolinx doesn't even have a concrete LRT plan yet, so councillors could not yet have made a final decision. All votes have been made based on "facts" and design details that have since changed.

      Delete
  7. "In a time when technology and ride shares, like Uber and autonamous vehicles have expanded transportation around the world, that will virtually change the way we move around, does it make sense to spend a billion dollars on a system that is already outdated?" how many municipalities worldwide investing billions on uber and self driving cars to solve transit problems? zero or close to it. how many municipalities worldwide investing billions on lrt and other mass rapid transit to solve transit problems? thousands and thousands. but im sure gilberts knows best.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's the most inane rationale that's rolled out: That the mobility solution that Hamilton needs is to take 22 million annual transit rides on high-capacity modes and convert them into pod-driver or driver-passenger units, in the name of efficiency. Who needs a 200-capacity LRV when you can replace it with 200 individual vehicles?

      Delete
    2. yes, the anti lrt crowd loves self driving cars. and brt. and flying cars. and teleporters.

      Delete
  8. "And while some derelict properties wont be missed, there will be historical landmarks that will be demolished that will forever change this city" name ten. i dare you. from east to west, assuming all existing business vanished, what ten "landmarks" cant we live without. i will spot you the first one. gilberts. then black forest, deningers. then what? the gladstone? tabbys variety? i really look forward to your "top ten landmarks of king street" we cant live without.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Already changes along the arterial routes such as Herkimer, Charlton and Cannon streets have become limited due to bike lanes and parking, what will happen when more traffic is diverted onto them?" they cant stay on the mountain unless they work downtown. we built then the redhill, the linc, the qew, yet they all want to save seven minutes by rat running through residential areas. well no longer. reduce speeds, bollards, knock down sticks, cycling lanes, pedestrian activated crosswalks, we will eat away at your time savings until you wont think about rat running through corktown or durand. if that doesnt work fast enough, other methods are available.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "To date it is uncertain as to what will happen with respect to expropriation but our concern is how will the many years of construction affect our business which is our livelihood?" if literally a few years construction in and around your store is the end of your store thats unfortunate. for only for the few members of your family and a handfull of employees. if youre worried about the lrt build, sell the store for a huge amount in five minutes in todays market. open a new store closer to your customer base so they dont have to drive into downtown once year. or retire. or roll the dice hold onto the property and sell it for a huge bundle after the lrt. whatever. times change, cities improve.

    ReplyDelete
  11. are the signs you put up on city poles breaking by laws?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. of course not

      Delete
    2. or yes. the city prohibits posters on traffic signal poles. there are "no lrt in hamilton" flyers on traffic signal poles. as well, all sign flyers have a time frame they can be posted. 21 days before the event and 3 days after the event. there is no "event" listed on these flyers. they have been up longer than 24 days.


      http://www2.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/0D850F7B-3380-43D3-9C87-FD539BA2B918/0/MLESignByLawBrochure.pdf

      Delete
    3. Wow. Is the LRT lobby really that desperate. Your posy says a lot about your level of angst and desperation.

      Each time I drive around Hamilton I see signs for computer repiars, massage, fortune telling, house cleaning- all on city polls. Don't worry about the signs.

      Obviously you have hit a nerve with the LRT lobby. Instantly one becomes the enemy if they have an opposing view. Hopefully politicians will see this as a cause of worry. The silent masses out there are still out there...and they vote.

      Delete
    4. "The silent masses out there are still out there...and they vote." the vocal masses, like the vocal masses that support lrt also vote. big difference: each and every pro lrt voter votes come heck or high water. your average anti lrt voter might stay home if theres a ticat or leaf game on. or if bubbas bar has two for one pickled eggs promotion on ladies night. for instance, how many members of the "silent masses" are going to attend ANY of the lrt forums being run by the city? answer: zero. as usual. the lrt planning and development has been going on over ten years. actual physical work is being done on the lrt. and where have any of the "silent masses" of anti lrt people been? silent i guess. keep up the good work. at this rate, you might break a hundred supporters by the opening day of the lrt. phase two of the lrt that is.

      Delete
  12. "In a time when technology and ride shares, like Uber and autonamous (sic) vehicles have expanded transportation around the world, that will virtually change the way we move around, does it make sense to spend a billion dollars on a system that is already outdated?"

    Roads are 2,300 years old. Wheels are 5,500 years old. And rapid transit can be operated autonomously. London's Victoria Line was autonomous almost 50 years ago.

    http://humantransit.org/2014/11/no-autonomous-cars-will-not-abolish-transit-in-dense-cities.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So roads have only existed since a few hundred years before Jesus Christ... wow all roads really do lead to Rome.

      Delete
  13. Aren't there numerous studies that demonstrate that
    individuals who habitually take public transit are more likely to meet their recommended level of daily physical activity than individuals who did not take transit, and that conversely those least likely to meet their recommended level of physical activity are those who take most of their trips by car?

    ReplyDelete
  14. “A third party will own and operate the LRT system while Metrolinx will receive the revenue… continuous repair , upkeep and maintenance… costs will fall on the shoulders of all the Hamilton tax payers…”

    Not only is this a hypothetical, since no RFQs/RFPs have been drawn up let alone awarded, but this describes a DBFO (design-build-finance-operate) scenario. How many of those has Metrolinx inked since 2008, and how many DBFOM (design-build-finance-operate-maintain) contracts?

    ReplyDelete
  15. those service reductions you reference have been planned very carefully. Our thinking was "why make it easy for an 80 year old with mobility issues to access the system? All they really need is fresh air and exercise. This is going to be nightmare for everyone - NO EXCEPTIONS".

    ReplyDelete
  16. "[Bombardier] are now 2 years late delivering Toronto 204 street cars, and 50 million over budget."

    On a $1.2B contract, that's an over-run of 4%, well within the contingency budget. It's the time that was been more of an issue, and any intelligent person who writes a contract with Bombardier henceforth will have protections and penalties built in. The TTC's anguish should help to inoculate other municipalities against making the same mistake. The author, whose family has a long history in retail, would know that the buyer sets the terms, and that suppliers who develop reputations for being untrustworthy or unreliable are handled differently than suppliers with exceptional service quality standards get repeat business. Why he thinks this would not apply to transit procurement is a mystery.

    The author, a proponent of BRT, would also know that such lapses can happen even with buses. Look at the HSR in recent years, for example: far more modest orders of buses can be a year or two late.

    ReplyDelete
  17. How exactly will construction impact Gilbert's? They are a niche business that people travel to go to with a customer base that goes there for their specialty products, and they have a huge parking lot next to their building.

    ReplyDelete
  18. The politicians need to wake up and realize that there are many people who see the flawed approach of implementing a solution that is archaic before it begins


    Stop listening to a tight lobby group and those who are salivating to make tons of money off the build. Trust me. They could not care less about the public good.some of them are my clients
    Sorce

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "a solution that is archaic"

      Would be using straw-man arguments to oppose investment in public transit. No selfish agendas there. ;p

      Delete
    2. Ahhh...so that's your problem. You are operating with your own definition of investment. Usually an investment considers a ROI. Whitehead did a masterful job of showing why LRT is going to fail in Hamilton. You should research investments, ROI and conditions for success.
      Sorce

      Delete
    3. "You are operating with your own definition of investment. Usually an investment considers a ROI."

      Triple bottom line is not a new concept, not is it one that I would claim to have invented, but it seems germane here.

      Incidentally, why does everyone credit Whitehead with authorship of a report that was explicitly written by an underling?

      Delete
    4. "should we consider implementing newer more progressive technology"?

      The first BRT system in North America opened in 1977.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_rapid_transit#History

      First light rail system in North America opened in 1978.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_rail#History

      Delete
    5. “a solution that is archaic”

      First train appeared in 1804.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rail_transport

      First bus appeared in 1833.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus

      Delete
  19. "Along Eglinton, construction of new subway tracks has been going on for more than 2 years.… This is a reality facing Hamiltonians."

    Two years of construction? Or a subway?

    ReplyDelete
  20. "You are operating with your own definition of investment" as do you. you would have hamilton taxpayers pay 100% of hundreds of millions of dollars out of pocket for antiquated traditional bus tech like brt. you would turn down 100% capital funding for new state of the art mass rapid transit tech, and new infrastructure along the route, paid 100% by the provincial tax base. who would pick your option as the best? gilberts for sure. very few others. we should have a referendum. hahaha. hows that effort coming sorce?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't tell me that you're goign to refer to triple bottom line buro BS. Enter the real world where things either make sense or they don't.
      Sorce

      Delete
    2. "Enter the real world where things either make sense or they don't."

      Like public health care. Enough pretending that there's an economic argument aside from keeping taxpayers alive so that government can tap into them like batteries in The Matrix.

      Delete
  21. The fact that the only group to date opposed to the LRT has about 50 followers speaks volumes. And the anti LRT lobby keeps saying they are about to be a force any day now. 50 followers. I wonder if all 50 would show up to vote if we had a referendum?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am opposed to it as well. I think is is too disruptive and will rip up our streets and who knows what problems it will create. I am not part of any group. I am just a person who lives here who thinks City hall has gone mad.

      Delete
  22. Anonymous is not worth listening to since he/she refuses to stand by his/her convictions.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I have never been called "clever" and really struggled in school, it was very unfair. So I ended up with a lousy job, an embarrassment for a home in a rough area of the City, and tons of resentment.
    I resent successful people, period. Business owners, professionals and especially blue collar types who have somehow found what I desire most. I really resent politicians, the Police, anyone in an authority role. Maybe one day I will be good at something too, and have some sense of purpose.
    Until then I am war with the automobile, that single great symbol of success and accomplishment. It is the cause of my imbalance and will be my obsessive focus until I draw my last breath.
    Nuff said, for now

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. thats a very heartfelt admission. keep up the soul searching.

      Delete
    2. thank-you. It is actually the draft introduction for a dossier I am compiling. Glad you approve.

      Delete
    3. i do approve. that you could admit your shortcomings and issues in a public forum is commendable. look forward to the dossier, presumably "whats wrong with jim. volume 1"

      Delete
    4. working title is "the day daddy saved LRT, a poster puller revealed" penned 3rd person omniscient.

      Delete
  24. Addressing selected misinformation in this article:

    Also, UP Express is no longer a failure. See graph of massive ridership increase of UPX that happened recently:
    https://swanboatsteve.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/upx_ridership_20160531.jpg

    Daily ridership numbers:
    http://www.metrolinx.com/en/aboutus/publications/201609_UP_Ridership_EN.pdf
    Look on Page 2 and Page 3, where ridership is more than 4x on some days.

    Its ridership has skyrocketed since the fare cut (3.5x) -- more than making up on revenue loss from fare cut. Currently, since July 2016, UPX now covers approximately 40-50% of farebox -- meaning it actually now requires less subsidy percentage than the HSR bus system! Article:
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/up-express-celebrates-first-birthday-with-shiny-new-ridership-numbers-1.3615689

    UPX should have been done better, but to call it a failure today, is specious to say, at the least -- the ridership is still increasing given the graph image's momentum.

    Metrolinx has been imperfect, but has been a bigger boon than the waste before that (the massive cancellations of the early 1990s, from the Harris era) -- they have numerous successes like Lakeshore all-day 30-minutes and others. We can all complain about Metrolinx and their imperfections, but they have a far better record than many transit agencies, with a great 70% farebox recovery that is well above North American average.

    ___

    Also, while some bus stops will be removed -- not /all/ 34 bus stops is necessarily deleted - local bus service will be kept between the LRT stops in certain sections (e.g. west of Delta). Local bus service is explicitly mentioned in continuing to exist in City of Hamilton's LRT FAQ.

    Also, it's worth pointing out that ION LRT in Kitchener-Waterloo is avoiding a repeat of many of the mistakes at St. Clair. More businesses are opening than closing over there.

    There are other nitpicks to cover, but the above highlights the misinformation whoppers spread by concerned citizens that do not have the right information.

    Bottom line. Built from the ground up, the modern LRT is not an antiquated system. It is like comparing a 19th century Benz Patent Motor-Wagen with a 2015 Tesla Model S. With the Hamilton LRT and 60-meter platforms of level-boarding, and support for up to 2-vehicle consists, with 8 sets of doors opening simultaneously to a wheel-on boarding, and good modern traffic priority systems, the experience is more similar to a subway in both boarding experience and speed, than a typical streetcar. (That said, A-Line definitely admittedly functions more like a streetcar -- which is understandable to preserve the heritage of James St N).

    It's important to be informed.

    Mark Rejhon
    Chair, Hamilton LRT Citizen Advocacy run by local residents
    Facebook: www.facebook.com/hamiltonLRT
    Twitter: www.twitter.com/ham_LRT

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. HSR Revenue Cost Ratio

      2000-2009: Avg 55%
      2010: 51%
      2015: 45%

      http://www2.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/192E4CEA-55ED-418A-B60D-AE589F4DDD07/0/TransitStrategy_PW14015a.pdf

      http://www2.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/27902AA0-4854-4F93-B633-72D83CA9F615/0/Oct29Item64TransitDay2010OperationalReviewPresentation27Oct09PrintVersion.pdf

      Delete
    2. Correction to my post. When I said (e.g. west of Delta), I meant (e.g. east of Delta).

      As for UPX farebox recovery, the best paid-riders day (over 10,000 rides on UPX) had a farebox recovery that briefly hit 50% for that particular day. Nontheless, it is recovering farebox better. Even though not not paying fully for itself -- but almost none of public transit do, anywhere in North America -- it ranks fairly favourably on a North America wide rankings of public transit, if you ignore the terrible, abysmal farebox recovery statistics pre-June2016.

      Delete
    3. so we can safely conclude that unless ridership numbers somehow magically explode, it will cost far more to operate LRT in Hamilton than will be recovered from ridership at the fare-box.
      It is now apparent expensive roadwork repair will be required to construct an underpass on King in order to navigate the CP Rail spur line. Can you demonstrate where these funds are allocated in the original budget? Or has this somehow managed to escape the scrutiny of those who have planned so carefully?

      Delete
    4. "so we can safely conclude that unless ridership numbers somehow magically explode, it will cost far more to operate LRT in Hamilton than will be recovered from ridership at the fare-box." jim never gets tired of making up stuff and creating his own scenarios that arent borne out by the published data. this is another one.

      Delete
    5. "so we can safely conclude that unless ridership numbers somehow magically explode"

      It is exploding. Look at this graph image momentum:

      https://swanboatsteve.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/upx_ridership_20160531.jpg

      Delete
    6. swanboatsteve? thank-you, no.

      Delete
    7. Update, fixed Metrolinx link:
      http://www.metrolinx.com/en/aboutus/publications/201609_UP_Ridership_EN.pdf

      Delete
    8. this modest increase has occurred on an existing bus route? without impeding vehicular traffic? without dedicated bus lanes? without light rail?
      Good news indeed. Does beg the question.....

      Delete
  25. I think Chad Collins has lost his power if he is unable to stop this.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Hamiltonian AdminSeptember 09, 2016

    The Hamiltonian reminds folks that anyone who has a view on LRT (for or against), or on any other topic facing Hamilton, can submit their view to admin@thehamiltonian.info for publication consideration.

    Hamiltonian Admin

    ReplyDelete
  27. THIS SYSTEM IS A TOTAL WASTE OF MONEY AND PEOPLE'S TIME OK LETS CUT TO THE CHASE , I'M IN DUNDAS I WANT TO GO TO SAY EASTGATE MALL TO SHOP , I HAVE TO GET ON A BUS TAKE IT TO MAC , GET ON THIS STUPID LRT RIDE IT TO THE TRAFFIC CIRCLE . GET OFF IT WAIT FOR A BUS OR GET ON ONE IF ITS THERE AND CONTINUE ON TO EASTGATE MALL SO REALLY I HAVE TO PAY FOR A BUS THEN THE STUPID TRAIN LIKE ONE WOULD HAVE TO ADD 30 MINS TO AN HOURS TO THERE TRAVEL TIME WHY SHOULD PEOPLE HAVE TO TAKE EVEN MORE TIME OUT OF THERE SCHEDULE ? JUST TO GO ACROSS TOWN THIS MAKES NO SENSE WHEN YOU CAN GET ON A BUS NOW FOR ONE PRICE AND GO THERE AND BACK .... PLUS IT OPERATES ON HYDRO SO DON'T TELL ME WYNNE ISN'T GETTING A KICK BACK SOMEWHERE

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hamiltonian AdminSeptember 10, 2016

      Please note: The Hamiltonian prefers that posts do not appear in all caps. We assume this is a first time visitor and thus have allowed this post. But posts in all caps are normally not published. Please do not post in all caps for future submissions.

      Thank-you

      Delete
    2. Or How Projectile Vomiting 160 Words in All-Caps in Three Bursts Explodes Credibility

      Delete
    3. Web Site: www.NOHAMILTONLRT.WIX.COM/MYSITE

      Boldface is available on most blogs and would be a more elegant way of drawing attention to these fields, especially as upper case is utterly irrelevant to the information in question (aside from making it appear more shouty). Input that information into a browser window and it is converted to:

      http://nohamiltonlrt.wixsite.com/mysite

      Email: NOHAMILTONLRT@OUTLOOK.COM

      Same. The reality is that the domain of "NOHAMILTONLRT@OUTLOOK.COM" expresses itself as outlook.com, which only makes the initial blur of angry capitals seem more aggressive. If you were concerned about readers being able to wrest meaning from your address, you would be better off in something like sentence case (eg. NoHamiltonLRT@outlook.com).

      Facebook: NOHAMILTONLRT

      Doesn't exist. Perhaps you would be thinking of NOHAMILTONLRT-627220317430384.

      - Smithee

      Delete
  28. I remember as a youngster "Gilberts" sponsored hockey in the HMHA and baseball in the old Police minor leagues. A generation of community support, a legacy of civic mindedness. Giving something back.
    Anyone remember playing for the "orangemikes?" Can anyone provide an example of this anonymous crusader ever accomplishing anything that garnered praise from anyone other than itself?
    Thank-you Mr.Lazich for your stewardship and your courage. A proud legacy continues.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. cause gilberts made money selling clothes and they sponsored some sports teams a thousand years ago this qualifies them as civic planners? gilberts sold clothing. they sponsored kids sports. many retail stores do. what "legacy"? gilberts got great advertising by sponsoring those kids. it the yhadnt of done it some other store would have. legacy. har dee har har. by allmean, lets clear all future city planning with the city building experts like jim graham and the owners of rankins.

      Delete
    2. WEST HARBOUR RESIDENTSeptember 10, 2016

      How appalling that you should be so ungracious of business support to the community at large. As a business owner, it's comments just like this that make me really think hard and long about 'what' and 'who' I shall support with my hard earned money in the future.

      If you knew anything about business, you'd know that some years are more fruitful than others.

      Appalling comments.

      Delete
    3. I agree with you. These are very disrespectful comments.

      Delete
    4. "If you knew anything about business, you'd know that some years are more fruitful than others." as gilberts says on its website, its been the premiere goto menswear store for big and tall and other gents for over fifty years. do you really think their stores future is at risk if there is some construction around their location for a few years? with their massive parking lot on site? and tons of parking within walking distance? i dont. not for a second. family owned, family run, minimal employees, family owns outright a mulri million dollar piece of real estate, with the family being extremely successful financially for successive generations. not and "at risk" business in anyones estimation.

      Delete
    5. "How appalling that you should be so ungracious of business support to the community at large" whatever the motives of the family, there is a financial return on supporting kids sports when you have a retail store. to claim otherwise is silly. and please, feel free to highlight any good works the store has done this century.

      Delete
    6. your ignorance on the topic is no surprise given your track record
      can you provide an example of anyone showing appreciation for your community endeavors, ever? Take your time

      Delete
    7. “A generation of community support, a legacy of civic mindedness. Giving something back.”

      Respectfully, Gilberts’ owners opposed the development of Good Shepherd Square, eventually built on a vacant parcel of land at King and Pearl.

      “Ms. Carol Lazich addressed Committee on behalf of herself and on behalf of Gilbert and Stella Lazich. She explained concerns about the proposed development, the adverse impact on the residential and commercial character of the area and the over-development of the site.”

      http://www2.hamilton.ca/Hamilton.Portal/Inc/PortalPDFs/ClerkPDFs/committee-hearings/2003/Aug06/REPORT%2003-027.pdf

      FWIW, here’s what they tried to prevent:

      “Women's Services in Good Shepherd Square offers an innovative service model that provides women and children fully-furnished apartment-style accommodation in a secure shelter environment. This design allows families fleeing from violence and abuse to maintain normal routines and family customs to the greatest extent possible in the midst of a crisis. The new Mary's Place facility offers an unprecedented level of shelter service to homeless women, allowing them greater privacy and an enhanced sense of personal safety as they struggle to deal with the complex issues that result in homelessness.

      One of the affordable housing buildings contains 72 units of rental housing for individuals and small families, a community resource centre, community meeting rooms available for public use and administrative space for Good Shepherd offices. The 84 unit seniors apartment building hosts a wellness centre with a medical clinic and a variety of health and wellness related services for older adults.”

      http://www.goodshepherdcentres.ca/good-shepherd-square

      Loretto

      Delete
    8. and expressing her opinion is somehow anti community? Kindly provide a link publicly demonstrating your support for the project.

      Delete
    9. I support Good Shepherd Square and believe that it serves the community admirably and is an asset to Strathcona.

      I also support the owners' right to an opinion, something that was inevitable given their properties' proximity to the project.

      That said, I disagree with their contention that the Square would have an "adverse impact on the residential and commercial character of the area," such as it was at the time.

      Aside from the community service at its heart, the Good Shepherd Square has elevated the area's property standards, earning an Award of Overall Excellence in Urban Design at the 2013 Hamilton Urban Design & Architecture Awards. And since construction began on the Square, the rot that had permeated the neighbourhood has begun to fall away and new investment has taken hold for the first time in 40 years.

      Loretto

      Delete
    10. agreed, the Good Shepherd performs vital work, and they appear to make a real effort to be a responsible neighbor. We support them.
      Taking anonymous pot shots at those with the courage of their convictions is a dubious practice, looks cowardly, and undermines credibility. Just throwing mud at those with competing views.

      Delete
    11. It's wonderful that the Laziches saw fit to sponsor so many young athletes. Just illustrating that the "legacy of civic-mindedness" narrative is not uncomplicated, much as the owners' certainty about the negative impact of the development upon the community has proven unfounded.

      As I said, I support others' right to an opinion, and I doubt that the owners care one way or another what others think of those convictions. Big and tall, as they say.

      Loretto

      Delete
  29. Today, another business owner who sells cars on King street by Scott Park, made a statement in The Spec about how concerned he is thatLRT is going to adversely affect him. There is a silent majority out there. I wonder how mnay people he sees on a daily basis and i am wondering what he will tell them about this terrible design.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ah yes, the hamilton landmark that is "used auto sales. no questions asked financing". we must at all costs consider him, the two for one pizaa slices, the quickie marts, the take out coffee and donut shops, and please dont forget about the 50 or so second hand clothing and junk shops that dominate present day king street.

      Delete
    2. Those are all people who try to earn their livings each day. How far will the LRt lobby stoop?
      Sorce

      Delete
    3. the can continue to make their living. no one is stopping them. we arent holding up the best and biggest investment in hamilton in our lifetime because someones used car lot may or may not suffer. look at gilberts. talking about how if the lrt comes they may go bankrupt cause customers wont be able to get to them. they want the lrt stopped because they feel it will hurt their business. yet as we speak, a 30 story residential complex that will house thousands of potential new customers for gilberts is being built, its a ten minute walk away from gilberts. another 3o storey residential complex will bring in additional few thousand new customers for gilberts. also a ten minute walk away. the trashy buggy passadena apartments at hess and king? boutique condos. canada revenue building? high priced condos. the royal connaught? high priced condos. all within a ten minute walk of gilberts. new hotels within a ten minute walk of gilberts bringing toursits in? hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds of new customers a ten minute walk away from gilberts. the city and private developers have done an excellent job of bringing in thousands and thousands and thousands of new potential clients for gilberts and papaguyo and leathers and rainbow bridal and black forest and so on. if a business cant use this to their advantage because they insist on maintaining a 1950's ear business plan, oh well. we arent going to let what some may describe as gilberts "archaic" way of doing business stop progress.

      Delete
    4. I think you should continue to be the spokesperson for LRT. Anyone reading your posts will know how toxic the LRT lobby is. Any politician worth his or her salt would distance themselves from this whole thing. People like this car lot owner is just the tip of the iceberg.
      Sorce

      Delete
    5. yep. the vast bulk of the anti lrt's are exactly like and iceberg. unseen, unheard, unobserved, underwater, frozen in a block of ice, and all wet. where they will stay forever till they break into tiny icebergs that melt and disappear.

      Delete
    6. and the pro LRT's are exactly like the Titanic. Over confident, under prepared, misplaced sense of entitlement, destined for a rude awakening. They will be remembered fondly on the anniversary of their demise.

      Delete
  30. Mountain RonnySeptember 10, 2016

    I am glad that terry Whitehead is my councilor. i voted for him since he first ran and s=he has not let me down. I am glad his is not afraid of those others at city hall. He is the only voice that is making any sense on LRT.

    Mountain Ron

    ReplyDelete
  31. WEST HARBOUR RESIDENTSeptember 10, 2016

    Yet again, we are inundated with comments from the 'Anonymous' bunch. Please, for the love of God, figure out an alpha or numeric system so that the rest of us who DO give monkers, can distinguish you from each other. It's really NOT that hard to do! Seriously!

    ReplyDelete
  32. Captain HamiltonSeptember 12, 2016

    Interestingly enough, there is another piece in the spec this morning about people saying they are against LRT. I think the true opublic sentiment will now start showing itself.

    Captain Hamilton

    ReplyDelete
  33. I have shopped at your store. I also have a business on the coming B-Line route. There will be many who will address the inaccurate negativities in your letter. I hope to remain positive in my response.

    The B-Line LRT will be built. It may be late. It may be over budget. This is a risk of all major infrastructure projects. It does not mean we cannot have excellent infrastructure in Hamilton.

    The city of Hamilton has spent millions of dollars choosing the transportation type, route and zoning changes necessary to have the coming LRT line succeed. There are no other routes, or transpo types available. The B-Line LRT is what WE ASKED to start our mass transit infrastructure with and we have been allocated a billion of our tax dollars to do this.

    Businesses will take a beating during construction. Some, will go under. Many more have gone under trying to make a go of a storefront on the King highway. Gilberts has a rich history and many dedicated customers. This is exactly the kind of store that might survive the coming disruption. At our shop we have contingencies in place. Some were recommended to me by shops in KW. The suggestions vary from plan for a scale back, to bankroll some dough.

    The ideal stop distance is about 700 meters apart. We can still be part of that process. Get involved to make sure that the most number of businesses are within walking distance of a stop. There will still be cars on King Street. Folks will still be able to drive to shops. If you don't have a parking lot for your business then get involved in making sure civic parking lots are part of the mix.

    Pro LRT is NOT anti car. We need the whole thing working together walking, biking, driving, busing and trains! My business needs every one of these modalities healthy and integrated to survive. We have customers from all over, and all ages. Many drive, many walk, many ride bikes. The reach, simplicity and consistency of a civic LRT is such a great opportunity.

    Over our two decades in business we have noticed that many (if not most) of our younger customers do not drive to our establishment. Being able to market our location as Dundurn and King LRT stop 11 minutes from Mac. Or GO bus to A line to B line is vitally important. This stuff is essential for the emerging younger market. There are so many entertainment and retail competitors on the internet right now if you have any transit barriers your brick and mortar shop is in trouble.

    I am pro LRT, pro CAR pro FUT and pro BYK. This of course makes me a pariah to one and all. The truth is that I represent the REAL silent majority that actually support the best transit system for Hamilton, LRT included.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am pro-LRT but I also own a car too.

      Delete
  34. respectfully,given our disdain for existing infrastructure, late and over budget are 2 compelling reasons for further concern. If only we were to demonstrate responsibility with the assets we have, your conclusion might bear some credibility.Fix that which is broken, then move on to bigger and bolder initiatives.
    Are you suggesting the vocal pro LRT community is not "anti car?" Are you serious? While your perspective is reasonable and healthy, it is not leading the charge.
    I too support the best transit system for Hamilton, LRT included.I do not consider LRT a priority.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I do not see the benefit of spending a billion dollars just so that people can travel by train rather than by bus. The proposed LRT east-west route is already comparatively well served by public transportation so ridership levels will not increase. The current proposal will not not alleviate traffic pressures experienced on the Lincoln & 403 as it does not provide Hamiltonians living on the mountain with access to the Go station. It makes more sense to use the billion $$ to provide Hamilton with the best possible overall public transportation plan rather than the single minded project currently proposed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Captain HamiltonSeptember 13, 2016

      I agree with your thinking. Tracks are so permanent. 1 Billion can go a long way funding more flexible modes.

      Captain Hamilton

      Delete
    2. "More flexible modes" that do not travel on dedicated corridors are ineligible for the $1B on the table (i.e. like LRT, BRT involves fixed transit-only corridors). Buses are funded through 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. “We provide all of our communities across the province with on-going gas tax support,” said Del Duca." http://www.hamiltonnews.com/news-story/6376718-hamilton-s-302-million-bus-transit-funding-request-crashes

      With provincial gas tax revenues to the City of Hamilton coming in at $11M annually, it would take around 90 years to reach the $1B funding target.

      Moreover, the "$1B gift card" thinking around dispensing project funds overlooks the explicit limitations associated with such a proposition. The B-Line is the strongest performing corridor in the entire HSR, and undergoing ridership growth at four times the rate of the larger system. This is why past HSR directors have advocated for adding capacity on that corridor, something that LRT would capably address.

      Critics are welcome to assemble a logical rationale and business case for provincial investment, despite opposition to municipal investment in suburban areas. In fact, that due diligence is a prerequisite for such funding eligibility.


      ...Gemini Twin

      Delete
    3. David Dixon, 2015: "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/5676707302016095051973.PDF

      Ridership is strongest on the B-Line corridor, and it ist growing at four times the city-wide average even under sub-optimal conditions. If ridership is dismal, it is dismal on feeder routes, as has historically been the case. Which is why the insistence that these same routes are naturals for conversion to rapid transit is not regarded as a particularly credible position.

      ...Gemini Twin

      Delete
  36. I do not see the benefit of spending a billion dollars just so that people can travel by train rather than by bus. The proposed LRT east-west route is already comparatively well served by public transportation so ridership levels will not increase. The current proposal will not not alleviate traffic pressures experienced on the Lincoln & 403 as it does not provide Hamiltonians living on the mountain with access to the Go station. It makes more sense to use the billion $$ to provide Hamilton with the best possible overall public transportation plan rather than the single minded project currently proposed

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The choice of LRT over BRT comes down, in part, to the operating costs of the two modes. BRT's smaller vehicle capacity means that serving twice as many riders requires twice as many drivers/buses/fuel+insurance costs/maintenance+repair obligations. LRT's larger vehicles can serve far more riders (i.e. capture far more revenue) without incurring additional cost. LRT can even be run as a driverless system, though that has not been discussed in Hamilton's case.

      The other consideration is that the $1B commitment is contingent upon the current proposal. The MRT has made it clear that "more buses" is not an option (that's what the current gas tax revenues are for), and because no other corridor has been adequately studied, BRT would only be considered for the current route, meaning virtually all of the same headaches that go with construction, and the same number of dedicated lanes given to rapid transit whether it's LRT or BRT. You're just banking that you'll overcome peoples' transit prejudices by taking buses and putting them in their own lane. Which met with limited success on the City's 2014 bus lane pilot. Although that was a single lane over 2km. Dedicating 2 lanes over 11km might be a different story. (Except for Councillor Collins, one imagines, so don't expect to be able to extend the route beyond the Queenston Traffic Circle.) It's entirely theoretical, though: Most of the councillors who seem superficially pro-BRT would complain about true BRT, since it would require dedicated transit-only lanes in their wards.

      Omnibus

      Delete
  37. Captain HamiltonSeptember 13, 2016

    I do not think I will vote for our current mayor or for my ward 2 councillor when the time comes. As I read and think about this more and more, it is a silly "investment". Why doesn't the mayor focus on poverty in our city? Rather than chase this LRT that noone but those who will get rick on the development, want. And how can the Ontario government throw away 1 billion when people can't even stay in their homes because of this increase in electricity? Shouldn't they deal with that first? Which affects everybody? And LRT runs on electricity doesn't it?

    I'm getting very annoyed at this stupidity. Open your next hydro bill and see if you want to waste money on LRT

    Captain Hamilton

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    2. I salute you Captain! The Mayor should stop playing footsies with the Premier around this ill fated LRT. He should put our efforts on BRT where it will have a much broader reach. And while he is at it, he should send a letter to the Premier, on behalf of the poor, to express outrage and demand that electricity be made affordable. That would be a good start.
      Sorce

      Delete
    3. The B-Line has always been intended to serve as the spine of the larger BLAST network, much of which is BRT-based. Undermining that momentum endangers the whole.

      On top of this, the idea that politicians can only ever have one conversation is divorced from reality. Municipalities have many diverse priorities and are capable of expressing all of them through their mayors and provincial and federal representatives. The suggestion that we can't make progress on LRT because we haven't solved poverty yet strikes me as curious. Budgets include any number of sectors with spending priorities. Cities contain many departments. Hamilton is spending 10 times as much on roadwork as it is on public transit, but potholes will always count for more than the urban poor. (You can find such hypocrisy everywhere: The mayor's $50M poverty initiative, for example, would have been fully funded were it not spent $55M on a stadium for a team that plays 10 home games a year.)

      Additionally, the City is actively campaigning to perpetuate 20th century exurban sprawl development that is too low to support transit, so let's acknowledge that challenges to access are manifold. By refusing to dismantle area rating for transit and refusing to pay more for enhanced service, suburban residents are erecting barriers to economic opportunity among precarious and disadvantaged workers.

      http://hamiltoncatch.org/view_article.php?id=1438

      -- Smithee

      Delete
    4. http://m.thespec.com/news-story/6505303-mayor-lays-out-50m-plan-to-curb-poverty-in-hamilton/

      -- Gemini Twin

      Delete
    5. Mayor Fred's vision is for every $100.00 invested in local transit, we throw a fiver at the impoverished (so they cant say we did nothing) Humanity in the Hammer. You were correct when you stated this has nothing to do with priorities...or needs...or wants...just one mans vision.

      Delete
    6. Drawing that vision into focus: The City is investing essentially none of its own money into transit, and seems determined to continue to do so. The go-to solution for almost every transit funding hurdle is to beseech senior government for a funding miracle.

      And as I said earlier, by refusing to invest in transit, even status quo transit, councillors are compounding the life challenges of residents trying to escape a cycle of precarious work. To be sure, the working poor are not the only ones using transit, but they are often the ones who stand to benefit the most from improved connectivity with employment opportunity.

      -- Smithee

      Delete
    7. according to Fred, he requested a billion dollars for transit from Ms. Kathy, and according to Fred his wish was granted. To the best of my knowledge, he has never requested a nickel for poverty, knowing you and I will fit the bill. That is the vision, that is his priority defined.

      Delete
    8. Governments are always faced with competing priorities and faced with limited resources, they must make a choice on what they will put their energies into. In Hamilton, the energy and focus will be on LRT until its death. In the meantime, the poor will just get poorer.

      Poor Me

      Delete
    9. I’m not overly familiar with the funding programs that the province has made available to combat poverty but I do know that the City funded The Learning Annex, aimed at connecting at-risk youth to education and employment services beyond traditional college courses and student support and thereby hopefully breaking the cycle of poverty for children and youth, through the province’s six-year, $50M Local Poverty Reduction Fund. (The Learning Annex received over 11% of the province’s entire LPRF funding pool.)

      -- Smithee

      Delete
    10. To recap: Hamilton’s LRT ask was not self-initiated but identified as a provincial campaign promise, studied at length by the City and the privince and ultimately funded under a 25-year infrastructure plan for Ontario. It wasn’t the result of Mayor Eisenberger petitioning Premier Wynne. Suggesting as much is deliberately misleading.

      To be fair, however, if people see this as a binary competition between infrastructure and social funding, they could always lobby their councilors to forget about asking senior government to fund the City’s $200M annual infrastructure deficit and instead ask to have that amount applied to affordable housing, social supports and anti-poverty initiatives. At any meeting of council they could draft a resolution to that end and vote to give the Mayor a formal directive to pursue that outcome from the province.

      -- Smithee

      Delete
  38. Hamiltonian AdminSeptember 13, 2016

    You will begin noticing comments being deleted. it is not because of their message. It is because they have not used a handle or their name.

    ReplyDelete
  39. "some legacy project that caters to a few thousand"

    FWIW, daily volume of vehicles on Queen south of Charlton is 6% lower than projected ridership on the B-Line (i.e. 12,200 vehicles daily, 2009-2010).

    Six Sigma

    ReplyDelete
  40. "More growth is happening on the city's mountain, and yet they have virtually been shut out of this debate."

    Except at council for the last decade, where elected representatives from those wards have debated, questioned and ultimately supported B-Line LRT in vote after vote after vote. The notion that the lower city has the political muscle to bend the rest of the city to its will stands in stark contrast to elementary math (Wards 1-5 hold only one-third of council votes and their wishes routinely quashed — see the bus lane vote) and the historical record of the last 40 years. Consider the following.


    From their inception, regional governments were highly controversial and unpopular. Terry Cooke (2003), the former Regional Chair of Hamilton-Wentworth Chairman, argues that the two-tier system of regional government confused lines of political accountability, or in other words, who was responsible for what. The effectiveness of regional government in Hamilton-Wentworth was also undermined by territorial or parochial politics:

    “The Hamilton-Wentworth system was dysfunctional from the very beginning. The main problem was that the City of Hamilton, because of its high proportion of the regional population, always had more than half the seats on regional council. In the early years of Hamilton-Wentworth, suburban members would sometimes thwart the city by walking out, thereby preventing a quorum” (Sancton, 2000a: 143).

    The creation of Hamilton-Wentworth in 1974 demonstrated the considerable problems of merging city and countryside. If the new central-city region was relatively strong, outlying areas felt that effective regional government would inevitably serve only that city’s interest.

    Dissatisfaction with regional government manifested itself in the form of several committees and reports that focused on how to address the structural deficiencies of the system. In 1978, the Hamilton-Wentworth Review Commission (Hamilton-Wentworth, 1978: 40-41) assessed the state of local government in the region and concluded:

    “…the present institutions do not fulfill our criterion of a government that can respond to the needs and desires of its citizens. In our view, there are three basic problems: there are serious conflicts between city and non-city politicians, which interfere with and retard the development of policies to serve the citizens of the Region; the structure blurs accountability and hinders accessibility, with the result that it cannot respond to the citizens easily; and finally, the structure of the system results in resources not being used as efficiently as possible.”

    The Commission concluded that a new single-tier City of Wentworth should replace the region and its six lower-tier municipalities.

    https://www.cpsa-acsp.ca/papers-2007/Sharma.pdf

    Yours Truly

    ReplyDelete
  41. Hamiltonian AdminSeptember 14, 2016

    Some people are still attempting to post comments without affixing their name or choosing a handle. If you do not see your post here, resubmit with either your name affixed or a handle.

    ReplyDelete
  42. "King Street and Bay Street during the morning rush hour:
    • 3 general purpose lanes - a volume of approximately 1,190 vehicles
    • 1 Transit-Only-Lane - approximately 1,104 passengers

    1 lane dedicated to transit can be as effective in moving people as 2-3 general vehicle lanes."

    http://hamilton.siretechnologies.com/sirepub/cache/2/tigrdnwtexzrghs4xjsn2apj/5677507252016015634528.PDF

    Six Sigma

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1190 vehicles is approximately 1600-2380. A lot more than 1100. Let's not be dishonest OK

      Delete
    2. Not being dishonest, just quoting a City document.

      But overlooking your charming prejudices, I’ll bite: The bus lane study recorded 1,104 passengers in one Transit-Only-Lane & 1,190 vehicles in the other three lanes for the equivalent period. That means that in order to reach some sort of people-moving equilibrium across those three lanes, each vehicle in those non-transit lanes would have to contain 2.78 passengers.

      In the absence of linked citations, I’m not sure how you determined that 1190 vehicles is approximately 1600-2380 [occupants, presumably],” but here’s what I’ve discovered. For the 2011 census period, StatsCan reports that in the Hamilton CMA, 84.4% of commuters travelled by car, truck or van: 77.8% as driver and 7% as passenger. In other words, 11 of 12 commuter vehicles in the Hamilton CMA are occupied by the driver alone. Based on this metric, we can extrapolate that the 1,190 vehicles in the study likely contained around 1,300 commuters.

      If you have evidence to support your claim I would be happy to read it. Always open to new points of view.

      Six Sigma

      Delete
    3. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/as-sa/99-012-x/2011003/tbl/tbl1a-eng.cfm

      Six Sigma

      Delete
  43. Re: "In Toronto, the St Clair track construction lasted 5 years. Many years longer than scheduled, marred by unforeseen infrastructure issues and cost over runs that went 40 million over the initial 60 million dollar budget."

    Full disclosure in the Globe & Mail, Feb 7, 2012 "Much maligned St. Clair line not so bad after all":

    It’s a phrase that’s become something of a slogan for LRT opponents in recent years – don’t approve “another St. Clair.” As Mayor Rob Ford put it at a news conference last spring to unveil his below-grade transportation strategy up for debate Wednesday: “Our new plan will not add to the gridlock faced by Toronto drivers every day, like we see on St. Clair Avenue West.”

    The numbers, however, tell a starkly different tale. Since the June, 2010, completion of the right-of-way from Yonge Street to Gunns Loop, overall traffic and peak-period volumes have fallen sharply; transit ridership has jumped 13 per cent, while service frequency has improved; and collisions and personal injuries have plummeted by a third, according to city and TTC data compiled by The Globe and Mail. The St. Clair line now ranks eighth for productivity (boardings per hour) among the TTC’s 150 surface routes (the top spot belongs to the Spadina LRT), according to Mitch Stambler, the TTC’s manager of service planning.…

    a transit expert reviewed St. Clair’s cost overruns in 2009. Many of them were the result of “project creep” – council-approved add-ons such as burying hydro wires and replacing lead pipes – and a lengthy delay triggered by a lawsuit that was dismissed. The final cost for the St. Clair LRT was $106-million, up from the budgeted $65-million.

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/much-maligned-st-clair-line-not-so-bad-after-all/article4239710/

    If you credit the late Rob Ford with infallible logistical judgement, you might believe that this talking point is juicy and potent. If, on the other hand, you cast your lot with the number-crunchers, the picture becomes considerably more complex.

    In addition to this, the reality is that humans have the capacity to learn from mistakes, often even from the mistakes of others, which saves them the trouble of duplicating them. As Edmond Burke put it, "Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it."

    See also "Getting It Right: Lessons from the Implementation of the St. Clair Streetcar for the Implementation of Transit City"

    https://www.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Commission_reports_and_information/Commission_meetings/2010/Jan_20_2010/Reports/Transit_City_Impleme.pdf

    *Obelisk

    ReplyDelete
  44. cost overruns of almost 40% from original budget are not "Getting it Right" rather a boondoggle in the making. That is an awful lot of "creep" from Council.How could the original plan be so far off the mark?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would assume that "Getting It Right" reflects "Not Making Those Mistakes Again."

      Food-dragging and constructionism seems like it would contribute to cost overruns. The link is to the review referenced in the Globe & Mail piece. Reading that document might answer your questions.

      *Obelisk

      Delete
    2. Dang autocorrect. Should read "foot-dragging and obstructionism"

      Bent from my iPhone

      *Obelisk

      Delete
    3. while the article does define how and where the project "went off the rails" it does nothing to instill confidence that we will not prove to be even more inept. Perhaps you are an optimistic sort, maybe you are new here.
      If this proceeds I have faith it will be a) late b) over budget.

      Delete
    4. Comments on article:
      “How could the original plan be so far off the mark?

      Later after reading article:
      “while the article does define how and where the project "went off the rails"…”

      LULZ

      Delete
    5. Unlike the St. Clair situation, neither the HSR nor the City of Hamilton is likely to have a hand in project management. Nor, given the established MO of Infrastructure Ontario & Metrolinx, is it at all probably that piecemeal contracts with penny-ante players will clog up the pipe.

      Relevant findings from the St. Clair report, for all those who are having trouble with the PDF:

      "4. In September 2004, Council approved continuation of the ongoing Class EA study and authorized a capital expenditure of approximately $48 million for:
      • Track replacement,
      • Platforms and shelters,
      • Intersection improvements,
      • Public art,
      • Urban design,
      • Additional civil works and streetscaping, and
      • Property acquisition.

      5. This amount was subsequently increased to $65 million following preparation of more thorough and detailed cost estimates.

      6. However, following the commencement of both the detailed design and construction phases, debate on project scope, including street enhancements, continued with the result that additional features were added. In other words, the project scope changed while the project was under construction.

      7. Changes in the St. Clair budget included decisions to:
      • replace existing hydro service with underground services and
      • expand project scope (including escalation) for:
      o enhanced street lighting,
      o relocation of hydrants, and
      o sidewalk and roadway enhancements.


      8. Although management and budgeting of the main transit elements of the St. Clair project were the responsibility of the TTC, project management and budgeting of those elements related to the scope changes noted above became the responsibility of the City of Toronto. In other words, various elements of the project were neither centralized nor controlled by any single entity.

      9. More than 20 separate, relatively small construction contracts were awarded for this 6.8 km transit improvement. Due to the small size of these contracts, few, if any, large contracting firms with greater project management resources to ensure effective cost and schedule control were attracted to the project. “


      *Obelisk

      Delete
  45. Undecided in HamiltonSeptember 15, 2016

    Communication to undecided Hamiltonians from both LRT advocates and detractors has been a train wreck so far.

    We're being told everything we don't want to know and never asked about when it comes to LRT.

    Whichever side simplifies their messaging stands a good shot at winning over Hamiltonians who'll head to the polls in 2018.

    It'll be a tough slog for supporters if downtown intensification and transit-oriented development really is the key selling point for spending $1B on 11 km of track. "I'd now like to talk with you about TOD" is one way to clear a room.

    LRT detractors should skip the statistics and studies, stop sharing horror stories from other communities and spare us their personal opinions.

    Instead, just ask us 2 questions over and over again:

    1. How confident are you that the LRT will get built on time and on budget?

    2. How much will it cost Hamiltonians to run, ride and repair the LRT? We're 8 years into this project. We either don't know the answers or we aren't being told.

    You can also ask these 2 questions by replacing LRT with "billion dollar train to nowhere". Stop 10 random Hamiltonians on the street and ask what they think of an LRT that ends at an east end traffic circle.

    LRT supporters promise us that some level of government at some point in the future will somehow find hundreds of millions of dollars to extend LRT to Eastgate Mall as originally planned. This could be crowd pleaser if 10% of Hamiltonians worked or lived at the mall.

    Ask LRT advocates why they'd want to steer shoppers to a mall and away from locally owned small businesses in the core that pay living wages.

    We've yet to hear a compelling reason why the route runs to a traffic circle rather than a destination where lot of people live (like the future waterfront condo developments) or work (like the Hamilton General which could be adding women's and children's hospitals and will have the highest concentration of jobs and visitors in the city).

    LRT detractors should expect supporters to step up their personal attacks. Watch what's said about small businesses along the LRT route that don't share their enthusiasm. The fire being directed at Gilbert's Big and Tall is a good preview of what's to come.

    Everything LRT's most vocal advocates say can and should be shared with a majority of Hamiltonians who don't spend time on social media sites. Don't fight back. Just share their comments verbatim and we'll draw on our conclusions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Undecided in Hamilton, that is very good advice. I usually send topics like this one to my friends via email. I got a distribution list set up, and I use the Mail Post icon found at the bottom of the article. I just say something like "Get a load of this." Most times, i get opinions from them or questions. It's a great way to get them thinking.
      Sorce

      Delete
    2. The Red Hill Valley Parkway took the City 50 years to build, blew out its projected budget many times over (and continues to rack up legal bills) and was a mess from the beginning, from flooding to capacity. Based on that precedent, we should axe the roads budget, right? And not actually build an Upper Red Hill Valley Parkway?

      Chex

      Delete
    3. "We've yet to hear a compelling reason why the route runs to a traffic circle rather than a destination where lot of people live (like the future waterfront condo developments)"

      The population density of the area bordered by Kenilworth, Parkdale, Lawrence and the CN tracks is almost 20% higher than the area bordered by Wellington, the CN tracks and the harbour (aka Census Tract 5370066).

      Adding 3,200 residents (or 1,600 two-occupant units) to Piers 7 & 8 would help the area bordered by Wellington, the CN tracks and the harbour attain just under the population density levels that Census Tract 5370055 (the census tract that contains the Queenston Traffic Circle) had in 2006. If, you know, you're interested in routing rapid transit to a destination where lot of people live.

      Chex

      Delete
    4. Re: "nowhere"

      As of the 2011 Census, 16,434 people lived in the area bordered by Kenilworth, Parkdale, Lawrence and the CN tracks. It has a population density of almost 4,100 people per square kilometer. That’s roughly double the population density of Wards 9 & 10, 30 times the population density of Ward 11 or 100 times the population density of Ward 14.

      Chex

      Delete
    5. Sadly, this seems to be characteristic of the anti-transit cohort: Regarding users as subhuman nothings. Reveals the "poverty vs. public transit" trope to be nothing more than profoundly cynical triangulation. In the vein of Animal Farm, all are equal but some are more equal than others.

      Chex

      Delete
  46. Captain HamiltonSeptember 15, 2016

    The more I think about this, the more I think it is a stupid investment. I was watching CNN yesterday and saw an add for this: http://helloelio.com I think this more reflects what the future will hold. Laying down tracks is so permanent and so costly and disruptive. I don't believe anyone who presently does not take transit, will suddenly take it because of LRT.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Captain HamiltonSeptember 16, 2016

    I saw one of those NOHAMILTONLRT signs on a poll by Centennial Parkway. A lot of people are now talking about this and are against it.

    The Captain

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Positively double negative…

      https://www.facebook.com/627220317430384/photos/a.628059337346482.1073741825.627220317430384/641441276008288/

      Chex

      Delete
  48. The HSR's fleet procurement has been facilitated by Metrolinx since 2008. Here's Doug Murray, HSR Fleet Manager, on Metrolinx’s Transit Procurement Initiative: "Truly a pristine process from start to finish. A process that exemplifies transparency, purchasing policy compliance, which is viewed as fair and equitable for all participants. A process that promotes knowledge based participants to share experiences and best practices with the end result being savings in budget dollars and staff time and resources, a win-win for all participating municipalities."

    http://www.metrolinx.com/en/projectsandprograms/tpi/tpi.aspx

    Chex

    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.