Special Report: Light Rail

Bratina Takes Yet Another Potshot at City's LRT Plan

The Mayor never misses an opportunity to undermine and discredit the City's official light rail transit plan, which Council approved unanimously and the Province has promised to fund.

By Ryan McGreal
Published October 24, 2013

This week, the City launched its pilot project of a new dedicated transit lane on the north side of King Street from Mary Street to just east of Dundurn Street, and Mayor Bratina is already using it to discredit Hamilton's east-west light rail transit (LRT) plan.

Transit Lane on King Street just west of James (RTH file photo)
Transit Lane on King Street just west of James (RTH file photo)

The full $300,000 cost of the pilot is being paid through the Metrolinx Quick Wins fund, and it will help the city prepare for the east-west B-Line LRT that Council unanimously approved and Metrolinx has agreed to fund once the Province approves an investment strategy for the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area Regional Transportation Plan.

Today's Spectator quotes Mayor Bratina joking last night that Hamilton should tell Metrolinx, the provincial transit agency, that "we finally have some congestion" after the introduction of a new transit lane on King Street.

This is a reference to Bratina's ongoing argument that Hamilton doesn't need to invest in higher-order transit because, as he says, we are already a "20-minute city" for drivers - as if the excess lane capacity and enervated street life of our multi-lane, one-way lower-city thoroughfares is something to be proud of.

Bratina then went on the Bill Kelly Show on CHML today and said that if people are upset about congestion on King with the transit lane, they should just wait until Main, King and Queenston are ripped up to install the planned LRT.

Traffic was free-flowing on King at James Street on midday (RTH file photo)
Traffic was free-flowing on King at James Street on midday (RTH file photo)

Pattern of Undermining LRT

Bratina's pattern of undermining Hamilton's LRT plan at every turn goes back to early 2011, not long after he was elected mayor. The undermining has often been overt and aggressive, as during the summer of 2011 when he claimed the city was "not hearing any kind of clamour from the public" and "no solid interest" from developers, that LRT was "not a priority" and would only make sense "if somehow a million people move to Hamilton over the next five years".

Bratina also told then-Premier Dalton McGuinty that LRT was not a Council priority, allowing the Premier to wiggle out of his own 2007 promise to fund LRT in Hamilton, and went on to claim that the province had not actually promised to fund LRT after all.

During this time, City Manager Chris Murray suspended the Rapid Transit Office and Bratina claimed the city had to choose between LRT and all-day GO service. Other Councillors questioned the email, which Murray sent out right before going on summer vacation.

Metrolinx was caught unaware by the city's abrupt change in focus and clarified that both all-day GO and LRT "are viable and can co-exist. Hamilton's current rapid transit situation is not an 'either-or' scenario."

Meanwhile, Bratina was also busy misrepresenting successful LRT systems in other cities, arguing point-by-point against LRT to neighbourhood associations and residents, and claiming he didn't know where infill development along the LRT line would go.

Yet Another Fiasco

After that extended fiasco, Bratina's overt opposition cooled, but he still refused to champion LRT until he received clear Council direction to do so.

Once Council unanimously approved the final Rapid Ready LRT report this past February, Bratina then said he would start to champion LRT.

But instead, he just continued to undermine it, manufacturing controversy by claiming falsely that Hamilton would have to choose between LRT and extending all-day GO train service to Stoney Creek, and dismissing the Metrolinx regional transportation plan on TVO program The Agenda with Steve Paikin - a cringe-worthy performance that saw Caledon Mayor Marolyn Morrison dress him down for his parochial approach to regional transit.

Caledon Mayor Marolyn Morrison, calling out Mayor Bratina (Screen capture from The Agenda)
Caledon Mayor Marolyn Morrison, calling out Mayor Bratina (Screen capture from The Agenda)

In the new furor that ensued, Bratina kept form and dug in deeper, rationalizing his refusal to keep his own promise to champion LRT by making the absurd claim that the Rapid Ready report did not actually endorse LRT.

When Council challenged him on his interpretation of the report, all hell broke loose in a meeting that led to an integrity commission investigation (still outstanding). Bratina allegedly spoke aggressively to City Manager Chris Murray after Murray responded to a request for clarification by articulately defending Rapid Ready as a clear, straightforward endorsement of Council's commitment to LRT.

Ironically, Bratina himself has often referred to a 2012 LRT study by the McMaster Institute of Transportation and Logistics (MITL), which concluded that LRT in Hamilton can succeed but needs a strong political champion - a role Bratina has steadfastly refused to fill, even when directed by Council to do so.

Ryan McGreal, the editor of Raise the Hammer, lives in Hamilton with his family and works as a programmer, writer and consultant. Ryan volunteers with Hamilton Light Rail, a citizen group dedicated to bringing light rail transit to Hamilton. Ryan writes a city affairs column in Hamilton Magazine, and several of his articles have been published in the Hamilton Spectator. He also maintains a personal website and has been known to post passing thoughts on Twitter @RyanMcGreal. Recently, he took the plunge and finally joined Facebook.

59 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By Anon (anonymous) | Posted October 24, 2013 at 16:27:34

Just consider it the unofficial start of his 2014 Re-election Campaign. His pandering to the burbs has just begun.

Stay tuned. Next week - De-amalgamation II - The Sequel.

Permalink | Context

By de-amalgamate this (anonymous) | Posted October 24, 2013 at 16:29:10 in reply to Comment 93664

I think he'll find that boat doesn't float this time around.

Permalink | Context

By Cultosaurus (registered) | Posted October 24, 2013 at 16:33:20 in reply to Comment 93665

I really, honestly, hope that is true. For some reason I feel those wanting a more livable, balanced Hamilton are greatly outnumbered by the 'burbs'.

Permalink | Context

By Maybe (anonymous) | Posted October 24, 2013 at 20:17:30 in reply to Comment 93667

Could someone put a "How Downtown Development Benefits the 'Burbs" pamphlet/website together before 2014 please? I suspect input and endorsements could be easily gained and funding to produce and distribute it could be crowd sourced. We need to add some meat to the pre-election discussion(s) that going to occur and neutralize the postal code pandering our politicos persist with before it derails our City for another four years.

Permalink | Context

By Conrad664 (registered) | Posted October 25, 2013 at 08:35:33 in reply to Comment 93677

All you hafe to do its look at all the great citys in North America or the World for that matter there downtown is awsome , thats if you have ever visited out side of Ontario or Canada for that matter

Permalink | Context

By highwater (registered) | Posted October 25, 2013 at 09:44:51 in reply to Comment 93700

And I'm sure they got that way by tearing down all their heritage buildings in the name of 'progress', right 'Conrad'? Sometimes I wonder if you have ever travelled outside of Ontario. I don't believe for a minute that English is your second language.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Kevin Love (anonymous) | Posted October 24, 2013 at 16:40:01

This morning, I was on a GO bus that used the new lanes. Very nice. The bus was able to move freely. The bus driver also commented favourably on the new lanes.

The biggest problem was the lack of signal priority that forced the bus to wait at a red light.

Another problem was that the front bike rack can only carry two bikes. A third person who showed up was forced to wait 20 minutes for the next bus.

LRT has the capability to make Hamilton a much better city for all its people. Opposing it is truly irrational.

Permalink | Context

By LOL all over again (anonymous) | Posted October 26, 2013 at 00:22:57 in reply to Comment 93668

NONSENSE. LRT has the capability to make Hamilton a better city for the tiny fraction who use transit and making it a nightmare for all the rest of us who use cars.

Permalink | Context

By Cultosaurus (registered) | Posted October 26, 2013 at 14:21:19 in reply to Comment 93758

A large number of people take the King/Main buses on a daily basis. A large number don't because they are painfully slow and unreliable (up until now). An LRT would transform this city and encourage the second portion to use transit instead of cars. The number of people driving is going down, the number of people interested in suburban-style living is also decreasing, it makes no sense to pin our future on car culture.

Permalink | Context

By seancb (registered) - website | Posted October 26, 2013 at 08:23:29 in reply to Comment 93758

NONSENSE. LRT has the capability to make Hamilton a better city for all residents.

Opposing LRT helps no one in the long term. In the short term it benefits only those who drive through the core as a short cut, but the costs of catering to that group is astronomical and go a long way to explaining why we have a billion dollar infrastructure deficit.

Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it false.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By z jones (registered) | Posted October 24, 2013 at 17:04:52

Bratina saves his protransit noises for fluff pieces in the Toronto Star.


Bratina, elected mayor in 2010, makes no secret of his desire for a re-urbanized city. He supports public transit, cycling, the arts and Hamilton’s long neglected downtown. Indeed, he waxes wistfully about growing up that city’s East End and how his father rode to work at Dofasco on a bike.

In 2005, when Bratina moved back into the then grungy downtown neighbourhood of Corktown, it was known locally as Cracktown. Friends thought he was mad. Now it’s a neighbourhood many can’t afford.

“Downtown is the face of the city,” Bratina argues. “If you don’t have a viable downtown, you don’t have a city.”


http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013/10/...

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Frick5 (anonymous) | Posted October 24, 2013 at 17:17:23

Ugh, Bratina is infuriating. DO YOUR JOB!!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By RichardD (anonymous) | Posted October 24, 2013 at 17:44:34

I was looking forward to the transit lane until I realized it is now taking almost twice as much time to get from Ottawa St to downtown on the B-line, all because of the traffic jam in the International Village. The bus-only lane definitely needs to be extended at least to Wellington.

Permalink | Context

By Core-B (registered) | Posted October 24, 2013 at 21:12:43 in reply to Comment 93673

agreed.

Permalink | Context

By jonathan (registered) | Posted October 24, 2013 at 18:50:48 in reply to Comment 93673

I have a very hard time believing that the bus-only lane is having that detrimental of an effect on traffic. Someone was complaining already on the radio the very first day that traffic was backed up as a result of this...except the lane hadn't been fully implemented yet, and the portion that WAS completed could't possibly have affected the location she complained about.

Keeping in mind that today (the 24th), there's a major event at the Convention Centre that was causing traffic on both Main and King to back up. Main was backed up right onto the 403.

EDIT: I should also mention that the Queen St closure is increasing the amount of traffic on King through the International Village, as some folks are now taking the Upper James/Victoria cut (which is the reason I abandoned King long ago as my regular route to the highway, and now take Hunter to Hess).

Comment edited by jonathan on 2013-10-24 18:56:38

Permalink | Context

By Core-B (registered) | Posted October 24, 2013 at 21:17:03 in reply to Comment 93675

Changing your route. What a novel idea lol. It takes some longer than others to break a habit. You are absolutely right about the Queen Street Hill, when it re-opens the Claremont traffic (that invariably heads to King) will be reduced substantially.

Permalink | Context

By seancb (registered) - website | Posted October 25, 2013 at 08:52:36 in reply to Comment 93686

Unless one works downtown, one should not be coming down the mountain accesses during rush hour. The whole point of having the Linc is for mountain traffic to access west hamilton and beyond via highway to the 403. I have no sympathy for drivers who come down an inner city access and then get mad waiting in traffic to get to the 403. We pay a hell of a lot to have these highways, people need to start using them so we can stop paying a hell of a lot MORE to maintain a dozen other highways through lower Hamilton.

This is pure habit. The way we choose routes (As drivers) in Hamilton is insane. From Limeridge mall, we'll often choose to drive down the access and through downtown if we need to get to the 403 because going up 300 metres "the wrong way" to the linc feels "out of the way". It's like someone in downtown Toronto deciding to drive to the 401 via yonge street because detouring 3 blocks to the gardiner is "too far out of the way"

And if one works downtown and "doesn't have a choice", they still actually do have a choice. Don't want to sit in traffic? Choose to live downtown. It's not like we're in new york where a 300 square foot room is a million dollars.

Comment edited by seancb on 2013-10-25 08:53:26

Permalink | Context

By seancb (registered) - website | Posted October 24, 2013 at 19:13:07 in reply to Comment 93675

Agreed. There has always been a (relatively minor) slowdown through international village, and the bus lane starts after that so it doesn't even create a bottleneck. It comes AFTER the pre-existing "bottleneck" at wellington (if you can even call it that - I call it "normal city traffic")

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted October 24, 2013 at 21:42:23 in reply to Comment 93676

Haha. Normal city traffic in Hamilton is 65km an hour without hitting a single red light.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Rimshot (anonymous) | Posted October 24, 2013 at 18:39:52

Let's all work positively toward an end.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Core-B (registered) | Posted October 24, 2013 at 21:04:54

I wanted to see what it was like and yesterday morning, purposely drove from Wellington to Dundurn St. Traffic moved very slowly up until Mary Street where the bus lane started. The buses moved very quickly and efficiently and traffic movement improved. From James to Dundurn traffic moved as if nothing had changed. I'm sure there were a lot of people who were unaware of the change and got caught up in this. They will no doubt change their route. Believe it or not, after ONE DAY, Councillor Whitehead said to council that we may have to revisit this before the one year period expires. Really? After one day!!!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By rednic (registered) | Posted October 25, 2013 at 05:28:27

it really says something about Hamilton drivers that they can't remember a 4 lane westbound highway is 2 blocks to the south. Hopefully they won't figure it out, I fear if they do it will used as reason to leave Cannon as it is. The real congestion seems to be the fact that the bus lane is 2 lanes at King and James.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Michelle Martin (registered) - website | Posted October 25, 2013 at 07:21:40

We need to be a 20-minute city for transit commuters. Also, drove to Westdale yesterday and found it a little quicker, actually.

Permalink | Context

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted October 25, 2013 at 10:52:07 in reply to Comment 93695

HSR Route 20 (A-Line) = 23 minutes from King & Hughson > Upper James & Rymal
HSR Route 10 (B-Line) = 32 minutes from McMaster University > Eastgate Square
Burlington Transit Route 101 = 30 minutes from King & James > Burlington GO Station

Then there's the last mile.

Permalink | Context

By Kevin Love (anonymous) | Posted October 25, 2013 at 18:11:51 in reply to Comment 93730

The last mile is what bicycles are for. Let's make sure that the coming bike share program is implemented properly.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By kevlahan (registered) | Posted October 25, 2013 at 08:25:36

I took the 1A bus at Queen this morning at 8am. Absolutely no congestion, in fact there were NO CARS in the block between Hess and Queen for one light cycle. Maybe traffic is much heavier westbound in the afternoon, but the morning rush hour was more or less unaffected. Which is not surprising as the curb lane already had many buses during rush hour, and so was not particularly useful for motor vehicles looking to travel quickly through the core.

If anything, drivers will probably appreciate not being stuck behind buses, or having buses pull out in front of the them.

Of course, the fact cyclists have been excluded and are now forced to ride in dangerously aggressive traffic is an completely unnecessary example of "friendly fire".

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2013-10-25 08:27:59

Permalink | Context

By seancb (registered) - website | Posted October 25, 2013 at 09:04:37 in reply to Comment 93698

You raise a good point - the mandatory yield law to buses pulling away from the curb no longer becomes a bottleneck. I think we will witness things running much more smoothly once people get used to it. It may take a few weeks but it'll only get smoother

As far as bikes, frankly, I refuse to put myself at greater risk because of an absurd law. The economic risk of getting a ticket riding IN the lane is worth eliminating the physical risk of trying to ride between the lanes - like the bologna in a car-bus sandwich. I'll be interested to watch where the bike cops ride.

Permalink | Context

By Henry and Joe (anonymous) | Posted October 26, 2013 at 11:50:52 in reply to Comment 93709

Yes, I tend to agree. I tried an albeit brief experiment, but riding a couple times in the non curb lane, I found that I was being aggressively passed on both sides (including use of the transit only lane) with little concern for my safety. Next time, I'll have to try the transit lane , and take my chances with a ticket. Seeing that car drivers will increase their convenience at the expense of the law and my safety, I'll have no choice but to increase my safety at the expense of the law.

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted October 25, 2013 at 09:48:40 in reply to Comment 93709

I'll be interested to watch where the bike cops ride.

Not a fair comparison. I mean, who is going to scream, give the bird and run down a cop on a bike?? I've sometimes wondered if I could get my hands on a police jacket for when I cycle. Goes to show that car drivers absolutely know how to drive safely and be considerate around bikes. They just choose not to when it's you and I.

Comment edited by jason on 2013-10-25 09:49:00

Permalink | Context

By highwater (registered) | Posted October 25, 2013 at 09:47:36 in reply to Comment 93709

They'll ride on the sidewalk like always.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted October 25, 2013 at 09:46:52

9am Friday morning drive down King from the east end and there were no problems at all. Thankfully we didn't pressure wash all the lanes markings away after day 1.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Megan (registered) | Posted October 25, 2013 at 11:45:04

The only trouble I had yesterday (at 8 a.m.) was between John and McNab where the buses effective are using all 4 lanes. Loading in lane one, dedicated lane in lane two, and then three and four to try and turn left into the McNab terminal. Once past McNab it was clear sailing.

Permalink | Context

By seancb (registered) - website | Posted October 25, 2013 at 11:52:28 in reply to Comment 93733

I guess we should have put our transit terminal at the hunter street....transit terminal.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By CaptainKirk (anonymous) | Posted October 25, 2013 at 14:44:50

Don't need to go through downtown to cross the city. My son drives from home (King and Nash area) to McMaster via the RHVP, LINC, and 403.

Gets there faster.

When he has to take the HSR, I'm sure the bus lane will make that a better trip now.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Kevin Love (anonymous) | Posted October 25, 2013 at 18:16:48

I am with all the people pointing out that cars belong on highways, not as cut-through rat-runners downtown.

For example, the city of Vienna has the downtown divided into five sectors. People walking, cycling or on public transit can go straight from A to B. Car drivers going from one sector to another have to drive out to the surrounding ring road, drive around the city, and then drive back into the new sector.

This tends to make walking, cycling or public transit the fastest, easiest and most convenient way of going from A to B. So guess how people get around.

Permalink | Context

By Dm (anonymous) | Posted October 25, 2013 at 18:56:02 in reply to Comment 93752

Please don't forget the people who live in the geographic center of Hamilton (from Victoria to gage). How do you propose we get west without driving through the precious core?

Permalink | Context

By seancb (registered) - website | Posted October 26, 2013 at 08:26:22 in reply to Comment 93754

I guess it depends where you are going. You may have to drive through the core. And it may take 15 minutes instead of 8. And your life will certainly go on. Small bonus, you'll be living in a world class city instead of a mediocre one.

Permalink | Context

By DM (anonymous) | Posted October 26, 2013 at 14:49:47 in reply to Comment 93761

Unlikely to see Hamilton become a world class city from the creation of congestion, but as long as the cyclists are happy. Even if it takes 48 minutes away from my family and their needs.

Permalink | Context

By seancb (registered) - website | Posted October 26, 2013 at 15:32:27 in reply to Comment 93777

I'm interested in the details of the route that you drive that cyclists have added 48 minutes to.

Permalink | Context

By Dm (anonymous) | Posted October 26, 2013 at 21:45:01 in reply to Comment 93778

I drive king 6 times per day between work, recreation and the assortment of activities that come with having a family.

Permalink | Context

By seancb (registered) - website | Posted October 26, 2013 at 15:39:15 in reply to Comment 93778

Here are some pictures I took of King Street on the 3rd day of the bus lane... at each one of these spots, king is down to 2 lanes. You are probably onto something, this kind of congestion is probably going to sink this city. All of the huge successes we've had downtown since the 60s are all going to disappear. This will probably force all of the businesses and residents downtown to move to Brantford.

king01 king02 king03

Permalink | Context

By Dm (anonymous) | Posted October 26, 2013 at 21:54:34 in reply to Comment 93779

Time stamp?

Permalink | Context

By moylek (registered) - website | Posted October 27, 2013 at 00:02:07 in reply to Comment 93789

Time stamp?

According to the EXIF data in the images, they were all taken at more-or-less 11:00 am on Friday, October 25th. Not rush hour, granted. But that's a remarkably open road for the middle of the day on the main drag in the hear of a mid-size city.

Comment edited by moylek on 2013-10-27 00:03:26

Permalink | Context

By Dm (anonymous) | Posted October 27, 2013 at 00:26:08 in reply to Comment 93794

Look like remarkably safe streets as well.

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted October 27, 2013 at 10:19:29 in reply to Comment 93796

The most reliable way to make a street safer for all users, including people in motor vehicles, is to reduce motor vehicle speeds. Based on the evidence, a multi-lane street with so little traffic that cars can go at or above the speed limit unimpeded (what traffic engineers call Service Level "A") is just about the least safe design you can have.

Comment edited by administrator Ryan on 2013-10-27 10:22:16

Permalink | Context

By Dm (anonymous) | Posted October 27, 2013 at 11:46:52 in reply to Comment 93808

There's no cars. How can it get safer than that? These 11am photos clearly show it's not a as dangerous of a street as proposed by this site between the hours of rush hour.

Permalink | Context

By seancb (registered) - website | Posted October 27, 2013 at 21:55:04 in reply to Comment 93810

These photos don't 'clearly show' safety. They show that we have more lanes than necessary and all wailing claims to the contrary are hyperbole.

The street alternates between high speed traffic and emptiness. When cars are present they are going over the speed limit because there's so much space it's hard not to. This is NOT safe.

Sounds to me like you are advocating for removing all cars from King street - in the name of safety.

I didn't realize you were so progressive!

Comment edited by seancb on 2013-10-27 21:55:31

Permalink | Context

By Dm (anonymous) | Posted October 28, 2013 at 05:05:21 in reply to Comment 93821

Guess your sarcasm meter is broken. Show me some 8am-9am photos please. The time that matters. I didn't realize this sites fan club wants to double emissions during rush hours. Just what we need to make Hamilton world class again: pollution.

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted October 28, 2013 at 06:01:50 in reply to Comment 93826

I didn't realize this sites fan club wants to double emissions during rush hours.

You are literally trotting out every discredited argument about traffic flow, one at a time. Making it easier for cars to drive fast makes pollution worse, not better. Here's why:

  • Cars pollute more, not less, when they drive faster.

  • When you make it easier to drive, more people drive longer distances more frequently.

There's a reason most of Hamilton's air pollution now comes from cars, and it's not because our car-dependent transportation system reduces air pollution.

As for "the time that matters", it may be the time that matters most to you but the purpose of a street is to meet everyone's needs, all day, and not just a narrow cohort during an hour in the morning.

An urban street in which its multiple traffic lanes are so empty for most of the day that cars can free-flow above the speed limit is emphatically not a safe or healthy street. That street is not performing well economically or socially, and it is not generating nearly as much money toward the tax base as a more healthy, economically active street.

I'm sorry that your interests are so narrow that you can't see that or, indeed, appreciate how you would also benefit from King Street not being a freeway for 23 hours a day.

Permalink | Context

By Dm (anonymous) | Posted October 28, 2013 at 07:30:49 in reply to Comment 93827

From the guy with a hate-hate relationship with cars? Sorry your interests are so narrow minded as well. What percentage of all users use main and king during 8-9 and 5-630? My car pollutes less moving continuously without idling.

Permalink | Context

By kevlahan (registered) | Posted October 28, 2013 at 09:35:17 in reply to Comment 93829

In fact, studies show that with modern cars speed is not a significant factor for pollution, at least at city speeds of 0 - 60km/h. Idling is also less of an issue with modern cars, and will become insignificant as more and more cars are fitted with automatic engine start-stop features (already standard on many higher end vehicles).

What has been shown to increase pollution significantly in urban settings is rapid acceleration and deceleration, which is a "feature" of Hamilton's current one-way green wave set up, as cars rapidly accelerate away from traffic lights.

If you were really concerned about pollution, you could prioritize taking transit, cycling, walking or maybe buy a hybrid vehicle. Designing the streets in the core of a city of 520,000 to encourage high speed driving at all times of day increases pollution by encouraging more drivers and rapid acceleration/deceleration.

Not to mention the fact that lower traffic speeds increase safety in two ways: they reduce the chance of collisions because lower speeds give drivers more reaction time to avoid problems, and the lower speeds mean if an accident does occur it will be far less serious (energy increases like the square of speed).

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2013-10-28 09:38:17

Permalink | Context

By Dm (anonymous) | Posted October 28, 2013 at 09:52:56 in reply to Comment 93834

But I'm in a hurry and my time is the most important thing in the universe!

Permalink | Context

By evelyn w (anonymous) | Posted October 28, 2013 at 08:45:13 in reply to Comment 93829

Take it easy - most contributors here have cars and use them. They also have bicycles, feet, and most importantly, capacity for rational thought.

You can whine about your personal "problems" all you want, it does not change the fact that building too many lanes has a detrimental effect on the entire city economically and environmentally.

You want to drive through the city faster. You are absolutely entitled to have that desire. But the rest of the city is not obligated to pander to it.

Enjoying the discussion though - especially how you randomly grab arguments and try to wrestle them into submission of your worldview. Unfortunately they don't quite fit.

Permalink | Context

By seancb (registered) - website | Posted October 27, 2013 at 09:40:47 in reply to Comment 93796

Yeah, looks like a "world class city" to me!

Permalink | Context

By highwater (registered) | Posted October 27, 2013 at 07:26:12 in reply to Comment 93796

If by 'safe' you mean 'dead to all signs of urban social and economic activity'.

Comment edited by highwater on 2013-10-27 07:26:47

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Hamilton Civic League (anonymous) | Posted October 26, 2013 at 20:40:29

LRT, all day GO service and other public transit issues are presented on the survey posted at www.CivicLeague.ca. Be sure to register your opinions on these and many other important issues. Please encourage your contacts to complete the survey. The values & priorities identified through the survey will assist voters to evaluate decisions that have been made at City Hall and hopefully encourage residents to consider accountability when voting in 2014.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By fmurray (registered) | Posted October 28, 2013 at 08:07:36

I wonder if Bratina will throw his support behind Hudak for the next provincial election. There's an article in the Globe by Adrian Morrow about Hudak's plans, if he's elected, to scrap all LRT plans for Mississauga and Hamilton and put the money into more subways for Toronto. Terrific.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By crtsvg (registered) | Posted November 05, 2013 at 08:20:52

Hudak is a douche, Bratina is not far behind. LRT is the way to go.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Noted (anonymous) | Posted December 18, 2013 at 11:03:25

http://nextcity.org/theworks/entry/san-franciscos-eleven-year-bus-rapid-transit-project

Permalink | Context

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to comment.

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds