Special Report: Light Rail

Show Your Support for LRT

The City's LRT plan is ready for provincial funding. Tell the Province to keep its promise to fund LRT.

By Ryan McGreal
Published July 21, 2014

In 2007, the Provincial government promised to fund LRT in Hamilton, and the City began a six-year comprehensive planning and design process with unprecedented levels of public engagement. That process included engaging with thousands of Hamiltonians, which found overwhelming support for LRT.

B-Line LRT route map
B-Line LRT route map

The City's planning work was independently assessed by Metrolinx, the Provincial arms-length regional transit organization. Metrolinx completed a Benefits Case Analysis that found LRT would deliver the biggest overall net benefit.

Hamilton City Council completed its comprehensive Rapid Ready LRT plan in February 2013 and submitted it to the Province. Our LRT plan is on the Metrolinx list of Next Wave projects waiting for a funding commitment.

We are waiting for the Province to keep its promise of full capital funding.

Broad Support

Our intentions are clear. Rapid Ready is a comprehensive plan that specifies an LRT line running along the east-west corridor between McMaster University and Eastgate Square.

We have completed the Class Environmental Assessment, 30 percent engineering and detailed design and a complementary land use study for the route. We've done everything the Province asked us to do.

Support for LRT includes such leading municipal and community organizations as the Hamilton Chamber of Commerce, the *Hamilton Spectator* editorial board, the Realtors Association of Hamilton-Burlington, Clean Air Hamilton, the Downtown Hamilton BIA, the International Village BIA, various neighbourhood associations and community councils and the McMaster Students Union, as well as thousands of residents from across the city.

Rapid Transit Preference by Ward (Source: City of Hamilton)
Rapid Transit Preference by Ward (Source: City of Hamilton)

In the recent election, the Liberal candidates for Hamilton Mountain and Hamilton East-Stoney Creek ran on anti-LRT campaigns. They both lost to candidates who explicitly support LRT.

This should send a clear message to the Liberal government that support for LRT is strong citywide.

Tremendous Opportunity

Light Rail Transit (LRT) on the east-west B-Line is a tremendous, once-in-a-generation opportunity to transform Hamilton into a thriving, economically diverse centre. LRT on the B-Line has the best potential for success and will deliver the biggest overall net benefits to the city.

The B-Line has the ridership, the land use and the impressive uplift potential that are the hallmarks of highly successful LRT implementations.

B-Line LRT boardings per kilometre compared to other North American cities with LRT
B-Line LRT boardings per kilometre compared to other North American cities with LRT

Distribution of new taxable assessment without LRT and with LRT (Source: Canadian Urban Institute)
Distribution of new taxable assessment without LRT and with LRT (Source: Canadian Urban Institute)

Our LRT plan represents $800 million in direct provincial investment in our economic sustainability, an investment that is proven to deliver a huge overall net return in greater economic activity, new transit-oriented development, greater mobility and improved quality of life.

We can't let fear, confusion and misinformation conspire to defeat this opportunity. If there was ever a time for Council and the Province to remember the evidence, trust their own history of support, uphold the courage of their convictions and fulfil their commitment to LRT, that time is now.

It is imperative that Council and the Province hear loud and clear from Hamiltonians that we know what we want and we expect our civic leaders - both Municipal and Provincial - to stay the course and deliver on their promise.

Please to go the Hamilton Light Rail website and add your name to our call to the Province and Council to keep their promise and build LRT on the B-Line. Add a short personal statement of support (please be positive and constructive) to help strengthen our message.

About Hamilton Light Rail

Hamilton Light Rail is an independent group of citizens who believe that Hamilton needs an ambitious approach to economic development and urban revitalization based around high quality rapid transit. To that end, we are dedicated to promoting the goal of building a light rail transit (LRT) system in Hamilton.

This includes a campaign to educate Hamiltonians about the many benefits of light rail, provide evidence-based reports and resource materials, and build broad support across all sectors of the community: citizens' groups, neighbourhood associations, business groups, and trade associations.

Hamilton Light Rail is strictly volunteer-based and is not affiliated with the Corporation of the City of Hamilton or with any commercial interests. We're citizens who want Hamilton to enjoy the many benefits of light rail transit.

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.

80 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted July 21, 2014 at 12:34:21

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Comment edited by DowntownInHamilton on 2014-07-21 12:37:34

Permalink | Context

By Robert D (anonymous) | Posted July 22, 2014 at 21:13:26 in reply to Comment 103326

I live on the mountain, and we were a liberal stronghold throughout the Chretien years before turning NDP. So I wouldn't say we are a "traditional NDP stronghold".

Also, contrary to what you may say, the mountain (and my area in particular) do stand to gain from LRT. And the position of the local Liberal candidates cost them my support, which is what I told them when they called.

Permalink | Context

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted July 23, 2014 at 03:27:59 in reply to Comment 103373

So I wouldn't say we are a "traditional NDP stronghold".

I would. It goes back, what, 10 years now? I'd say that's a generation, so that would be "tradition" in my book. The Cretien years were nearly 20 years ago now, and the area may have been Liberal before that. I'll have to look and see if there are any historical voting patterns we can use to determine, but you're talking semantics now, on what "traditional" means.

Also, contrary to what you may say, the mountain (and my area in particular) do stand to gain from LRT.

If the mountain will gain from LRT, how? There's no benefit to a household that doesn't ride it. I don't believe that these imaginary benefits the usual mouthpieces spout will actually come to anything (new businesses opening, expansion of existing ones, new developments popping up), and in turn increasing the tax base and then causing my taxes to go down.

Comment edited by DowntownInHamilton on 2014-07-23 03:35:26

Permalink | Context

By mikeonthemountain (registered) | Posted July 23, 2014 at 08:14:55 in reply to Comment 103384

If the mountain will gain from LRT, how?

Uh ... isn't the existence of public infrastructure the framework for how advanced societies work?

How does downtown benefit from the Linc?

It's almost as if we can build more than one thing, some things for some, and other things for others! Maybe density can influence what kinds of things are appropriate in which places!

Permalink | Context

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted July 23, 2014 at 22:40:34 in reply to Comment 103397

Uh ... isn't the existence of public infrastructure the framework for how advanced societies work?

We have that already.

How does downtown benefit from the Linc?

From reduced truck traffic travelling through the core.

Permalink | Context

By RobF (registered) | Posted July 21, 2014 at 13:52:00 in reply to Comment 103326

Assuming that LRT increases property values and spurs intensification along its route in the lower city it benefits the whole city because it improves the overall tax-base.

LRT is expected to produce these benefits, but how much net benefit and over what time-frame is subject to uncertainty (wish i knew what the future holds). That said, the ridership and transit improvement arguments are strong enough to support LRT.

Permalink | Context

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted July 22, 2014 at 19:54:37 in reply to Comment 103330

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

By RobF (registered) | Posted July 22, 2014 at 22:46:18 in reply to Comment 103371

What part of is expected to be a catalyst for redevelopment is hard for you to understand? People on the mountain belong to the city. If the LRT generates development that is a net-benefit to the city's tax-base (i.e. the new assessment contributes more revenue to the city than what it costs to service it) then it is of general benefit to all residents. How do you define "net benefit"?

Permalink | Context

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted July 23, 2014 at 03:28:48 in reply to Comment 103379

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

By redmike (registered) | Posted July 22, 2014 at 21:13:41 in reply to Comment 103371

good riddance. dont let the doors of the lrt hit you on the ass on the way out of the core.

Permalink | Context

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted July 23, 2014 at 03:29:15 in reply to Comment 103374

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

By redmike (registered) | Posted July 23, 2014 at 08:19:09 in reply to Comment 103386

selfish short sighted egomaniac sociopaths are not the demo we want in the core. we dont want you, we dont need you. we are glad you are gone. please stay away and make room for the people that are part of the solution. and enjoy paying your residential dollars in sprawville to help subsidize me and my fellow core dwellers from riding the lrt as you sit in traffic on the linc or some hellish exchange in or out of sprawville.

Permalink | Context

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted July 23, 2014 at 22:42:07 in reply to Comment 103398

Ouch! Must have touched a nerve there.

I'm still in Hamilton, actually in a development built in the late 60s or early 70s, in Hamilton. It's not "sprawlville", but it is up on the mountain.

Permalink | Context

By mikeonthemountain (registered) | Posted July 23, 2014 at 08:06:38 in reply to Comment 103386

You said this:

I am moving up the mountain from the core. I do not work downtown nor will I be visiting it often once I move.

Then you said this:

Good luck with your redevelopment since I'm the demographic you wish to attract to the core.

I've seen this before - people who say they are leaving the core or never lived there, and express no interest in visiting again, act like they're god's own gift to downtown, while speaking against improvements.

What demographic do you refer to? Because I or any number of other here could make the same statement, that we're who post-industrial Hamilton is trying to attract.

And, although I too left Hamilton to live in Burlington on a quiet two way street with bike lanes, humbly, I'm trying to visit the Hammer for Farmer's Market and other downtown stores I have grown to like, and even continue getting haircuts from the nice lady that's been cutting my hair for 10 years. Only to find unnavigable construction blockages, and articles in the spec that you guys want to take my e-bike away from me.

Responsible productive professionals, who contribute yet live with a small footprint, are becoming collateral damage.

Permalink | Context

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted July 23, 2014 at 22:47:25 in reply to Comment 103396

I've seen this before - people who say they are leaving the core or never lived there, and express no interest in visiting again, act like they're god's own gift to downtown, while speaking against improvements.

I don't think I'm God's gift to downtown, but I am in the 18-35 demographic that EVERYONE wants. Doesn't matter what it is, it's what everyone wants.

What demographic do you refer to? Because I or any number of other here could make the same statement, that we're who post-industrial Hamilton is trying to attract.

See above. Your link was a lot of fluff. I could've written a "what is city planning?" thing that's on par with that.

And, although I too left Hamilton to live in Burlington on a quiet two way street with bike lanes, humbly, I'm trying to visit the Hammer for Farmer's Market and other downtown stores I have grown to like, and even continue getting haircuts from the nice lady that's been cutting my hair for 10 years. Only to find unnavigable construction blockages, and articles in the spec that you guys want to take my e-bike away from me. Responsible productive professionals, who contribute yet live with a small footprint, are becoming collateral damage.

Gee, that's too bad. You can always move back where you can rely on buses or maybe, if you're lucky, LRT. It's great you have someone who's cut your hair for a decade, that touches my heart. Maybe we can get Paul Wilson to write a piece on you two. I also am fully for getting rid of e-bikes, unless you plan on getting licensed, since e-bikes are constantly not obeying streetlights, stop signs, going on and off of sidewalks, cutting people off, etc.

My family is responsible professionals too. We live in a small footprint - my spouse takes transit or carpools daily, I carpool daily, we only own one vehicle, were living in a condo downtown, but we're collateral damage to special interest groups, bickering, and infighting.

Permalink | Context

By redmike (registered) | Posted July 24, 2014 at 08:29:49 in reply to Comment 103425

no one believes for one moment you have a spouse, who would couple with you? no one believes you live downtown, you live under a bridge. however, you are nice to warm up on before i have to deal with preteens all day.

Permalink | Context

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted July 25, 2014 at 06:02:59 in reply to Comment 103446

Ooh, I have touched a nerve. Simple trolling on my family is clearly a sign of your immaturity. I'm not the troll - you are. My wife would actually be commuting to work from up the mountain down near the termination point of the LRT line and she is asking what net benefit she'd have. Sure, she sometimes gets caught in that window of "packed to capacity bus drives by stop, wait a few minutes for another bus to come by" but she's learned that by leaving 5-10 minutes earlier, she doesn't get caught in that problem. That only seems to happen at 2 major stops, according to her: Jackson Square and Longwood Rd.

Permalink | Context

By redmike (registered) | Posted July 25, 2014 at 12:13:16 in reply to Comment 103482

the only part of your post that was true is that i am immature. everything else you posted, like almost everthing else you post, is a complete and utter fabrication and delusion, self or otherwise.

Permalink | Context

By mikeonthemountain (registered) | Posted July 23, 2014 at 23:57:29 in reply to Comment 103425

People like you make me worry that sociopathy and collective punishment will become the norm, however I have to believe there are enough people with wisdom and functioning empathy subroutines, to see past the bickering and infighting you speak of, and make decisions that move us forward as a society. I don't even know what you're trying to accomplish by coming in here with your negativity.

Permalink | Context

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted July 25, 2014 at 06:04:04 in reply to Comment 103434

I've got all those things you think I don't, but just not for LRT. Lots of projects in this city are worthwhile, and help far more people. I am just not interested in spending a billion dollars on a special interest project.

Permalink | Context

By Steve (registered) | Posted July 21, 2014 at 20:54:33 in reply to Comment 103330

How does it benefit all those who have to pay the increased taxes, without a corresponding increase in income?

An increase in my property value has no impact on my QOL (and I walk, or bike, most places now) unless I decide to sell and move to a cheaper area and Brantford is too far from the centre of the universe...

ps. The above is serious and I'm interested to know how paying additional taxes based on a property I hope to keep until I die benefits me.

Permalink | Context

By RobF (registered) | Posted July 21, 2014 at 22:49:57 in reply to Comment 103338

I didn't say it would benefit you. Or at least not in the rather parochial way you are framing it.

The question was how does it benefit people on the mountain or elsewhere that don't benefit directly from transit improvements ... i.e. why should they care, and ultimately support LRT.

I'm only partially sympathetic to the argument that you'll have to pay increased taxes ... the value of your property (i.e. your equity) is increased through no real effort of your own. Cities don't run on love. They are legally corporations for a reason. They need tax revenue to pay for needed infrastructure (construction and maintenance) and services that contribute to QOL. We have to pay for that whether our property values go up or not.

A second point: the main boost to the tax-base, however, isn't from rising house prices and assessments. It's from infilling and redevelopment that creates new revenue, because the land is being used more intensively. Think of parking lots and vacant properties that go from paying very little tax to being real contributors, because they generate greater land rent per square foot.

Finally, you have heard that if US Steel exits Hamilton entirely that that is over $20 million in taxes that largely vanishes. The city can't run a deficit on operating costs, so picture what a hole like that in our budget will mean.

Comment edited by RobF on 2014-07-21 22:55:32

Permalink | Context

By stinson (registered) | Posted July 23, 2014 at 00:32:53 in reply to Comment 103348

9.1 Million in taxes that vanish. http://www.hamiltonnews.com/news/hamilto...

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted July 21, 2014 at 22:19:31 in reply to Comment 103338

I sure hope you use this same logic to object to every single highway, roundabout and fancy Ancaster road project.

Permalink | Context

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted July 22, 2014 at 19:47:48 in reply to Comment 103345

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

By redmike (registered) | Posted July 22, 2014 at 21:24:32 in reply to Comment 103370

or multi million dollar upgrades to water and sewage facilities in north east hamilton and all along the route through the core and up the mountain and beyond so you and your family can live in sprawllville and still be able to flush your toilets and get clean water. how does that multi million dollar investment that cost my tax dollars help me? it doesnt. it helps you. i want it cancelled and my tax money back.

Permalink | Context

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted July 23, 2014 at 03:30:42 in reply to Comment 103376

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

By redmike (registered) | Posted July 23, 2014 at 08:20:37 in reply to Comment 103387

allan taylor lives.

Permalink | Context

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted July 25, 2014 at 06:04:25 in reply to Comment 103399

Sure, but not here.

Permalink | Context

By redmike (registered) | Posted July 22, 2014 at 21:20:59 in reply to Comment 103370

or all the money losing hsr bus routes for the mountain riders being subsidized by the hsr riders in wards one through five and our money making hsr routes.

Permalink | Context

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted July 23, 2014 at 03:38:34 in reply to Comment 103375

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

By redmike (registered) | Posted July 21, 2014 at 21:33:01 in reply to Comment 103338

as lynn anderson sang "i beg your pardon, i never promised you a rose garden" do you think the state should use the "whats best for steve matrix" to evaluate every project? who made steve a promise that steve would benefit financially every time the government did something? are you for real?

Permalink | Context

By Steve (registered) | Posted July 25, 2014 at 19:04:43 in reply to Comment 103342

But, I still have the right to vocally and outwardly oppose any project that I oppose in a free and democratic society. After all my vote still equals yours.

Permalink | Context

By Kevo (registered) | Posted July 21, 2014 at 21:18:11 in reply to Comment 103338

The same could be said for almost anything the government funds, especially anything involving roads (this is especially true of highways and car-dependent suburbs).

Part of the benefit is that vacant or inefficiently used lands (parking lots, strip malls, etc.) are replaced by developments that can increase the tax rolls by a substantial amount. Furthermore, those denser infill developments are more efficient to service (water, sewage, telephone, cable, gas, electricity, schools, rec centres, parks, etc. already exist) and save the taxpayer substantial amounts of money in the near and long term than the wasteful expansion that we've seen take place in Stoney Creek and on the Mountain.

Plus, everyone's got to make concessions in a city. The old city funded/funds the expansion outwards that depends on government subsidies for the initial capital, more expensive servicing, and more expensive repairs in the future. The lower city is where a fair number of the jobs in Hamilton exist and the lower city was built on the back of the street railway (much like the streetcar suburbs of Bloor West Village, the Danforth, College St, etc. in Toronto), so it makes sense to build something that raises tax rolls, pays for old in-situ infrastructure to be replaced, increases the viability of running a business downtown, and moves people in areas that have the most need and use.

My 2cents anyways... I'm a bit of a capitalist when it comes to government infrastructure (mainly because I'm an urbanist).

Permalink | Context

By RobF (registered) | Posted July 21, 2014 at 23:20:38 in reply to Comment 103341

I should have read your post before replying above. You basically provided the same response.

I'm not sure i understand your final point, however. I don't see the link between being an urbanist and being a capitalist. You can be both. But they aren't one and the same. An urbanist isn't necessarily a capitalist and vice-versa.

Comment edited by RobF on 2014-07-21 23:28:05

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By CharlesBall (registered) | Posted July 21, 2014 at 13:17:09

Let's stop guessing. Let's have a plebiscite. Is there time before the election?

Permalink | Context

By redmike (registered) | Posted July 21, 2014 at 21:36:00 in reply to Comment 103328

as long as you have a plebiscite every time the city wants to build a road or expand the urban boundry or a pumping station.

Permalink | Context

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted July 23, 2014 at 03:39:20 in reply to Comment 103343

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

By democrat (anonymous) | Posted July 22, 2014 at 19:08:26 in reply to Comment 103343

The title of the article is about supporting let. The best way to determine support is through a vote.

Permalink | Context

By redmike (registered) | Posted July 22, 2014 at 21:28:09 in reply to Comment 103369

tell you what democrat, let do this democratically. come the municipal election, i will vote for a mayoral candidate that supports lrt, like brian mchattie or fred eisenberger. you can support a mayoral candidate that is opposed to lrt, like brother baldassaro or crystal lavigne. may the best candidate win. democracy rules.

Permalink | Context

By Steve (registered) | Posted July 25, 2014 at 19:07:38 in reply to Comment 103377

Brad Clark doesn't get listed, only 'fringe' candidates? Really?

No problem, BM and FE will split the vote anyways and to many here's chagrin the incumbent still might announce a change of heart/mind on running.

Permalink | Context

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted July 25, 2014 at 06:08:58 in reply to Comment 103377

Go ahead. You can support LRT without actually supporting it. Look at our current mayor. His defunct campaign website (you can find it using the wayback machine) says he will support LRT if elected. He was elected and has listened to the people and is not actively supporting it. If you think that McHattie is mayoral material, with his gaffe after gaffe (why haven't I heard any more about his 100 day "tour" of the city? I wanted to welcome him to ward 2 since he is just a tourist, maybe take him over to Tourism Hamilton to get a feel for what the city can offer him. I also want to know more about him overstepping his bounds as a councillor and approaching higher levels of government about special interest items.). I supported Eisenberger before and could see doing so again. Does that mean I agree with every plank of his platform? No. Do I ever agree with every plank of any candidate's platform? No.

Stop trolling already.

Permalink | Context

By highwater (registered) | Posted July 23, 2014 at 00:03:38 in reply to Comment 103377

Actually Baldasaro supports LRT too. Just has a slightly different take on the preferred route.

Permalink | Context

By LOL_all_over_again (registered) | Posted July 22, 2014 at 00:45:16 in reply to Comment 103343

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

By Henry and Joe (anonymous) | Posted July 22, 2014 at 10:10:03 in reply to Comment 103353

I don't think is reasonable to hold plebiscites on provincial funding. The provincial budget outlines $130 billion to be spent over 10 years on infrastructure builds. Should we have 3 to 400 plebiscites on these projects, or is there a threshold amount that determines when we should have direct democracy?

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted July 21, 2014 at 22:20:07 in reply to Comment 103343

exactly.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Let's go (anonymous) | Posted July 21, 2014 at 13:49:05

The studies are done, the support is there, the promises have been made over multiple election - Let's get on with this investment!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By kevinlove (registered) | Posted July 21, 2014 at 20:26:17

Ryan wrote:

In the recent election, the Liberal candidates for Hamilton Mountain and Hamilton East-Stoney Creek ran on anti-LRT campaigns. They both lost to candidates who explicitly support LRT.

Kevin's comment:

Let me express my opinion about politicians who pay lip service to LRT, but then come out in opposition to all of the revenue tools to actually pay for it. It is my opinion that those politicians are anti-LRT.

In the real world, responsible adults know that if we want something, we have to decide how to pay for it.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Steve (registered) | Posted July 21, 2014 at 20:59:45

Re: Graphic - Rapid Transit Preference by Ward (Source: City of Hamilton)

What was the sample size and collection method (random, self selected, phone, web, in-person, etc)? Is there any mention to either in the source?

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted July 22, 2014 at 07:09:58 in reply to Comment 103339

Staff consulted with 1,600 people across the city as part of their public engagement during the rapid transit feasibility study.

Permalink | Context

By Steve (registered) | Posted July 25, 2014 at 18:51:17 in reply to Comment 103354

That sidn't fully answer my question. Random or self-selected? My guess many were self selected at their public engagement meetings. Therefore, stats without a scientific basis.

Permalink | Context

By H1 (anonymous) | Posted July 22, 2014 at 12:43:57 in reply to Comment 103354

That's about 0.3% of the population, not a very large sample.

Permalink | Context

By Steve (registered) | Posted July 25, 2014 at 19:13:28 in reply to Comment 103359

Big enough if done scientifically, but I highly suspect it wasn't done scientifically so has no statistical relevance.

Years ago, I went to the meetings hosted by the City employee who left for Niagara (can't recall her name) and recall filling out a form (self selected, not scientific) and vaguely recall web-based surveys (again, self selected and not scientific).

Permalink | Context

By RobF (registered) | Posted July 22, 2014 at 14:23:13 in reply to Comment 103359

That is more than adequate for sampling popular opinion city-wide -- provided it was a representative sample. The sample for each ward, however, would likely have a large percentage error.

Permalink | Context

By Steve (registered) | Posted July 25, 2014 at 18:52:31 in reply to Comment 103364

Sure, if the surveying was done properly which likely it wasn't.

Permalink | Context

By redmike (registered) | Posted July 21, 2014 at 21:37:59 in reply to Comment 103339

if you really were interested you would find out yourself. rth isnt your personal assistant. you have a browser, browse.

Permalink | Context

By Steve (registered) | Posted July 25, 2014 at 18:55:16 in reply to Comment 103344

Haha! The best defense is a good offense tactic. If RTH is going to put the info out there, it should be prepared to support it and defend it. No?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By climate (anonymous) | Posted July 22, 2014 at 08:59:39

Folks seem to be forgetting the real reason we need LRT, which is to get cars off the road, help curb air pollution.

Climate change will kill us if we don't act right away.

Permalink | Context

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted July 25, 2014 at 06:12:58 in reply to Comment 103355

How will LRT be powered? Through electricity, right?

We do not have a surplus of power generation in this province. That's why we're building new plants, and buying it from our neighbours.

We're switching one problem for another. If we went with LRT across North America, what would happen to our power grid? The infrastructure is old as it is and we can only produce so much power. Would we build more coal plants to get the juice, still polluting the air? Would we build more dams to get hydroelectric power? Would we build more nuclear plants with the possibilities of meltdown or huge costs of ownership? More windmills, without health studies and starting to place them involuntarily across the province? More massive solar panels and towers? What's the right answer?

Permalink | Context

By H1 (anonymous) | Posted July 22, 2014 at 12:46:48 in reply to Comment 103355

It won't. it will remove a couple of buses at best.

Permalink | Context

By Steve (registered) | Posted July 25, 2014 at 19:17:18 in reply to Comment 103360

Only B Line buses, though. All other regular stop buses will remain in service to service the stops between LRT stops. Something, not mentioned or promoted by LRT supporters.

Permalink | Context

By queen's parade (anonymous) | Posted July 22, 2014 at 15:38:46 in reply to Comment 103360

typical hand-wavey response from H1

Permalink | Context

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted July 23, 2014 at 03:31:25 in reply to Comment 103365

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

By kindergarten iz fun (anonymous) | Posted July 23, 2014 at 08:46:08 in reply to Comment 103388

you don't know who allan taylor is, you have just seen other people say it and you think it will give you some sort of comment cred... what grade are you in? grow up.

Permalink | Context

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted July 23, 2014 at 22:49:11 in reply to Comment 103401

Cool story bro, tell it again.

Been lurking long enough to know, posting since before you were around. Thanks for the troll attempt though, it made my day. :)

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By misterque (registered) - website | Posted July 22, 2014 at 11:19:54

Don't waste time time with the detail trolls. They are proof that the internet is simply a retard amplifier. The broad strokes are simple. Supported by council multiple times. Supported in multiple public polls. Supported by $10 million research study done by engineers and planners. Supported in the province's Big Move plan. Supported by campaign promises from two premieres over 3 elections. Opposed by the retarded trolls of CHML. CHML opposes B-LRT with smelching glavicularity. CHML's opposition is my strongest reason to SUPPORT B-LRT. If CHML is opposed to B-LRT then it is certainly the best thing for our city.

Write letters instead of wasting time with the detail trolls. <3

Mayor Bobbi Phone: 905-546-4200 Email: mayor@hamilton.ca Snail Mail 2nd floor - 71 Main St. West Hamilton, Ontario L8P 4Y5

Premiere Kathleeny Phone: 416-325-1941 Email: premier@ontario.ca Snail Mail Legislative Building Queen's Park Toronto ON M7A 1A1

Minister of Municipal Affairs Teddy Phone: 905-690-6552 Email: tmcmeekin.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org Snail Mail 299 Dundas Street East P.O. BOX 1240 Waterdown, Ontario L0R 2H0

Minister of Transportation Stevey (deLuca) Phone: 416-327-9200 Email: sdelduca.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org Snail Mail: 3rd Floor, Ferguson Block 77 Wellesley Street West Toronto, Ontario M7A 1Z8

Go look up smelching glavicularity yourself.

Comment edited by misterque on 2014-07-22 11:22:15

Permalink | Context

By arienc (registered) | Posted July 22, 2014 at 14:17:00 in reply to Comment 103358

Of course it is opposed by the CHML trolls. They wouldn't have a vested interest in keeping people trapped in their cars listening to talk radio instead of giving them other options, now would they?

Permalink | Context

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted July 23, 2014 at 03:40:47 in reply to Comment 103362

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

By arienc (registered) | Posted July 23, 2014 at 09:31:20 in reply to Comment 103391

They do have the choice to do so, but not many people do. The radio is built by default into every car made in the last 50 years, but one must actually bring their own with them on public transit. Not being in a car opens up a whole host of other choices, including using one's smartphone to read RTH. Most of the people I see on transit are plugged into either an iPod or a phone.

Permalink | Context

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted July 23, 2014 at 22:52:11 in reply to Comment 103403

Are you for real?

Cars have came with tape decks from the 80s into the 90s, even later in some cars. CD players have been standard for nearly 20 years.

I don't listen to the radio in the car, unless it's for traffic updates. I throw in an MP3 DVD and listen to my own music, or an audio CD if it suits me. Or, my iPod.

All of the above are in my car. It's a stock (factory) unit and it was built in 2007.

Your comment is not relevant. From my experience, few of my friends listen to the radio with any regularity, and certainly not to CHML. If you listen to the callers, they all sound like seniors who would only know the radio.

Thanks though.

Permalink | Context

By highwater (registered) | Posted July 22, 2014 at 12:49:25 in reply to Comment 103358

I know this is language police-y, but I just can't let your use of the 'r' word go unremarked. Please consider editing it out of your otherwise great comment, please and thank you.

Permalink | Context

By misterque (registered) - website | Posted July 23, 2014 at 14:31:08 in reply to Comment 103361

Please explain. R word?

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted July 23, 2014 at 14:39:12 in reply to Comment 103416

I believe highwater means the word "retarded". A couple of years ago, RTH contributor Michelle Martin wrote an article and a follow-up that made a thoughtful case for approaching such words from the perspective of people with intellectual disabilities, many of whom are old enough to remember when "moron", "imbecile" and "retarded" were clinical terms used to classify them as well as schoolyard epithets.

Permalink | Context

By AP (registered) | Posted July 22, 2014 at 23:31:55 in reply to Comment 103361

You are not 'policing', rather giving us a chance to learn and come together. Choosing our words thoughtfully is not about political correctness; it's about being empathetic, emotionally sensitive, inclusive. But I/we digress! Back to the LRT - just wanted to pause and share appreciation for your effort to move us forward more respectfully.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By DeadHorse (anonymous) | Posted July 22, 2014 at 17:37:14

Stop flogging me Ryan McGreal. I'm dead already!!!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Noted (anonymous) | Posted July 22, 2014 at 20:57:29

See the Rapid Transit Preference by Ward infographic.

Notably, support in Ward 14, which is not serviced by the HSR, was only 9% lower than in Ward 4, which is abundantly serviced (9-10 routes), while support in Wards 3 and 12 was equal – again, despite the disparity in existing transit service.

Wards 1-5 support averages out at around 65%, compared to 57% in Wards 6-15.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By new hamitonlian (anonymous) | Posted July 22, 2014 at 22:36:25

If LRT was built tomorrow, when it would finish? I had been waiting for new streetcar and LRT in Toronto for 4 years before I move to Hamilton. Hope they could finish something before I move out of town.
PS. Increasing of property value = paying more for property tax?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mikeonthemountain (registered) | Posted July 24, 2014 at 00:15:27

I don't listen to the radio in the car, unless it's for traffic updates. I throw in an MP3 DVD and listen to my own music, or an audio CD if it suits me. Or, my iPod.

"Cool story bro". Why mock others for sharing their personal experience, if in your next comment you wish to share personal experience. That is one of the reasons this site has comments.

Permalink | Context

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted July 25, 2014 at 06:19:40 in reply to Comment 103436

???

Here's the quote I believe you're referring to:

Most of the people I see on transit are plugged into either an iPod or a phone.

So again, I would hazard a guess that at least 50% of phone users, especially smartphone users, have data plans. This means streaming is available. CHML has this nifty app that allows you to listen to their station online. I've used it a few time to check the traffic when I'm at work but not near a computer or radio. People can listen there. Or they can not listen to CHML at all, like most people 15-45, like me, like my friends, like my family, like your friends, your family, etc.

Terrestrial radio is facing the same problems that print media faces - the user base is aging and dying off, and the new generations are not taking their place. I can usually get most of my information online, in real-time, rather than waiting to read it the next day, or waiting for a news break or specific time during the broadcast to hear it, and I get far more detail on it. I tire of hearing CHML operate like a "680 news -lite" where during the drive in/drive home they operate in a similar format, then during the time nobody listens to the radio they have a couple of in-house talk stations, syndicated programs, and reruns of 1930s-50s serials.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By fastalan (registered) | Posted July 25, 2014 at 20:25:13

Can someone please contact me with information that explains why a fixed rail solution is better than using buses on a dedicated, built up, bus lane? I am not asserting LRT is inferior, but I never seem to find the business case for LRT.

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