Special Report: Light Rail

Lessons from Car-Dependent Phoenix on Transit and Active Transportation

This could be Hamilton if we could get one or two terms of progressive, courage leadership.

By Jason Leach
Published November 03, 2014

I just read a fantastic piece in CityLab (formerly Atlantic Cities) about Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton's leadership on transit and active transportation.

The entire piece is very much worth reading, but here's just a sample:

To call Mayor Greg Stanton of Phoenix a mere transit supporter would be an understatement. "I love public transportation," he says. "I love light rail. I love bikeability. I love walkability. I talk about it all the time. I'm a passionate advocate." Such passion might seem like an odd fit for a city with a reputation for car-reliance, but the truth is that Phoenix is having a love affair with transit, too.

Just look at its recent resume. The light rail system, which opened in 2008, has already reached 2020 ridership projections. Its success has sparked a wide push for walkability and transit-oriented development in the corridor. The Valley Metro transit agency had a record year in 2013. The share of car-less households is increasing. A bike-share system is nearly ready for launch. And there's Stanton at the helm.

"A great city, a great community, is truly multi-modal, and has many forms of transportation that work well," he says. "I want to make sure that people understand that from my perspective, great public transportation, great bikeability, great walkability, is of equal value as those cars on the road."

I love his answer when he's told that it's kind of strange for a mayor of a car-centric city to be so passionate about walking, cycling, LRT and so on.

He says the fact we have been so car reliant is why he's passionate. "We've been overly car-reliant in the past and our planning efforts have been geared toward that."

I've been to Phoenix, about six or seven years ago. It was totally car-dependent with nothing going on downtown. Now read the latest LRT numbers and new development in Phoenix - it's amazing. This could be Hamilton if we could get one or two terms of progressive leadership.

Mayor-elect Fred Eisenberger has an exciting opportunity here.

We need leadership to move quickly and not keep getting bogged down for decades just because a few loud opponents complain. Build LRT, install protected bike lanes city-wide, build calm streets and safe sidewalks with trees and trust that even the opponents will be on board once they see the transformation.

All we have to do is copy the successful strategies that are already working in other cities. Check out the list of traffic calming measures the City of Portland is out actively looking to implement city-wide: speed bumps, curb extensions, diagonal diverters, semi-diverters, skinny streets, raised crosswalks, choke points, speed cushions, median barriers, etc.

While Hamilton eliminates curbside parking on Rebecca Street as part of its two-way conversion so cars can go fast in both directions, Vancouver is installing bumpouts so deep that only one car can pass at a a time.

Bumpout in Vancouver: note the 'Yield to Oncoming Traffic' sign
Bumpout in Vancouver: note the 'Yield to Oncoming Traffic' sign

I love the use of mid-block bumpouts or choke points to cause opposing cars to defer to each another. In other words, a street wide enough for two-way traffic to pass each other is narrowed so only one car can pass at a time, slowing everyone down.

The Los Angeles Department of Transportation's Bike Plan comes with a Technical Design Handbook with great designs for friendlier streets. It includes the use of chicanes, alternating mid-block bumpouts that force cars to 'slalom' and slow down.

Chicane in Austin, Texas
Chicane in Austin, Texas

People in every neighbourhood across the city want and value safe, inclusive streets. This was one of the most pressing issues at the door during the election, and it's one of the top issues mentioned in every single Code Red neighbourhood action plan.

Let's get going!

Jason Leach was born and raised in the Hammer and currently lives downtown with his wife and children. You can follow him on twitter.

56 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By markalanwhittle (anonymous) | Posted November 03, 2014 at 12:40:28

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 PoorMAL (anonymous) | Posted November 05, 2014 at 11:38:17 in reply to Comment 105870

Poor Mark Alan Whittle - Knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.

Permalink | Context

By redmike (registered) | Posted November 03, 2014 at 20:15:03 in reply to Comment 105870

the same place we got all the money for those handy wheelchair ramps and access elevators.

Permalink | Context

By DissenterOfThings (registered) | Posted November 03, 2014 at 14:24:27 in reply to Comment 105870

Where will all the money come from to pay for the roads we have now that we're barely using?

Permalink | Context

By the son of Toronto (anonymous) | Posted November 04, 2014 at 00:38:19 in reply to Comment 105877

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 jason (registered) | Posted November 04, 2014 at 12:06:06 in reply to Comment 105899

ummm, we don't need 'extra money' to build bike lanes. We can take away lanes from these overbuilt road that are barely used. Once a lane of roadway is off limits to vehicles, it's lifespan is insane. And just so we're all clear here, it cost US money to re-pave, fill potholes, rebuild roadways all the time.
But not having to do all that means we are getting money back from our current roadways.

Permalink | Context

By DissenterOfThings (registered) | Posted November 04, 2014 at 07:08:09 in reply to Comment 105899

No, I mean where will we find the money to maintain roads we don't even use. Are you able to understand that logic?

Permalink | Context

By KevinLove (registered) | Posted November 03, 2014 at 20:27:19 in reply to Comment 105877

How about from the $511 million per year that we currently spend on health care costs for people poisoned by car drivers?

Permalink | Context

By the son of Toronto (anonymous) | Posted November 04, 2014 at 00:44:26 in reply to Comment 105894

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 budget-eer (anonymous) | Posted November 03, 2014 at 14:08:31 in reply to Comment 105870

How about from the 100 million we spend on roads every year? By putting off one or two repaving jobs we could outfit the entire city with these initiatives. And their total life cycle costs are fractions of their car-infrastructure brethren.

You should stop talking about this stuff until you actually understand it. You're embarrassing yourself.

Permalink | Context

By AnjoMan (registered) | Posted November 03, 2014 at 13:20:28 in reply to Comment 105870

Where did the money come from to pay for what we have now. This type of infrastructure could actually be cheaper than what Hamilton builds now from a life-cycle costing perspective.

Is it cheaper to remove parking meters or to leave them in and collect revenue from them?

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted November 03, 2014 at 14:28:09 in reply to Comment 105873

Indeed. We thoughtlessly spent $2.3 million to replace a bridge on a needless grade-separated interchange that ought to be a normal intersection.

King and Kenilworth

I don't recall the fiscal scolds expressing any outrage over that expenditure. I don't recall them lamenting the lost opportunity to generate tax revenue because the interchange has such a large footprint.

King and Kenilworth footprint

I don't recall them insisting that the City conduct extensive city-wide consultation before going ahead with it. I don't recall Council spending hours and hours debating it or suggesting it could close during winter so we don't have to pay to clear the snow from it.

For that matter, I don't recall a citizens' group collecting thousands of statements of support for it.

Yeah, I'm getting a little tired of the double standard.

Comment edited by administrator Ryan on 2014-11-03 14:29:52

Permalink | Context

By Crispy (registered) | Posted November 07, 2014 at 10:42:56 in reply to Comment 105878

I'm not an engineer but I am familiar with this area. As per the City's guidelines the maximum allowable road grade is 6%. (See page 50) The clearance of the bridge is 4.1M. Add another metre to get to the road level: 5.1M. I crunched the numbers: to create a level crossing the rise up to the road level of the bridge would have to start at a minimum 85 metres away. 85 metres from the start of the bridge, heading north takes us to the second house on the west side of Kenilworth. (222 Kenilworth). Again this is at a maximum of 6%. (minimum 85 metres) So at a minimum 226 and 222 Kenilworth would have to be expropriated and removed. The city engineer already made this point. (Along with many others.)

There isn't a politician anywhere that wants to go to two tax payers and say "We're taking your houses so we can get rid of a bridge."

The complete disrespect for the judgement of the city engineer is disappointing.

Permalink | Context

By you forgot (anonymous) | Posted November 07, 2014 at 16:29:19 in reply to Comment 106033

1. How many metres can King be lowered?
2. Kenilworth dips down to get under king. How many metres of that 5.1 are utilized just bringing it to level?

The intersection was originaly at grade.

The engineer, sadly, never did the analysis.

Permalink | Context

By Crispy (registered) | Posted November 07, 2014 at 18:42:04 in reply to Comment 106041

Actually the engineer concluded that King would have to be regraded and homes would still have to be removed. "The complete removal of the King Street overpass and reintroduction of an at grade intersection would have required the removal of several homes, extensive re-grading of King St. and would have required a full Environmental Assessment study to be undertaken."

Again, i'm not an engineer and my calculation was rudimentary, however based on his profession opinion and response I have no doubts that changing this to an at grade intersection would cost much more than replacing the bridge. Plus the need to expropriate homes makes this a nonstarter.

I've lived in Hamilton my entire life and I do not remember this intersection ever being at grade. When was it changed? Do you have a link to photos? I'd be interested to see what that looked like.

Permalink | Context

By CharlesBall (registered) | Posted November 07, 2014 at 18:12:11 in reply to Comment 106041

You're right. We could spend millions bringing Kenilworth up to grade. Fill in the whole valley. You would gain some property that something could be built and taxed on. You could have another stoplight to stop cars to cause more pollution and get more gas tax; more braking, more tire and repair taxes; more jobs for repairs. This idea is brilliant. All for what?

You say the intersection was originally at grade. Where do you get that information? I grew up there and lived there in 1957 and that intersection was never at grade in my lifetime. And that area was farmland just before that.

This used to be one of the major feeders to the steel companies. Rush hour traffic dictated that the bridges made a lot of sense. Why would we spend millions to re-mediate that? What is the purpose of that line of thinking other that trolling?

The engineer never did the analysis. How do you know and even if it wasn't, why would he?

I know: Never give up. Never surrender. Jason Nesmith

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted November 09, 2014 at 16:41:18 in reply to Comment 106042

We could spend millions bringing Kenilworth up to grade.

Instead we spent millions replacing an over-engineered, unnecessary overpass that we're going to need to maintain for the next 40 years and then replace again for millions more, with the additional cost of foregone density and property tax assessment for all the space consumed by the semi-cloverleaf connecting King with Kenilworth.

The engineer never did the analysis. How do you know and even if it wasn't, why would he?

We know the city didn't do the analysis because we asked them about it.

The answer to "why would he?" is that a comparative analysis would have allowed us to make an informed decision about whether to leave the intersection as a grade-separated interchange or whether to turn it back into a normal intersection.

Your willingness to go to extreme lengths to justify the status quo reflects the City's own stubbornness about rationalizing the way it has built and managed our transportation network over the past several decades.

It's not working. The City's property tax revenues per unit of land/unit of infrastructure are far too low. The City's infrastructure lifecycle cost obligations per resident are far too high. The status quo is not financially or economically sustainable, and your rationalizations for refusing to do anything different are contrived and self-defeating.

This used to be one of the major feeders to the steel companies. Rush hour traffic dictated that the bridges made a lot of sense. Why would we spend millions to re-mediate that?

Are you kidding me? Are you seriously asking why we would change a transportation network we can't afford so we can continue to serve a transportation use you yourself acknowledge we no longer have?

Your trolling may be more sophisticated than the "lol you suck" variety, but it's no more grounded in good faith or sound reasoning.

Comment edited by administrator Ryan on 2014-11-09 16:42:28

Permalink | Context

By Crispy (registered) | Posted November 09, 2014 at 19:48:36 in reply to Comment 106075

Ryan allow me to cherry pick once again. Sean Burak provides an ad hoc potential tax value of the King-Kenilworth area and your response is: "Sean, this deserves to be an article in itself! Fantastic work!" I provide an ad hoc calculation that supports the city engineer and opposes your view and your response is to completely ignore it.

Speaking of Burak he stated: "I visit this intersection daily and I am sure that no homes would have to be removed." Really?? Based on what?? He provided nothing to support this. He made an assumption without evidence which completely goes against the RTH user agreement: "Finally, let the evidence lead your investigations and let your conscience guide your responses. Remember the Benny Hill Rule: When you ASSUME, you make an ASS out of U and ME." Did you question Burak about it? Did you ask for any kind of back up? No! In fact since both of you clearly disagree with the city engineer why didn't you (or Burak) follow up with him for clarification?

It makes me wonder if you have a personal beef with Mr. Moore.

The "About Raise the Hammer" section states: "We are non-partisan..." and "Raise the Hammer is dedicated to providing a variety of views..."

I don't believe these two statements at all.

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted November 10, 2014 at 14:31:40 in reply to Comment 106082

I provide an ad hoc calculation that supports the city engineer and opposes your view and your response is to completely ignore it.

I didn't ignore it, but other comments raised the same concerns I had with your assumptions and I didn't see the need to pile on.

Based on what?? He provided nothing to support this.

Go take a good look at King and Kenilworth. Look where the buildings are. Look where the empty spaces are. Look at the elevations. I would be extremely surprised if any buildings had to be removed to level the intersection.

I found the staff response to be quite bizarre when I was doing my due diligence on Sean Burak's submission, but I'm afraid it no longer surprises me when Hamilton traffic engineers rationalize bizarre design decisions by citing unreasonable assumptions.

For example, right now we're fighting to retain curbside parking on Rebecca Street when it's converted to two-way because the traffic engineers apparently decided the lanes on this side street need to be 12 feet wide. We shouldn't need to waste our time stopping our traffic engineers from breaking streets by imposing absurd and unjustifiable design standards.

In any case, as has been made countless times, the point is not that the intersection wasn't leveled but rather that no one ever stopped to ask whether it makes sense to keep investing in a grade-separated, limited-access interchange that is no longer even remotely necessary for the amount of automobile traffic it needs to support. Maybe it does, but we were never given the option to consider it.

This is what we do in Hamilton: if an investment supports or reinforces the status quo of unsustainable automobile-dependent transportation infrastructure that marginalizes every mode other than driving, it passes without comment, let alone controversy.

It's not just the King-Kenilworth bridge, which, as Sean points out, is merely an example used to illustrate a point. It's an ongoing pattern: the $4 million Beckett Drive reconstruction, an $18 million feeder road on the east mountain, a $75 million interchange in Flamborough - all approved quietly with no community engagement or controversy.

Meanwhile, a measley $800,000 cycle track on an overbuilt four-lane thoroughfare with wads of excess lane capacity needs an organized volunteer campaign and thousands of supporters and elicits hours of fractious council debate and gallons of spilled ink from self-professed fiscal watchdogs who don't bat an eyelid over capital projects orders of magnitude larger that are designed to serve driving.

Until we start really questioning the assumptions that go into our transportation infrastructure decisions, we will not be able to change the unaffordable status quo of dangerous, overbuilt roads that deny a broad mix of uses, deter active transportaion, depress property values and hinder the city's ability to sustain its lifecycle obligations.

Comment edited by administrator Ryan on 2014-11-10 14:34:00

Permalink | Context

By Crispy (registered) | Posted November 11, 2014 at 11:37:40 in reply to Comment 106092

"Go take a good look at King and Kenilworth. Look where the buildings are. Look where the empty spaces are. Look at the elevations. I would be extremely surprised if any buildings had to be removed to level the intersection."

So what you are saying here is that you have nothing to support your stance about removing homes. Nothing personal but i'll take the opinion of a P.Eng over yours in this case.

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted November 11, 2014 at 11:51:32 in reply to Comment 106112

The engineer's post-hoc rationalization for not looking at alternatives strikes me as facile - after all, this is the same department that thinks a minor urban side street needs 12-foot-wide lanes - but of course your mileage may vary.

However, you're still missing the point: the City never actually considered any alternative to replacing the overpass and locking in the same expensive, excessive infrastructure for another generation of lifecycle costs.

Comment edited by administrator Ryan on 2014-11-11 11:53:06

Permalink | Context

By Crispy (registered) | Posted November 11, 2014 at 11:55:45 in reply to Comment 106114

As I stated below, in this case I don't believe it was necessary.

Permalink | Context

By Sean Burak (anonymous) | Posted November 10, 2014 at 14:05:15 in reply to Comment 106082

I did communicate with Mr Moore, and much of his response was quoted in my article and comments. According to Moore, building an at-grade intersection was never studied. If you read the article, I do not blame Moore but rather a flawed process. This is not a personal beef.

I also stated quite clearly in my original article that there was no expectation that this specific project should be un-done or re-done. My whole point is that a better anaylsis should have been done, which seems to be the same point you are making here.

It's not just about King and Kenilworth. That project is one an example of many, indicating a general process issue and highlighting the need to consider these bigger picutre effects before plowing forward with roads projects.

Permalink | Context

By Crispy (registered) | Posted November 10, 2014 at 22:10:38 in reply to Comment 106091

Just curious: are you also suggesting that Lawrence and Kenilworth should have been and at grade intersection?

Permalink | Context

By Crispy (registered) | Posted November 10, 2014 at 22:02:26 in reply to Comment 106091

In this particular case I don't believe any further study was necessary and here's why: I believe in experience and intuition. It happens in many professions. People can "eyeball" a job and accurately estimate what is needed, how long it will take and how much it will cost. In this case I believe that an experienced engineer would see that job and know that to change it to at grade intersection would require demolishing homes, so why look any deeper into that option.

Permalink | Context

By Sean Burak (anonymous) | Posted November 12, 2014 at 13:26:12 in reply to Comment 106095

The problem is not just this particular case. It's that these infranstructure reduction measures are almost NEVER studied -- in any partuicular case.

Permalink | Context

By CharlesBall (registered) | Posted November 09, 2014 at 17:25:42 in reply to Comment 106075

With all due respect, trolling trash talk aside, of all the things posted on this site, this Kenilworth thing seems to me to be a red herring.

My comment was in response to @youforgot. As I said, I have more than 60 years experience with that intersection. I am neither supporting or demeaning overall City engineering. I am not talking about an changing an overall network or about City taxes on a grand scale. I was supporting @Cripsy's post about THAT intersection. It never was an intersection of any significance pre-bridge. It was never at grade level when the City was anywhere near like it is now and it would costs millions to re-mediate. I would need to know why in the long run spending that money now, would be worth it. Why would we expropriate taxpayers when a bridge repair will do?

Do you think spending more money on that intersection in the short run is going to solve your concern with the land/unit infrastructure tax base issues you speak of?

Maybe like the guy below says, I should not have used such colorful language, but suggesting some huge change to that area when the City is facing so many problems seems to me to be out of line and frankly, an example of why some people think people on this site go way overboard.

But, I am just a troll. I only supported the Crispy guy because he is in opposition to the article, not be because he raised an interesting point.

I still don't know where that @forgot guy got his information.

Your frustration is apparent and understandable. But ideas of change must be subject to challenge and nothing you have said in your response significantly supports the specific issue expropriating people and spending many millions to re-mediate that specific intersection.

If it isn't sound reasoning to "call out" possible waste, well then I must be of unsound mind.

Permalink | Context

By Sean Burak (anonymous) | Posted November 12, 2014 at 13:31:07 in reply to Comment 106078

The reason we need to scrutinize these projects is because the full life cycle costs need to be considered. We DID spend millions remediating the bridge. How much would it have cost in the short term to reconfigure? And what would the long term effects be? We don't know because we did the remediation without considering these questions. We need to start doing these analyses because our infrastructure maintenance deficit is already at emergency levels. The tax revenue value of the land underneath our underused asphalt lanes absolutely needs to be considered in any long term planning decisions.

Permalink | Context

By fish for lunch (anonymous) | Posted November 08, 2014 at 11:37:20 in reply to Comment 106042

You want to talk about excess pollution? How does one turn left from kenilworth southbound onto king right now? By driving past the bridge and around the traffic circle and back to the ramp... and left from kenilworth northbound onto king? By driving past and going through the neighbourhood. And left onto kenilworth from king eastbound? Again around the traffic circle. Ya that's efficient. Tasty red herrings!

Permalink | Context

By CharlesBall (registered) | Posted November 08, 2014 at 13:22:55 in reply to Comment 106059

I bet thousands of cars standing still pollute more than a few hundred that travel an extra few hundred yards without having to stop and go. Not a fish story.

Permalink | Context

By notlloyd (registered) - website | Posted November 07, 2014 at 23:10:37 in reply to Comment 106042

I am not sure if such strong sarcastic rhetoric is useful.

Permalink | Context

By kevlahan (registered) | Posted November 03, 2014 at 13:18:42 in reply to Comment 105870

Some of it has already come from the Participatory Budget processes in Wards 1 and 2 where residents have voted to spend their own hard earned tax money on many traffic calming projects (instead of fixing potholes, or widening streets, for example). It seems that when residents are actually given a choice, most would like to spend money on complete streets!

We could also save money spent on unnecessary excess lanes on many of our downtown streets by using them for traffic complete streets.

Didn't you ask where the $75 million we spent on re-doing the Clappison's corners intersection came from? http://www.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/3104... Or the $18 million for a new arterial road on the Mountain? http://www.hamiltonnews.com/news/18-mill... These are far more expensive and will also incur millions in ongoing maintenance.

Shifting to complete streets is relatively inexpensive in the short term, and saves huge amounts in the long term.

Oh, and it save lives and injuries too!

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2014-11-03 13:19:23

Permalink | Context

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted November 03, 2014 at 17:59:08 in reply to Comment 105872

Some of it has already come from the Participatory Budget processes in Wards 1 and 2 where residents have voted to spend their own hard earned tax money on many traffic calming projects (instead of fixing potholes, or widening streets, for example). It seems that when residents are actually given a choice, most would like to spend money on complete streets!

When I voted both times in this in Ward 2, I don't ever recall there being an option on there for either of those suggestions. Fixing the crumbling infrastructure on well-used streets should have been on there last time. Let's champion that in the next one!

Permalink | Context

By Duh (anonymous) | Posted November 04, 2014 at 09:36:49 in reply to Comment 105887

Yeah. Let the old city pay extra for their roads. Brilliant.

Permalink | Context

By Noted (anonymous) | Posted November 03, 2014 at 20:37:23 in reply to Comment 105887

You may take comfort in the fact that cycling proposals have also been marginalized in PBW2 sessions. In the 2013 round, Pilot Project for a Network of "Urban Trail" Alleys (funded at $230K) got three times as many votes as Complete Cannon St W (unfunded at $130K). In the same session, Six Bike Parking Stations (unfunded at $20K) was less than half as popular as Ten Poster Kiosks/Message Boards (funded at $20K). In 2014, there was PBW2 support for downtown bike rack sculptures (funded at $50K) and Rail Trail Reconstruction (funded at $86K) but no other cycling-related measures made the ballot.

PBW1 has been the most cycle-positive to date, endorsing bike lanes on York Blvd between Dundurn and Downtown (funded at $100K) and Bike lanes on Longwood Road North (funded at $50K) as well as Bike racks across Ward 1 (funded at $25K) and bike-friendly improvements to Emerson (funded at $60K) in the 2014 season alone.

No word as yet on PBW3. ;)

Permalink | Context

By kevlahan (registered) | Posted November 03, 2014 at 18:13:04 in reply to Comment 105887

The "options" were those proposed by the residents!

If you have other priorities you can research, propose and promote them. That's how the proposals got on the ballot in the first place in these new examples of participatory democracy. Or you could organize a "Yes we Cannon" type initiative if you are even more ambitious.

I'll look forward to seeing your carefully justified and well-promoted proposal on the ballot next year.

But we have gotten used to seeing many millions spent on new roads and road maintenance without the need for resident-led campaigns ... no one asked me or any other Hamilton residents to vote on the $75 million for Clappison's, $18 million for the new road on the Mountain or the $6 million re-build of the Queen St hill. They just happened. Other sorts of initiatives require a lot more resident involvement, even when they cost a tiny fraction of the budgets of these projects (the PB process has $1 million per year, which is spread over many small projects).

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2014-11-03 18:16:28

Permalink | Context

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted November 03, 2014 at 19:21:57 in reply to Comment 105888

I've since moved out of ward 2 and into a home on the mountain. If I were still in the core I'd be involved. Not sure how "outside influence" plays in these type things - I was of the impression that the submissions need to be "from the ward, by the ward, of the ward". But please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Permalink | Context

By KevinLove (registered) | Posted November 03, 2014 at 20:22:03 in reply to Comment 105889

OK, you're wrong. I know because I was a Participatory Budget Delegate for Ward 2.

Public submissions were taken from everyone who chose to participate. People were not required to live in Ward 2 to make a submission.

Comment edited by KevinLove on 2014-11-03 20:24:52

Permalink | Context

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted November 04, 2014 at 21:24:05 in reply to Comment 105893

When can I submit something, and to whom?

Permalink | Context

By z jones (registered) | Posted November 03, 2014 at 20:19:06 in reply to Comment 105889

Instead of complaining about the ward 2 participatory budget why don't you ask your councillor to start PB in your new ward. Talk to your neighbours and build support. Then you can submit proposals to ignore crosswalks and fill potholes on your streets. But stop complaining about how the people in Ward 2 choose to invest.

Permalink | Context

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted November 04, 2014 at 21:26:15 in reply to Comment 105892

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 jason (registered) | Posted November 04, 2014 at 22:03:27 in reply to Comment 105962

great news! which neighbourhood planning team are you working with?

Permalink | Context

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted November 05, 2014 at 06:37:36 in reply to Comment 105966

Rolston. Our assistance from the city has been fantastic, so far. I am actually interested in writing a piece on the hard work the residents and city staff are doing.

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted November 05, 2014 at 09:25:58 in reply to Comment 105974

please do. That would be great. I'ma huge fan of these neighbourhood planning teams and hope city hall won't just pile their reports on a desk somewhere.

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted November 03, 2014 at 20:47:00 in reply to Comment 105892

maybe residents on the Mountain can finally get those sidewalks that we're told they so desperately want, yet haven't been built in the past 20 years with the same councillors being re-elected in landslides over and over.

Permalink | Context

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted November 04, 2014 at 21:28:20 in reply to Comment 105896

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 jason (registered) | Posted November 04, 2014 at 21:38:09 in reply to Comment 105963

yea, but he didn't 'sit' for 11 years. He revolutionized our neighbourhoods, economy and quality of life while casting a big vision view for the entire city that folks weren't quite ready for yet.

Permalink | Context

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted November 09, 2014 at 22:52:54 in reply to Comment 105965

That's semantics. Choosing to focus on the word "sit" instead of the actual double standard. He was in power for over a decade and in your estimation is just short of walking on water. Other councillors who were elected for less time are somehow bumbling fools who only look out for their own necks. What a double standard.

Permalink | Context

By AnjoMan (registered) | Posted November 03, 2014 at 13:22:47 in reply to Comment 105872

Yup. 'Where will the money come from' ignores life-cycle planning costs, which benefit from trading some car traffic for pedestrian / cycle traffic. Just because the roads are already built doesn't mean it's cheaper to leave them as-is.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted November 03, 2014 at 17:43:18

September 13, 2017 can't come soon enough.

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted November 04, 2014 at 09:54:54 in reply to Comment 105886

Okay, I'll bite: what happens on September 13, 2017?

Permalink | Context

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted November 04, 2014 at 12:44:14 in reply to Comment 105903

IIRC, it's the day after the third anniversary of the opening of the Cannon Cycle Track. Theoretically, the day that council can't stall based on its typical wait-and-see stance. Hopefully they don't wait that long to implement a winning active transpo idea elsewhere, but council's track record (no pun intended) makes me reflexively hedge.

Permalink | Context

By Behind the Curtain (anonymous) | Posted November 04, 2014 at 13:08:25 in reply to Comment 105906

As a suburban commuter who drives along Cannon everyday, I'm an instant fan. Cyclists use it, traffic moves at safer speeds, (most) drivers stop treating it like a drag strip, and it's added at most 2 minutes to my commute. Great job, #YesWeCannon

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Noted (anonymous) | Posted November 03, 2014 at 21:34:54

"...in the past 20 years with the same councillors being re-elected in landslides over and over."

I feel your frustration but while Ward 6 is something of a wax museum, councillors for mountain Wards 7 and 8 were elected in 2006 and 2003 respectively. (I believe that Clr Duvall, elected eight years ago, was the one who voiced the sidewalks complaint.) Perhaps you mean to fault their tri-term predecessors Bill Kelly (Ward 7 1997-2006) and Frank D’Amico (Ward 8 1991-2003) and their pre-amalgamation aldermanic counterparts (say that three times fast).

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted November 04, 2014 at 12:08:24 in reply to Comment 105897

yes, it's kind of a blur of rare change up there. Duvall def the newest of the bunch. I recall hearing Jackson and Whitehead chime in on the whole '20 years with no sidewalks' thing which is rich considering they've been in office for at least 11 of those 20 years and never mentioned it before. I thought the best part of that whole 'can't we just have sidewalks' hoopla was Bill Kelly freaking out on his show about it. Ummm, you were in office for over a decade up there and couldn't get some sidewalks poured??

Comment edited by jason on 2014-11-04 12:09:45

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By The son of Toronto (anonymous) | Posted November 04, 2014 at 22:10:12

Why do we have to maintain the roads we don't use? I would against building new road while we don't have money. Look at the Cannon bike lane, personally I don't support bike lane and calm traffic in neighborhood. However I see it clearly should not be priority in Hamilton

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