Special Report: Walkable Streets

An Annotated Tour of Councillor Whitehead's Latest Traffic Motion

The motion is a jumble of narrow, mean-spirited, divisive noise that presumes its own conclusions, pits different parts of the city against each other and does nothing to move the city forward.

By Ryan McGreal
Published May 09, 2016

At last week's City Council meeting, Ward 8 Councillor Terry Whitehead was so angry about a housekeeping motion to formalize a directive Council had already approved to look at interim safety measures on Aberdeen Avenue that he blurted out a notice of motion to close the Beckett Drive and James Mountain Road accesses.

The next City Council meeting is this Wednesday, May 11 at 5:00 PM, and Councillor Whitehead has revised the text of his motion to make it even more ridiculous. We can't link directly to the motion since the city's meeting website is unusable-by-design, but you will find the text on the meeting agenda as item 7.1 under Motions.

Annotated Text

Following, for your reading convenience, is an annotated text of the motion.

Implications of Lower City Traffic Changes that have Put Additional Pressures on Mountain Road Networks

So already we're editorializing in the title of the motion.

WHEREAS, there has been an aggressive urbanist movement

Catch that? Wanting to reduce dangerous traffic speeds to make streets safer is "aggressive". I wonder if Councillor Whitehead blames the Rolston Neighbourhood Action Plan on an "aggressive urbanist movement" and not on people living in his own ward who simply want their streets to be safer and more inclusive.

to reconfigure city road networks and reduce traffic lanes on arterial roads in the name of "safety";

Note the scare quotes around "safety".

WHEREAS, there is an aggressive movement

Again with the "aggressive" business.

to create a higher levels [sic] of congestion;

This is more unsupported editorializing based on a false claim. The goal of traffic calming is not to create congestion, but to reduce dangerous speeding and create more safe options to get around without needing to use a car for every trip.

In the case Garth/Beckett/Aberdeen network, the main traffic constraint during afternoon rush hour is the delay introduced by downbound motor vehicles making a left turn onto Aberdeen at the intersection of Queen and Aberdeen.

The reason most through traffic is forced to turn left at Aberdeen is that Queen Street switches from two-way to one-way southbound at Herkimer. If Queen was two-way, not as many cars would be forced to turn left onto Aberdeen and the intersection would not back up during rush hour.

Even with most vehicles forced onto Aberdeen, the street is still overbuilt for the volume of traffic with two lanes in each direction. It is entirely possible to introduce traffic calming to reduce dangerous speeding and provide better walking and biking connectivity without causing vehicle traffic to back up.

WHEREAS, there is a request that has been submitted to reduce traffic on Aberdeen to two lanes,

More editorializing. The actual request, which Councill approved, directs staff to "undertake a full review" of Aberdeen "with a focus on improvements to meet the request for a more complete street- and pedestrian-friendly design, including consideration for a road diet" once the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) review is complete.

It will be up to staff to come back with some recommendations on how to achieve that, given the outcome of their study. It is certainly possible that the recommendation will be to redeploy some excess lane capacity to more effective use, but the motion does not specifically call for this, and nowhere does it call for Aberdeen to be reduced to two lanes.

which would further restrict and negatively impact flow of traffic on Garth, Scenic, Fennel [sic] and West 5th;

That is an unsupported assertion. Aberdeen has excess lane capacity for the traffic volume that it carries, which means some of that lane capacity can be redeployed without impacting traffic flow.

In addition, the evidence does not indicate significant restriction of traffic flow on Garth, Scenic, Fennell and West today. Other than modest delays at intersections during rush hour (i.e. having to stop for a red light), these streets enjoy free-flowing traffic unless there is a delay caused by a collision. And higher-speed, higher-capacity street design makes such collisions more likely, not less.

WHEREAS, the construction of LRT and the elimination of King Street as an arterial road,

Actually, King Street will still be an arterial road for people travelling via public transit. The problem is that Whitehead does not regard transit as a viable transportation choice.

may drive more traffic onto the Red Hill Expressway, Lincoln Alexander Parkway, Mohawk Road, Stone Church Road, Garth Street and West 5th, etc., which further exacerbates the traffic loads in our neighbourhoods;

That's a big "may". The traffic impact analysis has not yet been completed and will not be completed until later this summer. That, in turn, will feed into the TMP review.

When Ward 1 Councillor Aidan Johnson introduced his notice of motion to ask staff to look at traffic calming on Aberdeen, Whitehead insisted that the study should wait until after that TMP review process was completed. Now he wants to jump the queue and direct staff to undertake a big study on changing how the Beckett and James Mountain Road accesses work while the results of that review are still outstanding.

WHEREAS, the Lincoln Alexander Parkway is already at capacity at peak hours already resulting in drive through traffic through our local neighbourhoods; and,

Apparently "drive through traffic" in neighbourhoods is only a problem when those neighbourhoods are in Whitehead's ward.

WHEREAS, the Highway 403 does not have the capacity to absorb the traffic volumes on the Lincoln Alexander Parkway;

He's referring to the fact that the exit from the Linc onto the eastbound Highway 403 slows down during morning rush hour as traffic from the Linc merges with existing eastbound traffic. Well, yes, that will happen on a highway access during rush hour.

As you can see from the following animation of typical Google Traffic at this ramp for morning rush hour, the delay is mainly where the Linc connects to the 403:

Animated GIF: Typical Traffic at Lincoln M. Alexander Parkway and Highway 403 exit between 6:00 AM and 10:00 AM (Image Credit: Google Maps)
Animated GIF: Typical Traffic at Lincoln M. Alexander Parkway and Highway 403 exit between 6:00 AM and 10:00 AM (Image Credit: Google Maps)

The slowdown is already abating before the highway gets down the Escarpment, though traffic speeds are still reduced during rush hour.

Thanks to the Law of Induced Demand, even if more lanes were added to the Linc and the 403, any respite from rush-hour slowdowns would be only temporary. Any additional supply of lane capacity will only increase the demand for that lane capacity, attracting more vehicle trips and filling up the spare capacity.

What's interesting here is that Whitehead advocates driving more vehicle traffic through neighbourhood streets in the lower city in order to avoid driving more vehicle traffic through neighbourhood streets in his own ward.

This is profoundly parochial, divisive and spiteful, especially given that the Kirkendall residents who advocated traffic calming on Aberdeen have not called for it to be eliminated as an arterial road but simply to find a better balance between convenience for through traffic and the legitimate needs of local residents to use their own streets safely.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:

(a) That staff be directed to conduct a study on the implications of lower city traffic changes that have put additional pressures on mountain road networks that have or will result in the reduction of lane traffic, road reconfiguration or growth related such as Scenic Drive, Garth Street, West 5th and Fennel Avenue and report back to the Public Works Committee; and,

This 60-word tossed salad is a barely comprehensible jumble of clumsy editorializing and unsupported assertions. It also almost certainly falls within the context of the TMP review that is already taking place, which is to say that staff are already studying the implications of planned changes to the city's transportation system.

(b) That staff be directed to provide recommendations in that report to address the increased traffic loads, including a feasibility study on reverse lane control with 2 lanes down-bound in the morning rush hour and 2 lanes up-bound in the evening rush hour on both the Queen Street Hill and West 5th and/or shutting one or both accesses down.

Instead of simply fixing Queen Street so it functions as a two-way street again and allows northbound traffic to stay on Queen instead of being diverted left onto Aberdeen, Whitehead would rather look at turning Beckett Drive into a one-way street: a reverse lane control essentially makes the access into a one-way street in alternating directions by time of day.

Since the main pinch point is the left turn from Queen onto Aberdeen, doubling Beckett's downbound capacity during afternoon rush-hour would increase the volume of traffic trying to turn left and likely exacerbate the rush-hour delay through that intersection. I don't even know how southbound traffic on Queen would be diverted if Beckett was one-way northbound during afternoon rush-hour.

In addition, a reverse lane control ignores the fact that there is traffic moving in both directions at all hours of the day on Beckett Drive. And I can't imagine what the purpose of closing the access entirely might be, other than sheer petulance.

Transportation Demand Management Missing

On top of that, missing entirely from Whitehead's motion is any consideration of transportation demand management, which means looking at opportunities to provide viable alternatives to driving for some trips.

One of the benefits of a complete streets approach to Aberdeen is that it would make the street much more accessible for people choosing to choose walking or biking. Every time someone walks or rides a bike instead of driving, they are reducing the total volume of motor vehicle traffic, reducing wear-and-tear on the road, reducing air pollution, reducing noise, and reducing the danger of a collision.

And just as the Law of Induced Demand applies to motor vehicle lane capacity, it also applies to every other mode, too. When it becomes easier, safer and more enjoyable to walk, more people choose to walk. Of course, this also applies to cycling and transit.

With a better citywide transit system, more people currently driving between the west mountain and downtown or west Hamilton would choose to take transit, taking more cars off the road and alleviating congestion.

But Whitehead fundamentally doesn't believe that transit can serve as a legitimate way to travel. It is painfully clear that he regards it as at best a social service for people who can't afford cars. But as cities all over the world demonstrate, when transit is funded and operated as a legitimate way to get around, people use it that way.

When the Red Hill Valley Parkway was being built, Council was advised that peak rush-hour service levels would quickly become poor if the City did not increase transit service to accommodate some of the additional trips being generated by all the new suburban development that the highway's completion enabled on the east mountain.

Yet in close to a decade since the highway opened, the City has invested almost no money whatsoever in increasing transit service anywhere, let alone the mountain.

In fact, we have stagnated or declined in transit funding and service continuously for the past thirty years, during a time when many other cities have increased transit service - and ridership - dramatically.

Councillor Whitehead's motion is a jumble of narrow, mean-spirited, parochial, divisive noise that presumes its own conclusions, pits different parts of the city against each other and does nothing to move the city forward. Hamilton deserves better from its leaders.

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.

51 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By KevinLove (registered) | Posted May 09, 2016 at 08:49:07

"...which further exacerbates the traffic loads in our neighbourhoods;"

Which, of course, means that better infrastructure is needed in Mountain neighbourhoods. Here is a good example from Amsterdam, showing the evolution of infrastructure when one moves from the downtown to the suburbs. See:

https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2011/...

Permalink | Context

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted May 09, 2016 at 19:28:33 in reply to Comment 118372

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 MattM (registered) | Posted May 10, 2016 at 13:22:02 in reply to Comment 118399

how the hell is advocating for complete streets on the mountain perceived as an "attack"?

Permalink | Context

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted May 10, 2016 at 17:32:31 in reply to Comment 118419

I've yet to see KevinLove ever advocate for anything in the suburbs, except for them to "pay their share" or whatever it is he rails about.

Permalink | Context

By kevlahan (registered) | Posted May 11, 2016 at 08:53:59 in reply to Comment 118428

I hope you are not confusing the "Kevin" who has been posting personal attacks above with "KevinLove". They are completely different people!

Permalink | Context

By Kevin (registered) | Posted May 12, 2016 at 00:41:21 in reply to Comment 118441

But, aren't you glad I'm here, so you can point and say, "Look! We're so much better than him?"

Comment edited by Kevin on 2016-05-12 00:43:22

Permalink | Context

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted May 11, 2016 at 19:46:38 in reply to Comment 118441

I most certainly am not confusing Kevin Somers with Kevin Love. KevinLove has been nothing but critical of those who choose to live outside the core.

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted May 12, 2016 at 05:33:09 in reply to Comment 118455

What KevinLove consistently argues is that suburban neighbourhoods need better transportation infrastructure; that suburbs and small towns can also enjoy the benefits of safer, more inclusive streets; that children have more freedom in places where they have options to travel independently of being driven everywhere by their parents; that motor vehicle exhaust causes illness and death for too many people and should be reduced; and that municipalities should charge property tax rates that are more in keeping with the cost of providing service.

The former points, of course, might come across as "attacking" to someone whose identity is tied up in bring a car driver, but they're nothing other than the plain truth, and most of them are specifically intended to improve the quality of life for people living in the suburbs, not to attack them.

And the last point may feel like an attack to someone who is enjoying the basket of perverse subsidies our city provides to people who own suburban properties, but it is also the absolute unvarnished truth. The property tax system in Hamilton hugely discounts the cost of providing service to the suburbs while artificially overcharging for the cost of service to more central and higher-density parts of the city.

This is just an incontrovertible fact, and it actually forces many people to choose housing that is different from what they would choose if housing was priced fairly. Most Ontarians consistently say they would rather live in more walkable, more bikeable neighbourhoods with a better local mix of amenities, but we have a system of zoning and pricing rules that artificially raise the cost of the kind of neighbourhood most people want to live in and forces people to live in places where they have to drive everywhere whether they want to or not.

If we had a pricing system that was more fair, we would have more of the kinds of balanced neighbourhoods people most want to live in, and they would be more affordable. How can you say someone is "attacking" the suburbs when he consistently advocates policies that would significantly improve quality of life for people living there?

Permalink | Context

By Crispy (registered) | Posted May 12, 2016 at 07:16:22 in reply to Comment 118461

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 yes (anonymous) | Posted May 10, 2016 at 14:32:18 in reply to Comment 118419

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 stone (registered) | Posted May 09, 2016 at 11:32:50

For someone who clearly does not like Downtowm Hamilton, Whitehead certainly has a lot of ideas on how it should be. Imagine Matthew Green bringing up Stone Church Road every council meeting, that's how weird this is.

Permalink | Context

By highwater (registered) | Posted May 09, 2016 at 13:38:17 in reply to Comment 118374

Exactly. I don't know why he doesn't get more pushback on this from his fellow councillors. It's overstepping, presumptuous as hell, time-wasting, and an egregious double standard. Now he's gone as far as labelling concerned parents in other wards 'aggressive urbanists'. It's offensive, hurtful, and really needs to stop.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By higgicd (registered) | Posted May 09, 2016 at 12:28:51

That's some aggressive suburbanism right there.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By GeorgeOrwell (anonymous) | Posted May 09, 2016 at 15:10:45

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 imthegingerbreadman (anonymous) | Posted May 09, 2016 at 15:21:35 in reply to Comment 118382

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 Ryan (registered) - website | Posted May 09, 2016 at 15:47:46 in reply to Comment 118383

It's adorable the way you reply to yourself with a different anonymous screen name, as if another person agreed with your strawman attack.

Permalink | Context

By Voter (anonymous) | Posted May 09, 2016 at 16:51:38 in reply to Comment 118384

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 sowhat (anonymous) | Posted May 09, 2016 at 17:01:40 in reply to Comment 118389

I am Spartacus. (Or maybe the guy was in a library or something.)

Permalink | Context

By puhleese (anonymous) | Posted May 09, 2016 at 16:38:05 in reply to Comment 118384

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 Cultosaurus (registered) | Posted May 09, 2016 at 19:09:40 in reply to Comment 118388

You mean the guy that actually uses his real name, and get's a ton of respect through out Hamilton and Toronto?

Permalink | Context

By Kevin (registered) | Posted May 09, 2016 at 17:18:20 in reply to Comment 118388

Why don't you sign your name, you child-like, juvenile coward? You spelled "please" wrong, stupid coward.

Permalink | Context

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted May 09, 2016 at 19:25:51 in reply to Comment 118393

Resorting to name calling? You look juvenile.

Permalink | Context

By Kevin (registered) | Posted May 09, 2016 at 20:31:40 in reply to Comment 118398

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 DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted May 09, 2016 at 20:34:34 in reply to Comment 118401

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 2016-05-09 20:35:06

Permalink | Context

By Kevin (registered) | Posted May 09, 2016 at 23:55:59 in reply to Comment 118404

Except for contributing the odd piece, under my real name, I have nothing to do with RTH, coward. My words are my own. What's your real name?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By stone (registered) | Posted May 09, 2016 at 15:57:52

I'm 100% fine with cars driving around downtown Hamilton or anywhere else in the city. The problem is Main and King(and to a lesser extent Wilson and Cannon)are one way highways where cars drive at 80-90 km on a regular basis in between large stretches of no cars at all. The people of the Lower City would like their streets back so they can use them to walk, bike AND drive places.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted May 09, 2016 at 17:09:14

This is a silly motion. Terry, who does this benefit, other than yourself and some people with deep pockets who live on Scenic Drive?

Permalink | Context

By Kevin (registered) | Posted May 09, 2016 at 20:33:10 in reply to Comment 118392

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 DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted May 09, 2016 at 20:35:25 in reply to Comment 118403

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 Kevin (registered) | Posted May 09, 2016 at 23:56:17 in reply to Comment 118405

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 DBC (registered) | Posted May 09, 2016 at 18:24:12

I'm shocked he's not suggesting that front lawns be removed from the homes on Aberdeen and the road widened to 6 lanes.

Who votes for this guy? Seriously.

Permalink | Context

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted May 09, 2016 at 20:29:50 in reply to Comment 118394

Give a viable option to him and you might see a change. There's plenty of people in the ward (old and young) who would be willing to go another route.

Permalink | Context

By mountain66 (registered) | Posted May 10, 2016 at 10:53:00 in reply to Comment 118400

I agree, but it's not just Whitehead. Councillors now make over $90,000. plus a pension. There is now little incentive for a city Councillor to move to say provincial or federal politics. In the 2014 municipal election fewer than 35% of the eligible voters in Ward 8 bothered to vote, in order to win you only need to keep a small core group happy to be re-elected. So you build a bocce court & keep some businesses on Stonechurch happy and you keep being a big fish in a small pond, instead of risking it at a higher level. Ward 7 had over 20 names on the ballot & now that Donna Skelly is in, how many do you think will run next time? If you want to study the effect of traffic calming on Aberdeen,how about a similar one on development south of the Linc? This quote from Councillor Whitehead's assistant sums up their view of traffic calming: (This was concerning a request we made to have the speed limit on the Claremont to West 5th ramp lowered to 50kph and the crosswalk to the stairs be better identified) "There was a request some years ago regarding a marked crosswalk however this was discouraged by City Planning as it could be hazardous with traffic coming off of the Claremont access onto the by-pass to West 5th Street this is still considered a major roadway and traffic is travelling like on an expressway”. My impression is that if you live north of Mohawk they are more than happy to use the streets as ,in their words, expressways to serve urban sprawl on the south portion of Ward 8. the north portion can become the new North End. BTW neither Councillor Whitehead or his assistant return our emails or phone calls. I am told there is a Southham neighbourhood group but the Chairperson is the Councillor Whitehead's Assistant & despite requests she has yet to send me a meeting schedule or minutes from the last meeting.Nice eh?

Permalink | Context

By highwater (registered) | Posted May 10, 2016 at 14:18:51 in reply to Comment 118415

I am told there is a Southham neighbourhood group but the Chairperson is the Councillor Whitehead's Assistant

That seems wildly inappropriate.

Permalink | Context

By Suburbanite (anonymous) | Posted May 10, 2016 at 15:44:34 in reply to Comment 118420

Inappropriate, yes. Uncommon, no. Same goes in Ancaster and Dundas. He copied that trick from his colleagues.

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted May 10, 2016 at 16:32:05 in reply to Comment 118424

It's about controlling the flow of information and shaping constituent engagement to reinforce the councillor's own agenda. Whitehead gets to be the gatekeeper to his constituents and to speak for them - including the notional "silent majority" on whom the politician can project whatever values he wants.

Real, independent neighbourhood associations and community councils have their own information flows and their own voices. Where they thrive, the councillor has no choice but to engage openly, fairly and with humility because they will be called out if they don't. In Ward 8 neighbourhoods, there is no way to know where residents would land on a given issue if given a chance to engage directly at the neighbourhood level. The civic infrastructure simply doesn't exist.

I do find it instructive, however, that the Rolston Neighbourhood Action Plan, which functions as a de facto independent neighbourhood association, landed on a set of principles and objectives that sound suspiciously like the kind of "aggressive urbanist" stuff Whitehead abhors. It suggests we all fundamentally want the same things for our communities and Whitehead's anti-urban rhetoric is a tactic to keep the city divided and his own communities atomized and disorganized.

He may feel secure but he is actually quite vulnerable. It would be great to see a civic organization of engaged Ward 8 residents start to build an independent consensus that does an end-run around Whitehead's wedge politics and gives his residents a real voice that he can't co-opt or ignore.

Comment edited by administrator Ryan on 2016-05-10 19:27:39

Permalink | Context

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted May 10, 2016 at 17:43:23 in reply to Comment 118427

While I certainly don't speak for the Rolston NAS team, I think it's fair to say that we agree on some things that Clr. Whitehead puts forward but not all. Likewise, he probably doesn't approve of all the things we have in the plan. But that's what's great about being arm's-length on these things.

I hope that there is more civic engagement in other neighbourhoods on the mountain. My mother in law was speaking with a coworker the other day about finding out if her neighbourhood had a neighbourhood association and if not to go about getting one created and moving forward.

It also does seem to be the case that since Clr. Whitehead controls the message, it may be those that are most vocal at his Saturday meetings at Westcliffe or calling his office get the most play. It is also because he "experiences it firsthand" with some of it (like the non-issue of traffic at morning/afternoon rush going up and down the hill).

Permalink | Context

By kevlahan (registered) | Posted May 11, 2016 at 09:35:59 in reply to Comment 118429

Because he is filtering the message, rather than letting the residents or neighbourhood associations speak for themselves like Kirkendall did, he is free to cherry pick those views that fit with his ideas and preconceptions.

It might not even be the case that these are the majority views, as we've seen in the Rolston report which says many of the same things neighbourhood associations and participatory budgeting has said in Wards 1 and 2. Why would Rolston be so different from other neighbourhoods in his ward, or other neighbourhoods in the city?

There are apparently over 900 requests for traffic calming and 150 requests for crosswalks in the queue from all over the city.

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2016-05-11 09:41:39

Permalink | Context

By highwater (registered) | Posted May 11, 2016 at 09:14:19 in reply to Comment 118429

it may be those that are most vocal at his Saturday meetings at Westcliffe or calling his office get the most play.

Of course. That tends to be how it works. Which is why it's so outrageous that he labels and demeans citizens in other wards doing the exact same thing. In fact, he demeans citizens who've gone through far more substantive and accountable processes, such as the Ward 1 PBAC and Yes We Cannon, than those of his own ward. The hypocrisy is mind-blowing.

Comment edited by highwater on 2016-05-11 09:15:33

Permalink | Context

By highwater (registered) | Posted May 10, 2016 at 16:13:36 in reply to Comment 118424

And yet lower city NA's are the ones accused of having an 'agenda'. Sigh.

Permalink | Context

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted May 10, 2016 at 09:48:42 in reply to Comment 118400

Which is why I'm disappointed that the mountain councillors were making noise about widening the Red Hill and the Linc, when the most obvious bottleneck in highway service around the city is the 2-lane eastbound 403 from the Linc interchange down to Aberdeen. We have a "ring road" where parts of the "ring" are 1-lane ramps.

But since he's happy to exploit the people living along Garth and along Aberdeen, he doesn't need to think about that.

Permalink | Context

By Kevin (registered) | Posted May 09, 2016 at 20:32:41 in reply to Comment 118400

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 DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted May 09, 2016 at 20:35:42 in reply to Comment 118402

Love you too, kiddo. <3

Permalink | Context

By Kevin (registered) | Posted May 09, 2016 at 23:27:43 in reply to Comment 118406

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 Cultosaurus (registered) | Posted May 09, 2016 at 19:11:03 in reply to Comment 118394

People who like their cars. People who like the status quo. A lot of seniors and aging baby boomers. About 20% of the voting public in his ward.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By ergopepsi (registered) | Posted May 09, 2016 at 22:11:44

I'm not too worried about this motion. I think there are enough adults on council to see it for what it is and they won't let it go any further.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By pushback (anonymous) | Posted May 10, 2016 at 14:34:32

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 Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted May 11, 2016 at 13:16:58

Reverse Lane proposal for the hills is what this puts this from "snark" into "over-the-top insane" because a)

It shows that Whitehead has actually thought this through and is seriously considering it and

b) It pretends that the mountain accesses are his ward's property. People commuting from Ward 2 to Ward 8 would have just as much claim to those mountain accesses.

One could argue that Garth and W5th belongs to the people along Garth and W5th, just as Aberdeen does to the people living along there. But you can't claim that about James Mountain Road and Beckett Drive.

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted May 11, 2016 at 13:40:22 in reply to Comment 118449

It seems to me that the Beckett Drive escarpment access is entirely within Ward 1 and the James Mountain Road escarpment access is entirely within Ward 2.

Hamilton Ward Boundaries map detail

So once again, Whitehead is trying to call the shots for parts of the city outside his ward.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By It seems to me (anonymous) | Posted May 11, 2016 at 21:44:16

Both accesses referred to are in Ward 8 as well as Wards 1 or 2

Permalink | Context

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted May 12, 2016 at 09:24:02 in reply to Comment 118458

Ward 6, 7 and 8 start at the top of the escarpment, not the middle. The escarpment itself is in wards 1 through 4.

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