Media

Letters To Editor Should Be Factual

By Adrian Duyzer
Published December 01, 2010

I was dismayed to read a letter to the editor in the Spectator today that contained blatant factual inaccuracies.

"They say light rail transit will free our city of much of the automobile traffic," wrote J. Alan Rea, "when we all know that rail cannot climb the escarpment to service the areas where most people live."

In just a single sentence, the writer manages to pack in a straw man argument and two false statements:

In case you forgot, this is just one sentence!

I can overlook the strawman argument - that's just par for the course, although I wish it weren't. And the error regarding population density, well, you have to do some basic arithmetic to fact-check that, and besides, you can always draw new lines on maps to support your argument.

But the bit about how trains can't climb the escarpment is just plain ridiculous. Anyone with even a slight awareness of Hamilton's LRT plans knows about the A-Line.

The Spectator editors have far more than just a slight awareness: they are knowledgeable about, and very supportive of, light rail transit. They know that this statement is incorrect.

So why publish this letter, then? The Spectator wants to retain "balance". They've published cogently argued letters, opinion pieces, and editorials in favour of LRT, including a recent one by RTH editor Ryan McGreal.

In return, they feel they need to devote space on the editorial pages to letters opposing LRT. I don't have a problem with that, but I do have a problem when those letters contain false statements.

LRT should be debated, I believe, on the basis of return on investment (ROI). Does investing in LRT return benefits, in terms of economic development, traffic reduction, quality of life improvement, and so on, equal to or greater than the sum invested?

That's a worthy subject of debate, but instead, valuable editorial space is spent arguing over non-issues such as whether or not trains can go up hills. That impoverishes the debate and that, in my opinion, is a disservice to readers.

Adrian Duyzer is an entrepreneur, business owner, and Associate Editor of Raise the Hammer. He lives in downtown Hamilton with his family. On Twitter: adriandz

29 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By Capitalist (anonymous) | Posted December 01, 2010 at 10:23:33

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 Factcheck (anonymous) | Posted December 01, 2010 at 12:23:45

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 nobrainer (registered) | Posted December 01, 2010 at 12:42:51

Usually a "Factcheck" checks some facts. this "Factcheck" ^^ should be called an "insult check" because that's all it is.

Comment edited by nobrainer on 2010-12-01 11:43:19

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Undustrial (registered) - website | Posted December 01, 2010 at 13:16:20

If we can't expect newspaper editors to know blatantly false statements when they see them, why are we paying them at all?

There is no such thing as "neutrality", as one's conception of "neutral" is still the result of one's own bias, or that of others. Nothing and nobody in news is unbiased, but some are far more honest about it than others. Giving a token representation of the "other side's" view doesn't tell us anything meaningful about it (much like this letter). I'd much rather hear both sides clearly articulate their own arguments and leave the deciding to us. Big news outlets stifle discussion by only bringing sound-bites to the table. A more honest thing to do would be to print something from LRT opponents a little more like Ryan's piece, or at least something that's been researched.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By urbanRenaissance (registered) | Posted December 01, 2010 at 13:23:14

I thought the whole value of the "editor-as-gatekeeper" model that traditional media use, is to protect us lowly readers from sub-standard material? Articulating both sides of a story is important, but publishing the newspaper equivalent of a troll not only degrades that side's valid arguments but the discussion as a whole.

Comment edited by urbanRenaissance on 2010-12-01 12:26:34

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By PseudonymousCoward (registered) | Posted December 01, 2010 at 13:32:28

A more honest thing to do would be to print something from LRT opponents a little more like Ryan's piece, or at least something that's been researched.

You have articulated the real issue. LRT opponents don't have the benefit of evidence in defence of their position, so they must resort to sarcasm, personal attacks and straw men. The newspaper has no choice but to publish trolls if it is to uphold its commitment to giving space to both sides in the LTTE.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Spec Comments (anonymous) | Posted December 01, 2010 at 13:36:29

Some real mouth-breathers in the Spec comments but I loved this one:

"
We had rail that regularly climbed the Mountain over 100 years ago! http://www.hamiltonpostcards.com/pages/inclinejames.html
"

Facts shmacts.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By A Smith (anonymous) | Posted December 01, 2010 at 13:58:17

P.Coward >> LRT opponents don't have the benefit of evidence in defence of their position

There are many people worried that LRT will cost more than it delivers in benefits. Ryan McGreal has responded by saying this...

"When a city builds LRT and streamlines the regulatory investment process inside the area planners call the “transit-oriented development corridor” — a walkable stretch of land about half a kilometre to either side of the line — the return on investment is impressive.

For every dollar the city invests in building LRT, developers invest up to $10."

If this claim is true, then it also stands to reason that current property owners along the proposed LRT line have the most to gain, in terms of increased property values and rental income.

The question to LRT supporters is this, why should taxpayers fund a system that will disproportionately benefit property owners who live near the line? If these people will be the prime beneficiaries, why can't they finance it, rather than taxpayers?

I have yet to get an answer to this very simple question from LRT supporters, why is this?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted December 01, 2010 at 14:24:53

We had rail that regularly climbed the Mountain over 100 years ago! http://www.hamiltonpostcards.com/pages/i...

Yea, but that was 100 years ago. It can't be done today, didn't you know? I read it in the Spec.

Comment edited by jason on 2010-12-01 13:26:15

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By sophi (anonymous) | Posted December 01, 2010 at 14:26:35

@a smith, that arguement can also be turned a little but ultimately still oppose the lrt - if you live close to it.

here it goes the flip side - has anyone asked the property owners if they are willing, or financially able, to pay the increased property taxes that will come with the increased property values.

interesting to consider isn't it.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mrjanitor (registered) | Posted December 01, 2010 at 16:01:58

A Smith,

I think your question is valid up to a point, however if we apply that thinking then why didn't the homeowners and property holders on Stoney Creek Mountain fund the Red Hill Valley Parkway?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By observer (anonymous) | Posted December 01, 2010 at 16:13:29

Letters, we get letters... The Spec is pleased that anyone cares enough to write, and it represents a forum for persons of all"crackpottedness"--by its unwritten mandate. The spec over the last few years has published letters that impute motives, and, or, that are ad hominem attacks on others. Where but the Spec in an Ontario city could you have seen the anti-homo-style letters on a range of issues, or the Christian screed-writers? In the Spec, that's where. So you expect the letters editor, who's got a bunch of other duties there, to block letters containing obvious falsehoods or idiocies? The Spec has for years practiced an in-your-face-ism akin to what at least one Hamiltonian calls squawk radio. The Spes position for years has been, well,if you think there's a 'mistake' in a letter, correct it. That's not our job. [What their job at the Spec is hasn't been deduced by anyone.] That's a start to what I see going on. The moon IS made of green cheese. Prove that I'm wrong, you non-expert non-astronaut.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By observer (anonymous) | Posted December 01, 2010 at 16:34:12

As well, when the Spec made room for a good number of letters--for not very long, and with a dedicated letters editor--people with sharply reasoned views figgered it was worthwhile to write: greater chance letter would get in. After all, good letters are hard to write and take time: and that's a fact. Comes a time when a readership says, why bother? What's the point? Me and all the tweet-like anger people? Why have so many people taken to Raise the Hammer, or subscribed to Citizens At City Hall? One of the problems with a column like Dreschel's [and much of the Spec] is the sheer parochialism--no, not that--simple narrowness of how and what it sees as issues of importance in the community. "Huh? You want us to report on what? You've written a letter about what??" There's a universe of interests that citizens of Hamilton have, and it relates to the universe outside of Hamilton as well, of course. The Spec ain't going to be the place to do that. There have been times esp. during the Di Ianni regime when the Spec simply blinded itself to facts on issues--CATCH wrote about stuff re the Maple Leaf meat plant that the Spec pretended just didn't exist in its so-called coverage, as one small example that I recall. Look at early aerotropolis "coverage". And, and,...

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By adrian (registered) | Posted December 01, 2010 at 17:03:32

If this claim is true, then it also stands to reason that current property owners along the proposed LRT line have the most to gain, in terms of increased property values and rental income.

The question to LRT supporters is this, why should taxpayers fund a system that will disproportionately benefit property owners who live near the line? If these people will be the prime beneficiaries, why can't they finance it, rather than taxpayers?

If this claim is true, then property owners ought to benefit because they are actually the ones who are making the bulk of the investment. After all, this claim does not say that property owners sit back and watch the money roll in, it says that they invest, and as with all investments, the investors will be seeking a return.

In any case, many infrastructure projects have a larger benefit to those living immediately around them then they do for those who are distant; then again, many projects also have larger negative impacts on those who live around them, hence NIMByism. But the interests of cities as a whole transcend the impact on small geographic regions, or at least ought to.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By A Smith (anonymous) | Posted December 01, 2010 at 17:59:48

adrian >> this claim does not say that property owners sit back and watch the money roll in, it says that they invest

People invest because they think they can earn a positive return, we agree. However, if for every dollar of LRT investment, studies show that there is $10 of new private investment in the area, that implies that the new market demand for properties in the area is even higher than that. Why invest $10 and only get back $9?

If a $1 investment in LRT equals $10+ in new demand for nearby property owners, why are these property owners waiting for the government to build it? It doesn't make sense to not borrow $1 from the bank at 5% interest, build a private LRT and then watch the demand for my property go up by 10X.

If, however, borrowing $1 at 5% interest only increases the value of my property 97 cents, then I will wait for the taxpayers to fund it. I only have to pay my share of the new taxes to fund LRT, $1/500k people, but I stand to gain the lion's share of increase in property values.

Or, even worse, LRT will reduce the value of my property due to less car traffic, less after tax earnings. In this case, any money spent by myself or others on LRT should be avoided in place of tax cuts.

adrian >> the interests of cities as a whole transcend the impact on small geographic regions, or at least ought to.

I agree and if people could keep more of their earnings, they could decide as individuals where their money should be spent, rather than having a few people in government decide for them.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Cityjoe (anonymous) | Posted December 01, 2010 at 18:41:57

Well if the Editor to whom the letter is written clearly has their biases, & decides to print the letter(s) anyway with all the inaccuracies, then what? This is why many people just don't bother any more writing letters to the Ed., since the bias is already there, & they feel that they won't get printed, or they simply refuse to contribute anything to a paper that simply sux.

As observer pointed out, the Spec as well as the weekly local rags have long pandered to the Religulous, the rich, & the influential. (Ie:Stadium debate) CH also chimed in on the stadium debate with the field handed over to the usual icons. :(

The weeklies came out for Larry D. even Before he had decided to run!

The professionally & politically religious can get letters printed every time they have a brain fart, no matter how inaccurate & hateful the content. It doesn't matter that letters that question the facts & intent of the original letter Do get printed, because the damage is done at that point. (Two fold damage. First to the victims, & second, to the reputation & credibility of the media outlet itself.)

If you can regularly predict on the basis of past performance, & past bias what a media outlet is going to say before they say it, then what is the point of reading, watching, listening, or contributing to that media? (even if you agree with them.)

(This could be the best plan ever for squelching dissent. If people who disagree don't voice opposition, it may appear that there is none. All the bigger media has to do is come up with a united front, present only one side, & only one side of any question is ever presented to the public. They don't even have to refuse to print or report other voices, because the opposition will just abstain from comment without being frogmarched away.)

That's is why many of us are here @ RTH. We want to know what's going on.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mrjanitor (registered) | Posted December 01, 2010 at 19:29:42

CityJoe,

You got me thinking sir, is it time for a RTH weekly or maybe monthly newspaper? I know it at first sounds redundant considering the amount and speed of the content on the web site, however many people still have a bias for print media. Are their folks who have never heard of RTH.com that would pick-up a RTH newsletter or tabloid and then get connected to the web site? I also haven't been able to get the idea of a RTH weekly show on Cable 14 out of my head.

Just spitballin'...

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By adrian (registered) | Posted December 01, 2010 at 23:05:37

If a $1 investment in LRT equals $10+ in new demand for nearby property owners, why are these property owners waiting for the government to build it? It doesn't make sense to not borrow $1 from the bank at 5% interest, build a private LRT and then watch the demand for my property go up by 10X.

Simply put, they're waiting for government to build it because they don't have hundreds of millions of dollars in existing capital and they don't have the right to tear up city streets and replace them with a private transportation network.

However, I think you are confusing the issue here a little bit. Let's suppose that the ratio of city to private investment is $1 to $10, even though Ryan originally wrote "up to" $10. When you say "$10+ in new demand", I believe what you are actually talking about - at least the way the real Adam Smith would put it - is a tenfold increase in the price of property & rents near the line, since increased demand directly correlates with increased prices. Correct?

But that's not what actually happens. Certainly, some increase in price would be expected; however, the benefit to the city in general is that developers invest their own money in an effort to further increase the value of their properties and thus their prices.

As an example, suppose that I am a developer with $100,000 to spare. I can invest the money in any number of different ways. Perhaps one way is to purchase stocks, where I can expect a 10% ROI. Or I can invest my money in improving my properties or building new ones, where I can expect an 9% ROI. The city builds LRT. Suddenly, new opportunities arise along the line: now I can expect that investing in property near there will net a 12% ROI.

In this example, investing in property would have always brought me 9% ROI but it would have been smarter to purchase stocks. However, the presence of LRT means investment in property now edges out stocks as the best place to put my capital. In turn, the city benefits.

I think this type of financial planning and decision making is very common among people with capital, and indeed, decisions that hinge on just a few percentages are the hallmark of committed capitalists. I think Adam Smith would concur.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Cityjoe (anonymous) | Posted December 02, 2010 at 12:05:30

Thanks Mrjanitor, but it's Ms., not sir. (my nik. 'Cityjoe' is the name of a really inept City Slicker that I used to know many years ago.)

I do think that RTH web site could do with some promo or more exposure, even if the busy people here didn't want to do in print media. (It took me a long time to find RTH & other more independent media. People could use some help finding RTH.)

Even if we wish that Letters to the Ed. be factual, how about the actual content of the paper/media themselves? Shouldn't that be factual too?

Here's two examples of sketchy & far fetched 'facts' from the Spec. These are things that I chose @ random, & from just one issue of the Spec.(Wed. Dec. 1, 2010)
*********************

1)"Water main break floods Ancaster homes"

"ANCASTER A water main break flooded basements in the Meadowlands area and cut water pressure across the community Tuesday.

The pipe burst in the Shrewsbury Street area just after 4 p.m."
******************


Funny that! If the pipe burst @ 4 p.m., why was there no water @ 2 p.m.?
*****************
*****************

Here's another Pinocchio Special from Dec 1st. the Spec. under the Headline:
**********************************

2) "City considers cat adoptions."

"One female cat and her offspring can generate 1,000 cats a year, and over seven years, can produce 422,000 cats, he said."
***********************
I think he has cats confused with termites. Under optimum conditions a feral cat will probably live less that 2 years, & probably only 1/2 of a litter of 4 kittens will live to produce kittens, if that, & about 1/4 of the survivors will be male.

I can't dispute his figure with figures of my own, but common sense can't get me to agree with what he states either. Most people who do not spay or neuter abandon the animals as soon as they run out of friends & relatives to take kittens. The cats then become feral or semi feral.

(& shooting of feral cats & deer have become hot potato issues with the City & Hamilton Field Naturalists, & people who oppose one or both 'final solutions'. How clever of the author to quote a jaw dropping figure to scare the Hell out of us all! So expedient of him to further the cause of City Hall & HFN.
*********************
If our media often deal in sketchy details, & elastic truthyness, how can we expect them to weed out errors in Letters to the Ed.? (esp. if the authors know which side of the bread their butter is on, & how to tow the official line at all costs?)

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Cityjoe (anonymous) | Posted December 02, 2010 at 12:30:11

Re: the original comment from Letters to the Ed.. ""They say light rail transit will free our city of much of the automobile traffic," wrote J. Alan Rea, "when we all know that rail cannot climb the escarpment to service the areas where most people live."
*****************************

Has this person ever heard of San Francisco? They have many steeper inclines there & manage to do fine. They did fine 100 years ago with horse drawn trolleys too. So we don't have the technology to out-pull a pair of nags in the year 2010?

The old narrow gauge railway at Port Stanley transported people up a very steep 1/2 mile incline from the shore of Lake Erie to the top of the escarpment for decades. (Cars & roads terminated that service.)

The best place to begin LRT is Downtown, where it's needed most.

(But I wouldn't say, "No." to any & all improvements to 'Burb public transit. The traffic is increasing daily(sprawl) & it's headed to the 403 or Downtown. If we could get even some of those people that are currently headed to the 403 to the Go. Stn., many of the problems in all areas of the City would be solved.)

With the grid lock inspired by hwy. 403, auto accidents, increased vehicle traffic in the City core, & no City response to our poor public transit system, (to date) what other options have we got?

An LRT will get people moving when bus & vehicle traffic have ground to a halt.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By A Smith (anonymous) | Posted December 02, 2010 at 15:27:40

adrian >> they're waiting for government to build it because they don't have hundreds of millions of dollars in existing capital and they don't have the right to tear up city streets and replace them with a private transportation network.

If LRT is such a sure thing investment, private capital could easily buy options on all the properties along Main/King, build the line and then exercise those options once they increased in value. If LRT is a sure bet, why aren't they doing this?

>> I believe what you are actually talking about...is a tenfold increase in the price of property & rents near the line, since increased demand directly correlates with increased prices. Correct?

Yes.

>> the benefit to the city in general is that developers invest their own money in an effort to further increase the value of their properties and thus their prices

That's assuming that consumers are willing to bid up rental prices more than it costs to build/maintain the LRT. If this is the case, then why aren't private investors already building it? There are only two possibilities

1) They don't believe that the costs of investing in LRT will lead to higher rental incomes, after LRT costs.

2) They don't like making money.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By adrian (registered) | Posted December 03, 2010 at 07:52:13

If this is the case, then why aren't private investors already building it? There are only two possibilities

I already answered this question. See my comment above.

If LRT is such a sure thing investment, private capital could easily buy options on all the properties along Main/King, build the line and then exercise those options once they increased in value

That's just plain silly, and I'm not going to even dignify that with a thoughtful response, except to say that if you believe private companies have the time, inclination, and money to attempt to negotiate lease agreements with purchasing options for every piece of property along the proposed LRT line, you have no idea how business works. Besides, you've just gone from claiming that private interests should build the LRT and now switched over to private interests should lease or purchase all of the land next to the proposed LRT line even though there is no formal government commitment to build it.

I must say I'm disappointed in the quality of your remarks. I've long ignored your comments, since from experience I've discovered you don't argue in good faith, but I thought I'd give you a try in this thread since I understood the perspective you initially took on this. As it was couched in economic terms, and as you try to portray yourself as a capitalist, I thought that, as a businessperson, I may be able to engage in a business-oriented discussion with you.

However, I don't think you have a grasp on the finer points of the motivations, rationale, and logic of business and businesspeople. I don't think you understand how business is done, in general, or in this city. You're a "capitalist" insofar as you believe in an economic theory but not in the practical sense of having capital or knowing what to do with it if you did.

If you believe simple capitalism is the answer to Hamilton's problems, I'd encourage you to actually go into business for yourself so you can try out your theories in the real world. I think you might find that attempting to lease all of the property along the King Street corridor, for example, is a little tricky.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By A Smith (anonymous) | Posted December 03, 2010 at 11:41:43

adrian >> they're waiting for government to build it because they don't have hundreds of millions of dollars in existing capital

Then do what every other business does and raise PRIVATE financing. Wouldn't private investors want to invest in a sure thing like LRT?

>> they don't have the right to tear up city streets and replace them with a private transportation network.

I was working off the assumption that the city would green light the building, if not financing of the LRT. The only risk of this would be having to cover over the tracks if the service failed.

>> if you believe private companies have the time, inclination, and money to attempt to negotiate lease agreements with purchasing options for every piece of property along the proposed LRT line, you have no idea how business works.

If doing so would make them money, why wouldn't they. Investors buy land leases for oil, minerals, etc, PLUS make capital infrastructure investments, so why not for LRT? The only reason has to be that they don't believe property values would increase enough to justify the investment. If that's the case, then LRT is likely MORE risky than any of the investments I just cited.

>> you've just gone from claiming that private interests should build the LRT and now switched over to private interests should lease or purchase all of the land next to the proposed LRT line even though there is no formal government commitment to build it.

I was proposing that investors could build LRT and buy options on the land that Ryan has said will enjoy increased consumer demand. As long as LRT lives up top the promises given by supporters, they should make money.

This is one option. The other is for property owners along the route to form a corporation dedicated to building and funding an LRT, similar to the one in Las Vegas...

http://www.lvmonorail.com/about/history/

This would do away with the need for buying options on the land, so the only risk would be the line itself.

I ask you, if LRT has such great potential to increase the value of property owners along Main/King, why are they not raising money to build it/lobby for street access? If, as you say, LRT will create more demand than it costs, property owners are losing every day it isn't built.

Why would they choose to lose money on a sure thing investment such as LRT? The only logical explanation is that they don't believe LRT is a sure thing investment, in contrast to LRT supporters and many taxpayers. Can you address this concern?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mrjanitor (registered) | Posted December 03, 2010 at 13:02:32

A Smith,

It is only your concern and has been addressed, just not to your satisfaction. Similarly, I didn't feel you properly answered my question to you about taxpayers paying for the construction of the Red Hill Valley Parkway. Following your logic, why was the RHVP built with taxpayers money, why didn't investors buy and lease all of the properties 1 kilometer from the perimeter of the RHVP and then pay for the construction? Your response only stated that you feel the RHVP should be a toll road, why did the city pay for the construction and not investors?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By A Smith (anonymous) | Posted December 03, 2010 at 13:33:19

mrjanitor >> It is only your concern and has been addressed

I have yet to get an answer to this question...

Why do taxpayers have to risk their money so that a few private landowners along the LRT line will see their property values skyrocket? This is nothing but corporate socialism, something I would have thought, people on this board would be against. I guess as long as you own property in the area, as Ryan does, your values change.

If this has been answered, as you state, show me the exact quote?

>> Your response only stated that you feel the RHVP should be a toll road, why did the city pay for the construction and not investors?

This is what I said..."If the RHVP was in such great demand by business and consumers, why did taxpayers need to finance it? It could have been operated as a toll road. "

That's what "to finance" means, to pay for the construction of the road. I never suggested that taxpayers should have payed for the building of the RHVP.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Brandon (registered) | Posted December 03, 2010 at 19:38:12

A Smith, I don't think you understand the purpose of a government.

What it does is invest in things that do not generate a profit but will attract people and businesses to invest in the area.

The LRT itself will likely not generate a profit, but what they have demonstrated is that businesses invest around them. No one privately has the capital to invest in building the LRT itself, but once construction on it starts business will invest in the areas surrounding the stations because there is a greater likelihood of foot traffic.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By A Smith (anonymous) | Posted December 04, 2010 at 12:56:10

Brandon >> What it does is invest in things that do not generate a profit but will attract people and businesses to invest in the area.

The city doesn't run ads for Tim Horton's, or McDonald's, they pay for them themselves, so if property owners along Main/King are a having difficult time attracting customers, perhaps it's not because they don't have enough free stuff from the city (subsidized transit route), maybe it's because they have gotten weak and have forgotten how to be entrepreneurs.

For example, downtown Dundas has very little transit, yet King St is filled with businesses and people on the street. How can Dundas accomplish this and yet downtown property owners can't?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Cityjoe (anonymous) | Posted December 04, 2010 at 22:54:22

Quoting ASmith,"For example, downtown Dundas has very little transit, yet King St is filled with businesses and people on the street. How can Dundas accomplish this and yet downtown property owners can't?".

Just a cotton picking minute! Dundas has a bus that goes all the way down Main Street to the border of Stoney Creek. It goes past City Hall area, the Go Stn, Copps Coliseum, The Courthouse, The main Library, & all point in between. To make a long story short..The Bus Goes DOWNTOWN!!

Not only that, but there is a bus that takes you Back to Dundas via King St., & Main.

It doesn't run with a great deal of frequency mid day, but once you familiarize yourself with the schedual, it works just FINE!

Now if I had a frickin' bus that went DOWNTOWN, or even connected @ Main St., Osler &/or Wilson with the bus that does, I'd be HAPPY!! (Instead of taking 4 buses to get Downtown & another one to get to where I want to be off Main or King.)
Heck, it's 3 !!!! buses to get into Dundas from Ancaster, ( But only IF the right one is running) & it's a 15 minute drive away! Does that make any sense to Anybody!!??)

You can't get Downtown, or anywhere else at all if there is an accident on the Ancaster Hill on the 403, cuz the traffic just backs up on Wilson, The Linc, Rymal/Garner, etc, etc... Now Mr. F., our City Council rep wants to put an entrance ramp to the 403 off Golf Links Rd., & since it's located on Top of the Ancaster Hill...ain't Nobody going No Where! Craptacular! That's our Last Escape Route out of here. :(

(I think the Ancaster Hill should get some kind of award for most accidents per square inch in the Province. Maybe a life-like stuffed commuter in a bronze SUV statue?)

No seriously ASmith,..between the Sprawl & the gridlock, increased gas prices, an aging population, green house gases, a changing climate, & local environmental damage, we need to get our heads out of our collective butts & start Seriously Doing Something about public transit. NOW!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Brandon (registered) | Posted December 05, 2010 at 13:57:24

Tim Hortons and McDonalds couldn't exist without the infrastructure of the city around them. By investing in the LRT, the city will generate more tax revenues because more businesses will invest there.

Why is it wrong for the city to invest in itself?

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