Comment 104758

By RobF (registered) | Posted September 23, 2014 at 11:49:14 in reply to Comment 104751

To make a private sector analogy, your perspective on urban governance is a bit like a successful company that fails to reinvest in new machinery or facilities to improve product quality and reduce units costs ... very profitable for a while, but eventually hopelessly uncompetitive. We are struggling to maintain our infrastructure in Hamilton, because we insist on maintaining as it is rather than investing in next generation infrastructural systems. LRT is perhaps the centerpiece in a suite of changes being proposed to give us better infrastructure to be successful and prosperous in the future. Look at life-cycle costs of infrastructure, not just the upfront capital costs. You also need to compare the cost of inaction, i.e. maintaining the status quo, with the alternatives being proposed. LRT is also not comparable to Copps or Timbit Field. Different kind of city-building all together.

Comment edited by RobF on 2014-09-23 11:51:48

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds