Comment 121044

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted April 01, 2017 at 21:42:55 in reply to Comment 121043

JimC, your argument against LRT keeps shifting and you never acknowledge or address previous responses to your claims when you pop up on the next article to make new ones.

There are lots of different forms of development. The development status quo in Hamilton over the past 70 years has been single-use buildings on suburban greenfields on the edge of town, and the building of the Red Hill Valley Parkway was part of that system.

That system is both environmentally and financially unsustainable. Hamilton cannot afford to maintain its vast network of streets (and water and sewer lines, plus policing, waste collection and other services) on a sparse, low-density tax base of those same single-use buildings.

The only way to protect further greenfields from being destroyed, additional cars from being added to our streets and additional debt obligations to our huge infrastructure backlog is to change the form of new development so that we start building up on urban land that is already serviced instead of continuing to build out.

LRT lets us do that. It allows a higher density of land use that brings a higher concentration of people and uses into much closer proximity, reduces the need for driving and grows the city's tax base without growing its infrastructure debt.

LRT is not just about getting people from point A to point B, although that is obviously part of it. LRT is also about changing the dynamics around how we add more points - more places to live, more places to work, more places to do business, more places to socialize and play, more places to connect - so that we bring those points closer together and reduce the need to destroy natural lands and drive everywhere.

On the matter of cycling, it has been pointed out to you repeatedly that staff are committed to a cycling network that is as good as or better than it is today. On York, staff are considering the proposal to upgrade the eastbound buffered bike lane on York into a protected two-way cycle track connecting with the Cannon Cycle track. On Dundurn, they are considering either adding an off-street multi-use path from York to King or converting Breadalbane into a cycling greenway.

These will connect to each other, to the cycle track on King across Highway 403, which they are not planning to remove, and to the Cannon cycle track, which they are not planning to remove.

This is not about enriching developers. Developers have always figured out how to get rich selling buildings and will continue to get rich no matter what the city does.

With a rapid transit plan, they will get rich developing new buildings that provide a more diverse mix of housing forms, bring more people closer together, reduce the need to drive, and reduce the city's net infrastructure debt.

Without a rapid transit plan, they will continue to get rich building single-use sprawl that destroys the countryside and forces nearly everyone to drive for nearly every trip.

Here's your chance to prove you're not just concern trolling. Set aside the ad hominem and strawman attacks and actually address my response instead of just popping up a few days from now to dole out another spray of accusations.

Comment edited by administrator Ryan on 2017-04-01 21:46:52

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds