City Life

People Getting Around in Winter: A Photo Essay

Hamilton is known as a city of drivers, but we are - and could be - so much more. A healthy city lets its residents choose how to get around instead of forcing everyone to drive.

By Jason Leach
Published December 12, 2014

Cyclepalooza

I have to be honest: I'm surprised at how many cyclists I'm seeing on the road today. I have missed lots of photos with multiple cyclists riding at once. I've been scrambling to get my phone out in time for these pictures.

Bikes parked outside Central Library/Farmers' Market (Image Credit: Jason Leach)
Bikes parked outside Central Library/Farmers' Market (Image Credit: Jason Leach)

Cyclist pulling up at the Farmers' Market
Cyclist pulling up at the Farmers' Market

Cyclist on the Cannon Cycle Track
Cyclist on the Cannon Cycle Track

A cyclist riding on Sterling
A cyclist riding on Sterling

Another cyclist riding on Sterling
Another cyclist riding on Sterling

As the city's network of cycling infrastructure builds out, the increased number of cyclists is even starting to spill over onto streets that don't already have bike lanes.

Cyclist on Bay crossing Main
Cyclist on Bay crossing Main

Cyclist riding near Victoria Park
Cyclist riding on Strathcona near Victoria Park

Cyclist crossing Emerson on the Rail Trail
Cyclist crossing Emerson on the Rail Trail

And remember: this is in mid-December the day after a significant snowfall. So much for "no one rides a bike in winter".

Gridlock Downtown!

Ward 8 Councillor Terry Whitehead is tired of spending money downtown. He's tired of the "whiners" saying the lower city needs more transit service to meet the demand. In an email to me explaining why he opposes the bus lane, he wrote:

Without a doubt in the future there will be a need. But it is not needed now. Priority for public transit must be addressing where there are deficiencies of service.

The following photo was taken at Main and Longwood this afternoon.

People waiting for the bus at Main and Longwood
People waiting for the bus at Main and Longwood

Not everyone could even fit on the sidewalk - the lineup was spilling onto Main Street. While I was waiting, two buses pulled up, already crush-loaded with passengers.

As I continued east along Main, I saw groups of people waiting at every stop, most of them fated to be passed over by the next several buses.

According to the 2010 HSR Operational Review, the B-Line is plagued with regular "pass-bys" as buses are already too stuffed to pick up passengers waiting at the next stop. Demand for bus capacity outstrips supply on a daily basis - that is the very definition of "deficiencies of service".

If you're worried about gridlock downtown, it's on our bus lines, not our vehicle lanes.

Don't Forget Walking

Now that the Ontario Government is updating the Ontario Traffic Manual for pedestrian facilities, I look forward to a lot more pedestrian crossovers (PXOs) using the new designs approved by the government.

At McMaster and Mohawk, they have crosswalks with signs telling drivers they have to yield to pedestrians. I'd love to see these across the city: Locke, Ottawa, concession, Westdale, James, Dundurn, and so on.

Pedestrian crossing at McMaster with sign warning drivers to yield to pedestrians
Pedestrian crossing at McMaster with sign warning drivers to yield to pedestrians

Hamilton is known as a city of drivers, but we are - and could be - so much more. A healthy city lets its residents choose how to get around instead of forcing everyone to drive.

with files from Ryan McGreal

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

58 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted December 12, 2014 at 20:21:50

Still want one of those "stop for pedestrians" signs on the King/403 bridge onramp.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted December 12, 2014 at 22:51:03

How many SoBi racks are sited at Main and Longwood?

Permalink | Context

By Steve (registered) | Posted December 12, 2014 at 23:29:07 in reply to Comment 107020

How many students are at Main and Longwood at 2pm, or 5pm, or 6pm...

Permalink | Context

By Rthstinks (anonymous) | Posted December 15, 2014 at 23:35:52 in reply to Comment 107024

Agreed. Check out this, and the same cyclist in two pictures (brutal, I know) at medium.comSLASH@Rthstinks

Permalink | Context

By comuters (anonymous) | Posted December 16, 2014 at 09:53:53 in reply to Comment 107096

Sweet! You managed to prove that cyclists do indeed commute across the city to get their errands done, and it isn't just kids and hipsters using bikes. Thanks for that!

Permalink | Context

By RTHS (registered) - website | Posted December 17, 2014 at 10:30:26 in reply to Comment 107108

I think it's more likely that it proves there aren't enough cyclists for a photo essay of six unique people, but hey, just my take.

Also, if that's what Leach was after, I'm guessing he would have mentioned it.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted December 13, 2014 at 00:09:16

I suppose I should have mentioned this earlier, but the massive crowd waiting for the bus on Main West was also just a jammed on the other side of the bus shelter out of the picture on right side of the stop. As well as some kids standing on the street trying to squeeze on the sidewalk.

But let's do some more studies to try to figure out where we need to boost transit service in the city.

Permalink | Context

By Rthstinks (anonymous) | Posted December 15, 2014 at 23:42:15 in reply to Comment 107027

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 reality stinks (for you) (anonymous) | Posted December 16, 2014 at 00:57:56 in reply to Comment 107097

Pedestrians are legally allowed to cross when clear at any point on a road where another road or sidewalk intersects it, no light or sign or lines necessary. And drivers are legally required to stop for them. But go ahead and keep lying to your 10 followers, it's not going to make a difference.

Permalink | Context

By RTHS (registered) - website | Posted December 16, 2014 at 07:53:50 in reply to Comment 107101

Nice one, you really snuck in a jab there!

Permalink | Context

By something stinks thats for sure (anonymous) | Posted December 16, 2014 at 09:49:39 in reply to Comment 107102

It wasn't meant to be sneaky, but I guess after a long hard thunk, u figured it out

Permalink | Context

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted December 13, 2014 at 10:05:38 in reply to Comment 107027

With limited exceptions, elementary and secondary students tend to let out around the same time every day, so that's part of what you're seeing at Main & Longwood. Return to the same intersection at the same time of day in July, or arrive an hour earlier or later during the school year and the image would be somewhat different. Even so, the solution needn't be complicated.

According to the New Flyer tech specs, their 60-footers are built to accommodate up to 62 and up to 53 standees — so 105 per crush-loaded bus. If thousands of high school students want to take the bus in each direction at 3pm, and virtually none by 4pm, run a half-dozen 60-footers in each direction from 3 to 3:30 and see where demand leads you thereafter.

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted December 13, 2014 at 10:33:11 in reply to Comment 107032

As I mentioned earlier, a 60-footer and a 40-footer showed up together. But both were already jam packed. So most of this crowd was left waiting.

My wife and I gave up using transit a couple years ago after being passed over and over along the B Line corridor. Even mid/late morning when you would expect the load to be lighter we were passed over by 4, 5 buses in a row while trying to get to Dr appointments.

I bet there are thousands of customers-in-waiting along the B Line corridor like us who will jump at the chance to use LRT and a bus system in it's own lanes with regular headway to carry the loads. But trying to sell city council on a proper city transportation system is near impossible.

One lane for the same number of passengers using all others lanes on King combined? Nonsense.

Permalink | Context

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted December 18, 2014 at 18:29:08 in reply to Comment 107033

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 2014-12-18 18:29:25

Permalink | Context

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted December 13, 2014 at 11:46:36 in reply to Comment 107033

Doubling the frequency of the B-Line service in the 3-4pm window would move an additional 1,200 passengers per hour and half the headway. I imagine that might alleviate passbys and wait times.

Permalink | Context

By AnjoMan (registered) | Posted December 16, 2014 at 11:11:58 in reply to Comment 107039

This is what is called the 'bare minimum' approach --- assuming that there could only be one legitimate reason why people want to travel here and building a solution that could only serve that specific problem. Adding a handful of trips ensures that the actual infrastructure remains inadequate as a network and doesn't scale to increased demand. Also, as pointed out it is a pretty expensive solution because it requires buying more buses and hiring more drivers that will be under-utilized.

Permalink | Context

By KevinLove (registered) | Posted December 15, 2014 at 21:42:20 in reply to Comment 107039

The problem is that one cannot hire bus operators to work for only one hour a day.

Permalink | Context

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted December 18, 2014 at 18:30:03 in reply to Comment 107092

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 mikeonthemountain (registered) | Posted December 13, 2014 at 11:02:43

I got fed up with random pass-bys on the Sanatorium and W5 routes. That came to an end when I converted my favorite mountain bike to an e-bike, and never took the HSR again after that.

It's a bit painful to watch the potential refusal of almost a billion dollars of provincial money combined with an organized and efficient project that could: provide rapid transit along B-Line, change the watermains, put a concrete road bed under heavily used transit lanes, redeploy buses and articulated buses along other routes that are suffering.

As for biking in the snow - one thing I love about the Cannon bike lane - because of the physical separation, after it is plowed, vehicles are not sloshing mounds of slush back into it. Let's see how the winter goes - I expect to be taking a traffic lane soon, but if plows scrape an extra foot off the edge of the road, I'll use it if I can and stay out of the way.

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted December 13, 2014 at 11:17:08 in reply to Comment 107036

you're bang on.

If the province was offering us $20 per motorist just to give away for no good reason city council would be camping out at Queens Park until each and every $20 dollar bill was handed to them.

But fight for a billion in complete city-transforming transportation projects that don't involve cars? No thanks. Give it to a TO area city, and then we'll complain to our citizens at election time how the province always overlooks us in favour of TO.

Permalink | Context

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted December 13, 2014 at 11:46:12 in reply to Comment 107037

Doubling the frequency of the B-Line service in the 3-4pm window would move an additional 1,200 passengers per hour and half the headway. I imagine that might alleviate passbys and wait times.

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted December 13, 2014 at 11:54:30 in reply to Comment 107038

for that one hour, sure. We need that type of headway all day. Pass-bys happen mid-day, evening, rush hour etc.....

Permalink | Context

By Noted (anonymous) | Posted December 13, 2014 at 12:34:29 in reply to Comment 107040

"High frequency service on B-Line corridor routes:
ROUTE 1 KING/ROUTE 10 B-LINE : 5 minutes
ROUTE 5 DELAWARE/ROUTE 51 UNIVERSITY: 7.5 minutes

Result will be a combined headway of 3 minutes or better in the entire B-Line corridor"

hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/1EF0629C-3003-4FC2-A286-8ECACE07BB0E/0/RR1_Rapid_Ready_Report.pdf

Permalink | Context

By Rimshot (anonymous) | Posted December 13, 2014 at 12:17:20 in reply to Comment 107040

HSR needs some Uber.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By PiersixBrawler (registered) | Posted December 14, 2014 at 20:18:07

"Forcing people to drive"...you've got to be kidding. The only thing being 'forced' as far as drivers go is the city forcing drivers to deal with bottlenecks and time delays due to bus and bike lanes with the agenda of intentionally frustrating drivers to give up driving in favor of public transit...which translates into advocating the LRT proposal to Toronto to further monopolize transportation in the city....which also translates into the majority being intentionally ignored. Remember all those "No bus lane" signs in the store windows on King that the city IGNORED? Or the fact that the population wasn't even a part of the process and was CLEARLY ignored? Why wont anyone face the fact that the MAJORITY drive..and if the majority doesnt 'rule' then this is no longer a democracy? Or the fact that this infringement on the majority only serves to set a presedence for future majority infringement? Does anybody remember when it was unlawful for pedestrians and bicyclists to use the mountain accesses...and WHY? Why is council unwilling to admit that bike lanes as they are in the city are UNSAFE? Or that it is unreasonable and unsafe to delete auto lanes...that drivers PAY to use...to 'add' a 'lane' that DOESN'T pay for road use? It is clear that the city has it's own agenda...an agenda that DOES NOT encompass or acknowledge the SAFETY, RIGHTS or 'best interests' of it's citizens, and anybody that doesn't agree with the ideology of democracy that the MAJORITY RULES needs to move to a communist country where their kind of ideology is accepted and encouraged...by the government 'forcing'it's citizens to do as theyre told...like the city of Hamilton does.

Permalink | Context

By mikeonthemountain (registered) | Posted December 14, 2014 at 20:53:54 in reply to Comment 107062

What if I told you, the few bike lanes that exist are the result of democratic process?

As for the rest - either your commute really sucks or something has scrambled your brain to the point of hysteria. Seriously, is this what a chronic CHML habit does to a person. Or was it Alex Jones.

They were added because enough people asked for them. It is not a conspiracy by Premier Wynne, in collusion with Agenda 21, to replace all cars with a GPS enabled transit pass, while depopulating the earth, and paying off collaborators with Bombardier stock options.

Slow down and take a breath dude.

Comment edited by mikeonthemountain on 2014-12-14 20:55:49

Permalink | Context

By PiersixBrawler (registered) | Posted December 16, 2014 at 00:08:11 in reply to Comment 107065

"Enough people asked for them?" I doubt more people asked for them then there are drivers that don't want them and whose privileges are subsequently being ignored. One only need take a drive on Cannon to see just how many bikes are NOT using the bike lane as compared to people that are DRIVING on the road...or NOT driving when you consider that it only takes one garbage truck to congest traffic from Wellington to Ottawa St. Riding bikes is fun and advocates fitness...but driving is nessessary..and considering that one is nessessary and one is not...I doubt that the 'slice' of the population that was 'polled' were drivers considering what I keep saying about there being more drivers than bicyclists or bus patrons, not to mention that the increase of drivers and vehicle registration are constantly on the rise...which proves that the majority demographic of commuters are DRIVERS...that the city has turned an intentional blind eye to this...and that the city has a hidden agenda that DOESN'T encompass the best interests, rights and privileges of the majority considering that they IGNORED the "No bus lane" signs and DIDN'T ask for public opinion or the bus and bike lanes wouldn't exist for the simple logic that 1. roads and highways are meant for gas powered motor vehicles 2. to 'add' a lane to said roads and highways one must first 'add' the 'real estate' and pavement to do so because it is UNREASONABLE to bottleneck a highway for motor vehicles due the deletion of an auto lane considering that driver and vehicle licensing is perpetually on the rise 3. it is UNSAFE to mix motor vehicle traffic with bike traffic considering that those plastic 'pipes' offer absolutely no protection for the cyclist involved with a mechanical mishap of a motor vehicle. Apparently these facts escape the citys council...and people like you. When you say "People wanted them"...all I hear is "The minority rules." The bottom line here is...the only 'people that wanted them' are the people in TORONTO that demanded them...and Hamilton said, "What the hell...long as you're paying for them" with complete and intentional disregard for the majority...drivers.

Comment edited by PiersixBrawler on 2014-12-16 00:17:22

Permalink | Context

By AnjoMan (registered) | Posted December 16, 2014 at 11:15:21 in reply to Comment 107098

drivers ... privileges are being ignored.

You can't say that in Hamilton. Not when the budget for road infrastructure is as disproportionately big and unsustainable as it is, and not when cycling and pedestrian infrastructure are so pitiful. It's just not true.

Permalink | Context

By mikeonthemountain (registered) | Posted December 16, 2014 at 09:27:51 in reply to Comment 107098

It doesn't matter what anyone replies. Even if it's cited, you don't listen to any information. Venting your anger is what you are interested in. That is absolutely fine. But a reply is a good writing exercise.

Roads are for everything that doesn't belong on the sidewalk. Horses, camels, bikes, bobcats, tractors, etc. Each has particular rules surrounding it.

Sidewalks are for walking, walkers, wheelchairs, dogs, etc.

As for your views of democracy they are pretty warped to think in such narrow absolutes. Some mass media did this to you, it isn't normal. Mennonites (or anyone else really) are allowed to ride horses, is that totalitarian minority rule on their part? What about wheelchair ramps in public buildings, is that totalitarian minority rule? Cyclists and potential cyclists far outnumber those two examples, and are increasing, that is why the safety issue IS being dealt with by adding infrastructure.

What you need is a vacation abroad. Or at least some civics lessons.

Sorry friend, but if I rode a horse to work, you'd have to pass safely. Not only that, it would be illegal for you to intentionally try to scare the horse by honking. Fortunately my bike is way easier to store and feed than either a car or a horse, so I'll stick with that, and thanks to the bike lanes, you won't have to drive behind me and try to pass.

Three classes of traffic can make a city very efficient as its population grows: slow (walking/sidewalks), medium (bike,scooter/bikelanes), fast (motorcycles,cars,trucks/vehicle lanes).

Why is that so bewildering, scary, and infuriating? That makes no sense!

Permalink | Context

By poop-bot (anonymous) | Posted December 16, 2014 at 00:50:16 in reply to Comment 107098

Brad Clark iz that u?

Permalink | Context

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted December 18, 2014 at 18:30:53 in reply to Comment 107100

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 KevinLove (registered) | Posted December 15, 2014 at 21:45:15 in reply to Comment 107065

I don't remember voting for the one-way "Herkimer Racetrack" that enables car drivers to terrorize my children off the road.

Permalink | Context

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted December 18, 2014 at 18:31:47 in reply to Comment 107093

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 December 15, 2014 at 22:25:34 in reply to Comment 107093

oh, you must not have received the memo from city council. If you live downtown you don't have any say in what happens on streets elsewhere in the city, or your own. If you live elsewhere in the city, ONLY you have a say in your own streets, and downtowns.

Permalink | Context

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted December 18, 2014 at 18:33:00 in reply to Comment 107094

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 self riteous bleephead brigade (anonymous) | Posted December 14, 2014 at 20:31:56 in reply to Comment 107062

Terry's toupee has gotten a hold of his laptop again

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted December 15, 2014 at 00:00:52

Good perspective on the struggle in the early days in Copenhagen. Need more public protest and demands here at city hall:

Starting in the 1950s, Copenhagen experienced a decline in utility cycling due to increasing wealth and affordability of motor vehicles. While no bike paths were actually removed at the time, new road construction omitted bicycle infrastructure,[14] and many bike lanes were curtailed at intersections to increase the throughput of cars by adding turn pockets and other car related infrastructure in its place. At the same time car traffic increased dramatically on existing streets without bicycle infrastructure, decreasing the cyclists sense of safety on those streets. During the late 60s and early 70s the modal share of bicycles fell to an all time low of 10%.[15]

With the energy crisis which hit Denmark harder than most countries, and the growing environmental movement in the 1970s, cycling experienced a renaissance. The Government was forced to introduce car-free Sundays to conserve oil reserves. Many city dwellers thought it was the best day of the week,[16] and the Danish Cyclists Federation which had been on life support for years and were nearly in a coma, experienced a rapid and massive increase in membership during the 1970s and 1980s. Bolstered by the increasing membership and new enthusiastic younger grassroots, it organised massive demonstrations in Copenhagen and other major cities, demanding better infrastructure and safety for the city's cyclists.[17] Another grassroots action cited for helping cycling infrastructure on the political agenda was operation "White Crosses" where white crosses were painted on the streets where a cyclist had been killed in traffic.[18] These protests and actions came at the same time as a number of planning reforms were initiated nationally, which gave individual citizens the opportunity to have direct influence on new planning and zoning laws in their communities, and with that came a clear demand for segregated cycle paths.[17]

Although the first separate cycle tracks were constructed much earlier, they did not become the norm until the early 1980s. As in many other cities planners suggested to avoid interfering with car traffic on the main roads, by using a 'back streets strategy' of cycling routes on quite residential streets, but uptake was low[19] and the vast majority of cyclists refused to deviate from the more direct routes.[20] Protests continued and on 4 June 1983 the Danish Cycling Federation, at a large bicycle demonstration, gave a "Cyclist Award" to Jens Kramer Mikkelsen in the form of a two metre long curb. Mikkelsen was the head of the traffic department and later Lord Mayor. The curb was placed on the bike lane on Amagerbrogade at the corner of Hollænderdybet. The gift was a symbol of the bicycle federations desire to have segregated bicycle facilities build on direct corridors, which happened to be along major streets,[21] in order to make bicycle journeys competitive in time and effort. Politicians, although not very eager, gradually took up building cycle tracks on main roads [22] and also began to develop its first coordinated strategies for increasing cycling in the municipality.[17]

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycling_in_...

Comment edited by jason on 2014-12-15 00:01:12

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted December 15, 2014 at 00:17:07

Mountain residents petitioning for safe streets and 'no right on red'. Asking for safe streets, like thousands of residents city-wide. Can't wait for Terry Whitehead to call them whiny urbanists.

http://hamilton.siretechnologies.com/sir...

Permalink | Context

By JustinJones (registered) - website | Posted December 15, 2014 at 12:55:37 in reply to Comment 107067

That link isn't working.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Capitalist (anonymous) | Posted December 15, 2014 at 13:21:15

"A healthy city lets its residents choose how to get around instead of forcing everyone to drive."

Jason, nobody is forcing you to drive anywhere. You are free to walk on the sidewalks, ride your bike or take transit. Most people choose to drive because they have lives with time limitations: career, kids, errands, entertainment etc. The time saved by driving offsets the cost.

Your nonsense is getting tiring.

Permalink | Context

By Crapitalist (anonymous) | Posted December 15, 2014 at 15:48:39 in reply to Comment 107075

No one is swimming across this river, therefore we don't need to build a bridge.

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted December 15, 2014 at 17:13:17 in reply to Comment 107082

I never saw a single car on the trails in the Red Hill Valley. Why did we build a highway there??

Permalink | Context

By AnjoMan (registered) | Posted December 16, 2014 at 11:20:26 in reply to Comment 107083

There was never a single train travelling West in the 1870s --- why bother building a railway for them?

Permalink | Context

By JeffH (anonymous) | Posted December 15, 2014 at 14:08:43 in reply to Comment 107075

Are you serious? Have you ever tried getting around in Hamilton using anything *but* a car?

No, nobody is pointing a gun to anyone's head to demand transportation by car, but things are simply designed with such a car-focus that anything else becomes a nightmare experience. (Perhaps making one want to put the gun to their own head?)

If Jason's nonsense is "getting tiring" imagine how exhausting it is being told you can *never* have nice things like, oh, a neighbourhood without de-facto highways plowing through them.

I have a car too. I just don't want to be chained to it for every time I leave my house, nor should anyone else have to. (Especially those who can't afford it.)

Permalink | Context

By Capitalist (anonymous) | Posted December 15, 2014 at 17:22:31 in reply to Comment 107078

"Are you serious? Have you ever tried getting around in Hamilton using anything *but* a car?"

Yes I have. In my youth I would walk, bike and take the bus to destinations all over the city. I never had a problem. Your just a crybaby.

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted December 15, 2014 at 15:10:08 in reply to Comment 107078

Such a key point - the huge cost of owning a car. We can talk all we want about reviving Code Red neighbourhoods. Well this is one of the most glaring things that needs to be fixed: residents ability to move around the city for work, shopping and leisure without risking their life, or being passed by full bus after bus in snowstorms or cold rain.

Our home relies on our car way more than we should considering where we live. But the absolute horrendous lack of decent options for a family of 5 leaves us little choice unless we can add on 2-4 hours per day standing around waiting for transit that may or may not be able to pick us up, and then stops every 45 feet to let off 1 person at a time.

Over 50% of my neighbourhood doesn't own a car. We are in the 2nd poorest postal code in Hamilton. But they all pay insane taxes for roads and highways. Surely the general tax base can find some scraps to invest in transit and bikes.

And here's the good news as illustrated by the Calgary transportation pie chart. As transit and bike usage has gone up in that city (coinciding nicely with LRT) car use has dropped by 10%. So those in their cars are seeing their roads freed up as thousands of people start getting to work via other modes. Everyone wins.

Comment edited by jason on 2014-12-15 15:12:43

Permalink | Context

By Capitalist (anonymous) | Posted December 15, 2014 at 17:26:39 in reply to Comment 107081

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 December 15, 2014 at 17:33:38 in reply to Comment 107087

wrong as usual. Two main points:

  • Post-amalgamation is slowly bringing balance to the city's tax structure, but as of just a few years ago we were paying 50% more in taxes than similar sized properties in Waterdown/Dundas etc.....

  • taxes are a % system. So if you own a house worth $600,000 in Waterdown, sure you're paying more money but you also own an asset worth $600,000. We pay a higher % here than suburban counterparts.

You may want to change your screen name until you've learned the absolute basics of our tax system.

Permalink | Context

By Capitalist (anonymous) | Posted December 15, 2014 at 17:44:30 in reply to Comment 107088

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 December 15, 2014 at 21:27:27 in reply to Comment 107089

So much wrong here I don't know where to start.

Comment edited by jason on 2014-12-15 21:27:36

Permalink | Context

By What (anonymous) | Posted December 15, 2014 at 20:21:35 in reply to Comment 107089

What an inane post.

Social Services. Really?

Time for a Civics lesson.

Permalink | Context

By Fake Name (anonymous) | Posted December 15, 2014 at 14:39:02 in reply to Comment 107078

Exactly. I'm not even looking to *stop driving*, I just want to be able to downgrade to a one-car-household in the lower city when nobody in my house commutes outside of the old city of Hamilton.

Permalink | Context

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted December 18, 2014 at 18:36:56 in reply to Comment 107079

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 Communist (anonymous) | Posted December 15, 2014 at 15:02:26

^You mean you want to buy one less car and use the savings of $12,000 year to spend on home upgrades, education, entertainment, retail, and God forbid...bicycles? If you are not interested in spending money on cars, oil, and tires, you are clearly lacking in common sense(smiley face/ wink)

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted December 15, 2014 at 17:24:38

reminds me of that time someone was sent to hospital with serious injuries after I rolled through a side-street stop sign on my bike with nobody around....

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/n...

In seriousness though, absolutely brutal. Thoughts and prayers to the victim and family. We need major penalties for careless driving like this. Operating thousands of pounds of steel at high speeds comes with great responsibility.

If the person was operating a gun and accidentally did this to someone, the public would flip out and demand a stiff punishment.

Comment edited by jason on 2014-12-15 17:26:00

Permalink | Context

By KevinLove (registered) | Posted December 15, 2014 at 22:26:27 in reply to Comment 107086

We do have major penalties for dangerous driving like this. What we don't have is police who enforce the law.

Dangerous operation of motor vehicles, vessels and aircraft

  1. (1) Every one commits an offence who operates

(a) a motor vehicle in a manner that is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances, including the nature, condition and use of the place at which the motor vehicle is being operated and the amount of traffic that at the time is or might reasonably be expected to be at that place...

(3) Every one who commits an offence under subsection (1) and thereby causes bodily harm to any other person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.

So the criminal should be looking at serious jail time. Alas, if only we had a police force that gave a crap about the law instead of their own bias and prejudices. Such a police force just might deter other criminals. Too bad we don't have one.

Comment edited by KevinLove on 2014-12-15 22:38:22

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted December 16, 2014 at 00:14:56

% of adults in Hamilton without a drivers license. 20%

https://twitter.com/jen_keesmaat/status/...

3rd highest in the Golden Horseshoe. How Orillia is over 20% I'll never know. Lol

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