Special Report: Light Rail

Mississauga Leads on LRT While Hamilton Dithers

Does Mayor Bratina really believe that languid take-it-or-leave-it passivity is a winning political strategy?

By Nicholas Kevlahan
Published January 31, 2013

A Toronto Star article highlights Mississauga's strong advocacy for full funding of the Hurontario LRT line:

Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion says the only thing that can stop a proposed $1.5 billion LRT through her city is politics. City councillors, meanwhile, are already counting on Kathleen Wynne’s support to fund the plan.

Contrast Mississauga's aggressive approach to Hamilton's softly, softly we'll just wait for the Province passivity, combined with ambivalence about whether we actually even want LRT.

We're making it extremely easy for the Province to spend $1.5 billion in Mississauga instead of $800 million in Hamilton. Don't forget that our project is essentially shovel-ready after five years of study.

And guess what, Mississauga's approach is working better than Hamilton's:

It appears that, like her predecessor Dalton McGuinty, [Kathleen] Wynne listens intently when McCallion speaks. The premier designate has stated that McCallion’s repeated emphasis on relieving gridlock throughout the GTA has hit home.

I was particularly intrigued by the passivity and vagueness of Hamilton Mayor Bob Bratina's recent statement on LRT in his State of the City speech:

The issue for council is not whether or when we will get LRT. A comprehensive transit plan is coming forward soon that will provide options for solving today's challenges and addressing future needs.

He has effectively told Hamiltonians that Council has abdicated its responsibility on the LRT file, and he seems satisfied to accept passively whatever the Province decides to give Hamilton (after they are finished negotiating with Toronto and Mississauga).

He doesn't even state that LRT is a priority for Council, the way Mississauga's Mayor clearly has.

Talk about making it easy for the Province to shift Hamilton's strategically vital transit needs to the bottom of the priority list!

Why doesn't Bratina want $800 million (or more) spent on transit improvements in Hamilton, instead of in Toronto or Mississauga? Or does he really believe that languid take-it-or-leave-it passivity is a winning political strategy?

Nicholas Kevlahan was born and raised in Vancouver, and then spent eight years in England and France before returning to Canada in 1998. He has been a Hamiltonian since then, and is a strong believer in the potential of this city. Although he spends most of his time as a mathematician, he is also a passionate amateur urbanist and a fan of good design. You can often spot him strolling the streets of the downtown, shopping at the Market. Nicholas is the spokesperson for Hamilton Light Rail.

55 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By CaptainKirk (anonymous) | Posted January 31, 2013 at 12:08:26

Why doesn't another councillor, or councillors take the lead on LRT. Hamilton needs a Karen Stintz.

Permalink | Context

By Rimshot (anonymous) | Posted January 31, 2013 at 16:22:41 in reply to Comment 85697

First things first: Hamilton needs a grown-up transit agency.

http://www.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Commission_reports_and_information/index.jsp

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By SCRAP (anonymous) | Posted January 31, 2013 at 15:02:53

Out of all the big projects, this is one, I thought would be a good one. It would get cars off the road, if it was accessible and affordable transit. Light rail is new, so it would interest a lot of people who do not necessarily relish taking the bus.

We are surround by old thinkers, that needs to change!

Permalink | Context

By Conrad66 (registered) | Posted February 01, 2013 at 07:17:17 in reply to Comment 85699

And the Mayor in Mississauga is not old .. lol

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By movedtohamilton (registered) | Posted January 31, 2013 at 15:50:37

If you're hoping that Mayor Bob will lead the fight for LRT in Hamilton, you're out of luck.

Is there a mayor anywhere who is as dull, plain, and ordinary as Mayor Bob? Is there a mayor anywhere with less charisma, less vision, less leadership skills, and a more vacant look than Mayor Bob? Does he have an original idea on city governance?

If Bob was a 60 watt light bulb, he puts out a constant 25 watts.

Comment edited by movedtohamilton on 2013-01-31 16:30:07

Permalink | Context

By kettal (registered) | Posted February 02, 2013 at 16:58:53 in reply to Comment 85701

The impression I get is that he is a bright guy but is held back by his political fears.

Permalink | Context

By Rimshot (anonymous) | Posted January 31, 2013 at 16:20:35 in reply to Comment 85701

Appropriate analogy for a CFL alumnus. Soft white all the way.

Permalink | Context

By ScreamingViking (registered) | Posted January 31, 2013 at 16:35:44 in reply to Comment 85702

Bob never played in the CFL. He was a broadcaster.

Please explain your joke - I honestly don't get it.

Permalink | Context

By Rimshot (anonymous) | Posted January 31, 2013 at 17:10:28 in reply to Comment 85705

It was a dim bulb joke. (See "If Bob was a 60 watt light bulb, he puts out a constant 25 watts.")

Bob is justifiably famous for his years as a play-by-play man, yes. He was widely known as "the voice of the Ticats" before CHML appropriated the phrase. He was inducted into the Football Reporters' section of the Canadian Football Hall of Fame almost 25 years ago.

Joke being that CFL is an acronym for Canadian Football League and also Compact Fluorescent Lamp.

Admittedly, the "alumnus" was a liberty, an honorary degree.

RTH's open mic night sucks, BTW.

Permalink | Context

By ScreamingViking (registered) | Posted January 31, 2013 at 18:13:11 in reply to Comment 85707

Thanks. I should have thought about it a bit first.

I guess my lumen output is a bit low today too. Ba-dum-bump-tssshhhhhh :-)

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By ScreamingViking (registered) | Posted January 31, 2013 at 16:51:50

On the positive side, more than half of the term of the current mayor and council is over. Politicians looking ahead should start jockeying for position on key local issues this year, leading up to nominations. This would obviously be a big one.

On the negative side, LRT is a local component of a regional strategy, and the longer Hamilton leader voices remain silent, the less likely it will be that anyone outside the city will be interested in listening for them to speak up.

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted January 31, 2013 at 18:19:54 in reply to Comment 85706

ugh, only half-over?? Why does this feel like a 15 year term??

Permalink | Context

By randomguy (anonymous) | Posted February 01, 2013 at 10:34:40 in reply to Comment 85710

I really wish we stayed with three year municipal terms. For both city council and especially the school board.

Permalink | Context

By Outside (anonymous) | Posted January 31, 2013 at 22:54:09 in reply to Comment 85710

Probably because you're on the outside looking in.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By LOL all over again (anonymous) | Posted January 31, 2013 at 21:17:52

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 February 03, 2013 at 10:42:33 in reply to Comment 85712

Hamilton has a traffic problem - granted it's not at the level of Mississauga - but it is a terrible mistake that it has taken Mississauga this long to add on LRT. Hamilton should learn from this mistake.

Permalink | Context

By AlHuizenga (registered) | Posted February 01, 2013 at 12:24:28 in reply to Comment 85712

There are facts about this. You could engage them. Honest, you could.

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted February 04, 2013 at 08:29:55 in reply to Comment 85730

but trolling on the internet is so much more fun.

Permalink | Context

By LOL all over again (anonymous) | Posted February 02, 2013 at 08:34:34 in reply to Comment 85730

How is this for facts? Detroit a city of several millions planned a LRT line of 15 km. After the funding from the state fell through the powers that be funded a 5 km streetcar line. This with a substantial input of private money. LRT is very very expensive. If a city of Detroit and a state like Michigan cannot afford LRT then what in the world makes you think Hamilton can?

If private investors want LRT in Hamilton then let's see them put up some money now. Or at least put up some kind of formal commitment, a guarantee with financial penalties if they fail to live up to their commitments afterwards. Any kind of poll of any business would of course get very high pro LRT numbers, who in their right mind would show negativity against anything that might, just might, maybe, on a good day have a positive influx on their business.

LRT isn't bad it is just hugely expensive and we cannot afford it. We cannot afford and we cannot afford to run it. The day to day costs are fine but what happens in 20 years when major overhauls are needed on the rails? What happens when the rolling stock needs to be replaced? Can Hamilton even afford to the repairs to the rolling stock?

Permalink | Context

By AlHuizenga (registered) | Posted February 03, 2013 at 10:55:24 in reply to Comment 85754

Yes sir, Detroit sure has challenges.

But Hamilton can definitely afford LRT.

Hey, some questions for you, if you don't mind:

  1. Do you think public transit is a good thing?

  2. Do you believe that the government should be investing in public transit?

  3. More generally, do you believe that it is the role of government to invest tax money into stuff that makes our city and our lives better?

Permalink | Context

By LOL all over again (anonymous) | Posted February 03, 2013 at 12:13:54 in reply to Comment 85779

1. Transit is a necessity for any city. The problem with transit in North American cities is the huge area transit needs to cover which makes it very expensive. Because there is a segment of society that relies on it, it needs to be the best the city can afford. That is the fine line every city walks, what realistically can it afford?

2. See number 1

3. The role of the government is to invest money into things that keep our city functioning. When the city is looking at having problems paying for basic infrastructure then obviously some important but not necessary items must be deleted or minimized.

Permalink | Context

By Tom West (anonymous) | Posted February 10, 2013 at 13:42:14 in reply to Comment 85782

"The role of the government is to invest money into things that keep our city functioning."
Only keep it functioning? How about making it better?

Permalink | Context

By A Smith (anonymous) | Posted February 03, 2013 at 12:06:18 in reply to Comment 85779

>> Detroit sure has challenges.

Detroit residential property tax rates averaged 8.21% in 2011. In Hamilton, we pay 1.43%.

If you add a $50k addition to your house in Detroit, you will pay an extra $4,105 in property taxes. In Hamilton, that $50k addition will add $715 to your property taxes. Even better is Toronto, where a $50K addition will only add $385 to your tax bill.

Permalink | Context

By Rust belt (anonymous) | Posted February 03, 2013 at 12:46:00 in reply to Comment 85781

For 50K in Detroit you don't add on, you buy a bigger house

The median sell price for a house in Detroit now is only $9,000 and you can get a nice one for $30,000.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/14/detroit-home-prices-up-foreclosure-properties-_n_1515611.html

Permalink | Context

By A Smith (anonymous) | Posted February 03, 2013 at 16:49:54 in reply to Comment 85786

>> For 50K in Detroit you don't add on, you buy a bigger house

From the article..."Detroit has been losing inventory and losing population for a steady period, so the number of properties on the market are reflective of that"

High tax rates on "new" investment (which is what property tax rates are) make it less likely that people will make new investments. The result is a declining inventory of homes, which is what Detroit is suffering from. Sure, Detroit homes are cheap, but not because of increasing supply, but declining demand.

Homes in Hamilton's core are cheap as well, but like Detroit, it's because of the low demand, not because of an oversupply. In the US southwest, house prices have fallen as well. In that case, however, it was because home builders created a large supply of new homes.

If you were looking to invest $50k of new money, would you rather invest it where it your tax bill would rise $715/yr, or just $385?

Permalink | Context

By ScreamingViking (registered) | Posted February 02, 2013 at 18:49:43 in reply to Comment 85754

Is this the same Detroit that had problems keeping the lights on, and finally came up with a way to issue debt to pay for repairs while leaving some parts of the city dark? http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.... http://www.freep.com/article/20121214/NE...

The same Detroit that has so much abandoned and vacant urban land, that consideration is being given to transforming some of it to agricultural uses? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...

What an appropriate case city to use for comparisons.

Comment edited by ScreamingViking on 2013-02-02 18:52:57

Permalink | Context

By kettal (registered) | Posted February 02, 2013 at 17:06:55 in reply to Comment 85754

Let's compare it to the bus capital requirements, aka the status quo.

A single bus costs about $1 million, and lasts 10 years. A single LRT costs about $3 million, and lasts 30 years. In that respect, it's about even.

One LRT vehicle can carry 260 passengers max load (Bombardier Flexity). That $1 million bus can carry 60 passengers max load (Orion VII). In that respect, the LRT is 4x more cost efficient as a bus.

This efficiency carries on to staffing (the driver/passenger ratio for LRT is much lower), and fuel (Electric propulsion is much more cost and energy efficient compared to diesel engine).

I think you'll find that in many respects, the operating and long-term capital costs of LRT is more affordable than the status quo.

Comment edited by kettal on 2013-02-02 17:08:37

Permalink | Context

By Robert D (anonymous) | Posted February 01, 2013 at 12:15:33 in reply to Comment 85712

The Hamilton LRT was a project prioritized by Metrolinx, and independent provincial agency. So independent knowledgable people definitely see that LRT does make sense for Hamilton.

Our provincial leaders also "got it" and initially (when the Big Move was announced) "got it" and made sweet suggestions regarding funding. Then the economy took a dive.

The lack of provincial leadership at this point in time to fund LRT has nothing to do with LRT not being feasible (again, see the Metrolinx studies for that). It has to do with them not having the money to freely throw around at present, and prefering to defer promissing things to municipaliites like Mississauga and Hamilton until down the road. But unless the city council is clamouring and threatening to make it into an election issue, the provincial government won't feel any pressure to make a committment.

Permalink | Context

By LOL all over again (anonymous) | Posted February 02, 2013 at 08:36:54 in reply to Comment 85728

A government agency tasked with implementing transit found Hamilton was a good spot for LRT and you take this as gospel? Seriously? What spot did they look at that they decided was not a good fit for LRT?

Please use a little common sense.

Permalink | Context

By Tom West (anonymous) | Posted February 10, 2013 at 13:44:20 in reply to Comment 85755

"What spot did they look at that they decided was not a good fit for LRT?"
Well, Dundas St in Mississauga between Hurontario and the subway for one.

Permalink | Context

By LOL@LOL (anonymous) | Posted February 01, 2013 at 12:17:00 in reply to Comment 85728

Oh come on, we all know independent experts and studies are no comparison to a random anonymous guy on the internet named LOL who's gut says it's a bad idea.

Permalink | Context

By LOL all over again (anonymous) | Posted February 03, 2013 at 12:34:56 in reply to Comment 85729

IF Metrolinx was serious about there prioritizing LRT for Hamilton why is it still over the horizon and nowhere in sight? An agency tasked with finding places for transit and then implementing that transit at one point said we should have LRT, that increased the size of the pot of money they wanted from the government to spend. How could Metrolinx have said anything else? See isn't it fun to spend other peoples money? Even the big wigs like to do it.

Unfortunately some of the people believed the rhetoric and now they have their noses out of joint because Hamilton still does not have, nor is it destined to have, LRT. K-W first, then Toronto and now Mississauga and likely Brampton will have LRT and Hamilton will still be looking.

As you get a little older and a little wiser you too will learn that "independent experts" and their studies must always be looked at in many different ways and lights. Often times those studies are not worth the price of the paper it was written on.

Of course you are free to take all their findings at face value.

Permalink | Context

By CaptainKirk (anonymous) | Posted January 31, 2013 at 22:09:24 in reply to Comment 85712

That's not what LRT is about.

Permalink | Context

By LRT (anonymous) | Posted January 31, 2013 at 22:44:07 in reply to Comment 85714

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 AlHuizenga (registered) | Posted February 01, 2013 at 12:53:04 in reply to Comment 85716

And on and on and on indeed.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Vod_Kann (registered) | Posted February 01, 2013 at 07:42:16

Fred should have let the stadium thing go. In the grand scheme of this city it was not THAT important to get voted out over.

If he was going to fall on the sword over a project, LRT was the thing to fall on it over.

Sometimes it s not so much fighting the good fight as it is fighting the RIGHT fight.

Permalink | Context

By LOL all over again (anonymous) | Posted February 02, 2013 at 08:40:53 in reply to Comment 85721

It is always fun to pick what issue will be his downfall. Sort of like choosing where he will spend his money. If the issues are that important to you then get elected on them. A new municipal election is less then 2 years away.

Good luck.

Permalink | Context

By lakeside (registered) | Posted February 01, 2013 at 13:02:38 in reply to Comment 85721

You raise a good point but not to forget that the whole stadium conversation was about bringing together synergies with each serving to reinforce the other, from the stadium to LRT to new hotels to economic development, with the Pan Am Games being the catalyst to bring it all together in a timely manner so that momentum was not lost due to endless political debate, which is exactly the situation we find ourselves in today.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By movedtohamilton (registered) | Posted February 01, 2013 at 13:44:55

No thread derailment intended, but...

Mayor Bob continues to shock-and-awe the citizenry. Getting the bit between his teeth, he suggests that Hamilton should consider using some or all of its casino revenue to subsidize local horse racing. The reaction? It ranges from bafflement and puzzled looks to derision, sarcasm...and worse.

Do have a look at the comments section in Dreschel's column. http://bit.ly/14DLobQ

Comment edited by movedtohamilton on 2013-02-01 13:45:52

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By DrAwesomesauce (registered) | Posted February 01, 2013 at 22:27:54

I'm the last person to defend Bratina, but maybe he knows something we don't. Perhaps he's been told that Hamilton isn't actually in line for LRT (at least not in the next 25 years) and so he's not going to bother wasting his breath on it. I don't know. Either way, it's depressing.

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted February 02, 2013 at 22:23:21 in reply to Comment 85750

it was only a couple years ago near the end of Fred's term that metrolinx praised us for how quickly we climbed the priority list for LRT and had our act together. Of course we won't be in line for 25 years + with zero leadership and vision. Metrolinx has a lot of cities who actually want to move forward with vision and 21st Century city building. They aren't going to waste their money in a city that doesn't.

Comment edited by jason on 2013-02-02 22:23:41

Permalink | Context

By DrAwesomesauce (registered) | Posted February 04, 2013 at 06:59:50 in reply to Comment 85774

I miss Fred. We wouldn't be in this mess if Hamilton voters weren't so lame.

Permalink | Context

By kettal (registered) | Posted February 02, 2013 at 17:12:24 in reply to Comment 85750

The chair of Metrolinx confirmed Hamilton LRT as priority in November.

Permalink | Context

By Noted (anonymous) | Posted February 04, 2013 at 10:39:15 in reply to Comment 85766

Indeed. As of Nov. 29, 2012, Hamilton was identified as one of the 10 proposed projects Metrolinx intends on getting to next.

~

Rapid Transit Projects:

75 per cent of proposed investment is allocated to a transformative slate of regional transit projects:

Brampton Queen Street Rapid Transit: 10 km of upgraded transit along Queen Street.

Downtown Relief Line: New subway that will improve access to the regional core for residents from across the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA) and provide relief to the overflowing arteries of the Toronto transit system.

Dundas Street Bus Rapid Transit: 40 km of bus service running in dedicated lanes, connecting Toronto, Mississauga and Halton.

Durham-Scarborough Bus Rapid Transit: 36 km of bus service running in dedicated lanes, connecting Scarborough Centre to downtown Oshawa via Pickering, Ajax and Whitby.

GO Rail Expansion: More Two-Way, All-Day and Rush Hour Service: Introducing more two-way, all-day service, adding additional rush hour service across the entire network, and extending trains to Hamilton and Bowmanville.

Electrification of GO Kitchener line and Union Pearson Express: Upgrading diesel train service to electric propulsion for these two complementary transit services that share a substantial portion of their routing.

GO Lakeshore Express Rail Service - Phase 1 (including Electrification): Transforming GO Transit's backbone from Hamilton to Oshawa into a faster, more frequent and more convenient transit option by beginning the transition to an international-style Express Rail service.

Hamilton Light Rail Transit: 14 km LRT line stretching from McMaster University to Eastgate Square.

Hurontario-Main Light Rail Transit: 23 km LRT line connecting Port Credit to downtown Brampton via Cooksville and Mississauga City Centre.

Yonge North Subway Extension: 6 km extension that will connect the City of Toronto to the Richmond Hill / Langstaff Urban Growth Centre.

http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/1080785/metrolinx-unveils-next-wave-of-big-move-projects

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Mal (anonymous) | Posted February 02, 2013 at 09:33:14

"The premier designate has stated that McCallion’s repeated emphasis on relieving gridlock throughout the GTA has hit home."

If the province is prioritizing based on easing gridlock that is damaging economic productivity in the largest city in the country, Hamilton’s rapid transit needs may not be seen as a short-term spending priority.

Consensus seems to be that the GTA has gridlock...

http://raisethehammer.org/blog/1617/can_we_stop_pretending_more_highways_will_solve_gridlock

... and that Hamilton doesn’t have gridlock.

https://raisethehammer.org/article/1628/the_mystery_of_the_missing_gridlock:_induced_demand_generated_traffic_and_misleading_models

My sense is that Hamilton doesn’t contribute to GTA gridlock except for those travelling outside of the city for business or pleasure. And for those people we have Lakeshore West Electrification and all-day, two way GO.

http://www.raisethehammer.org/article/1415/murray_to_council:_suspend_work_on_lrt_focus_on_all-day_go

This might be the official math. A guess, anyway.

Permalink | Context

By Mal (anonymous) | Posted February 05, 2013 at 11:25:02 in reply to Comment 85760

All-day GO on the Lakeshore West line is also a relatively quick win:

"Metrolinx plans to run faster and more frequent GO trains between Hamilton and Oshawa, and from Union Station to Brampton, likely by electrifying the lines, but the money for the upgrade is not yet committed. It will also expand all-day, two-way train service to Hamilton by mid-2015."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/the-dreams-and-realities-of-public-transit-in-the-gta/article2342995

Permalink | Context

By DowntownInHamilton (registered) | Posted February 02, 2013 at 18:29:50 in reply to Comment 85760

My sense is that Hamilton doesn’t contribute to GTA gridlock except for those travelling outside of the city for business or pleasure. And for those people we have Lakeshore West Electrification and all-day, two way GO.

As long as you're heading to somewhere convenient, ie. right off of the bus or train's path. I'd love to use GO, if it left at a convenient time, returned at a convenient time, and had local transit at my destination that took me where I needed to go quickly, safely, and smoothly.

Permalink | Context

By LOL all over again (anonymous) | Posted February 03, 2013 at 12:38:49 in reply to Comment 85769

And that ladies and gentlemen is the problem with transit, all transit.

Couldn't have said it any better myself.

Permalink | Context

By Mal (anonymous) | Posted February 02, 2013 at 18:58:36 in reply to Comment 85769

I'm not suggesting for a moment that it's an ideal solution for Hamilton-Toronto commuters, merely a more appropriate Big Move tool to relieving GTA congestion than lower city rapid transit. It's not going to stop everyone in that commuter demographic from using cars, but it stands the best chance of making them consider public transit.

The "last mile" aspect of all of this has been left out of the discussion for the most part, because it makes it less than effortless. in much of the 905, the solution is not so much the silver bullet megaproject as it is improving speed and frequency of connections to the trunk line. In Hamilton, this would mean significantly enhanced service in the mountain wards and suburbs. That or some high-capacity Appleby-style parking lots beside key nodes.

My two cents, anyway.

Permalink | Context

By kettal (registered) | Posted February 02, 2013 at 17:14:39 in reply to Comment 85760

Frequent GO service is only useful if you can get to the station.

Permalink | Context

By Mal (anonymous) | Posted February 02, 2013 at 17:49:02 in reply to Comment 85767

I won't dispute that. But if the argument is going to be won or lost on "ability to relieve GTA gridlock," Hamilton is at the back of the line.

Permalink | Context

By Mal (anonymous) | Posted February 02, 2013 at 19:01:46 in reply to Comment 85768

To wit:

The High Cost of Congestion in Canadian Cities
Urban Transportation Task Force
April 2012
Page 8
Table 1-1: Annual Congestion Costs (in $ Millions) in Canadian Cities (2006)

City > 50% Threshold / 60% Threshold / 70% Threshold

Vancouver > $518 / $652 / $755
Edmonton > $85 / $103 / $120
Calgary > $149 / $171 / $180
Winnipeg > $73 / $100 / $125
Hamilton > $13 / $24 / $37
Toronto > $1,298 / $1,672 / $2,014
Ottawa-Gatineau > $220 / $304 / $380
Montreal > $697 / $811 / $910
Quebec > $63 / $89 / $118

Total > $3,116 / $3,927 / $4,640

http://www.comt.ca/english/uttf-congestion-2012.pdf


The Transport Canada report from which this is derived (The Cost of Urban Congestion In Canada, Transport Canada/Environmental Affairs, April 2006) contains more a more fine-grained account of these CMAs' congestion costs.

http://www.adec-inc.ca/pdf/02-rapport/cong-canada-ang.pdf


Permalink | Context

By LOL all over again (anonymous) | Posted February 03, 2013 at 12:44:46 in reply to Comment 85772

Look at that, our Hamilton is at the bottom of the list having the lowest numbers of any city. Wow who would have thunk it. How can anyone still believe that LRT is a necessity for this city?

OR we could listen to some of the brilliant ideas on this site and reduce one of our major streets like Main West to a single lane each way and create congestion. Then we can make a believable argument for LRT. How many millions are we willing to throw at a fallacy to make it a reality?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jimh (anonymous) | Posted February 02, 2013 at 21:03:48

LRT was not Fred's idea. It fell into his lap as a suggestion from Metrolynx. It was always a very long term vision at least 15 years out. Hamilton is hardly lagging on the file. Miss is getting priorty because it actually has congestion. Hamilton doesn't have a traffic problem in the lower city, in faact it losing population... why do you think schools are closing all over the lower city? Building it is like what Buffalo did, and it only benefitted the northen stations ar ound the university, it did nothing for downtown.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jimh (anonymous) | Posted February 03, 2013 at 14:14:33

The point of this article and similar ones is to try and make Bratina wear the lack of enthusiasm coming from Metrolynx when it comes to their LRT promise. Its not hamilton, it's not Bratina, it is Metrolynx that is delaying the game. We've spent 10 million so far only 4 came from Metrolynx.

Some people are still bitter Bratina won, and by a landslide.

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