Ban new-roads, parking lots: Environment Hamilton

[SteelTown]

Ban new-roads, parking lots: Environment Hamilton
Says toll roads, new taxes and in-fill development needed to battle climate change

March 25, 2009
Eric McGuinness
http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/536622

To combat climate change, Environment Hamilton is calling on the city to freeze its urban boundary, build no more roads or parking lots and commit millions of dollars to light rail transit.

Those are three of 10 immediate steps the non-profit group says “are the minimum necessary” to head off global catastrophe.

Even though the organization recently gave the city poor marks for implementing 10 “baby steps” suggested two years ago, members are pushing for more.

The new list of 10 actions includes lobbying the province to let the city toll parkways, tax parking spaces and tax vehicles.

Don McLean, re-elected to the board at the annual meeting where the list was approved Tuesday night, was asked if he thought councillors were willing to take such measures.

He said: “Politicians, I think, think the public is much more foolish than the public is. Most people realize car dependency is a bad thing that is ruining the future for their kids and grandkids.

“I think tolls would be acceptable if the revenue helps pay for transit and bringing in light rail. They talk about transit as a subsidy program. Roads are a subsidy program.

“There is a lot of enthusiasm for light rail. If this community can make a commitment to a  new stadium, it can commit to light rail and expedite provincial dollars coming here.”

For further information, visit www.environmenthamilton.org.


Climate change action plan

1. Permanently protect Hamilton’s foodlands by freezing the urban boundary and locating 100 per cent of growth within this boundary.

2. Commit to no net increase in surface parking lots and total road space (kilometre lanes) for motor vehicles.

3. Commit now to paying the municipal portion of a light rail system for Hamilton.

4. Use traffic calming to achieve 30 km/h speed limits in residential areas where there is a demand.

5. Mail 10 free bus tickets to each household for use on HSR or DARTS.

6. Establish 100 new community garden plots each year for the next five years on underused city lands, and support them with equipment, materials and staffing.

7. Begin purchasing EcoLogo-certified green electricity to achieve the goal of powering all city facilities (owned and leased) with renewable energy by 2020.

8. Adopt a municipal buy-local purchasing policy, establishing targets and requiring an annual staff report on implementation.

9. Conduct energy audits of all city-owned housing and develop a capital program to implement the recommendations.

10. Lobby the provincial government for legislative authority to allow the city to toll roads, tax parking, impose vehicle taxes and require green building standards.

[Millstone]

Why does light rail always have to be tied in with some climate change mumbo jumbo.

[emge]

even if you consider climate change unimportant in your books, if it boosts the rest of the case for light rail, why be negative about it?

[ryan_mcgreal]

Why does light rail always have to be tied in with some climate change mumbo jumbo.

Likewise, why do some people persistently ignore, downplay, or distort the overwhelming empirical evidence of climate change just because it threatens a particular worldview?

[adam]

Light rail is infrastructure, one of the best ways to help an economy in a recession/depression. But I'd much rather have light rail on the major arteries than 5 lanes of 1 way traffic.. I wonder what cancer rates would be like if there were 1/2 as many cars on the road?

[coalminecanary]

oh adam, that's enough of your mumbo jumbo!

[Millstone]

Likewise, why do some people persistently ignore, downplay, or distort the overwhelming empirical evidence of climate change just because it threatens a particular worldview?

Man-made climate change has been proven? That's like saying Al Gore doesn't burn embarassing amounts of jet fuel en route to his next book signing.

lol, hippies

[crhayes]

Technically nothing is ever proven in science :P. You just collect evidence and form theories that support the evidence; theories are always subject to change.

[hamiltonguy]

I hate Al Gore, and think he distorts the facts to suit his quest to make money.

But I accept climate change...mostly...there are still some questions in my mind as to what percentage is the earth's cycle and how much is due to greenhouse gases. But in the end, it doesn't matter. We're screwed no matter what.

[omro]

We could always just say:

A form of transit that produces no gases as a byproduct has to be better, in some way, than a form of transit that does produce a gas as a byproduct.

Even if you don't believe in green house gases and the effect that they have on the environment.

Less gases as a byproduct of transit, at the very least, would mean less local air pollution, smog, particulates in the air, staining of buildings, etc.

[bigguy1231]

Environment Hamilton can issue all the statements it wants and recommend anything it wants, but the reality is they are a fringe group that represents a very small minority opinion.

Any politician who tolls roads or taxes parking spaces is committing political suicide.

As for the city putting money into green initiatives they can't afford to pay for existing programs let alone green initiatives.

The only initiative that may have a chance, albeit slim, is the light rail. An initiative I could support as long as it does not take away from existing traffic lanes. I like my car and I will not support anything that will inconvenience me. Call me selfish, I really don't care. I will take solace in the fact that I represent the opinions of the majority rather than the fringe views of Environment Hamilton.

[waterloowarrior]

Climate change action plan

1. Permanently protect Hamilton’s foodlands by freezing the urban boundary and locating 100 per cent of growth within this boundary. Doable, but would increase housing prices and could drive development elsewhere (leapfrog). Will run into problems with legal requirements to have land available for development. Likely not feasible, but the province may be flexible.

2. Commit to no net increase in surface parking lots and total road space (kilometre lanes) for motor vehicles. I understand the idea, but if the population is growing than new roads will need to be built and new parking for new residents and businesses. Maybe I am over-analysing this - makes sense for the core though, or at least for municipal parking lots.

3. Commit now to paying the municipal portion of a light rail system for Hamilton. Good idea.. put the ball in their court

4. Use traffic calming to achieve 30 km/h speed limits in residential areas where there is a demand. Good idea, many other places are considering this

5. Mail 10 free bus tickets to each household for use on HSR or DARTS. Could be a way to get people to try out the bus... but also could be quite expensive with limited increase in ridership

...
10. Lobby the provincial government for legislative authority to allow the city to toll roads, tax parking, impose vehicle taxes and require green building standards. The more funding powers cities have the better

[omro]

5. Mail 10 free bus tickets to each household for use on HSR or DARTS. Could be a way to get people to try out the bus... but also could be quite expensive with limited increase in ridership

Expensive, to mail out the tickets or to honour them?

If people don't use the tickets, then it's just the cost of mailing them, right?

Could always hire a few teens/students and drop them through doors by hand, might be cheaper than mailing them.

Time limit the tickets.

[ryan_mcgreal]

Man-made climate change has been proven?

I didn't say it was proven, I said it is supported by overwhelming empirical evidence (in peer reviewed studies, to boot).

As crhayes points out, scientific theories aren't "proven", in the sense that showing you a million white sheep doesn't prove that all sheep are white. A theory is scientific if it makes testable predictions and is hence falsifiable; that is, if there is a logical possibility of proving it false. Therefore you could disprove my claim that all sheep are white by producing a black sheep.

(This, incidentally, is why creationism and "intelligent design" are not scientific theories. Since they make no testable predictions, they cannot be falsified.)

The evidence for anthropocentric climate change is very wide and deep, coming from a multitude of studies in a variety of disciplines, from geology to meteorology to biology to oceanography. The case against it is sporadic, mostly non-rigorous, and originates mainly from funders and researchers with conflicts of interest, i.e. who benefit materially from delaying policy efforts to address climate change.

Since the theory is a complex model of prediction in a complex, dynamic system with emergent characteristics, it is technically impossible to make an exact prediction of what will happen. Instead, climate modeling seeks to take into account as many variables as possible so models can sketch out statistical probabilities.

Changes to the climate system are not linear but chaotic, lurching suddenly and disruptively from one dynamic to another. This has already happened and has been observed and measured in detail.

If anything, climate models to date have tended to under-estimate both the speed and disruptiveness of actual changes to the climate system. Scientists are regularly discovering new feedback mechanisms - many of them positive feedback loops that actually accelerate warming, like the melting of the Siberian permafrost - and adjusting their models to take these into consideration.

Of course, none of this will make any difference to you. If you have refused until now to undertake an honest review of the scientific literature on climate change, nothing I write on some forum is going to change your mind.

lol, hippies

Because nothing says "hippie" like tens of thousands of people with PhDs in science, tenured professorships in research institutions and publication in peer reviewed scientific journals. lol.

[ryan_mcgreal]

As for the city putting money into green initiatives they can't afford to pay for existing programs let alone green initiatives.

Green initiatives actually cost less than existing programs, because they're based on increased efficiency and greater sustainability.

Think of it this way: what costs more, building a highway - hundreds of millions of dollars in capital costs, tens of millions of dollars a year in lifecycle costs, plus a net drain on city finances since development charges aren't high enough to recover the cost of providing service to far-flung greenfields - or setting a firm urban boundary and changing zoning rules to allow dense, mixed use development on already-serviced land?

What's missing is not money to commit but the political will to stand up to status quo business interests and take a chance on sustainability. Cities that do this see their economies grow, their city finances improve and their communities become more desirable destinations for both residents and businesses.

The only initiative that may have a chance, albeit slim, is the light rail. An initiative I could support as long as it does not take away from existing traffic lanes.

Light rail has no choice but to take away from existing traffic lanes. It has to go somewhere, after all. In any case, a dedicated lane for light rail actually has a higher capacity to carry people than a lane of vehicular traffic.

I like my car and I will not support anything that will inconvenience me. Call me selfish, I really don't care.

What may be regarded as selfish is your assumption that society as a whole should be forced to subsidize your choices when they are demonstrably harmful to community vitality, air quality, and public health.

If you insist on driving, you should be prepared to pay the full cost of your choice, including the cost of the infrastructure you use, and your contributions to climate change and air pollution. As it stands, the various fees and taxes you pay to drive come nowhere near covering the cost of providing automobile infrastructure, let alone the various negative externalities.

[Jon Dalton]

An initiative I could support as long as it does not take away from existing traffic lanes.

Ain't no such thing.

I represent the opinions of the majority

And that my friends, is why we're all screwed.

[emge]

The last two posters pretty much said it all.

At least the prospect of light rail seems to possess, as well as spark, some of the vision needed to change perspectives of Hamilton residents even without an individual being a driving force behind it (rather, several individuals, including our mayor, and a good chunk due to Hamilton Light Rail). To me it's always about vision and perspective.

Mock the so-called respectability, image, whatever of taking a train over a bus.. fine. Call the enthusiasm of councillors back from a trip simple. Call the climate change factor irrelevant. Call it whatever. (Not necessarily you, but as some have).

In itself, light rail is an initiative that can start chipping away at the monumental myopia regarding cars and transit in this city... and with Metrolinx, looks like it's gonna happen. Add on the Pan Am Stadium, an A-line, the GO station nearby... that and Copps well-serviced by transit both within the region and without. Even if that stadium never happens, the possibilities light rail opens up and the benefits it gives will happen.

Maybe we'll even get enough space for proper bike lanes on the main streets. Who doesn't win here? I mean, it'll even free up more lanes for your Hummer.

[coalminecanary]

Call me selfish, I really don't care.

Yup, you are. But don't worry someone will explain it to your kids for you when they wonder why there's nothing left for them.

[adam]

100 years was a very short while ago. 100 years ago there were almost no cars around at all. in another 100 years, there will be almost no cars around again. history books are going to remember our generation with amazement - our lack of communities, how the majority of our public space was dedicated to the auto industry, how people couldn't even cross the street without literally running.

Why can't we afford to put money into green technologies? Every single household is expected to purchase 2x$30,000.00 vehicles every 5 years and pay millions of dollars through tax money every year to upgrade roads... What's cheaper? I'd rather have the freedom of going everywhere using public transit instead of having to worry about traffic fatalities (higher rate than most terminal illnesses), gas prices (due to go up again very soon), buying a new car for thousands and thousands and being in debt as a result?

[bigguy1231]

Yup, you are. But don't worry someone will explain it to your kids for you when they wonder why there's nothing left for them.

I am sure my kids your kids and our respective grandkids will be just fine.

As you can see from my comments I don't subscribe to alarmist theories or doomsday scenarios. The world will live on and thrive for millions of years to come despite all the doom and gloom from the environmental fringe.

It doesn't matter what we do here in Canada or in the rest of the Western industrialized world for that matter. We only represent 1/5th of the worlds population. The other 4/5ths are in the developing world and they are not about to retard their growth to appease our environmental concerns.

[omro]

It doesn't matter what we do here in Canada or in the rest of the Western industrialized world for that matter. We only represent 1/5th of the worlds population. The other 4/5ths are in the developing world and they are not about to retard their growth to appease our environmental concerns.

However, if we don't hold ourselves to a high standard, how can we ask anyone else to?

The "developing" world is developing faster than the "developed" world did (seeing as they don't have to reinvent the wheel, just be taught how to make it). While this isn't widespread, some bright people in those countries (or from other countries working there), are actually working to implement green technologies now, during that country's development, rather than having to build "dirty" technologies now, rip them out and reimplement them green later, like the "developed" world has to.

[BrianE]

I am sure my kids your kids and our respective grandkids will be just fine.

As you can see from my comments I don't subscribe to alarmist theories or doomsday scenarios. The world will live on and thrive for millions of years to come despite all the doom and gloom from the environmental fringe.

It doesn't matter what we do here in Canada or in the rest of the Western industrialized world for that matter. We only represent 1/5th of the worlds population. The other 4/5ths are in the developing world and they are not about to retard their growth to appease our environmental concerns.

I've always wanted to ask someone with opinions like yours a few questions, just to see what your line of thinking is.

Feel free to ignore them if you like.

Anybody else can answer them if they like too.

1. In Dollars/Litre what price of gas do you think you could afford to pay in order to keep using the number cars you currently own?

2. Picture your neighborhood. If you had to, would you be willing to walk to the store everyday to do your shopping? Or is it simply way too far.

3. Have you ever decided not to buy a particular house because the road out front is too busy?

4. If that busy road became a 2 lane side street would the property be less or more desirable to you?

5. Do you think it's fair that we as 1/5th of the worlds population produce more than 60% of green house gas emissions? Shouldn't we be striving to only produce our 20% share?

6. Are you aware that in the Hamilton area the summer of 2007 was one of the driest on record

7. Are you aware that in the Hamilton area the summer of 2008 was one of the wettest on record.

8. Do you find that odd?

9. I hate to be topical but did you notice that the Red River just crested at it's highest level in 112 years.

[highwater]

I 'noticed' the plants in my garden that should be dormant are still green in December. Last year my son 'noticed' a caterpillar in the woods on New Year's Day. But I guess you have to step away from the big screen tv to notice these things. It's easier to live in Happy Pony Land when you go straight from the SUV to the couch.

[ryan_mcgreal]

As you can see from my comments I don't subscribe to alarmist theories or doomsday scenarios. The world will live on and thrive for millions of years to come despite all the doom and gloom from the environmental fringe.

The world will do just fine, but I'm interested in what western civilization will look like once the access of our western civilization to cheap, abundant oil goes into decline.

I've studied the alternatives in some detail, and it doesn't look to me like any combination of viable alternatives can replace oil's sheer versatility, energy density, and ease of transport.

I don't "subscribe to alarmist theories or doomsday scenarios" either, but I like to see a path from here to there: in this case, from today's economy to your optimistic future where we get to go on living in the manner to which we have clearly grown accustomed.

Your optimism notwithstanding, I don't think you can trace a plausible status quo trajectory into the future, given the facts on the ground.

Note: "new technologies" and "market forces" do not qualify as answers - particularly the latter, since market forces can just as easily match supply and demand by destroying demand as by creating supply (as the past few years have demonstrated).


Renewable energy sources - wind, solar, geothermal - certainly can't replace oil at current consumption rates.
Biofuels have a very low EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) and in every case in operation today, depend on massive hydrocarbon inputs to grow them in the first place.
Nuclear power has a number of serious problems both technical and political - not to mention the fact that nuclear power plants still require cheap, abundant oil to construct and operate.
Cold fusion is a will-o-the-wisp, with no prospects for commercial application for at least several decades.
Hydrogen is not a power source but a medium of storage - and a net energy sink at that.


On top of all that, climate change is a real, demonstrable, empirically observed phenomenon - and it's going to create some serious challenges that we need somehow to address sooner or later.

All this means we're almost certainly going to have to get used to the idea that our economy and living arrangements will have to operate on a significantly lower baseline energy supply than they do today.

We don't have several decades put this off: the global oil production rate is already at or very near an all-time peak (probably the former) of around 85 million barrels per day, and the decline, once it begins, will be irreversible.

Neither God nor the technology fairies are going to put more oil in the ground or reverse the second law of thermodynamics. When an oilfield declines to the point that it costs more than a barrel of oil to extract a barrel of oil, it's effectively depleted, regardless of how much oil is still left in the ground.

N.B. that the technologies developed in the past few decades - slant drilling, water injection, etc. - have succeeded mainly in increasing the rate of extraction, not the total recoverable yield. The latter is susceptible to the oil price (i.e. the higher the price, the higher recoverable yield at a profit), but even that is still bounded on top by EROEI.

All of this is to state not that the sky is falling, but that we have identified some serious long-term constraints on our ability to continue doing things the way we do them today. As a civilization, we can choose to respond to this feedback and adjust our living arrangements to make them more sustainable, or we can choose to do nothing and hope for the best.

Successful civilizations, like successful organisms, choose the former: apprehending feedback from their surroundings, responding appropriately and creatively to changing circumstances, and learning to thrive in the new environment.

At the same time, human history, like the biological record, is littered with the remains of civilizations and organisms that opted for the latter.

A positive future isn't something that just drops into our laps from the heavens. It's an outcome that we create through awareness of the challenges we face and a willingness to face them.

[drpgq]

9. I hate to be topical but did you notice that the Red River just crested at it's highest level in 112 years.

Isn't that just representative of a very cold winter in the Midwest?

In 1937 the highest temperature ever recorded in Canada of 45 C was in Midale Saskatchewan. Is that odd? What should people have done then?

I'm not saying that carbon in the atmosphere doesn't have an effect, but that a lot of these weather records have a gaussian distribution characteristic to them (via the central limit theorem) and that over a period of time, you will get records at either extreme.

[adam]

Extreme weather like hurricanes and tornadoes have never occurred with such frequency. Ice that has never been melted for thousands of years is suddenly melting - and its length and width is being measured in kilometres.. All of that extra water has to go somewhere.

All the ice that's melting is the earth's way of cooling itself off, but what happens when there is no ice left?? The waters start to superheat and EVERYTHING dies. That's not far-fetched. If you follow current trends, that's where its headed. Incidentally I just realized I feel like I'm writing this for school children... but I guess some people out there really haven't taken the time to educate themselves. Its really sad.

[bornagainbiking]

We as Canadians are a responsible breed. But every watch "W" and Dick Cheney tells Colin Powell "We are 5% of the world's population and use 10% of the resources" So where does that leave us. China still uses coal and has major pollution issues. I never saw one spiral light bulb in my last trip to Ohio and NY state. Low rate faucets and low rate toilets in the US, probably non-existant but what do we do we go nuts recycle, go green, reduce our impact (and yes I have a full compliment of low watt bulbs and navy shower aeriator heads, Low water front loader washer)
We forget in winter that a 100 watt bulb would generate heat for our home.
So we as a nation are trying even though many apartment dwellers find it easier to just trash items.
Funny, we see that we want to reduce our impact and fossil fuel useage, just wait to see a major rise in oil consumption with $2000 cars in China and India. So much for your Hybrid's effect compared to 100,000's of new cars.
We try and our own auto makers fight us on fuel economy standards.
Especially when we get our oil from outside Canada.
So if you want to preach the efforts and determination of individuals first look at our own industry standards.
Our design of cities and reluctance of any government to promote and implement immediately freight movemtn by rail,and water. And get a regular mode of transport that will replace air for short hops. Anything between Halifax and Windsor. Just like Europe.
Hamilton and the KING/MAIN expressways. Do not encourage bike use it is too scary.
Get a hovercraft ferry for Burlington to the Discovery Centre and a bus turnaround there direct to downtown.
We do so much but do you think Mexico does anything or Russia or China or India. We are under 30 Million with lots of space. How big is the world.
Earth Day WOW
:cheers:

[bigguy1231]

I've always wanted to ask someone with opinions like yours a few questions, just to see what your line of thinking is.


I don't mind answering your questions.

1. I will pay whatever I have to to fuel my cars up to a point. I don't really have a choice. I work 30km one way from where I live. Public transit is not an option. I stay in Hamilton because I get twice as much house for half the price of anywhere else.

2. I do walk to the store for most of my shopping. I live in a neighborhood where everything is within reasonable walking distance.

3. My current house backs on to one of the busiest streets in the city. I don't even notice the noise anymore.

4. If that busy road became a 2 lane side street then the whole city would be in trouble. Not to mention that the value of my property would probably go down. It is a highly sought after area, at least thats what the real estate agents who constantly harass me say.

5. Lifes not fair, live with it.

6 & 7. So. How many times has that happened over say the last 10,000 years. I am sure it has happened more than a few times. We can't judge weather based on 10, 20 or even 100 year increments. Any climatologist worth his salt will tell you that.

8. Considering we only have records going back just over 100 years they really are not an indication of weather patterns over the long term. Now if we could have records going back 1000 years and chart todays conditions in comparison then records would be a good indicator.

9. Yes it is a record for the past 112 years, but what happened before that. 100 years is not a real history.

[adam]

You contradicted yourself when you said in #1 you get twice as much house for half the price and then in #4 when you said it is a highly sought after area with high value.

8. Absolutely wrong. We have climate records that date back 10's of thousands of years thanks to very deep drilling in ice. They can report the average temperature for that year based on how much ice melts.. Look it up

[bigguy1231]

You contradicted yourself when you said in #1 you get twice as much house for half the price and then in #4 when you said it is a highly sought after area with high value.

8. Absolutely wrong. We have climate records that date back 10's of thousands of years thanks to very deep drilling in ice. They can report the average temperature for that year based on how much ice melts.. Look it up

Let me address your first statement. I said I would get twice the house for half the price here in Hamilton rather than close to where I work. There is no contradiction read #4 again. I said it was a highly sought after area not a high value area. Even if it was a high value area here in Hamilton, the same house would cost at least twice as much in Halton region where I work.

As for climate records dating back 10's of thousands of years, I agree they do have them with respect to certain areas of the planet. But they do not tell the whole story. They are not very specific and scientists can only assume the causes of the changes. The climate has and does change through natural events not related to mankind.

[emge]

The only initiative that may have a chance, albeit slim, is the light rail. An initiative I could support as long as it does not take away from existing traffic lanes. I like my car and I will not support anything that will inconvenience me. Call me selfish, I really don't care. I will take solace in the fact that I represent the opinions of the majority rather than the fringe views of Environment Hamilton.

I think this is where my question lies... I can accept that you have no choice but to commute by car -- many, many people don't have a choice there either. I can understand that you don't want to be inconvenienced - who does?

But I do wonder why you're unwilling to accept any inconvenience to yourself if it means many others ARE able to commute and leave their cars at home... that's a different kind of "selfish."

Certainly it's unacceptable for me to say that nothing should be downtown except light rail, or bike space, or walking space.. but for car owners to say the same (that the 5 lanes of dedicated vehicular traffic should remain and traffic flow shouldn't change at all) would mean that no one had the option of anything but a car or bus. That's not acceptable either. Even if it is the norm in your particular neighbourhood or circle of friends, it isn't for everybody. Sure, we chose voluntarily to sell our cars when we moved to Hamilton, but that doesn't remove the fact that my opinion still matters as a commuter and my convenience still matters as well as yours.

Saying "well, I don't want to be inconvenienced" is absolutely normal. That's human nature.

Saying "I don't care one iota about anyone else about myself, no matter how many people will benefit" is an entirely different statement, and far more selfish, and that's the statement you're embracing when you put your convenience over any benefit light rail gives.

It also fails to take into account a great many cities where public transit is a viable option for the majority, not just a certain cross-section of the population who is environmentally committed, works in a very specific area, or is financially unable to make another choice, as it still largely is in Hamilton today. Light rail can and will change that due to speed, comfort, and many other factors that have been better said by others. Do you truly not care about any of that, if your convenience is even slightly compromised?

[omro]

What I find astonishing is the belief that losing two lanes of a five lane road to a significantly more efficient transit system and converting the rest of the roads to two-way will negatively impact the driving experience through the Downtown.

The more people use transit, rather than their cars, the fewer cars will be on the roads Downtown, thus improving the Downtown driving experience.

Being able to use every road, in each direction, will allow a driver to get to their destination via the most direct route, rather than having to know exactly which road goes in what direction and sometimes having to circle around their destination, so that they can get themself into the correct one-way pattern to reach it.

[emge]

Certainly I agree with you there: the end result of light rail will help motorists out, and two-way conversion would be a boon, not just for those who live here but for visitors constantly frustrated by the city's roadways. But for a car-centric city like Hamilton to experience any type of change will be tough.

Motorists will wonder why there is construction happening and their morning commute is taking longer, others will fail to see why they should let themselves be inconvenienced or that any of their tax dollars will pay for it. Even in the interim before more people start using transit, a 5-lane reduction to 3 will be tough at the get-go.

This was just a question to one person who said they're selfish enough that they don't care about the benefits. I'm trying to point out that the benefits to others besides himself are valid also, and perhaps if he understands that, he'll find himself less selfish then he thinks he is in the process. (or maybe not, but that'll be his clarification to make)

[omro]

I agree with you too.

What's also strange is that the following assertion of bigguy1231's:

4. If that busy road became a 2 lane side street then the whole city would be in trouble. Not to mention that the value of my property would probably go down. It is a highly sought after area, at least thats what the real estate agents who constantly harass me say.

Yet all the evidence suggests that being near transit, especially LRTs will have the opposite effect.

[adam]

Here's an article that discusses how commuting on a bicycle actually improves quality of life and is safer than driving a car on the highway. Imagine getting to work fully awake and happy from getting fresh air, avoiding road rage, etc. without needing a coffee.
http://www.runmuki.com/commute/commuting2.html

[emge]

Here's an article that discusses how commuting on a bicycle actually improves quality of life and is safer than driving a car on the highway. Imagine getting to work fully awake and happy from getting fresh air, avoiding road rage, etc. without needing a coffee.
http://www.runmuki.com/commute/commuting2.html

For those who think "Nobody bikes in Hamilton," there's a link off his site to an article called "Nobody Bikes in L.A." (http://www.slate.com/id/2130978/) also.

"Not only has riding my bike enabled me to glide past all this gridlock (in fact, I'm often not even aware it's happening), but it has made me realize that it's an illusion. The city itself is not gridlocked—merely the narrow asphalt ribbons onto which we squeeze all our single-occupant cars. On the back streets I now take, everything is quiet and serene. The main roads may mimic Times Square on New Year's Eve, but the areas between L.A.'s clogged arteries comprise mile after square mile of low-density, low-stress residential bliss (the same is true, I suspect, of most American cities).

.... Don't get me wrong—Los Angeles is an almost pathologically bike-unfriendly city. It has pathetically few marked bike lanes, and those it has often peter out for no reason and at the worst possible place. Its drivers go ballistic when a cyclist slows them down, even for a few seconds. And of course, it's so sprawling that some commutes would simply be impossible by bike (although I suspect more than we realize would actually be faster on two thin wheels)."


Seems fairly relevant to our city, eh?

Personally I haven't biked for a while because I'm so glad I can walk places in Hamilton, and I had loaned out my bike and just got it back this year. Compared to the nasty bike commutes I've done in other cities though, there's only a few routes to avoid in Hamilton, though the one-ways are pretty unfortunate.... more reason to avoid the "main arteries" though.

[highwater]

I don't mind answering your questions.

1. I will pay whatever I have to to fuel my cars up to a point.

So why on earth do you begrudge people who are trying to put measures in place that will make your life easier when the price of gas reaches that point?

[adam]

I agree, Hamilton is a lot easier to cycle than any other city I've tried in the GTA

[Jon Dalton]

http://www.runmuki.com/commute/images/cartoon.jpg

[Jon Dalton]

What's particularily sad is these arguments are coming from through-commuters, those who drive through the core on our one-ways to hit the 403 to wherever. They are the least of the stakeholders in how we configure our roads.

If we reduce traffic capacity and it bothers people who don't live, work or shop here, what loss is it? They will find ways around it, and that's just fine. Anyone who likes 5 lanes of one-way isn't keen on stopping here anyway.

[adam]

Only a portion of commuters want 5 lanes of traffic in the city. I commute out of the city and want fewer lanes on Main and King. Many friends who commute out of the city are also wondering when the city will take steps to limit speed on Main/King/Cannon/etc. A lot of younger families would prefer to live near an urban area. I don't think this was such a prevalent trend 10 years ago... seems like if you could afford it you got a house on the mountain ASAP. This is no longer as desired for younger families. They remember growing up in isolated gated communities with no amenities and don't want that for their children. So the city has to change eventually. Best place to raise a family? Not a chance until we get rid of inner-city highways.

[emge]

Only a portion of commuters want 5 lanes of traffic in the city. I commute out of the city and want fewer lanes on Main and King. Many friends who commute out of the city are also wondering when the city will take steps to limit speed on Main/King/Cannon/etc. A lot of younger families would prefer to live near an urban area. I don't think this was such a prevalent trend 10 years ago... seems like if you could afford it you got a house on the mountain ASAP. This is no longer as desired for younger families. They remember growing up in isolated gated communities with no amenities and don't want that for their children. So the city has to change eventually. Best place to raise a family? Not a chance until we get rid of inner-city highways.

Landsdale's pretty much the poster neighbourhood for that in my books

[ryan_mcgreal]

Here's an article that discusses how commuting on a bicycle actually improves quality of life and is safer than driving a car on the highway. Imagine getting to work fully awake and happy from getting fresh air, avoiding road rage, etc. without needing a coffee.

I can personally attest to this (except the part about not needing a coffee...). Every single day I get to work in a better mood than when I left home. I defy any driver to make the same claim with a straight face.

[sofasurfer]

The "developing" world is developing faster than the "developed" world did (seeing as they don't have to reinvent the wheel, just be taught how to make it). While this isn't widespread, some bright people in those countries (or from other countries working there), are actually working to implement green technologies now, during that country's development, rather than having to build "dirty" technologies now, rip them out and reimplement them green later, like the "developed" world has to.

Yup. In a former job, I worked with folks who did some interesting projects in developing countries across different sectors - and a common theme was how these countries are poised to not only take advantage of innovations to develop more efficient infrastructures, but to use them in innovative ways that appropriate the most from the technology in the face of real-life economic constraints.

So not only do you see more efficient tech being used, but in a smarter way - because poorer countries can see they can get more out of it at micro- and macro-levels. Food for thought?

[highwater]

We are dinosaurs who are about to get leapfrogged.

[bigguy1231]

It also fails to take into account a great many cities where public transit is a viable option for the majority, not just a certain cross-section of the population who is environmentally committed, works in a very specific area, or is financially unable to make another choice, as it still largely is in Hamilton today. Light rail can and will change that due to speed, comfort, and many other factors that have been better said by others. Do you truly not care about any of that, if your convenience is even slightly compromised?

I am not saying that I completely object to LRT. The problem as I see it, is they are going to take away traffic lanes for what in effect will be a glorified bus or street car system. It will not be a clear unfettered road for the public transit. They will still have to stop at each stop light, they will still get slowed down by traffic in intersections. Dedicated lanes are not the same as a dedicated right of way. As long as the system is at street level it will be no different than what we have right now.

[ryan_mcgreal]

The problem as I see it, is they are going to take away traffic lanes for what in effect will be a glorified bus or street car system.

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is a glorified bus system. LRT is a significantly higher order of transit: faster, smoother, quieter, more accessible, more permanent, longer-lasting, cheaper to operate, and proven in city after city to attract both new riders and new private transit-oriented investment in a way that buses and BRT simply cannot.

It will not be a clear unfettered road for the public transit. They will still have to stop at each stop light, they will still get slowed down by traffic in intersections. Dedicated lanes are not the same as a dedicated right of way. As long as the system is at street level it will be no different than what we have right now.

That's incorrect. Because LRT will run on dedicated lanes, it will not get stuck behind traffic. It will also feature signal priority at intersections, so lights automagically turn green as the tram approaches.

Finally, as I noted earlier, a lane of LRT carries significantly more people than a lane of automobiles, so it will actually facilitate a gross* reduction in automobile traffic.

* N.B. I write "gross" because at the same time that LRT takes cars off the road, it also draws billions of dollars in new private investment, which will significantly increase the number of people living, working and recreating in the transit corridor (400-800 metres to either side of the line, depending on how you calculate it).

As a result of all that new activity, overall net traffic will probably increase. However, that traffic is best understood as an indicator of successful urban revitalization, not a problem to be solved by rationalizing traffic flows.

[Jon Dalton]

Also, BRT takes it's own lane so even if we half-ass it, we are going to lose traffic lanes. This was a City of Hamilton initiative even before LRT was discussed.

Hamilton has more traffic lanes per capita than ANY other Canadian city. We are about to lose 2 of them, that's all, we can deal with it.

[adam]

if cutting back lanes doesn't work for you, maybe you should get a smaller vehicle... or simply use the 403 and Red Hill. There are plenty of other options

OR (this is my favourite one)... leave your car at home and take the LRT!

[flar]

Hamilton has way too many lanes of traffic, the system was built when there were tens of thousands of jobs in the industrial north end. With the demographic shift to smaller household sizes in that part of the city and the loss of those thousands of industrial jobs, it's no longer necessary to move that many people.

[adam]

If its true what you say and there is no need to move that many people anymore, why is light rail such a good idea? Remember the lower city is over 300,000... much higher than the population way back when the roads were built.

[flar]

The lower city has been losing population in recent decades. It's mainly due to a demographic shift to smaller household sizes. Light rail would go toward reintensifying the lower city, especially on the business and commercial side of things, where the biggest losses have occurred. (industrial will never see the employment figures it once did).

[ryan_mcgreal]

The lower city has been losing population in recent decades.

That trend started to reverse in the last census. The lower city is now gaining population. LRT will only help to accelerate that growth.

[flar]

That trend started to reverse in the last census. The lower city is now gaining population. LRT will only help to accelerate that growth.

Actually that's only the case in a few census tracts around downtown that saw decent growth (that's great news of course). Unfortunately, large areas of the east end declined in population by upwards of 10% between the last two censuses.

[adam]

Hamilton never needed all those lanes of traffic. New York City's density is many times higher and they have PLENTY of roads that are 3 lanes or less. Its not really a matter of population, its a matter of shifting from cars to more efficient modes of transportation AND because we need room on the roads (vast amounts of public space) for other activities and walking. On most sidewalks in Hamilton there isn't even enough width for two people to pass two other people coming the opposite way.

[bigguy1231]

That's incorrect. Because LRT will run on dedicated lanes, it will not get stuck behind traffic. It will also feature signal priority at intersections, so lights automagically turn green as the tram approaches.

Finally, as I noted earlier, a lane of LRT carries significantly more people than a lane of automobiles, so it will actually facilitate a gross* reduction in automobile traffic.

* N.B. I write "gross" because at the same time that LRT takes cars off the road, it also draws billions of dollars in new private investment, which will significantly increase the number of people living, working and recreating in the transit corridor (400-800 metres to either side of the line, depending on how you calculate it).

As a result of all that new activity, overall net traffic will probably increase. However, that traffic is best understood as an indicator of successful urban revitalization, not a problem to be solved by rationalizing traffic flows.

Like I said in an earlier post I am not opposed to LRT or any other form of rapid transit for that matter. I actually think it would be a great thing for this city. But alot of questions are going to have to be answered before the people in this city get on board. If the proposed LRT in any way inhibits current traffic patterns, people are going to oppose it. Polls have shown people support it in principle, but when it comes right down to it they will support or not support it based on how it will effect them.

Now some of you may argue that the city should go ahead regardless of whether or not people oppose it. The reality is politicians want to keep their jobs. Anything that raises the ire of the public will be a hard sell to the politicians of this city.

Most people in this city and in most others do not use public transit. Public transit for the most part is used by the young, the old and those who cannot afford to own a car. A small percentage of the population actually choose to use public transit. I can count on one hand the number of times I have been on a bus since I first began to drive. Building an LRT is not going to change my preference.

This is not the field of dreams. If it is built it doesn't mean people are actually going to use it. It doesn't mean there is going to be billions of dollars in developement. It's all speculative. Hamilton is not like most other cities. What works elsewhere won't neccessarily work here. Because of our proximity to Toronto and our topography we are limited in what can be done and the possible benefits that may be realized.

[flar]

^^I agree with some of what you said, but I don't think Hamilton is so different from other cities. For example, in Ottawa the transit system is very extensive and it is used by many people who have cars or could easily afford to drive. The difference is that Ottawa's transit system offers the kind of service that people can use. So basically, if you build it they will come. That has been the experience in other cities and I see no reason why Hamilton should be so different.

[ryan_mcgreal]

Like I said in an earlier post I am not opposed to LRT or any other form of rapid transit for that matter. I actually think it would be a great thing for this city. But alot of questions are going to have to be answered before the people in this city get on board.

The community is already strongly on board. The massive and overwhelmingly positive public response to the city's public consultations on rapid transit is simply unprecedented.

As far as I know, not a single organization in the city opposes it (the Hamilton Halton Home Builders Association has not yet made a formal statement about LRT, but they generally agree with the Chamber of Commerce, which has formally endorsed LRT).

If the proposed LRT in any way inhibits current traffic patterns, people are going to oppose it.

The whole point is to change current traffic patterns.

In just about every North American city that has built LRT in the past decade, public support has increased steadily once the line was in operation. Once people can see with their own eyes how successful LRT is at attracting new riders and spurring economic development, even the detractors come around.

Hamilton is not like most other cities.

This is straightforward exceptionalism, and the squelchers of every city try to use it ("that might work somewhere else, but we're different!") to stop progress. Go back and read a history of Portland over the past few decades - the detractors in business, real estate and so on fought every step of Portland's transformation to a pedestrian, bicycle and transit-friendly city.

They said canceling the highway construction and building light rail instead would be a disaster. They said setting a firm urban boundary would kill the real estate business. They said sidewalk widening and bike lanes would infuriate motorists and spark a rebellion (Councillor Ferguson said something similar last year when he heard that the B-Line would run on a dedicated lane). They said no one would ever use the streetcars or buy condos in the Pearl District.

They were spectacularly wrong on all accounts. Portland is a thriving, vital city and its trajectory of urban revitalization and sustainability just gets more and more popular. (Watch RTH for jason's upcoming photo essay on Portland.)

The real estate industry quickly figured out how to make more money building condos than they ever made building suburban houses. Motorists figured out how to take the streetcar. Cyclists figured out how to use the bike lanes (Portland has by far the fastest growth in cycling of any North American city - field of dreams, indeed).

Portland has among the fastest rates of population growth of any American city as people flock there from all over the country to enjoy a quality of life that their own cities are too myopic or fearful to implement. Those people are mainly young, well-educated, and creative, and a high percentage of them start their own businesses in innovative fields.

People are people, and people respond to incentives. What seems impossible or implausible or impractical in a given political context can change dramatically when the framework changes.

[emge]

This is not the field of dreams. If it is built it doesn't mean people are actually going to use it. It doesn't mean there is going to be billions of dollars in developement. It's all speculative. Hamilton is not like most other cities. What works elsewhere won't neccessarily work here. Because of our proximity to Toronto and our topography we are limited in what can be done and the possible benefits that may be realized.

(as I preview my post, I see Ryan has again said it much better than myself, as he's directly involved with Hamilton Light Rail. But I'll still offer my "bystander's perspective")

I have been to a light rail meeting or two. But in general, I'm just someone who's been watching, reading, listening. I've certainly learned a lot by doing that. And some of the things you're saying are just plain inaccurate.

I simply want to help clear a few things up. I do hope you look into this yourself and get a bit better informed.

I think you'd be pleasantly surprised.

There's many case studies done in cities (and many are far more similar to Hamilton than Toronto) looking at ridership and economic benefits. There's well-documented evidence that LRT does draw in new ridership and cause development. Looking only at the cities with similar populations (or even less people) than Hamilton, you still see the same benefit. Our suburbs are well-positioned for endpoints and stations on light rail. We're in a good place to do this.

It is rather surprising how many people thought they would never ride transit, and never use anything besides their cars, but once light rail was built they found themselves using it. But to state that "the people of the city" aren't on board yet to get it in Hamilton isn't accurate - overwhelmingly, the city is already on board, and you might be the one missing the train (somewhat literally...?).

One of the reasons it's a good idea is because it HAS worked in cities very much like ours.

LRT began to change the mentality towards transit in those cities also, a mentality you've so well-summarized in your final eight or nine sentences. And like you said, it's the mentality of many in this city also. And like other cities, the LRT will only change things if there's real benefits to it. If light rail wasn't faster, cleaner, more efficient, and well... sexier than ye olde bus.. it wouldn't change anyone's mind or bring any development around it. But it is... and it does.

The so-called "topography" issue is one tunnel through the escarpment. That's it. Leaving aside any much-less-useful option using an existing mountain access, even that is an issue to be dealt with after the construction of a successful B-line that's proven its benefits well before a second one is in the works.

[adam]

Take it a step further and convert lanes on either side of multi-lane streets to parking lanes. Increased revenue for the city with parking meters. Come on, this is a no brainer. Every city worth its salt has parking lanes on wide streets. This would eliminate the need for urban parking lots downtown.

[bigguy1231]

Well, I hope I am proven wrong in my assumptions about this city. But chances are my assumptions will prove correct.
I have been here all my life and I too was once a twenty something idealist. I at one time spent alot of time at city hall serving on commitees and volunteering my time for the betterment of the community. I would still be involved if I had the time. Unfortunately work and other resposibilities don't allow for that.

By the way, don't take everything I say too seriously, from time to time I like to stimulate debate with a few off the cuff remarks just to see what people have to say. I think it's worked. Unfortunately, the people that will need to be convinced will never read your responses, since they probably don't even know this site exists.:)

[adam]

I'd like to challenge some assumptions that Bigguy1231 made in that last post:

- Most people here are not in their twenties. Many of the contributors have children and families.
- Stimulating debate doesn't happen by stating generalities based on assumptions and hoping that other people believe you based on your word.
- At least 2 city councillors read these forums.

[emge]

Adam makes some excellent points (although children/families and being in one's twenties aren't mutually exclusive... how far are we extending adolescence these days? 35 is the new 14...) Anyhow, it's true that most posters here are not in their twenties, as well as his other points.


If you're just interested in discussion on the topic, there's plenty of prior discussion to refer to instead of wasting the time of forumers whom (as a courtesy!) are specifically answering your questions.

Every single thing in these posts has already been said elsewhere on the forum. Every one of those questions has already been asked by many people in the community, in many forums of discussion besides online.

Honest discussion and inquiry is fine. If one has honest concerns, questions, problems - there are many here who will be kind enough to help gather information. But making "off-the-cuff" remarks that aren't meant "seriously" but to "stimulate discussion" just wastes everyone's time and detracts from other discussions that could be happening.