Red Hill Creek Expressway

[go_leafs_go02]

can't Hamilton pressure the MTO to well, assume the responsibility of the highways by uploading them to the provincial highway network, they most certainly are provincially important for those travelling from London/Woodstock to St. Catharines, Niagara Falls.

[raisethehammer]

ahhh, I see. People won't use the highways if they have to pay 10 cents? Maybe they all should have thought of that before electing a city council willing to build roads it couldn't afford.

[the dude]

i think it goes without saying that i support tolling the expressway. always have. not to be spiteful but turnabout is fair play. if it is a necessary route then people will pay to use it.

[DC83]

^^ Exactly! They tolled the Skyway Bridge until it was paid off, why not toll the RHVP until it's paid off?

[raisethehammer]

plus, I gotta tell ya. people would GLADLY pay the toll on Red Hill. I drove it the other day and it's unbelievable how quick you can get from QEW to the Linc...like 5 minutes.
Is someone really going to be so cheap as to say "I won't pay $1.40 per week (twice a day, 5 days) to save myself the agonizing trip along Centennial"?
They would in a heartbeat.

[fastcarsfreedom]

I don't see the the LINC and/or Red Hill being "uploaded" to the MTO--at least not until they assume responsibility for the Gardiner and the DVP. To illustrate how different issues affect different cities--the locally owned east-west expressway in Windsor--known as the EC Row was considered for uploading--at the province's suggestion--and the local electorate was dead-set against it--fearing that it would lead to more trucks using it--yes--you heard that right, folks don't want trucks on the Expressway--though I'm not sure where it is they expect them to go.

If someone can elighten me on the benefits of tolling I'd be willing to argue pros/cons. I can't think of a situation where tolling in order to pay for a highway has been all that effective--highways require upkeep even after initial investments for construction are considered. 407 is merely a profit generator for it's consortium of owners--there was no intent as far as paying off the construction debt. The tolling situation with regards to the Skyway (in the 1950s) was also a different case--to the best of my knowledge the tolls were removed prior to the bridge being "paid for".

CATCH is an interesting organization--I give them credit for their spin techniques--it seems to be the one thing they consistently get right.

[raisethehammer]

what in this recent CATCH article would you describe as spin?? It's all bang-on in my books. and refreshingly, something I'd never read in the Spec.

[markbarbera]

The cost of maintaining RHVP is significant, as is the revenue that the new parkway will generate for the city, and the increase to the quality of life the parkway offers (i.e. reduced commute times, reduced traffic on Centennial and other city streets). As long as tax revenues from new development and increased economic activity inspired by the parkway offset the maintenance costs, then I am fine with these costs.

As far as a toll goes, I really could care less either way. On the surface, it would appear to be a good idea for cost offset, but there would be a significant additional cost to implement a toll system on a road not initially designed for tolls. The costs of the road have already been driven so high by years of delay, not to mention the policing and legal costs brought on by the long-running protests against its construction.

[BCTed]

Originally Posted by raisethehammer

plus, I gotta tell ya. people would GLADLY pay the toll on Red Hill. I drove it the other day and it's unbelievable how quick you can get from QEW to the Linc...like 5 minutes.
Is someone really going to be so cheap as to say "I won't pay $1.40 per week (twice a day, 5 days) to save myself the agonizing trip along Centennial"?
They would in a heartbeat.

Happy New Year.

I don't trust your numbers. Where the heck do you get $1.40/week from? That suggests 14 cents per trip (assuming 2*5 trips per week). The CATCH article (however accurate it is) mentions 10 cents per kilometre. Are you suggesting that people will average 1.4 kilometres per trip?

A full daily run up and a fully daily run down the the 8 km of the RHVP would come to $8.00/week at those toll rates.

[raisethehammer]

ok. $8.00 per week.
sounds good to me.

Mark - unless Hamilton has a massive influx of industry wanting to locate near this highway (I suppose 1 or 2 companies would be an 'influx' when recent years have brought zero) there won't be any tax revenues to offset the cost of the road.
So far, we're seeing over 10,000 homes built in a sprawled out manner on greenfields.
Those types of development end up costing the city money, not making us money.
It's one of the reasons our finances are in such bad shape. We've subsidized sprawl for a few decades now and have a near-bankrupt city hall to show for it. Development charges for sprawl need to skyrocket, and fast.
And the purchase price of these new homes will also skyrocket if developers and home-buyers are made to actually pay more of their their fair share instead of relying so heavily on the existing taxpayers to subsidize their 'american dream'.

[coalminecanary]

Why is it so easy for people to believe in the possible benefits to the city's economy of a new highway -- so much so that they are willing to simply accept that the entire population should pay for it, including those who don't use it?

And why is it so difficult for the same group to believe in the possibile benefits to the city's economy of improved (and inexpensive) public transit -- so much so that they refuse to accept that the general population should carry the bill and that the users should pay for it themselves?

[BCTed]

I believe that the Parkdale HSR bus runs on the Red Hill expressway. What should do we about people who take that bus? Charge them a toll and a fare? Toll only? Fare only?

[raisethehammer]

Originally Posted by coalminecanary

Why is it so easy for people to believe in the possible benefits to the city's economy of a new highway -- so much so that they are willing to simply accept that the entire population should pay for it, including those who don't use it?

And why is it so difficult for the same group to believe in the possibile benefits to the city's economy of improved (and inexpensive) public transit -- so much so that they refuse to accept that the general population should carry the bill and that the users should pay for it themselves?

because they don't care about the city's economy or the rest of the population.
They've been captured by big oil and the sprawl builders and have bought into the notion that they are more important than society or any other individual in society.
People are more interested in having me pay for their 8 minute shortcut than the city's economy or transit system.
Sadly, we also have an entire bunch at city hall who feel the same way. And the city flounders and goes bankrupt while you and I pay sky-high taxes to fatten the pockets of a few folks.

[matt602]

Originally Posted by BCTed

I believe that the Parkdale HSR bus runs on the Red Hill expressway. What should do we about people who take that bus? Charge them a toll and a fare? Toll only? Fare only?

*snicker* Obviously they'd be exempt of it as I am when I take the GO bus along the 407.

Or maybe they'll pass around a collection plate.

[markbarbera]

Originally Posted by raisethehammer

because they don't care about the city's economy or the rest of the population.
They've been captured by big oil and the sprawl builders and have bought into the notion that they are more important than society or any other individual in society.
People are more interested in having me pay for their 8 minute shortcut than the city's economy or transit system.
Sadly, we also have an entire bunch at city hall who feel the same way. And the city flounders and goes bankrupt while you and I pay sky-high taxes to fatten the pockets of a few folks.

Wow, that is a tad over the top. I happen to think public transit and a expressway system are equally important to the development of this city. I also happen to live downtown, do not own a car, and use the public transit system every day, so please don't paint with such broad brushstrokes. And, like it or not, city hall is made up of elected officials that your neighbours voted in. And they are the same folks who foot the same tax bill as you and I.

Why is it that you feel the need to attack opinions variant from yours with such intolerant arrogance? Sure, I think lots of opinions posted on here are off-base, but I try to keep the posts here civil and respectful. Is it too much to ask everyone else to behave the same?

RTH, review the various posts you have made on the different threads over the past few days. They are dripping with negative energy, and are really bringing down the level of discussion here. This is supposed to a constructive discussion forum about a city that we all care for deeply. Everyone, can the vitriol be put aside so we can discuss things rationally? Please?

[raisethehammer]

hey Mark...no prob. Not meaning to be 'negative'. I appreciate your comments though and will pay a little more attention to what I write, although I can think of various posts I've written this week regarding Trinity Landing coming along, King East being vibrant, a great LRT piece, some drooling over Stinson etc..... nontheless, your view is appreciated.

Back to the topic...what is your response the question posed by coalmine??

[fastcarsfreedom]

coalminecanary's question is an interesting one. It is tinted with an opinion I don't share--however, I'm willing to thrash out the pros and cons here. If I start off by saying that I support the current model for highway funding--I would need someone to sell me on the merits of moving mass transit funding in a similar direction. Having grown up in Flamborough--my justification for not paying for HSR was, simply put, that I had no way of utilizing the service unless I drove (or was driven) into Dundas. Although that option could be exercised--I could just has easily have been driven into Aldershot and used Burlington's system, therefore, should my parent's have paid taxes for both systems?

Show me your model for transit funding and sell me on it.

[markbarbera]

Coalmine's question is making a couple of presumptions that I disagree with. First off, 'people' is a pretty broad generaliation. Secondly, the two trains of thought do not need to be, nor do I think they should be mutually exclusive.

As I alluded to in my previous post, I happen to hold the belief that both an efficient, expended public transit and a network of highways serving the city are equally important. I do not agree with the assumption that only part of the population benefits from a highway. As a matter of fact, both these items benefit all citizens of the city.

Coalmine makes a presumption that the highway only benfits part of the city's population. I disagree. Its benefits are actually much more far-reaching than he is willing to accept. Traffic on the highway is moved off local roads and onto the highway. This has greatly improved the quality of life for those who live or use Centennial for local movements. Centennial overnight has become a much more pleasant road to walk along. It also now has the potential to host higher-order transit, as its current width is no longer need to accomodate the same level of automobile traffic adn could be realigned for dedicated bus/taxi lanes.

But the benfit to all citizens goes beyond this one road. Residents on the east mountain who commute out of town now have a faster route to exit the city. Transport trucks that used to have to travel cross city via King/Main now have a more fuel-efficient route that doesn't cause unnecessary wear and tear on our downtown roads. This means less maintenance costs on these roads, a cost savings that should offset some of the RHVP maintenance cost that has CATCH so upset these days. It is interesting their figures do not include any potential savings in local road maintenance by redirecting frequent and heavy traffic onto a road designed to handle heavier traffic. Additionally, transport trucks' reduced presence on Main and King streets is a small step to making the core more pedestrian friendly. Also, more efficient flow of goods (groceries in particular) also impacts favourably on the cost of goods that all city residents consume, most notably groceries. Most importantly, fast and efficient movement of goods positively impacts on the city's overall economy and attracts new businesses to the community, thereby enriching the corporate tax base.

As for public transit, my posts on the various threads here show how I am an avid supporter of public transit improvements in this city and fully recognize its value to this city. That does not change my opinion on the benefits that RHVP/LINC bring to this city. Like I said, it is not an either/or situation, and I don't understand why proponents of public transit feel it has to be argued in this manner.

As far as City Hall's response to HSR funding requests, there is obviously a appreciation defecit amoung council on the benefits of public transit. This can be attributed equally to a council ignorant of the HSR's contribution to the city, and to the HSR administratin itself for being complacent with its diminished treatment.This deficiency can only be overcome through sober public debate on the issue, and by empowering the HSR administration with transit visionaries rather than complacent yes-men. Kudos to Councillors Brattina and Merulla for bringing the value of HSR's contribution to the city onto the discussion table for upcoming council sessions (Good Lord, I never thought I'd see the day that I'd praise Merulla on a council issue). It would best serve public transit proponents, myself included, to focus energy on promoting the value the HSR contributes to this city. Attacking highways as bad and berating their proponents does nothing to promote transit.

Fastcarsfreedom, just read your post. Your defence for Flamborough's exemption from the HSR tax base is invalid. A citizen cannot pick and choose what tax items he/she should have included in their bill, as city services are for the common good of the city. Using your logic, I should not have to include the education portion of my tax because I have no children that would be using the educational system. Like the HSR, the city's schools contribute to improvement to the quality of life within the city. Consequently, all citizens of the city must contribute equally to the HSR. Period. Your request to sell you on a transit funding model is also moot since you are neither an HSR transit user or a resident of the City of Hamilton, so there is nothing to sell to you.

[SteelTown]

^ Great post! I agree.

[raisethehammer]

I agree too.
I don't think coalmine was saying that it's an "either/or" situation.
Both are equally important. The question is then, why is funding so incredibly out of balance in favour of one mode? I think I would pass out from joy if Hamilton were to start treating transit with equal importance as roads. It's not even close right now.