Special Report: Light Rail

Is the Fix in for Hamilton's LRT Plan?

It is starting to look like the Ontario Liberals want to back out of their promise to build LRT lines in Hamilton.

By Nicholas Kevlahan
Published February 24, 2014

Combined with Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne's recent comments to me about Hamilton's light rail transit (LRT) plan and Hamilton Mayor Bob Bratina's bull-headed opposition to LRT since being elected, today's op-ed by Ontario Liberal candidates Javid Mirza and Ivan Luksic is starting to seem like a ploy to make sure the Liberals can save a lot of money by giving Hamilton next to nothing in transit investment.

This article is full of confusing and erroneous statements and displays a deep misunderstanding of how transit and economic/urban development actually work.

Confusing and Erroneous

Their claim that LRT doesn't support the city's goals is highly misleading, given all the studies - including the Benefits Case Analysis commissioned by their own government - that show exactly why, with data, LRT is the right way to build transit use and connect the city:

We believe that LRT is expensive and does not bring us any closer to our two goals: linking up more of the city to public transit and increasing transit usage. We cannot in good conscience advocate spending $1 billion at this time when there are more pressing issues with respect to public transit.

They also conveniently ignore the fact that, although overall transit use in Hamilton is stagnant, the most drastically under-serviced corridor in the city is the east-west B-Line, which has a lot of unmet demand (in the form of regular 'pass-bys') and already has ridership more than high enough to justify LRT.

On the other hand, did they even check the ridership figures on their preferred A-line to the airport? It is essentially unused compared with the B-line!

And what do they think bus rapid transit actually is? Any self-respecting BRT is physically separated from automobile traffic on dedicated lanes, has signal priority at intersections and will restrict turns and motorists' "freedom" just as much as LRT, while providing much less capacity and minimal economic uplift.

A Do-Nothing Proposal

Their argument is basically do-nothing, since their conception of BRT seems to be essentially the same as the current A-line and B-line.

What is more sinister is that their ideas are a carbon copy of Bratina's: all-day GO to James North and Centennial and not much else. Even the all-day GO service is a regional strategic investment, not specific to Hamilton.

So, if by some miracle, the Liberals get elected with a majority, implement the revenue tools, and start investing billions across the region in LRT, will these Liberal MPPS still do their best to ensure that almost none of that spending goes to Hamilton?

I've heard of pork-barreling, but I've never heard of local MPPs doing their best to ensure their constituents don't get their fair share of government spending!

Refusal to Understand

I really can't understand how the argument that Hamilton should be shut out of a major provincial construction initiative makes any sense at all. Imagine the same argument being made by local MPPs over health care:

The government is going has proposed making a $1 billion investment in upgrading hospitals and local health care as part of their province-wide health care strategy. We, the undersigned Hamilton Liberal MPPs, will strenuously oppose this expensive investment by our government in Hamilton. Instead, our prudent proposal is to open five new walk-in clinics, and upgrade the regional ambulance transfer service to Burlington.

It is as if politicians in Hamilton refuse to accept that LRT will not be funded out of local property taxes but rather out of Provincial revenue streams that will be implemented regionally and province-wide.

On the other hand, the many hundreds of millions to be spent from local City property taxes on servicing and subsidizing development at the ill-conceived "Airport Employment Growth District" gets a free ride - literally, since they are so keen on expanding the A-line LRT to the airport.

So, they are really recommending that instead of spending provincial money to intensify development along already-serviced land, we should spend similar amounts of our own municipal money on servicing and subsidizing greenfield urban sprawl to build low-value warehouses around the airport.

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.

50 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted February 24, 2014 at 13:48:40

Silver lining: By giving the Liberals two NDP-held ridings, The Big Move (whatever that means when the rubber hits the road) is that much closer to reality.

BTW, the former provincial Liberal candidate for HESC Premier Wynne's agri-flack.





Permalink | Context

By JMorse (registered) | Posted February 24, 2014 at 14:17:52 in reply to Comment 97865

We're so immature that reverse psychology may work. We elect based on promise of no LRT, then they go ahead and build the LRT we need but don't want. So backwards it could actually happen?

Permalink | Context

By George (registered) | Posted February 24, 2014 at 14:43:32 in reply to Comment 97869

Ha! That very same thought crossed my mind.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By ianreynolds (registered) | Posted February 24, 2014 at 15:47:29

The original text read "We cannot in good conscience advocate spending $1 billion at this time when there are more pressing issues with respect to public transit, such as the fact that we're underserviced and would best be served by an LRT oh crap wait a minute."

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By bvbborussia (registered) | Posted February 24, 2014 at 18:30:59

This comes down to money in the end. An East-West line through lower Hamilton will be perceived as a benefit that serves Hamilton's most poor neighbourhoods. No politician is looking to do these people any favours. These two Liberals represent mostly suburban constituents who especially have no interest in doing that. Their plan focuses mostly on improving the property values of suburbanites and out of town commuters, not shuffling the huddled masses back and forth across the town.

Sad as it may be, the LRT is as good as dead without a strong voice at Queen's Park.

Permalink | Context

By brodiec (registered) | Posted February 25, 2014 at 05:48:55 in reply to Comment 97880

Yeah ironic that they're actually the most affluent neighbourhoods that are being serviced by the planned route? Wouldn't want to actually service the real poors in the burbs, north and east end, no way. It's funny how the rhetoric goes on this website. By providing underserved residents with GO and rapid transit we're just improving suburban property values. But when we reward absentee landlords and people who already have good transit connections downtown it's an "investment". Got it.

Comment edited by brodiec on 2014-02-25 05:49:20

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted February 26, 2014 at 10:31:43 in reply to Comment 97895

Have you strolled the east/west lower city corridor recently??

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthre...

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthre...

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthre...

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthre...

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthre...

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthre...

Let's be honest. The real issue is here is the continued dumping mentality Hamilton has on it's Code Red neighbourhoods. We have no prob spending hundreds of millions or billions in the upper class suburban areas for more freeways, business parks etc....
But invest in the lower city???? That's just a waste of money in a part of town that deserves to be bulldozed....

Permalink | Context

By AlHuizenga (registered) | Posted February 25, 2014 at 17:24:00 in reply to Comment 97895

Ugh, lazy. It's one person's comment, not "how the rhetoric goes on this website." Not any more than your tendency to lump people you disagree with into lazy and derogatory caricatures is "how the rhetoric goes on this website."

Permalink | Context

By CaptainKirk (anonymous) | Posted February 24, 2014 at 20:05:36 in reply to Comment 97880

If they had any smarts and vision, they'd push for the sexy A-line LRT for the mountain as soon as B-line gets implemented and proven.

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted February 24, 2014 at 21:15:40 in reply to Comment 97883

smarts and vision in Hamilton....we can dream

Permalink | Context

By Robert D (anonymous) | Posted February 24, 2014 at 18:39:24 in reply to Comment 97880

Well, I'm not wasting any more time trying to defeat the spam filter.

Permalink | Context

By KevinLove (registered) | Posted February 24, 2014 at 22:05:35 in reply to Comment 97881

So you are going to register?

Permalink | Context

By Robert D (anonymous) | Posted February 24, 2014 at 22:19:20 in reply to Comment 97887

Probably not. My voice will just remain unheard.

Permalink | Context

By mikeonthemountain (registered) | Posted February 25, 2014 at 12:29:27 in reply to Comment 97888

Well none of the other newspapers let you comment at all unless you register! My voice is unheard on the Spec! :)

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By AP (registered) | Posted February 24, 2014 at 23:30:18

I fear that, while so important and positive, all the challenging of lies and/or ignorance with facts here on RTH isn't going to be enough if we don't get the word out to non-RTH readers. Aside from sending individual letters to elected representatives, does anyone know of anything that's being organized?

Permalink | Context

By brodiec (registered) | Posted February 25, 2014 at 05:50:39 in reply to Comment 97892

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 25, 2014 at 17:30:51 in reply to Comment 97896

Yeah, stupid white people who live downtown, have jobs, and aren't gay. Always strolling up and down James Street North, drinking champagne and masturbating everywhere. Hate those guys.

Permalink | Context

By oscar (anonymous) | Posted February 26, 2014 at 09:04:34 in reply to Comment 97928

And the post of the year award goes to...

Permalink | Context

By kevlahan (registered) | Posted February 25, 2014 at 18:07:35 in reply to Comment 97928

Yeah, I've been amused by the fact that, suddenly, to some local media types downtown is simultaneously

a horrible dead zone with nothing of interest filled with crumbling buildings and vacant lots inhabited only by drug addicts and beggars with no possibility of ever becoming an attractive place to live or do business

AND

the exclusive domain of elitist latte-drinking rich people shopping at fancy boutiques who are not "real" Hamiltonians and who are working to keep out anyone who isn't like them and annoy suburbanites with their expensive bikes and desire for two-way streets that will make it impossible to drive through.

Quite an accomplishment in doublethink!

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2014-02-25 18:39:43

Permalink | Context

By classwrawr (anonymous) | Posted February 25, 2014 at 08:30:59 in reply to Comment 97896

Dude, you're aggrieved underprivileged underclass shtick is getting old.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By brodiec (registered) | Posted February 25, 2014 at 05:57:03

Maybe we wouldn't have long headways on the B-line if the MSU would stop lowballing the HSR with their stupid borrowed labour rhetoric? They do great work helping to tax Hamiltonians out of their homes so they can go to Limeridge Mall for cheap. Maybe if McMaster Students paid a fare similar to other universities in the country there'd be less ridership and more money in the farebox?

Naw, it'll never work. This city loves to ride McMaster like a surfboard.

Permalink | Context

By Robert D (anonymous) | Posted February 25, 2014 at 11:20:01 in reply to Comment 97898

"similar to other universities in the country"

Can you provide information on what other universities provide their local transit system?

While we're at it, remember that Mac and Mohawk had referendums to accept the HSR's offer. Raise the price, and we might lose the next vote - and their income - altogether.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Mobilize it (anonymous) | Posted February 25, 2014 at 09:43:10

RTH needs foot soldiers who will go door to door to garner support for LRT in areas where it may be low or not exist. We have to assume more people are reading the Spectator than RTH, and becoming misinformed. Of course, the city's LRT site is largely inactive.

Permalink | Context

By LOL_all_over_again (registered) | Posted February 26, 2014 at 17:06:59 in reply to Comment 97910

LRT in Hamilton is on its deathbed. Let it go and die with dignity.

Permalink | Context

By z jones (registered) | Posted February 26, 2014 at 17:45:20 in reply to Comment 97968

Smug Hamilton hating defeatism at it's finest.

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted February 26, 2014 at 19:47:41 in reply to Comment 97974

Yup. A city doesn't get like this by accident. We've been killing forward-thinking RT projects for over half a century with that self-hating attitude:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost...

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By slodrive (registered) | Posted February 25, 2014 at 12:13:23

Might have to look around internationally to see which other cities with a CMA of 750,000 have decided to only invest in shuttling people away from the urban core.

Even recognizing the gravitational pull of Toronto, it boggles the mind that regional transport doesn't divert IN to our centre, and major efforts aren't being made to make intra-city mobility as efficient as possible.

The city's been built, civic leaders. Might as well use it for something other than concrete and pavement storage.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mrjanitor (registered) | Posted February 25, 2014 at 14:53:44

My opinion has been far from the consensus on RTH, but I think we need to shift gears and start discussing BRT over LRT.

The Mountain, Escarpment and lower city could have BRT installed for a similar cost to one Lower City LRT. LRT has been effectively spun as an elitist option that will only benefit Downtown residents. We all know this to be a manipulative over-simplification, but it is perceived as accurate across the city. By involving the whole city in a BRT installation changes the political dynamic of the funding and acceptance of much needed transit improvements across Hamilton.

The all-or-nothing LRT rhetoric seems to be getting us the nothing option.

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute...

Permalink | Context

By AlHuizenga (registered) | Posted February 25, 2014 at 17:43:47 in reply to Comment 97918

We all know this to be a manipulative over-simplification, but it is perceived as accurate across the city.

Not true.

From HamiltonLightRail.com:

Myth: The city has not engaged the public on LRT.

Fact: The city has undertaken more extensive, broad and in-depth public engagement on LRT than any other project in memory. Literally thousands of citizens have participated in public information centres, focus groups, workshops, design charettes, stakeholder meetings, surveys, and presentations to neighbourhood associations, community councils, business improvement areas (BIAs), service clubs and and community groups.

Permalink | Context

By kevlahan (registered) | Posted February 25, 2014 at 15:12:16 in reply to Comment 97918

Hamilton's plan is to build both B-line LRT and A-line BRT in the short to medium term. Thus, Mountain residents would be getting direct benefit. And, remember, that since 2007 the Liberals have been promising Hamilton TWO rapid transit lines!

There is ample justification from both Metrolinx and City studies for making the B-line LRT, but the main arguments are capacity (demand is already there and would grow due to development along the line and BRT couldn't meet it) and economic uplift (not significant with BRT and this uplift would benefit all Hamiltonians through more tax revenue and more job opportunities).

The downsides (apart from the minimal economic benefit) of trying to built two BRTs instead of a BRT and an LRT are:

  1. The cost would still be in the many hundreds of millions, more than enough to scare those nervous of expensive infrastructure projects.

  2. The "disruption" to motorists and residents during construction and from the lines would be the same as from LRT if real BRT systems were built. Remember that BRT requires everything LRT does except rails, overhead lines and LRT vehicles: dedicated physically separated concrete lanes, signal priority, station platforms, ... This would be more than enough to scare off those worried about disruption to motorists and residents.

Basically, those opposed to LRT would also oppose any "real" BRT lines. This attitude was exemplified by Dreschel, who asked whether Hamilton would be "forced" to take BRT if we rejected LRT. I think many politicians (like the Liberal candidates) who push for BRT over LRT are really not passionate about supporting BRT ... it is just a softer way of rejected LRT. In fact, I get the impression that they imagine BRT is just an express bus route, like the existing A- and B-lines, except with a few more buses.

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2014-02-25 15:19:53

Permalink | Context

By Joshua (registered) | Posted February 25, 2014 at 16:14:57 in reply to Comment 97919

So, let's create a hierarchy of options: more buses on routes, BRT, and--the Holy Grail, Shangri-La, Tir-nan-Og rolled into one--onward and upward to LRT.

If we put more buses on the roads, that might help Mr O'Connor get to his job quicker (see his op-ed in Tue Feb 25 2014's Hamilton Spectator), which is good, and keep our amalgamated transit unionists in fine fettle (which is what I've heard from two HSR drivers now)--employed, pensioned, and otherwise. The drawbacks, however, include more diesel buses on the road and more pollution, which isn't great, but that may be helped by fewer cars from those drivers who are now riders of the people's chariot.

90% of our federal gas tax revenue goes to road infrastructure (see http://hamiltoncatch.org/view_article.ph... and the other 10% to HSR operations. It should be the other way around and, heck, a higher tax at the pump would wound, not kill, the middling class. The only way change happens, these days, is not at the ballot box but at the wallet. Keep voting, though, and work inside and outside parliamentary democracy; 'we must be still and still moving / Into another intensity' (T. S. Eliot, East Coker, from Four Quartets).

Permalink | Context

By realist (anonymous) | Posted February 26, 2014 at 10:18:04 in reply to Comment 97922

So, let's create a hierarchy of options: more buses on routes, BRT, and--the Holy Grail, Shangri-La, Tir-nan-Og rolled into one--onward and upward to LRT.

Could not agree more

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted February 25, 2014 at 15:13:24

Let's feast our eyes on the lower city corridor being spun as 'elitist' by suburban politicians.
Just in case anyone has forgotten what life is like down here. These pics mirror King, Cannon and large swaths of Kenilworth and Parkdale. Nothing screams rich, elitist, yuppy snobs like this:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthre...

Permalink | Context

By realist (anonymous) | Posted February 26, 2014 at 10:16:11 in reply to Comment 97920

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted February 26, 2014 at 10:22:45 in reply to Comment 97939

Umm, those pics start at Barton and Locke and head east the entire way. It just so happens that most of the lower city is 'east' of James. Read through the plethora of articles on RTH over the years and it's very clear that inner city investment, quality of life improvements in 'Code Red' and new Ec-Dev opportunities from Mac to Eastgate have always been cited as the top reasons for LRT. Let's be real - Westdale doesn't need it. It just so happens that McMaster and MIP are on that side of the 403 and are huge drivers of Hamilton's transit usage.

Permalink | Context

By realist (anonymous) | Posted February 26, 2014 at 10:29:25 in reply to Comment 97942

Um Barton isn't on the LRT route and that that lines passenger list is the same as the King line? How exactly is this honest

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted February 26, 2014 at 10:54:20 in reply to Comment 97943

You can find all sorts of great stuff on the internet.

http://www.raisethehammer.org/comment/97...

Permalink | Context

By kevlahan (registered) | Posted February 26, 2014 at 11:34:02 in reply to Comment 97948

Although parts of the LRT line will go through some very poor and under-resourced areas of the city, the western half connects the two largest employment clusters in the city and some of the wealthier neighbourhoods: downtown (largest employment cluster with about 23,000 workers which is also Hamilton's entertainment and government services centre) and McMaster (with about 30,000 students and 7500 employees).

It is actually difficult to think of a transportation project that would knit together and increase mobility for such a diverse population, range of activities and large number of students and employees. There is also reasonable connection to GO via Hunter Street and the GO terminal at McMaster (not to mention the GO bus stops on King and Main).

Only counting McMaster and Downtown, the B-line LRT would serve over 60,000 students and employees. And the development that LRT would attract would increase that number dramatically, due to the number of vacant and under-developed lots along the line (identified in the city's companion land use study).

It really is very misleading to cast LRT as a project serving only the poor (or only the rich), or as generating benefits only for the lower city.

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2014-02-26 11:44:17

Permalink | Context

By bvbborussia (registered) | Posted February 26, 2014 at 23:01:17 in reply to Comment 97950

Those are great arguments for improved links between McMaster and Downtown. It's the bit from downtown eastward (the largest portion) that will be harder to justify.

One thing that I haven't seen mentioned very often on these pages is the role that employers and corporations will play in how all this money gets spent. The people are poor and there are almost no large corporations located along the route.

Lower Hamilton is home to almost zero national corporate head offices. Mississauga's LRT will have the backing of the Fortune 500. Improved transportation will not only increase their property values but also allow for better employee recruitment. Something that almost all large employers crave.

Hamilton's small ethnic mom and pops will not have a seat at the big table.

This list proves it.

http://www.mississauga.ca/file/COM/Fortu...

Permalink | Context

By kevlahan (registered) | Posted February 27, 2014 at 11:11:49 in reply to Comment 97994

Missisauga's list is impressive in one sense, but it is also a depressing example of the fact that Canada's economy is still based on a colonial model: as far as I can tell all these company are just Canadian head offices of multinationals (mostly American) who like being in Mississauga because it is close to the airport and cheaper than downtown Toronto.

These "head offices" are not really head offices at all, simply the Canadian administrative centres for companies whose real head offices are in other countries. This means all the real decisions are made elsewhere (including where the Canadian head office is) and most of the high value added R&D is done in the home country.

As in all colonial systems, the role of the colony is to make profits for the home country. When the colony stops being profitable (or the real home operations are in danger) the colonizer has no qualms about reducing its activity or pulling out. This makes Mississauga (and Canada) pretty vulnerable to decisions made elsewhere. When Stelco's Hamilton operation was almost the entire company, shutting down meant shutting down the company and was a major decision. When US Steel's Hamilton operation is one of dozens, and the company prioritizes its American operations it is no big deal to shut it down.

I hope that Hamilton will slowly grow its own true head offices, and aspire to be more than the temporary home to the administrative offices of multinational corporations.

People like to portray France as a non-entrepreneurial country where no one wants to invest, but the Paris region alone has the head offices of an extremely diverse group of 38 FRENCH Fortune 500 companies: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/g...

How many CANADIAN Fortune 500 companies are headquartered in the whole of Canada? Only 11. Of those, 8 are based in Toronto, 2 in Calgary and 1 in Montreal (and 6 are banks or insurance companies). None are based in Mississauga. http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/g...

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2014-02-27 11:26:40

Permalink | Context

By bvbborussia (registered) | Posted February 27, 2014 at 15:31:23 in reply to Comment 98014

I agree with you completely about the state of Canada's economy and how it fits into the world. The oil sands are an excellent example of what you've mentioned. Sometimes I wonder how far we are from being a banana republic.

My intention wasn't to present Mississauga as an ideal example of how Canadian cities should work or function but the truth remains that there is far more corporate clout in that city than in Hamilton.

Hewlett Packard in Mississauga will have more to say about LRT than a Latin American Deli on King St in Hamilton.

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted February 26, 2014 at 12:48:52 in reply to Comment 97950

I totally agree. My above post is merely in response to the claim that it's some West Van/ yuppie/ latte-sipping/ pet rail project that won't benefit anyone but the snobby elites.
In fact, it will benefit Code Red like nothing we've ever invested in that area in over half a century.

And yes, as you demonstrate, it will link together our largest employers, cultural venues and diverse neighbourhoods. It really is the perfect LRT route.

Permalink | Context

By z jones (registered) | Posted February 26, 2014 at 10:31:58 in reply to Comment 97943

Clearly you missed where he wrote, "These pics mirror King, Cannon and large swaths of Kenilworth and Parkdale." Now go find somewhere else to troll.

Permalink | Context

By bvbborussia (registered) | Posted February 26, 2014 at 08:53:26 in reply to Comment 97920

Fantastic photos. Anyone who argues that the the B Line is elitist is either crazy or being deliberately deceptive. The reason why nobody wants to support this thing is because nobody wants to see a $1B being poured into lower city Hamilton.

Here are some of the reasons why: they're poor, don't vote in large numbers, have no political affiliations, don't donate to political parties, are new immigrants, have no voice in media and generally accustomed to getting the short end of the stick when it comes to these sorts of things.

Poor people, right or wrong are generally passed over when it comes to these sorts of projects. Not just in Hamilton, all over this country and the world as well. Just look at Toronto whose subway system is wholly inadequate for a city of its size but whose last extension was made along Shepherd. That decision was made to allow for luxury high condo development and almost nothing to do with getting people around better.

I can't see any politician - at any level - sticking their neck out to get a major infrastructure project like this done in lower Hamilton. I often read about how HSR buses along the B Line drive past riders because their too full. Trust me, nobody in power cares if this is the case. They can wait to catch the next the one.

This is the reality that's playing out before us.

Permalink | Context

By jason (registered) | Posted February 26, 2014 at 10:19:59 in reply to Comment 97933

The reason why nobody wants to support this thing is because nobody wants to see a $1B being poured into lower city Hamilton.

Bingo. When it was half a billion for suburban freeways or $1 billion for gas stations and warehouses around the airport suddenly all the fiscally paranoid politicians are impossible to find. But invest in Hamilton's lower city???? Have you gone mad!!?? Those people don't deserve this. The same people who whine and cry about how crappy downtown is and write letters constantly to the Spec about "not having been downtown in YEARS", are the same ones opposing any plan to improve the lower city.

Permalink | Context

By highwater (registered) | Posted February 26, 2014 at 10:15:58 in reply to Comment 97933

But of course no one wants to look like the bad guy who won't support infrastructure that would benefit code red neighbourhoods, so presto changeo!, overnight those low-income families and new immigrants are magically transformed into entitled, gen Y hipsters, and who among us doesn't enjoy a good hipster-bashing? Now they can deprive the lower city of investment and feel smugly superior at the same time! It's brilliant, really.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By banned user (anonymous) | Posted February 26, 2014 at 10:31:43

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 Rally (anonymous) | Posted February 26, 2014 at 14:04:18

It's clear LRT is necessary for many reasons (getting around, impact on enviornment, economic), and for me the political and social justice issues tied to its becoming a reality are huge. I for one am ready and willing to attend a rally in support of this cause.

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