Comment 105369

By WhatAboutThis (anonymous) | Posted October 14, 2014 at 18:26:21 in reply to Comment 105368

It's a shame how we are allowing ourselves to be treated.

And that's a great point about the two lines originally being promised. That would have made the project much more politically viable. The B-line includes 5 wards, and the A-line includes another 2 wards, putting it on the edge of political viability. Run another line across the mountain from Ancaster to Stoney Creek - you've got 11, and we're over the top in terms of political viability.

I'm not saying this position is "strictly speaking correct". But what if we ran 3 BRT lines across those routes, even if the cross-mountain route was a "poor man's BRT"? I'd be surprised if the political support wasn't there!

Including that many wards could have a transformative impact on the way transit is viewed in Hamilton, which would be a huge win long term. The first big transit investment in Hamilton, more than any other, is going to be about shifting mindsets, rather than raw numbers that justify X policy position.

Let's say you go with the LRT on the B-line. Could we not at least use the cost savings to create or improve upon some form of BRT on the A-line and a sort of cross-mountain line?

It's very difficult for outsiders to engage with transit advocates in Hamilton, because the views are already set in stone (good stone mind you, evidence). But you need more than that, you need political support, which sometimes means making compromises, modifying plans, and especially adjusting how you sell them to people.

I hope that we aren't allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good. We should have a (very) long term view, but we should accept pragmatic suboptimal steps to help us get there if required.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds