Raise the Hammer

Well then, let's get on with it.

Our all day GO is going to cost over $2B, double that of B-line LRT, both of which are a small drop in the BIG MOVE budget of $50B

Get your cheque book out!

we're getting our cheque book out regardless. Let's at least snag a billion for our own community instead of simply sending it all to TO, Ottawa etc....

We're getting our chequebook out either way. Toronto is getting new rail transit, Ottawa is getting new rail transit, Mississauga is getting new rail transit, Waterloo is getting new rail transit.

Do you want a piece of the pie you're paying for, or are you generously donating tax-dollars to cities that are somehow less-fortunate and more-deserving than Hamilton?

I'm becoming less concerned about whether the system will handle bikes and more concerned with how I'll use it with my walker. I think I was commenting on fitting strollers on when the planning started.

Two business days after the election the MoE announced that none of the bids for the Randle Reef clean-up were in-budget. Two business days. I think it's clear what the Province thinks of Hamilton, regardless of election soundbites.

Environment Canada (federal) is the one handling the Randle Reef clean-up, not the Ministry of Environment (provincial). Ports- like the Hamilton Harbour- fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government.

Oh, my mistake.

And, no, BRT does NOT require dedicated concrete lanes and "proper" transit stations.

Newsflash: Hamilton already has this.. its called a 'bus'.

I understand all too well the gratuitously insulting statements of a narrow minded bully when I read them.

I seriously doubt you understand much of anything.

BRT - You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

Define what you mean by BRT, exactly, because you're not using the same definition of BRT as everybody else.

It sounds like by "BRT" you mean "the beeline". We've already got one of those.

Don't think of the LRT as a street-car. It's not a street-car. It's an above-ground subway. Compare the TTC subway experience to the TTC bus experience - buses suck, right?

So we want a subway. The bad news is we don't have the money to build it underground. The good news is that Hamilton has so much excess lane-capacity we can build a subway right on the street without screwing up Hamilton traffic too badly (yeah, it's going to screw it up a bit, of course - you can't make an omelette yadda yadda yadda).

Comment edited by Pxtl on 2014-06-17 11:09:15

To Pxtl - there is no single definition for BRT - whatever configuration works to fit the specific, often changing, needs would determine what form BRT takes - regardless of what "Wikipedia" defines it to be. Yes, we do have a "B Line" service, and if there were more routes modeled in the same fashion, both east-west and north-south, it would provide a vastly improved level of transit service in Hamilton at a fraction of the, upfront AND operating, costs of LRT.

To Pxtl, jason and kevlahan - I understand the terminology quite clearly and am not confusing LRT with streetcars. Have ridden both for many years. LRT has existed from the Kennedy subway station in Toronto eastward for decades now. shannon (comment above) has added other quite salient points vis-a-vis the St. Clair disaster.

By the way kevlahan, I don't "claim" to support BRT, I DO support BRT and am well aware of what they actually are.

Fine, let's assume your definition of BRT is just as legit as the one we're using. Please elaborate on it. Is BRT just express buses? What do you have in mind beyond more B-lines?

And remember, we do have an express bus up the mountain. We have an A-line. It's perpetually empty. The mountain buses are a money pit.

To Pxtl - I believe your comment - "Hamilton has budgeted $800 million the the King Street LRT line, which is almost triple the average North American LRT cost per-km...." - serves as a stronger argument AGAINST LRT than for it!

To Not BRT - BRT is no more limited to a single configuration than any other mode of transit. There are subways above and underground, LRT at road level and elevated, single and double-decker buses etc. There is no law which states we must conform to Wikipedia or your rather constricted view of the "facts".

I assume you are referring to the Scarborough RT, which is an elevated system developed in Ontario in the 1970s and 1980s and installed only in Vancouver (as the Skytrain), Detroit (as the people mover) and in Scarborough (Hamilton refused a similar system in the mid 1980s.

Again, this is not at all the same as the street level LRT technology being proposed for Hamilton.

If you want to invent your own personal definitions of BRT and LRT and not explain what you mean, there is certainly no law against it. But it makes communication extremely difficult!

Why not either: explain what you mean by BRT and LRT and why this is specifically relevant to what is being compared in Hamilton (i.e. in the Metrolinx BCA which clearly explains what is being proposed), or just use the terminology in the standard way! Do you support the BRT plan for Hamilton that was analyzed by Metrolinx, or not?

Just say Rapid Transit, and then explain precisely what you mean when criticizing Hamilton's LRT or what you would propose for "BRT" (seems to be just express buses).

$800M is far less than what we're going to be spending in Toronto, Ottawa, Mississauga, and Waterloo. The St. Clair dedicated lane street-car was expensive because they were also doing needed upgrades on hundred-year-old-plumbing while they were at it. Hamilton has billions in plumbing work to do, so some of the cost of the King LRT would be doing that work. Work that needs to be done anyways.

Why should Hamilton accept less?

Toronto has LRT?? Where have I been?

>Toronto has LRT?? Where have I been?

Probably Portland.

Toronto has had streetcars for years, maybe that's what your thinking about. Streetcars are not the same as modern LRT.

BRT (as opposed to express buses) does require dedicated lanes and special stops to enable riders to pay before boarding and board from multiple doors.

Please at least try to understand the terminology first: LRT is not not "streetcars" and BRT is not "express buses".

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_rapid_t...

"To be considered BRT, buses should operate for a significant part of their journey within a fully dedicated right of way (busway) to avoid traffic congestion. In addition, a true BRT system will have most of the following elements:

Alignment in the center of the road (to avoid typical curb-side delays)

Stations with off-board fare collection (to reduce boarding and alighting delay related to paying the driver)

Station platforms level with the bus floor (to reduce boarding and alighting delay caused by steps)

Bus priority at intersections (to avoid intersection signal delay) "

You'll have to do better than "pure drivel" as an intelligent criticism of the economic arguments as laid out in three separate studies of Hamilton's system (by the city, province and McMaster) and demonstrated in dozens of cities in North America and Europe if you want to convince anyone!

Unfortunately, your comment illustrates the confusion propagated by people who claim to support BRT over LRT: many do not even know what BRT and LRT actually are!

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2014-06-17 10:46:08

As someone who has experienced the St Clair right of way in Toronto I would say that a BRT is a better choice. Over 200 businesses went under during the construction, which was supposed to last a year to a year and a half and ended up lasting 5 years. All of the unions piled on a they ended up burying electrical lines and because of the construction, old rotting infrastructure could no take the vibrations from construction and were replaced. Water was running non stop for those five years onto the street from the broken water mains and the construction went 4 times over budget. Traffic is now gridlocked on St. Clair causing more pollution than ever. Large trucks have a hard time making turns and end up using the curb on corners to make the turn. Anything involving a raised platform with rails, whether it be a train or a streetcar will end up costing a lot more in maintenance over time. It was a disaster from the beginning which is why residents and business alike fought to keep this project from happening. Be wise, Hamilton and avoid this like the plague or you will be paying forever. Buses can man

If the St. Clair line was a BRT it would have had the same problems.

Do you like making your life more difficult? How great will it be if we keep spending all our tax money on car infrastructure? Can you try for a couple of minutes to grasp what this continued pattern is going to end with? Try it for 5-10 minutes, have a teeny bit of foresight please.

Comment edited by DissenterOfThings on 2014-06-17 14:52:36

This is the rest of my comment:
Buses can manoever through traffic in case of an accident. A rail vehicle, obviously, cannot. If your taxpayers like throwing money out the window, go for it.

So, do you take the bus? Why not?

Buses make constant long stops, which makes them slow, which throws off the schedule. With the schedule thrown off you get the 30-minute-gap-then-4-buses problem. They also shake the crap out of you and get horribly overcrowded. Plus, the drivers have to juggle managing the boarding process and driving safely and keeping their schedule, which makes them justifiably but unacceptably cranky.

Buses are a miserable experience. We put up with it for short sprints, just like we put up with walking from a parking lot on a hot or rainy day. But expecting anybody who has better options (ie: a car) to take the bus is hilariously naive. You may as well ask them to jog to work. Obviously many folks do take the bus, but they're people without better options (bums, students, and the disabled) or people who are ideologically committed to buses.

But we need people to take more transit. Both for environmental reasons and also so that we can intensify downtown development (instead of giving over entire blocks to parking lots). So we need transit that doesn't suck.

And buses suck.

BRT Buses can't manoever because they are on a separated lane - If you are in favour of BRT fine, but get your facts straight. If what you really mean is more basic bus service than call it that - but it isn't rapid transit: LRT or BRT.

As a straight up comparison LRT is:

Faster
More efficient
Cleaner
More economically efficient
Carries more people
Delivers more economic development benefits

you must remember, folks who say they are in favour of BRT are really in favour of anything that will result in less money being spent anywhere except more roads and highways. Deep down they would rather not spend a dime on transit, but given the opportunity to confuse the public with misleading statements and untrue facts, they will take that route all day long. Sad part is, it's not like Hamilton will get to keep the extra few hundred million if we choose to not build LRT. We'll be sending it to all our competing cities who are begging for LRT money. And we'll be left with the higher operating costs and less economic development of BRT forever, while our competitors invest in a real transportation and EcDev network that will turn them into boomtowns, and allow poverty inc to reign supreme here for decades to come.

Comment edited by jason on 2014-06-17 13:03:37

Hamilton has budgeted $800 million for the King Street LRT line, which is almost triple the average North American LRT cost per-km. I think the planners are ready for that.

In my opinion, the debate will change dramatically once we see the first real LRT lines up and running in Toronto. Then we are not talking about photographs or something that is in far-away Europe or Japan but something that people can easily go and see for themselves.

The Eglinton Crosstown LRT is a good example. Among other things, for about 1/2 its route it is in an underground tunnel, and for the other half in a dedicated right-of-way. Thereby demonstrating the flexibility of LRT.

I note that, if it was not for a certain Rob Ford cancelling the project while it was underway, the Sheppard LRT would have started operation in September 2013. So we would already have a real life example in operation. Sigh...

Comment edited by KevinLove on 2014-06-17 12:33:41

Then we are not talking about photographs or something that is in far-away Europe or Japan

Or Calgary or Vancouver or Houston or Portland or St. Louis or Minneapolis, to name a few. I do agree with you, but just to say that LRT is not a foreign concept in NA, there are examples of it all over the place already. But yeah, the Crosstown will be helpful in this debate although I would be pretty pissed if we are still just talking in 2020 when it opens.

interestingly enough, every city you mention is working on new lines and expansions of their LRT network. Apparently Hamilton's basement trolls need to do a better job getting out the 'real' facts and info before all these cities keep wasting millions of dollars. And of course, the first LRT lines in these cities must have been colossal failures. Because as we know, cities like to spend precious $ on expanding the network of something that has already proven to not work.

I was born and raised in Hamilton. I have also lived many other cities across the globe, both small and large. I have studied urban planning and worked in a transportation planning office. The process of selecting these projects is far too political, for an obvious decision that will improve people's lives and the future of the city. Hamilton is at another turning point. A smaller city historically, Kitchener-Waterloo is now pegged to grow larger than Hamilton within 5 years, and they have decided to build an LRT in order to meet these growth challenges. Even a suburban paradise like Mississauga has Mayor Hazel championing LRT, for the benefits that it will bring. Hamilton needs to work together, the blue collar, the driver, the rural, the business as usual advocate, along with the progressives, the pedestrian, the urbanite, the politicians, and city planners. LRT is considered higher-order transit. It moves people far more efficiently, freeing up road space for others. It will help businesses downtown with its convenience. We should not be left behind by this decision. We all have to champion an LRT in Hamilton and figure out a plan for the Province and the Federal government to get on board. If Kitchener Waterloo can do it, we should not let this pass us by!

I agree that, like the stadium where you will have some people that didn't want it despite all the money coming from the province, the same for LRT. If you want the money, you have to be in the game despite naysayers as there will be with any large project. LRT, while an expensive proposition, could be a game changer for Hamilton help rejuvenate many areas of the lower part of the city and provide a transportation infrastructure that is needed.

The famous Muslim legal scholar said Imam Shafi said "I've never debated with a knowledgeable person, except that I won the debate, and I have never debated with an ignorant person, except that I lost." Seems to be characterize the situation with these ignorant LRT opposing trolls, an informed argument never seems to defeat them.

Why if they oppose the LRT are they Ignorant? maybe they are just as well informed and you are the ignorant one.

Green is Red, black is white, Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

^Exhibit A.

Looks like the rest of the world is fine with BRT, I guess they are all wrong.

http://www.dmiblog.com/archives/2009/02/...

Why yes, one blogger writing about an interview with a BRT lobbyist who thinks New York should build a BRT line on one street totally represents "the rest of the world", thank you for setting us straight.

Really have you been to Boston? Or Pittsburg? How are there BRTs? Did you like them or are they a failure.

One fact about LRT I know is that if you have a different opinion or idea you will get ripped on this site.

Sorry by the "the rest of the world" I meant 42 countries and 200 systems on 6 continents.. but I am a troll what do I know?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bus...

Comment edited by obarkov on 2014-06-18 12:52:41

No one has claimed that LRT is always better than BRT in every circumstance.

We are discussing whether LRT is better for the B-line in Hamilton, and the City staff and Metrolinx specifically compared BRT and LRT on this line and presented good arguments for why LRT is the better choice.

BRT would probably be a better choice for the A-line route, both because of the escarpment and because of the lower ridership and densities (at least initially).

You'll notice that your list has many BRT systems in poorer countries. Indeed, BRT was initially developed in Brazil as a cheaper alternative to subways or rail based RT. In North America and Europe regular buses, subways, BRT and LRT and heavy rail (like GO) are all used, depending on the specific circumstances. You could have just as easily done a screen dump with dozens of LRT systems, or subways, but it doesn't prove anything about what the best choice is for the B-line in Hamilton, just that other cities have used BRT on some routes!

And you shouldn't be surprised that people are a bit annoyed when you post a dismissive, overly general, snarky comment like "Looks like the rest of the world is fine with BRT, I guess they are all wrong."

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2014-06-18 12:58:54

I've been to Boston and Pittsburgh, have you? Both of them have very successful light rail systems. So do around 400 other cities, and many of those cities are busy adding to their light rail systems because they're so successful.

But feel free to be all butthurt because I called you out on defining "the rest of the world" to mean a BRT lobbyist in New York.

I just don't understand the hate for buses. Its public transit, its cheap, I have taken the bus thousands of times. Its not that bad.

We can do better than "not that bad". Everybody with a car experiences better and faster than "not that bad" and that's why they drive instead of take the bus.

The bus represents the bare minimum form of public transit. It's the Edsel of transit (ironically, I've seen the Toronto CLRV trolleys called the Edsel of trains). It gets you from point A to B with the minimal comfort, speed, convenience, etc. Which is why buses are predominantly filled with poor people who can't afford a car (because of disability, addiction, or being a young starving student) plus a few idealists who use it for ideological reasons.

LRT, subways, and commuter-trains get middle-class people into transit - people who actually have an alternative to transit take these conveyances. People who could drive into downtown will happily walk onto an LRT. They'll push a stroller onto one (instead of receiving the stroller-stink-eye from the bus driver as they painstakingly try to get it up the step). They get there quickly instead of adding a bunch of extra time to their trip.

Comment edited by Pxtl on 2014-06-18 13:18:12

LRT is great to move large numbers of riders from one location to another. Unfortunately Hamilton doesn't have a need to move large numbers from point A to B. The current bus system stops frequently to pick up and drop off riders, as that is what the people of Hamilton need. The LRT would be a waste of Tax payers money in Hamilton. if we had one bedroom community that feed workplaces then I could see the use. We have several areas and not everyone works in the Core. Being opposed to LRT doesn't mean we don't see the value in LRT.

If we don`t have the numbers, how come our CURRENT ridership would put us in the middle of the pack of successful North American cities if we open LRT on the B-Line today, never mind the growth in ridership that would come. These are not projections or estimates, this is our current ridership on an antiquated system.

I guess value is all relative. You certainly see value in having our share of provincial trasnit money go to another city. Whatever feeds you....

Pleas provide the Stats. Our share of what?? you mean the tax dollars we pay? just to be wasted here or elsewhere. what a totally stupid way of looking tax dollars..."we will waste it anyways.

Gosh, trolls just LOVE making other people re-do work that's already been done over and over again just to keep wasting everyone's time. Just go to the search box in the top right corner of this page and type 'ridership on the b-line', there's an easy start for you.

The B-Line already moves large numbers of people from one location to another - enough to fill an LRT line as a matter of fact. But why let facts get in the way of FUD? You see the value in LRT, you just oppose it in the place where all the studies say it makes the most sense. Not ridiculous at all!

What large group of people? If it already does then why do we need to spend so much just to change the type ride they use? Use say we ingnore the facts about LRT in Hamilton! there are no facts about LRT in Hamilton. it is all guess work.

Because the current B-line buses already cannot meet current demand, especially during rush hour when buses are over-crowded and by-passes of full buses are common.

Let alone increased demand from new residents and businesses downtown, the McMaster Innovation Park and other developments already under construction.

Bus frequency cannot be increased significantly without a change to some sort of higher order rapid transit.

There are an (over) abundance of facts about LRT in Hamilton: three professionally produced studies have been written (by the City, the Province and McMaster). If you reject all the data and analysis in these studies as "guesswork" no amount evidence would ever convince you about anything that doesn't already exist!

And the insufficient level of service provided by buses now and in the future is only half the case; the other half is the economic development argument which is also well laid out by these reports and by examples from dozens of other cities.

That's some impressive goalpost-moving right there.

"LRT is bad because there is no ridership"

"LRT is unnecessary because we've already got ridership"

You've pretty much demonstrated you're not really willing to discuss this in good faith.

can't anyone read and understand what they read? I am told we "need LRT". LRT moves large numbers from point A to B in a timely fashion. people don't like the current bus system because of the frequent stops. therefore the LRT will move from A to B quickly carrying lots of riders. if this need is being fulfilled now ,why do we "need" LRT? just because it is new? is there true need? no one will answer the questions.. please don't give links to articles or presentations glorifying the attributes of LRT. just explain why it is need in the Hammer>

please don't give links to articles or presentations glorifying the attributes of LRT.

You ask for Stats and then you tell the commenters not to provide them.

just explain why it is need in the Hammer

The commenters explain and then you disbelieve and ask for stats.

You just want someone to concede to your point of view and you'll go in circles to do it. The answers to your questions were researched and answered years ago by the Rapid Ready team. You just don't like those answers, which is your right, but you pretend they don't exist, and refuse to be shown them.

There, how's that for a clear explanation.

Comment edited by mikeonthemountain on 2014-06-18 12:56:46

Please read my reply: because capacity is insufficient now and in the future, and because of the economic development generated by LRT in the economically under-performing land near the line.

You keep asking people to answer your questions, but these questions have been answered over and over again on this very site.

Why not spend some time reading instead of demanding that others do the work for you.

"Why not spend some time reading instead of demanding that others do the work for you."

Because the point of a troll is to waste everyone's time.

I have, the report writers and presenters all think its great. No one can show a real need for it. They just give examples how it works in other (very different) cities. They estimate the benefits as no one has any hard data on Hamilton. I someone was going to invest in the city if we agreed to build the LRT, then would be a need. one to get the investment, but claiming it will provide possible benefits is not a need. it is a want.

Terry Whitehead, is that you?

I can see you want to make this difficult, so I'll try to make it simple.

Regular bus service makes sense in some places.

BRT makes sense in some places.

Streetcars make sense in some places.

LRT makes sense in some places.

Subways make sense in some places.

Gondoliers make sense in some places.

I'm not against BRT. For some places, BRT makes the most sense. The B-Line is not one of those places. All the studies we have show that LRT will have more riders, more investment and more ROI than BRT and will be more cost effective for us to run.

But yay BRT in places where it makes more sense.

Is that simple and clear enough for you?

Sorry this was a reply to obarkov but the comment is gone.

Ya, I didn't like my comment.

But I totally agree with you. Different systems work in different places.

I just have a feeling that BRT can get done but LRT is going to be a big stretch.

I feel if the gambit is LRT or nothing... we might get the latter.

Now we're getting somewhere. The Province has been promising LRT since 2007, and they LITERALLY just promised again that they will pay 100% capital costs for the rapid transit system Council supports, ie LRT. The research is already done. The planning work is already done. The engineering and design is already done. The Transport Minister loves Hamilton and practically begged us to pick LRT just a couple of months ago. Why would we throw that away and give up on LRT when we're finally so close to the finish line? BRT will be even more controversial to build than LRT since we'd be getting less overall benefit in exchange for dedicating two lanes of Main/King.

Exactly that. Other than the outlay of cash and construction, BRT has all the costs of LRT in exchange for far fewer benefits. And the outlay of cash? Every other city is getting that same deal or better. Why should Hamilton say "no, okay, Ottawa and Mississauga and Waterloo and Toronto can have our money"?

If the Province wants to back off on Metrolinx and say "y'know what, we can't afford all this municipal transit stuff we've got planned - you're all out of luck"... well, I won't be happy, but at least I'll understand. But I'll be damned if I watch Hamilton's nay-sayers screw this up for us the way they screwed up the stadium, while my tax dollars get funnelled into cities that already have far healthier economy and transit than Hamilton.

In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people
I guess because you can't simply state why we need LRT and just want it, it upsets you, sorry

I guess because you like to change your argument, repeat nonsensical statements and just ignore any of the facts or evidence spelled out for you again and again, you've won the Internet. You can go back to bed now, the game is over.

This debate is fantastic. I had no idea how empty the opposition to LRT had become. If it`s literally down to `Hamilton doesn`t deserve LRT` than we don`t need to bother with the detailed facts and figures that we have at our disposal. Life is too short to waste on folks with an inferiority complex. Let`s move on to more important matters...like what to call the system. Ottawa has the O-Trail, I like the Hamiltram.

I think a poll of Hamiltonians on the LRT would shock you. Just a feeling I have, I am not sure if there ever was a poll done. Personally I rarely talk to anyone who is for it... but I may be talking to the wrong people.

Everyone thinks their side would win a poll, until you do a poll. That's why we poll.

There was never an official poll of all Hamiltonians (and I don't think there ever has been one on any big issue in Hamilton), but the Rapid Transit team engaged in the most massive public outreach exercise ever in Hamilton and found overwhelming support based on thousands of comments gathered from meetings all over the city and online.

In addition, Mayor Bob Bratina was elected on a pro-LRT campaign platform.

And, as this article points out, all successful Provincial candidates in Hamilton ran on a pro-LRT platform, and the two candidates who made a big deal about being anti-LRT both lost.

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2014-06-18 17:25:40

"In addition, Mayor Bob Bratina was elected on a pro-LRT campaign platform."

He was? When? His platform was no platform, other than exploring de-amalgamation.

To the extent that he had a platform, he campaigned from a pro-LRT position and only flip-flopped after the election.

A lot of progressives voted for Bratina due to the fact that he took a more progressive position than Eisenberger on many issues such as the aerotropolis. It's quite conceivable that he wouldn't have won if he'd run on an anti-LRT platform.

Comment edited by highwater on 2014-06-18 20:31:45

You're right, my mistake. I took a look at archive.today/XPBAm and it does show that he claimed he would "Work with all levels of government to bring Light Rail Transit to Hamilton".

Some other things that brought a smile to my face:

"As Mayor of the City of Hamilton, Bob will...

* Provide real and effective leadership to our City Council."
"Leadership

As Mayor, Bob will...

- Provide strong leadership characterized by consultation, consensus-building and decision-making that will benefit the greatest number of residents
- Insist on strict adherence by Council to the Rules of Procedure so that Committee and Council meetings will operate in an efficient, business-like manner
- Confront the fact that forced amalgamation has created deep divisions in our community and has not worked effectively to improve the lives of our citizens
"I'm going to lead by example with an open door policy and demand the same of Council. I'll implement the live-streaming of all committee meetings so that the public can see city hall in action.""

Can't wait to see the postmortem on his term as mayor.

Ooh, I call "Tramilton!"

"Traminator!!"

Regarding trolls or others who continue to make nonsensical arguments against LRT, could it be some sort of orchestrated campaign by bus lobbyists in disguise? How else could you explain their refusal to acknowledge sound fiscal, economic, environmental and social arguments FOR LRT? In a tit-for-tat dispute, they may claim that those in favour of LRT might be secretly shilling for the LRT manufacturers. However, at least those who are pro-LRT can claim numerous logical augments and legitimate case studies supporting LRT. For BRT, other than initial cost (for the nth time, which the province will cover) there's not much to recommend it after that. Unless you work for a company that makes them.

This is a bit tongue an cheek so don;t get whacked out, but by my calculations about 30,000.00 people take the bus every day in Hamilton. It's going to cost about a billion dollars to build the LRT. That's $33,000.00 per rider. (I know more will come.) why not buy them all a $15,000.00 car and put the balance in trust to pay for their insurance or a replacement car in 8 years.