Raise the Hammer

Flip-flopping Clark has ZERO credibility on this issue. He is following the Rob Ford approach to transit planning: say anything to get elected even if you throw the rest of the city under the bus (pun intended).

So true. He seems to be all about Stoney Creek which would be fine if he was running for Mayor of Stoney Creek. Hey Brad, there's a city west of the red hill valley.

What's with Clark? Cynical politics, robocalls, breaking election sign rules. It's like he's a Harper/Harris Conservative or something.

All-day GO is popular with people who occasionally visit parts of the GTA and never take the bus - IE most of suburbia. They imagine that Hamilton's all-day GO is something they will use.

Which it is, once... and then they'll find out what we already know: the GO train is slower than the coach bus to downtown TO, and most of the other stops dump you into a giant parking lot in the middle of suburban sprawl with no respectable way to get around. And then they'll never use it again.

But the idea of better GO service to Hamilton sounds dandy.

It's all about prioritizing things that sound useful instead of things that studies have borne out as actually useful.

Can someone please put together some He Said, He Said posters so we can print them off!?

Perhaps Bearded Brad vs Clean Shaven Brad.

I'm not saying Clark is another Ford or that he should serve the same fate as Ford, I'm not saying that. All I'm saying is, I dislike Clark like I dislike Ford.

I dislike Clark like I dislike Bobby B. 'nough said.

It's seriously time for someone to shove all of this in his face on a Q&A. I'm betting he'll just cite some "new information" that changed his mind though, without any actual sources.

The Clark who now believes claims we will end up on the hook for "millions if not hundreds of millions of dollars" in capital costs for LRT

Huh? I see from this Metrolinx backgrounder that LRT costs $35-40 million per km. Perhaps Clark got confused and flashed back to when he was Mike Harris's Transportation Minister and thought 100% provincial funding was coming out of his budget.

All day GO expansion to Hamilton's James N station will cost over $2B, over double the cost of LRT. Which has greater benefit for the city? Which has the potential to be transformative?

Sidenote on signs. I started seeing Ejaz Butt signs appearing in my area on the west mountain. Isn't it too early for lawn signs?

The LRT flip-flop is confusing, but as has been repeated here, it looks like pandering to an older, more prone to vote, base.

Just three years ago, Clark was adamant that there was no business case for all-day GO train service and that Hamilton would be crazy not to hold the Province to their promise of full capital funding for LRT. Now he has reversed his position on both issues.

3 years is a long time. 3 years ago, I wasn't married, I didn't own a home, was in a different job, etc. I don't know that it's fair to play it off that way, as lots of things happen during 1095 days.

"Murray says full-day GO will have to wait until the stretch of track between Hamilton >and Aldershot is ready, and that could be another couple of years after the Pan Am >games.

“That’s expensive. We’re talking $2 billion of investment to buy the track, upgrade >the track and to get the equipment.”

http://www.chch.com/james-go-station-wor...

It's also mentioned in the video

3 years may be a long time in a person's love life, but it is NOT a long time in transportation planning for a city. The only thing that's happened in the past 1095 days is that passenger demand along the B-line has increased, and developers have showed a rising interest in downtown Hamilton. Seems to me like the time for LRT ripens day by day while at the same time, career politicians like clark somehow grow even more blind to the needs of this city.

agreed. The personal life v researched transit plan comparison doesn't really wash.
It shouldn't surprise anyone that a) a seasoned politician would say whatever necessary if they think it will earn a few more votes, and b) that there is still a deadbeat group to pander to in the outlying areas who would happily vote to keep Code Red dirt poor forever if it means more roundabouts, highways and box stores in their areas.

Politicians do not pander to voters but pander to donors. Mr. Clark has been nominated as the elite/business/developers candidate and Mr. Ferguson will get his turn next time. IMHO, all day Go is a red herring to keep useful public transport from happening and the current plan of sprawl/highways/development continuing so the donors can continue to become richer. Some big money is flowing here.

It costs $200,000 to run a mayoral election properly in Hamilton. That's seriously not a lot of money for a decently large company.

Buying a mayoral election would be a very inexpensive proposition.

Reminds me of McHattie's flip-flop on the Linc, or Fred's $1o million dollar west-harbor belly-flop. Views change, as reality changes. Does anyone here on RTH ride the bus for daily transportation? That's what I thought, let the down voting begin.

Of course there are people on RTH that ride the bus for daily transportation.

Daily? No. I bike daily. I used to take the bus, but I don't like to because it sucks.

Hence, I want public transit that doesn't suck.

I am a regular RTH reader and I usually bike to work but will drive when I have to and also in the coldest months of the winter. Bus service is poor between my home and work but since the CIty has chosen to use the provincial gas tax money for pothole filling or other non-HSR related improvements, I'm not the least bit surprised. Improving current transit infrastructure and pursuing the LRT are not mutually exclusive goals as some would lead us to believe - right Mr. Mayor? To Mark-Alan Whittle - what exactly are you implying by your question? "Does anyone here on RTH ride the bus for daily transportation? That's what I thought, let the down voting begin". That everyone who reads this blog have to take the bus before reading or commenting? Do you? If not, why not? What is your solution? What vote Mr. Whittle? Did we get to vote on the Red Hill? The Linc. The Aerotropolis? Keeping one way streets for a decade after recommendations to convert them to two way?

Disagree. Let's play devil's advocate for a while...

Let's say that council was given one set of numbers several years ago. Let's say that since then, Mississauga has almost completed their rapid transit, which they have. I drive by it daily on my way to and from work. Again, I don't claim to have the stats, but let's say like most provincial projects, it's behind schedule and over budget. So, he stops to check the numbers again. And finds it's going to cost a lot more than was initially quoted. Now, the rest of the (lower) city councillors are saying "ahead at all costs!" but he stops to think about what the real cost is and if it's actually the right choice. No harm in changing your stance, and it takes a big person to do so (pun intended).

Now, I'm not sure I believe all that, and it may well be that his donor base is against it, or that his Conservative sensibilities are kicking in again. Who knows? Certainly not me. Either way I won't be voting for Mr. Clark.

I'm not sure that your hyperbole and wild absolutes are accurate here - anyone who seriously believes "the outlying areas who would happily vote to keep Code Red dirt poor forever if it means more roundabouts, highways and box stores in their areas" needs to give their head a shake!

Except that there's a hard $750 limit to how much an individual can donate to a campaign. It's not possible for a large company to bankroll a mayoral campaign - you need lots of donors.

Or lots of shell corporations!