Municipal candidates respond to RTH policy questions related to the city's street infrastructure.
By Ryan McGreal
Published October 21, 2014
Raise the Hammer sent a list of policy questions to all the candidates for Mayor and City Council. This week, Raise the Hammer reviews the mayoral candidates' positions on the policy issues in advance of the municipal election on Monday, October 27.
Over a single night in October 1956, on the advice of American traffic engineer Wilbur Smith, the City of Hamilton converted a great swath of downtown streets from two-way traffic to paired one-way traffic.
Original One-Way Street Plan for Hamilton prepared by Wilbur Smith and Associates
The goal was to move more cars through the Victorian street grid at a higher speed, and the plan succeeded fantastically at that narrow objective. Unfortunately, that success came at a steep cost: Hamilton streets became more unpleasant and inhospitable to pedestrians, street retail businesses suffered and property values began to decline.
Within months, downtown business owners were already begging to convert the streets back to two-way. As one King Street proprieter lamented, "Our windows are no good nowadays, people have no time to stop and look. Nobody comes from the west end of the city any more. We would like to see King Street two-way once more."
By the 1960s, the City was already wringing its hands over the blight and decline that had taken hold across the lower city. Large, misguided capital projects in the 1970s and 1980s demolished whole city blocks of Victorian buildings and replaced them with flashy anchor institutions and suburban-style malls. Many other buildings and blocks were demolished and simply left vacant.
Whole blocks with nothing but surface parking (RTH file photo)
As employment in Hamilton's heavy industry sector has declined steadily over the past few decades, the volume of cars on lower city streets has been declining as well. Between 2000 and 2010, daily traffic volumes on our one-way arterials dropped significantly, further eroding whatever justification there once was to sacrifice the vitality of the lower city for fast automobile traffic.
|Location||2000 Volume||2010 Volume||Change||% Change|
|Cannon E of Sherman||16,000||10,800||-5,200||-32.50%|
|Cannon W of Sherman||11,000||9,100||-1,900||-17.27%|
|Cannon near James||18,000||16,700||-1,300||-7.22%|
|Bay N of Main||15,700||12,400||-3,300||-21.02%|
|James S of Herkimer||30,000||18,700||-11,300||-37.67%|
|Main at Dundurn||41,100||37,300||-3,800||-9.25%|
|Main E of Bay||31,000||28,400||-2,600||-8.39%|
|Main near Kenilworth||32,000||20,300||-11,700||-36.56%|
|Queen S of Charlton||13,000||12,200||-800||-6.15%|
|Hunter W of John||11,000||7,500||-3,500||-31.82%|
The trend all across North America points strongly to a long-term decline in overall driving as Baby Boomers continue to age and young Millennials turn en masse away from the automotive lifestyle.
In Hamilton, we are left with a legacy of expensive, overbuilt streets that we don't need and can't afford to maintain.
Five mostly-empty one-way lanes on Main Street running right across the city through the downtown core (RTH file photo)
wellington Street North during afternoon rush hour (RTH file photo)
Birch Avenue, overbuilt legacy of an undustrial past (RTH file photo)
Wilson Street at Victoria (RTH file photo)
Hamilton streets are engineered for illegal speeding, which predictably results in dangerously fast speeding and horrific high-speed collisions.
Illegal speeding on a residential street past a public park and playground (RTH file photo)
Smashed car after a July 2014 single-vehicle crash on Main Street near Victoria (Image Credit: Joey Coleman)
September 2014 collision on Wilson Steet near Steven Street (Image Credit: Joey Coleman)
Meanwhile, cities around the world are committing to the principle that streets should serve a variety of public needs instead of overwhelmingly catering to automobile traffic. The term "complete streets" has come to refer to street designs that accommodate a variety of users, including people on foot, on bicycles and on transit as well as people in cars.
Many cities are embracing the "Vision Zero" commitment to eliminating traffic deaths that originated in Sweden. It starts with the principles "No loss of life is acceptable" and "We are human and we make mistakes". It employs street design to protect people against predictable mistakes so that a simple error in judgment does not result in death.
Traffic volumes and deaths in Sweden, 1950-2008 (Image Credit: Vision Zero Initiative)
Two-way, complete streets are better for business, better for local residents safer for all road users - including drivers - and support better neighbourhood equity.
One-way streets in particular have been found to be more dangerous for children, despite the intuitive - but false - assumption that it's safer when you only have to look in one direction for traffic.
Likewise, high-quality continuous, physically protected cycling infrastructure more than pays for itself in various economic, health and safety benefits while reducing the city's infrastructure lifecycle obligations.
A new three-kilometre protected cycle track on Cannon Street just opened in mid-September, and almost immediately attracted as many as 400 bike trips a day - a huge increase over the very low level of cycling on that street before the cycle track was installed.
However, that cycle track was designed by an outside consultant, IBI Group, after the Yes We Cannon citizen initiative inspired Council with a broad-based campaign involving thousands of residents. Otherwise, cycling projects designed by the City under the 2009 Shifting Gears Cycle Plan have been decidedly underwhelming.
Guy wires obstructing a multi-use path off Longwood Road South (RTH file photo)
Cars are encouraged to use the York Boulevard bike lane as a right-turning lane (RTH file photo)
A plan to add painted bike lanes on Herkimer and Charlton right inside the dangerous "dooring zone" of curbside parked cars and without bike boxes at intersections was put on hold after the Durand Neighbourhood Association objected to their unsafe design.
Council approved a Transportation Master Plan in 2001 that included a number of two-way conversions of Hamilton's one-way thoroughfares. Despite impressive results on the James and John Street conversions and the total absence of chaos and doom as a result of allowing cars to drive in both directions on a lower city street, the City has stalled in converting more streets to two-way. Council recently balked a modest proposal to complete the easy, inexpensive two-way conversions that were approved 13 years ago.
We asked the candidates three specific questions related to the city's street infrastructure:
Do you support converting more of Hamilton's one-way thoroughfares into complete, two-way streets that support walking, cycling and transit?
The City's Cycling Master Plan is up for review. Do you support improving the plan to speed the installation of cycling facilities and provide more high-quality protected infrastructure like the new Cannon Street cycle track?
Do you support implementing a Vision Zero for Hamilton, with a goal of eliminating all pedestrian and cyclist deaths on our streets? If so, what specific actions would you take to implement this policy, and if not, why?
You can click through each question to see how all the candidates for Mayor and for every City Council ward responded to the question.
Among the "big three" mayoral candidates, only Brian McHattie responded to our policy questions. McHattie has long supported converting more of Hamilton's one-way arterials into complete, two-way streets that encourage walking and cycling.
On two-way, complete streets:
Yes I support fully the implementation of our existing plan to convert many streets to two-way. The delays in implantation need to be addressed immediately.
On the city's cycling plan:
Yes I support a full review of our Cycling Master Plan. I support where the plan is going, but I think cycling has evolved since the original plan was developed. In other words it need to be supported and updated. We need to ensure not only that we have bike lanes, but that we make it a stated priority to make them separated and of the calibre of the Cannon cycle track wherever possible.
On Vision Zero:
I support this idea strongly. We need to increase the safety all of our residents as they walk within and beyond their own neighbourhoods. Specifically, I think the North End Neighbours have taken a very active role in making their neighbourhood safer for all. I support the work they have done and hope other neighbourhoods adopt these methods.
Baldasaro takes a more middling approach to our street infrastructure. He is reluctant to implement two-way conversions and bike lanes and prefers to control pedestrians and cyclists through enforcement and licencing rather than street design.
On two-way complete streets:
Only where logical and it makes sense. Remember, people with money to spend, tend to drive automobiles and poor access like the Bus Lane downtown is keeping those people away from the Core.
On the city's cycling plan:
Again, only where logical and it makes sense. First and foremost, we must repair pot holes or fend off lawsuits over damaged vehicles and perhaps accidents pot holes and sink holes, common around faulty water mains, occur.
On Vision Zero:
Yes. I would stringently enforce jay walking by-laws, especially on the corner of King and James. All cyclists and bicycles must be licensed if on main streets and all riders must adhere to the rules all motorists abide by and/or face the loss of their ride, depending on the infraction and history of the rider and condition of the bicycle. All electric bicycles as well as sidewalk scooters must be insured.
Crystal Lavigne prefers to maintain the status quo of streets designed mainly for cars. She says she supports the goal of eliminating traffic fatalities but offers no suggestion on how to achieve this.
On two-way complete streets:
In short, no, I do not.
On the city's cycling plan:
At this time, absolutely not. I am not against properly designed bike lanes, nor am I against cyclists, however, at this time, I do believe that we have many more needs that need to be addressed before we work on any more expensive new projects. First and foremost, how can we even begin to think of wanting to increase our cycling infrastructure on roadways, when those roadways are falling apart? I think we all need to bring common sense back to the table here and realize that we have to work on fixing what we have first, before beginning to make any "improvements".
On Vision Zero:
Of course I would love to be able to eliminate all pedestrian and cyclist death on our streets. I would also love to eliminate death due to motor vehicle accidents on our streets as well.
Michael Pattison supports two-way conversions and complete streets on non-arterial roads while maintaining arterial roads for truck traffic.
On two-way complete streets:
I commend RTH on these questions because if each candidate answers truthfully you will know where we stand. I endorse complete streets that support walking, cycling and transit. I want to see traffic calming reach a safety standard that is second to none. That said. identifying Direct routes through our neighbourhoods including existing alleyways improves the safety and well-being of our citizens.
Two-way street conversions seem logical on non-arterial roads. I realize the value of having consumers being able to identify business on arterial roads but we must also look at our shipping and logistic needs for all industry in Hamilton. I don't want heavy trucks and machinery moving at turtle speeds through our city spewing diesel exhaust at exorbitant rates. The more direct we can make these routes at safe speeds with little interruption,the better our air quality will be.
Can we create east-west and north-south shipping routes that would handle all logistics traffic? Can we create perimeter warehouse districts that act as efficiency models for delivery of everything within our municipality? I ask these questions because I am trying to look forward and plan strategies with the budget in mind.
I look at life like a wheel: when you are addressing a spoke that is part of the rim always remember that the other side of the rim must be balanced with another spoke. Careful even tension creates the most efficient ride that is balanced, strong and ready to move forward.
On the city's cycling plan:
I absolutely support improving the plan. Do we broach the thought now or later in regards to licensing bicycles though. Would cyclists accept an annual fee of approximately $120 to license their bicycle in the city with 80-90% of all capital raised going towards future bike and transportation initiatives? I am not saying that this is happening but I must address the shortfalls of our city's budget.
While aiming to fix our aging infrastructure and embarking on fantastic initiatives like protected cycle tracks, our city needs revenue. All new construction decisions, have to have, at their core, an understanding of future needs.
Small per square foot fees should be added to building permits to pay for, and encourage, the arts, culture and health initiatives. Until we further figure out a way to diminish or make much more efficient our culture of cars, new ideas cannot be left out. There is a way to pay for today while raising future funds for tomorrow. Your health, and the planet's health, are in need of a serious culture overhaul. :)
On Vision Zero:
I do support Vision Zero as safe streets are a priority when establishing family friendly neighbourhoods. As far as implementation of this policy we would have to data collect the primary reasons for all deaths and injury. We would also have to look at known trouble locations and what makes them more dangerous than the rest of our city. If visibility is the issue, is it buildings too close to corners? Is it parked cars in the vicinity that create the ensuing chaos? Once we mitigate the most common factors that lead to pedestrian deaths in our city, then we can make the best decision in order to fix these ongoing problems.
We have not received responses from Ejaz Butt, Mike Clancy, Brad Clark, Fred Eisenberger, Warrand Francis, Phil Ryerson or Ricky Tavares. Nick Iamonico has no contact information and so we were not able to send him the questions.
By DissenterOfThings (registered) | Posted October 21, 2014 at 09:45:20
Sandy Shaw, Aidan Johnson, Jason Allen - I agree with all 3 of you, I am in your ward, it is time to consolidate under one name. You are going to badly split the progressive vote in ward 1 and hand the election to Tony Greco.
By Fake Name (anonymous) | Posted October 21, 2014 at 10:41:31 in reply to Comment 105480
I'm actually more worried about Ira Rosen than Tony Greco. Rosen seems to have poached much of Greco's voters and is a much more moderate and palatable candidate than Greco, so he could easily come up the middle.
Ira talked the best game about student housing problems so the entire university neighborhood is surrounded by a ring of Rosen signs... and if you look at the RTH questions, Rosen falls further to the right on urbanism issues than the other three. He's lukewarm on LRT, his only concrete comment on the bike-lanes issue was more *enforcement*, and iirc at some point he floated the idea of selling the undeveloped part of MIP to a big box retailer.
Ward 1 can do much better. And yes, Allen, Johnson, and Shaw will have ask themselves a hard question... I'm pulling for Allen in spite of his less-polished campaign, but it seems like Johnson has the most momentum. But Johnson and Shaw both seem to have higher political aspirations than just ward councillor, so I don't expect they'll back down as I'm sure riding the election out to the bitter end is better for their personal political careers.
By Desmond (anonymous) | Posted October 21, 2014 at 10:24:56
How about some pictures of empty bike lanes? Those should be easy to find.
By Or of empty buses, 2-ways, etc (anonymous) | Posted October 21, 2014 at 20:38:28 in reply to Comment 105481
By rednic (registered) | Posted October 21, 2014 at 21:32:57 in reply to Comment 105506
can't you post them ?
By rednic hillbilly (anonymous) | Posted October 22, 2014 at 18:38:07 in reply to Comment 105512
By rednic (registered) | Posted October 21, 2014 at 15:32:34 in reply to Comment 105481
why don't you take some while your stuck in traffic on a road with a bike lane ?
Your probably the same person who complained about cyclists while you weaved through traffic on cannon street, trying to the front of the pack.
By Fake Name (anonymous) | Posted October 21, 2014 at 10:48:18
The bike lanes in the city are at most one lane in each direction. You can't shrink a bike lane any further like you could a roadway.
I mean, a little 2-lane road in front of your house might only carry one car per-hour, but nobody would say it should be removed completely, and the only option to cut down bike lanes would be their removal. There are no 3 or 4-lane bike-lanes in this city that could be shrunk or reconfigured into 2 or 1-lane bike-lanes.
By ScreenCarp (registered) | Posted October 21, 2014 at 11:32:30
I'm actually relieved the McHattie doesn't support the conversion of more of our one way streets.
I'm not going to bother arguing with a true believer again, but to review... it's not actually the problem with our streets, it was not an immediate failure, it was not the reason for the decline of the downtown core, and in no way are two way streets safer than one way.
By jimbob88 (registered) | Posted October 21, 2014 at 11:35:01
LRT’s Unintended Consequences
The previous four notes have covered the LRT topics of: the false assessment increase claims, the lack of transparency in the alleged business case, the dangers in the fine print and the misleading claims about lower LRT operating costs. This note will cover just two of the unintended consequences of the Hamilton LRT proposal if it were ever to be implemented.
But first a little context about the Main/King one-way pair is needed. Today, the only complete lower city cross-city route is the Main/ King one way pair. A Burlington Street connection to the 403 was once envisioned (in the ‘70s) but this was (thankfully) abandoned as it would have significantly impacted the north-end neighbourhoods. The nearest current alternative express cross-city routes are the Skyway or up the escarpment to the Linc, but both of these are way out of any practical range.
So the Main/King one-way pair with the inherent higher capacities of one-way operation, synchronized signals and fewer intersection turning conflicts currently performs the dual roles of acting as the only continuous cross-city connection and also providing arterial access to and from all lower city businesses. The important Main/Victoria/King/Wellington “square” provides a major connection to the Hamilton Mountain. Disturbing these relationships would have serious unintended consequences.
The final LRT plan  includes the reversion of Main and King to two way operation and the elimination of two of the four general purpose lanes of King Street in order to accommodate an exclusive LRT right of way.
From the Report: “The degree of control of the crossing of the reserved transit lanes will be fully restricted except at signalized intersections in protected phases, with no exceptions”. 
The consequences are that all travel across the two centre LRT lanes would be prohibited and that all left turn movements and cross-street movements at driveways, or intersections (except signalized) would be prohibited. Attempts to mitigate the problems that these restrictions would cause, would include allowing “U Turns” at signalized intersections in order to provide access to properties or destinations on the opposite side of the street. However, this would not be possible for the 6.6 km section of King Street from the Delta to Paradise Road. “U Turns” could not be allowed due the absence of any room for U turn (or left turn) storage lanes.
Or put another way, if one is proceeding westbound on King past the Delta, the next left turn opportunity is Paradise Road, 6.6 km away. The same is true in the opposite direction from Paradise Road to the Delta on the proposed two-way King Street. The “response” will be to make three right turns instead, which we all know is totally impractical.
From the Report: “In the sections with a road allowance of 20m or less, local traffic lanes would be provided adjacent to the curb but stopping, loading, or parking would not be permitted in those lanes” .
Due to insufficient room to accommodate LRT as well as two general purpose lanes in each direction, there would be no stopping on both the north and south sides of King Street from the Delta to Paradise Road with the exception of the very few existing loading bays. It is not known what would be planned for the existing two lane section between Wellington and Catherine as the functional planning report did not address this problem at all. The functional planning report is incomplete as it does not include functional plans for the section of King Street between the Delta and Wellington and no lane details on the section between Wellington and Catherine. No wonder.
All commercial and private loading and unloading would be expected to take place on the side streets or possibly between 2 am and 5 am when the LRT would not be running, notwithstanding that the removal of all parking and operating-hours access that is considered to be vital to the survival of many of the adjacent businesses would be gone.
Unless 90% or more of the customers of King Street businesses between the Delta and Paradise Road come from the adjacent residential neighbourhoods or businesses as “walk-ins”, these businesses should seriously be considering month-to-month lease extensions and contingency plans.
Does the Chamber know about this?
The irony is that with the reversion to two way operation and major losses of traffic signal progression (it’s all about math) an LRT vehicle would take longer to travel the length of King Street than a transit vehicle does today. This includes an allowance for the touted LRT “traffic signal pre-emption” that is easily proved to be ineffective under Hamilton’s conditions (Portland is different).
The other irony is that LRT, touted as being a stimulus for business growth and development would have the exact opposite effect.
But these kind of details are absent from the PowerPoint presentation that may have been used to inform others and the functional report is only one of many key reports and documents that are no longer on the Hamilton LRT website.
It is unfortunate that when Hamilton was originally laid out, the major street rights-of-way were not set at 40 meters or more - but they were not. “It is what it is” and more practical and affordable solutions need to be explored.
 LRT Functional Planning Analysis B – Line Corridor MRC Consultants April 2009  ibid Page 7 Section 4.3.2 Para 1  ibid Page 7 Section 4.3.2 Para 2
By Josie (registered) | Posted October 25, 2014 at 18:32:45 in reply to Comment 105486
Leaving one way streets would have allowed for more bike lanes and a plan for buses to move more rapidly if equipped to control traffic signals. I guess whoever took those pictures doesn't drive or take taxis. Personally i'd rather cross a one way street than 2 way that argument is bogus which is why we now have more lights on streets that were converted you couldn't cross them. As for boasting about B line ridership of 10 million per year and then constantly citing Calgary's lrt with a ridership of about 300,000 per day what a joke do the math and read about the problems shuttle bus anyone? I want to see a city with a comparable geography's solution to public transportation and a study of who is coming to the core to work postal codes of employees would provide this info, downtowns only do well if there are workers any business owner will tell workers in their area are their bread and butter anyone else is gravy. Until we attract more employers to the core it will not sustain these sorts of projects. We need to plan better and not just jump on a band wagon
By jimbob88 (registered) | Posted October 21, 2014 at 11:38:25
Lack of Transparency in Hamilton LRT Study
A business case analysis is of key importance in the evaluation of the viability of major transportation projects and is usually cited as justification for the selection of one transportation alternative over another. A benefit cost value of greater than 1 is an indication that benefits exceed cost; a benefit cost value of less than one indicates that costs exceed benefits. The current published benefit cost ratio for the Hamilton LRT project is a low 1.1 Ref: 
The business case or cost benefit analysis for the Hamilton LRT proposal would involve hundreds of calculations, including a host of variables and assumptions for each individual year of the project’s 25 to 30 year proposed life cycle.
Without full disclosure and transparency, business case analyses could take on all the appearances of a “black box” into which undisclosed data and assumptions have been entered and the outcomes presented without opportunities for independent review of either the data going in, or the data coming out.
The Hamilton LRT project’s website includes the “Hamilton King-Main Benefits Case” report, The report includes an Appendix A entitled “Input Variables and Assumptions“ Ref:  but key variables and assumptions are not listed. Further, there appear to be no published appendices to the report on the website that include all the assumptions, tables and calculations that were used for determining the business case for the Hamilton LRT (or the BRT alternatives).
These missing tables are typically comprised of spreadsheets that include a year-by-year breakdown of: current and projected transit and LRT ridership in the corridor; revenue forecasts; capital and operating cash flows; non-transit vehicle travel; ridership and vehicle occupancy - to name but a few. Also included would be the references for capital and operating costs, fare box revenues, corridor travel times and all other variables that were used in the calculations of the business case and benefit cost value.
The information needs to be published in sufficient detail that the assumptions, calculations and results of the business case analysis can be independently reviewed. At least one other Canadian jurisdiction readily made such information available to the public by publishing it on its LRT project website.
In one case in Canada, an LRT study reported a benefit cost ratio of 1.6, however, upon close examination; the benefit cost ratio was determined to be about 0.3 with actual LRT project costs coming in at over 3 times its benefits.
Light Rail Transit is an important and effective means of public transportation in cities with populations in excess of 750,000 and with downtown core employment in excess of 50,000. Other complimentary demographic conditions are also needed to warrant the implementation of LRT. For smaller cities, LRT is not viable and LRT’s alleged benefits can experience difficulty withstanding close scrutiny. The risks are: onerous on-going operating deficits; business and residential tax increases; and conventional transit service reductions to support a system that is not the best transit solution for the municipality.
 Page 4, Hamilton King-Main Benefits Case, February 2010  Page 54, ibid
By kevlahan (registered) | Posted October 21, 2014 at 12:20:58 in reply to Comment 105488
How many of these cities have populations greater than 750,000? Answer: only a handful. The vast majority have total urban area populations far smaller than Hamilton.
Oh, but France is somehow completely irrelevant for "North America" (but we're talking about Canada here). Actually not:
And, Canadian rates of driving and licensed vehicles per capita are actually much closer to Europe than to the USA:
And what were the populations of Calgary and Edmonton when they started building their LRT systems? About 10-15% smaller than Hamilton's:
"The population was just over 445,000 when the route first started construction in 1974." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmonton_Li...
The population of Calgary was about 470,000 in 1976 and construction of their system began in 1977.
We don't need to guess about whether LRT can be successful in cities similar in size to Hamilton (and whether there would be "traffic chaos"). We have plenty of examples, including two right here in Canada.
And the land use study, Environmental Assessment and 30% engineering design by Steer Davis Gleave http://www.steerdaviesgleave.com (top integrated consulting transportation engineers) show that it is feasible.
Of course if you are going to claim every single study by Metrolinx, various consulting engineers, city staff, various independent institutes and the McMaster Institute for Transportation and Logistics are falsified, inept or done by unqualified people it is difficult to have any meaningful discussion.
There is definitely no conspiracy to force LRT onto an unsuspecting public: this has been (by far) the most studied, designed and publicly consulted infrastructure project in Hamilton's history!
Comment edited by kevlahan on 2014-10-21 12:30:07
By byron zorzos (anonymous) | Posted October 21, 2014 at 18:10:23 in reply to Comment 105489
One cannot explore this file out of context. Only vague generalizations or projections can me devised unless exhaustive studies are performed.A cut and paste business case will not suffice when formulating a transit infrastructure project of this magnitude where little empirical information yet exists to establish even a credible baseline from which to extrapolate. Any attempts to the contrary merely smack of salesmanship.
By z jones (registered) | Posted October 21, 2014 at 19:10:50 in reply to Comment 105502
Oh bullshit, you don't get to pretend we didn't just do years of Hamilton specific LRT studying and planning. Now get back under your bridge.
By CharlesBall (registered) | Posted October 21, 2014 at 15:00:56 in reply to Comment 105489
No,the Red Hill Creek Expressway was the most studied, designed, publicly consulted and in fact LITIGATED infrastructure project in Hamilton history. But that did not stop some well known people from screwing with the process so much that it delayed the project for 30 years adn cost all of us a fortune.
Wait till the public finds out (they never read studies) that they will not beable to turn left and that their local Dairy Queen is going out of business. Some smart objector will start some environmental study or something.
As I have said repeatedly, this should be a ballot box issue.
By Anon (anonymous) | Posted October 21, 2014 at 15:41:21 in reply to Comment 105495
I hope their Dairy Queen doesn't go out of business because no one can turn left. If so, the one on Main St. should be closing any day now.
Please tell me my Timmies drive-thru is going to be OK.
By Noted (anonymous) | Posted October 21, 2014 at 12:58:41 in reply to Comment 105489
Would that Keolis, Transdev or Connex/Vivendi were operating Hamilton's transit system.
By KevinLove (registered) | Posted October 21, 2014 at 17:09:02
I live in Ward 2, and observed that one of the Ward 2 candidates, Kristina Heaton, wrote about the Cannon cycletrack: "People are stealing the planters..."
Although I have not taken inventory, I have not noticed any planters missing. Does anyone know anything about this?
By Or Cont'd (anonymous) | Posted October 21, 2014 at 20:47:37
Show us some pictures of sprawl. Bring on the sprawl/lower our taxes?
By logonfire (registered) | Posted October 24, 2014 at 19:01:03
Well, you got no reply from Clark. Doesn't surprise me. His "kiss of death" for me was when Bob Bratina endorsed him! We shall be well rid of Bratina and I am sure the "support" is motivated by politics as Bratina aspires for a higher office and he thinks/knows that Clark's connections can help him in some way. God help us if he wins!! I wish Clark well, but let me say "Goodbye" now.
Comment edited by logonfire on 2014-10-24 19:01:41
You must be logged in to comment.
There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?