Raise the Hammer

"With the implementation of protected bike lanes..."

What protected bike lanes? If the author is thinking of Cannon Street, those knock-down sticks are designed to do precisely that: knock down. In other words, zero protection.

There are protective bollards designed to protect human beings in bike lanes by withstanding the impact of motor vehicles. Too bad we don't use them in Hamilton to create REAL protected bike lanes.

They offer some protection and act as a deterrent for drivers to use the lane as a place to stop/park their vehicles. It's a lot better than just having lines on the ground. I don't feel safe biking on lanes that don't have some sort of barrier between me and cars.

Better, yes. And subjective safety is vitally important. But there are engineering standards for protection from traffic violence. The knock-down sticks fail to meet those engineering standards.

Just because things are getting better, we really should avoid getting carried away and over-praising them. Or worse yet, when third-best is better that what we have, settling for third-best and stop trying for first.

Also, in this time of year they pay off in spades as they mean the ploughed snowbanks fall between the bike lanes and traffic instead of falling on the right of the bike lane, to be smooshed by a car and smeared all over the bike lane then solidified into solid blocks of ice.

"Hamilton is the fastest-changing city in the country. The Canadian and Mortgage Housing Corporation says that house prices are overvalued in Canada, but not Hamilton. There is a belief that Hamilton's house prices going up aren't fully related to the unaffordability of the Toronto market."

Hamilton's house prices are out of whack with local incomes. Unless you're braving the Lakeshore West commute which gets worse monthly, we're just as vulnerable to a housing bust as our neighbours.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/n...

Be skeptical with anyone who claims to know what's going on with housing in the GTHA.

I am observing that Hamilton's house prices are an abberation.

• They are REALLY expensive compared to Hamilton average incomes
• They are still REALLY cheap compared to Toronto houses, especially when you consider the family income of a GO train user.

The median family income of a GO train commuter is $107,712 (2011 National Household Survey) and also quoted in articles.

Since we have an unavoidable proximity to Toronto, solutions are needed to give balance to this, including affordable housing developments which I strongly support as well, even as an advocate for transit improvements for everyone at all levels of society.

Comment edited by mdrejhon on 2016-01-07 13:32:56

Mingling residential roads and street hockey is unsafe, too. Mingling legal right turns and crosswalks is unsafe too.

You need to visit Europe sometime to see how a careful managed balance -- of modal mingling (e.g. multi-use trails, calm traffic, etc) and modal separation (e.g. dedicated bike lanes) works. Both works, but all factors must be carefully and wisely considered.

We don't have many parallels in Hamilton, but the closest example we have -- is James St. North. Over twenty years ago, it was a 1-way urban expressway with speeding cars. Today, James St N is a much more tamed corridor that mingles better and on a "relative safety scale" -- jaywalking much more closer to a residential road (where jaywalking is relatively safe; you do not arrest someone for crossing a residential street to reach their suburban house) than a freeway (where jaywalking is dangerous and law should obviously be enforced) as cars are moving much more slowly on James St N. Many people cross James St N nowadays to reach a store across the street. Perhaps it's not legal, but being hit by a car on James St N today would be slower moving than 20 years ago on this particular corridor. Nowadays, many people don't call crossing James St N as being "jaywalking" anymore, just like we don't use the word "jaywalking" to describe crossing a suburban residential road to a neighbour. Please note, the term "jaywalking" was invented to evict pedestrians from roads where they used to always belong for centuries. Legally, it may be different, but just ask any pleasure stroller James St N near Mulberry Cafe, "Is crossing James St N considered considered jaywalking?" and for more of them, you'll draw blank stares.

New homework for jim: Write a critique of both PROS and CONS of the multimodal systems found in other cities. Don't just write about CONS, don't just write about PROS, find a way to critique BOTH the PROS and CONS of multimodal mingling AND also BOTH the PROS and CONS of multimodal separation. Illustrate that in addition to self-transportation benefits, there are side social and economic benefits. Do so honestly.

Comment edited by mdrejhon on 2016-01-07 13:51:33

Make sure you get right on that homework Jim.

Hamilton's real estate prices are not that bad. The anomaly is that Hamilton is lumped in with Burlington and Grimsby's real estate. Burlington, specifically, averages out and raises the Hamilton price because the average home in Burlington is much, much more high and unattainable. Try to find ANY detached Burlington home for $450,000 or under, and then try to find one in Hamilton. Results are staggering.

Spot on. There's a ton of detached properties available all over Hamilton for under $300,000. First time buyers can get into the market here for less than a condo costs. Just saying.

time to climb down off of your perch Mark, I have been to Europe at least once a year for the past 5, visiting more than 10 times in my life. Remarkable how I can remain so lacking in culture with such exposure isn't it? Nice place for a vacation.
So the 'pro" might be that you and your pals get to play make believe and pretend you are somewhere you are not. The "con' is more death, more injury, even more of those road side shrines. A women was killed yesterday by a car backing out of a driveway. The Police estimated the car was travelling no more "than 10km/hr" This is what happens when vehicles "mingle" with pedestrians-people die, and it happens at any speed.
Kindly provide an example of an investment that has performed better than local real estate, and remind us all how roads are to blame for reducing the value of such assets. Has your home decreased in value? Willing to bet you live within a block of the high speed high density arterial's that bedevil you.
There is only one way to eradicate the threat, and it is not what you propose

When one nitpicks at details, the bigger-picture meaning of this posting gets lost.

Is Hamilton perfect? No. Is there a long way to go to improve it? Yes. Does that mean the future is grim and people (long-term Hamiltonians and newcomers alike) can't make a great home for themselves here?

Still missing the point.

Jim, here's a history lesson for you, Hamilton, 1950s, before the 1-way conversion.

The road was calmer back then, and the sidewalk was wider. And much more people milling about, which could happen again after 10 years of a residential boom downtown.

Alas, this is when they converted to trolleybus after they stopped maintaining the streetcar tracks, and creeping towards automobile priority (e.g. track removal after poorly maintaining the tracks, going 1-way, speeding up the road, etc.) and the downtown gradually started getting hollowed out over the next few decades long before the industry downturn completed kicking it already on the ground. Now we're only slowly returning from that abyss, in part thanks to James St N but we still have many years/decades of revitalization ahead, which are also in parallel to the LRT.

Comment edited by mdrejhon on 2016-01-11 09:40:47

You got a situation where there's people and there's dangerous machines that can hurt and kill people. Most people would say you should control and restrict the dangerous machines doing the hurting, but not you, Jim. You want to control and restrict the people getting hurt.

I learned yesterday that there has not been one drone collision with an aircraft in the US to date and yet the current Congress has passed legislation licensing drones etc. etc. and all the while there are over 200 annual collisions between turtles and aircraft in the US yet no cry for licensing turtles.

Cars are dangerous for sure, and statistically by far mostly dangerous to those who are travel in them. But as Jim points out, they are also one of the greatest inventions ever and have overall added incredibly to our quality of life and arguable, statistically, to our life expectancy. The industry and science driven by private transportation is incalculable.

It strikes me as strange that as injury from automobiles has reduced dramatically since the early 70's, the argument about the danger automobiles impose on us has increased. Why is that?

Comment edited by CharlesBall on 2016-01-11 10:54:17

And Jim...

Before you respond, let me point out, I don't mean the silly notion of all streets in the entire grid from Windsor to Quebec City becoming Amsterdam/pedestrianized or whatever -- even German have their revered Autobahns and there are freeways through Netherlands. People still die from traffic deaths, yes, but far lower over there than here.

But let's point out the dramatic Complete Streets related elements already part of the 2011 LRT submissions, with several pages of the submission showing wider sidewalks, curb bumpouts, sidewalk trees, annd in some parts of King, only 1 car traffic lane. This is a great opportunity to install a safer throughfare. Let's consider Gage Park and Hamilton Downtown are only 30 minutes walk apart, yet most prefer hopping into the car because it's so car-optimized a corridor. This will over time, rebalance the modal mix along this route.

The LRT plan PDFs are very slow loading (they are very "blueprinty") but almost shocking of a change. (example screenshot1, example screenshot2, both with "widen sidewalk to 2.5m" notes in them). This is quite an adjustment, but also a great opportunity to make the corridor safer for all modes of transportation.

See, the templates slides, already designed, show that the LRT is one of the biggest street re-taming project in Hamilton ever -- I do not advocate jaywalking on the LRT route though. People will have to cross to get to the LRT stations too, and cross at many points halfway between stoplights, so there will be a lot more crosswalks (And we'd advocate for clear zebra ones + crosswalk signal).

Ultimately, King isn't going to be a high-speed throughfare anymore, with LRT-prioritized signalling and extra crosswalks, and that finally re-inserts a pretty safe crosstown corridor all the way between downtown and Gage Park, and a good recipie for business revitalization & re-pedestrianizing a revitalized King/Main corridors, especially with population re-densification downtown, etc.

But let face it, people will always jaywalk. But it only take a few braincells to stare at the 2011 LRT plan diagrams (which most are being reused, with some updates) and realize that cars are going to move much more slowly in the LRT corridor if those plans are followed, especially considering the wider sidewalks.

It's really not rocket science. There are many ways to improve Hamilton from many POVs, and heck some people think LRT is a downgrade for them (especially if they own a car) -- 6-lane RHVP (an improvement to many, an abomination to others) is technically/theoretically an independent change than the King corridor between Downtown and Gage Park. I've generally avoided getting into that controversy.

The LRT advocacy is unavoidably linked to corridor revitalizations due to the virtue of the 2011 plans, as you can see from the screenshots of the LRT plans.

It will really, really, really slow down my car, which I often speed to the 403 onramp to the Aldershot GO station. But with allday GO and allday LRT< I don't need to take the car anymore. And with more businesses reopening with a nicer pedestrianized corridor already marked into the 2011 LRT plan diagrams, it's a fair trade for a revital.

Hey -- I'm not stepping on RHVP, nor many other aspects of Hamilton you might defend -- I'm just defending the LRT corridor and one of our advocacy's objectives is to not let the 2011 plans get watered down -- and rather, advocate to enhance it where appropriate.

Comment edited by mdrejhon on 2016-01-11 11:42:55

I think there are several reasons:

1. Although deaths caused by automobiles have decreased, they are still the most common cause of "accidental" death. And, don't forget that injuries are very common: about 2500 Hamiltonians are injured each year by automobiles (and about 20 are killed). This is nothing like the drone example!

2. Past reductions show that we don't need to fatalistically accept the deaths and injuries: we can drastically reduce them.

3. The big injury and death reductions have been for motorists (and their passengers). Pedestrians and cyclist death and injury rates have not dropped as much, especially when you take into account that rates of walking have actually been dropping. In fact, pedestrians and cyclists often make up half the total fatalities! It is just not true that cars are mostly dangerous to those who travel in them! Around 90% of automobile collisions with pedestrians/cyclists result in injuries compared to around 35% for drivers.

4. While a lot has been done in the past decades to address motorist safety (e.g. air bags, crumple zone, abs, collision detection, seat belts, better street designs and reducing drunk driving), little has been done to make the streets safer in Hamilton specifically for pedestrians and cyclists. And yet, we know from other cities how to make streets safer for these vulnerable road users.

As a recent study has shown, Hamilton has one of the worst relative pedestrian/cyclist injury rates in Ontario. We can certainly do better!

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2016-01-11 17:45:59

After suicide, unintentional poisoning including drugs and alcohol and then falls, car accidents are the next highest accidental cause of untimely death followed closely thereafter by medical negligence.

if car drivers only killed themselves, then i think it would be fair to compare car accidents to suicides and unintentional self medication deaths via either legal or illegal drugs. But last time I checked, most people who die of alcohol poisoning don't take any bystanders down with them. Unless they are driving a car.

Ok, I can't tell if this post is a joke or not. You're telling me that a driver traveling less than 10km/hr is not at fault for KILLING a pedestrian? Was the driver paying any attention at all or did he black out or something? What in gods name could possibly surprise even the most inept motorist at that speed?

Also, I can see that you don't like cars and pedestrians 'mingling'. So I suggest that you lobby city hall to keep all cars off the sidewalks. How would you propose we get in to parking lots then? Overpasses? We can all park on the streets I guess. Tim's drive thru is off limits. OR we could keep all of the pedestrians off the sidewalks. Is that a better idea or is it fucking moronic?

Finally, just to clear things up, a home on a one way street with no sidewalk will be worth less than a home in a similar neighborhood on a two way street with wide sidewalks and a bike lane.

Not true: see this table of top causes of accidental death in the USA.

Motor vehicles are the highest by far over all and in every age category except under 1 year and 75 and over (where falls and unspecified are higher). Far below motor vehicles in second place is poisoning (suicide is, by definition, not "accidental").

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preventabl...

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2016-01-12 12:25:05

See below response. It addresses what you said, I never advocated mingling for all cases, so please re-read the longer response below which has nothing to do with mingling, this time.

And yes, the new Concession revitalization is more pleasant to walk on even if the others have complained it wasn't good enough (e.g. bikes). Despite imperfections, there are now wider sidewalks, sidewalk trees (Albiet not enough) and curb bumpouts -- exactly what is also part of the LRT plan too. So, are you against the Concession revitalization, too, Jim? And didn't Concession add upgraded crosswalks too? So aren't you being hypocritical, not wanting the LRT corridor to have those benefits?

Also, I interpret you to mean that you are you're against SuperCrawl and other street-closure events? Cars are safely prevented from going onto James St N, so that pedestrians can use that road at that time.

You seem to use the same paintbrush much. Also, I don't have the same carbon copy mindset of Ryan, even if I agree on many things that we have -- for example I'm neutral on 6-lane RHVP -- while Ryan is anti 6-lane RHVP. Not all of us has to agree on every single line item.

Now, please read the below post more slowly as it has nothing to do with creating a Queens Quay style or mixed cars-and-pedestrians corridor at all. It's more of a conversion of an urban-expressway into a Concession/James/etc style artery. The very thing you like at the mountain brow, isn't it not?

Comment edited by mdrejhon on 2016-01-12 13:57:33

Regarding the theoretical concept of bikes-only Sundays I suggested as a possibility, that's with Supercrawl-style barricades. That's not mingling at all, just modal sharing. Perhaps this is what Jim got confused by. Also the suggested pedestrianization of IV is just a tiny fraction (few blocks) and doesn't mingle LRT with pedestrians. And when I mention "mixed traffic" with LRT, that's cars sharing lanes with LRVs for just a few block section (ala TTC streetcar style). Would really slow things down for that few blocks, though, but it isn't mingling pedestrians with vehicles! Just because I advocate multi-use trails in tame corridors (like the waterfront, shared between pedestrians and bikes).

Only if sufficiently revitalized enough by then -- and creates more business (e.g. popular enough that businesses profit more) and there's sufficient Sunday diversion capacity. James St. N was very dead 20 years ago too. It's still a commercial artery but an obviously tamer one.

Obviously, such revitalization attempts can be problematic (e.g. Barton Village) and that's one of the goals of residents to prevent such. Today, both Main-King are in relative terrible shape business-wise relative to history norms, though early signs of promising revitalization potential is occuring already (like Vintage Roasters, The Kitchen Collective, Limin' Ridge, replacing vacant/shuttered shutterfronts or opening adjacent to them).

I (and my spouse, plus some volunteers) have talked to some of them about their opinion of the LRT, like Vintage Roasters, the newcoming businesses are looking forward to the LRT, while some established ones are more worried. We've even found that places like restaurants and coffeeshops were far less worried than, say, a bowling alley that relies on out-of-town bowling club members who need nearby parking. Two coffeeshops, including Vintage Roasters on King, were commenting they were planning to do a coffeecart to the tired construction workers (clever!).

They all like the idea of a James/Concession style revitalization (obviously, exact details are unknown, like how many trees, or how many extra signalled crosswalks are added, but similarities abound in wider sidewalks, sidewalk trees, curb bumpouts, more signalled pedestrian crossings, etc). The very thing you have on Concession Ave, on the mountain brow. There's only one traffic lane in each direction through Concession BIA.

If Jim is okay with what is essentially an enhanced variant of a James/Concession style revitalization (and with more crosswalks too) then I'm not sure we're disagreeing on much for specifically the LRT corridor? (even if we disagree on other things). Obviously, I'd want more sidewalk trees than there are on Concession, and find a way to fit bikes without too many compromises (e.g. renarrowing sidewalks, or making drivers even madder), but those are details, relatively speaking.

(...Certainly a cycle track topic will come up (on either Main or King) or enhanced connections to an upgraded Cannon cycle track, but this isn't a "mingling" disagreement as this is a modal separation...)

Keeping pedestrians and cars apart also means adding more safe crossings (more signalled crosswalks & clearer ones at them), and that's also what's being advocated in the LRT corridor. We can't 100% prevent jaywalkers, but we can do things to (1) encourage people to take crosswalks by adding more of them, and (2) reduce the death rate of those who don't. You can already see that instead of 4 traffic lanes, there's only 1 traffic lanes specifically in the specific section between downtown and Gage Park (I'm not talking about other parts of the LRT route, for the sake of this argument). So vehicle count AND vehicle speed is greatly reduced on this section of King (while still moving more total people, obviously, thanks to the LRT capacity) WHILE also simultaneously there are more crosswalks. So it becomes easier to walk around. Enforcement helps. Overall, the risk of a pedestrian accident goes down. Perhaps this is what you are attacking as "mingling", but read again -- people are encouraged to follow the law and take crosswalks. But we cannot be a police state and get a perfect zero-jaywalk record. (Incidentially: This is one element of partially what Vision Zero is about -- while not everyone agrees with all goals of Vision Zero, many residents and businesses here are agreeing on the taming aspect and revitalization aspects).

More legal signalled pedestrian crossings just like Concession BIA at the mountain brow.. I'd be surprised if you even disagree on that.

There are many crosstown arteries that some traffic management will be needed. There's Barton, Cannon, Main (east of Gage Park), King (west of Delta), and Wilson (east of Sherman). There isn't enough good pedestrian capacity anymore (sidewalks & ease of legal pedestrian crossings) like there used to be historically, and that is very bad, and the LRT is simply helping reinstall some of that separated pedestrian capacity again, even totally ignoring that mingling subtopic.

Unless it's your preference that King between Downtown and Gage remains a high speed multilane car throughfare with lights still synchronized to the cars rather than the LRVs, and often with sections of more than 500 meters between traffic lights for legal pedestrian crossings? That's where lots of the disagreements historically are often occuring, I think.

Comment edited by mdrejhon on 2016-01-12 14:55:08

So it wasn't a joke?!? Oh my god... Please can you explain to me then how a motorist can kill a pedestrian when traveling less than 10kph?

It happened on York Street in November.

Get in your car and drive 10 kph. I tried yesterday and couldn't go that speed without riding the brakes. Any driver that kills someone at that speed should not be driving.

You are afraid of change. I really hope you are not one of those drivers that externalize that fear by deliberately threatening cyclists or walkers that are sharing the road with you.

Anyway, the future is now and you'd better get used to it. People want their public spaces back. Cars will have to slow down. Bikes and pedestrians will have to be given greater access to existing transportation routes.

It wasn't determined that the car was traveling less than 10kph and the driver has been charged with careless driving.

There are many areas where cars and pedestrians will continue to cross paths no matter how the infrastructure changes. Basically boils down to the person who can do the most damage has to be the most careful.

So it IS possible for you to make even less sense! Cool.

In fairness, as much as it matters, little kids and old people are knocked down or run over all the time by people backing out of their driveways at low speed.

That is not what I'm disputing. What I have a problem with is the idea that this can only be prevented by somehow separating cars from pedestrians. It's ridiculous. How is someone supposed to get out of their driveway if they can't cross the sidewalk?

The other point is that any driver who is inattentive enough to kill someone going at that speed (again, try it. Get in your car and drive 10kph.) is 100% culpable. And further to that, I smell BS on this 'report' that a driver going less than 10kph killed someone. You couldn't wrinkle someone's shirt at that speed. Unless of course you closed your eyes, knocked them over and slowly ran them over. Although, at that speed you wouldn't even be able to mount a curb so the car would likely stall before running over a person. Nonsensical.

Comment edited by ergopepsi on 2016-01-14 09:44:31

Sorry. I agree with you. To completely separate cars and people is impossible.

Comment edited by Crispy on 2016-01-14 11:48:18

Comment edited by Crispy on 2016-01-14 12:12:11

That's exactly one of the reasons what the meetings are for -- get ideas, where the LRT advocacy team's workdshop is the residents modify the vision in various elements, e.g. add extra crosswalks, or suggest a safety fine-tuning near the new school near the stadium, etc. Or whatever. Quite open minded, mind you. The 2011 LRT plan templates aren't my vision, but it's a far better vision than what's out there today.

Again, I'm not Ryan. My impression is that you're unfamiliar with the majority of the people opinion along the reoute, as I attend the monthly community meetings here. I even said there are good kinds of 1-way streets, if properly done.

For example, there is always some disagreement on what happens to Main St but the vast majority along the route want to see a corridor taming of some kind (not my vision) go hand-in-hand with the LRT. Which may or may not include Main 2-way, although mathematically a King LRT tends to greatly raise the neighborhood favourability of that option.

Really; The LRT advocacy team isn't blocking options -- the job is to simply relay neighborhood feedback to the City/Metrolnx contacts regarding the 2011 LRT plans, many residents have never seen these plans -- this is all before the city's/province's public consultations that they will do themselves.

Main/King 2-way works incredibly well for cars; but with the LRT taking several lanes off King it no longer works well, and lanes of traffic needs to be somehow reassigned (whether King 1-way or 2-way and which/what sections, and whether Main 1-way or 2-way, etc).

What actually ends up happening may be certainly totally different from the 2011 LRT plans, but it's also the communities' interests to make sure the LRT also have the best social/economic benefits -- which, of course, means more jobs, easier transportation, easier walking, etc. Certainly can't deny that.

However, it's important to do the best that the LRT project continues with the best possible planning and concurrent revitalization (including improvements to other modes, like pedestrians) and is not screwed up with some Edmonton-style fiasco, and the opening of Ottawa/Waterloo's LRTs (both open within the next 2-3 years) will be a turning point. It's quite important to make sure.

I do not have a monopoly on LRT plans. But many, many, many people are agreeing on the importance on doing this properly and avoiding many cities' mistakes. For example, the "Citizen Jury" had a meeting and then the city artist wrote their deliberations into artwork, such as this one:

This is only one of many...from only one group. (one that I'm not a member of, even if I've visited their earlier open-to-public events)

(The Jury meetings were all open to the public, if you were following them.)

The bottom line is there are really many groups, our citizen advocacy, Fred's citizen jury, HCF, the hubs, etc, all vying to provide feedback on the LRT. No all are agreeing but there are many common theme: that when building the Hamilton LRT it should be built right -- not screw it up -- and that we have to get the best social/economic benefits out of it

Dozens and dozens of events and meetings have been held by many kinds of groups (not just ours), some of which we've attended.

(one of the slides of one of the PowerPoint presentations of the Hamilton LRT advocacy team)

Go to any of the events/community meetings (ours or other groups) and engage in healthy discussion. Bringing up ideas that many people disagree with, means you have to work hard to explain why your idea is good, with lots of references and experiences that are found in other cities.

And invariably, they will explain their ideas back to you, e.g. their story they are unable to ride a wheelchair on a section of King, or that they never cross King on feet because it's a 10 minute walk (for their old body) to the nearest crosswalk, or that they don't let kid walk outside unattended like they do in other parts of city, etc.

Many, many, people with an opinion, here and there, many for the LRT while, some against the LRT, and even those against the LRT, some of them are interested and concerned about optimizing the side elements (like better sidewalks which they like the idea of), etc.

One point of view is; recognizing that the LRT is coming and everyone wants to see the best possible outcome (socially/economically) even though there are often disagreements, or not liking all elements of it, etc.

Comment edited by mdrejhon on 2016-01-14 19:53:48

Allan Taylor, is that you again?

Who indeed... welcome back Allan!

Credit where credit due:

(BTW, I don't think that's Allan Taylor posting under another alias)

Both Allan Taylor and myself (Mark Rejhon) are on the Sherman Hub Planning Team.

Surprised?

Read onwards.

Yes, of course, Allan Taylor hates the LRT. That's widely known in social media.

Allan Taylor said he is okay with 2-way for various north-south streets, and Allan said he's okay with curb bumpouts where it is appropriate. At least one Facebook post of his also even agrees some sidewalks are too narrow in parts of the city.

Maybe we may not agree on all specific exact locations of these improvements, but there is certainly line-item agreement overlap. There isn't a 100% perfect polar disagreement with certain elements. Allan's been a longtime Co-Treasurer of Sherman Hub -- and I've been elected Co-Communications Coordinator of Sherman Hub now (Note: Wasn't even seeking position but I said yes when asked if I wanted to run) -- See ShermanHub.ca Contacts with both my and Allan Taylor's name. So we have to engage cordially with people who we disagree with on some elements like the LRT itself.

Also, Matthew Green also attends some of these Sherman Hub meetings too, both before and after election, so there is a very disparate range of people involved.

We are able to operate cordially with people who disagree with us on other elements.

Hating the LRT doesn't necessarily mean hating wider sidewalks, for example...

It's not a black-and-white blanket disagreement, even if there are line-item disagreements, there is definitely a modicum of diplomacy skill involved sometimes (!) -- we have good diplomats -- and a Mac survey has found the Hub operates relatively well thanks to the Hub's work, despite such diversity in what other people think may be polar opposites. (Source: NAS Report by McMaster). Everyone has to work together.

It's not a Obama-vs-Trump "us-or-them" mentality.

...And we love our Hub's kick-ass community newspaper!

Comment edited by mdrejhon on 2016-01-15 11:46:41

Note: Although I'm members of both Sherman Hub Planning, and the LRT Advocacy Team --

The LRT advocacy team isn't part of Sherman Hub, and the LRT team's also been invited to other Hubs already to do the presentation (in various months, February/March/April). And the LRT advocacy team contains members from many other hubs, such as Christopher Charlesworth, a Mohawk College Urban Studies student. Nicholas Kevlahan, from the original hamiltonlightrail.ca site.

And several others on our LRT advocacy team including one who is (unexpectedly to us) running as a Ward 7 byelection candidate! (Obviously, that may tie him up, due to the city's conflict of interests policy, but we'll cross the bridge after election -- like Matthew Green who can't run for a Sherman Hub position anymore because he now holds City office)

Regarding the LRT advocacy, it's a quite an eclectric team, and yes, we don't necessarily agree on everything internally, but we have fun and healthy discussions.

Comment edited by mdrejhon on 2016-01-15 12:05:54

one of the longer non answers in the conversation. If silence implies consent, I will conclude your reply denotes dissent. I continue to believe that encouraging cyclists to use our busier, heavily congested arterial's is dangerous, short sighted and poorly considered. When vision or convenience trump safety the cart has been placed out in front of the horse. Ultimately safety will prevail
Although I do not share your vision, I do respect your willingness to lead the conversation and your level of committment