The City of Hamilton has worked hard and in good faith to try to resolve the Tim Hortons Field litigation situation, however the parties (contractors Ontario Sports Solutions (ONSS), Kenaidan Contracting, and Bouygues Building Canada; the project manager, Infrastructure Ontario; The PanAm organizing committee (Toronto2015), City of Hamilton, and the Hamilton Tiger-Cats) have been unable to reach a resolution to date. The City was not responsible for the construction of the stadium and is confident in its position in the litigation. It maintains its commitment that no additional costs for the stadium should be passed on to its taxpayers.
Since taking over the stadium, there have been numerous issues with the quality of the construction, including the speaker that fell from the overhead standard into the empty seats. To ensure this would not happen again, the City proactively worked to rectify this problem and inspected all speakers, despite not being responsible for the speakers’ original installation or suspension. There were also additional problems with late delivery, construction defects and stadium functionality including issues with a transformer, lighting controls, audio visual, water leaks and mechanical units not installed or connected properly. The stadium was meant to be delivered as a fully functioning stadium that our residents and visitors could enjoy for years to come.
It was also always part of the arrangement that the City and the Tiger-Cats would cooperate and make commercially reasonable efforts to bid for, and host, two Grey Cup games during the first 10 years of the stadium license. The current litigation does not change this, as the City is passing through the Tiger-Cats’ delay claims as agreed, and therefore the litigation is not a barrier to pursuing the Grey Cup games.
With respect to soccer, the Tiger-Cats’ soccer option under their license with the City expired in May 2016. There is no current soccer license agreement in place, and a new negotiation would be required for the Tiger-Cats to bring soccer to the stadium, but the current litigation is not a barrier to that occurring.
The next step is for the parties to submit their statements of defence, which the City plans to do early summer.
Tuesday, June 27, 2017
80 comments:
Your comments are welcome. Please abide by the blog's policy on posting. This blog facilitates discussion from all sides of issues. Opposite viewpoints are welcome, provided they are respectful. Name calling is not allowed and any posts that violate the policy, will not be authorized to appear. This blog also reserves the right to exclude comments that are off topic or are otherwise unprofessional. This blog does not assume any liability whatsoever for comments posted. People posting comments or providing information on interviews, do so at their own risk.
This blog believes in freedom of speech and operates in the context of a democratic society, which many have fought and died for.
Views expressed by commentators or in articles that appear here, cannot be assumed to be espoused by The Hamiltonian staff or its publisher.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
and isn't Kenaidan Contracting one of the bids recently "short-listed" by the Province for our incursion into Light Rail?
ReplyDeleteFamiliarity breeds contempt?
Our elected officials have done us all a real service by providing a look at what we can anticipate moving forward, albeit on a much grander scale.
Unfortunately, I can't find any proof of what you're claiming.
Deletehttp://ontarioconstructionreport.com/kenaidan-president-apologizes-to-hamilton-politicians-for-tim-horton-field-problems/
Is the best I can do, and that says they'll be barred through 2019 from bidding on city contracts. Can't find anything saying they were shortlisted. Could you provide a link so I could check it out? Google searches for "Kenaidan contracting hamilton lrt" yield nothing.
Spider-Man
Groundless guesswork. The short list of RFQ applicants for Hamilton LRT has not been released. IO FAQ:
Delete"How do I find out who is bidding on IO projects?
Once a project enters into the procurement phase, a request for qualifications (RFQ) invites bidders to provide information and demonstrate proven abilities in a number of areas including their financial strength, past experience, capacity and more. Following the RFQ, IO publicly announces the short list of prequalified bidders on our website. The short list or prequalified bidders announcement will provide detailed information about the teams that have committed to participating in the request for proposals (RFP) stage of a project.
Information about all past, current and proposed AFP projects can be found on our AFP Projects webpage."
http://www.infrastructureontario.ca/AFP-FAQs/
http://www.infrastructureontario.ca/Hamilton-Light-Rail-Transit/
JJ
Trivia: Kenaidan Contracting Ltd. constructed the West Harbour GO, for which they earned a pair of 2017 Ontario Builder Awards a couple of weeks ago (Group 3 Industrial & Award of Distinction).
DeleteRailside
LRT Hamilton is not a "city contract"
ReplyDeleteIf there is good news, it is that they will be right in the neighbourhood, tasked with constructing the tunnel at East Bend.
Perhaps extra crew can take the bus over to the "Coffee Grounds" to get the lights turned on.
Salt in our wound?
If there is god news, it is that the short list of RFQ bidders for Hamilton LRT has not been released. IO FAQ:
ReplyDelete"How do I find out who is bidding on IO projects?
Once a project enters into the procurement phase, a request for qualifications (RFQ) invites bidders to provide information and demonstrate proven abilities in a number of areas including their financial strength, past experience, capacity and more. Following the RFQ, IO publicly announces the short list of prequalified bidders on our website. The short list or prequalified bidders announcement will provide detailed information about the teams that have committed to participating in the request for proposals (RFP) stage of a project.
Information about all past, current and proposed AFP projects can be found on our AFP Projects webpage."
http://www.infrastructureontario.ca/AFP-FAQs/
http://www.infrastructureontario.ca/Hamilton-Light-Rail-Transit/
JJ
I was at a customer yesterday who is proudly displaying a Gantt Chart outlining their involvement and key dates in the Hamilton LRT project scope through 2022.
DeleteWhat is supposed to be a closely guarded secret in some circles appears to be common knowledge in the community.
"How do I find out who is bidding on IO projects?"
Ask someone who knows.
Floyd.
David Kirkland-COO of Kenaidan-is very very sorry.
ReplyDelete"it injured our reputation, it's something we regret, and we will regret for a long time."
Regret your performance? Assume responsibility?
Surely ye jest.
Better to inflict "a cumbersome court process that ineffectively deals with dispute resolution."
Sam "the apology is not accepted"
Lloyd " we can't go through that again"
LRT Hamilton is not a "city contract"
There is nothing preventing the Province from imposing the cheapest bid from a familiar contractor upon us.
Nothing.
Remember Mr. Tuck's caution?
Why do we continue doing this to ourselves?
Lloyd's malaise will likely prove to be temporary.
ReplyDeleteHis pals at Dufferin will soon be celebrating as if selected to host the Summer Olympics.
Demi
The City should impose a 30-year tax levy designed to raise $1B in transit capital costs and exponentially expand the HSR's operating budget. No need to settle for status quo mediocrity. Immunize the HSR from political interference and let them build a progressive transit system for the ages.
ReplyDeleteJJ
LRT is "status quo mediocrity?" Interesting insight from an avowed advocate.
DeleteThe City should leave the taxpayer alone, and use Ms. Kathy's investment to improve transit, particularly for those with mobility issues, and improve cycling infrastructure.
Demi
"Status quo mediocrity" not referring to LRT but to the HSR, which has been crippled by council's practice of using transit budgets as a buffer zone to enable politically tasty but strategically short-sighted tax cuts. That's a big part of why the TTC's system-wide bus ridership has grown by around 25% over the last 20 years while the HSR's system-wide bus ridership has flatlined or dropped. Adjusted for inflation, the HSR budget is half what it was in the mid-80s. The TTC devised a growth plan in 2003 and the City held to it. The HSR devised a growth plan in 2015 and the City abandoned it two years later. That's the status quo on Hamilton transit: Charging more for less. The notion that the City is the best qualified and most responsible candidate to best run LRT is more ideological than logical.
DeleteCycling infrastructure is in a similar state. The City is behind on the nominal investments it was supposed to have made as part of a 20-year plan, spending half of what it pledged to just 8 years ago, then complaining when the province provides capital funds for cycling infrastructure on Bay North. Again, Hamilton's default mode is mediocrity.
JJ
and how does LRT rise local transit above status quo mediocrity?
DeleteBetter service? More stops? Reduced cost?
It does nothing. For a billion dollars.
Demi
One low-floor Alstrom Citadis Spirit LRV has a passenger capacity of 321 in the basic configuration being ordered by Metrolinx. One low-floor Nova 62-foot articulated bus has a passenger capacity of 112 (seated and standing). So to match the service capacity you need three times as many drivers. Which is part of why the costs of BRT are considerably higher than LRT on a per-passenger basis. And the HSR's own Ten Year Local Transit Strategy notes that conventional bus service will not be enough to meet the performance benchmarks established in Hamilton's Transportation Master Plan. You need BRT or LRT to get to 80-100 rides per capita, and LRT (council's unanimous choice) is fully funded whereas BRT (not even their second choice in submissions to the province) is unfunded.
DeleteJJ
Q and how does LRT rise local transit above status quo mediocrity?
DeleteA more leg room.
Demi
Passenger capacity is not the same as legroom, though LRT is a more comfortable rider experience, worlds away from the current HSR Express user experience, which is noisy (85 dB and up, enough to cause hearing loss at extended exposure) and rocky as hell. There are other attendant benefits to the wider system as well (e.g. the ability to redeploy buses to improve service levels elsewhere in the system).
DeleteJJ
passenger capacity is moot when ridership is in steady decline. Stretch it out, you have the entire cabin to your self!
DeleteThere will be no more birdsong either, so that should help as well, put those buds in and crank her up.
Sadly, we still need the buses on this route, to mop up what is missed by LRT, so that benefit will need to be reconsidered.
Other than that, looks like the status quo to me.
All aboard?
Demi
Better service? Yes, much better.
DeleteMore stops? Our LRT Rapid transit system will have a few less stops than HSR bus. A good thing
Reduced cost? Yes, in many ways. LRT is far less expensive per passenger trip tahn bus tech.And the province is paying to build it. A corporation will be contracted to operate it. A huge savings over the expense of existing HSR let alone any coming improvements that other wise would be paid for by city tax payers alone.
Tangy Tom
Interesting thing about HSR ridership: It's tallied from 30-some routes across the city. And while net ridership may be down modestly system-wide (around 3% over the last two years, as predicted by HSR fare increase formulas), ridership growth in the trunk corridor and particularly King/Main is not in decline. It has been growing at several times the system average.
DeleteSomething you learned today: system-wide HSR ridership increased 5% between 1999 and 2009. In that same time, daily traffic volumes on Main. East of Bay dropped by 8%, while traffic on Cannon east of Sherman fell by 33%, and Main near Kenilworth plunged 37%. Maybe the City should close the downtown to cars in light of that decade-long trend, or at least stop repairing roads. No more tax increases needed!
Donna
something I learned today.
DeleteWe should have considered this years ago, when ridership was actually increasing.
Did advocates miss the boat?
Better service? Can't provide an example, but of course, much better service.
More stops? No, but this good, seniors need exercise.
Reduced cost? $1B.
Demi
The LRT was considered years ago. And approved by Council over and over and over.
DeleteAs has been proved, ridership on the bus routes LRT will be replacing is growing, not declining.
You have been provided with many examples of why LRT is better service like faster, more reliable, carries more people than bus's for less than bus.
More stops are not needed. You cant have rapid transit with more stops than bus systems.
LRT is reduced cost cause it carries the most people for the least amount. And 1 billion from the Provincial treasury is much much better than 1 billion from the Municipal treasury. And having a corporation operate the public LRT system on behalf of the government means no Municipal Tax's required. Huge savings.
Stompin Cam
you don't have rapid transit when you are averaging 27 km/hr, and declining does not equate to increased.
DeleteDemi
it's not that there are going to be fewer stops,it's just that LRT can not get to them as effectively as buses, which is why buses will still have to chug along behind picking up the slack.
DeleteBig waste.
Ralph
B-Line ridership has been increasing. It's suburban ridership that has been declining. The B-Line corridor only represents around 40% of all HSR ridership, so declines within the wider system cancel out the gains made in the trunk corridor.
DeleteDonna
the Metrolinx King-Main Benefits Case Study shows outside the downtown core the LRT will average speeds of 33 to 35 kilomteres an hour. Much much much faster than the current HSR. And the 27 kph in the core? Still much faster than HSR.
DeleteGoing faster does not equal going slower.
And the HSR ridership data showing increases on the King and B line routes means more riders dont equal less riders.
Stompin Cam
LRT is more efficient and cost effective in every aspect of operation. LRT moves more people for the least amount, doesnt get stuck in traffic cause of priority signalling and right of ways, doesnt leave people behind cause of overcrowding, allows boarding and deboarding through multiple doors cutting down on time stopped, LRT shelters are safer easier and more secure for seniors and people with mobility issues. Bus loses on every point.
DeleteBus's will be travelling parallel routes to help feed and link to the LRT. Pretty standard stuff for modern transit systems.
Stompin Cam
an average speed of 27 km/hr.
DeleteFor both LRT and buses.
Over the entire route.
LRT will be moving declining ridership, system-wide, for $1B.
And buses will still be running right behind light rail to provide the service and flexibility that LRT can not offer.
Seems silly.
Demi
so we will take the most productive route in the system and literally tear it apart-for years at a time-in order to ultimately maintain existing service levels.
DeleteAnonymous academics and researchers have determined this is what we deserve.This is the approach required to attract throngs of new transit riders.Overcrowding?
This is our gamechanger.
Ralph
"so we will take the most productive route in the system and literally tear it apart-for years at a time-in order to ultimately maintain existing service levels"
DeleteNo. We will take a route that is not meeting existing service levels and will be unable to meet future needs. The existing HSR service on this route is broken in many ways: pass bys, delays, overcrowding and LRT will modernize it to carry all the customers getting bad or no service in a more efficient, quicker, reliable and comforatable ride.
And the province is paying to build it and the provincial government will own it and a corporation will run it and it will save the Hamilton taxpayer millions of dollars it doesnt have.
Stompin Cam
• Average current speed of HSR buses City-wide is 18km/h. (Source: HSR Operational Review)
Delete• Average speed of LRT is 34 km/h. (Source: Metrolinx King-Main Benefits Case Analysis)
• B-Line corridor ridership grew at 4 times the rate of the City-wide network between 2009 and 2014. (Source: HSR Bus Lane Pilot Analysis). To repeat: Increased, not decreased. This despite service levels that essentially remained unchanged in that period.
• B-Line corridor has been repeatedly identified as the pre-eminent case for substantial transit investment dating back at least as far as amalgamation and the 2001 Transportation Master Plan.
• Transit systems are interconnected and offer various levels of service supplies via various modal choices. This versatility is a strength, not a weakness.
• Transit issues including rapid transit have been debated regularly and publicly for the last 40 years. Those who have botheeed to engage the process have had input into transit planning. Those who have not have not. There is nothing nefarious about this. Many more ambitious multi-generational projects expose local taxpayers to far greater risk for far less upside, on far less supporting evidence and with negligible public debate. See AEGD, for example.
• Those who are most sure that the future is preordained to be the way they imagine it to be have no incentive to engage the process, since they have it all figured out. This only increases the democratic deficit they rail against.
JJ
LRT advocates often point to Europe as some sort of Light Rail Utopia which we should emulate.
DeleteAccording to the European Rail Research Advisory Council (ERRAC) in their study of "Metro Light Rail and Tram systems in Europe" Table 5, when considered in totality, every light rail system in Europe averaged just under 20 km/hr. The highest score recorded came from EU-15 designates, who bumped it up to 22.79 km/hr.
Why would our LRT be nearly twice as fast as everything Europe has to offer?
It won't be.
Demi
closer to home, advocates in Toronto always projected an average speed for their light rail systems of...surprise...27km/hr.
Delete(Toronto Enviro Alliance Homepage, LRT FAQ's)
yet they have never achieved anything close. According to the Toronto Star "When is a streetcar not a streetcar?" 2/9/12 both the Eglington and Finch LRT's have averaged just 22km/hr.
Why would ours be faster?
Hugh
in a post on this site dated June 27th,2017 while referencing a June 2014 Bline PDF, "Noted" demonstrated the 10 Express averages 27 km/hr.
DeleteA bus, travelling from Eastgate to McMaster, consistently averaging 27 km/hr.
According to Paul Johnson, LRT co-ordinator, quoted in the Hamilton Spectator on 4/27/16 "Hamilton's much anticipated LRT plans ready for public viewing" when asked Q. "will LRT be faster than the bus"
A. "that's the plan, average speeds of 27 km/hr should help"
Should? Pretty definitive stuff from the project lead.
Fingers crossed.
Matching current bus speeds appear to be the absolute best we can hope for.
Quite an upgrade.
Lou
yes Lou, it took us awhile to get here, but you have confirmed what we always knew...
DeleteBuses are faster, more flexible, less expensive.
Sue
the entire Metrolinx King Main Benefit Analysis is predicated on the unrealized notion that both King and Main have already been converted to 2 way traffic.
DeleteAnd we all know, that has not happened.
"Clearly the need for two way operation is essential for the successful operation of the transit line. Therefore the conversion of King and Main to two way operation have been assumed for the purpose of this analysis"
Except it has not happened, rendering the fantasy as irrelevant.
A house of cards.
Demi
Buses are most certainly not faster. The B-Line's speed is based on the HSR schedule, which is a little more optimistic than reality, as anyone who has taken a bus in this city would know. A schedule tells you buses arrive every 15 or 20 or 30 minutes, like clockwork. That never happens. But it would be more attainable if every bus route operated in a dedicated lane.
DeleteBRT would be less expensive to build (though similar in that it would dedicate two lanes of road to one transit route -- no, BRT is not redeployed, it's there because it's a high-demand corridor -- and require road reconstruction along its entire length) but much more expensive to operate. Triple the operating costs of existing bus service, borne entirely by local taxpayers.
More importantly, LRT is actually funded. Transit doesn't get built unless it's funded, and Hamilton doesn't willingly spend money on transit. So unless there's another MOA in place with the province guaranteeing that we can exchange $1B in LRT for $300M in BRT, then this is all just a classist, anti-transit fantasy entertained at a Grade 3 level of debate: I'm rubber, you're glue, whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you. Which is, to be honest, not especially convincing to senior government policy makers.
Also, a fact check: The Eglinton LRT and Finch LRT have yet to enter service. They are projects currently under construction, slated to open in 2021.
JJ
what we have here are members of the community expressing concerns about a flawed plan based on conditions which do not exist.
DeleteAdvocates describe opponents as classist and anti-transit.
These are some rather sensitive advocates, unable to accept critical assessment of any type, particularly those that skewer the notion that this proposal does anything at all to improve public transit.
Lepage
Hamilton LRT's Vision statement?
Delete"we will accept whatever nonsense is imposed, so long as it is fully funded."
Floyd
despite the Plaintiffs position that IO "made negligent misrepresentations in relation to design, construction, and completion of the stadium" IO considers the project a success, completed on time and under budget.
ReplyDeleteIO doesn't cater to satisfying it's customers-it doesn't have to-assured we will invite them back for more of the same. And we have.
Companies have customers. Governments have constituents.
DeleteRimshot
IO...or the Provincial Governments construction company.
DeleteMakes sense.
Infrastructure Ontario carries out government directives and answers to the Minister of Infrastructure. It's powers and duties are laid out in provincial legislation.
DeleteMike Cents
Infrastructure Ontario oversee's construction projects like Tim Horton's Field and Hamilton's Light Rail.
DeleteThey just do not do it very well.
Partisan rancour aside, IO oversees construction of public asset classes such as highways, transit, bridges, schools and hospitals.
DeleteReality
there will not be a single construction entity in the Country willing and/or capable of integrating such a convoluted RFP.
DeleteNot one.
So we will get a consortium... that does not even exist yet. A hodgepodge of industry rivals, cobbled together in order to cash a few enormous cheques.
What could go wrong?
And remember this schemes success is predicated on extremely optimistic projections of significantly increased ridership.
What if....?
We are supposed to be confident this illusory entity will still be diligently scraping graffiti from the site 30 years from now?
Please.
Consortiums are only as good as their weakest link- and there always is one. The though of shifting the risk to a consortium is just wishful thinking. In the end, the risk is always held by the public as ultimately, a public service must be maintained in spite of lawsuits and the like.
DeleteThe whole LRT decision and the way it is being handled will go down as a classic example of what possibly could go wrong.
It starts with a flawed business case based wishful, fairy tale like, assumptions on ridership growth and it spirals downwards from there.
You voted them in. Sorce
To date, IO has only tendered an RFQ for Hamilton LRT. Shortlisted bidders have not yet been announced. What about their oversight of the Hamilton LRT RFQ do you find wanting?
ReplyDeleteMike Cents
DBFOM
DeleteMakes no sense.
Better that the City sign on to a multi-decade contract that commits them to a regimen of tax levies, tolls and assorted revenue tools to pay for the costs of operating and maintaining the province's investment, which Metrolinx will still own. No more punting increases because it's politicallly unpalatable. It will become a contractual obligation.
DeleteRolly
Interesting story in local news today.
ReplyDeleteCouncillor Matthew Green is introducing a motion to keep the LRT city run. Good for him.
Loretta
Don't kid yourself. This is called political posturing. He likely knows the proposal does not habve a hope in hell but he has to be on record as trying.
DeleteI hope Mr. Tuck is watching closely. I warned him about this type of stuff.
Sorce
full political damage control from Councilor Green.
DeleteHe recently endorsed the MOA, an agreement which clearly privatized the route with non union labour.
He has watched a petition-which he still refuses to sign-grow steadily, day by day. He listened as Mr. Tuck promised to make the betrayal an election issue.
And reality has dawned.
This is not how you treat "friends"
What was stopping Green from conditionally supporting the MOA?
Nothing.
"LRT is great....but I can not support this labour model. Fix it"
There was a time and place for Green to demonstrate his support for the current proposal...April 17th, 2017 City Hall, GIC.
There will be consequences.
We are at an advanced stage of the process for tendering the Hamilton LRT. When commenting on known specifics its best to be clear. This comment about " MOA, an agreement which clearly privatized the route with non union labour" is an example of something that is clearly contradicted by the known facts on every level. Not constructive.
DeletePrivitize? The MOA endorsed by Councillor Green and the vast majority of council gives exclusive rights exclusive rights to Metrolinx, a Crown corporation. This is clearly not privatization. Metrolinx will grant control of operations for a limited time to a private corporation, but will always retain full ownership. The LRT will not be privatized.
Non union labour? There are many examples of government contract operators using unionized drivers on LRT routes, including ATU members. There are examples of the tender process for corporate operators that contractually require union drivers on LRT routes. The Hamilton LRT MOA does not prohibit this same contractual mechanism.
Kim
directly from Councilor Green
Delete"...public transit is a public service, and Metrolinx current process only provides for bids in a privatized system..."
Hamilton Spectator, 7/5/17 "Green pushes for new deal for HSR"
Sadly, our MOA did not contractually require union drivers on LRT routes, and does prohibit HSR from operation.
Hence, the concern.
There is no reason why a provision at the onset could not have been written in that requires HSR to be the operating agent. Any Councillor would have known that from day 1, and yet it was not done that way. Too little, too late...
DeleteSorce
Yes, I hope Tuck is watching this thread. I believe The Hamiltonian was the only place that truly understood the impact this would have and thats why Tuck had a long interview here. Everyone is else coming late to the party.
DeleteFrom the sidelines
"...public transit is a public service, and Metrolinx current process only provides for bids in a privatized system..."
DeleteFacts that are not up for dispute as they are public knowledge. Metrolinx will own the LRT. Track, switches, rolling stock the whole shebang. Metrolinx is a Crown Corporation. Metrolinx will grant rights to a private company that will in partnership with Metrolinx operate the Hamilton LRT for a defined period of time. Having the government own and control the LRT but contract with a corporation to operate that LRT is not privatization of public transit.
"Sadly, our MOA did not contractually require union drivers on LRT routes.."
It does not. However, as Eric Tuck and Councillor Green agree its not too late for Metrolinx to make it a requirement to bid.
And since Metrolinx does already operate a transit service run by a corporation that uses union labour, as Eric Tuck and Councillor Green agree, its not too late for Hamilton to get the exact same.
Kim
Kim
Councilor Merulla has characterized Green's motion as a "symbolic gesture."
DeleteFluff.
Further, Merulla believe's the motion is a reversal to the approval of the MOA, technically a "reconsideration" and as such would require 2/3 Council approval.
Buzzerbeater
The City had the measure of its commitment to transit taken in Spring 2013 when council roundly refused to endorse any of the menu if revenue tools intended to fund the construction, operation and maintenance of transit projects. Then they followed that up with a suburban insurrection to remove rather than improve a bus lane pilot project. Those moments, along with the last 20 years of HSR suspended animation, speak eloquently to the City/HSR's bona fides. Want respect on the transit file? Walk the walk.
DeleteSigma Cub
Waterloo Region
Delete80% of federal ridings Liberal-held
60% of provincial ridings Liberal-held
19km LRT
$270 million municipal commitment
DBFOM project
If Wishes Had Wings
I once had a private hospital room.
DeleteExcept it wasn't.
Is this, like that?
Demi
I would rather retire on a Dofasco pension and hold Dofasco stock than retire on a Stelco pension and hold US Steel stock. But to each their own.
DeleteJust Sane
I see the ATU/HSR petition has reached 500 signatures and continues to grow at a steady pace.
DeleteCouncilor Green may be having recurring nightmares of his "friends" showing up for future press conferences.
Karma.
499 signatures, 40% incomplete or belonging to non-Hamiltonians, all of it outside of the provincial standards for parliamentary petitions.
DeleteCertainly interesting, though. That's around 4% of the ATU's GTHA membership.
Solidarity, huh?
Friar
First 2 days: 185 names added
DeleteFirst week: 315 names added
Last 2 weeks: 144 names added
Pacemaker
512 signatures in 3 weeks.
DeleteHow many signatures where on the pro LRT petition after 3 weeks?
Green has good reason for concern.
of those 512 signatures how many will vote in Councillor Greens ward?
DeleteHe is not worried.
The anti lrt petition still hasnt broken 200 people. Good show.
Stompin Cam
61
DeleteThe margin of difference in the next Municipal Election.
Harland
The threat of electoral come-uppance is empty until delivered. Until then, tedious. Everyone hates everyone and wishes them ruin. Yawn. How about working on constructive political engagement today rather than making it all about vengeance a year from now?
DeletePragmatic
Q: Why have the majority of ATU 107 members not supported this petition? What do they mistrust the HSR?
DeleteQualm
A. the petition is actually picking up steam, well over 50 new signatures yesterday.
DeleteWhy have you not signed the petition? What do you have against public transit?
JoJo
I like public transit. The LRT will be public transit. 100% owned by Metrolinx a Crown Corporation.
DeleteDo I care if the HSR is involved?
No. Why would anyone care if the HSR was involved? Or the ATU?
Krafft
LRT will be run by a private consortium, for at least 30 years, until the asset is worthless.
Deleteand then it will be ours again.
Nice plan
As of today 610 people with names care.
1 in opposition.
JoJo
what strikes terror into the hearts of many LRT supporters is that idea that it might fall under the direct control of Hamilton City Council, the same Council that just endorsed this boondoggle.
ReplyDeleteEveryone knows they can not be trusted to make an informed, rational decision.
Ryan
"what strikes terror into the hearts of many LRT supporters is that idea that it might fall under the direct control of Hamilton City Council"
ReplyDeleteI agree 100% Hamilton City Council has proven it cannot be trusted with the day to day operations and budget of a modern 21st century transit system like LRT.
Kim
"what strikes terror into the hearts of many LRT supporters is.." having their day wrecked by an HSR "proffessional" driver attack them physically and assault them like what happened this week.
ReplyDeleteKim
"Police investigating whether passenger spit on driver"
DeleteHamilton Spectator 7/6/17
Prejudice and bias obstruct an objective review.
Ryan
HOLY MACKINAW.
ReplyDeleteIf council had been able to make a site decision by the provincial deadline rather than punting that call again and again and again and again and begging for extensions that made the City a national laughing stock, the project might have gone according to plan.
Rimshot
yes, that is why things are falling from the sky. Council took too long to decide.
DeleteIt does make sense.
Buzzerbeater
how much longer can "the caretaker" endure this train wreck?
ReplyDeleteGarney