tolling for thee

CATCH News – February 8, 2011

Road tolls just a matter of time

User fees on roads, sewers and stormwater facilities are necessary to impress on people that they are dealing with scarce resources says Harry Kitchen. The municipal expert sees user fees as a logical response to the infrastructure deficit that is plaguing cities and advises senior levels of government to require them before bailing out cities.  

Kitchen is renowned in some quarters and reviled in others for recommending in 2008 that Ontario slap tolls on its major highways and expressways, including the Linc and the Red Hill Valley Parkway. Notably unrepentant, he spoke to the Transport Futures 2011 Mobility Pricing Conference in Toronto last week.

“You need user fees so that the user realizes that the resource in question is scarce,” he argued. “In that way, it’s not overused.”

As recently reported in CATCH, Hamilton has about $15 billion in infrastructure with roads comprising the biggest portion. The cash-strapped city is currently managing to replace only one per cent of its roads each year, generating squabbles between urban and suburban councillors over whose roads should have priority.

Kitchen noted that there was “a growing tendency” for people to at least think about road-tolling, especially the younger crowd. Older people, long habituated to use of cars, are more resistant, he observed. But road tolling is coming, he and other speakers at the conference agreed. It’s a question of when.

bike lanes and ward politics

CATCH News – January 21, 2011
Councillor veto on bike lanes to be reviewed


Staff are being asked to design a formal public consultation process on the installation of new bike lanes to replace the current ad hoc system that allows individual councillors to veto approved cycling facilities in their ward. The change proposed at Monday’s public works committee was questioned by the councillor who last year blocked a major mountain bike lane.
Debate was opened this week by Terry Whitehead asking staff why he hadn’t been consulted about bike lanes on Stone Church Road. He was responding to the committee’s receipt of the minutes of the Hamilton Cycling Committee – a group of volunteers who advise the city.

“Certainly the feedback I’m getting in regards to our bike lanes appearing on the west mountain, the residents feel that they haven’t been part and parcel of the consultation,” he noted. “So I am trying to understand what the process is so I can be able to communicate to those residents who are impacted by this plan.”

Daryl Bender, the city’s alternative transportation coordinator, explained that the Stone Church lanes have been “embedded in the construction project” on that road, but offered to increase consultation with Whitehead.

That led Brian McHattie to ask for “a more formal consultation process” rather than “inventing it as we along or playing catch up.” He cited the challenges he faced in last year’s installation of bike lanes on Dundurn Street South.

“The role of the ward councillor is a little unclear to me as well, as to whether that's in fact a veto role where if I didn't want the Dundurn bike lanes I just would have said I don't want them and they wouldn't have happened,” he explained. “I’m not sure that's the best process.”
Committee chair Russ Powers agreed that there is “perhaps a need to formalize a process” that staff should develop. That brought Tom Jackson into the discussion to remind his colleagues that he was the author of the current veto system and argue that “it would be unfair to staff just to go back and review” the council resolution on the bike lane master plan.

“One of the amendments was subject to a neighbourhood and ward councilor consultations which I think is exactly what Councillor Whitehead is getting at, that I think are incredibly important and critical before the master plan in certain parts of the city is overall implemented,” he contended. “It was a council resolution and I think it was a worthy one a prudent one and one that I supported last term to say that neighbourhoods and ward councilors should be consulted before the final implementation in those particular areas.”

Powers responded that the request for the review doesn’t contradict that practice, but just would just lead to a required consultation process “to ensure that that takes place”.

Last year Jackson vetoed a 3.3 kilometre installation of bike lanes on Queensdale Avenue between Upper Wellington and Upper Ottawa that are part of the city’s cycling master plan approved in 2009. In email correspondence obtained by CATCH through a Freedom of Information request, he initially argued that scheduled reconstruction of the road should proceed without a decision.

“I still maintain that I do not detect a clamouring for more ‘commuter’ bike lanes across the mountain,” Jackson wrote to Bender at the time. “The possible loss of parking on the north side cannot be dismissed that easily.”

Bender had explained in an earlier email that a staff investigation “found the highest demand for parking was less than 30% of available parking” on Queensdale.

“We are not accommodating the occasional cyclist,” he explained. “Rather, by improving the street for cyclists, the intent is to improve the street for bicycle traffic, thereby increasing bicycle traffic.”

Jackson ruled against the bike lanes after a neighbourhood meeting of about 40 people in April that was also attended by members of the cycling committee.

“Taking the comments under advisement and with the ‘straw vote’ and taking into consideration the citizens that were there both from the Highview/Sunninghill neighbourhoods (bordering Queensdale itself) and those who were from other parts of the city, I am satisfied with the reconstruction plan proceeding WITHOUT bicycle markings,” Jackson explained in an email to city staff. “As well and as discussed, there will be NO loss of parking on the north side of Queensdale and NO need to re-locate any fire hydrants.”

It’s unclear when Bender might report back to the public works committee on possible formalization of the public consultation process on bike lane installation. Later in the same meeting, Whitehead questioned the appropriateness of the cycling committee having reserve funds.
“I like to see people stick to their budget,” he stated. “If there is a surplus you go back to general revenues, not into reserves.”



CATCH (Citizens at City Hall) updates use transcripts and/or public documents to highlight information about Hamilton civic affairs that is not generally available in the mass media. Detailed reports of City Hall meetings can be reviewed at hamiltoncatch.org. You can receive all CATCH free updates by sending an email to http://hamiltoncatch.org/newsletter/?p=subscribe. Sharing links are available on the hamiltoncatch.org.

Roads Eat Capital Budget

Roads are eating their way into local taxpayers pockets in a big, ongoing way. CATCH is reporting that the draft budget for Hamilton allocates "Nearly one-quarter of this year’s spending...for roads. But that $52.65 million is still $85.35 million less than staff believe is required....Roads are forecast to consume 45 percent of the capital budget over the next decade."

One year ago, this discussion took place, revealing the underlying cost pressure of building roads - not much has changed in practice, but perhaps with Bratina now as Mayor, this issue will be more closely scrutinized.

Downtown councillor Bob Bratina and the general manager of public works, Gerry Davis, transcribed by CATCH.

Bratina: Gerry, how much does it cost to maintain a lane kilometre ?

Davis: Summer and winter included, it’s approximately $10,000 per lane kilometre.

Bratina: How many lane kilometres have we added in the last ten years, roughly?

Davis: We’ve added, I would say, probably upwards 500-700 lane kilometres.

Bratina: A year, on average?

Davis: On average about 50 or 70 a year, Rick? So 60.

Bratina: So if we can’t afford to maintain these lane kilometres of road, why do we add them?

Bratina was calling the city on this again in June 2010

“This looks to me like somebody’s got four clunker cars they can’t afford to fix, so he goes out and buys another car,” the ward two councillor observed. “And the comment that I hear at the table today is well the province didn’t give us enough money to fix these roads. I’m not very good at this accounting stuff, but this seems fairly simple to me. We keep building infrastructure we can’t afford to fix.”

City finance chief Rob Rossini responded that the report showed “how much stuff we actually own” and suggested that reduction is one of the objectives of the province in requiring the reports.

“Part of the rationale for the province doing this is for municipalities to look at their assets as to which ones do we still need, which ones can we surplus and rationalize on a going forward basis,” Rossini noted. “So I think that’s part of the underlying thing that the province wants us to do.”

Does Hamilton have too much road? Can we look at saving money (not to mention the environment) by rationalizing and reducing redundant roadways? Road diets?

Hamilton Transit in Crisis

CATCH News – December 19, 2010

Shrunken HSR in crisis

There have been 26 assaults on HSR drivers this year, a situation being blamed partly on an overloaded transit system where service has shrunk by over 40 percent in the past two decades. Demands for immediate improvements were delivered to councillors last week by several delegations and their transit staff, but to no obvious effect.

In his presentation to the general issues committee, bus union president Budh Dhillon compared today’s HSR with the one he drove for in 1989 when “we used to have 1,264,335 hours of service as opposed to 710,000” reported for 2010 for a considerably larger geographic area. When he began driving a bus 31 years ago he recalled that even on a Sunday “you didn’t have to wait more than 10 minutes for the bus” during daytime hours.

“We have about 767 less hours of service on a daily basis on the road now, where we cover a lot more area than we used to in 1989,” noted Dhillon. “And also we’ve added responsibility on the drivers for seniors, special need riders, and it takes more time to provide that service.”

He pointed to the extra time required to handle passengers with walkers, wheelchairs, scooters and bicycles, and the situation on several HSR routes where full buses are unable to pick up waiting riders. 

“We have to leave the people at the stops to wait for the next bus, and chances are the next bus might be full. That happens on a daily basis, especially on the major routes King, B-Line and going into the university, Upper James. That’s where you get the frustrated clients, frustrated passengers. They’ve been waiting for the bus in the cold and can’t get on.”

In 1989, the HSR had 272 buses on the road, compared to 217 today, and it carried six million more passengers than the 21 million this year. And the city population served by transit has climbed from 400,000 in 1989 to 475,000 today.

Dhillon’s call for more transit funding was echoed by John McIntyre, the vice-president of the McMaster Students Union who argued improved service must occur before any fare hikes. He noted that McMaster student passes contribute $2.5 million a year to the HSR, about 8 percent of the transit budget, and they have a referendum in February to decide on whether or not to continue the contract.

The drivers’ observations were supported by the Transit Users Group represented by Peter Hutton.

“You have a crisis; it’s getting worse,” he emphasized. “It’s not only on the west-end routes, it’s in the Mohawk routes, it’s in all sorts of different places, and you’re not going to get additional riders on the system until you address this.”

The message was also similar from Tom Cooper of the Hamilton Roundtable for Poverty Reduction and Maureen Leyland of the Common Coalition Campaign working to alleviate poverty. Both expressed strong support for the recommendations from HSR director Don Hull to immediately add $3 million to the transit operating budget by using monies not currently needed for bus purchases.

Although that proposal won’t raise taxes, councillors voted to again defer a decision until they debate the city’s 2011 budget that is scheduled to be ratified in April. Shifting the $3 million to expand service on eight HSR routes has been discussed since November 2009 and was also put off by councillors last summer.

The deferral last week was proposed by Tom Jackson who called Hull’s recommendation “noble” and “probably needed to some degree” but argued that no decision should be made until councillors “see how it all measures up in light of other departmental pressures and in light of the overall capital and operating budgets that we’re going to see over the next few months.”

Transcript available

The transit presentation made by St Thomas More teachers and one of their students was reported on in the Hamilton Spectator on Saturday. A transcript of their presentation, as well as questions and comments by councillors in response, has been prepared by CATCH volunteers and is posted here.

slowing transit

Fixing HSR problems on hold until next year

A proposal to fix problems with HSR service is on hold until next year. Transit director Don Hull hopes to start using federal gas tax funds to end overcrowding that is frequently leaving people behind at bus stops.

Hamilton is only one of two large cities which do not use federal gas tax monies for transit. Hull is calling for a shift of $3 million of these funds – out of the city’s $32 million annual allocation – to increase service on some HSR routes and take an initial step towards meeting the approved objectives of the city’s master transportation plan – but a council decision last week means no changes are likely before late 2011.

Hull notes new spending on the HSR over the last decade has been “marginal” and what has taken place has come entirely from senior levels of government. He told councillors last week that Hamilton really needs to add $80 million a year to the HSR budget to achieve the ridership levels of cities like Ottawa and meet the goals of council’s approved ridership goals.

“$30 million is just what it would take over the next five years to keep moving towards the Transportation Master Plan,” he explained. “The $3 million that we’re asking for in alternative to the $30 million is simply what we feel we need in the very short term to prevent the public satisfaction with this program from deteriorating.”

Ancaster councillor Lloyd Ferguson suggested the $3 million was Hull’s “real pie in the sky wish list”, but the transit director strongly defended the financial need to bolster existing HSR routes and get back to earlier service levels that have gone downhill in the face of growing pressures.

“We carry hundreds of thousands of frail, elderly and disabled on the conventional transit system every year. Those people take a lot more time to board and alight safely,” Hull responded. “I stand firmly behind that we need this $3 million just to sustain our permanent position in the community with respect to the current satisfaction level of the transit program.”

Ferguson noted the proposed priority service changes were all in the former city of Hamilton, but the federal gas taxes are currently being used for projects across the entire city.

“I didn’t see anything in the route enhancements in the suburban municipalities,” he noted. “It’s kind of a neat way to move $3 million from capital in the air, and then replenish the capital by going out to all municipalities, and yet the suburban municipalities aren’t benefitting at all.”

Waterdown councillor Margaret McCarthy suggested more transit is needed in her ward, and Dave Mitchell pointed to rising demands in Binbrook. Hull replied that those requests are among “three or four hundred items on the list” that HSR would like to address if it had more funds.

“We simply cut the list off at $3 million. There’s $30 million worth of requested enhancements behind the scenes here.”

West end councillor Brian McHattie who first proposed the funding shift last November was frustrated by the staff recommendation to put off a decision until next year’s budget, which he characterized as “the finance department holding sway” over transit. But he couldn’t find a seconder for a motion to shift the $3 million immediately.

“All the information’s here in this report that we have to invest in new service for transit, but I just don’t see any commitment for doing that. There’s no reason why we can’t make that decision today,” he declared bitterly. “At some point we have to stop approving these master plans, with clear recommendations in them, if we don’t really believe in them.”

Finance chief Rob Rossini noted the shift would mean other capital project commitments would be displaced and argued the change needed to be considered in conjunction with the city’s full financial picture as part of the 2011 budget deliberations. That could mean no decision until March or April, and some months after that for changes to be implemented.

This year’s budget allocates a third of Hamilton’s $32 million federal gas tax share to city hall renovations, and most of the rest to roads. Because the city’s population now exceeds 500,000 it will be limited in future to choosing just two categories, and an earlier council decision has identified those will be roads and transit.

A staff survey of other cities over 500,000 found only one besides Hamilton that currently doesn’t use any federal gas tax monies for transit.

“We canvassed every municipality, and only Durham and Hamilton aren’t using federal gas tax to supplement their transit program,” Hull explained to councillors. “Durham had one project in particular that they committed all of their federal gas tax to. Some municipalities in the GTA committed 100 percent of their federal gas tax to their transit programs.”

The provincial government also distributes gas tax monies to municipalities. Hamilton will get just shy of $11 million next year, a drop of $800,000 since the program began in 2004 because the city is falling behind other Ontario localities in both population and transit ridership. The formula used by the province to divvy up the funds is weighted 70 percent to ridership and 30 percent to population.

Just under $4 million of the provincial monies are being spent on already implemented HSR service improvements while $1.75 million is being used by DARTS. Council allocated an additional $2.6 million “in lieu of a fare increase” proposed in 2005.

The remaining $3 million is currently spent on bus purchases. If Hull’s proposal is eventually accepted, that would be replaced by the federal gas tax monies – which can only be used for capital projects, not operating expenses.

CATCH (Citizens at City Hall) updates use transcripts and/or public documents to highlight information about Hamilton civic affairs that is not generally available in the mass media. Detailed reports of City Hall meetings can be reviewed at www.hamiltoncatch.org. You can receive all CATCH free updates by sending an email to info@HamiltonCATCH.org.

too little for too long

CATCH News – June 11, 2010

Cycling interest and spending

The city’s first car-free cycling and pedestrian street fair brought on Sunday was a success despite iffy weather and little media attention. Coincidentally, a report released this week calculates that city spending on expanding cycling has been only a tiny fraction of the roads allocation over the last decade.

Sunday’s Open Streets event won praise from Mayor Eisenberger who opened Monday’s meeting of committee of the whole by telling councillors that it was “really a spectacular effort in giving people the opportunity to enjoy the street.” Bob Bratina followed up at Wednesday’s council meeting on a “delightful afternoon” where “4500 people walked, biked and wandered down James Street North”.

The event repeats on Sunday September 26 when cars will again be barred from James North between Cannon Street and Burlington Street.

The cycling infrastructure report, asked for a year ago by councillors, says $7.1 million was spent from 2001 to 2008. Multi-use trails, such as those reconstructed in Red Hill Valley post-expressway, accounted for the majority of the spending at $4.4 million. Fifty percent of monies uses for this work is allocated to cycling in the report.

Special bike lane projects, such as those on York Boulevard and Sterling Street, added $1.7 million to the spending, while $1 million was the estimated allocation as part of road reconstruction work “based on the proportion of the surface area of each project that was dedicated for bike lanes” on those roads.

“The $890,000 average annual expenditure provides a comparison to what is recommended in Shifting Gears 2009 which suggests cycling investment of $2.5 million annually to complete the full network in 20 years, or $1.25 million each year, if system development is focused only urban infrastructure,” explains the report.

The totals don’t include 2009 outlays, or projects now underway including the multi-use bridges over the QEW and the Lincoln Alexander Parkway that are being funded by the provincial government. Bus bike racks and secure bike parking financed by Metrolinx are also excluded.

The city’s capital budget for 2010 is $275 million, with roads accounting for a little over $75 million, of which about half is being funded by development charges or other non-tax sources.

For cycling, the city allocated spending of $1.3 million this year to complete eight bike lane projects. But the projected expenditures over the rest of the decade average just $950,000 a year for new cycling infrastructure.

CATCH (Citizens at City Hall) updates use transcripts and/or public documents to highlight information about Hamilton civic affairs that is not generally available in the mass media. Detailed reports of City Hall meetings can be reviewed at www.hamiltoncatch.org. You can receive all CATCH free updates by sending an email to info@HamiltonCATCH.org.

cycle coin

CATCH News – January 3, 2010

Little funding for bike improvements

Over the next ten years, the city is budgetting to complete only about one-fifth of the cycling improvements endorsed by council last summer. Thanks to a volunteer community group, the full plans can now be viewed on-line.

Transportation for Liveable Communities (TLC) hopes their on-line map will encourage residents to lobby councillors to speed up implementation.

“We decided to make the map available online so people can see where the new bike lanes and multi-use trails will be and think about how the new routes can be used in their day-to-day routines.” said Nicholas Ellens of TLC in a media release last month. “We encourage people to pick up the phone and let their councillors know that they support the plan".

The city’s long-term plans were approved in principle last June and call for 223 projects to improve Hamilton’s cycling network in the urban area plus 49 in the rural region. The projected total cost is $51.5 million – somewhat less than the $55 million council has decided to take from the Future Fund to cover the city’s contribution to the 2015 Pan Am Games.

For 2010, the city has approved capital budget spending of $1.3 million to complete eight bike lane projects. But the expected expenditures over the rest of the decade average just $950,000 a year for new cycling infrastructure.

New lanes are to be established this year on Woodward Avenue, Burlington Street, Queensdale Avenue, York Boulevard, and Wilson Street at a total cost of just over $1 million. The remaining $250,000 will go to rehabilitating existing cycling facilities on Longwood Road and Stone Church Road.

The Woodward project is the most expensive at $400,000 and will add bike lanes between Melvin and Brampton as part of a $3.5 million road reconstruction project. This year’s new lanes on Burlington Street will run from Birch to east of Ottawa – the first phase of a planned bike route all the way from Ferguson Avenue to Parkdale.

A multi-use bridge over the QEW near the Red Hill Parkway for the use of both cyclists and pedestrians is also expected to be opened in 2010. That’s being paid for by a provincial government grant. TLC argues more bike lanes will help reduce auto dependency and encourage increased numbers of commuters to cycle.

“Cycling is a healthy, clean, efficient, and affordable alternative to driving,” said Ellens. “A connected network of lanes, paths, and in some places bridges will make cycling in the city a much safer option, overcoming a major obstacle that discourages many from participating.”

Last month Reuters reported that cycling to work in the United States has increased 43 percent in the last decade. The US Census Bureau figures put Portland Oregon at the top of the list with 6 percent of commutes carried out by bicycle, but these numbers are still far below European cities.

More than a third of the residents of Greater Copenhagen, for example, use a bike to get to work or school and that number climbs to 55 percent if you only count those within the city limits, reports Globe and Mail columnist Gary Mason.

“Bikes are everywhere: in vast lots outside train stations, leaning against buildings, locked to racks that are as ubiquitous as Carlsberg signs,” he observed. “The people riding them are dressed for all occasions. You see men in pin-striped suits and women in skirts and high heels. Few ride anything but old, traditional one-speeds.”

Copenhagen’s efforts to build a “bike culture” have included setting traffic signal coordination for cycling speeds instead of car, stop lines for bikes five metres ahead of cars, and giving cyclists a green light several seconds ahead of cars.

In Canadian developments, Montreal added 104 kilometres of bike lanes in the last two years to bring their total to over 500 km. And last spring they joined Paris, London and New York in putting thousands of rental bikes on the streets, a move described as “huge boost to cycling” in the Quebec city.


CATCH (Citizens at City Hall) updates use transcripts and/or public documents to highlight information about Hamilton civic affairs that is not generally available in the mass media. Detailed reports of City Hall meetings can be reviewed at www.hamiltoncatch.org. You can receive all CATCH free updates by sending an email to info@HamiltonCATCH.org.

fare taxes

CATCH News – November 3, 2009

Higher bus fares versus higher taxes

It would cost the average Ancaster household less than $2.50 a year to avoid an HSR fare hike that would add over one hundred dollars to the expenses of a regular adult bus rider. Differential transit taxes mean a Hamilton home of similar value would pay just over $11 a year to keep bus fares at their current levels (see table).

The proposed twenty-cent-a-ride fare hike has sharply divided councillors. It is intended to raise $1.9 million which is about 4.2 percent of the $45 million in property taxes collected for HSR services this year.

An Ancaster home valued at $300,000 currently pays $58 a year for the HSR. A similar priced home in the former city of Hamilton pays $266 a year with households in the other former municipalities falling in between these two extremes – Waterdown $60, Dundas $65, Stoney Creek $85 and Glanbrook $114 (see table).

About 15 percent of households are rural and they neither receive HSR service nor pay any taxes towards its operations. All households receive DARTS service and share equally in its costs. The variable tax rates in the urban areas are a carryover from before amalgamation ten years ago when the former suburbs purchased transit service from Hamilton.

The proposed twenty cent HSR fare hike would raise the adult pass by $9 a month or $108 a year. Cash fares would rise to $2.60 a ride from the current $2.40.

Council has instructed city staff to limit increases in departmental budgets to no more than two percent, a directive made more difficult by already approved wage increases in the three percent range. The HSR faces the additional problem of a three percent drop in ridership that is expected to cut $1.3 million from its revenues this year and in 2010.

After squeezing other spending, the transit division is $1.9 million over the two percent target – an amount that it thinks can be recouped by the 20-cent-a-ride fare hike. However that could be optimistic because it assumes no drop in the number of passengers who will pay the higher fares to ride the bus.

The inconclusive outcome of last week’s debate on the HSR budget reflects the division between transit promotion and higher taxes, and largely pits suburban councillors against their colleagues in the former city of Hamilton. It’s further complicated by this being the last city budget before municipal elections next fall.

On October 29, five councillors endorsed a 20-cent fare hike – Dave Mitchell, Maria Pearson, Rob Pasuta, Russ Powers and Mayor Fred Eisenberger. That proposal went down to defeat 8 to 5 – the same fate that met an earlier move to raise fares by 10 cents that was supported by Mitchell, along with Chad Collins, Scott Duvall, Tom Jackson and Terry Whitehead.

Together that makes nine councillors supporting a fare hike. Four others voted against both proposed increases – Bob Bratina, Brian McHattie, Sam Merulla and Bernie Morelli – and three were absent – Brad Clark, Lloyd Ferguson and Margaret McCarthy.

A fare hike won’t entirely eliminate a rise in transit taxes, but it will lower the budget increase to the approved two percent increase. If there is no fare hike, the tax hit for the HSR will be 6.2% per household, or about $3.60 per household in Ancaster and $16.50 in old Hamilton.

The actual tax hike will also vary according to the assessed value of each house. A higher percentage of suburban residences exceed the $300,000 figure than the homes in the older parts of the city.

Much of last Thursday’s debate focused on whether or not to shift some capital dollars to the HSR operating budget, a move suggested by transit staff but not recommended by the finance department. That would have covered half of the budget overrun and reduced the fare hike to 10 cents per ride.

McHattie announced he’s pursuing an alternative option that would add $3 million to the HSR operating budget by shifting provincial gas tax monies from the capital budget to the operating side of the ledger and replacing the capital dollars with federal gas tax monies.

The latter monies were originally earmarked by the federal government for transit use only in cities over 500,000 population, but Hamilton fell below that threshold initially and the rules have subsequently been broadened to allow allocation to other capital expenditures. At this point, about half the annual subsidy of $79 million is being used for waste management facilities, with the remainder split between road construction and the renovations to city hall.

The fare hike is expected to be debated and voted on again at the November 11 city council meeting.

Taxes for HSR on a $300,000 home within the transit service area
and effect of avoiding a proposed 20 cent per ride fare hike

Area affected	Current HSR taxes per household	4.2% increase to avoid a fare hike	2% increase with fare hike	Total HSR tax increase with no fare hike
Ancaster	$58	$2.44	$1.16	$3.60
Dundas	$63	$2.65	$1.26	$3.91
Glanbrook	$114	$4.79	$2.28	$7.07
Hamilton	$266	$11.17	$5.32	$16.49
Stoney Creek	$85	$3.57	$1.70	$5.27
Waterdown	$60	$2.52	$1.20	$3.72
Rural areas	$00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00

CATCH (Citizens at City Hall) updates use transcripts and/or public documents to highlight information about Hamilton civic affairs that is not generally available in the mass media. Detailed reports of City Hall meetings can be reviewed at www.hamiltoncatch.org. You can receive all CATCH free updates by sending an email to info@HamiltonCATCH.org.

let me take you higher!

Higher fares and dirtier buses

City staff are calling for a 20 cent fare hike for the HSR and DARTS, and switching bus purchases to 40-foot diesel vehicles instead of a mix of 40 and 60 foot articulated hybrids. The proposals were released on Friday and go before councillors as part of the ‘transit day’ budget deliberations on October 29.

The 9:30 am meeting at the Sheraton Hotel was also expected to consider changes to HSR routes proposed by consultants. A presentation on those changes (not yet made public) is on the agenda, but transit staff want no action taken by councillors until staff have an opportunity to respond.

The fare hikes, on the other hand, are recommended for finalization by November 30 so they can be imposed at the start of next year.

“Foregone revenue from a delay in a fare increase beyond January 1, 2010 would be in the order of $100,000 per month,” warns the report.

Staff say their proposals respond to a council directive that limits spending increases to 2 percent for 2010 – equal to a little over $850,000 for transit. Staff say the division is facing $2.1 million in additional costs next year plus a $1.3 million drop in revenue because of fewer riders, and that the combined effect would be amount to an 8 percent hike in spending.

The report doesn’t specify the precise effect on ticket or pass prices, instead only referring to “a fare increase of an average of 20 cents per trip”. Applied across the board, the hike would translate into approximately $10 extra per month on the adult and student passes that currently sell for $79 and $63 respectively.

As recently as June 2007, these passes were $65 for adults and $50 for students. Cash fares are currently $2.40 with adult tickets costing $1.85. The seniors pass is now $205 a year. Any fare hikes approved will also apply to DARTS tickets.

The report says fare hikes “ideally” should be for the purpose of improving transit services, and not to keep down taxes.

“Less desirably, in a challenged fiscal environment, fare increases are applied to meet fiscal goals for program budgets versus strategic goals,” explains the report. “Fare increases where the new revenue is used to offset increases to the general tax levy are detrimental to the sustainability of transit programs.”

Transit taxes are area-rated and only apply to portions of the city that receive HSR service with the vast majority collected from residents of the former city of Hamilton. A $300,000 home there pays $266 a year on their tax bill, while similar valued homes in Ancaster pay $58, in Waterdown $60, Dundas $63 and Stoney Creek $85.

Other recommended measures include purchasing only low-floor ramp vehicles for DARTS rather than the lift-equipped high floor design. Staff are also calling for a delay to increases in the Taxi Scrip program that have been recommended by council’s Advisory Committee for Persons with Disabilities.

Dropping the policy of buying hybrid buses, including some large articulated vehicles, will save $200,000 explains the report, while abandoning the purchase of lift-equipped DARTS buses will conserve an additional $100,000. There is no discussion in the report on the implications of these moves for either air quality or transit services.
Changes to DARTS to meet new provincial human rights rules are to be discussed in a separate report that staff promises for “the near future” but say won’t affect next year’s transit budget.

“However, there will be substantive financial impacts on future budget years beyond 2010 to achieve compliance with the pending AODA legislation as it is currently contemplated,” the report warns.

At this point, no formal opportunities are being provided to allow transit users to comment on the proposed changes, although council committees usually accept individual requests to speak if made by noon on the day prior to the scheduled meeting.


CATCH (Citizens at City Hall) updates use transcripts and/or public documents to highlight information about Hamilton civic affairs that is not generally available in the mass media. Detailed reports of City Hall meetings can be reviewed at www.hamiltoncatch.org. You can receive all CATCH free updates by sending an email to info@HamiltonCATCH.org.

speedy streets?

CATCH News – September 19, 2009

Speed limit rules changed

The city has adopted new guidelines for speed limits on urban and rural roads that rely on drivers to determine the most appropriate velocity. The guidelines that were produced by a national road association will be supplemented with a modified policy for school zones.

The report from the city’s traffic management department argues that “motorists drive at a speed which they find comfortable based on visual cues and their surroundings and not from the speed limit signs” and therefore road safety is improved by setting speed limits “that match the expectation” of drivers.

“The ideal speed limit would be self enforcing,” says the report . “In most cases, the majority of drivers do find the optimum travel speed, and it is inappropriate to set a posted speed limit that is inconsistent with driver’s perceptions, and rely on police enforcement to try to reduce operating speeds.”

The new policy follows guidelines released this year by the Transportation Association of Canada (TAC), a 95 year old organization that was originally called the Canadian Good Roads Association. It changed its name in 1970 to the Roads and Transportation Association and subsequently dropped the roads reference as it “expand its mandate to include all modes of transport for passengers and freight in the 1990s.

“TAC has a primary focus on roadways and their strategic linkages and inter-relationships with other components of the transportation system,” says the group’s website .

The organization doesn’t have a policy for school zones, so city staff have devised one that will be considered for use within 150 metres of a school. It would set a maximum 40 km per hour limit but on major roads that may only apply for part of the school day.

“Arterial roads have a primary purpose of moving traffic. Lower speed limits are generally contrary to this explicit purpose”, explains the policy attached to the staff report. “However, recognizing the need to provide for the safety of school-aged pedestrians en route to school, it may be appropriate to slow the maximum permissible speed of motor vehicle traffic. The time-limited speed limit strikes a balance between the safety of school children and the need to ensure mobility through the city.”

Glanbrook councillor Dave Mitchell welcomed the change which he hopes will result in lower posted speeds on some rural roads – something that has been previously requested by the city’s agricultural and rural affairs subcommittee.

Hart Solomon, the city’s director of traffic engineering and operations, told Mitchell that in some cases the new rules could mean a 10 km per hour reduction in current limits.

Downtown councillor Bob Bratina wanted to know if the policy would affect a proposed 30 km speed limit sought by residents of the north end neighbourhood and endorsed in principle by council.

Solomon assured him that “council always has the authority to override” the new rules.

“This policy doesn’t look at speed limits under 50 km in local areas so this would just be a special case and we’ve already anticipated that it would exist as a pilot project,” he said.

The report doesn’t directly address pedestrian or cycling safety. The city’s public health department is advocating for more walkable communities through its Hamilton Walks project, and a new cycling master plan was recently presented to council by the city’s alternative transportation coordinator.

The staff report shows consultation only with the Hamilton police service who “agrees completely with the concept of setting speed limits based on good engineering principles” and “does not support artificially low speed limits due to the impact on fair and appropriate enforcement.”

CATCH (Citizens at City Hall) updates use transcripts and/or public documents to highlight information about Hamilton civic affairs that is not generally available in the mass media. Detailed reports of City Hall meetings can be reviewed at www.hamiltoncatch.org . You can receive all CATCH free updates by sending an email to info@HamiltonCATCH.org .

press for bike lanes

CATCH News – June 23, 2009

Council pressed on cycling master plan

Cyclists are being urged to attend tomorrow night’s council meeting to support increased funding for bike lanes and multi-use paths. Last week, the public works committee refused to confirm funding for a proposed master plan for cycling infrastructure and also deferred making the staff coordinator’s job permanent.

Transportation for Liveable Communities is calling for sufficient funding for a cycling infrastructure master plan developed by city staff.

“The best case scenario: City councillors approve $2.5 million in funding each year, which would see the urban cycling network completed in 10 years and the rural web of bike paths completed in 20 years,” says a flyer issued by the group. “If you cycle, or know someone who does, we need you to let your local politician know that you support an integrated cycling network of bike lanes and paths.”

The proposal for $51.5 million for cycling infrastructure was accepted by the public works committee on June 15, but only after amendments to defer any funding commitments until future city budget discussions. And a specific recommendation that “the position of project manager, alternative transportation be made permanent” was also put off.

That position, the only one focused on cycling programs, is currently held by Daryl Bender, the main author of the master plan. He’s been a temporary employee for the last two years, and prior to his hiring, the annual $300,000 budget for bike lanes had repeatedly been unspent.

Tom Jackson asked that the “part about the permanency of the position … be referred to next year’s budget” discussions. He was assured that the change would not have any financial implications.

“This is simply taking a position which exists in our complement but which has been designated as a temporary contract position,” explained Hart Solomon, the city’s traffic manager. “The source of funding is already in place.”

But Jackson insisted that any decision on this be deferred, and the committee agreed. He also pushed through an amendment to make all proposed bike lanes “conditional upon individual links being subject to community feedback in consultation with the ward councillor in affected neighbourhoods.”

Earlier in the meeting, Chad Collins had challenged the wording of another part of the recommendation that he felt might mean “setting in stone” funding for the plan. Staff had suggested the annual budget for cycling infrastructure be increased to $1.25 million from the current $300,000 a year.

“How do we accommodate the increased figure that you’re proposing here, given the current capital budget, without creating problems in other areas when we know we have a capital budget infrastructure deficit,” Collins asked of Solomon, noting pressures to address storm flooding and improved transit services.

“Obviously the priorities are going to be set by the members of council and we’re simply presenting you with a plan that will have to be evaluated in comparison with all the other priorities – and we’re quite cognizant of the financial difficulties,” responded Solomon. “We’re simply suggesting that if cycling rises far enough in the priority system to be implemented at that stage, then that’s the amount of funding necessary to do it.”

Collins remained concerned that the plan could be “written in stone” and moved an amendment that would make the cycling improvements authorized “for consideration in the 2010 and future years’ capital budget deliberations.” He also argued that actual city spending on cycling is already greater than $300,000 a year – pointing to the $14 million in provincial monies allocated last year to a pedestrian/cycling bridge over the QEW as part of the Red Hill Valley trails system.

Margaret McCarthy said she would not support the proposed spending, pointing to “the restricted movement of traffic and vehicular movement around the city” and suggesting that “encouraging cycling in that mix” is an “unsafe practice.” She was also concerned about “our weather conditions” and air pollution that cyclists “would be sucking in as they’re going along those busy intersections.”

The budget for capital projects, including bike infrastructure, is drafted by city staff and usually approved in December for the coming year with very little council discussion. High city debt levels, as well as major recent spending on waste management facilities, the Linc and the Red Hill Valley Parkway, has restricted the size of the capital budget.

In the most recent capital budget, next year’s spending was forecast to drop from $236 million down to $181 million – but that doesn’t include one-time federal and provincial stimulus spending that has so far provided an extra $122 million earlier this month. The city has applied for an additional $84 million for recreational projects.

CATCH (Citizens at City Hall) updates use transcripts and/or public documents to highlight information about Hamilton civic affairs that is not generally available in the mass media. Detailed reports of City Hall meetings can be reviewed at www.hamiltoncatch.org. You can receive all CATCH free updates by sending an email to info@HamiltonCATCH.org.

catching up with cycling?

CATCH News – June 14, 2009

Comprehensive cycling network proposed
The city has prepared a master cycling plan that could put every urban resident within one kilometre of a bike lane or trail and establish a full rural network as well – for less than the city’s financial commitment to the proposed Pan-Am stadium. The plan goes to the public works committee tomorrow morning, but with recommended funding that would require over 40 years to complete the full network.
Over 260 bike lanes or multi-use paths in all parts of the city are listed in the plan to be added to the current network. Most of those (220) are in the urban area and are expected to cost $22.6 million to put in place. The 46 proposals for the rural area would add another $28.9 million, for a total price tag of $51.5 million.
“The core facility type will be the designated, painted lane,” explains the staff report. “The plan is based on the philosophy that a cyclist should be able to access the network in the urban area by travelling no more than 1 km, so a grid based on a 2 km spacing has been developed.”
The current budget allocation for cycling infrastructure is $300,000 a year. That was originally established at one percent of the road building budget, but has not increased for several years. Using that rate of annual spending, it would take 172 years to pay for all the projects. Staff are suggesting increasing annual spending for cycling to $1.25 million – enough to finish the master plan in 41 years.
That schedule could be cut to under 20 years if efforts are concentrated in the urban area – a direction that is suggested in the staff report.
“The funding level suggested in this report is about one-half that level and reflects the realities of our limited capital budget for road improvements,” says the staff report. “While $1,250,000 annually is less than the amount required to complete the entire network in twenty years, it will allow for good success on the urban portion and is compatible with staff’s ability to undertake these projects.”
An option offered to councillors is to double the allocation to $2.5 million a year – equivalent to five dollars per resident per year. That would bring Hamilton closer to Toronto’s annual per capita allocation of five dollars and twenty-five cents.
The city’s last major cycling plan was prepared ten years ago and staff say about 75 percent of its recommended projects have now been completed. But they note that 1999 “ Shifting Gears” plan “did not provide a comprehensive network of cycling facilities across the City.”
The new master plan has been developed over the last year in consultation with the public aims to correct this deficiency. It is “primarily focused on developing new on-road facilities, connecting wherever possible to existing or planned off-road facilities” says the report. It goes on to explain that the intent is to support both “commuter/utilitarian cycling and recreational cycling”, noting that the latter “is often the first step toward commuting or utilitarian use.”
Council is also being asked to approve permanent status for the “ alternative transportation coordinator” – a position that is currently only temporary.
“Integral to delivering the plan is the requirement for a full-time staff member dedicated to delivering the program,” advises the report. Before the temporary coordinator was hired, actual spending on cycling infrastructure was running far behind the annual $300,000 budget.
The majority of the proposed projects in the urban area are budgetted at less than $50,000 each. Of these 39 would cost less than $10,000 each, and another 93 are in the $10-50,000 range. Only two of the first 65 in the priority list attached to the report would cost more than $50,000.
Many of the more expensive projects are multi-use trails. Nine of the 215 in the urban area exceed $500,000 each with one of those budgetted at over $1 million.
Many of the more costly would be scheduled as part of road widening or reconstruction, with the cycling budget picking up any additional costs required for bike lanes. In the rural area, where over 250 kilometres of lanes are proposed, 70 percent of the projects would require paving road shoulders.
The completed plan, if approved by the committee and ratified next week by the full council, will then be posted for 30 days of further public comment required under provincial environmental assessment rules.


CATCH (Citizens at City Hall) updates use transcripts and/or public documents to highlight information about Hamilton civic affairs that is not generally available in the mass media. Detailed reports of City Hall meetings can be reviewed at www.hamiltoncatch.org. You can receive all CATCH free updates by sending an email to info@HamiltonCATCH.org.

bridge over troubled committee

CATCH News – November 17, 2008

Pedestrian bridges decision delayed

A decision on pedestrian bridges in the Kirkendall neighbourhood was delayed today at the request of the ward councillor. Staff are recommending replacing one of three footbridges across the CN rail line south of Main Street, between Queen and Dundurn, after discovering it is used by over one thousand pedestrians a week.

At issue are north-south crossings of the railway at Ray, Poulette and Pearl Streets. Only the Pearl Street crossing currently exists. The Ray one was demolished last year, and the Poulette bridge was removed in the mid-1980s.

Both are located between Queen and Locke while the Pearl Street bridge is midway between Locke and Dundurn. A 2006 city study recommended repairing or replacing the Pearl bridge and reinstalling the one at Poulette, but a consultant study released earlier this year argued that none of the bridges were required.

Public outcry as well as opposition from west end councillor Brian McHattie forced a re-evaluation. The revised report that went to the public works committee today recommends replacing the deteriorating Pearl Street crossing in 2012.

After encountering “significant public sentiment in favour of retaining/replacing the pedestrian crossings”, the report says, staff did a count of bridge users and realized it was being used extensively.

“A new pedestrian bridge at Pearl Street was recommended based on existing pedestrian usage obtained through pedestrian counts (229 people over a 10.5 hour early spring weekday count and 166 people over a 6 hour early spring weekend count)”, they report. On the weekday count eleven percent of the users were under 12 years of age.

No count could be conducted for the Poulette structure because it no longer exists, but staff are arguing that it isn’t needed because major walking destinations can be accessed in other ways, and “the Poulette Street corridor is discontinuous in terms of serving major desire lines” in Kirkendall and the adjacent Strathcona neighbourhoods.

“The cost of a new pedestrian crossing at Poulette Street ($450,000-$500,000 capital cost plus long term maintenance costs) also cannot be justified based on the marginal benefits that it would provide,” argues the report. The spring consultant study estimated the price tag at $250,000.

McHattie succeeded today in having a decision put off until the December 1 meeting of the committee. On his website, the councillor says he’s “working on a multi-stakeholder plan” to re-install the Poulette bridge.

“I feel strongly that we need to have as many attractive pedestrian routes as possible to encourage folks to leave their cars at home,” McHattie contends, “with the clear benefit of more fit populations, reductions in greenhouse gases and air pollution, and the promotion of a slower pace of life obtainable when one walks.”

He’s backed by neighbourhood groups and at least two city-wide environmental organizations, Transportation for Liveable Communities (TLC) and Environment Hamilton, who held a “bridge party” in September to urge more pedestrian facilities in Kirkendall.

In a May submission to the city, TLC noted that the city’s master transportation plan has the stated aim of increasing walking and that the recently rebuilt automobile bridge on Dundurn was ten times the price of each new pedestrian-only facility.

“The Kirkendall neighbourhood is one of lower Hamilton’s great assets, boasting short, walkable streets, architectural diversity and a railway which did not, until recently, divide the neighbourhood, but rather added its own character,” said the TLC submission.

Environment Hamilton also called for more pedestrian facilities and criticized the consultant study for wrongly assuming that 6 kilometres an hour is an average walking speed.

“Hamilton has been talking about reducing car dependency since the early 1990s,” noted the group’s April letter, “but when the rubber meets the road it always seems to turn out that the ‘commitment’ goes no further than talk.”

Since then, Environment Hamilton has launched the “Kirkendall Walks” project with funding from Environment Canada to encourage reduction in short distance vehicle trips in favour of walking and cycling.

The Kirkendall Neighbourhood Committee is introducing it’s new “Pedestrian-friendly neighbourhood committee” at a public meeting on Wednesday evening in Stanley Avenue Baptist Church starting at 7:30 pm. The objective is “finding ways to improve the walkable (and perhaps bicyclable) character of the neighbourhood.”

CATCH (Citizens at City Hall) updates use transcripts and/or public documents to highlight information about Hamilton civic affairs that is not generally available in the mass media. Detailed reports of City Hall meetings can be reviewed at www.hamiltoncatch.org. You can receive all CATCH free updates by sending an email to info@HamiltonCATCH.org.

Photo of Pearl Street Bridge, September 2008 (Bridge Party, Car Free Week in hamilton)