|
January
1998 Newsletter
QUESTION
ONE : TRAFFIC NEED
The
first question in the PR addresses the traffic need for
the expressway. It says the east escarpment crossings are
already operating at or near capacity and "traffic
generated by an appreciable growth in the area south of
the escarpment cannot be reasonably accommodated".
It predicts that even the widening of #20 by two lanes would
only accommodate 64% of the forecast demand. It bolsters
these conclusions with the following quote from a 1994 report
of the Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO) : "Without
some road developments in this area, the existing north/south
connections across the escarpment will experience severe
congestion in the morning and evening rush hour periods."
This
quote is taken from the MTO Technical Report issued as part
of David Crombie's 1994 proposal for a four-lane road in
the valley. Readers will remember that Crombie concluded
that widening Mt. Albion Road from two lanes to four and
linking it with the four-lane Woodward Avenue would accommodate
all projected traffic growth. Indeed, Mr. Crombie reached
this conclusion even though he assumed a population growth
rate 25% greater than the region is currently predicting.
So how can Crombie's study be used to argue that widening
#20 by two lanes is insufficient to meet even current population
projections?
The
sentence quoted in the PR is from page 2 of the MTO report,
in the section titled "Background". This section
summarizes views expressed by previous studies. This is
normal practice at the beginning of a report, and is done
to show that the authors understand what has been said in
the past about the issue they are about to re-examine. However,
it is not normal practice to quote from the "Background"
section and pretend that it represents the conclusions of
a report.
Not
surprisingly, the real conclusions of the MTO report are
found 50 pages further on in the "Conclusions"
section of the report. They include that: "A four lane
road provides sufficient capacity to meet the long term
traffic forecasts, under either a low growth or high growth
scenario."
MORE
SELECTED QUOTES
The
same dishonest use of quotes from the MTO report is found
in the answer to the second question addressed in the PR.
Once again a sentence is lifted from the "Background"
section to claim that alternatives have been examined and
"a widened Highway 20 AND a new Mud St. / Fruitland
Road expressway would be required to meet the needs of the
Region". This quote, as well as two more accompanying
it that are also from the "Background" section
of the MTO report, again do not represent the conclusions
of that report, but merely recount views expressed earlier
by the region itself.
It
speaks volumes about the expressway when regional government
officials resort to such trickery to try to justify the
project. The figures they give in the PR for traffic capacity
and for future flows shows that they cannot find honest
arguments in support of the expressway.
TRAFFIC
PROBLEMS?
The
PR claims that there already is a traffic problem on #20
and Mt. Albion with "the existing road network operating
at or near its current capacity", and that this will
get much worse as population grows.
First
consider the following statement from a September 1996 regional
report: "The Regional Transportation Department has
determined that a population of 21,000 will not overload
existing escarpment crossing capacity". There are currently
about 14,000 people in upper Stoney Creek. So one arm of
the Department says road capacity has been reached, while
another says that adding 7,000 people will not create a
capacity problem. A reality check suggests that there currently
is some congestion on #20 between Barton and Queenston,
but only very rare problems going up or down the escarpment.
ROAD
CAPACITY?
Closer
examination of the PR shows that the real cause of its "traffic
crisis" is a serious underestimation of road capacity.
The PR claims that the current capacity of #20 and Mt. Albion
combined is only 2600 vehicles per hour (vph) in the southbound
direction, and that widening Highway 20 by another lane
in each direction will only increase that capacity to 3400
vph.
Since
the PR doesn't tell us the individual capacity for each
of Mt. Albion and #20, we have to do a little math. If we
widen #20 from two lanes in each direction to three, the
PR says the capacity goes up by 800 vph (from 2600 to 3400).
That suggests that one lane of #20 provides for 800 vph
and therefore the existing #20 provides 1600 vph. Subtracting
that from 2600 leaves 1000 for Mt. Albion. This obviously
doesn't make a lot of sense since it suggests that the winding
Mt. Albion can carry more per lane than #20. We need to
do more research.
The
Regional Transportation Review published in 1996 tells us
the capacity of #20 alone is 2200 vph in each direction.
If this is the case, and the PR says 2600 is the total east
escarpment capacity, then Mt. Albion's capacity must be
only 400 (2600 - 2200). However, 1995 City of Hamilton traffic
flow statistics show that Mt. Albion already carries up
to 800 vph in one direction.
Using
these sources, we can calculate that expanding #20 from
two lanes to three would increase its capacity from 2200
to 3300. Add in the 800 already using Mt. Albion, and we
get a total capacity of 4100 instead of the 3400 that the
PR claims.
HOW
MUCH MORE TRAFFIC?
However,
the PR says that a capacity of 5300 will be required by
2021. Not surprisingly this figure is also highly questionable.
The 1982 Environmental Assessment submitted by the Region
to justify a six-lane expressway in Red Hill Valley predicted
a peak one way traffic flow of 4500 vph across the east
escarpment when population levels reach their maximum in
upper Stoney Creek. The 1996 Regional Transportation Review
lowered that prediction to 4400 vph.
These
traffic projections are based on the Region's predictions
of population growth between 1991 and 2021. However, the
actual rate of growth in the first five years of that period
(1991-1996) was only 57% of what was predicted.
If
this trend continues, we could expect that traffic growth
would only be 57%. The PR predicts a growth of 2700 vph
(from 2600 to 5300) and 57% of that is less than 1550. That
would bring total traffic levels to 2600 + 1550 = 4150,
or almost exactly the amount available if we simply widen
#20. If instead we take 57% of the traffic growth predictions
from the Regional Transportation Review of 1800 (2600 to
4400), we get 1025, bringing total levels to only 3625.
In
addition, both the 5300 and the 4400 predictions assume
that the north-south expressway will be built and that as
a consequence a substantial portion of the traffic currently
using central escarpment crossings will shift to the east
escarpment. The 1996 study thus predicts available capacity
on central escarpment accesses of 1600 vph by 2021. If the
expressway is not built, this shift will not take place
and the flows will obviously be even less.
It
is also worthy of note that past traffic predictions of
the Regional government have been grossly high. The 1982
Environmental Assessment forecast that combined peak hour
flows on #20 plus Mt. Albion would rise from 1850 vph in
1981 to 3900 vph in 2001. We are more than 3/4 of the way
through that 20 year period, and the actual increase has
been 750 or about 37% of the predicted increase. In fact,
the current flows have been stable since 1990.
In
summary, the PR grossly under-estimates current roadway
capacity, grossly over-estimates the likely growth in traffic
over the next quarter of a century, and then uses dishonest
quoting to suggest someone else agrees with their conclusions.
QUESTION
TWO : ALTERNATIVES?
Question
two asks if alternatives have been investigated. As noted
above, the answer features more dishonest quoting, in this
case inaccurately claiming that MTO rejected widening #20
in 1994. The rest of the PR answer praises the merits of
the environmental assessment study done in 1978 which assumed
grossly high traffic growth.
QUESTION
THREE : MORE TRANSIT?
Question
three asks if more transit usage would solve the traffic
problems. It answers that hardly anybody wants to use the
bus. This is hardly surprising when the transit services
are being slashed and the money spent to build nice new
expressways to subsidize more car dependency. It says transit
use would have to be more than doubled from the current
48 rides per capita per year. It doesn't tell us that the
rate has fallen from 75 a decade ago. It is worthy of note
that the current Commissioner of Transportation wrote the
1982 environmental assessment of the expressway while he
was a consultant to the Region. In it, he argued that building
the expressway was cost-effective because it would REDUCE
transit use by 4100 passengers a day and result in savings
of over $30 million in transit spending. This mentality
is now in charge of the HSR!
QUESTION
FOUR : POPULATION GROWTH?
Question
four focuses on population growth. It has a nice graph showing
that the population predictions made in 1982 were too low.
It also shows the 1991 to 2021 predictions, but doesn't
bother to tell us that they have already been proven to
be way too high (see above). One sentence reads: "Of
particular importance, the expanded roadway capacity assists
in directing growth in accordance with the planned development
patterns."
This
is simply an admission that the expressway is being built
to make the region's growth predictions for upper Stoney
Creek come true. This goes to the heart of the expressway
issue.
In
the 1950s we were told it was needed for 1960s growth. In
the 1960s it was going to be necessary for the 1970s. In
the 1970s we had to have it for the 1980s, and so on until
today, when we still must build it because of predicted
growth in the next century. The project is a self-fulfilling
one. If we build it, it will create a need for it. If we
don't build it, we won't need it.
This
section also states that "The development of the Heritage
Green Community has been capped at 21,000 because of insufficient
roadway capacity." The PR doesn't tell the reader that
this "cap" keeps going up. It was "capped"
in 1982 at 12,000 as part of the argument that the expressway
must be approved. It was "capped" again in 1991
at 15,000 after the Rae government cancelled funding. Both
of these "caps" were loudly publicized. Then in
1993 the cap was quietly raised to 16,500. In 1996 it was
quietly raised again to 21,000. Meanwhile there are less
than 14,000 people in Heritage Green (upper Stoney Creek).
The pattern is clear. Every time a subdivision developer's
plans threaten to approach the "cap", the cap
goes up. In Hamilton-Wentworth, this is called "planning".
QUESTION
FIVE : MORE TRUCKS?
Question
five asks: "Would not truck traffic increase tremendously,
particularly through truck traffic?" Good question,
but the PR's answer is even better. It admits that 3,000
trucks a day on the 403 could switch to the new expressways,
but then "assumes" that only 25% would actually
do so, and declares that "the added traffic volume
would represent less than 3% of the total traffic on the
roadway".
Why
would only 25% of the trucks divert to a new expressway
that is 9 km shorter than going around the city and over
the skyway? Do 75% of truck drivers like to avoid shortcuts?
The PR doesn't venture a guess as to how many cars currently
use the 403 or what percentage of their drivers will prefer
to take the long way. As for the PR's 3% figure, heavy trucks
currently make up 15-20% of 403 and QEW traffic.
QUESTION
SIX : CAN WE AFFORD IT?
The
next question asks if the region can afford the expressway;
but it doesn't bother to answer that toughie. It also asks
about downloading; but only responds that "the financial
implications associated with the proposed downloading of
services from the Province will not be fully understood
until agreements are reached between the Region and Province."
Instead
of replying to its own questions, this section tries to
down-play the costs of the expressway. It features a pie-chart
graph claiming that the taxes required for police services
are ten times greater than those needed for the expressway.
It also states that the east-west expressway will cost the
region $85 million and the north-south only $76 million,
and this means extra taxes for 25 years of $8 per year for
the east-west and $14 per year for the north-south. The
PR does not explain why a road that costs $76 million raises
taxes nearly twice as much as one that costs $85 million.
However, we are assured that "the costs represent only
0.5% of the total average property tax bill (regional, municipal
and education taxes)."
The
$22 a year (8 + 14) for 25 years in taxes (total $550) is
a gross understatement. What the PR appears to have done
is forgotten that the money is being borrowed. It lists
the regional share of the expressway construction cost as
$161 million (76 + 85). When borrowed over 25 years that
becomes $373 million. The 1997 rule of thumb is that each
$1 million in regional expenditures costs the average homeowner
$3.50. The cost of the expressway for each average taxpayer
should therefore be $1305.50 (3.50 x 373).
The
region hopes to collect $55 million for the expressway from
development charges on new homes over the next 25 years,
so the $373 million may be reduced to $318 million or $1113
for each average taxpayer.
However,
there is another factor that needs to be considered. Up
until last year, it cost the average taxpayer only $3.29
for each $1 million in regional expenditure. This year,
the cost rose to $3.50 because of provincial cutbacks. In
effect, the regional taxpayer pays a larger share of the
expenditures today than they did a year ago. This trend
is continuing with a vengeance. Figures recently released
by the region on the provincial downloading appear to assume
that the rule of thumb is now over $4.00 per million. That
could raise the average homeowner's bill for the expressways
to nearly $1500.
And
this is just the cost of building the expressways. It doesn't
include the operating and maintenance costs which the Regional
Chairman says will equal the construction cost in the first
20 years. Our math says that is over $8 million a year (total
regional cost of $161 million divided by 20). Plus the environmental
costs, and the monies paid from provincial taxes.
QUESTION
SEVEN : SAVING THE ENVIRONMENT
Question
seven asks if the cuts in cost have been at the expense
of the environment. (Note there is no question about whether
the project itself is at the expense of the environment).
This question arose because $41 million disappeared from
the expressway bill last February . Those "savings"
have never been explained. Indeed, the PR doesn't even mention
the $41 million figure. It does tell us that the "savings"
include the "deferral of the construction of Phase
2 of the Highway 403 and Mud Street interchanges".
If "deferral" still means the same in PR language
as it does in ours, it would be nice to know how much extra
cost to expect when those "deferrals" end.
The
PR answer is decorated with a picture of the "wetland"
created by the Region in the middle of the Dartnall Road
interchange as "evidence of the Region's commitment
to the natural environment". The exact value of wildlife
habitat located in the middle of an expressway interchange
is not addressed (advice to wildlife: don't try crossing
the road). However, we have learned that the runoff from
the expressway of PAHs and heavy metals will require that
this "natural environment" be regularly dredged
and the material taken to a toxic waste dump.
QUESTION
EIGHT : MOST EXPENSIVE ROAD?
The
next question and answer provides more fun with figures.
The question is "Isn't this the most expensive roadway
built in Canada?". Now where did the PR get that question?
Its
answer is even better: "While comparisons to other
roadways can be misleading because no two roadways are alike
over a fixed distance, the average design and construction
costs of both the Expressway and Highway 407 in Toronto
are approximately $15 million per kilometre." The word
to note is "approximately".
The
per kilometre cost of the 407 is $13.5 million. The PR gives
the total cost of the east-west and north-south as $367
million. Since they total 19 kilometres, our math calculates
"approximately" a cost per kilometre of $19.3
million. However, including the east-west in our calculations
is perhaps unfair because the PR is devoted to a defence
of the north-south expressway.
The
latter is 7.5 kilometres in length. Its total cost is given
as $199 million. That gives a cost of "approximately"
$26.3 million. To paraphrase a quote: "There are lies,
damned lies, and regional government statistics".
QUESTION
NINE : THE COST OF PARKLAND?
The
ninth question asks why the Region is paying far more to
private landowners than to the City for the lands to be
used for the expressway. The answer: "All land acquisitions
are based on fair market value" and "the valley
lands are not suitable for development and therefore cost
less". Of course the PR doesn't reveal that some private
lands have fetched $300,000 an acre, while the valley lands
owned by the City are going for $5,000 an acre. Nor does
it reveal that replacing the valley lands with new parkland
anywhere in the lower city will cost at least $150,000 per
acre. If the City merely asked for 'replacement value' for
the lands, the cost of the expressway would rise by at least
$20 million.
QUESTION
TEN : PROPERTY VALUES?
The
tenth question asks "Will the expressway significantly
affect property values in adjacent neighbour-hoods?"
The answer? "Evidence to support this claim has not
been demonstrated in the research". Apparently that's
why local house-builders advertise so much about the attractions
of "ravine lots". Perhaps the Region missed a
1996 Environment Canada study that found residential properties
located 30 feet from a greenbelt "have an excess value
of $3,252 over that of a property located 500 feet from
the greenbelt".
AND
THE "PR" GOES ON
The
last three questions are devoted to reassuring the public
that the Region will "try "to reduce negative
impacts of the expressway and will keep the public "informed
through progress reports and public information centres".
We
can hardly wait.
|
