|
April 14, 2004
HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE APRIL 5TH MEETING OF PUBLIC WORKS
Regarding Tolling the Red Hill and Lincoln Alexander Expressways
Summary prepared by CATCH (Citizens at City Hall)
Sam Merulla: "So we would have an in-bred type of problem within our neighbourhoods. I'll tell you Mr. Chairman, if we even remotely go down this road I'll be the first one to bring forward a motion to reconsider the entire project. I'm not even sure why it's before us, we dealt with this at the Implementation Committee .... But if my memory serves me correctly, we voted on this particular issue and it should not even be before us here today. And I'm very serious about the reconsideration if we go down this particular road, which I had believed was a done deal. I'm not sure why it's before us again."
Brian McHattie: "The analysis that was done here, there were 2 scenarios that were available to the consultant to use. One was known as the 'Vision Scenario' and the other was known as the 'Trends Scenario.' The 'Vision Scenario' was based on some of our Vision2020 ideas which included specifically, a doubling of the public transit ridership beyond what we have today. 2019 is the date they were using for their scenarios.
Two questions associated with that: Why was the decision taken to proceed with the 'Trends Scenario' as being most likely which assumes no change to the current modal split. I'd add my own editorial to that-it assumes that the Vision2020 goals are a non-starter. Why was that decision taken?
And then second, more of a technical question, if the 'Vision Scenario' is applied, how do the results change?"
Chris Murray, Red Hill Project Director: "The reason for supporting the 'Trends Analysis' is because that is how traffic is unfolding in Hamilton . We are not realizing the policy direction which has been around for some time, which is Vision2020. So the kind of switches in modal growth aren't as substantial as one would hope and that in fact we are more committed to our cars than what the policy would have us so. plus I think it's important to realize that those more conservative numbers are the same numbers that were used to calculate air emissions increases as well as noise. So if it is perceived as conservative, it is really a reflection of what is happening."
McHattie: "Mr. Chair, it is disturbing to me to hear that we're planning on staying with the same modal split that we have now for the next 20 years or so. I hope that perhaps this Council takes a different direction than what staff are assuming is going to be the status quo. That sounds extremely disturbing.
McHattie: "I guess what I'm trying to get at is, what is the relationship between our stated objective for this road which is 'economic development' which is geared towards the industrial park up towards the south of the area and the fact that it seems that this road is mainly for local traffic? It seems to be a disconnect between those two observations. This is not directly related to the tolling. This is a very interesting report - a fascinating report. But I'm trying to understand the link between that because it is very important for us to make money from doing this project - it's an economic development project after all. So I'm trying to understand the link between what the traffic is telling us and what the tolling scenarios are telling us and us hanging our hat on 'economic development' as the goal for the project."
Peter Crockett, Public Works Manager: "Through you Mr. Chairman, if I could, essentially what it means is that the economic growth that we believe the facility will support which is largely either population, because it is critical from a population growth perspective, but it is also critical from an employment growth perspective. Those employment trips travel largely by car to a destination within the city and therefore they would not pay the toll under that scenario. Only the commercial or the truck related traffic from the economic growth areas or through-traffic would achieve a toll, so all the employment going to those areas that the facility would support, would not be tolled under the scenario that we talk about."
McHattie: "Thanks Mr. Chair. Conscious of all the questions, I just have one last one. The internal rate of return analysis that you do is excellent. I really appreciate that level of analysis. We haven't seen that in other reports on the economic issues associated with this road. That's the basis of my question-this report deals with the business case for tolling.
Through staff, a 2 part question: Why has an internal rate of return analysis not been done for the Expressway Project as a whole. And if there is a sense of that, because again this is based on us spending a lot of citizens' money, to get a good rate of return from an economic development perspective. What is the rate of return for the Red Hill Creek Expressway Project, through you Mr. Chair to staff."
Chris Murray: "Through you Mr. Chairman, I don't have a specific figure that I could quote at this time, but as you recall, there was a presentation several weeks ago by Ray Simpson from Hemson which looked at an update of the economic development situation associated with this project which was an update of the report that was done in the '80s. I think the argument was put forward in that report. But to answer your question specifically, I don't have a number that I can just use right now."
McHattie: "Your previous report by Hemson falls far short of what we're seeing here in terms of level of analysis. The internal rate of return analysis that has been done here, granted just for the tolling scenarios, is incredibly comprehensive and perhaps I can ask through you Mr. Chair to Joe Rinaldo (General Manager, Finance and Corporate Services) can we do, or perhaps why didn't we do, an internal rate of return analysis for the Red Hill Creek Expressway Project? The rate of return is the key part of that in my mind. And if we haven't done that, why haven't we?"
Joe Rinaldo, Finance Manager: "Through you Mr. Chair, I wasn't here at the time when the project was approved through the environmental assessment process. I know as part of those processes, those types of studies are in fact done. It may not be an absolute rate of return, but it is just an economic study that is done on the viability of a project. It should have done as part of the environmental assessment process that the Project went through. I don't have a copy of that so. but I. doing it at this point when the project is already approved, I didn't see the need for us to do it since we went through an environmental assessment process which in fact undertook. evaluated all of that aspect of the project."
McHattie: "I appreciate that answer. It is again very disappointing to me that we haven't done that level of analysis to show whether we actually do have a rate of return at all for this project. I say that's entirely up in the air-still. I apologize to you Paul for putting you through this questioning since it is only peripherally related to your specific report. But it was an excellent report. I think one of the best ones we've had from the Expressway Project and I appreciate your work."
Terry Whitehead: "The East-West Expressway, is it meeting the original goals or targets in terms of traffic, or has it exceeded that?"
Chris Murray: "At this point in time, the volumes are higher than what was ultimately envisioned. And that may be partly because of the fact that the draw on that road is including traffic that is more likely to use the Expressway when it is opened up to the QEW. So you have a slightly higher catchment area, if you will, that is utilizing that road in the mornings and the evenings. But the expectation of staff is that once the Red Hill is opened up to the QEW, you'll see some drop in the volume that will be heading towards 403 in the morning and coming from there in the evenings."
Whitehead: "Well, that's good news because we have all kinds of block-ups when there's an accident on the 403.
Andrea Horwath: "Thanks Mr. Chairman. Several of my questions have been answered so I'll try to be brief. I'm just trying to get a handle on the issues a little further. Just in regards to the issues that were raised around Vision2020 and the modal split, I attended a workshop down at LIUNA Station not too long ago dealing with the transportation master planning that we're trying to do in regards to our OP (Official Plan) and all those kinds of things and my experience was that there was a great deal of support in that room for increasing the reliance on modes other than automobiles in this community. So I'm just trying to figure out where we're going. I mean do we support that? Are we committed to that direction as recently as a couple months ago in the transportation planning process or are we not? Can I get an answer through you Mr. Chairman from staff?"
Peter Crockett, Public Works Manager: "Through you Mr. Chairman, clearly we. we support the Vision2020 goals of trying to get as much modal split to transit or as much ridership to transit as possible. There are a variety of scenarios we need to undertake to get there. What I think what was being done, or looked at, in terms of this analysis is trying to predict based on what's been occurring over the last number of years and looking out based on that trend what kind of volumes we could expect so that we could do the tolling analysis. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't pursue-or any suggestion from a staff standpoint-that we shouldn't pursue the concept of higher modal splits to transit."
Horwath: "Okay Mr. Chairman, so then I guess we'll be looking forward to then seeing over the next couple of years some implementation strategies as to how we actually get that modal split because saying it is one thing but I think, and in fact it's what I heard at that meeting, that accomplishing it is something else. It takes some concentrated effort, it takes some real planning, and I'm looking forward to us putting as much effort into that as has gone into this particular road project.
Murray Ferguson: "I appreciate that. Again, just an opinion, if you don't want to answer that's fine too. but in your opinion, Mr. Chairman to Mr. Murray, is there any claim by Six Nations to the tolling?"
Chris Murray, Red Hill Valley Project Director: "Through you Mr. Chairman, there is as part of the set of agreements which is coming forward to Council for ratification, there is one agreement which does address tolling. The recommendation in that agreements is two-fold: one, that they be exempt from tolls; and two, that the revenues that would be derived from tolls would be used to offset some of the costs associated with the joint stewardship board. That's the extent of it."
Ferguson: "Mr. Chairman, my position on this is that I have no interest whatsoever in providing a short cut for Detroit to Buffalo trucks. If the Province or the Federal Government wants to supply that, that's fine, so I need to know do the inter-regional trucking industry pay any sort of fee at the border? I've talked to several truckers who are very proud of the fact that they drive from Detroit to Buffalo every day and they don't even buy coffee in Canada, let alone buy fuel, let alone pay for the road, and that's my bugaboo with this. And this is a huge short cut if you're going form Detroit to Buffalo to use the Red Hill. Through you Mr. Chair to the consultant: the traffic patterns, how accurate are they? I know the 403 projections-we met the 20 year projections in 5 years. How accurate are your projections in your opinion?"
Phil Bruckler: "I'm trying to look at the net cash flow, if we're trying to relate back to capital costs for the construction of the Expressway or even towards an annualized maintenance. The annual maintenance costs for the Expressway Peter?"
Chris Murray, Red Hill Valley Project Director: " I don't have the exact figure right now, so I'm a little hesitant to quote something."
Jackson: " We've seen formulas when it comes to HSR, we've seen formulas when it comes to rec centre fees, none of them seem to pan out, and what ends up happening often is that we have less users and we have a greater deficit. And I'm sorry, I'm saying respectfully that a lot of these formulas that are used saying this potentially can happen and you have this potential opportunity for all this money-I don't buy it anymore. I'm sorry .... Mr. Chairman, I don't even want to go to first base on this. I'm respectful of the work that's been done .... But that's not the gist of it. The gist of it for me today is that I will not support (b).
I can tell you that the use of the Linc over the past 6 years, Chris is right, the projections of the cars there, the usage has been greater. And I can tell you that arterial residential roads like Mohawk, Limeridge, Stonechurch, have benefited. They still have traffic on them Mr. Chairman, but they have enormously benefited because 50,000 vehicles once were on those streets stopping and starting all the way along East to West and they are not now.
Margaret McCarthy: "Next year we have $8.7million in capital and that's it. This municipality, this City, needs $100million just to maintain its infrastructure and the capital projects that are required to go forward. So $8.7million is nothing compared to what we need. It's no surprise to anyone around this table that I do not support the Red Hill Creek Expressway regardless of the pros and cons for and against, it's a financial issue in my mind. My concern is that it is going to bankrupt this City.
That said, if there is an opportunity to bring dollars back in to the City via tolling and put it directly against the tax base I feel that everybody City-wide benefits from that. So I'm going to support the recommendation as is and at least not arbitrarily close off any discussions that should take place around this Council table and at least have the opportunity to have the debate and see what the Province says in terms of legality and if, in fact, that debate can take place, but I think it would be an error to arbitrarily limit the opportunity for discussion on tolling by stopping it right here."
Dave Mitchell: "I look at Appendix C - it's a history of all the costs that have totally come along here. Where is the original that was promised to us? And different governments got elected and un-elected and they stopped the funding, and they started the funding. I don't think there's a week that has gone by that I don't hear from a constituent: 'the road should have been built, it should have been built long ago.' And we've done nothing but drive costs up for the last 30 or 40 years. I think this report could show what it really does cost at this point Mr. Chairman. All the 'yeas' and the 'neas' and the meetings, even today's meeting and all the time that our staff has spent and we as politicians have spent. if you took the total dollars at this point in time-that's what my constituents would like to know, what's the real cost-I would suggest that this road when we finally get it built can go down in history as being the most costly make-work government program ever in the Province of Ontario. With lawyers paid and planners paid and consultants paid and meeting times paid, if they took everything.
Dave Braden: "I think there are some major problems, I mean there are problems with the whole road obviously. Just for my editorial comment, we've corporately adopted this policy of 'pay-as-you-go,' we have another one that's 'user-pay,' we have another one that's promoting jobs, we have another one that's promoting downtown. And I could go on and on. This project doesn't do any of those. Not one. Just to be clear.
When Mr. Simpson was here, he wasn't asked to do a cost-benefit study. Basically, he was asked to do a 'benefits.' And not a balanced report. It wasn't comprehensive, it wasn't balanced. In the (Expressway) Implementation Committee, that's not what we asked for. Just for the record, I asked a number of times politely-it's pretty hard to continue to be polite-for the person that asked Simpson to do the study. And finally when I got rather nasty to Mr. (Glen) Peace (Acting City Manager), I got the answer. We shouldn't have to, in this so-called government that is interested in being transparent and open, have to almost threaten a staff member to get a simple answer. Sorry that was a deviation Mr. Chairman.
I want to suggest that these numbers look overwhelming, but these are real numbers. So, first, in spite of my anger, let me thank the staff for bringing forward this report. We have always wanted to see bigger pictures. And they're coming. I mean, they're a little late, but they're coming and better late than never. So sincerely, to the staff, thankyou for bringing this report forward. It helps us understand what's there.
I want to talk about the concept of who should pay. What's been curiously lacking in this whole debate is the whole idea of if we're going to pay for this road in taxes, we're not going to pay for it again. We're not going to pay twice. Well I can tell you, it feels like we're paying three times. If people are not willing to pay the toll for the road, it begs the question whether you should build the road in the first place. Right? If people aren't willing to pay $2 or $3 or whatever this nominal sum will be, and the excuse will be: 'well we're not going to build the road and then have the traffic down in the Chairman's neighbourhood.
We've got to really find out what this really boils down to, and I hate to say this. It's that old 'free-lunch' thing. Right? Let's build the road and let's get somebody else to pay for it. Whether it's the Province, or the farmers, or the suburbanites, but introduce the concept in the Hamilton culture that says, the people that use it really ought to pay a lot for it, and there is this feeling of, 'oh no, no, no, somebody else should do that.'
When you look at these numbers, these are the most staggering numbers we've ever seen. And this is not for something we need. This is simply something that a lot of people want. When we talk about the survey and 45% say they're willing to pay for it, those are very mature people who can say, 'there is no free lunch, we're willing to pay.' But if you get them on the wrong day, nobody wants to pay for something if you give them an alternative. They want somebody else, big government or Hamilton, to pay. And that's the real shame here, that in spite of what our staff have been telling us: to get serious about money, we keep spending it. Again this isn't a staff problem here. I commend the staff, well aren't you putting your careers almost on the line to talk about real facts and real numbers? Because our situation is so serious.
But again I want to leave the staff, most of you anyway, but I thank you for bringing this forward. And I hope it gets the kind of debate and expression from the press what this facility really is going to cost, not just now, because now doesn't matter, but what it's going to cost in the long run. Thankyou."
Chad Collins: "I don't think it's fair that those people who have supported this project-when I look at who has the most to lose through all of this, it's the people who live around the East-West portions or the North-South portions, when you start talking about diversion, 10% may not look like a lot, but when you start to talk about tens of thousands of cars, you're talking about a great impact to community.
My support-from the beginning I've never been one to push around this table or publicly or in my election campaign literature that the Expressway was going to be the be-all and end-all to our economic development troubles or assessment growth. For me, it's always been an issue of traffic and my comments the other day in the local media were that I was hoping to see some relief with the construction of this road. And now to go through this debate one more time is a little discouraging in that, you know, those people who were looking for some relief would actually get a double-whamee. If, in fact, we are going to toll the road they probably can expect to see more traffic. And it's not just in my neighbourhood, it probably affects 5 or 6 wards across the whole City.
Merulla: "when you look at our previous campaign, it really was coined an 'unofficial referendum' regarding the building of the Red Hill Creek Expressway. Now, one could argue that if you've won this so-called 'unofficial referendum' based on the rules that were set prior to the election, to actually change the rules now would really mean that you'd won under false pretenses. And I don't think Mayor DiIanni or any of us would be willing to put ourselves in that situation.
Also, I have the greatest respect for Councillor McHattie, and I keep referencing the 403 in the West End and I have to-it does beg the question: if the 403 wasn't built and they were debating this particular issue, I don't believe Councillor McHattie's constituents would be not supporting the building of that particular road.
Whitehead: The other problem I have right now is that I have streets like Garth St. that are comparative to a Third-World Country road. I mean, it's absolutely horrific the shape that it's in. My understanding through Joe is that we are looking at capital dollars attributed to each residential household, varying from $23-$43 per household for the next number of years just to pay down that capital. Is that correct Joe?
Joe Rinaldo, Finance Manager: "Yes, average impact for the East-West project is about $20 per year on an on-going basis and the North-South is about $45 per year, so between the two it's about $65 per year."
Whitehead: "So we're looking at $65 per year shared by the broader community, and I believe that not everyone will use these Expressways but they're all paying for that roadway as well. And that's why I believe that users should take some responsibility when they utilize the roadway in principle but I need to understand the impacts. The other thing we need to understand is that a huge chunk of money that is being taken out of capital that we're not able with current resources to put into our regular roadways that our residents use everyday, and I use Garth St. just as an example."
Mitchell: "I think this report is a good negotiating tool, it is something you lay down in front of the Province and say, there's got to be other ways of funding this. As Councillor Whitehead said, $65 a home. I've got a lot of people in the rural part of my ward that will probably never use this road."
Summary prepared by CATCH (Citizens at City Hall)
To receive their updates contact them at CATCH@cogeco.ca .
Read the full reports on their website at www.environmenthamilton.org/CATCH
|
