2013 City Budget

[thistleclub]

Council OKs $252m capital budget for roadwork, transit, Pan Am
(Hamilton Spectator, Emma reilly, Dec 12, 2012)

City councillors have approved a $252-million capital budget for 2013, up from $221 million this year. The biggest chunk — $102.8 million — will be spent on roads.

Other major expenses include $39.2 million for Pan Am, $26.5 million for transit, and $5.4 million for vehicle replacement.

However, equally telling are the items not being funded in next year’s budget. They include:

• Park development initiatives (including $30 million for Gage Park, $6 million for Gore Park, $10 million for Battlefield Park and $37 million for Confederation Park

• Police investigative building: $15 million

• West Harbour Recreation Master Plan: $75 million

• Light rail transit (LRT): amount undetermined

• Two-way street conversions: amount undetermined

The lack of funding for two-way street conversions and LRT funding garnered particular attention Tuesday. Hamilton Chamber of Commerce CEO David Adames attended the meeting to ask councillors to dedicate funding to LRT in the 2014 capital budget, arguing that it wasn’t too early to start thinking about next year’s expenses.

Councillor Chad Collins also asked for city staff to prepare a three- or five-year implementation plan for two-way street conversions — including those already identified by the city, along with any conversions that arise at the recommendation of a citizen task force recently struck by councillors Brian McHattie and Jason Farr.

[Dr Awesomesauce]

40% of the budget going towards roads - that sounds about right.

[thistleclub]

Putting those "telling" omissions in context, while it stepped up to cover six months of CSUMB, Council backed away from spending what would presumably be an additional $3.35m to bankroll a full year of temporary poverty relief, apparently because doing do "would have added about 1 per cent to residential tax rates, which works out to about $30 per household."

Leaving the TBD line items of LRT and two-way street conversions out of the tally, the other three items cited amount to an additional $173m in spending. If included, they would have meant a capital budget 68%+ larger than the one that was passed.

[CaptainKirk]

Originally Posted by pEte fiSt iN Ur fAce

40% of the budget going towards roads - that sounds about right.

Another reason to discourage suburban sprawl (aerotroplois) and encourage increased density ( LRT)

[NortheastWind]

Originally Posted by CaptainKirk

Another reason to discourage suburban sprawl (aerotroplois) and encourage increased density ( LRT)

Aerotropolis is intended to be employment lands that will support the cargo businesses at the airport, which will generate even more employment. Increased density as a result of LRT will be primarily residential. The increased employment opportunities will support the higher density.

[CaptainKirk]

Originally Posted by NortheastWind

Aerotropolis is intended to be employment lands that will support the cargo businesses at the airport, which will generate even more employment. Increased density as a result of LRT will be primarily residential. The increased employment opportunities will support the higher density.

The enormous cost for aerotroplis' infrastructure will far out weigh any gains in employment.

Infill, and densification and the resultant increased property values and tax bases brought on by LRT are proven in many other cities.

[bigguy1231]

Originally Posted by CaptainKirk

The enormous cost for aerotroplis' infrastructure will far out weigh any gains in employment.

Infill, and densification and the resultant increased property values and tax bases brought on by LRT are proven in many other cities.

The same argument being used against the aerotroplis can be used against the LRT. It will be a bottomless moneypit that will have to be subsidized by taxpayers for as long as it exists.

[Dr Awesomesauce]

When has public transit not required massive public subsidies? Everybody knows that. We do it, not only to provide another method of transportation, but because of the spin-off effects, especially in the case of a metro, LRT or the like.

Even if Aerotropolis goes ahead as planned, the jobs would be warehousing and logistics - in other words, low-paying. We can do better for $500M+.

Most of us, however, believe that Aerotropolis is just a ruse to service lands for sprawl residential. There's little doubt in my mind that that's the way it's going to go.

[block43]

Also driving requires more subsidies than transit. I was doing some research for a paper and a study out of the US found that a 20 mile round trip by car costs society, through externalized costs, $7.60 more than the same trip via transit. The externalized costs include road construction,maintenance, emissions , health, accidents, storm water runoff, depressed property values, noise, parking, gas subsidies, insurance subsidies and does not include climate change costs.

[Jon Dalton]

The difference between AEGD and LRT in terms of risk is that if the AEGD fails to attract business, the money has gone to waste. Worse yet, it will have paved the way for sprawl residential which is a net loss to the city.

If LRT fails to attract development and increased assessment, it still improves transit. The demand for ridership already exists, and transit needs are currently underserved along the route. LRT is known to have lower operating costs per passenger mile than buses. It will form the backbone of an improved transit system with higher ridership across the board. Even if none of the hoped for development materializes, there will still be some payback with LRT.

[CaptainKirk]

[QUOTE=bigguy1231;5937341. It will be a bottomless moneypit that will have to be subsidized by taxpayers for as long as it exists.[/QUOTE]

All public transit requires subsidy. That's why they're public. Just like roads.

[NortheastWind]

Originally Posted by pEte fiSt iN Ur fAce

Even if Aerotropolis goes ahead as planned, the jobs would be warehousing and logistics - in other words, low-paying. We can do better for $500M+.

Most of us, however, believe that Aerotropolis is just a ruse to service lands for sprawl residential. There's little doubt in my mind that that's the way it's going to go.

But there will be lots of spin-off jobs at the airport. And the residential will not occur around the airport because of aircraft noise concerns.

[bigguy1231]

Originally Posted by CaptainKirk

All public transit requires subsidy. That's why they're public. Just like roads.

That was my point. Roads, sewers and water are all public infrastructure just like building an LRT. Both will need continued maintenance and expeditures. The difference is the infrastructure for the aerotropolis will only be built as needed, if needed. The LRT on the other hand will be an ongoing expense whether people use it or not, because it will be part of the infrastructure in whole from the start.

They have already said in the studies that the people that are currently using buses will be the same people using LRT. There is no guarantee that ridership will increase, yet the advocates are still willing to spend a billion building it and millions per year supporting it for a generation or more.

If people are going to demand guarantees for the airport lands before we proceed there they we should also demand that the LRT be held to the same standard.

[CaptainKirk]

Originally Posted by NortheastWind

But there will be lots of spin-off jobs at the airport. And the residential will not occur around the airport because of aircraft noise concerns.

This is all about more, expensive suburban sprawl that we can no longer afford to continue. Jobs will not be plenty, and they will mostly be low paying warehouse jobs. Aerotroplis is ill conceived, or the idea of developers who make their $$$ off of sprawl.

[CaptainKirk]

Originally Posted by bigguy1231

They have already said in the studies that the people that are currently using buses will be the same people using LRT. There is no guarantee that ridership will increase, yet the advocates are still willing to spend a billion building it and millions per year supporting it for a generation or more.

B-line already has the necessary ridership. LRT is proven, along with proper land use planning, to increase urban density which will increase ridership. LRT is also less costly to maintain than buses in the long run.

Promoting and planning increased density is the best way to keep taxes efficient. Sprawl cost us all even more and more. It's gotta stop, or be minimized.

We have the luxury of benefiting from the successful LRT experiences of others. It's well established what well planned LRT can do. It'll all come down to costs and financing models.

[durandy]

Originally Posted by NortheastWind

But there will be lots of spin-off jobs at the airport. And the residential will not occur around the airport because of aircraft noise concerns.

There wouldn't be 20 developers reserving their chance to cut a piece of the pie if they didn't think they'd be building sprawl.

[CaptainKirk]

Just noticed that the Hamilton Civic League is against aerotroplis as a waste of taxpayers' money

http://civicleague.ca/aerotropolis/

[durandy]

Originally Posted by CaptainKirk

Just noticed that the Hamilton Civic League is against aerotroplis as a waste of taxpayers' money

http://civicleague.ca/aerotropolis/

They've been working against this for some time. They've canvassed a great number of residents in the area and found that very few even had knowledge of the plan. They've also coordinated participants for the OMB hearings.

[Jon Dalton]

If you want to look at a perpetual money pit, look at Hamilton's overbuilt road system - it's costing us $100 million for one year of maintenance!

Look at all the lanes that are barely used. I can think of pavement in Hamilton that is not even a lane, it's simply painted over so cars won't drive on it, because there's so much extra.

We have 7.2 metres of main road per person here. If that was reduced to somewhere closer to that of the average city, the costs of upkeep would go down.

Traffic is always suggesting road widening if the 'level of service' is deemed too low. How about going the other way? If a road is not used enough, cut down a lane and return it sidewalk, front yards or bike lanes, which are cheaper to maintain.

[thistleclub]

Via City of Hamilton:

Pavement Management

The City of Hamilton maintains an extensive network of both urban and rural roads, and all classes from local roads to expressway roads.

A centreline-kilometre is a measure of one kilometre of road, regardless of the number of lanes. A lane-kilometre is a measure of one kilometre of road multiplied by the number of lanes. Hence, a one kilometre long, four-lane road, would be considered to be one centreline-kilometre, or four lane-kilometres. Hamilton maintains approximately 2800 centreline-kilometres, or 6200 lane-kilometres of roads. 6200 lane-kilometres of road is approximately the equivalent of travelling the distance from Hamilton to Toronto and back, on a one-lane road, 45 times.

In order to effectively manage and maintain the state of Hamilton’s roads, Hamilton staff utilize a Pavement Management System (PMS). The PMS is a powerful software tool that stores road condition rating data, analyzes and prioritizes road rehabilitation needs and rehabilitation strategies, and predicts future funding needs based on forecasted road deterioration.

The key to managing the City of Hamilton’s roads is to apply the correct rehabilitation strategy at the correct time. This includes applying preventative maintenance strategies to roads in early stages of deterioration (e.g., crack sealing), then applying rehabilitation strategies in later stages (e.g., resurfacing) and finally, reconstructing roads.

Ideally, road reconstruction is coordinated with subsurface infrastructure rehabilitation projects because it is most cost-effective. It increases our customers’ level-of-service and reduces the frequency of construction inconvenience.


In comparison, the City of Toronto apparently contains 5,389 centreline kilometres (including road and associated ramp)... and 70km of rapid transit rail lines, while the City of Ottawa boasts roughly 5,200 centreline kilometres of roads.

FWIW, Ottawa's stats suggest that, as of 2005 at least, Hamilton's per-capita lane distance placed just below the median for single-tier Ontario municipalities surveyed.

Also from Ottawa's docs: On a per-lane-km basis, our unpaved roads cost consume almost twice as much maintenance budget as our paved roads do.