Hamilton

Saturday May 30, 2020

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Saturday May 30, 2020

SoBi decision a symptom of a deeper problem

If the SoBi bike share debate that has polarized Hamilton city council, and many citizens as well, was just about money, it would be a one-sided affair.

May 23, 2020

Uber violates its contract and pulls out. Annual operating cost is about $700,000. City Hall is staring down a pandemic-driven deficit of about $60 million. It’s clear city council won’t support that. A compromise plan worth about $400,000 would have bought some time while the city looks for a new partner. Council delivers a tied vote, which technically amounts to a defeat for the compromise motion. 

City council has killed the bikeshare program, at least for this season. Instead, it will pay $140,000 to store the 900 bikes. If that holds true, the gross savings for this season will be about $260,000.

This relatively trivial savings — the total annual operating costs amount to 0.02 of the city’s annual budget — is at least defensible, if this was all about money. That is, if this goes hand in hand with an ironclad decision to kill all discretionary spending until the municipal deficit is dealt with. But is it that?

Is council saying, for example, that under these circumstances not one red cent will go to supporting the 2026 Commonwealth Games bid? If so, they might want to make that public declaration so the organizing committee knows where it stands. The compromise proposal would have been financed from area rating budgets from downtown wards, so would not have impacted the general levy. Does this decision mean other projects that have area rating fund commitments — say the new Ancaster Arts Centre, for example — can expect their area rating funding to be withdrawn?

The answer to these and other related questions, is no, not necessarily. That’s because this decision isn’t just about money. It’s also about the suburban/rural-urban divide that has rendered this city council, on all too many occasions, dysfunctional and incompetent. 

July 25, 2007

Among city councillors from suburban and rural wards, projects that directly benefit urban wards and citizens don’t get the same support as those that benefit suburban and rural ridings. And, to be fair, the reverse is probably also true. It’s a form of parochialism all too familiar to Hamilton political observers. And it doesn’t serve the city overall well. 

In truth, especially at times like these, these people shouldn’t be called city councillors at all. They should be called ward councillors, because their own wards are really all they care about.

Don’t believe that? Consider this. City council agreed not that long ago to declare a climate emergency in Hamilton, in recognition of the climate crisis and its growing local impact. That’s a good, strong and progressive message.

But the very same councillors just voted to kill the bikeshare program, which by any measure was successful. Those 900-odd bikes served 26,000 active members, who took 350,000 trips last year. Those are trips that don’t pollute like cars and diesel buses do. They are trips that improved physical and mental health of the users. They are a feature of a pedestrian-friendly, environmentally conscious city, the kind that is more likely to attract young families and professionals.

This is what eight members of council — Merulla, Collins, Jackson, Pauls, Johnson, Ferguson, Partridge and Whitehead — killed for the sake of gross savings of around $260,000.

All may not be lost. Perhaps a new viable partner can be found to revive public bikeshare infrastructure. But that won’t solve what’s wrong with Hamilton city council. For that, we will have to wait until the next election in 2022. (Hamilton Spectator Editorial)

Letter to the Editor, The Hamilton Spectator, June 10, 2020

I’m very impressed with the sensitive, sensible, and informative political cartoons created by The Spec’s Graeme MacKay. His cartoons are one of the reasons why I continue to subscribe to the print edition. MacKay’s cartoons of the death of SoBi (May 30) and CAF’s report on Ontario’s nursing homes (May 28) were heart wrenching. We are fortunate to have him.

Catherine Marks, Dundas

Saturday May 23, 2020

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Saturday May 23, 2020

Should Hamilton taxpayers ride to the rescue of SoBi bike share network?

Thousands of people have signed a petition calling on the city to save Hamilton’s imperiled bike share network — but councillors are divided over whether local taxpayers should ride to the rescue.

January 20, 2018

The Uber-owned operator of SoBi Hamilton shocked the city Friday by announcing it will shut down local bike share operations June 1 because of pandemic challenges, despite a recent contract renewal.

The two-wheeled emergency hit just as the city prepares to unveil a pandemic “mobility plan” expected to highlight cycling as a safe, affordable alternative as Hamilton emerges from COVID-19 lockdown.

Some council members have already vowed to fight to preserve the program. “We’re going to find a way,” said Mayor Fred Eisenberger during a COVID-19 news conference.

“We WILL find a way to keep our bike share program operating,” added Ward 3 Coun. Nrinder Nann on Twitter in response to resident questions. “It is too critical a link in our transportation network.”

But not everyone believes that support should extend to a municipal takeover or public subsidy.

December 7, 2019

Planning general manager Jason Thorne said Wednesday SoBi Hamilton did not make a profit and bike share models in other cities commonly rely on subsidies. It could cost $700,000 a year for the city or another operator to run the system.

“I’m not on for taxpayer money being used,” said Flamborough Coun. Judi Partridge. “It is successful, it has been great, people have been riding more and it’s healthy for our city — but is it sustainable?”

Ward 4 Coun. Sam Merulla and Ward 14 Coun. Terry Whitehead also both argued public money should be “off the table” when it comes to bike share rescue efforts. Merulla emphasized the city faces a $60-million-plus pandemic deficit and the economy is in “depression mode.” 

He said cash-strapped Hamilton cannot afford to spend on a bike share program that is “not a city-wide network” and any solution should come from a private or nonprofit venture. While the city has explored expansion opportunities for SoBi, the current service area is mostly limited to Dundas and the lower city up until Ottawa Street.

A survey of 420 SoBi members by CivicPlan suggests many live in the service area — but others are scattered throughout the city including on the Mountain, in Glanbrook and Stoney Creek. About 40 per cent reported using SoBi to commute to work, including using the bikes to connect to GO Transit or the local bus service.

A cycling equity program, the Everybody Rides Initiative, also provides subsidized SoBi passes to 500 low-income residents. Social service providers like shelters also have group passes available to help clients get around. (Hamilton Spectator) 

 

Wednesday April 29, 2020

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday April 29, 2020

The future of our watershed is far from assured

Look, it’s another non-COVID-19 editorial! That’s right, we wanted to give you a break from nonstop pandemic news and commentary. We know that can get heavy.

November 26, 2019

So instead, let’s talk about the state of Cootes Paradise, Chedoke Creek and Hamilton’s watershed in general. That’s bound to lighten your mood. Not.

A new report from the City of Hamilton says no special cleanup or monitoring of the Cootes Paradise marsh is called for as a result of the now infamous 24-billion-litre sewage leak known as Sewergate.

Before you utter a collective sigh of relief, let’s be clear: That doesn’t mean the protected marsh area is fine. It’s not. And common sense suggests the extra billions of litres of sewage leaked over more than four years into Chedoke Creek, which drains into the marsh, did not help matters. 

December 7, 2019

According to a report from The Spectator’s Matthew Van Dongen, the report by SLR Consulting concludes there was no lasting damage to the marsh from the sewage spill, but it also observes that it’s hard to know where any specific piece of pollution is coming from, because there are so many sources. Well, that’s a relief.

Hamilton Coun. Maureen Wilson rightfully referred to the situation as a “damning indictment” of how the city has treated Cootes through history, allowing it to become dirty nearly beyond redemption prior to efforts in the last two decades to reclaim the marsh.

Progress has certainly been made, but the reality is that Cootes remains painfully polluted, not only by sewage but also by leachate from old landfill sites and toxic-run-off from highways, parking lots and other sources.

November 27, 2019

Back to the report for a bit. The consultant’s view is not necessarily and final word. The Royal Botanical Gardens, which owns the marsh, is studying the report, and while there is no final determination, there are hints the RBG may not agree with the report’s findings. The RBG’s Nick Kondrat told Van Dongen: “ … our initial assessment is that we strongly believe that additional analysis is required to evaluate the severity of the damage” from the spill.

The provincial Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks has also yet to pass judgment, and it may differ from the consultant when it comes. It will also determine whether any aspect of the spill broke the law. If it did, charges against the city could follow.

The Hamilton Spectator

But suppose the provincial ministry report doesn’t amount to much. And suppose the RBG’s findings and recommendations aren’t conclusive. Where does that leave us? 

As much as we like to use the Sewergate label — The Spec did coin the phrase and break the story, after all — the spill and its fallout are not the most important issue at hand. What matters more is where we go from here. 

Are we satisfied with the status quo, with ongoing cleanup efforts that have delivered laudable but not conclusive results?

Cootes is still receiving pollution from so many sources pollutants can’t be traced to any one source. Chedoke Creek’s bed is layered with contaminated sludge. Major weather events, of which we are having more and more, still result in sewage holding tank overflow that leaks into the marsh, harbour and lake. (Hamilton Spectator Editorial)



 

Thursday April 16, 2020

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday April 16, 2020

LRT versus BRT showdown coming to Hamilton

Thanks to the provincially appointed transportation task force, it appears we’re heading into a final showdown over whether LRT or BRT is the best rapid transit system for Hamilton.

February 1, 2020

The task force, formed after the Doug Ford government killed the planned LRT project, says the province and its transportation agency Metrolinx should now consider both systems equally and analyze which best deserves the $1 billion in capital funding that was originally earmarked for light rail.

If neither are feasible, the task force suggests plowing the money into two-way, all-day GO rail service to Hamilton.

If nothing else, there’s a kind of poetic if rough justice in all this. 

There’s always been a strong sense among light rail opponents that the bus rapid transit option was previously given short shrift by both Metrolinx and city staff.

Certainly the city’s 2008 rapid transit feasibility study discussed both systems. But Metrolinx’s 2010 case-benefit analysis basically sidelined the BRT option by concluding LRT delivered the highest economic development bang for the buck.

The problem was that a lot of Hamiltonians felt — and still feel — that the pros and cons of both systems were never fairly compared and publicly debated.

That was supposed to happen after the 2014 municipal election. It didn’t. You may recall that back then Fred Eisenberger ran for mayor on a platform that included a promise to create a citizens’ panel to study all rapid transit options and make a recommendation to council.

Coronavirus cartoons

Instead, brief months after he was elected, Eisenberger hotfooted it to Queen’s Park for private meetings with then-premier Kathleen Wynne and transport minister Steven Del Duca, at which he successfully secured provincial dollars for LRT.

In May of 2015, Wynne came to town to announce the province was providing $1 billion in capital funding. Eisenberger’s proposed citizens’ panel was reduced to window dressing. BRT supporters were suddenly marooned.

It’s been anything but smooth sailing for LRT supporters since then, of course. But no matter how controversial the issue, no matter how many stops, starts and delays the project has experienced, LRT has been the only option on the table.

Until Ford came along, that is. 

During the 2018 provincial election, Ford threw things into a tizzy by offering to let Hamilton council spend the $1 billion on other transit and infrastructure projects. It’s often forgotten, but in the heat of that election New Democrat leader and Hamilton MPP Andrea Horwath said an NDP government would also give council the option to spend the money on other transit projects.

Neither the mayor nor council seriously pursued the offer after Ford was elected. A few months later, it was taken out of their hands. The province cancelled the project because of projected cost overruns and then created the task force.

So now BRT is back on the menu as a main course not just a rejected entree.

Briefly, the task force suggests the BRT option could follow both the B-Line corridor from McMaster to Eastgate and the north-south A-Line corridor from the waterfront to the airport. Recommendations include fully dedicated bus lanes and platform boarding.

For LRT, the task force suggests if there is insufficient funding for the Mac to Eastgate route, phasing should be explored, and the province should look to Ottawa and city council for extra funding.

It’s not clear, of course, how the COVID-19 pandemic will impact the recommendation that, regardless which system wins out, the contract should be awarded or construction begin within two years.

It’s also not clear if or how COVID-19 will impact the social patterns and policy assumptions that sustain rapid transit systems.

Frankly, it’s an open question whether urban intensification, highrise living and the growth of public transit will be as appealing in a post-COVID world leery of future virus lockdowns, compared to the lure of backyards and the self-isolation of cars. (Hamilton Spectator) 

 

Saturday February 22, 2020

February 22, 2020

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Saturday February 22, 2020

Déjà vu: Commonwealth Games bid feels awfully familiar

There were two significant obstacles standing in Hamilton’s way back in 2002 when the city was lobbying to host the 2010 Commonwealth Games — New Delhi was pushing hard to get the event and Vancouver was in full-court-press mode for the Winter Olympics.

July 25, 2007

The former was a problem because the Commonwealth Games had never been held in India while Canada had hosted four times. The latter was an issue, many experts said, because two multi-sport Games wouldn’t be given to the same country in the same year. The Commonwealth variety would be massively overshadowed by the Olympics.

Whether these folks were prescient or simply guessed well, they turned out to be correct. Vancouver won the right to host the Olympics and Commonwealth voters awarded their Games to India shortly thereafter.

Fast forward 18 years.

From “You Might Be From Hamilton If…”

An organizing group called Hamilton100 is now pushing forward with a pitch to host the 2030 Games on the one-century anniversary of our hosting the British Empire Games, the precursor to the modern Commonwealth Games. Meanwhile, in a crazy twist, New Delhi says it’s interested in hosting again that year (or 2026). And the guy who ran Vancouver’s wildly successful Olympics told that city’s Board of Trade on Thursday that it should launch a bid to host again in 2030 since it already has most of the infrastructure in place.

In a flash, 2020 has become 2002 all over again.

Sort of. (Continued: Hamilton Spectator)