Raise the Hammer
By: Ryan McGreal
Published: 2007/11/23 (Category: Transportation)
The city has published its agenda for the November 26 Committee of the Whole (COW) on the 2008 transit budget, and it's as we feared.
The big agenda item is the staff presentation "Consideration of a Transit Fare Increase" [PDF] from the Public Works Department.
In typical fashion, the report makes all the right noises about "provid[ing] access to the community and GTA municipalities through an affordable and environmentally advantageous public transportation alternative that is safe, reliable, convenient and professionally delivered."
It waxes enthusiastically about public transit as "a potent weapon in our battle against climate change" that "also helps combat other forms of pollution, including smog." It notes approvingly that "92 percent of urban Canadians think public transit makes their community a better, healthier place to live."
Then the report proceeds with a recommendation that directly and absolutely undermines these goals. Public Works is recommending the following fare price changes to achieve an average fare increase of $0.10:
| Product | 2007 Fare | 2008 Fare | Change | % Change |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cash fare | $2.25 | $2.40 | $0.15 | 6.25% |
| Adult Ticket | $1.75 | $1.85 | $0.10 | 5.41% |
| Student Ticket | $1.40 | $1.50 | $0.10 | 6.67% |
| Adult Pass | $71.00 | $79.00 | $8.00 | 10.13% |
| Student Pass | $56.00 | $63.00 | $7.00 | 11.11% |
| Day Pass | $7.00 | $8.00 | $1.00 | 12.50% |
| Senior Annual Pass | $205.00 | $205.00 | $0.00 | 0.00% |
| University / College | $71.00 | $85.00 | $14.00 | 16.47% |
| School Hour Only | $225.00 | $230.00 | $5.00 | 2.17% |
| DARTS Fare | $2.10 | $2.20 | $0.10 | 4.55% |
After blaming "energy price volatility", fleet insurance and higher-technology buses for transit operating costs that are rising faster than "new revenue generated from new ridership and cost mitigation initiatives" (i.e. the gas tax transfer, which Hamilton keeps using to cover its operating costs instead of improving service), the report notes that the city's transportation master plan recommends service improvements beyond what the remaining gas tax reserve can fund.
Since increasing tax funding for transit is beyond the ken of Council and ending area rating is "too divisive" to consider (according to Mayor Eisenberger), Public Works is recommending the only other way to cover the operating shortfall.
A few things are missing from the staff report, which I hope the Councillors at the COW will ask to see before voting on this steaming pile.
The report notes "the negative impacts that are associated with potential for temporary loss of ridership and further hardship on low-income residents who depend on Transit." In fact it actually complains that this is the main consideration when fare increases are proposed.
However, while the report notes that the fare increases will generate another $1.8 million in new annual HSR revenue, it neglects to quantify the loss of ridership - temporarily or otherwise - and instead recommends a subsidy for qualifying low income riders to offset some of their transit expenses.
Council should ask staff to commit to an projection on lost ridership associated with its recommended fare increase before making a decision on the proposal. In addition, it should report on how this will impact the gas tax money Hamilton receives, since some of it is tied to ridership.
Finally, while Public Works does not recommend this option (perhaps understanding the audience to whom they are making their presentation), it offers as an alternative that Council could "mitigate [the fare increase] entirely though a higher levy allocation to transit than the City guidelines".
It notes that this option would lower the "revenue to cost ratio", meaning tax levies would cover a higher proportion of the total budget, and would reduce the tax levies available for other municipal programs.
There's a serious problem with this analysis: transit is an investment, not a cost. Done properly, transit can act as a catalyst for economic development, attracting new investment and generating new tax revenue for the city.
As long as the city continues to regard transit as a cost to be minimized so other programs (like road building) can get more money, we will continue to have these annual battles over fare increases vs. service reductions.
Related - Citizens at City Hall has published an astute analysis that looks at the proposal in the context of previous fare increase proposals by staff.
LOL, everyone goes on about the cloverleaf interchanges... the reason they exist is because of the idiot who can't obey traffic lights. I believe that at Greenhill on the RHCE there's an straight interchange which functions great. As far as getting Council to treat transit properly, I have a better solution. Vote for a councillor that cares about transit and then make sure that they speak up about it and hold them accountable. There are to many people in council and on the city payroll that have been there since the 70s. Granted they're "wiser" but they're also older which means they're wise in old ways of thinking. A revolution of thinking is what's required.
Don't think the subsidy will help restore the lost ridership either. The people who stop taking transit are the ones who have other options.
So pathetic, so typical.
you sure wonder at how they can pay for a system that makes the general public pay the full price on cash fares and monthly passes . compare this one at presant we pay 71/mth but the university passes $71 for 9mths thats 7.80 per mth no wonder there wanting a fare increase
By markwhittle | http://theworldaccordingtomaw.blogspot.com
Posted 11/26/2007 9:59:57 AM
Fare increases have the same effect as a strike, which causes the loss of over 500,000 riders. The HSR has been digging their own hole by paying ever increasing wages to their staff instead of the lower cost of flexible hiring practices. It's union stoogery run amok.
NewsfeedsISSN: 1715-1554
James North Holiday Displays - Saturday, December 6, 2008, at James North Arts District, .
Comment on Hamilton Cycling Master Plan (Nov. 19, 2008) - Nearly a decade after publishing Shifting Gears (PDF), the city's original Cycling Master Plan, Hamilton has undertaken to update the plan and make some real strides in moving the cycling agen
Defacing Our City Hall: A Rally to Protect Hamilton's City Hall (Nov. 18, 2008) -
Date: Saturday, November 22, 2008
Time: 11:00 AM
Location: 71 Main St. W. (directly in front of Hamilton City Hall), Hamilton ON
Hamilton City Hall (RTH file photo)
Hamilton
National Post Discovers Hamilton (Nov. 17, 2008) -
Scott Weir, an associate with ERA Architects and occasional freelance columnist for the National Post, let the cat out of the bag this past Saturday in a laudatory piece on Hamilton.
Titled "T
Kiva: A Great Idea Whose Time Has Come (Nov. 14, 2008) -
Here's a great idea whose time has come. A little website called Kiva is making a difference in the toughest parts of the world.
"The global credit crisis may be rocking the mainstream ec
HSR Needs Funding, Not Belt-Tightening (Nov. 13, 2008) -
The Hamilton Spectator's opposition to another bus fare hike is most welcome and well-founded. But their "solution" of asking the HSR to further tighten its belt is not practical.
The HSR
A New Political Party Is Needed (Nov. 13, 2008) - Set aside any Obama euphoria you feel. The other important news is that third-party presidential candidates had a miserable showing this year, totaling just over one percent of the grand total wit
By jason
Posted 11/23/2007 11:28:58 AM
seems to me that the only way to get council to treat transit properly is to develop a transit system consisting of single occupancy vehicles, high pollution output per person, large cloverleaf on/off ramps and always increasing congestion and slow commute times. A system like that would free them up to pump billions of dollars into it.
(Permalink)