ee =,
= — ay, j |
| IBI Group February 1978
ae CAR OM HOIKIY FEW/IE TR
..2gional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth
Review Commission
lransportation Services Component
HAMILTON PUBLIC LIBRARY
fiIN Q7o JUN 1 - 4979 Group
copy / 40 University Ave 6th floor Toronto, Ontario M5J 171
February 24, 1978 (416) 862-0450
Mr. Henry Stewart, B.A.
Chairman
The Hamilton-Wentworth Review Commission Suite 807, Union Gas Building
20 Hughson Street South
Hamilton, Ontario
L8N 2A]
Dear Mr. Stewart: Transportation Services Review
We are pleased to submit our final report outlining our analysis of the impact of regionalization on the efficiency and effectiveness of delivering transportation services in the Hamilton-Wentworth Region.
The report contains five sections. The first section presents a summary of our findings and recommendations. The remaining sections describe in more detail the extent to which regionalization impacted transportation services and investigate a number of different government structures
from a viewpoint of the efficient and effective delivery of transportation services. Our analysis included roads, public transit, parking, taxi and airport services in the Region.
The information presented in this report has been obtained through question- naires and personal interviews with several municipal and provincial govern- ment staff and elected representatives over the course of the study. We would like to express our appreciation to these people for taking the time tO assist. US In) our Task.
We hope that this report will be useful to the Review Commission in its
deliberations and we would be pleased to participate with you in further discussion, should it be necessary.
Yours very truly IBI GROUP
Caw
R. A. McNally Director
RAM/cs Encl.
BI is a group of companies practicing professional consulting and is affiliated with Beinhaker/Irwin Associates Architects, Engineers and Planners
Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2023 with funding from Hamilton Public Library
https://archive.org/details/namiltonwentwortO00onta
REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HAMILTON-WENTWORTH REVIEW COMMISSION
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES COMPONENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .
Findings and Recommendations - Roads. .
Public Transit Services .
Taxi Services
Hamilton Civic Airport
Parking ‘ Evaluation of Alternative Government Stuctures Recommendations Regarding Improvements
I - DESCRIPTION OF TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
Introduction bees Public Transit Services . Road Systems
Hamilton Civic Airport
Taxi Service
Parking
TI - ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF TRANSPORTATION COSTS AND SERVICES ‘
Introduction
Road Cost Analysis P Public Transit Cost Analysis. Summary of Cost Impacts . .
III - OPTIMAL GOVERNMENT SIZE FOR TRANSPORTATION SERVICE DELIVERY
Road Traffic Control : Roe Road Engineering and Planning ae Road Maintenance a Public Transit Operations ‘
Taxi Services :
Hamilton Civic Airport.
Parking ar
Summary
PAGE
in | a . a ae) WALVAP. iy Cietazeae TAR ee
en unas mileage
ot “a!
7
aan ra is hing Dea ory
é gow ae GF = it ’ |) (eee abe >o a 7 y » wag At e syitde nmry G sta. ¥s roar? thi pey. 7 : ae Me
7
wou’ ee ile . _ ; :
a) ive ge? coy = Ves =e
vi jipamy) oe
© oer '
iv | a0, vee
gat.
rig
LIST OF CONTENTS (continued)
PAGE TV - RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE FOR OPTIMUM TRANSPORTATION SERVICE DELIVERY ange eae ead Option 1 - Former County System IV-2 Option 2 - One Municipality Be ee en et yO See, Oe LS Option 3 - Six Municipalities (Single Tier) ........ IV-3 Option 4 - Enlarged City and Former County. . IV-4 Option 5 - One Expanded Urban and One Rural Municipality. IV-5 Option 6 - Present System oh ate PGP OE Se V-5 LIST OF EXHIBITS eis Go ee fe pa ot ce ee een aw OPPOSILe age
Evaluation of Alternative Government Structures ... i Exhibit 1 - Status of Public Transit Services [-3 Exhibit 2 - Public Transit Services Statistics 1-5 Exhibit 3 - Costs of Public Transit Service I-6 Exhibit 4 - Public Transit Deficit 3 I-7 Exhibit 4A- Anticipated Municipal Contributions : [-8 Exhibit 5 - Regional & Local Road Statistics 1-8 Exhibit 6 - Cost of Road Systems I-9 Exhibit 7 - Road Cost Ratios ome cs I-10 Exhibit 8 - Hamilton Civic Airport Costs & Revenues : I-1] Exhibit 9 - Licensed Taxicabs by Municipality . . ; I-13 Exhibit 10 -Comparative Statistics - Transit Properties Tt-8 Exhibit 11 -Evaluation of Government Structures . . ‘ IV-]
ne ae
a =
ijeeeed ince) ATeTan Ww 7 i
TU Ts TOUT saa GP Taal aaee rey | 3) ivitie Witt a) npr vART od rere y) venus comet
pig i} TT a) gi
t T vii t Ait ‘a 4 - 4) seal al : V5 ae | S ; = ¢ : loqpnige jae
0) wah
HAMILTON-WENTWORTH REVIEW COMMISSION
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES COMPONENT
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The purpose of this report is to present a description and analysis of the provision of transportation services including transit, roads, parking, airports and taxicabs in Hamilton-Wentworth Region, and to evaluate the effects on those services of the re-structuring of local government and legislation governing local government, which came into
effect on January 1, 1974. Our mandate for this study included four basic areas of analysis.
® First, we were to examine and then describe the provision of transportation services in the Region both before and after government reorganization. In Section I of this report, we describe the delivery of transportation ‘services hefore and after regional gov- ernment and present an examination of the level of govern- ment responsible for the various programs.
% In Section II of this report, we present the results of our cost and service investigation. This material is presented in such a way as to show that amount of increase which is attributable to the general increase in prices due to inflation, and the increase brought about due to either the new form of government or the provision of higher levels of service.
® Our third area of investigation was to centre on the appropriate scale of delivery of the various types of transportation services. Section III of this report attempts to draw some tentative conclusions concerning which size of governmental unit is best suited, in terms of both political responsiveness and economic efficiency, to the delivery of the different types of transportation services we have investigated in the Region.
® Our final instruction was to then use the results of these three areas of analysis to make a set of recom- mendations as to the optimum form of government structure for delivery of transportation services within the
Se Wile2 ey WEITIN WT (MINED JS5ryNTe eMTT eT Hee
1m! ‘is > @ noe o oF 7 2o(pe ? 4 's we nal 4 q nal 4 s ' Se ' ; o& S Ti f ¢ g 7 ’ 3 Ae. , . 46 _ , 8 . A] “at t ¥ an ’ » ff ’ : ; P bd ’ - 7 é ® ' ® yi x a 1) et peed at 8 i y vee ine rt > ® 545 ve |} Satedbeig. ol 138 0! Aylin artecse! A Of Gen 665) it ’ " oF? THis 2). euh Sports
i vetpis to avisl weve
| org Wr 6H . 7@ BIRDs @lecanvens Tred hi’ Parwurnaed a a> soometis 7O ele Ania
vw ae? s Ve
1m? ' fe\-aP
inav? Tu greet (en Sa?
Region, both efficiently and in a way that ensures political accountability. Section IV of the report evaluates the possible forms of municipal structure as outlined in the Review Commission's "Issues for Review" paper and makes conclusions as to their rela- tive merit with respect to transportation services.
The remaining portion of this section summarizes the findings and recommendations presented in Sections I -IV. Each of the five transportation functions examined is described in terms of the service characteristics, the decision-making process, impact of Provincial policies, changes as a result of Regional Government, and the government structure that, in our view, best fits with the scale of transportation service. The last section of this Summary presents an evaluation of the six govern-
ment structures being investigated by the Review Commission.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - ROADS
Description of Service
The road system in the Region of Hamilton-Wentworth consists of local roads and arterial roads under the jurisdiction of the local and regional governments, respectively, and highways under the jurisdiction of the Province. The road services consist of road engineering services, that is the planning, design and construction of roads; road maintenance services, which include such things as cleaning, patching and snow removal; and traffic control which includes installation and maintenance of the
traffic signal system, pavement markings, signings, etc.
The Provincial roads generally provide inter-regional service;
the arterial roads provide service between the neighbourhoods and districts
tad of Da Pile Mar -yiee (2 éacceeoes re _ ius : : ‘or? Hb @Aligts ' i Hegl AS *¢ 14fih TT) say inte wile FOnNth wale _ ld
soma = _
¢ 7 - aap i a
> inom
, ioe) Gen!
mow > aaa
- - vn ey) Sie ab) aT ‘ a] ie a Lwe Sie ed Ps I ,
af art off
web at Ty tl! id ot ae i A¢ : R15S) Re = 7
Peer (Ore denain
et onhowet
ie a iniggre ow a
within and across the area municipalities; local roads generally provide
connection between the arterial roads and the various land uses.
The arterial roads are for the most part within the jurisdiction of the Region of Hamilton-Wentworth, while the local roads are under the jurisdiction of the respective area municipalities. The Region is respon- Sible for engineering, maintenance and traffic control on all of its roads. Engineering services are provided by Regional staff, wnile maintenance of Regional roads in the City of Hamilton is provided by the City of Hamilton Streets and Sanitation Department and traffic control on all Regional roads is provided by the City of Hamilton Traffic Department. The Region maintains
Regional roads outside of the City of Hamilton.
The local roads are maintained by the Works Departments of the respective area municipalities. Engineering services on the local roads in the City of Hamilton are Drovided by the City of Hamilton Engineering Department, while engineering required on local roads in the other area municipalities is provided either by the municipality's Works Departmen: or through consultants. Traffic control services are laraely provided by the City of Hamilton for all levels of government in the Region.
Responsibility and Control
The Regional Engineering Committee of Regional Council is res- ponsible for identifying the construction and maintenance work and preparing programs and budgets for engineering, maintenance and traffic control service
required for Regional roads.
A similar process is established in the area municipalities for planning, programming and budgeting of engineering, maintenance and traffic control work for local roads, through the Public Works Committees of the
respective area municipal councils.
Provincial Impact
The Province provides financial assistance to the area muni- Cipalities and the Regional Government for the construction of local and reg- ional roadways. The Province has established methods for determining const- ruction work required in each municipality and provides financial assistance for a portion of these works each year calculated for all municipalities in the Province in an amount reflecting the availability of overall Provincial funds. Over the past few years, funds have been available to carry out approximately 45% of the approved road construction work ; construction work carried out by the municipality in excess of the approved annual amounts does not generally qualify for the full provincial subsidy. Through this program, the Province has effective control on the expenditure levels for local and
Regional roads.
The Province also provides assistance to the municipalities to main- tain the road systems. These subsidies generally amount to approximately 50% of the maintenance work, with the exception that some non-roadway items do not qualify e.g. sidewalks, and the rate is higher for certain roadways which are important to the Provincial road system (these are
called"connecting links").
7
i Get of) Ff) Ag
v Aa aery ee
407 wE oe 107
a
’ sve” a i : a
Jiaipud a
Impact of Regionalization
Prior to regionalization, the County and Suburban Road Commission was responsible for the engineering and maintenance of approximately 190 miles of arterial roads in the County outside of the City of Hamilton. All other roads in the Region, except Provincial highways, were under the
jurisdiction of the respective area municipalities.
As a result of regionalization, the County and Suburban Road System was transferred to the Region to become the Regional Road System, while the remaining roads in the area municipalities outside of the City of Hamilton were retained by the new municipalities which were formed as a result of regionalization. Regionalization resulted in the consolidation of eleven area municipalities outside of the City of Hamilton into five area
municipalities each with its own road maintenance function.
The transfer of the arterial roads in the City of Hamilton to the Region was not effected until 1977. The delay in the transferral of the roads to the Region was largely a result of extended negotiations among the City, Region and the Province regarding the assumption of the sig- nificant outstanding debt on the City of Hamilton roads to be transferred. Through this agreement, the Province provided transitional grants to the Region to reduce the impact of the debenture costs to the area municipalities.
This grant amounted to approximately 5.4 million dollars.
Through the regionalization of roads in Hamilton, a shift of approx- imately 6 nillion dollars of road expenditure is expected in 1978 from the
City to the Region. Through the agreement, the City of Hamilton will retain
i ad = ' =. wi Medh
—
- —
i, wR —s _
ee 1990 tate ie -_ ae
Te oda ot
worl 17 ‘e
=) © =
7 ’
its road maintenance and traffic control staff to provide services for its Own roads as well as for the Regional roads in the City. However, transfer- al of City staff from its Engineering Department to the Regional Engineering Department in proportion to the shift in roads has not taken place, which could conceivably result in inefficiencies and diseconomies in both depart-
ments until the staff levels are adjusted to correspond to the road systems.
Following is a summary of some of the important impacts of region- alization on the road system:
- Firstly, it should be noted that the City of Hamilton and the Region of Hamilton-Wentworth have demonstrated considerable restraint in the expenditure on roads, despite some increases in costs through the transferral of the County system to the Region. Expenditures in Hamilton and in the Region are less than expenditures in most other medium sized municipalities, by as much as 50%. No doubt the level of expenditure will need to rise somewhat in the future if transportation service is to keep pace with development.
- The costs per mile of road for Regional roads appear to have increased a a rate greater than the rate of inflation in the period 1972-76, due to the Region assuming the City of Hamilton's wage/benefit package which was more costly than the wage/benefit package of the County, and due to a higher level of planning, engineering and maintenance standards for Regional roads com- pared to the former County system.
- Flamborough, Glanbrook and Dundas have shown significant increases in expenditures on roads over the period 1972-76, but this has not been due to regionalization, rather it was a decision by the
area municipalities to carry out road works which did not qualify for a full MTC subsidy.
Optimal Government Structure For Road Services
Our analyses were firstly directed at investigating the size of the government structure that best suits the transportation services in terms of efficiency of delivering the service, and responsiveness of the government
structure to the needs of the local citizens. Based on this, we then
a Sa a
a
ey
ines ChVt ee) Gra
ilapient ain WA 66
evaluated the six government structure options being considered by the Review Commission from a transportation perspective to assess whether the government structure should be changed or whether the existing system
should be retained, possibly with improvements.
Our investigation has shown that easy generalizations concerning the best size government units are not possible. Firstly, efficiency of delivering service often benefits by large scale operations, while res- ponsiveness to local citizens' needs is largely achieved through smaller units. Clearly these two objectives are opposed. Secondly, the many road functions vary substantially in scale and extent of service, with the result that the various transportation functions may be best provided
by different government structures.
Road planning and engineering is an example of a transportation service which embodies two scales. In our view, it is essential that the planning and engineering functions for regional-scale roads be coordinated by a region-wide agency, such as the Regional Engineering Department. It is also essential that the planning and design of the local roads be the responsibility of the lower tier municipalities to ensure that standards are appropriate to the local traffic levels and environment. Such a bifurcated administrative unit for the delivery of road engineering services
fits most naturally with a two-tier government unit.
The installation and maintenance of traffic control devices primarily relates to arterial roads and is, therefore, a region-wide service which
should have one unified administrative unit. This function could be the
a wave i BD aeee pres? tah ersten)
Pen SE a a
nay hepeerneee oie rn i
' .
wircch 692 (fii mss omal =.
Gre af! oh ee ae a i s¢'¥ 806
‘pap aedt® case! a
Wath og She Cae
4 olan, A ia le ae r or Gata
qtteny fase! ele :
they @ehanngeiniaue 7 nn) 0% vit
; si vaseol aff
an dae ative (py int
eisene) (atehe Geet! _
responsibility of either a one-tier or a two-tier government structure. Under the two-tier structure, this would suggest that the traffic control function presently provided by the City of Hamilton should be put directly
under the Region.
Although levels of road maintenance services are different on regional and local roads, road maintenance is a function which requires Similar procedures and equipment for both local and Regional roads and benefits little from economies of centralization. This would indicate that road maintenance services can function efficiently and effectively regardless
of whether the government structure is one-tier or two-tier.
PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICES Description of Services
Public transit services in the Region comprise the Hamilton Street Railway and the Canada Coach Lines. The Hamilton Street Railway provides urban-type transit service to the City of Hamilton and several of the adjacent municipalities, including Burlington. The Canada Coach Lines provides inter-urban service within the Niagara Peninsula and points beyond.
Ownership and Control
The Hamilton Street Railway and its wholly owned subsidiary Canada Coach Lines is owned by the Region of Hamilton-Wentworth as a result of the transfer of shares early in 1977 from the City of Hamilton to the Region. The transit operation is controlled by the Hamilton-Wentworth Transit Commission which consists of ten Regional Councillors appointed by the
Regional Council.
7 ; .
dase 7 ' pest Elie BD apy es 8 :
pre f ‘ae ee i ee oe 70> of} gd ee ota on
sec we Gedt 2 Senge as oe oe “dn eth pean lamer
ae @ ag —s are : 25°30 26/emee ee G1NH re i
j +> eens rea nie
‘yi Lm ha A aise
weve ' @<3 o¢
ae 01 Greg. Meet <HI*t
ic ett? a bb entereD Sea)
1h oradeul si o¢4 Suny
: 3 =
save atihe _ > of See Ci a §
_
eee
At ¢AqaQee stone . mat tw ithane
Provincial Impact
The two principal ways in which Provincial policy impacts the provision of transit services are through operating subsidies and through
the regulatory powers of the Ontario Highway Transport Board.
In 1973, the Province initiated a program to provide operating Subsidies to transit properties in Ontario. The formula has been changed several times since its inception, and has amounted to an effective subsidy of 15-20% of the total operating costs. The remaining deficit, which has ranged from 20-30% of the total operating costs over the past few years, has been borne by the City of Hamilton. The effect of the Provincial subsidy program has been to permit municipalities to postpone fare increases, wnich unfortunately has resulted in escalating municipal deficits, and to expand services or at least defer cutback in services. The Province has recently changed the subsidy formula from a portion of the operating deficit to a portion of the approved operating cost which should provide greater incen- tives to municipalities to operate efficient transit services and set realis-
tic and responsible fare structures.
The Ontario Highway Transport Board reviews and makes recommenda- tions to the Minister of Transportation and Communications regarding the issuing of licenses to operate public vehicles outside of urban areas. Currently the OHTB regulates transit routes crossing the City of Hamilton boundary, although the act creating the Region stipulates that the OHTB should delegate regulatory powers to the Region within the Urban Transit Service Area. The recommended UTSA includes the City of Hamilton and the
surrounding urbanized area; however, these boundaries have not yet been
10.
ratified by the Minister of Transportation and Communications, with the result that Canada Coach Lines must continue to operate certain services outside of the UTSA which are incurring substantial deficits, or run the
risk of losing the license to operate along these routes in future.
Impact of Regionalization
The transfer of the ownership of the Hamilton Street Railway and its subsidiary Canada Coach Lines to the Region has had little or no impact On the level of service or the costs of transit operation to date. Operating costs have risen generally at the rate of inflation and the total direct costs per passenger in 1976 for the Hamilton Street Railway were generally less
than but very similar to costs per passenger in Ottawa, Windsor and Oshawa.
Regionalization has had an impact, however, in the allocation of the operating deficit for the transit system. Prior to regionalization, the City of Hamilton assumed the full cost of the deficit incurred by the transit system, excluding the contribution from the Province. This con- tinued through to early 1977 when the Region took over the transit system and now the deficit incurred by the HSR is allocated to the municipalities according to the proportion of the deficit incurred in each. The Province has agreed to provide declining transitional grants to the area municipali- ties, except Hamilton, to provide assistance in funding this deficit. This means that the City of Hamilton has benefitted as a result of spreading the deficit over the neighbouring municipalities, and the neighbouring munici- palities are benefitting temporarily from the Province's transitional grant
towards the operating deficit.
eG > =
ave Zee & - a a a a
a ren D
2006
- 7
- an 8 Teyana
us, Hepes oe ome
=) ATinAS TY @ <)): @@e
i io , ae | “a ious 9 S > _ e J a) ; a pas Pe ae or ' ——
: a a Pee 4 2 @rmenl Fe ae Fe ;
. a 7 ee uM seee? oo, 01 oat abl +
The operation of Canada Coach Lines has been less profitable. In the period 1973-76, an 18% drop in passengers has been experienced, accompanied by a 47% increase in operating costs, primarily in the non- payroll cost areas. Prior to regionalization, the deficit was borne by
the City of Hamilton entirely, until 1976 when the Province extended its
urban transit assistance policy to include some of the CCL routes. As
a result of regionalization, the area municipalities in the Region being served by CCL will be charged the deficit directly, while the deficit incurred outside the Region will be allocated to the area municipalities
in the Region on an equalized assessment basis. This means that the deficit which was formerly borne by the City of Hamilton will be partially trans-
ferred to the other area municipalities in the Region.
Optimal Government Structure for Transit Services
Transit is a region-wide service and the level of service and cost efficiencies tend to improve with size, at least up to the scale experienced in Hamilton-Wentworth. From a cost efficiency viewpoint, we have concluded that the large investment in equipment and the complicated problems of coordination of service across a large area dictate that public transit have a region-wide administrative unit with a unified manage-
ment structure and staff.
The responsiveness question must be viewed from a regional transportation policy perspective as well as from the local need perspective. Under the present system, we found that the area municipalities outside
of the City of Hamilton are tailoring local service to fit with local
_ i Gp ets ke Oe ee) se ae i
apm iets @ =) i‘ - je. ral
TV ew ve ‘ ee -;,
; lena ied fe ce — eo aa ke ra Harleyeht =
i ifi-ee Wa & AUT
we ee ©
oe
@e= a no
a
Wie
needs of the area municipalities, considering heavily the costs of their local transit services since they are responsible for the local deficits generated by these services. In the City of Hamilton where the deficit is borne by the City on an equalized assessment basis, the extent of service is determined by the transit management through monitoring traffic levels as well as responding to local request However, if the transit services are
to play an important role in the total regional transportation policy, the Regional Government has to be responsible for establishing routes and transit service levels. Accordingly, it is our opinion that transit should be admin- istered on a region-wide basis, as at present. Further the present process through which the area municipalities contract transit services from the Region should be replaced hy a system in which the Region determines level
of service within the context of a regional transportation policy, and the costs are borne by the taxpayers within the service area on the basis of
some comhination of enialized assessment and level-of-service.
TAXI SERVICES
Description of Service
Taxi services in the Region are provided by private operators under
licenses granted by the area municipalities. The City of Hamilton has approx- imately 220 licensed taxicabs, while the other municipalities have either no licensed taxicabs, as in the case of Ancaster and Glanbrook, or varying numbers between 2 and 21] as in the other three municipalities. The taxi overation is not a tax burden to the area municipalities, and in fact
is a revenue item as a result of the licensing fees.
Impact of Regionalization Prior to regionalization, taxi licenses were issued by the area municipalities and enforced by the police department in the area munici- pality. Since the transfer of the policing function to the Region, the responsibility for enforcing the by-law has stayed with the area munici- palities and this has been effected generally through the by-law enforce- ment departments. There have been a number of complaints that by-law
enforcement is ineffective without the support of the Regional Police.
Taxi services are predominantly local in nature although there is some inter-municipal service provided on demand. There are some re- strictions on licensed taxicabs from one municipality operating in another municipality, which create some problems and inefficiencies for inter-
municipal services.
Optimal Government Structure for Taxi Services
Clearly, the taxi by-law enforcement and the problems of restricted taxi services across municipal boundaries would be resolved if the taxi Operation were administered at the regional scale. However, it is recog- nized that taxi services are to a great extent a local function and, secondly, that many taxi operators in Hamilton in particular have substantial invest- ment in taxi licenses. Accordingly, we are suggesting a bifurcated admin- istrative structure in which the establishment of taxi by-laws and enforce- ment would be the responsibility of the upper tier government while the issuing of taxi licenses would be the responsibility of a lower tier government with appropriate controls and extra-licensing powers resting
with the upper tier municipality. This arrangement tends to favour the
oe 1t¢
oz
Soe el Panett
@¢ hee af) «= 30-3) % pag i 4 D awit aut on uy » i ? 6 » pe as i] ; ; i ® _ £ Weeal ce » one — f oS = nse a ‘ wed | Sa 4
» ne Wei His we
cys aap ote
+ iP nag! (ad om
} Preis af on
pr emai or
14.
two-tiered government structure, but it could likely work almost as well
under a single-tier unified government structure. HAMILTON CIVIC AIRPORT
The Hamilton Civic Airport is owned by the Federal Government but is leased and managed by the City of Hamilton. The Ministry of Trans- port is responsibie for the staffing and operation of the control tower and is responsible for major capital works expenditures at the airport such as major runway extensions, new buildings, etc. Policing on the
airport grounds is provided by the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police.
All the remaining functions in maintaining the airport are provided by
City of Hamilton personnel.
The airport is managed by an Airport Manager who administers a staff of seven full-time employees and additional city staff as necessary. The Airport Manager reports to the Airport Committee of City Council, con-
sisting of eight Aldermen and one Controller.
The Ministry of Transport provides an operating subsidy equivalent to the difference between the total revenues obtained at the airport and the operating expenditures which are primarily salaries. Therefore the
operation of the airport is at no cost to the City of Hamilton.
Until recently, the Hamilton Civic Airport accomodated essentially general aviation services. Recently, the role has been exnanded to accomo- date a limited schedule and charter service operated by Nordair. Further, the Ministry of Transport is studying the future role of the airport, which could conceivably require major investment and/or relocation. If this major investment were to be made, it is possible that the Federal Government would
assume operation of the airport.
7 i =} 1) eOee e¢ 4 . a ‘oa
In the meantime, the administrative function of the airport in the municipal structure needs to be reviewed. The airport provides services to the Region and to the Niagara Peninsula in general, and as such is consid- ered regional in scale. Further, the impact of the airport in terms of noise and traffic extends outside of the jurisdiction of the City of Hamilton. It would seem, therefore, that the airport should be administered by a regional-scale government structure. Whether this is effected through a single-tier or two-tier municipality is of little consequence, as long as the responsible government structure embraces an area similar in size to that of
the Region or larger.
PARKING
There are two types of parking: on-street and off-street. On-street parking may consist of meter parking or parking in accordance with posted limits, specified municipal by-laws or with the Highway Transport Board of Regulations. Off-street parking is permitted in private and municipal parking lots and structures. The local area municipalities are responsible for establishing parking by-laws for all on-street and off-street parking except for parking required for transit operations, the airport or on-street parking
on Regional roads or Provincial hiqhways.
Enforcement of parking by-laws is the responsibility of the local
area municipality and the Regional Police.
It is the policy of the Region and of the City of Hamilton to remove parking from the major arterial streets, particularly in the peak hours, in order to increase the capacity of the existing road systems, thereby
deferring the need to make major raod improvements.
Seas, 7) Osi /neaee Gh ve i? van ( ae), GS 08 Avan ite) fi Hanvne? “1000/0 a i
7
7 ; Mee ; a i | : , ame 7
3 — it@
In 1974, a by-law enforcement unit was created in the City of Hamilton to relieve the police of the responsibility of enforcing by-laws for all non-moving violations. The cost of this by-law enforcement unit was provided by funds collected from parking meter revenue and parking fine revenue. The Parking Authority presently consists of a staff of 12 persons under the administration of the manager of the Authority. Their functions are to manage all the off-street municipally owned parking
lots in Hamilton.
The impact of regionalization has been to shift the by-law enforce- ment more to the area municipality, resulting in the creation of the Parking Authority described above. Further, regionalization has meant that the establishment of parking by-laws for Regional roads becomes a Regional responsibility. There is presently some disagreement between the City of Hamilton and the Region regarding the ownership of the revenues related to
parking on the Regional roads.
Parking is generally considered local in scale, although parking policy does have regional-scale impact in terms of the effect of on-street parking on the capacity of the regional roads, and the possible effect on auto usage and therefore road capacity requirements. With a view in mind of establishing an integrated transportation policy for the Region, and recognizing that parking can be an important control mechanism, it is our view that parking policy should be under the control of a regional- scale government unit. This responsibility should include the establish- ment of minimum parking charges and/or the right to levy a Regional tax
on parking, as well as the control of parking on Regional roads and
“wa [| qoua Butbueyd [ead LUNW-UW9YUL AGL -ssod $SadLAuas peziieLoeds ae
-powwos9e - pooy
Seaue JdLAUaS 0} spuodsauu0) - pooyg Auaf
SPSuek BOLAUAS qUuaVaJJLP 0} Spuodsauu0d BOULS BLqGeUuLSep SOW
SaLeoS [LeUOL abueyd onN|-beau pue Leso, 3e - pooy Auaf\}aALsuodseu - pooy
Sal -OUILILJJa Leuns BHuLpLAOud Aq
bp# URYZ 49}}9q zeymawos- abeusay
“Solqt|edio.unw Ud9M19q UOLZECUL -puo00d paay “Seaue adLAUas Sadeuquia
AXL9 44 poog
spaeu [eunu 4oj SAapLnoud aduLs yNo peauds 003 p wey uaqj}ag abeuaAy} Leunu - abeuadry
(zLSued}* be jeunu UL BdLAUaS 4ood A, qeqoud SAZLD UL Pood
apisyno wa[qoud jeLjuajzog “seaue BdLAUaS Sadeuquia AX1L9 $b poo
C# OF
BALZeL aU [eL Ua -yod uoLzedL[ dnp Saonpau - abeuary
Seek BdLAUAS uequn SiLj ue}}aq |OULS ‘¢ pue | Ley 4azjeqg abeuday
S}uow | 04}UO0D -u4aA0b [ed0[ aE Ge aoe 2 ~ S99 LAUaS UOLZeOL|dNp jeLjzuazod | UL SBDLAUAS SP9DLAUIS} -ueU} “b*a SBOLA Ledrotunw
| euOLHau JAOW POWwNSsSe BOUL
auNsse 0} [aAa| -Aovd 41 asuom| paau - 400g; 94 PLNOM - poog
-4aqzuL HuLzeuLp -4009 UOJ Bunz -ONuzZS OU - 400d
-49sS JO UOL}RD -L{dnp 03 peal yUBLu - 400d
pue jade, [euoLbau qze UOLZEULPUCOD JO de] asnedaq 3{qeulsap 4sea]
}yid Juss apLSzno sat “AeLeS poze sul $O 4Slu
und - abeudry
JOLAUIS
jeuoLBbau pue [eo0, JO UOLZeUe -das ,eoL.bo| ou $61q 003 - u40dg
sepaue [eunu UL SadLAUasS uPqUN A, 3S09 0} peat zubLw - abeusay
eaue VOLAUVS OF Spuod -S3u409- pooyg Auaf
3], GeuLsag
yisueuy ‘B'a
“SPcUe DILAUIS
LedLoLunw-uazuL 40 obueys SIDLAUBS BWOS UO} | LWeH uOL}ZLUBbODeu OU asnedagq 0} 3809 MO] BHur}32e6 wajqoud €# OF URL LWLS UZLM pezeuboa UL 3[qeurseapuyn | Ajtqeqoud =- poor, ydavox9 *poodg| swajqoud - wood! 3}OU 9aSnedaq 400d
abuey 9 S]USWWO) $0 380) SSQUBALSUOdSaY Adualoljsy UOLZeEULPU0O0)
Wa3SAS JUISdd *9
AztLedLoruny [euny aug pue uequn papuedxy 2UQ °s
Ajuno) uawio4 pue A}L) pebueluq ‘yp
(4at} abuts) SaLzLLedLo -LUnW XLS “€
AyipedLotunw aug *Z
Wa SAS Ayuno) swowuo, *
e-
94NONAYS qUaWUIAO9
JDIAYAS NOILVLYOdSNWYL OL SATLV 14d SAdALONYLS LNAWNYSAOD SAILYNYSL IW 40 NOTLYNIWAS
hs
access of parking lots to/from Regional roads. On the other hand, the
area municipalities should retain the responsibility of zoning approval
for parking facilities, recognizing the neighbourhood land use consequences of parking facilities. This structure of shared responsibility fits best with a two-tiered government structure, but could also be implemented
provided a regional-scale,one-tier government structure were implemented.
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE GOVERNMENT STRUCTURES FROM A TRANSPORTATION PERSPECTIVE
The Review Commission has outlined six government structures to be considered in the evaluation of local government in the Hamilton- Wentworth Region. Our evaluation has considered the following four Facrors:
- coordination of transportation functions across the Region, which is measured in terms of the degree of correspondence between the government unit area and the service area of the transportation function;
- efficiency, which is measured in terms of the cost to the user and to the taxpayer of delivering transportation services;
- responsiveness, which is measured in terms of the ability of the local residents to effect service changes to accommodate their needs;
- cost of change, which is a measure of the transition costs from the existing government structure.
The exhibit opposite presents a description of the six government
structures relative to the four evaluation criteria and our overall ranking
of the government structures. These are discussed below in order of prefer-
ence from desirable to undesirable.
ioe Bie
i | ibedeael-wths
oo Pegnrt eg Le
» Lloret 08 Ga nie OP
i) : 6 .-. eee tee
<0) O0on/ Gen igi
et Thatre lA As owt pista? Th rs } >> 64 hate erate 2
- oe —
Oo
a
18,
Option 6: Present System
This two-tier government structure allows the efficient adminis- tration of region-scale transportation services, and allows for local accountability for those services or aspects of those services which are local in nature. Further, since a great deal of the increased financial costs associated with new government structures are due to transitional problems from the old system to the new system (as shown in Section II), this option would have the lowest transition costs of any of the options.
Accordingly, it is our view that the present structure is most perferable.
Option 2: A Single-Tier Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth
This option is our second choice. The main feature which makes this option attractive is that it provides a regional-scale administrative unit for the many regional-scale transportation functions. Some of the less attractive aspects include a potential risk of introducing urban standards in rural areas and a less satisfactory level of responsiveness for local scale services.
Options 4 and 5: Expanded City
Both of these options which involve the expansion of the City of Hamilton are less attractive than Option 2 because of the lack of co- ordination between the expanded city and the other municipalities and the jnadequate form of government in the other area municipalities. The strong points of these two options are the reasonably good fit between the scale of the government area and the extent of many of the regional-scale services.
Option 1: Former County System This is one of the undesirable forms of government essentially
because of the separation between the City of Hamilton, which requires
etawe & lapeeem vr): reo Pell } m= es
ani =
oo) sae ©)
nie eV i 46 om acl ten wae nour?
| teas som Ly
_
and provides the bulk of the regional-scale transportation service in the area, and the county-area municipal entities. The resolution of this problem would be to integrate the City of Hamilton into the county system, but then this would be virtually identical to the present two-tiered
government structure.
Option 3s. 51x Lower Municipalities
This is the least desirable option because the government structure would not recognize the extent of the regional-scale services, thereby resul- ting in coordination problems and significant inefficiencies and duplicat- ion of services. In this concept, the six municipalities would each need to develop specialized services such as transit and traffic control, which would be uneconomic at the small scales involved. The only feature to recommend this system is the responsiveness or political accountability of the system, but even this might change if the Province were to assume the responsibility to administer more of the region-scale services. RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING IMPROVE-
MENTS TO GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE
As our discussions with the politicians and municipal staff in the area indicated and our analysis of costs and efficiency has demonstrated, the existing government structure is not perfect. To put this into perspective though, many of the comments regarding inefficiency and duplication are un- founded in our view. The two-tier system seems best to meet the objectives of efficiency which requires large-scale economies, and of responsiveness which requires smaller scale government units. However, there are several ways
in which the government structure and the delivery of transportation services
: 1% pi fez’ Pos mt Aa € 7 > va +). GG allt vines " .
be ait
14 e-)§ 24
le ‘va a 7
7 ; steeds FO qi
aire To pis 7
aS elo ww.
ai Hb vr _
Ae
could be improved, some of which the municipality is presently attempting to implement and others of which will take further time and negotiation. These are as follows:
1. The planning and programming of all regional-scale transportation services should be the responsibility of a Transportation Committee of Regional Council. This Committee should be charged with develop- ing a comprehensive transportation policy for the Region, to include
Regional roads, public transit, parking, Hamilton Airport and taxi services.
2. An inter-regional transportation coordinating committee consisting of representatives from the Region of Hamilton-Wentworth and the neighbouring regional municipalities and counties should be established to coordinate the planning of the regional-scale facilities mentioned above which have inter-regional consequences , such as certain CCL routes/services and access to Hamilton Airport.
3 The province should assist in establishing the inter-regional transportation coordinating committee mentioned above and pvrovide the basis for funding the planning proqrams of this committee through the extension of existing assistance programs. This planning Should include provincial facilities as these impact regional or inter-regional concerns.
4, Consideration should be given to the Region delegating more road maintenance functions to the area municipalities, with the Region to assume a coordinating role in terms of standards and in terms of providing certain centralized services such as purchasing and specialized equipment.
oh Traffic control services should be put under the direction of the Regional Transportation Committee since the Regionis the main user of the services. Consideration should be given to sub-contracting some of the routine functions to the area municipalities.
6. The Region, in concert with the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, should establish improved inter-~municipal charging procedures and control of work quality procedures to ensure that work contracted between the municipalities is performed efficiently and effectively.
as The Regional Transportation Committee should have better control over the provision of public transit services in function of the total regional transportation policy role described above. This should also include a restructuring of the process of allocating the transit deficits from a "user pay" basis to a concept in which the deficit is shared across the Urban Transit Service Area in some proportion to equalized assessment, as is the case for other reg- ional transportation services and regional services in general.
[ < ere 6p Ves ot , nl OtsA\_@? ya! ree Cet)! aee ete ale -?'
es
as
8. The Region should re-initiate its earlier request to the Province to provide 100% subsidy on the inter-regional Canada Coach Lines service similar to the arrangement for funding the GO Transit Services, or failing this should proceed to transfer regional services to the HSR, amend the Urban Transit Area to correspond to the regional area, and liquidate the remaining operation of the CCL.
9. A regional parking policy should be established by the Regional Transportation Committee as part of the total transportation policy discussed above.
10. The operation of the Hamilton Civic Airport should be transferred to the Region and the inter-regional transportation coordinating committee should include within its terms of reference the planning
for the airport as input to the federal/provincial/municipal discussion of the future of the airport.
Loe The Regional Transportation Committee should assume the respon- sibility for preparing a regional taxi by-law and the Regional Police should be responsible for enforcing the by-law. The issuing of taxi licenses should continue to be the responsibility of the area municipalities, under the monitoringof the Regional Transportation Committee.
To conclude, we would recommend that the present two-tier system of government is, both in the context of the services provided and in the light of the high transition costs engendered by bureaucratic change, the best form of local government with regard to the delivery of transportation services. A single tier form of government (Option 2) could possibly be made to function effectively, but it would carry with it high transition costs. Any of the other options would seem to pose serious problems with
regard to the delivery of transportation services.
ae p= oe
a
» OOH }oget ae / i ine?
‘ 7 oa
a ae a) a (im), ’ eu se! eo oa) aM
wf std -_ - of
I - DESCRIPTION OF TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
INTRODUCTION
This section of the report presents a description of the level of service and cost statistics associated with the delivery of transportation services in the Region of Hamilton-Wentworth prior to and following region- alization on January Ist, 1974. Our analysis is concerned with the impact of regionalization on the delivery of the following services:
- public transit
- roads
=Caxes
- parking
- airport
The focus of our work is on transit and road services, how- ever, a broad assessment of the impact of regionalization on the delivery of taxi services, parking and airport services is also described. The infor- mation presented in this report was obtained from annual reports and fin- ancial statements, a questionnaire circulated to the municipalities and through telephone and personal interviews with several staff members of the area municipalities and elected representatives. Because of the very short time frame to deliver, answer and collect the questionnaire infor- mation, and the work loads of the staff in the municipalities in the prepar- ation of budgets for 1978, the municipalities were not able to complete our questionnaire in its entirety and, as a result, some of the data items are not presented in this report. Further, there is some variation among the municipalities and the municipal enterprises in terms of financial
accounting which may have resulted in some minor discrepancies between
wap? { Soadam ; 6 eters SM
peg eh) 40 tu "4 a - r
at er, 6 o q1 a 7
vy («CS ze’ Or wedAgs
bay Tin it a
eves =
[-2
the statistics. Another point that is worth mentioning is that the cost information presented in this report relates to total transportation ex- penditures by the respective municipalities, which is often in excess of the amount which qualifies for grants from the Ministry of Transportation and Communications and, therefore, may not agree with the expenditure
statistics retained by the Ministry and possibly quoted by other researchers.
When reading this section of the report, it snould be kept in mind that, when it comes to transportation policy, neither the older forms of local government nor the new Region and its constituent members can operate independently of the Provincial Government. As the following description shows, the Province is deeply involved in setting the priorities for local government, whether it be the provision of funds for transition during government reorganization, the setting of the public transit fares, or
the expenditures of local and Regional roads. PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICES
Our analysis was restricted to the municipal transit services available in the Region. This included the Hamilton Street Railway and Canada Coach Lines. Other public transit operators, such as the Government of Ontario's GO Service, have not been examined.
Ownership of Hamilton Street Railway and Canada Coach Lines
The Hamilton Transit Commission was established in 1960 when the City of Hamilton purchased shares of the Hamilton Street Railway and thereby assumed the assets and liabilities of the Hamilton Street Railway and its
wholly owned subsidiary Canada Coach Lines by means of the City of
SOLPLLedrdiv Wi Aq awog
UO} | Le} Aq ausog A, [euav3y
UO} | LESH Aq ausog A| [e4aur9
YO} | Lhe Aq suuog A| | e4uat39
POUNIUL PLILJIP Jus 4M SolziLedrorew Aq ausog ALL eu nag
uozL wey 30 ALLO Aq auiog
PaudUNDUL FLILJaP B4eymM uozptwey Jo AqLY Aq 90g
uozyLwey yo Ailg Aq aui0g
7191590 $0 U017e90{ Ly
Sa}ynOu pazipLsqns -uOU UO BdLAUaS BONpeu 0} AueSsadoN
saynou pazipisqns -uOU UO 3dLAUaS JONPpsad OF AUeSSIDON
“WIN
sabueyo BILAAVS ON
PLILJOP PLOY OF BILAUBS BONpas 03 AuessadeN
PLILpOpP 4ayb Ly Jursw Sauey Hulzaau4
BdLAUaS 40 uoLsuedxa pamo| Ly
KIL [0d JUBWUABAOD AOLUAS $O 2ORdW]
PouP ueqyt[Odouz.aw UL saqnou awos uo ApLsqns JIW
Paue ueyt,Oodoujzaw ul saynou awos uo ApLsqns IW
BOULTSLSSE | PLOUPULL ON
DOUPFSLSSE LPLOULULJ ON
sueak G sof UZ] LWeH 9PLSINO ZLILJap SZLPLSQnsS O04
WOIFL % SzS09 paroudde jo %G°/1
oS + SZ6L Se owes
DLW WO4y ZLDLZap UO APLSGNS 9A139ad59 %OS
DLW Woas 2LI1JZap uO APLSGNS AA179aS4a AGE
JUAUIAA | OAUT JuaWUVaADD UOLUAaS
uo Lbay euebetN 40 sjzued pue YJAOMPUSM-UOF | LW}
uo Lb ay euebetn 40 squed pue 440M] UdN-U0F | LWeH
uotbay euebein 40 squed pure YOM} UAM-U0F | Leh
suo.ba y
euebeLN JO Squed pure YOM} USM-UO0}F | LW
“oAOge SP BWeS
“9aoge se awes
oAoge se awes
‘uo bulung pue
“49 Asu0zS pue sepung ‘4azseouy jo squed pue uoz| wey Jo AQL9
9ILAUBS 40 adA| pue aes
UOLSSLUWWO) }PLSUPUL jeuotbay yubnouy) uoLbay
UOLSSLWWOJ ZLSURUL yGnouyzy uozLLweH $0 AZL9
UOLSSLUWOJ ZLSUPU] ybnouyzy woz, LweH $0 AzL9
UOLSSLUWO) JLSUeU] ybnosyz uo LweH 40 AIL9
(L/61 “91 “Ga4j wo.) UOLSSLWWOJ JZLSUPLY Leuotbay ybnouuy uobay
UOLSSLUWIWO) ZLSURUL ybnosyz uozLLweH 40 A719
UOLSS LUO ZLSURUL ybnouyz voz] LweH yo AI19
UOLSSLUWWOD JPLSUBUL ybnouyz, uozLLwWeH 40 AZL9
JUaWUABAOD a{qtsuodsay
NOISY JHL NI S3DTAYIS LISNWYL JI198Nd JO SNIVLS
t LIGIHX3
ZL6L
9/61
SL6L
€Z6l
LL6L
9/61
S/6L
€L6l
Saul] yoeo0) epeury
Aem| Ley y9947S UOT] LWeH
[-3
Hamilton By-law 8900 and the City of Hamilton Act of 1960. The Hamilton Transit Commission has been responsible for the operation of the HSR and its wholly owned subsidiary CCL. In order to purchase this system in 1960, the City issued a 20 year debenture in a principal amount of 3.25 million dollars and since then the Commission has been responsible for providing funds to meet both principal and interest payments as each has fallen due. As at the end of 1976, a balance remains of 1.146 million dollars to be
paid over the period to 1980.
On February 16, 1977, the City of Hamilton made a share transfer to the Region of Hamilton-Wentworth who then became owners of the HSR and CCL. From a budgeting point of view, transit has become the responsibility of the Region from January Ist, 1977. The operating responsibility rests with the Hamilton-Wentworth Transit Commission which consists of ten Regional Councillors appointed by the Regional Council.
Exhibit 1 presents in table form a description of the evolution
of transit services in the period 1973-77.
Transit service Areas The Region is divided into three areas from a point of view of transit operation and subsidy. The extent to which any one route operates within these three areas determines the degree of its eligibility for
subsidy from the Province.
The Urban Transit Area, (UTA), which is a part of a larger Urban Transit Service Area (UTSA), comprises at present the City of Hamilton, although provision is made for the possible expansion of this area to include adjacent municipalities. Within the UTA, the deficit from transit operations is to be borne by the area municipalities within this areaonthe basis of
equalized assessment.
of asl ia Vo att 1 og of! ge Citta. @
: A 3 y | 2
7 Breezy Cae -
we == ~
woe fore
x04 ' a - nm han & =
Te
e
ye ak rv
ic? hee |! eayaly ve
shortage ate
ere OY ad
ie 7
[-4
The Urban Transit Service Area consists of an area around Hamilton which becomes a single municipality for purposes of the Public Vehicles Act, Ontario. All public transit services within this area are eligible for subsidy under the Provincial assistance formula. Any deficits incurred in this area after Provincial subsidy are charged to the respective muni- cipalities,either entirely to the municipality for exclusive service to the municipality, or on a shared-cost basis for services which serve more
than one area municipality.
The deficitsassociated with public transit services within the Region but outside of the UTSA do not quality for provincial financial assistance, but are funded entirely by the municipality receiving the
service.
The routes operated by the Hamilton Street Railway are largely in the Urban Transit Area, i.e. the City of Hamilton. In addition, however, the HSR provides service to Ancaster, Dundas, Stoney Creek and Burlington. Operating deficits incurred in the three municipalities in the Region after Provincial subsidy are charged to these municipalities, while the deficit on the Burlington route is charged to the Region and
levied against all area municipalities on an equalized assessment basis.
The Canada Coach Lines provides services on the majority of the main roads linking the Region of Hamilton-Wentworth to population centres in adjoining regions and counties. The CCL service generally excludes the area served by the HSR, i.e. the CCL buses run "closed door" through most of the City of Hamilton. As mentioned above, the deficit associated
with the CCL services to area municipalities within the Region are charged
(S*v8 )6SL‘°8z (Z°06 )Sp2‘OE (O° OOL)6EE SEE
(€°ZOL)O6L°90L (S°€OL)Z9Z° LOL (O°OOL)EL8SEOL
9LILYOA /SSed
(€°68 )€v9SSl (2°26 )8p2°9L (0°OOL)OZS°ZL
(2°v6 )290‘8E (S°46 )2Sp°6€ (0°00L)S2v‘ Ot
90A0| dwy /SSeq
(8°L6 )O8L (6°S6 )88L (0°OOL)96L
(6°6LL)OZL (Z°SLLEbZ (0°OOL)Zv9
SaaK0 | dw
(L°Z6 )OOL (0°86 )LOL (O°OOL)EOL
(v°OLL)9Z2Z (8°S0L)ZZ2 (0°00L)0S2
Sao Luan
“OOL $0 aSeq E/6| JUaSaudau szayOeUg UL SeuNnBLy 7q'°N
(0°O0L)Z°690°L (0°00L)Z°690°L (0°00L)Z°690° L
(L°SOL)6°L6E (9°€OL)8°SZE (O°O0L)Z°29€
SOL LW a7noy
(0°76 )8ES* LOOSE (9°€OL)869°SZESE (O°OOL) LEO‘ 8S2‘°¢
(p°ELL) LOLS LLZ2°6 (8°OLL)690°6S0‘6 (O°OOL)ZP9‘S8ZL‘8
SOL LW SLILYOA
SOTISTLVLS SDIAYSS LISNVYL I119Nd
é LIGIHX4
(0°28 )268°SL8°z (0°68 )869‘° PSOE (O°OOL)OL6SEEH SE
(v°OLL)20S‘°80€‘6z (8°SO0L)6EZL‘ Z1E‘ 62 (O° OOL)OvESES6SSZ
Suabuassed anusAay
9Z6L SZ6L €Z6l
9/61 SZ6L €Z6L
ae
YSH
T-5
to the respective area municipalities, while the deficit incurred on Region- wide routes and routes outside of the Region are charged to the Region and
levied to the area municipalities on an equalized assessment basis.
The Province, through the Ministry of Transportation and Communi- cations, has offered subsidies to municipal transit systems since 1973. In 1973, the Province made available a subsidy on the operating deficit of a municipal transit service, up to prescribed maximum which was determined by a formula based on the population of the service area and the number of revenue passengers. For the HSR, this represented an effective subsidy of
approximately 35% of the operating deficit in 1973.
In 1974, the deficit limits were lifted and the Province provided a subsidy of 50% of the deficit, provided the municipality froze the fares at 1973 levels. In 1976, a similar policy was pursued with a ceiling of
what was payable amounting to 105% of the amount that was paid in 1975.
As of January Ist, 1977, the above approach was abandoned and the Province adopted a policy of subsidizing services based on target levels of productivity as far as the ratio of revenue/operating costs is concerned. Hamilton falls into the category in which the target ratio revenue/operating expenditures is to be 65%; in this group, the Province agrees to provide a subsidy of 17.5% of the approved operating costs which means, if the muni- cipality achieves a ratio of 65%, the effective subsidy would be 50% of the deficit. However, the HSR is not expected to cover 65% of its operating costs, so the effective subsidy is estimated to be approximately 35% of the deficit. This represents a proportionate reduction in the Provincial
assistance to public transit services in Hamilton.
(6€L) €0°8z2
(p2.) pe €0z
(O0L) 9p P9l
(6€L) €£0°822
(p2L) pe"€02
(O0L) 9p P9L$
abem A\ 499M abeuaay
(2€L) 6° 8b
(€2L) GSE
(O0L) erZit
(Z€1) 6°8tl
(€2L) S*8EL
(OOL) L*2tl
Xapuy
BulAly Jo 37S09
(621) ly’
(ZSL) 62°L (001) 28°0 (vv) 6b" 0 (02L) v0
(OOL) pe 0$
Jabuassed / 3809 39e41g
(951) Sel
(SEL) ‘aig! (OOL) /8°0 (€vl) es" (€ZL) lel
(O0L) LOLS
2 LW-Ssng /3S0) 29984 1g
(621) 660° 02
(89L) 628°8L
(OOL) poz‘ Ll
(62L) SIZ 41
(66 ) 66°83
(OL) 889°3$
SLI LYSA /3s09 | LOUAeg-uoN
(6€L) 8r8° LL
(82L) 226‘OL
(OOL) 925°8
(vl) 9S‘ rl
(921) 098‘ ZL
(OOL) €v2‘Ol$
aeko| dw /ys0) | [oukeg
“O0l 40 aSeq E/6| JUAaSeudau szayDe4g UL saunbLy
(Zbl) cyl’
(OvL) G6‘
(O0L) Gz8*z
(€9L) era h|
(9€ 1) 768° LL
(O0L) 8bl* ss
Lezo]
JDIAYAS LISNVYL IIT8Ad 40 S1SO9
€ LI@lHX4
(pZL) O10'2
(S9L) 206° L
(001) pStil
(€vL) 960°
(801) 6EE°2
(OOL) Zi 2s
so
| |OuAeg-uUON 000$) BdLAYVS JO 4S0) }I94 1G
(82L) C£L'2
(€2L) €40°2
(O0L) 19° 1
(69L) a oe
(Srl) SSS‘6
(OOL) 915‘ 9$
3s09
| [ouAeg
9/61
SL6L
€Z6l
9/61
SZ6L
€Z6l
> @N
199
YSH
I-6
Until the early 1970's, the Canada Coach Lines did not incur a deficit. By 1975, the deficit was quite substantial, but the service did not quality for provincial financial assistance. However, in 1976, the Province agreed to subsidize certain routes between Hamilton and the adjacent municipalities. The effective subsidy for the CCL operation
amounts to approximately 25% of the operating deficit.
Exhibits 2-4 present operating statistics, costs, revenues and deficits for the HSR and CCL for 1973, 1975, 1976 and, where available, 1977. Information for 1973 is shown as it is a year prior to regionaliz- ation for which substantial information was readily available. 1975 was chosen as a post-regionalization year, recognizing that the transit system had not yet been regionalized. 1976 is also presented, since it is the most recent year for which complete information is available. The 1977 information is very important, since this was the first year that the transit service has been regionalized, but only budget information was readily available.
Public Transit Service Statistics
Exhibit 2 presents service statistics for HSR and CCL in terms
of passengers, vehicles and employees:
- revenue passengers include number of fare paying passengers
- vehicle miles means actual miles travelled by a transit vehicle for the purpose of picking up or dropping off passengers
- route miles are the miles of street on which transit vehicles operate
- vehicles include buses and trolleys
employees include drivers, maintenance workers, inspectors, etc.
The information is presented in terms of the actual statistics and
in terms of an index relative to a 1973 base of 100.
Los
uoLzendog uaq (Ledio.uny)zLo1jaq
LZ°0 009 €0l VOL (ye6png) 7/6
EL°O ESe cOL SSP 9/61 Sn Sc9 V/N Ges SZ6L LO°O 8V V/N 8Y €Z6l 6L°0 y95*S G/8*2 6€y°8 (386png) //61 cL"0 €0S*€ 99/*Z 6£2°9 9Z6L 60°0 09L*2 789*2 bry's GZ6L 80°0$ Lv0*2$ OvL* L$ L8L*€¢ €Z6l _ dabuasseg daq- SatzLpedroruny ~ Aptsqns — _ ebosed = (LPdLoLunW) LOL sag Ag audog }LOLJaq [PLOULAOUd BuLqeuadg aN
000$) SGNN4 40 JOYNOS ANY LIDI439G LISNVUYL JIT9Nd
“t LIGIHX4
199
YSH
Costs of Public Transit Service
Exhibit 3 presents the costs of public transit service in the Region. The direct cost of service includes the total operating costs such as wages, fuel, maintenance and overhead, and exclude principal and interest charges
and depreciation.
The payroll costs, which represent the greater portion of the HSR costs, are presented in total and per employee. The growth in payroll cost per employee can be compared to the cost of living index and the average weekly wage rate. The non-payroll costs are presented in relation to the number of vehicles and can be compared to the cost of living index. The direct cost per bus mile and per passenger can be compared to the cost of living index to obtain some appreciation of the change in the efficiency of the provision of service.
Public Transit Deficit
Exhibit 4 presents the net operating deficit of the transit services, the provincial subsidy,and the net deficit to be borne by the municipalities. The deficit is also expressed in function of the number of passengers carried on an annual basis, and the population of the area served. The statistics for the deficit per population for the Canada Coach Lines arenot presented
because of the difficulty of estimating the service area population.
The deficit information presented in Exhibit 4 does not take into account the special subsidy arrangement provided by the Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs to provide a 100% subsidy in 1977 to the area municipalities, except Hamilton, for transit service deficits allocated to these area municipalities. This is a transitional grant provided by the Province to cushion the impact of allocating transit def-
icits across the Region. The programme is to run for five years only,
in WA eee at af Gums nA PAS SAP VE Ti! ee : :
de 6 =m th ry
wise
Tha © Torun GF of _ =f ont Ged Ge, FP vm yy Cae@® oii A ; a ad ‘ ait oe pr wet! V
18 on? Ye
es a iar OF). “a4
rei wrap 2slennect . al
‘el, re eee a r aoeey | oygund ANI sidhorad fi a E50 = I aig 0H) OS Gpalegerts
x? SFC Cf ek.)
Ancaster
Dundas Flamborough Glanbrook Hamilton
Stoney Creek Burlington Route
Region-Wide
EXHIBIT 4A
TO TRANSIT 1977 (BASED ON 1977 BUDGET)
HSR
$9,214 135,465
62915221 Biavie 46,528
ANTICIPATED MUNICIPAL CONTRIBUTIONS
CCL
$ 24,859 22,300 18,665 53,501 (Airport Service) Bl sor
389,247
EXHIBIT 5
REGIONAL AND LOCAL ROAD STATISTICS
Area Year Miles of Road Employees Equipment Municipality Paved Total Thane Heavy Signals Equipment Town of Ancaster 1972 33 105 20 - 19 1976 Ee) 98 20 - 23 1978 NA NA NA NA NA Town of Dundas 1972 40 40 24 6 19 1976 43 47 20 8 30 1978 39 43 20 NA 30 Township of 1972 70 218 23 - 36 Flamborough 1976 82 all 20 ~ 33 1978 85 207 NA NA NA Township of 1972 34 119 14 - Va Glanbrook 1976 42 119 12 - 15 1978. NA NA NA NA NA City of Wie -S38 549 386 le 107 Hamilton 1976 586 61T 350 253 125 1978 489 506 356 13 133* Town of Stoney 1972 53 86 CW ] 44 Creek 1976 78 94 32 1 oa 1978 ~=101 103 36 1 58 County and 1972 ~=184 190 62 fi 100
Suburban Roads Commission
Region of 1976 184 190 62 Te 140
Hami 1 ton- 1978 33/7 64 266 143
Wentworth
TOTAL 1972 947 1307 566 229 338 1976: 1050. 137i 516 215 419
“Pigurée ts tor i977,
[-8
with the subsidy being reduced by 20% each year after 1977. The effects of this transitional grant are minimal when presented over the entire
region.
Exhibit 4A presents an estimate of the allocation of
the net transit operating deficit to each of the area municipalities. ROAD SYSTEMS
The roads in the Region of Hamilton-Wentworth fall into one of three jurisdictions: provincial; region or former county; area municipal. Our investigation has been limited to regional/county and area municipal roads, and has excluded provincial highways since these have little if any financial consequences to the Region. However, those provincial highways which have been assumed by the Region have been included,as
appropriate.
The Regional Road System was established in 1974 and consisted of approximately 190 miles of road, essentially the former County and Suburban Road Systems. At that time, there were substantial outstanding debentures on the City of Hamilton Arterial Road System, while the former County and Suburban Systems were debt free. As a result, the Region was not prepared to assume the arterial roads in the City of Hamilton, until such time as the outstanding debt could be resolved. On May 29, 1977, the Region and the City made an arrangement through which approximately 147 miles of arterial roads were transferred from the City to the Region along with the debt related to these roads, and the Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs provided to the Region a transitional grant of approximately 5.4 million dollars as contribution for the area muni-
cipalities' share of the onaoing debt for these arterial roads assumed by
the Region.
“OLgeLLeAy JON Wy “uotyzsenb ut ueak ay} wos Psunjusgep s}sod Lejided asoy, apnyjouL you svop [eo], (Z)
*S}S0D BuLoLAuas Jqap pue juswAedeu Zqap epn{oUL $}SOD adueUazULeW (|)
U24OM}U9M 80S £9Sp L¥96 9OZL Gl6 68€€ BLSE 8/6L -u0}| Lwe}H bel bell LSvE \9Z 6ZL G96 eS 9/61 JO uotbay
UOLSSLUWWO) speoy uequngns L68 lpg E€/L pls 6S ebb 8s 2L6L pue Ajuno) WN WN WN WN WN VN YN 8Z6L 62S p8e €L6 rOl SSL 99h 88 9/61 yaau) fau0is VN VN VN WN WN WN WN 2L6L $0 UMO| SE0°6 = E LBS 68 vl : 660 6b‘ b 609‘ 6 VN 826L PLOFLL 00259 pIessl > 606 916‘ L 68E°6 VN 9/6L uo} | LWeH 0S6°8 96'S pl6‘ bl = ZS 89b'S G/8°8 WN 2/61 40 A419 WN WN WN VN WN VN WN 8/6L OLE 80€ 29 921 LL L9b 02 9/6L yoouque 19 OSL BEL 882 99 l Lvl bl 2261 $0 diysumo | YN YN YN (uydund puel) YN YN WN BL6L 16S 2L2 0/8 vGE l poe p9L 9/61 ybnouoque | 4 0L2 b@2 661 Gel 8 622 Tey 2Z61L JO dtysumo] WN WN VN WN WN WN WN WN 8/6L ant PAO ve = : = €€2 dt 9/61 sepung 00Z 962 900 - 9{Ge,LeAe JOU UMOP,eougG BOL - cl6L 40 UMOL WN WN WN WN WN VN VN 8/61 Le? 902 €8v L€ 62 cv 0 9/6L 4ayseouy 691 7a eve by b 9/1 6LL 2261 $0 UMOL qusuuny peaunjueqeg (2) "OSLW (L) $0 yno aq 0} 8 Leqides Leqides Aytpedrotuny 380) 29N Apisqns Leqo, PeIusdAgQ DL4yeul JOURUDYUL PY uoLyoOnNuyzSuoy Aeah eouy
S}S0) Ssoug
(s,000) SW31SAS GVO 40 LS09
9 LIGIHX3
I-9
The Road System statistics and costs are presented for the years 1972, 1976 and 1977 or 1978. The year 1972 was chosen as a pre-regional- ization year, consistent with the year chosen by the other researchers. 1976 was chosen as the post regionalization year since it is the most recent year for which actual cost information is available. Since the Regional Road System was expanded significantly through the assumption of the arterial roads in the City of Hamilton effective January 1, 1977, it was considered important to obtain statistics for 1977 or 1978, depending on the availability of these. Information for 1977 represents expenditures to October, 1977, factored up to represent a twelve month period. 1978 information corresponds to budget estimates which, undoubtedly, will be revised somewhat by the respective municipal councils.
Regional and Local Road Statistics
Exhibit 5 presents the miles of road, number of employees and amount of equipment in the jurisdiction of the area municipalities in the Region for the respective analysis year. The miles of road represent
centre line miles.
Cost of Road Systems
Exhibit 6 presents, for each of the area municipalities and the three analysis years, the gross capital, maintenance, traffic and overhead costs, the subsidy from the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, and the net cost of roads borne by the respective municipalities. Except for the City of Hamilton, most of the municipalities, including the Region, have adopted a policy to fund road construction out of current revenue.
The City of Hamilton and the Town of Dundas to a lesser extent have a practice of debenturing various portions of their road construction work. The total road costs presented in Exhibit 6 include the capital expendit-
ures out of current revenue in the case of municipalities which finance
Area Municipality
Town of Ancaster
Town of Dundas
Township of Flamborough
Township of Glanbrook
CiLy OF Hamilton
Town of Stoney Creek
County and Suburban Roads Commission
Region of Hami 1] ton- Wentworth
* Index is value in respective year divided by 1972 value X100.
Year
1972 1976 1978
1972 1976 1978
1972 1976 1978
O72 1976 1978
W372 1976 1978
1972 1976 1978
1972
1976 1978
Total Cost ($000)
343 483 NA
406 844 NA
499 870 NA
288 624 NA
14914 18314 14849
NA SHES, NA
1733
3457 9647
EXHIBIT 7
ROAD COST RATIOS
Total Cost Per Mile $ Index * 3266 100 4929 151 NA NA 10150 100 17957 Lge NA NA 2289 100 4104 179 NA NA 2420 100 5243 2h NA NA 2/165 100 29974 110 29345 108 - NA 9713 NA NA NA 9121 100 18179 198 28626 Sie
Total Cost
Per Capita § Index *
36 aa
100
152 NA
100 191 NA
100 165 NA
100 213 NA
100 118 96
NA NA NA
100
180 Lis
Consumer Price
Index
100
142 NA
100 142 NA
100 142 NA
100 142 NA
100 142 NA
100 142 NA
100
142 NA
roads in this manner, and include the debt repayment and debt servicing
for the municipalities which debenture their road work.
The subsidy provided by the Ministry of Transportation and Communi- cations relates to most road work except for example sidewalk construction and maintenance. The expenditures which qualify for provincial subsidy are approved by the Ministry, either on the basis of a roads needs study carried out for the municipality or through road budgets submitted by the municipality to the Ministry. Most road work qualifies for a 50% subsidy, except in the case of ‘connecting links" (extension of highways through urban areas) which qualify for 75% subsidy in cities and 90% subsidy in the townships. As can be seen in Exhibit 6, municipalities generally are reluctant to initiate road work which does not qualify for the provincial
subsidy, with the result that the subsidy is generally close to 50%.
In the case of those former connecting links which were assumed by the Region, the Ministry of Transportation and Communications provided a transitional grant for a period of five years to reimburse the muni- cipalities an amount equivalent to the higher rate of subsidy that would be received on these roads were they retained as connecting links. Road Cost Ratios Exhibit 7 presents the net costs of roads as a function of the number of miles of road and the population in the respective municipalities,
compared to the Consumer Price Index.
HAMILTON CIVIC AIRPORT
Hamilton Civic Airport is owned by the Federal Government but is
leased and managed by the City of Hamilton. The Ministry of Transport is
EXHIBIT 8
HAMILTON CIVIC AIRPORT COSTS AND REVENUES (1977 BUDGET)
Expenditures
Total salaries and benefits = $ 113,280 Professional fees (Fire Department )= 226,860 Repairs & maintenance = 60,500 Protection services = 100,700 Cleaning passenger terminal = 24,440 Interest on short term loans = 20,000 Other Gls 570 Total expenditure $ 607,350 Revenue
Airfield:
Landing fees: scheduled flight $ 73,000 & non-scheduled flights = 10,300 Aircraft parking = 100 Car parking = -( 5,560) Concession fees (gal + oil) = 7,000
Terminal Building: Rental of space (office, shop,
concession) 7,900 Concessions = 3,900 Other building rentals = 18,200 Land & hangar rental = 9,490 Subtotal $ 124,330 Federal Airport Subsidy = $ 489,360
Total revenue $ 613,690
responsible for the staffing and operation of the control tower and is responsible for major capital works expenditures at the airport such as major runway extensions, new buildings, etc. Policing on the airport grounds is provided by the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police. Al] remaining functions in maintaining the airport are provided by City of Hamilton personnel. These include maintenance of the airport buildings,
runways and access facilities, fire fighting, etc.
The airport is managed by an Airport Manager who administers a staff of 7 full time employees and additional City staff as necessary, e.g. fire department, road maintenance, etc. The Airport Manager reports
to the Airport Committee of Council consisting of 8 Aldermen and 1 Controller.
As shown in Exhibit 8, an amount of $607,000 has been budgeted for the operation of the airport in 1977. Revenues from landing fees, rental of space, concessions, etc. amount to approximately $124,000 leaving a deficit of $489,000 which is funded by the Ministry of Transport. Thus
the operation of the airport is at no cost to the municipality.
Until recently, the airport was used entirely by general aviation aircraft. Early in the 1970's, air carrier operations were initiated at the airport, which is a limited scheduled and charter service operated by
Nordair.
There has been considerable discussion regarding improving the airport and/or relocating it within the Region. Five alternat*ve site
locations have been identified, in addition to the existing site, and
construction costs have been estimated at between 93 - 113 million dollars to 1990. These costs would be borne by the Ministry of Transport. In all likelihood, the Ministry of Transport would insist on operating the
airport should the construction improvement programme be initiated.
The analysis of alternative sites and the construction costs mentioned above are based on the existing rather limited role for Hamilton Civic Airport. A number of previous and current studies undertaken by the Federal Government and the Province regarding air operations in Southern Ontario have considered expanded roles for Hamilton Civic Airport, that is relocating some of the Toronto-based air operations to Hamilton. There appears to be very little acceptance of an expanded role in Hamilton at this time, but until such time as the future air services roles in Southern Ontario are established, an expanded role at Hamilton remains a possibility. An expanded role would most certainly mean that the air operations would need to be relocated from the existing site. Regardless of whether the site is relocated, however, major access road improvements are required to serve the airport in either role. The location of the airport and the required road improvements are pending the outcome of the airport role
investigation. TAXI SERVICE
Taxi operators (drivers, owners and brokers) require licenses to operate. Licensing of taxi operations is an area municipal respon- sibility. The responsibility for administering taxi licenses generally lies with the area municipal clerk or other senior municipai staff member. It is only a part time role except for the City of Hamilton where a
Licensing Adminstrator handles this function.
‘Sepung ult buLzeuado aue sqeodixez EL ALUOx
*L2¢
LO ©
SqeoLXxe| pasuadi] so uaquiny
ALI IWdIOINAW AG SEVOIXVL G4SNS911
6 LIGIHX4
9Z6L cL6L
9Z6L cL6L
9/61 cL6L
9Z6L cLol
9L6L cL6L
9761 cLOL
Jed}
yaauJ AVu04S
U0} | LWeH
yoouque|4
ybnouoquie | 4
sepung
4a71seouy
AyLLedrotunyy eouy
Licensed taxi operators must conform to the municipal by-laws governing taxi operations. Generally, only taxis who are licensed to operate within a municipality may pick up and deliver fares within the Same municipality. However, the pickup or delivery of fares in the
municipality in which a taxi operator is not licensed is also permitted.
Enforcement of the municipal taxi by-laws is tne responsibility of the by-law enforcement officers of a municipality and is usually the Town Clerk. In addition to ensuring that only the appropriate licensed taxi operators are servicing the municipality, taxi by-law enforcement consists of inspecting taxi vehicles to ensure that minimum standards of
safety and cleanliness are maintained.
Prior to regionalization, taxi licensing and enforcement was usually provided by the local police department under the administration of the local Police Commission or similar body. Immediately after regionalization, the Regional Police Department provided by-law enforce- ment for both Hamilton and the other municipalities as a transitionary step before they were able to hire and train their own Starr. Since regionalization, the municipalities have had some difficulty enforcing by-laws without the assistance of the police, which has resulted in a
number of complaints by residents, particularly in Hamilton.
Exhibit 9 presents the number of licensed taxi cabs by area
municipality for 1972 and 1976.
OT we = mitt et
oa | 7 ave t ‘ = a1
PARKING
There are two types of parking: on-street and off-street parking. On-street parking may consist of meter parking or parking in accordance with posted limits, specified municipal by-laws, or with Highway Transport Board of regulations. Off-street parking consists of private parking lots Or municipal lots. These off-street lots may be free of charge or may be pay parking with the use of meters orattendant collection. The local area municipalities are responsible for the establishment of parking by-laws for all on-street and off-street parking except for parking required for transit operations, the airport or on-street parking on Regional roads or
provincial highways.
The enforcement of parking violations is the responsibility of
the local area municipality and/or the Regional police.
[tis the policy of the Region and of the City of Hamilton to remove parking from the major arterial roads, particularly in the peak hour, in order to increase the capacity of the existing road system thereby
deferring the need to make major road improvements.
In 1974, a by-law enforcement unit was created in the City of Hamilton to relieve the police of the responsibility of enforcing by-laws for all non-moving violations. The cost of this by-law enforcement unit was provided by funds collected from parking meter revenue and parking fine revenue. The Parking Authority presently consists of a staff of 12 persons under the administration of the Manager of the Authority. Their functions are to manage all the off-street municipally owned parking
lots in Hamilton.
wean Fh a
ere ; 7 -
; oe onul a=
a ¢
Upon the transfer of the City of Hamilton arterial roads to the Region, the Regional staff have recommended to Regional Council that revenue collected from parking meters on Regional roads and parking violations on Regional roads within the City of Hamilton should be turned Over to the Region. On the other hand, the City of Hamilton has taken the position that the funds are needed to support the construction of off-street parking to replace on-street parking on Regional roads which
is being eliminated.
TI - ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF TRANSPORTATION COSTS AND SERVICES
INTRODUCTION
This section of the report presents an analysis of the changes in cost of delivering transportation services in the Region, compares these cost changes to the change in the Consumer Price Index, and attempts to explain the portion of the cost changes due to inflation, change in level of service, transfer of a function, or the new form of govern- ment. The cost analysis relates only to roads and public transit, Since cost variances in the administration of taxi service, airport and parking services either haven't been affected by regionalization or are
generally of little consequence to the analysis of government structure.
When the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Government was initially established, there were a number of reasons for reorganization, but the most frequently voiced was that the old system of local government was inefficient and that the old boundaries bore little or no relationship to the extent and scale of the service areas associated with these municipal services. It was hoped that the new system of regional government would provide efficient, low-cost services for the entire area by achieving economies of scale for the regional-type services, while leaving to the municipalities the responsibility of delivering local services. However, at least in some areas, the popular conception has been that this goal of cost efficiency has not been met and that, if anything, local government
costs have risen at a much higher rate than the general price index.
The critique frequently voiced before the Commission has been that
the new Regional Government has not been financially effective and that
with regards to transportation and roads in particular there has been duplication and inefficiency. In the following discussion we identify where costs have in fact risen and indicate the responsibility for these
cost increases.
Perhaps the most notable aspect of the cost data presented in Section I is that in most instances, costs for transportation services have in fact stayed constant in terms of real dollars during the years 1972-1978. Cost increases have generally been equal to or less than the consumer price index for the road systems in the City of Hamilton and the Town of Ancaster (cost information is not available for Stoney Creek for 1972, but the 1976 costs per capita and per road-mile appear to be consistent with the corresponding cost statistics in the other municipalities ) and for the
operating: costs of the Hamilton Street Railway.
The only areas where we have discovered costs have risen dramat- ically over and above the general inflation rate have been the costs of the Regional Road System, the local roads in the Townships of Flamborough and Glanbrook and the operating costs and deficit of the CCL and the deficit alone of the HSR. Each of these cost increases can largely be explained not in terms of inefficiency of the structure of local government itself, but rather in terms of a higher level of service, or in terms of the con- straints imposed upon local governments by the Province, or by the process of transition to the new government itself. These are discussed in the para-
graphs following.
ROAD COST ANALYSIS
In terms of absolute dollar increases, the notable area where prices have increaseddramatically is that of the Region of Hamilton- Wentworth Road Department. One should note that the Regional Road System has virtually the same mileage of roads in 1976 as did the County/Suburban System in 1972. One should also note that both agencies had approximately the Same number of employees. However, the gross costs have increased by approx-
imately 98% over this period, compared to a €onsumer Price Index increase of 42%.
There are several explanations of the dramatic increase in the costs of Regional roads. These are listed below:
- The Regional Engineering Department implemented a wage/benefit package for its employees similar to the previous package associated with the City of Hamilton employees but substantially more costly than the former County wage/benefit package (e.g. higher pay rates and fringe benefits, higher overtime and stand- by pay arrangements in the Region).
- Although the number of employeesis similar in the Region and County systems, the Regional staff complement includes more professional staff and fewer clerical/support services which are shared with the rest of the Engineering Department; the © result of this more senior complement of employees is both higher costs and higher level of service.
- The accounting procedures adopted by the Region are somewhat different than the procedures used by the County, resulting in apparently higher costs, for example depreciation charges are greater in the Regional system.
The other notable areas of cost increase in the delivery of road services is in the Townships of Flamborough and Glanbrook. These cost increases over the period 1972-1976 are estimated at 79 and 117% res- pectively compared to a Consumer Price Index increase of 42%. We have been advised that these cost increases are a result of a decision by the area municipalities to carry out certain major road works which had been
deferred for several years and which notably did not qualify for the full
Provincial subsidy. It could be speculated that these area municipalities
II-4 chose to carry out these road works with monies made available as a result of the transfer of other municipal functions to the Region. In any event, the cost increases cannot be attributed to regionalization directly, but rather
must be attributed to increase in level of service.
Another point of observation in the cost information is the cost
history for the City of Hamilton. The exhibit indicates only a 10% increase
in the total cost per mile of road in the City over the period 1972-76 compared to the Consumer Price Index increase of 42%. ‘we understand that
this very low cost increase is due to the City's policy of debenturing major construction and reconstruction projects which results in spreading costs
Over several years. As well, cost increases have been minimized through
the postponement or elimination of several large road construction projects which have resulted in cost savings over recent years, but which will undoubt- edly mean major road expenditures in the future and most certainly will result in lower levels of service and restricted development potential in the meantime. A good case in point is the deferral of the Mountain Free-
way and the Redhill Creek Freeway, two major road facilities which are required to further develop the area south of the escarpment in Hamilton
and Stoney Creek.
A comparison of road expenditures in Hamilton with several other cities in Ontario for a recent year indicated that the expenditure per capita in Hamilton is substantially less than some of the other large cities. Capital and operating expenditures for roads in 1974 amounted to approximately $57 per capita in Hamilton, while expenditures in several other municipalities ranging in size from 150,000 - 450,000 population ranged from $58 per capita through to as high as $140 per capita. This indicates that road expenditures in Hamilton are certainly less than the
norm for that size of city, but the cautions outlined above regarding the
II-5
potential problems of deferring costs are of course important to recognize.
As a result of the transfer of the arterial street system in the City of Hamilton to the Regional Road System, the Region as a whole has realized some substantial, though extraordinary, benefit. By transferring the debt on these roads to the Region, Hamilton has benefitted tothe extent that the debt is now being borne on a larger assessment base, i.e. the other area municipalities as well as the City of Hamilton. Secondly, the other area municipalities have benefitted since the “rovince has agreed to provide transitional grants to assist the towns and townships in funding the debenture payments. The transitional grant associated with the transfer
of Hamilton's roads to the Region amounted to 5.4 million dollars.
The transfer of approximately 25% of the City of Hamilton's roads to the Region is reflected in a corresponding reduction in the 1978 roads' budget for the City of approximately 6 million dollars when expressed in 1978 dollars. At the same time, the Regional road budget for 1978 shows a similar increase, accounting for the substantial increase in costs for Regional roads shown in Exhibit 7. Two points should be noted here, however. Firstly, the City has transferred the most costly roads to construct and maintain, i.e. the arterial road system, so that a potentially greater shift in costs to the Region might have been expected. Secondly, the staff complement of the City does not appear to show a corresponding reduction, largely due of course to the fact that the City will be maintaining the roads and providing traffic control service, although some reduction in the engineering staff would have been expected. This problem would indicate some absence of adequate control procedures by the Province in the transfer
of functions from the local municipality to theR egion.
PUBLIC TRANSIT COST ANALYSIS
Turning to the costs of public transit, it was shown in Exhibit 3 that the direct cost per bus mile and per passenger for the HSR has increased at approximately the same rate as the wage index over the period 1973-1976 indicating that the cost of delivering service in real dollars has not changed appreciably. It is also shown in Exhibit 3 that the total cost of operation has increased faster than the wage index by the same proportion that service has been expanded over the period,i.e. approximately
14%.
Although costs of service have increased only in proportion to inflation and level of service, the public transit deficit, as shown in Exhibit 4, has increased at a much greater rate. Over the period 1973- 1976, the deficit of the HSR has approximately doubled. This is due in no small measure to the City of Hamilton's attempt to live up to the spirit of the Province's public transportation policy of 1973 which promised provincial financial assistance if a proper level of transit services were maintained at a low fare. Exhibit 4 shows that this promise held forth by the Province and acted upon by the City of Hamilton since 1973 has clearly not been met. The cost increases due to the normal inflation rises are increasingly being borne by the municipality. This is due then not to inefficiency of Regional Government, but rather to a policy decision at the provincial level to have local property tax payers bear a higher proportion of the transit deficit than they were expected to in say 1975. Since the current transit assistance policy is based on approved operating costs rather than on deficits, there is greater incentive for muiicipalities to operate an efficient transit service which should lead to a slowing-down in the
growth of the deficit in the future.
velvee Andy.
ioe Fee oe dike ie
II-/
The operating and financial statistics for the CCL are not as encouraging as the HSR. Exhibits 2 and 3 demonstrate that usage of the System has dropped by 18% over the period 1973-1976, while total costs of operation have risen by 47%. Expressed as direct costs per bus mile and per passenger, the increases represent 56 and 79% respectively, compared to a Wage Index increase of 39% over the same period. The CCL service, which runs many more miles per vehicle than the HSR service, has been affected by the rapid rise in transportation costs over the period as Shown by the increase in the non-payrol] cost per vehicle. The payroll cost per employee has increased in line with inflation and is therefore
not a contributing factor to the increase in operating costs.
More important than the increase in cost of operation of the CCL is the increase in the deficit. The loss of riders coupled by the efforts by the City to hold down fare increases have resulted in rapidly rising deficits over the period. Recognizing the rapidly increasing financial burden of the CCL to the residents of the City of Hamilton, the City requested the Provincial Government to provide operating subsidies for the CCL in 1975, similar to the arrangement through which the Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority provides funds for GO Transit. This request has not been acted upon and as a result the net operating deficit to be borne by the municipal- ity is rising to such an extent as to make the service economically un- viable. Again, this rising cost to the tax payers cannot be attributed to Regional Government, but rather to a Provinctal position not to provide funds for the CCL operation. In 1976, the Province provided assistance on some selected CCL routes to reduce the deficit burden to be borne by the
municipality , but the remaining amount is still substantial.
ss : s 850 89° L 2 ; 9€2 25°0 = : 19°0 BLL = : Lez £9°0 ‘ : ; 29°0 2L'L : = £92 50 = : €5°0 LoL = : L8€ 29°0 001 SZL lel €5°0 SL 698 LSb £22 SS°0 001 2SL 91 1S°0 p9'L \8Z L9€ bli LL°0 80L 8b 1 SEL 0S°0 6S°L LEOL 99€ 292 19°0 p0l 191 8SL 25°0 lvl £€6 66€ L9€ 65°0 LOL OLL OzL 9b °0 le'l 868 6bb 022 1S°0 00L Zbl eat 05°0 Lvl €€8 L8e 991 LZ°0 SOL ral 6LL 2b 0 ial 8E0L aS 8EZ 19°0 pl pel Zbl Lv'0 feu £26 26€ Eve LS°0 00L o0l O0L Ov 0 pL'l LE6 29b 001 8b '0 00t rey O0l br '0 62'L 9/9 Ole 00L 18°0 00L rey 00l Se“0 LL p66 98€ OOL £40 00L 00L 00L 2€°0 rallaal 906 60¢ O0L 28°0 S3TIW J1DIHIA 39A0TdW3 UFONISSVd JUW OLX OLX AgIsans Olive jinod = 3d 43d Yad JON3AIY F49IH3A ASAOTAWI ONTLYY3dO 1S09/"A3Y wad = /*SSWd SS / "SSW 1$09 193410 IW1OL St vl el ral LL OL 6 8 l
“Yq4OMUaM-UOZ| LWeH 40
SIITLYIdOUd LISNWHL OTYVINO 0319919S YO4 SOTLSTLWLS JAT LWW dO
Ol LI@IHX4
v9l LZL €6L Ole
OSL 9SL €9L SEC
ef 6EL ZEL 26L
9
621 ev Lvl 902
s/h ZEL 9EL 691
Lvl col etl Sel
S
At Z0L OLL 9bL
O21 86
80L eel
Atl edtrotuny [euotbay wous uagozog-Auenuee sof OL}eU 4SO9/anuaAau pue
vLL ool LéL 8bl
BLL 86
Sik SEL
"J" LW WO4j SazeWLZSa UO paseg
ae vel SG 881
OLL ZAI PLL 8ZL
OLL Sak Stl OLL
“ASM
ell eel 80 6SL
LLL Bll vLL bol
SLL A ELL O€l
S1SOD SANAASY SATDIHSA S3IAO1dWS = SITIW
“SSVd “ASU
YMVHSO
YOSCNIM *NOLTIWVH
VMVLLO LZ6L
YMWHSO YOSCNIM NOLTIWVH
YMVLLO 9Z6L
YMWHSO YOSGNIM NOLTIWVH
VMVLLO S/6L
YMWHSO YOSONIM NOLTIWVH
VMVWLIO €Z6L
II-8
Another revealing analysis of public transit costs in the Region of Hamilton-Wentworth is a comparison with costs and service performance Statistics in other municipalities. Exhibit 10 presents a comparison of Operating statistics for transit services in Ottawa-Carleton, Oshawa, Windsor and Hamilton. The exhibit indicates that the total direct costs per revenue mile, per passenger, per employee and per vehicle for the HSR are at least comparable to corresponding statistics in the other three municipalities, and in many cases less. In terms of the revenue/cost ratic, all systems show a decline in the revenue/cost ratio over the period as a result of the Provincial encouragement to hold fares down, but the decline in the revenue/ cost ratio in Hamilton has been less than the decline in Ottawa even though Ottawa has experienced substantial ridership increases as a result of major service extentions. The exhibit may be summarized by stating that the HSR Operation is at least as efficient as other public transit systems of similar
size in Ontario.
SUMMARY OF COST IMPACTS The foregoing analysis has shown that the cost increases are for
the most part inflationary, and to a lesser extent due to increase in level of service. The increase in public transit deficits is a result of both provincial and local government efforts to hold down fare increases, and cannot be attributed to regionalization. The cost increases in some of the road functions described earlier can, in our view, be attributed not to the form of government, but to the process of transfering functions from one
government to the other. The responsibility for this state of
II-9
affairs lies not only with the Regional Government itself, but also with the Provincial Government which restructured local government and bears
a great deal of the responsibility for the manner of change.
Local government reorganization carries with it a great potential for establishing new internal management networks, but any change in such a large establishment also carries with it a great many risks. The old entity being phased out has a tendency to reduce expend‘tures on purchase and maintenance of equipment prior to the transfer of functions, or to defer the local tax liability by means such as debenturing which have resulted in some inequities as referenced above. There is also a great potential for career betterment by the individuals involved in the transfer, so that there will almost automatically be some increases in the general level of salaries as a new staff is assembled and the new duties are sorted out. In the beginning stages, the new unit must both make up for the lack of investment in time and resources by the outgoing entity, and invest a good deal of time and effort in starting up new programs and new ways to approach the problems of the larger entity. Thus the increase of salary levels within the Regional Roads Department, or the acquisition of the new machinery is entirely explainable in terms of this process of transition. In terms of the long term efficiency of the governmental entity, the start-up costs will disappear, but at the time of transition
they can be significant.
=e
6 2
-_
A. an . Prasad - . “| abvales We @
II-10
The only way to avoid or at least decrease the impact of the Start-up costs is to impose very rigid cost controls from an upper level. In this situation, it does not seem that the Province in fact set up an outgoing supervisory body to keep watch over the level of salaries given, the nature of contracts established by new entities, and the level of the investment both on the part of the outgoing and incoming governments. In fact, if anything, the Province encouraged such wage escalation by, for instance, guaranteeing that no staff member would be out of work as ‘a result of the transfer, and the guarantee that the Regional Government would never decrease the benefits of its employees acquired fromthe former entities. This meant that the salary and benefit package of the employees who used to work in the lower wage agencies would have to be set as high as the wages and benefits of the emplovees transferring from the City of Hamilton. These guarantees fly in the face of the objective of Regional Government to
achieve greater efficiencies through economies of scale.
For its part, we note that the Province has alleviated many of the start-up costs mentioned above through transitional grants. We were not able to compare comprehensively the extra start-up costs with the transitional grants, but there is good reason to believe that the Provincial assistance went a long way in defraying the impact of the start-up costs, although
it is recognized that the transitional grants decline to zero over five years.
From this brief discussion, it should be clear that a number of lessons could be learned. First, the Province should develop better control procedures over the transition for a longer period of time and be willing to impose some rather rigid guidelines. Secondly, any thought of yec again reor- ganizing local government should take into account the significant start-up
costs that such a reorganization would engender particularly in the admin-
istration of road systems.
ee | ew -
jets alg ae
pom neaneD, (1
3 aay -
sie
ITI-]
ITI - OPTIMAL GOVERNMENT SIZE FOR TRANSPORTATION SERVICE DELIVERY
The preceeding discussion has both explained the complexity of transportation service delivery within the Region and identified the areas of high costs and their causes. Based on this we can now turn to the question of what would be the best form of local government structure to deliver these servcies. This analysis will be done in two parts. In this section we will analyze what would be the optimum size unit for each of the transportation services. Based on these conclusions, we will then make recommendations in Section IV concerning the Review Commission's
government structure options.
Our investigation has shown that easy generalizations concerning the best sized units are not possible. This is due to the fact that it is difficult to know from which vantage point one should be evaluating unit size. If one is looking at the problem of say road maintenance from the standpoint of the local citizens, then optimum size might in fact be a unit encompassing his local area to best respond to his particular needs, whereas if one was viewing the matter from the standpoint of the engineer in charge of the operation, a much wider area would be logical; if one was disbursing provincial funds to guarantee certain levels of services, a still larger unit might be "best". We found that in a number of transportation functions such as traffic signs or On on-street parking there would have to be a very small governmental unit in place in order for the local citizen to feel that it is directly responsive to his needs. But we also found that such units would, when viewed from the standpoint of the administration
of the unit, be extremely inefficient.
iat 1an ie ont CaS : — 5 savant 0 yY a =
on) J
III-2
We have some difficulty in making conclusions concerning the responsiveness question because our interviews with regional and area muni- cipal politicans disclosed that, while part of the present perception of regional government as being aloof and unresponsive may be due to the Structure of the governmental entity, a great deal of it would seem to be due to transition problems. The image of regional government in the public mind seems to reflect the lack of understanding yet of who does what service. Politicians are frequently called about a transportation problem over which they do not have control. The very complexity of the services and the use of a series of ad hoc arrangements during transition (i.e. the delay in the creation of the Regional Roads Engineering Department) has in fact made it somewhat difficult for the average citizen to know where he should attempt to voice a criticism or participate in a decision.
Presumably with time these problems will dissipate.
The dilemma posed here is then the question of how one weighs the questions of responsiveness against those of efficiency. This dilemma is compounded by the fact that efficiency can mean not only the economic efficiency of the local unit of government itself but the efficiency of the Provincial level of government which must both help to fund it and co-ordinate its program with neighbouring local government units, What we have attempted to do here is to look at each of the patterns of service delivery and weigh them in terms of both responsiveness (i.e. the meaningfulness of local partici- pation in the type of decision involved) and the practical financial consider- ations involved in delivering the service. This includes both staffing, numbers of equipment and management costs. We then add in the necessity of region wide planning and investment for the particular types of service involved. One can thus make a conclusion as to both the optimal size for the administrative unit
and for the controlling political unit.
III-3
ROAD TRAFFIC CONTROL
Road traffic control is a service which requires region-wide coordination since it largely relates to the Regional Road System, and which requires the development of specialized expertise and equipment. Accordingly, road traffic control should be responsible to one unified administrative unit, which would provide services to other government units on a contract basis. The unified administrative unit could be either a one-tier or a two-tier government, but the area should embrace as much of the traffic control system as possible (i.e. essentially sianalized intersections). Further, in the case of a two-tiered government structure, the traffic control department should be under the direct responsibility of the upper tier government responsible for the arterial road system, since clearly most of the traffic control function relates to the arterial road system and this would be the best procedure for determining and resolving
priorities. ROAD ENGINEERING AND PLANNING
After a series of discussions with various staff members and based on analysis of costs and responsibilities, we have concluded that there is a need for both a region-wide engineering administrative unit and a local road engineering capability. In view of the reqion-wide service role of the arterial roads (essentially the existing Regional Roads System), the overall planning of roads and their coordination lends itself to an upper level of administrative unit. However, we have also concluded that such a unit would not be particularly well suited to the planning and design of local road
systems, since these tend very much to be a function of the particular traffic
IT[-4
volumes in the area and local land use and environmental considerations.
Such a bifurcated administrative unit weuld of course fit best with a two- tier governmental unit. However, because the local engineering function is of a much smaller magnitude than the Regional road engineering function,
and in some cases the local road engineering function is almost non-existent, the administration of these functions could, if necessary, be provided
effectively by a one-tier government structure. ROAD MAINTENANCE
Unlike transit and traffic control services, road maintenance is a function that requires a number of service depots to minimize response time and deadhead time and very few of the functions are specialized. Although the level of service varies by type of road being maintained, the basic procedures are very similar and can generally be carried out by one depart- ment. There are few economies to be derived from centralization of road maintenance services, with the possible exceptions being purchasing of materials and provision of certain specialized equipment. Accordingly, it would seem that road maintenance should be administered locally and such a local admin- istrative unit could be responsible to either a series of autonomous local
government units or a two-tier government system.
The road maintenance system as presently structured presents some excellent examples of the lower tier administrative unit providing services to the upper tier unit, such as the case of the City of Hamilton maintaining the Regional roads in the City. Two cautions are appropriate
to point out: firstly, methods of control of performance and costs between
ITI-5
the supplying and contracting agency need to be established so that costs
are equitable and service is carried out as required; secondly, the establishment of priorities needs to be effected so that the Supplying agency is able
to distinguish between the priority to maintain its own roads and the roads
of the other municipality.
With respect to the existing road maintenance departments, the Significant aspect of the above recommendation is that the current procedure in which the City of Hamilton provides road maintenance services to the Regional roads in the City should most certainly be continued. On a lower priority basis, the Region could, as opportunity presents itself, make arrangements with the area municipalities to have them provide maintenance
services on the Regional roads in selective areas and for selective functions.
PUBLIC TRANSIT OPERATIONS
Public transit is a region-wide service and the level of service and cost efficiencies improve with economies of scale. This is to Say that transit services are more efficient if provided by one agency rather than several agencies across the region. Accordingly, it is our view that public transit should be responsible to one unified administrative unit which at least embraces the service area of the transit system,which in this case is the urbanized part of the Region, and preferably embraces the entire Region. This operation could be provided as efficiently by one or two tier govern- ment systems. Regardless of the government system, better coordination among transportation modes, particularly road, transit and parking,needs to be achieved so that the provision of transit service is responsive to the total transportation policy objectives of the area, not just the particular needs
of the local municipality as is now the practice.
III-6
Some further clarification of the above recommendations with regard to the particular transit Operations in the Region is appropriate. Firstly, the above recommendations best suit the HSR operation. The CCL operation is an inter-regional service, and as such its Operation should be coordinated by an inter-regional transportation coordinating committee, as discussed in Section IV. Secondly, the above recommendations should not exclude the possib- ility of specialized transit services operating where the HSR cannot operate efficiently, but that such operation should be under tie responsibility of
the unified government structure.
TAAL SERVICES
Taxi services are predominantly local in nature, although there is some inter-municipal service provided. The major problem with the existing administrative structure regarding taxi services is the inability of the area municipalities to enforce the local taxi by-laws without the assistance of the Regional Police. Accordingly, it is our opinion that taxi by-law enforcement should be the responsibility of the Regional Police Department and that the preparation of taxi by-laws be the responsibility of the same level of government. At the same time, we recognize that there is a substantial investment in the existing system in terms of value of taxi licenses issued, paticularly for taxi operators in the City of Hamilton, so we would see no reason to change the procedure through which the area municipality issues taxi licenses, except where there is a regional-wide imperative, such as the provision of services which fall into the public transit domain. Accordingly, a structure in which the by-law establishment and enforcement
is the function of the unified government structure and the issuing of
III-7
licenses is a function of the area municipalities fits best with a two- tier government unit. It would also work with a one-tier, unified govern- ment system for single or large government units, but regional conformity of by-law standards and enforcements would suffer if there were a multip-
licity of government units within the one-tier system.
HAMILTON CIVIC AIRPORT
The Hamilton Civic Airport provides general aviation and air carrier services to the residents of the Region and the Niagara Peninsula in general. As such, the service area is at least region-wide and in many cases inter- regional. The operating deficit is fully covered by the City of Hamilton from the Ministry of Transport, so the airport is therefore no burden to the
local tax payers.
In view of the extent of the service area, it is our view that the airport be administered at least by a regional-scale unit which is responsible to a region-wide governmental entity. In fact, recognizing its inter-regional
nature, there could be strong arguments for a higher level of responsibility, such
as would happen if the airport operation reverted back to the Ministry of Transport. However, some benefit would be lost in terms of responsiveness to the needs of the residents of the Region, so the recommended administrative
structure in the short term is to have the airport operated by the Regional Government in a two-tier system or by the single largest area municipality
in a one-tier government structure. Of the two structures, the two-tiered
system or a unified one-tier system are preferred. If there are a number
of municipalities in the one-tier government structure, a special purpose coordinating committee with representatives from the various municipal
governments should be established to regulate operations of the airport.
ITI-8
PARKING
Parking is generally considered local in scale, although parking policy does have regional scale impacts in terms of the effects of on- Street parking on the capacity of Regional roads and the effects of uncon- strained parking demand on the requirements for Regional road capacity. Because of the impact of parking policy on regional-scale transportation services such as roads and public transit, the government agency responsible for the administration of regional scale roads and transit should have some responsibility in establishing parking policies. These controls might include the establishment of minimum parking charges and/or the right to levy a tax on parking, or the establishment of the numbers of parking spaces required by land use types. The provision of parking spaces should be a local re- sponsibility, except on regional roads or parking which access directly onto Regional roads, in which case the Region should be responsible. The role of the area municipality in providing parking through zoning control most responsively satisfies the concerns of local neighbours and commercial
establishments who are most affected by such decisions.
SUMMARY
This discussion points out that what is the optimum size of administrative unit for one type of service (e.g. public transit) will not be the optimum size unit for other services (e.g. parking or road maintenance). Similarily it shows that while some services could be provided efficiently with either a unified one-tier government structure or a two-tier structure, most of the services require a combination of
regional control of some of their aspects and local control of other of
III-9 their aspects. Road engineering, parking and taxi services to a lesser extent involve both local and regional-scale services and, therefore, benefit most by a two tiered government structure. At the same time, these services could be made to function efficiently under a one-tier government structure, although there would likely be an important loss of responsiveness to local need under such a government structure. Road maintenance, traffic control, public transit and airport services could function equally well under
two-tier or one-tier government structures.
With these conclusions in mind, we can now turn to the examination of the options for municipal government structure from the perspective of
transportation services.
SPIUR BDLAUIS JUdUaJJLP OF Spuodsaus0d SOULS ALGeUuLSap SOW
Sapeos [eUOL abueyd on|-baa pue (edo, 3e - pooy Ava] eAtsuodsau - pooy
Spgeu [euns AO} SOPLAOUd BOULS
y uey} 4ajjzag
yno peauds 00} dbeudAy| Leunu - abeuaay (7L Sues} *ba [eUNA UL BDLAUAS 4Aood A, qeqoud AYLI UL Pood
SPIN BDLAUAS uequn SL} 4a}}9q SOULS *¢ pue | ueyy Uo}}Aq abeusAy S}Uaw
-UABAOH [ed0| UL S8DLAUaS ,euotbau
auNSSe 0} |aAda| paou - 400g
SOD LAUSS dUOW pawnsse doUL -AOUd ft asuom| 39q PLNOM = pooy
uoL}zeoL{dnp LeLzusezod pue [aAa{ LeuoLbau
ye UOLJPEULPUOOD JO Yel asnedeq a[qeulsap 3seaq
JL) JUeSadd JDLAUaS
apLsjno sat Leuotbau pue -ABLeS pazeltjuL}] [LedO, JO UOLZeUe $O Stu} -das Leotbo|, ou
3] qeuLsaq und - abeuaAy| %61q 003 - wood) 2YbLw “Seaue BdLAUaS 11sueuy “b°s jedLoLunw-uazUL 40 abueys SIDLAUBS BWOS UOL}ZLUBODeU OU asnedaq 0} 3809 MO] But}3e6 wa|qoud
atqeurseapun | Alqeqoud - poor, yaaoxa *pooy
abuey 4
S Ud) jo 3509 SSaUdALSUOdSaY
Butbueyd [edo LUNW-UdqUL SLGL -ssod $SadLAuas pazijeLoeds aye
-powwoos9e - poor
-OUaLILJJa [Leunu BHULpLAOud Aq
pe URYY Uo} oq yeymawos-
SALZeLAA LeL QUA -yod uoLlzeodtidnp Saonpau - abeusry
StfPe4y = a1s -URU} *b°d SBDLA -49S $0 UOL}ED =L{dnp 0} pes} qYybLu -
Seaue [eunu UL S9diAUaS URqUN A, 3S09 0} peal
C# OF ARLLWLS Swa|qoud - wood
Adualotis3
“Wa | qoud
Seaue BILAUAS 0} spuodsauu0) - pooy Auaf
"Solqt{edtotunu UdaM}eq UOLIEUL -puo00d padN “Seaue BdLAUaS SBdeUquIe
AJL) fb poo
SAL
aHeudAy
aplsyno wWaLqou {PLJUua}Og *“Seaue BdLAUaS Sadeuqua AYLQ $b pooy
C# OF
[OA}UO0D
S90 LAUaS jedrotunw
-4WaqzUL BuLzeuLp -4009 4Of BuUNy -ONu}ZS OU - 400d
400d
eaue JILAUaS 0} Spuod -Sd4409- Ppoog Auadf
- obeuadry
U0} | Lwe} UPIM pazeubaqul ZOU aSnedeq u00d
UOLJEULP400)
Wa ySAS qUasaud
AzLLedLoLuny {euny aug pue ueguy papuedxy 2uQ
Ajuno) dado pue A}L) pebueluy
(4aL, a6uls) salqipedls -LUNW XLS
AyLpedLorunpw aug
W33SAS
Ajuno) sewuo4 “|
dANINAYS UaWUABAO0D
JDIAYSS NOILWLYOdSNVYL OL SATLW13Y SAdALOINYLS LNAWNYSAOD SATLVNYAL TW 40 NOTLWNIVAS
LL LId1HXx4
TV- RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE FOR OPTIMUM TRANSPORTATION SERVICE DELIVERY
The preceeding analysis has shown that any conclusion concerning local government structure should take into account a number of factors in the transportation service area. These factors include both the costs of the service delivery and the political accountability of the providers of the services. It should also be stressed that our anal,sis of financial costs in Section II and our discussion of political responsiveness in Section III have both shown that increased cost or poor political accountability can be blamed to a great extent upon the problems of transition from one established form of government to another. In the con- text of transportation services and these various factors, we will now examine each of the possible options for municioval government as established in the
Review Commission's paper "Issues For Review".
Our examination of the alternative government structures considered
four criteria as follows:
- coordination of transportation planning and delivery functions, which is measured in terms of the degree of correspondence between
the government unit area and the service area of the transportation service,
- efficiency, which is measured in terms of the cost to the user and to the tax payer of delivering transportation services,
- responsiveness, which is measured in terms of the ability of the local residents to effect service changes to accommodate their needs,
- cost of change,which is a measurement of the transition costs from the existing government structure.
The following evaluation is presented for all forms of transportation service
described earlier, but greater weight was given to the delivery of road and
IV-2
public transit services because of their greater costs and utilization relative to the other three transportation services - taxicabs, airport and parking.
Option 1: A Return to the Former System
With a City of Hamilton, a County of Wentworth
and the Local Municipalities
We have concluded that from a standpoint of transportation services,
this would be one of the least desirable forms of local government. As Section III has shown,in the transportation area a great many of the services are regional in scale. Of the seven sub-areas discussed, only road maintenance would seem to benefit from this option. The airport, public transit or the planning of a system of roads blending together an area this large cannot be done under the previous government structure with its series of boundaries that in no way reflect the demographic relationship of the people or the scale of the transportation services in the area. This, of course, is essentially due to the separation of the City of Hamilton from the rest of the government units. Integration of the City with the other government units would resolve many of these problems, but this would then be essentially the same structure
as the present system of two-tiered government which is discussed below.
Viewed from the standpoint of transportation costs, one would not only lose the transition costs already spent by such a change back to the old system, but would generate a whole new set of start-up transition costs. If the old system could in fact be resuscitated, it would still have to have so many ad hoc regional arrangements for such services as transit, air- ports and roads, that there would be considerable duplication and costly
overlaps.
This option has little to recommend it from the standpoint of trans-
portation.
IV-3
Option 2: A Complete Single-Tier Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth So That the Lower Tier
Municipalities are Abolished
We have concluded that of the various options this is one of the solutions which would seem to be very desirable. As Section III indicated, many of the transportation services lend themselves to a region-wide admin-
istrative unit.
The unitary systemwould, however, have some drawbacks in terms of political accountability and cost efficiencies. For instance in public transit, it might be less likely that local sector transit services would be carefully monitored in terms of their deficit costs and their local benefits. Similarly, local road planning and design might suffer from a uniformity that would encourage high cost urban-type roads in rural areas. Likewise in terms of responsiveness, the local needs of either road main- tenance or parking might be overlooked. Finally, our cost data in Section II has shown that a transition to region-wide entities runs the risk of inflated salaries for the delivery of transportation services outside of the present urban area.
Option 3: Six Single-Tier Municipalities With Equal Authority So That The Upper Tier is Abolished
Viewed from the standpoint of transportation services, this is the worst of the various options. As shown in Section III, the bulk of the trans- portation services are regional in character and need regional coordination. The duplication and coordination problems between six autonomous municipalities in an area such as this would be extremely time consuming and costly. Further- more, the transition costs would again be very high with little positive benefits
that would seem to flow from the change.
IV-4
Option 4: An Enlarged City of Hamilton to Include That Area to be Urbanized; Other Municipalities to be Formed into a New County System or Annexed to
Adjacent Counties and Regions
While this option provides a better fit between the regional- scale transportation services and the government structure than do options 1 and 3, this option is still not particularly desirable from the Standpoint of transportation services. Many of the transportation services described earlier have a regional-scale component that extends beyond the urbanized area to be included in the enlarged City of Hamilton that would not easily be dealt with between an urban local government and a separate entity or entities for the surrounding area. For instance, public transit, even in the outlying area, would have to focus on the shopping and employ- ment magnet of the City of Hamilton and thus would incur substantial dup- lication costs and provide lower levels of service than the unified transit system. Similarily there are major arterial roads which cross the boundaries between the urbanized and non-urbanized government units and the planning and design of these regional scale roads would have to be coordinated by the
two government units - a time consuming and costly consequence.
On the positive side, however, a number of the services such as parking, road maintenance and local road engineering could be accommodated under such a system. Some of the other services, such as traffic control, taxi services and to a lesser extent the airport, could also be accommod- ated but not as well as under a larger scale administrative unit. There would also be a high set of start-up and transition costs to change to this form of government which would seriously increase the cost of
government for a considerable period of time.
yr its Dé
y _
7
TA
: We SHG a hie 2 * +a
a
Option 5; An Enlarged City of Hamilton and a Single-Tier Municipality
This option presents some improvements over Option 4, but at the Same time creates some greater problems. In terms of improvement, the option affords the opportunity for the rural municipalities to consolidate the delivery of services thereby achieving some economies of scale and improved coordination in planning and design. On the negative side, however, this option creates a reasonably strong rural unit which may make it more difficult for the urban and rural government units to reach accommodation On matters of regional-scale concern such as major new road building programs. While in Option 4 there is some likelihood that the enlarged City of Hamilton would be able to develop and implement region-wide programs, under Option 5 there is a good possibility that the City would be unable to make any significant impact beyond its geographic boundaries. It should perhaps be mentioned here that in England, where such urban and rural entities were established, there were a great many difficulties in the transportation area and a continuous confrontation between the two entities. The central government there had to continually make settlements
between the two entities which led to delay and high costs.
Like many of the other options, this option suffers again from substantial transition and start-up costs. Option 6: Continuation of the Present Two-Tier
Regional Government System with any Appropriate Modifications in Function and Number and Size of
Constituent Municipalities
Of all the possible options, this seems to be the most desirable from the standpoint of transportation services. This two-tier system
allows both region-wide planning and administration of regional-scale
IV-6
Programs, but it also allows for local accountability for those services or aspects of those services which are local in nature. As Section III demonstrates, there is a need for region-wide administration of a good many of the transportation services, but there is also a need for local control of such functions as parking, bus routes, local road design and maintenance. Furthermore, since a great deal of the increased financial costs can be seen to be due to transitional problems from the existing system to a new system, this option would have the lowest transition costs
of any of the options.
While this is the best option from a transportation viewpoint, there are meaningful changes which could be made to the system which would carry with them low transition costs and improved efficiency. These are
as follows:
1. The planning and programming of all regional-scale transportation services should be the responsibility of a Transportation Committee of Regional Council. This Committee should be charged with develop- Ing a comprehensive transportation policy for the Region, to include
Regional roads, public transit, parking, Hamilton Airport and taxi services.
or An inter-regional transportation coordinating committee consisting of representatives from the Region of Hamilton-Wentworth and the neighbouring regional municipalities and counties should be established to coordinate the planning of the regional-scale facilities mentioned above which have inter-regional consequences, such as certain CCL routes/services and access to Hamilton Airport.
3. The province should assist in establishing the inter-regional transportation coordinating committee mentioned above and vrovide the basis for funding the planning proqrams of this committee through the extension of existing assistance programs. This planning Should include provincial facilities as these impact regional or inter-regional concerns.
4, Consideration should be given to the Region delegating more road maintenance functions to the area municipalities, with the Region to assume a coordinating role in terms of standards and in terms of providing certain centralized services such as purchasing and specialized equipment.
IV-7
D. Traffic control services should be put under the direction of the Regional Transportation Committee since the Region is the main user of the services. Consideration should be given to sub-contracting some of the routine functions to the area municipalities.
Gs The Region, in concert with the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, should establish improved inter-municipal charging Procedures and control of work quality procedures to ensure that work contracted between the municipalities is performed efficiently and effectively.
UE The Regional Transportation Committee should have better control over the provision of public transit services in function of the total regional transportation policy role described above. This should also include a restructuring of the process of allocating the transit deficits from a "user pay" basis to a concept in which the deficit is shared across the Urban Transit Service Area in some Proportion to equalized assessment, as is the case for other reg- ional transportation services and regional services in general.
8. The Region should re-initiate its earlier request to the Province to provide 100% subsidy on the inter-regional Canada Coach Lines. service similar to the arrangement for funding the GO Transit Services, or failing this should proceed to transfer regional services to the HSR, amend the Urban Transit Area to correspond to the regional area, and liquidate the remaining operation of the CCL.
9. A regional parking policy should be established by the Regional Transportation Committee as part of the total transportation policy discussed above.
10. The operation of the Hamilton Civic Airport should be transferred to the Region and the inter-regional transportation coordinating, committee should include within its terms of reference the planning for the airport as input to the federal/provincial/municipal discussion of the future of the airport.
Gi The Regional Transportation Committee should assume the respon- sibility for preparing a regional taxi by-law and the Regional Police should be responsible for enforcing the by-law. The issuing of taxi licenses should continue to be the responsibility of the area municipalities, under the monitoringof the Regional Transportation Committee.
To conclude, we would recommend that the present two-tier system of government is, both in the context of the services provided and in the light of the high transition costs engendered by bureaucratic change, the
best form of local government with regard to the delivery of transportation
IV-8
services. A single tier form of government (Option 2) could possibly be made to function effectively, but it would carry with it high transition costs. Any of the other options would seem to pose serious problems with
regard to the delivery of transportation services.
S11
of hiveney, Stones 19 eal ‘ alice A Ge he ato auttes eoan af
HAMILTON PUBLIC LIBRARY