What’s this have to do with city politics, you ask?
A lot, I say. But it shouldn’t.
In the 2003 provincial election campaign Dalton "The Promiser" McGuinty’s said that he wouldn’t raise taxes. He was going to roll back highway 407 tolls and cancel P-3 hospitals. He wasn’t going to allow building on the Oak Ridges Moraine.
All these promises were broken … and more.
He actually did keep some - well, one that I can think of - and that was to create a provincial rent bank program. Good for him.
Ontario Rent Bank Program
The program, which rolled out within months of the election, provides money so that low-income tenants may apply to receive financial assistance to address short-term rent arrears. This small program was passed over to 42 service managers (municipalities ) to run which kept the provincial government somewhat immune to any criticism. (In some cases the municipalities contracted with agencies to actually operate the program.) Most of these local programs provide grants, but some operate by providing interest free loans.
According to today's Toronto Star the future of this program is in doubt.
The Future of Rent Banks
Up until last year I had many years direct involvement with housing emergency loan programs and with this particular program as well.
The province created an administrative nightmare for those operating rent banks. Fortunately, however, rent banks do help those they are intended to help - people with serious housing emergencies.
The whole concept is rather a stopgap approach to the serious issue of poverty. A parallel could be drawn with food banks. In 1983 the first was created in Edmonton as a temporary measure. Food banks are still with us. Here is hoping they will go away. Rent banks too.
In the meantime, while I hope that monies are made available to assist those with housing emergencies; the fact is the government can’t be let off the hook in addressing the big picture issue here:
Many of our fellow citizens do not have enough income to find and maintain adequate housing.
And that is something the province must take responsibility for and leadership on. Local government can be involved but the province must lead.
Rent banks do help but they are a very small part of the solution.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Sunday, April 27, 2008
YOUR BLOGGER GOOFS
There was an error in my last posting.
I said that a Burlington Transit bus - Route #2 Brant North - had an average weekday boarding rate of 11 riders per hour. That number was wrong. In fact, 21.5 people board the #2 buses every hour on a weekday.
While your blogger was never much good at math, the ability to offer sincere apologies is considered to be a strength.
So, I am truly sorry.
I imagine that many of you loyal readers use insights gained from this blog at various cocktail parties around town. We can only imagine because we don’t go to these cocktail parties. In fact, we don’t get invited to these parties.
However, as compensation for any embarrassment that you may have suffered here are nine more or lessinteresting facts that you can insert into any conversation about Burlington Transit at a cocktail party, in a bar, when talking to a loved one or over the backyard fence.
Burlington Transit (BT) by the Numbers
480 Number of hours BT runs each day
8639 Average daily boardings
17.9 Average boardings per hour
1/3 According to Ward 3 Councillor John Taylor the average # of riders per hour on BT buses.
12 Number of main BT routes
8 Number of routes carrying more than 10 people per/hr
70 grams of carbon dioxide emitted per kilometer by a bus carrying 18 passengers
220 grams of carbon dioxide emitted per km. by an automobile carrying one person (sourceSIKA, Swedish Institute for Transport and Communications Analysis, 2006)
25.5, 21.9 21.5 Weekday boardings per hour for #1 Fairview Plains, #10 New Maple, #2 Brant routes
I said that a Burlington Transit bus - Route #2 Brant North - had an average weekday boarding rate of 11 riders per hour. That number was wrong. In fact, 21.5 people board the #2 buses every hour on a weekday.
While your blogger was never much good at math, the ability to offer sincere apologies is considered to be a strength.
So, I am truly sorry.
I imagine that many of you loyal readers use insights gained from this blog at various cocktail parties around town. We can only imagine because we don’t go to these cocktail parties. In fact, we don’t get invited to these parties.
However, as compensation for any embarrassment that you may have suffered here are nine more or lessinteresting facts that you can insert into any conversation about Burlington Transit at a cocktail party, in a bar, when talking to a loved one or over the backyard fence.
Burlington Transit (BT) by the Numbers
480 Number of hours BT runs each day
8639 Average daily boardings
17.9 Average boardings per hour
1/3 According to Ward 3 Councillor John Taylor the average # of riders per hour on BT buses.
12 Number of main BT routes
8 Number of routes carrying more than 10 people per/hr
70 grams of carbon dioxide emitted per kilometer by a bus carrying 18 passengers
220 grams of carbon dioxide emitted per km. by an automobile carrying one person (sourceSIKA, Swedish Institute for Transport and Communications Analysis, 2006)
25.5, 21.9 21.5 Weekday boardings per hour for #1 Fairview Plains, #10 New Maple, #2 Brant routes
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
STILL RIDING THOSE TWENTY THREE YEAR OLD BUSES
I spoke at Burlington Council on April 7th. After hearing again - from one councillor anyway - that our buses are riding around empty - I thought I should really get my facts straight.
I’ve tried. I wrote to all members of Council on March 27th seeking clarification on “data” given by that same member of Council at a March 26th public meeting.
After the Council meeting I again sought clarification in writing from staff. No response yet, so nothing else to do, I guess, but get on the buses. Since they are apparently as empty as a city hall office between Christmas and New Years, I’m sure I’ll have no problem finding a seat.
Friday April 11
Hopping on yet another 23 year-old bus, #7005-85, (see previous posts) #2 Brant North bus departs the downtown terminal at 7:15 a.m.
The bus heads up Brant, meanders through north urban Burlington, over to Guelph Line, and then back on Cavendish to Upper Middle Road where it heads east. At MM Robinson the bus (which has now become the #3 Guelph Line South) turns right heading back down to the Lakeshore eventually to the Terminal.
In its one-hour circuit I’m joined by thirty-six (36) other riders. The nine passengers on the early part of the route are making connections to trains or other buses at the Fairview GO station. (Wonder when that new parking garage will be ready? Can’t ever really have enough parking spots?)
The bulk of the other passengers appear to be students heading to MMR, Rolling Meadows PS, or connections downtown.
After a full circuit I disembark, but the bus keeps running. In fact, the #2 Brant North leaves the terminal 48 times on any given weekday. The Brant South route does the same. The most recent statistics show 1,055 riders board over the course of the day - an average of 11 riders on each of the 96 runs – making the Councillor’s “one-third a rider per hour” projection about as accurate as George W. Bush’s pre-invasion assessment of Iraqi nuclear capabilities.
Other routes are similar and will be documented in an upcoming posting.
A Suburban Myth
It is a myth that empty buses ramble around our suburban streets.
In fact, a lot of people currently ride these buses. Many of these riders have no other choice in getting on with day to day living than to take the bus. Besides our environmental imperatives dictate that we must find ways to get drivers out of their cars and onto public transit.
The cost containment exercise the city has embarked on needs to keep this in mind.
(My presentation to Council is available by e-mailing me at timberline24@hotmail.com)
I’ve tried. I wrote to all members of Council on March 27th seeking clarification on “data” given by that same member of Council at a March 26th public meeting.
After the Council meeting I again sought clarification in writing from staff. No response yet, so nothing else to do, I guess, but get on the buses. Since they are apparently as empty as a city hall office between Christmas and New Years, I’m sure I’ll have no problem finding a seat.
Friday April 11
Hopping on yet another 23 year-old bus, #7005-85, (see previous posts) #2 Brant North bus departs the downtown terminal at 7:15 a.m.
The bus heads up Brant, meanders through north urban Burlington, over to Guelph Line, and then back on Cavendish to Upper Middle Road where it heads east. At MM Robinson the bus (which has now become the #3 Guelph Line South) turns right heading back down to the Lakeshore eventually to the Terminal.
In its one-hour circuit I’m joined by thirty-six (36) other riders. The nine passengers on the early part of the route are making connections to trains or other buses at the Fairview GO station. (Wonder when that new parking garage will be ready? Can’t ever really have enough parking spots?)
The bulk of the other passengers appear to be students heading to MMR, Rolling Meadows PS, or connections downtown.
After a full circuit I disembark, but the bus keeps running. In fact, the #2 Brant North leaves the terminal 48 times on any given weekday. The Brant South route does the same. The most recent statistics show 1,055 riders board over the course of the day - an average of 11 riders on each of the 96 runs – making the Councillor’s “one-third a rider per hour” projection about as accurate as George W. Bush’s pre-invasion assessment of Iraqi nuclear capabilities.
Other routes are similar and will be documented in an upcoming posting.
A Suburban Myth
It is a myth that empty buses ramble around our suburban streets.
In fact, a lot of people currently ride these buses. Many of these riders have no other choice in getting on with day to day living than to take the bus. Besides our environmental imperatives dictate that we must find ways to get drivers out of their cars and onto public transit.
The cost containment exercise the city has embarked on needs to keep this in mind.
(My presentation to Council is available by e-mailing me at timberline24@hotmail.com)
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Waiting for a Pardigm Shift?
Last December Gord Miller, Ontario’s Environmental Commissioner, released his annual report. Entitled Reconciling our Priorities, it called for a “paradigm shift” in how we do planning in Ontario.
For those of you not inclined to do much shifting or have simply forgotten what a paradigm shift is, well it is a pretty big deal - a change from one way of thinking to another, a revolution, a transformation. Ptolemy’s view that everything orbited around the earth changing to Copernicus revelation that we orbited the sun is a good example.
When the report came out I was going to comment on it. With nothing encouraging to say, I thought I give it a few months and wait for the “paradigm shifters” to wade in.
Today I did an internet search (reconciling our priorities and gord miller) and, to my surprise, found my Feb 16th posting (observing that the report was too depressing, so I wasn’t commenting) near the top of the hit list.
Miller has been travelling the province but I wonder if any real dialogue is occurring.
Some Excerpts from the Report
*The Provincial strategy to manage growth (the GGH) actually “reverses the sustainable development process.” (p 26)
*“The lack of progress to date in shifting away from a car culture calls into question the efficacy of GGH Plan ‘s density targets in promoting the hoped for mobility changes in the future.” (p 32)
*There is no effective regulatory protection for wetlands and the province has actually “retreated” from earlier prohibitions on development by “changing the definition of ‘“development.’” (p 39)
*Significant changes have occurred in land use policies which mean that aggregate extraction is considered an interim land use. (p 45)
(See the full report at http://www.eco.on.ca/english/newsrel/2007/annual/)
Conflicts Everywhere
We have significant conflicts all over the place.
Provincial policy as reflected in the 2005 Provincial Policy statements (PPS) says “preserving wetlands, woodlands and agricultural lands are priorities but it also asserts that the construction of highways, the removal of aggregates, and the building of pipelines for water supply are priorities.”
There is nothing in place to “reconcile these conflicting land uses.”
Miller goes on to say that municipalities are required to dedicate increasing resources to resolve these irreconcilable priorities. His analysis notes that planning processes are now “weighted in favour of extractive and destructive uses of the land over those that conserve natural or agricultural use.”
These processes have become “intellectually dishonest” because no upfront “a priori” discussion of the real need for any project can happen.
Waiting
I am waiting for that paradigm shift. Some think such shifts in thinking are advanced by agents of change. We wonder if any such agents are out there?
For those of you not inclined to do much shifting or have simply forgotten what a paradigm shift is, well it is a pretty big deal - a change from one way of thinking to another, a revolution, a transformation. Ptolemy’s view that everything orbited around the earth changing to Copernicus revelation that we orbited the sun is a good example.
When the report came out I was going to comment on it. With nothing encouraging to say, I thought I give it a few months and wait for the “paradigm shifters” to wade in.
Today I did an internet search (reconciling our priorities and gord miller) and, to my surprise, found my Feb 16th posting (observing that the report was too depressing, so I wasn’t commenting) near the top of the hit list.
Miller has been travelling the province but I wonder if any real dialogue is occurring.
Some Excerpts from the Report
*The Provincial strategy to manage growth (the GGH) actually “reverses the sustainable development process.” (p 26)
*“The lack of progress to date in shifting away from a car culture calls into question the efficacy of GGH Plan ‘s density targets in promoting the hoped for mobility changes in the future.” (p 32)
*There is no effective regulatory protection for wetlands and the province has actually “retreated” from earlier prohibitions on development by “changing the definition of ‘“development.’” (p 39)
*Significant changes have occurred in land use policies which mean that aggregate extraction is considered an interim land use. (p 45)
(See the full report at http://www.eco.on.ca/english/newsrel/2007/annual/)
Conflicts Everywhere
We have significant conflicts all over the place.
Provincial policy as reflected in the 2005 Provincial Policy statements (PPS) says “preserving wetlands, woodlands and agricultural lands are priorities but it also asserts that the construction of highways, the removal of aggregates, and the building of pipelines for water supply are priorities.”
There is nothing in place to “reconcile these conflicting land uses.”
Miller goes on to say that municipalities are required to dedicate increasing resources to resolve these irreconcilable priorities. His analysis notes that planning processes are now “weighted in favour of extractive and destructive uses of the land over those that conserve natural or agricultural use.”
These processes have become “intellectually dishonest” because no upfront “a priori” discussion of the real need for any project can happen.
Waiting
I am waiting for that paradigm shift. Some think such shifts in thinking are advanced by agents of change. We wonder if any such agents are out there?
Saturday, March 29, 2008
OLD BLOGGER, OLD BUS, SAME OLD STORY PART TWO
Ridership on Burlington Transit is up, particularly recently.
This won’t stop some members of Council from taking a knife to it.
“I won’t be swayed by a couple of good months,” Councillor John Taylor made clear at Community and Corporate Service Committee this past Wednesday.
Taylor thinks we may have to “look at a simplified system.”
Simplified? One can only imagine.
My mind flashed back some 15 years to an idea put forward by another councillor. That brainwave – and I’m not making this one up - was to take the buses back to the garage when they were empty. It would save money.
Presumably, potential riders waiting along abandoned routes could hail taxis or maybe just take the day off work.
I’m confident that the current cost containment exercise will come up with better ideas. But I worry.
Empty Buses?
Councillors and senior staff agonize over empty buses.
It is a fact that hard worker taxpayers, mostly men as I recall,
find time to phone city hall and complain about those empty buses observed, I am sure, while cruising around town as the sole occupant in their carbon spewing SUVs. No irony there, eh?
But the buses aren’t empty. Performance statistics show nearly 9,000 boardings every weekday.
Councillor Rick Goldring noted the number of people riding the buses is about the same as the number who frequent our libraries. No one is questioning the need for libraries. Transit ought to be the same.
Stay Tuned
The data we put forward at committee suggested Burlington is not putting the emphasis on transit that other communities have.
Councillors, not unreasonably, questioned this data and asked staff to look at the numbers.
Much of the discussion focused on the fact that our neighbouring town, Oakville, seemed to spend more dollars on transit and had better performance too.
There are challenges as Councillor Craven acknowledged but the future will see us “more dependent on transit.”
“We have to invest in our infrastructure.”
This won’t stop some members of Council from taking a knife to it.
“I won’t be swayed by a couple of good months,” Councillor John Taylor made clear at Community and Corporate Service Committee this past Wednesday.
Taylor thinks we may have to “look at a simplified system.”
Simplified? One can only imagine.
My mind flashed back some 15 years to an idea put forward by another councillor. That brainwave – and I’m not making this one up - was to take the buses back to the garage when they were empty. It would save money.
Presumably, potential riders waiting along abandoned routes could hail taxis or maybe just take the day off work.
I’m confident that the current cost containment exercise will come up with better ideas. But I worry.
Empty Buses?
Councillors and senior staff agonize over empty buses.
It is a fact that hard worker taxpayers, mostly men as I recall,
find time to phone city hall and complain about those empty buses observed, I am sure, while cruising around town as the sole occupant in their carbon spewing SUVs. No irony there, eh?
But the buses aren’t empty. Performance statistics show nearly 9,000 boardings every weekday.
Councillor Rick Goldring noted the number of people riding the buses is about the same as the number who frequent our libraries. No one is questioning the need for libraries. Transit ought to be the same.
Stay Tuned
The data we put forward at committee suggested Burlington is not putting the emphasis on transit that other communities have.
Councillors, not unreasonably, questioned this data and asked staff to look at the numbers.
Much of the discussion focused on the fact that our neighbouring town, Oakville, seemed to spend more dollars on transit and had better performance too.
There are challenges as Councillor Craven acknowledged but the future will see us “more dependent on transit.”
“We have to invest in our infrastructure.”
Friday, March 28, 2008
Old Blogger, Old Bus and the Same Old Story - Part One
Off to City Hall this week to speak to the issue of public transit.
The City of Burlington has initiated a cost containment exercise. And while, like motherhood and apple pie, we all want costs contained, we also want to maintain a decent transit system.
Some would argue we don’t have a decent system in this community now. Some transit users get frustrated, give up on the buses and buy cars. I heard of four who had just this week.
Sadly, many in the community don’t support public transit. Sometimes these people get elected. But I digress.
The presentation Doug Brown and I prepared is available should you be interested. (e-mail me at timberline24@hotmail.com)
The essence of the presentation was that it is important for our environment and important to the quality of life in our town that we have good transit.
We’d like the cost containment exercise to keep that in mind.
New Street # 10 Bus
A surprising amount of the discussion at Committee focused on the 23 year old bus I rode to City Hall.
Does this seem old to you? Twenty years ago all municipal buses were pulled from service after 18 years. That has changed ("financial constraints") - and Burlington has been buying and repairing old buses.
Of the City’s 52 buses twenty (38%) are between 22 – 25 years old. Some Councillors seemed surprised at this revelation - surprising in itself as they approve the purchases and there are always lengthy discussions around the council table before purchases are made.
Be Ye Thankful
One Councillor noted that I should be "thankful” to be riding the 23 year old bus. He thought, I guess, that buses were better made then.
Yes, I am thankful because my health allows me to ride these old non-accessible buses. Many in our community can’t.
So here is the issue.
More people will use the system if it is accessible and provides quality service.
Does Council mow the parks with lawnmowers that are twenty three years old? Can you imagine how exercised our hockey players would get if 23 year old zambonis broke down and the ice couldn’t be cleared?.
We’ll have more on this meeting tomorrow.
The City of Burlington has initiated a cost containment exercise. And while, like motherhood and apple pie, we all want costs contained, we also want to maintain a decent transit system.
Some would argue we don’t have a decent system in this community now. Some transit users get frustrated, give up on the buses and buy cars. I heard of four who had just this week.
Sadly, many in the community don’t support public transit. Sometimes these people get elected. But I digress.
The presentation Doug Brown and I prepared is available should you be interested. (e-mail me at timberline24@hotmail.com)
The essence of the presentation was that it is important for our environment and important to the quality of life in our town that we have good transit.
We’d like the cost containment exercise to keep that in mind.
New Street # 10 Bus
A surprising amount of the discussion at Committee focused on the 23 year old bus I rode to City Hall.
Does this seem old to you? Twenty years ago all municipal buses were pulled from service after 18 years. That has changed ("financial constraints") - and Burlington has been buying and repairing old buses.
Of the City’s 52 buses twenty (38%) are between 22 – 25 years old. Some Councillors seemed surprised at this revelation - surprising in itself as they approve the purchases and there are always lengthy discussions around the council table before purchases are made.
Be Ye Thankful
One Councillor noted that I should be "thankful” to be riding the 23 year old bus. He thought, I guess, that buses were better made then.
Yes, I am thankful because my health allows me to ride these old non-accessible buses. Many in our community can’t.
So here is the issue.
More people will use the system if it is accessible and provides quality service.
Does Council mow the parks with lawnmowers that are twenty three years old? Can you imagine how exercised our hockey players would get if 23 year old zambonis broke down and the ice couldn’t be cleared?.
We’ll have more on this meeting tomorrow.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Trust the Process
“Trust the process.” Former Burlington mayor Walter Mulkewich brought this bit of advice to city Council last night.
This was in the context of trying to decide on a design option for the proposed Burlington Performing Arts Centre.
Good advice. But when is process finished, or started for that matter?
That was at the crux of the debate and, in fact, is at the centre of many city hall debates.
It is clear that there has been lots of process on this file. Meetings, reports, polling and public consultation go back at least six – some might even say nine - years.
Today’s politicians largely support “process.” But they are elected to make decisions. At the end of the day they have to raise their hands and vote yes or no. Opportunities can be missed and costs will escalate if decisions continually get put back.
A big part of yesterday’s debate was whether the proposed location of a studio theatre (front or back) best met the needs of potential user groups and the community.
It seemed early in the evening that most of those who supported and will use the Centre were satisfied with the “front” location.
Mayor Jackson didn’t see it that way. His reasonable view was that more process was needed, specifically around the studio theatre location. Toward the end of a sometimes acrimonious debate he moved an amendment:
“That the Project Management Team and the Performing Arts Advisory Committee must agree on the location of the studio theatre location before the design phase can commence.”
The motion was defeated four votes to three.
So, Councillors did indeed get to raise their hands and made a decision (on a 5 – 2 vote) to move a preferred option to the design development phase.
More To Come
There will still be lots of process. Concerns about escalating costs were mitigated only slightly by MP Mike Wallace’s commitment of $1.5 million additional federal support.
Those who see no value in such an important community project will be back. Neigbours will eventually have lots to say.
Parking as always is an issue on municipal projects – cost, accessibility and impacts on community.
Typically, those councillors who spoke about access to the facility talked of convenient car drop opportunities. Nary a thought that many users of the Centre would/could use public transit.
This was in the context of trying to decide on a design option for the proposed Burlington Performing Arts Centre.
Good advice. But when is process finished, or started for that matter?
That was at the crux of the debate and, in fact, is at the centre of many city hall debates.
It is clear that there has been lots of process on this file. Meetings, reports, polling and public consultation go back at least six – some might even say nine - years.
Today’s politicians largely support “process.” But they are elected to make decisions. At the end of the day they have to raise their hands and vote yes or no. Opportunities can be missed and costs will escalate if decisions continually get put back.
A big part of yesterday’s debate was whether the proposed location of a studio theatre (front or back) best met the needs of potential user groups and the community.
It seemed early in the evening that most of those who supported and will use the Centre were satisfied with the “front” location.
Mayor Jackson didn’t see it that way. His reasonable view was that more process was needed, specifically around the studio theatre location. Toward the end of a sometimes acrimonious debate he moved an amendment:
“That the Project Management Team and the Performing Arts Advisory Committee must agree on the location of the studio theatre location before the design phase can commence.”
The motion was defeated four votes to three.
So, Councillors did indeed get to raise their hands and made a decision (on a 5 – 2 vote) to move a preferred option to the design development phase.
More To Come
There will still be lots of process. Concerns about escalating costs were mitigated only slightly by MP Mike Wallace’s commitment of $1.5 million additional federal support.
Those who see no value in such an important community project will be back. Neigbours will eventually have lots to say.
Parking as always is an issue on municipal projects – cost, accessibility and impacts on community.
Typically, those councillors who spoke about access to the facility talked of convenient car drop opportunities. Nary a thought that many users of the Centre would/could use public transit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)