8.1   Tolling of the Red Hill Creek Expressway (PW04037/FCS04050) (City Wide)
www.hamilton.ca/Clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
public-works/2004/Apr05/PW04037.pdf

Presentation by:
Jennifer DiDomenico, Red Hill Project Office
Paul Bumpstead, Totten Sims Hubicki (Consultant)

Jennifer DiDomenico: As directed by Council, and with the support of the Expressway Implementation Committee (March 7 th , 2003), the Red Hill Valley Project Office retained Totten Sims Hubicki to carry out the Tolling Strategy Review. This review entailed an in-depth analysis of potential tolling scenarios using electronic tolling equipment (similar to 407). In particular, a range of toll rates ($0.05 to $0.20/km) and flat rates ($0.25 to $1.00/trip) were analyzed over a 35 year investment horizon. With respect to transportation demand, the analysis included the impact of the tolls on traffic diversion from the RHCE by varying degrees.

Conclusions are that the revenue generated from the tolling could pay for the cost of the roadway over the long term. Rate of return for Red Hill alone could range up to 9% while tolls applied to both the Linc and Red Hill could range up to 10%. Tolls could result in diversion from the Red Hill in the order of between 10-70% depending on tolling strategy.

The report originally focused on tolls as a tool for full-cost recovery of the road, however later study commissioned in December 2003 focussed on minimal diversion rates of 5-15%, and needed to yield a profit over and above costs of tolling (with no consideration for capital costs of the road).

The additional study found that tolling could generate revenues that cover the costs of tolling procedures over a 30 year period.

Municipal survey found that 45.8% of respondents somewhat or strongly agreed with the use of road tolls on new roadways.

The decision to move forward with this approach is predicated on the following:

1.0    The Province of Ontario will consider passing a regulation under the Municipal Act allowing the City to proceed with a preferred tolling strategy with the understanding they will not reduce the current subsidy.

2.0    If successful, staff would report back to Council the results and ask permission to undertake an investment grade study of the tolling strategy to confirm expected revenues (value of study: approximately $70,000).

3.0     If unsuccessful, staff would report back to Council the results and recommend steps be taken by the City to request that the Provincial government honour the funding arrangement agreed to by the Liberal government in the 1980's.

The recommendations before the committee are:

(a)         That the "Red Hill Creek Expressway - Toll Traffic and Revenue Estimates, Final Report" (see Appendix A) and "Red Hill Valley Project - Additional Financial Analysis, Memorandum" (see Appendix B) be received for information and consideration.

(b)         Based on the findings of the reports mentioned in (a), that staff be authorized and directed to approach the Province to discuss receiving legal authority to toll the Lincoln M. Alexander Parkway (Linc) and/or the Red Hill Creek Expressway and report back to Council.

(c)         That Outstanding Business Item (Toll for Red Hill Creek Expressway) referred from the Committee of the Whole meeting of November 21, 2001 be identified as completed and removed from the Outstanding Business list.

Merulla: "If we do end up tolling, the actual volume of traffic (on the Expressways) decreases substantially. I need clarification on this from your perspective."

Paul Bumpstead (consultant): "We looked at no-toll conditions and what the realized volume would be on the future of the facility. The applications of tolls to the users of the facility results from diversion from the facility. Diversion is dependent on that person's value of time and the rate that they would have to pay so that the higher the cost to travel the highway the more users divert from it. That magnitude is dependent on the magnitude of the toll rate and could be anywhere from 10-70%."

Merulla: "Now demographics would play a huge role on who would access and who wouldn't access this. Looking at Hamilton East as an example. You would find a lot of the neighbouring residents, as a result of demographics, avoiding accessing that particular expressway as a result of the cost attributable to tolling. From your perspective, if we move forward on the tolling, do you believe we would avoid having vehicles in the East End access the highway therefore not mitigating the traffic concerns in the East End?"

Paul Bumpstead: "There are some issues associated with the tolling and the ability to provide transportation service. The initial feasibility analysis looked at screen-line volumes, the magnitude of the volume of traffic crossing the escarpment and the role that new infrastructure would play in terms of providing capacity in the future. As the toll rates are applied the use of the new infrastructure decreases and puts more pressure on adjacent facilities. But there is a balance between the lower toll rates and providing service and providing service across those critical screen-lines."

Merulla: "Right. so in essence, if one supported this road based on the neighbourhood issues surrounding traffic, and if we were to pursue tolling it would really in many ways eliminate the argument that this is going to improve neighbourhoods-is that correct?"

Paul Bumpstead: "The application of tolls really affect very short distance trips, so it won't be sort of traffic infiltration through the neighbourhoods, it will be the local trips that choose potentially not to use the facility."

Merulla: "So we would have an in-bred type of problem within our neighbourhoods. I'll tell you Mr. Chairman, if we even remotely go down this road I'll be the first one to bring forward a motion to reconsider the entire project. I'm not even sure why it's before us, we dealt with this at the Implementation Committee. Now I need some clarification on why this is before us again, because I could swear we voted on this. I remember the news article that came the day following. Mind you, I'm not definitive on that, but I do need clarification on that. I briefly spoke with Mr. Murray (Red Hill Valley Project Director), apparently there might not have been a vote that day. But if my memory serves me correctly, we voted on this particular issue and it should not even be before us here today. And I'm very serious about the reconsideration if we go down this particular road, which I had believed was a done deal. I'm not sure why it's before us again. Thankyou Mr. Chairman."

Chris Murray, Red Hill Valley Project Director: "We did take forward to Committee a recommendation regarding the hiring of a consultant to undertake this work. I recall that being presented. At the time that this was unfolding, there was an interest being expressed by a private sector organization to potentially purchase and run the facility subject to making some kind of adequate return on their investment, which is what prompted us to begin to even go down this path. In terms of a formal report being brought back which outlined clearly the consequences of tolling would be, we had never taken a formal report forward, so it is at this time that we are doing that."

McHattie: "The analysis that was done here, there were 2 scenarios that were available to the consultant to use. One was known as the 'Vision Scenario' and the other was known as the 'Trends Scenario.' The 'Vision Scenario' was based on some of our Vision2020 ideas which included specifically, a doubling of the public transit ridership beyond what we have today. 2019 is the date they were using for their scenarios.

Two questions associated with that: Why was the decision taken to proceed with the 'Trends Scenario' as being most likely which assumes no change to the current modal split. I'd add my own editorial to that-it assumes that the Vision2020 goals are a non-starter. Why was that decision taken?

And then second, more of a technical question, if the 'Vision Scenario' is applied, how do the results change?"

Chris Murray: "The reason for supporting the 'Trends Analysis' is because that is how traffic is unfolding in Hamilton. We are not realizing the policy direction which has been around for some time, which is Vision2020. So the kind of switches in modal growth aren't as substantial as one would hope and that in fact we are more committed to our cars than what the policy would have us so. plus I think it's important to realize that those more conservative numbers are the same numbers that were used to calculate air emissions increases as well as noise. So if it is perceived as conservative, it is really a reflection of what is happening."

Paul Bumpstead: "In the feasibility study we looked at both the 'Vision' and 'Trends' scenarios. The differences between the two, the 'Vision Scenario' resulted in slightly higher growth externally in terms of external trips through the study area, but with increased mode split internally in Hamilton. The differences between the results are not significant in terms of volume flow and user kilometres. You might get slightly more users under the 'Trends Scenario' but the travel distances are longer over this section of the facility. But both scenarios were assessed in the feasibility study."

McHattie: "Mr. Chair, it is disturbing to me to hear that we're planning on staying with the same modal split that we have now for the next 20 years or so. I hope that perhaps this Council takes a different direction than what staff are assuming is going to be the status quo. That sounds extremely disturbing.

The second question I had was relating to the users of the road. I read that if we just toll the trucks and the people travelling through the area that it is not viable to do that. That we have to get local traffic paying for the tolls. I'm just wondering how that fits into our vision of this road being built for economic development purposes for the City of Hamilton. If it is mainly for local users, and that the trucks and the through traffic won't pay for itself, what does that say about the actual users of the road and how does that relate to our justification which is based on economic development?"

Chris Murray: "Could you rephrase the question Councillor?"

Collins: "I think what he's saying Chris is that the only way for the tolling to be financially feasible is to charge local people for using the road. So in light of the economic development arguments that have been made for the road, why can't external people from this municipality pay for it in its entirety and make it work financially."

Chris Murray: "Paul, jump in here if I'm off the beaten path, but I think it is just strictly a function of volumes and the revenues that you could potentially extract from that volume and how that compares to the cost of purchasing and operating the tolling infrastructure would be. I think the conclusion is that if you rely just on the external and commercial volumes you would not make enough money to pay for the operation of the tolling system."

McHattie: "Maybe if I could just verify that I was right, through you Mr. Chair to Paul, is that the observation that there aren't enough trucks or through-traffic using the road to pay for the road?"

Chris Murray: "Paul could you give us an idea of what the net deficit is on that road? How short are we on it?"

Paul Bumpstead: "It depends on the scenario, obviously, but when we were looking at the no-cost scenarios and only looking at the cost of the tolling infrastructure, in the first couple of years of operation in one scenario, it was $5million of operating costs annually and about $6million of revenue with everybody, all of the users, at play in the toll system. With looking only at the commercial vehicle component and/or the component of traffic that is only external to external-and it depends what your definition of 'local trip' is-but external to external, that would only make up in the order of 10% to 20% of the volume. So you would only be recovering of the $6million, say a quarter of that. And that is not covering the operating costs for that year. And the operating costs increase over time, as do the revenues, but that is for the first year and the first couple of years after that."

Peter Crockett, Public Works Manager: "Mr. Chairman, for clarity if I may, what Paul is saying is that if you only have truck traffic and/or external to external trips being tolled, most of the economic growth within your community that is going to be using that facility will not be tolled because it will be an origin and/or destination within the community."

McHattie: "Thanks Mr. Chair, thanks to staff. I guess what I'm trying to get at is, what is the relationship between our stated objective for this road which is 'economic development' which is geared towards the industrial park up towards the south of the area and the fact that it seems that this road is mainly for local traffic? It seems to be a disconnect between those two observations. This is not directly related to the tolling. This is a very interesting report-a fascinating report. But I'm trying to understand the link between that because it is very important for us to make money from doing this project-it's an economic development project after all. So I'm trying to understand the link between what the traffic is telling us and what the tolling scenarios are telling us and us hanging our hat on 'economic development' as the goal for the project."

Peter Crockett: "Through you Mr. Chairman, if I could, essentially what it means is that the economic growth that we believe the facility will support which is largely either population, because it is critical from a population growth perspective, but it is also critical from an employment growth perspective. Those employment trips travel largely by car to a destination within the city and therefore they would not pay the toll under that scenario. Only the commercial or the truck related traffic from the economic growth areas or through-traffic would achieve a toll, so all the employment going to those areas that the facility would support, would not be tolled under the scenario that we talk about."

McHattie: "Thanks Mr. Chair. Conscious of all the questions, I just have one last one. The internal rate of return analysis that you do is excellent. I really appreciate that level of analysis. We haven't seen that in other reports on the economic issues associated with this road. That's the basis of my question-this report deals with the business case for tolling.

Through staff, a 2 part question: Why has an internal rate of return analysis not been done for the Expressway Project as a whole. And if there is a sense of that, because again this is based on us spending a lot of citizens' money, to get a good rate of return from an economic development perspective. What is the rate of return for the Red Hill Creek Expressway Project, through you Mr. Chair to staff."

Chris Murray: "Through you Mr. Chairman, I don't have a specific figure that I could quote at this time, but as you recall, there was a presentation several weeks ago by Ray Simpson from Hemson which looked at an update of the economic development situation associated with this project which was an update of the report that was done in the '80s. I think the argument was put forward in that report. But to answer your question specifically, I don't have a number that I can just use right now."

McHattie: "Your previous report by Hemson falls far short of what we're seeing here in terms of level of analysis. The internal rate of return analysis that has been done here, granted just for the tolling scenarios, is incredibly comprehensive and perhaps I can ask through you Mr. Chair to Joe Rinaldo (General Manager, Finance and Corporate Services) can we do, or perhaps why didn't we do, an internal rate of return analysis for the Red Hill Creek Expressway Project? The rate of return is the key part of that in my mind. And if we haven't done that, why haven't we?"

Joe Rinaldo, Finance Manager: "Through you Mr. Chair, I wasn't here at the time when the project was approved through the environmental assessment process. I know as part of those processes, those types of studies are in fact done. It may not be an absolute rate of return, but it is just an economic study that is done on the viability of a project. It should have done as part of the environmental assessment process that the Project went through. I don't have a copy of that so. but I. doing it at this point when the project is already approved, I didn't see the need for us to do it since we went through an environmental assessment process which in fact undertook. evaluated all of that aspect of the project."

McHattie: "I appreciate that answer. It is again very disappointing to me that we haven't done that level of analysis to show whether we actually do have a rate of return at all for this project. I say that's entirely up in the air-still. I apologize to you Paul for putting you through this questioning since it is only peripherally related to your specific report. But it was an excellent report. I think one of the best ones we've had from the Expressway Project and I appreciate your work."

Whitehead: "I noted in your report that you had indicated that 45% of respondents would likely be prepared to pay a toll on a new road but not an existing road, is that correct."

Jennifer DiDomenico, Red Hill Valley Project Officer: "Through you Mr. Chair, that is correct Councillor Whitehead."

Whitehead: "Have you done a geographic analysis on the utilization of the East-West Expressway so we can understand, in fact, who is using it?"

Jennifer DiDomenico: "I'm not aware that we have in terms of the survey itself, who uses the East-West. But perhaps within Public Works? I'm not aware of any traffic studies. But we could look into any statistics that are currently in use for that."

Chris Murray, Red Hill Valley Project Director: "There was, in fact, a transporation report done by iTrans and is on our website which looks very carefully at the volumes that would be generated using the road and with the screen-line information as well. We can forward that information to you which does look at where the traffic is coming from and where it is going."

Whitehead: "The East-West Expressway, is it meeting the original goals or targets in terms of traffic, or has it exceeded that?"

Chris Murray: "At this point in time, the volumes are higher than what was ultimately envisioned. And that may be partly because of the fact that the draw on that road is including traffic that is more likely to use the Expressway when it is opened up to the QEW. So you have a slightly higher catchment area, if you will, that is utilizing that road in the mornings and the evenings. But the expectation of staff is that once the Red Hill is opened up to the QEW, you'll see some drop in the volume that will be heading towards 403 in the morning and coming from there in the evenings."

Whitehead: "Well, that's good news because we have all kinds of block-ups when there's an accident on the 403. Could I ask the question, you talked about external vs. local. And we talked about the diversion of 5-15% overall but I think you said on the Red Hill portion it could be as high as 70%. Could you reconcile, through the consultant, how you get the difference between 5-15% overall and 10-70% on the North-South route. Is that correct?"

Paul Bumpstead (consultant): "That's correct. The 5-15% was really focussing on several likely scenarios. The 10-70% was an evaluation of all. a sensitivity test of the potential ranges of user value of times, different toll rates and different tolling strategies. So the 10-70% was really a look at the 'Vision' and 'Trend' Scenarios at North-South and/or East-West whereas the 5-15% really focussed on a couple of key scenarios.

Peter Crockett, Public Works Manager: "Through you Mr. Chairman, just to be clear, the 10-70% diversion and the 5-15% diversion were two different analyses. The 10-70% was to assess what kind of toll would be required to get a return on investment as high as 9% taking into account the full capital costs of the freeway itself. That would result in a diversion as high as 70%. What the second analysis, which was simply working within a diversion of somewhere between 5-15% what is the revenue potential of tolling the facility, both East-West and/or North-South. So they were two separate analyses, the two numbers can't be used in concert with each other."

Whitehead: "I appreciate the clarification. External vs. Local-what is the percentage of external traffic that is expected? Those are users that do not live in the region that would be utilizing the North-South and East-West to get to Detroit or whatever."

Collins: "Without tolls or with tolls?"

Whitehead: "With tolls."

Paul Bumpstead (consultant): "The clarification is that external to external are trips that don't have an origin or a destination within the study area. So it's not necessarily population based. It could be employment trip-end based. If someone living outside the Region has an employment opportunity within the City of Hamilton, so it's origin or destination. And we didn't quantify it in the study to say that it was for example, 10% or 15%. It can be calculated based on the demand sets that we created but we haven't quantified it specifically."

Whitehead: "The reason I'm asking the question is because I'm wondering in fact if the origins that are non-regional in fact utlizing the transporation route to get somewhere else, would that offset some of the diversion that we talked about in the report?

Paul Bumpstead: "The longer distance trips have less likelihood of diverting. They're more prepared to pay the tolls over the longer distance because it's only a small portion of their travel time. Toll rates have a greater effect on medium to shorter distance trips. So the diversion of external to external or commercial vehicle trips would be less as a percentage of that total of that component of trip. Is that clear?"

Whitehead: "Clear as mud. What I'm trying to determine is that we talked about the diversion-there's no question in my own mind that there is going to be a high volume of traffic that is non-Hamilton based utilizing the Expressway to get somewhere else rather than somewhere within the Region. I'm trying to determine what percentage that would be within this report."

Collins: "We would have that from our own studies I believe, Chris?"

Chris Murray: "Right, yes, I think the estimate would be in the order of 15-20% overall."

Whitehead: "15-20%. So we're hearing about. now those would be long-haul type transportation. So the question now becomes, if that is what our numbers are showing, through to the consultant, is there an expectation then that that would in fact offset some of the divesion that you reported in the study."

Paul Bumpstead: "Sorry, I'm unclear. That diversion is accounted for, or the non-diversion, or the propensity of that type of trip to divert, is accounted for in our assessment of the diversion percentages. So our demands are based on a complete set of local to local, local to inter-regional, external to external, and commercial vehicles. All of those components of the trip-making market are accounted for in our assessment. But it's not differentiated that an external to external only 5% divert, while local to local may be higher than that. That differentiation is not made."

Whitehead: "It is my experience, and certainly what I understand from the high-level bridge, that when they put tolls there people didn't mind paying it and once the capital was paid the tolls were taken off and it was paid for. We have a huge, huge challenge in regards to our capital and notwithstanding respectfully what Councillor Merulla has indicated, I think that we need to understand the sensitivities to the neighbourhood that may end up with some of that diversion and we need to further study that. But I would support looking further into providing tolls just for the term of paying down the capital and no further than that. Thankyou."

Horwath: "Thanks Mr. Chairman. Several of my questions have been answered so I'll try to be brief. I'm just trying to get a handle on the issues a little further. Just in regards to the issues that were raised around Vision2020 and the modal split, I attended a workshop down at LIUNA Station not too long ago dealing with the transportation master planning that we're trying to do in regards to our OP (Official Plan) and all those kinds of things and my experience was that there was a great deal of support in that room for increasing the reliance on modes other than automobiles in this community. So I'm just trying to figure out where we're going. I mean do we support that? Are we committed to that direction as recently as a couple months ago in the transportation planning process or are we not? Can I get an answer through you Mr. Chairman from staff?"

Peter Crockett, Public Works Manager: "Through you Mr. Chairman, clearly we. we support the Vision2020 goals of trying to get as much modal split to transit or as much ridership to transit as possible. There are a variety of scenarios we need to undertake to get there. What I think what was being done, or looked at, in terms of this analysis is trying to predict based on what's been occurring over the last number of years and looking out based on that trend what kind of volumes we could expect so that we could do the tolling analysis. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't pursue-or any suggestion from a staff standpoint-that we shouldn't pursue the concept of higher modal splits to transit."

Horwath: "Okay Mr. Chairman, so then I guess we'll be looking forward to then seeing over the next couple of years some implementation strategies as to how we actually get that modal split because saying it is one thing but I think, and in fact it's what I heard at that meeting, that accomplishing it is something else. It takes some concentrated effort, it takes some real planning, and I'm looking forward to us putting as much effort into that as has gone into this particular road project.

So then, through you Mr. Chairman, can I just get an understanding, not in regard to the tolls but in regard to what has been raised several times already this morning just around the issue of truck traffic that will be using the new facility once it's complete. I keep hearing that 15-20% of all traffic will be trucks that are external to external. Is that right?"

Paul Bumpstead (consultant): "Regarding trucks, the range is actually 7-15%, whether forecasts for truck traffic grow as forecast, the existing percentage would be more like 7-8%. But that is not just external to external that would include local delivery type trucks with an origin or destination within the City."

Horwath: "Through you Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to confirm with Mr. Murray (Red Hill Valley Project Director), 7-15% is consistent with what our staff came up with in terms of the studies?"

Chris Murray, Red Hill Valley Project Director: "Through you Mr. Chairman, the information that Paul is quoting is based on our own transportation reports. There was no special transportation work undertaken by TSH. Their study was strictly understanding if you wanted to toll how would you go about doing it and what would be generated from it."

Horwath: "Mr. Chairman can I just get an understanding of. earlier it was stated that local trips would be likely to use the road less if it was tolled but that external to external would likely be okay with that. Does that go for trucks, commercial vehicles and for cars or is it more one way or the other?"

Paul Bumpstead: "I think it holds consistent for the both, the quantities might be different but the same sort of propensity for diversion remains."

Horwath: "Thankyou very much, I appreciate it Mr. Chairman. The other question that I had is in regard to the slide presentation that indicated that staff requested in December 2003 that additional analysis be done to identify revenue streams that could be used to provide operations and maintenance of the facility. I guess I'm just trying to figure out how that shift occurred-where did the direction come from to actually go down that road, pardon the pun! I don't disagree with Councillor Whitehead that this community has a history of paying for the capital portion of facilities through tolling, such as the original SkyWay bridge. I'm just wondering when did it take this other track of going to tolling for operations and maintenance?"

Joe Rinaldo, Finance Manager: "Perhaps I could start. When the first analysis was presented to us I was more leaning to what Councillor Whitehead said, let's try to recover some of our cost as opposed to trying to get an absolute rate of return on the whole proposal. The first proposal was more like a private sector approach and I was just trying to say, well let's see if we can recover some of the costs and reduce the tax impact of the road on the taxpayers over the next few years. And obviously if Council wanted to pursue that, you'd have the option at any point in time after the big debt was paid off to terminate it if that's what you wanted to do."

Peter Crockett, Public Works Manager: "Mr. Chairman, just to add to that. The operations and maintenance scenario which was the second part of the scenario was to make sure that we looked at. the return on investment talked about what would be required in order to recoup the investment for the facility as a whole and the entire construction process. What the operations and maintenance aspect is to look at what the net revenue would be after operations and maintenance of the tolling system. So the capital costs, operations, and maintenance of the tolling system, what would be net revenues left for the City to deal with and ignore the capital costs of the roadway itself."

Horwath: "Mr. Chairman, I guess my point is that there is quite a philosophical difference between tolling to pay for a capital expenditure and then tolling to pay for ongoing operations and maintenance which theoretically I suspect the community would expect that that would be something to be paid for in their taxes. Thanks Mr. Chairman."

Ferguson: "Thankyou Mr. Chairman, this is slightly off topic, but can anyone on staff give me an update on the status of the smartcard? At one point, the smartcard was going to be used if this became a toll road."

Peter Crockett: "Mr. Chairman, unfortunately Don (Don Hull, Director Transit Division) couldn't be here this morning. We're in a bit of a study with Mississauga and GO Transit and the Ministry of Transportation right now that's supposed to come to some decision points by mid-summer I do believe and we'll be reporting back at that point."

Ferguson: "As I recall, if this was to become a toll road, the smart card could be used as the toll for local residents?"

Peter Crockett: "It's part of the technology that could be used, yes."

Ferguson: "Also, a couple of years ago, the province was quoted as saying if this is a toll road, we want to be paid back. Is that still in place?"

Peter Crockett: "Through you Mr. Chairman, it is not written into any legal agreements we have with the Province. But really the idea of this report is to get the direction to go and least discuss with the province what the potential is and what it would mean."

Ferguson: "I appreciate that. Again, just an opinion, if you don't want to answer that's fine too. but in your opinion, Mr. Chairman to Mr. Murray, is there any claim by Six Nations to the tolling?"

Chris Murray, Red Hill Valley Project Director: "Through you Mr. Chairman, there is as part of the set of agreements which is coming forward to Council for ratification, there is one agreement which does address tolling. The recommendation in that agreements is two-fold: one, that they be exempt from tolls; and two, that the revenues that would be derived from tolls would be used to offset some of the costs associated with the joint stewardship board. That's the extent of it."

Ferguson: "Mr. Chairman, my position on this is that I have no interest whatsoever in providing a short cut for Detroit to Buffalo trucks. If the Province or the Federal Government wants to supply that, that's fine, so I need to know do the inter-regional trucking industry pay any sort of fee at the border? I've talked to several truckers who are very proud of the fact that they drive from Detroit to Buffalo every day and they don't even buy coffee in Canada, let alone buy fuel, let alone pay for the road, and that's my bugaboo with this. And this is a huge short cut if you're going form Detroit to Buffalo to use the Red Hill. Through you Mr. Chair to the consultant: the traffic patterns, how accurate are they? I know the 403 projections-we met the 20 year projections in 5 years. How accurate are your projections in your opinion?"

Paul Bumpstead (consultant): "They're perfect (laughter). No, there's a level of confidence associated with many of the inputs and outputs. The approach and the inputs used have been used for similar scale and type of projects and we're very comfortable with those inputs. We're very comfortable with the approach in terms of methodology and types of outputs and the magnitude of the outputs that we're seeing. They seem very reasonable in terms of past experiences. In terms of quantifying it as a level of confidence, are we 90% sure that x or y, would require further investigation as to some of the inputs that were taken such as the truck volumes, whether it is indeed 7%, what component goes from Detroit to Buffalo-those sorts of numbers haven't been quantified. In terms of the inputs, the detail isn't there to provide the sort of level of confidence and statistics."

Ferguson: "Do your projections include a Mid-Pen (Expressway) or no?"

Paul Bumpstead: ""They do not include a Mid-Pen."

Ferguson: "Obviously if there was a Mid-Pen the projections would be off."

Paul Bumpstead: "Yes, we've accounted for currently approved and likely networks over the next 10-20 years but if there are infrastructure to come on-line such as a mid-penninsular route, then the forecast would change."

Ferguson: "You're talking about diversion from the Red Hill, I'd like to see a flip side. Once the Red Hill is open what will that do to Centennial Parkway and what would a toll do to Centennial?"

Paul Bumpstead: "The screen-line analysis that was included in the feasibility report includes infrastructure other than the Red Hill Creek so it would include volumes on Centennial, James Street, any roads crossing the escarpment. And the assessment of the capacity and effect on capacity includes Centennial. But the specific diversion from or back to Centennial has not been quantified. We certainly haven't tested a tolling of Centennial Parkway."

Ferguson: "Last question, in Appendix B. Operating cost-does that include debt servicing?"

Jennifer DiDomenico, Red Hill Valley Project Officer: "Through you Mr. Chair, Councillor Ferguson, no the additional analysis only included the cost to toll and that would be the administration and capital costs of the tolling equipment only."

Ferguson: "So you're telling me that in 2008 it's going to cost $10million to administrate a toll?"

Jennifer DiDomenico: "That is correct Councillor."

Ferguson: "What does it mean at the top where it says annual administration-toll system: $500,000?"

Jennifer DiDomenico: "The annual administration of the tolling program itself, except for the initial start up of it, would be approximately $500,000 per year."

Ferguson: "So it costs $10million per year.? What the hell does it cost the 407 then if this 8-kilometres costs $10million just to toll?"

Paul Bumpstead: "The 407, it is the same costs in terms of per interchange cost for tolling equipment which is about $4million per full interchange in terms of just the tolling infrastructure. The calculation of this $9.5million initial investment in tolling is based on the same per-toll equipment cost as was used for the 407."

Ferguson: "So on the second page of Appendix B, the $48million in 2007 is strictly road maintenance and tolling costs. It has nothing to do with the capital costs of the road?"

View this reference to Appendix B on page 452 of:
www.hamilton.ca/Clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
public-works/2004/Apr05/PW04037.pdf

Paul Bumpstead: "That's correct. Just the tolling equipment and maintenance of that equipment. So no road capital costs, no road maintenance."

Peter Crockett: "Through you Mr. Chairman, in Appendix B if you'll notice the cost assumptions at the top of each one, in all cases road maintenance and cost of the road in dollars is not included in the analysis, it's strictly capital costs and capital cost replacement of the tolling equipment and then the cost to operate and maintain that equipment and billing and those sorts of things."

Ferguson: "Okay, how many interchanges are there from the 403 to the QEW that require equipment?"

Paul Bumpstead: "About 10 or 11, with 3-4 on the North South leg."

Bruckler: "45% of the respondents to the questionnaire agreed to the tolling, was that based on any particular toll rate?"

Jennifer DiDomenico: "Through you Mr. Chairman, no it was not, that was just gauging attitudes towards tolling in general. And that was for agreement on new roadways, not existing."

Bruckler: "Would that level of agreement move one way or the other depending on the rate of the toll?"

Jennifer DiDomenico: "Yes, that is correct Councillor."

Bruckler: "I'm sort of concerned about the high cost of administration and of course, the further you take it out, if you go from the 403 to the QEW, then all of a sudden we're talking about millions and millions of dollars on an annualized basis in order to do a relatively small recovery in comparison. If I look at the Linc to the QEW, let's take for example the 7.5 cents/kilometre, over the 35 year period it would look as if there was a net cash flow of $277million. I suppose if we're looking at any capital recovery, I guess we'd have to look at this particular scenario to do full cost recovery of the Linc."

View the Scenario referenced here on page 455 of:
www.hamilton.ca/Clerk/agendas-minutes-reports/
public-works/2004/Apr05/PW04037.pdf

Peter Crockett, Public Works Manager: "Mr. Chairman, referring to the chart Councillor Bruckler was just referring to (see link above), essentially this is showing the capital costs, the operating costs, the replacement costs of the tolling equipment, which is your total operating costs. So over the course of the 30 years, it will cost $291million in change in order to collect the tolls. You'll see a total revenue of about $568million for a net revenue of $277million. Which you could use for whatever Council decided to with this money."

Bruckler: "I'm trying to look at the net cash flow, if we're trying to relate back to capital costs for the construction of the Expressway or even towards an annualized maintenance. The annual maintenance costs for the Expressway Peter?"

Chris Murray, Red Hill Valley Project Director: "I don't have the exact figure right now, so I'm a little hesitant to quote something."

Bruckler: "The City's portion for the Red Hill component only in relation to the $277million that we see here?"

Joe Rinaldo, Finance Manager: "The $277million would be used to help offset the debt charges we are going to incur on the facility plus the operating costs for North-South section. I believe the facility costs were around $500,000-$600,000 per year on a day-to-day maintenance. I can't remember the exact number. Probably more than that actually. That's what you'd be able to use it for."

Bruckler: "I guess I'm just trying to understand, first of all, if we sort of target a particular toll, if that's the direction we go, what is the long-term impact towards the capital recovery and towards the ongoing maintenance and operation and that might sort of help us target an appropriate toll if that's the direction that we should be looking at."

Peter Crockett: "Mr. Chair, which direction Council wants to go in terms of setting the toll is a discussion for a later day but just to put the numbers into perspective, if I recall correctly, the cost to repair, replace, and operate the facility after we've paid down the debt for the East-West, North-South facility is somewhere between $10-$12million per year through to perpetuity. We said that once we get our maximum capital financing, that if that was carried on in perpetuity, even after the facility was built, it would deal with the life-cycle costs of the facility. So putting that into perspective, $10-$12million per year basically pays for the ongoing repair, replacement, maintenance and operation of the East-West and North-South in total with a 7.5 cent/kilometre toll on just the North-South portion of the facility."

Bruckler: "Thankyou. My other comment relates to the approximately 20% of through traffic. The last of the recommendation was that we first approach the Province for whether they would support any sort of tolling operation. And lastly if that's not the case, then we would go after them for some greater support based on the original-is there any opportunity of reversing that, turning it around and going to the Province, asking them to go back to their original level of support and recognizing that we have about 20% through traffic, what kind of on-going support for on-going maintenance can we expect from them. I'm not sure if that's been explored, I'm sure it has been. But I wonder if it would be worth pursuing that before we go chasing down the toll lane."

Peter Crockett: "Mr. Chair, we can have discussions with the Province about combinations and permutation of both of those options. What we were looking for is some direction from Committee and then Council of: do we want to engage in those conversations? We have started having discussions with the Province about whether they should be, from a fairness perspective, at least updating their percentage since the costs have escalated since the funding formula was approved. All this does is add one more parameter that we could discuss with the Province and see what is on their mind's from that perspective and then bring it back for Council's consideration."

Bruckler: "Thankyou. I would certainly put that strongly on the table that that would be an approach that we would take with the Province. Because there seems to be a concern around this table with respect to the amount of through traffic and recognizing that that is, I don't know if it's a benefit but it certainly is an outcome to the Red Hill Creek Expressway in addition to the local benefits that we can receive. So I would flip the recommendations as far as the priority perspective Mr. Chair."

Jackson: "Thanks Mr. Chairman, I want to pick up where Councillor Bruckler left off. I think his motion would be a good one. Because I will not support the (b) part of this recommendation the way it is worded, that we "based on the findings of the reports from TSH that staff be authorized and directed to approach the Province to discuss receiving legal authority to toll the Lincoln M. Alexander Parkway (Linc) and/or the Red Hill Creek Expressway." I will not support (b) the way it is so worded, I won't support it period. But I will support where Councillor Bruckler was going in terms of asking the Province for additional financial support and I also agree with Councillor Ferguson that with respect to mid- to large-sized traffic that might simply be using the this as a diversion, that I would as well be going after the Province if there is some possible way that we can get compensation for that. Because it sounds like from Paul's report, that to try to toll commercial traffic just won't pay for itself. That would have been the only option I might have even considered, but if that's not even a feasible starter then I'll support Councillor Bruckler's motion in terms of going after the Province in terms of updated compensation and updated financial support based on formula.

Just on the report, I appreciate the detailed analysis from Paul and our staff led by Jennifer but man there is an awful lot of wide swings in the range of dollars from the presentation that Jennifer gave, potential tolling revenues at the top, potential tolling of the Red Hill Creek Expressway could generate revenues in the range of $101-429million over 30 years-that's a wide swing! And I know it goes into the detailed analysis analysis in the report as to why, but I've just become a little jaded Mr. Chairman when it comes to formulas. We've seen formulas when it comes to HSR, we've seen formulas when it comes to rec centre fees, none of them seem to pan out, and what ends up happening often is that we have less users and we have a greater deficit. And I'm sorry, I'm saying respectfully that a lot of these formulas that are used saying this potentially can happen and you have this potential opportunity for all this money-I don't buy it anymore. I'm sorry.

The fact that the 407 is used as an example throughout the report, that disturbs me. Anybody who travels from here to Toronto, I ask you next time look at that three way fork in the road and you'll see the odd car going on the 407, everyone else is using the QEW. We know the controversy that occurred with the 407 in the way it was built. We know with the tolling experience of the 407, we know this current provincial government are in the midst of discussions of putting a freeze on the increased amount the private company wanted to put on the tolling. And that has not left me with a good comfort level in terms of the 407 being used as an example. Any other municipalities that are in a situation like Hamilton where they have this type of a road either open and/or under construction that they are looking to the Province for tolling?"

Peter Crockett: "Through you Mr. Chairman, not that I'm aware of, no."

Jackson: "Thanks Peter, well Mr. Chairman, I don't like the fact that we're kind of sticking our necks way out on this. I haven't even gotten into the whole issue that is very legitimate and real, that Councillors Merulla and yourself, Mr. Chairman, would experience. The whole diversion aspect is real. That actually is much more real than the potentiality of this wide range of dollars that could flow into this municipality by tolling.

Even the survey that they put before us that 45% of respondents agree with tolls on new roadways, the level of agreement was lower for existing-well the Linc is existing. The Red Hill Creek Parkway is going to be new. I betcha that 45% will go down, I doubt if that will go up, once the Red Hill is open, which means the level of usage will be diverted elsewhere which means the level of revenue will go down based on projections.

Mr. Chairman, I don't even want to go to first base on this. I'm respectful of the work that's been done. And Chris basically followed through with Council at the time-we were in an exploratory thing of all options given the fiscal reality and with a majority of Council still wanting to move forward with what we felt the majority did on behalf of the community and for the right reasons of finishing this road and so I think that this is where the exploratory came in and now Chris has reported back to us today so I don't take issue with Chris and the fact that we have this here before us today. And I say that respectfully to my colleague who spoke earlier. But that's not the gist of it. The gist of it for me today is that I will not support (b).

I can tell you that the use of the Linc over the past 6 years, Chris is right, the projections of the cars there, the usage has been greater. And I can tell you that arterial residential roads like Mohawk, Limeridge, Stonechurch, have benefited. They still have traffic on them Mr. Chairman, but they have enormously benefited because 50,000 vehicles once were on those streets stopping and starting all the way along East to West and they are not now.

So Mr. Chairman, I will support Councillor Bruckler's motion in terms of asking the Province for additional help and along with that I hope you'll include Councillor Ferguson's suggestion of how we can be compensated for mid- to large-sized traffic and lastly Mr. Chairman, I'll get my oar in the water right now, the Federal Government should be at the table much more often and with a greater degree of capital and financial support for urban infrastructure improvements that older cities like Hamilton need and that would greatly ease the pressure on our capital budget. Thanks Mr. Chairman."

McCarthy: "Mr. Chairman, I'm going to move the recommendation as is. If I could get a seconder for the original report from Council. Anyway, I'll speak to the issue. Next year we have $8.7million in capital and that's it. This municipality, this City, needs $100million just to maintain its infrastructure and the capital projects that are required to go forward. So $8.7million is nothing compared to what we need. It's no surprise to anyone around this table that I do not support the Red Hill Creek Expressway regardless of the pros and cons for and against, it's a financial issue in my mind. My concern is that it is going to bankrupt this City.

That said, if there is an opportunity to bring dollars back in to the City via tolling and put it directly against the tax base I feel that everybody City-wide benefits from that. So I'm going to support the recommendation as is and at least not arbitrarily close off any discussions that should take place around this Council table and at least have the opportunity to have the debate and see what the Province says in terms of legality and if, in fact, that debate can take place, but I think it would be an error to arbitrarily limit the opportunity for discussion on tolling by stopping it right here. So with that, I'm going to move the recommendation as is, if I could get a seconder."

Collins: "Okay, I still have a speakers list Councillor so I'll come back to you on that recommendation."

Mitchell: "Thankyou Mr. Chairman. I was interviewed last week by the Spectator on this issue and I guess my comments never made the paper, but I'd have to follow the lines of Councillor Jackson commenting on Councillor Bruckler's comments. Last week I told the press that, yes, I think I could support this when I read it, because I hadn't read the full report. Support it in the idea that we need to negotiate with the Province some more, and part of that negotiation can be the tolling process. I didn't say I supported or didn't support the tolling process, what I told them was that we need more negotiations exactly like what Councillor Bruckler suggested so I'm going to support that amendment to (b) as well and possibly I don't have a problem with leaving that tolling idea there as we negotiate with the Province but I think it brings a little more weight to the fact that how many dollars need to come here from the Province for this road.

Staff has done a great job on the report. I look at Appendix C - it's a history of all the costs that have totally come along here. Where is the original that was promised to us? And different governments got elected and un-elected and they stopped the funding, and they started the funding. I don't think there's a week that has gone by that I don't hear from a constituent: 'the road should have been built, it should have been built long ago.' And we've done nothing but drive costs up for the last 30 or 40 years. And when we go by percentages, that's evident here. I think this report could show what it really does cost at this point Mr. Chairman. All the 'yeas' and the 'neas' and the meetings, even today's meeting and all the time that our staff has spent and we as politicians have spent. if you took the total dollars at this point in time-that's what my constituents would like to know, what's the real cost-I would suggest that this road when we finally get it built can go down in history as being the most costly make-work government program ever in the Province of Ontario. With lawyers paid and planners paid and consultants paid and meeting times paid, if they took everything. I wouldn't mind knowing those figures, Mr. Chairman.

This cross-country truck issue affects all of us. Whitechurch Rd. in Glanbrook was taken out of the truck-route system. It was proven in a study at that time that 60% of the trucks were going cross-country from the United States. So where are they going? They're still there, because of a problem with policing in some cases, but they're going to end up on this road right cross-country too. That to me is provincial dollars as Councillor Ferguson said. If it comes down to one or the other, I would rather have more provincial dollars and not toll it. But I think that tolling needs to be left as an option when we talk with the Province, if nothing more than to point out how costly and ineffective it may be, but it is an option to try to use as a tool to try to get some more provincial funding for this road.

So, I think we need an amendment, I don't know if Councillor Bruckler has got something over there, but we need an amendment for (b) to go back and try to get some more of the original support because when it says in this document, 70%, well 70% of what? I'd like to think that it's 70% or 80% of today's actual dollar costs up until this point. And that is somewhat higher than it has been.

Braden: "Mr. Chairman, can I ask through you to Jennifer, can you tell me if this report has ever got to Council before or is this the first time we've ever seen this?"

Jennifer DiDomenico, Red Hill Valley Project Officer: "Through you Mr. Chair, yes, that is correct Councillor."

Braden: "And did this report get taken to the (Expressway) Implementation Committee?"

Jennifer DiDomenico: "Through you Mr. Chair, yes it did."

Braden: "Can you tell me when?"

Jennifer DiDomenico: "I believe it was in fall or July right after the report was done."

Braden: "Thankyou. Does anybody on staff--I'm looking for a brief answer-can you tell us how much the reduction of truck traffic would be below the mountain from downtown going East. What is the projection on reducing truck traffic in those areas based on our assumptions?"

Chris Murray, Red Hill Valley Project Director: "I don't think Paul would have an answer to that. I don't know what the answer to that question is right off the top, unless Paul you have something you can add."

Paul Bumpstead (consultant): "I can't add anything with respect to diversion from downtown streets or from parallel north-south facilities, but I can tell you that the order of magnitude of truck volumes is in the order of 400-500 vehicles per hour in the peak direction, commercial vehicles. The component that may be external, I can't quantify sitting here. And how much of that might have diverted from parallel facilities I can't quantify."

Braden: "Is that information that the Implementation Committee could hear at the next meeting-not reinventing any wheels-just putting this information in a digested form so we can get it?"

Chris Murray: "It is certainly something we can take forward."

Braden: "Some of that stuff in Appendix B, when we start with numbers like $298,000, now we understand that that is really tolling and administration costs solely. Nothing to do with the road, nothing to do with capital, nothing to do with maintenance, rebuilding, life-cycle. Can you stick a number in there? Because we need to see the whole picture as always. Joe or someone, can you stick a number in there beside $298million which would maybe be the life-cycle costing number. And I remember we talked about just extending our payments after 2007 or 2012, I don't remember, and using that as a number that would suffice to pay for the rebuilding costs. Was it not around $7million or have I got that wrong?"

Joe Rinaldo, Finance Manager: "We think it is in the area of $10-$12million in aggregate, the two numbers, but I do have that information we can provide it for you. The net cash flow column is the amount that would be used to contribute towards the full life cycle costs of either the link to the QEW or to the whole component. That's the component that you can use to contribute to the lifecycle costs of the facility."

Braden: "I'm trying to compare what the life-cycle costing of the road is with the complete cost of tolling and I want to know if they are about the same."

Peter Crockett, Public Works Manager: "Through you Mr. Chairman, the lifecycle costs for East-West and North-South is expected to be somewhere between $10-$12million per year. So the thought was that once we've paid down the debt and we got to our maximum financing on an annual basis that if that was simply carried out to perpetuity that it would be in time be adequate to cover the life cycle costs."

Braden: "Real simple numbers. Is the life-cycle cost considerably more than just the tolling of the North-South Expressway costs."

Peter Crockett: ".if you flip to the last two tables which deal with tolling strictly the North-South component, at 7.5 cents or 10 cents/kilometre you can see that when you get up into the 2026 to 2037 time frames, the annual revenues from those tolls are equal to or greater than the life-cycle costs of the facility."

Braden: "I think there are some major problems, I mean there are problems with the whole road obviously. Just for my editorial comment, we've corporately adopted this policy of 'pay-as-you-go,' we have another one that's 'user-pay,' we have another one that's promoting jobs, we have another one that's promoting downtown. And I could go on and on. This project doesn't do any of those. Not one. Just to be clear.

When Mr. Simpson was here, he wasn't asked to do a cost-benefit study. Basically, he was asked to do a 'benefits.' And not a balanced report. It wasn't comprehensive, it wasn't balanced. In the (Expressway) Implementation Committee, that's not what we asked for. Just for the record, I asked a number of times politely-it's pretty hard to continue to be polite-for the person that asked Simpson to do the study. And finally when I got rather nasty to Mr. (Glen) Peace (Acting City Manager), I got the answer. We shouldn't have to, in this so-called government that is interested in being transparent and open, have to almost threaten a staff member to get a simple answer. Sorry that was a deviation Mr. Chairman."

Braden: "The issue with American trucks, we gotta deal with this. We can't penalize them, but we're not here to promote them. And we need a lecture on American truckers because they pay diddly-squat in this country. Whereas my neighbours drive down there and for every single state they've got to pay. There are two different standards here and Canadians are over-paying and not being treated with any respect and that is just the trucking industry.

I want to suggest that these numbers look overwhelming, but these are real numbers. So, first, in spite of my anger, let me thank the staff for bringing forward this report. We have always wanted to see bigger pictures. And they're coming. I mean, they're a little late, but they're coming and better late than never. So sincerely, to the staff, thankyou for bringing this report forward. It helps us understand what's there.

I want to talk about the concept of who should pay. What's been curiously lacking in this whole debate is the whole idea of if we're going to pay for this road in taxes, we're not going to pay for it again. We're not going to pay twice. Well I can tell you, it feels like we're paying three times. If people are not willing to pay the toll for the road, it begs the question whether you should build the road in the first place. Right? If people aren't willing to pay $2 or $3 or whatever this nominal sum will be, and the excuse will be: 'well we're not going to build the road and then have the traffic down in the Chairman's neighbourhood.

We've got to really find out what this really boils down to, and I hate to say this. It's that old 'free-lunch' thing. Right? Let's build the road and let's get somebody else to pay for it. Whether it's the Province, or the farmers, or the suburbanites, but introduce the concept in the Hamilton culture that says, the people that use it really ought to pay a lot for it, and there is this feeling of, 'oh no, no, no, somebody else should do that.'

When you look at these numbers, these are the most staggering numbers we've ever seen. And this is not for something we need. This is simply something that a lot of people want. When we talk about the survey and 45% say they're willing to pay for it, those are very mature people who can say, 'there is no free lunch, we're willing to pay.' But if you get them on the wrong day, nobody wants to pay for something if you give them an alternative. They want somebody else, big government or Hamilton, to pay. And that's the real shame here, that in spite of what our staff have been telling us: to get serious about money, we keep spending it. Again this isn't a staff problem here. I commend the staff, well aren't you putting your careers almost on the line to talk about real facts and real numbers? Because our situation is so serious.

But again I want to leave the staff, most of you anyway, but I thank you for bringing this forward. And I hope it gets the kind of debate and expression from the press what this facility really is going to cost, not just now, because now doesn't matter, but what it's going to cost in the long run. Thankyou."

Collins: "I'm going to ask Councillor Mitchell, vice-chair to take the chair while I say a few words. From my perspective, it isn't a new issue. Councillor Jackson may recall the debates we had in the mid-90s when the Harris government changed the funding formula from the scenario that it was at the time to what it is today. The Region was left with looking at ways to make up that shortfall and we discussed tolling. And I can recall the public reaction to the suggestion at that time of tolls on the Linc and the Red Hill. So for my perspective, I think I know very well where my community stands on this issue.

I don't think it's fair that those people who have supported this project-when I look at who has the most to lose through all of this, it's the people who live around the East-West portions or the North-South portions, when you start talking about diversion, 10% may not look like a lot, but when you start to talk about tens of thousands of cars, you're talking about a great impact to community.

My support-from the beginning I've never been one to push around this table or publicly or in my election campaign literature that the Expressway was going to be the be-all and end-all to our economic development troubles or assessment growth. For me, it's always been an issue of traffic and my comments the other day in the local media were that I was hoping to see some relief with the construction of this road. And now to go through this debate one more time is a little discouraging in that, you know, those people who were looking for some relief would actually get a double-whamee. If, in fact, we are going to toll the road they probably can expect to see more traffic. And it's not just in my neighbourhood, it probably affects 5 or 6 wards across the whole City.

And so to put it into context in that scenario as I said I think the people who have the most to lose are those people who have been very supportive of the Project over the last several decades. So I cannot support what is before us. Again, my comments the other day to the local media were that if we had the original funding arrangement with the Province, we probably wouldn't have had this debate in the '90s and we might have not been having it today. Understanding that a lot has changed since that time and now in regards to downloading and our financial situation, I really can't see why we're going ahead with this. I can't fault staff for trying to find some new revenue sources but I think this is the wrong way to go about it. It's really one step forward and two back and so I won't be supporting it. And I'll take the chair back from Councillor Mitchell."

Merulla: "I guess my concern with item (b), really when you look at our previous campaign, it really was coined an 'unofficial referendum' regarding the building of the Red Hill Creek Expressway. Now, one could argue that if you've won this so-called 'unofficial referendum' based on the rules that were set prior to the election, to actually change the rules now would really mean that you'd won under false pretenses. And I don't think Mayor DiIanni or any of us would be willing to put ourselves in that situation.

We need to focus on the priorities as they were before the election, and that's building this particular road. And everyone has their own reasons, but in my particular case, I actually ran on the platform of eliminating truck routes and actually focusing on decreasing traffic congestion that only can be obtained through the building of this particular road.

Also, I have the greatest respect for Councillor McHattie, and I keep referencing the 403 in the West End and I have to-it does beg the question: if the 403 wasn't built and they were debating this particular issue, I don't believe Councillor McHattie's constituents would be not supporting the building of that particular road.

So, it's necessary, it's a quality of life issue, and it's a safety issue. And anyone that suggests we should change the rules as we go along, I would encourage them to look at themselves as we move forward.

Having said that, I will not support (b) but I'll support (a) and (c). And I'll also support Councillor Bruckler's intent of going back to the Province in order to mitigate some of the financial ramifications associated with it. Thankyou."

Whitehead: "It's no secret that I have issues in my ward with regard to diversion. We heard from someone this morning in regard to truck traffic. Whenever there is an accident or a back-up on the 403, guess where that traffic goes? It comes down Garth St., Upper Paradise, and my neighbourhoods are inundated. So certainly, in respect to truck traffic, car traffic, I have the same issues as the East End relative to anything that's happening on the Linc.

So, what I indicated earlier is that in principle I agree with tolls but I need to understand more fully what that is going to do to neighbourhoods like Councillor Merulla's, Councillor Collins', and certainly mine. So, I'm going to actually reserve judgement when it comes to voting on tolls. But in principal I want to move down that road to better understand the impacts and implications of tolls.

The other problem I have right now is that I have streets like Garth St. that are comparative to a Third-World Country road. I mean, it's absolutely horrific the shape that it's in. My understanding through Joe is that we are looking at capital dollars attributed to each residential household, varying from $23-$43 per household for the next number of years just to pay down that capital. Is that correct Joe?

Joe Rinaldo, Finance Manager: "Yes, average impact for the East-West project is about $20 per year on an on-going basis and the North-South is about $45 per year, so between the two it's about $65 per year."

Whitehead: "So we're looking at $65 per year shared by the broader community, and I believe that not everyone will use these Expressways but they're all paying for that roadway as well. And that's why I believe that users should take some responsibility when they utilize the roadway in principle but I need to understand the impacts. The other thing we need to understand is that a huge chunk of money that is being taken out of capital that we're not able with current resources to put into our regular roadways that our residents use everyday, and I use Garth St. just as an example."

Braden: "If you really want to negotiate with the Province, you don't negotiate with them after you've built it. At that point, there is absolutely no reason for them to come on board."

McCarthy: "Recommendation (b) tells the Province that we are in financial trouble here, and we are. And it gives us the ability to not just request from them money for social services pooling, but to say that we're seriously looking at how we're going to fund this road. This is a serious discussion for serious people, and if we don't support item (b) then the debate is arbitrarily closed off.

With that in mind, I'm going to make a pitch to have item (b) supported so that we can at least know what decision comes from the Province and we can have a debate.

Bruckler: "My motion would be somewhat contrary to (b), I wouldn't want to see us weaken our position. Often we've gone before the Province with an either-or situation and we know which end of the stick we come out on in either-or situations. My preference at this point in time would be to go forward with the request for a commitment to their original contribution as well as perhaps a portion to the ongoing annual maintenance. If that's turned down, I don't see any reason why this Council couldn't go back and look at this report and the implications of tolling, what level of tolling, and what the direct impacts might be, but I would like to see us go forward first with this particular request and perhaps revisit or table this recommendation instead of outright defeating it."

Mitchell: "I think this report is a good negotiating tool, it is something you lay down in front of the Province and say, there's got to be other ways of funding this. As Councillor Whitehead said, $65 a home. I've got a lot of people in the rural part of my ward that will probably never use this road."

Merulla: "We're either going to toll or we're going to ask for more money. At the end of the day, we have to separate the actual request. To not do that is confusing at best. So let's just move forward on that. I'd like to put a friendly amendment forward for those that are going to support the tolling. If we do move ahead with tolling, I'd like to see a binding referendum be called just so we can actually say that we've followed the public's will on that particular issue.

Collins: "I have a motion to put (a), (b), and (c) at this time and I'd like to put it, it's been moved and seconded. I will then come back to Councillor Bruckler, you've put a motion which I'll add as part (d) (ask the Province for more money without asking about tolls). And if someone wants to table (b) when we get to (b) then they can move to table it.

On part (a) That the "Red Hill Creek Expressway - Toll Traffic and Revenue Estimates, Final Report" and "Red Hill Valley Project - Additional Financial Analysis, Memorandum" be received for information and consideration. (McCarthy/Braden)

Carries unanimously.

Merulla asks that staff be asked to report back on whether a referendum can actually be pursued between elections.

Jackson moves to table item (b) pending the outcome of (d) it it passes. (Jackson/Ferguson)

Yeas: Councillors Bruckler, Ferguson, Jackson, Mitchell,

Total: 4

Nays: Councillors Braden, Collins, McCarthy and Merulla

Total: 4

Defeated on a tie vote.

On part (b) based on the findings of the reports mentioned in (a), that staff be authorized and directed to approach the Province to discuss receiving legal authority to toll the Lincoln M. Alexander Parkway (Linc) and/or the Red Hill Creek Expressway and report back to Council. (McCarthy/Braden)

Yeas: Councillors Braden, McCarthy

Total: 2

Nays: Councillors Bruckler, Collins, Ferguson, Jackson, Merulla, Mitchell

Total: 6

Defeated.

On part (c) that Outstanding Business Item (Toll for Red Hill Creek Expressway) referred from the Committee of the Whole meeting of November 21, 2001 be identified as completed and removed from the Outstanding Business list . (McCarthy/Braden)

Carries unanimously.

On part (d) recognizing that the Linc and the Red Hill Creek Expressway provide a connection for international and provincial truck and car traffic, that staff request the Province honour its original commitment for capital costs and a portion of the ongoing annual maintenance costs. (Bruckler/Ferguson)

Carries unanimously.

Continue with report:
8.2 Working Group on Illegal Dumping and Anti-Litter