A local climate group says deceptive calculations are letting Hamilton and other Ontario municipalities falsely claim that their road construction projects reduce greenhouse gas emissions and help meet Canada’s responsibilities to fight climate change. According to the Hamilton 350 Committee, the scheme overseen by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) and Ottawa is painting nearly $30 million a year in Hamilton spending as “environmental sustainable” and to justify continued underfunding of the HSR.
The citizens group looked into the city’s claim that using federal gas tax monies to repair roads and bridges reduces fossil fuel emissions and found the calculation method “ignores most of the increased emissions generated by the construction, in favour of focusing on the far smaller reductions.” They believe that “city staff and councillors are unaware of the specific deceptive features of this program”, but “have also failed to examine its real outcomes.”
At issue is a federal environmental program initiated in 2005 that has provided Hamilton with close to $200 million and adds another $32 million annually. It was launched by the Liberal government of Paul Martin and designated for “local environmentally sustainable infrastructure” to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing global climate change.
The 350 Committee found that over half of Hamilton’s share has been spent on road and bridge work while less than a third “has gone to environmental improvements” such as composting and recycling. A large chunk was even used to renovate city hall. Since 2010 over 90 percent of the allocations have been for road and bridge work, with the remainder used to purchase transit buses.
Across the country 39 percent of gas tax spending is used for transit. Road work consumes 28 percent, with 13 percent going to water projects and 11 percent to sewers. Some provinces only permit cities under 500,000 to use the monies for road projects. The federal website on the program reports that “in Canada's six largest cities, almost 90 per cent of the funding goes toward public transit.”
The agreement between the federal government and AMO says the monies must go to “Environmentally Sustainable Municipal Infrastructure Projects” which are defined as projects that “improve the quality of the environment and contribute to reduced greenhouse gas emissions, clean water, or clean air.” There is public reporting of how these outcomes are being achieved that uses a formula to convert information such as length and width of the road into alleged emission reductions.
When the 350 Committee asked about the formula, city staff directed them to AMO who explained the methodology assumes lowered emissions from vehicles using the smoother reconstructed road and gives extra credit for using particular construction technologies that generate fewer emissions. But AMO acknowledged the methodology doesn’t measure factors which increase emissions including the extraction and processing of asphalt and concrete, the actual construction activity, and the disposal of discarded materials.
The citizens group argues these almost certainly outweigh the alleged emission reductions and suggests that the road work increases traffic volume “attracted by a faster driving experience” and reduces transit use.
“A ‘before and after’ analysis such as these ones makes assumptions and omits certain variables which may affect the results,” AMO Policy Advisor Jay Paleja responded to the Committee. “However they do have their strengths. It means that measurement is possible and is predictable, efficient and consistent. It also ensures that reporting is flexible enough to apply to 443 municipal governments of varying sizes and capacities (some without engineers on staff), and can cover the 2500 road and bridge projects completed by municipalities since 2005.”
The 350 Committee wants AMO to fix its methodology “to accurately reflect actual emission changes” and forbid large municipalities from using the monies for roads. It notes that city council could also simply redirect the monies to transit and other environmentally sustainable programs.
“By continuing to spend over 90 percent of the funds on road and bridge projects, city council is cheating the gas tax program and cheating itself,” the group argues. “It is robbing Peter to pay Paul, creating the misleading impression that there are sufficient funds in the budget for roads and bridges.”
2005-2009 Hamilton use of Federal Gas Tax funds
| Project | Spending |
|---|---|
| City Hall renovations | $30,696,000 |
| Composting facility | 18,185,000 |
| Green Cart program | 12,986,000 |
| Recycling facilities | 9,239,000 |
| Roads and bridges | 8,629,000 |
| TOTAL 2005-2009 | $79,735,000 |
2010-2012 Hamilton use of Federal Gas Tax funds
| Projects | Spending |
|---|---|
| Bus purchases | $6,000,000 |
| Roads and bridges | 69,479,000 |
| TOTAL 2010-2012 | $75,479,000 |