The question as to whether light rail is right for Hamilton, is one that has been bantered about for some time now. Despite council's 2008 decision to instruct staff to pursue a light rail solution, recently there have been signals of uncertainty at the councillor and at the bureaucratic level. This has upset staunch advocates of light rail.
The Hamiltonian is disinterested in the emotions behind the arguments, and thus will not be applauding the advocates of light rail, or demonizing those who reserve their endorsements or outright oppose it.
The decision as to whether to pursue light rail or not in Hamilton, is a multi dimensional one involving many variants. The many angles, perspectives and interests, compounded by the fact that it is a major investment regardless of how you look at it, can sum to a "fogginess of war" effect whereby it becomes difficult to clearly see the landscape and arrive at an informed decision. Thus, it is useful to go back to basics.
The following is a sample of some of the considerations that we believe are essential and fundamental to the central question of light rail in Hamilton. The list is not comprehensive, nor is it in sequential order.
Business Case: Is there a favourable business case for light rail in Hamilton? This step should allow for comparisons to other places in the world who have implemented light rail, but it should not solely rely on examples of success or failure. Instead, the business case examines this evidence as one piece of information; recognizing that there are other variables and characteristics of a Hamilton implementation that may warrant special consideration. A good business case considers the experience of others in implementing light rail, but digs deeper and seeks to define not only the possibility of a successful implementation, but the probability of a successful implementation. To do so, broad based comparisons and references are too blunt to serve as a gauge of predictability. The adage “the devil is in the details” rings true when considering an issue of this magnitude and complexity.
The probability factor cannot be properly diagnosed unless the many other variables and characteristics of a Hamilton implementation are examined clinically.
Stakeholder Alignment: Assuming you can arrive at a compelling business case, stakeholders must be aligned to recognize its value, its potential, and most importantly, they must be able to find themselves and their interests within it. In other words, the “what’s in it for me?” question, must be answered.
The city must see the opportunity through the eyes of the partners they will need onboard to make it a success, while ensuring the common good and its associated ROI is not unduly surrendered or otherwise minimized to a level that has little if any value.
Stakeholders must be involved upfront in meaningful conversations that present accurate information. The stakeholders will be diverse, and so it will take some very bright minds to ensure that the stakeholders that are the primary and secondary enablers to a project of this magnitude, have a reason to support the effort. Without deviating too much from the spirit and integrity of city held objectives, there may be a need to explore customized fits for certain players, in the interests of making it work. Thus, the business case may need to be reshaped, or possibility re framed as these interests are better understood. If we’ve learned anything from the Pan Am experience, it’s that stakeholder alignment is critical to success.
Rationalization - Light rail must be rationalized within the current array of transit solutions that are to be available in Hamilton. It must also be rationalized within the plans that are otherwise envisioned. Number of and location of stops on a light rail line, for example, may determine whether or not a parallel alternate mode of transportation is needed (thereby potentially significantly increasing costs). Environmental concerns must be considered. Uptake must be effectively modeled to calibrate the service. Staging must be contemplated so as to ensure that the implementation exploits the ROI on multiple fronts.
Investment: Where exactly is the money coming from to fund the implementation and to sustain it? What is the return on investment for the funders and partners. How will the sharing of revenue be distributed? What is the residual cost to the Hamilton taxpayer, immediately and in the out-years? What are the projections going forward and what contingencies will be in place if course correction is required? What are the real costs, including any costs attributed to retro-fitting.
Collateral Benefits : What form do these take, how soon do they occur, where are they concentrated and who will be positioned to benefit?
Risk: How is the risk managed and distributed?
This list is not comprehensive, but it is intended to provide a sample of the considerations that have to be made when undertaking a decision of this magnitude.
So, is Mayor Bratina crazy when he suggests that we had better be certain on the return on investment if we are going to "make a big play" with taxpayer money? No! He is recognizing the complexities involved and the skill it will take to make the right decision for Hamilton.
Is former Mayor Eisenberger crazy when he cites the bold move of the Waterloo Region to support Light Rail there? No! He is underscoring that it takes leadership to make change of this magnitude happen. Nor does it appear as though he does not get the underlying complexities to be considered.
Is City Manager Chris Murray crazy when he expresses concern over not having enough development interest at this point? No! He recognizes the importance of partnerships, stakeholder engagement and its relation to success probabilities. (Although we ought to not make the term “investors” synonymous with “developers”. They can be one and the same, but not necessarily. Venture capitalists may select a developer as an instrument, for example. Let’s not pigeon hole ourselves. )
Is Clr. Clark crazy for insisting that the city set priorities and be mindful of the information needed in order to properly consider light rail? No! He understands the need to rationalize.
Are the folks at Raise the Hammer crazy for relentlessly advocating for Light Rail in Hamilton? No! They recognize that bureaucracies are slow, are not always ahead of the game and need the necessary prodding to move them to a decision point.
Are taxpayers crazy for harboring concern over the potential impact on local tax rates? No! It is a legitimate concern that would resonate with anyone who is simply trying to make ends meet, or is concerned with fiscal prudence.
In summary, The Hamiltonian would like to see Hamilton have the right conversations, information, and engagement that would lead to a well considered decision as to the value of Light Rail in Hamilton. These conversations start by resisting the temptation to demonize anyone who does not share a particular perspective. Instead, we ought to invite them to take part in these important discussions. We should begin by ensuring that if we proceed with light rail, it is because it has passed a series of crucibles and has been deemed to be sound, rather than artificially salvific.
Finally, despite all of the intellect, methodology, information, evidence and probability models that can be brought to bear, in the end, this will be a leadership moment. Whether Hamilton will move forward with Light Rail or not, will not only depend on the convergence of all the various components described in this article (as well as other components), but the leadership ability to recognize the direction to proceed in, and have the strength to make a calculated decision that is defensible and in the best interests of Hamiltonians.
We must prove ourselves to be professional stewards of our own destiny. We cannot stumble through an initiative of this magnitude.
The Hamiltonian
Information in this article may be used only with the expressed written permission of The Hamiltonian. Contact us at adminhamiltonian@cogeco.ca