One of the Key Takeaways from the Baylor report was for North Bay to improve communication to counter the abysmally low public trust numbers. Once that improved, we were to use public engagement to form a collective vision and shape our future. Using that process a Strategic Plan was developed and now we need to put it into action.
That Strategic Plan recognizes that the city needs to communicate better. So, rather than run from the suggestion put forward by the North Bay Taxpayers Association (NBTA), it should be used as an opportunity to openly discuss the needs and wants of this community in relation to its security force and how either option (assuming there are only two) can best be modified to suit the people they serve.
There are costs to getting what we want and just going with the current lowest cost provider may not match what the public wants. The NBTA has a clear objective in lowering the tax burden, but in today's society the lowest tax rate does not necessarily guarantee the best alternative. There is also the quality of service, ability to control the operation and local economic impact to be considered. They may be a little more difficult to measure, but they are just as important as cost, if not, moreso.
One of the important considerations would be the amount of information available to your community...the North Bay Police Annual Report gives the North Bay public a lot more information about our community than the OPP Annual Report would.
The OPP costing would not automatically guarantee a lower policing cost than North Bay Police, given the experience in Owen Sound. The OPP have stated they would still need a new police station here, so there would be no savings there and the OPP labour agreement that guarantees their officers will be the highest paid in Ontario keeps upward pressure on their labour costs.
But this costing would be an opportunity for the North Bay Police Force to build on their efforts to use innovation to deal with unaddressed health issues that ultimately fall to police to deal with. Perhaps they could create lower paid positions that could perform bylaw enforcement and eliminate the contract price with Commissionaires Ottawa that must include a profit margin.
The North Bay Humane Society is sole sourced contracted to do Animal Welfare and Control in addition to bylaw enforcement. If the North Bay Police could take over the enforcement, maybe there could be competitive bids for the Animal Welfare and Control, which together with animal bylaw enforcement currently costs North Bay $342,000 per year.
Maybe North Bay Police could be a little more aggressive in pursuing contracts with surrounding municipalities like East Ferris and/or Powassan if they upgraded their radio system. West Nipissing may be in the market for a new police provider if the voting public vetos the split decision made by that council to disband their force. Adding more communities like Callander to the contract could produce enough economies of scale to tip the balance in a local force's favour.
A public process would allow a full review of the costs and risks associated with each force and from that an informed assessment of the value provided by them. Hopefully our current councillors will see the merit in this approach.
NORTHERN ONTARIO - POLITICAL ISSUES An opinion on the issues affecting the province and primarily Northern Ontario
Saturday, 20 January 2018
Sunday, 16 April 2017
Guest Post - Governments need to get their transportation act together
Another looming example of “Two Ontarios”?
Retired. Now engaged in passenger rail advocacy for southwestern Ontario
A review of VIA Rail’s current business plan reveals a very ominous statement: "Due to age and condition of the existing fleet, with no capital investments, VIA Rail will not be in a position to offer the current passenger service levels by 2020". It could be federal arm-twisting pessimism, but service interruptions, resulting from equipment obsolescence, continue to erode VIA’s service reliability while driving up its operating costs.
The federal government is currently reviewing VIA’s request for $1.25 billion to renew its aged corridor fleet of locomotives and coaches but granting of such funds, while patently obvious to VIA and its customers, will not be straightforward. Count on political apathy, alternative transportation technology delusion and challenges by airlines, road builders, bus companies and others who will cry “unfair subsidy” in a concerted effort to let VIA rust into oblivion.
If VIA pulls out of southwestern Ontario due to lack of serviceable equipment, Metrolinx, operator of well-equipped GO Transit, has no existing mandate to bring passenger trains west of Aldershot or Kitchener and is very unlikely to step-in. Even more alarming is that there are no signs that the province and federal government are even discussing the matter. Attempts at constructive engagement with government by rail-served municipalities in the region have been polite but dismissive. Doesn’t this infer willful blindness?
As far as the province is concerned, personal mobility in southwestern Ontario will likely revert to autonomous and electric vehicles and buses, should passenger rail services cease. The City of Stratford, however, sees things very differently. It recently stated its economy and prosperity will be significantly constrained by current provincial policy on intercity and regional public transportation. No doubt other communities have drawn the same conclusion. It implies that new automotive technologies are not seen as the catch-all solution the province is touting.
The issue of public transportation subsidies is not quite as clear cut as many would claim. In a recent report, the C.D. Howe Institute, a highly-respected think-tank, calculated that public highways in Canada currently require a 30% taxpayer subsidy. In other words, the money highway users pay in license fees, fuel and carbon taxes only pays 70% of the cost of construction and ongoing maintenance. Surprised? So, what happens when provincial and federal fuel tax revenues decline rapidly as hybrid and electric vehicles become more popular? It’s quite possible that highway subsidy levels could increase to around 50% which is similar to that for a properly equipped and operated intercity passenger rail service.
The highway funding shortfall would need to come from universal road tolls, allocating money from the province’s cap and trade fiasco or perhaps covert redirection of money from other federal, provincial and municipal programs or by adding more debt. Add in the very substantial, publicly-funded costs in the form of transitional grants and loans to the auto sector, subsidies for charging stations, scandal-ridden, taxpayer-funded rebates for new electric vehicle purchases and congestion costs approaching $6.5 billion in the GTHA and it’s clear that the old adage of highway “investment” versus public transportation “subsidy” is now utter nonsense.
For economies and societies to remain functional, equitable, grow and prosper it’s critical to have the connectivity of a balanced public transportation strategy including the correct combination of highway, passenger rail and air modes. Most other G7 nations have already figured this out but Canadian politics, special-interests and myopia usually get in the way of astute, widely beneficial mobility investments. This seriously detracts from our national competitiveness.
Many travellers will be utterly stymied if passenger train services in southwestern Ontario deteriorate any further or cease altogether. Riding clapped-out rail equipment is better than nothing. But the constant uncertainty would make people even more angry and frustrated. And communities trying to adjust to new economic realities would be hit particularly hard.
Little wonder that the public’s trust of politicians and senior government is falling off the cliff. Recently, during a visit to Germany, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau reminded E.U. members that a growing middle-class and maximum opportunity for upward social mobility are essential for economic and political stability and shared prosperity. Since reliable, accessible and affordable travel options are part and parcel of this, perhaps he should give a copy of his talk to provincial and federal transportation ministers and their policy teams. It would be a powerful reminder that they work for all Canadians and not just the favoured few.
Tuesday, 11 April 2017
NEORN Editorial Letter
Guest Post by
Éric Boutilier
Spokesperson with the Northern & Eastern Ontario Rail Network
| |||||||||||||||
|
Wednesday, 29 March 2017
Look to the Past to Guide the Future
Lots of talk about Economic Development in North Bay recently and what direction the city should take to ensure its future. In order to guide our future, maybe we should look to the past. North Bay was a railway town, developed initially by the railroads that chose this location as a terminal for their operations. Over the years the automobile gained prominence as the preferred mode of travel, and railways were allowed to slip away from the public view. Privatization emerged as the only salvation for railways and to be fair, those efforts did result in more efficiency and profits for the Class 1 carriers. The cost of those improvements however, was the formation of huge railways that only looked for high volume shipments...the little railroads with few shippers were left for the government to deal with, which they reluctantly did.
Now we have a global economy, and the private sector controls how and when we get rail access to it. Intermodal rail traffic has seen a steady increase for the past decade, except for the global downturn after 2008.
I would suggest building Highway access to the airport through Marsh Drive, to avoid heavy truck traffic in the residential area surrounding the airport and moving the main truck route to one that is protected by a runaway truck ramp.
Some points in favour of the project
Now we have a global economy, and the private sector controls how and when we get rail access to it. Intermodal rail traffic has seen a steady increase for the past decade, except for the global downturn after 2008.
RAC Rail Trends - 2016
But the untold story is how the Class 1 carriers closed small intermodal yards and consolidated into just two large yards in the GTA. This has reduced expenses for the major carriers, but has denied efficiencies in shipping to Ontario business beyond the GTA. If we compare the US access to intermodal yards, it becomes apparent that Canadian railways are content to let Ontario shippers utilize the government subsidized highway system to gain access to the more efficient rail haul.
The Integrated Transport Initiative was a proposal to establish North Bay as a major, export-oriented, international transportation staging centre and; subsequently as an export product processing centre. At the centre of the project was the building of a rail link to the side of the airport that would permit all three modes of transport, air, rail and road to operate from the same location.
Some points in favour of the project
- Governments looking for infrastructure investments that align with their objectives
- Will assist in lowering GHG emissions by shifting truck traffic to rail
- Will permit expanding economy without contributing to GTA gridlock
- Will assist in expanding Northern Ontario economy
- Will permit expanding Rail Intermodal services if CN Milton Intermodal project not allowed
- Will assist Pearson airport in pursuing mega-airport status for passengers by shifting cargo to North Bay
- May alleviate need to build Pickering airport
- ONTC/CN co-production with directional running would increase rail haul capacity between Toronto and Winnipeg with minimal investment
- Opportunity to create maintenance centre with rail traffic at doorstep
- Only 300 to 350 kms farther from New York and Chicago than Toronto with less congestion than GTA or busier border crossings
- Lower landing fees than Pearson but still a 10,000 foot runway
We need an updated feasibility study and a champion for the idea. Anyone own a white horse?
Tuesday, 15 November 2016
Municipal Measurements - Does North Bay have a revenue problem?
Recent reports put out by the Fraser Institute and stories in the news have raised the issue of taxation levels by the City of North Bay. While it is important for politicians to remember that municipal, provincial and federal taxpayers are largely the same person, there does need to be a sufficient source of revenue for each level to cover the responsibilities attached to it.
With that in mind I thought it may be helpful to compare the revenue of the five large urban centres in Northern Ontario.
The following charts are all based on 2015 numbers taken from the Financial Information Return website for each community.
North Bay had $139.1 M in revenue for 2015, of which taxation was the largest contributor.
The following chart shows that although the taxation level per capita for North Bay seems fairly close to the others, the total amount of revenue generated by the city is the lowest of the five.
While each particular stream of revenue should be examined to ensure it is maximized, there were a couple that stood out in the comparison.
User Fees & Service Charges, Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund and Conditional Grants all seem to be higher in the other centres.
The reasons for these differences are unknown to me, but it seems like North Bay may have a revenue problem that needs to be tackled. The North Bay Taxpayers Association may want to take a break from the expense side and ask some questions about revenue.
With that in mind I thought it may be helpful to compare the revenue of the five large urban centres in Northern Ontario.
The following charts are all based on 2015 numbers taken from the Financial Information Return website for each community.
North Bay had $139.1 M in revenue for 2015, of which taxation was the largest contributor.
The following chart shows that although the taxation level per capita for North Bay seems fairly close to the others, the total amount of revenue generated by the city is the lowest of the five.
User Fees & Service Charges, Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund and Conditional Grants all seem to be higher in the other centres.
The reasons for these differences are unknown to me, but it seems like North Bay may have a revenue problem that needs to be tackled. The North Bay Taxpayers Association may want to take a break from the expense side and ask some questions about revenue.
Monday, 14 December 2015
Ministry of Northern Development and Mines - Has the time come to restructure?
The Auditor General's latest annual report gave rise to the usual expose of the government's latest weak points. The media and the opposition immediately pounced on the most newsworthy and critical parts of that report. Lost in the furor over Hydro One and the Social Assistance Management System was the section on Better Accountability. Certainly not as much of a trigger issue, but at the same time, the biggest issue facing government.
The Open Government initiative was Kathleen Wynne's response to one of the most criticized actions of her predecessor. The gas plant scandal enraged Ontario voters and demanded action from government that would ensure it never happened again.
The Open Government panel, chaired by Don Lenihan, quickly put together an excellent report that appears to have been accepted in large part, by the Liberal government. It involves nothing less than a wholesale change in government culture in order to restore voter trust in their elected representatives. Bureaucrats who have historically relied on back room deliberations and carefully scripted media points are now expected to engage in public consultations and justify their plans with facts from accepted sources.
One Ministry, in particular, seems to be having trouble making the transition. Northern Development and Mines continues to avoid open public consultations about the future of Ontario Northland, one of the biggest economic drivers in the region. It is one thing to be a maverick and run against the tide, but if a Ministry chooses that path, it is vital that they are seen as a positive influence. Otherwise, they are just getting in the way.
So, lets examine the record of the only Regional Ministry in Ontario.
In the book Governance in Northern Ontario Economic Development and Policy Making, Professor Bob Segsworth of Laurentian University writes a chapter on Results Measurement and Economic Development in Northern Ontario.
Critical of the measurements used by MNDM, Prof. Segsworth suggests 14 more relevant criteria, based on statistical information that is already available. (used with permission)
I have presented those numbers here, in a format that hopefully illustrates how Northern Ontario has fared with a separate regional ministry in charge, in relation to the overall performance of the province.
As Professor Segsworth points out, over the time period government has dedicated efforts to the economic well-being of our region, Northern Ontario has lagged the province as a whole in all of the indicators except one.
The Dependency Rate 1 is the ratio of people under age 15 and over 64 divided by the number of people of workforce age 15 to 64 and is the only measure where Northern Ontario has an advantage over Ontario. Dependency Rate 2, however is the number of people aged 65 and over divided by the workforce age bracket and shows a much higher ratio. Given the trend toward longer lifespans and declining birthrate, our advantage has likely eroded since 2006.
MNDM is not much help in providing any evidence to the contrary as their Annual Report does not show any measures that might reasonably be expected to disprove these results. This, in spite of findings by the Drummond Report, the Auditor General and other Associations that Northern Ontario needs specific economic measurements in order to gauge government's response to the challenges.
We now have the Northern Policy Institute where the various data collections that do exist can be warehoused, and Northerners of all stripes can voice their concerns about government policy. The Ministry of Northern Development and Mines has not produced any meaningful benefit for the region and according to the Auditor General, may have caused other provincially mandated Ministries to bypass the North in their service.
Perhaps the time has come to restructure provincial government services by dismantling MNDM in favour of a more efficient delivery system and actually invest the savings in much needed infrastructure.
Sunday, 15 November 2015
ONTC Transformation - Real or political spin?
As the ONTC transformation starts to drag on, reminiscent of the Ring of Fire, or Northern Growth Plan, one begins to wonder if there will be anything left to transform. Sales revenue for ONTC has been decimated from $114M as of Mar 2011 to $63M as of Mar 2014, and if MNDM had the courage to post the Mar 2015 numbers, I'm sure that would have fallen further still.
Regardless of how efficient the organization becomes, if a company cannot bring sufficient revenue in the door to justify their capital cost, it will fail. ONTC has been a political football for MNDM for over 20 years and the constant political interference has eroded the foundation built up over a century.
The current situation of a mishandled lockout, is indicative of how the constant attacks have worn away at the labour/management relationship. Instead of trying to repair that relationship, MNDM has addressed ONTC like a political exercise designed to "spin" Northern Ontario into believing they are supporting the region.
If we look back at recent history to gain understanding of how that relationship came to be, one becomes skeptical of the MNDM commitment to Northern Ontario. In 2003, the Liberals got elected along with a promise to develop ONTC and for a short time they did make an effort. That effort did not include much to bolster ridership on the Northlander though, and by 2012 MNDM did away with any pretense of development and announced they were going to liquidate the company and discontinue Northlander service. (The actual announcement appears to have been deleted from the ON Newsroom website, but there are enough references available that we are certain it still happened)
This abrupt change in direction was done without consultation, without prior notification to the union and not even much warning to then CEO Paul Goulet. Some of the claims made to justify the divestment decision were later proven to be false, and were partly why the government had to later back down on parts of the decision.
Now....with this history of deception and political spin, unions at ONTC are asked to accept concessions beyond industry norms to support MNDM before they will expand and develop ONTC.
I would think MNDM would need to demonstrate good faith in a tangible way, before workers could believe them. The current lockout only makes the prospect of co-operation more difficult and further jeopardizes the very existence of the business.
MNDM should sign an agreement that matches the pattern already set by other unions and get on with the business of building up ONTC. The North cannot withstand much more MNDM "development".
Regardless of how efficient the organization becomes, if a company cannot bring sufficient revenue in the door to justify their capital cost, it will fail. ONTC has been a political football for MNDM for over 20 years and the constant political interference has eroded the foundation built up over a century.
The current situation of a mishandled lockout, is indicative of how the constant attacks have worn away at the labour/management relationship. Instead of trying to repair that relationship, MNDM has addressed ONTC like a political exercise designed to "spin" Northern Ontario into believing they are supporting the region.
If we look back at recent history to gain understanding of how that relationship came to be, one becomes skeptical of the MNDM commitment to Northern Ontario. In 2003, the Liberals got elected along with a promise to develop ONTC and for a short time they did make an effort. That effort did not include much to bolster ridership on the Northlander though, and by 2012 MNDM did away with any pretense of development and announced they were going to liquidate the company and discontinue Northlander service. (The actual announcement appears to have been deleted from the ON Newsroom website, but there are enough references available that we are certain it still happened)
This abrupt change in direction was done without consultation, without prior notification to the union and not even much warning to then CEO Paul Goulet. Some of the claims made to justify the divestment decision were later proven to be false, and were partly why the government had to later back down on parts of the decision.
- ONTC Subsidy $100M and expected to rise
2010 - 28.0M
2011 - 43.6M
2012 - 75.7M
2013 - 48.7M (Psgr funding down 6M due to Northlander cut)
2014 - 29.9M
- This is not a firesale
Ontera had $41M in assets and was sold for $6M incurring a $61M loss for ONTC
- Ridership is stagnant
(Numbers from FOI request)
2009 - 31,494
2010 - 33,741
2011 - 39,579
2012 - 29,751 (Cut off in Sept)
Very different government position re Union Pearson Express
- Northlander will be replaced with enhanced bus service
The only enhancement to bus service in the North was as a result of a improvement ordered by the Ontario Human Rights Commission. MNDM response was to insist ONTC operate buses on a break-even basis, forcing ONTC to close stations and reduce runs in the North.
No transit system in North America operates on a break-even basis....not even GO Transit
Now....with this history of deception and political spin, unions at ONTC are asked to accept concessions beyond industry norms to support MNDM before they will expand and develop ONTC.
I would think MNDM would need to demonstrate good faith in a tangible way, before workers could believe them. The current lockout only makes the prospect of co-operation more difficult and further jeopardizes the very existence of the business.
MNDM should sign an agreement that matches the pattern already set by other unions and get on with the business of building up ONTC. The North cannot withstand much more MNDM "development".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)