If we had a billion dollars ...

Hamilton could put boots to poverty under Doug Ford scenario

Let’s play the devil’s advocate for a bit.

If the City of Hamilton had $1 billion to spend on any infrastructure projects it liked, would your first choice be to throw the whole bundle at a light rail system?

We all know that the prospective LRT line from McMaster University to Eastgate Square is anticipated to generate significant redevelopment and revitalization along the corridor.

But just think of what other gamechanging projects $1 billion in provincial funding could buy.

This premise is based, of course, on Progressive Conservative Leader Doug Ford’s statements that Hamilton can spend the money on whatever infrastructure projects it wants if his party forms the government after the June 7 election.

For the next few minutes, let’s for fun put aside any skepticism we may have about Ford’s ability to deliver on the promise and instead consider what other purposes the $1 billion could be used for.

For starters, let’s say city councillors and the public at large were still committed to a rapid transit system along the current LRT corridor.

If so, they could opt for bus rapid transit (BRT) and still have hundreds of millions of dollars to play with.

Back in 2010, a Metrolinx’s report calculated a BRT system would cost about $220 million. Mind you, back then the LRT project was pegged at $784 million. So obviously the price will have risen for BRT as well, let’s say to around $400 million.

If Metrolinx is to be believed, BRT would still support the city’s land use and economic development goals, still raise property values, still attract big investment dollars and still generate jobs while promoting and improving public transit, albeit all on a projected smaller scale than LRT. The big difference is the city would still have $600 million or so dollars to use on other capital projects.

Where to spend it? Well, the recent city summit setting out priorities for the provincial election is a good place to start.

The city spends about $184 million a year on renewing and repairing parts of its public works infrastructure portfolio, which is worth more than $20 billion. But, based on best practices and life cycles, the renewal rate should be about $300 million a year.

With $600 million bulging in its pocket, the city could put a serious dent in that deficiency without increasing property taxes.

It could, for example, easily eliminate the annual shortfall of about $13.5 million needed for the construction and expansion of recreational facilities across the city.

The $3 million or so shortfall for restoring and maintaining heritage buildings would be a mere bagatelle.

Alternatively, the city could commit $300 million to its 10-year local transit strategy, essentially stabilizing and growing HSR services overnight without the annual scrounging for capital dollars.

Similarly, the $125 million needed to upgrade the Woodward water treatment plant would be money in the bank. Ditto the $50 million needed for improving sewer treatment at the Dundas wastewater plant.

On the other hand, the city could be really visionary and use money leftover from BRT to battle poverty, specifically fixing and building more affordable housing units.

The city needs to find $200 million to repair and renovate its deteriorating existing social housing stock. Consider it found.

It also needs to tackle a growing social housing wait list of about 6,500 people, a staggering financial burden well beyond the ability of the property tax base to bear. Under this Ford fantasy scenario, Hamilton could put the boots to that wait list.

CityHousing Hamilton estimates that a single affordable housing unit costs roughly $200,000, depending on variables such as land values, location, size and parking.

If so, $400 million could theoretically build something in the neighbourhood of 2,000 units, knocking the stuffing out of chronic homelessness and its links to poverty and health problems.

Now that would be a truly progressive thing to do.

Train tracks or funding the construction of new affordable housing?

I know which I would choose. If I had a billion dollars.