NEWS FILE PHOTO Transit users get on the bus downtown on Fourth Avenue S.E. in September. A switch to the transit system that came into place shortly before the municipal election and was reversed only weeks later became a big issue for candidates. The Medicine Hat News has chosen the saga as the story of the year for 2017.
Medicine Hat News
The public transit saga in Medicine Hat included city council reversing its endorsement of changes within two weeks of the system being rolled out following a public outcry, making it the News’ story of the year.
The old system returned Nov. 27, about 10 weeks after council took the extraordinary step of scrapping new routes at one of the most dramatic council sessions in recent memory.
“For the people who rely on the transit, it has been a relief to have the old system back. You hear the joy every day among the regular passengers,” said John Stanley.
For Susan Spicer’s daughter, Kaytlyn, who has special needs, it was transformational. She was once again confident about when buses would arrive, depart and transfer to get to work and other activities on time. Mayor Ted Clugston says many Hatters have long complained about the heavy subsidy for an underused transit service.
The new system was revealed Aug. 9 with projected operational cost savings of $650,000. The number of routes were reduced, and only two would operate after 6:30 p.m. and weekends. The transit terminal downtown would be replaced with the option of transferring at numerous bus stops.
Before switching to the new system Sept. 5, regular riders expressed concerns. Those who depended on transit to get to and from work no longer had that option at night and weekends.
Susan Spicer issued a challenge for councillors to use transit exclusively for seven days starting Sept. 5. No one on council was prepared to take the challenge as issued. A few took a modified version and some new election candidates embraced the challenge in one way or another.
“I think it helped to get the public vocal about how horrible the new system was,” said Susan. “As more and more people spoke out, council had no choice but to listen. People’s lives were being impacted in a horrible way…”
New routes were taking longer. Connections for transfers were not synchronized.
At a public services committee meeting shortly after the new schedule was implemented, councillors revealed they’d received “hundreds” of calls from the public.
At council, the issue created a relative shockwave after four years of general agreement between the nine members. Councillors asked staff to work hard to allay concerns and smooth out problems.
Finally, on Sept. 18, council voted 6-3 to restore the previous system during a dramatic council meeting where chief administrator Merete Heggelund asked if council wanted her resignation.
It was the first notable departure from the Financially Fit goal of bringing down operating costs to help make up for lower utility profits.
The city felt it had the voice of the public through a Financially Fit survey in July 2016 where about 3,000 surveys ranked transit low on the list of priorities.
A public survey by the News showed 75 per cent of readers did not think this approach, to determine need, was satisfactory.
The controversy’s effect in the October municipal election is hard to discern.
Mayor Ted Clugston — who implored councillors and riders to give the new system a chance — said during his victory speech the issue was driven by the media, not citizens.
“It was quite a long time in the making, but seemed to happen quickly,” he said recently. “I’ve been saying ever since that the election was derailed by transit and (the issue of) transparency. I’m a firm believer, economic development was (the key) issue. It became an election issue because it happened one month before the election.”
Clugston won a majority, Coun. Bill Cocks, who also said adjusting new routes was a better option than a wholesale reversal, was defeated. Coun. Les Pearson, who championed the changeback and pointed out the new system was not in keeping with the city’s municipal development plan 2012, was also left off council by voters on Oct. 18.
The issue will continue to have an impact in 2018. The cost reduction needs to be reversed in the city budget. Most councillors have said they will consider using more contingency reserve funds rather than add to a tax increase already expected to be above 4 per cent.
Regular transit users say the changes failed for a number of reasons.
The city employed a consultant to design transit changes at a cost of $100,000 covered by a provincial grant.
Susan Spicer, who led a public outcry to reverse the changes, believes experts were already on hand — bus drivers.
The needs of its clients were not taken into consideration when the changes were designed, said Spicer. Multiple transfer points don’t work well with less frequent bus service in smaller communities. Early or late buses meant missed connections. “The main reason it all went wrong was arrogance within City Hall,” said John Stanley. “The non-elected bureaucrats believed they knew better than anyone else how to change the system, even though they didn’t use it.”
The bus challenge to council
If city councillors had taken the bus challenge it might have ensured a transit system that they would have been willing to take, said Susan Spicer.
“We are a car-centric city that has a stigma that public transit is beneath any of us that can afford a vehicle,” she said. “If the people who represent us don’t feel the need or desire to take public transit then no one else in this city is going to be willing to park their cars (voluntarily) and take public transit either.”
