Flying HI

    Hamilton…it's a beautiful City. While not all would necessarily agree, others have gone out of their way to promote Hamilton as the place to live, work, and play. We've got our waterfalls; our prestigious waterfronts (yes, there are two of them…one known as Harbour West, and the other along the shore of Lake Ontario); our Port Authority which is the busiest of all the Canadian Great Lakes ports; and, we also have an International Airport nestled neatly in the southwest region of Hamilton's vast landscape. Tucked nicely between all this, are well-planned roads and rail networks allowing for smooth transitional movement of both goods and people.

    Today starts an unsolicited multi-part blog on Hamilton's transportation modes, and the role they play in driving Hamilton's economy. And, what better place to start with Hamilton's International Airport:

    Formally known as the John C. Munro Hamilton International Airport, it was built in 1940 and has since grown from a Training facility to an active passenger and cargo airport. Owned and operated by Tradeport International since 1996, the Airport has developed into a bit of a namesake among other Canadian Airports. However, there is more to building a successful airport than just landing strips and loading areas for passengers and cargo. All too often, and quite too easily, some view airports as land-hogs providing a service for fuel-starved machines designed for moving people and goods from one destination to another. Taking this simplistic assessment on any airport is too narrow of a focus.

    The buzz-word of the day would be any word that is either prefixed, suffixed, or blended with the word "green". Developing the lands surrounding the airport properly connected through rail and road networks, can actually lead to Hamilton's International Airport to melding into the "green" environment. Failing to respond to this growth opportunity will have dire circumstances on our employment capabilities. Distribution Centres, manufacturing facilities, transloading facilities, as well as proper passenger facilities, all encompass a successful airport facility. A successful airport facility is rich in employment lands. If one was to look east to our friends in Toronto, their success in planning and building employment lands has now been maximized. What this translates into is higher freight costs due to traffic congestion; higher container fees due to over-booked dockings; and in general…a not too environmentally pleasing execution of goods movement. (I won't go deeper on the higher costs to land at Pearson Airport.)

    Today, Hamilton is on the cusp of developing the lands surrounding the Airport into something positive for the growth of Hamilton: employment opportunities and commercial tax revenue…two things in desperate need in this City. With the development of the Airport Employment Growth District, Hamilton is poised to provide a greener, more economically viable, method of transporting freight and people. Leading the charge is Tradeport International Corporation, led by Richard Koroscil (President), a clear case for moving Hamilton's airport past a stale inflow & outflow of people and goods has been demonstrated. To be clear though, developing employment lands surrounding the airport is not the only saviour that Hamilton is looking for…it is one of the many employment land developments needed. Without one, the City can only offer a broken supply of lands, and would be limited on who they could offer said lands to.

    Successful Cities have successful airports. Successful airports have successful intermodal facilities. To be successful, proper optimization of land must be realized. Without a successful airport in Hamilton, we limit our growth of employment opportunities and (more importantly), we put added strain on the environment due to increased reliance on a road network.

    My next instalment will be on the Port of Hamilton, operated by Hamilton Port Authority.

 

Writer's note: While I am the current Chair of the Chamber's Transportation Committee, this opinion piece is in no way connected to or affiliated with the Hamilton Chamber of Commerce. The writings and musings contained therein are merely my own personal observations and notes on the development of Hamilton's transportation infrastructure. Comments are moderated as I would like an opportunity to respond. All comments are posted.

Making That Call While Driving

The pundits have made it clear that speaking on your cell phone while driving is dangerous to not only the user, but those around them. However, have they really identified the issue or merely created a smokescreen to the real issue…driver distraction? While I wouldn't advocate for talking on the phone while driving, I do wonder if perhaps we're trying to piece-meal legislation aimed at reducing driver distractions. With today's technologies, we have more resources at our fingertips, not to mention well-laid out road networks aimed at creating the easiest way to get from point A to point B.

The University of Illinois and Northwestern University in Illinois completed a study on the impact of legislation prohibiting hand-held cell phone use while driving. Their findings included several key points, including:

• Cell phone subscribers in the US have skyrocketed from 97 million in June 200 to a whopping 267 million as of November 2008.
  
• As reported in USA Today, approximately 11% of the population used a cell phone while driving at some point during their day.
  
• Studies indicated that the average call was 4.5 minutes.
  
• From 1994 to 2004, cell phone subscribers increased by 655%.
  
• The number of minutes-of-use increased 3,600%.
  
• Automobile accident rates dropped by around 5% over the same time period.
  
• Driver distraction is purported to be the cause of nearly 80% of automobile accidents and 65% of near-accidents.
  
• In 2006, these distractions caused 2,600 deaths, 330,000 moderate to critical injuries, and 1,500,000 instances of property damage annually in the USA.
  
• Cell phones or car phones have been around for nearly 50 years…yep, that long. Just think of the classic Charlie's Angels or McMillan & Wife shows where they picked up the 5-odd pound phone in the car to make that all important call.
  

Using a phone while driving encompasses no less than three tasks on the user: locating or glancing at the phone; reaching for and dialling; and of course talking. All of these encumbrances affect either the attentiveness of the driver, or the driver's focus on the road. Investigations into whether cell phones actually contribute to a driver's inability to function correctly have been done predominately through simulators, tests, questionnaires, surveys, and observations.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in the USA completed a study in 2006 that concluded "…drivers talking or listening to a wireless device are no more likely to be involved in an accident or near-accident, than those not involved in such activities." In fact, of all the 'bans' on cell-phone use, not one jurisdiction has implemented a complete ban on all types of cell phones (hand-held or hands-free).With the introduction of Bluetooth technology which enables a user to provide voice-command interface with between the user and their phone have failed to demonstrate significant reductions of risk.

Here's another piece of statistical data worth chatting about: "…increased cell phone use does not translate into increased automobile accident rates. In particular, there has been an exponential growth in the number of cell phone subscribers from the late-1980s, while automobile accident rates in the US during this same time period have remained at a fairly constant level." By February 2007, sixteen States published data on accidents caused by cell-phone use while driving, and that number represented less than 1% of automobile accidents. Another question comes into play on how enforceable a cell phone ban can be executed; as an example, in New York prior to the ban there was an estimated 2.3% user rate (while driving) which fell to 1.1% after the ban, only to rebound back up to 2.1% a year later.

In order to provide full Legislative measures aimed at reducing automobile accidents, then they're going to need to look beyond one distraction opportunity. One could expect that items like DVDs in vehicles which are visible to other drivers could be argued as an unnecessary distraction; or how about legislating cameras to support going in reverse; or banning conversations with your spouse…because we all know how distracting that can be sometimes. So let's not just look at one distraction available to drivers…let's look at the whole menu, and work with the drivers on how to mitigate those opportunities.

Banning the ABCs

In the United States, folks spend around $20,000,000,000 (that's Billion) on toys each year. Monitoring the safety of these toys in the US is the Government funded Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) around $10,000,000 (that's Million) on testing toys and other consumer products. Also at play is the not-for-profit watchdogs Ecology Center, which posts unhealthy toys and products on www.HealthyStuff.org. If you're an avid purchaser of toys, you may find yourself dramatically altering your purchasing decisions.

I've not heard of a Zhu Zhu toy hamster, and yet it's been banned due to high levels of 'antimony'. Antimony is a metal extracted predominately from ore composites, with roughly 84% of the world's supply coming from China. Antimony will burn when a flame is held to it, but will extinguish itself when the flame is removed. While its use is in a variety of markets from children's clothing, toys, and seat covers, antimony's most important use is as a hardener in lead for storage batteries.

I have heard of the 'imaginarium cube' – that oddly-shaped cube that has 12 cut outs of various shapes, wherein a child then inserts the appropriately shaped object…and that too was banned, but for high levels of 'barium'. Barium is a soft silvery metal not easily extracted and is founded in certain ore composites. Like Antimony, barium has many uses ranging from the medical field to the making of bricks, glass, and the green colour seen in fireworks.

And, toys made with PVC are at risk of containing unsafe levels of 'cadmium' and have been banned accordingly. Cadmium joins the aforementioned as a metal extracted from ore composites. The highly toxic metal, cadmium is widely used as in electroplating due to its excellent corrosion resistance. You'll find it in solder, and it's used as a barrier to control neutrons in nuclear fission.

The US Government has decided that these particular metals require legislative intervention through the introduction of the Safe Kids' Jewelry Act, preventing the aforementioned ABC metals from being manufactured, sold, or distributed in children's jewelry. Hot on the heels of recent recalls of toys imported from China this past December, this latest piece of legislation may not have been fully thought out. Antimony in particular is used as a fire-retardant in toys and clothing. Remove this component, and we've opened up a whole new sub-set of concerns. This particular legislative piece is meant to dovetail into the Federal Hazardous Substances Act, and as such carries some pretty stiff controls and penalties for failure to comply.

While manufacturing and selling safe toys should be a given; and understanding that these particular metals are not exactly new to the industry; it calls into question the business ethics of manufacturers who knowingly create harmful toys intended for children. Whether it is ignorance or simply arrogance, the fact that it occurs at all is disturbing. To throw a loop into this particular legislation is that barium doesn't register on the HealthyStuff website. Perhaps they are reacting to a Canadian ban on Connecticut-based company Melissa & Doug manufactured products due to barium-laden paint on the recalled items.

While the children learn their ABCs, I guess the parents will also be watching their ABCs in their toy purchases.

My First Social Media Orgy

To start with, I've never really been a fan of "opening ceremonies" or "closing ceremonies" of any sporting event. While I understand the symbolic-ism of such events, I have found that they've become more of a show-piece as a means to raise revenues through ticket and advertising sales. I'd put it into the same category as singers who feel the need to change a National Anthem into a 'power ballad'.

Last night was the 2010 Winter Olympic Opening Ceremonies in Vancouver. While a fantastic showpiece that demonstrated some rather unusual performances; punked-out fiddlers, spoken-word presentation, poorly coordinated lip-syncing by Bryan Adams & Nelly Furtado, and some wild-haired Opera singer...and a malfunctioning cauldron to light the ultimate symbol of the Olympic Games.

After watching a few shows I had dvr'd, I decided to tune in to the ceremonies, missing the first hour or so. Mimicking what I imagined most social media folks on Twitter or Facebook or whatever were doing, I sat with my laptop open ready to comment at some point of the event. What I didn't realize, was just how many other folks were doing the same thing!

I consider myself as a bit of a social media hobbyist, and therefore not attuned to the intricacies of Twitter or Facebook. I've learned that the number sign (#) prefixed in front of a word in Twitter brings you to a whole new sub-set of Tweets specifically related to that word. Last night, I stumbled upon #Olympics, and soon found myself in (what I'll refer to as) a social media orgy.

Tweets were coming in at an astounding rate of (as high as) 1,000+ per minute. I struggled between reading the posts and watching the ceremony. And, what amazed me the most, was that I was witnessing the true power of social media. Folks from all over the world were sounding off, providing insight, or paying respect to the folks of Vancouver who coordinated such an amazing event. Most of the time, the content was rather hilarious.

I was rather pleased with the level of content which was posted. Incidents of offensive language was minimal, and for something as real-time as this was, there were no lewd comments (that I could see). No one was asking if there were any young girls on-line, and no one posted threatening language. In fact, the folks who oversee Twitter activity did a nice gesture by not updating posts during the moment of silence for Georgian athlete Nodar Kumaritashvili, who died earlier in the day from a luge accident.

The Ceremony itself was rather confusing, and trying to keep up with the number of posts only exasperated the confusion. I'm not sure I'm ready to contribute to the social media main stream. So perhaps I will ease my way into larger social media venues, so that way I'll have an opportunity to hone in my multi-tasking skills.

The Obesity Paradox

In honour of Heart Month, I thought I would expose "The Obesity Paradox". For starters, it's a real term, and while the outcome seems odd, I'm not sure I'd want to gamble with my life.

Let's start with the facts:

To define 'overweight' or 'obese', physicians/specialists use the Body Mass Index (BMI) scorecard. BMI is a statistical measurement, which takes a person’s weight and divides it by their height squared. [BMI = mass/(height)²] The resulting number is then applied to a graph which outlines whether a person is underweight (<18.5),> 30); it does not indicate a person’s percentage of body fat.

2004 Statistic Canada numbers showed that 36% of Canadians age 18 and over were ‘overweight’, and 23% are ‘obese’. Put those two numbers together and you have 59% of Canadians flouting around some excess baggage. The Heart & Stroke Foundation’s 2010 Annual Report dubs this "The Perfect Storm" highlighting the mere fact that we’re not getting any better at controlling our lifestyle. (The report also indicates other factors, but one certainly can’t ignore the ‘weight’ of Canadians.)

In a rather long-named Special Report released by the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) indicates that for each single unit increase in BMI greater than 25, the risk of heart failure increases by 5% in men, and 7% in women.

Enter the Obesity Paradox: According to the aforementioned CCS Special Report, once heart failure has become present in patients, subjects with a higher BMI are actually at a decreased risk of death and hospitalization compared to their lower scoring BMI peers. However, those higher scoring BMI patients with heart failure who went on to lose weight showed improved heart health.

One could read into this that those who choose to life an overweight lifestyle are given an opportunity to right the wrong, and lose the weight they should have in the first place. From my vantage point, I don’t know if I’d be willing to take that risk.

Regulating Day Nurseries Exposure to the Sun

Apparently the Ontario Government is short on dealing with matters more in tune with concerns of their constituents, or perhaps our elected officials have developed some control issues.

My last post touched on a proposed Bill currently entering its 2nd reading on making illegal guns illegal in bars...well we have perhaps a more idiotic Bill currently before the House.

Introducing Bill 229, Day Nurseries Amendment Act (Sun Protection), 2009. To be clear, this Bill is to address children in day care facilities or full-time care...not flowers.

Essentially if you run a day care facility, you will now be required to do the following:

• If a child in your care is going to be outdoors for more than 30 minutes, you must provide adequate sun protection (unless a physician or parent of child advises otherwise in writing)

If this direction isn't enough, the Bill goes further to indicate what is acceptable methods for providing such care...including:

1. applying sunscreen
2. ensuring the child is in a shaded area
3. ensuring the child is only outdoors during shady weather or shady times of the day. And,
4. ensuring that the child is wearing appropriate clothing to cover his or her head, arms, legs and body

Taken in its literal sense, I will now ensure that my 2 year old niece has had sunscreen applied, placed under a tree at nine o'clock at night (because I'm not really sure what a 'shady time of day is...and will assume that means 'night'), and make sure she is wearing her winter snowsuit and hat.

Have we really sunk this far that we have abandoned our basic life-skills surrounding the care of children? Further still, mandating basic care to this level, of children in day-care facilities brings into question on the requirements needed to become licensed or their hiring skills.

Yes folks, this is our tax dollars at work. I feel so much better now!

Illegal Guns in Bars to be a No-No

Just when you thought it was safe to go to a bar with your buddy's and enjoy a few bubbly pops, when someone pulls out a gun. And, not just any gun...an 'unlawful' gun. You'd probably think that must be illegal. Certainly the law must be prevent such a thing from happening...yep, me too!

In response to a shooting on December 10, 2009 (and I'm sure others), Chief Government Whip Mike Colle (Liberal MPP Eglington-Lawrence) has thought it was about time illegal guns were banned from bars with the introduction of Bill 238. That's right, we're paying our Provincial representatives to debate the merit of an amendment to the Liquor License Act making licensed bars responsible for ensuring preventative measures are taken to ensure unlawful guns (weapons) make their way into the establishment. This includes: CCTV, metal detectors, presence of 'appropriately' trained security guards, and/or cooperation with the local law enforcement.

Without stating the obvious (the weapons are already 'unlawful' and shouldn't be on anyone's person anyways), and recognizing the intent of this Bill (I'm going to make my Constituents know that I care about their safety), I can't help but wonder if we're developing our political representation which does 'make-work' or reactionary legislation projects. The 'using a sledgehammer to kill a fly' phrase fits very nicely into this particular Bill. Colle is responding to recent shootings in Toronto, and appears to feel that added measures are required to the Liquor License Act to remove the danger from bars. I am concerned about any unintended consequences that could come from such legislation. On the surface alone, it would appear that the bar owner is at fault for preventing a punk from bringing in an illegal firearm into his/her establishment...thereby making the bar owner liable for any potential civil liabilities.

Without taking away the seriousness of individuals who choose to carry illegal weapons, I can't help think that the particular Bill is going to change anyone's particular actions: "Hey Bob, after we rob the store up the street, let's say we go to the bar and down a couple of beers?" "Yeah Joe, that's a great idea...but we'll have to leave our guns in the car. It's illegal now to bring them in." Somehow, I don't think that conversation is going to occur!

While I'm all for restricting illegal firearms, I'm somewhat dismayed that honest folks are being held hostage in the process. If a bar owner is supporting illegal firearms in his/her establishment, then nail the sucker...but don't make the majority of honest working bar owners held accountable for thugs who may happen to walk in to their establishment. After all, I doubt owners are lining up to start a bar with the intent of attracting the ill-repute of their community.