Globe article:

Transit Problems Across Canada Prompt Calls for Politicians to Address Issue

SIRI AGRELL, LES PERREAUX, WENDY STUECK AND JOSH WINGROVE
From Saturday's Globe and Mail
Published Friday, Mar. 25, 2011 9:50PM EDT
Last updated Saturday, Mar. 26, 2011 1:31PM EDT

Commute times in Canadian cities are no longer just a source of rush-hour irritation, but a national liability affecting the economic performance of our urban centres and requiring immediate intervention from Ottawa.

A new ranking of international cities by the Toronto Board of Trade saw major Canadian municipalities fall dramatically behind in the realm of transportation and transit, prompting big-city mayors and transit experts to call on all federal parties to address the issue in the election, or suffer the consequences.

“We need to make this a significant election issue and it’s critical that parties develop a response,” said Michael Roschlau, president of the Canadian Urban Transit Association. “I just hope it doesn’t take a crisis to get there: that traffic congestion gets so bad, commute times get so long, that we have to react instead of being proactive.”

The rankings in the Board of Trade’s annual Scorecard on Prosperity, which measures cities on a number of economic, social and structural indicators, suggest that Canadian cities are already on the brink of crisis.

Not a single Canadian city cracked the top 10 on transportation issues, which measured such factors as commute times, transit ridership, kilometres of existing rail and vehicles per capita.

Montreal fared best, in 12th place, followed by Calgary (13), Toronto (19) and Vancouver (21), but all were outperformed by Hong Kong, Stockholm, Paris, London and New York.

And Canada’s failings in the transportation realm had a negative impact on cities’ overall rating, with Toronto dropping from fourth to eighth place due largely to its “crippling congestion.”

The report noted that Toronto’s reputation is also tarnished by its 80-minute average round-trip commute, signalling an “urgent need to invest in public transportation.”

“We would certainly hope that one of the key issues that this election is fought on is around a national transit strategy,” said Board of Trade president and CEO Carol Wilding. “There has to be a vision brought to it across all levels of government.”

Unlike other countries, Canada has never had a national transit strategy. Although Ottawa has grown increasingly involved in transit over the past 10 years, averaging investments of about $600-million a year, the funding remains ad hoc, with no predictability.

In the lead-up to this week’s federal budget, the mayors of some of Canada’s largest cities appealed to Finance Minister Jim Flaherty to address transit and the $123-billion urban infrastructure deficit.

But while Mr. Flaherty promised to develop an infrastructure plan and make the transit-funding gas tax permanent through legislation, no new money was designated....



....Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi said he plans to spend much of the coming campaign “pushing the parties” on the urban agenda and noted that any leader who hopes to win a majority government will have to win ground in large cities.

“You have to shift your thinking from transit as an expense to be managed, to an investment in the future of the community,” he said.

Without a fixed source of funding, cities will remain unable to keep up with their growing populations....

Read More: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/transit-problems-across-canada-prompt-calls-for-politicians-to-address-issue/article1957897/singlepage/#articlecontent

Compared to other North American cities (NYC and C. de Mexico excepted), Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver and Calgary have excellent transit systems.

And it's so tragic that a call like this would be subject to partisan battles down here.

A call like this would be answered in the US. In Canada, since transportation outside of air, rail and maritime is not a federal responsibility, this will receive no attention from the federal government. That's why it isn't debated like it is in the US.

Simply put, there will be no national transit strategy for Canada, whether we need one or not.

Would devolution to Provicial level help formulate some sort of transport strategy for the big four in Canada?

Devolution of what to the provincial level? And what are the big four?

Devolution of what to the provincial level? And what are the big four?probably referring to the responsibility & ability to raise money to fund public transport investment (rather than relying on the Feds to pony up their share of the money).

And the "Big Four" could refer to the 4 political parties but more likely to Canada's largest cities (Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Calgary).

Really if we are serious about public transport planning we should be looking at the "Big 10" (Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Halifax, GTA West a.k.a Mississauga-Hamilton or Missoaklington, Quebec, Winnipeg & Ottawa-Carleton-Gatineau).

But the main thing is, we do need a seriously stable funding formula. If the feds are not willing (and no matter which party is in power they have not been willing) then the provinces should be able to say "screw you guys, we'll arrange things ourselves"

Cheers, m

Devolution of taxation powers to municipalities so that they can raise money for transit is a provincial issue, not a federal one. Only the provinces can do that and in Vancouver they already have.

I wouldn't separate Mississauga and Toronto, I would consider the Golden Horseshoe (even the greater Golden Horseshoe, including KW, Guelph, Barrie, Oshawa, Brantford and Niagara, maybe even Peterborough) as a single entity that needs a comprehensive regional transit strategy, as part of a provincial or national strategy.

The provinces already have the power to say "screw you guys, we'll arrange things ourselves". They have had the ability to give municipalities taxation powers and implement regional transit networks since 1867. It was their responsibility from the start.

Devolution of taxation powers to municipalities so that they can raise money for transit is a provincial issue, not a federal one. Only the provinces can do that and in Vancouver they already have.

I wouldn't separate Mississauga and Toronto, I would consider the Golden Horseshoe (even the greater Golden Horseshoe, including KW, Guelph, Barrie, Oshawa, Brantford and Niagara, maybe even Peterborough) as a single entity that needs a comprehensive regional transit strategy, as part of a provincial or national strategy.

The provinces already have the power to say "screw you guys, we'll arrange things ourselves". They have had the ability to give municipalities taxation powers and implement regional transit networks since 1867. It was their responsibility from the start.The problem is partly a federal one because the federal constitution states that dealing with cities is a provincial responsibility not a federal one.

And yes, most provinces have been somewhat willing to give municipalities some authority but even then there are limitations on what they can/will give.

Not to mention that sometimes politicians are more interested in big, costly ribbon-cutting projects or populist cuts at revenue streams 'because that's what 'people' have been telling' them - while others are interested in new technological 'innovations' or social engineering.

And on top of that, the provinces also plead poor (and many "have" provinces are now "have not" provinces - including Ontario) and demand the Feds chip in, up to 1/3 of infrastructure costs.

Then there is the problem that among the three levels of government, municipalities bear the greatest portion of government service costs but have the least in terms of resources & revenue & freedom to generate.

So while I agree that the provincial governments could do more for municipal public transport, so can the feds.

As for separating various municipalities - TTC and the Toronto council are pretty clear that Toronto is on a public transport pedestal (along with the various other pedestals that they have placed the city on). TTC does not want to play in the Metrolinx sandbox - partly because Metrolinx is quite interested in redesigning the rules of the game when it suits them. But then, TTC is a bit whiny & spoiled too.

Cheers, m

Is transit really the issue or is how we build our towns and cities the issue?

Focus on density and building upward, not outward with suburban sprawl.

How the heck is transit suppose to get around all those suburban streets? It can't so the suburban residents choose to drive instead because transit doesn't work for them.

Mayors need to stop giving in to home developers and focus on smart growth.

Transit could probably work well on the arterial roads, and as long as there are easy routes for residents in the puked up spaghetti layout to get straight to the stations, it could work pretty well. You'd have to get people to walk though. They don't like having to walk anymore.

Is transit really the issue or is how we build our towns and cities the issue?

Focus on density and building upward, not outward with suburban sprawl.

How the heck is transit suppose to get around all those suburban streets? It can't so the suburban residents choose to drive instead because transit doesn't work for them.

Mayors need to stop giving in to home developers and focus on smart growth.


I agree with you 100%. I love how you made this comment with the most ironic forum name. Unless it's for diesel trains.

Transit could probably work well on the arterial roads, and as long as there are easy routes for residents in the puked up spaghetti layout to get straight to the stations, it could work pretty well. You'd have to get people to walk though. They don't like having to walk anymore.good point.

An example - in the 15 years I've lived in 'sauga they have moved from "spaghetti' routes & incomplete routes to a clear division of 'mainline' & community routes.

For example:

1 Dundas used to stop at the Erin Mills Automall on Sundays then serve the Sheridan Homelands community & terminate at Sheridan Mall. Now the bus continues onto its terminus at Ridgeway & Laird all days of the week.

1 Dundas & 26 Burnhamthorpe used to meet at the west end of Mississauga. Now 26 Burnhamthorpe stops at S. Common Mall and passengers have a community bus service taking them further west.

There is also strong service on 'main roads' that never had 'mainline' bus service - like Eglinton, Brittania, Bristol.

So a good local public transport strategy of encouraging reasonable transfers, emphasizing the 'mainline' routes and providing reasonable 'feeder service' (and recognizing that there are other feeder options) is a good way to increase public transport ridership.

A National Public Transport Strategy would find a way to get those ideas shared among more public transport operators so all the operators could find those little efficiencies which will save money and keep costs low, while improving service.

Cheers, m