Flaherty not in favour of national transit strategy

Although it likely comes as no surprise, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty--the member of parliament who holds the purse strings for the federal government--is not in favour of a national transit strategy to offer predictable funding to municipalities for public transit projects.

Flaherty was recently quoted in the Edmonton Journal about a project taking place in Alberta's capital on the issue:

"Quite frankly, I’m not a big fan of fancy, big national programs. I’d much rather take the approach we’ve been taking, and deal with the City of Edmonton … deal with the various municipalities."

So far, that strategy has worked fairly well for Ottawa, as the city has received $600M in federal funding for the $2.1B Confederation Line LRT project. However, it also means that the city--as well as other cities across Canada--are forced to plan transit blindly, designing systems they'd like under the assumption that the federal government might offer one-time funding for it. We're seeing that right now with Ottawa's Stage 2 draft transit plan, which has a price tag of about $2.5B and therefore expects the federal government to come forward with another $830M or so--roughly one-third of the overall cost (the remaining two thirds, in line with past funding agreements, would be split equally between the city and the Province of Ontario).

A national transit strategy was a campaign promise of both the NDP and Liberal parties in the last federal election (the NDP even tabled a motion to establish one), and it's something very strongly supported by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM). The idea behind the strategy would be to commit dedicated funding in the annual federal budget that would be invested in eligible transit-related projects. Ideally, it would provide more predictable funding and make municipalities more able to plan transit projects thanks to the guaranteed funding.

Canada is, according to FCM, the "only OECD country without a long-term, predictable federal transit-investment policy."

Federal election day: What are parties saying about transit?

Today, Canadians vote for our next federal government. What might some parties do with respect to public transit, if they're given a mandate to govern out country?

• Conservatives: The Conservative Party, over the past six years while they've run the federal government, has been forthcoming with funding for municipal transit projects--and Ottawa is no exception. But they haven't made any pledge to sustained, consistent funding, and their platform only mentions past investments, without promise of future ones.
• Liberals: Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has said he's interested in funding public transit, although there's no commitment for a funding strategy as of yet. Their platform mentions local and regional rapid transit, as well as high-speed inter-regional rail, as priorities, but it remains to be seen how they'd prioritize them.
• NDP: The NDP actually proposed a national transit strategy during the last parliament, and that's also a major part of their platform as well. The platform also says they'll immediately transfer "another cent of the existing gas tax to public transit funding for municipalities".
• Green: The Green platform has a commitment for "[s]ustainable long-term funding support for municipalities to repair decades-old crumbling infrastructure", and their budget includes a Mass Transit Promotion municipal "superfund" worth $700M per year nationally.

Canada needs national transit strategy: FCM

Last week, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities issued their 2011 federal election platform. It outlined a series of measures to increase funding available to cities and communities, including a need for consistent and significant investment in transportation and public transit. The FCM levelled a criticism at the reliance of municipalities on property taxes (in their words, "an out-of-date and regressive funding tool that hits middle- and low-income Canadians hardest"), and suggested reform to the funding tools available to them. It also recommended that more of the gax taxes the federal government collects should be invested into public transit, and, more ambitiously, that the federal government should "legislate clear targets for increasing access to public transit". The latter suggestion would likely come through a national transit strategy, which the FCM said is a necessary measure for Canada to take. From their section on public transit:

Canada needs a national strategy to cut commute times, improve public transit, and bridge gaps in the national transportation system. All parties must commit to dedicating funding for public transit in the long-term fiscal framework; legislate clear targets for increasing access to public transit; and implement supportive tax policies, including a tax-deductible, employer-provided public transit pass; and work with provinces, territories, and municipalities to prioritize and address strategic gaps in Canada’s air, rail, road, and marine networks.

As a first step, all parties should commit to invest more of the federal taxes Canadians already pay at the gas pump in shorter commutes and better public transit. In addition to its existing Gas Tax Fund, the federal government must dedicate a share of its current gas tax revenues to replace $400 million in recently expired federal transit funding.

The election campaign kicked off with a fair amount of discussion around municipal issues and public transit, but most party leaders have been derailed by political attacks on their counterparts. We'd all be better off if they stuck to the issues at hand, and make tangible promises for more funding for public transit.

The economic cost of inefficient public transit

For some time now, people dissatisfied with public transit service have made suggestions that maybe our politicians and city managers should have to take transit to really get a hands-on feel for the issues everyday riders face, and an honest understanding of the service they're responsible for. It's a good idea, in theory, and something most people would love to see done. David Reevely, however, poured some cold water onto the idea a little while back, stating--correctly--that we're paying these people handsomely, and while they're "on the clock", it makes sense for them to get around the city as quickly as possible; rarely is OC Transpo the quickest option.

Practically, also, our senior transit officials and their political bosses don't ordinarily have enough hours in the day to do the business we want them to do. These people have a lot more places to be in a day than the average white-collar worker. The more time they spend in transit, so to speak, the less time they're actually working.

This all speaks to a larger problem, though: The fact that having slow, inefficient public transit is costing our people, our cities, and our national economy greatly. While I have no way of measuring it, I can hardly imagine the economic cost of lost productivity as a result of ever-lengthening commutes in cities.

The real solution to this problem is a pretty obvious one: Have people work closer to where they live, or live closer to where they work. But this isn't always an option. When it isn't, finding innovative ways to get commuters from point A to point B as quickly as possible, but also as cheaply as possible, if the best we can hope for.

Adding more roads is the typical solution, but more roads rarely (if ever) provide a long-term solution to traffic congestion in Canada's big cities. Investing in public transit can improve the capacity and service level (including time, comfort, and environmental cost), but it's always a challenge for cities due to the unpredictable nature of transit funding from federal and provincial partners, and the fact that municipalities simply can't foot the bill on their own.

In a recent article in the Globe and Mail, the fact that Canada doesn't have and hasn't ever had a national transit stategy to fund municipal projects was lamented, and many explained the need to make it an election issue this year.

“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.

Both the NDP and Liberal parties have recently outlined plans for a national transit funding strategy for Canada. The Conservative Party, while in government, has been willing to fund transit projects--including $600M for Ottawa's current project, among others--but neither they nor the Green Party have committed to putting one in place.

For cities to adequately plan and fund transit projects, consistent and predictable funding is of utmost importance. Through a national transit strategy, whoever ends up running this country acter May 2 could guarantee their cities exactly that.

Ignatieff promises national transit strategy

We're still very early in the 2011 federal election campaign, but already Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has stated his commitment to establishing a national public transit strategy for Canadian cities. As quoted on CBC's Inside Politics blog:

Ignatieff: I think it's crucial to have a national strategy on this, if you go to the lower mainland, Vancouver they need dedicated transit money, you go to Calgary, Winnipeg, you go to Toronto and especially Montreal. We have to sit down. I got a $56 billion deficit I gotta bail you out of. But the key thing here is to give people choices. The thing that bothers me most about the way we live is people are locked! They gotta be in their cars and we gotta renew public transport. We've got to have a plan. Ottawa can't tell Montreal how to do this stuff but...

Norris: Are you prepared to commit to a dedicated, recurring, reliable source of federal money for public transit?

Ignatieff: I'm prepared to commit to federal investment in public transit. You'll see it in the next platform.

It's really the first I've heard of public transit so far in the very young campaign. We can probably assume the NDPs will outline a national transit strategy because, well, they're always talking about transit funding and just last month they tabled one, and the Greens would likely have something in their platform, as well. The Conservatives didn't include any notable public transit promises in their recent (failed) budget, but time will tell if it forms part of their platform for the 2011 campaign.

We'll see which party ends up as the top choice for transit funding, but Ignatieff got a head start.

NDP tables "national transit strategy"

The New Democrat Party of Canada has a long history of making transit-related announcements, a couple recent ones being a couple of bills to protect transit operators, and before that--during the 2008 federal election campaign--a series of funding announcements in major Canadian cities.

Last week, Toronto NDP MP Olivia Chow introduced a National Public Transit Strategy. In a press release, the NDP said Canada was the only OECD member state without one. From the release:

“Canadians deserve fast, reliable, affordable and accessible public transit,” said Chow. “Every year billions of dollars are lost due to traffic congestion while simultaneously transit authorities struggle to meet demands.”

Chow’s legislation outlines a strategy for the federal government to:

• Provide a permanent investment plan to support public transit
• Establish federal funding mechanisms for public transit
• Work together with all levels of government to provide sustainable, predictable, long term and adequate funding
• Etablish accountability measures to ensure that all governments work together to increase access to public transit.

Hard to imagine how this could be a bad idea for municipalities looking for consistent funding for public transit infrastructure. The release goes on to discuss operating costs, which have never been funded by federal partners, but... hey, if it can help offer "predictable" transit funding, cities will be better able to plan their transit infrastructure development with the knowledge that the funding isn't dependent on how generous the government of the day is feeling.