Transport Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2011

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

I'd have a lot of questions for you. I don't know whether we'll have an opportunity to speak a second time around. Here's a more specific question, to find out how the system might work.

Let's say there's an HST between Quebec City and Windsor. The Conservatives don't want one, but we think it's a good idea. So the train has to go through your region. How would this affect the administration or feasibility of the project? For example, would Metrolinx have anything to say and would it take part in management of the project? Or would you be completely excluded from the project and just be able to give your opinion on the matter?

[Bruce McCuaig]

I would expect that Metrolinx would be a consulting partner with whoever is the proponent of a project like that. The nature of that project will span a huge geographic area and I would assume that some kind of special purpose agency would need to be responsible for the delivery of that.

I would expect, as they're studying, reviewing, and planning the project through the greater Toronto and Hamilton area, that Metrolinx would be involved in that process and would have an opportunity to be engaged and provide comment to it. I wouldn't see that we would be the lead. I don't see that we would have an approval authority over it. We would have an inputting authority.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Right.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Albas, you have seven minutes.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to show my appreciation to our guests who have come forward today. As Mr. Coderre has recently pointed out, it's a unique viewpoint because it sounds like you're doing this job at a very high level and for a large amount of people.

I come from a rural area. In fact, I served as a municipal councillor, so I've had some experience with public transit, albeit not at the multimodal and many-faceted way that you do. Even though I'm familiar with the Metro Vancouver model and some of the pros and cons that go along with that, I hope you won't mind if I ask a few questions specific to your operations today.

What are some of the specific transit challenges faced by a region the size of the greater Toronto and Hamilton area, in your opinion, and what do you see as a potential solutions to some of these challenges?

[Bruce McCuaig]

Thanks for the question.

It's interesting. Large parts of the greater Toronto and Hamilton area actually are quite rural in nature. We have rural transportation issues that we need to deal with as well, so we can probably relate much more closely than you would expect.

The specific challenges in a place like the greater Toronto and Hamilton area I would say are similar to those of Vancouver and Montreal. First of all, it's the geographic scope. City regions span multiple municipalities and thousands of square kilometres of territory. It can be hundreds of kilometres, in some cases, in linear distances. The geography is just immense.

The size of the system is at an order of magnitude that is different from other areas. They have commuter rail systems. They have regional bus systems. They have subways, in some cases, and light rail transit. They have a variety of modes. It's not simply a bus-based transport system or a bus-based and light rail transit system. There are multiple modes of technology. The size of the system is big.

The complexity of integrating multiple municipalities makes it different from a lot of other kinds of communities in the country. Ottawa, for example--a very complex, large urban area with about a million people, if you consider the span across the river--is basically a uni-city and can deal with its transportation challenges within a single municipal council. Obviously they also speak to the folks across the river in Quebec, but they have much more span and control over their decisions in that area.

In the Toronto and Hamilton area, we have 30 municipalities. We have 10 transit agencies. We have multiple transportation road authorities we deal with. The complexity of getting them all to move in the same direction makes it significantly different.

The other big piece, I would say, is that about two-thirds of the country's transit ridership is in those three cities, those three regions. That's because the connection is very close among land use, density, mixed use, and transit systems. It also provides the greatest opportunity, I think, to increase that transit ridership. Those densities are still going up, and there's still opportunity to get the most out of your transportation system, because there are so many people living in close proximity to the investment you're making.

These are some of the things, I would say, that make the Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal areas different from other cities or urban areas in the country.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Thank you for that.

Can you elaborate a little bit more? You mentioned dealing with all the different agencies and how that can draw difficulties. Can you cite an example?

[Bruce McCuaig]

I could cite both a road-based and a transit-based example--

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

That would be terrific.

[Bruce McCuaig]

--so that you could get a sense of both. It happens on both sides of the equation.

In the Toronto region, one of the main boundaries between the city of Toronto and York Region is Steeles Avenue, which is a major east-west corridor. Actually, one half of the street is a York Region street and the other half is a city of Toronto street. Trying to coordinate the widening and maintenance of that street can be challenging for the municipalities, because they have different visions of where growth is occurring in the two respective municipalities. There may be different views on both sides of the border about the impact on some sensitive environmental features. So it can be very difficult and complex to do something as straightforward as having a comprehensive long-term asset management plan for a shared facility. That's a road-based example.

In terms of a transit-based example, the fastest growing part of our transit ridership is people crossing municipal boundaries. In the Toronto region right now, every time you cross a municipal boundary, you have to pay a second fare, because you're going from, for example, York Region Transit to the Toronto Transit Commission, or you're going from Mississauga Transit to Brampton Transit. So there are integration issues, from a fare perspective, if you just want to cross a boundary.

There are service concerns in terms of coordination of those bus services as they cross municipal boundaries. We have challenges with having what's called a closed door policy. If you're on a Mississauga Transit bus and you cross the border into the city of Toronto, you can no longer pick up passengers in the city of Toronto, even if you're going by bus stops that have people waiting at them.

It's those kinds of coordination and integration issues we're trying to deal with at Metrolinx. The PRESTO smart card, particularly from a transit perspective, is a huge step toward doing that. It allows transit customers to pay their fares with one single card, and it does all the thinking for you.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Chair, how much time do I have left?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

You have a minute and a half.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

That's terrific. Thank you.

You mentioned dealing with some of the complex environments and each municipality having its own different plan or vision for its area and its density. What can you tell us about long-term transit or transportation planning in the GTHA?

[Bruce McCuaig]

The good news is that we have a long-term plan now, called the Big Move, and it was adopted by all of our board members, who at the time were municipal mayors and councillors. By and large, it has held over the past three or four years. There have been challenges about which projects we do, but there haven't been challenges about what the long-term plan is.

If I go back to my comments earlier about the principles, the first principle that I thought important for any study of a national transit strategy is to require local communities, local regions, to have their act together in developing a vision of where they want to go and also a compelling implementation plan of how they want to get there. I think that's something we've been able to build in the greater Toronto and Hamilton area.

What we haven't been able to build is a medium- and long-term implementation strategy to expand the infrastructure beyond those first seven projects that I identified. Over the next five, six, or seven years as we implement or finish construction of those first seven projects, we need to find strategies to continue to build, or we're going to get swamped by those 100,000 to 150,000 people who keep moving into the region every year, and then all the investment we make will not have the greatest benefit.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

It sounds to me like your organization has been very successful at collaborating and actually pulling together what it wants to do, on its own.

[Bruce McCuaig]

I would agree with everything you said, except for the last three words, “on its own”, because I think for us to build a bit of a success story in building infrastructure and getting support, we've had to have the partnership of all the municipalities, the road authorities, and the public, in the end, that this is a vision that we can all buy into.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I have to stop you there.

Mr. Watson.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for appearing.

The Big Move...that's quite a detailed plan. The priorities are all set and clearly you're examining the business case and how you deliver. You've done all this work without a national public transit strategy, so what's the reason for a national public transit strategy? I mean, you've done exactly what the Government of Ontario has suggested you do, within its own area of jurisdiction.

[Bruce McCuaig]

That's a very good point. I would say we've been able to succeed to the extent possible through the support of the Province of Ontario, which provided $14 billion of investment towards the implementation of the first round of projects. What we see in our implementation path forward is that we need a level of investment in our transportation system approaching $4 billion a year, each and every year for the next 10 to 15 years, if we're going to achieve our objectives.

We anticipate that there are two areas we have to work on to be able to achieve that level of investment. We need to continue to get investments from the traditional sources of revenue—federal, provincial, and municipal governments—and we anticipate that would account for about 50% of the needed investment. We also need to deal with the investment strategy requirements that are set out in our legislation. That's what we see as the source for the other 50%.

We see the federal, provincial, and municipal partnership as a way to deal with a significant part of our capital needs going forward.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

So when you're talking about partnership and implementation, you're looking for funding, really.

I'm looking at the list of priorities you suggest for a national public transit strategy. You say to think in the long term and to ask where is the local plan. So the federal government, in your estimation, shouldn't be involved in transportation planning when it comes to public transit. Am I reading you correctly on that?

Would you accept the federal government’s getting into transportation planning in exchange for funding?

[Bruce McCuaig]

I would imagine that the federal government would want to make sure that there is a framework for those plans. As to whether the federal government wants to be involved in the development of the plans, I guess my comment would be that I would anticipate there wouldn't be a lot of desire from the federal government to be involved in local decision-making for a variety of different purposes--

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

I'm not quizzing the federal government. I'm asking you.

[Bruce McCuaig]

I would say that we do engage with the federal government on areas that they have a particular interest in. One example would be rail corridors and goods movement; that is a very important area for freight as well as passenger transportation. So there are elements, I would say, that the federal government would need to be involved in.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Okay, on flexibility for choice, you don't want the federal government deciding on which projects to fund. You want that to be left to a different level of government. If I can go a little further, you said that decisions should be made closest to the people. I don't disagree with you on that.

All of these things argue for exactly what many of us on this side of the table think, which is that this is regional, it's municipal, and it's provincial. At the end of the day, all the federal government is being asked to do, in exchange for letting everybody make all the decisions and do all the planning and everything in their own jurisdictions, is to fund this at a higher rate than it has been and in some sustainable fashion over the long term. That's the only thing I continue to hear through all of this.

Convince me that I'm wrong about that. I'm waiting for a really compelling argument as to why the federal government should be having a national public transit strategy. I've been struggling through a whole series of witnesses to come to where the federal government's responsibility and role are. I really think you guys are the perfect example of what the Government of Ontario should be doing with transit in its jurisdiction, which is to create something, do all the coordination, do all the planning.... They're paying the lion's share of that as well, as it's in their jurisdiction, and municipalities obviously have some limitations.

But at the end of the day, everybody's looking for a new funding source that doesn't force the provincial government to change its priorities in spending, to raise taxes, or to call on the municipalities to look outside of traditional property tax bases for tax increases on their level of government. That's what this sounds like to me: if we can tap into another pot of taxpayer money that hasn't been allocated, and it's at the federal level, let's go ahead and tap into that. Am I too cynical?

[Bruce McCuaig]

If I paraphrase your question, it's what's in it for the federal government? Why would the—