Evidence of meeting #10 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was area.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I'm going to Ms. Moran, but I know that she is anxiously giving up her time to Mr. Cash.
You have five minutes.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Andrew Cash NDP Davenport, ON
Thank you. I am going to share my anxiously gotten time with my colleague Mr. Sullivan.
Now, this is a national public transit strategy, and I wanted you to speak to the importance of its being a public transit strategy. We know there's a little mix of private transit in the region, but this is a national public transit strategy. We feel this is central and extremely important, and I wanted to hear your opinion on the public piece of this.
4:45 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Metrolinx
When I think of public transit, I think of delivery of service that is affordable, comfortable, frequent, safe and so on and so forth. I think of GO Transit as public transit. Our GO rail system is actually delivered by a private contractor on our behalf.
There are a number of different models that we have used and that we need to continue to look at to find the right mix. I would not say that an alternate delivery model is the best way in all circumstances--that's nowhere near what I would suggest---nor would I say that a straight, traditional public sector delivery model is the best alternative in all situations. I think each situation needs to be evaluated to determine what makes the most sense and delivers the most effective service to the public.
I see an opportunity for a suite of delivery models. That's what Metrolinx has been looking at since the beginning of the organization. With GO Transit, we've been using alternative delivery models for many years. I don't think the public thinks that the people running that service are any different from the other people employed by Metrolinx.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Andrew Cash NDP Davenport, ON
We have a situation in Toronto where some could describe our transit development as being sort of chaotic and a little disjointed in the sense that we need greater transit expansion. But certainly in Toronto itself, though, the commission can't afford to operate the system as it stands today. So we need more, but we can't afford to operate what we have right now.
This national public transit strategy seeks to address that issue, and I wanted you to speak to the importance of a stable, predictable envelope of funds for operating public transit.
4:50 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Metrolinx
Thank you.
I've been reflecting back on the questions from Mr. Watson about being more than a silent partner. I think one of the things that we would be looking for in support from the federal government in a national transit strategy is to drive things like quality, standards, innovation, research and development, and to drive forward evidence-based decision-making so that you know you're getting quality projects in the end.
I think those are all things that a national transit strategy can put into the mix to improve the way we manage and deliver our transit services. I think those are all really valuable kinds of tools that we can look to a federal partner for to help us deliver and improve the situation, the customer experience for the people who rely on transit.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Andrew Cash NDP Davenport, ON
Thank you.
If I have any more time, I'd like to pass it on to my colleague.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON
On infrastructure versus operating, one of the things we've heard about is that some municipalities--and some rural municipalities--have difficulty with the expense of putting in the infrastructure in the first place, and they look to other partners, provincial and federal, to help them with that.
But in terms of operating, we don't seem to look to the federal partner for the operating of transit. Is that a fair approximation of how it goes?
4:50 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Metrolinx
I would say that's fair.
I would say that where we need I think a concerted effort across all orders of government is in the state of good repair and expansion of the service, and I think it should be expected that transit operators and the municipalities or regional authorities responsible for them operate them efficiently within their sources of revenue.
I think a national transit strategy could speak to a role for all orders in the capital side of the equation and not necessarily look to the federal government to contribute on the operating side of the equation.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Lawrence Toet Conservative Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to our presenters today.
I have a couple of questions. I'm going to start with one that's somewhat innocuous, but I'm quite curious. In your presentation, you talked about being within two kilometres of 75% of the residents. I'm assuming that's not an arbitrary number and that there's some significance behind the two kilometres. Could you give us a background on that?
4:50 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Metrolinx
Yes, absolutely. It goes to the accessibility of the transit service to the public.
The research shows that the further away you get from a transit service, the less likely a customer is to travel: to walk, ride a bike, or drive a car to the station, whatever the case may be. Two kilometres is the outer edge of that. We identified that as our objective for 75% of the population, recognizing that it would mean that obviously a larger proportion would be within one kilometre and so on and so forth. But that was the basis for the two kilometres.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Lawrence Toet Conservative Elmwood—Transcona, MB
You say it's on the outer edge. Do you have any statistics, then, as to what percentage of people on that outer edge would actually be making use of the service?
4:50 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Metrolinx
Absolutely. You'll recall that one of the other objectives was doubling the transit modal share, so the objectives actually work in conjunction with each other. To actually get to a doubling of the transit modal share, you actually need to make that transit closer and more accessible to people, and vice versa, so they're all kind of interconnected and linked and they all work together to achieve the overall objective.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Lawrence Toet Conservative Elmwood—Transcona, MB
I'm talking about when you get to the outer edge of that, to the two-kilometre edge: how many people are going to be taking advantage of it?
4:50 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Metrolinx
I don't know the number. It will differ in different kinds of neighbourhoods. If you're in a highly dense mixed-use neighbourhood in Toronto itself, you'll likely make that trip to the transit service. If you're in a lower density environment--in a rural environment, for example--you're less likely to make that trip to the transit service. It also depends upon the kind of urban form you have in the area.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Lawrence Toet Conservative Elmwood—Transcona, MB
I also wanted to touch on the regional solution—you talked quite a few times about it in your presentation—and the need for regional solutions. In the whole context of that, I come back a little bit to the questioning from Mr. Watson. It sounds to me that, from your perspective, you want to see the planning aspect remain in the hands of the regional governments and not have the federal government really involved in that planning.
4:50 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Metrolinx
I don't see a particular need for the federal government to get into coming up with the plan for the region. That doesn't mean the federal government should not be involved in developing the plan for the region. When we developed the Big Move, we engaged with the federal government to get input from different departments and to make sure to identify and deal with any priorities of theirs.
Going back to my comments a few moments ago, rather than the federal government having a direct control over specific project elements of it, I would say that it's more along the lines of what the standards are. How are decisions to be taken? What is the accountability framework that we would expect? What are the outcomes that we're going to hold you accountable to report back to us on? Those are the kinds of things that I would say would be the role for the federal government.
I would also say that's an area where this study should be asking these very questions.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Lawrence Toet Conservative Elmwood—Transcona, MB
You mentioned the corridor from the airport to downtown. In that context, you talked about the high-quality solution that Metrolinx was bringing forward there. I'm wondering about that now. You talk about having a high-quality solution, and I'm assuming that you're talking about that in every context, including safety and all the other standards, yet you want the federal government to be able to set those standards for you. I'm just curious: on one point you're saying yes, and on the other point you're saying that you need us to set the standards.
4:55 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Metrolinx
Well, I think there's some value in having some national standards, a national approach to innovation, and a national approach to improving quality of service. I think that's important. It doesn't matter where you live in this country, I think there should be some expectation for accessibility and mobility within our communities. I think that's something people would look at as a common expectation across Canada.
The other thing I would say is that I have every expectation that we will not achieve our transportation objectives in the absence of a strong partnership with all orders of government. I don't think any one level of government can afford the kinds of solutions that we need to pursue. I think it requires a partnership among all three levels.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Lawrence Toet Conservative Elmwood—Transcona, MB
I have one last item. I wanted to pick up a little bit on Mr. Coderre's questioning about the protection of the municipalities within the structure of your plan today. You did address the issue of a particular municipality being involved in their area, but what happens now...? How does the prioritization work right now between those different municipalities? Municipality A wants their project first, municipality B wants theirs, and municipality C wants theirs: how are you working through that process?
4:55 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Metrolinx
That's a great question. It's a difficult process, as you might expect.
We did three steps. One, we looked around the world to see how other jurisdictions prioritized, and we tried to get some best practices. Then we sat down with each municipality, showed them our proposed methodology, and asked if they had any advice, comments, or concerns with the way in which we were about to undertake this process. The third step was to ask if we could have all of their inputs to the projects in their municipalities and then to say, “Let's agree that these are the right inputs so that when we put them through the decision-making model, we can agree that all the inputs were what we all supported at the outset”.
The final step, which is the next piece we have to do, is to sit down with them and say, “Here are the outcomes, this is what it says for our next round of projects in the Toronto region over the next six to fifteen years, and these are the kinds of solutions we think are the priority solutions”.
