Transport Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2011

[Patrick Leclerc]

Thank you for your question.

It is due to, among other things, this country's diversity that we need to sit down around the table to clarify each participant's role and to find the goal.

For example, the Gas Tax Fund is determined on a per capita basis. The smaller communities will tell you that it is difficult for them. We are still talking about public transit—in English it is called transit. The first thing that we see are buses, subways and light rail. In smaller communities, there is still mobility and the population is aging. We see that workers and young people head to the major centres, but they come back to these smaller communities to retire. So, it is more difficult in terms of revenues.

How can we ensure mobility of individuals with functional limitations, for example? This need exists. How can we make sure that the transfers and the measures implemented by the federal and provincial governments will be able to respond to these mobility challenges so that we are where we need to be in 2030 and 2040? That is the first element.

The second element is to make sure that the different policies that already exist in this country fit together. Let me give you the following example. For years now, CUTA has been holding discussions with the federal government to get a tax exemption for transit passes provided by employers to their employees. This measure has existed in Quebec since 2007 and costs the Quebec nation very little—pardon me, the Province of Quebec.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

The Quebec nation is fine, there is no problem.

[Patrick Leclerc]

It is not a very expensive measure. Federally, however, this has not been done. Quebec workers do not pay tax on the transit allowance they receive from their employers. This measure does not exist federally. It exists in the United States, in France and in England. We think other provinces would be interested. Ontario has already discussed it. In some municipalities, transit companies already offer this measure; transit allowances, however, are not tax-exempt.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

A national strategy requires coordination with certain tax policies that could have a direct effect on the viability of this strategy.

[Patrick Leclerc]

We will hold summits on tax policies, urban transit development plans, long-term visions, goals and economic development plans.

A federal-provincial-territorial meeting would certainly be one avenue. We think all the partners should sit down around a table to discuss what they want to do about public transit.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Often, for that to work, it is preferable to use a bilateral approach before everyone sits down around one table. In that case, would it not be better to work with those who are already ready and adjust everything afterward? Must the same thing be heard?

[Patrick Leclerc]

In fact, that is already being done. The FCM has said that it is open to dialogue. The provinces are one example. The intergovernmental task force on urban transportation of the Council of Deputy Ministers Responsible for Transportation and Highway Safety is already discussing these options. The provinces and the federal government are discussing transportation plans. The task force is discussing urban transportation more specifically. There are already discussions. We are in contact with similar groups.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

One of the problems is that we cannot just ask the federal government to establish a public transit strategy, given our crumbling infrastructure. We have to renew our infrastructure. In any case, when we want to announce something, like the Champlain Bridge, we talk about light rail and implementing a public transit strategy.

Do you think we should have an infrastructure fund and that within it there should be a section for public transit, something like what the Federation of Canadian Municipalities is calling for?

After all, it comes out of the same pocket.

[Patrick Leclerc]

It could be that.

In fact, we would have to ensure that regarding transportation planning—

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

The money will really have to be reserved for the ends to which it was allocated.

[Patrick Leclerc]

Complementary planning, that is between cars and public transit, is important. We really have to study everything that is happening.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Leung.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And thank you, Mr. Leclerc and Mr. Norris, for your presentation.

I have followed the initial study, Transport 2000, and I saw it again as Transport 2020, and now for the first time I'm hearing you say Transport 2040. It seems we are great at writing reports, but there is total inaction in this area.

What I'd like you to do is share with us what concrete methods or procedures we can follow in order to take some action. In the last 40 years, the four urban transit planning reports that have been submitted and studied have certainly not served the national interests.

[Patrick Leclerc]

Thank you for your question.

Going forward to 2040, the transit systems that are members of CUTA are already implementing many of these elements. For instance, one point of the vision is ensuring accessibility to as many Canadians as possible.

We know already that if you look at the transit system in Whitehorse, for instance, you will see Whitehorse has a fleet that is 100% accessible, which is phenomenal for a transit system of that size. They are already doing that.

People say we need more real-time information and we need to increase our customer service to really make it more attractive for users to use public transit. It was mentioned a bit earlier that now some buses or some systems have Wi-Fi and also real-time information. Intelligent transportation systems are already in place and they are in many cities in Canada, so action is happening. What we're seeing is that we've made huge progress.

There is a lot to be done, and what's described in “Transit Vision 2040”.... You are correct to say that there have been many visions, but when you look at them you will see they are pretty much the same, constat. They are looking at what will happen in the next 10, 20, or 30 years and what we need to do to improve our transit systems in Canada.

You have the same thing in the U.S. The UITP, which is the International Association of Public Transport, also has a long-term vision.

So we know what we need to do and we're already doing that, so action is taking place, it's not only reports. But we need to make sure we'll have the right mechanisms in place to implement all of these.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you.

I'd also appreciate your thoughts on this. During the 1970s and 1980s, I was involved in conducting a study regarding mobility transit, wheel-trans, for the Toronto Transit Commission. I see in metropolitan Toronto many public transit vehicles with a bike rack in front. I wish to suggest that I think those are 90% inefficiently used. I think we're spending a lot of money in certain sectors where it doesn't really benefit the broader public service we're intending to provide.

How do you see that?

[Christopher Norris]

As part of the national transit framework, we see accountability as one of the important things. That would be a part of that, so the money being dedicated to it is spent according to objectives that are outlined and that there's follow-up and such after the fact that the expenditures were properly made and based on the public need.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Okay. Also, when you address the issue of urban transportation, I think we need to be a little more focused. We're really looking at passengers per hour per direction. If we cannot achieve 30,000 per hour per direction for heavy rail, that makes it very hard for any funding formula to propose a Cadillac urban transit system.

What I'd like to know is, if you look at the broad spectrum of Canadian municipalities in metropolitan centres, does that require a change in our concept of urban design for increased density? What is your proposal in how we go about doing that?

[Christopher Norris]

I think you're very right, in that public transit and land use planning go hand in hand. Density is very important, generating not only transit trips, but trips within themselves. That being said, when investing or looking at higher-order transits, the association isn't proposing any one type of solution. The retained solution is up to the local authorities, be it heavy rail, commuter rail, bus rapid transit.

We would expect, through accountability and process, that the retained solution would be what would most benefit the community in the short and medium term. That would accompany land use changes to support that higher-order transit that would be implemented so it could bear fruit.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

One last question, sir. Public funding for transit is a very important issue for all transit properties around the world. You're probably more experienced than I am in this area. Could you tell me of any transit systems around the world, any properties, that are self-funded, in that they're a totally private system that has worked successfully in an urban centre?

[Christopher Norris]

Hong Kong comes to mind; MTR is there. But it's very, very densely populated and the cost of ownership of a private automobile is disproportionate to what it is here.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Hong Kong actually started out as a publicly funded system before selling its shares to make it a public corporation, right?

[Christopher Norris]

Yes, that was my understanding.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Is that the only one?

[Christopher Norris]

It's the only one that comes to my mind, but we could probably follow up with you, if you like.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Okay, that's fine.