Transport Committee on Oct. 17th, 2011

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

What's your definition?

[Jeff Walker]

Our definition of strategy is pretty prescriptive, and we're not sure you need to be all that prescriptive in this. In other words, hosting people to talk about best practices and setting broad criteria and parameters around what kinds of things should be eligible for funding sounds good.

We enumerated a few things we think should be prescriptive. One, for example, is that they take a long view on some of these things. Some of the money that was spent under the infrastructure stimulus spending had sort of a nearer-term orientation. We'd like to see some parameters to say let's make sure that when we do evaluations, we're weighing longer-term and shorter-term criteria.

We'd like to see intelligent transportation systems—you know, have a criterion in the formula that people might submit for funding. But beyond that, we at CAA would say we still think the provinces and municipalities have the best insight about the right prescription for their jurisdictions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

I like that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Adler.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And thank you, witnesses, for being here today.

I remember when I was a kid my father was a member of the DAA, and we used to get those.... Remember those metal...? I don't know if you remember those.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

I'm much younger than you.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

They had adhesive tape on the back. You would stick them on the car. We kids used to always play with those. We'd put them on our bicycles.

As a proud CAA member now, I'm glad you're here. We really value your input and what you had to say today.

But I have a couple of questions. With respect to the national transit strategy, when we're talking about.... I was interested to hear you talk about a strategy and the definition of a strategy. When we're talking about a national...isn't that kind of a misnomer? We're really talking about major cities across Canada. Where does that leave the jurisdictions outside of Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, and Toronto in terms of public transit? Public transit in a lot of communities across Canada, the majority of Canada, would be the church bus. Could you comment on that?

[Tim Shearman]

Yes, certainly.

We live in a vast country. I think we have something like 900,000 kilometres of roads. And everyone has a different environment.

We have done work over the past few years on senior drivers, for example. Public transit obviously is good for senior drivers in a city when they lose the ability to drive. However, if they're in rural Saskatchewan or northern Ontario, that's not an option. So we've been looking at all forms of transportation, as we said earlier, trying to create the best mobility for all Canadians. And that, again, is a mix. It has to be a mix of transit, the automobile, and in some cases the bicycle. Again, one size does not fit all. Every region, every part of Canada, is different.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Exactly. So is there a city, in your estimation, in Canada that either has it right or is close to having it right, as you would like, in terms of a nice mix between public transit and the auto?

[Jeff Walker]

I tell you, there is probably room for improvement everywhere. Again, one thing we would stress is not to leave the cyclist part of this out of the equation. That's one of the things, when we hear about a national transit strategy.... We really talk a lot about mobility at CAA, so we like to think about the whole mix of mobility options. So if I can add that layer to it, we feel Vancouver has actually done quite a good job at managing these issues and at balancing these options, probably the best within Canada anyway. But some other jurisdictions are really interesting. Portland, Oregon is a smaller second-tier city, for sure. They do some very interesting things there, and not just with cycling but with transit as well.

So there are actually lots of interesting models around North America to look at and learn from.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Certainly weather would have an impact on, for example, a strategy for the bicycle in this country.

[Jeff Walker]

For sure. That's for sure, but remember, in lots of parts of Canada, you can easily ride your bike six months a year.

One of the interesting things in the future of the automobile is a system where you will be able to pay usage-based car insurance. Why will that matter in the future? Because all of a sudden you will not have the same level of fixed costs associated with running your car over time and you'll be more willing and interested in switching over from different modes of transportation. That's coming within the next decade, and that's going to change the economic equation for a lot of people day to day. We think, for example, that in the summertime some people who normally drive their cars will actually take their bikes because there will be an economic incentive for them to do so.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Do I have more time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

You do. You have three minutes.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

I represent a riding in Toronto, the riding of York Centre in the north end, and before I got into politics my office was downtown at Bay and Richmond. If I left at my normal time of 6 a.m. or 6:30, it would take me under 30 minutes to get downtown. If I left during rush hour or came home during rush hour, it would take well over an hour and sometimes an hour and a half.

Is it a lack of attention to public transit or is it a lack of infrastructure? There's a huge economic cost to people spending an hour and a half in a car or on a bus. Could you comment on that?

[Tim Shearman]

Certainly. We mentioned this in our opening remarks when we talked about intelligent transportation systems, information systems.

There are ways to utilize our existing infrastructure more efficiently. They have started it in the U.K. and parts of the U.S. as pilot projects. We can use those existing roads as you suggest, so that not everyone is travelling at eight o'clock in the morning. We would encourage flexible hours at workplaces, as an example, to spread out the load on the infrastructure. We feel there's a huge advantage to using the existing infrastructure more efficiently, and that's what we're working on with the University of Calgary and the University of Toronto: tools and technology that combine weather information, roadwork or construction information, along with volumes. We believe there's a way to get people to where they want to be, whether they're on buses or cars or bikes, more efficiently. That's certainly a big focus at CAA.

Jeff?

[Jeff Walker]

The most interesting technologies these guys are working on.... They're using algorithm technology to figure out how to switch lights. So instead of a fixed 30 seconds or one minute at a light, they have algorithms built in to cameras that essentially are watching what's happening as people are going on the roads and they're switching lights based on those algorithms. It's making systems, the modelling anyway, in those systems run 50% faster.

That's just one example. There are dozens of examples of where technology is going to be part of the solution. I think the reality we face, though, is that Toronto's getting big. What is the growth plan, was it 11.5 million people by 2030? I think that's the number. You've got this enormous pressure on the system, which we're just trying to keep up with. I think everyone is. It's a huge issue. It's a combination of probably doing better at multi-modal infrastructure and a reality that things are going to be more challenging until we get more urbanized and probably a little bit less suburbanized in the way we're organized in our cities.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Ms. Chow.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

I just want to continue that line of thought about partnerships.

Right now in Whitehorse and St. John's—not big urban centres—they have some buses. Municipalities are saying they can't afford to run all of these buses. There are areas in Whitehorse, for example, that need more bus services, but the municipality does not have enough money to circle the neighbourhoods.

The neighbourhood of Mount Pearl said they too need buses but they can't afford them, so they would love to partner with both the provincial and federal governments—especially the federal government, because the federal government right now is not at the table—to work with them. They are doing the planning. They want the federal government to provide some seed money to help them plan, because they don't have the funds to plan. They would like the federal government to be involved so that after the planning they can say, “Hey, this is what we need. Which part should you folks pay for? Is it buying the buses, fixing the buses, or whatever? What part should the province pay for, and what part should the municipalities pay for?” They want to have that kind of dialogue. Right now there is no table, desk, or forum for that dialogue to take place.

You can call this strategy a plan or policy, it doesn't matter, but there has to be some way for this dialogue to occur. Right now there's a huge vacuum, which is probably why 52% of the public said in your survey that the state of public transit should be better. Fewer than half of your members rate the state of public transit infrastructure as adequate or better because of this vacuum.

Is there anything wrong? Do you not think it's time for the federal government to be involved in that way?

I also have a follow-up question on funding.

[Tim Shearman]

Certainly all levels of government can be involved. We also have to look at the experts and best practices. You gave the examples of Whitehorse and St John's. I'm sure other cities have used smaller vehicles, for example, so instead of having one 18-foot bus you could have—I'm just making this up—three smaller buses that are more efficient and can get to more locations.

You also have to throw in the best practices from municipalities that have had to deal with similar issues. I don't know how much the federal government has been involved in deciding on transit--probably not too much--but I don't have the expertise in that area. It makes sense to give funding to the people who know. As Jeff said earlier, long-term stable funding is needed so that municipalities can develop 10-, 15-, and 20-year plans--as in Ottawa. Then the municipalities can be assured that there will be funding available for an extended period so they can make intelligent decisions.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Right now the federal government makes decisions though the infrastructure funds as to whether they will pay to support the York University subway line in Toronto, for example, or buy street cars. In some ways the federal government is already dictating what happens in the municipality. It doesn't quite say so, but by the capital funding and what gets funded, it is already making decisions.

So should the federal government assist in the planning—not do the plan, but take the leadership to have the plan take place? What is a better funding formula? Is it better to do all the transfer through the gas tax, which is an automatic transfer, but play no role, or have some kind of capital funding project with very clear criteria? If you do that, then the federal government is making decisions on what projects get funded.

What is your opinion on that? I know you said you're a bit agnostic, but what side do you come in on?

[Jeff Walker]

The way it has been working under the Building Canada fund, under the stimulus spending, we would probably want to debate the criteria that have been included and those that would be included in the next version of the Building Canada fund. But at the end of the day, to us it's all about the degree to which the federal government is prescriptive with the money. Our concern is not setting aside the money. We think the federal government needs to set aside money. Our concern is whether the federal government will get too prescriptive about how it gets spent.

For example, if we say it has to be certain kinds of buses in Whitehorse, or it has to be certain kinds of this or that in another place, that's something we're not comfortable with. Frankly, we're not totally comfortable with there being a discussion only within the boundaries of transit. We think it has to be a truly tripartite discussion between transit, roads, and cycling infrastructure. To that extent, in our view it can sometimes be too narrow to confine it within the boundaries of transit.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Richards.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Thank you.

I'd like to continue with that discussion. I think what I was hearing was that it's important to allow decisions to be made for by the different municipalities. With Canada being the kind of country it is, we have a lot of diversity, a lot of different regions, some large cities but also a lot of small communities, rural communities, and remote communities. They all have different challenges and different needs. There are possibilities that are different for each of them. We have to be careful not to impose limits so strict that different communities can't focus on the needs that they have.

Was that the sentiment I was hearing from you?