Menu

Services

Check it out

• Background
• Purpose of the Study
• Urban Transit in Brief
• Transit Visions in Canada and Elsewhere
• Co-Benefits of Urban Transit
• Economic Co-Benefits
• Social Co-Benefits
• Environmental Co-Benefits
• Interest in a National Vision for Urban Transit
• Proposed Structure for the Vision
• A Proposed National Urban Transit Vision
• Urban Transit Vision Statement
• Urban Transit Policy Goals
• Targets and a Vision Scenario

Background

As noted in Chapter 1, throughout the U.S. and Canada,  as well as most of the industrialized world, the time has long passed since public transportation can be considered as a profitable operation that provides a return on investment.  All Canadian transit operators, for example, rely on subsidies to cover some of their operating and maintenance costs and all of their capital requirements.  Such subsidies are essentially justified, from the standpoint of elected officials at the municipal level and in a few cases at the provincial level, who must approve budgets, on grounds of direct transportation benefits and broader co-benefits that are generated by the provision of urban transit services to the communities at large.  Decisions to subsidize urban transit basically imply that various monetary and non-monetary benefits, in aggregate, are perceived to outweigh public monetary costs.

 Justification for urban transit subsidies derives, in part from the growing consensus in Canadian urban areas that:

• The likelihood of meeting future urban transportation needs through road expansion alone appears to be increasingly impracticable from the standpoint of sustainable development, system capability, environmental impacts, liveable communities, and the accessibility to be provided to all groups of society (including the disabled and seniors, shippers, and those for whom travel by automobile is essential).
• Improving urban transit services in ways that increase the competitiveness of transit relative to the private automobile and which reduce the ever increasing growth in car dependence are desirable from economic, social and environmental standpoints.
• Improvements in transit that attract individuals from the private automobile, as well as land use and transportation planning that leads to shorter trips, fewer motorized trips and increased use of cycling and walking are also seen as essential elements of meeting Canada’s commitments to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, improvements in air quality, and related health impacts, while also helping to conserve energy and reduce dependence on fossil fuels.
• Reduction in levels of road congestion are necessary to maintain and improve the competitiveness of urban economies, and thus of the national economy.

Nevertheless, most Canadian municipalities today are unable to find the funding (particularly capital) required to maintain existing transit services, let alone expand transit systems and levels of service, solely from property taxes.  As a result, in almost every municipality, there is a growing lobby for financial assistance from senior levels of government to assist in meeting the transit needs of the future.

Purpose of the Study

Recognizing the above challenges along with the opportunities provided by urban transit for  achieving improved economic, social and environmental conditions in Canadian cities, the federal government has singled out urban transit as a new area of federal government interest, stating in the most recent Speech from the Throne that it will “cooperate with provincial and municipal partners to help improve public transit infrastructure”. 

Largely on this basis, Transport Canada has initiated three consultant studies that focus, respectively, on developing a national vision for urban transit, an analysis of the current state of urban transit in Canada, and development of a benefit-cost framework for assessing investment in urban transit.  This report deals with the development of a national vision for urban transit, drawing on domestic and international experience and on new proposals by the report’s authors, as well as limited stakeholder consultation.

It should be noted, as emphasized frequently in this report, that the ability to improve the quality of transit services cost-effectively as a means of reducing congestion and achieving more sustainable urban transportation and development is influenced by a variety of factors related to the demographics, spatial structure, size and complexity of a particular municipality or urbanized region.  Clearly, there is no single solution to the varied nature of urban transit and transportation needs that applies universally to all Canadian urban areas.  For these reasons, the urban transit vision developed in this report should not be viewed as a panacea, but rather as a construct to be targeted for managing urban transit/transportation and land use development in a manner that is economic, efficient, socially equitable,  and environmentally progressive.

Urban Transit in Brief

The main obstacles faced by most urban transit operators derive from the dominance of the private automobile for the vast majority of travel in all urban areas.  For those who are both physically able to and can afford to do so, an automobile generally provides greater convenience, shorter travel times, and greater comfort for the majority of their travel needs, particularly in low density urban and suburban areas.  Patterns of urban growth (e.g. large single-use areas), generally declining land use densities, and expanded road systems have also contributed to reduced competitiveness of urban transit except under special conditions, particularly in major travel corridors.  Moreover, the cost structure of the transit industry itself is high, in part due to the high capital cost of infrastructure and vehicles and, in part, due to the high imbalance in utilization rates reflected in peak period and off-peak period use.  In other words, transit services are expected to provide high capacity that requires large numbers of vehicles and workers for relatively short periods of time each day plus lower levels of service throughout the remainder of the day and evening.  Some also argue that the institutional constraints such as the lack of fare and service integration across jurisdictional boundaries, as well as differences in methods of financing and taxation, further detract from the competitiveness of urban transit relative to the private automobile.

Nevertheless, governments at all levels recognize that urban transit is an essential part of urban transportation systems, particularly in the larger and mid-size urban areas but also in smaller areas, because of its capability to provide the necessary capacity and service levels for moving people in major travel corridors and accommodating peak period movements, while also providing an affordable choice of travel mode other than the private automobile.  Because of these direct transportation benefits, along with broader co-benefits (see Section S.5) governments recognize that public investment is justified to maintain and expand such services.  Recognizing the significant benefits and essential nature of urban transit, but also its financial straits owing to competition from the automobile, a number of transportation planners and economists have suggested that this could be addressed, at least in part, by permitting urban transit to qualify for funding from road user charges.  This point of view was strengthened by the Canada Transportation Act Review Panel which recommended in its final report that urban transit should be permitted to qualify for funding from road user charges (Recommendation 12.3) which road users “should pay … by means of appropriate charges and fees” (Recommendation 10.1). [1]

Transit Visions in Canada and Elsewhere

Chapter 2 presents a review of the types of transit vision statements, including goals, targets and future scenarios, which have been documented by governments and agencies at the local (e.g. urban areas, transit properties), regional (e.g. provincial) and national (e.g. national governments, transit/transportation associations) levels in Canada, the United States and abroad.

Conclusions drawn on the basis of that review, as input to the process of developing a transit vision and goals/targets for Canadian urban areas, are as follows:

• The exercise of developing vision statements and/or setting goals for urban transit is virtually universal among the urban areas studied and is seen as essential to help generate and evaluate alternative plans and provide a basis for action.  The visions and goals tend to be more elaborate in the larger urban areas and more basic (e.g. focussing on transit service/standards and ways of achieving cost-efficiencies) in the smaller areas.
• While most of the vision statements revealed by our research were relatively short statements of intent, fleshed out by various qualitative goals and – in some cases – by quantitative targets, in a few cases a “scenario” approach is taken in which the vision statement describes a desired situation as it might exist in a future (planning horizon) year.  Either approach is feasible and can be considered in developing an approach for a national urban transit vision in Canada.
• As noted in the Terms of Reference for this study, it will be important that a national vision for urban transit reflect goals which apply to all Canadian urban areas while providing enough flexibility to recognize important differences among Canada’s urban areas based on factors such as size, growth rates, existing types of transit/transportation, urban structure, economic/locational characteristics, etc.  The similarities and differences in the types of goals mentioned by various urban areas (see Exhibit 2.6) provide broad indications of the numbers and types of goals which are considered most important by large, medium and small sized Canadian urban areas, respectively, and this provides useful background information for the process of developing a national vision and goals.
• Similarly, the types of quantitative targets and indicators used by various urban areas to define the vision more explicitly and provide a basis for monitoring the extent to which it has been achieved are also useful input to the process of suggesting quantitative targets as part of a national urban transit vision or visions.
• Finally, the discussion in Chapter 2 of success story examples and contributing factors serves as an important reminder that urban transit operates as part of a complex series of urban systems and activities.  Thus visions, goals and targets need to reflect this complexity, including the importance of land use and socio-economic visions and policies, transit/transportation infrastructure, transit system expansion and integration, as well as the manner in which the transit and transportation systems are managed (including operations, maintenance/rehabilitation, pricing, revenue sources, funding policies and governance of planning and delivery).

Consideration of the above will be important in developing a national vision, goals and targets for urban transit in Canada to 2020, as summarized below in Section S.7 and described more fully in Chapter 3.

Co-Benefits of Urban Transit

Co-benefits of urban transit – that is, broader benefits in addition to the direct transportation benefits of transit – are discussed more fully in Chapter 4 under the headings of Economic, Social and Environmental Co-Benefits.  The eleven co-benefits described there are listed below:

Economic Co-Benefits

• access to labour;
• maintenance of healthy downtown areas;
• containment of urban sprawl;
• opportunities for export development;
• effects on tourism;
• productive use of time spent commuting.

Social Co-Benefits

• accessibility for the disadvantaged and more choice for all travellers;
• air quality and health;
• reduced need for road construction;
• standby capability.

Environmental Co-Benefits

• reductions in greenhouse gas emissions

The above, while among the most important co-benefits of urban transit, are a partial list only; a more complete treatment may be found in the companion study for Transport Canada on Benefit-Cost Assessment of Urban Transit Investment and in other sources as noted in Section 4.2

Interest in a National Vision for Urban Transit

As noted in Chapter 3, the review of national and international urban transit/transportation vision statements (or reasonable facsimiles thereof, such as “goals” statements) revealed a number of similarities with respect to a desire for the following types of policy goals:

• fewer and shorter motorized trips;
• a higher proportion of all vehicular trips by public transportation;
• the substitution of walking or cycling for private automobile trips;
• greater energy efficiency and reduced emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants;
• more widespread accessibility for the disabled and seniors; and
• more cost-efficient delivery of transit services.

There is, of course, a wide variation in the size and complexity of municipalities within Canada and , as a result, perhaps the single most important difficulty in attempting to reach consensus on a Canadian transit vision (as subsumed under a Canadian transportation vision) probably derives from the tremendous variation in size, demographic characteristics, and needs of urban communities across the nation.

Thus the challenge in developing a truly national vision statement for urban transit is to define it in terms:

• such that most individuals, regardless of where they reside, can identify with the implied goals;
• which are comprehensive from the standpoint of the complete range of community sizes and complexities representative of the vast majority of Canadian municipalities;
• that do not raise premature expectations as to senior government involvement; but
• which might serve as the basis for selective participation by these levels of government as well as other potential stakeholders.

Proposed Structure for the Vision

In reviewing the policy goals listed above in Section S.6, we conclude that while the six policy goals are a good start, a larger number of policy goals should be included, thereby giving them more prominence in the vision than the somewhat lesser status of contributing goals/influencing factors.  We have defined 15 policy goals based on transit visions developed elsewhere (as described in Chapter 2) and on the judgment and experience of the authors of this report. 

In developing and structuring the longer list of 15 policy goals, we went back to first principles regarding the meaning of a sustainable transportation system.  We conclude that a sustainable transportation system should be:

• capable of providing the necessary speed, capacity, frequency, coverage and connectivity to provide access to all activities in the urban areas with service that is safe, comfortable and convenient;
• compatible with livable communities that support a vibrant economy, walkable streets, people-friendly places, and a high quality-of-life;
• conserving of energy and other natural resources and clean in terms of waste products; and
• cost-efficient in terms of efficient service delivery, appropriate and affordable transportation pricing, and adequate, predictable funding arrangements.

We have defined five policy goals under the first heading above, three under the second, two under the third and five under the fourth in working towards a proposed structure for the national transit vision, as described below in Section S.8 and more fully in Chapter 3, Sections 3.4 and 3.5.

A Proposed National Urban Transit Vision

Based on the range of visions and goals/influencing factors presented in Chapter 2, the assessment, proposals and synthesis provided in Chapters 3 and 4, and the increasing public interest  and government initiatives to achieve more sustainable transportation, a proposed urban transit vision for  Canada is presented below:

Urban Transit Vision Statement

By 2020 Canada’s urban transit/transportation policies and initiatives will have achieved: a reduced level of motorized travel per person; less dependence on the private automobile; improved transit accessibility for those who by reason of age, income, or physical disability are unable to drive; more competitive transit service delivered in an effective and cost-efficient manner that attracts users from their cars for a wider variety of trip purposes; and, resulting from the above, more capable, compatible, clean, conserving and cost-effective urban transit and transportation systems.

Urban Transit Policy Goals

The urban transit vision is described more fully in terms of the 15 policy goals which are listed below, in bold type.  Also included with each, in plain type, is a key contributing goal or influencing factor to help flesh out the policy goal and what it entails. 

A Capable System:

1. Door-to-door, “seamless” travel by public transit and related modes within the entire urban area, unimpeded by jurisdictional boundaries or intermodal barriers, through integration of transit services, pricing, and passenger information systems, as well as intermodal coordination and parking policies.
2. Increased transit speed, capacity, frequency, coverage and connectivity to compete more effectively with the automobile and reduce automobile dependency in serving a wider variety of trip purposes, through general improvements in the network of transit services and increased integration of public and private transportation activities.
3. Improved accessibility to transit service for the disabled and seniors through modifications to new vehicle and infrastructure designs, retrofitting of existing infrastructure, and special services for these individuals in communities with modest or no conventional transit services.
4. Increased comfort, convenience and safety for transit users in both vehicles and waiting areas, through general improvements in the amenities of transit vehicles and waiting areas.
5. Improved transit service in currently transit-deprived areas, including use of appropriate service structures and technologies to provide transit services in an efficient and cost-effective manner.

A Compatible System:

6. Fewer and shorter motorized trips per person and more trips by transit, walking and cycling, largely through management of urban development, regardless of city size, in ways that lead to compact urban form and greater mixed land use plus more pedestrian-, transit- and cycling-friendly streetscapes.
7. More transit-friendly and walkable/cyclable streets and streetscapes through integrated planning, design and delivery of those services and facilities. 
8. Greater opportunities for accommodating bicycles in connection with transit services through special features of transit stations and vehicles.
   
   

A Conserving and Clean System:

9. Reduced transit/transportation energy consumption and resource depletion throughan increase in the proportion of vehicle-km involving more energy-efficient vehicles and the use of alternative propulsion systems.
10. Reduced emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants from transit/transportation through use of alternative fuels and propulsion systems plus greater reliance on transit, walking and cycling.

A Cost-Efficient System:

11. More efficient operation of transit vehicles and higher vehicle productivity, through road design and traffic engineering policies, urban development patterns that are more favourable to transit and consideration of alternative service delivery approaches.
12. Transit priority policies that improve average transit travel speed and net revenue per vehicle, thus increasing vehicle and driver productivity, as well as the attractiveness of transit relative to the private automobile leading to increased transit ridership and revenues and reduced net costs per rider.
13. Cost-effective planning and delivery of new and/or expanded levels of transit service as well as  maintenance and rehabilitation of existing services and facilities based on appropriate governance which enables an integrated approach to urban development and provision of transit/transportation.
14. A level playing field from the standpoint of transit versus auto travel decisions based on consideration of real costs and affordability, including under-priced parking and rationalization of income tax regulations affecting allowable deductions and taxable benefits.
15. Generation of reliable, performance-based revenue streams to fund urban transit thereby making possible more cost-efficient capital investment programs, through public funding policies and drawing on road pricing and/or other user pricing mechanisms that account for the external costs imposed on society by road users and the co-benefits to society of achieving improved and more widely used transit.

As noted in Chapter 3, it should be stressed that not all elements of this vision statement are applicable in every situation or even within different communities of the same jurisdiction.  Transit priority in large urban areas that operate high frequency services in mixed traffic, for example, is not a policy that is likely to be relevant in small municipalities or even in low density communities of a large metropolitan region where existing or potential transit ridership would not justify such measures.  Similarly, alternative services that may be appropriate in these latter situations (e.g. smaller, more demand responsive vehicles) are not likely to be relevant for high density transit corridors.

Targets and a Vision Scenario

More details regarding the proposed vision are presented in Chapter 3, where Exhibit 3.3 lists the 15 policy goals comprising the vision and, for each, the range of urban areas to which it is expected to apply, major contributing goals and influencing factors, potential types of targets for measuring progress, and applicable national programs and activities.  Exhibit 3.4 presents five potential national transit targets, each stated as a quantitative range for each of three size categories of Canadian urban areas.  Finally, Exhibit 3.5 provides a two-page overview of the vision stated in the form of a scenario description of urban transit in Canada reflecting achievement of the vision’s policy goals and quantitative targets by 2020.