We went to Toronto, Vancouver and Ottawa. Toronto has been drawn to local attention as a good model by transport planners such as Paul Mees (1999) and Peter Newman and Jeff Kenworthy (1999). I was aware of Vancouver as an interesting system with integrated transport and land-use planning. Ottawa is the country’s capital, and one of the fastest growing cities in North America, with a correspondingly expanding transport system. With considerable debate in Canada on whether the Federal Government has a role in public transport funding, the visit to Ottawa also gave me an opportunity to discuss this issue with politicians and advisers.

The Canadian experience
Commentators in Australia tend to focus praise for Canadian transport provision on the considerably lower subsidies their systems receive; fares are well priced, while service quality and frequency is high and per capita use is much higher than Melbourne. From an urban planning perspective, land use planning and transport planning are tightly coordinated. This has lead to more compact and livable cities that are public transport friendly and that have very public transport dependent central business districts.

While the experience of Vancouver and Toronto are impressive, I also witnessed a series of issues emerge that demonstrate that transport planning is inherently political. For all the successes public transport has had within the two cities it is under siege by a politics of self interest and the common refrain of the political right that there is a need to reduce Government costs and interventions. This shift at a political level is undermining public transport and represent similar pressures which are hampering the expansion of public transport solutions in Melbourne. 

While Vancouver and Metro Toronto are relatively compact and the use of public transport is very high, low density sprawl is on the increase around the two cities. Post war urbanisation in both Vancouver and Toronto involved the concentration of services in the downtown and other nodes, relatively high densities including in some areas the growth of high density apartments and the building of a major public transport system to alleviate congestion. In Vancouver and Toronto the transport network grew along with the growth of the city . However outside the boundaries of the Greater Vancouver and Metro Toronto there has also been considerable growth and in the case of southern Ontario the emergence of a megalopolis in which downtown Toronto is but one centre.  The municipalities in this rural and suburban belt have been less concerned about car dependence and urban sprawl. This growth has resulted in increased suburbanisation of population, retail commerce, industry and the emergence of industrial parks and expansive shopping centres. It has also led to a political constituency that has little commitment or perceives little advantage in supporting public policies and financial subsidies that sustains public transport in the urban centres.

One transport planner described to me Vancouver and its hinterland as Geneva surrounded by  Phoenix. The sprawl around Toronto is even more extensive as it snakes across the USA border, linking towns and cities and turning fertile countryside into sprawling suburbs. For example Kitchener which is one hundred kilometres west of Toronto is one of most spatially dispersed metropolitan areas of Canada with a very high level of car dependence. 

The use of public transport in both Toronto and Vancouver looks good drawing the boundary around the municipal borders. However taking into account the greater urban hinterland the performance drops substantially. Equally drawing a boundary around inner and middle Melbourne, with its public transport rich infrastructure, our city’s performance rises dramatically. The challenge for Vancouver, Toronto and Melbourne is to recognise the threats to public transport and expand our efforts to improve and extend public transport solutions throughout the metropolis.

While recognising the difficulties confronting transport planners and politicians in Vancouver and Toronto I do not want to understate the considerable successes they have achieved. Vancouver in particular has demonstrated that for all their difficulties they have been able to increase the use of public transport incrementally for 30 years. This success can be understood as a combination of decisions taken at the local government level on land use strategies, parking, public transport subsidies and demand management, as well as provincial policies on transport and public transport funding. Vancouver has benefited from courageous and far sighted decisions to limit the growth of car dependency.

Vancouver
Even compared to Melbourne, Vancouver is a young city. It was founded by the Canadian Pacific Railway as a gateway to the Pacific in the late 19th Century. Its magnificent port became the centre for the Prairie grain trade, and grew with  fishing, lumber and mineral trade. It was the centre of the human traffic generated by the Alaskan gold rush.  The opening of the Panama canal in 1913 gave it access to European markets and it has continued to develop with the growth of trade with Asia and is now the largest port in Canada with containers from Asia being shipped by train to Toronto, Montreal and Chicago for access to markets across North America.

The City has 20 councils that belong to Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) which coordinates local Government activities including infrastructure, land use planning and service planning. In the late 1960’s the City of Vancouver and the GVRD, in response to pollution and congestion, decided not to build freeways into the downtown but invest in public transport. This was in response to a strong environmental awareness and a reaction to the negative impact of freeway based solutions in US cities. The decision not to build freeways in the city has meant that the city has focused on public transport and non car transportation to maintain a high level of mobility in the city. 

One of the striking differences between the Australia and Canada was that responsibility for metropolitan roads, public transport and land use decisions are made by the city council not the provincial Governments. Decision on any planning matter including changes in land use can be made by a simple majority of the City Council without appeal rights. The one exception in British Colombia where the shortage of farmable land has meant the Provincial Government provides protection for rural land. It was considered almost impossible to shift agricultural land zoning to residential, industrial or commercial use in British Colombia.

Given the role of councils the GVRD has a major coordinating role for local Government in land use and transport planning and thus promoted a number of interrelated strategies. This included the development of town centres linked by light rail, urban consolidation especially around transport nodes, the provision of public transport  and the management of transport demand. Demand management included making it difficult for regional roads to access the city by ensuring that here are quite major capacity constraints on ramps and bridges which link Vancouver to its outskirts. The aim is not to increase car access into the downtown. 

In April 1999 Translink was established as the new regional transportation network responsible for managing and financing the transportation system in the GVRD. Previously public transport was the responsibility of BC Transit. Translink includes road maintenance and construction and has responsibly for the movement of goods as well as people. Therefore a single municipal agency is now responsible  for the maintenance and development of the road system and for public transport. Translink exists to support the GVRD Livable Region Strategic Plan which aims to manage growth, preserve green spaces and air quality. Translink attitude to roads is to, “Get the maximum value from the roads we have now, and build more where it makes sense.” (from Translink brochure)

A good of example that Translink is not opposed to roads is the road based projects being developed to improve access to the Port and improve the movement of freight. The Port of Vancouver adjoins the downtown and an upgraded port road is being developed to improve accessibility to the Trans-Canada freeway.

In British Colombia the Provincial Government allows municipalities to levy taxes for transport funding. This includes an 8 cents a litre petrol tax, a surcharge on residential electricity bills and a property tax. While I was in Canada Translink also attempted to levy $75 per vehicle to help fund public transport but the Provincial Government fearing a public backlash failed to give it the means to collect this levy. Ontario in contrast the Provincial conservative Government eliminated subsidies to public transport but prohibited the municipalities from levying taxes to make up for lost revenues. 

Toronto
The relative decline of public transport in Melbourne has been contrasted with the success of Toronto. Both are New World cities with similar populations, wide urban expansion and high car ownership. Paul Mees has used to Toronto to demonstrate that with the right policy public transport could be more successful in Melbourne. He claims, “Here is a spread-out city with high car ownership which appears to be providing European-style public transport.” (Mees 1999, 155) 

Public transport is one element of urban policy which has made Toronto very livable. This urban policy has involved considerable public involvement in urban planning and a wide range of interventions to protect the public interest. Toronto as is common to other Canadian cities has made very deliberate decisions to ensure the livability of their cities and to resist the middle class flight to the suburbs which has helped blight many of the inner city areas in US cities. This public policy resulted in an ongoing public investment in public transport, public housing, parks and the provision of quality education and social services. It has also ensured an active and vibrant central city.  Land use planning has also been relatively interventionist. Land use planning has supported public transport provision and has led to more concentrated nodes of employment, jobs and other amenities. This has allowed for residential, commercial and retail activities to be placed in relative proximity which has allowed for the provision of quality public transport to these various nodes.

Before urban development proposals are submitted for approval to the city council they are automatically circulated to the Toronto Transit Commission for comment. Before a proposed subdivision receives draft approval, a committee comprising senior representatives from the Metropolitan Planning Department and the Toronto Transit Commission must approve it. While it is not incumbent on the local municipality to follow the Transit Commission recommendations it does give the opportunity for suburban development to be consistent with the principles of maximising the effectiveness of the public transport system

The ability to plan and invest in city services is possible by the institutional relationship of Government in Canada. The demand of post war growth in Toronto and Vancouver led to the establishment of regional public agencies responsible for infrastructure, service planning and land-use policy. Furthermore municipal fiscal equalisation schemes were introduced to ensure equitable distribution of tax funds for services and infrastructure. 

The Regional Council of Metropolitan Toronto (Metro) which initially comprised six municipalities was established in 1953 is often hailed as one of the most successful and innovative models of urban governance in North America. The six municipalities amalgamated in 1998 into the mega municipality of the City of Toronto. Metro Toronto allowed for the successful coordination of land-use planning with the provision of public transport. 

The Metro’s transport arm the Toronto Transit Commission has the monopoly right to operate in an area of 240 sq miles and services 2.4 million people. The planning, design and the operation of the public transport system in Toronto is the responsibility of the Transit Commission. The Commission have their own decision-making power over the system but an elected council gives budget approval. Local Government politicians generally hold the membership of the commission. It is a fully integrated, intermodal public transport system. Public transport was fully cost recovery into the 1960s. In the 1960s the Metro transport authority needed capital and got it from the Provincial Government.

The city of Toronto is built on a grid on which streetcars were first provided which subsequently were replaced by buses and trams. In the 1960s freeway building became the trend in North America and streetcars were being wiped out. In the late 1960s after witnessing the problems created by downtown freeway construction there was a moratorium on inner urban freeways. Investments were directed into public transport including the establishment by the Provincial Government of GO Transit, which fed suburban commuters into the urban core.

The Transit Commission operates subway cars, light rail, trams and buses utilising an intermodal ticket which allows for transfer as long as the journey is in one direction and has no long breaks.

The Toronto system is considered one of the best examples of public transport in New World cities yet its funding is under a cloud due to political conflict. The right wing Provincial Government decided after its election win in 1995 to hand over the provincial Government's role in funding the Toronto Transit system to local Government. The Provincial Government was led by the Progressive Conservative Party whose political support came from the rural and suburban areas of Ontario while Metro Toronto largely voted for the centrist Liberal Party or the left-wing New Democratic Party. In Ontario this conflict is referred to the 416 versus 905 referring to the two main telephone prefixes. 416 being Toronto and the NDP and Liberal ridings (electorates) while 905 was the outer suburbs and the Progressive Conservative ridings.

The irony for Metro Toronto was that while it succeeded in concentrating growth and coordinating land-use the Provincial Government failed to expand geographically Metro Toronto’s  role to encompass the outer suburban and rural municipalities. Even though these areas were economically and in terms of commuter patterns comprising part of greater Toronto. Politically this may have been a result of the Provincial Government not wanting to expand the role and authority of a potential rival. These areas of suburban growth demonstrated a different pattern of growth and land-use. With the growth of these areas and the investment by the Provincial Government in water, sewers and roads there emerged a ring of low density and car orientated communities.

With the new right wing Government they decided to "download" responsibility urban transport to the City of Toronto and took over eduction from local Government or in the jargon uploaded education. This put the entire system into a fiscal crisis from which has not yet emerged. Previously the Province most of the capital costs of the system as well as an operating subsidy. Fares covered 68% of operating costs with the 32% subsidy split between the local Government and the Provincial Government. Capital costs had been funded 75% from the Provincial Government and 25% from local property rates. 

After it was downloaded public transport now depended entirely on property taxes and money from the fare box. The current deficit for the system is around $300 million (Canadian). The capital costs of the system never came out of the fares and on average was around $300 million annually. Currently the city needs to tip in $450 million into the system, which cannot be generated simply out of property taxes. Compared to other Canadian or any Australian city the TTC has a very high cost recovery and a very large patronage however it does not have the support of the Provincial Government. 

The Provincial Government does want an amalgamation of the transit systems between Toronto and its suburban ring. The Provincial Government would be prepared to help fund such an amalgamation. The TTC is resisting this scheme because the outer ring has very little patronage and thus would bleed funding from the central core and dramatically curtail the available service.

The Provincial Government of Ontario has now placed the cost of public transport on residents of City of Toronto. Its transport service along increasingly with its social services are now dependent on land tax. Toronto does not have the advantage of Vancouver where Translink was able to access other taxes such as a fuel levy. The future for public transport Toronto now depends on the vagaries of the real estate market and the municipality’s ability to tax land.
Ottawa perspective
Public transport in Ottawa is based principally on buses. It is well funded and delivers high frequency and high patronage. The harsh climate in Ottawa has not hampered the use of buses as it provides the combination of high frequency and heating in waiting stations. Ottawa is similar to Canberra in size and experiencing high growth particularly due to its high technology industries. The planning for this growth is very much coordinated with public transport provision. Quality and increasing services, bus lanes and the introduction of light rail demonstrates the ongoing integration of land-use and public transport which I have come to expect from Canadian cities.

In my discussion with centrist Liberal politicians in Ottawa their response to the political right was to ensure there was Federal funding for public transport. They argued that the political right in Canada is attempting to entrust responsibility for funding public transport and other social services to local Government as a means of cost cutting and perhaps as a move to force the privatisation of many of these services. The other issue for them was about how to build the relationships between municipal, provincial and national Government to ensure an equitable partnership. The recent throne speech by the Canadian Governor General for the first time indicated a commitment by the Liberal Government to fund urban public transport infrastructure. In a discussion with a right wing Alliance Party parliamentarian from British Colombia he argued that for rural and suburban communities which he represented there was no self interest in funding urban transport and that increasingly urban public transport would have to become self funding.

Public transport demands good public policy
The main lesson from Canada is that good public transport demands good public policy. It demands long term planning and the building of a public transport culture. Vancouver in particular set out to stem car dependence, invested in public transport and coordinated it with land use planning. The city established with its people a long term strategy which in turn has been supported by an increasingly environmentally aware population with a strong commitment to improve the livability of their city. The visit also highlighted a major political dilemma how to reconcile the needs and perceived interest of public transport rich urban communities with the needs and interests of public transport poor suburban communities. This involves building political support behind further public intervention in establishing public transport solutions, and confronting issues of sustainability and livability. Vancouver and the GVRD have been able to do this successfully for 30 years.

While the Toronto system is impressive, it is facing major challenges and lost almost 20 per cent of its patronage (Pucher 1998) in the 1990s as a result of an economic recession and the cutback of subsidies to public transport by a right-wing Provincial Government. British Colombia and in particular the cities of Vancouver and Victoria are perhaps more impressive as they both experienced substantial increases in patronage on public transport use over the same period and it continues to grow.

Bibliography

GVRD various documents

Mees,P A Very Public Solution ( MUP, 1999)

Newman, P and Kenworthy, J Sustainability and Cities (Island Press, 1999)

Pucher, J Back on Track: 8 Steps to rejuvenate public transport in Canada in Alternatives Journal Winter 1998

Tamin, R and Kenworthy, J The US and us in Alternatives Journal Winter 1998

Translink various documents

Toronto Transport Commission various documents
 
 
 
 
 

RELATED TOPICS
TAXIS: Speech to CEDA FORUM (March 2001)
Road Safety speech Mar 2001
Blackspots program (press release)
"Changing Direction of Public Transport" (speech March 2000)