Submission to
The Canada Transportation Act
Review Panel
Better Environmentally Sound Transportation
Vancouver BC
April, 2001.1
Better Environmentally Sound Transportation (BEST) wishes to thank the Canada
Transportation Review Panel for the opportunity to participate in its review of the
transportation issues and structures across Canada.
BEST is a non-profit organisation dedicated to promoting sustainable transportation and
land-use planning. BEST began 10 years ago as a cycling advocacy group, and has evolved
into the largest sustainable transportation advocacy organisation in Canada.
BEST has over 800 supporting members and a diverse range of private and public funding.
We manage a wide range of educational and advocacy projects aimed at encouraging more
environmentally friendly transportation choices for British Columbians.
We will address three of the six issues identified in the Panel’s Document published in
January 2001 - entitled Issues Under Consideration. Our comments will focus on those issues
and questions related to urban transportation, and in particular, the needs of urban public
transit in Canadian cities.
Summary of Recommendations
Our primary recommendations are as follows:
a. Urban transportation is not addressed in the Canada Transportation Act. The Act
should be amended to address urban transportation, and specifically to encourage the
development and protection of public transit.
b. The Government of Canada should develop and fund a dedicated, comprehensive
infrastructure investment program for urban transit - in partnership with provincial
and municipal governments. Such a program could support both national and local
transportation needs, and is necessary to ensure consistent, sustainable and balanced
investments for urban transit from all levels of governments in our major cities.
c. The Government of Canada should consider a range of tax and policy initiatives with
regards to transportation usage and infrastructure, so as to more equitably reflect the
true, full cost of transportation options. A number of incentives and disincentives -such
as dedicated fuel taxes, tax shifts, road user charges and tax-exempt transit
benefits - should be introduced by the Federal Government. Such carrots and sticks
will reward more efficient and sustainable transportation choices, and encourage
modal shifts from single occupancy motor vehicles to public transportation, cycling
and walking.
d. The Canada Transportation Act be amended to ensure access to rail rights-of-way for
urban transit infrastructure, where possible without undue interference with railway
operations, and to provide a fair, regulated framework for negotiations between
urban transit providers and railways..2
Sustainable Development and the Environment
How can all Canadian governments promote the development of sustainable transportation systems?
Transportation policies and investments have major environmental impacts. Most
commentators point out automobile overuse and its impacts on fossil fuel consumption, air
quality deterioration and resulting health impacts, and climate change gas emissions.
However, there are additional significant issues. Suburban sprawl - that is, the continuing
expansion of auto-oriented developments, with their road, highway and parking networks -threaten
ecological habitat, valuable agricultural land, and contribute to serious stormwater
runoff quality and quantity problems, and the associated health and economic costs.
Sprawl also entrenches automobile dependency and overuse and its resulting
environmental and health impacts.
Car-related health care costs have been estimated at over $1 billion a year in Ontario. As
many as 5,000 premature deaths a year in Canada are attributed to air pollution problems in
our cities. Rates of asthma amongst children have increased significantly in our major
cities. Automobile tailpipes are the source of 70% of urban air pollutants, and are also the
leading source of greenhouse gases - the primary factor in global climate change. These are
some of the true, full costs of automobile usage. They are externalised costs - i.e. they are
not paid by the users, but are paid by accident victims, asthmatic children, the elderly, and
others - but they are very real.
Greater use of public transit would help reverse these trends and reduce these costs.
Increased investments are needed to spur such usage, as transit service remains inadequate
and inconvenient in many urban areas, particularly in our less compact suburban
developments.
Sustainable development is a national priority. And transportation is key to air pollution,
climate change, and a range of other environmental and human health effects. It is therefore
essential that the main piece of federal transportation legislation address these issues. The
Canada Transportation Act should be amended to address urban transportation, and
specifically to encourage the development and protection of public transit.
Sustainability of Capital Investment - Roads and Public Transit
Is there a need for more extensive federal spending on roads and public transit?
Canadian cities are the engines of our national economy. Yet the vitality and attractiveness
of our cities are under threat from urban sprawl, traffic congestion and air pollution. An
unbalanced transportation system - highly dependent on automobile and road
infrastructure - comes at significant cost. In Greater Vancouver, the costs of congestion
delays to commercial traffic are estimated at over $500 million annually.
Individuals also experience these costs in different ways. Traffic volumes in Greater
Vancouver increased at twice the rate of population growth between 1996 and 1999.
Average commute times went up by one-third between 1984 and 1994. Nonetheless, the
region is experiencing another 65 cars being added to the roads every day..3
It is clear that greater investments in roads will not solve this problem. Wherever road
capacity has been increased in an attempt to deal with traffic congestion, the added road
capacity has been taken up with more traffic; “build a road and the cars will come” has
become a commonplace in transportation planning.
Meanwhile, government investments in public transit infrastructure have fallen behind - by
25 per cent since 1996 according to the Canadian Urban Transit Association (CUTA). Many
provinces and municipalities have cut transit service and raised fares. While the BC
Government provides among the best provincial funding for municipal transit in Canada,
core bus and trolley services remain inadequate to the needs of a growing and mobile
population. Indeed, TransLink recently cut back bus service by $5 million, and has
proposed much more severe cutbacks - up to 20 per cent of existing service - unless new
funding is forthcoming.
The Federal Government has an important role to play in urban transportation. Canada is
the only G-7 country without an urban transit investment program at the national level.
Both European and US Governments provide substantial funding at national levels to urban
transit infrastructure. The US federal government is committed to a $6 billion dollar transit
investment program.
Canadians want and need a viable alternative to the car, particularly in urban settings. They
want more and better public transit, as well as better cycling and pedestrian facilities. We
need a federal commitment to address urban mobility, traffic congestion and air pollution.
The federal government should develop a comprehensive infrastructure program for urban
transit - in partnership with Provincial and Municipal governments.
The recently announced Canada Infrastructure Program includes public transit, but it is
likely that other municipal priorities such as water and sewers will come take up most of
the available funds. A similar infrastructure program dedicated to public transit would make
major contribution to building a more balanced and equitable transportation system in
Canadian cities - and would help create a viable alternative to urban sprawl and the
continuing dependence on the automobile.
Is there a role for dedication of taxes to roads and public transit?
Do existing road user charges and fuel taxes distort choices among modes and are practical
improvements available?
Are there more efficient alternatives to greater subsidisation of urban transit?
Increased transit investments alone are not sufficient to get people of their cars. Supply side
investments are only part of the equation. Governments must also consider demand-side
solutions - including increased fuel taxes and road charges 1 - which work to accurately
reflect the true costs of our travel choices and transportation infrastructure.
1
It is clear that existing road user charges and fuel taxes are too low; countless studies have
demonstrated that in all developed countries excessive road use creates an uncompensated
externalised social cost. Road user and fuel costs would have to be higher to reach an optimal level of
road use..4
Such solutions include transportation-demand management measures, such as road user
charges. System-wide road and bridge tolls, congestion pricing and intelligent transport
systems are among the most promising measures. Federal fuel taxes should be more
directly dedicated to urban public transit infrastructures, again to re-balance transportation
away from automobile dependence.
Other potential solutions include tax-shifting and tax-exempt employer-provided transit
benefits. Tax-shifting is a simple concept: a revenue-neutral shifting of taxes away from
‘goods’ such as income and employment, and onto ‘bads’ such as pollution and the
consumption of non-renewable resources. Through a tax shift, and with no net increase of
tax revenue, the Federal government could rebalance the burden of road infrastructure costs
onto road users, and away from general taxpayers - many of whom don’t drive or drive
infrequently.
The ‘marginal cost’ of an individual trip is a major decision factor in day-to-day travel.
Currently the ‘marginal costs’ of car travel are perceived to be low by drivers, largely
because the actual costs of road and parking infrastructure are hidden - subsidised by the
general taxpayer. This is particularly true of parking. The availability and cost of parking
has been shown to be key determinant of travel choice.
Currently the majority of Canadian employers provide free parking as an employee benefit.
This benefit is taxable, but in reality this is rarely enforced. Eighty per cent of automobile
commuters receive subsidised parking from their employers, yet few employees receive
transit benefits. As well, where employers provide transit benefits, they are taxed. The
provision of free parking to large numbers of employees distorts the cost of driving, making
it less expensive than taking public transit
The federal government should rectify this situation. The Government of Canada should
amend the Income Tax Act to permit employers to provide transit benefits to their
employees on a tax-exempt basis. Such a step would encourage modal shifts from single-occupancy
vehicles to public transportation.
Tax shifts, road pricing, tax-exempt transit benefits and, yes, higher fuel taxes would each
begin to ‘reflect’ the true costs of road infrastructure, maintenance and externalities. They
would have the added benefit of reducing unnecessary vehicle trips, particularly for short
distances, and in turn make public transit more attractive, convenient and economical.
Preservation of Urban Rail Corridors
Is a new mechanism needed to ensure that municipalities and provincial governments have an
adequate opportunity to preserve important urban corridors?
Urban rail corridors show great potential for future benefits to urban communities and
citizens. The re-use of discontinued urban rail corridors provides new and rare.5
opportunities for the introduction of public transit or mixed-use greenways and urban
trails.
The existing discontinuance procedure in the Canada Transportation Act does not reflect
regional and municipal transportation needs. This was evident recently in Vancouver,
where CP outlined a three-year plan to discontinue and redevelop the Arbutus Corridor,
potentially converting the corridor to non-transportation uses.
Subsequent debate revealed significant public support for preservation of this urban rail
corridor for transportation. The City of Vancouver then took action to designate the
Arbutus right of way for transportation purposes only. CP has filed a court challenge to this
designation.
The preservation of urban rail corridors for future transportation uses, including mixed uses
such as light-rail, cycling paths and urban trails, must be a central component of a national
transportation policy. The Canada Transportation Act be amended to ensure access to rail
rights-of-way for urban transit infrastructure, where possible without undue interference
with railway operations, and to provide a fair, regulated framework for negotiations
between urban transit providers and railways.
Conclusion
The Canada Transportation Act needs to be updated and amended to reflect the realities
and needs of transportation in the 21 st century. Canada is now a thoroughly urbanised
country, and our cities play a central role in the Canada’s economic and social life.
In addition, issues of sustainable development and environment must be considered central
factors in transportation decisions and policies. Indeed, long-term environmental
considerations - such as air quality and climate change - should outweigh shorter-term
financial decisions with regard to transportation.
An amended Canada Transportation Act should clearly include urban transportation - and
specifically, public transit - within its scope and provisions. Further, the Canadian govern-ment
needs to commit to a comprehensive infrastructure program for urban public transit.
Federal Transportation policy should reflect long-term goals of sustainability and
environmental protection. In doing so, the Canadian Government should welcome
measures that rebalance the cost and usage of transportation infrastructure and facilities, so
as to reduce the impact of transportation on the environment and human health. These
would include decisions on tax policy, fuel taxes, infrastructure investments and the
introduction of user charges such as road tolls or congestion pricing.
Finally, the preservation of existing transportation infrastructure, such as urban rail
corridors, for future potential public use, should be included as key elements of a national
transportation policy.
BEST respectfully submits the above points and concerns to the Canada Transportation Act
Review Panel for consideration..6
__________________
Ray Straatsma
Policy and Communications Director
__________________
David Thompson
Executive Director