Where's the federal public transit money?

[W. K. Lis]

The Canadian federal government is very reluctant to fund public transit. Only recently it promised to pay about ⅓ of the $1 B cost of the Sheppard LRT. But very reluctantly. The province is paying the other ⅔.

Compare that with France.

France programs massive investment of as much as €21 billion (CAD $31 billion) for urban electric rail transit development

Click on this link for an article on France. They use the United States for comparison.

The government of France has announced plans to award major capital grants to help fund investment in new public transport systems, according to a recent report in Tramways & Urban Transit (TAUT, June 2009), the authoritative international magazine about light rail and urban rail transit developments published by the British Light Rail Transit Association (LRTA). "It gives the reasons as both to improve the environment and support the national economic recovery" says the magazine's report – adding that this new spurt of urban electric rail investment "is the first stage of an announced 1500km [930 miles] of new tramway covering just provincial cities across the country."

In what's described as the "first stage" of a massive investment in new tramway (light rail/streetcar) development, the French government has committed funding within a "financial envelope" of €1 billion (about US $1.4 billion) to support a list of 57 tramway projects. In addition, the government also announced a commitment of €15 to €20 billion (about $21 to 28 billion) for capital funding to help finance "a state-of-the-art 130km [81-mile] automated metro for the capital of Paris, which will have a total of 60 stations and be known as Arc Express." This "ambitious project" could be completed by 2020, says the TAUT report.

France's commitment to urban rail transit eclipses by far the USA's rail transit funding gestures, which seem puny by comparison. Even with the Obama administration's 2009 stimulus package, America, with about 5 times France's population, has committed only about $8 billion – and that's for both high-speed intercity rail passenger projects and "inner-city rail". In other words, with about 5 times France's population, the USA has committed less than one-third as much central government spending for this crucial public transport program – despite all the "yak" about a "green economy", reducing carbon emissions, addressing the "peak oil" crisis by reducing dependency on petroleum, and the need to shape more efficient urban development and transport patterns and reduce the ongoing costs of mobility.

In contrast, the magnitude of France's current urban rail development program already under way is staggering:

• Electric trolleybus projects in 5 cities...
• Metro expansion in 2 cities (in addition to Paris)...
• Electric tramway (light rail streetcar) development in 30 cities...

France has been encouraging urban rail transit development – especially light rail tramways – by leaps and bounds. Over the past couple of decades, "new start" tramways have been installed and "legacy" tramway systems upgraded in more than a dozen French cities. (See, for example, our collection of articles at France – Rail Transit, Light Rail, Tramway, and Public Transport Developments.)

Currently, according to the LRTA's summary A world of trams and urban transit – A complete listing of Light Rail, Light Railway, Tramway & Metro systems throughout the World, totally new tramway projects (i.e., "new starts") are under construction in six more French cities:

• Angers — completion scheduled for 2010...
• Brest — completion scheduled for 2012...
• Le Havre — completion scheduled for 2011...
• Reims — completion scheduled for 2011...
• Toulouse — completion scheduled for 2010...
• Tours — completion scheduled for 2013...

France has also been aggressively developing tram-train operations – light rail services that run as trams (streetcars or more advanced LRT systems) on urban streets and reservations, then share "heavy rail" railway lines with intercity rail passenger trains. This type of operation is currently adamantly prohibited in the USA by the Federal Railroad Administration, but it has become widespread in Europe, where it's been operating safely and efficiently for nearly two decades.

Currently, in addition to those operating and planned, new tram-train systems are under construction in two French cities that already operate brand-new urban tramway systems:

• Mulhouse — completion scheduled for 2011..
• Nantes — completion scheduled (in stages) for 2010-2013...

And, in addition to its existing new tramway system, Lyon has a more advanced, high-performance LRT system also under construction, due for completion in 2010.

Bottom line: While the United States excels among the world's advanced countries in procrastinating, dreaming, and dithering in terms of urban rail transit development, France is moving rapidly and aggressively to actually put in place a comprehensive, efficient, cost-effective, and highly "green" network of urban electric metros, trolleybus lines, and tramways that will provide lower-cost public transport, ensure quality urban mobility, dramatically minimize petroleum dependency, and help reduce carbon emissions for generations to come.

Light Rail Now! NewsLog
URL: http://www.lightrailnow.org/news/n_newslog2009q4.htm#LRT_20091210
Updated 2009/12/10

 

[waterloowarrior]

Unlike France, Canada is a federalist state, and a very decentralized one at that... Transit is the responsibility of the province... if Toronto is lacking funding for its transit system it should be asking McGuinty, not Harper.

 

[GraphicMatt]

Harper gets a ton of money from Toronto residents through federal taxes. He has a responsibility to reinvest some of that money in services that benefit the city.

Also, preemptively: No, Toronto should not just vote for some Conservative candidates to see if maybe they'd give Toronto more money afterwards. That's dumb.

 

[Platform 27]

Transit is the responsibility of the province

Funnily, the constitution doesn't really say that.

 

[Tuscani01]

Harper gets a ton of money from Toronto residents through federal taxes. He has a responsibility to reinvest some of that money in services that benefit the city.

Also, preemptively: No, Toronto should not just vote for some Conservative candidates to see if maybe they'd give Toronto more money afterwards. That's dumb.

Cities are not a Federal responsibility. Its written in the constitution. Harper has no responsibility for reinvesting the money into cities.

We need a PM who is willing to change the constitution.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Maybe they'll contribute to GO expansion by helping to build more highways...

 

[Platform 27]

Cities are not a Federal responsibility. Its written in the constitution. Harper has no responsibility for reinvesting the money into cities.

We need a PM who is willing to change the constitution.

Um, getting federal investment to flow to municipalities doesn't require a constitutional amendment any more than the constitution had to be changed on account of the Canada Health Act.

Any barriers to Harper investing in Toronto aren't legal ones. They're ideological.

 

[Tuscani01]

Um, getting federal investment to flow to municipalities doesn't require a constitutional amendment any more than the constitution had to be changed on account of the Canada Health Act.

Any barriers to Harper investing in Toronto aren't legal ones. They're ideological.

I never said they can't give money to municipalities. We see money from the Fed's all the time in the form of grants. I simply disagreed that they have a responsibility to do so. And they don't so im still right.

 

[RedRocket191]

The constitution gives him an excuse to follow ideology.

 

[dunkalunk]

We probably won't see any funding committment for cities and transit until at least a year from February, and that funding won't actually materialize until May 2011. With the proroguation, we won't see another election cycle until the fall, unless all the opposition parties are feeling suicidal at the same time

Of course this is assuming that the conservatives get a weak enough minority to allow the libs and the dippers to form a coalition without bloc support, and that funding for transit is one of the conditions for NDP support. Yes, I understand this is a lot of hopeful thinking.

I can't deny that Harper is a great political strategist, however as for actually serving the country and representing us on an international stage, he's completely ineffective.

 

[W. K. Lis]

The CNR (formerly federal owned) used to own interurbans (rural streetcars), such as the Toronto Suburban Railway Company for a while. But then, the CNR helped rural voters, but supporting urban public transit only helps the urban voters.

 

[kEiThZ]

Funnily, the constitution doesn't really say that.

Actually, it does. Transportation that does not cross provincial boundaries is the responsibility of the province.

 

[kEiThZ]

Making such superficial comparisons are ludicrous. European governments are setup differently to begin with. But more importantly, they also pay significantly higher taxes than we do. If you want what they have, you should start campaigning for higher taxes. Otherwise, start making suggestions on where the federal government should cut back and find the money to fund transit expansion.

As a small aside, cities have to take some responsibility here. They've been encouraging sprawl for decades, which does not really make transit expansion cheap. I really believe that transit funding should be tied to density. At least in the GTHA the province is moving in the right direction (albeit with lots of resistance still).

 

[kEiThZ]

The constitution gives him an excuse to follow ideology.

The same transit funding ideology followed by his predecessors. Can you show a time period when Canadian federal governments were extremely dedicated to urban transit expansion?

It's easy to bash Harper on this point. But it's not like the Liberals or the old PCs had altogether markedly different records on the issue.

 

[kEiThZ]

Harper gets a ton of money from Toronto residents through federal taxes. He has a responsibility to reinvest some of that money in services that benefit the city.

Yet, how come nobody makes the same argument for the rest of Ontario sucking on Toronto's teat?

The money that goes to the feds pays for federal services. And federal services tend to be unevenly distributed. Unless you want fighter bases in the 416, it's quite likely that the spending of federal dollars will always be uneven. Heck, we have also entrenched the uneven distribution of money through programs like the Health and Social transfers, equalization, the various regional economic/development/opportunities agencies, and policies on regional benefits for all major federal projects. It's not just transit. If we are going to discuss funding equality, we'll also have to start discussing our entire federal fiscal and economic framework.