As policy makers across our country grapple with the new reality of having to find significant carbon 'savings' throughout the daily economic life cycle of Canadians, public transit has suddenly become a major "cause célèbre." Despite the serious budget crunches and very limited system expansion plans in most of our cities, everyone now seems to be talking about how to get more commuters out of their cars and into buses and subways.
In Toronto these past few months, there has been a great deal of chatter about refurbishing subway stations, squeezing more people into newer and roomier subway trains, improving the customer experience and introducing 'smart' payment cards. Similar conversations are taking place in every major Canadian city and the ultimate objective is the same everywhere: make transit a more popular, accessible and natural choice for all urban dwellers.
We're obviously playing serious catch-up here. Canadian cities, much like those of our American neighbours, were not necessarily envisioned, designed or taxed with mass transit at their core. While in most of the rest of the world private automobiles and urban road systems have always been expected to play a support role to mass transit systems, North American cities were designed in exactly the opposite way. Cars led; buses and trains simply helped.
So the carbon crunch and the sudden change in expectations and priorities across our major cities now represent a serious new challenge for our urban administrators. How do we shift millions of Canadians from cars to transit if we don't have the spare capacity or the spare funds to quickly expand capacity? How do we improve the commuter experience as we try to squeeze even more people onto the same platforms and trains? And how do we accomplish all this without draining public funds even faster than we're doing it today?
To their credit, city administrators across the country are discovering and pulling on all sorts of interesting levers. They're finding ways to attract private sector capital through innovative partnerships, they're uncovering operational efficiencies by modernizing payment systems and equipment and they're working hard to contain labour costs and disruptions.
But, when you think about it, those are all just incremental solutions -- and while each of them can make a modest difference and help squeeze a few more smiling passengers onto buses or save a few more pennies, none can truly change our commuting landscape.
The only big lever, the one that can really change our country's relationship with its transit infrastructure is us. Yes, us!
Our daily lifestyles, our commuting patterns, our transit-shopping choices -- those all represent great opportunities for transit planners because the smallest shift in the behaviour of millions can make a huge difference for a mass transit system.
Imagine all the extra revenue for transit providers if one million more Canadians started taking transit to do their weekend shopping, instead of driving to the mall? Or the massive capacity relief (and room for extra revenue) if one million more Canadians commuted to and from work during non-peak hours? Or the operational savings if one million more Canadians found a better way to buy tickets or passes, instead of lining up at a ticket booth?
The best way to influence the behaviour of millions is through simple, targeted incentives -- especially when, as a nation, we are known to be among the world's biggest followers of loyalty and incentive programs.
In a tiny experiment last year, the Toronto Transit Commission offered its monthly pass customers a small incentive if they bought in advance a whole year's worth of monthly passes (giving the TTC the double benefit of more predictable revenues and less pressure at their ticket booths at the end of each month); the results were absolutely spectacular -- their sales went up by 57 per cent!
In a similar experiment a few months ago, the transit authority in Montreal began to offer its customers a small incentive if they simply purchased their monthly pass off-peak and off-line (from a participating retailer, instead of the transit ticket booths); once again the response was incredible.
Bigger ideas are often simple and affordable. Instead of resigning ourselves to the traditional view that it will take a lot of money and time to change our car-dependent cities, let's just think creatively. We have more than enough to work with, already.
Teresa Strasser: City Mom: I Love the Smell of Exhaust in the Morning
Using, improving public transit key, Sierra Club rep says | The ...
Improving Public Transit Options for Older Persons | Blurbs | Main
Wanna live outside a major metropolis? - you have to have a car, period. That also forces people to live in cities, and puts more demand on roads, and transit, and stifles regional economies. And buses aren't the solution, unless you're a bus manufacturer.....
The compactness of European cities should be applied in North America; Frankfurt's much larger than Vancouver in population, for example, and occupies a fraction of its space; and has an intense rail network, like most European cities, and easy and fast rail connections to outlying communities and other cities in Germany's/Europe's rail network. Freeways cost more money than just to build, in other words, because bigger-area cities are also more expensive to service with rail and similar options as a result.......
Trail and Nelson had streetcar systems, among other small BC cities that did, originally, and of course the old railway mainlines such as the CPR and CNR through the Fraser Valley had three-times dailiy service to Yale (then a major centre, and kept alive as such, until that rail service was ended). The BC Electric Railway, the foundation of what is now BC Hydro and until recently a crown corporation until given away to one of the Campbell government's main backers (the Washington Group, who also now own the E&N on Vancouver Island), provided three-times daily (or more) service to and from Chilliwack; efforts to revive passenger service on it from New Westminster to at least Abbotsford are regularly thwarted by developers, most of whom are tied to car dealerships......the same is true, I've heard, of the old railway line through the Annapolis Valley between Halifax and Yarmouth.....
Vancouver WAS originally designed with streetcar life, and walkability, in mind; of course once the tracks got ripped off and the freeways got built, sprawl resulted, and the resulting communities aren't at all walkable.....as with Halifax etc (which also had streetcards I believe). You wanna go shopping, or have more job and housing options? - in such places now you virtually HAVE to buy a car....and in places like Halifax and PG, waiting in the snow and frozen cold and wind for a bus that may not come is just not viable as an option......likewise in Vancouver's endless downpours...never mind that Skytrain passengers are packed like sardines with seating of a dimension only suitable for smaller people, and with low headroom.....I'm 6'5", travel on Skytrain is extremely uncomfortable, especially when busy.....Montreal's Metro, on the other hand, is pretty comfortable (at least when empty)
The reason those of us who can afford to ignore public transit continue stubbornly to do so - even at the peril of sitting in gridlock in our cars for hours on end - is because public transit is precisely that: public. It's noisy, dirty and filled with endless quantities of rude, unwashed riff-raff who don't know even how to queue up to enter or exit a doorway or escalator. (The last is because in our rush to accommodate kumbaya multiculti-balkanism, we as a nation have failed utterly to stress to the masses of 3rd worlders we keep importing, wholesale, that we do in fact have a viable culture & values that were established well before their arrival here, one of which is good manners in public spaces & learning how to line up.)