Walking past Jimmie Simpson Park on Queen Street East in Toronto, you can often hear the dribble of a basketball on the concrete court, or the buzz of parents with young children chatting on the grass in the shade of mature trees. Outside the namesake recreation centre, there’s also a baseball diamond, an outdoor rink, and, at the north end of the park, a busy playground.

The park and rec centre sit on the dividing line between Leslieville and Riverside, two neighbourhoods east of Toronto’s downtown core made up mostly of pricey single-family homes, save a few tasteful, low-rise condos. They’ve long been the site of concerts, art festivals and holiday markets. During COVID-19, the rec centre became a pop-up vaccination clinic, while the park is still a spot to eat takeout or gather safely with friends and family.

Jimmie Simpson truly is at the heart of the community. Now, residents fear a proposed transit expansion will ruin it, as existing rail lines on the west side of the park expand with the addition of the Ontario Line, a rapid-transit route being built by the provincial transit agency Metrolinx.

Around six kilometres to the northeast, a very different Toronto community is dealing with similar fears. Thorncliffe Park is a densely populated neighbourhood home to over 30,000 people in just 2.2 square kilometres, most of them in apartment buildings that stretch as high as 42 storeys. 

Here, residents say they were blindsided in April, when Metrolinx proposed building a massive maintenance and storage facility to house Ontario Line trains in the heart of their neighbourhood. Spanning around 175,000 square meters, or roughly 24 soccer fields, the yard is set to be located just north of a new Thorncliffe Park station on the Ontario Line — displacing a mosque and 26 local businesses, including Iqbal Halal Foods, the only Islamic grocery store in the area. 

Toronto is desperate for transit. It’s set to add another half-million people to its population by 2030, but its aging subway line can barely serve its current population of 2.95 million people, who must endure regular delays and last-minute shutdowns during their daily commutes. But, despite the urgency for more active and public transit, Toronto’s track record for getting transit projects completed is abysmal. New research from the University of Toronto shows it can take as long as 50 years to get from planning to opening day, and over the past half-century, the city has seen expansion plans scrapped repeatedly, never opening  at all. 

With over 80 per cent of Canadians living in cities, urban environmental solutions like rapid transit play a role in curbing emissions and reaching climate targets. Residents in both Thorncliffe Park and Leslieville-Riverside say they want transit, but as they stare down the Ontario Line, they object to a lack of consultation and straight answers from Metrolinx. They say their public health and community safety concerns have been downplayed and dismissed to the point they no longer trust the provincial agency.

Making some noise over Metrolinx’s Ontario Line plans

The Ontario government’s four big transit projects in the Greater Toronto Area — the Ontario Line, the Scarborough subway extension, the Yonge Street subway extension to Richmond Hill and the Eglinton Crosstown West rapid transit extension — mark the largest investment in public transit from the federal and provincial governments in Canadian history. That may sound nice, but for Toronto, it comes after decades of cancelled projects that fell victim to government changes and lack of political will. 

One of these was an underground, eight-stop Relief Line, cancelled when Doug Ford’s Progressive Conservatives took office in 2018. The next year, his government put forward a new plan for a 15-stop, stand-alone electrified rapid transit line spanning roughly 15.6 kilometres, from Ontario Place on Lake Ontario north to the Science Centre, intersecting with the Toronto Transit Commission’s Yonge-University Line 1. Dubbed the Ontario Line, it would be roughly twice as long as the Relief Line, with an estimated cost of $10.9 billion, including about $4 billion from the federal government.

When the Relief Line was cancelled, so was the plan to build entirely underground, with Metrolinx citing an effort to speed up the project. The City of Toronto has requested Metrolinx study the feasibility of an underground Ontario Line more than once in the last two years, but according to the provincial agency, the portion of line through Leslieville-Riverside will be cheaper, quicker to build and have less impact on the community if it’s above ground. 

Its plan is to run the Ontario Line on an existing rail corridor west of Jimmie Simpson Park, which currently services Go Transit’s Regional Express Rail lines that run to commuter towns from downtown, in addition to Via Rail and freight trains. This proposal, as well as a planned Go Transit expansion, will require Metrolinx to widen the tracks from three to six and elevate the rail corridor, in addition to rebuilding and adding new bridges along this portion of the route.

On the other side of the tracks from Jimmie Simpson Park is Wardell Street, which curves to meet De Grassi Street, the namesake of the fictional Canadian adolescent drama Degrassi Junior High. Both streets feature the kind of stately brick houses you can only find in the oldest parts of Toronto. For two decades, house prices here have shot higher, and then higher, and the surrounding community has garnered international attention for its understated but historic architecture, a long list of restaurants, laid-back cafes and local shopping. It’s a snapshot of a trendy Toronto neighbourhood.

Fifty metres or fewer from the rail corridor are the bedrooms and living rooms of a few dozen homes.  That includes the semi-detached house where Eon Song lives with his partner. Before they bought it five years ago, the couple went to a viewing armed with decibel meter apps installed on their phones to test the noise of passing trains from inside. The meter shot up by 15 decibels when a train passed by, but Song thought if the whole street was dealing with it, it must be okay. 

Now he’s a member of Save Jimmie Simpson, a group formed last year by about 10 local residents to challenge Metrolinx and the above-ground plan through their communities. The group estimates that once both the Ontario Line and Go expansion work are complete, a train will pass well over 1,500 times a day.

“This comes from our manual calculation based on what little information Metrolinx has given us,” Song said. By The Narwhal’s calculation, this amounts to roughly one train every minute if the trains were running 24 hours a day, and more frequently if the trains were only running 16 to 20 hours a day, passing metres from the homes on Wardell Street. Metrolinx did not confirm or dispute the Save Jimmie Simpson calculations.

What’s happening in Leslieville-Riverside

These two urban East Toronto communities feature historic homes and sites.

Metrolinx proposed plan

An above-ground section of the Ontario Line, widening the existing rail corridor, and adding or rebuilding train bridges along the route. Leslieville station will be built at Queen Street East and Degrassi Street.

The location

Homes are around 50 metres from some parts of the existing track and residents fear Jimmie Simpson Park will be impacted.

The group

Save Jimmie Simpson estimates there could be as many as 1,500 trains a day on the tracks by 2030 once the Ontario Line and expansion work are complete.

In early 2020, Save Jimmie Simpson requested a federal impact assessment of the Ontario Line from Health Canada. In February 2020, the federal department denied the request, citing a lack of jurisdiction. But its response also outlined omissions in Metrolinx’s Environmental Compliance Report for the Ontario Line, a report meant to give a broad scope of the agency’s plans and potential impacts based on regulations.

Health Canada wrote that Metrolinx “does not discuss the potential for human health risks” in a number of areas, including “exposure to diesel particulate matter” during construction, “changes in noise from construction and operation activities”  as well as “the potential for cumulative effects on human health.” It also said the report “includes only a brief summary of the potential project impacts on environmental and socio-economic conditions and proposed mitigation measures.”

Although Health Canada noted inadequate identification and description of human health impacts for the Ontario Line, it didn’t provide an opinion on the project. In an email, Metrolinx spokesperson Anne Marie Aikins said the Health Canada report “ultimately determined our existing environmental assessment process for the Ontario Line provided ample oversight for the project.”

Song filed a complaint with the provincial Ombudsman’s Office, and in February 2021 Metrolinx responded with a letter, saying that studying health impacts was outside of its mandate as a transit agency. It advised that potential air quality, noise and vibration impacts will be part of an eventual environmental assessment, which will likely be released in winter 2022, and that community concern had led to plan adjustments meant to protect the rec centre

Save Jimmie Simpson is fundraising to commission an independent health impact assessment. It’s expected to be released early next month, and the group has raised over $14,000 of its $20,000 goal.

“If you cannot put it underground and find alternative routes, then identify which homes would be not fit for living, either noise measurements, vibration, whatever the case may be, expropriate those homes. That’s it,” Song said. “I think this government has an obligation to build transit that works, that makes sense, whoever lives here.”

Hundreds of neighbours have attended rallies, signed petitions and fundraised for Save Jimmie Simpson’s efforts. One of their worries is losing parts of the park. In a June 2021 blog post, Metrolinx said the park, playgrounds and existing buildings can operate during construction and beyond, and that the three additional tracks will fit within the existing rail corridor. The agency stated the project will actually result in 2,600 square metres more green space in Jimmie Simpson and other parks along the route. 

But a community member for Save Jimmie Simpson took Metrolinx’s drawing of the tracks and superimposed them on an aerial photo of the area, creating a rendering that shows homes and businesses will need to be removed, in addition to trees and parkland. The agency says the community’s rendering is not accurate and it’s own technical drawing of the same corridor through Leslieville-Riverside looks quite different: in it, all construction is kept within the rail corridor boundaries, which are generally indicated by the existing fence and retaining wall on either side.

Local residents are also worried about noise and rumbling. In its February letter to Song, Metrolinx said that it believes that the majority of noise and vibrations from the Ontario Line can be mitigated by a planned barrier, but that additional measures might be explored after noise studies and the environmental assessment. In late September, Metrolinx released a noise and vibration study for the Lakeshore East corridor. It was part of a draft of a report that also suggests mitigation measures for the construction period, including doing work during the day when possible, and using silencers and diesel mufflers on equipment. The public can review and comment for roughly a month, which may or may not be considered in the final report. 

The noise levels within the draft report are based on readings from receptors placed outdoors, near the line, and only show the likely effects of the Ontario Line and GO transit, excluding the potential cumulative effects of Via Rail and freight trains. The receptor on Wardell Street showed an average reading of 64 decibels during the day, while another, further east on Pape Avenue, peaked at 73. Interpreting noise readings can be challenging, but normal conversation is about 60 decibels and a motorcycle engine running is about 95 decibels. According to Health Canada, noise above 70 decibels over a prolonged period of time can lead to hearing loss.

The same day the report came out, the agency held an online consultation, touching on its plan to build a noise barrier. The community has a say in what the wall will look like but has not received answers on its potential height or exactly how it will absorb the noise. In a March blog post about noise barriers generally, the agency wrote that most of its barriers are five feet high and made of a concrete composite. 

Aikins said that the agency follows Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks guidelines for assessing noise limits, which only apply to outdoor locations, and don’t cover noise inside homes or businesses. The agency maintains that despite an increase of trains in the corridor, it is actually forecasting lower noise levels in most Ontario Line areas after the corresponding noise walls are built. 

In other neighbourhoods near above-ground subway tracks, noise has been cause for concern. In 2019, Dr. Vincent Lin, an otolaryngologist with Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, told Global News that subway screeching in Etobicoke posed serious risks to nearby residents. His analysis was based on a 2017 study that he and a team published in the Journal of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, which concluded that while the average noise levels from Toronto’s transit are within the level of safe exposure, noise-induced hearing loss was a possibility for those who are exposed often. 

The agency says the environmental assessment will come before early construction begins next year, with the bulk of the work scheduled for 2023. Metrolinx plans to begin removing trees within the rail corridor this fall or winter, though Aikins said no trees will be removed outside the rail corridor “until later in 2022.” Until then, Song says, nothing is set in stone. Save Jimmie Simpson is hoping to stave off tree clearing and preliminary work until the environmental assessment is done.

While tree-clearing and early construction is imminent, Shoshannah Saxe says the completion of the project could take a while yet. An assistant professor in the department of engineering at the University of Toronto, Saxe holds the Canada Research Chair in Sustainable Infrastructure. 

In August, she and a team of researchers released a report comparing the timelines of 26 transportation infrastructure projects in Toronto and London, England. “In both cities more than half of the preconstruction time was on average spent in political rather than technical processes,” the team wrote, finding that it took about 18 years for a proposal to translate into shovels in the ground. 

And it can take a few more decades after that to reach opening day in Toronto: recent projects have taken half a century to make it from the idea stage to accepting riders. “One version seemed like it was gonna happen, maybe you liked that version, and now we’re back to an earlier stage, it’s happening again,” Saxe said.  

Holding the Thorncliffe Park community together

Steve Munro has been a transit advocate in Toronto since 1972: on his namesake website, he shares photographs and writing about transit projects in the city and across the province. His knowledge of local transit is both broad and deep. He thinks Metrolinx has an opportunity to build meaningful projects, linked with development, shaping neighbourhoods as they grow — but that the agency is blowing that opportunity by, as he said in an August phone call, “being so damn secretive and pissing everybody off.”

The retired IT professional believes Metrolinx is trying to get “as much beyond the point of no return” on the Ontario Line before next spring’s provincial election, and the risk of a new government scrapping the plan, again. “I think Metrolinx’s general attitude is to find a way to get around the community,” he said. His own calculations of train frequency based estimate about 1,800 a day through the Jimmie Simpson corridor, though each train passing through is not equal (a diesel hauled Go Transit train will make more noise than the electrified cars set to be used for the Ontario Line). 

“Metrolinx has been around for a long time now and it could have been so much better than it is,” Munro said. “It’s sort of the Ford transit legacy, if you will.” The agency was fairly new in 2010 when Rob Ford, Doug’s late brother and then-mayor of Toronto, cancelled yet another previous plan for new rapid transit lines across the city. Then Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals were ousted by the provincial Tories in 2018. “And Metrolinx, who were on shaky ground politically, pivoted and turned themselves into Doug Ford’s construction company.”

Munro believes a regional transportation authority could, in theory, connect people, operate “truly collegially,” and actually get much-needed transit built. He doesn’t feel that has happened in the communities currently facing an Ontario Line project, including Thorncliffe Park. 

That’s the neighbourhood Aamir Sukhera has called home since 1981. He’s one of many in the community that say no one was consulted or notified before the spring announcement of the maintenance and storage facility — not even local elected officials. 

There’s a new Thorncliffe Park station planned for the Ontario Line, which would serve the community well. Right now, it takes 15 minutes to get to the subway by bus, and then another half hour to get downtown, often longer in rush hour. The storage yard, set to be just north of the new station, was announced by Metrolinx in the spring. 

“For three years, you never once mentioned that you’re going to put a train yard here, it was only the train station. And all of a sudden you decide this is the only location that it can go, but you’re not talking to us about it,” said Sukhera, who works in cyber security. Metrolinx told The Narwhal it chose Thorncliffe Park for the facility after reviewing nine locations because “it was the only option that could meet all of the technical needs for the project.”

Sukhera says he’s grateful for the incoming Ontario Line, and agrees it’s a desperately needed connection to the rest of the city. But he’s worried about how the loss will affect people who rely on the services in the plaza, which houses a grocery store as well as The Neighbourhood Office, a community hub for employment, health and social services.

“There’s a known problem in our community, there just isn’t enough space for everyone and taking away 600,000 square feet isn’t the right thing to do,” Sakhera said.

Sukhera is part of SaveTPARK, a group with around 40 core members, which is trying to find a solution. Instead of the planned site, the group has proposed a hybrid option, splitting the storage facility into two locations, plans they say Metrolinx has not seriously considered. 

“So just hear us when we say: move this, you can, the city is big, there’s so many other places, and we’ve given you the perfect place to put it. Respond to why that’s not a good enough site that we’re proposing. And they haven’t,” says Sakhera, who has heard some people refer to the site location, and lack of consultation, as environmental racism. The 2016 census indicates 79 per cent of Thorncliffe’s residents are a “visible minority” and the rate of poverty here is 46 per cent, more than double Toronto’s average. 

As in low-income communities across Canada, COVID-19 devastated Thorncliffe Park. But when vaccination pop-ups brought the community together, SaveTPARK saw an opportunity to inform people of Metrolinx’s plans. English is not the first language of nearly three-quarters of the community, and many were unaware of the rail yard proposal. The group translated its messaging into 15 languages and says that over the course of their advocacy, more than 10,500 residents and supporters signed their petition. On Oct. 6, members from SaveTPARK joined Save Jimmie Simpson and other community groups on the lawn in front of Queen’s Park for a rally. 

Also on the future site of the rail yard is a community-funded mosque, which Suhkera says was struggling after a bad business decision when it was approached by Metrolinx. He says the agency allegedly paid $20 million to expropriate the building, which is roughly 10 times the annual revenue of the Islamic Society of Toronto, the organization that runs the mosque, according to public information.

“In my conversations with the mosque leadership, I said, ‘we ought to ask people how they feel.’ And the response was, ‘They’re just renters, so what does it matter?’ And that is where I think I made my decision to stand up for this because I am also a renter, I’ve been renting here all my life,” Suhkera said. While about half of the people in Toronto own a house, almost all of Thorncliffe Park consists of renters, with most calling one of 34 apartment buildings home. 

“That mentality, that people who don’t own don’t matter, is not right. You could be the poorest person here, but you’re still part of our community and we’ll look after you,” said Sukhera, who feels the mosque and its leadership have been given preferential treatment in the Ontario Line process. “I don’t want to make this whole thing about the mosque because it truly isn’t, it’s Metrolinx, but they’re a significant part of why this is happening and how communities get sold out by those that people think represent the community.”

What’s happening in Thorncliffe Park

This densely populated low-income neighbourhood is home to 30,000 people in 2.2 square kilometres.

Metrolinx proposed plan

A 175,000 square metre maintenance and storage facility to service and store trains on the Ontario Line.

The location

The site of a plaza currently home to a mosque and 26 local businesses, including the neighbourhood’s only Islamic grocery store.

The group

SaveTPARK says there was zero community consultation prior to publicizing the final site.

The mosque’s treasurer, Illyas Mulla, said in an email response to The Narwhal that it signed a non-disclosure agreement with Metrolinx, and wouldn’t respond to further questioning. “We are not pressured by Metrolinx or anyone else,” Mulla wrote, criticizing “misinformation” and “misinformed people.” 

Metrolinx says it plans to try to help relocate impacted businesses, but it’s unclear how close they’ll be — if at all — to the community they currently serve. The agency said specific details and financial figures are confidential. 

“There is impact, but that impact isn’t significant enough for Metrolinx or the mosque or even the politicians who care,” Sukhera said. “I don’t want them to think that we should just roll over and accept whatever is given to us. We have to at least try.” 

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

There’s nothing else like it in Canada.

Since the early 1970s, Manitoba’s provincial government has covered a full 50 per cent of the operating costs for Winnipeg’s public transit system. That means that half of the money required to make transit actually run — salaries and benefits, maintenance, fuel, bus parts — is guaranteed by the province.

“It actually gets at what transit really is,” Joseph Kornelsen, chair of Function Transit Winnipeg, told DeSmog Canada about the arrangement. “Emphasizing that kind of funding is actually how other jurisdictions should be doing it.”

But the setup is almost certainly about to end with the passage of Bill 36 by Manitoba’s Progressive Conservative government.

To be sure, Winnipeg will continue to receive funding from the province. But none of it will be specifically earmarked for transit, leading some transit advocates to express concern that routes and frequency of service could diminish significantly.

In short: Manitoba is about to join the rest of Canada with uneven, ad-hoc and underwhelming transit funding.

Higher Levels of Government Fund Capital, Not Operating Spending

It’s not exactly that federal and provincial governments don’t fund public transit.

Rather, it’s that they almost exclusively focus on capital funding. That means paying for the material infrastructure of transit: light rail transit lines, subway tracks, street cars, bridges.

“Oftentimes, we focus heavily on the capital and getting new projects built,” said Matti Siemiatycki, geography and planning professor at the University of Toronto, in an interview with DeSmog Canada. “I would say there’s a political favouritism to projects where you can cut a ribbon. That tends to be new, large-scale infrastructure investments.”

For instance, the federal government announced $20.1 billion over 11 years for public transit projects in its March budget. It was a gargantuan figure relative to previous commitments.

Patrick Leclerc, president and CEO of the Canadian Urban Transit Association, described it in an interview with DeSmog Canada as “unprecedented,” noting that “it’s never been better than it is today and it will be in the coming years.”

But it’s all capital funding: money allocated for only building stuff, not actually running it.

Similarly, transit quality is often evaluated in a way that emphasizes infrastructure investments (such as the length of transit lines) over metrics like frequency of service or percentage of people who use a certain type of transportation.

“When you look at the operating funding, this is where it’s more difficult,” Leclerc said.

“You can buy as many buses as you want and a new maintenance facility. But if you cannot increase the number of service hours, or hire more drivers because you don’t have the operating budget then you won’t be able to expand service, you won’t be able to offer more frequency.”

Here’s Why #Canadian Cities Struggle to Pay for Public #Transit https://t.co/x2p3zEhMv7 #publictransit #Voices4Transit #cdnpoli

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) October 24, 2017

Municipalities Forced to Rely Heavily on Unpopular Property Tax

That’s why the esoteric budget bill in Manitoba is a bit of a flashpoint for the conversation in Canada.

It’s one thing to build transit tracks and lines. It’s quite another to make sure they’re properly operated and maintained.

For example, a hot topic among transit geeks is “public-private partnerships” or P3s, in which the private sector finances the construction of a project. But as Siemiatycki pointed out, financing is only where the money comes from upfront.

Funding is how the money is paid back. Cities are almost always often left out to dry on that front, relying on a combination of fares and municipal funding.

“One of the ironies about transit is even when the federal or provincial government provides significant capital dollars to help a municipality build new transit, that creates additional long-term financial liabilities for that municipality that they then have to raise additional revenue to pay for,” he said.

Unfortunately, cities in Canada exist in a fiscal straightjacket of sorts, with a heavy reliance on property taxes: a highly visible and politically difficult form of revenue generation.

Municipalities also have the least ability of any level of government to borrow money as they can’t run deficits or administer less conspicuous forms of taxes on residents. In addition, cities only receive around eight cents of every tax dollar, but own about half of the country’s public capital stock.

That can result in a flatlining or declining of transit ridership year over year.

Stefan Kipfer, professor of environmental studies at York University, told DeSmog Canada that most major cities in the country have a transit ridership of between 20 and 25 per cent.

In turn, that can mean transit becomes a low-priority issue for politicians to seriously address.

“If you’re a politician in most jurisdictions, the vast majority of your constituents don’t use public transit on a regular basis,” he said. “We’ve got a big problem in terms of building a constituency that actually starts to have an impact on the national scale.”

Wide Range of Options Available to Help Fix Situation

With that said, experts have offered up some clear solutions to fix the transit crisis.

Higher levels of government — in a better position to borrow and raise revenue — could provide predictable and long-term funding to help cover operating costs (revenue from carbon pricing would likely help with that). Or the federal Liberals might reverse their controversial decision to cancel the transit tax credit, which was claimed by almost two million people in 2014 and helped to boost ridership in Toronto by 2.3 per cent.

Leclerc added there’s an incredibly wide range of alternative funding models that could be introduced: road pricing for cars, special taxation within a certain transit hub, allowing for an employer-provided and tax-exempt transit benefit.

“There’s no magic bullet to this,” Siemiatycki said. “It just requires very careful attention and ongoing diligence. Putting regulatory frameworks in place like having an asset management plan would be one, and in some cases using public-private partnerships to lock in long-term maintenance arrangements.”

‘It’s Important to Me As A Financial Issue for My Future’

The ideas are clearly out there. What’s missing is the sheer political will, combined with the recognition that public transit serves a vital role in cutting greenhouse gas emissions and creating a more socially equitable society.

Of course, it’s a complicated conversation in a federation like Canada. Each level of government wants to keep taxes and expenses low. But the “clean energy revolution” appears to offer up an opportunity to rethink how governments coordinate and fund transportation. Why shouldn’t that apply to public transit?

“It’s important to me as a financial issue for my future,” concluded Kornelsen of Functional Transit Winnipeg. “I want a city that I can be proud of and one that’s not going to break my bank account.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Premier Clark and most of Canada’s premiers recently signed the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change. ‘Framework’ is a good title for this agreement — it is barely a start on what is needed.

But it contains a policy shift that could dramatically reduce climate pollution from transportation.

Over the past decades the federal government has funded transportation infrastructure with little or no regard for climate pollution. They spent billions of public dollars every year on projects that increase climate pollution, such as urban highway expansion.

And since projects are usually cost shared, one billion of federal money is often matched by two billion from the province and region or municipality. Largely as a result of this perverse spending, between 1990 and 2014 climate pollution from transportation increased 32 per cent.

Trudeau’s first budget allocated new money to a public transit fund, which can reduce carbon pollution, but there was no commitment to shift money away from projects that increase pollution.

Now there is a commitment — of sorts — in the fine print of the climate framework.

The framework commits the federal and provincial governments to “shift from higher to lower-emitting types of transportation, including through investing in infrastructure.”

The examples include shifting from driving to transit and cycling as well as shifting freight from trucks to rail.

This is not a completely new development: the NDP and Greens helped pass Liberal MP Andy Fillmore’s private members bill to the same effect in September.

Bill M-45 calls for analysis of the greenhouse gas impact of every infrastructure funding proposal over half a million dollars, and for giving funding priority to projects that reduce climate pollution.

The cliché “you can’t build your way out of congestion” is well supported by studies and experience. Roadway expansion in urban areas worsens both pollution and congestion.

In a 2007 study Clark Williams-Derry of the SightLine Institute found that “adding one mile of new highway lane will increase CO2 emissions by more than 100,000 tons over 50 years.”

Considering that transportation is the second biggest source of climate pollution in Canada, the effect of road expansion must not be ignored.

But until now climate impacts have, for the most part, been ignored.

Ontario’s Highway 427 Expansion project in Metro Toronto is proceeding with barely a mention of carbon pollution. One rather disturbing exception is British Columbia; instead of ignoring climate impacts Premier Clark makes the ridiculous claim that urban highway expansion projects reduce climate pollution.

When governments bury a policy in the fine print, it usually means they have little intention of following through. But the experience of Metro Vancouver shows that people working in concert with their local municipal governments can take this policy from the fine print into the headlines.

In 2006 a packed room of residents favoring public transit over freeway expansion cheered a close Metro Vancouver Regional District board vote to oppose the multi-billion dollar Port Mann Bridge.

The vote did not stop the provincial government from building the bridge, but the federal government didn’t fund it and later funded rapid transit projects in the region instead.

Municipal politicians in Metro Vancouver learned the lesson — if you want federal rapid transit funding you need to reject highway expansion.

In June of this year when the Metro Vancouver board voted to formally oppose the replacement of the four-lane Massey Tunnel with a 10-lane mega-bridge the vote was overwhelming. Only one mayor supported the $3.5 Billion toll bridge.

The main argument Metro Vancouver used was that the project contradicts regional planning objectives, but now the Massey Bridge proposal also violates the federal-provincial climate framework.

Now everyone who wants better transit has a new tool to help ensure our public funds are not spent to make the climate crisis worse.

The first step is to get your municipality and regional district to endorse this new policy of shifting of money away from road projects that increase pollution to public transit. Then be prepared to demand that your mayor and councillors actively oppose the next polluting urban highway expansion project the provincial government announces.

Eric Doherty is a Victoria-based transportation planning consultant and a founding member of the Better Transit Alliance of Greater Victoria.

Image: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Premier Kathleen Wynne at a public infrastructure announcement in Barrie, Ontario. Photo: Prime Minister's Photo Gallery

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Perhaps the most appealing environmental policy change proposed by the federal Liberals — besides acknowledging climate change is a real and destructive force, of course — is its commitment to invest in green infrastructure and public transit.

During the election, the Liberal government promised to put $125 billion on the table for infrastructure investments in the next decade — representing a doubling of the $65 billion pledged by the previous government. Of that, some $20 billion has been earmarked for public transit funding, with another $20 billion promised for other green infrastructure projects.

Light-rail transit, wastewater facilities, electric vehicle charging stations, wildfire protection, renewable energy projects, climate impact analysis — you name it, and it was probably on the list of ideas forwarded by the party during the marathon 78-day election that eventually crowned party leader Justin Trudeau as the next prime minister of Canada.

But now comes the very tricky part: translating very lofty rhetoric about greening the country into reality.

We asked experts across Canada to break down where the funds are needed and how Trudeau and his cabinet can get the best bang for their buck in terms of mitigating climate change.

1) Build Smarter Cities

Public transit is a fascinating subject but often gets left out of grand-scale sustainable city planning.

Anthony Perl, professor of urban studies and political science at Simon Fraser University, says while the Liberal platform features an admirable commitment to transit funding (as mentioned, $20 billion over 10 years) it fails to discuss issues such as land-use, sustainability planning and the construction of mixed-use communities that promote walking, biking and transit use.

“This could be either a real catalyst for building those more sustainable communities or it could be disconnected and actually work against that by putting the transit in and having to retrofit it later,” Perl says.

Perl points to Toronto’s Line 4 Sheppard subway route as an example of what happens if a city doesn’t retrofit land-use as well as they could have, resulting in underwhelming ridership. He suggests such problems could be averted by requiring municipalities to “get their act together in advance” and plan to house more people along transit corridors in “complete communities where they can walk to the rapid transit and not need cars.” Land-use planning is ultimately a municipal issue, but such funding conditions could provide the right incentives for change.

2) Grant Cities More Financial Power

Municipalities are legendarily hamstrung when it comes to raising revenue.

“Municipalities are responsible for construction, operations and maintenance for 53 per cent of our nation’s public infrastructure, but collect just eight cents of every tax dollar paid in Canada,” the Canadian Union of Public Employees notes.

Cities can’t run deficits and are usually forced to rely on an unpopular combo of property tax and user fees.

Alan Broadbent, author of Urban Nation: Why We Need to Give Power Back to the Cities to Make Canada Strong and chairman of Maytree, a civic advocacy charity, says such a reality makes it very difficult for cities to construct forward-thinking infrastructure, especially since provincial and federal funding for infrastructure projects tends to arrive sporadically which forces cities to play catch-up.

“They really haven’t done anything that you call a structured, focused agenda with long-term funding or anything like that,” he says. “They certainly have not done anything in terms of transferring tax points or creating a greater ability for municipalities to be able to raise their own revenues.”

Project-specific funding has filled the gap. Perl says such a strategy can work for a time but a broader framework —a national urban transportation strategy, for instance — is required to make the most of the available money.

n the provincial domain, the new government could also encourage premiers to re-evaluate how municipalities can raise revenue (think a municipal sales tax, or more revenue sharing, or granting more authority to cities to decide what money is spent on).

3) Introduce a Home Adaptation Audit Program

As demonstrated in the summer of 2013 (most notably in Calgary and Toronto), heavy rainfall can result in rapid and destructive flooding. Basements often get hit the hardest. That’s why Blair Feltmate, chair of the Climate Change Adaptation Project at the University of Waterloo, recommends the launching of a “home adaptation audit program,” a tool that would help lower the probability of flooded basements when the big storms occur (and which will increase in frequency in coming years).

Feltmate notes that more than half of claims for property damage liability insurance in Canada come from water-related damage, mostly flooding. Feltmate previously wrote that this trend has resulted in the creation of “uninsurable areas” — that is, regions that insurance companies won’t touch because it’s too risky. " A shrinking insurance market will negatively impact the mortgage market, because to qualify for a mortgage, you need house insurance,” he wrote.

Pilots for such programs have been executed in Kitchener/Waterloo and Calgary: Halifax's Ecology Action Centre concluded the pilot was "a huge success" and for every dollar spent on an audit "the homeowner avoids an average of $7.50 in flood damage risk over 10 years." The federal government could easily create and fund a national program.

4) Conserve Urban Forests and Natural Areas

In mid-2014, TD Bank published a study that suggested Toronto’s urban forests (made up of 10 million trees) account for $7 billion worth of value — or $700 per tree. If such a figure seems high, consider the ecosystem services that trees provide: buffering rainfall and snow which reduces strain on soil and stormwater systems ($5.28/tree), removing air pollutants ($1.87/tree) and providing natural shading ($0.63/tree). TD calculated that such “assets” save the average Toronto family $125/year.

However, a whole host of issues plague urban trees: insect infestations, loss of topsoil, salt pollution. And, of course, urban sprawl.

Dupras says policymakers in Montreal's metropolitan area want to protect 17 per cent but there’s only 20 per cent left.

“There’s a lot of pressures from traditional developers for typical urban sprawl development,” he says. “We really need both ways, from top-down and bottom-up actions: voluntary actions and more restrictive development within a legal framework.”

Of course, issues pertaining to the regulation and protection of urban forests falls to municipalities and provinces. But Dupras argues the federal government “can really give a strong signal by reviewing the infrastructure program” and redirecting more money from the general infrastructure program (recall, $125 billion over 10 years) to the green infrastructure program ($20 billion in the same window). In the end, natural area conservation is just like anything else: it takes money.

5) Protect Wetlands from Further Destruction

Wetlands are the superstars of the natural world. In natural states, they can mitigate flooding, house greenhouse gases, filter sediment and toxins from stormwater and foster astounding levels of biodiversity.

Unfortunately, more than70 per cent of wetlands near major Canadian cities have been damaged or destroyed due to drainage for urban sprawl.

“The most pressing issue is the wetlands. Numbers are challenging because we don’t know on what historical basis to work, but for sure in the last decade we lost over 80 per cent of the wetlands,” said Jérôme Dupras, assistant professor in natural sciences at University of Québec, about Montreal's metropolitan area.

Back in 2005, Thomas Mulcair — then serving as Quebec’s environment minister — called for a moratorium on wetlands destruction. Dupras notes the proposal was shot down by then-prime minister Paul Martin for undetermined reasons.

A decade later, there’s a lot of catch-up to be done. Dupras says there’s an urgent need to review laws and regulations about protection and restoration.

A national campaign to maintain wetlands wouldn’t just save a few mallard ducks (although that’s indeed a very noble cause). Left intact, wetlands could serve as natural green infrastructure, protecting major cities situated in floodplains (as most Canadian cities are) from the worst water-related manifestations of climate change.

6) Update Floodplain Mapping

A highly related issue is that of outdated floodplain mapping. Canada is way behind the times on the subject.

Feltmate says the country doesn’t even have an adequate understanding of floodwater patterns for 2015, let alone 25 or 50 years from now (a problem given storms and flooding are anticipated to grow in magnitude in the span of that window).

As a result, many municipalities simply don’t know how increased precipitation or runoff will impact rivers or current systems. Feltmate gives the example of stormwater channelling into sewers, backing up and flooding part of a city due to inadequate infrastructure. Rigorous calculations are required to create present-day and future-focused maps, he says. Without such forward thinking, investments in green infrastructure the new government makes may end up dead-on-arrival.

“The federal government would work with the provincial governments to find out what their needs are in the area, producing flood-plain maps through either one of those two forces, and providing the funding to do so,” he advises.

7) Come Up With Way, Way, Way More Money

The figure of $125 billion over a decade seems sizable. But when one crudely breaks it down, it seems a lot less impressive: some $12.5 billion per year divided into 30 “large urban” centres (with most split between Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver) leaves a mere few hundred million per year for an average-sized municipality.

For reference, Vancouver’s recent transit overhaul (which was voted down in a regional plebiscite) was expected to cost a whopping $7.7 billion.

Perl says the Greater Toronto Area could absorb the entire $20 billion allocated for public transit and “still not be where they need to be.”

“It sounds like a lot but Canada’s an awfully big country and we’re now an urban country,” he says. “If we’re serious about moving beyond auto-dependence, that means there’s a lot of catching up to do.”

New revenue sources have been announced such as an increase of personal income tax on highest earners and the cancelling of income splitting. But real change may not truly arrive until a “city agenda” is prioritized.

Broadbent says the federal government hasn’t focused on municipal affairs in any significant way, really since the days of Pierre Trudeau. However, the department of urban affairs that he created was a “short-lived experiment much reviled by some of the provinces,” in the words of Dalhousie University professor Jennifer Smith in her book Federalism.

Despite such facts, Broadbent’s optimistic: “I think we have a group in Ottawa now that really kind of gets these issues in a way that previous governments didn’t,” he says. “I think we’re going to see something significant in a better, more thoughtful approach.”

Image: Canadian Urban Transit Association

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

A single mention in 25 pages — that’s how frequently “public transit” was referenced in the Alberta NDP’s recent election platform.

But the brief mention was couched in a massively ambitious plan to redirect huge subsidies from sketchy carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects to the province’s neglected public transportation system. But that plan might be more complex than the party realized due to contracts with companies nearly ready to put major CCS facilities online.

On an online forum, the NDP made this campaign pledge: “We will end the Progressive Conservative’s costly and ineffective Carbon Capture and Storage experiment and reinvest the 2015/16 component of this project into construction of public transit, which will help reduce families’ transportation costs and reduce greenhouse gases and other air pollutants.”

Transportation is hugely significant contributor to climate change. The sector expected to account for 24 per cent of Canada’s emissions by 2020 according to the most recent Environment Canada projections (second only to the oil and gas sector at 27 per cent). So the availability of public transportation, which means less individual vehicles on the road, can help municipalities deal with growing emissions.

Unfortunately, there are few details as to what the NDP’s plan actually entails.

And new Energy Minister Marg McCuaig-Boyd isn’t speaking up.

CCS Expensive, But No Sure Bet

The idea is simple in theory.

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a technology that collects waste carbon dioxide from industrial facilities and compresses it into a dense fuel. That fuel is used for enhanced oil and gas recovery, where it is pumped underground to force out low-pressure oil and gas, before it is sequestered in deep underground reservoirs.

Once championed as a climate solution, CCS has proven extremely costly and more risky than once thought. An alleged leakage of sequestered carbon in Saskatchewan raised serious questions about the guarantee of CCS. The leaks in particular raised concerns about the long-term certainty that once carbon has been stored in the ground that is where it will remain in perpetuity. 

A 2012 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found there is a “high probability” that earthquakes could break the seal of underground carbon repositories, ultimately releasing trapped emissions back into the atmosphere.

The efficacy of the process has also been called into question by Alberta’s auditor general, Merwan Saher, who said CCS has failed to live up to its promise and is only expected to reduce emissions by 10 per cent of its original goal.

Alberta initially promised $2 billion to four CCS projects in the province. Two projects, Swan Hills Synfuels and TransAlta, were eventually ditched when their proponents found them ‘uneconomic.’ That left $1.3 billion, which Alberta promised to the Shell and Alberta Carbon Trunk Line projects over the next 15 years.

The NDP argued the majority of the $315-million — $250 million in total — that would be spent this year on two CCS projects (Shell Quest and Alberta Carbon Trunk Line) could instead be invested in public transit.

“More stable funding” will be set aside for cities “in future years,” the pledge stated, “as we carefully review the existing capital plan in a transparent manner.”

It’s unclear how the NDP government views its commitment to the two remaining projects.

Kevin Jabusch — the president of Enhance Energy, the company responsible for the Alberta Carbon Trunk Line development — told the Calgary Herald his company has a binding contract with the province and is continuing with construction. The project is near complete and is expected to come online next year.

McCuaig-Boyd’s press secretary indicated to the Calgary Herald that they will make an announcement about the specifics in the coming months.

Alberta’s Lackluster Public Transit

Alberta is in a bit of a bizarre situation when it comes to public transit. On one hand, it features two of four light rail systems in the country. However, in a 2014 study, Calgary ranked nine of ten major Canadian cities with more than 500,000 residents for the “best Canadian cities for public transit” — the highest rankings were found in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. Edmonton ranked a single point higher than Calgary, putting it in eighth place.

Alberta’s cities receive no funding from the provincial government for operating costs; most money comes from fares and property taxes, with the small remainder coming from fines, parking tickets and advertising dollars.

Conversely, the Manitoba government is responsible for 20 per cent of Winnipeg Transit’s operating expenses, with the Ontario government providing 14 per cent of Mississauga’s budget and seven per cent of Ottawa’s budget in 2011.

Calgary Transit’s revenue-to-cost ratio has been declining over the past few years; since 2007, the average cost of providing a trip has spiked by one-quarter while the average fare had only increased by 12 per cent.

The federal government stepped up its role slightly in 2008, committing part of revenue from gas taxes to transit infrastructure. The New Building Canada Fund also lends assistance, up to one-third of project funding (with the remainder coming from the province and municipality).

However, those options aren’t stable or consistent sources of funding for year-to-year costs, meaning that many transit agencies can make short-term improvements such as new stations but have a tougher time budgeting for the long term. In 2013, the New Building Canada Fund was extended to grant $14-billion in funding over 10 years. But so much more is needed given Alberta’s rapidly growing cities and infrastructure debt.

According to the 2011 National Household Survey, 74 per cent of Canadians commute to work using a private vehicle. Only 12 per cent used public transit — almost two-thirds of those via bus, and another quarter on subway or elevated rail. Unfortunately, “cars, trucks and motorcycles” contribute by far the most CO2 to the atmosphere compared to any other transport type in Canada, a trend that is projected by Environment Canada to continue into 2020.

In late April, the federal government announced in its 2015 budget that it would be committing $750-million over two years to public transit beginning in 2017.

However, the next federal election takes place this October, meaning that the current government may not have the chance to oversee the implementation of such goals. In March, mayors from across Canada called for stable funding of $1-billion per year for public transit. Both the federal NDP and Liberals have stated that transit and infrastructure spending will be key components in their platform.

Currently, Canada is the only G7 country without a national transit funding strategy.

Image Credit: Premier of Alberta

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Metro Vancouver’s proposed transit plan would mean more jobs, a significant drop in greenhouse gas emissions and a better quality of life, according to a report released this week.

The study, conducted for the labour and environmental alliances Green Jobs B.C. and Blue Green Canada, found that approval of the Mayors’ Transportation and Transit Plan would bring major benefits to the Lower Mainland.

“The Mayors’ Council plan, if adopted, will create family-sustaining green jobs, reduce travel times, ease congestion and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. This plan will transform the way people get around,” said Lisa Matthaus, co-chair of Green Jobs B.C.

Voting is now underway in a referendum on a proposed 0.5 per cent Metro Vancouver Congestion Improvement Tax. If approved, the estimated annual revenue of $250-million would be used to partially fund an $8-billion, 10 year transit plan.

Among projects included in the plan are more rapid bus routes, increased SkyTrain, Canada Line, SeaBus and West Coast Express services, a new, four-lane Pattullo Bridge, rapid transit along Broadway, two new Light Rail Transit lines connecting Surrey City Centre to Guildford, Newton and Langley  and extensions of cycling and pedestrian walkway networks.

The study, written by public policy researcher and former deputy minister of transportation Blair Redlin and economist David Fairey, found that, over a decade, the plan would result in 43,800 person years in new employment, $2.96 billion in wages and $4.48 billion in GDP, while reducing projected greenhouse gas emissions by 8.2 per cent.

“Transit occupies a sweet spot for creating green jobs that reduce our environmental footprint. They are a classic green jobs generator,” says the report.

“The devastating impacts of global climate change are clearer by the day. Dependence on fossil fuels must be reduced. And we can do it by creating good green jobs that also help build a just and prosperous economy for everyone.”

Currently, more than 6,000 people in Metro Vancouver work in mass transit and the report predicts that the plan will not only create 3,600 more direct jobs in construction, operation and maintenance of vehicles, it will also make it easier for people to get to work, putting 60,000 more jobs within reach.

Investing in transit creates 10 times more jobs than investing in fossil fuel extraction, said Charley Beresford, Blue Green Canada chair.

“In the oil and gas patch in 2014, which you could argue was the peak, there were 6,200 direct B.C jobs. That’s roughly equivalent to the jobs that already exist in transit and with the Mayors’ Plan there would be a 60 per cent uptick. That gives an idea of the impact for B.C,” Beresford said.

“We’re past the argument about economy versus environment. The world is getting serious about building a green, inclusive economy and this plan is in step with that process.”

The report found that road congestion in Metro Vancouver costs $487-million a year and reduces business revenue by $591.8-million. As the population grows, the costs would almost double by 2045, but, by implementing the Mayors’ Council plan, those costs could be reduced by up to 41 per cent.

“We’ll save more than $1-billion in traffic congestion costs. The distances people drive and the costs of excess emissions will all be reduced by about one-third,” says the report.

Transportation is the top source of greenhouse gas emissions in B.C and, in order to meet the goal of reducing greenhouse gases to 33 per cent below 2007 levels by 2020, the province is aiming to double transit ridership by 2020.

The study finds that, currently, emissions are forecast to increase to more than 5.1-million tonnes a year by 2030, but, with the Mayors’ Council plan, they will rise to 4.7-million tones – an 8.2 per cent improvement.

The plan has met with opposition from groups such as the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, which argues that many residents cannot afford the tax and that TransLink is a wasteful organization. When it was revealed that former CEO Ian Jarvis will be paid almost half a million dollars a year until his contract expires next year, those campaigning for a no vote gained traction.

Governance problems do need to be addressed, but voters should look at the advantages offered by the plan, Beresford said.

“These are the jobs of our future. We need this infrastructure to get around and we need it for our quality of life.”

The Mayors’ Council Transit Plan: Good Jobs Clean Skies by Langley Teachers' Association

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.