Of course it should be every day, but I just wanted to devote a post to acknowledge the long Indigenous history of Turtle Island, where I’m privileged to have lived my entire life.
It is worthy to note that Davenport Road, located a few hundred metres from my home on Spadina Road, has quite a significant association with Indigenous history. In fact, it is believed to be Toronto’s oldest road. Before Europeans arrived in this neck of the woods, it was an old Indigenous trail that went along the contour. Mind you it is one of the few diagonal roads in Toronto because it long predates the grid network.
Proponents claim it will save commuters 30 minutes each way, which is bullshit. The latest analysis summarized in an MTO briefing note prepared by a credible past colleague of mine states that this calculation doesn’t even take into account the 407 ETR, an underunderutilized east-west corridor which may in fact be faster than the proposed 413 route, at least based on the modelling.
The costs are outrageous.
In addition to all the cultural and environmental costs, the new Highway comes with an $8.2 billion price tag. This Province has lots of other important needs that can use these funds including post-pandemic recovery support, public health, education, housing, and the rising cost of living.
There are more efficient alternatives.
As mentioned earlier, the underutilized Highway 407, which runs parallel to the proposed route of Highway 413, was created to serve as a GTA bypass to relieve congestion on the 401. An expert panel, appointed by the previous government to review the merits of the proposed Highway, suggested that traffic be diverted to the 407 ETR with the elimination of tolls rather than building an entirely new major highway. This conclusion led to the temporary cancellation of the project, only to be revived by Doug Ford’s PCs who falsely claim to be fiscal conservatives.
It opens more land for development
With new infrastructure comes more low-density subdivisions, big box stores, gas stations, parking lots, and other auto-oriented land uses that will not only pave over our last remaining countryside but also induce more traffic to be dumped onto an already-congested 400-series highway network leading to greater congestion across the region.
It’s not a matter of cars vs. transit
The debate in the media has focused on whether these outer ring municipalities should instead be served by mass transit (ie. GO trains), which is the wrong discussion because it really doesn’t matter. Proponents also argue that 413 will be a multi-modal corridor that accommodates higher order transit. The real issue is that new infrastructure beyond the existing urban areas, regardless of whether it’s a highway or transit, encourages people to move farther from major employment centres in Toronto, Peel and York, leading to even more greenfield development. I suggest you read The Shape of the Suburbs by John Sewell..
Loss of Archaeological sites and habitat for endangered species.
The 59 km highway would pave over 2,000 acres of culturally significant lands long inhabited by the Huron Wendat including burial grounds. Also at risk are 5.95 km of forests, wetlands and important habitat for endangered species such as the rare redside dace, whose habitats within the Humber River and Credit River will be affected due to the fact that the proposed 413 route crosses their headwaters, which will have adverse effects downstream.
The Region of Peel, City of Brampton and the City of Mississauga who you think would benefit from this Highway have publicly voiced their opposition to it and continue to do so. It may be good for the Province to listen to the authorities closest to its constituents.
There is still hope!
Even though the PCs have now secured a majorty on a campaign to “get it done”, there is still a possibility that the federal government will intervene and conduct their own environmental assessment. The David Suzuki Foundation has provided a nice email template to write to the Minister of Environment and Climate.
The Ontario government finally released its Greater Golden Horseshoe Transportation Plan, which sets out their vision for the region’s transportation system over the next 30 years. Although this Plan was initiated under the Liberal government in 2016, Ford and the PCs have now taken the credit. It’s a shame that a half decade’s work has become Mr. Ford’s political campaign advertisement to buy votes for the next provincial election. Despite extensive stakeholder engagement during the development of the Plan, it is clear that the MTO simply didn’t listen or even give a fuck about anything they heard. Both the City of Mississauga, and the Region of Peel have publicly expressed their discontent regarding the Plan’s lack of details and commitment on key projects such as two-way service on the Milton GO corridor. Note: They weren’t even given the chance to see the Plan before it’s grand release to the entire world. Further, there is absolutely no regard for the overwhelming opposition to Highway 413 from the City of Mississauga, City of Brampton, Region of Peel, and numerous other prominent stakeholders.
The Plan includes a map of ambitious infrastructure investments including two “conceptual” transit lines, specifically a cross-regional connection between Burlington and Oshawa and an extension of the Ontario Line through Kipling station and Pearson Airport before connecting with the western end of the Line 4 subway. It all looks great besides the fact that important details such as costs and timelines are missing. As far as I’m aware, there has never been a single business case or cost-benefit analysis completed on any of these “conceptual” projects. Until then, the map is nothing more than a piece of art with a bunch of lines, which we have seen far too many times. Just one of many plans that would collectively make a great exhibit at the AGO.
Disclaimer: I may be biased on this subject due to my work with a party that has expressed concerns regarding both this plan and Highway 413.
It was the very first question I was asked in a recent job interview. Not exactly the most typical way to kick off a job interview. As usual, I expected something along the lines of “introduce yourself and why are you qualified for this position?”, but the panel chose to be less conventional this time. It was a surprise, yet a pleasant one. Despite having to think on the spot, I was rather pleased they asked.
I don’t know what made them think of this question but I wonder if they looked at my cover letter and LinkedIn profile, where I identify myself as a “passionate transportation planner”, without even defining what it means. They may have wondered whether it is something I actually practice or just another gimmick to impress them, but here is what it actually means to me:
Well, it’s not just a fruit.
It’s to treat your career as not just a daily 9-5 commitment, but a means to support your personal values and interests. You’re not just working for a salary because the opportunity to contribute to something you care about is a reward itself.
My career isn’t something I just fell into by accident or luck. My post-secondary education and early career experience were carefully planned and executed to get to where I am now. I’ve made sacrifices with big opportunity costs. For example, the time I spent in grad school could have been spent living abroad or earning a full time income, as I had been prior, or pursuing a different education such as an MBA. I chose to study locally at York University for the purpose of gaining the local policy background and build my professional network in the region I wanted to work.
Despite a few bumps along the road, the sacrifices have paid off so far.
I am not afraid to disclose that I volunteer on an accessibility advisory committee for the TTC while remaining employed as a public servant and transportation planner with a higher level government. That potentially makes me a “special interest” advocate in a public sector position. Here, I will make a big confession. There may indeed have been instances when my volunteer experience in accessible transit influenced how I carried out my 9-5 work but I think it’s completely fine, nor am I violating any ethical code of conduct.
Being an advocate in a professional setting is obviously a double-edged sword. On one side, it enables me to be a subject matter expert on the topics close to my heart. On the other side, I can easily be criticized for being heavily biased and reluctant to acknowledge the perspectives of those with different values and experiences from mine.
Then there’s the perception that I may have a conflict of interest, given the potential for me to leverage my 9-5 job to support the interests of a publicly funded agency that I happen to volunteer with, but that doesn’t necessarily put me in a troubled situation. The Ontario Professional Planners Institute (OPPI) explicitly states in their code of conduct that “members have a “primary responsibility to define and serve the interests of the public”. Advocating for accessibility is my way of fulfilling my responsibility to serve the public interest. As well, the TTC is not my client or an investment holding. So there is absolutely no pecuniary interest from my end.
Advocacy is driven by personal values and passion. Personal values and passion are what separate the movers and shakers (ie. Leslie Knope) from your stereotypical beaurocrat counting down the days to retirement (ie. Garry Gergich). My passions are what led me to my career as a planner. Without them, I may as well have leveraged my math degree to pursue a career that pays more money. Lawyer and planning theorist Paul Davidoff argued that values are part of every planning process and that the planner isn’t solely a value-neutral technician. Davidoff also stated that advocate planners use their experience and knowledge within the field of planning to represent the ideas and needs of their comunities.
A forward-thinking profession shaped by constantly evolving technological and demographic trends needs to attract passionate people who are unhappy with the status-quo and push for progressive change. Many of these people are advocates in one way or another whether it’s for social justice, active transportation, source-water protection, a zero-carbon transportation system, etc. Without passionate individuals, planning authorities risk being trapped in a closed-minded culture resistant to change.
There is no shame in idetifying yourself as an advocate.
In March, I made a somewhat ignorant, quasi-elitist post about the benefits of telework and the interventions that governments can make to support it. Now that I’ve had the time to reflect, I’m going to self-criticize my own thoughts. Too often, the discourse on telework comes from the narrative of your typical “white-collared” knowledge worker in the centre of an urban area. Given that as much as 12% of Ontarians live in communities unserved or underserved by broadband and the fact that many occupations cannot be done remotely, telework is clearly not a one-size-fits-all solution to keep everybody afloat during these tough times, nor is it necessarily “accessible”. One major theme that has since emerged repeatedly from the COVID-19 discussions online (ironically) is the disproportionate impact that social distancing measures are having on marginalized demographics. Even in well-connected urban areas, many front-line workers don’t have the option to work from home and are therefore faced with the daunting choice of either exposing themselves to germs while on the job or otherwise losing their income, whereas those with the luxury of working remotely can continue to pay their bills and maintain their lifestyles with minimal disruption, and children from lower-income households lacking access to online learning resources fall behind while their more affluent peers who can leverage e-learning motor ahead. Even job interviews now are conducted over GoToMeetings and I’ve seen professional conferences delivered digitally via Zoom, which means that those lacking access to the necessary technologies are now completely cut off from employment, networking and learning opportunities. The current situation further exposes the need for not just broadband internet but also the need to maintain transit operations despite reduced ridership and the need for the social safety net and emergency relief funding to get into the hands of citizens and workers. I expect that any post-pandemic government resiliency strategy be based on a holistic range of perspectives to address the needs of people from various demographics and economic sectors, not all of whom should be expected to participate in the digital universe. For some people, it may be “about the journey” after all.
The COVID-19 pandemic serves as an opportunity for employers to test their off-site work policies and evaluate their impact on productivity and work performance. For governments and planning authorities, it offers a window to observe the impact on travel demand and potential return on investment of government-led interventions and messaging to encourage working from home. “Telework”, “telecommuting”, “distributed work” or “remote work” refers to working from a location other than the central office at least part of the time (Source: teleworktoolkit.com). Telework helps address several common goals and priorities simultaneously including accessibility, emissions reduction, and cost savings for employers, employees and goverment.
Accessibility The lack of mobility options is a barrier preventing access to employment for those in remote areas and people with disabilities. A home working arrangement enables workers to provide their own work accommodations in a familiar place with close access to caregivers and personal service workers, provided that they have access to the required equipment and technologies. Further, it allows those who are ill or immunocompromised to work in self-isolation.
Emissions Reduction Any additional home energy consumption associated with home offices can be offset by the reduced volume of passenger vehicles idling in gridlock traffic.
Cost Savings for Employers, Employees and Governments Employers can reduce employee turnover and absenteeism as well as office space needs while employees reduce their own spending on transportation, which costs Canadian households a total of $202.3 billion annually – second only to shelter in terms of major spending categories. Lister, et al. estimate that the annual return on investment of a federal telework progrm, if implemented effectively, would be $14 billion annually.
Governments often play a leading role in supporting telework by offering employers with toolkits and templates of corporate policies, agreement terms, employee/manager agreement applications, assessments/checklists, and various other resources. See this toolkit from the Twin Cities in Minnesota. Or see the State of Oregon’s Teleworking tookit.
Planning authorities can request residential property developers to include study rooms or “wifi rooms” in floorplans, such as the one in my building, shown below. These rooms can provide teleworkers a refuge from roommates, children, pets, and other distractions at home.
Additionally, government organizations have led by example by enabling their own employees to work off-site. See City of Ottawa or City of Calgary.
Translink, the transit authority in the Vancouver region, identified telework as an important component of their trip reduction strategy during the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games. Contrarily, our very own regional transit authority in the GTHA, Metrolinx, doesn’t even have the mandate to support employers on telework due to Bill 57 enacted 2018, which reduced their madate to strictly just transit.
The case for free transit (or “fare-free” as I prefer to put it) is often met with skepticism and opposition from politicians and policy wonks on the grounds that it is not financially feasible nor effective in addressing transportation planning objectives. Here are some common assumptions made by critics of fare-free transit, followed by my rebuttals, at least from a Canadian context.
It Is not financially feasible.
Most transit services in Canada are highly subsidized to begin with, given their relatively low fare recovery. For example, only about 36% of Durham Region’s transit budget is covered by fare revenue. Typically, the majority of transit funding comes from provincial or municipal contributions, whereas fare revenue tends to account for very little. As such, paying for fare-free transit is a matter of boosting these contributions that have been made for many years. As well, transit authorities can continue to generate revenue through other means like advertising and real estate.
People may start using transit for non-mobility purposes, such as shelter, thus making it less attractive to the “desired” clientele (ie. daily commuters).
If you’re a compassionate person, that’s completely fine. Everybody needs a warm place to sleep without dying of hypothermia, even if they smell a little funny! :). I would even advocate for the provision of benches at stations, just like the public parks. Consider the fact that many of us encounter homeless people on public sidewalks everyday. Does that necessarily prevent us from walking outside?
The lack of gate-keeping makes it easy for pick picketers and other criminals to enter the system, which again drives away the target demographics – literally, they may “drive” away. Well, think of it this way: Security personnel can now watch for real crime rather than being pre-occupied chasing fare evaders.
People will ride the bus all day because they have nothing better to do.
Well, anybody who has been on a transcontinental flight or a day-long bus ride knows that it is brutal! There are only so many movies and playlists you can have on your tablet or phone. Who in their right mind would do that if they don’t have to go somewhere?
The bus will become too crowded, which will just reinforce the desire to drive in a private car.
Many Canadian jurisdictions, such as the 905 municipalities surrounding Toronto, currently have very low transit ridership, unfortunately, due to decades of low density, auto-oriented land use planning and a preference for travelling in a single-occupant vehicle. Before we even consider transit capacity, let’s first get people out of their cars.
Commuters will become too lazy to walk or cycle.
It is often assumed that active transportation and public transit are in competition with each other. However, they have been known to mutually support one another. Walking and cycling would remain important first/last mile connections regardless of the price of the fare.
In my experience working in the transportation industry, I have heard my professional colleagues use the term “paratransit” in reference to specialized door-to-door transit services for people with disabilities, such as Wheel-Trans. At one time, I ignorantly assumed that the prefix “para” is short for “parallel”, meaning that it operates parallel to conventional transit services, much like how the Paralympics occur parallel to the “regular” Olympics. Alf Savage, the general manager of the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) between 1981 and 1987, used this erroneous way of thinking to defend the lack of accessibility at Toronto’s subway stations during his time. He said, “Can you imagine a wheelchair in the rush hour at Bloor and Yonge? That’s why we have a parallel system for disabled with WheelTrans” (Bateman, 2013).To people like Savage, there is a separate transit service for disabled people, while so-called “able-bodied” people ride the conventional system. In contrast, others have used “paratransit” as an umbrella term that includes a wider range of flexible transit services that do not operate on fixed routes or schedules. Robert Cervero (1997) defines paratransit as “a type of service which relies on small vehicles which are frequently privately owned and operated, and which may not work on a schedule.” So basically, UberPool, Bridj,and RideCo can all be considered paratransit. Likewise,Wheel-Trans is simply another first/last mile solution connecting commuters from their door to a higher order transit station. It does not give us a cop-out for failing to make conventional transit universally accessible. Fortunalely, the TTC has since come a long way. It now offers the Family of services, which encourages Wheel-Trans riders to make multi-modal trips by transferring to conventional transit services at accessible bus stops or subway stations. This more recent approach treats paratransit as a means of accessing conventional transit rather than segregating it from the rest of the system. It just puts greater importance on making our conventional transit system fully accessible pursuant to the AODA, as planned. The world has moved on from people like Alf Savage. Maybe it’s time we rethink our language too.
Note: I am cognizant that there will always be those who require door-to-door transit services due to the nature of their disabilities that prevent them from using conventional transit services without putting their safety at risk. As such, I am not in any way implying that all users of specialized door to door services should be forced to use conventional transit or Family of Services.