If you saw the following recommendations, what kind of organization would you guess had written them?
Coordinate national policy approaches on urban land use, travel health and the environment.
Consider all modes of travel—in particular, environmentally sustainable modes—as well as land-use priorities, when allocating national government funds to the local level.
Encourage effective public participation, partnerships and communication.
Ensure that transport demand management tools and measures to promote non-motorized modes
are supported.
Fully integrate air quality, greenhouse gas, noise and other environmental targets, and adopt and
rigorously monitor technical standards for vehicles and fuels.
Channel revenues from pricing initiatives so that benefits are felt by those bearing the costs.
David Suzuki Foundation? BEST? SPEC? Sightline Institute? Livable Region Coalition?
Obviously I wouldn’t have asked if it were any of them. These recommendations are among the many that come from the Conference Board of Canada’s report, “Sustainable Urban Transportation: A Winning Strategy for Canada” (Here, if you register)
Here’s the point: increasingly, you can’t tell much difference between private-sector and business-oriented think tanks and environmental organizations when it comes to urban transportation. They’re both calling for much the same things – and what they’re calling for looks very little like what Gateway is delivering.
Complete recommendations below the fold:
Recommendations for Improving Urban Transportation
The Conference Board of Canada recommends that:
Provincial and municipal governments pursue
integrated land use and transportation planning at
the local and regional levels, aiming to accommodate
growth through intensification rather than lowdensity
sprawl.
Provincial and municipal governments develop suitable
governance arrangements for urban transportation in
areas of multiple jurisdictions.
All levels of government incorporate the improvement
of the accessibility and efficiency of airports, rail and
other methods of inter-city transport into infrastructure
development plans.
Provincial and municipal governments use a carrotand-
stick approach to promote a shift from cars to
more sustainable modes of transportation.
A sufficiently dense and extensive public transit
network is a necessary prerequisite.
Disincentives to automobile use, including regulatory
and road pricing measures, will complete the policy
framework.
Provincial and municipal governments make greater
use of alternative sources and methods of funding
urban transportation.
Provincial and municipal governments and their
agencies consider low-cost operational and service
improvements to increase transit ridership and
efficiency.
Business and all levels of government work together
to provide incentives for consumers to buy lighter,
more fuel-efficient vehicles.
Provincial and municipal governments consider pilot
programs and other incentives to promote higher load
factors (i.e., operating trucks at full load capacity)
for private and commercial urban trucking.
The federal and provincial governments undertake full
feasibility studies for high-speed rail transit in both the
Windsor–Québec City and Calgary–Edmonton corridors;
and quantify the socio-economic benefits and
costs for each project to determine the requisite level
of government support.
The federal and provincial governments work together
to prepare a national urban transportation strategy
and consider the recommendations arising from the
European Conference of Ministers of Transport.
