In my previous piece about the Senate Report on Rural Communities I said I would be commenting upon it for some time. I have been comparing some of the suggestions from that report with the policies of various political partys. Since this is a blog operated by the Deputy Leader of the Green Party of Ontario I will discuss some of the things in their plan, in this post I will focus upon transportation. Whilst the Senate report was to the Federal Government, many of the submissions have a bearing upon both Provincial and Municipal policy’s.

I see where GPO is going with this but there are a few policy statements that “need work” in that they are rather broad statements and others that are very “Torontocentric” and focused purely upon urban areas.
For instance “ Divert 75% of all money budgeted for new highway construction until 2012 to public transit such as GO Transit, Toronto Transit Commission and Ottawa’s OCTranspo.”
What of areas without existing public transportation, what does “new” highway construction mean, does this include highway improvements, would non urban areas such as much our own receive funding to create new public transportation, would urban areas be encouraged to extend bus (or rail) services to surrounding small communities? (Owen Sound and Springmount come right to mind!)

Then there is – “Lobby the federal government for more investment in heavy rail for city-to-city links, especially a high-speed passenger rail link connecting Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal”
I have to agree that the reinstatement of rail service both heavy goods and passenger would go a long way to reduce the reliance upon trucks and cars (the ripping up of the rails was nothing short of a crime against the communities served) but again I would go further. The establishment of private “short line” rail systems should be encouraged using the existing rail corridors, most of which are now in the hands of municipalities. It should be mandated that such corridors cannot be SOLD to private interests but must remain in public hands for future transportation corridors. They should be leased at very favorable rates to any consortium that proposes a viable public or heavy goods transportation system in such corridors. The availability of reliable goods transportation by rail could bring jobs to many smaller communities such as our own, but it is a case of “the chicken or the egg” in that without the customers the rail would not be viable, but without cost effective transportation the customers may choose other areas to set up business.

This next one would real help us rural folk who try and keep our trips to town at a minimum but MUST have a vehicle available. – “Introduce legislation permitting pay-as-you-drive non-commercial insurance that bases fees on distance travelled and fuel use.”
That our insurance companys charge those that travel 2,000k a year the same as those that travel 20, 000K has always been a sore point with me. Surely if you travel 1/10th the miles the risk is 1/10th?

From the senate report - This lack of transportation has a deep impact on the quality of life for (rural) seniors. If you live in the country, your only means of mobility is the car……..

Many seniors told us that the lack of transportation clearly affected their lives in many respects. For example, many found it difficult to get to medical appointments, to visit family and friends, to participate in social activities and so on………..

The trend towards regionalizing public goods and services such as health, education and social services only exacerbates these problems “There is the aspect of travel time, and, if people are in a situation of poverty, they will likely not have cars to travel to avail themselves of those services.”

Indeed the centralization of government and health services in particular puts areas such as our own, and the more rural areas in particular, at a distinct disadvantage in accessing these services. The committee recommended a return to more government services (and jobs) being available in communities like ours and “to identify ways in which a range of existing and new services might be delivered through existing rural infrastructure points such as rural post offices.” This would alleviate at least some of our transportation problems in seeking government services.
I will go further and say that our rural youth is disadvantaged in seeking gainfull employment by the necessity to own a reliable vehicle (with all the associated costs, for those under 25 the insurance alone can be overwhelming). A part time job is simply not an option in that the transportation costs may well exceed the take home pay!
Is there room for a pay for use transportation service serving the rural areas of Grey Bruce? I believe so, would it be financially viable? I really don’t know, but it would be a big step in making our area more selfsustaining by allowing our rural residents, particularly seniors and youth to access the jobs, goods & services that only rarely are available in said rural areas. I note that the committee recommended “that the federal government commit to 50-50 capital funding for new rural transportation infrastructure.” and would like to see a similar policy from Provincial partys.

Given the impact that high fuel prices is having upon our food and other essential goods it would seem that transportation services will indeed be a major factor in our ability to remain a viable area in control of our own destiny.

Finally, here is one group that is helping with the rural transportation dilemma.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/greybruce_rideshare/