Stagnating transit ridership has officials across Canada stumped

May 27, 2016

Cities across Canada are reporting stagnation and even declines in public transit ridership and officials candidly admit they aren’t exactly sure what’s going on.

Halifax, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Saskatoon, Calgary and Vancouver are among the cities to report a levelling-off of ridership. The Toronto Transit Commission – which, like many other transit systems, had been on a steady ridership climb for years – recently reported that 2015 numbers fell short of expectations and 2016 may show a year-over-year decline.

The commission is warning of a potential $30-million budget shortfall.

The challenging ridership numbers come at an unprecedented moment for public transit in Canada. Cities are trying to cover the operating costs of existing transit systems at the same time as they rush to prepare ambitious expansion plans to capture the billions now on offer from federal and provincial infrastructure programs.

The federal government has said it will take a hands-off approach to doling out its infrastructure cash, transferring it to cities based on ridership and largely leaving it up to cities and provinces to decide on priority projects.

While the federal government is now willing to cover up to 50 per cent of the cost to build new transit lines and extensions, it will ultimately be up to municipalities to produce reasonable ridership forecasts or risk having to cover the operating shortfall for years to come.

“The overall trend we’re seeing in Canada and in the U.S. is ridership is stagnating or [showing] modest growth. That’s the trend,” said Patrick Leclerc, president and CEO of the Canadian Urban Transit Association, which is made up of transit operators from across the country. The association recently held its annual general meeting in Halifax, where ridership issues were discussed.

“The growth is not as strong as it was about five or six years ago. The last decade was major growth. Now it’s slowing down. We are doing the analysis to understand what is happening in each region,” he said.

Limited data on the reasons for the shift mean transit officials are left to speculate as to potential causes. The TTC’s analysis concluded that the slowing economy and employment were the main factors, as well as a recent fare increase.

Other potential factors raised by Canadian municipalities include lower gas prices, the rise of Uber and other ride-sharing services, more people walking and cycling to work and the possibility that more riders aren’t paying as streetcars and buses allow passengers to board rear doors with the expectation that they will tap their transit cards.

The general manager of OC Transpo, the City of Ottawa’s transit system, recently told the city’s transit commission that no one really knows the answer.

“Canada-wide, everyone is down,” said John Manconi earlier this month. “There’s all kinds of theories out there. We hear elasticity. We hear pricing. We hear this. We hear that. I think the best guesstimate anybody can give is a combination of things.”

Mr. Manconi said U.S. cities are reporting similar trends and that the turning point in the data occurred after 2012.

“It appears that, post-2012, everyone started to slide and it appears to be a combination of things. But nobody can pinpoint that it’s exactly this or that that has caused ridership to do what it’s doing,” he said. OC Transpo is promising to release an “aggressive, comprehensive” review of the situation in the coming weeks.

Bruce McCuaig, the CEO of Metrolinx, the Ontario agency responsible for the GO Transit commuter bus and rail system in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area, said he believes lower gas prices and slower economic growth are the main factors behind softer ridership numbers. He’s convinced though that the province’s ambitious, multi-billion dollar regional express-rail plan will grow ridership to 127 million per year by 2029, up from 65.7 million in 2015.

“We still feel very strongly that as we provide more service, that what we’ve experienced in the past will continue to occur here, which is we’ll open ourselves up to new markets and we’ll be successful in capturing those markets,” he said.

Mr. McCuaig and Metrolinx are also responsible for the $456-million Union Pearson Express rail line linking Toronto’s downtown to Pearson airport. Initial ridership numbers fell far short of expectations, forcing the agency to slash fares. Promises that the line would quickly become self-financing have been shelved, leaving taxpayers on the hook for a permanent annual subsidy.

Mr. McCuaig said forecasting ridership on that line was a challenge because it is not like GO Transit’s other lines that focus on commuters. However, the fact that ridership has more than doubled since fares were cut in March shows the importance of marketing and choosing the right price.

“Price, of course, matters and you need to make sure that you price the service appropriately,” he said. “When you price something at what I would consider to be a traditional transit fare, governments should expect that there’s going to be a need to provide a subsidy for those kind of services.”

McMaster University geography and earth sciences professor Chris Higgins, who specializes in the study of rapid transit systems, said cities need to carefully weigh the long term cost of expanded service.

“You’ve got to do the right things,” he said.

In addition to issues such as the economy and gas prices that are being raised by transit agencies, Dr. Higgins said he also suspects the demographic impact of his own generation – the millennials – may be a factor.

While many have observed that millennials have been less interested in cars, they may also be moving to the suburbs and driving more as they start to form families. Even if they stay close to transit, he said they may be working from home more or scaling back their hours as they raise young children.

“All these types of factors can combine in a blender, really, and manifest themselves in lower ridership,” he said. “Demographics are behind a lot of these things and tend to be forgotten.”

Source: Stagnating transit ridership has officials across Canada stumped – The Globe and Mail

World Curling Federation and National Research Council are testing curling brushes and sweeping

Testing the sweeper’s force and frequency with Christine Urech. (CNW Group/National Research Council Canada)

OTTAWA, May 25, 2016 /CNW/ – The World Curling Federation (WCF) and the National Research Council (NRC), Canada’s “go-to” research and technology organization, are investigating the effects of curling brush head technology on ice surfaces and their potential effects on where stones come to rest.

During the 2015-2016 season, a series of moratoriums were placed on certain brushes due to their perceived effects on the ice surface and trajectory of the stone. During three days of testing, the National Research Council’s ice and materials technologies experts are providing on-site analysis of various manufacturers’ broom heads. The tests are assessing respective changes in the distance, path, speed, acceleration, and rotation of a stone as it travels down a sheet of ice.

“We have a long history of supporting Canada’s Olympic summer and winter athletes,” says Dr. Duncan Stewart, General Manager of Security and Disruptive Technologies at the National Research Council of Canada. “Curling brooms are rapidly becoming high-tech, and we are pleased to be working with the World Curling Federation to evaluate curling equipment technologies and enable well-informed decisions by the sport governing body.”

Results from the testing will allow the World Curling Federation to make informed decisions about possible new regulations on the use of engineered brush heads for the upcoming curling season.

“Through the rigorous testing taking place this week, we hope to formulate a set of policies and rules pertaining to brush head technology and sweeping techniques, which will be presented to our Member Associations for ratification,” says Kate Caithness, President of the World Curling Federation. “The plan is to have all this accomplished before the start of the 2016-2017 season.”

Through a process involving international athletes, sport experts, ice professionals and other important stakeholders, new regulations will be proposed for approval by WCF Members at the WCF’s Annual General Assembly, to be held in September 2016 in Stockholm, Sweden.

Additional Links

 

SOURCE National Research Council Canada

Source: World Curling Federation and National Research Council are testing curling brushes and sweeping

Living near a landfill could damage your health

May 25, 2016

According to research published today in the International Journal of Epidemiology, health is at risk for those who live within five kilometres of a landfill site.

Researchers in Italy evaluated the potential health effects of living near nine different landfills in the Lazio region, and therefore being exposed to air pollutants emitted by the waste treatment plants. 242,409 people were enrolled in the cohort from 1996 to 2008.

The results showed a strong association between Hydrogen Sulphide (used as a surrogate for all pollutants co-emitted from the landfills) and deaths caused by lung cancer, as well as deaths and hospitalizations for respiratory diseases. The results were especially prominent in children. The annual average exposure levels of Hydrogen Sulphide was 6.3 ng/m3, compared to people living close to larger landfills in Rome whose levels averaged 45.ng/m3. At the end of the follow-up period there were 18,609 deaths.

Co-author Francesca Mataloni commented that, “The evidence on the health of those living near landfills is still controversial. Most of the published studies only use aggregate health data and do not adjust for social-economic status. We have used a residential cohort approach to attempt to overcome these limitations.”

Respiratory symptoms were detected among residents living close to waste sites. These were linked to inhalation exposure to endotoxin, microorganisms, and aerosols from waste collection and land filling. This is consistent with other studies; however the association between living proximity to landfill sites and cases of lung cancer is a new finding. The authors stressed that further studies need to be completed to confirm this.

Morbidity and mortality of people who live close to municipal waste landfills: a multisite cohort study

  1. Francesca Mataloni1,*,
  2. Chiara Badaloni1,
  3. Martina Nicole Golini1,
  4. Andrea Bolignano2,
  5. Simone Bucci1,
  6. Roberto Sozzi2,
  7. Francesco Forastiere1,
  8. Marina Davoli1 and
  9. Carla Ancona1

+ Author Affiliations


  1. 1Department of Epidemiology, Lazio Regional Health Service, Rome, Italy

  2. 2Lazio Environmental Protection Agency, Rome, Italy
  1. *Corresponding Author. Department of Epidemiology, Lazio Regional Health Service, Via Cristoforo Colombo, 112. 00147 Rome, Italy. E-mail: f.mataloni@deplazio.it
  • Accepted January 27, 2016.

Abstract

Background: The evidence on the health effects related to residing close to landfills is controversial. Nine landfills for municipal waste have been operating in the Lazio region (Central Italy) for several decades. We evaluated the potential health effects associated with contamination from landfills using the estimated concentration of hydrogen sulphide (H2S) as exposure.

Methods: A cohort of residents within 5 km of landfills was enrolled (subjects resident on 1 January 1996 and those who subsequently moved into the areas until 2008) and followed for mortality and hospitalizations until 31 December 2012. Assessment of exposure to the landfill (H2S as a tracer) was performed for each subject at enrolment, using a Lagrangian dispersion model. Information on several confounders was available (gender, age, socioeconomic position, outdoor PM10 concentration, and distance from busy roads and industries). Cox regression analysis was performed [Hazard Ratios (HRs), 95% confidence intervals (CIs)].

Results: The cohort included 242 409 individuals. H2S exposure was associated with mortality from lung cancer and respiratory diseases (e.g. HR for increment of 1 ng/m3 H2S: 1.10, 95% CI 1.02–1.19; HR 1.09, 95% CI 1.00–1.19, respectively). There were also associations between H2S and hospitalization for respiratory diseases (HR = 1.02, 95% CI 1.00–1.03), especially acute respiratory infections among children (0–14 years) (HR = 1.06, 95% CI 1.02–1.11).

Conclusions: Exposure to H2S, a tracer of airborne contamination from landfills, was associated with lung cancer mortality as well as with mortality and morbidity for respiratory diseases. The link with respiratory disease is plausible and coherent with previous studies, whereas the association with lung cancer deserves confirmation.

Source: Oxford University Press

Source: Living near a landfill could damage your health | Science Codex

New paper calling for a Canadian National Public Drug Plan for all

OTTAWA, May 25, 2016  /CNW/ – Today the Canadian Health Coalition is launching its policy brief “A National Public Drug Plan for All”. Author Julie White brings together many of the academic studies showing the financial savings, improved drug safety, and increased equality that would occur under a national public drug plan.

Canada remains the only country with a universal health system that doesn’t include prescription medicines. “The proposals contained in this paper would bring Canada into the 21st century and align our public health plan with other comparable countries,” says White.

According to Angus Reid poll conducted in 2015, 23% of Canadians did not fill a prescription in the past 12-months due to the cost of medicines. “We know that a national public drug plan would be enormously popular with the support of 91% of Canadians” says White.

Last month the Federal Minister of Health, Dr. Jane Philpott made comments to the House of Commons’ Standing Committee on Health that she had no mandate to create a universal pharmacare programme and that “it sounds like it might be expensive…There are public drug plans across the country for people who can’t afford medication.” But as Julie White explains, “the reason why drugs are so expensive in Canada is precisely because we do not have a national public drug plan. We pay far more for drugs because we are unable to negotiate drug prices with the pharmaceutical companies for the whole population, as is done in many other countries.”

Reliable research has shown that on a total cost of $27 billion paid for drugs, we pay up to $11 billion more than we would with a national plan. Meanwhile both provincial plans and private insurance plans are struggling under the high prices and cutting back coverage.

This paper is launched while the House of Commons’ Standing Committee on Health is studying the development of a national pharmacare program and while members of the Canadian Health Coalition are meeting with their MPs in a Canada-wide constituency lobby.

The Canadian Health Coalition is a non-profit, non-partisan, non-governmental organization calling on the Federal government to initiate conversations with the provinces and territories on a national public drug plan.

You will find a copy of the full policy briefing here: http://healthcoalition.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/National-Public-Drug-Plan-for-All-May-2016.pdf

The Canadian Health Coalition is a public advocacy organization dedicated to the protection and improvement of Medicare. You can learn more about our work on our website (healthcoalition.ca).

Facebook: CanadianHealthCoalition |Twitter:@healthcoalition

 

SOURCE Canadian Health Coalition

For further information: or to arrange an interview with the author Julie White, contact: Adrienne Silnicki, National Coordinator, Canadian Health Coalition, Cell: 613-402-6793 E-mail asilnicki@healthcoalition.ca

Source: New paper calling for a National Public Drug Plan for all