Tory public transit priorities are all wrong

Funding for public transportation is woefully inadequate here in Canada. Outside of our major cities (and even in the suburbs of our largest cities), public transport does not receive enough funding.

So when Stephen Harper pledged $37 million today towards public transit (part of a $80 million promise back in June), one would think that people of "non-blue" political stripes would be heaping praise on the Tories.

Sadly, there is little to praise Harper about. All of the funding is to go to transport security. Not better quality public transport. Not more quantiful or convenient public transport. But "higher security" public transport.

Stop me if I'm alone here, but this is the most ridiculous and unnecessary waste of money from a government supposedly obsessed with stopping government wastage.

We don't have armed military on every Canadian street corner. Nor do we have CCTV installed in every nook and cranny of our cities, as the British do. So why spend so much money making public transport supposedly "secure"?

The money would have been far better invested in purchasing more infrastructure: more buses, more subways, more tunnels, upgrading or repairing outmoded equipment, and hiring more staff. Instead, we'll have more CCTV cameras, or more guards.

This was a genuine opportunity to make public transportation more enjoyable and convenient to use. The easier it is to use public transport, the more people will use it as an alternative to automobiles. That alone would have made big two improvements:

• more people using public transport, especially during off-peak hours, would lead to a better feeling of overall passenger safety
  
• less greenhouse gas and pollution emissions from cars

Will this "investment" make public transportation any easier to use than it is at present? No.

Do Canadians avoid public transport because of safety concerns - be it from theives or from terrorists? According to the Canadian Urban Transit Association:

"...transit provides the safest means of travel in urban areas, and only travel on major scheduled air carriers has lower fatalities for each passenger kilometer of travel. The limited data on security incidents indicates that transit passengers in stations or onboard transit vehicles are substantially more secure than the overall urban population."

So what is the point of this spending? Is this more irrational rhetoric by government to convince us that they're protecting us, so that we'll re-elect them? Is this a case of our government abusing public fears about terrorism to further their own selfish interests?

I'll be bluntly honest (and not at all politically correct) - many Canadians don't like taking public transportation because of the perception of "weirdos" who they'll encounter during the journeys (particularly during off-peak hours), and because public transport is extremely inconvenient to use (not offering a competitive alternative to the automobile).

The solution is simple - more quantiful and convenient public transport. Here in the UK, taking public transport is like walking in the downtown of a city - you see a huge cross section of society. So many people, from all walks of life, use public transport, that who your fellow riders are is basically a non-issue.

The more convenient it is to use, the more people will use it. And that will lead to increased safety. And less pollution and greenhouse gases. And fewer traffic jams.

Is such thinking incredibly bold and innovative? No. It's just that the Greens seem to be one of the few political voices in Canada with the common sense to support such social planning.