How regional government can help to alleviate poverty – Part 1

Part 1 in a 5-part series

Given last week’s announcements of:

it’s imperative that we talk more about what Niagara Regional government can do to alleviate poverty.

The alleviation of poverty is a concern for everyone to whom I’ve spoken. This has been true not only since I filed my nomination papers in May, but since I was on St. Catharines City Council (where I asked for a report about what a living wage would be in St. Catharines and how we could advocate for it, then was invited to join the Niagara Poverty Reduction Network‘s Wages and Work workgroup) and then went on to work at YWCA Niagara Region as their fundraiser.

Throughout the business community, the community of non-profit agencies, and at people’s doors, people are thinking about what we can do to alleviate poverty. In 2013, the cost of the consequences of poverty in Niagara is $1.38 billion per year. With the use of homeless shelters and food banks increasing every year, we know that this cost has only increased.

Poverty is an obviously complex problem that requires the expertise and support of numerous people, agencies, and initiatives.

Through this series of blog posts, I will share some ideas for what Niagara Regional government can do to alleviate poverty.

Part 1 – Transit
Part 2 – Affordable Housing
Part 3 – Public Health
Part 4 – Infrastructure Gap
Part 5 – Data


Through various roles, I’ve advocated for a more robust transit system throughout Niagara since 2000. Presently, there are eight transit systems/programs operating in the Niagara region (Fort Erie, Grimsby (needs investigation stage)Lincoln, Niagara Falls, Niagara-on-the-Lake, Niagara Region, PelhamSt. Catharines including Thorold, and Wellandincluding Port Colborne), which means every community, except Wainfleet and West Lincoln has some access to transit.

However, the schedules, routes, and lack of necessary connections make it difficult to get around a geographic area as large as the Niagara region. Bus rides are long, made especially problematic if you need to take a bus to get children to childcare then get yourself to work. Because of the inefficiency of the system(s), ridership is low, which means fares aren’t as affordable as they could be. So, people still find that – if they want to get to jobs, childcare providers, school, medical appointments, etc., they still need a vehicle of their own.

Streamlining the transit services, coordinating the stock of transit vehicles that already exist in Niagara, purchasing more transit vehicles (they don’t all have to be large buses, we can invest in smaller buses and even 10- or 20-person vehicles), adding more routes, and expanding schedules will come at a cost, of course; however, it is well beyond time that all of Niagara was accessible to all citizens of the Niagara region.

Additionally, we know that:

There is significant evidence to show that the improved connectivity supplied by new transit services generates increased land & development value. This is well recognized by the development industry.”

George Hazel, September 2013


Transit is key to unlocking productivity improvements 

An improved transportation system generates higher productivity through:

  • Greater access to labour; specialization of skills 
  • Quicker knowledge creation, innovation, spillover, and sharing 
  • Access to more markets and the sharing of inputs (suppliers) and outputs (buyers)

But this can’t only be about GO trains and transit close to where the trains travel into and out of. It has to be a comprehensive transit system across Niagara that provides everyone with access.

Reliable, efficient, and (ultimately) affordable transit will help in the alleviation of poverty.

10 thoughts on “How regional government can help to alleviate poverty – Part 1

  1. I don’t think that grimsby has a transit system either. could a route up through Old hwy * be reinstated. They could meet with local transit at specified stops then meet up with Hamilton Street railwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww for passengers to continue on to Hamilton


  2. The continued purchase of smaller buses would cost less to buy and run. There are so many buses running at far from optimal ridership; one reason is the cost. Subsidies should be offered, not just to people on Works or disabilty, but those who are what is popularily called “the working poor”.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I agree, Stephanie. And when we make transit more robust, we can more easily offer subsidized passes to the people who need them.

      And if the smaller buses are running frequently enough, it reduces/eliminates the need for larger buses on most routes.


  3. My understanding from my time working to advocate for Regional transit is that operationally the big cost isn’t the large bus but the driver. Smaller buses have less upfront costs, but they don’t address the ridership needed to pay for the non scalable costs, such as a driver.


    1. We won’t be able to address the cost of employing drivers in a scalable way. To run more efficient, effective, reliable transit, we need more drivers. To help to alleviate some of the costs, we can invest in smaller buses (which, generally, are also less expensive to run), rather than larger ones. Given what we know and continue to learn about various routes, we can ensure that larger buses are being used on those routes (Brock is an obvious example) and smaller buses are being used on routes that draw smaller numbers of people for each ride.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s