State of Community Mobility Systems in Canada

2025

Technical paper

Table of contents

Notice to reader

Notice to reader

Drawing from publicly available national data up to December 2024, the purpose of this working paper is to present a basic overview of the current state of community mobility in Canada. It aims to initiate a conversation on what infrastructure we have today, how it serves Canadians, and what other data or areas of research the Canadian Infrastructure Council (Council) should consider as it embarks on its work.

The infrastructure analysis in this report is grounded in national datasets compiled by Statistics Canada and other national sources. These sources offer consistent methodologies, transparency, regular updates, and comprehensive coverage—essential for meaningful national comparisons and informed decision-making across the country. However, provinces, territories, municipalities, and Indigenous organizations could maintain their own infrastructure databases, tailored to local policy needs, regulatory requirements, and operational priorities. These jurisdiction-specific datasets often provide a higher level of detail, enable real-time monitoring, and support local innovation in planning and program delivery.

The paper prepared a backgrounder to support the Council. It reflects input from Housing, Infrastructure, and Communities Canada, Statistics Canada, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Indigenous Services Canada, and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada. The paper is not part of the first National Infrastructure Assessment that is under development by the Council.

Executive summary

Community mobility, which can be defined as travel within communities, is essential for residents to access crucial services like groceries, healthcare, work, and school. It is a vital aspect of life as it facilitates connections among families and friends, and enables economic growth through the movement of goods, services, and labour across urban, suburban, and rural areas. The mobility needs and challenges of Canadian communities are influenced by population size and density. Despite Canada’s immense size, 74.4% of Canadians reside in, or near, its 41 urban centres.

Community mobility relies on an intricate network of private and public infrastructure and services. This infrastructure includes fixed assets such as sidewalks, bus stops, roads, and traffic lights, as well as moving resources (rolling stock) like buses, trains, bikes, and private vehicles, such as cars and trucks. A single trip often involves the combined use of these varied assets. Most travel is categorized by Statistics Canada into three primary modes: private vehicle travel, public transit, and active transportation (human-powered mobility). The choice of travel mode is shaped by a variety of factors, including personal preference, land use planning, and available infrastructure. Unlike our OECD peers, Canada lacks detailed data on travel patterns other than commutes to work, which excludes large segments of the population.

Active transportation and public transit offer significant social, economic, and environmental benefits. Despite some notable data gaps, these asset classes are in a relatively good state of repair, partly due to recent investment at all levels of government. However, these modes of travel are often most popular in denser, mixed-use, urban centres where trips are shorter, congestion is more common, and supportive infrastructure is more extensive. Rural areas have fewer travel options, limiting non-private vehicle access for these populations to essential services and economic opportunities.

Private vehicles are the most common mode of travel in Canada, likely due to widespread sprawling land use patterns (urban sprawl), longer travel distances, and the extensive infrastructure (e.g., roads, parking), often without tolls, that makes this mode of transportation both efficient and convenient. From 2011 to 2024, the proportion of Canadians commuting by private vehicle ranged from 79 to 85%, contributing to congestion in many major cities.

With some exceptions, public transit rolling stock is generally in good condition, particularly greener vehicles which are newer on average. The condition of active transportation assets is not as well understood; more information is available on the safety and comfort of cycling paths than on their physical condition. Existing data differs somewhat in the comfort level of bikeways (e.g. cycling paths, bike lanes), indicating that low-comfort bikeways represent 25-50% of those studied. A significant portion (34%) of neighbourhoods have no cycling infrastructure.

If Canada’s community mobility systems are to serve our growing communities, they must be planned alongside land use and housing as well as kept in a state of good repair. Additionally, decision-makers need a clearer understanding of how this infrastructure influences Canadians’ travel decisions. This discussion paper provides a summary of the state of community mobility systems in Canada, including physical infrastructure and how Canadians utilize this infrastructure to travel. Understanding the current state of these systems is a critical step towards Canada’s first National Infrastructure Assessment (NIA).

Our community mobility systems

A community’s mobility system comprises both infrastructure (roads, bridges, intersections, sidewalks, subway rails, streetcars, bus stops, etc.) and services (transit agencies, bike and e-scooter sharing, taxis, municipal services, etc.) across various modes of transportation (walking, cycling, driving, transit, etc.). These components are planned, built, coordinated, and maintained through complex and varying governance and investment processes in communities across the country.

Community mobility systems provide transportation within and across urban and rural regions and can connect to but do not include intercommunity transport systems such as airports and intercity train and bus stations. They are critical for daily economic and social activities, enabling people to get to work, school, grocery stores, healthcare, and more. Though these systems are used to move both people and goods, this report is focused on the movement of people within their communities, which does not necessarily correspond to subnational boundaries. That is, residents of a municipality may be part of the same community as residents of other municipalities. The purpose is to exclude irregular regional travel (e.g., vacation) to focus on trips taken on a regular basis, such as for work, healthcare or education, as these have a greater impact on housing and where people choose to live than long-distance travel options.

A single trip often involves infrastructure and services across multiple modes of transportation. For example, to get to work, you may bike a few kilometres to a local bus stop using a dedicated bike lane, lock up your bike in a secure facility attached to a bus stop, board a bus for a 15 km trip into the city, then walk a few hundred metres from the transit station to your workplace. After work, you may share a ride with a co-worker in their private vehicle to go to a sporting event, then take a taxi back to your bike in the evening before returning home. This type of multimodal travel is common, and choices about how to travel through a community vary based on individual preferences, abilities, and means, as well as external factors such as the weather and, critically, the quality, availability, and cost of different community mobility services in any given locale.

This report distinguishes between community mobility infrastructure and the use of community mobility infrastructure and services. Community mobility infrastructure includes everything involving fixed assets, like sidewalks, and rolling stock, like buses. These are the physical assets used in a community mobility system that must be accessible, efficient, and in a state of good repair. In contrast, community mobility services include mobility providers such as transit and paratransit agencies. These services enable the utilization of the infrastructure, for example, a subway does not provide much value to a community if it is not in operation.

Community mobility systems can be analyzed through the lens of modes. This report considers travel by private vehicle (e.g., car travel), public transit, and active transportation. Personal vehicle travel involves any intra-urban transportation in a car, truck, van (as is the Statistics Canada modal share category), or similar vehicle, whether in a private vehicle or via a taxi or ride-share service. Public transit involves classic mass transit such as subway or bus travel, as well as paratransit services that may offer door-to-door trips for seniors or persons with disabilities. Active transportation involves using your own power to get around, whether by walking, cycling, skateboarding, wheelchairs, e-bike, or similar mode. Each mode has infrastructure and a service component:

• Private vehicle travel: infrastructure includes roads, parking, fuel stations, and electric vehicle chargers; for consistency with public transit, cars can be considered rolling stock infrastructure. This service is most often provided by individuals who own their vehicles, but sometimes by taxi or ride-share service or similar (e.g., carpooling).
• Public transit: infrastructure includes fixed assets, such as rail tracks, stations, and bus stops/shelters, as well as rolling stock such as railcars, streetcars, buses, and paratransit vehicles (e.g., vans, small buses). Service is typically provided by a municipal or (in a few cases) provincial transit agency. Transit may also be provided by contracting private companies or independently offered by non-profit organizations.
• Active transportation: infrastructure includes sidewalks, bike paths and parking, and bike-share stations, and (consistent with the approach to rolling stock) bikes and e-bikes. Service is provided by the individual.

Roads, especially those with sidewalks, are the backbone of community mobility systems as they allow private vehicles, buses, bikes and pedestrians to travel on a daily basis. Their high utilization makes safety along these corridors especially important. Other travel corridors include railways and dedicated transit rights-of-way, as well as sidewalks, trails, and bikeways that enable active transportation away from vehicular traffic.

In urban areas, popular roadways are subject to congestion due to the high usage of private and commercial vehicle transportation, especially during peak times like the morning and evening commuter-based rush hours. In communities like these, public transit with dedicated rights of way and active transportation can offer convenient, low cost, and low-emission alternatives to travel by private vehicle through congested corridors.

Community mobility governance in Canada

The governance of community mobility in Canada is multifaceted, involving various levels of government and a range of stakeholders. Each level of government plays a significant role in the planning, funding, regulation, and/or management of transportation infrastructure and services.

In Canada, the regulation, operation and investment in public transit services primarily fall under the jurisdiction of provincial and municipal governments. For example, Ontario’s Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and Ministry of Transportation collaborate with local governments and partners across Ontario, such as Metrolinx, to integrate transit planning into housing projects in order to ensure that transit systems meet community needs.

Municipal governments are generally responsible for owning and operating local transit services, transit and active transportation systems, as well as maintenance and expansions to the local road network. Municipal governments also implement local zoning bylaws and land use policies, though they must follow rules set by the province. Land use and transportation planning are also a part of public health and safety—a shared priority for all governments in Canada. For example, Toronto’s Vision Zero Road Safety Plan aims to eliminate traffic fatalities and serious injuries through better policing and transportation planning.[1]

Provincial governments also play a considerable role in investing and maintaining community mobility systems. They not only own many assets, including highways and many local roads, but also play a major role in managing, regulating, and funding municipal operations, planning, and investment. In some cases, provincial government establish agencies to provide public transit services directly, including Ontario (e.g., Metrolinx), and British Columbia (e.g., TransLink). With regards to land use, provincial policy often dictates the form of development that will occur in a province, and investments in major assets like highways can have a substantial impact on a region’s mobility options and choices.

The federal government plays a key role in regulating vehicle safety for new vehicles sold in Canada and imported vehicles of all sizes, including SUVs e-bikes. The Government of Canada also has jurisdiction over motor carriers (e.g., commercial vehicle drivers’ hours of service regulations). The federal role in public transit and active transportation also extends to data collection, building public support, encouraging integrated regional planning and investment, including contributing capital directly to projects and supporting private investment. In transportation, the federal government has traditionally focused on interprovincial travel from a regulatory, ownership, and operations perspective. However, the federal government has recognized the importance of community mobility systems and their public health benefits, including through the National Active Transportation Strategy.[2]

Land use, housing and mobility in Canada

Our communities exist within a defined space, organized to facilitate each part of daily human life, including moving through the community. Land use planning (the process of organizing and regulating land development) requires committing space to community mobility. In this way, physical space is a finite resource used in planning community mobility, similar to how fresh water is a finite natural resource used to provide drinking water and sanitation services.

There is a direct relationship between a community’s land use planning (where residential, commercial, and social buildings or activities are located) and its mobility system. Land use dictates how far people need to travel from one activity to another (e.g., if commercial and industrial areas are separated from residential) or to get to mobility infrastructure and services (e.g., if residential areas are low-density, people may have farther to go to get to transit). In turn, this is a key contributing factor in individuals’ choices about which mode of travel to use for a given trip. In the post-World War II period, as development spread away from urban cores and into low-density suburban communities, new roads and highways were built to enable these communities to remain connected to employment centres. This land use and investment pattern favours private vehicle travel over active transportation and public transit.

Figure 1: From 2016 to 2021 population growth increased density in downtown cores, particularly in larger metropolitan areas, as well as distant suburbs

Note: These graphs show the percentage of population growth within major Canadian cities by proximity from downtown. From Statistics Canada. Population growth rate by proximity to downtown, census metropolitan areas, 2016 to 2021. Census of Population, 2016 and 2021 (3901).

Most (74.4%) Canadians live in or close to Canada’s 41 CMAs.[3] Canadian cities have largely maintained that “sprawling” post-war development pattern in recent years, though there has been a slight shift to increased population density in downtowns, as shown in Figure 1. From 2016 to 2021, the downtown populations of large urban centres grew faster (+10.9%) than urban centres as a whole (+6.1%). The populations of downtowns also grew at over twice the pace compared with the previous census cycle (+4.6%). At the same time, suburbs farthest from downtowns (30+ minutes from downtown) were generally growing at a faster pace (+8.8%) than the urban fringe (10 minutes from downtown, +3.7%), and suburbs closer to downtowns (+5.8%).[4] Because downtowns accounted for just 4.7% of CMA residents in 2021, while outlying suburbs accounted for 23.8%, most new homes continue to be added in more outlying suburbs.[5]

The Canada Suburbs Atlas indicates a similar trend. The authors examined commuter data and density to categorizing neighbourhoods as active cores, transit suburbs, auto suburbs and exurbs, depending on the most common mode of travel.[6] In 2021, 14% of CMA residents lived in active core neighbourhoods, where many people can walk to work. The remainder of the population was estimated to live in residential suburbs with varying degrees of lower proximity to jobs and amenities. From 2016 to 2021, active cores accounted for 13% of growth, though that followed 8% in 2006 to 2016. In contrast, auto suburbs accounted for 66% of growth in 2016 to 2021 and 75% in 2006 to 2016.[7] Indicating that most housing growth continues to come from expansion into areas with higher private vehicle dependency, despite density increasing in existing urban areas.

There appears to be a consistent trend towards denser housing types, despite growth in vehicle dependent areas. Also, the 2021 Census reflects conditions during the COVID-19 Pandemic, which likely affected household decision-making on where they live relative to where they work. The share of Canadians who worked mostly from home increased from 7% in 2016 to 40% in 2020 but had declined to 20% in 2023.[8] As such, 2021 data may overstate any impacts of remote work on density.

Figure 2: Over the past 20 years, apartments have made up a greater share of housing starts while single-detached homes have made up a smaller share

Note: This graph shows the national distribution of housing starts by building type from 1990 to 2023. From the Canada Housing and Mortgage Corporation Housing Market Information Portal.

Though housing starts data is not a direct metric for density, as it cannot account for greenfield development or how many units are occupied in a given place or type of dwelling, it does offer annual readouts to understand the types of residential housing that will be built in the near future. CMHC data indicates that single detached homes were 38% of housing starts in 2016 but dropped to 18% in 2023 while apartments went from 43% to 66% over the same period.[9] This may be due to a variety of factors, including rising interest rates and government incentives to increase density.[10] Notably, single detached homes represented 28% of housing starts in 2021, with a drop beginning after, as shown in Figure 2.

Land use patterns have important implications for what modes people can access generally and which modes they choose for any given trip. The suburbs are not optimized for transit as they require servicing a large area with fewer potential riders per stop, usually on an inefficient road network (bendy crescents and cul-de-sacs). A 2018 study of public transit ridership in Canada found that ridership was positively associated with apartment buildings and row houses, and negatively associated with single family detached homes. For every 10% increase in single-family homes, there was a 3.4% decline in transit ridership overall and a 9.6% decline in cities with over 1.2 million annual linked trips. This reflects how single-family homes are associated with lower density, less of a mix of residential and commercial land use and consequently lower transit service, all of which are associated with lower ridership.[11]

We see the same thing looking at the Canadian Active Living Environments dataset which demonstrates the relationship between the way communities are built and active transportation uptake. The dataset shows that walkability is increased by dwelling density, the number of connected intersections, transit stops, and destinations.[12] Through increasing the density of housing and availability of services, walking becomes a more viable mobility option for more people. The same principles apply for cycling and riding transit.

Density improves the financial viability of public transit. Government of Ontario 2012 estimates indicate that light rail trains (LRTs) require a minimum of 72 dwelling units per hectare within a 5 to 10-minute walk of transit stops to be financially feasible while subways require 90 units.[13] For context, UBC research indicates that 70 dwelling units per hectare could be achieved with 2-storey attached rowhouses, 100 units with stacked 2 storey low-rise apartments and 140 units with 3-storey attached rowhouses with underground parking.[14] This demonstrates that even higher-order transit does not always imply a need for high-rise towers but can be supported with what is often called missing middle housing or with a mix of low- and high-density housing, such as detached houses and apartment towers, respectively.

Figure 3: Communities with higher density also have higher transit ridership

Note: This graph shows local ridership and the dwelling types by region within the Greater Golden Horseshoe Area by region, county (in the case of Simcoe), CMA (in the case of Hamilton) and municipality (Toronto and Peterborough). Data is sourced from CUTA (2021), Statistics Canada. Table 23-10-0251-01 Passenger bus and urban transit statistics, by the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) (x 1,000,000), Table 98-10-0240-01 Structural type of dwelling by tenure: Canada, provinces and territories, census divisions and census subdivisions.

Population size and density are excellent predictors of ridership. However, the response dynamics of these metrics are contrasting. High-density communities have more potential transit riders and a higher likelihood of a larger share of residents using public transit. Transit ridership is impacted by built environment factors including population density and employment density [15], level of service (public transit being faster and more reliable), and lower private vehicle ownership in urban areas. Investing in transit to accommodate population growth is an opportunity to improve the speed and reliability of service, making public transit a more attractive option.

Figure 4: New rapid transit lines are associated with high-density housing being built nearby

Note: These images show the increase of row and apartment housing starts close to the Ion Rapid Transit BRT in Kitchener-Waterloo and Cambridge and the Confederation Line LRT in Ottawa (2019). Information is sourced from CMHC Starts and Completions Survey and HICC calculations.

The relationship between transit and housing creates a mutually beneficial cycle. Transit can allow for and encourage higher-density land use planning and housing development, which increases housing supply. In turn, as more people live near transit stations and stops, demand for transit services grows. Measured by the number of apartments, row houses, and duplexes compared to single detached and semi-detached homes, rapid transit encourages the addition of more dwellings in already dense areas. As shown in Figure 4, areas close to Ottawa’s light rail transit line saw more housing starts, the number of homes that started construction in the time period, relative to the rest of the city. This may play a role in the national trend towards more multifamily units. According to Statistics Canada, single-detached houses represented a smaller proportion of residential properties built from 2016 to 2021 compared with their share of the stock built before 2016.[16] Consequently, the share of denser property types, such as row and semi-detached houses, increased.

The relationship between public transit and housing affordability is less clear. Public transit can help to facilitate housing development, which may improve housing affordability. However, the benefits of living close to a rapid transit stop may increase property values, which may in turn impact housing affordability. Though, this assumes that there is not enough housing units in areas with access to rapid transit, which would not be the case if public transit systems were made available in more areas or more housing units added to areas close to rapid transit. Academic research shows a mixed relationship between public transit stations and property value.[17] As such, public transit can be considered a net positive for housing availability but not necessarily for housing affordability.

Similarly, active transportation is enabled by density in that more employment and services are nearby, making walking and cycling more attractive options. Active transportation infrastructure, in turn, supports densification of cities as it is a much more efficient use of space. One travel lane on a typical road can accommodate 1,600 private vehicles, 7,500 cyclists or 9,000 pedestrians per hour.[18] However, taking advantage of this requires designing cities in a way that encourages active transportation.

At present, the majority of community mobility infrastructure by space is allocated primarily by private vehicles. Research conducted in Montreal indicates that roughly 74% of roadway space was allocated to the use of vehicles, with remainder exclusively allocated for pedestrians (19%), cyclists (1.3%) and public transit (1%). This held true for all neighbourhoods with only minor variation between them.[19] Though, this analysis does not account for public transit buses operating on the same roads as private vehicles. It is likely that a higher share of community mobility space is predominantly allocated to private vehicle use as Montreal is densely populated and has higher public transit ridership per capita, relative to other urban municipalities in Canada. However, similar research has not been undertaken nationally.

Spatial access: What people can get to and how.

Looking at what people can access and by which modes help us understand the intersection of mobility infrastructure with the wider built environment and how this affects individuals’ travel choices. Together, Housing, Infrastructure, and Communities Canada and Statistics Canada developed the Spatial Access Measures (SAM) database, which measures access to jobs and various amenities (e.g., grocery stores, schools) at the dissemination block level for public transit, walking, and cycling. SAM provides a score for each dissemination block between 0 and 1, with 1 indicating the highest level of access in the Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) in question.[20]

A majority (75%) of Canadians have access to places of employment by transit during peak and during off-peak hours. These figures are similar for access to healthcare at roughly 75%. In contrast, it is estimated that post-secondary educational facilities are accessible to 58% of Canadians during both peak and 57% during off-peak hours.

While the availability of comfortable and safe cycling infrastructure in Canada remains low (as described in a later section), research suggests that if protected-bike facilities are built, cycling can be a time-efficient commuting choice to key destinations. The Public Health the Agency of Canada (PHAC) has recently studied the potential of routing engines to compare travel times from suburban locations to city centres. These findings and the methods can be used to compare modal choices, including active transportation and transit together, for rapid transit stations in Canada.[21] While the SAM does not currently estimate access to amenities by private vehicle, Canada’s generally low-density development pattern is likely to indicate that access is high relative to both public transit and active transportation.

Often, the more affordable areas to live in an urban region are the most disconnected from public transit systems. This can reinforce transit poverty, which occurs when individuals belonging to structurally marginalized groups experience barriers caused by inadequate transportation.[22] Since low-density communities often make transit and active transportation a less practical mode of travel, those low-income residents who are least likely to be able to afford a private vehicle can often live in communities where private vehicles are most needed to access jobs, services and amenities. This is true both in suburban areas surrounding more transit-friendly cities and in rural areas, which typically offer fewer mobility options.

Despite this, low-income Canadians are more likely to rely on public transit and active transportation, on average. As of 2021, both active transportation and public transit commuters had a median annual employment income of roughly $31,000, compared to the $43,000 average for all commuters and $45,000 for car, truck and van commuters. This distinction is less apparent when comparing average employment income, with the national average being $53,550, the average for public transit commuters is $42,000 and that for active transportation commuters is $44,640. There is a segment of high-income earners who use active transportation and public transit to commute to work.[23] Research also indicates that low-income Canadians cycle at double the rate for the rest of the population.[24] In part, this reflects the fact that many low-income people live in areas with access to public transit and active transportation. However, commuter data only includes those who are employed and therefore have some level of income. It also points to the value of these non-private vehicle modes for low-income people and to the challenges posed by lack of access.

Within rural areas, including those within and outside of CMAs and CAs, the SAM indicate that roughly 2% of residents have access to healthcare facilities through walking or public transit.[25] Post-secondary educational facilities are the least accessible, being available to roughly 0.4% of rural residents by public transit and a negligible number through walking (less than 0.1%). As publicly available SAM estimates consider the upper limit of a reasonably public transit trip to be 90 minutes, it is not clear how this figure would improve if longer trips are considered. Though this is a reasonable assumption for commutes to work, it may somewhat understate the range at which those in small communities consider is reasonable to travel to healthcare facilities, especially considering the availability of regional bus and rail services.

State of community mobility infrastructure in Canada

Broadly defined, community mobility infrastructure includes fixed assets (e.g., roads, rails, stations, sidewalks, and bicycle paths), as well as rolling stock (e.g., trains, buses, other vehicles) that are used for mobility within a community. The expansion of this infrastructure can help improve access to essential services, employment opportunities, and social interactions. Ensuring infrastructure is in good condition is key to encouraging its use, as condition influences one’s ability to drive, ride, walk, or bike. In addition, infrastructure that is badly degraded may be unsafe (e.g., vulnerable to collapse).

Roads and private vehicle infrastructure

Roads are the backbone of community mobility systems in Canada. As of 2022, Canada has over 1 million km of roads, over 750,000 km of which is owned by municipal governments.[26] Measured by length, urban municipalities owned nearly 20% of roads and rural municipalities owned almost 60% in 2022, excluding highways and rural highways.[27] Rural municipalities typically have more roads per person due to lower population density.

By length measures in lanes, over 548,000 km of the roads in Canada are local roads, which provide for low volumes of traffic and access to private properties. Local roads are designed for low speeds and have capacity for two undivided lanes of traffic. There were 117,000 km was arterial roads in 2022. Arterial roads move moderate to high traffic volumes over moderate distances between principal areas of traffic generation, they gather traffic from both local collector roads and move it to the highway system. The remainder, which makes up a small share of the total, were collector roads (148,000 km), which move low to moderate traffic volumes within specific areas of a municipality, and collect local traffic for distribution to the arterial or highway system, as well as lanes and alleys (21,200 km) make up a small share of the total.[28]

Figure 5: Local roads (13.3%) have a relatively low amount of the stock in poor and very poor condition compared to other types of roads while arterial (14.9%) and collector roads (17.4%) are more likely to be in poor and very poor condition

Note: This figure shows the estimated share of the stock of each asset type by condition rating. This data is from Statistics Canada’s CCPI (2020). Table: 34-10-0070-01 (2022-05-24) Inventory distribution of publicly owned road assets by physical condition rating, Infrastructure Canada.

Road conditions influence people’s capacity to drive, ride, walk or bike. Lanes and alleys have the highest share of stock, measured by replacement value, in poor and very poor condition (21.1%), followed by collector roads (17.4%) and arterial roads (14.3%). This does not indicate that lanes and alleys are particularly neglected, as 58.8% of the non-highway roads reported to be in poor or very poor condition were local roads while only 4.9% were lanes and alleys, local roads making up a larger share of the stock. On average, fewer roads in rural areas are rated as poor and very poor. For example, 19.2% of local roads owned by urban municipalities were reported to be in poor and very poor condition only 10.2% of those owned by rural municipalities were. Though, rural areas have a greater share in unknown condition for each of the above-noted road types except for lanes and alleys.

The total share of road assets in poor and very poor condition were reported to be higher in Quebec (28%) and Saskatchewan (19%). In the case of Quebec, the largest contributor to this figure is arterial roads, with roughly 40% of the stock in poor or very poor condition by replacement value. In contrast, under 16% of all road assets in Alberta were reported to be in poor or very poor condition in 2022, while the share of collector (17%) and local roads (15%) in this condition were higher by share of replacement value. Note that these figures are not available for all provinces and territories and may reflection differences in rating, rather than material differences in condition.[29]

Driven by the need to reduce GHG emissions and consumer adoption of electric vehicles (EV), electric charging is a growing part of infrastructure for personal vehicles across Canada. With the goal of reaching, 442,000–469,000 publicly available chargers by 2035. Canada currently has over 12,000 EV charging stations and 32,000 charging ports. Of those, over 26,000, ports (over 10,000 stations) are Level 2 chargers, while over 6,000 ports (over 2,000 stations) are direct current (DC) fast chargers.[30] They are concentrated in major cities, with almost 12% on the Island of Montreal and another 10% in the greater Vancouver area.[31] It is unclear if personal home EV charging ports will fill any gaps in the availability of public charging stations. In 2021, over 324,00 homes in Canada were estimated to have EV charging ports.[32]

Growth in public chargers has been robust, but Canada’s total number of chargers remains lower than that of leading markets like China and Europe.[33] In addition to public charging stations, there were an estimated 27 million home charger in operation globally in 2023. China leads in electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) deployment, with more than 85% of the world’s fast chargers and around 60% of slow chargers.

In major Canadian cities, vehicle parking facilities are widely available and often strategically located near residential areas, commercial centres, and public transit hubs to support convenient access for drivers. According to a report by the Canadian Energy Systems Analysis Research initiative at the University of Calgary, there are 3.2 to 4.4 parking spots for every vehicle in Canada.[34] In some cities, like Saskatoon or St. John’s, on-street parking constitutes almost all of the downtown parking supply.[35] These cities also implement regular maintenance programs, including snow removal during winter, to ensure that parking spaces remain usable year-round.[36]

Public transit infrastructure

Public Transit systems operate on the existing road network, including sharing the road and rails with other vehicles and operating in dedicated public transit lanes. They also use separate roadways and rail lines owned and maintained by public transit agencies, such as for bus rapid transit (BRT) systems. As of 2022, the stock of fixed public transit infrastructure includes over 7,100 single-track km of roads and over 1,500 km of rail, serving both high-density urban centres and connecting suburban and rural areas.[37] This includes 167 dedicated right-of-way bus lanes, roughly some over 1,000 passenger stations and terminals, and over 30,000 transit shelters. As an example of multi-modal infrastructure, there were nearly 950 park-and-ride parking lots owned or leased by public entities to connect drivers to transit service.[38] Public transit infrastructure is mostly owned by urban municipalities (61%) and provincial governments (24%), with the remainder of replacement value owned by regional public bodies.

Investments in new transit assets and upgrades have increased the share of assets in good and very good condition. That said, many well-established transit systems have highlighted that they will need significant upgrades to maintain service reliability and meet modern standards. For example, the City of Toronto expects their state of good repair (SOGR) backlog to double from 2023 to 2033, of which $8.2 billion (67.6%) will be from the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC).[39] This reflects the aging assets, as the TTC’s SOGR backlog was estimated to be less than 1% of the total backlog in 2023 but is expected to represent 36.2% by 2033. Public transit agencies need to maintain a decent its infrastructure in largely fair, good or very good condition of its public transit infrastructure to maintain current services.

Figure 6: Rolling stock, included bus and rail fleets represent roughly 36% of the replacement value of public transit assets in Canada, with the remainder being linear assets and structures

Note: This figure presents public transit asset subclasses by percentage of total public transit replacement cost. Transit shelters and ‘other facilities’, which each represent roughly 1% of the total, are not presented. From Table: 34-10-0284-01 (2024-10-21) Estimated replacement value of core public infrastructure assets, by physical condition rating (x 1,000,000).

As shown in Figure 6, CCPI data shows that fixed assets make up most of the replacement value of public transit infrastructure stock, with rolling stock making up roughly 36%. Though railcars and buses represent similar amounts of the total value of assets, there are more publicly owned buses (roughly 18,300) than railcars subway railcards (roughly 2,250) and light railcars (376) owing to the higher cost of rail assets. The vast majority of public transit infrastructure is owned by municipalities (76%) and provincial governments (24%), with urban municipalities representing 61% of the total replacement value. All public transit railcars are concentrated in urban municipalities of more than 200,000 residents, with the largest of cities like Toronto, Montreal, and Metro Vancouver and Calgary owning most. Due to the lower barrier to entry, municipalities of all sizes own public transit buses, including 77 buses reported in rural municipalities of fewer than 5,000 residents.[40] Though, rural municipalities make up less than 1% of the total national replacement value.

Figure 7: Fixed transit assets are generally in good condition, but a sizeable amount of some asset classes is in unknown condition (percentage)

Note: This shows the physical condition rating of public transit assets, not including rolling stock. Bridges and tunnels are those exclusively used for public transit. This data is from Statistics Canada’s CCPI (2022). Table: 34-10-0284-01 (2024-10-21) Estimated replacement value of core public infrastructure assets, by physical condition rating.

As shown in Figure 7 above, 2022 CCPI data indicates that public transit infrastructure is generally in good condition, with a relatively small share of replacement value in poor or very poor condition (13.1%). Buses (16.3%) and maintenance and storage facilities (13%) are the only asset subclasses with over 10% of replacement value in poor and very poor condition. However, these two make up a large share of the total replacement value of all public transit assets. Buses represent 40% of total replacement value of all assets reported to be in very poor condition while maintenance and storage facilities account for 43%. In terms of the share of total assets, 9.6% of maintenance and storage facilities were reported to be in poor and very poor condition, indicating that these assets are not more likely to be in poor or very poor condition so much as the value of those assets that are in poor or very poor condition represents a high share of total replacement value.

It is possible that the condition of assets is in worse condition than reported, as a substantial portion of the replacement value (17%) was reported to be in unknown condition. The condition of many assets are unknown, particularly fixed assets like transit shelters (33%), transit exclusive tracks and roads (45%), and passenger stations and terminals (27%). As shown in Figures 8, this is also when comparing the number of fixed assets in unknown condition to the amount of rolling stock assets in unknown condition.

Figure 8: In terms of the share of total assets, rather than the share of total replacement value, considerable numbers of fixed assets are in unknown condition while rolling stock assets are generally in good condition except for gasoline buses (percentage)

Note: This data is from Statistics Canada’s CCPI (2022). These graphs show the distribution of assets by condition ratings rather than by replacement value as CCPI data includes fewer asset subclasses by replacement value. Table: 34-10-0288-01 (2024-10-21) Inventory distribution of core public infrastructure assets by physical condition rating.

Though CCPI data provides more general sub asset class categories for replacement value, a more in-depth view is possible with the condition of total assets.[41] Gasoline buses are the only type of rolling stock with substantial share of the stock (55.6%) reported to be in poor and very poor condition, along with the highest share of vehicles in unknown condition (37.9%). Transit exclusive roads (7.9%) and bridges (6.7%) had the highest share of assets in poor or very poor condition, all below 10% of the national stock.

The accessibility of public transit structures and rolling stock is less clear. CCPI 2020 data includes the percentage of public transit asset that are accessible to Canadians with disabilities, including stations and buses. However, CCPI 2020 relied on self reporting for accessibility and does not include guidelines on how to rate accessibility. For example, the lack of accessible public transit infrastructure reported in some provinces and territories may not be accurate. More importantly, the high accessibility rating in some provinces (nearly 100% of all passenger stations and terminals in some cases) very likely does not reflect the true accessibility of these assets. The accessibility of public transit systems in Canada remains a critical data gap.

Active transportation infrastructure

Though the condition of active transportation assets is still not as well recorded as road networks and public transit, CCPI 2022 data shows a clear picture of the stock and ownership of these assets. In 2022, there was nearly 146,000 km of sidewalks across Canada. With a replacement value estimated to be more than $44 billion, sidewalks represent 71% of the estimated value of active transportation infrastructure. Most sidewalks (79%) were owned by urban municipalities, with provincial (17%) and rural municipalities (4%) owning a smaller share, by replacement value. Bikeways (10%) paved paths (8%), footbridges (6%), unpaved trails (4%) and pedestrian tunnels (1%) make up the remainder of the value of Canada’s active transportation infrastructure. Municipalities own 76% of the replacement value of active transportation assets.

Figure 9: Though a relatively small amount (10% or less) of active transportation infrastructure replacement value is in poor & very poor condition, significant portions are in unknown condition (percentage)

Note: This figure shows the amount of stock of each asset subclass in each condition rating, as a percentage of replacement value. Data is from Statistics Canada’s CCPI (2022). Table: 34-10-0252-01 (2022-04-21) Inventory distribution of publicly owned public transit assets by physical condition rating, Infrastructure Canada; Table: 34-10-0070-01 (2022-05-24) Inventory distribution of publicly owned road assets by physical condition rating, Infrastructure Canada.

By replacement value, roughly 7% of active transportation assets included in CCPI were rated as being in poor or very poor condition. Though, this speaks to the higher level of uncertainty compared to other types of infrastructure, with 42% of replacement value in unknown condition. This is most pronounced in sidewalks (48% unknown), which account for 71% of replacement value of all active transportation assets. Footbridges (56%) and pedestrian tunnels (33%) have significant amounts of assets in unknown condition with few rated in poor or very poor condition, 11% and 10%, respectively.

In addition to physical condition, the safety and comfort level (real and perceived) of active transportation infrastructure is a key determinant of its quality. Can-BICS—the Canadian Bikeway Comfort and Safety Classification System—categorizes cycling infrastructure as high-comfort, medium comfort, or low-comfort based mainly on the degree to which users are separated from traffic and other collision risks.[42] Other features can play a role as well: for example, well-lit sidewalks and crosswalks are more attractive to pedestrians. Winter maintenance is also important: it can determine whether anyone is able to use a bike path and whether people who would encounter mobility barriers, such as older adults or persons with a disability, are able to use sidewalks.

There is not completed national dataset on the comfort level of cycling infrastructure nationally. However, a collection of existing sources covers a considerable share of the country. The Canadian Cycling Network Database indicates that there are 18,700 km of cycling infrastructure in the 75 municipalities included in the database. The majority of these are medium-comfort multi-use paths (27%) and low-comfort painted bike lanes (26%).[43] Another study using open data from a sample of 45 municipalities covering each province and territories representing 50% of the population found that 23% of cycling networks were classified as high-comfort bikeways, 24% as medium comfort, and 28% were low-comfort with the remaining considered unclassifiable.[44] High-comfort bikeways are predominantly found in metropolitan areas. Moreover, according to a Statistics Canada analysis, one third (34%) of neighbourhoods in Canada have no cycling infrastructure.[45] Research using 2022 open data indicates that most high-comfort bikeways are less common outside of CMAs. Vancouver has the highest share of bikeways that are high-comfort at 63%.[46] The Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) reports open data on cycling infrastructure from 26 municipalities, including the length and type of cycling route. This data does not include condition rating. The PHAC is working to integrate the Can-BICS into this data.[47]

Figure 10: As of 2022, over half of bikeways were built after 2009

Note: This figure shows the distribution of active transportation assets by year of completion. From Table: 34-10-0289-01 (2024-10-21) Inventory of core public infrastructure assets by year of completed construction.

CCPI 2022 data includes Can-BICS categories in the distribution of bikeways by year completed. 2022 CCPI data differs somewhat from what is indicated in the Canadian Cycling Network Database, likely due to differing time frames and methodologies. Nearly half of the reported bikeways (47%) were rated as low-comfort, while medium comfort (28%) and high-comfort (26%) were nearly equal. A significant portion of bikeways (61%) were built since 2010. This figure rises to 70% in the case of high-comfort bikeways indicating the increased interest in safe active transportation options.[48]

State of community mobility infrastructure modal use and services in Canada

Community mobility infrastructure only tells a part of the story. Equally important is how these assets are used to get from Point A to Point B. This involves a complex decision-making process at the individual level. The choice of mode for one’s trip is greatly influenced by access, proximity, the built environment, cost, convenience, vehicle ownership and personal preferences.

Research suggests that access to a given destination is determined by land use (locations of activities and their attributes—e.g., residential and commercial), transport (travel time, cost, comfort and effort characteristics), and temporal factors (availability of activities at different times of day, constraints on individuals) as well as individual or collective needs, preferences, abilities, and opportunities.[49] This means that beyond the physical infrastructure, both the wider built environment (i.e., where things are located) and social factors intersect to shape Canadians’ choices about how to get to where they need to go.

In turn, individuals’ travel mode choices have societal implications. For example, more use of a given mode can mean more congested roads, buses and trains, or sidewalks and bike lanes. In general, private vehicle travel carries the heaviest societal costs in the form of GHG and particulate emissions, risk of collisions (between motorists or with cyclists or pedestrians), the need for costly road space and parking infrastructure, and relatively high owner or operator costs for households.When individual choices are scaled up to the community, regional, and national level, they can be categorized as modal share or modal split, the percentage of trips taken by private vehicle, public transit, walking, or cycling. From 2011 to 2024, the share of Canadians who primarily used private vehicles to commute to work ranged from 79 to 85%, leading to congestion in many major cities.[50]

Canada’s 2021 Census shows that driving a car, truck or van, or other personal vehicle was the main mode for 85% of all commuters to work, with 94% of those being the driver and 6% being passengers. Public transit was the main mode for around 8%, and active transportation was the main mode for around 6%. Some 59% of commutes typically stayed within the same census subdivision (e.g., municipality). A third (32%) of commuters usually had trips of under 15 minutes, 7% of commutes were between 45 and 60 minutes, while another 7% of commuters travelled for more than over an hour to get to work. 47% of all commuters left for work between the hours of 7 and 9 a.m. and 61% of commuters between 6 and 9 a.m., concentrating travel in a tight time period.[51]

This trend is least apparent in British Columbia, where active transportation and public transit each make up 10% of modal share. Modal share attributed to private vehicles are also below the national average in Quebec (83%), the Northwest Territories (77%) and Nunavut (62%). In the case of British Columbia and Quebec, this may be attributed to a large share of the population living in large CMAs with employment and services accessible through public transit and active transportation. The Montreal and Vancouver CMAs both hold over half of their respective province’s population.[52] Active transportation commutes to work are much more common in the Northwest Territories (22%) and Nunavut (37%), likely due to employment being within walking distance for many in these smaller rural communities. Reliance on private vehicles is highest in Newfoundland and Labrador (93%), Prince Edward Island (93%), New Brunswick (94%), and Saskatchewan (92%), owing to public transit being a less common, or entirely unavailable, common mode of travel outside of large urban centres.

Figure 11: While the COVID-19 Pandemic impacted commuting trends, the modal share for commutes to work in 2024 is somewhere between pandemic and pre-pandemic realities

Note: This graph shows the estimated percentage of the population by the way that they typically get to work. This data if from Statistics Canada. Table 1 Main mode of commuting by province, May 2016, May 2021, May 2022, May 2023 and May 2024, and Mode of Transportation (20), Commuting Type (5), Commuting Duration (6), Commuting Distance (12), Time Leaving for Work (7), Age Groups (5) and Sex (3) for the Employed Labour Force Aged 15 Years and Over Having a Usual Place of Work, in Private Households of Canada, Provinces, Territories, Census Metropolitan Areas and Census Agglomerations, 2011 National Household Survey.

The 2021 Census is the most recent source for detailed insights into commuting patterns, including by age, sex and income. However, the 2021 Census reflects commuter trends during the COVID-19 pandemic, underestimating public transit use in the long-term. In 2016, 12.6% of commuters used public transit to get to work and 6.8% used active transportation. In 2021, these figures declined to 7.8% and 6.1%, respectively. By the summer of 2024, public transit’s modal share was 11.4% while active transportation remained at 6%.[53] In fact, Vancouver is the only CMA in which the share of commuters using public transit has reached 2016 levels.[54] This indicates that the overall dominance of private vehicles is consistent across time but the exact share of Canadians who commute with public transit and active transportation continues to shift. With this said, 2021 Census data remains the best tool to understand how modal share relates to age, sex, and travel time and distance.

Travel by private vehicle

As of 2022, there were 26.3 million motor vehicles registered in Canada, of which 91.8% were light-duty vehicles, including cars, trucks and vans.[55] As of 2021, people between the ages of 25 to 64 are most likely to use private vehicles for commutes to work. For example, personal vehicle use peaks at 89% for men aged 45 to 55, while this figure is 83% for women of the same age. The average commute time was 22.8 minutes, with the average time being higher in larger, denser communities like Toronto (27.6) and Vancouver (25.6). Most (69%) of those who commuted by car, truck or van had trips under 30 minutes.

Ride-sharing and ride-hailing, including taxis and online applications, offer another use of local roads to those who would otherwise be pedestrians or public transit riders. 2021 Census data indicates that most (85%) of commutes to work by private vehicle only included the driver, with the remaining share being attributed to the person going to work being a passenger (5.6%), or 2 or more workers carpooling (9.5%). Research conducted in Montreal using data from 2013 to 2018 indicates that vehicle sharing had the largest impact on multimodal travel behaviour.[56]

Research published using 2016 data from Toronto found that 31% of ride-hailing trips had transit alternatives with less than a 15-minute difference in duration while 27% of ride-hailing trips would take at an extra 30 minutes or more by public transit.[57] The 2016 Labour Force Survey indicates that ride sharing services were highest among people aged 25 to 34 (14.6%) and 18 to 24 (13.5%).[58] In both of these cases, data is collected less frequently, making it difficult to determine the current use of these services in 2024.

Public transit

Three quarters (74.4%) of Canada’s population is estimated to have been living in a Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) as of July 2023.[59] Statistics Canada data shows that 75% of those lived within 500 metres of a transit stop, which is considered to indicate having access to transit under the Canada Indicator Framework for the Sustainable Development Goals.[60]

However, proximity is only one element of access; service is also critical. Of the CUTA member transit agencies, revenue vehicle hours, meaning how many hours transit vehicles spent in service, ranged from 48 to 60 million from 2011 to 2023. Revenue vehicle km (how many kms transit vehicles ran for while in service) has ranged from 1.02 billion to 1.1 billion, with the exception of 2018 ($1.11 billion) and 2019 ($1.17) before returning to the historical range in 2020.[61] This may indicate that most large transit agencies in Canada have maintained services frequency below 2019 levels, on average.

Some 43.4% of Canadians in CMAs live within 500 metres of a public transit stop with service at least every 15 minutes during peak hours. This share varies significantly from region to region, with larger metropolitan areas like Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver having higher accessibility compared to smaller cities.

As of 2021, those who primarily used public transit to commute to work were slightly more likely to be women (57.8%), a trend that is consistent across age cohorts. This figure is highest among the 15 to 24 age cohort, accounting for 11.9% of commuters in that age range. The use of public transit to commute to work declines as people age. Though, this may not reflect trends in those who are commuting for other reasons, such as retirees visiting family.

It is important to note that access is substantially lower in rural communities, if it exists at all. These communities often rely on a patchwork of local public, non-profit, and private transit providers, sometimes with mandates to serve specific populations, which can result in inconsistent service availability and longer wait times. Where they exist, bus services tend to be less frequent. This lack of access impacts the ability of Canadians to participate fully in economic and social life without a vehicle.[62]

Figure 12: Public transit commuters have longer trips on average, taking 65% longer than users of private vehicles for the same distance, on average

Note: The left graph shows the estimated average time to commute to work by each mode, using the 2021 census. Other includes motorcycles and scooters. The right graph shows the difference in time spent commuting to work for the same distance (straight line). Table: 98-10-0461-01(2022-11-30) Main mode of commuting by commuting duration, distance (straight line) from home to work and time leaving for work: Canada, provinces and territories, census divisions and census subdivisions.

In 2021, those who commuted primarily with public transit took 43 minutes on average. Though the COVID-19 pandemic may have somewhat reduced travel times through lower congestion, 2016 commute time by transit was not substantially higher (45 minutes).[63] Commute time varies heavily by distance, with 3 to 4.9 km trips taking nearly twice as long (97%) while trips of 35 km or more only took 8% longer, which may be due to these being rapid transit users. However, only 0.8% of public transit commutes to work used this range, while over 90% of transit commuters took trips less than 15 km. Though rush hour may reduce the difference in commute time between public transit and private vehicle users, it does not appear to be substantial on average. Private vehicle commuters who left home from 8 a.m. to 8:59 a.m. had 52.3% shorter commutes on average than public transit commuters who left at the same time, this figure is 4% lower (48.6%) for those who left earlier from 5 a.m. to 5:59 a.m.[64]

The “first kilometre, last kilometre” challenge is partially why public transit commutes take more time than trips of the same distance by private vehicle. Unlike other modes, people need to travel to and from stops and stations, such as walk from a home to the nearest transit stop. Add to this the need to sometimes transfer between transit lines, the fact that transit vehicles often get caught in the same congestion as private vehicles, as well as service disruptions (such as late or cancelled trips), and several other factors that may be specific to each system. It is clear why transit journeys tend to be longer and why utilization lags that of private vehicle use.[65]

Figure 13: Transit ridership has rebounded since the COVID-19 Pandemic but remains below pre-pandemic levels as of 2022

Note: This figure shows the sum of total ridership annually for all CUTA members.

Despite the association with long commute times, data from the Canadian Urban Transit Association (CUTA), a key industry group, show that transit ridership was rising steadily from 2011 up until the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.[66] Ridership fell sharply during the pandemic and has yet to fully recover. In 2023, there were roughly 1.5 billion total passenger trips taken, up from the 1.2 billion recorded in 2022.[67] In June 2024, it reached 82% of its June 2019 (pre-COVID) level.[68]

Active transportation

Active transportation networks provide both mobility as well as a public health service. Active transportation can improve public health by reducing rates of chronic disease such as heart disease and cancer, while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions and easing traffic congestion.[69] Research conducted with 1.8 million Canadian participants over 15 years found that living in a highly walkable neighbourhood was associated with lower risk of cardiovascular mortality (9%) and all non-accidental mortality (3%), compared to those living in the least walkable neighbourhoods.[70]

Determining how many Canadians have access to active transportation infrastructure is difficult as most live near a sidewalk, trail or roadside that could feasibly be used to walk or cycle to a destination. As noted above, current proximity data does not consider safety, which makes determining the actual access figure difficult. Active transportation is also used primarily for short distances, so the quality and quantity of services and employment accessible via this mode of transportation is often dependent on one’s area of residence.

According to the most recent Labour Force Survey, 6% of commuters walked or biked in May 2024. This is consistent with data from the 2021 Census (6.2%) but remains below 2016 levels (8.1%). Focusing only on the main mode of travel can also understate the prevalence of active transportation as walking (5.2%) and cycling (1.1%) were reported by an additional 1.7% and 1.3% of work commuters, respectively, when multiple modes were used to commute.[71]

While data on bike-share and scooter-share services are not included in the Census commuter data, industry association data points to the presence of these services in urban Canada. According to the 2023 North America Bikeshare & Scootershare Association (NABSA) State of the Industry report, 41 cities in Canada have at least one bike-share or scooter-share system as of 2023.[72] Though, it is unclear how much of the modal share is attributed to these services.

Roughly two thirds of individuals who commute by bike are men and one third are women. Active transportation commuting is especially common among young people aged 15 to 19 (11%) and aged 25 to 34 (10%). Low-income Canadians bike to work at double the rate of Canadians who are middle or high-income, likely in part due to cycling being one of the most affordable forms of transportation. However, visible minorities bike to work at approximately half the rate as non-visible minorities, which may be a consequence of lower bicycling infrastructure investment in neighbourhoods with a higher rate of newcomers.[73]

Despite growth in the use of active modes of transportation, Canadian uptake remains low compared to countries like the Netherlands, Germany, and Japan. That said, some neighbourhoods in Canada have significantly higher active transportation modal share. For example, in Montreal’s Plateau-Mont Royal neighbourhood, 11.3% of trips are made by bike.[74] In Victoria, almost one quarter of trips are made by active transportation with 15% on foot and 8% by cycling.[75] This may demonstrate the importance of local government initiatives, density and the built environment, as both of these municipalities have been encouraging active transportation (since 2011 in the case of Victoria)[76] and are among the most densely populated cities in Canada.[77]

As noted above, there is limited data available on the overall quality of sidewalks and to what extent they are made available for use year-round. Data is not consistently collected on snow clearing and winter maintenance, which can determine modal choice especially for populations such as older adults and persons with disabilities. According to research undertaken by the City of Lethbridge, Alberta, older adults normally walk within a two-block radius of their homes. An injury due to a fall on the sidewalk can have a significant impact on an older adult’s health and quality of life as well as a significant cost to the healthcare system, both in terms of immediate and follow-up care.[78]

Research using the 2006 Canadian Active Living Environments Database (Can-ALE) has shown that walkable communities are associated with decreased mortality. This suggests that most people will choose not to bike unless safe, protected bike infrastructure is available.[79] According to data from the Canadian Vital Statistics, Death Database (CVSD), between 2006 and 2017, 890 cyclists died in Canada, an average of 74 deaths per year. More than 5 in 10 (56%) fatal cycling events occurred in an urban setting, compared with 14% in a rural setting.[80]

State of community mobility investments in Canada

Investment in community mobility infrastructure is vital for supporting economic activities, ensuring social connectivity, fostering physical activity and promoting sustainable urban environments. Governments at all levels have prioritized funding to enhance these systems, with a focus on improving accessibility, safety, and efficiency.

Investment in roads

Based on data from Statistics Canada’s INFEA, capital expenditure on transportation engineering infrastructure across Canada is consistent and substantial. This category includes roads and highways, bridges, railways, tunnels and runways. Reaching $35.8 billion in 2023, this is the largest area of infrastructure spending, of which the largest amount of investment was in highways and roads, which surpassed $23.7 billion in 2023. This underscores the ongoing importance placed on maintaining and enhancing the road network.

Figure 14: Capital expenditures in highways, roads and streets have consistently made up the bulk of transportation engineering expenditures, which is the largest infrastructure spending category and continues to grow

Note: This figure shows capital investment in highways, roads and streets and total investment transportation engineering infrastructure investment in $ billion. It also shows the percentage of investment in transportation engineering infrastructure that is made up of investment in highways, roads and streets. From Statistics Canda’s INFEA Table 36-10-0608-12-11 (2024-12-11) Infrastructure Economic Accounts, investment and net stock by asset, industry and asset function.

The remaining useful life ratio (RULR) is an estimate of the average number of years a stock of assets remaining before needing to be repaired or replaced, divided by its average expected service life, creating a ratio that indicates the percentage of the asset class that remains. It reflects the aging of assets and investment in repairing, replacing and adding assets, such as a new street or bridge. This is more useful for comparing trends within jurisdictions than ratios between them. For example, the variation in remaining useful life ratio is greatest in the territories and smaller provinces, indicating that differences may be due to individual projects having a greater impact on the average, rather a structural problem in these jurisdictions.

Figure 15: The average remaining useful life ratio (RULR) shows a gradual decline in highway and road structures and networks, while investment in bridges has been sufficient to keep the RULR for bridges stable, nationally (%)

Note: These figures display estimated average remaining useful life (%) for private and public highways and roads, and bridge infrastructure. From Statistics Canada. Table: 36-10-0611-01 (2024-06-14) Infrastructure Economic Accounts, average age and remaining useful service life ratio by asset and asset function. Data presented in this report are sourced exclusively from Statistics Canada and harmonized national datasets to ensure methodological consistency and national comparability. Although provinces, territories, municipalities, Indigenous organizations could maintain their own infrastructure databases tailored to local needs, only national datasets are used here to support reliable national analysis. Comparisons between provinces and territories must consider that distinctions may reflect differences in reporting, rather than the condition of infrastructure.

The RULR for highway and road structures and networks shows a steady decline nationally since 2019, but remains above 55% nationally. For bridges, this figure has remained above 60% nationally from 2019 to 2023. Declines in the RULR for both asset types, such as in Alberta and Saskatchewan, may indicate that the stock is depreciating faster than it is being replaced or renewed.

It is important to consider that INFEA does not disaggregate highways from local roads and streets. Therefore, any observation that can be made using this data may not reflect the reality of community mobility systems as understood in this report. Further, this data includes private assets though the public sector owns the vast majority of highways and roads structures and network stock, and over 80% of bridges.

Investment in public transit

In 2023, transportation infrastructure and machinery represented 32.2% of public infrastructure investment and the total net stock was estimated to be worth $219 billion. Investment in transportation infrastructure and machinery together represented 1.3% of Canada’s GDP.[81]

Though INFEA does not include a category for public transit investment, the transportation machinery and equipment category is made up of buses, locomotives, railway rolling stock and rapid transit vehicles. After historically lagging private investment, public investment in transportation machinery and equipment, was roughly 55% of total investment in this category in 2023, representing an estimated 55% of total investment. This shift is largely driven by substantial investments from government organizations, aligning with an increased focus on public transit from all levels of government over the past decade. INFEA does not disaggregate transit vehicles and machinery used in public transit within communities and intercity transit, as most public investment is attributed to government business enterprises. As such, this data is best used to showcase the impact of public investment in transit overall, while data from public transit agencies better illustrates investment growth at the community level.

Another source of data for investment in public transit is the Canadian Urban Transit Association’s statistics on capital funding contributions by sources. This data, voluntarily reported by the vast majority of transit systems in Canada, shows that between 2013 and 2023 some $91.9 billion has been invested in transit and the majority of this capital funding (72%) has come from provincial governments.[82] This is due in part to the Government of Ontario’s investment in Metrolinx in recent years. Notably, the other sources of capital funding in Figure 16 includes both private capital and funding from regional governments.

Figure 16: Capital funding for transit systems comes from many sources though provincial governments do the majority of the investment

Note: This graph shows the sources of the total capital funding ($ billions) of Canadian Urban Transit Association (CUTA) members from 2011 to 2023. Adapted from CUTA Statistics Dashboard.

Public transit agencies fund their spending through a mix of fares, municipal general revenue and grants from higher levels of government. Ridership is a key determinant of the fiscal sustainability of these organizations as they are not financially self-sufficient.

Figure 17: Despite increased revenue relative to ridership, operating revenue in 15 Canadian urban transit agencies has not recouped to pre-pandemic levels as ridership remains low

Note: This graph shows the total monthly passenger trips in millions and operating revenue excluding subsidies in millions of dollars of a regionally representative sample of major Canadian urban transit agencies from October-2019 to October 2024.Taken from Statistics Canada. Table: 23-10-0251-01 Passenger bus and urban transit statistics, by the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) (2024-08-19).

Though the INFEA category transportation machinery and equipment includes buses, locomotives and rapid transit vehicles, the category is not specific to community mobility assets. The remaining useful life ratio (RULR) has been trending downwards everywhere except in Prince Edward Island and Manitoba; however, it remained at 59.5% in 2023, indicating that new vehicles have been added to the stock in recent years at a rate somewhat below the estimated rate of aging. The RULR for public transit rolling stock may be different as this category includes public and private assets and intercommunity mobility, such as cross-country freight trains and private bus lines.

Investments in active transportation

There data is limited on active transportation infrastructure investments across the country. Researchers often rely on municipal budget documents which indicate a growing allocation for cycling and walking infrastructure.[83] However, how active transportation capital spending is categorized varies widely by the municipality, and is sometimes included in different categories within the same budget, making it more difficult to measure than other categories of infrastructure spending.

How prepared are our community mobility systems for the future?

Looking forward to the future, it will be critical that Canada’s community mobility infrastructure is capable of continuing to provide the level of mobility that Canadians expect and that this infrastructure is able to foster economic growth. This requires a risk assessment of future trends such as population growth, population aging, climate change, and technological change. Communities of all types will need to plan for the changing and uncertain future presented by these trends to support community mobility that is better, faster, safer, healthier, and more affordable, both to the individual and community.

Assessing how our community mobility systems can accommodate future growth requires us to understand our existing capacity to limit congestion, cyclists with access to cycling infrastructure, passengers on public transit, and pedestrians going to public transit or directly to their destination. Though congestion metrics may exist, there are not reliable datasets to measure the collective capacity of community mobility systems. Existing metrics such as passengers per hour, per direction, and maximum sustainable hourly flow rate for roads[84] tend to mostly exist at the corridor or municipal level, if at all. This challenge is made more difficult by the nature of mobility systems having periods of peak demand. For example, an overcrowded subway station with subway cars that cannot safely hold all passengers during rush hour would have insufficient capacity, even if the same station were nearly empty later in the day. Similarly, there is also a gap in our understanding of community mobility needs within communities, as opposed to between communities.

In addition to growth, Canada is becoming an older country, with the median age having rise to 40.3 in 2024 from 31 in 1985.[85] The aging population will undoubtedly affect demand for accessible community mobility options for access to health, social, and volunteer activities, as well as employment activities. This demographic shift may prove challenging as public transit availability is correlated to population density. As there will be more older Canadians relying on public transit, there will be pressure on communities to add housing close to existing routes, expand service to less densely populated areas or a combination of the two.

Similarly, community mobility systems must meet the need of Canadians with disabilities. In 2022, nearly 27% of Canadian 15 and over had one or more disabilities.[86] Though not all types of disabilities may make travel difficult, many do. For example, 3 million Canadians (39% of persons with disabilities) had a mobility disability in 2022. A slight majority (59%) were women. Though not all persons with disabilities require the use of public transit, Canadian communities need and may increasingly need community mobility systems that include fully accessible public transit systems.

Though people of any age can have a severe disability, it is more common with age. The Canadian Survey on Disability indicates that the proportion of persons with a very severe disability ranged from 13% among youth aged 15 to 24 years to 32% among those aged 75 years and over, as of 2022. The number of co-occurring disability types is more common in older age cohorts.[87] Though this is not the case for all disability types. In 2022, 51% of people with a mobility disability were 65 and older while a significant number was between 25 and 64 (47%). Though not all persons with disabilities require the use of public transit, Canadian communities need and may increasingly need community mobility systems that include fully accessible public transit systems.

Both standard public transit and public transit service specialized for people with disabilities so that they can access employment and services. In 2017, it was found that 14% of respondents did not attend training due to inadequate transportation options while nearly 25% reported difficulty finding work because of a lack of transportation to the job site.[88] 2021 Census data indicates that nearly 62% of persons with disabilities between the ages of 25 to 64 were employed, including 42% of persons with severe disabilities.[89] Between 2016 and 2021, the employment rate for persons with disabilities aged 25 to 64 years increased from 59% to 62%, while the employment rate for persons without disabilities in the same age group decreased by 2% over the same period. When examined by gender, women and men with disabilities had similar employment rates for most age groups, except for those aged 55 to 64 years where women were less likely to be employed than men. However, the opposite was observed among those with milder disabilities aged 25 to 34 years, where women had a higher employment rate than men. No significant gender differences in employment rates were found for any of the age groups among those with more severe disabilities.[90]

Population Growth, Housing, and Employment Trends

Future demand for mobility will be critical when considering what is next for Canada’s community mobility systems. Three principal factors will impact demand for mobility; population growth, housing, and employment trends, specifically the rate at which people work from home.

Canada’s population has been growing markedly in recent years, fuelled by increased immigration. In 2021, Canada’s population reached almost 37 million, an increase of 5.2% from 2016. In 2023, the Canadian population surpassed 40 million. This population growth is centred in urban areas, increasing both urban sprawl and density. These new residents place an additional strain on community mobility systems, especially in areas where these systems are at their limit, which creates more congestion and necessitating new investments.

If past trends continue, with the majority of people settling in low-density suburban neighbourhoods, Canada’s urban regions are particularly likely to see added strain on road networks through increased private vehicle travel. How much pressure population growth will add to road networks will depend on our ability to develop transit-oriented communities.

Without expanding road networks or public transit alternatives, population and employment growth could add to congestion. In major cities like Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary, and Montreal, road infrastructure is heavily utilized and congested. From 2018 to 2020, at least one key route in each of these cities (except for Calgary) regularly took twice as long to commute through during morning or evening rush hour.[91]

While population growth adds pressure on community mobility systems, increased density makes better transit options more economically feasible by bringing more potential riders close to transit, as noted in Section 2. The more that population growth is aimed towards increasing density, including in what are currently lower-density suburban communities, the more likely that population growth will make faster, more frequent transit options more viable. In this way, growth can be seen as an opportunity for community mobility systems, rather than just a challenge.

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a substantial increase in remote work (i.e. working from home) in Canada. This increase in remote work has potentially important implications on the housing market, economic activity in downtown areas, work-life balance, and commuting.[92] The percentage of Canadians working most of the time from home has risen sharply since the mid-2010s, increasing from 7.1% in May 2016, to about 40% in April 2020, and then falling to around 20% in November 2023. Hybrid work arrangements have gained ground in recent years, which reduces commuting demand less drastically than full-time work-from-home arrangements. A return to the same number of commuters as pre-pandemic may eventually occur, though the timing of this will be dependent on the rate of population growth as well as the rates of working from home/hybrid work.

Figure 18: While the number of Canadians commuting has rebounded since the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of commuters as of May 2023 is still lower than would be expected with given pre-pandemic working trends (in millions of people)

Note: This figure shows the number of commuters in May 2016, 2021, and 2023 and hypothetical number of commuters in May 2023 in absence of growth in work from home from 2016 to 2023. Data from Statistics Canada. 2016 and 2021 Census, and May 2023 Labour Force Survey.

Climate change adaptation and mitigation

The impacts of climate change are already being felt, including changing patterns of precipitation and increased frequency and severity of extreme weather events. Most of Canada’s existing infrastructure was designed based on historical climate conditions, and much of it is well beyond its intended capacity and lifespan.[93] These changes will challenge Canada’s community mobility infrastructure by reducing expected useful life, making investments in climate adaptation necessary for community mobility networks to remain functional, reliable and safe.

Ontario’s Financial Accountability Office (FAO) estimates that extreme heat and rainfall caused by climate change will add an additional 2% annually to the operating and maintenance of arterial roads, rising to a 3.3% increase by 2071. This is a result of the average service life falling from 31 years in 1971–2000 to 22 years by 2071. In a stable climate, arterial roads have a design service life of 31 years on average and require annual operating and maintenance spending of about 1.5% of current replacement value annually. In all scenarios considering Canada’s changing climate, road assets fail earlier and require additional operating and maintenance spending, which is anticipated to increase over time. This research indicates that proactive adaptation measures are more affordable in the long-term (11% cost under medium emissions scenario), followed by reactive adaptation measures (13%) and no adaptation measures (16%).[94] Though the cost impact of climate change is outside of the scope of this discussion paper, it is worth noting that there will be a cost and a need for adaptation earlier to reduce the increased expense.

It is uncertain how much and in what ways climate change will impact road safety. As weather events influence driving conditions, research now indicates that climate change may increase the probability of vehicle collisions due to increasing temperatures. Though, warming conditions may also decrease collisions caused by snow and ice. [95] Vehicle collisions may also become more common alongside increased frequency and severity of extreme weather events.[96] The impact of climate change on road safety will likely vary widely across the country.

In addition to facing the impacts of climate change, public transit and active transportation will play a critical role in reducing GHG emissions from transportation, the second-largest source of GHG emissions in Canada (34.6% in 2021).[97] Emissions may be further reduced from private sector innovation and government initiatives to shift on-road transportation towards zero-emission vehicles, including personal vehicles, and public and private fleets. This includes Canada’s Action Plan for Clean on-Road Transportation, which aims to have 100% new light-duty zero-emission vehicle sales by 2035.[98]

The use of public transit and active transportation, as well as multi-modal trips chaining these modes together in one trip, leads to substantial reductions in GHG emissions, reduced congestion costs, and enhanced safety. As shown in Figure 19, trips taken by public transit are often those that would otherwise have to be taken by other modes, particularly private personal vehicles. Maintaining and expanding these systems can prevent millions of tonnes of CO2 emissions. CUTA has estimated that public transit services in Canada reduce net GHG emissions by 6.21 to 14.3 million tonnes annually, depending on if land use is considered.[99]

Figure 19: Public transit diverts riders from trips that would otherwise be taken by other modes, largely private vehicles

Note: This figure shows the how current public transit commuters would be redistributed as the ‘Transit Factual’ modal share without public transit. This estimate uses 2016 Census data.