adma
Superstar
So, what are you suggesting? That Etobicoke and Scarborough and North York set up their own transit systems?
In no uncertain terms...drop dead.
In no uncertain terms...drop dead.
|
|
|
- Thread starter JWBF
- Start date
Midtown Urbanist
Superstar
If de-amalgamation occurred, York and East York would definitely stay with Toronto.
Maybe even North York as well.
Maybe even North York as well.
GenerationW
Senior Member
No. Eglinton and Don Mills was always part of North York.
ksun
Senior Member
not impossible since they seem to have different visions. If Markham can set up their own transit system, why can't Scarborough?
And there is nothing prevent the cities from integrating the systems for riders. Let Scarborough people decide if they get a subway or LRT, and pay for it.
ksun
Senior Member
I stand corrected!
AlbertHWagstaff
Senior Member
That bus has left the station too. Markham doesn't have its own transit system. It's all part of York Region Transit. The TTC had responsibility for the full Metropolitan area from the get go, until July 1954 there were some privately operated bus services running in the mostly rural townships/boroughs, connecting some industrial areas to the TTC system, but that was about it. The TTC was integrated from the beginning of Metro. Interestingly, the City of Toronto wanted full 100% amalgamation with the surrounding townships in 1953.
freshcutgrass
Senior Member
I'm pretty sure you don't even know what you mean by "de-amalgamation".
People who lack fundamental knowledge of a subject, yet are all in favour of it, is the exact reason we have Rob Ford as mayor.
Of course it saved money...a single tier municipal government is smaller and cheaper to run than a two-tier municipality. Consolidating whatever services that were still at the lower tier level will also save money. This is all pretty obvious. The problem was in all the downloading from the province.
salsa
Senior Member
Uncle Teddy
Senior Member
Except that the obvious didn't happen. Expenses went up after consolidation.
ksun
Senior Member
I don't want to comment on the first comment but regarding the second:
1) that's only correct in theory. As others pointed out, the savings didn't happen.
2) even if there are savings, there are implicit cost/foregone opportunities for not being able to do things that we could've done due to the vastly different ideologies (suburbs's somehow resentment toward "downtown" and the constant need to compromise to the suburbs - Sheppard subway, Scarborough subway instead of DRL which is obviously more in need). such cost may be well above the savings.
3) empirical evidence shows many smaller cities function better and more efficiently. For example, SF and Boston, as well as Vancouver and Seattle didn't amalgamate surrounding suburbs and they are the best and most vibrant cities on the continent. And I am sure cities like Santa Monica, Culver City and West Hollywood are a lot happier without being a part of City of Los Angeles. For cities like Toronto where people from different regions simply can't agree on anything and can't get anything done, yes, it is better to be separate entities.
freshcutgrass
Senior Member
Expenses always go up. But they didn't go up because of amalgamation...they went up in spite of amalgamation. It's government...why are you all acting surprised??????????????????
The savings from amalgamation happened..in fact, the initial savings were beyond what had been projected.
Well, you should, since that is the part that is important. You just can't say de-amalgamation without explaining what you're talking about. Are you talking about Toronto circa 1997...1967...1953? Some new invention? That's why I suspect you really have no clue what you are talking about.
A: Sure they did
B: so is Toronto (and in many cases, far more so).
Bad argument. Despite the bitching and Rob Ford factor, Toronto is, and always was, a rather successful and prosperous town, that is run rather efficiently. That's the reason Rob Ford still has an approval rating in the 40's, despite being....Rob Ford. People are responding to the fact that Toronto isn't in a crisis...not that they love Rob Ford in particular.
I thought the two-tiered system of municipal gov't Toronto had worked great (and they were never separate entities). But by 1998, it had done most of what it had set out to do, so the amalgamation that took place in 1998, was really a lot smaller deal than people make out.
pman
Senior Member
Stay classy, SuburbMan.
adma
Superstar
To repeat: "spite deamalgamation" is the municipal-governance version of anti-Brutalism.
And as I've always asserted to those who say "Etobicoke can keep Ford": no, even Etobicoke doesn't deserve Ford.
doady
Senior Member
The TTC receives approximately $150 million annually from the province in gas tax revenue.
Why stop there? Make Toronto include downtown only, it could be even denser than NYC.
It's too bad NYC amalgamated, otherwise it would be even denser and more efficient. It's probably the reason why NYCMTA only has 60% cost recovery ratio compared to the TTC's 71%. If the MTA served Manhattan only, it would be a better system. But this gives Toronto to be a superior city with even better transit.
The boundary for single-tier Toronto should be Spadina, Bloor, Yonge, and Front. That's the real Toronto. Imagine the efficiency. Cost recovery for the TTC would be 200% at least. No more outsiders to bring the system and the real city down.
spider
Senior Member
You forgot the "sarcasm/" tags, some may think this is a great idea.