[Jonny5]

A question. Let's say we were de-amalgamated. What would happen if Scarborough council was completely against a transit city project? Easy example would be a surface LRT that Scar wants buried. Would this be easier to get through (as a surface LRT) during amalgamation, or de-amalgamation?

I can't recall how these things played out pre-amalagamation.

Didn't Metro have responsibility and control of many arterial roads? IIRC if they wanted to do something with it, they would just do it, and not even have to ask local councils. Though as far as I know, they never attempted anything like Transit City, so perhaps there was a mechanism a local council could have used to force their input into the process.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Except that for the longest time transit planning and operation is a Metro level responsibility. In effect, the governance aspect is similar to what you have today (representatives from the boroughs in a regional government).

AoD

Just noticed Jonny5 already addressed the issue.

 

[freshcutgrass]

I can't recall how these things played out pre-amalagamation.

There never was a pre-amalgamation public transit service under Metro. It was an upper tier service from day one.

I get the feeling most people are confused by the term "amalgamation". Metro (1953-1998) was an amalgamation process from the beginning. But it was a gradual, changing process with more and more amalgamation happening as time went on and the city grew. This was designed to work this way...gradual amalgamation.

By the time 1998 rolled around, most of Metro was already part of an amalgamated upper tier. That's why total amalgamation (elimination of the lower tiers) wasn't that big of a deal.

This is not to say Scarborough wouldn't have a "say" in what went on, as the upper tier council would include people from Scarborough. But the point of the upper tier was to consider what was good for the city as a whole, and the lower tier only considered themselves with things on a local (borough) basis.

 

[King of Kensington]

This was initially brought up in the Ford thread but maybe it's best to discuss this here. In his piece for the New Yorker Adam Gopnik stated that:

"The essential background, not sufficiently understood in the States, is that Ford’s rise is a cautionary tale, a consequence of a misbegotten scheme to consolidate the entire Toronto metropolitan area into a single municipal voting unit, as though New York City were joined with smaller towns and suburban reaches from Nassau County to New Jersey. Naturally, the suburbanites in Toronto resent paying taxes for what at times can seem an oppressively virtuous, bike-path-and-green-sward, “I’ll tolerate that, too!” urbane Toronto core. Ford is, or was, their revenge."

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/05/rob-ford-anthony-weiner-shakespeare.html

Which led one commenter to write:

"As a Toronto ex-pat residing in New York, I was waiting for Adam and the New Yorker to join the fun. But I want to point out a couple mild corrections. The amalgamation of Toronto with its boroughs is not analogous to NYC merging with NJ and Long Island. It is simply analogous to NYC itself, the old city of Toronto being Manhattan, and the surrounding boroughs playing the role of, well, the boroughs. Etobicoke as Staten Island, North York as Queens, Scarborough as the Bronx, East York and York as Brooklyn. The tensions in Toronto are no different than the tensions in New York when it comes to outer borough vs Manhattan on topics like tolls and bike lanes and whose roads got plowed first. And like New York the Toronto Sun (read: Post/News)-reading boroughs tend to vote for candidates different than the Globe/Star/National Post (read: WSJ/Times)-reading core."

I see the commenter's point but the urban form is so different that it seems absurd to compare Scarborough and the Bronx! It seems a little different than just Toronto's "1898 moment."

 

[freshcutgrass]

I see the commenter's point but the urban form is so different that it seems absurd to compare Scarborough and the Bronx! It seems a little different than just Toronto's "1898 moment."

To be clear, our "1898 moment" would be 1953....not 1998.

The Bronx is a bad example to use of the NYC boroughs, as it was not a separate borough, but actually part of NYC prior to consolidation in 1898 (annexed by Manhattan on two prior occasions). The Bronx didn't become a separate borough until after consolidation. The boroughs were not annexed to Manhattan, but became equal political units within the city government, although they did not have the level of autonomy that the lower tiers of Toronto had during Metro.

Etobicoke, North York & Scarborough would be most similar to Queens & Staten Island, as they were made up of small towns/villages and farms during their times of consolidation and were consolidated for the purposes of growth. Brooklyn was already a large city, and really had no Metro equivilent, but if you had to pick one, it would be the more urban York & East York, Forest Hill, Swansea.

The main point that Metro and the 5 Borough NYC were analogous is more or less a pretty accurate one.

 

[King of Kensington]

Etobicoke, North York & Scarborough would be most similar to Queens & Staten Island, as they were made up of small towns/villages and farms during their times of consolidation and were consolidated for the purposes of growth. Brooklyn was already a large city, and really had no Metro equivilent, but if you had to pick one, it would be the more urban York & East York, Forest Hill, Swansea.

Yup, for the most part. Queens does resemble North York and Scarborough as a multicultural urban suburbia - though Long Island City and to a lesser extent Astoria are hip urban neighborhoods, kind of akin to the east end here if "hipster Brooklyn" is our west end.

 

[King of Kensington]

As for the 905 suburbs, hard to make a comparison as they're quite different. Probably resemble New Jersey more than anything else. But the whole "New England town" thing - though not as entrenched as in New England - defines New York and New Jersey more than it does here (or in Montreal for that matter).

 

[scar_resident]

There is a very good paper, Toronto at a Crossroads, and How it Got Here by Frances Frisken. It talks about the history of Metro Toronto and the challenges of the GTA and amalgamated Toronto in 1999. The lessons from the Toronto experience show much has not been learned almost 15 years later.

 

[Transportfan]

The main point that Metro and the 5 Borough NYC were analogous is more or less a pretty accurate one.

The main difference being is that Toronto's boroughs were never part of the city proper, which was not a borough.

If Toronto was to deamalgamate, the NYC system should be the mode, with Old Toronto simply being a borough within the city akin to Manhattan. You'd have the best of both worlds: a city with local municipal representation that represents reality, as opposed to the inaccurate "Metropolitan" Toronto structure.

 

[freshcutgrass]

The main difference being is that Toronto's boroughs were never part of the city proper, which was not a borough.

Actually, there would be no difference here. It's irrelevant whether they called the "old" city of Toronto a borough or not...they just as easily could have. It's place as an equal constituent within the municipal structure (Metro) is the same as Manhattans place as a constituent within NYC. The Municipality of Metro Toronto was the "city proper", with the old city of Toronto post 1953 being akin to Manhattan post 1898.

The only difference is that Toronto operated as a two-tiered municipality between 1953 and 1998, whereas NYC may have had used a borough system, but a one-tiered municipal structure. I think people get confused about this because Toronto's municipal structure was unique in NA, and probably the world at the time.

 

[ksun]

I totally support de-amalgamation - there seems to be no evidence that amalgamation saved any costs - we have 4000 more municipals jobs than we did in 1998! Not to mentioned the difficulty amalgamation created in reaching any agreement in how to spend money and build our city.

Old city's transit would be vastly improved for example if we separate from the suburbs, who seem to think they "deserve" subways just become downtown has more stops, irrespective of density/financial sense. Without the surburbs, Toronto will be able to focus much better on urban issues it cares about. I am sure the suburbs will be better off too.

I just signed up this
http://www.change.org/en-CA/petitio...pt&utm_medium=email&utm_source=share_petition

 

[TheTigerMaster]

The more jobs may be attributed to the large population growth in toronto and the region.

 

[nfitz]

The more jobs may be attributed to the large population growth in Toronto and the region.

To some extent. But it's also because North York, Scarborough, Etobicoke, and East York provided less services than Toronto did; to a great extent because they had a lower tax base, and couldn't afford to provide such services despite higher tax rates.

Now residents in those areas believe they should get the same services as Toronto, so we see expansions of libraries, pools, etc. in the suburbs, but at the same time, have pressure to cut or hold such services in old Toronto. Meanwhile, tax rates are held the same for all parts of the city, so that the outer suburbs are disproportionally funded by those in Old Toronto with higher property values, but often smaller houses and less land.

 

[toraerach]

I totally support de-amalgamation - there seems to be no evidence that amalgamation saved any costs - we have 4000 more municipals jobs than we did in 1998! Not to mentioned the difficulty amalgamation created in reaching any agreement in how to spend money and build our city.

Old city's transit would be vastly improved for example if we separate from the suburbs, who seem to think they "deserve" subways just become downtown has more stops, irrespective of density/financial sense. Without the surburbs, Toronto will be able to focus much better on urban issues it cares about. I am sure the suburbs will be better off too.

Transit was always the responsibility of the Metro government. The 416 suburbs and the TTC network (both surface and subway) expanded simultaneously and are deeply embedded in each other. There's an ecosystem there that would almost certainly prove disastrous to dismantle. Besides, the way the province is heading re: transit funding, I don't think it will ultimately matter whether Toronto and Scarborough share a mayor or not. A regionally-collected transit fund will, quite rightfully, be utilized with input from all of those who pay into it.

At this point, de-amalgamation is nearly impossible. At best, it will be the messiest six-way divorce you can imagine, causing far too much trouble for far too little gain - especially if we're going full-out no Metro-level integration. I'm all for devolving some local issues to community councils though. That seems relatively pain free.

 

[ksun]

^ doesn't have to be six way. East York and York could stay. The other big three are probably better off on their own.
Not that I disagree a regional transit plan should work better, but it doesn't change the fact that Toronto will be in a much better position to improve its own transit, without all the opposition from the suburbs as if it were unfair.

The DRL for example, even extended to Eglinton/Don Mills, will be entirely within Toronto and East York.

Plus, TTC currently receives zero subsidy from the Provincial government. Studies show that for the TTC within old city, the system would actually operate for a profit. It will change everything if de-amalgamation happens.

Toronto + east York will cover 120 sq km and have 850K+. We will have exactly the same land area of San Francisco, with 25K more people, which means we will become North America's second densest large city (increase of 80%) after NYC. Running a much denser city can be a lot more efficient.