[TOareaFan]

I don't get the point of this editorial. Look I support the DRL but investing in GO is more worthwhile than the DRL, we get more bang for our buck. This GO announcement should have been done ages ago but instead we were building subways up on Sheppard and now up to Vaughan. I don't blame the Liberals for investing in GO, you get to serve a greater area of people with transit. I also find it funny how this editorial is most likely alluding to the fact that there was no funding mentioned for the DRL but where were these same people when the province was throwing billions at LRT lines in Toronto? Why weren't they screaming for the money to be used for the DRL? I guess now that the DRL is the flavour of the day, they are screaming mad.

Likely because they (as many do and many more should) have concerns over this part:

The Clark panel notes that an offering of shares in Hydro One “would be highly attractive to the market as a dividend-paying investment.” No doubt. But here’s the rub: Hydro One is already a dividend-paying investment – paying 100 per cent of its dividends to the government of Ontario. The reason private investors will pay $9-billion up front is because they’ll be entitled to 60 per cent of those dividends, forever.

They weren't screeming for the money to go to DRL because until the hydro sale, there was no money....and, as they point out, selling 60% of hydro is not necessarily a bad thing...but giving up 60% of the dividend that Hydro sends to the treasury every year creates a very large hole in a provincial operating statement that is already in the red. Investing that money in transit covers a need....but likely creates another and that "other" is some kind of boost to the province's income. As good and needed a thing as more transit is....it needs annual operating subsidies....so we have taken money that was earning money and converted it into an asset that needs annual support...and that is on top of the already significant (and growing) annual deficit.

This thursday's budget should be interesting....but, more and more, the efforts to fund transit without general tax increases seems to be leading in one direction......towards some sort of general tax increase.

 

[crs1026]

I don't get the point of this editorial. Look I support the DRL but investing in GO is more worthwhile than the DRL, we get more bang for our buck. This GO announcement should have been done ages ago but instead we were building subways up on Sheppard and now up to Vaughan. I don't blame the Liberals for investing in GO, you get to serve a greater area of people with transit. I also find it funny how this editorial is most likely alluding to the fact that there was no funding mentioned for the DRL but where were these same people when the province was throwing billions at LRT lines in Toronto? Why weren't they screaming for the money to be used for the DRL? I guess now that the DRL is the flavour of the day, they are screaming mad.

It's a bit muddled, written with a tone of concern but not really making any particular point well.

The Globe's earlier editorial about how the Beer Store changes are a sham was more compelling. The Hydro One sale ought not to be a concern in itself - most of the rest of North America does well with privatised transmission providers - but the point about whether investors will invest in an enterprise that the Province clearly intends to continue to "steer" (via its minority share) is a fair one. And it's fair to ask for a net-present-value calculation....will Ontario extract more money by a one-time sale of equity, versus its current income stream via dividends? If Hydro 1 is generating say $450M in annual dividends, selling for a one-time profit of say $9B today may be worth less over 25 years than leveraging the equity and earning the dividend stream. (I have no idea what the real numbers are, just pulling hypothetical numbers to illustrate the point.)

As to the Globe's concern with the GO expansion, the one compelling point made seems to be the degree to which QP will spend almost all the money earmarked for transit on GO. This is indeed a shift in policy. Up til now, Queens Park was promising transit funding but implying a much more balanced distribution between municipalities and regional needs. I would expect there to be municipal pushback....including from Toronto. This is a bit Macheavalian even with respect to Smartrack....which no one seems to be able to reconcile with RER, even here on UT. If GO completes RER and then declares (through clever spin) that RER has been Smarttrack all along, so no further system need be funded, even Mr Tory has been out-finessed. This change in policy needs a proper debate, it's certainly not what the voters were sold during the election.

And yes, if this pushes DRL off the table for 10-20 years, that should be made explicit and subject to debate too.

All in all, I do think some of the true issues are getting aired in the press, so the editorial is pushing the right buttons even if they have their sums wrong. The Sun is hot on the trail of UPX. The media now understands the problem of building RER on privately-owned freight lines. The Globe article starts to look at ridership and benefit, and certainly understands that costly transit (ie subways) only is justified in very high density situations. None of this was so clear back when the Fords took office. It's frustrating - just build something, anything! but it may be sanity slowly forcing its way to the surface.

- Paul

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

Exactly. GO RER is beyond transformational for Toronto's traffic problems. Our traffic comes from our far flung suburbs, not from inner-city drivers.

Here's my problem though, and the point I think that Globe piece was trying to make (not as clear as you guys pointed out). If you have transit commuters coming into and out of Toronto, RER covers that. Great. But what about getting to/from an RER line? Not everyone has the luxury of living close to one. So they have to use the TTC. With improved and increased ridership on the RER, where are they gonna go without extra municipal subway/LRT/BRT capacity?

And what about other GTHA cities? If we don't want people commuting in just one direction and creating desirable work places in the 905, they need rapid transit between the RER lines too.

The shittiest thing about all of this is the mess is the Ontario government's making. Metrolinx made them a good investment strategy that would have covered anything. Instead, Wynne didn't have the guts to eliminate our pork-barrel politics and perpetuated a system where everyone is riddled with anxiety and uncertainty about their rapid transit project.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Here's my problem though, and the point I think that Globe piece was trying to make (not as clear as you guys pointed out). If you have transit commuters coming into and out of Toronto, RER covers that. Great. But what about getting to/from an RER line? Not everyone has the luxury of living close to one. So they have to use the TTC. With improved and increased ridership on the RER, where are they gonna go without extra municipal subway/LRT/BRT capacity?

And what about other GTHA cities? If we don't want people commuting in just one direction and creating desirable work places in the 905, they need rapid transit between the RER lines too.

The shittiest thing about all of this is the mess is the Ontario government's making. Metrolinx made them a good investment strategy that would have covered anything. Instead, Wynne didn't have the guts to eliminate our pork-barrel politics and perpetuated a system where everyone is riddled with anxiety and uncertainty about their rapid transit project.

Exactly. Yeah, if I was looking for a silver lining I'd say, "The province is going to take this hydro money, show people what a difference investing in transit makes and then soften them up for the revenue tools coming in a few years..." Except that's what they did in 2007 and it didn't work. Instead we got Rob Ford and meagre resources being wasted.

I don't see much point complaining about the DRL, since it's still early in the planning process. It's not GO's fault Toronto made a Scarborough subway it's transit priority, after all.

It's also not surprising GO got "first dibs" since Metrolinx effectively is GO and we've seen no evolution in Metrolinx's role to, say, take a big pool of money and allocate it to municipal and provincial transit projects based on various priorities. GO, for what it's worth, spreads the love around to Barrie and Mississauga and Markham and all those 905 municipalities; it's a smart move, politically and not idiotic, in terms of transportation. What it means for the "next wave" of municipal projects (especially with this $1B - for the whole country! - the feds are going to announce) remains to be seen. But I agree there's little reason to be optimistic, after a few years of looking like we might be on the right track.

 

[mdrejhon]

Again to reiterate, I was never talking about eliminating or shutting down Aldershot. I even bolded "off peak" in my post.

Apologies, I must have interpreted this a little incorrectly -- if Aldershot is converted to a peak-only station, I would live with that, if it sped up Hamilton service significantly. Though I wonder if Metrolinx would dare shut Aldershot down completely, as there are residential neighborhoods to the south and I see people walking to Aldershot everyday. Guess the situation might be very different in 10-15 years...

 

[Jonny5]

Will Ontario extract more money by a one-time sale of equity, versus its current income stream via dividends? If Hydro 1 is generating say $450M in annual dividends, selling for a one-time profit of say $9B today may be worth less over 25 years than leveraging the equity and earning the dividend stream. (I have no idea what the real numbers are, just pulling hypothetical numbers to illustrate the point.)

The important part of this analysis is recognizing that government entities that sell services to their own population, like Hydro One, or the LCBO, can logically never generate profits for "the people of Ontario;" meaning the province's wealth at large. They are only wealth redistribution mechanisms, or essentially, taxation. Hydro One and the LCBO can never earn a profit.

The people of Ontario pay the costs of generating electricity, then pay more than the cost to obtain that electricity. This is simply shuffling wealth between hands. There's no "profit" for anyone. It's the same with the LCBO. The LCBO uses the wealth of Ontario to buy liquor, then sells it back to the owners of that wealth at a higher price. Ontario accumulates no wealth from these transactions. All that happens is wealth is transferred from the above mean drinker to the below mean drinker, or something similar to that by cost. The same as Hydro One; which transfers wealth from low users to high users.

Now I recognize that Hydro isn't a closed system; the electricity costs can be exported to other provinces or countries through trade. I just want to point out the goal should be to allocate the government capital to the areas that will lower marginal expense the most to the people of Ontario. The Retail of liquor seems like one of he worst possible allocations. Retail is a very efficient industry, and maintaining a separate retail chain is very likely a relatively high expense wealth transfer. On the other hand, public transit, and electricity generation and distribution seem like very inefficient markets, and it is likely a great place to maintain investment, not rotate out of.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

GO can be improved, it was just be more expensive than the other lines.

So, you're suggesting that since the Milton line will be expensive to improve... we should build an EVEN MORE expensive subway instead?

Let's be honest, a sherway - square one subway would not cost more then a full double track treatment of the Milton line. It's the principle of the "subways solve everything" being wrong and the fact a subway to Square one means that people Mississauga, Oakville, Burlington, Brampton, Georgetown will have been in the subway for half an hour when they reach Jane Station.

 

[mdrejhon]

Let's be honest, a sherway - square one subway would not cost more then a full double track treatment of the Milton line. It's the principle of the "subways solve everything" being wrong and the fact a subway to Square one means that people Mississauga, Oakville, Burlington, Brampton, Georgetown will have been in the subway for half an hour when they reach Jane Station.

Don't forget Hurontario LRT connects to THREE different GO lines and that ALL THREE will have 15-minute peak service in the announced 10 year plan! That, combined, will provide measurable relief for Mississauga already!

In fact, there can be allday 15-min RER electric service at both Brampton* and Port Credit. Hurontario LRT will connect to both, not just Milton line. Although 15-min will go to Bramalea initially, the short electricification hop from Bramalea to Brampton would be only a very minor megaproject (added new trackage, relocating historic Brampton station building 10-15 meters northwards) compared to a subway. Then throw in a Woodbine Racetrack RER station, and this helps Mississauga go to Pearson, too, not just Union.

If Mississauga still wants a subway, consider the GO RER Eglinton spur (a.k.a. SmartTrack) if it gets built. If it gets built to Airport Corporate, then a Phase 2 extension (Airport Corporate to Square One) would be shorter and cheaper incremental cost than a TTC Kipling extension. Then we'd have underground GO RER Eglinton (or "SmartTrack") ala a subway to Mississauga. Then Hurontario will connect to FOUR GO lines, including that brand new GO RER corridor under Square One (the "SmartTrack extension" that's shorter than a TTC Kipling extension).

 

[robmausser]

Don't forget Hurontario LRT connects to THREE different GO lines and that ALL THREE will have 15-minute peak service in the announced 10 year plan! That, combined, will provide measurable relief for Mississauga already!

In fact, there can be allday 15-min RER electric service at both Brampton* and Port Credit. Hurontario LRT will connect to both, not just Milton line. Although 15-min will go to Bramalea initially, the short electricification hop from Bramalea to Brampton would be only a very minor megaproject (added new trackage, relocating historic Brampton station building 10-15 meters northwards) compared to a subway. Then throw in a Woodbine Racetrack RER station, and this helps Mississauga go to Pearson, too, not just Union.

If Mississauga still wants a subway, consider the GO RER Eglinton spur (a.k.a. SmartTrack) if it gets built. If it gets built to Airport Corporate, then a Phase 2 extension (Airport Corporate to Square One) would be shorter and cheaper incremental cost than a TTC Kipling extension. Then we'd have underground GO RER Eglinton (or "SmartTrack") ala a subway to Mississauga. Then Hurontario will connect to FOUR GO lines, including that brand new GO RER corridor under Square One (the "SmartTrack extension" that's shorter than a TTC Kipling extension).

I'd prefer to extend the Crosstown LRT vs a Smarttrack spur, but just wondering, would the extension of the Smarttrack spur go in the Mississauga Transitway corridor?

 

[minilude]

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-c...ransit-projects-in-biggest-cities-sources-say

this is good news

 

[JasonParis]

Although nowhere close to enough, especially considering it is an amount to be shared among the largest cities.

 

[CDL.TO]

Let's be honest, a sherway - square one subway would not cost more then a full double track treatment of the Milton line. It's the principle of the "subways solve everything" being wrong and the fact a subway to Square one means that people Mississauga, Oakville, Burlington, Brampton, Georgetown will have been in the subway for half an hour when they reach Jane Station.

Woah there. I have always said that a subway is a bad choice for a riders' perspective. But I completely disagree with your assertion that "a sherway - square one subway would not cost more then a full double track treatment of the Milton line". With the necessary tunnelling and underground stations, I would suggest that a subway extension would still be 3-4 times more expensive than a full double track treatment of the Milton line.

 

[mdrejhon]

I'd prefer to extend the Crosstown LRT vs a Smarttrack spur, but just wondering, would the extension of the Smarttrack spur go in the Mississauga Transitway corridor?

That's for every politician to wrangle over, I'd think.

I'm just introducing a potential cheaper subway alternative than extending TTC Line 2. If SmartTrack ends up getting built down the Eglinton corridor anyway, that is, then it becomes a bona-fide Mississauga subway that might actually be easier to do than solving the Milton corridor situation, or extending TTC, if negotiations fail on the Milton line, and we already have a terminus at Airport Corporate Centre anyway. Then it becomes another option to create a Mississauga subway too, by extending from there. If we had to have a completely grade-separated rail line between Square One and Union -- a bona-fide subway.

But, yes, I'd prefer, ECLRT going over the Eglinton route suggested by SmartTrack.
Instead, send SmartTrack to Mt Pleasant instead (GO RER), and send ECLRT to Square One. Interline ECLRT with Hurontario. I'd actually prefer to see that happen. Better use of money than tunneling under Square One.

Just get Hurontario built first, regardless. It's a well chosen route that serves Mississauga very well, and slots really well with RER plans. Remind every Hurontario hater & subway lover, that Hurontario just became massively more useful with GO RER, especially when Metrolinx later negotiate corridor expansion to extend RER one stop from Bramalea to Brampton and eventually adds a Woodbine(Racetrack)-Pearson interchange station to access the airport.

 

[rbt]

Although nowhere close to enough, especially considering it is an amount to be shared among the largest cities.

It wont cover 1/3rd of the SOGR maintenance of the existing Toronto subway system today let alone in the future (that $1B is fixed, doesn't grow with inflation).

 

[aquateam]

The important part of this analysis is recognizing that government entities that sell services to their own population, like Hydro One, or the LCBO, can logically never generate profits for "the people of Ontario;" meaning the province's wealth at large. They are only wealth redistribution mechanisms, or essentially, taxation. Hydro One and the LCBO can never earn a profit.

Well, semantically speaking, the LCBO and Hydro One earn a profit. If by "profit" you mean the generation of wealth, it is possible that a corporation like that could create a net benefit for the people of a province. Say that, instead of a crown corporation there were dozens of retailers. Ontarians could conceivably be poorer from it because:
1) A single provincial entity has more buying power and could achieve economies of scale that several intermediate-size retailers could not, e.g. bargain for more booze at a lower price by buying in bulk.
2) Because the "profits" would go to shareholders not located in the province then there would be a flow of money out of the province.

Or we could be poorer from it because:
1) Private enterprises could perform the retailing function more efficiently, with the threat of competition eliminating dead weight and duplication within the organization
2) The profit-seeking nature could mean that they look out for more varieties of alcohol, providing a net benefit to Ontarians (think of the skull vodka that was banned from the shelves of the LCBO).

The people of Ontario pay the costs of generating electricity, then pay more than the cost to obtain that electricity. This is simply shuffling wealth between hands. There's no "profit" for anyone.

Except it's a service, and Ontarians get a service. The question is whether the public sector or the private sector would be better at delivering that same level of service.

It's the same with the LCBO. The LCBO uses the wealth of Ontario to buy liquor, then sells it back to the owners of that wealth at a higher price. Ontario accumulates no wealth from these transactions. All that happens is wealth is transferred from the above mean drinker to the below mean drinker, or something similar to that by cost. The same as Hydro One; which transfers wealth from low users to high users.

So you're saying that the government provides these services at an above-market price and the difference is equivalent to if the market provided the service and the government just applied a tax (to booze or to electricity).

Now I recognize that Hydro isn't a closed system; the electricity costs can be exported to other provinces or countries through trade. I just want to point out the goal should be to allocate the government capital to the areas that will lower marginal expense the most to the people of Ontario. The Retail of liquor seems like one of he worst possible allocations. Retail is a very efficient industry, and maintaining a separate retail chain is very likely a relatively high expense wealth transfer. On the other hand, public transit, and electricity generation and distribution seem like very inefficient markets, and it is likely a great place to maintain investment, not rotate out of.

So you're saying that the public sector (in the form of the LCBO) does an inefficient job of service delivery for this purpose, but electricity is well-suited to it. That's conceivable.