innsertnamehere
Superstar
High Occupancy toll lanes. (meaning you can either pay to use them or have 2 people in the car and use them for free)
|
|
|
- Thread starter denfromoakvillemilton
- Start date
nfitz
Superstar
What does the "T" stand for in HOT.
Oops, I thought it was for Transit not Toll (ie. precluding car pooling). My mistake. HOV then. #TooManyAcronyms
innsertnamehere
Superstar
transit vehicles get to use HOV lanes automatically as there is more than 1 person in them.. (I think they get to use them if there is only a single bus driver as well actually, it just needs to be a bus)
Palma
Senior Member
$90M for painting lines?
nfitz
Superstar
Where did you get that? I thought the entire transportation budget was only $75-$90 million. I'd think most of that would be for the acquisition and operation of the bus network. I'd think the advertising and communication budget would be higher than the line painting budget.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
In Paris and other cities of northern France, they are offering free transit because of the smog they have.
Which level of government is paying for that?
Which level of government is paying for that?
voxpopulicosmicum
Senior Member
Eglinton is a PPP, but not all PPPs are the same. In particular, PPPs that do not have extensive long-term maintenance/operation components are thought to far less attractive to private sector participants (which might tell us something about whether we ought to enter into PPPs with extensive long-term maintenance/operation components, but I digress). Eglinton is a DBF (design-build-finance), while Waterloo is a DBFMO (design-build-finance-maintain-operate).
voxpopulicosmicum
Senior Member
If the RoFo Era has taught us anything, it's that the *real* electoral prize are the stupids, so we can all expect to see a lot more of this focus-grouped, uninformative pandering, rather than the conveyance of actual facts and/or ideas on which to judge merits. To mangle a quote from Conrad Brean, "Makes you proud to have lived long enough to see the day..."
muller877
Senior Member
Good to know the terms.
Why doesn't the TTC want a 3rd party operator agree to the MO piece (either Metrolinx or a private operator)? If I recall, Metrolinx was suppose to run the line and TTC objected, twisted some arms and took it over.
We have services that are both city and private operated in Toronto and the fees are the same (e.g. garbage). It works fine. Maybe too fine for the TTC? Will it show that a private operator can deliver equal if not better service for a lower price? It could drive down costs (staffing is probably the largest operating expense) will either lower the subsidy required by the city (or the city can maintain the subsidy and increase service).
It's another option for a "funding tool" that none of the mayoral candidates have raised.
I'm not talking about laying off people...just on new services. Alternatively, like garbage, to keep the current staff and when there is growth or retirements the services can be contracted out. Just like garbage trucks, there would be no visible change to customers...just who gives the employees the pay cheque.
TOareaFan
Superstar
Well, the latest candidate for Mayor of Toronto seems to be the first one with a stated stance on the funding issue.
http://www.thestar.com/news/city_ha...on_is_running_for_mayor_of_toronto_again.html
Unlike provincial politicians this sort of approach may have a broad appeal for a candidate for mayor. She is essentially saying, I will make people who can't vote yay or nay in this election pay....those of you who can vote in this election, you get the subway and someone else pays.
http://www.thestar.com/news/city_ha...on_is_running_for_mayor_of_toronto_again.html
Unlike provincial politicians this sort of approach may have a broad appeal for a candidate for mayor. She is essentially saying, I will make people who can't vote yay or nay in this election pay....those of you who can vote in this election, you get the subway and someone else pays.
voxpopulicosmicum
Senior Member
You've definitely cut to the nub of the argument in favour of contracting out on a go-forward basis. Suffice to say that I don't see there being a definitive resolution to the question. In terms of counterarguments (I'm *not* very well-versed in this policy discussion as my experience is much closer to the ground):
- there is the notion of paying employees a living wage through a public sector entity rather than paying the same amount to a private entity that pays its employees less and pockets the difference
- there is a danger that, once the private-sector provider has entrenched itself sufficiently, it will be able game the contractual relationship to its advantage
- it will always be more expensive for the private sector to finance, so essentially PPP procurement involves paying more, both due to interest and the need to earn profit
There are, theoretically, ways to contract around some of these issues, but there are (equally theoretically) ways to contract/legislate around the union issues. As I said, I don't think this is an issue we're going to resolve anytime soon.
It will be interesting to see how far voters 'dig' into this scheme:
The first level is: She's crazy, I won't pay attention to her.
The second level is: Tolls are bad. I don't want them. I won't vote for her.
The third level is: Making outsiders pay is a good thing. I like this proposal.
The fourth level is: The funding raised from tolling the DVP and Gardiner would come nowhere close to covering the cost of a subway. There's going to need to be much more to it than that in order to have a complete funding scheme. I'm skeptical.
voxpopulicosmicum
Senior Member
Except that those who can't vote *do* get to make tax deductible contributions to alternative campaigns, the likes of which appear to have funded much of the incumbent's campaign costs.
TOareaFan
Superstar
I don't get the sense that "905ers" are funding campaigns (RoFo or otherwise) in the Toronto municipal elections.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
only something like 36% of Fords 2010 donations actually came from inside of Toronto. Ford was absolutely backed by suburban donors.