[dunkalunk]

While people are posting their maps...

I've removed quite a bit of LRT in favour of BRT and Subway. I have also filled out the Downtown streetcar network.

While there is a Sheppard Subway on the map, keep in mind that it is the absolute last priority in my mind. In my opinion, the Sheppard east LRT is overbuilt for the needs of this corridor, especially out to Malvern and the Zoo. Building a Subway that ends at Agincourt/MCC would be a much better expenditure.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Why create a whole new body when they can reconfigure Metrolinx in order to get the same goal?

Theoretically, it's going to be Metrolinx doing the building anyway, so why not cut out the middle man of the GTA Council? Create a GTA Council within Metrolinx that defines priorities.

I think you've missed the point of the article - which is the devolution of authority from the province more or less permanently to a regional body - with regional accountabilities to both how revenues are raised and funds invested. Creating a regional council within Metrolinx basically replices the early years of politicos sitting on the board, "deciding priorities" while the province hold the purse-strings and decide the real direction according to their own needs. That'd be even more of a farce. Why not cut out the province? Are they, on a whole, all that much better at transit planning at a regional level over the past half a century than local politicians?

AoD

 

[gweed123]

I think you've missed the point of the article - which is the devolution of authority from the province more or less permanently to a regional body - with regional accountabilities to both how revenues are raised and funds invested. Creating a regional council within Metrolinx basically replices the early years of politicos sitting on the board, "deciding priorities" while the province hold the purse-strings and decide the real direction according to their own needs. That'd be even more of a farce. Why not cut out the province? Are they, on a whole, all that much better at transit planning at a regional level over the past half a century than local politicians?

AoD

I would argue though that Metrolinx need not be a "creature of the Province". If it is given its own authority, both exist on its own and to generate its own revenues, then the Province shouldn't have much say in it.

Again, I point to Waterfront Toronto. A tri-level agency, where no single level of government has power over the "kill switch" (which is really what this is about, removing the power for any single level of government to come in and say "you guys are dead now").

The early days of Metrolinx didn't work because it was still subservient to the Province, because it didn't have any revenue generation powers of its own.

The key to any agency surviving is to not have all of its funds coming from outside itself, usually from a single source. Right now Metrolinx is just a slave to Queen's Park, because they're the ones writing the cheques. If Queen's Park gives Metrolinx authority to raise its own revenues (sales tax, road tolls, etc), that master-slave relationship wouldn't exist (assuming there are certain safe-guards put in place to prevent another government from coming in and revoking those authorities).

Even if there was a GTA Council created, it would still suffer the same problems as Metrolinx did at the beginning. It would still need money from the Province, because it wouldn't have the authority to raise very much by itself. Without its own revenue streams, it's just another slave to the Province.

 

[rbt]

I think you've missed the point of the article - which is the devolution of authority from the province more or less permanently to a regional body - with regional accountabilities to both how revenues are raised and funds invested.

The province won't be letting go of transit any time soon. Revenues from around the province has pretty much stalled except where GO runs. You'll get lots of debate over who should be paying for GO operations but I can guarantee (or your money back) the finance department will keep its hand in deciding how expansion occurs regardless of the part in official power.

Ottawa is the exception to the GO rule which is why I can see Metrolinx taking a larger and larger role in their systems. That whole strike thing wasn't so hot for the province and the feds had all the power.

 

[blacktrojan3921]

With all this debacle around TO's transit, no wonder a lot of people in Northern Ontario want to seperate from the south and be they're own province . And I'm willing to guess that the Once City plan is nothing more then a pipe-dream?

 

[old boy]

Hell, it's not just Northern Ontario that's antsy about the city. You see people from Oshawa to Orangeville concerned about their tax dollars going to " anything " Toronto. Lest anyone think, especially poll-obsessed politicos, that this knee-jerk myopia is universal in the hinterlands, I'll say, ( all the way from Cobourg ), that a dynamic GTA requires the goodwill and forward thinking of all levels of government, all the time. Those of us living on the cusp of the GTA , who think this way, need to speak up.

 

[nfitz]

With all this debacle around TO's transit, no wonder a lot of people in Northern Ontario want to seperate from the south and be they're own province . And I'm willing to guess that the Once City plan is nothing more then a pipe-dream?

That makes no sense, given how much the south, and Toronto in particular subsidize the unsustainable north.

Quick, let's take them up on it!

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

gweed:

Again, I point to Waterfront Toronto. A tri-level agency, where no single level of government has power over the "kill switch" (which is really what this is about, removing the power for any single level of government to come in and say "you guys are dead now").

I think WT is an acceptable model for what it does - but keep in mind transit planning/operation is a sustained, long-term must do - not a mere "nice to have" with a clear endgame. The stakes and sensitivity to political gridlock is far higher - and if there is one weakness that can be levied against the WT system, it is the fact that it operates slowly and largely dependent on the largesse/sympathy of other levels of government. Such a system basically gave EVERY level of government a kill switch by merely refusing to participate and let them cherry pick projects that fit their agenda. I don't consider that an acceptable arrangement.

The key to any agency surviving is to not have all of its funds coming from outside itself, usually from a single source. Right now Metrolinx is just a slave to Queen's Park, because they're the ones writing the cheques. If Queen's Park gives Metrolinx authority to raise its own revenues (sales tax, road tolls, etc), that master-slave relationship wouldn't exist (assuming there are certain safe-guards put in place to prevent another government from coming in and revoking those authorities).

Except the master-slave relationship will always exist - again what is there preventing the said provincial government, in a more transit-hostile incarnation, from jumping in and unilaterally revoking said authorities? Or even a friendly one jumping in to make changes on the basis of political expediency? The key to survival is not multiple sources of revenue but the indispensibility of the service provided, especially with respect to the arena where political representation and revenue derivation overlaps. That arena isn't at the provincial level - it is the region.

Even if there was a GTA Council created, it would still suffer the same problems as Metrolinx did at the beginning. It would still need money from the Province, because it wouldn't have the authority to raise very much by itself. Without its own revenue streams, it's just another slave to the Province.

Which gets back to my point - devolution of authority from the province and the incongruence between where the impact of the agency occurs and who owns that authority. It's in many ways violating the principle of subsidiarity.

AoD

 

[gweed123]

gweed:

I think WT is an acceptable model for what it does - but keep in mind transit planning/operation is a sustained, long-term must do - not a mere "nice to have" with a clear endgame. The stakes and sensitivity to political gridlock is far higher - and if there is one weakness that can be levied against the WT system, it is the fact that it operates slowly and largely dependent on the largesse/sympathy of other levels of government. Such a system basically gave EVERY level of government a kill switch by merely refusing to participate and let them cherry pick projects that fit their agenda. I don't consider that an acceptable arrangement.

I really don't think that WT has a clear "endgame". Sure they have a Master Plan, but there's always going to need to be Works projects on the Waterfront. By the time the Portlands is finished, they'll need to start some major renewal work on the Central Waterfront again (circa 2040 or so).

And as for them being starved of funds, again this goes back to the fact that they don't have their own dedicated revenue stream, and are slaves to 3 different levels of government. I would venture to say that if WT enacted a 1% sales tax in Toronto (just throwing that out there, but it could be any revenue tool) for the purposes Waterfront redevelopment, that begging for funding from the 3 levels of government would virtually stop completely (except for a few very large projects). You'd see things really start to move, especially on smaller projects, because they could go about their business almost entirely independently, without having to go butt-kissing to Queen's Park or to Ottawa for money.

Except the master-slave relationship will always exist - again what is there preventing the said provincial government, in a more transit-hostile incarnation, from jumping in and unilaterally revoking said authorities? Or even a friendly one jumping in to make changes on the basis of political expediency? The key to survival is not multiple sources of revenue but the indispensibility of the service provided, especially with respect to the arena where political representation and revenue derivation overlaps. That arena isn't at the provincial level - it is the region.

Which gets back to my point - devolution of authority from the province and the incongruence between where the impact of the agency occurs and who owns that authority. It's in many ways violating the principle of subsidiarity.

What's to stop a future government from disbanding the GTA Council if it sees fit? I acknowledge that that is definitely a problem, but I don't think it's a problem that would be unique to Metrolinx, or that the GTA Council would be immune from.

The reality is though that the "right to exist" legislation needs to come from somewhere, and the "right to raise revenues" legislation will also need to come from somewhere. This is unavoidable, as every ABC needs to have a "maker", so to speak. The trick is to bury the kill switch to both of those pieces of legislation so deep that it's nearly impossible to find it (ex: 407 deal), or to make it so politically unpalatable that no government dare go anywhere near it.

It's also a tough time for Metrolinx now. They're new enough that the general public doesn't really see a defined need for them, because they haven't fully articulated what they're there for yet. The public knows that there's a need for region-wide planning, but Metrolinx hasn't delivered a tangible project yet. Wait until 2015 with the ARL, or better yet 2020 when we have the first leg of GO electrification, as well as the Crosstown LRT, and then the general public will be able to see the indispensability of Metrolinx.

IMO, the keys to survival (and not just survival, but functionability) of any regional authority, be it Metrolinx or the GTA Council, are:

1) The separation of governing powers (i.e. no one level of government controls a majority stake). Some may see this as gridlock, I see it as no one party unilaterally controlling the agenda. This comes back to my 40% Municipal/40% Provincial/20% Federal (or some combination of those numbers) setup, so that no level of government can unilaterally act.

2) An independent source of revenue (or revenues), granted by a piece of legislation that either has the kill switch buried deep, or is too politically unpalatable to meddle with.

3) A clear and defined vision (both for themselves and in the eyes of the public) of what they're supposed to be handling on a day-to-day basis, and what their long-term goal is.

4) A clear separation between the political and professional branches, with both actually listening to each other. TTC Planners weren't really consulted before the announcement of OneCity. If we're going to get a regional transit plan that actually works, the politicians need to talk to the professionals before releasing stuff like that.

Note: This isn't to say that I don't necessarily agree with you AoD. We both clearly see a need for some type of regional authority that has political power over the planning process. I think the differences lie in how we think it should be implemented. I'm definitely enjoying this debate though, as it's given me a lot to think about.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Actually I should clarify - I believe the utility of Metrolinx as an entity - I just don't think they have the right political masters.

AoD

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

gweed:

I really don't think that WT has a clear "endgame". Sure they have a Master Plan, but there's always going to need to be Works projects on the Waterfront. By the time the Portlands is finished, they'll need to start some major renewal work on the Central Waterfront again (circa 2040 or so).

WT actually has a 30 year sunset clause I believe, which will probably have to be extended given the pace of development. But beyond that point - once the parcels of land are developed, there is really very little rationale for something like WT to continue. Growing transit is an issue that will have a far longer-term horizon IMO, with implications at a regional level.

And as for them being starved of funds, again this goes back to the fact that they don't have their own dedicated revenue stream, and are slaves to 3 different levels of government. I would venture to say that if WT enacted a 1% sales tax in Toronto (just throwing that out there, but it could be any revenue tool) for the purposes Waterfront redevelopment, that begging for funding from the 3 levels of government would virtually stop completely (except for a few very large projects). You'd see things really start to move, especially on smaller projects, because they could go about their business almost entirely independently, without having to go butt-kissing to Queen's Park or to Ottawa for money.

No doubt, and that's the plan I believe (they are in the process of being granted the right to raise capital by borrowing).

What's to stop a future government from disbanding the GTA Council if it sees fit? I acknowledge that that is definitely a problem, but I don't think it's a problem that would be unique to Metrolinx, or that the GTA Council would be immune from.

Nothing in the law - but that's different from in the court of public opinion. Fighting politicians is always more of a potential nightmare than an organization that is more or less branded as a provincial entity.

The reality is though that the "right to exist" legislation needs to come from somewhere, and the "right to raise revenues" legislation will also need to come from somewhere. This is unavoidable, as every ABC needs to have a "maker", so to speak. The trick is to bury the kill switch to both of those pieces of legislation so deep that it's nearly impossible to find it (ex: 407 deal), or to make it so politically unpalatable that no government dare go anywhere near it.

That's the chicken and the egg issue - and unfortunately no easy way around it. The province would loath to bury a kill switch of that sort unless they have a vested interest in doing so (e.g. 407). Without vested local/regional 'ownership' of Metrolinx, the province (and parties jostling for interest in said realm) will always see it as an easy prey.

1) The separation of governing powers (i.e. no one level of government controls a majority stake). Some may see this as gridlock, I see it as no one party unilaterally controlling the agenda. This comes back to my 40% Municipal/40% Provincial/20% Federal (or some combination of those numbers) setup, so that no level of government can unilaterally act.

Personally, I'd rather see a mixed board with all regional representation - politicians plus experts and citizens. The province and federal government can decide when and how they want to engage in transit on a per project basis, subject to legal agreements on the terms of their participation (for the protection of both parties) in each project.

2) An independent source of revenue (or revenues), granted by a piece of legislation that either has the kill switch buried deep, or is too politically unpalatable to meddle with.

Tend to agree, but I see that as an aftereffect of the change in governance instead of the starting point.

3) A clear and defined vision (both for themselves and in the eyes of the public) of what they're supposed to be handling on a day-to-day basis, and what their long-term goal is.

Agreed.

4) A clear separation between the political and professional branches, with both actually listening to each other. TTC Planners weren't really consulted before the announcement of OneCity. If we're going to get a regional transit plan that actually works, the politicians need to talk to the professionals before releasing stuff like that.

Generally agree, in a different way - see my notes on point 1.

Note: This isn't to say that I don't necessarily agree with you AoD. We both clearly see a need for some type of regional authority that has political power over the planning process. I think the differences lie in how we think it should be implemented. I'm definitely enjoying this debate though, as it's given me a lot to think about.

Indeed - I am more interested in general in what works than the specifics. Clearly what we have as of right now belongs to the "doesn't work" category.

AoD

 

[gweed123]

Actually I should clarify - I believe the utility of Metrolinx as an entity - I just don't think they have the right political masters.

AoD

I think we need to distinguish between "masters" and "makers" though. We can change who Metrolinx' political masters are simply by redistributing "ownership" of Metrolinx, giving the municipalities a majority or near-majority stake.

You can't do much about the makers though. It was the Province who created them, and that will never change. The challenge is keeping the legislation that created them in the first place intact.

gweed:

WT actually has a 30 year sunset clause I believe, which will probably have to be extended given the pace of development. But beyond that point - once the parcels of land are developed, there is really very little rationale for something like WT to continue. Growing transit is an issue that will have a far longer-term horizon IMO, with implications at a regional level.

I didn't realize they had a sunset clause. And I don't think that once the parcels are developed that their work will be done. There's a constantly changing idea of what makes a great waterfront. What is "in style" now may not be 30 years from now, and the recently done central stretch of the Waterfront in 30 years may be clamouring for a redesign.

Nothing in the law - but that's different from in the court of public opinion. Fighting politicians is always more of a potential nightmare than an organization that is more or less branded as a provincial entity.

Very true.

That's the chicken and the egg issue - and unfortunately no easy way around it. The province would loath to bury a kill switch of that sort unless they have a vested interest in doing so (e.g. 407). Without vested local/regional 'ownership' of Metrolinx, the province (and parties jostling for interest in said realm) will always see it as an easy prey.

That's true. That's why I proposed the breakdown of the "ownership" of Metrolinx the way that I did. With the municipalities owning 40+% of Metrolinx, the Province will have a much harder time acting unilaterally.

Personally, I'd rather see a mixed board with all regional representation - politicians plus experts and citizens. The province and federal government can decide when and how they want to engage in transit on a per project basis, subject to legal agreements on the terms of their participation (for the protection of both parties) in each project.

That would definitely work too. Although I'm a bit weary of the "we'll chip in when we feel like it" part from the Prov and Feds. That brings in a lot of uncertainty. I'd much rather they say "we're going to fund you to the tune of $X million per year, do with it what you wish".

Tend to agree, but I see that as an aftereffect of the change in governance instead of the starting point.

Metrolinx can't start to do all that it needs to do until it has the ability to raise its own funds. Until then, it's just a wagon mule of the Province, carrying out what the Province wants them to do. Get the revenue streams in place first, then restructure Metrolinx with a newer, more regional focus (as you have suggested), and then go from there. Without the money in place first, it's just a show for the public. The real shots would still be called at Queen's Park, because that's where the money would be coming from.

Indeed - I am more interested in general in what works than the specifics. Clearly what we have as of right now belongs to the "doesn't work" category.

Definitely. I think for right now, the main things we should focus on are:

1) Getting the legislation that permits dedicated revenue streams for Metrolinx enacted. Doesn't have to be used right away, but at least the legislation is there. Maybe include in that legislation alternative revenue streams for all municipalities as well (ex: VRT, tax assessment increases, etc). The Province can sell it as "we're giving municipalities the tools they need to manage themselves effectively". I would almost put the Metrolinx stuff below the fold, and focus on the municipal aspect of it.

2) Finding a way to restructure Metrolinx in order to give a greater voice to the municipalities (single tier and upper tier). Probably through some sort of restructuring of the board.

3) Get rapid transit planning (and approval) out of the hands of municipalities, and into the hands of Metrolinx. Toronto has been a perfect example of why you don't want to have power at the lower level, because it screws up everything for the municipalities around who were counting on the status quo in order for their transit plans to make sense. Not to mention all you need is one buffoon and the entire thing becomes a 3-ring circus. With a board made up of appointed delegates from across the region, one buffoon in one municipality isn't going to derail the whole process.

 

[Electrify]

Here is my new OneCity map, including some GTA connections:

For the record, the Huontario and Hwy 7 lines do meet up, just the template I was working with wasn't large enough to cover downtown Brampton. I wanted to focus on local rapid transit, so GO connections including OneCity commuter lines were not included.

Initially I didn't include the Waterfront West line because it only had one TTC connection, and with its extended construction timeline and with GO working towards converting their Lakeshore lines into regional metros, it seems unlikely it will be built. Ironic since it would be the easiest to complete, since a good chunk is already built between Exhibition and Union, and south of High Park. However with Fillip's lobbying I found a way to squeeze it into the map and improve its regional range.

 

[unimaginative2]

Ah, but regional rail routes would be a very important part of local rapid transit.

 

[Juan_Lennon416]

Karen Stintz’s TTC plan back on track after meeting with mayor’s officials

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/tra...on-track-after-meeting-with-mayor-s-officials