As
@crs1026 pointed out, this wouldn't' be effective at cutting out provincial political interference. This is the only way I see to get it done
1. Dissolve Metrolinx and GO Transit
2. Download Metrolinx infrastructure to the municipal level
3. Have GTHA municipalities, amongst themselves, come to an agreement for regional transportation operation, while ensuring their are adequate provisions for local representation
4. Ensure municipalities have necessary revenue tools
This would create a regional transit operator, maintain local representation, and cuts the province's ability to meddle with local transit operation.
It's a good idea, assuming the munis were willing and able to agree on it. But it's totally illegal, certainly in the current context.
In theory, the province could give municipalities the power to self-create revenue tools and to sign the sort of agreement you talk about but that would be a huge devolution of power, unprecedented not just in Ontario but in Canada.
Arguably it's necessary and theoretically possible but it's hugely unlikely.
Ah, but here's the rub. You can't remove the Cabinet as the source of the money. So long as that's the case, you will have an interface between your Super-ML and the Province. And the Province, through at least one Ministry (Finance) and more likely two (Finance and Transportation) will demand a ton of data, and rationale.
I know the basics of the law but obviously I don't actually write provincial legislation. I suspect there is a way to do it, legally if not politically. You probably can't legit remove cabinet entirely from the legislation - I was using some hyperbole - but you can easily restructure the legislation so they're not beneath cabinet in the power structure.
The scenario you lay out may be something any government would shy away from, but it's still more likely than the arguably-more practical and democratic scenario The Tiger Master laid out.
It's effectively how other transit authorities operate though, yes, the legislative context is different for Ontario than for, say, New York or Illinois. The province did make a bold move in dismissing all the politicians - which had both a good side and a bad one, I'd say. There's no reason they can't reverse that decision.
Then they need the stones to pass revenue tools and, effectively, put them in a fund that only that board can access; this is pretty much what was recommended in the Golden Panel report, IIRC.
You're right that no one likes giving up power (or money; which is really the same thing) but IMHO, that's how you do it:
-Metrolinx board w/ mixture of elected pols and appointees
-Revenue tools with segregated funding
-Obviously they report to the province but at ACTUAL arm's length; that means they don't have to break an MOU because Toronto council said so and the Minister agreed. The Minister going so far as to overrule Metrolinx on, say project prioritization, should be as newsworthy as City Council overruling staff on a major project. Legal, but very risky.
It's not reinventing the wheel by a longshot. It does require a real commitment to the principles, though.
EDIT TO ADD:
FWIW - Just using easy Wikpedia, this is how NYC's MTA board is appointed:
MTA is governed by a 19-member board representing the 5 boroughs of New York City and each of the counties in its New York State service area.
Five members, in addition to the Chairman and CEO, are directly nominated by the Governor of New York, with four recommended by New York City’s mayor, and one each by the county executives of Nassau, Suffolk and Westchester counties. Each of these members has one vote.
The county executives of Dutchess, Orange, Rockland, and Putnam counties also nominate one member each, but these members cast one collective vote. The Board also has six rotating nonvoting seats held by representatives of MTA employee organized labor and the Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee, which serves as a voice for users of MTA transit and commuter facilities.
All board members are confirmed by the New York State Senate.
Substitute "county" for "regional municipality" and "New York State Senate" for "Ontario cabinet," and I think that's entirely workable here.
On a hugely related note, I just found this article by Anne Golden which I'm off to read...
http://www.cutaactu.ca/en/public-tr..._Transit_Systems_-_Final_Report_July_2014.pdf
the abstract promisingly notes:
There are pros and cons to having elected officials on regional transit boards, but positive engagement with locally elected representatives is essential. Financing cannot be separated
from governance; a predictable and sufficient funding framework is an integral part of good governance
Preach!