daniel_kryz
Active Member
That actually could've been a great reform, if done well. If it works in regions like Metro Vancouver (Translink) and London (TfL), why can't it work here?
|
|
|
- Thread starter aquateam
- Start date
kEiThZ
Superstar
I've long suspected that nobody actually wants Metrolinx to become a real regional transport agency. Such an agency would have a massive budget and expansive responsibilities (especially if given control over all roads, taxi licensing, etc.). The budget for such an agency would be larger than any municipality in the GTA. It would be one of the largest public sector organizations in the province if not the country. All of the above would make whoever leads that agency a substantially powerful and high profile figure. More prominent than most mayors or regional chairs in the GTA. And there's probably fears if all this works it might eventually lead to demands from the GTA for greater autonomy. Personally I think they should go ahead with such an agency and make the head an Ontario Cabinet appointment, with a board comprised of mayors from the GTA.
micheal_can
Senior Member
The same reason the subways and SRT are not run without drivers.
afransen
Senior Member
Ideally, it would be run by a competent technocrat and you wouldn't get any household names out of it (like CPPIB--also an incredibly powerful organization in Canada).
ARG1
Senior Member
I don't think that's a good idea. As seen with other implementations like Translink, giving every municipality equal control over a transportation agency leaves the municipality to fight over their needs, most infamously the old Burnaby mayor who fought for the cancelation of the Canada line in favour of the evergreen extension. Having Metrolinx run in the way you're suggesting would result in the same thing, an even bigger problem of suburbs favouring "subways to suburbs" rather than development in the core.
TossYourJacket
Senior Member
Because those cities have regional metropolitan governance, which the transit agency reports to, which keeps it accountable to the residents of the metropolitan area involved. We do not. By virtue of being solely accountable to the province Metrolinx is as accountable to someone in Kingston as it is someone in Toronto. We'd need something like a GTA mayors council or a GTA city council for this to work, and for the province to have no control over the agency. Given the actions of both Ford and Del Duca (when he was transportation minister) the provincial government is clearly not going to give up control of GTA transit planning if it can help it.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Regardless of who that person is, the organization they lead would be absolutely massive, with tens of thousands of employees, a 10 figure (possibly 11 figure if all transportation is thrown in) operating budget, and another 10 figure capital budget. And leading something that big would inevitably give them substantial profile and clout. It would be the one agency that literally impact every GTA resident daily, from the minute they leave home.
The other problem is that it really becomes hard to suggest that an agency that could be a third to half the size of our defence department, not have a democratically accountable head at the top. They'd need the sort of standard government (political) Minister and (bureaucrat) Deputy Minister setup to run something like this, at minimum. Ultimately, if you're telling mayors and city councils what to do, that can't come from an unelected bureaucrat.
All that said, I would love to see Metrolinx become the GTA's version of TfL.
Undead
Senior Member
More government, more bureaucrats, what could go wrong
kEiThZ
Superstar
Because having less government and less bureaucrats has been fantastic for mobility in the GTA over the last three decades?
Should be noted all these agencies already exist, and there is substantial duplication and redundancy between them. How many transit operators, taxi licensing offices and roads depts does the GTA need? And just imagine, each of those agencies has HR depts, accounting, etc. Each of them negotiate small orders for equipment and rolling stock, instead of having a large agency able to command substantial discounts by placing large multi-year orders. Etc.
Undead
Senior Member
One extreme does not call for the other. To be frank, I don't think we've done either big or small government well. We manage to cock up either variant.
daniel_kryz
Active Member
Huge TfL-like agencies would work better than what we have now by delivering regional transportation goals, making the customer experience easy, and deliver transit based on priorities and not politics. We obviously need regional government that respects municipal needs (instead of the ON gov's top-down approach) and approves & funds transit projects based on long-term planning and non-partisan recommendations. One of the things that work with Metro Vancouver and Translink is that they coordinate all major infrastructure spending (roads, bridges, transit, bike infra, etc) and service based on comprehensive plans, have actual taxation powers, and work with a provincial government that funds them without interference. I definitely like SmartTrack, but it is a painful example of "napkin-drawn" transit that hasn't gotten anywhere after 8 years because of political reasons. There should be a singular organization (perhaps the leader could be elected in a separate election) that thinks locally & comprehensively to build and manage transit with continuous funding - and therefore continuous building. It could do this by using elected committees that focus on municipal issues and those that focus on regional issues. We definitely wouldn't have this gridlock if we just changed the system. It takes political will, but what we build shouldn't be based on Doug Ford's hate of streetcars or John Tory's election campaigns.
Fritter
Active Member
Was this not the end goal when the Province created Metrolinx? If it took, 5,10 or 50 years I thought the intent was to make Metrolinx a Translink, TfL or STM.
crs1026
Superstar
What you describe sounds a lot like the TATOA - the governing body that preceded Ml., and caused its creation. TATOA was a body of GTa mayors who proved incapable of agreeing on anything, and a neutral third party body was seen as a step forward.
In the early days of the Ford government, every middle manager in GTA transit seemed to assume that ML would get everything - “Superlinx” was the term. Some saw it as an opportunity but among those I talked to, more saw it as a way to get a severance payout. Few wanted to join what was anticipated to be a colossal monolith especially given ML’s lack of operational competency.
The political side of ML works great. The pols are firewalled from any real accountability and anything that goes wrong can be deflected on others. Making ML an actual government Ministry would actually bring the pols closer to having to run the show.
I suspect that Ford’s folks did favour the amalgamation, but once they saw all the moving pieces, and once they realised that ML honchos are a lot better talkers than doers, they chose to keep their distance. Cherrypicking subway/LRT construction satisfied their political needs, fed a bone to the ML empire builders, and aligned them with the construction contractors who are loosely part of the developer power base that is Ford’s real constituency. Let Tory and Brown and Crombie et al figure out how to run the thing.
I don’t expect much change going forward.
- Paul
Last edited:
robmausser
Senior Member
Reading all of this, its sad that the biggest thing holding back a lot of transit progress is the actual implementation of service agreements, not capital costs.
Things like proper fare integration, bus feeder service levels, priority signaling (RIP Crosstown East), even automated trains (SRT hello) are all affordable and smart ways to deal with transit expansion, but they all require a level of bureaucracy that apparently Ontario politicians are either to inept to deal with, or would rather have their names and legacy attached to capital cost projects.
The only solutions seem to ever be highly expensive, capital costs works that take decades to build.
"Fare integration so people in Toronto can ride a subway-like electric GO train? Heck no we aren't giving them a free ride! Oh btw heres $6 billion for a subway to the suburbs. Just make sure my name is attached to it."
Things like proper fare integration, bus feeder service levels, priority signaling (RIP Crosstown East), even automated trains (SRT hello) are all affordable and smart ways to deal with transit expansion, but they all require a level of bureaucracy that apparently Ontario politicians are either to inept to deal with, or would rather have their names and legacy attached to capital cost projects.
The only solutions seem to ever be highly expensive, capital costs works that take decades to build.
"Fare integration so people in Toronto can ride a subway-like electric GO train? Heck no we aren't giving them a free ride! Oh btw heres $6 billion for a subway to the suburbs. Just make sure my name is attached to it."
gibsonm
Active Member
I think to avoid distraction from building RER, GO network expansion, subways, LRT's, etc, it's probably best to maintain existing transit organizations and governance structures until all currently planned projects are substantially underway, somewhere around five years from now, at which point they should be folded into Metrolinx and fares should be integrated and distance-based for the whole GTA, if not for the GTHA or Greater Golden Horseshoe.
Municipalities could still decide how much they wish to dial up tax contributions to supplement their sections of the network, but Metrolinx should also have a predictable consistent revenue source for regional priorities. Essentially the existing municipal transit organizations become branch plants of the regional organization. Some minor political handling of Metrolinx by the province is unavoidable because the tax revenue that supports the agency and major transit projects will continue to be ballot issues at the provincial and municipal levels. However, no major transit projects should be cancelled before an election that puts cancellation on the platform. This should be legislated. We need long-term regional planning that transcends changes in government, with predictable funding.
Municipalities could still decide how much they wish to dial up tax contributions to supplement their sections of the network, but Metrolinx should also have a predictable consistent revenue source for regional priorities. Essentially the existing municipal transit organizations become branch plants of the regional organization. Some minor political handling of Metrolinx by the province is unavoidable because the tax revenue that supports the agency and major transit projects will continue to be ballot issues at the provincial and municipal levels. However, no major transit projects should be cancelled before an election that puts cancellation on the platform. This should be legislated. We need long-term regional planning that transcends changes in government, with predictable funding.
Last edited: