GTHA Regional Transit Amalgamation Discussion: Superlinx/Subway Upload

[TheTigerMaster]

Would it make a difference if this plan came from the Liberals?

Oh wait it did ...

"In the 2018 Ontario Budget, Premier Kathleen Wynne revealed the Liberals’ destructive plan to take over TTC Subway lines from the City of Toronto. "

I opposed it back then too, because I PC government was imminent at the time. And we all saw what the PCs did to transit last time they were in power.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

This debate seems to be “who would you rather have run this system into the ground”. The last time the Government of Ontario was a responsible transit partner must’ve been in the 70s (whenever the SRT debacle happened). Since then they must’ve canceled or indefinitely “delayed” a dozen different projects (ahem... Liberals), and wrecklessly slashed operational funding

I’m only interested in plans that have $$$ attached. Anything else is just rearranging the deck chairs. At the end of this uploading exercise, the government will be able to claim political success, meanwhile our subways will be in no better shape and major project no closer to delivery.

 

[44 North]

Would it make a difference if this plan came from the Liberals?

Oh wait it did ...

"In the 2018 Ontario Budget, Premier Kathleen Wynne revealed the Liberals’ destructive plan to take over TTC Subway lines from the City of Toronto. "

Tigermaster has been openly critical of the Liberals in the past. Foot-dragging, closed door plan-changing behind a municipality's back, and looong drawn out implementation of TC (the parts they didn't hack up). Don't want to speak for him, but doubt the Liberals would be considered all that responsible or reliable either.

Any plan that takes something away from Toronto - even something they've openly mismanaged into the ground - must be inherently destructive to Toronto.
You know, the guys building the Scarborough Subway Extension and Gardiner "hybrid."

Toronto openly mismanaged the TTC into the ground? I think that's news to most. Then Gardiner hybrid...what's that have to do with anything? Your posts can get pretty demented. Whether it's caps lock screaming about minotaurs, concocting made up histories to fit some oddball narrative, or flat out lying through your teeth like I recently called you out on in the Yonge extn thread. TTC and the subway, even under Rob Ford, has steadily improved and has the increased ridership to show for it. Even when it wasn't all that great I doubt anyone would've gone to the polar extreme and say it's "in the ground". You should ride it sometime instead of incessantly whining.

 

[steveintoronto]

But the general attitude that no one - especially an upper level of government with deeper pockets - can do a better job? That I don't see at all.

Actually I do see someone who could do a better job. But it would take QP politicos altogether to back-off. Fat chance.

And the answer is *Private Enterprise* *if overseen and regulated by non-partisan agencies, could provide the GTHA with the transit infrastructure so badly needed. And they'd choose the type of vehicle, who supplies it, who maintains it, etc. And the Feds via the Infrastructure Bank would be large participants.

This is beyond DBFOM. It's steep P3. Ford is not going to invest in heavy transit. He'll tinker around the edges, and say "See, Promise Made, Promise Kept".

There's a number of massive projects needed for GTHA transit needs, one being the Relief Line. And Torontonians are still quibbling about what kind of subway it will be. God help us all. Enterprise is finished with yesterday's 'subways'. They want something big, "metro" scale or heavier, and not at the behest of the TTC or Metrolinx. Agreements with those agencies, yes. But Ford uploading to some "super-agency" is like giving Ford money to score dope with.

This "new agency" must be outside of QP's direct hands. Precedent? Look abroad, to the nations just like us (Australia, NZ, UK and others) and even some US ones where the "super agency" is a *corporation* with the various levels of government as shareholders, along with those who invest. And what investors will be attracted to is a *massive regional commuter rail project* that encompasses the Relief Line and more.

This ain't rocket science folks! Although it is to Canadians it seems. Cdn pensions and other funds are massive participants in these schemes in other English speaking countries.

I guess there's a language barrier there...eh?

Actually, hang-on! Bulletin just in. Mon Dieu! Montreal is already doing it! Sacre Bleu...REM again...and the Quebec Assembly is egging them on...helping any way they can. What a concept. Eh?

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Toronto openly mismanaged the TTC into the ground? I think that's news to most.

Must be the people who never ride the system or who haven't been reading about the $33B repair backlog or who don't know about the constant above-inflation fare increases or the capacity issues at Yonge/Bloor that, so I hear, lead to people waiting multiple trains to board at best and put their lives at risk at worst.

It's a bit of hyperbole on my part but the idea that Toronto is adequately supporting its transit system is laughable.

Then Gardiner hybrid...what's that have to do with anything?

I'll explain it to you and try to do it with small words.
Things cost money.
City gets money from people.
City spends money on expensive things it doesn't need
Other things need money.
They do not get money because that money was used for other things so they get worse.

Try googling "Capital budget," maybe? Read Peter Wallace's report on the Citys' budget, maybe?

Or maybe you're right and there is no line whatsoever to draw between rebuilding the Gardiner to help 2,000 drivers and rising transit fares, inadequate infrastructure etc. Maybe I'm demented, old friend.

If not for the rules of decorum on this place I'd have some things to say about you calling me a liar or demented. I'll just trust the mods are watching your crap. In the meantime let the rest of us continued our civilized discussion and you, just use your limited imagination, the one you use to imagine a world where I never ride the subway and support Doug Ford and play with minotaurs, you fool.

Speaking of civilized discussion...

And the answer is *Private Enterprise* *if overseen and regulated by non-partisan agencies, could provide the GTHA with the transit infrastructure so badly needed. And they'd choose the type of vehicle, who supplies it, who maintains it, etc. And the Feds via the Infrastructure Bank would be large participants.
....
This "new agency" must be outside of QP's direct hands. Precedent? Look abroad, to the nations just like us (Australia, NZ, UK and others) and even some US ones where the "super agency" is a *corporation* with the various levels of government as shareholders, along with those who invest. And what investors will be attracted to is a *massive regional commuter rail project* that encompasses the Relief Line and more.

This ain't rocket science folks! Although it is to Canadians it seems. Cdn pensions and other funds are massive participants in these schemes in other English speaking countries.

It's at least an idea to be considered. Clearly Toronto is, um, "change-averse."
Definitely any proper agency needs to be outside QP's hands and that's been a problem with Metrolinx to date and will almost certainly be an issue with Ford. But you're right - nobody is reinventing the wheel. All we need to do is look around the world and learn some lessons; because I don't think they're learning anything from us at this point.

 

[asher__jo]

I honestly think that this has gone all backwards. A controversial thought, but the downloading of responsibilities in the Harris years to the cities actually wasn't a terrible idea (if funding mechanisms had gone along with it). The GTA badly needs a metropolitan level government to coordinate planning, specifically with transit. Metrolinx isn't a terrible agency, but direct input by the cities it's serving is critical.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

All this debate over governance is a distraction. The fundamental problem here is funding. That’s it. All this talk from the province of uploading the subway does nothing but provide the illusion of progress (which is great, if you’re trying to get re-elected).

Notice how transit in the GTA was pretty great until the Harris government slashed funding?

 

[steveintoronto]

All this debate over governance is a distraction. The fundamental problem here is funding. That’s it.

The expression "follow the money" has never been so true as it is with present GTHA transit conundrum.

Notice how transit in the GTA was pretty great until the Harris government slashed funding?

I think Harris was the symptom more than the cause, although don't get me wrong, Harris did the same with Ont Conservative Party. He turned it into a monster.

But getting back to the all important funding: I'm no fan of private enterprise building what governments should be building themselves. But I'm also a realist, and uploading and creating 'Superlinx' is a fantasy exercise, Ford has no intention of putting money into anything other than highways.

So who will fund the critically needed infrastructure? Uncle Investment will. I don't like it, but there are no other alternatives presenting themselves.

The following is long, it's so full of precedent that it's difficult to edit down, and pertains to LRTs, but read 'all rail transit' where it states LRT, but especially note where the states couldn't do it, but the Oz Feds could.

How to build light rail in our cities without emptying the public purse
April 19, 2015 4.07pm EDT
(Text posted following pane.)

https://theconversation.com/how-to-...ities-without-emptying-the-public-purse-39255

QP would be faced with the bleak outlook of having little to do with providing the transit the GTHA so badly needs, but of course, the Feds and Investors, having formed a corporate consortium, would extend an offer to QP to participate. Needless to say, Fiscal Folly Ford would be flummoxed, and would demure while muttering something about "Four (sic) the Peepers". And the Feds and/or Consortium would snicker in glee in how Ford got a taste of his own urine by trying to grab Toronto's subway for nothing. One-upped by the Constitution. Gotta love it.

Let's presume this consortium is only for heavy rail, and the project is declared to be "for the general advantage of Canada"
Section 92(10) of the Constitution Act, 1867 - Wikipedia
(already provided for in the various Railway Acts )...then QP or muni gov'ts could not claim any jurisdiction over the consortium.

[...]
The founding fathers drafted the Constitution the way they did because they understood the local pressures faced by politicians, and the temptation to succumb to them. Section 91 sets out the federal Parliament's powers; Section 92 sets out provincial powers – but specifically reserves to Parliament key jurisdiction over shipping lines, railways, canals, telegraphs and other works or undertakings (including, today, pipelines) that connect one province with any other province(s), or beyond. It also gives Parliament the right to declare any work, even though "wholly situate within" a province, to be for the general advantage of Canada or of two or more provinces – and thus under federal jurisdiction. This "declaratory power" has been invoked more than 400 times since 1867. [...]

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opi...-constitution-still-prevails/article29396439/

I'm not being creative here, this is one of the models being used in Australia and the UK right now. "Crossrail" immediately comes to mind:

About Crossrail Ltd - Crossrail
www.crossrail.co.uk/about-us/
Crossrail Limited, established in 2001, is the company that has been set up to build the new railway that will become known as the Elizabeth line when it opens through central London. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Transport for London (TfL) and is jointly sponsored by TfL and the Department for Transport.

There are specifics of course that apply in this case. Private investment is present, but not represented on the board. In other models, investors, if they contribute the most, usually have the greatest say in the corporate structure, policy and implementation.

It's not a case of liking this or not, it's a case of what's coming. And do we want snivelling idiots at QP trying to control this? Give me corporate pigs over snivelling idiots any day. The pigs know how to make it work, the snivelling idiots will break it before it even runs.

 

[steveintoronto]

Text from article linked above
Author
Professor of Sustainability, Curtin University
Disclosure statement
Peter Newman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Partners

Curtin University provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.
View all partners
Republish this article
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under Creative Commons licence.

In cities all around Australia, light rail is being considered as a solution to a range of urban problems. Perth, Newcastle, Parramatta, Bendigo, Canberra, Cairns and Hobart have all considered trying to do what many European and American cities have done – create new development around light rail.
Often, though, the high costs of these projects mean that the debate can soon become a question of whether buses might do the job just as well. But what if private financing could allow the preferred option of light rail to stay on the table?
Advocates of the cheaper bus mass transit option might ask whether there is truly any fundamental difference between steel wheels and rubber ones. My answer is that it’s not just a question of trams versus buses – it’s really an issue of rail-based versus road-based urban development. The former can attract private financing, while the latter does not.
Driving development
Most of the world’s urban development over the past 50 years has been road-based. The assumption has been that most people will drive, with the odd bus laid on to pick up those who don’t.
Yet in recent years there has been a revival of rail-based urban development, which brings reduced traffic, creates more walkable and lively places to live and work, and most of all attracts developers and financiers to enable denser, mixed-use development.
Perth’s beleaguered MAX light rail project – now mothballed in favour of a bus rapid transit service – was designed to deliver precisely these benefits. But when the bus lobby sidles in and whispers “we can do exactly the same for half the price”, they get a sympathetic ear from transport planners who are trained to get people efficiently from A to B, without thinking about whether they are also delivering good urban development.
Rubber-wheeled public transport does not create dense, mixed-use urban centres. Having examined examples around the world, I have found none that can be claimed to have resulted in more focused urbanity apart from already dense third world cities where BRT’s have been successful in attracting patronage as they get people out of traffic. In the United States, the past 20 years of dramatic growth in public transport has seen light rail grow by 190% and heavy rail by 52%, while bus transport has contracted by 3%.
It is no surprise that developers, banks and governments in developed cities have returned to light and heavy rail to help regenerate urban centres, while cities with rubber-wheeled public transport continue to be dominated by cars and urban sprawl. On current trends, Perth itself could conceivably turn into a 240 km sprawl stretching from Myalup to Lancelin, most of it made of nothing but car-dependent housing – more Mad Max than MAX.
Perth’s planners know that they must redevelop and create activity centres, but they do not control the decisions on transport. Transport planners, meanwhile, do not seem to see that their choices have impacts that go beyond simple modes of transport.
Enter the private sector
Here is my possible solution, which Infrastructure Australia has previously tried to get state governments to adopt: get the private sector involved in the planning stage, as well as the delivery and operations, of any light rail project. Light rail lends itself to private-sector involvement, but only if the development outcomes being sought are built into the whole project, rather than being an afterthought.

The model for Infrastructure Australia’s approach was the A$1 billion Gold Coast Light Rail, which runs through areas that had lots of potential for redevelopment. Thus the funding was provided by a public-private partnership, with expressions of interest sought from private bidders to design, finance, build, own, operate and develop land as a basis for funding.

Government base funds and a general set of guidelines were delivered and bids were sought. Five consortia from around the world competed on this basis and included most of the world’s main consulting groups with expertise in light rail.

However, the group of transport experts (mostly main roads engineers) set up by the Queensland Government to deliver the light rail argued that they did not have the expertise to manage the land-development part of the exercise, and successfully appealed to avoid this approach. Instead, funding was delivered through an annual transport levy across the whole Gold Coast local government area.

The private sector consortia were well prepared for the land-development option but of course went ahead without it. Keolis won the tender and delivered a first-class light rail. As soon as the route was announced, developers from around the world bought up all the best sites and are now delivering them, albeit for their own interests rather than channelling back to the project.

This is the way to do it if you have tax funds to provide the capital and the operational expenses, and if you can find the initial public funding. But most politicians today say they do not have sufficient government funds for a light rail so they need to consider the cheaper bus option. Do we have to take second best?

The rubber-wheel option is never going to deliver the regeneration that many of Australia’s cities need. We need to be brave enough to go for the better option, the rail system, and that means embracing the public-private partnership financing model.

Bringing the private sector on board
To go for a full private-sector approach you must integrate redevelopment into every stage of the project. This is how you do it. Call for expressions of interest for private companies to design, build, finance, own and operate the light rail link and, crucially, make sure this includes land-development options (rather than letting in outside developers). This would help to create funds that can be used to finance and to operate the system.

Government needs to contribute a base grant and an operational fund that could be more specifically focused along the areas where the biggest benefits are felt in the corridor itself, where land values will go up most. Private expertise will ensure that the best sites are chosen for the light rail route. These land-value increases will flow through taxes into treasury and can be set aside in a dedicated light rail fund for ongoing operations and/or for raising finance (rather than instituting a city-wide levy as the Gold Coast did). [...]

https://theconversation.com/how-to-...ities-without-emptying-the-public-purse-39255

 

[44 North]

Must be the people who never ride the system or who haven't been reading about the $33B repair backlog or who don't know about the constant above-inflation fare increases or the capacity issues at Yonge/Bloor that, so I hear, lead to people waiting multiple trains to board at best and put their lives at risk at worst.

It's a bit of hyperbole on my part but the idea that Toronto is adequately supporting its transit system is laughable.

Still don't see evidence of the grossly hyperbolic "running into the ground". Evidence of unreliable higher level funding partners on the other hand.

I'll explain it to you and try to do it with small words.
Things cost money.
City gets money from people.
City spends money on expensive things it doesn't need
Other things need money.
They do not get money because that money was used for other things so they get worse.

Try googling "Capital budget," maybe? Read Peter Wallace's report on the Citys' budget, maybe?

Or maybe you're right and there is no line whatsoever to draw between rebuilding the Gardiner to help 2,000 drivers and rising transit fares, inadequate infrastructure etc. Maybe I'm demented, old friend.

If not for the rules of decorum on this place I'd have some things to say about you calling me a liar or demented. I'll just trust the mods are watching your crap. In the meantime let the rest of us continued our civilized discussion and you, just use your limited imagination, the one you use to imagine a world where I never ride the subway and support Doug Ford and play with minotaurs, you fool.

2k drivers a day? Hmm, clearly didn't read any report on it. And your post in the YNSE thread was a flat out lie, I called you out on it. Very clearly wasn't an error. Add onto that caps lock screaming, stuff about minotaurs, or fabricating City Council votes that never happened and it is a bizarre trend. If mods want to rectify by all means. But there'd be no need to since calling out a blatant lie is likely okay.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

2k drivers a day? Hmm, clearly didn't read any report on it. And your post in the YNSE thread was a flat out lie, I called you out on it. Very clearly wasn't an error. Add onto that caps lock screaming, stuff about minotaurs, or fabricating City Council votes that never happened and it is a bizarre trend. If mods want to rectify by all means. But there'd be no need to since calling out a blatant lie is likely okay.

I'm not interested in debating this with you and no one on this thread needs your contributions. I made a mistake on a date and immediately fessed up when you pointed it out. You didn't catch me in a lie and if you think you did, you come say it to my face. Beyond that, you've been reported. Let the rest of us get back to discussing the matter at hand,

 

[44 North]

All this debate over governance is a distraction. The fundamental problem here is funding. That’s it. All this talk from the province of uploading the subway does nothing but provide the illusion of progress (which is great, if you’re trying to get re-elected).

Notice how transit in the GTA was pretty great until the Harris government slashed funding?

Exactly. Add onto that Superlinx. No funding, unless selling a parking lot or two counts as a dedicated stream. It's just a convoluted scheme to give the illusion of moving forward and wooing people into thinking there's some untapped riches to be had when there isn't. Look at the scaling back of TC. $16bn, down to $8bn, down to $5bn. And that's over ten years. All the while new projects got added onto the long laundry list of Prov projects. And to this day I still don't get how something can be fully funded for ten years without a shovel hitting the ground.

I'm not interested in debating this with you and no one on this thread needs your contributions. I made a mistake on a date and immediately fessed up when you pointed it out. You didn't catch me in a lie and if you think you did, you come say it to my face. Beyond that, you've been reported. Let the rest of us get back to discussing the matter at hand,

But it wasn't just a date, that's how I know it was a lie. Read the post I'm referring to unless you haven't edited it down.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

 

[Jeff Morgan]

The deal outlining the framework for uploading the subway:

https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/u...Toronto-Ontario-Terms-of-Reference-Final_.pdf

 

[steveintoronto]

^ https://www.thestar.com/politics/pr...to-upload-torontos-subway-to-queens-park.html

Under the framework, there would be more private-public partnerships to build infrastructure, such as the Eglinton Crosstown LRT slated to open in 2021.

Like it or not, it's coming. Better to get in front of it than get rolled over. It might behoove the City well to open talks with the Feds and the Infrastructure Bank on building a consortium as I've described a few posts back, and do it under federal charter. The City has no funds to put in, but they do have other assets and a willingness for the TTC to operate it, and the City can provide operating costs as their part of the 'Consortium'.

Let's presume this consortium is only for heavy rail, and the project is declared to be "for the general advantage of Canada"
Section 92(10) of the Constitution Act, 1867 - Wikipedia
(already provided for in the various Railway Acts )...then QP or muni gov'ts could not claim any jurisdiction over the consortium.