GTHA Regional Transit Amalgamation Discussion: Superlinx/Subway Upload

[44 North]

I was talking about RER actually. You could argue that it's primarily for the suburbs but it will also be a major expansion for the downtown area, the first since the 1960s. The Spadina and Queens Quay streetcars don’t count.

This seems to be a very Toronto trait - the idea that something that's routine in other cities would never work here. I don't know where that logic comes from. Regional transportation bodies don't just work in theory, they work in practice. There's nothing unique about Toronto that would prevent it from working here too.

Fair enough which is why I asked. And yes regional bodies can work well in regions where done organically over periods measured in decades or centuries. Some areas built their transit systems as a mega-region among (separate but still unified) municipalities, other areas consolidated public and private lines gradually and which eventually came under an umbrella agency's purview. Can't think of a "routine" instance where a city had its entire transit system and all assets taken.

The idea that establishing a regional body would amount to "ceding" local transit to some outside force is, frankly, baffling. This isn't a turf war. Transit in Mississauga and Markham is local transit. It's all, for all intents and purposes, one city. The sooner we stop reinforcing arbitrary boundaries for transit the better off we'll all be. Maybe a better way of looking at it is to recognize that the TTC is bigger than all the other transit agencies combined, which means that most of the staff of a new agency would be current TTC employees. Any merger would be more of a TTC takeover of the suburbs than the other way around.

Any argument against a potential Superlinx could also be made about the current system. It’s rife with biases and befoulment, as you put it. It’s subject to provincial and political meddling. There’s too much focus on the suburbs. And best practices from other cities are regarded with suspicion or hostility. If those are the biggest criticisms of a region-wide transit agency, then the worst case scenario is no worse than what we already have.

And why baffling? PC, previous Lib, and current BoT plan all involved ceding control, and more to the point ceding *asset ownership*. In Layman's terms we give (or they take) everything. This isn't just about overseeing, or responsibility, or merging. It's about taking and giving a new owner - which generally allows ultimate control. Any notion about arbitrary boundaries is a red herring that's only tangentially-related. And if you do want to bring up Sauga or Markham how bout giving the value of their assets vis a vis Toronto's.

If you read BoT's pamphlet there's very little to even make a valid best-worst practices criticism. Look at Metrolinx and the RL example I gave. A project in a city's TMP, accepted into a provincial RTP. Yet they singled it out and crapped on it. In the dozens of projects in their RTP not a single instance of anything remotely similar occurring. Simple logic would say that if we cede both control and ownership to a higher-level regional body, feelings such as this will be acted upon immediately and decisively rather than mused about. I mean if they own all of it, it's a reasonably likely outcome.

While I am not against the idea of a Metrolinx merger I do find it bizzare we would consider the creation of a super-regional organization without a super-regional body to answer to. Ideally any sort of "superlinx" would be part of a "Super Metro Government" similar to the Greater London Authority in London or the Tokyo Metropolitan Government in Tokyo. Obviously this would then beg the question what else gets uploaded to the Metro level. I mean it makes no sense to upload transit planning to Metrolinx if the regional planning to go along with it remains with the fiefdoms.

Agreed it is bizarre. Using their same reasons, wonder why no proposal for SuperCommunityHousingLinx, or SuperPoliceFireEMSLinx, or SuperSolidWasteLinx.

 

[44 North]

More accurately, Metrolinx responded to Toronto's prioritization of projects and when Toronto had it in their long-term file, with Transit City up front, that's what was in the Big Move. To reiterate the previous sentence for you: Metrolinx's "coolness" to the RL was entirely an integration of Toronto's own priorities into the regional plan.

When Toronto - 100% in response to the province's encouragement of the Yonge extension - asked the DRL be moved up, they moved it up. When the next reiteration of the Big Move was issued, it was where Toronto had asked it to be. Their (fictional) "coolness" didn't slow down the DRL for a single day Toronto would otherwise have been advancing it. "Sluggish, at best," based on what internal discussions to which you are privy? #FakeNews

And while Toronto moved the DRL up on paper, they continued to dither under Ford, blowing up Transit City, bringing it back and going through umpteen variations of the Scarborough subway. The idea of this thread - a Relief Line that went north of Bloor - was somewhere in unicorn fantasyland, as far as Toronto was concerned, until Metrolinx proposed it in this study. Whereas Toronto was doing its usual, half-assed, one-line-at-a-time planning, Metrolinx reviewed the entire network in relation to the Yonge line and proposed various scenarios for relieving capacity constraints; the sort of study that it's almost laughable to consider the TTC undertaking. One of those ideas was that taking the RL up to Sheppard would generate the most benefits. And here we are.
Thanks to Metrolinx, on both counts.

If they are to "blame" for anything in this arena, it's not taking a network approach from the start, instead just patching together an RTP based on projects already dictated/prioritized by the local municipalities.

But what's a few more factual errors from y'all, eh?

The only factual errors are your continued longwinded making up of history to suit a wayward narrative. Even going so far as to put in a "FakeNews" hashtag this time? Too rich.

Also funny your bringing up of Ford and Transit City. Who killed that to propose a subway on Eglinton and Sheppard? Not the local gov't in an open discussion - it was QP and Metrolinx behind closed doors. Clearly unbeknownst to you, but it actually whittles-down your attempt at rhetoric to have brought it up.

 

[gweed123]

Agreed it is bizarre. Using their same reasons, wonder why no proposal for SuperCommunityHousingLinx, or SuperPoliceFireEMSLinx, or SuperSolidWasteLinx.

Because the fiefdoms there are all behind the scenes, and not experienced by the end user in the same way that a lack of transit coordination is. An invisible line that makes you pay an extra $3 every time you cross it on a bus is quite different than an invisible line that determines which EMS service gets dispatched to you if you tripped and fell.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

This. While it is possible to create a Superlinx within the existing political structure of the GTHA, it would be much easier to create it if it was governed by a Metro type of government. That way, Superlinx would have direct accountability to the voters at the Metro level, instead of a finger-pointing game between Municipal and Provincial politicians if something to do with Superlinx went south.

Well, Ford has said he's doing a regional governance review. Maybe Mike Harris left the Golden Report in the Premier's desk and all Doug has to do is reach down and blow the dust off her?

I think most people who grasp this stuff, both here and in government and academia, understand this stuff only makes sense if the transit authority is a regional government of some kind. There is no way the current Metrolinx board (or any structure allowed under the existing Metrolinx Act) could do what needs to be done. If all the PCs do is upload the subway so they can build it out whereever they want, the ball isn't being moved downfield at all.

It's perfectly legit to point out where the Libs failed in this regard BUT by putting Metrolinx and the Growth Plan in place, they have provided very solid bones upon which to build. This government might not be capable but certainly a government that actually wanted to put in a Metro-style system that is in charge of regional transportation planning, would have a decent skeleton upon which to build. The plan for intensification is there and Metrolinx is already in charge of regional rail, and has some limited planning powers. A simply act of the legislature would do the trick.

The only factual errors are your continued longwinded making up of history to suit a wayward narrative. Even going so far as to put in a "FakeNews" hashtag this time? Too rich.

Keep sharing your ill-informed, easily disproven stories, friend. I'll let the facts speak for themselves and you can keep spinning and pivoting.

Also funny your bringing up of Ford and Transit City. Who killed that to propose a subway on Eglinton and Sheppard? Not the local gov't in an open discussion - it was QP and Metrolinx behind closed doors. Clearly unbeknownst to you, but it actually whittles-down your attempt at rhetoric to have brought it up.

Classic example. Whatever, man.
Metrolinx and QP definitely went along but they didn't initiate anything Toronto Council hadn't already decided itself; that includes both the creation and demise of Transit City. But, again, whatever floats your boat.

 

[steveintoronto]

While it is possible to create a Superlinx within the existing political structure of the GTHA, it would be much easier to create it if it was governed by a Metro type of government. That way, Superlinx would have direct accountability to the voters at the Metro level, instead of a finger-pointing game between Municipal and Provincial politicians if something to do with Superlinx went south.

That's desirable on one level, not desirable on many others, not least it being back in the hands of warring politicians. "Metro" level means "regional", and they already exist. And Ford et al are slicing, dicing and eviscerating at them.

The BofT report actually details what they think could govern this. I almost choked on it. Bureaucrats would find it delightful. GO Transit at one period was actually governed this way, it was downloaded to the muni level, worked no better (huge surprise there) and reassumed at the Metrolinx level (quasi independent agency, that we all know isn't).

I lament as what you propose has worked well in other city/regions, very well in some...but I have to question how sincere the GTHA is in wanting to play together, let alone build together.

Exhibit A: The Missing Link. Pioneered by a number of cities and towns, blocked by one. The Feds do actually show an interest in stepping in to affect this happening, but under the Transportation and Relocation and Crossing Act, it must be unanimous agreement of all munis affected. York Region has their collective NIMBY shoved up their collective trans-sitter.

And where exactly is QP on that? Pardon my being so cynical on Toronto, but the reason we're stuck at the lowest common denominator transit-wise is down to the politicians we elect. Superlinx, superdinks...Metrolinx has the power, and yet not a murmur from QP. And highly unlikely there will be. And the BofT has poisoned their own well by writing such a flawed report. Some of the errors are farcical, like mixing "Crossrail" for "TfL" and in doing so, completely missing the *Private Solution* to invest state money. Crossrail is a *Limited Company* owned and operated by TfL and National Rail. That's the only way they could get it done. Crossrail themselves have published papers on it, and offer it to the world as "a model that works". "Shareholders" instead of elected politicians making decisions.

I don't like going the "private" route, but in the absence of other answers, it seems like a great idea to study vis a vis *All of the Transit Companies affected* form a shareholder directed company to run the express buses trans-regional. It's not just London that took this route, it's also Sandag in San Diego, and others, I'll search and itemize later.

This 'privately held company' (by the transit orgs affected/involved) completely bypasses the politicians, save for asking for provincial and federal funds to buy dedicated express buses (highway capable) and underwrite the plant costs. The 'transit orgs' themselves would appropriate operating funds (since it would relieve their budgets of the same amount, but this is pooled).

And then there's the Infrastructure Bank....Set this up, and investors will also want a piece of it.

I don't see any of the so-far proposed 'collective of politicians' working in the GTHA. It works elsewhere, they have a different societal prerogative there (Van for instance, even though it's presently being tested).

More on this later...

Addendum:

Introduction
The Crossrail Programme will be delivered within a complex stakeholder environment. This document, together with the diagram above shows how the governance and delivery structure within Crossrail Ltd (CRL) is being developed to achieve this.

Sponsors
The Project has two Sponsors, the Department for Transport (DfT), which reports to the Secretary of State for Transport (SOS), and Transport for London (TfL), which reports to the Mayor of London. The Sponsors act as the clients for the Crossrail Programme, including specifying the delivery requirements, and have established a Sponsor Board (SB) as the forum in which they make joint decisions in relation to the Programme. The SB is managing the early development of the Programme through a series of Review Points where the Programme is reviewed by the Treasury’s Major Projects Review Group to ensure that specified milestones are being achieved. The CRL Executive Directors report regularly to the SB, as required by the Sponsors. At working level, the Sponsors have set up a Joint Sponsor Team (JST) to work with CRL to implement their decisions.

Project Representative
The Project Representative (P Rep) has been appointed by the JST to assist the smooth running of the Crossrail Programme. The role of the P Rep is defined in the Project Development Agreement (PDA) and includes:
x Advising the Sponsors on any increased risk of exceeding budget and timescale
x Providing independent informed advice to the Sponsors on progress in terms of time, cost and quality.
x Providing the Sponsors with oversight and analysis of any changes in scope
x Monitoring CRL’s compliance with undertakings and assurances x Reviewing CRL’s reports to the Sponsors
x Advising the Sponsors about the capability and level of resources deployed on the Crossrail Programme.

Parent Company
CRL is a wholly owned subsidiary of TfL. As owner, TfL has legal responsibility for CRL’s corporate governance. Consequently, CRL is subject to TfL’s corporate governance arrangements. Certain authorities are delegated by TfL through Standing Orders to the Chief Executive and Finance Director of CRL. The delegations are currently very limited in relation to the scale of the Crossrail Programme. Following the Sponsors’ acceptance of the final version of the Delivery Strategy, the TfL Board will delegate to the CRL Board authority to implement the Delivery Strategy, subject to the constraints of the Project Agreements. The CRL Board is accountable to the TfL Board for compliance with their governance arrangements.
[...continues at length, 36 page document...]
https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/gla_migrate_files_destination/CrossRail-Evidence.pdf

Institution of Civil Engineers paper on the model
https://learninglegacy.crossrail.co...001-Programme-organisation-and-management.pdf

 

[gweed123]

Well, Ford has said he's doing a regional governance review. Maybe Mike Harris left the Golden Report in the Premier's desk and all Doug has to do is reach down and blow the dust off her?

I think most people who grasp this stuff, both here and in government and academia, understand this stuff only makes sense if the transit authority is a regional government of some kind. There is no way the current Metrolinx board (or any structure allowed under the existing Metrolinx Act) could do what needs to be done. If all the PCs do is upload the subway so they can build it out whereever they want, the ball isn't being moved downfield at all.

It's perfectly legit to point out where the Libs failed in this regard BUT by putting Metrolinx and the Growth Plan in place, they have provided very solid bones upon which to build. This government might not be capable but certainly a government that actually wanted to put in a Metro-style system that is in charge of regional transportation planning, would have a decent skeleton upon which to build. The plan for intensification is there and Metrolinx is already in charge of regional rail, and has some limited planning powers. A simply act of the legislature would do the trick.

You're certainly correct that many of the higher-level regional planning documents already exist (Places to Grow, Greenbelt Act, Metrolinx RTP, etc). The bulk of the work would be the regional government structure, and shuffling everything around so that everybody was in the right room, so to speak.

That's desirable on one level, not desirable on many others, not least it being back in the hands of warring politicians. "Metro" level means "regional", and they already exist. And Ford et al are slicing, dicing and eviscerating at them.

The BofT report actually details what they think could govern this. I almost choked on it. Bureaucrats would find it delightful. GO Transit at one period was actually governed this way, it was downloaded to the muni level, worked no better (huge surprise there) and reassumed at the Metrolinx level (quasi independent agency, that we all know isn't).

I lament as what you propose has worked well in other city/regions, very well in some...but I have to question how sincere the GTHA is in wanting to play together, let alone build together.

"Regions" as they currently exist as a level of government are pointless, IMO. They're too small to truly address 'regional' issues. Counties make sense for more rural areas and collections of smaller towns, but when a metropolitan area has multiple "regional" governments within it, something isn't working properly.

As bullish as the Harris government's amalgamations were, I think the Liberals went too far the other way to try and tip-toe around the elephant in the room, which is that the region is too disconnected politically for its own good. They did everything they could at the Provincial level to try and make everything work, but changed nothing at the Municipal level in terms of structure.

In retrospect, instead of amalgamating Metro Toronto into a single City, I really wish Harris would have told Durham, York, Peel, and Halton Regions that they were joining Metro Toronto, and lowered the hammer that way instead.

 

[JasonParis]

In fact, Metro had a proposal for just that. What we now consider the GTA (Toronto, York, Peel, Halton and Durahm) would have been a new augmented Metro. The Harris government refused. I can't remember, but the Anne Golden Report, might have suggested the same too. Most thinking is that a provincial government does not want to create one body that would have about half the province's population in it. The fear is that the new entity's political power could eclipse their own.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Metrolinx and QP definitely went along but they didn't initiate anything Toronto Council hadn't already decided itself

Rob Ford isn't City Council.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Rob Ford isn't City Council.

Yes, you are right. Legally - if I can even properly remember that sequence of events - there was no Council vote to that effect. So, Transit City was not voted down by council. But the ultimate effect was the same - Ford got the ball rolling and the province (to their discredit) went along with it. I'm not suggesting they don't share blame, but it's sheer spin to pretend Queen's Park and Metrolinx in any way were leading that initiative; especially since we've since seen Metrolinx documents slamming the subway plan, stalling on revising the MOU etc. I see no reason to believe, as 44North effectively implies, that QP/Metrolinx would have backed off Transit City without Toronto (yes, the blowhard mayor rather than council, per se) asking them to. think that's the salient point, while still acknowledging there is blame to go around.

In retrospect, instead of amalgamating Metro Toronto into a single City, I really wish Harris would have told Durham, York, Peel, and Halton Regions that they were joining Metro Toronto, and lowered the hammer that way instead.

Indeed. And that's, in effect (broadly speaking), what The Golden Report, which he ignored, said to do. They did do that half-assed, what was it called...Greater Toronto Services Board? That probably indirectly lead to what we have now but I think it's pretty clear Harris viewed his job as providing (fictional) cost-savings, rather than reforming governance in an optimal fashion.

[and I just noticed Jason wrote the same thing ) Point is, not since that report have we undertaken a serious look at how to best configure local and regional government. The big changes we've seen have all been top-down measures with questionable logic and motives.]

 

[gweed123]

In fact, Metro had a proposal for just that. What we now consider the GTA (Toronto, York, Peel, Halton and Durahm) would have been a new augmented Metro. The Harris government refused. I can't remember, but the Anne Golden Report, might have suggested the same too. Most thinking is that a provincial government does not want to create one body that would have about half the province's population in it. The fear is that the new entity's political power could eclipse their own.

Indeed. And that's, in effect (broadly speaking), what The Golden Report, which he ignored, said to do. They did do that half-assed, what was it called...Greater Toronto Services Board? That probably indirectly lead to what we have now but I think it's pretty clear Harris viewed his job as providing (fictional) cost-savings, rather than reforming governance in an optimal fashion.

[and I just noticed Jason wrote the same thing ) Point is, not since that report have we undertaken a serious look at how to best configure local and regional government. The big changes we've seen have all been top-down measures with questionable logic and motives.]

Good point re: power. Regarding the 'top-down' measures, I think it would be difficult to get a significant grass roots push for something like this. People are naturally averse to change (despite the politicians promising it). Any candidate or party who put Metro in their platform would be going into a huge headwind. We would almost need another Harris-esque "I'm going to do it, no matter the consequences" person, which we may have right now. The problem is, anybody with that type of personality isn't usually pushing it through for the right reasons.

 

[steveintoronto]

Excellent! We're getting down to the nitty-gritty on this, even if I have issues with some of the claims, we're all hitting close to the same target.

As bullish as the Harris government's amalgamations were, I think the Liberals went too far the other way to try and tip-toe around the elephant in the room, which is that the region is too disconnected politically for its own good. They did everything they could at the Provincial level to try and make everything work, but changed nothing at the Municipal level in terms of structure.

In retrospect, instead of amalgamating Metro Toronto into a single City, I really wish Harris would have told Durham, York, Peel, and Halton Regions that they were joining Metro Toronto, and lowered the hammer that way instead.

In fact, Metro had a proposal for just that. What we now consider the GTA (Toronto, York, Peel, Halton and Durahm) would have been a new augmented Metro. The Harris government refused. I can't remember, but the Anne Golden Report, might have suggested the same too. Most thinking is that a provincial government does not want to create one body that would have about half the province's population in it. The fear is that the new entity's political power could eclipse their own.

I'll address these points and those of the other posters in due time, just got in to find that Steve Munro has posted a bombshell on this subject: (As always with excellent copy, it's difficult to know where to edit, so I'll post the first part of his post unedited, and you'll have to access the rest on-line at the link below):

New post on Steve Munro

Superlinx: A Big Solution or A Big Con?
by Steve
The Toronto Region Board of Trade published a proposal in November 2017 for the amalgamation of all transit agencies and operations in the "Toronto Corridor". Ostensibly, this was written as input to the updated Metrolinx Regional Transportation Plan aka "The Big Move". However, the guiding policy framework is clear in the first paragraph of "The Board's Vision":

The Toronto Region Board of Trade (the Board) has a vision for a modern transit authority that is best in class globally. This regional transit authority would plan and oversee a system that pays for new lines and superior service enhancements substantially through commercialized transit related assets—not new taxes. This modern transit authority would quickly deploy smart technologies and service features systemwide, thanks to its unified planning and operations platform. It would ensure public transit land is maximized to meet housing and commercial needs. It would plan and fast‐track the delivery of a super regional transit network to meet the needs of Canada’s most populous and economically active region—the Toronto‐Waterloo Corridor (the Corridor). [p. 3]​

The key point here is that transit improvements, both capital and operating, would notrequire new taxes. This is a political holy grail, the "something for nothing" of political dreams in any portfolio. However, at no point does the Board of Trade actually run the numbers to show that this would actually work, that the money available from "commercialized transit assets" would actually pay "substantially" for the transit the Toronto region so desperately needs.
The Board speaks of the "Corridor" with an emphasis on the Toronto-Waterloo axis, but this simply restyles a region made up of what we now call the GTHA into a larger unit, and it includes substantial areas that remain rural where transportation needs and planning policy options are very different from those of the urbanized parts of southern Ontario.
At the time, I did not comment on the scheme, but with the change in government at Queen's Park and the arrival of dogma as the central driver of policy choices, another look is in order.
On October 31, 2018, the Board of Trade published the result of a survey which claims to show overwhelming support for complete amalgamation of transit systems. Their press release is entitled "Greater Toronto and Waterloo region voters support Superlinx concept". However, it is by no means clear that their panel is made up of actual voters, only adults. The spin begins before we even get into the substance of the release.
This was duly covered by the media, including The Star and The Globe and Mail.
The Environics poll of 1,000 adults in southern Ontario claims:

The concept of a single regional transit agency funded by the provincial government received support from 79 percent of regional respondents and 74 percent of Toronto respondents.​

It is worth noting that the article on Environics' site, identical to the Board of Trade's press release except for the title, is not a detailed analysis of the results. It does not include the context in which questions were placed, and so it is impossible to know exactly what people thought they were "supporting". No margin of error is cited because of the poll methodology, according to Environics. With only 1,000 responses that are further subdivided among seven municipalities, the sample for any one of them will be quite small. The sample size and demographics for each municipality are not included, nor is there any indication of transit usage patterns among the respondents, only car ownership. With the relatively low transit usage outside of Toronto, one can reasonably assume that the poll overwhelmingly reflects the opinion of people who do not use transit as their primary or only means of travel.
[...]

http://stevemunro.ca/2018/11/05/superlinx-a-big-solution-or-a-big-con/

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Yes, you are right. Legally - if I can even properly remember that sequence of events - there was no Council vote to that effect. So, Transit City was not voted down by council. But the ultimate effect was the same - Ford got the ball rolling and the province (to their discredit) went along with it.

The ultimate effect wasn't the same though. The intent was to cancel Transit City. What actually happened was City Council immediately rescinded Ford's gross overstep of his powers and made it clear that the position of the City of Toronto was unchanged: Transit City was to be built. Queen's Park was forced to walk back their attempt to circumvent Council, and Transit City continued to move ahead, albeit significantly delayed and likely with a heftier price tag. We now see Finch West LRT and Eglinton Crosstown LRT being built today, as envisioned in Transit City.

I'm not suggesting they don't share blame, but it's sheer spin to pretend Queen's Park and Metrolinx in any way were leading that initiative; especially since we've since seen Metrolinx documents slamming the subway plan, stalling on revising the MOU etc

Yes, I don't believe Metrolinx (as an organization) deserves any of the blame for what happened with Transit City. They played zero role in all this, so far as I can see. Queen's Park, however, does shoulder significant blame. It's beyond question that QP understands that executive power in the City of Toronto lies solely with Toronto City Council - not the Mayor. QP tried to circumvent that out of political expedience, and ended up with egg on their face. QP shares the blame due to their irresponsible handling of the matter. A responsible government would've consulted and respected Council.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

The ultimate effect wasn't the same though. The intent was to cancel Transit City. What actually happened was City Council immediately rescinded Ford's gross overstep of his powers and made it clear that the position of the City of Toronto was unchanged

For sure - this is eventually what happened. But in relation the original point, my point stands: Metrolinx/QP went along with what Toronto wanted, not the other way around. No matter where the road eventually went, that's how it started. If Ford hadn't rocked the boat, Transit City would have been built; there is zero reason to think Wynne and Metrolinx would have scrapped it on their own, which is effectively what 44 implied, saying it wasn't a "local government" decision but a closed-door provincial decision. It's true they could have stopped Toronto, legally if not politically - and at a certain point it was in their selfish interest to go along - but it was Toronto driving the agenda. I don't excuse the province's role in enabling, permitting and facilitating it at the end of the day at all.

This much, I think is beyond dispute: no one came out of it looking good.
(EDIT: I don't even know anymore - did they ever actually scrap the original MOU or is it still in effect?)

As for Munro, my opinion of him hasn't changed: he's smart and his contribution to the discourse should be valued, but he's got a bug up his butt about regionalism generally and Metrolinx specifically and always will. He's the classic, "The province can't be in charge of local bus service!" fearmongerer.

I don't think he's necessarily wrong about anything but he spends way more words than I'm willing to read to say what I could have guessed he'd say anyway. Needs more hobbies!

 

[44 North]

Because the fiefdoms there are all behind the scenes, and not experienced by the end user in the same way that a lack of transit coordination is. An invisible line that makes you pay an extra $3 every time you cross it on a bus is quite different than an invisible line that determines which EMS service gets dispatched to you if you tripped and fell.

I'd say yes and no. This is for example's sake so ignore legislated aspects of paramedic services. Naturally each fiefdom, by their nature, funds their own EMS to degrees of varying optimization. Now let's say you "tripped and fell" near a fiefdom border and had to wait 30mins for aid, even though 5mins away in a neighbouring fiefdom there are ten paramedics sitting playing euchre. Wouldn't you argue that the "end user" gets the short end of the stick due to cross-border coordination over an invisible line - be it a $3 charge or a 30min wait. And that this ultimately boils down to funding or lack thereof, an issue which a convoluted super-bureaucracy doesn't actually solve since funding streams are paper thin. And fare integration or proposing an amalgamated metro governance are nonexistent.

Keep sharing your ill-informed, easily disproven stories, friend. I'll let the facts speak for themselves and you can keep spinning and pivoting.

Classic example. Whatever, man.
Metrolinx and QP definitely went along but they didn't initiate anything Toronto Council hadn't already decided itself; that includes both the creation and demise of Transit City. But, again, whatever floats your boat.

Again rich posts of yours You took one part of my comment to MisterF and replied w/ five paragraphs rife with apologist bias, made up stuff, and unknowingly debased your own argument by not knowing what the heck you're talking about. Even did it again in your follow-up by posting that CBC article. Not a surprise since I've seen the same in other threads, tho the Trump quotes are a neat twist I guess.

My post wasn't ill-informed, I didn't pivot, and what I wrote hasn't been disproven.

For sure - this is eventually what happened. But in relation the original point, my point stands: Metrolinx/QP went along with what Toronto wanted, not the other way around. No matter where the road eventually went, that's how it started. If Ford hadn't rocked the boat, Transit City would have been built; there is zero reason to think Wynne and Metrolinx would have scrapped it on their own, which is effectively what 44 implied, saying it wasn't a "local government" decision but a closed-door provincial decision. It's true they could have stopped Toronto, legally if not politically - and at a certain point it was in their selfish interest to go along - but it was Toronto driving the agenda. I don't excuse the province's role in enabling, permitting and facilitating it at the end of the day at all.

This much, I think is beyond dispute: no one came out of it looking good.
(EDIT: I don't even know anymore - did they ever actually scrap the original MOU or is it still in effect?)

Your last two posts bring up my name. Ignoring my flattery, seems you're really going on some tangents here that are not only o/t but just off-base. TO council canceled TC, even though they didn't, QP did but didn't mean to, Wynne was premier in 2010. C'mon.

 

[MisterF]

And why baffling? PC, previous Lib, and current BoT plan all involved ceding control, and more to the point ceding *asset ownership*. In Layman's terms we give (or they take) everything. This isn't just about overseeing, or responsibility, or merging. It's about taking and giving a new owner - which generally allows ultimate control. Any notion about arbitrary boundaries is a red herring that's only tangentially-related. And if you do want to bring up Sauga or Markham how bout giving the value of their assets vis a vis Toronto's.

If you read BoT's pamphlet there's very little to even make a valid best-worst practices criticism. Look at Metrolinx and the RL example I gave. A project in a city's TMP, accepted into a provincial RTP. Yet they singled it out and crapped on it. In the dozens of projects in their RTP not a single instance of anything remotely similar occurring. Simple logic would say that if we cede both control and ownership to a higher-level regional body, feelings such as this will be acted upon immediately and decisively rather than mused about. I mean if they own all of it, it's a reasonably likely outcome.

It's baffling because it's untrue. The fear seems to be that Metrolinx would take everything over and that the TTC would cease to exist, and that the institutional culture of Metrolinx would be unchanged. The reality is that even in that scenario, Metrolinx wouldn't have anywhere near the staffing to take over what the TTC does. It would need to hire vast numbers of staff from what used to be the TTC, effectively taking over Metrolinx. You've just made my point - Toronto has more assets than all the suburban systems combined, so any merger of the systems would be largely controlled by people who now control the TTC.

Again, this isn't a turf war. In the event of a GTA-wide body similar to, say, Translink, it would still be dominated by the city of Toronto.

Re: the relief line, the city and TTC stalled on that project for decade after decade. The attitude seemed to be to do everything possible to squeeze more capacity out of Line 1 and put off the RL as long as possible. Metrolinx didn't crap all over it any more than the TTC did. The project has thankfully taken more urgency lately and that's because of all parties involved.

Agreed it is bizarre. Using their same reasons, wonder why no proposal for SuperCommunityHousingLinx, or SuperPoliceFireEMSLinx, or SuperSolidWasteLinx.

These are red herrings.