GTHA Regional Transit Amalgamation Discussion: Superlinx/Subway Upload

[TheTigerMaster]

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.

Honestly, I don't think people are concerned with Metrolinx taking over the TTC. Rather, they're concerned with Queen's Park taking over the TTC.

I really wouldn't be concerned at all of Metrolinx took over the TTC (ahem... the TTC took over Metrolinx), and Queen's Park had nothing to do with the arrangement.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I think these discussion of Superlinx are really putting the cart before the horse. I think it would be wise to step back and ask ourselves, what problem are we even trying to solve with Superlinx? Is Superlinx using a hammer to swat a fly?

The bulk of the complaints I see about public transit in the GTA is about fine-grained issues, and not big problems on the scale of the Big Move and similar plans. Issues such as, "my bus isn't coming on time", "PRESTO isn't working right", cleanliness of stations, fare prices, etc... For these fine-grained issues, I really don't see how Superlinx addresses them. In fact, I only see it making them worse, since decision making will be even further removed from the actual problems on the ground.

But let's look at some of the other justifications for Superlinx:

Superlinx will make services more efficient.
Okay, but how? We all saw what happened during amalgamation. It resulted in an increase in prices, because the unions with the most lucrative contracts wouldn't let go of their deals. We know damn well that unions aren't going to be any more willing to let go of lucrative deals this time around.

I suppose there could be arguments about economies of scale or whatever. But the TTC is already around 80% of transit trips in the GTA. Superlinx would be only slightly larger than the TTC, so any benefit from the increased scale would be nominal at best.

Superlinx will make delivering transit expansion more efficient.
Those that make this argument seem to suppose that municipal decision makers will be removed from the decision making process, thus making it easier to gain political approval for these projects. Ideally, that is what would happen, but in reality that's highly unlikely. There's not a snowballs chance in hell that QP is going to take on all the costs of operating the TTC subways (and those costs are staggering, as we see in Munro's report).

In reality, we're almost certainly going to still see Queen's Park demanding municipalities pay a portion of the costs for transportation operations and expansion (as we saw with GO Transit in the 90s), and municipal leaders can still voice their loud discontent with various plans. This will open the door for political "interference" from municipal leaders.

Further, let's not forget that most of the flip flopping on transit projects over the past 40 or 50 years has come from the Provincial government. The Province has consistently gotten cold feet over transit commitment when the bills come in, or played outright interference in technical decision making. For Toronto in particular, I struggle to think of a time where City Council has ever rescinded support for a transit expansion plan they previously supported. Even Transit City has been endorsed over and over and over again by three different council and two mayors over 10 years.

Regional fare integration
Okay, this is one area where I think Superlinx would unquestionably improve the situation. However, this is really using a hammer to swat a fly. Nobody can seriously say that the only way to get regional fare integration is to blow the TTC up and make a new organization. I'm sure a less disruptive arrangement can be met. We're not negotiating world peace here.

So I really can't see Superlinx improving our ability to improve transportation expansion. At least not if Superlinx is run at the Provincial level. Perhaps it would work at the municipal level, but that's not what it's on the table.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Superlinx will make delivering transit expansion more efficient.
Those that make this argument seem to suppose that municipal decision makers will be removed from the decision making process, thus making it easier to gain political approval for these projects. Ideally, that is what would happen, but in reality that's highly unlikely. There's not a snowballs chance in hell that QP is going to take on all the costs of operating the TTC subways (and those costs are staggering, as we see in Munro's report).

In reality, we're almost certainly going to still see Queen's Park demanding municipalities pay a portion of the costs for transportation operations and expansion (as we saw with GO Transit in the 90s), and municipal leaders can still voice their loud discontent with various plans. This will open the door for political "interference" from municipal leaders.

Further, let's not forget that most of the flip flopping on transit projects over the past 40 or 50 years has come from the Provincial government. The Province has consistently gotten cold feet over transit commitment when the bills come in, or played outright interference in technical decision making. For Toronto in particular, I struggle to think of a time where City Council has ever rescinded support for a transit expansion plan they previously supported. Even Transit City has been endorsed over and over and over again by three different council and two mayors over 10 years.

So I really can't see Superlinx improving our ability to improve transportation expansion. At least not if Superlinx is run at the Provincial level. Perhaps it would work at the municipal level, but that's not what it's on the table.

This brings me to another issue:


Provincial governance and institutions are far more secretive than their municipal counterparts. At the municipal level, it's difficult to pull wool over voters eyes regarding the validity of transportation projects, because the decision making at Council is almost totally transparent. An example to illustrate: when the Liberals decided to delay (read: CANCEL) the Sheppard East LRT, this was a closed-door meeting made by cabinet. Nobody knew that a delay was being considered until after a decision was already made, and quietly announced. At the municipal level, you'd never see this kind of back door dealing. City Council would have to meet in public about delaying the project, and there'd be ample time for public debate and opposition.

So because provincial decision making is so secretive, I'd expect us to see a lot more political games played with our transit system. Superlinx, at the provincial level, will result in backdoor dealing, less transparency, and a lot more instability in our transit system.

 

[BurlOak]

Honestly, I don't think people are concerned with Metrolinx taking over the TTC. Rather, they're concerned with Queen's Park taking over the TTC.

I really wouldn't be concerned at all of Metrolinx took over the TTC (ahem... the TTC took over Metrolinx), and Queen's Park had nothing to do with the arrangement.

I would much rather have MTO take over TTC than Metrolinx take over TTC. At least then there would be someone directly responsible.
Under the previous Metrolinx - it was really a puppet of the Liberal government, but it was much more secretive. And I am not sure if this can ever change.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I would much rather have MTO take over TTC than Metrolinx take over TTC. At least then there would be someone directly responsible.
Under the previous Metrolinx - it was really a puppet of the Liberal government, but it was much more secretive. And I am not sure if this can ever change.

I'm really not certain that MTO is any less secretive than Metrolinx. The issue here is that any provincial agency is accountable only to the government that is currently in power via whatever minister the government choses to oversee their operation. In other words, they exist to serve the needs of the current government, and they'll behave accordingly. This will be an issue with any agency of the Province of Ontario.

This is fundamentally different from municipal organizations, which aren't accountable to any one politician, or any one government. Rather, municipal bodies are accountable to Council as a whole. This means that the TTC is more or less politically agnostic. They don't have to concern themselves with pleasing any one politician, and thus can be a lot more transparent with their operations.

Journalists often complain that getting information from Metrolinx is often like drawing blood from a stone. And look at what's happened with the Ontario Cannabis Store: Queen's Park refuses to disclose any information about its operations whatsoever. We don't even know who the OCS operations have been contracted out to. The prospect of the TTC getting the same treatment is extremely troubling to me. Toronto's media has been able to hold the TTC's feet to the fire, and ensure the the service improves, because they have easy access to a treasure trove of documents outlining every aspect of the TTC's operations. This transparency could vanish if the system is uploaded to the Province.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

All good points.

Fact is, making Metrolinx more accountable and less secretive is no harder than amending the Metrolinx Act which, on the balance of things, is a lot easier than (for example!) ramming through a bill that changes the composition of Toronto City Council mid-election.

It's easy to fix, but it requires the will to do so. Metrolinx was designed basically to function as an advisory board to design the RTP. Once that was done, Metrolinx 2.0 was designed to update the RTP, integrate GO and implement Presto. I think, notwithstanding what's going on now with RER, it's basically at the limit of its current functionality.

Metrolinx 3.0 can do exactly what we need it do and be exactly what we need it to be but it requires a government that actually wants to cut them loose, which can only be done in tandem with opening them up. (Which is to say, they can be separated from Cabinet and given broader authority, but only if they are more open and more accountable to the public.)

There are things we can and cannot do within the legal framework but as with the OCS example above, this is a choice any provincial government can make with the snap of its fingers.

 

[gweed123]

To respond to TheTigerMaster's points, I think one of the big benefits of a Superlinx would be the ability to obtain a dedicated funding source. That would be much easier to accomplish at the Provincial level than it would be at the Municipal level, just by the very nature of what tools both of those levels of government have at their disposal with respect to revenue generation. Independence from Queen's Park lies not in the bureaucratic structure, but the purse strings.

Lift transit off of the municipal property tax (not withstanding the additional funding I described a couple pages ago), and increase the HST by 1% within the Metrolinx service area. Operating can be drawn from that pot, and Capital can be leveraged using that pot as well to service the debt required to pay for the infrastructure.

To accomplish that at the municipal level would be significantly more difficult.

 

[44 North]

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.

But I didn't say TTC's staff would cease to exist. I'd wager union-related issues would stipulate their numbers expand when moving from a TTC banner to a larger QP one. And I don't consider staff to be assets. Figuratively they are, but was referring to hard stuff of an intrinsic nature which BoT talks about leveraging for capital (e.g structures, buildings, properties, and probably vehicles too). A human doesn't fit the bill.

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.

Translink and Van's preexisting metro governance model isn't being proposed so doesn't make a good reference imo. And the proposal makes it clear that Toronto - or any single city - would be either a very small player or not a player at all. This depending on the rotation of the minority municipal representation component. So not 'dominating', and quite possibly absent completely.

Literally Caledon could have more representation.

 

[pman]

While I agree with all your points, was the decision not to build subways Downtown really due to a lack of regional planning?

Sadly, it was due to a surfeit of regional planning. Way back in the day, even before the Union Station reno started, we had this idea that growth should be decentralized to suburban nodes, like STC, Yonge/Sheppard, and Bloor/Islington. Because, you know, nobody would want to live or work downtown in the future. Or some such idiocy, whatever. Anyway, and this is the truly heartbreaking part, Toronto’s transit planning from the 70’s through the 90’s was actually intentional.

 

[gweed123]

Sadly, it was due to a surfeit of regional planning. Way back in the day, even before the Union Station reno started, we had this idea that growth should be decentralized to suburban nodes, like STC, Yonge/Sheppard, and Bloor/Islington. Because, you know, nobody would want to live or work downtown in the future. Or some such idiocy, whatever. Anyway, and this is the truly heartbreaking part, Toronto’s transit planning from the 70’s through the 90’s was actually intentional.

A lot of that was the nature of Metro. Each City/Borough wanted their own "downtown", with transit to service it. It was a worthwhile goal I think, as secondary hubs and nodes are still a good idea.

The issue is that with some of them, STC being the prime example, their location was chosen based off of highway access, and not based off of how effectively they could be serviced by transit. If STC had been transit-centric, it would have been built straddling the Stouffville Line. That would have made a Bloor-Danforth extension to service it very easy, and over a decade worth of transit debates wouldn't have needed to have happened.

The same pattern has repeated itself in Mississauga. If MCC had been centred around Dundas & Hurontario, Cooksville GO would have basically become Mississauga Central Station, and it would have naturally been at the intersection of 3 rapid transit lines (including GO). Instead, we have this bizarre loop trying to shoehorn in LRT in an area that was clearly chosen for auto access.

NYCC, by contrast, was built directly on the Yonge corridor, so it was far more successful as a suburban hub than any other location. Likewise in Markham, where the downtown has been largely centred on the intersection of the Highway 7 Rapidway and Stouffville GO line. Ditto for Richmond Hill Centre.

 

[steveintoronto]

To respond to TheTigerMaster's points, I think one of the big benefits of a Superlinx would be the ability to obtain a dedicated funding source. That would be much easier to accomplish at the Provincial level than it would be at the Municipal level, just by the very nature of what tools both of those levels of government have at their disposal with respect to revenue generation. Independence from Queen's Park lies not in the bureaucratic structure, but the purse strings.

I've still to fully read the Superlinx report in its entirety, I got thrown off by some glaring inaccuracies in how they presented the Crossrail model, as well as confusing it with one the two sponsors: TfL (the other was the UK national Department of Transport).

What the BofT overlooks, and it's a glaring oversight, is how a *consortium* (P3 or otherwise) could/should be formed by the GTHA transit agencies to form a wholly owned shell to run major routes cross region, with dedicated buses owned or leased by the consortium, and partly funded by the province and federal governments....and an investment and/ or loan from the Canada Infrastructure Bank.

What very few 'studies' fail to mention for Crossrail is this:

TFL AGREES £1BN LOAN FOR CROSSRAIL FROM EUROPEAN INVESTMENT BANK
THE CROSSRAIL PROJECT RECEIVED A MAJOR BOOST TODAY AS TRANSPORT FOR LONDON (TFL) ANNOUNCED THAT IT HAS AGREED A £1BN LOAN WITH THE EUROPEAN INVESTMENT BANK (EIB) TO FINANCE PART OF THEIR CONTRIBUTION TO EUROPE'S LARGEST CONSTRUCTION PROJECT.
For the European Investment Bank (EIB) to agree to the loan facility provides international recognition of Crossrail's importance and is a further milestone in the delivery of the project.
The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, said: "Our good friends at the EIB have provided us with a billion more reasons to proceed with the unstoppable force that is Crossrail. It is one of the largest loans ever secured for a transport project and I am especially pleased to have this backing for our drive to provide London with the facilities required to keep the capital one of the world's leading cities."
Simon Brooks, Vice-President, European Investment Bank said: "Crossrail is the largest construction project in Europe and will make an important contribution to London's economy. By providing a much-needed boost to rail capacity in London and the South East, Crossrail will help to develop London as a sustainable world city by reducing congestion and pollution for the benefit of Londoners, commuters and visitors. It will also link London more efficiently into the European and global transport networks. We at the EIB are delighted to support the project with this loan."
[...]

http://www.crossrail.co.uk/news/art...n-for-crossrail-from-european-investment-bank

Would muni agencies like the TTC, MiWay, etc have standing under Ontario law to do this? It's an interesting question, because I can't think of a better way to administer a cross-regional collective system of *dedicated buses*...not the muni agencies' buses, which would be run as they always have, save for emphasis on feeding "The Collective".

This structure is more akin to railways. (In the more sectored railway systems of the Thirties to Fifties, many smaller railway companies would host a transcontinental express that would 'run through' on as many as five to six different railways) If the Province really cared, they'd enshrine a clause in the Metrolinx Act for complementary operation with or under the aegis of Metrolinx. I'd prefer 'with' so the transit companies could institute what's collectively in everyone's best interest, not the government of the day in QP.

I also see the opportunity through the Canada Investment Bank for more federal co-operation with VIA and private investors to hold a stake in this along with shared investment and risk. (Also keep Greyhound's demise in mind and the Fed's offer of cash to partly replace that)

Perhaps a comment from Bruce McCuaig (who named the Pearson Airport Hub scheme as (gist) "a prime example for the InfraBank to handle) would be in order? He remains with the Infrastructure Bank as one of their 'staff advisors'.

 

[MisterF]

But I didn't say TTC's staff would cease to exist. I'd wager union-related issues would stipulate their numbers expand when moving from a TTC banner to a larger QP one. And I don't consider staff to be assets. Figuratively they are, but was referring to hard stuff of an intrinsic nature which BoT talks about leveraging for capital (e.g structures, buildings, properties, and probably vehicles too). A human doesn't fit the bill.



Translink and Van's preexisting metro governance model isn't being proposed so doesn't make a good reference imo. And the proposal makes it clear that Toronto - or any single city - would be either a very small player or not a player at all. This depending on the rotation of the minority municipal representation component. So not 'dominating', and quite possibly absent completely.

Literally Caledon could have more representation.

That's just one proposal and not necessarily exactly how the agency would be structured. There's no need to get bogged down in the details when this proposal is really just getting the conversation going in the minds of the public. There are lots of ways that a regional transit agency could be set up. Vancouver has the same constitutional context as Toronto. So while their model is only one of many that could be emulated, there's no reason that something like that couldn't be set up in the GTA.

 

[steveintoronto]

There's no need to get bogged down in the details when this proposal is really just getting the conversation going in the minds of the public.

I was just saying that to myself while Googling on the minutia of the Translink model. There's no lack of detail explained on-line to the point of it becoming cumbersome, and indeed, governance is so similar that 'the engine can be transplanted to the GTHA' but a few good news articles give it a lot more context. (And note the similar 'axis' of the Taxpayer's Federation and the TO Board of Trade, making the same reactionary moves and based on the same reactionary ideology)(And I'm pro-enterprise, but not as an ideology, but as a means to an end best for all)(Note also the striking similarities in many ways to Metrolinx, e.g. as per 'Compass Card' snafus et al)

From the Globe:

GARY MASON NATIONAL AFFAIRS COLUMNIST
VANCOUVER
PUBLISHED FEBRUARY 4, 2015 UPDATED MAY 12, 2018

Metro Vancouver mayors finally got around this week to kicking off what may prove to be a fruitless campaign to convince people living in the region to vote Yes in the upcoming transit plebiscite.
Ballots will be mailed out in six weeks. In the time between now and then, the mayors and supporters of the Yes side will go forth and attempt to educate the public on why it should approve a regional sales tax increase of 0.5 per cent to help make the mayors' $7.5-billion transportation dream a reality.
In the United States, where transit referendums such as this one are common, Yes supporters often spend a year or more tutoring voters on the merits of their plan. Six weeks is an absurdly short amount of time for the Yes forces in Metro Vancouver to get their message out.

But such is the position the provincial government put them in.
It has not helped that the No movement, led by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, got a significant head start. The crux of the No argument is that TransLink, the organization that oversees transit in the region, cannot be trusted.

This, we are told, is because executive compensation at TransLink is out of whack (partly true) and the proposed Compass Card fare-gate system has been plagued with problems and is still not operational (the fact is, many jurisdictions trying to introduce smart-card programs have experienced significant startup snags). Mostly, the taxpayers federation holds the view that TransLink is a badly run organization, and until issues are sorted out at the top, it should not be given any more money, especially through tax increases.
Instead, the federation believes TransLink's funding can be derived through efficiencies in the organization.
Of course, this is the taxpayers federation's stock answer for everything: Cut the fat! Stop the gravy train! Roll back executive salaries! Like that alone would be enough to finance revenue deficiencies. It's delusional.
TransLink has been far from a perfect organization. But then, transit authorities are hated pretty much wherever they exist. Overcrowded buses, breakdowns in subways and light-rail systems, fare increases, shortcomings in service levels – transit bodies get blamed for them all. They are agencies the public loves to hate.
In British Columbia, the reality is that TransLink has been the victim of a completely dysfunctional relationship between regional mayors and the provincial government, at least when it comes to transit needs. The province maintains ultimate control over TransLink and can make initiatives like the transit referendum mandatory. Yet it takes little to no responsibility for the quality of transit service in the region.

The Liberals insist on control, but want to be at arm's-length from any decision to fund transit. Why? So they don't take a hit politically. TransLink and the mayors can come up with all the wonderful 10-year plans they want, but without any real means of paying for them, they are useless.

[...]

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...m-of-broken-governance-model/article22774091/

I highly recommend reading the entire article.

What I'm struck by is the original date of publication, 2015.

Since then, even though updated 6 months ago, a number of things have changed in both BC and Ontario. Change of gov'ts being a huge one in both. But also as I alluded to last post, so has the Canada Infrastructure Bank. The latter could play a huge part in financing what the OntCons would be reticent to 'put on their books'. The collective of GTHA transit orgs could find commonality in a shared trans-regional spine that may or may not be the aegis of the Metrolinx Act, but in the absence or desirability of Metrolinx themselves handling pan-regional route integration, it might be time for the GTHA Mayors to at first form an ad-hoc cmte to discuss this on behalf of their respective transit orgs.

QP's talk of "uploading" is unhelpful, especially in lieu of the complete lack of details or even simple dialogue on how this would be done, the compensation available for doing so, funding of the concept, and overall administration. You don't see many mayors or munis jumping for joy on this. The most welcoming that I'm aware of is Cam Guthrie, Mayor of Guelph, and even he is reticent and conditional on it.

Instead of the TO Board of Trade, it's time to hear from the GTHA Mayors either through the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, or this flashback:

Archived Statement
Premier's Statement on the Historic GTHA Mayors' Summit

March 24, 2015 7:10 P.M.
Office of the Premier

Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne released this statement following today's first provincially convened GTHA Mayors' Summit:

"Today I met with Mayors and Chairs from municipalities in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area for the first-ever GTHA Mayors' Summit hosted by Ontario.

Our province is built on the strength of its communities, so strengthening the GTHA is integral to building a stronger Ontario. But we need to work together. Leaders across the region have shown a commitment to greater collaboration with the province and with one another, to address shared challenges and capitalize on shared opportunities.

Ontario's partnership with municipalities has been crucial to initiatives like expanding regional transit through Metrolinx, planning for the Pan Am and Parapan Am Games, and developing the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe.

Today's historic summit built on our strong track record of collaboration.

Together, we have agreed to focus on three key issues: solving gridlock and improving transit; planning for growth and infrastructure; and promoting economic growth across the region. These issues are all interconnected. Improving transit helps drive productivity and economic growth, while improving everyday life for people across all parts of the GTHA.

Addressing these issues requires a collaborative, cross-government, holistic approach. That's why Ontario and Mayors and Chairs across the GTHA have committed to meet regularly to continue our progress in these areas. Ministers will continue to join us at the table and participate in any discussions that pertain to their portfolios.
[...]

https://news.ontario.ca/opo/en/2015/03/premiers-statement-on-the-historic-gtha-mayors-summit.html

"That's why Ontario and Mayors and Chairs across the GTHA have committed to meet regularly to continue our progress in these areas." It's time for another one!

And I stumbled across this in searching for the above:

Complete Mobility in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area A research report sponsored by Siemens examining Complete Mobility solutions

http://www2.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyre...73-65480536FD84/0/SiemensCompleteMobility.pdf

A proprietary promotion by Siemens? Undoubtedly. But a hell of a lot more open and trusted than the Toronto Board of Trade! I'm just coursing through it now. Can't believe this report hasn't been noted in the media, even as a corporate promo, it's vastly superior to the self-serving BofT propaganda indoctrinary diatribe.

 

[steveintoronto]

Further to previous post, from the Siemen's Study:

http://www2.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyre...73-65480536FD84/0/SiemensCompleteMobility.pdf

Maybe because it's late, and other factors, but Siemens appear to have been very bold with this! Refreshingly so. It shows confidence in their corporate mission, as well as social responsibility in achieving that.

We need more of this...

 

[crs1026]

I think these discussion of Superlinx are really putting the cart before the horse. I think it would be wise to step back and ask ourselves, what problem are we even trying to solve with Superlinx? Is Superlinx using a hammer to swat a fly?

A great post, you put some structure into the discussion that's really helpful.

Superlinx will make services more efficient.

There are plenty of case studies around the GTA where transit is not efficient: North-south routes at the northern Toronto boundary, east-west routes between Toronto and Mississauga, poor feeder service to GO Trains, etc. The issue is not TTC vs other guys; everyone is part of the disfunction, GO included.

Would a Superlinx sort this out? Perhaps, but don’t think that SL would not have its own areas of inefficiency. Centralisation frequently leads to "one size fits all" mentality as the bureaucracy is challenged to place economy above all.

And, the solving agency has to have independence from GO so there is no inherent bias towards GO's perspective. The playing field must be level.

Superlinx will make delivering transit expansion more efficient.

The woeful shape of feeder lines to many GO Train stations, and the underfeeding of transit in the municipalities where growth is greatest, are examples of problems that the current regime just isn't solving.

These things might get sorted out better if there were one chain of command that banged the heads together instead of different fiefdoms focussing only on their own problems. However, there needs to be a very strong requirement for transparency and responsiveness to community input. If this isn't part of the deal, then it isn't worth doing. Transparency must be enforceable - ie don't trust a provincial government to deliver this.

Regional fare integration

There is merit in an overall fare approach, but nothing suggests that ML could create and administer that overall scheme - which requires huge IT platforms, and a hugely complex set of rules for all the permutations and combinations. Ontario failed with Presto - are we going to just go "double or nothing"? There has to be evidence of a scorched-earth change of regime at ML before they can be trusted with this. Firing a few token suits is just window dressing, and doesn't attack the need for a total culture change in revenue collection and distribution. The fare system design and the delivery systems have to be designed together - otherwise we will have a Presto 2.0 situation where we hand a complicated new system spec to a high priced IT vendor ..... deja vu all over again.

The current regime clearly won't get to fare integration as an exercise in consensus - funding and revenue is so mission-critical for each fiefdom, the game is tilted towards municipal operators fighting for their individual interests rather than looking for win-win. An independent third party needs to impose and enforce the model. There may be winners and losers. Some pretty tough love may be needed here. This does argue for a third party to have power.

My view

The case has been made for some form of change. The status quo isn't acceptable, and there is opportunity for improvement that the current regime just isn't capitalising on.

My conclusion - the GTA needs a "sherriff" - an agency that can impose solutions on dysfunctional and uncooperative municipal operators, and maybe realign "turf" away from rigid municipal boundaries. ML has never been given legal prescriptive power to settle these issues and they tend to cycle in the bureaucracy, or back and forth to local councils. An arbitration-style format where the parties make their case could be created.

This does not imply that the arbitrator is also the operator. Rather, it makes sense that over time, each local operator becomes more of a franchise which (for now) is owned by the local municipality - but which could be contracted away to an independent operator.

Creating one single operating agency that runs everything is probably no more efficient than having multiple smaller players.

My career was largely spent in a public service that constantly reinvented itself along the centralisation- decentralisation continuum (spending money and going through periods of paralysis during each transformation). I'm not sure any of it mattered. While decentralisation has its risks and down sides, at least their impacts are contained by their size. Monoliths never retain public sensitivity and confidence. The next-generation Metrolinx should not be the public agency that every GTA commuter loves to complain about.

So I would make the case that we need to retain independent local operators, with sufficient planning and marketing expertise to understand their local transit needs and ridership, and make local changes. These should be viewed as franchises rather than owned by municipalities. The local operations should evolve to contracted operations under an overall service coordinator, but the central coordinator does not become the full service planner.

And of course provincial politics have to be excluded from having influence. Solve that one before you add even one bus route to the ML empire. If that one can't be solved - there is no point undergoing the pain and expense of transition. Let the current silliness continue. It may be dysfunctional, but it's cheaper to hold onto than putting faith in the alternative..... let's not jump on unification as a silver bullet that is going to solve everything.

- Paul
(wordy, or what?)