Metrolinx & the Future of GTA Transit

[gweed123]

It looks like 2013 is shaping up to be a pretty substantial year for Metrolinx and for transit in the GTA. Several Liberal leadership candidates have brought up merging the TTC and Metrolinx, to varying degrees. The tide of public opinion is slowly but surely swinging towards a more centralized planning role in transit expansion.

Metrolinx is also slated to announce it's revenue generation plan, which will hopefully put some meat on the "next wave" projects that they announced late last year.

Personally, I don't think that Metrolinx is quite ready to take over the TTC just yet, but I think it should start heading in that direction. What I'd like to see is an uploading of several of the smaller transit agencies in the GTA, somewhere like Burlington or Oakville. Work out the kinks in the process there, and then upload all of the 905. Work out a few more kinks, and then tackle uploading the TTC.

What I'd like to see for Metrolinx funding is this:

1) A flat per citizen (or per taxpayer) rate from the various lower tier municipalities up to Metrolinx. Since the municipalities won't be responsible for delivering transit anymore, it will just be a built-in payment to Metrolinx. Hopefully for most areas it'll be cost-neutral for local taxpayers.

2) A 1% Regional Sales Tax.

3) A Vehicle Registration Tax.

4) A public option for auto insurance.

5) Funding from a National Transportation Strategy.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Good luck on that last one with Harper in government, or even federal liberals. Neither parties have ever shown much interest in infrastructure spending, though I think HSR is starting to become something on the back of people's minds, so we might see that popping up in federal platforms in the coming years.

On the other hand I pray that Andrea props up the provincial liberals up until the fall so that the transit tax can get through. If an election is called immediately, I fear that the cons will get in and wipe a decade of transit planning clean.

 

[DKsan]

I would prefer Metrolinx to take over the RT network of the entire region (TTC subways, suburban LRTs, DRT Pulse, VIVA, MiExpress, Zum, etc) and leave local routes (including the DT streetcar networks) to the municipalities.

I fear Metrolinx wouldn't know how to properly service cities with local transit. I mean, this is part of the reason people wouldn't want a Peel Regional Transit, for fear that with Mississauga having more population, would swallow service from Brampton.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I would prefer Metrolinx to take over the RT network of the entire region (TTC subways, suburban LRTs, DRT Pulse, VIVA, MiExpress, Zum, etc) and leave local routes (including the DT streetcar networks) to the municipalities.

I fear Metrolinx wouldn't know how to properly service cities with local transit. I mean, this is part of the reason people wouldn't want a Peel Regional Transit, for fear that with Mississauga having more population, would swallow service from Brampton.

No. Not under any circumstance should Metrolinx, or any other group of that matter, take control of the TTC's rapid transit routes while the surface routes remain in the hands of the TTC. One of the reasons the TTC is run so well is because one commission runs it and everything is 100% integrated. The moment the surface routes are taken away from the TTC that integration is lost and as time goes on, we will almost certainly see a degradation of service.

This is why Karen Stintz, the TTC and city councillors fought so hard to ensure that the ECLRT remained under control of the TTC. They recognized that the TTC's integration with different routes was it's greatest strength and they fought to protect it. The way I see it, Metrolinx should either take all of the TTC or none of it.

Furthermore, I don't entirely trust Metrolinx to manage Toronto's rapid transit. They've never had to operate anything the likes of Toronto's subway & rapid transit system. If Metrolinx were to upload Toronto's rapid transit, it must be on the condition that all of the TTC's operations staff have full control of the rapid transit system from within Metrolinx. That way we would have people with actual real life experience with Toronto's rapid transit system behind the wheel.

 

[wolfewood]

^This. As well, Metrolinx has great ideas but the majority of their experience with transit is still with GO. If we're going to do a staggered uploading of transit agencies to Metrolinx, it had better take a long time and I definitely think that the TTC should be brought into Metrolinx as intact as possible.

 

[gweed123]

No. Not under any circumstance should Metrolinx, or any other group of that matter, take control of the TTC's rapid transit routes while the surface routes remain in the hands of the TTC. One of the reasons the TTC is run so well is because one commission runs it and everything is 100% integrated. The moment the surface routes are taken away from the TTC that integration is lost and as time goes on, we will almost certainly see a degradation of service.

This is why Karen Stintz, the TTC and city councillors fought so hard to ensure that the ECLRT remained under control of the TTC. They recognized that the TTC's integration with different routes was it's greatest strength and they fought to protect it. The way I see it, Metrolinx should either take all of the TTC or none of it.

Furthermore, I don't entirely trust Metrolinx to manage Toronto's rapid transit. They've never had to operate anything the likes of Toronto's subway & rapid transit system. If Metrolinx were to upload Toronto's rapid transit, it must be on the condition that all of the TTC's operations staff have full control of the rapid transit system from within Metrolinx. That way we would have people with actual real life experience with Toronto's rapid transit system behind the wheel.

I agree. It needs to be an all or nothing deal, and personally I would prefer all of it. Part of what keeps the TTC so close to break-even is that the RT subsidizes the local routes. Take away the part of the system that actually makes money, and Toronto is left with a larger subsidization, while Metrolinx gets all the profits.

And the reason why I suggested that Metrolinx take a 'smaller steps' approach before tackling the TTC is to prevent exactly what you're describing. Metrolinx is still relatively new at running a transit system, and I'd like to see them work out the kinks on a piece of meat that is easier to chew (Burlington Transit, Oakville Transit, etc). Once they've proven that they can run that effectively, then move on to MiWay and YRT/VIVA. Then finally the TTC.

One of the things I hope Metrolinx can achieve in the 905 is the same type of synchronicity that the TTC has between it's subway system and local bus routes. Having all of the 905 transit run by Metrolinx will hopefully lead to that same kind of positive synergy. That way, not only will it boost ridership in the 905, it'll also prepare the planners at Metrolinx to see that same type of thing between Toronto's RT and local routes.

^This. As well, Metrolinx has great ideas but the majority of their experience with transit is still with GO. If we're going to do a staggered uploading of transit agencies to Metrolinx, it had better take a long time and I definitely think that the TTC should be brought into Metrolinx as intact as possible.

I wouldn't necessarily say 'a long time', but certainly over a period of about 5 years. Ideally, I'd like to see everything under 1 system by the time Eglinton opens. I think that's a pretty realistic goal.

As for the whole "intact" thing, what I'd like to see is 7 different divisions within Metrolinx: Rapid Transit, Hamilton, Halton, Peel, York, Toronto, and Durham. Those last 6 would be responsible for local route planning within that region.

All being under Metrolinx can lead to a unification of route numbering, signage, and colour schemes. For RT routes, a single letter prefix denoting the route type (ex: L = LRT, followed by a route number, so Eglinton would be L1). For local routes, a two letter prefix (HM, HR, PR, YR, TO, DR) followed by the local bus/streetcar number. I realize that this is a lot of detail, I just want to illustrate that consistency in navigation aids and routes is one of the benefits that a single united transit system can have. For what it's worth, NYC uses a similar system for it's local bus routes, with a single letter in front of the route name to identify which borough that route runs in.

 

[ssiguy2]

How can Toronto complain to the feds about about a lack of infrastructure money when they gave the city $300 million 3 years ago for rapid transit and Toronto still hasn't gotten around to spending any of it?. Also how can the bitch at Harper about not providing any money for TC and stress this is vital for the vitality of the city but at the same time Toronto itself doesn't think it is vital enough for themselves to have to pay a nickel towards it?

 

[TheTigerMaster]

How can Toronto complain to the feds about about a lack of infrastructure money when they gave the city $300 million 3 years ago for rapid transit and Toronto still hasn't gotten around to spending any of it?. Also how can the bitch at Harper about not providing any money for TC and stress this is vital for the vitality of the city but at the same time Toronto itself doesn't think it is vital enough for themselves to have to pay a nickel towards it?

Canada is the only G8 country that dosen't have a national public transit strategy if my memory serves me correctly. Criticism directed to the Ottawa is 100% deserved. They haven't been paying their fare share for public transit in Canada.

And what exactly does this have to do with this thread?

 

[gweed123]

Canada is the only G8 country that dosen't have a national public transit strategy if my memory serves me correctly. Criticism directed to the Ottawa is 100% deserved. They haven't been paying their fare share for public transit in Canada.

And what exactly does this have to do with this thread?

Exactly. Ideally from a NTS I'd like to see a funding scheme for HSR from Quebec City to Windsor, Montreal to Boston/NYC, Calgary to Edmonton, and Vancouver to Seattle.

I'd also like to see a permanent funding formula set up so that every municipality (or regional transportation body, ex: Metrolinx, Translink) in Canada gets a fixed amount of federal dollars per year for either capital projects or operating expenses. I'd think something like $100/citizen per year would be appropriate ($3.2 billion per year). That would mean roughly $250 million per year for the City of Toronto, or $750 million for the GTHA.

If that were the case, a combination of NTS funding and transfer payments from the local municipalities would likely be the only two funding sources needed for Metrolinx to cover operating expenses (aside from fares obviously). That would open up all of the alternative revenue options that Metrolinx can implement to go solely to capital projects. That way, what people see as the "extra taxes" can at least be attached to tangible results, like new transit lines.

 

[innsertnamehere]

I think toronto-NYC would be not only cheaper, but hit many more population points. (NYC-Albany-Syracuse-Rochester-Buffalo-St. Catherine's-Hamilton-Toronto)

 

[gweed123]

I think toronto-NYC would be not only cheaper, but hit many more population points. (NYC-Albany-Syracuse-Rochester-Buffalo-St. Catherine's-Hamilton-Toronto)

True, I forgot that one. Although realistically they can both be built, but it would depend on the US. It's roughly the same distance between the mainline in Mtl and the QC-NY border, and the mainline in Hamilton and the ON-NY border, so it wouldn't make much of a difference in terms of funding which option the US chose. It's only if they chose both that the funding would change significantly.

 

[rbt]

I'd also like to see a permanent funding formula set up so that every municipality (or regional transportation body, ex: Metrolinx, Translink) in Canada gets a fixed amount of federal dollars per year for either capital projects or operating expenses. I'd think something like $100/citizen per year would be appropriate ($3.2 billion per year).

Would VIA, Northumberland, etc. funding come out of that pot? How about the transcanada highway or smaller airports which still receive a federal subsidy? You can also assume current contributions (gas tax) would be eliminated.

Toss in the necessity for specific project approvals and value audits (you really can't give small municipalities money without oversight*) and I think you will want a larger dollar value than $3.2B/year across the entire country.

I know that you meant $3.2B in new money in addition to everything else but that's rarely how these things actually get implemented.

* If 1 in 100 spent it unwisely it would kill the current federal party in power.

 

[gweed123]

Would VIA, Northumberland, etc. funding come out of that pot? How about the transcanada highway or smaller airports which still receive a federal subsidy? You can also assume current contributions (gas tax) would be eliminated.

Toss in the necessity for specific project approvals and value audits (you really can't give small municipalities money without oversight*) and I think you will want a larger dollar value than $3.2B/year across the entire country.

I know that you meant $3.2B in new money in addition to everything else but that's rarely how these things actually get implemented.

* If 1 in 100 spent it unwisely it would kill the current federal party in power.

VIA and Northumberland would come from a separate funding agreement. The $3.2 billion would be for local transit. Projects like airport management/expansion, border crossings, sea ports, etc, would come from a different pot, although could also be included in the NTS. I just think that when it comes to local/regional transit, the flat amount per person is the way to go, to avoid favouritism.

I understand the possible sentiment that because it's federal dollars it could be traced back to them, but by and large I don't think that will happen. In Ottawa there was a project that was part of the Economic Action Plan (federal spending), a new Carp River bridge as part of the widening of Hazeldean Rd. There were some issues with the bridge. The blame was shared between the City and the contractor. The Feds never really became part of the conversation when it came to blame.

Likewise, Toronto has dicked around with Sheppard East for almost 3 years now. Plenty of blame to the thrown around at both the local and provincial levels. Talks about placing any blame at the doorstep of the federal government has never been had, despite the fact that there is $300 million in federal funds involved in that project.

I think the biggest scandals at the federal level come from projects doubling or tripling their original budget. If the PM work and the implementation is being done at the local level, and the Feds simply say "this is what you're getting, and that's all you're getting", I think they should be pretty well insulated if anything goes wrong with that project. The Feds are just the bankrollers, they would have nothing to do with the implementation, which is where the problems happen.

And I just picked $100/person because it's realistic given the current economic climate. Naturally the number can be changed, $200/person, $500/person, what-have-you. I just used that for illustration purposes.

 

[ssiguy2]

First, what does HSR have to do with Metrolinx?

Second, I was responding to the opening thread that stated, and quite correctly, that Canada needs a NATIONAL Transportation Strategy. Of course national means support from Ottawa and hence my comments about how Ottawa could justifiably state Toronto hasn't yet used the money it's already been given so why the hell should they get anymore.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

This discussion should be continued on a national transit strategy thread.