Time for one GTA transit authority?

[gweed123]

The TTC are still issuing reports showing potential future extensions of the Sheppard East LRT to Durham Region.

But does that really mean anything when Metrolinx is saying no? The TTC can publish that all they want, but if Metrolinx continually ignores the option, does it really matter what the TTC says?

Look at the RTP, Metrolinx completely planned around the SELRT. There isn't one Metrolinx line that intersects the SELRT (aside from the SLRT, but that's a TC line). Why? Because Metrolinx has recognized that it's a dumb idea, and doesn't want to hinder the success of any of its lines by having them rely on a line that is doomed to be a money-wasting LRT to nowhere. Instead, they've bypassed it completely and used STC as the hub of all of their connections with the eastern GTA, as it should be.

 

[Lone Primate]

Is Effective Decision-Making Possible at the Regional Scale?

It also means that expansions of the transit system off into the low-density suburbs often take priority over improvements in the dense urban areas. At the regional level, building new lines in places where people don’t currently have access to acceptable transit is more politically palatable than spending on areas that already have good transportation, even if the latter community is more transit-reliant and more in need of expensive investments. Thus the MTC is not necessarily even working for the “needs†of the greater region, however defined.

I find it interesting that left unquoted was their corollary that:

"The MTC, in other words, controls most of the money at the regional level but local governments have the ability to prevent the construction of projects they don’t like. It’s not an ideal distribution of powers."

So it's not always that, gosh, those wicked suburbanites want it all for themselves. Sometimes it's the selfish NIMBYism to be found in places that already have what they need and become dogs in the manger.

If the folks in the 'burbs don't get public transit, then realistically, one of two things happens: either they keep driving, or the jobs eventually pull up stakes and move to where the professionals prefer to live. Condo living is part of the solution but there limits to how many flush toilets you can have in any given acre; people simply can't be stacked forever atop each other like lumber.

 

[Lone Primate]

Yay Buses! Buses are cool, buses are fun, buses are for everyone. Mothball the Sheppard Line

Bloor, Yonge, and University first.

 

[nfitz]

But does that really mean anything when Metrolinx is saying no?

With both Toronto and Durham leaving it as a future option ... it merely means it's a future option.

The whole BRT to Durham idea down Ellesmere just seems bizarre to me; I don't think it's the answer. But we should discuss that in a different thread.

 

[CDL.TO]

Twyn Rivers LRT. How... rustic.

 

[M II A II R II K]

When Planning Is Inadequately Comprehensive


Oct 7th, 2010

By Yonah Freemark

Read More: http://americancity.org/columns/entry/2660/

Here’s an obvious point that bears repeating: In this world, we have a limited supply of resources, and we must as a society choose what we want to prioritize. That is why we have planning. By allowing us to evaluate alternatives and pick our preferred option, planning encourages debate and then compromise about the future use of those limited funds. In the United States that planning authority—which ultimately results in decision-making—is completely decentralized. This means that not only do the states and the federal government plan, but so do municipalities, regional groups, even sometimes neighborhood associations. In some ways, this is a positive reflection of the degree to which Americans cherish their democracy. On the other hand, it diminishes the ability of governments to make coherent and long-lasting decisions about how to invest.

When it comes to transportation, the fragmentation of planning can be incredibly problematic, since transportation works best when it is thought of and implemented as an integrated network. But if one level of government proposes something different than does another level of government, and each goes about advancing its plan independently, it’s easy to see how easily the transportation network could come undone. Especially when there is only a limited supply of money.

Take Chicago: There, Mayor Richard Daley is promoting the idea of a high-speed link between the airport and downtown, claiming that it would “rebuild” the city’s economy. Meanwhile, the city-run Chicago Transit Authority is pushing an extension of its Red Line rapid transit corridor. No one seems to be clear about whether it’s more important to provide better public transportation to an under-served neighborhood or whether to attract business by connecting to the airport.

Or Minnesota: Some of that state’s residents want $700 million to build a rail line between Minneapolis and Duluth, even as others think the priority is a better connection to Wisconsin, and the state comes down somewhere in the middle, with a “vision” but few specifics. Meanwhile, the federal government has not been clear about what its own ambitions are for the national rail network.

In the Bay Area, regional interests are balkanized to a degree that the manner in which projects move forward is haphazard and illogical. The region’s growth goals cannot be met because of confusion about whether new projects should be built in the interest of the wider region or individual municipalities.

In each of these places, though all projects could theoretically be funded, they will inevitably compete for local, state, and federal funds. But without an independent arbiter making priorities in the planning process, millions of dollars will be wasted on engineering studies and sometimes even preliminary construction. This leads to wasted time as there are delays in choosing which project to move forward with. That is, until the bullet hits the fan—when Washington, the ultimate funder of transportation projects, makes its choice.




Chicago Brown and Red Line Trains Credit: Flickr user Christopher & Amy Cate Esposito

 

[Northern Light]

On the above, planning here, like in the U.S. is fairly short-term in its thinking.

Even 'The Official Plan' for Toronto is only a 25-year planning document.

While we would could probably all agree that there should be a review after 25 years, that is far too short-term a plan.

Its disposable planning. We need to think it terms of 100-year plans, reviewable every 25 years.

In Europe I've come across 500-year plans.

That's foresight.

Thinking ahead about the life-cycle costs of buildings and community, not only its impact on current finance or the environment, but about its impact on those same things in the lives of one's children, grandchildren and their grandchildren.

Planning can't be irrevocable, in so far as things do change; but it should be 'certain' in that it should be easily malleable to whims of one person or one generation.

******

To reduce this to the specific, for this thread, the first thing we need is to straighten out land-use planning as this would change how transit is planned by every authority, even if they all remain separate.

The greenbelt and "Places to Grow" were a good start; but not enough. They leave too much to chance; and don't co-ordinate closely enough w/ "The Big Move".

Once that is straightened out, I do think there is good sense to some additional amalgamation of transit authorities; But not down to one for the whole GTA.

Merge, Oakville/Burlington/Milton Transit to become Halton Transit; Merge, St, Kitts, Niagara Falls and Welland to become Niagara Region Transit; and merge Mi-Way and Brampton to become Peel Region Transit. That would allow much better co-ordination.

 

[T.O.Fanatic]

merge Mi-Way and Brampton to become Peel Region Transit

I heard that Brampton wanted to become a single tier municipality, Mayor Fennell was arguing that Peel region is anachronistic.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

I don't think rider care much what colour the bus is that's picking them up as long as there is a bus coming to pick them up. We are starting to see this realization with inter-border transit routes popping up more and more (Zum/VIVA, Mi-way).

I believe that there should be some autonomy among transit agencies for local route planning, service levels, etc something that a large umbrella organization might not be able to handle quickly enough. However when it comes to regional planning (Transit nodes, long distance commuting) and fare collection I think that a single agency can serve well here. Someone mentioned in the Presto thread how a GTA wide fare card might (read should) work where riders swiper their card along the way and business rules are applied at the back end to calculate what the fare should be.

 

[Justin10000]

I heard that Brampton wanted to become a single tier municipality, Mayor Fennell was arguing that Peel region is anachronistic.

I would never want a single regional transit authority in Peel. Brampton is steadily improving, while Miway seems to be going backwards. Keep the the systems seperate, so Brampton Transit can continue to improve.

 

[doady]

I would never want a single regional transit authority in Peel. Brampton is steadily improving, while Miway seems to be going backwards. Keep the the systems seperate, so Brampton Transit can continue to improve.

Uh... how is MT going backwards? MT is still 3 times larger than BT, and many people in Brampton use MT, so I don't see how Brampton could lose...

 

[cacruden]

On the above, planning here, like in the U.S. is fairly short-term in its thinking.

Even 'The Official Plan' for Toronto is only a 25-year planning document.

While we would could probably all agree that there should be a review after 25 years, that is far too short-term a plan.

Its disposable planning. We need to think it terms of 100-year plans, reviewable every 25 years.

In Europe I've come across 500-year plans.

That's foresight.

That is stupid people looking at making money on something that would never be used. Timeline deviation is exponential, 25 years is fine. 25 years ahead -- updated every 4 or 5 years, because the only thing that is constant is change.

 

[gweed123]

On the above, planning here, like in the U.S. is fairly short-term in its thinking.

Even 'The Official Plan' for Toronto is only a 25-year planning document.

While we would could probably all agree that there should be a review after 25 years, that is far too short-term a plan.

Its disposable planning. We need to think it terms of 100-year plans, reviewable every 25 years.

In Europe I've come across 500-year plans.

That's foresight.

Thinking ahead about the life-cycle costs of buildings and community, not only its impact on current finance or the environment, but about its impact on those same things in the lives of one's children, grandchildren and their grandchildren.

But what good is it planning for the future when there are too many discontinuities between now and then. 100 years ago we barely even had the car, and we had just flown for the first time. Could anyone then have accurately predicted what sort of impact those two technologies would have had? Planning for anything longer than a 25 year horizon (50 at the very maximum) may as well be planning for the Jetsons. 20 years ago the internet did not exist. It has since changed the way our society interacts and gathers/displays information.

Just look at the plans and concepts that were drawn up in the 1950s about the world of the 21st century. That should give you a pretty good indication about how accurate (and worthwhile) long-term planning like that is. It's good for a good laugh about how off they were, but that's about it.

 

[kEiThZ]

Twyn Rivers LRT. How... rustic.

Hahaha. That actually made me LOL.

Ellesmere has always made more sense than Sheppard in my books. A quick drive down both would make that obvious to anybody. The SELRT is a political exercise in setting modal preferences for decades.

 

[M II A II R II K]

Bringing Transit Decision-Making Back into the Political Sphere


Oct 20th, 2010

By Yonah Freemark

Read More: http://americancity.org/columns/entry/2688/

It was exactly the conversation I begged for seven months ago: A real dialogue between candidates for political office on the issue of transportation improvements. Well, almost. Instead of discussing how best to expand the transit network through the construction of new lines or the promotion of cheaper fares, the New York gubernatorial debate was more like a free-for-all: Who could most effectively demonstrate his or her hatred for the local transit agency, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA)?

- In general, the candidates were under-informed, and it showed: They repeated the baseless claim that the MTA has “two books” and they suggested that the agency’s financial problems could be solved were it simply to be under better management.

- One line of argument made by some candidates, however, counter-intuitively had a lot more logic: Abolishing the MTA altogether. It’s a wild suggestion at first glance. Would that mean ending transit operations? Would that mean selling off the public’s infrastructure assets? Of course not. But it would allow the State of New York—and many others like it across the country—the chance to reconsider the manner in which their transit systems are governed.

- At the heart of the problem is the fact that the MTA, like so many similar public agencies, is an authority—a governmental organization that operates slightly outside of the direct control of elected officials. Though members of the agency’s board are nominated by the governor and its financing is attributed by the state government, the board can act independently. In some ways, this shields politicians from blame; when there is a fiscal crisis at the transit agency, they can claim that it is the “fault” of the MTA, not the state legislature.

- Thus “eliminating” the MTA could actually mean bringing it under the direct control of the same state officials who are responsible for paying for its operations. If trains aren’t running on time or there is fewer funding for buses, there is someone to blame: The politician who should be making sure this doesn’t happen, not the MTA. If you’re in favor of transit, it’s hard to miss the appeal of this argument, since it could motivate significant increases in spending on transit.

- Of course, moving the MTA into the political sphere would not be a panacea. An anti-transit state body or governor, lacking enough political will from the public, could shut down expansion programs or eliminate service.

- Nevertheless, the option is worth considering; increasing the ability of citizens to exercise power over the own government through the processes of elected representation—currently not occurring in the MTA—is a worthwhile cause.