Time for one GTA transit authority?

[W. K. Lis]

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.

It's like a new home owner telling their builder that they want a 3,000 sq. ft. bungalow on a 25 x 100 lot. Or trying to get a queen sized bed in a 10 x 8 bedroom. Or demanding a 6L/100km full size SUV. They know what they want, even if it is impossible.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

I think bringing something like transit agencies too close to the political sphere (municipal, provincial or federal) puts them in danger of falling victem to the 4 year cycles of politics. No politician wants to start a project (especially an expensive one) that is going to take multiple terms of office to complete. We've expericenced this in Toronto as all long term improvements have been swept aside by things that get politicians their ribbon cutting ceremonies before the end of their terms.

TTC ran just fine (and was a model agency) in the 60's/70's when it was given operational funding and had the autonomy to make plans that best served the agency (and hopefully by extension the city and it's residents) for the long term. Obviously a transit agency cannot operate in a bubble and needs some interaction with the city, the public, and the city planning department but it must have the freedom to make decisions based on transit issues and not political ones.

 

[Dan416]

Definitely agree. We need long-term planning. e.g. incremental subway expansion would be lovely

 

[W. K. Lis]

With a mayor who has a phobia against streetcars and light rail, and who says he avoids public transit, now heading the City of Toronto, I think that it is time definitely for one GTA transit authority. We need to get public transit authority into the hands of people who will make decisions based on sound reasoning and not political ideals.

 

[CodeMonkey]

It's obvious that Metrolinx true objective is to replace all of GTA transit services into one. The question is what is taking them so long? Are they worried there may be a political backlash?

 

[nfitz]

It would seem to be the prime opportunity for Metrolinx to take control of TTC. Ford might not even put up much of a fight.

The question is does Metrolinx even want more than just the subway system and Transit City.

 

[CodeMonkey]

It would seem to be the prime opportunity for Metrolinx to take control of TTC. Ford might not even put up much of a fight.

The question is does Metrolinx even want more than just the subway system and Transit City.

Your right in that the Ford wouldn't give a fight if Metrolinx ask or made a offer for the TTC. But the union and maybe some city councillors would fight it. GO maybe own by the province and Metolinx, but the trains are operated by Bombardier, that might put fear into the current union, seeing they could be outsourced if Metrolinx asks Bombardier to operate the TTC.

 

[drum118]

It's obvious that Metrolinx true objective is to replace all of GTA transit services into one. The question is what is taking them so long? Are they worried there may be a political backlash?

From day one when we held meetings with http://metronauts.ca/ that included members of the now Metrolinx, it was clear that Metrolinx was moving toward the London Model of Transit with all transit systems under them. They were also looking at moving to the private sectors in operating various lines of systems along the line of VIVA and YRT.

There was concern then how to deal with TTC union 113 and that still remains the same today.

It is possible based on what happens by Feb once we know where Ford is going to go on transit and an election year, Premier Dalton McGuinty may (should) pull the plug on Toronto and build the RTP with a few tweaks.



I am on record calling for this the last 2 years both at TTC meetings and at government level.

 

[Paleo]

From day one when we held meetings with http://metronauts.ca/ that included members of the now Metrolinx, it was clear that Metrolinx was moving toward the London Model of Transit with all transit systems under them. They were also looking at moving to the private sectors in operating various lines of systems along the line of VIVA and YRT.

There was concern then how to deal with TTC union 113 and that still remains the same today.

It is possible based on what happens by Feb once we know where Ford is going to go on transit and an election year, Premier Dalton McGuinty may (should) pull the plug on Toronto and build the RTP with a few tweaks.

I am on record calling for this the last 2 years both at TTC meetings and at government level.

What would the problem be? VIVA may be contracted out but they're ATU all the same are they not?

 

[RedRocket191]

What would the problem be? VIVA may be contracted out but they're ATU all the same are they not?

Almost every single transit agency is unionized in one way or another, but ATU 113 is much more powerful due to their sheer size and scope, and how much transit users care about the back-end of the system.

The "problem" is political power.

 

[drum118]

What would the problem be? VIVA may be contracted out but they're ATU all the same are they not?

ATU contract is up early 2011 with TTC.

Yes, ATU is now part of YRT, but that for a faction what TTC has. If you start to break ATU apart now, where are you going to find enough staff to fill ATU positions right off the bat? A few 10's is one thing, but 1,000's, that another story.

Bombardier took some time trying to find staff to fill CN position and is still looking for more today. Everytime I get a train to Burlington, it is staff with training staff after peak time.

 

[Palma]

ATU contract is up early 2011 with TTC.

Yes, ATU is now part of YRT, but that for a faction what TTC has. If you start to break ATU apart now, where are you going to find enough staff to fill ATU positions right off the bat? A few 10's is one thing, but 1,000's, that another story.

Bombardier took some time trying to find staff to fill CN position and is still looking for more today. Everytime I get a train to Burlington, it is staff with training staff after peak time.

I would rather be using transit in the City of Toronto knowing the drivers are unionized and well paid then drivers who are not well paid beauase the system has become privatized

 

[RedRocket191]

I would rather be using transit in the City of Toronto knowing the drivers are unionized and well paid then drivers who are not well paid beauase the system has become privatized

Though it should be said that the company being owned by the public or being owned by the private sector doesn't really have much to do with them being organized or not.

 

[GTS]

To go back to the start of this thread I have seen the amount of riders that come onto the TTC from York Region at Finch Station and I think yes the TTC needs a northward expansion as well as a shared fare structure. But I also worry about such an amalgamation as well. I live in Scarborough now and use Victoria Park Station mostly and Warden and Kennedy Stations a little less. I greatly appreciate the funding and investment the TTC secured to modernize VP Station and I hope Warden Station is getting similare treatment soon (Kennedy willl get treatment with the Eglinton Crosstown LRT funds AND the Scarborough RT modernization funds-so I am not worried about that station so much-it will be improved thankfully). What I worry about is if the transit system gets too big the funds for much needed improvements like what the Station Modernization Program brings will be lost because the new large TTC will be busy expanding the system into York Region or Peel Region instead of taking care of the existing system- which needs a lot of work in other areas besides the Station Modernization Program.

 

[gweed123]

Your right in that the Ford wouldn't give a fight if Metrolinx ask or made a offer for the TTC. But the union and maybe some city councillors would fight it. GO maybe own by the province and Metolinx, but the trains are operated by Bombardier, that might put fear into the current union, seeing they could be outsourced if Metrolinx asks Bombardier to operate the TTC.

Part of me doesn't really see a problem with Bombardier operating the TTC. As long as Metrolinx is the one determining route times and locations, I see no problem letting a private company operate the system. It would remove many of the inefficiencies that currently exist in the TTC system. It would probably actually save taxpayers a pretty penny as well.

The biggest issue with the private sector in transit is when they get to determine route schedules, etc. When that's the case, they run the system more like a business, as opposed to a public service. But if all they're doing is day-to-day operations, with the transit schedules being determined by an accountable agency, I see no problem with it.