Updated September 30, 2011 at 5:40pm: Urban Toronto’s interview with Conservative transportation critic Frank Klees has now been posted.
Updated September 29, 2011 at 2:35pm: Urban Toronto’s interview with NDP transportation critic Cheri DiNovo has now been posted.
Updated September 28, 2011 at 12:00nn: Urban Toronto will be posting interviews with the three parties about their transportation platforms. The interview with Liberal Kathleen Wynne is now online. I will link to the others as they appear.
The NDP has announced that they would commit to electrifying the Air Rail Link from opening day rather than implementing it as a diesel operation and converting later. This is an ambitious plan, but it has the advantage of forcing GO Transit’s hand. We hear a lot from Metrolinx about “if” they will electrify, but “when” is a target somewhere in the mists of the future.
Updated September 20, 2011 at 10:45pm: The calculation of the effect of the NDP proposal has been revised to take into account additional revenue from new transit riding, presuming that this actually materializes in the face of constraints on service.
The original post from September 11 follows below.
Election time in Ontario brings out a fresh batch of promises from political parties, promises they hope will lure our support on voting day, promises that will inevitably be broken no matter who is elected.
Transportation is not at the top of anyone’s priority list in an era of bad economies. The big ticket items (both for votes and for dollars) are health care, education and jobs. Transit gets the leftovers if it is mentioned at all. For many ridings, transit isn’t even an issue, if transit has any presence.
What would the three major parties bring us after October 6?
The Conservatives
After the Mike Harris government walked away from support for municipalities and especially for public transit, it’s no surprise that any claim for better transit support in this quarter raises suspicion if not outright ridicule. At the municipal level, we have the Ford brothers doing everything in their power to hobble the transit system with funding cuts and little interest beyond a pet subway they cannot afford and a monorail to a Ferris wheel. If that’s what passes for transit policy and vision in Ontario’s capital city, we can’t hope for much in the Tory corner.
The Conservative platform is in their “changebook“, a document available for download after one enters contact info. Don’t worry. Their site accepts anything as input, and you can retrieve the pdf without disclosing your true identity.
Transit is bundled with transportation in the platform, and traffic congestion gets first mention.
Traffic in the Greater Toronto Area has become the worst in North America. Not Ontario, not Canada – North America. We’re spending too much time in traffic and not at home with our families.
Across the province, there are roadways that just don’t work anymore: In Ottawa, there is a jam every day because no one has fixed the split where Highway 417 and Ottawa Road 174 converge. In Northern Ontario, two-lane Highways 11 and 17 grind to a halt whenever there is an accident. No matter where you are, traffic congestion costs our economy, hits our wallets because of rising gasoline costs, and puts a strain on family life.
We need change to tackle traffic congestion that only seems to get worse and worse.
A Tim Hudak government will test all proposed road and transit projects with one question: will they move more people or goods, more quickly, while being a good deal for the people who are paying for them?
We will invest more than $35 billion to pay for new infrastructure – much of it in transit and transportation – over our first three years in office and use innovative technologies to help reduce congestion.
$35b sounds like a lot of money, and investing it in three years is a real challenge. It’s simply not possible to spend at that rate especially if the projects to be funded have not yet had detailed planning and engineering. Like many governments, “investment” may well mean “we will stick it in a trust fund” or “we will make a commitment for future spending”.
The platform is notable for its concentration on road congestion and, by implication, much more spending across the province in areas where this may generate support.
The Tories are big on local decision-making, and they want to hand responsibilities for spending decision to the local level. Where this leaves a regional agency like Metrolinx (and the regional services it provides) is anyone’s guess. The gas tax funding will remain, but its scope would be expanded so that cities and towns could spend on anything that moves people or goods.
Communities too small to have bus or subway systems do not get a share of the gas tax revenue, even though families in those communities pay the gas tax. We will bring change to give all communities a share of the gas tax to meet their local infrastructure needs. We will increase the dedicated revenue from the provincial gas tax to transit, roads, and other infrastructure projects. No municipality will receive less funding; every municipality can count on receiving some level of investment. This will be a permanent commitment.
We will respect the unique priorities of individual cities and towns, and give them the ability to choose between roads, bridges, and transit.
This may send a few thousands off to the hundreds of smaller municipalities that have no transit system, but it won’t do anything for the big city systems. There’s no more money for operating or capital subsidies, no relief for the Harris downloading of transit costs from Queen’s Park. Indeed, given that Ontario now provides support for road building as well as for transit, one might wonder if there is any new money in this promise at all, or if transit and roads are simply lumped together to avoid the need for any provincial policy favouring one of the other.
On one hand, the Conservatives would apply a test that any project be a good use of funds, that it delivers on the improvement of transportation, but on the other hand, decision making should rest with local governments. Control over many decisions is easy to apply when you’re paying for them — if Queen’s Park doesn’t want to build a brand new subway line, then a city is unlikely to fund the project on its own.
There’s little difference here from past governments, and the real question lies in the transit/road split for capital funding, and in the criteria that would apply to determining what projects are worthwhile.
The New Democrats
The NDP’s policy paper is available online, although you may have trouble getting it downloaded from their overworked server (I finally got the whole thing on my sixth try in the middle of the night).
The heart of their transit policy lies in funding for operating subsidies restoring them to the 50% level of the Davis era. In brief, the NDP proposes to “freeze transit fares and expand transit options”.
For thousands of people who can’t afford to drive, and thousands more who are hoping to get out of their cars, public transit is expensive and time-consuming.
Around the world other national and state governments work with municipalities to make public transit affordable and reliable but in Ontario the commitment has been minimal and inconsistent.
We will share the cost of operating transit equally with municipalities. In exchange for this new commitment, we will tell municipalities to freeze transit fares at current levels for four years.
We will also invest in new transit projects and upgrades for public transit systems.
Freezing transit fares sounds wonderful, a way to cap the cost of transit for riders, but as I have discussed many times before, this is a double-edged sword if it is not matched by transit service. Indeed, the NDP’s plan will contribute little to service improvement and could actually harm the growth of transit, especially in Toronto where the TTC is such a large system.
Fare revenue on the TTC brings in about $1b annually on a budget of about $1.5b. That budget will grow by about 6% annually (unless artificially constrained by service cutbacks) through a combination of inflation, wage increases and system growth. That’s $90m every year in new costs without allowance for compounding, nor for one time jumps in costs through opening of major new facilities like rapid transit lines like the Spadina extension.
In four years, the TTC’s costs will be $360m greater than they are today, and if all of this goes to the subsidy account, that will bring Toronto to a subsidy level above $800m. The Provincial share would be more than the entire amount set aside by the NDP for this program in their budget estimates ($375m by FY 2015-6).
Updated September 20: The figures above do not allow for any additional revenue from growth in riding. If the TTC can sustain 3% annual growth in the face of limited new service, then this would contribute about 12% on top of the roughly $960m in fare revenue for 2012, or about $115m by 2016, and reduce the need for subsidy by a corresponding amount. However, I doubt that ridership will continue to grow in the face of service cuts although the effect may take a year or so to show up.
If Toronto were forced to freeze fares, and to limit its subsidy to match what the NDP might provide, transit services would have to be cut back because there wouldn’t be enough money to pay for what we have, let alone for expansion.
As for the capital side of the budget, there is talk of investment in “new projects and upgrades”, but there are no specifics nor is there any dollar figure included in the cost estimates.
In the context of a “Buy Ontario” program, the NDP platform states:
Every year our government spends billions of dollars of our money on everything from transit cars to computers to meat and vegetables. It only makes sense to spend as much of that money as possible here in Ontario.
Yet time and time again, government refuses to do so. Contracts for transit cars are rewarded to companies in Germany when they could be built in Thunder Bay. Corn is imported for use in our ethanol plants while local farmers struggle to find a market.
Let’s just ignore that “reward” should be “award” and hope that the NDP gets better proofreaders for the next election.
As for “contracts” going to Germany, the proposed order to Siemens for Ottawa was cancelled when the original LRT project was cancelled. Siemens would like to bid on the new LRT scheme, but that project let alone its funders have not awarded any money for vehicle purchases.
Meanwhile, the possible LRT projects in Kitchener-Waterloo and Hamilton may well pick up left over cars in the Bombardier contract with Metrolinx, assuming these projects ever get beyond planning. Toronto’s Eglinton project will definitely have Bombardier equipment, and the legacy streetcar network will get its cars from Thunder Bay if their funding is not cut from the TTC’s budget by a streetcar-hating mayor.
As for ethanol, I won’t get into that scam by the energy/agribusiness industries beyond noting that the TTC, the old ever-so-green TTC of Miller and Giambrone, voted to drop biofuels because they cost too much and interfered with engine performance.
I live in an NDP riding, but their transit policy tries my patience, putting things mildly.
The Liberals
Remember MoveOntario2020, the grand scheme to build transit all over the GTA, reduce congestion and set us on the road to a glorious transit future? That was the heart of the transit policy for the last election, and that plan is rather frayed around the edges.
Metrolinx was given the task of making sense of many local plans for transit, and The Big Move was the result. The original version of that plan was too expensive, and it was cut back substantially even before publication, but the numbers are still very Big, $50b worth over 25 years. It didn’t take long for Metrolinx to see that this was nowhere near enough money both because of lowballed cost estimates and the omission of operating expenses both for the regional lines and the local services that would have to feed the network.
Metrolinx’ Investment Strategy may actually see the light of day once the election is over, depending on who is in power, but it’s not going to be cheap. The shopping list of potential revenue sources is well known, with gas and sales taxes being the two biggies. Even small-c conservative organizations like the Board of Trade recognize the need for more investment in transit, but that’s a hard sell in an environment where vats of “gravy” are presumed to fill government offices everywhere. Mayor Ford may be doing us all a favour by demonstrating just how empty those fictional gravy boats are, but true believers and the right-wing media will never give up in their anti-taxation tirades.
The Liberal platform adds little to what is already on the books.
Public transit helps move people and goods faster; but it also keeps our air clean for our children and seniors. We’ll continue with the largest transit investments in Canadian history in municipalities across the province.
After years of neglect by previous governments, we turned public transit around. Since 2003, we’ve invested more than $10.8 billion in public transit in Ontario, the largest investment in a generation.
We transferred two cents of the provincial gas tax to Ontario municipalities, large and small, for transit.
Investments such as those in GO Transit, the expansion of the Toronto-York Spadina Subway, our commitment to light rail transit in Waterloo and Ottawa, the Toronto Eglinton-Scarborough Crosstown LRT and the GTA Air Rail Link linking Pearson Airport and Union Station all demonstrate our commitment to keep our people and our economy moving.
In the next phase of the Ontario Liberal Plan, we’ll expand service by delivering full-day, two-way GO train service on all corridors – that’s the equivalent of 71 million fewer car trips annually.
While 94% of all GO trains arrive on time, we are committed to doing better. We’ll provide a moneyback guarantee to customers who experience a 15-minute arrival delay.
This means more trains, running on time, getting you where you need to go.
Yes, the Liberals did restore some funding, but much of this concentrated on capital projects. Operating subsidies are bundled into the gas tax sharing program, and the amount coming to the TTC is a fraction of what it actually needs. Most ongoing capital programs are winding down with nothing to replace them, and the actual level of transit funding — when marquee projects are omitted — is dropping. The Provincial operating subsidy to the TTC in 2011 was lower than two decades ago.
What funding is in the pipeline has been distorted to suit political circumstances with all of the Transit City money pouring into the Eglinton-Crosstown project. Hopes for new LRT lines to Rexdale and Malvern have evaporated with a policy whose entire focus is placating Mayor Ford’s dislike for streetcars. Indeed, the lack of strong support by Queen’s Park may doom even the legacy system whose costs lie almost entirely on the City’s budget.
The Liberal budget paper shows only two line items for transit. The cost of all-day GO service is “zero” because this is part of an existing plan requiring no “new money”. That’s a bit of a fiction because every year, GO/Metrolinx must go cap-in-hand for their budget allocation, and there is no guarantee that planned spending in 2011 projections will actually materialize when it is needed. Moreover, GO’s much-touted high farebox cost recovery will not survive a move to all-day two-way service with considerable added cost that will not be offset by ridership.
The other line in the budget paper shows a cost of $8m annually for the 15 minute on time guarantee. The figure drops to $6m in the out years presumably because GO will learn how to run more of its trains on time, or will continue to adjust schedules to match what they actually can achieve.
That’s the entirety of new money in the Liberal plan for transit, and there isn’t a word about the Metrolinx Investment Strategy.
Conclusion
None of the major party transit platforms inspires me to songs of joy, dances in the (uncongested) streets or hope that we will see better days for transit in coming years. We will spend billions on dubious projects while day-to-day service declines with the only difference between parties being the speed of descent.
Steve Munro 
It’s amusing to note that the Conservatives are working so hard to make sure that rural communities with no transit infrastructure get their fair share of gas tax funding.
Yet they completely ignore that they changed the education property tax system so that Toronto (or any city with high real estate prices) contributes far more education property tax to the province per capita than they receive in funding for the school boards; however the small rural school boards collect far more money from the province than is collected locally.
It looks like the long-standing policy of raping Toronto to fund the rest of the province, but ignoring Toronto’s special needs will continue.
[Added in a separate comment] sigh, wish there was a way to edit a post after submitted – fix the grammar errors that always appear obvious 5 minutes after I post, but not when I reread just after writing …
Steve: The Tories have never been big on accuracy when outright lies to their core constituency does the trick. As for your grammar, your helpful scribe tends to fix up the more intelligent posts here while leaving the dregs in all their incoherent glory.
LikeLike
With such little interest in transit by our 3 major political parties and NIMBY’s, it is safe to say that the communist party would be the best choice if we want to see real improvement. At least with the communists, politics and NIMBY’s wouldn’t interfere with progress. It would be built right away.
LikeLike
I was hoping for the Liberals to promise to restore original funding for improved transit for Finch to the original time line. They may not have to say “LRT for Finch”, but at least they’ll look like they’re supporting Ford.
If they get in, someone would discover again that buses aren’t enough for the projected ridership, and force a change to LRT. They would also rediscover that:
-the Hydro-corridor option is not cost-effective, and
-simply painting bus/diamond lanes would be more of a war on cars.
LikeLike
Steve, thanks for this. I agree all three platforms are underwhelming, with the caveat that staying the course on current plans by the Liberals would be something positive, at least.
However, I can’t help but notice in here your very gloomy references to the future of the legacy streetcar network. Are you aware of rumblings that could threaten it beyond what’s already been reported in the media?
Steve: I think a lot depends on the provincial election. If the Tories get in, then they will give Ford whatever he wants, and saving a potload of money on streetcars (that’s how it would be pitched) is an easy way to free up funds for other schemes they do want, not to mention his proposed restructuring of Council. It would also avoid having Toronto kvetch about the need to beef up capital funding for things like Ashbridge Carhouse, while leaving the question of future operating costs for local decisions about service quality. If the Liberals get in, they will have a “mandate” to use Ford Nation terminology, and they should start putting the boots to some of Ford’s grander follies.
LikeLike
Steve,
Would either, redeploying more of the existing gas tax revenue or a two-four cent increase in the gas tax be a decent move to providing the TTC with some stability?
Based on a March 2009 press release, I believe each cent of the tax is worth around $82 million to Toronto.
Steve: It would certainly be a start. However, this needs to be put into context. Toronto’s operating deficit is now over $400m, even with the proposed cutbacks for 2012. Only $90m of gas tax revenue goes to the operating budget (the over $70m+ goes to capital). This means that the province is over $100m short on that account.
On the capital side, the TTC, independent of special projects that have earmarked funding like the Spadina extension, needs roughly $400m annually for routine maintenance, vehicle replacement, etc. They get that $70m and little more because several other programs, notably one that paid for new buses, have been shut down. For Queen’s Park to pay a 50% share would require at least $130m more annually.
Combined, that gives us about 3 cents worth of gas tax. However, this is a fixed tax that does not inflate from year to year. On the operating side, TTC costs go up by about 6% annually through inflation and system expansion. That would add about $30m to a $200m annual operating subsidy, and you can scale this figure as necessary. On the capital side, costs vary with prevailing prices for raw materials and the degree of activity in the construction sector which can trigger labour shortages in the trades. All in, the provincial subsidies should probably rise by about $50m a year just to keep pace, and nothing in the gas tax formula provides for this.
LikeLike
No one could accuse me of being a member of the Dalton McGuinty fan club, but a part of me is hoping that the MOU regarding the Eglinton-Crosstown LRT was just sort of like throwing a huge steak to the guard dogs. Buy time to get re-elected without the onslaught of ‘Ford Nation’ on the campaign trail. Once back in office, tear it up and tell the city that Eglinton will be built with only the centre 13 km underground.
Hey, I can dream, can’t I? Actually, my dream would include ‘fixing’ some of the above-ground portions to use side-of-the-road alignment where appropriate! 😉
LikeLike
I hope the Big Move Plan by the Liberals stays alive. I live in Toronto now (indirectly from Vancouver/Montreal) and the Big Move included plans for other cities besides Toronto — there were two LRT lines in Hamilton I think and a rapid transit line in Mississauga. Your article mentioned Germany (Siemens and all that) I know of cities not even half the size of Hamilton in Germany with better transit systems. I imagine they are getting some of the funding from fuel tax — fuel is a lot more expensive there so maybe that is the way to fund it (if that is what they are doing).
You mentioned that it is not fair for smaller communities to pay more for fuel to subsidize us ‘big city’ peoples transit needs. Well I think smaller communities might benefit from a new, modern bus station, and if they are too small to support or have city buses maybe just a regional buses (such as Coach Canada or something) that is connected to a taxi stand — I consider taxis another form of public/private transit almost — anyone can take it — they just cost more and are needed. In fact my wife’s old home in Seoul has three levels of taxis with different fare structures so more people can afford to get a taxi — they do get more cars off the road (not as much as a bus but they help, not everyone can ride a bus!).
Transit is the main issue I am again looking at for this election and so far my decision is still up in the air! If McGuinty starts talking of the Big Move again that might help me to decide (or anyone else for that matter).
LikeLike
Just wondering if you could update this piece with the Green Party’s transportation platform.
Steve: At the risk of incurring the wrath of Green Party supporters, my intent was to review the platforms of parties that, one way or another, may form the next government. For those who want to read it, I am including the link you provided here.
Green Party Energy Issues Paper
The entirety of the reference to public transit is:
This isn’t very impressive considering that a major problem lies in the historical fall of transit spending, and the Greens don’t appear to be adding much, if anything, back to the mix. A tax credit reduces transit costs for riders, but does not increase revenue for transit systems. Spending money effectively might be easier if Queen’s Park showed some sign of doing this itself in the choice of transit projects and the method of implementation.
LikeLike
Given the level of attention and concern warranted for transportation issues in the GTHA is many times greater than the level of the province as a whole, there is a sense that an elected regional government (with taxing powers) has role to play.
Steve: The last thing Queen’s Park will ever create is a government representing all of the GTHA. It would rival Queen’s Park in political power.
LikeLike
Steve, love reading your blog but I think you’re a little harsh on the NDP’s transit platform. You mention transit fair freezes will harm the TTC, but you also say that that right now the TTC only receives $500 million in funding from the province for a budget of $1.5 billion (the other $1 billion comes from fares). If the province restored funding to 50% of operating costs, as per the NDP platform, wouldn’t that mean that the TTC would receive $1 billion in funding to match the $1 billion they raise from the farebox? Yes, the TTC wouldn’t be allowed to increase fares for 4 years, but they’d be getting an additional $500 million, or a 25% increase in total budget right away.
It might make the TTC’s budget a little less flexible on any given year in the sense that they can’t increase fares for a few years, but in the long run they are getting much more money from the province. It also means that in the future when the TTC is allowed increase fares, they will get double the money since the province is now legally bound to matching the increase.
Steve: You have not been paying attention. The TTC gets over $400m from the City of Toronto, and the City allocates $90m of its $162m gas tax revenue to pay for this within its own accounts. Queen’s Park does not now, and never has in the past, paid anywhere near half a billion in operating subsidy to the TTC.
The NDP’s platform is to match the old subsidy arrangement under Bill Davis with 2/3 from the farebox, 1/3 from the City, 1/3 from Queen’s Park. There is NO extra money. All the NDP would do is to upload half of the existing deficit to Queen’s Park. It is unclear whether the NDP would count the money that now comes from the gas tax as an offset.
LikeLike
Here are my thoughts:
1) The Conservatives:
Road congestion does not only affect people who drive – it impacts streetcars and buses. While buses can at least move out of the way (i.e. detour), streetcars cannot always do this – I have experienced that with the 501 west of Humber. So yes, dealing with road congestion can help with transit. Also, the faster people can travel from Point A to Point B on transit, the more people will use it. As I have said before, people will not get out of their cars if their car is the faster and more convenient option.
2) The NDP:
The fare increase freeze makes sense if you think about it from the view of paying for what you get. Waiting 30 minutes for a bus or streetcar that is supposed to be operating every 10 minutes does not make a fare increase make sense. However, if the increase is tied to an improved service – then yes it makes sense from a customer service point of view. yes, it is not pracitcal from an operations point of view (less money for hte same service level), increases should be tied to improved service.
3) The Liberals:
I find the Liberals all talk and no action. When we finally get a plan to improve transit it Toronto, it gets derailed because there is “no money for it.” Sotty, but they should stick with the plan and also provide both capital AND operational money not just one or the other. And through Metrolink they could have done a better job in my opinion of interlining transit. I can transfer from GO to several municpal authorities for only 60 cents, but cannot do so in Toronto. Metrolinks should be making this possible all over the GTA and the Liberals have had eight years to do this.
Personally, I think all three major parties are all talk on transit and no real action.
LikeLike
Do you have any better sense of where the public’s voting intentions actually stand right now? First there was a saturation of media opinion that the Liberals, based on a supposed rock-bottom approval rating for Dalton McGuinty, were headed for a crushing defeat at the hands of the Hudak Conservatives. Now all of a sudden published polls are indicating a much closer race. Is this more a matter of who ran the various polls and which ones the media chose to highlight at any given time? Do I still need to be greatly concerned that a Conservative majority is coming? If that were the case is there really anything that can be done to avoid it? I get the sense that most of the time the public is not as lightning-quick ‘moldable’ as the media and the pollsters would have us believe. It would also appear that the ever-expanding GTA suburban communities are quickly becoming the only major player at voting time provincially and that they tend to favour the Conservatives.
Steve: I believe that in time the 905 will not prove quite the bastion of immovable Tory support that some assume. The problem is getting to that point. I have no better idea of the outcome and the mood of the electorate that anyone else who reads polls. If you don’t want a Tory government, be sure to vote. The fastest way to lose elections is to assume that someone else has already won.
LikeLike
If the NDP get elected, I think “no fare increase” will become “no real fare increase”, allowing fares to go up in line with inflation…. a useful get-out.
Steve: That may be an escape hatch, but that’s not their platform. They have quite clearly spoken of freezing fares for four years.
LikeLike
While in many cases the NDP comes closest to my ideology, the current platform is sadly lacking. Populism has eclipsed social democratic principals and the party has endorsed silly ideas. Removing the HST (subsidising) gasoline, electricity and natural gas is counter to my idea of environmentalism. Lower prices promote waste and in the case of gasoline, further subsidy of the automobile increasing over use.
Freezing transit fares is a bad idea as you have so ably argued in the principal post. Once again, however, it has populist appeal. A transit freeze – without regard for the consequences appeals to the uninformed voter in the same way as a tax freeze funded by plentiful gravy. The fact that there is no gravy or that a fare freeze is ultimately bad for transit is lost on the voter who does not take the time to research the situation and relies on slogans – oft repeated by politicians seeking election.
As has been pointed out above, with the help of “holding my nose” I am going to vote Liberal.
LikeLike
To Michael:
At the same time, if you let fares increase with no improvement in service you will drive people away from transit. Shouldn’t one of the things that make transit better then driving is that it is easier on my wallet?
I agree that it is a bad idea to have no increases in fares – the money has to come from somewhere – but at the same time I still believe that a fare increase should be tied to improvements in the overall transit system. If you increase service, then a fare increase makes sense. But if I still have to wait a long time for a full bus or streetcar, the fare increase will not make as much sense.
LikeLike
Which is to say nothing’s changed over the past half-century, about the last time this was on the radar in the form of an expansion of then-Metro’s boundaries. That doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be welcome to the electorate just because it isn’t popular amongst the elected.
When the Tories were reorganizing municipalities over a decade ago, we ended up with at least 3 more regional governing bodies in the GTA than needed, that really are a waste of taxdollars while at the same time losing 3 municipalities that were actually important to people (as evidenced by a resoundingly clear referendum). That’s a pretty lousy trade, to put it in exceptionally mild terms.
While the municipalities of York, Durham, Peel, and Halton all get to keep their own mayors and councils, which I support wholeheartedly, there is no need for these 4 regions to not be a single region that includes at least 4 (preferably 6) more municipalities, where currently only one exists: Etobicoke; North York; Scarborough, and; Toronto (and optionally York and East York) – Hamilton could arguably be included as well, although that’s debatable and beside the point. This would make many issues of governance simpler and more efficient, but the focus evidently isn’t on efficiency and simplicity, else this would have already been done, and that’s a big problem as we’re now stuck with a model that effectively results in “divide and conquer.”
LikeLike
I usually support the NDP platform, but I agree with Michael Greason on this one.
LikeLike
I am as annoyed as anybody here by Andrea Horwath’s turn toward populism, but I would hope that an NDP Government at least would have the courage to steepen income tax progressivity and that it would contribute the funds needed to reduce the fare ratio to something more like the average across Canada. Only then would a fare freeze make sense.
LikeLike
The NDP’s reference to German companies is amusing. Someone should ask Ms Horwath if she knows where in Canada Bombardier Transportation’s headquarters is located (trick question – it’s in Germany, a legacy of the companies such as Adtranz Bombardier acquired while assembling their Transportation division). A Buy Ontario policy could endanger Bombardier’s chances of competing for future LRV purchases in Alberta, currently supplied from Siemens’ plant in Sacramento, Calif, whereas a Buy Canada policy might have encouraged other provinces to do the same in the face of recent proposals to expand Buy America. The NDP have form in this of course. When one of their former MPs ran for mayor of Winnipeg it was in part an anti-LRT platform since LRVs would probably come from Ontario whereas BRT vehicles would be supplied from the local New Flyer plant.
As for the fare proposal: it doesn’t really address what is the “appropriate” fare level. $3? $2? $1?
How long would a fare freeze continue before it was deemed “fair” to increase it?
What is the impact on other Ontario communities of the Provincial spending required to hold that level?
Is it fairer to hold the level of fare to $3 (which benefits rich and poor alike) or allow it to rise above $3 while increasing the income available to those on marginal incomes?
Steve: As an NDP supporter, I have been very, very disappointed in their platform for this election.
LikeLike
Hi Steve:-
Yes it is disappointing that each of the Parties are so dull in their transit plans that the best one can hope for is that the Hudak crowd, (the least best, or most worst of the lot) don’t get a strangle hold on us. It could make a bad lot more rotten; then heaven help us!
Unfortunately the formerly laudible participating architects of Transit City, the McGuinty Crew, dropped the ball with their wishy washy dealing with the smoke and mirror Fords. What a pack-O-wimps. Instead of telling the mayor that the deal was done, Transit City is already a go and no money will be forthcoming for fabricated polls asking for a delusional subway network, they caved. Not leadership folks.
Dennis
LikeLike
The recent vote against the illustrious Ford brothers’ Portlands plan gives me hope that that vote is a harbinger of things to come. There needs to be a revival of the old Streetcars For Toronto to get on Toronto’s City Council just the way people got on Council when the Portlands vote was taken. I’d love to see Ford end up being a one term Mayor. Every time I see a picture or video of him I never fail to think to myself, “This buffoon is the one whom Torontonians elected as mayor?”
LikeLike
Some other factors to consider:
1- Protectionism hurts transit. The TTC would likely have more articulated buses by now if it wasn’t limited in its choice of suppliers.
2- Requirements for “cleaner” buses is slightly harmful to transit. The TTC bought hybrid-electric buses because the federal government was footing the bill. They cost $200k more upfront, cost more to maintain, are only 10% more fuel efficient, and use lead-acid batteries (though these need to be replaced soon and it may be by lithium batteries). Provincial interference could potentially be slightly harmful to transit.
Steve: Provincial interference has been more than “slightly” harmful when it comes to using the TTC as a dumping ground for dubious technologies.
3- The NDP wants to subsidize the cost of gasoline. This will likely increase consumption of gasoline as people drive more and use transit less (with slightly more pollution). I really, really don’t understand what the NDP was thinking here. I thought they were supposed to be in favour of the environment???
4- Ultimately, it may make sense for the government to upload the transit systems around Toronto. Or, force the municipalities to stop bickering. There are some inefficiencies whenever buses cross municipal boundaries and aren’t allowed to service riders from other municipalities. It makes sense for there to be more co-operation.
Steve: The TTC’s monopoly on transit within the City of Toronto is granted by Provincial statute. If Queen’s Park wanted to change this, all they have to do is amend the City of Toronto Act.
And Toronto has dedicated rail links in its GO stations. Unfortunately, they aren’t really connected to a good bus system or integrated with the TTC well. These rail links are also faster than Transit City. And people adapt to its wide hour-long headways by memorizing the GO Train schedule.
Steve: The rail corridors don’t generally go to the same places as the Transit City network which was designed to supplement the grid layout (and demands) of Toronto, not the radial, core-oriented paths of the railways. Rail corridors and stop locations are intended for long-distance travel, not for the fine-grained demand patterns of local services like Transit City. Even the Eglinton LRT subway will have far more stations than you would find on a GO implementation of comparable length. The fact that rail lines tend to be in industrial areas doesn’t help much either. These are two separate technologies serving different types of travel.
I have already written many times about the need for major improvements in local bus services connecting with GO if the improved, all-day service is to be of any use. As for hourly headways, they are fine for people making regular trips who plan their days around the schedules, but not for ad hoc travel to unfamiliar locations.
LikeLike
“What is the impact on other Ontario communities of the Provincial spending required to hold that level?”
Because agencies outside of Toronto the fare makes up a small portion of costs and subsidy makes up a large portion, they will have the most to gain and the least to lose under the NDP’s plan.
“with the help of “holding my nose” I am going to vote Liberal.”
Holding your nose won’t help the stench from the Liberal’s support of the police action during the G20.
LikeLike
From what I’ve been observing over the past 10 years, the 905 municipalities are doing a great job of cooperating with each other with respect to public transport. The inefficiencies at municipal boundaries seem to relate more to the boundaries with Toronto and the TTC’s monopoly. Then there is the whole series of problems related to the inefficiencies of building a transit system around GO train stations.
Living in Mississauga I can buy a Mississauga Transit ticket and travel all the way to Hamilton in the west, or Markham in the east on a single fare, simply by exchanging transfers at each border. For example, Mississauga – Oakville – Burlington – Hamilton or Mississauga – Brampton / ZUM – VIVA / YRT. Mississauga and Brampton are cooperating on (long overdue) express bus service on the Hurontario corridor that is operated by MiExpress and ZUM buses. Both Mississauga & Brampton councils have acknowledged that the purpose of this cooperation is to build ridership for the future Hurontario LRT which has also been approved by both councils.
That’s pretty good for cooperation in my book. Perhaps there are more opportunities there. For example, having a Peel Transit service (or maybe just a Peel Transit Council) might help integrate public transport within Peel Region & improve connections to Halton & York. Or maybe it might be argued that we need Metrolinx to handle all the inter-regional services (through GO or a sister company) and let the local transit be handled by the local municipalities?
The way I see it, the local governments outside of Toronto have started to recognize that they cannot really expect much direction, policy or cooperation from the TTC, GO Transit or Metrolinx, so the only remaining choice is to cooperate with each other.
This election campaign is not suggesting anything different or special will come about. So I will count on MiWay & Brampton to cooperate and make my life a little bit easier.
Regards, Moaz
LikeLike
Ontario is a big province, and Toronto proper makes up only around 20% of the population while the GTA makes up 40-something%. The NDP is not an urban-exclusive party, and they do well in Northern Ontario. It’s not hard to understand the logic behind this policy position in that context. Gas and hydro are more expensive in more remote and harder to reach areas like the north, and there’s little transit to be found up there; there is no alternative but to drive (some places can only be reached by rail and/or air even). That’s who this is directed at, not Toronto. 22 seats out of 107 does not a government make.
Not that that means it’s a good policy – not something that I’d recommend, but I don’t think it will really make a difference in the grand scheme of things – the price of gas can change by well over a nickel in a week, and that’s about the value of this policy – a nickel per litre; that wouldn’t have changed driving habits anyway. Furthermore, can it really stimulate more auto demand when there’s no room on the road network for them?
For the communities in the north and other areas where transit systems are few and far between, increased auto use does have potential economic benefits if it leads to more expeditions during which money is spent. While it doesn’t do any good for Toronto, every little bit helps in some other parts of the province that have seen better days.
Smart policy? Not for areas with transit.
Dumb policy? Not for areas that don’t have transit.
It isn’t easy trying to sell a platform to 107 ridings. Region-specific breaks on gas taxes would be so convoluted and problematic that they’re a non-starter.
LikeLike
I’m not really happy with any of the three parties. Though the Liberals strike me as best of the worst. But they’re still bad.
The Liberals certainly offer the best deal for Toronto. Though they haven’t really accomplished all that much with respect to transit in their last two terms. But at least they have a plan going forward. But nothing new really this time around. Their issues with regional fairness bother me. They never offered Ottawa anywhere close to the share that all the Toronto transit projects got through the Big Move. This in the Premier’s home riding. I wouldn’t be surprised if his own riding turfs him.
From that perspective, as much as I dislike the Conservatives, their platform does make sense. It gives back gas tax money to the municipalities to fund their own infrastructure initiatives. Like it or not, rural municipalities face massive infrastructure costs and having to pay gas taxes which don’t flow back will not be viewed well for long. In my books, it’s just a recipe for division and more anti-urban hate. When it comes to transit funding, the province needs to allow the regions to fund their own development. Let Metrolinx collect the GTA’s share of gas taxes. Let them impose their own gas taxes and maybe even sales or income taxes. That won’t happen with a Conservative government, but it should be the aim for a sensible government.
And I won’t even get into Daddy Dalton’s nanny-state laws….
It’s going to take a really strong clip on my nose to vote this year.
LikeLike
I know there is some skepticism over the Tories transit ideas. And it is warranted.
But might I suggest that they might find Metrolinx very useful once in power.
First off, Metrolinx has co-operated with Ford reasonably well. So it’s not really one of those agencies that can be seen as utterly hostile to the Conservatives. The union-riddled (from the PC perspective) TTC on the other hand….
Steve: The TTC’s problems with Ford have nothing to do with unions and everything to do with the Mayor’s misguided focus on building a Sheppard subway while cutting funding and service to the rest of the system.
Next, Metrolinx may well execute what will become the biggest vote getter for the Conservatives, transit in the 905. I could actually see the Conservatives funding the LRTs in Mississauga and Hamilton and even pushing all day GO service. Those have far bigger electoral pay-offs than any corridor in Toronto.
I personally don’t think they’ve written off Metrolinx yet. They may not know what they want to do with the agency. They may not care about it. But I doubt they’ve written it off. And once in power, they may well find it very useful.
LikeLike
Keith says, “The Liberals …. never offered Ottawa anywhere close to the share that all the Toronto transit projects got through the Big Move.”
I don’t know the history of the Ottawa LRT before O’Brien was elected and cancelled it. How much provincial funding was promised for that?
Also, in Toronto we had a mayor (Miller) who was active in pushing transit projects. The Big Move came out after the original Transit City plan had been announced and set into preliminary motion. Did Ottawa have any big projects well into the planning phase any time recently?
The subway to Vaughan is all-Liberal-government, but Eglinton, whatever form it takes, is Miller’s legacy — not least because he made a convincing argument as to its value, so the province picked up the funding for it.
At least that’s my view. Steve likely has deeper insight.
Steve: Transit City was developed and announced deliberately before The Big Move to ensure that something other than a few tired old subway proposals from the TTC got included in the Provincial announcement. The list in MoveOntario2020 was basically a copy of every plan that was on the books at the time, and that became input to the creation of TBM. Even so, Metrolinx was anti-LRT at the outset and it took a lot of work behind the scenes to get that option into TBM.
Eglinton may be Miller’s legacy, but not as a full subway. Indeed, David Miller has recently criticized the all-subway option. Meanwhile, Metrolinx demand models show that the subway version carries more people, but mainly by diverting traffic from the BD line. The new model does not include the DRL and so we have no way of knowing how a new north-south route into downtown would interact with the revised Eglinton line and the BD subway.
LikeLike
Hi Steve,
I live in the rural area of Halton Hills just north of the 401. Out here, transportation is THE #1 issue, bar none.
The GTA West Corridor, Option 4-3, is proposed to slice and dice our town up for a 400 series highway heading north to Vaughan. Our town commissioned a peer review of MTO’s Environmental Assessement and proved that the 401 through Milton could be widened instead. Result — less traffic gridlock heading to Toronto. Our Party Leaders know it but still refuse to cancel Option 4-3. This is a glaring example of the kind of political leadership we have had and can look forward to concerning transportation.
I am pretty much a country boy and only hear about mass transit solutions to traffic chaos in Toronto. Even though I live on the fringes of GTA urban growth, isn’t more big highway building an old idea? I think I live close enough to Toronto that only mass transit ideas should be considered. Besides, these superhighways will eat up thousands of acres of prime agricultural lands. We need to save it for food growth for the coming food security crisis. I think our Govt. is just taking the lazy way out in their current way of thinking through the transportation problem.
I would appreciate if you and your readers discuss this.
Steve: One thing that is very frustrating about Ontario’s transportation planning is that there are decades-old highway plans that are never challenged. They just keep surfacing again and again. More recently, the watchwords have been “goods movement”, as if building more highways is sacrosanct as a form of economic development. Rarely do we hear about finding ways to preserve capacity on existing roads for trucking.
It’s ironic that trucking-sensitive businesses are moving further and further out from Toronto in an attempt to escape congestion, but it just follows them.
LikeLike
If what we’re waiting for is for someone to promise the reviving of Transit City, I would not expect such a promise to be announced loudly. Too many people have still got the Ford lies about LRT stuck in their head, making above-ground LRT a volatile issue. Not that surface transit is unpopular, but such an announcement would give people like Hudak the opportunity to throw their puke around on the issue (and spread more lies).
LikeLike
I really don’t see how Liberals have screwed up the transportation portfolio. There are very few areas were things are worse and there is a clear vision in the Big Move for the future. Some of their vision may be delayed by fiscal realities but that needs to be compared against what the other parties may have done in the same time period. One can argue against the priorities but not as much in the level of investment (Spadina subway, Eglinton subway/LRT, Union Station, Air Rail Link, GO line purchases, extensions to K-W and Barrie, rail-grade separations, additional tracks, parking structures and platforms at stations, etc.). They also have spent large sums on roads as well namely the 400 extensions, the Windsor border, GTA freeway lane additions, etc. All this in the middle of a recession and while it is easy to say he should have done more or prioritized a specific project, did the previous PC, Liberal, or NDP governments do more for transportation? You need to go back quite a way to find this level of infrastructure investment. He didn’t manage to undo the downloading of transit costs, but he did start an uploading process of other items and the city budget is one budget and he has made a promise to upload more.
Steve: My complaint about the Liberals is that they talk a good line about planned expansion, but the actual announcements come from the Premier’s office on an ad hoc basis and don’t necessarily reflect plans like The Big Move that are already in place. Much of the spending is dedicated to big ticket projects. Redirecting Transit City money to put all of Eglinton underground was entirely a political decision unsupported by a view of how we can continue to expand Toronto’s transit network if we build it all as subways (regardless of what vehicle runs in them).
Other than specific projects, the general funding for transit operations and capital has actually been falling. It’s easy to make statements about billions in spending, but this is on a few lines while transit systems across Ontario are cutting back for lack of funding.
LikeLike
I agree, and I suspect that all parties have been wishy-washy about transit because they know damn well that the pipe dreams of the Fords are garbage, but at the same time no one wants what remains of ‘Ford Nation’ to be unleashed upon them before the election. Ford claimed that he would wait to hear from each of the party leaders before getting behind anyone, and as much as we complain about wishy-washy positions on transit, I strongly suspect we may actually be in agreement with Ford on that opinion as he has not come out in favour of anyone over the others.
I do hope that if McGuinty is re-elected, that he quickly moves to tear up the MOU with the city about funding an entirely underground Eglinton LRT instead over Finch West and Sheppard East. Since it required that it be voted on by council and that hasn’t occurred, it is an easy out that I really hope he plans to jump within days of being re-elected.
LikeLike
@Calvin Henry-Cotnam
I don’t think it would be wise for Queens Park to tear up Rob Ford’s MOU before council has had any vote on it. If the Liberals move to restore the original Transit City plan before council has a say, of course Ford Nation would accuse the Liberals of going against the “will of the people”.
On the other hand, if Queens Park waits for a council vote on transit plans (and council votes to stay on course), then Queens Park can claim that the city has spoken, and their discarding of Ford’s MOU is totally justified.
LikeLike
Re: MOU and the City Council
Let’s not forget that the current TTC board is made mostly of Ford’s allies. In order to reactivate Transit City, the Council would have to replace the board members.
Metrolinx may possess the legal powers granted by the Province, and control the purse string, but the actual engineering expertise is with TTC. So, if the Board is not on board (pardon the pun), the Council would have to assemble and direct the TTC staff over the Board’s head to fulfil every engineering request from Metrolinx; I don’t think this is practical.
Most likely, no surface LRT construction will take place before 2014, when the voters have a chance to elect a new Mayor with a coherent transit vision. Before that, we are lucky if the Eglinton central tunnel construction (which is needed for any transit scheme) continues on schedule.
LikeLike
Hi Steve and Michael Forest:-
If Metrolinx hasn’t the engineering expertise to implement projects due to the fact that those required experts are TTC employees, then an old solution can be revisited. Raid the TTC for those employees. This occurred when UTDC was the big name in provincial transit policies and developments. The TTC’s staff that had designed a new streetcar, in concert with Hawker-Siddley (it’s that long ago H-S may still have been Canadian Car and Foundry), to replace the aging PCC fleet were commandeered by the province to design the ultimate Canadian streetcar (thus abandoning plans already set to go).
Unfortunately the TTC folks were unable to convince their new ‘Masters’ the sense in going with what was already ready. Instead those seconded TTC experts were hamstrung and told what to build and the camel that we got (not the horse originally sought) proved ultimately to be a worthy, reasonably robust vehicle, but it was on the market way too late and its design somewhat disappointing to be a satisfactory vehicle for sale to other transit properties. Those other LRT operators (needing to replace their PCCs too) had expected the best possible outcome from their Canadian peers, but instead were horribly disillusioned and badly let down by what was finally produced instead of that which had been eagerly anticipated and envisaged.
There is precedence to have that ‘voluntary’ former occurrence repeated.
Dennis Rankin
Steve: The sheer incompetence of some provincial staff is breathtaking, and has cost the GTA dearly over the past decades.
LikeLike
Rather than a fare freeze, I’d like to see provincial standard in terms of fare ratio. For example, a weekly pass could not be more than 11 pre-purchased rides and a monthly pass could not be more than 42 pre-purchased rides. While this may cause a fare increase, it would encourage and reward frequent usage of transit over driving.
Steve: This touches on the “loyalty” programs available with Presto, although obviously the cap on weekly or monthly costs could be any multiple of the base fare for each transit system. However, once fares have some degree of integration through cross-border discounts, then the multiples have to be consistent. Reducing the multiple in Toronto to 42 would be a boon to frequent riders, and I am sure we could have a robust conversation about whether they deserve an “extra” subsidy beyond what they have already. The big policy discussion remains funding and service standards. If I get a 42 multiple, but I also get crappy service outside of the peak period, it’s not much good to me.
Also, as a point of reference, on the monthly discount plan, a metropass costs $111. That’s 44.4 token fares. For MDP customers, we are already close to your 42 multiple, and the net cost when the tax credit is factored in brings the multiple down below your criterion.
LikeLike
Uh-huh. When will “opening day” be? 2015? I have my doubts!
LikeLike
Ontario has currently 107 Electoral Districts. Of which, only 22 are in the City of Toronto. That leaves 85 outside of Toronto, some with the smallest population per district. I doubt those 85 districts care about Toronto.
Steve: They may not care about Toronto, but they also don’t all care for the Tories. There are transit demands in other large cities, and if only Queen’s Park would encourage the growth of transit by ways other than megaprojects, we would eventually reach a point where, politically, the demand would be self-sustaining. People have to see that transit can be an alternative before they will demand better funding and service. Otherwise, their only choice is to drive, and they want infrastructure for that option.
LikeLike
In my opinion, the prize for “most ignorant statement” goes to the NDP for this sentence:
As any REAL farmer will attest, corn prices are set on the Chicago commodities exchange. Ontario’s farmers get paid the Chicago price, adjusted by a “basis” that reflects transportation costs from their location. The number of farmers who “struggle to find a market” is exactly zero.
So much for the NDP being the party of workers and farmers.
Steve: I was very disappointed by the NDP’s sucking up to the ethanol industry. No mention of the worldwide problems of distorted food markets, no mention of the dubious value of ethanol as a fuel additive. If that’s the best they can do to show support for “farmers”, they are really out of touch.
LikeLike
If the NDP can find extra 250 million a year for the TTC capital and operating funding – that’s great. My concern is reverting to the old 2/3 + 1/6 + 1/6 formula. All they will achieve by this is helping Mayor Ford to balance his books and transit won’t receive an extra penny. They could have used a different scheme – the province would match 50 cents for every dollar spent by the city on subsidy with a 250 million limit. That can provide both capital and operating funding for the system for the near future.
And yes, fare freeze is cheap populism which makes no sense. Rather that a fare freeze I would rather see the farebox share drop gradually from current 70 percent down to 60 percent or less while the governments put more money on the table.
LikeLike