Updated October 4, 2012 at 9:20 am:
Mr reaction to the announcement yesterday that TTC would remain as “operator” of the LRT lines is on the Torontoist website.
Although the TTC sees this as a “good news” story, I am less impressed because Toronto is still very much the junior partner. We get to drive the trains, and that’s about all. With all maintenance remaining in the hands of Metrolinx private partner, whoever that will eventually be, this is a big step in outsourcing transit operations.
Updated October 1, 2012 at 10:00 pm:
The Toronto Star reports that discussions continue between Metrolinx, the City of Toronto and the TTC regarding the possible operation of the planned LRT lines by the TTC rather than a private contractor.
Exactly how much “operation” would entail is not mentioned, although the TTC is known to be concerned about responsibility for safety-sensitive systems such as vehicle, signal and track maintenance.
A related issue is the amount of detail that must be worked out before a master contract is let by Infrastructure Ontario. If the private work ends when operation begins (with possible exceptions such as building and station maintenance), then this is a much simpler contract to draft than one that would require all of the details of future operations to be bundled with a design and construction contract.
Whether Queen’s Park and Metrolinx are aware of or care about the delay inherent in needing to specify so much detail so far in advance for a single contract remains to be seen.
September 21, 2012
My thoughts on recent announcements that Metrolinx would completely take over the LRT projects formerly part of Transit City are in an article on the Torontoist website.
Steve Munro 
See Bloomberg for commentary on the New York experience with subway contracts.
However, I share Metrolinx’ apparent view that Council and the TTC together couldn’t run a three-house paper route, so any change is almost certainly for the better.
Steve: I found that Bloomberg article very one-sided, but not surprising given the source. You’re not the first person to point it out to me, and I have been holding off on a critique. Maybe after the film festival reviews are done.
As for paper routes, if you knew way people in the railway industry (including GO) think of Metrolinx, well, you might not be quite so sure. As a Metrolinx operation, they would put a paper box at the end of your street and expect you to drive to it. When you got there, someone would explain why it wasn’t there yet, and still another would organize a customer focus group to ask you about the experience. All of this would be spun by a media relations guru to ensure only the best of coverage in the newspaper that you have not yet been able to read.
LikeLike
Link is broken 😦
Steve: Fixed. Thanks to all who reported this. It’s been a busy day.
LikeLike
Once the service is up and running, in the end it will end up being just like York Region Transit, different service operators but to the customer one service. 8 years from now, Stinz and McGuinty will be long gone and whoever comes in after will sort this mess out.
I do think the TTC should have handled the whole thing though. The province just like to screw over Toronto, the province’s standard track gauge thing was a terrible decision that will permanently hurt Toronto.
LikeLike
As Metrolinx thinks that “their” new LRT lines in Toronto should (very sensibly) charge the then current TTC fare one must ask whether they will have the same policy for passengers who take a GO train within the City boundaries.
LikeLike
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t Vancouver’s Canada Line an example of AFP model Metrolinx is going for? Not saying it’s flawless, mind you.
But why do you call it unprecedented/untested in your article?
Steve: My reference is to Metrolinx citing existing contracts with private operators/vendors in their announcement as examples of how the LRT proposal is nothing new. The situation is completely different — those contractors have no “skin in the game”, and simply bid on provision of services for a price. When you hire someone to paint your house, it’s not a PPP.
As for the Canada Line, BC used AFP in part to shift some of the cost of the line onto the AFP bidder so that the public commitments would not have to be increased. Metrolinx hopes that their projects will stay within their projected envelopes, but there is no way to know until bids actually come in over a year from now. At that point, where will any extra costs go? Into AFP partner financing? Onto direct public sector payments? In scope cutbacks for the projects? We know from BC that after the contract was awarded, changes were made in construction techniques and station sizes to reduce costs for the private partner. They got away with this because of loose contract wording. That’s not a model to copy.
LikeLike
Steve, forgive my ignorance if this was already covered, but are the other light rail projects throughout the province (Waterloo, Mississauga, etc.) not going to be operated by their municipal transit systems either? This just seems like adding duplicate layers of management bureaucracy to an area that already has way too many disparate parts.
Steve: That is exactly my question. Is KW going to wake up one day and discover that Queen’s Park has taken over the LRT line? This is not just a Toronto issue.
LikeLike
Not established.
But I suspect Steve will prefer if any additional discussion of this takes place in that thread.
Steve: I would prefer that additional discussion of this take place on another site. We have done it to death here twice.
LikeLike
What I’m really worried about is that Metrolinx won’t provide an opportunity for the public and TTC to view the contracts before they are tendered, just to make sure Metrolinx plans on building what City Council wants it to build. I can’t help but feel that subway nuttery may be alive and well in hiding.
Should we expect the same level of public consultation with these projects before construction starts as with regular publicly-financed projects?
Also, even with DBFOM, there’s always a possibility of public ownership and TTC operation in the future, be it by expiration or breach of the contract. Shouldn’t the TTC still get an opportunity to sign off on the contracts as a possible future stakeholder?
Steve: The real challenge from a contract management point of view is that if the price is agreed to before the designs are completed, what happens when the public don’t like a proposed station design and want it changed? It’s not just a question of consultation, but of meaningful consultation. Asking folks if they like the colour of the tiles, and then telling is that they are already purchased and sitting in a warehouse, is not consultation.
The TTC won’t get a signoff, and I doubt they would ever have a chance to take over the lines. Metrolinx/GO would just find someone new to assume the role, probably on different contract terms.
LikeLike
Look at the bright side — now the new LRVs will have sour apple green upholstery, and an exterior paint scheme to match.
I was thinking … isn’t there a municipal law that only the TTC can operate local public transit in the 416? Couldn’t the City’s lawyers use this to trump in? The private operator would have to be under contract to the TTC, not Metrolinx.
Steve: The law in question is the City of Toronto Act which is provincial legislation. Metrolinx is exempt from the TTC monopoly provision.
LikeLike
Not to mention delivery would be considered on-time if the paper arrives within plus or minus 5 days of the publishing date.
LikeLike
I would also point out as I had before: It is a common misconception that the Commissioners endorsed Metrolinx’s proposal for AFP for Eglinton, Sheppard, and Finch. They never did endorse Metrolinx’s AFP-for-everything proposal, and in fact demanded that Metrolinx further explain their scheme and specifically address TTC staff’s concerns over Metrolinx’s proposal. Whether Metrolinx’s 2 page letter really does address these concerns is debatable.
The only thing the Commissioners agreed to do was to let Metrolinx or IO be the project managers.
LikeLike
I fail to understand the supposed benefit to having a private sector operator of a public service. Not just that I am opposed, which ideologically I am, but what is the supposed upside perceived by those who favour this kind of thinking. As an example, as a social democrat, I hear and understand the “rising tide raises all ships” concept (of lower taxes etc.) praised by those who disagree with me. However, I disagree with the accuracy of this argument, but at least I understand its basis. It seems to me that there is no upside to having a private sector operator for transit.
The government loves to bring out the concept that there are “penalties” for non performance in contracts. However, private sector operators do not provide the guarantee of the main entity (with the money.) These contracts are signed by special purpose entities with limited funding. If the contract goes seriously sideways, the special purpose entity simply folds its tent, and we the public are left to pay for the disaster. (Tube Maintenance.) In the end, if the “over runs” are serious enough, there is no difference between private sector and public. In many cases, the private sector operator uses the “you shoulda told us” concept to get additional payments from the government when the unexpected arises. They do not hunker down and administer a no profit contract.
All I can see at the bottom line when the private sector operates public services is the following;
1. The only way that any real savings can be realised is by not paying proper wages. Our society needs a well paid vibrant middle class. Destroying jobs in this sector means we have a lesser society. The dollars saved are spent elsewhere in social costs.
2. A Portion of the money that is allocated to social good is reallocated to private sector profit. This profit is largely made up of the portion of the contract that would otherwise pay proper wages.
I don’t see any of us being better off because of these arrangements. If I am missing something, and anyone can explain (without just making a rant about Unions) I would be interested.
LikeLike
In the Canada Line, the private sector cut costs by changing the tunneling method.
Here, the private sector may cut costs by dropping stations. I can’t imagine Metrolinx protesting against this.
Steve: On the Canada Line, they also cut costs by making stations smaller with the result that the line is capacity constrained for future growth.
LikeLike
And you thought signal priority was difficult to achieve before!
LikeLike
Does it matter who operates the line? As long as the staff on these new tram lines wear TTC uniforms and are accountable to the people of Toronto, the experience should be seamless to the passenger. With Presto, even if I board the 199 Finch Rocket and transfer at Finch Station. I will need to tap in on the bus, at Finch Station and tap out at my destination (i.e. King Station). So, if someone needs to tap out at Eglinton Station and tap in again to board the Crosstown, the experience will be identical.
The new tram lines being built are mainly as feeder service. Yes, there will be some point to point connection, but the yield will not be high. On a heavily used line like Yonge, the cost per additional passenger or mile travelled are low since the sunk cost are largely paid for. Also, metro technology using ATO allows one operator to carry many passengers versus a manually driven tram line. With a low yield line, there is a need to lower operating expense per additional seat mile (CASM) to reduce subsidies. With a lower CASM, more frequent service can be run outside of rush hours.
Even assuming that TTC workers are the most efficient in their field, being public sector employees, they have additional costs that private employees do not. In a private corporation, defined benefit pensions can be renegotiated at bankrupcy, can the TTC really escape unfunded pension obligations?
Look at two Star Alliance founders, Air Canada and All Nippon Airways. Both of them have a premium product versus their peers (like United Airlines) and an efficient work force. They cannot afford to have their lower yield feeder service at mainline wage and benefits level. Air Canada outsources their low yield regional flying to Chorus Aviation and Sky Regional. All Nippon Airways outsources some of their regional flying to ANA Wings which employs guest workers to further reduce cost. It is just another trend in the industry to bring better service at a lower cost.
LikeLike
Say what you want about previous City Councils, but I don’t think any of them would have allowed the Province to do this with not even a whimper. I understand what you wrote about Metrolinx being exempt from the City of Toronto Act and I understand, from an accounting perspective, the whole asset and liabilities argument. Regardless, this is truly an attack on the jurisdiction of the City of Toronto. And I don’t hear any of our city councillors rising to its defense. For shame.
LikeLike
Argh. What I dislike about this is the lack of political accountability; not only does Metrolinx operate in the shadows, it is arm’s length, and what accountability it does have is to Queen’s Park. So ten years from now voters in Windsor, North Bay, and Kenora could elect an anti-transit provincial government and as a consequence of cuts the headways on the Eglinton line could go up to 20 minutes off-peak, and there’s nothing Toronto could do about it. That’s absurd.
The one good thing about the Sheppard subway debacle and council’s horse-trading over LRT is that the public got to see it in Technicolor and in a few years these politicians will have to face the Toronto electorate with their records. The Metrolinx LRT lines could be a debacle (or a raving success) and most voters in the province will not even know or at any rate care about their existence.
LikeLike
This decision is nothing more than empire building and a power play by Metrolinx to castrate the TTC. They are talking about changing the fundamental business model for transit within Toronto and they haven’t even done a proper study of how exactly it’s going to work, who wins and who loses, and whether it makes sense for the riders and the taxpayers. Their motives have nothing to do with the greater good and you are absolutely right, Steve, that they are far from transparent as an organization.
Aside from the private contractor issues, there is the thorny issue of fare integration. If, as Metrolinx assures the press when asked, there will be full fare integration, how exactly will the revenue be shared? Now, the TTC collects the fares and keeps all the revenue, regardless of how often people transfer between routes. If you transfer to a different transit system, you pay another fare. If you cross a municipal boundary, you pay another fare. If people are still going to ride the new LRT lines within Toronto for a single TTC fare, then anyone who uses the LRT’s will have some of their fare apportioned to Metrolinx, and TTC’s revenue will decrease. With the same size revenue pie now having to be shared between TTC and Metrolinx, who makes up the difference for the TTC so that they can continue to operate the routes that don’t make money? Service cuts, added subsidy? Someone will pay, and it will end up being a de facto subsidy to the for-profit operator. The transit agencies have been searching unsuccessfully for a formula for revenue sharing for 30 years in the GTA, and now we should put our faith in Metrolinx who says, “trust us, we’ll figure it out later?”
The Canada Line example, which people use to support this model, is not the same situation because TransLink owns all of the transit lines, including the connecting Sky Train and bus routes, and contracts out to different operators and partners, but the operating financials are all under TransLink’s umbrella. Here, we have a separate owner and operator being introduced into what was a single system providing local service within Toronto. And may I also point out that TransLink charges the taxpayers a lot more in property tax, parking tax and transit tax to fund their transit operations than TTC receives in subsidies. So I’d like someone to tell me on what level is this a model we should aspire to?
Metrolinx is tearing apart, piece by piece, one of the world’s most fully-integrated transit systems, and undermining the one thing that underpins the success of public transit in Toronto. Instead of removing obstacles to inter-agency integration, which was their original mandate, they are creating new ones within Toronto. They are taking us back a hundred years and I really don’t have any faith that anyone will bother to try and stop them. We all like to complain about the TTC, and a lot of it is deserved I must say, but we also have to appreciate that the TTC provides a heck of a lot of service at the lowest subsidy levels on the continent. If Metrolinx really cared about transit, they’d spare us the self-serving power play stuff and concentrate on solving real issues like sustainable funding, cross-boundary co-operation, and possible efficiencies around GTA-wide procurement policies and standards, to name a few. Obviously, that’s a mighty big “if.”
LikeLike
I’d say nobody should be making any bets right now. Queen’s Park has a countdown clock looming over it; many political watchers are saying people smell blood, and that an election is quite likely in the new year (possibly triggered by the budget, although some published views suspect it would be sooner than that). As such, I’d say nobody knows what will happen right now.
LikeLike
The long game here on Metrolinx part is to be the central authority divying out the contracts for all transit agencies within the GTA. In their minds, they are going to put out a showpiece set of lines and everybody will just flock to the idea for the future. For some reason they think the VIVA model gives Metrolinx license to run underground trains, within a system.
The fact that Eglinton, as proven during the subway debates, will not be a primarily commuter line, and that Metrolinx have no clue how to run a non-commuter line of course means nothing to them.
Kids with plastic train sets … no better then pols with a map and a crayon.
LikeLike
Funny thing: on December 1, 2010 right after Ford cancelled Transit City, I wrote, “It is possible that Metrolinx could cut all ties with the TTC and build it themselves.”
Here we are, 21 months later, and that has now been announced. What pisses me off is that instead of doing that back then and getting on with the projects, this 21 month delay has resulted in several years of delaying the opening dates of these lines (7 years, in the case of Sheppard!).
Steve: And, of course, part of that delay is attributable to the fact Metrolinx was more than happy to jump into bed with Mayor Ford until he proved how incompetent he was, and Council rejected his transit “plan”.
LikeLike
This decision seems to be an exercise in ideology at any cost and unfortunately sounds more and more like Rob Ford’s 2010 campaign musings about privatizing the TTC. Surely no one believes that a private company seeking a hefty return on its investment is going to offer a cheaper solution than the government operating a service. The reason for the delays has now become crystal clear. Politicians are still busy “negotiating” the right amount and formula for their kickbacks.
This is either political theatre in a bargaining process, or the eventual deal will have so much pork it will make the ORNGE fiasco seem cheap. And speaking of delays, it is revealing that pretty much all discussion focuses on the Eglinton line. Given that construction on Finch and Sheppard lines is not scheduled to start before 2015 and 2017, respectively, and Metrolinx is known to have taken the path of least political resistance whenever possible, I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for a streetcar on either Sheppard or Finch.
LikeLike
Out of complete curiosity, would Metrolinx go as far as requesting that the province make their agency essential? I would think that would be a requirement based on the local service being provided. The whole agency would have that designation, not a portion. Would have to think that would be fair to assume.
Steve: This is an interesting question in the context of contracted services. If the contractor is not a union shop, then it’s unlikely their staff will go on strike. However, some contractors are organized and there would need to be a legislative mechanism extending “essential service” status to any union local in that context. In effect, the union would be a subcontractor of the service provider.
A good parallel example is that although the TTC is an essential service, anything it contracts is not and so if, for example, the construction trades go on strike, then any projects they are working on stop.
LikeLike
Well, TTC now has the opportunity to do some things of it’s own. They should stop moaning about this and get on with building some transit in Toronto … the best way to do that is to finish a few lines before Metrolinx even get their shovels in the ground. If I was Toronto Council I would direct TTC to have minimal communication with Metrolinx on this going forward (except where interchange stations are concerned) and redirect all funding and energy into building Waterfront Lines, BRT and begin studying the DRL. The goal should be to have Waterfront and BRT done before Metrolinx is done their lines. Since we will be saving money on operating the Metrolinx lines, I would direct that we take out a loan against the future operating costs of those lines and direct it to funding the new TTC lines. I would do this with a public guarantee to end bus service no later than one year after Metrolinx is saying they will open the lines … thus making it impossible for them to delay any further without causing major issues (or having to provide alternate service). I would also make a few demands to help the city of Toronto have a say in any contracts, as well as making the contract public domain, and the chance for public feedback on the contract before it is signed.
LikeLike
Veolia Transportation is a private transit operator in York Region, and some 170 bus operators are represented by the Amalgamated Transit Union 113. The same ATU 113 also represents the bus, streetcar, and subway operators in the Toronto Transit Commission. I think any private operator of the LRTs may end up having its operators represented by ATU 113.
The only difference will be that any private operator will have to be subsidized to a point where the shareholders return will be more than what they would get if they invested their money in a GIC or term deposit. It will either they the private operator would have to be subsidized MORE than what the TTC would get, or the private operator will declare bankruptcy and walk away with the public taxpayer holding the (empty cash) bag.
LikeLike
Steve:
In the case of Toronto, any private partner will have absolutely nothing to do with constraining capacity for future growth on the new LRT lines. It is city council who is ultimately responsible for the politically motivated decision to use low capacity underground light rail instead of a subway on Eglinton, and light rail on Sheppard. Any private partner is simply taking instructions from city council. I think that it would be a good thing to take decision making on transit out of the hands of municipal politicans and make sensible decisions about transit planning with minimal political inference.
Steve: By this I presume you include the Premier’s Office and other political agencies of the provincial government.
LikeLike
c’mon guys..geez, you are never happy. You won the battle and got LRT and now everyone is up in arms once again. Who cares who owns or operates? Something is FINALLY being built. People on here have whined about Viva and so on but I take that, or used to every weekend to see ailing relative in Keswick. Take the GO from Union up and take GO south , change to Viva at Newmarket. Not to be cold but I don’t care who operates this. I show up, buy a ticket out of the machine, bus comes, nice ride down to Finch and away I go.
I’ve never even noticed what kind of uniform the driver is wearing and it’s none of my business whether the driver is in a Union or not. Be close to on time and drive safely and I’m happy. Bit of a pain going out and then back in at Finch but switching to Eglinton cannot be much worse. I’m sure the Eg service will not be all that frequent but I don’t think the TTC was planning much better?
Bang for our buck? well all i know is if it comes in on budget or not, I (we) are guaranteed to be paying more in taxes somehow and if not for LRT operation than for something else.
Anyways quick question Steve, I assume that since it is still all their money, QP/Metrolinx will now own and operate our ‘new’ Scarboro RT line? Have not heard this mentioned.
Oh, and as Steve has already mentioned, this move was really no surprise and I really do not think Ford’s delay hurt or helped this move. I think QP always had this in mind. Also did you go see the LRT at the CNE this summer? Metrolinx written on it and it was GREEN, not red. That kind of said it all I think.
Steve: Yes, the RT/LRT is part of the deal. I’m not sure how the ownership of whatever residual value the City of Toronto still owns will be transferred, and suspect that this is one of many details to be worked out. Queen’s Park paid for a good chunk of the original line as a showcase for the technology (including cost overruns), and with the amount of reconstruction to be done, whatever is the “city” share may have little value for a sale.
The big issues in the new arrangement relate to planning for network expansion, decisions on service quality, and the possibility that Queen’s Park might sell the whole thing in a deal like Highway 407.
LikeLike
I wonder how the private sector will fare with stubborn anti-LRT Councillors who would do whatever they can to sabotage the projects?
Steve: Depending on who the “private sector” is, they might try to sell them an alternative technology. If the four lines are actually built and with LRT by 2020, I will be moderately surprised as Metrolinx was not a fan of LRT from the beginning. They say differently now, but I don’t trust them.
LikeLike
Karl Junkin (Sept 22) has made a very important point, in the comment on political uncertainty. The weak provincial government coupled with the unresolved political tension surrounding the projects in question create a very high risk environment for said projects. To make things more precarious, in an economic downward shift the political mood of the people can shift dramatically, destabilizing the projects even more, which is fairly probable in the next couple of years.
My personal feeling is that given the high political risk associated with most of the LRT lines, efforts should be made to insulate the Eglinton LRT (in my opinion the most viable of the LRTs) from political risk and accept that most of the others will likely face political revision in the future. My suggestion is not ideal but given the prevalent political and economic risks it is more likely to deliver an acceptable result.
Steve: That sounds like a nice theoretical argument, but how would you achieve this?
LikeLike
You know, looking back on all this, it is altogether more infuriating that we have Rob Ford and a spineless Council (including and perhaps especially Stintz) to thank for this.
At this point, we’d be better off with a firm defeat of the McGuinty government, though who knows what the fallout will be.
But it’s clear enough that the history of the current government shows multiple examples of attempts to leverage private sector “expertise” into major projects, be it EHealth, ORNGE, or now Metrolinx.
What exactly is the justification for running Metrolinx as a creature of the province with a board accountable to no one really, as opposed to Translink in Vancouver?
Steve: If you have been following Translink, you will have read of the massive funding cuts which will lead to service and expansion plans being trashed. Be careful what you wish for.
LikeLike
So just a thought. When the operations or maintenance contract comes up for tender, what’s to stop the TTC from bidding on it? Or TTIL?
Steve: For one thing, the TTC isn’t a multinational with a whole department organized to bid on external work. As for TTIL, it hasn’t got two cents left to rub together having blown everything on Rob Ford’s subway consultant.
LikeLike
I think some people who desire the private sector operating the LRTs, when they open up for service in Toronto, think that they would kick out the union at the same time. They forget that that the Amalgamated Transit Union, local 113, predates the Toronto Transit Commission and the Toronto Transportation Commission. In 1899, they represented workers for the Toronto Street Railway, a private company. See here for their history. In 1900, the men finally got 18¢ an hour, an increase from 15¢.
LikeLike
Just like Canada Line PPP project in Vancouver underwent significant revisions during construction, resulting in a cut-and-cover tunnel underneath Cambie Street as opposed to twin-bore tunnels as originally planned, what are the chances of the Eglinton LRT project undergoing significant… ahem, revisions, say a conversion to ICTS and full-grade separation? After all, Metrolinx was always warm to this idea, and on the other hand a three-year shutdown of the existing RT for reconstruction to LRT is politically untenable in Scarborough, for both right- and left-wing politicians(hence, the Karen-and-Glen plan about a B-D extension from Kennedy to Sheppard, to circumvent a long shutdown of the RT). This would also explain to a certain extent Metrolinx’s musings about keeping the McCowan ICTS yard in operation as an alternative storage site after the line re-opens , which of course would be reasonable if there is a (hidden) intent to revise the current project.
Steve: I wouldn’t be the slightest bit surprised if this happened. Bombardier has been musing about this option for quite a while as I have heard. Of course the thought that there might be some other company willing to take on this project and actually get the contract in Ontario would be just this side of miraculous.
LikeLike
@W.K. Lis
I’m not understanding what this comment has to do with anything? In 2021 they will either go with union men, or not. Why would Metrolinx care, or rather why should they care what the history of 113 is?.
My main concern is what the TTC will look like in 2021. Will there still be a TTC? This whole scenario seems like Act I in a stage show that’s already written except we (the public) don’t know the story yet. Unless I’m mistaken it seems to me that the Province controls everything we do, from the number of councillors to how we choose to raise money … QP could decide Metrolinx runs the entire show. Could this be possible?
Steve: Anything is possible, especially considering that many of the pols now in office won’t be around in eight years.
LikeLike
The irony in all of this is that Metrolinx and Queen’s Park have consistently said that they need to respect the will of Toronto City Council.
We all know Metrolinx wanted ICTS (“AGT”) on Eglinton and Bombardier (I presume) as the operator, in a fully automated configuration. Why would they cave in to the City on technology/grade separation and then go off and ram this down their throats? Makes no sense.
I still don’t see how this is going to work. Imagine if a different operator ran the Bloor subway and everyone at Bloor-Yonge and St. George had to “transfer tap”. How will this work at high-volume transfer stations like Eglinton, Eglinton W., and Kennedy without creating a bottleneck? Once upon a time, the TTC used to estimate transfers at Bloor-Yonge between all four directions using head counters, and I suppose that could be done on Eglinton, but the practice was never really all that accurate. I suppose they’ll install turnstiles, but then again, that will impede passenger flow.
On the other hand, I’m sure a private operator will run a more regularly spaced service, but having vehicles that are branded differently is sure to confuse passengers. I was up in Vaughan recently and seeing local YRT, Zum, and Viva buses on Hwy 7 was very confusing. In Toronto, we need to have one system.
LikeLike
After this announcement, there is no question that they will revert back to a fully grade separated Eglinton route (with driverless automation) to keep operational costs down.
Steve: It will be intriguing to see what changes dribble out in the year or so leading up to issuing the tender. At the point they call for proposals, will they have changed the design, or will they have an option for bidders to suggest alternatives? One important milestone is the contract for Conlins Road Carhouse which should get underway earlier than other projects. If suddenly this gets put on hold, it will be obvious what’s going on.
LikeLike
The Metrolinx email states:
“AFP also protects the public from cost overruns and imposes financial penalties on the private sector partner if a project is delivered late. If the project is late, the private sector pays. If project is over budget, the private sector pays.”
Doesn’t this apply to typical publicly-financed projects as well? If so, AFP advocates should stop using this argument.
Steve: AFP advocates have all sorts of fantasies about how the private sector will pay for its screwups. This usually requires an ironclad contract so that it is provable that the private partner is responsible. In London, the contract was tight and in the end the private consortium (which included Bombardier) walked away from the deal rather than absorb huge losses.
LikeLike
@ William Paul.
You seem to miss the point re the history of ATU 113. The point is they have represented the workers “forever”, so don’t count them out.
Clearly you do not understand how unions work when you say “they will either go with union men, or not. ” Here is how it works. An employer goes into business and hires workers. A union comes along and offers to represent said workers. Eventually, a vote is held. The WORKERS decide if a union will represent them. The employer, be it Metrolinx or somebody else has NO say in the matter.
LikeLike
Steve said:
And now Transport for London’s various subsidiary companies are pretty much in control of all public transit in London with the exception of the contracted out bus services.
London also has seen increases in fares and their one-trip underground ticket is well over 4 GBP now.
But at the same time, the key thing is that service appears to be better, accountability (under TfL) is stronger & more transparent, and service expansion is taking place.
You can take away the politicians or bring them back, go with regular financing or AFP, go with private or public (or publicly-owned, but pretending to be private) companies, whatever you do you still have to have: 1) enough money invested on a regular basis, and 2) accountability.
Cheers, Moaz
LikeLike
Saying London’s “one-trip underground ticket is well over 4 GBP now” is a bit unfair — the fares build in a penalty to discourage people from buying single tickets with cash. With an Oystercard, which almost everyone has, a ride on the underground in zone 1 is £2 and a bus ride is £1.35.
LikeLike