News   Apr 25, 2024
 264     0 
News   Apr 25, 2024
 389     0 
News   Apr 25, 2024
 583     0 

Should the "Metro" Concept be Revived for the GTHA?

Even without combining multiple transit system fares, that 905 bus ride probably already costs $8 (upfront fare plus the large tax-based subsidy).

But the problem isn't the cost of the bus ride, or even how far you have to walk to get to the bus stop, or how often that bus comes....it's the fact that's the best you can hope for, because higher order transit is simply out of the question based on the built form, which is never going to change (unless you bulldoze the 905 and start again from scratch).

Most of Toronto is suburban. Ever been to Scarborough? Multiple LRTs have been proposed in the suburbs and GO plans for expanding its train services are still ongoing.

This is why inner-city urban Torontonians shouldn't want to hitch their transit wagon to the rest of the GTA...suburban transit is the albatross around our necks.

Suburban transit is an albatross to Toronto because they are not building LRTs? Great logic there.

If Toronto wants to be an island, I'm okay with that. No more of the province's gas tax collected from the 905 or beyond going to Toronto, for example.

I'm perfectly fine with the 905 not funding anything in Toronto. No transit, no social housing, and so on.
 
The "City of London" is still only 2.90 km[SUP]2 [/SUP]in area and with a population of only 7,375. (See link.) Compare that with Metro London at 8,382.00 km[SUP]2 [/SUP]and with a population of 13,614,409. People still think the British Parliament is in the City of London, when in fact it is in the City of Westminster.

That unique scenario has absolutely zero bearing on what we're talking about. I find this topic tedious, because most people are completely confused about the details that it involves.
 
Most of Toronto is suburban. Ever been to Scarborough?

Yes I have. The fact that it's most and not all is the saving grace for the TTC. If the TTC were burdened with the 905 as well, it would collapse the fragile house of cards that it is at the moment.

And in fact, the former boroughs are actually generally of a better overall urban design than the 905 anyway.

Suburban transit is an albatross to Toronto because they are not building LRTs? Great logic there.

I didn't say that. It's an albatross because of it's inefficient nature. The problem isn't that they don't build them...it's that they really can't build them. Ever wonder why a streetcar route actually makes a profit?
 
Toronto Star annual editorial on why de-amalgamated is bad, and megacity is good, for reasons not related to problems associated with amalgamation, have also endorsed the idea of a super metro style government for Toronto and the GTHA.

So...even if an economic case can be made, question is; is it politically feasible?
 
A little late to the game but from where I set Metrolinx provides the foundation to begin implementing something more Metro-style which I think is needed. I think the idea of de-amalgamating is just silly thinking at this point; the need is to think bigger, not smaller, but people are always going to think smaller.

Really, the main reason Metro worked is because it co-ordinated all the interests between the established urban core and the new areas developing. We just need to do that again on a bigger scale. I guess you can argue there's so much "bad" development in the 905 now it's too late but I think the principle still holds.

The problem isn't with "amalgamation" but how it was done, without giving the city more revenue and power (and that the new revenue generators the city does have have barely been used, for political reasons). As that Star article notes, the problem wasn't amalgamation as much as the simultaneous downloading. It was just a scam and a money grab by Harris, pure and simple.

I think it's pretty easy to make an economic case since it's rather obvious that Markham has plenty in common with Scarborough and Toronto and Mississauga etc. etc. The real questions are where you draw a border and how you do major restructuring of governance and taxation.

Political feasibility is less of an issue, practically speaking, because there's a majority government in place. As Mike Harris showed, you didn't need anyone to agree if you want to do it. I think some GTA municipalities would be down for a properly structured regional government but I think Toronto has showed, certainly the last few years, that regional thinking isn't on their radar at all. I wouldn't advocate for what Mike Harris did, which was basically authoritarian, but I also don't think you can ever get anyone on side, no matter how good it is for them.

If Metrolinx starts with fare integration and bringing politicians onto the board, getting them out from under cabinet's thumb, you can start building consensus around that as a legitimate authority in its own right. A few years down the road, maybe take it up a notch and build around it.

If you look around, you can still find the 1995 Golden Report online. It outlined a full system that could work for the region and I don't think it's gone out of date.
 
Last edited:
The problem with amalgamation (or city size) is that different municipal services work best at different scales. Some services need to be dealt with at a very local scale and having a regional government look after them is cumbersome and inefficient. Other services need to be dealt with at a regional scale and having local governments trying to coordinate them is virtually impossible. The logic behind a tiered system is that the local government will deal with local issues and the regional government will deal with regional issues. The trade-off with the tiered system is the perception that there is duplication and it would be cheaper to have one government (which usually isn't true but it makes good political fodder).

The trick to good urban governance is to select the most efficient size for most services. If you can have two or more tiers it provides a lot of flexibility. In 1996 the Province commissioned a study that found for the GTA the most effective tiering would be to have one overall super-regional government and with a lot of small local municipalities within it. Of course Mike Harris in his infinite wisdom decided he knew better than all the experts and amalgamated Toronto and Hamilton into one-tier cities and left the suburbs alone, which was probably the most inefficient way to do it. We are still paying the price for that blunder.
 
The problem isn't with "amalgamation" but how it was done, without giving the city more revenue and power (and that the new revenue generators the city does have have barely been used, for political reasons). As that Star article notes, the problem wasn't amalgamation as much as the simultaneous downloading. It was just a scam and a money grab by Harris, pure and simple.

Without question, downloading was a real problem that made amalgamation a nightmare, but the fact that it almost took ten years before they acknowledge the problem, took back some services and gave some powers only solves part of the problem.

But we also forget why Metro was created in the first place. In the early 50's they knew that one day the megacity would happen in some form or another, that planning on major projects where needed to be done on the local level, but amalgamation wasn't popular with the 12 out of the 13 municipalities that would later form Metro, and thus a regional government was created as a compromise. In an nutshell, a regional government is just a slow moving amalgamation, which leads to the other half of the problem, Harris sped everything up, glued the cities together with no plan and no additional funding which leads to our problems of today.

But back on topic, an new super regional government is in my opinion warranted, sooner or later Toronto is going to grow itself into Peel, York and Durham regions, but before that happens many years from now, we need a regional government that can oversee planning so we can have a smooth transition so we don't have the nightmare that the 1998 amalgamation has left us.
 
Without question, downloading was a real problem that made amalgamation a nightmare, but the fact that it almost took ten years before they acknowledge the problem, took back some services and gave some powers only solves part of the problem.

But we also forget why Metro was created in the first place. In the early 50's they knew that one day the megacity would happen in some form or another, that planning on major projects where needed to be done on the local level, but amalgamation wasn't popular with the 12 out of the 13 municipalities that would later form Metro, and thus a regional government was created as a compromise. In an nutshell, a regional government is just a slow moving amalgamation, which leads to the other half of the problem, Harris sped everything up, glued the cities together with no plan and no additional funding which leads to our problems of today.

But back on topic, an new super regional government is in my opinion warranted, sooner or later Toronto is going to grow itself into Peel, York and Durham regions, but before that happens many years from now, we need a regional government that can oversee planning so we can have a smooth transition so we don't have the nightmare that the 1998 amalgamation has left us.

I wouldn't support the Metro concept for the GTHA. Peel, York or Durham shouldn't have any say in Toronto infrastructure decisions.

I'd be more supportive of a Metro government that isn't involved in infrastructure or local issues. But I'm not sure if anything would be left for the Metro gov't to govern at that point.
 
I wouldn't support the Metro concept for the GTHA. Peel, York or Durham shouldn't have any say in Toronto infrastructure decisions.

I'd be more supportive of a Metro government that isn't involved in infrastructure or local issues. But I'm not sure if anything would be left for the Metro gov't to govern at that point.

Metro-like would have been more of appropriate wording on my part. It doesn't have to take over policing or city infrastructure just yet, but it can still play a part in regional planning, water and sewage treatment, arterial roads and tranist to a degree, like Metro was when it was formed, and even under Metro, local issues where still handled by the individual municipalities.

Besides, the way how city council voted on the hybrid option for the Gardiner Expressway and the Scarborough Subway Expansion, it not like keeping control over infrastructure issues has yield better planning. :rolleyes:
 
I cannot see any benefit to allowing these suburban municipalities to have any more influence in the affairs of the City of Toronto. It just seems like a scheme to have these suburban municipalities (who's interests largely aren't aligned with our own) interfere with the goals of the City of Toronto, while continuing to siphon billions in annual tax revenue from the City of Toronto to other municipalities. It's a crap deal for Toronto.

If these suburban municipalities want to create their own metro government amongst themselves, I'd absolutely support that. But I don't want Toronto to have any part in it. Our city doesn't need to be held back by a fourth level of government.
 
Last edited:
Re: Regional government

One thing to keep in mind is that Toronto was in a dominant position when Metro Toronto was established back in the 50s - and it was basically a vehicle to overcome local resistance (then weak) and enable suburban expansion into the then underdeveloped surrounding areas through infastructure. Trying to establish a GTA regional government now would be a completely different creature, given you'd be involving a number of large, mature municipalities with a relatively large amount of political power.

AoD
 
I cannot see any benefit to allowing these suburban municipalities to have any more influence in the affairs of the City of Toronto. It just seems like a scheme to have these suburban municipalities (who's interests largely aren't aligned with our own) interfere with the goals of the City of Toronto, while continuing to siphon billions in annual tax revenue from the City of Toronto to other municipalities. It's a crap deal for Toronto.

If these suburban municipalities want to create their own metro government amongst themselves, I'd absolutely support that. But I don't want Toronto to have any part in it. Our city doesn't need to be held back by a fourth level of government.

Re: Regional government

One thing to keep in mind is that Toronto was in a dominant position when Metro Toronto was established back in the 50s - and it was basically a vehicle to overcome local resistance (then weak) and enable suburban expansion into the then underdeveloped surrounding areas through infastructure. Trying to establish a GTA regional government now would be a completely different creature, given you'd be involving a number of large, mature municipalities with a relatively large amount of political power.

AoD

One thing we are seeing is local advocacy going against what is better for the region. SmartTrack being of fictional effectiveness when the DRL is 100% the best option. Scarborough getting a subway without the justified ridership or cost/benefit. (Unfounded) concern over heritage potentially chopping off a segment of a major regional north-south LRT line.

A Metro government would give less power to those who would benefit from political pandering, and more power to those who genuinely have the ability to think critically about what is better for the broader region, without direct consequence. That is what made the old Metro effective, until direct election of Metro councillors was imposed.

As long as a GTHA Metro government consisted of officials that are already elected through local government, I think it would be of major benefit.
 
One thing we are seeing is local advocacy going against what is better for the region. SmartTrack being of fictional effectiveness when the DRL is 100% the best option. Scarborough getting a subway without the justified ridership or cost/benefit. (Unfounded) concern over heritage potentially chopping off a segment of a major regional north-south LRT line.

A Metro government would give less power to those who would benefit from political pandering, and more power to those who genuinely have the ability to think critically about what is better for the broader region, without direct consequence. That is what made the old Metro effective, until direct election of Metro councillors was imposed.

As long as a GTHA Metro government consisted of officials that are already elected through local government, I think it would be of major benefit.

I have doing some backward reading - and this quote, from the the Rapid Transit in Toronto: A Century of Plans, Progress, Politics and Paralysis by Edward J Levy comes to mind:

The 1976 Metropolitan Toronto Draft Official Plan, known as Metroplan, may be viewed as the Planning Department’s response to the Toronto Transit Commission’s 1969 and (revised) 1973 concepts, and perhaps more significantly, as Metropolitan Toronto’s official political response to the Metropolitan Toronto Transportation Plan Review of 1973–1975.

A casual review might suggest that Figures 11.0.1 and 9.0.2 (Concept for Integrated Rapid Transit and Commuter Rail Systems in the Metropolitan Toronto Region, February 1973), are similar, but this similarity is largely the result of the paucity of major arterial corridors in the area.[1] However, Figure 11.0.1 (Metroplan) indicates three significant deletions from the TTC’s (revised) schematic plan shown in Figure 9.0.2:

  1. The Queen Street–Don Mills corridor subway is nowhere to be seen.
  2. The southward extension of the Spadina–Allen Road subway from Bloor Street West to serve Harbour City, the residential development proposed in 1970 for the Island (now Billy Bishop) Airport site, and the proposed branch to Exhibition Place and Ontario Place, were eliminated when the Harbour City project failed to materialize.
  3. The territorial limits have reverted from “the region” to Metropolitan Toronto (now the City of Toronto) boundary.
The third deletion represents the end of the original (1953) concept in which the city was viewed as being the core of a dynamic urban region, which encompassed almost all of what now constitutes the Greater Toronto Area.

The Province of Ontario’s early 1970s transformation of several former neighbouring counties into the “Regional Municipalities” of Durham in the east, York in the north, and Peel and Halton in the west essentially ended serious attempts to plan Ontario’s (and Canada’s) largest metropolitan concentration on a regional scale. In fact, the creation of these entities effectively put Metropolitan Toronto into a straitjacket in terms of providing fully integrated transportation facilities to serve a high-growth city-region, a situation exacerbated by the skeletal GO Transit commuter rail service with its single focal point in the Toronto core and its part-time schedule.[2]

This restructuring could be considered a logical response to political aspirations then emerging in areas beyond the Metro boundary, including concerns expressed by certain provincial agencies and politicians that a more unified metropolitan region containing about half the provincial population might become too competitive with the province itself for capital resources and centralized functions.

Whatever the reasons for the disaggregation of what had once been the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Area, the ramifications continued to hobble responsible planning for the remainder of the 20th century, despite pronouncements of the importance of regional thinking. Even with provincial policy initiatives such as the Greenbelt Plan of 2005, the Places to Grow growth plan of 2006, and of course, Metrolinx and The Big Move of 2008, earlier policies continue to make it difficult to achieve consensus in the region on infrastructure plans.

http://levyrapidtransit.ca/chapter-11-planning-policy-gone-awry-metroplan-1976/#.VawVDfnm6Gk

AoD
 
Maybe we're thinking about this all wrong way. A regional layer government will only add to the bureaucracy and in-fighting between the cities and the province. Maybe we should go one step further, maybe we should become an city-state? A quasi-province if you will, finish what Mike Harris started years ago and download everything; health care, education, taxation, transit,etc. I mean everything, make the GTHA have a parliamentary democracy with the responsibilities of a city and a province. Have the power of one government to carry out regional planning and transit, instead of having this back and forth between the city, province and another regional government that will only create more problems. We need a system that will allow a region like the GTHA to have the power to make self-sustaining decisions that doesn't require if it's popular or not in the rest of the province.


We need to rebuild this wheel!
 
The recent Gardiner Expressway fiasco is good example why suburbs should not have any say in Toronto matters. Regional government just leads to stupidity. I think Toronto should be demalgamated and into single tier municipalities. Same with the rest of 905.

Think of how much better TTC service would be if it didn't have to go out the suburbs. If it was just old Toronto the TTC would be much better, much more efficient. TTC would stop losing money and be profitable again liek it used to be. Toronto would also save a lot of money on other social programs, especially policing and social housing, since most of the poverty and crime is in the suburbs. Money would stop flowing out of the city and stay in the city where it belongs.
 

Back
Top