News   Apr 26, 2024
 1K     3 
News   Apr 26, 2024
 274     0 
News   Apr 26, 2024
 807     0 

Amalgamation

Kind of rich for Fraser to come up with that report - guess the mantra of just looking at the bottom line to the exclusion of all else doesn't necessarily get you the desired results.

And yes, if only someone had pay attention to the Golden Report almost what, 20 years ago, we wouldn't be reinventing the wheel right now.

It would be easier to create a gta regional mayors' council chaired by a provincial minister assigned to the role. Don't need the extra bureaucracy.

And what powers does that council have? To exercise any meaningful power it'd have to be manifested by some form of bureaucracy with clear jursidiction. Sitting down and pow-wowing might be good as a one-off, but it is no way to govern.

AoD
 
Kind of rich for Fraser to come up with that report - guess the mantra of just looking at the bottom line to the exclusion of all else doesn't necessarily get you the desired results.

And yes, if only someone had pay attention to the Golden Report almost what, 20 years ago, we wouldn't be reinventing the wheel right now.



And what powers does that council have? To exercise any meaningful power it'd have to be manifested by some form of bureaucracy with clear jursidiction. Sitting down and pow-wowing might be good as a one-off, but it is no way to govern.

AoD
The bureaucracy and funding would come from the provincial ministry.
 
The bureaucracy and funding would come from the provincial ministry.

Why should the province be interested in (not to mention, be involved in) running things like sewers, local roads and whatnot directly? As much as I am appreciative of their role thus far, historically provincial involvement in GTHA planning and transit is a really mixed bag. Think of all the false starts, mistakes and broken promises in the transit file because of provincial meddling alone.

AoD
 
It would be easier to create a gta regional mayors' council chaired by a provincial minister assigned to the role. Don't need the extra bureaucracy.

It wouldn't be extra bureaucracy though. I would abolish the current regional governments (Halton, Peel, York, Durham), and replace them with a single Metro government. You aren't really adding government, just shifting where it's taking place. The current regional governments, IMO, are pretty useless. Too big to effectively deal with local issues, too small to really deal with region-wide issues. They're in the goldilocks zone of uselessness.
 
Why should the province be interested in (not to mention, be involved in) running things like sewers, local roads and whatnot directly? As much as I am appreciative of their role thus far, historically provincial involvement in GTHA planning and transit is a really mixed bag. Think of all the false starts, mistakes and broken promises in the transit file because of provincial meddling alone.

AoD

If you have three dysfunctional levels of government you probably won't solve it by adding a fourth.
 
As gweed already mentioned, the fourth had, and still exist - this is a realignment of government to scale properly with the regional reality of the GTHA.

AoD
 
If you have three dysfunctional levels of government you probably won't solve it by adding a fourth.

I would argue that a lot of the dysfunction is caused by levels of government trying to solve problems that are not in their proper scale to solve. Toronto can't solve regional congestion, nor can it effectively deal with local residents wants (see: Jarvis bike lane debate). Congestion should be dealt with by a new Metro government covering the entire GTA, and bike lanes should be dealt with by the local municipality (in the case of Jarvis, the de-amalgamated City of Toronto).
 
One reason I wouldn't want to go back to anything Metro-related is that I feel the doling out of funds and infrastructure projects had to be fair. If we extended B/D to Warden, then it had to simultaneously be extended to Islington. If extending to Kennedy, then it also had to go to Kipling. And if we propose a subway on Eglinton West, then it has to be balanced out with one on Sheppard East. All the while an area that needed a subway badly like the downtown (despite already having its 'fair share') would be ignored.

Obviously this balanced approach wasn't confined to Metro, as is evident when looking at Transit City, or how a subway extension to Hwy 7 in Vaughan was more or less balanced with a proposed extension to Hwy 7 in Richmond Hill. But I feel if we bring in regions to sit at the same table (regions that obviously have stark differences), then the fair approach will merely continue on and we'll be having to build costly projects that should only be warranted in high-density downtowns out to Durham and Peel only because it's 'fair'.
 
I would argue that a lot of the dysfunction is caused by levels of government trying to solve problems that are not in their proper scale to solve. Toronto can't solve regional congestion, nor can it effectively deal with local residents wants (see: Jarvis bike lane debate). Congestion should be dealt with by a new Metro government covering the entire GTA, and bike lanes should be dealt with by the local municipality (in the case of Jarvis, the de-amalgamated City of Toronto).
Of course in your example the Jarvis bike lanes (pre-amalgamation) would have been handled by the regional municipality because it was a regional road. Just shows how complicated things get when you add a municipal layer.
 
One reason I wouldn't want to go back to anything Metro-related is that I feel the doling out of funds and infrastructure projects had to be fair. If we extended B/D to Warden, then it had to simultaneously be extended to Islington. If extending to Kennedy, then it also had to go to Kipling. And if we propose a subway on Eglinton West, then it has to be balanced out with one on Sheppard East. All the while an area that needed a subway badly like the downtown (despite already having its 'fair share') would be ignored.

Obviously this balanced approach wasn't confined to Metro, as is evident when looking at Transit City, or how a subway extension to Hwy 7 in Vaughan was more or less balanced with a proposed extension to Hwy 7 in Richmond Hill. But I feel if we bring in regions to sit at the same table (regions that obviously have stark differences), then the fair approach will merely continue on and we'll be having to build costly projects that should only be warranted in high-density downtowns out to Durham and Peel only because it's 'fair'.

Except that we are doing exactly the same thing with the current approach of province-lead regional planning/funding. It wasn't like DRL was built in the absence of regional government either.

AoD
 
One reason I wouldn't want to go back to anything Metro-related is that I feel the doling out of funds and infrastructure projects had to be fair. If we extended B/D to Warden, then it had to simultaneously be extended to Islington. If extending to Kennedy, then it also had to go to Kipling. And if we propose a subway on Eglinton West, then it has to be balanced out with one on Sheppard East. All the while an area that needed a subway badly like the downtown (despite already having its 'fair share') would be ignored.

Obviously this balanced approach wasn't confined to Metro, as is evident when looking at Transit City, or how a subway extension to Hwy 7 in Vaughan was more or less balanced with a proposed extension to Hwy 7 in Richmond Hill. But I feel if we bring in regions to sit at the same table (regions that obviously have stark differences), then the fair approach will merely continue on and we'll be having to build costly projects that should only be warranted in high-density downtowns out to Durham and Peel only because it's 'fair'.

The model that I would like to see used is to have transit projects divided up into 3 categories: Metro, Regional, and Local. Metro projects would be like GO RER, which benefit the entire metropolitan region. Regional projects would be like the Eglinton Crosstown, which serve a local function but also form part of a crucial regional transportation network. Local projects would be like the East Bayfront LRT, which are purely for a local purpose.

Metro projects would be funded purely from the Metro level (or the Provincial level, depending on the Metro-Province funding relationship). For Regional projects, each City in Metro would identify their priority project, and they would be allocated a share of the funding pie based 50% on ridership and 50% on population. If the project cost is beyond that, it's covered by the lower level municipality. For Local projects, it's funded 100% by the lower level municipality. If they want to go gangbusters on local transit, go for it.

By establishing a firm set of funding rules instead of the ad hoc basis we have now, I think we can avoid a lot of the bickering occurring around transit projects. The rules would be well spelled out, and by having municipalities that are small enough, if they want a cadillac (ex: Scarborough Subway), then they can pay the cost difference between what their allocation from Metro is, and what the total cost of the project is.

Of course in your example the Jarvis bike lanes (pre-amalgamation) would have been handled by the regional municipality because it was a regional road. Just shows how complicated things get when you add a municipal layer.

I wasn't aware that Jarvis was originally a regional road. I was under the impression that regional roads in Metro Toronto were primarily concession roads. That may be a poor example then, but there are plenty of other instances with bike lanes where they're rejected by suburban councillors, even though the bike lane is on a relatively local road in Downtown TO.
 
Ah, okay. But I guess the potential for any misguided fair approach is still possible where "Regional"/"Local" projects get lumped into "Metro" - much as it was before, and is now. Example, where a subway line/extension is justified on its merits of bringing riders between Centres, using funny math with wild presumptions about how many riders will be traveling between two centres within Metro. Much as it was with Sheppard supposedly being a major corridor connecting STC to NYCC where the 2011 ridership ended up being 1/3 of what was projected in the 80s. Or with the supposed throngs that are supposed to use Yonge North to travel counter peak to get from Downtown, E+Y, NYCC up to RHC-LG - all the while methods that are more optimal for inter-Regional or intra-Metro travel like RER are ignored.

Sorry, I may've just used this post to carry over a rant I was planning on writing yesterday in the Yonge North thread.
 
Last edited:
Ah, okay. But I guess the potential for any misguided fair approach is still possible where "Regional"/"Local" projects get lumped into "Metro" - much as it was before, and is now. Example, where a subway line/extension is justified on its merits of bringing riders between Centres, using funny math with wild presumptions about how many riders will be traveling between two centres within Metro. Much as it was with Sheppard supposedly being a major corridor connecting STC to NYCC where the 2011 ridership ended up being 1/3 of what was projected in the 80s. Or with the supposed throngs that are supposed to use Yonge North to travel counter peak to get from Downtown, E+Y, NYCC up to RHC-LG - all the while methods that are more optimal for inter-Regional or intra-Metro travel like RER are ignored.

Sorry, I may've just used this post to carry over a rant I was planning on writing yesterday in the Yonge North thread.

Certainly there is potential for projects to be "mis-classified", but I would hope that having all planning (and by extension, classification) done by Metrolinx would alleviate some of those concerns. Yes, the Big Move initially was a collection of a bunch of different local transit plans, but in the years since its initial introduction many elements (such as GO RER) have evolved.

In general, I think that this type of setup would be beneficial for Toronto (Old Toronto, York, and East York). Without suburban interference on local projects, projects like the East Bayfront LRT could be completed with very little issue, since the funding would be coming exclusively from Toronto taxpayers, so it wouldn't have to fight with a subway extension in Scarborough for funding.
 
Here's the link to The Star's interpretation:

Amalgamation a flop, Fraser Institute study suggests

As debates in Peel and Toronto illustrate, cultural differences weren’t considered in the rush to cut costs — while savings turned out to be an illusion.

It’s no secret that when it comes to municipal politics, many members of Ford Nation in the outer wards don’t see eye-to-eye with their downtown Toronto counterparts. And in Caledon a battle is escalating with the rest of Peel Region, as rural values are confronted by urban growth


It’s all part of the problem of amalgamating municipalities under one government, argues a new study by the conservative-leaning Fraser Institute, released Tuesday, titled De-amalgamation in Canada: Breaking Up Is Hard to Do.

The report’s co-author Lydia Miljan, a political science professor at the University of Windsor, says many of today’s post-amalgamation problems had never been seriously contemplated.

“I think that when a lot of this initial discussion about amalgamation came forward by the previous government, it was all about cost savings, it was all about reducing duplication, and not enough thought was brought into just basic issues of governance and cultural differences between areas, in terms of sensibilities about what people want in certain communities,” says Miljan.

Mississauga Mayor Bonnie Crombie had not seen the Fraser Institute study, but responded to questions Monday about the possibility of her city “breaking up” with Peel Region.

“Mississauga is Canada’s sixth largest city, and it may be time to re-evaluate our position in the Region of Peel,” Crombie stated in an email.

“The issue of whether or not Mississauga should remain as part of Peel Region is not new. Members of Council and former Mayor McCallion repeatedly raised the possibility of Mississauga becoming a single-tier city, just like Toronto. We are currently undertaking a governance review on the future of Peel Region, so now is the perfect time to have this conversation.

“Now is the opportunity to answer the question: should Mississauga remain in Peel? I look forward to reviewing the findings of the Fraser Institute report once it is released.”

Brampton Mayor Linda Jeffrey also expressed her concerns with the region’s amalgamated government.

“Based on recent developments, it is clear that the current governance model requires attention and that the residents of Peel are not represented properly,” Jeffrey stated.

Last month, Caledon’s five representatives staged a walkout at Peel Region council, after Crombie, Jeffrey and other council members from Brampton and Mississauga tried to call in the province to address questionable land use decisions by Caledon. (The vote succeeded at a subsequent meeting.)

Caledon Mayor Allan Thompson, who has said the other two cities don’t understand Caledon’s rural sensibilities, said publicly that the move could bring an end to Peel Region.

The Fraser report also details the divisions in Toronto illustrated by last year’s municipal election, when the suburban viewpoint embodied by the Ford brothers carried places such as Etobicoke and Scarborough, while those in the central part of the city largely supported Mayor John Tory
’s more urban mandate.


Beyond the cultural divisions, Miljan says amalgamation has not necessarily achieved the cost savings it was supposed to.

“Unfortunately, we found that it sounds good on paper; certainly you saved a little bit of money by having fewer mayors and municipal councillors, but what people quickly realized was, that is not the biggest ticket item.”

She says, for example, staffing costs often go up when municipalities amalgamate because jobs are not eliminated and salaries are brought up to the levels of those in the largest cities.

Miljan said her findings about differing political values being forced together under amalgamation are highlighted by the situation in Peel. “That controversy in Peel I think underscores these bigger debates that need to be had.”
 

Back
Top