Metrolinx $55 Billion Plan

[W. K. Lis]

Federal Election: Put public transit subsidy on the plate

We should require the federal political parties to put in writing, how much of a subsidy the federal government will provide to urban transit. Not single handouts with conditions, but a true consistent subsidy.

After all, the federal government supports VIA, a rail passenger company. So they should support other rail passenger companies, such as the TTC.

 

[waterloowarrior]

We should require the federal political parties to put in writing, how much of a subsidy the federal government will provide to urban transit. Not single handouts with conditions, but a true consistent subsidy.

After all, the federal government supports VIA, a rail passenger company. So they should support other rail passenger companies, such as the TTC.

The province has a responsibility for all local works undertakings (e.g. public transit). The federal government has responsibility for interprovincial infrastructure (including rail lines) like the Quebec City-Windsor corridor or things of national interest/advantage

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/c1867_e.html#distribution

 

[jn_12]

We should require the federal political parties to put in writing, how much of a subsidy the federal government will provide to urban transit. Not single handouts with conditions, but a true consistent subsidy.

After all, the federal government supports VIA, a rail passenger company. So they should support other rail passenger companies, such as the TTC.

Back in January 2007 I had the chance to talk to former PM Paul Martin for two hours along with a dozen of my classmates and one of the questions I asked was with regards to a national transit strategy and the level of funding that should be provided. He acknowledged that cities are becoming increasingly important and that they are essentially the economic engines that drive the country but also suggested that city's need to take responsibility for their own actions. When I asked whether this could be tied in to health care funding because the two are linked he felt the program wouldn't satisfy the country because while everyone needs health care no matter where they live, public transit really isn't of significant importance or feasibility to many parts of the country. That's obviously a synopsis of what he said, but he provided some examples and whatnot as well.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Back in January 2007 I had the chance to talk to former PM Paul Martin for two hours along with a dozen of my classmates and one of the questions I asked was with regards to a national transit strategy and the level of funding that should be provided. He acknowledged that cities are becoming increasingly important and that they are essentially the economic engines that drive the country but also suggested that city's need to take responsibility for their own actions. When I asked whether this could be tied in to health care funding because the two are linked he felt the program wouldn't satisfy the country because while everyone needs health care no matter where they live, public transit really isn't of significant importance or feasibility to many parts of the country. That's obviously a synopsis of what he said, but he provided some examples and whatnot as well.

80% of Canada lives in an urban area vs. 20% in a rural area. Those 80% would consider transportation in the urban area of importance.

It was the reverse in 1867. At confederation, urban transit was not a consideration. It is now. And will be more in the coming years, especially with the environment.

 

[Anth]

80% of Canada lives in an urban area vs. 20% in a rural area. Those 80% would consider transportation in the urban area of importance.

It was the reverse in 1867. At confederation, urban transit was not a consideration. It is now. And will be more in the coming years, especially with the environment.

Outside the major centres, "urban" is a pretty loose term in this country.

 

[MisterF]

^As it is in every country.

 

[Conrad Black]

80% of Canada lives in an urban area vs. 20% in a rural area. Those 80% would consider transportation in the urban area of importance.

It was the reverse in 1867. At confederation, urban transit was not a consideration. It is now. And will be more in the coming years, especially with the environment.

Smaller populations in rural riding means they continue to have a larger influence than they should have.

 

[Dichotomy]

As I said before, there are 3 Canadas: Toronto, Vancouver and the Rest.

There are really only 3 cities where transit is an issue. Do you think Owen Sound or Regina care about our subways?

It is for this reason that I have stated before that a special Act needs to be put in place that would put Toronto, Vancouver (and I guess Montreal, because we would hear nothing but whining from the Separatists if we didn't) in a special category. Proto-Provinces, or something like that.
It is crazy that many of our laws date back to Confederation and now 3 of our major cities have a bigger population than many Provinces.

It is positively insane that the TTC has to go begging to Queen's Park and Ottawa to buy new trains or to build a subway. There is no business on Earth that runs itself in such a slipshod manner. There should have been a decades-long plan in place to grow the TTC with the city.

All of this crap about LRTs is a joke because most of our congestion problems today are based on the city not thinking we would reach 5 million. Let's start planning for 10 million people and that means a SUBWAY along Eglinton.

 

[poomar]

do you think montreal only deserves consideration because "the seperatists would whine if it wasn't the recipient of federal monies"?

have you ever been to montreal? maybe you should spend more time reading, travelling and talking to people before you make such absurd statements as that.

 

[Dichotomy]

Montreal is not growing as fast as Toronto and Vancouver are. Montreal does not get the same proportion of immigrants that we do. In many ways, Montreal has done a better job with its transit system than either of the other two cities have.
BTW, I visit Montreal frequently. Love the city, but Quebec gets enough out of Ottawa.

 

[EnviroTO]

I agree with those who have the opinion that transit funding is not the federal governments responsibility. We need to move away from the thinking that every project in this country should be split 3 ways. It is quite counter productive to need to involve every level of government on every project because it just creates more red tape and lowers the level of accountability for every level of government. We need a system where we can say "problem X" occurred, that is the "Y level" of governments responsibility, and lets hold this against them at the next election.

There should be realms of responsibility for each level of government which do not overlap. Each level of government should not be able to mandate a level service without providing full funding for that service. In addition to the realms of responsibility there should be a two equalization systems, one which takes funds collected federally for equalization purposes and distrubutes them provincially/territorially on an equal basis (no special exclusions). Likewise there should be a system which takes funds collected provincially (which could include those passed down from the federal government) and distributes them on an equal basis municipally.

The system we have now is asking for trouble. Pre-election we have governments buying votes on projects that aren't in their realm of responsibility, and between elections every level of government is blaming the other for anything that goes wrong. Each level of government thinks it should be able to lower tax or hold the line on taxes and then blame some other level of government for its inability to balance their budget.

The federal government should be focused on national and international transportation infrastructure. That means airports, the intercity rail backbone, and a national highway system. The federal government is taking money from Pearson, has done little with VIA Rail, and the Trans-Canada Highway is a joke in many sections.

The province should be focused on provincial transportation infrastructure. That means shorter distance rail services, and the provincial highway system. The province has done a decent job with GO Transit, has let Ontario Northland languish, and has downloaded a significant portion of the provincial highway system leaving highways that end in the middle of nowhere or are not continuous.

The municipal governments should be responsible for municipal infrastructure. The city had a great transit system at one point but over time has made minimal improvements to the system with ridership growing at levels higher than capacity growth leading to packed vehicles, vehicles that cannot stay on schedule, and long trip times.

 

[EnviroTO]

do you think montreal only deserves consideration because "the seperatists would whine if it wasn't the recipient of federal monies"?

It has gotten to the point I no longer read his posts. It is quite pointless because most of what he says is irrational. Canada is defined as Toronto, Vancouver, and "the Rest"? On what basis? By whom? For what purpose?

 

[kEiThZ]

Only in Canada do citizens expect the highest level of government to provide the most local service to them. It makes absolutely no sense as EnviroTO pointed out.

After all, why should voters in Regina pay for subways in Toronto? And if we expect the Feds to pay, should we not then give them some say in the projects? Likewise, if we expect the province to pitch in for a strictly 416 project like the Sheppard subway, should they not get some say in dictating things like density along the route (via the OMB). We can't have it both ways, expecting other levels of government to pay but not giving them a voice in the projects.

Each level of government should be taking care of its responsibilities. If they did, much more would get done, we would not have lavish election promises, and the results would be much better.

The feds should be sticking to interprovincial trasportation and addressing things like aviation, national railways and an interprovincial road network. If they did this, the Trans Canada might evolve to more of a network, we might see high speed rail, and airport rents would probably decline. And the province should be addressing regional transit while leaving local transit to municipalities. This might mean viewing certain assets differently. For example, the TTC subways have important regional impacts. Perhaps they should be combined with GO Transit to form a regional rail network, leaving the bus/LRT services for local authoriites to pick up.

IMO, Toronto would be in much better shape if the McGuinty had fulfilled his promise of reversing the downloading of social programs. The cities would have the cash to balance their books and to build infrastructure. And then residents would have a direct target to blame if infrastructure didnt get built.

 

[allabootmatt]

After all, why should voters in Regina pay for subways in Toronto?

For the millionth time, no one--absolutely no one--is asking them to.

Toronto subsidizes the rest of the country. Its infrastructure and other needs could be easily met with a small fraction of that subsidy being re-invested locally instead of supporting public services in other parts of Canada.

 

[nfitz]

Any word from the weekend love-in?