You know, these conversations are worthless because nobody is really consistent on these issues, in any case. The fact is we live in a society where everybody wants everything to be "fair", and unfortunately everyone has a different definition of what "fair" is.
If Toronto had sufficient political clout in Ontario, it would require that the suburbs subsidize Toronto infrastructure, arguing that "Toronto is the lifeblood of the economy". If rural Ontario had total clout, it would argue that "agriculture is the lifeblood of society".
Everyone can rationalize why their community and/or demographic is deserving of a larger piece of the pie. And the problem is not going away anytime soon.
We've got people in rural Canada who are demanding access to broadband internet access. And every centrist to centre-leftist politician is salivating at the prospect of requiring that licensing rules require that companies like Bell, Telus and Rogers go out of their way to undertake these unprofitable ventures, forcing people in urban centres to carry the cost. This way it can be "fair".
Of course, we won't require people to live in North Bay. Nor do we require people to live in Toronto. Or work there. We don't require a business to setup on Adelaide street in Toronto, or on King Street in Hamilton. These choices are market decisions. Then the populist masses get involved and start trying to use the government to impose "fairness" and suddenly we have public debts skyrocketing, endless cycles of transfer dependence and withdrawal, and every special interest group (and yes, transit riders are a special interest group) demanding special treatment when the going gets tough -- to be excluded from the consequences of the necessity of austerity -- because their plans, their programmes, their contribution is "essential".
I have news for everyone: nothing is essential, except oxygen to breathe, food to eat and some way to keep warm. About half the world's population can attest to this.