Premier Doug Ford's Ontario

[innsertnamehere]

Would this still be true if we measured the spending per capita, in constant dollars?

Would it still be true if we considered the much more expensive financing of P3s as opposed to traditionally cheaper government financed construction, with a higher portion of cash from current?

I don't immediately know the answer to the above questions, that math would take me a moment.........but ......I have my suspicions

Per capita it's tough given how much the province has grown - but if we qualify it with "in most of our lifetimes", it would be accurate.

It's also true in terms of amount of infrastructure in delivery - Ford has over 50km of subways / subway equivalent in delivery right now - if we include Ottawa.. it goes up to over 75km. Then you get to LRTs, with another 36km under construction and more in planning (hamilton LRT).

The metro expansions alone will almost double the amount of metro track in the province.

On top of all that you have GO RER.. which is basically doubling the scale of the metro network expansion.

And this also ignores the investments into the existing network - Bloor-Yonge capacity expansion, new Line 2 trains, easier-access... etc.

The capital spend on transit right now is honestly insane. And I've said it on this board before - but despite Ford's rhetoric, his actual capital dollars spent on the provincial road network for capacity expansions has been below that of the McGuinty / Wynne Liberals, at least so far.

 

[Northern Light]

It's also true in terms of amount of infrastructure in delivery - Ford has over 50km of subways / subway equivalent in delivery right now

Hmmm, with some of that work announced, or construction started as far back as 2 premiers ago.......

With completion dates out to 2035........

I'm not sure I'm buying.

A fair comparison would be what any set of Premiers could have been said to delivered (or contributed to delivering) over any 20 year window.

So let's look at the TTC from 1963-1983.

That's all of Line 2 (Kennedy to Kipling), Line 1 University line, Line 1 Spadina Line to Wilson, and Line 1 Yonge, Eglinton to Finch).

That's...hmmm, ~30km and change of Line 1 and ~26km of Line 2......for 56km, excluding GO Transit expansion in the same period.

GO Lakeshore also launched in 1967, (Oakville to Pickering)

Georgetown (now KW) service started in 1974, and Richmond Hill in 1978.

Milton began in 1981, followed by Bradford (Barrie) and Stouffville in 1982.

The SRT was also under construction, but not finished in this window.

- if we include Ottawa.. it goes up to over 75km. Then you get to LRTs, with another 36km under construction and more in planning (hamilton LRT).

If we counted planning.......we be crediting governments of the 1970s for ALRT.

No shovels, no credit.

The metro expansions alone will almost double the amount of metro track in the province.

On top of all that you have GO RER.. which is basically doubling the scale of the metro network expansion.

And this also ignores the investments into the existing network - Bloor-Yonge capacity expansion, new Line 2 trains, easier-access... etc.

You're giving the province more credit than it deserves. Its paying for 1/3 of the Bloor-Yonge project. Many of those projects are nowhere near 100% provincial dollars.

For comparison the capital expansion formula in the 70s was 75% provincial, 25% Metro Toronto.

*****

If one were to compare the expansion I outline above to a base network condition of only 7.4km (in service) prior (Yonge, Union to Eglinton) the expansion was one of 8 fold or 700%, before factoring in creation of GO.

 

[innsertnamehere]

yes, not all of it is directly attributable to Ford - but if we looked at what projects started construction under his premiership and exclude the ones that didn't, that 75km of subway expansion drops to... 64km. The LRTs all drop off entirely.

Delivery dates differ depending on project and scope - i don't think it's fair to apply a wide date range like that, but instead look at a premier and what projects had shovels hit the ground during their premiership. This is particularly true as subway projects have significantly longer construction periods today than in the past. Besides, the critical contribution from a politician is not to get their hands dirty and physically construct the line, it's to line up the funding and get the government in movement to deliver it. Once construction starts. the project is largely a "done deal".

In that case - Ford can attribute 64km to himself directly (even if Ottawa's part is a mixed funding model). The only other Premier to come close was John Robarts, who saw construction start on the Bloor-Danforth Line from Islington to Warden as well as the Yonge Line from Eglinton to Finch in his premiership, or around 30km. And in that case, "close" is less than half.

As I already identified - per capita makes it tougher as the population was so much lower and it's hard to quantify it accurately for things like the original GO lakeshore line, which was a rather niche, infrequent service at initial launch.

We can say definitively that Ford has started construction on roughly double as many kilometers of rapid transit as any other premier in the province's history - that is an accurate statement and I think one which many don't really appreciate.

 

[Northern Light]

yes, not all of it is directly attributable to Ford - but if we looked at what projects started construction under his premiership and exclude the ones that didn't, that 75km of subway expansion drops to... 64km. The LRTs all drop off entirely.

Delivery dates differ depending on project and scope - i don't think it's fair to apply a wide date range like that, but instead look at a premier and what projects had shovels hit the ground during their premiership. This is particularly true as subway projects have significantly longer construction periods today than in the past. Besides, the critical contribution from a politician is not to get their hands dirty and physically construct the line, it's to line up the funding and get the government in movement to deliver it. Once construction starts. the project is largely a "done deal".

Tell that to Mike Harris, who filled in the tail track of the Eglinton West Subway and curtailed the Sheppard project. (hence the stubway)

In that case - Ford can attribute 64km to himself directly (even if Ottawa's part is a mixed funding model). The only other Premier to come close was John Robarts, who saw construction start on the Bloor-Danforth Line from Islington to Warden as well as the Yonge Line from Eglinton to Finch in his premiership, or around 30km. And in that case, "close" is less than half.

As I already identified - per capita makes it tougher as the population was so much lower and it's hard to quantify it accurately for things like the original GO lakeshore line, which was a rather niche, infrequent service at initial launch.

We can say definitively that Ford has started construction on roughly double as many kilometers of rapid transit as any other premier in the province's history - that is an accurate statement and I think one which many don't really appreciate.

What are you including in that? Yonge North isn't really under construction, so that's 8km that should not be in there, at least yet.

In Toronto, he would get credit under the above Criteria, for the SSE, Crosstown West extension and the Ontario Line.

That would be ~33km.

But the SSE is also, largely a replacement of an existing rapid transit line. Yes, it will go ~2km further north........but those first few km aren't really net new. As such I'm inclined to deduct all but the 2km net new growth, or -5.8km from his credit.

That leaves ~28km w/generous rounding.

***

I pride myself on being non-partisan and will extend credit where due, and likewise apportion blame to any who merit it.

But I'm just not sold on this being the accomplishment you seem to think.

 

[Towered]

I think Ford's biggest accomplishment on the transit file is not cancelling a bunch of it that was already in development, since I think many of us expected that from him!

 

[innsertnamehere]

Tell that to Mike Harris, who filled in the tail track of the Eglinton West Subway and curtailed the Sheppard project. (hence the stubway)



What are you including in that? Yonge North isn't really under construction, so that's 8km that should not be in there, at least yet.

In Toronto, he would get credit under the above Criteria, for the SSE, Crosstown West extension and the Ontario Line.

That would be ~33km.

But the SSE is also, largely a replacement of an existing rapid transit line. Yes, it will go ~2km further north........but those first few km aren't really net new. As such I'm inclined to deduct all but the 2km net new growth, or -5.8km from his credit.

That leaves ~28km w/generous rounding.

***

I pride myself on being non-partisan and will extend credit where due, and likewise apportion blame to any who merit it.

But I'm just not sold on this being the accomplishment you seem to think.

This is being a bit technical to try to remove scope from Ford.

YNSE is going to have it's RFP for tunnelling awarded any day - it was last scheduled to be awarded by the end of this year, and besides, there is "early works" underway prepping for it already:

SSE - I mean, play it as you want. It's a $5 billion subway extension. Negating it basically entirely is a bit of a game to try to cut those kms in my eyes. As of today the SRT is ripped up and removed - and had been known for it to be the case well before Ford came to office. It's a major transit investment.

My original point was that Ford's transit spending portfolio is deep and far more vast than any modern premier - and that is verifiably a fact - ESPECIALLY if you look at actual spending and not just promises. It just is.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Tell that to Mike Harris, who filled in the tail track of the Eglinton West Subway and curtailed the Sheppard project. (hence the stubway)

So what's the vote then? don't attribute projects started under previous governments to a premier or do attribute them? Your previous post seemed to suggest otherwise.

 

[Northern Light]

So what's the vote then? don't attribute projects started under previous governments to a premier or do attribute them? Your previous post seemed to suggest otherwise.

In the case above, I was simply saying a construction start, unto itself, is not an irrevocable delivery of a finished project.

Nothing more, nothing less.

****

Attributions of credit are a challenge in many ways.......

Someone's government, at some point, proposes and/or approves a plan.
Someone's government then advances a plan - EA/TPAP/30% design/60% design etc.
Someone's government then announces funding/tendering.
Someone's government then awards said tender.
Someone's government is there for a groundbreaking or the like.
Someone's government is there for a portion, or perhaps, the entirety of construction.
Someone's government cut's the ribbon and service begins.

There's a lot of items there that depending on the project may cover a span of 10 years or much more.

Most governments in Ontario have a shelf life of 8-10 years all-in; though some are longer or shorter.

There's all of the above, then considering how to apportion credit where other stakeholders either champion, or partially fund a project, sometimes, to a level equal to or even greater than the province.

I'm not suggesting the current government hasn't been on board for considerable spending on transit, some of which was underway before they arrived (construction) some of which was imminent to same; and some of which they
can rightly lay credit to initiating.

I simply think the level of credit you apportion is somewhat greater than merited. That's all.

 

[Northern Light]

John Lorinc out with a column in The Star:

The epic failures of Metrolinx are one thing. It’s time to give up altogether on the government agency that’s responsible for our endless delays

Metrolinx delays are only one of the government agency’s problems. Public-private-partnerships just aren’t working.

www.thestar.com

In it, he calls for the abolition of Infrastructure Ontario (the agency from which Metrolinx's new head is being poached).
He cites the latest Auditor General's report, out yesterday, noting that I.O. has failed to bring many/most of its projects in on budget or on time.
Further, that this has been a perpetual problem dating back more than a decade, one that previously drew criticism form earlier AGs

I offer the AG's look at selected projects, here:

Office of the Auditor General of Ontario

www.auditor.on.ca

Ultimately, Lorinc concludes that P3s are a fail........that they are too big, too risk heavy and don't draw the aggressive, competitive bidding they were intended to.....

I concur. I've seen a bid process for a new hospital that attracted exactly one bid; I didn't look under the hood on that one, but I think you'd find their margins reflected the level of competition they faced.
Time to scrap it all.............at great cost............it means project management, real estate, purchasing, and construction expertise will need to be returned to individual ministries, and agencies that ceded same to I.O. over the last 2 decades.
This will change office space requirements and mean rebuilding so many things we got rid of........

***

As a tangential note, the City of Toronto suffers from similar issues with centralized Purchasing/Tendering, and centralized HR....... the now once-removed groups often don't understand their client's needs, don't adhere to their timelines and
generally make a complete hash of everything they touch. The people hiring foresters should be in Forestry; the people hiring social workers should work for the applicable division etc.

 

[lenaitch]

John Lorinc out with a column in The Star:

The epic failures of Metrolinx are one thing. It’s time to give up altogether on the government agency that’s responsible for our endless delays

Metrolinx delays are only one of the government agency’s problems. Public-private-partnerships just aren’t working.

www.thestar.com

In it, he calls for the abolition of Infrastructure Ontario (the agency from which Metrolinx's new head is being poached).
He cites the latest Auditor General's report, out yesterday, noting that I.O. has failed to bring many/most of its projects in on budget or on time.
Further, that this has been a perpetual problem dating back more than a decade, one that previously drew criticism form earlier AGs

I offer the AG's look at selected projects, here:

Office of the Auditor General of Ontario

www.auditor.on.ca

Ultimately, Lorinc concludes that P3s are a fail........that they are too big, too risk heavy and don't draw the aggressive, competitive bidding they were intended to.....

I concur. I've seen a bid process for a new hospital that attracted exactly one bid; I didn't look under the hood on that one, but I think you'd find their margins reflected the level of competition they faced.
Time to scrap it all.............at great cost............it means project management, real estate, purchasing, and construction expertise will need to be returned to individual ministries, and agencies that ceded same to I.O. over the last 2 decades.
This will change office space requirements and mean rebuilding so many things we got rid of........

***

As a tangential note, the City of Toronto suffers from similar issues with centralized Purchasing/Tendering, and centralized HR....... the now once-removed groups often don't understand their client's needs, don't adhere to their timelines and
generally make a complete hash of everything they touch. The people hiring foresters should be in Forestry; the people hiring social workers should work for the applicable division etc.

I concur. I've seen a bid process for a new hospital that attracted exactly one bid; I didn't look under the hood on that one, but I think you'd find their margins reflected the level of competition they faced.

I had a relative who was a partner in an architectural firm that specialized in large institutional properties, particularly hospitals (which have very specialized infrastructural requirements). he said there are only so many companies that do this type of work. All of the major firms know what each other has on the go. he also admitted that, depending on their projects underway, they may purposely craft their bids to not get a project, knowing that a competitor will get it and knowing that, at a future time, the other firms will do the same.

I can't imagine a centralized HR on that scale. Expertise to assist individual areas perhaps, but I'm a manager needing to fill a need, I would need to be involved.

Most government centralized services end up becoming their own empire filling their own needs. I remember when the Ontario government first launched Shared Services its initial scope was IT and it wasn't pretty; neither shared nor a service.

 

[Richard White]

Doug Ford is planning to take action on homeless encampments as noted here in the Toronto Star: https://www.thestar.com/politics/pr...cle_5b453bf0-b316-11ef-8098-0f2b2652ce96.html

It is worth noting that Olivia Chow did not sign off on a letter by other Ontario mayors requesting action be taken.

I do hope that Olivia Chow reads the room and does not object to homeless encampments being cleared. I get that they have nowhere else to go but a public park is not the place for them to set up shop.

When I was walking past Sherbourne and Bloor recently, there were multiple tents sent up along an embankment in the bushes (just east of Sherbourne). They had their tents, chairs and everything set up in front of a campfire. I am sorry but that is a public safety risk.

 

[T3G]

Clearing these encampments is an insane game of whack a mole. Kick them out of one park, and they'll just set up shop in another park. It's a big city, and there's lots of remote ravines that aren't well patronized or known.

I don't like seeing the encampments in parks any more than the next guy, but this is not going to actually materially change anything. We need an actual strategy to get these people off the streets. Where are the leaders that are willing to tackle this issue head on?

 

[Richard White]

Clearing these encampments is an insane game of whack a mole. Kick them out of one park, and they'll just set up shop in another park. It's a big city, and there's lots of remote ravines that aren't well patronized or known.

I don't like seeing the encampments in parks any more than the next guy, but this is not going to actually materially change anything. We need an actual strategy to get these people off the streets. Where are the leaders that are willing to tackle this issue head on?

If you keep up removing them, they will get the message eventually.

 

[evandyk]

Clearing these encampments is an insane game of whack a mole. Kick them out of one park, and they'll just set up shop in another park. It's a big city, and there's lots of remote ravines that aren't well patronized or known.

I don't like seeing the encampments in parks any more than the next guy, but this is not going to actually materially change anything. We need an actual strategy to get these people off the streets. Where are the leaders that are willing to tackle this issue head on?

Camping in areas that aren't well patronized or known is better than camping in Dufferin Grove or St. James where tons of kids play and their parents are forced to scour the playground for needles before letting their kids run around. But remote ravines are not close to transit or services, which many people living in the parks depend on.

Neither parks nor ravines, of course, are any sort of real way to address homelessness. But although we refuse to address homelessness, we should do something about the park situation.

 

[T3G]

If you keep up removing them, they will get the message eventually.

Like hell they will. They're homeless. What do you expect them to do, exactly?