Subways dreams for dreamers

Interesting article from Toronto.

I doAi??take issue with is the claim “that subways attract more riders than any other form of transit.”whichAi??is not supported by studies elsewhere, instead it isAi??modern LRT actually attracts more new ridership than other modes. That Toronto doesn’t have modern LRT and instead operates with the light rail variant streetcars (mostly non-articulated), whichAi??has probablyAi??clouded the opinions of transit officials in the city.

As well, if LRT is operating on a reserved rights of ways, commercial speedsAi??are determined by the distance between stations or stops, not adjacent traffic. St. Louis’s LRT line has a higher average commercial speed than the SkyTrain Expo Line.

The estimated construction Ai??costs of $85 million/km also include long lengths of subways for the LRT, which in fact makes LRT a subway and not LRT!

What is interesting is the realistic view taken by the author, a subway supporter, that subways cost a lot of money and that modern light rail is a viable alternative, unlike the SkyTrain Lobby in Vancouver, wear they think money grows on trees and the taxpayer always welcomes new taxes and fees to pay for more light-metro.

In Vancouver, our transit planners have rejected light rail out of hand, using dated studies and anti-light rail rhetoric, to keep SkyTrain planning on track. Too bad that TransLink and the SkyTrain Lobby where rose coloured glasses, while taking the taxpayer for a very long and expensive ride.

Thu Mar 8, 2012
Politics

Tunnel of dreams

Why the numbers donai??i??t add up for the Sheppard subway extension.

BY: Edward Keenan

People prefer subways. Mayor Rob Ford says it, over and over, and few disagree: Before he was unceremoniously sacked for his alleged anti-subway bias, former TTC general manager Gary Webster told city council that subways attract more riders than any other form of transit. Polls this year have shown support for subways winning by margins as high as 20 per cent when the question is put as a simple, context-free subway vs. LRT choice.

I am among those who prefer subways. I have been a vocal supporter of the Transit City LRT plans, but my heart belongs to the underground. There have even been times of weakness when I have secretly hoped Rob Ford or some other bull-headed politician would steamroll his opponents in the debate about transitai??i??including my own voiceai??i??because then at least we would have the new subway lines.

ai???Dream big dreams, Toronto,ai??? I think. ai???Just build the effinai??i?? things and damn the consequences!ai???

But I donai??i??t entertain that voice for long. Itai??i??s a childish voice that would also tell me to bet half a yearai??i??s salary on a single spin of the roulette wheel or to empty the kidsai??i?? education accounts to take a cool vacation. Itai??i??s the part of me that wants to believe there are no factors involved in making a good decision beyond my own desires. That is the mayor of Torontoai??i??s voice.

There are costs involved. There are considerations of what is appropriate and practical. These are factors that adults weigh when making decisions, and factors that a grown-up city weighs when deciding how to build.

Letai??i??s consider those costs: Subways move about 25 per cent faster and are capable of carrying about one-third more people, but they cost three or four times as much to build. Tunnelling underground and building and maintaining stations are radically more expensive than just putting tracks and platforms on the street, as the illustration below shows.

Accurate operating cost differences arenai??i??t available, but subways are far more expensive to run due to the stations, which need to be staffed, lit and (in some cases) heated, and served by escalators and elevators. And the construction expenditure differences alone are astronomical. We have $8.4 billion from the province in hand, which will cover all of the costs of the proposed LRT lines. The total price tag of building subway lines to run the entire length of the same proposed Transit City phase-one plan would be in the neighbourhood of $20 billion. To cover the differenceai??i??over, say, 10 yearsai??i??weai??i??d need to raise money equivalent to a 75 per cent property tax hike. Then to cover the operating losses of these lines, weai??i??d likely need between half a billion to a billion dollars a year in new revenue, permanentlyai??i??an amount equivalent to a 50-per-cent property tax increase or a one to two-per-cent Toronto sales tax.

Thatai??i??s a problem for subway advocates. A recent Angus Reid poll, for example, showed that 57 per cent of Torontonians are opposed to any new taxes to fund subway construction. The mayor has suggested developers will pay higher fees to build on subway lines; developers have said they would not.

 

What are the differences between subways and LRT?
Click here for a close-up view of the infographic below

 

Those higher costs would be justified, of course (and the required operating subsidy would be lower) if we expected those subways to be filled with riders every day once they were up and running. Most advocates of Transit City are not anti-subway on principle: most, in fact, support the construction of a downtown relief line that would take pressure off the Yonge subway line and serve passengers on the crowded King and Queen streetcar lines (which currently carry more than 100,000 passengers per day).

But on Sheppard, the current five-station subway line operates at one-sixth of its capacity during peak times, and the projected expansion might bring peak ridership a generation from now to between 6,000 and 10,000 passengersai??i??one-fifth to one-third capacity. The TTCai??i??s projections up to 2050 show projected ridership on all the routes under discussion still easily handled by LRT lines. A subway is just way more vehicle than the number of riders who would use those lines need.

Which brings us, of course, to the prospect of ai???building for the future,ai??? as advocates of the subway say. Scarborough will get more densely populated if we build a subway, they argue. But to justify a subway, planning experts figure density along the Sheppard corridor would need to roughly double. Thatai??i??s a staggering number. You cannot simply double the number of people in Scarborough by approving a bunch of high-rise towers on the main streets near the subway lines. Weai??i??re talking about razing entire subdivisions of ranch-style bungalows and replacing them with rows of townhouses.

The people who live along Sheppard may want a subway line, but itai??i??s doubtful they want to see their neighbourhoods transformed into downtown-style urban grids to justify it. Those same residents have consistently opposed construction of highrises in their neighbourhoods, and routinely opposeai??i??and ii???ght at the Ontario Municipal Boardai??i??the severing of lots to build smaller homes.

So weai??i??re left with the one argument Rob Ford and his allies keep making: Those residents of neglected areas like Scarborough and Finch West deserve subways. Wealthier downtown residents have subway stations at their doorsteps and yet they want to tell the residents of Malvern and Rexdale that they only rate a ai???lesserai??? vehicle.

And while suburban-urban resentments can be overblown for political purposes, these arguments have emotional resonance. If the voting patterns in the last election mean anything, they mean that the residents farthest away from the city core, who include some of our poorest citizens and our most recent immigrants, feel left out of the city as it has developed over the past decade.

The physical manifestation of that alienation is the subway map: Those neighbourhoods on the edge are the worst served by rapid transit. Bringing those communities into the physical subway network that speeds us around the city would be a giant leap to connecting Toronto psychologically.

Perhaps, oddly, that is the biggest reason I prefer LRT lines over subways to serve the suburbs. Even if we had $20 billion instead of $8.4 billion, I would suggest spending it on extending the network of LRT lines further. If theyai??i??re built right, LRT lines are fast and reliable. And we can build them more quicklyai??i??and in greater numbersai??i??than we can build subway lines. Estimates show that the Transit City LRT project will attract about 125 million rides per year, while Fordai??i??s subway plan would attract only 60 million. That is, for less money, we can serve about twice as many residents of the inner suburbs, and have the lines up and running a decade sooner. We donai??i??t need to blow the bank giving people along one stretch of Scarborough oversized vehicles that will run half-empty for generations while people in Rexdale make do with overcrowded buses. We can connect the residents of all of our most underserved neighbourhoods into the rapid transit network within a few years.

So, yeah, thereai??i??s a place in my gut that dreams about subways. But simple math says we can only provide them to a very few people, and even then it would cost us all dearly. The part of my gut that says all Torontoai??i??s residents deserve to have access to fast, reliable transit service that will connect us together as a city, as soon as possible, tells me we can do it with LRTs. And thatai??i??s not a dream, itai??i??s a fantastic reality well within our grasp.

MORE SUBWAY STATS

 

Liberal government caves in on road pricing

Ha, ha, ha, it seems the Liberal government hasAi??caved-in at introducing road pricing or road tolls on the region, when they realized that the introduction of road tolls/pricing, would ensure a one way trip to political oblivion.

To make road pricing or road tolls work, would mean the region would have to have a viable public transit alternative and the region doesn’t and with present SkyTrain/light-metro only planning, will not have, ever. The road toll/pricing lobby live in a tax and spend world, wearing rose coloured glasses and only saw the issue as a massive tax generator for general revenue. The prospect of a massive public backlash that would make the HST recall seem like nonevent, never seemed to dawn on the promoters of the road pricing/tolls scheme.

If Vancouver regionAi??had the rail transit network (at least 300 km. to 400 km.) and customer oriented bus routes, maybe then road pricing/tolls could be accepted by the maxed out taxpayers, but the region doesn’t and under the leadership ofAi?? an incompetent TransLink, will never have.

It seemsAi??the road pricing/tollAi??trial balloon was flown and shot down in record time.

More tolls, like the charge for using the Golden EarsAi?? Bridge, is the method favoured by bureaucrats to raise money for TransLink.

Photograph by: Vancouver Sun

B.C. unlikely to support tolls on all Metro Vancouver roads, bridges

By KELLY SINOSKI, Vancouver Sun March 7, 2012

B.C. Transportation Minister Blair Lekstrom said Wednesday it’s unlikely theAi?? province will support tolls on all of Metro Vancouver’s roads and bridges toAi?? raise funds for transportation.

The move, which has been raised by mayors as a potential way to generateAi?? funds, “is not something the government has been pursuing,” he said.

While the idea of tolls are used around the world, Lekstrom said, the mayorsAi?? will first have to engage the public on the issue.

“I don’t know whether the government would say we’d be prepared to say we’dAi?? change the toll policy,” he said. “At this point we’re not.”

Lekstrom’s comments followed a meeting with the regional mayors’ council onAi?? transportation, which discussed everything from short-term funding options forAi?? transit to a new governance model and auditor for TransLink.

Metro Vancouver mayors had suggested road pricing – which could include tollsAi?? on roads, bridges and tunnels as well as charging drivers for the distanceAi?? travelled – as a potential way to raise money for future transportationAi?? infrastructure.

The mayors are also working with the province to introduce new legislationAi?? this spring for short-term funding options such as a vehicle levy or a regionalAi?? carbon tax to generate $30 million next year.

If a new funding option can’t be found, property owners will face an averageAi?? $23 increase in 2013-14.

Ai?? Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/unlikely+support+tolls+Metro+Vancouver+roads+bridges/6265871/story.html#ixzz1oSt4LFyR

 

Who is driving TransLink?

By Jon Ferry, The Province March 7, 2012

Why Is Victoria’s Proposed LRT So Expensive?

Bring Back Our Trams – A New Website for Victoria Light Rail – A question About SNC

Our friends across the pond, in Victoria have a new website, Bring Back Our Trams http://www.b-bot.ca/index.htmlAi??which contains some surprising information.

Zwei has wondered why the cost of a simple streetcar/LRT line would cost over $62 million/km and BBOTAi??may haveAi??supplied the answer: Canada’s favourite engineering group, SNC Lavalin did the initial cost study. Why then, would a new LRT/streetcar line cost a mere $22.4 mil./km. to build in France, yet cost $62 mil./km. in Victoria and why wasn’t a TramTrain service proposed on the old E&N for about $6 mil./km. to $10 mil./km.?

Why is Victoria’s proposed LRT said to cost $62 mil./km.?

ZweiAi??finds this interesting, because theAi??firm Siskinds, Desmeules said today it has filed a proposed $250-million class action on behalf of investors against SNC-Lavalin Group Inc. and some of its current and former officers and directors for allegedly misleading investors and engaging in what it calls ai???unlawful activitiesai??? in Libya. (see Laila Yuile’s blog for the full story)

http://lailayuile.com/2012/03/02/more-problems-for-clark-snc-lavalin-becomes-target-of-class-action-lawsuit-with-allegations-of-misleading-investors-and-unlawful-activity/

ThreeAi??important questions must be asked:

1. “Is Premier Christie top adviserAi??Clark’s Gwyn Morgan (who also donated $10,000.00 to Ms. Clark’s Leadership campaign), also a director on the SNC/Lavalin Board?“
2. If the answer is yes; “Is the Premier’s close relationship with Mr. Morgan,Ai??is giving the green light forAi??SNC Lavalin to grossly over-engineer Victoria’s proposed LRT?“
3. If the answer is yes; “Is the BC Government allowing SNC Lavalin to reap huge profits from the BC Taxpayer by deliberately over engineering transit projects in BC, such as Victoria’s proposed LRT and or SkyTrain light-metro in Vancouver?“

Zwei also wonders if SNC Lavalin is deliberately funding the SkyTrain Lobby to ensure more hugely expensive SkyTrain is built in the Vancouver metro region?

The time is getting very close for the BC taxpayer to demandAi??a RCMP investigation of an illegal relationship between TransLink, The BC Transportation Ministry, the Premier’s Office, the Vancouver Engineering Department and SNC Lavalin.

 

The Real Question: What are You Willing To Pay For A Subway?

Here is the question taxpayers inAi??Metro Vancouver have not been asked; “What are you willing to pay for SkyTrain/RAV/Canada line?”Ai?? The regional taxpayer has never been asked:

1. Do you wish light rail at a cost of $20 million/km. (streetcar) up to $35 mil/km. (LRT)?
2. SkyTrain at a cost of $90 mil/km to $100 mil/km.
3. Subway, at a cost of $150/km (cut and cover) to up to $450 mil/km. for a bored tunnel?

The SkyTrain lobby, the provincial government,Ai??TransLink and the Vancouver Engineering dept.Ai??are utterly scared to death with the preceding choices. The question thus becomes…”why?”

Would you personally pay $1,210 to build the Sheppard subway?

Here’s one way to visualize the cost difference between subways and LRT.

BY: Edward Keenan

Eric Chris Responds To The SkyTrain Lobby

Eric Chris responds to the SkyTrain for Surrey blog.

It is just not Zweisystem who has questions about SkyTrain and TransLink and Eric Chris’s reply to the SkyTrain Lobby has great merit.

The Vancouver Sun has always treated SkyTrain as a “mother and apple pie issue” and has never challenged the government on building more. It seems Patricia Graham is from the “school of any rapid transit is good rapid transit“, even though it may bankrupt the taxpayer. The Vancouver Sun’s Editorial BoardAi??should hangAi??their collectiveAi??heads in shame with its reporting on SkyTrain and censoring anti-SkyTrain correspondence.

Again I pose this question to the SkyTrain lobby: “Why after being on the market for over 33 years have only seven SkyTrain type systems have been built and why has SkyTrain never been allowed to compete against LRT on a level playing field, in open bidding?”

Thanks for letting me know about the comments on the following website:

 

http://skytrainforsurrey.org/2012/02/27/fact-check-debunking-eric-chriss-ridiculous-claims-about-vancouver-transit/

 

It isnai??i??t worth replying to Daryl and friends.Ai?? Some quick comments:

 

First, TransLink collected ~$1.3 billion from the federal government etAi??Ai?? al and another ~$700 million from In-Transit or private partners (see Source 1Ai??Ai?? and Source 2, below).Ai?? The RAV Line is not making much of any money and TransLink has been lying about theAi??Ai?? 100,000 ai???peopleai??? on board daily (really less than 40,000 people, manyAi??Ai?? transfers generating no income for the RAV Line).Ai?? The $100 million orAi??Ai?? more annually in performance payments for the next 30 years is paying back the private partners for theirAi??Ai?? ai???investmentai???, and the undiscounted cost to TransLink is going to be about $4.5Ai??Ai?? billion after 30 years.Ai?? Ultimately, a financialAi??Ai?? audit is required to find out how much the RAV Line is costing taxpayersAi??Ai?? because TransLink isnai??i??t going to willingly provide thisAi??Ai?? information.

 

If TransLink had built a LRT Line, instead, the cost would have been noAi??Ai?? more than ~$1.3 billion allowing ~$500 million for the bridge.Ai?? Ridership would have been built up gradually, and the LRT lineAi??Ai?? would have been serving local area transit users.Ai?? It would have hadAi??Ai?? excess capacity and most transit users would have had a seat, even at rushAi??Ai?? hour.Ai?? Revenue from the LRT line would have paid for the operating costsAi??Ai?? and maintenance (possibly with money left over for a profit) as TransLinkAi??Ai?? would have avoided being in the hole $700 million which is going to be repaidAi??Ai?? to the investors of the RAV Line (with a huge premium).

 

Also, LRT would have avoided the #15 Cambie diesel bus operating alongAi??Ai?? the RAV Line route to feed the RAV Line (TransLink tore down the trolley busAi??Ai?? lines and residents along Cambie Street are furious about the diesel bus noiseAi??Ai?? and pollution but the media wonai??i??t write about it).

 

Second, the provincial government is forcing SkyTrain onto the mayors as the following terse email from Dianne Watts implies:

ai???From:Watts, Dianne

Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 10:04 PM

To: ec

Subject: Re: Is the Vancouver Sun controlled by the provincial government?

 

They will pull the funding if it is not for Evergreen Line and MRN and Bus expansion.

From: EC
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 09:04 PM
To: pgraham@vancouversun.com <pgraham@vancouversun.com>
Cc: gregor robertson <gregor.robertson@vancouver.ca>; Watts, Dianne; Richard Stewart <rstewart@coquitlam.ca>; Pamela Goldsmith-Jones <pgoldsmith-jones@westvancouver.ca>
Subject: Is the Vancouver Sun controlled by the provincial government?

 

Patricia,

You are right, it would be prudent for the mayors to take the $1 billion (about $800 million, really) from the provincial and federal governments for transit:

 

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Editorial+Mayors+should+turn+down+billion+transit+financing/5515182/story.html

 

There are no strings attached by the federal government for its portion of the transit grant and there is no requirement for TransLink to build a SkyTrain line. It can simply build a streetcar or LRT line which it can afford and pocket the rest of the $500 million to ai???improveai??? transit for the entire region.

 

If the provincial government is going to threaten to withdraw its portion for transit in an attempt to force another SkyTrain line like it did with the Canada Line, the mayors can call the provincial governmentai??i??s bluff. The provincial government will fold.

 

Your continual propaganda favouring SkyTrain transit for the Evergreen line has been despicable. You and your pet transit reporter working for TransLink have never once provided balanced reporting to give people here the facts on transit. You have deliberately ignored the merits of streetcar and LRT transit.

 

You have never once questioned the credibility of the false information provided by TransLink and have continually published misleading information by TransLink to deceive the public. Thatai??i??s the unfortunate truth.

ecai???

Third, the $9.34 in 2010 is the daily cost perAi??Ai?? rider without taxes subsidizing TransLink (~90% confidenceAi??Ai?? interval as TransLink is not transparent on how it spends itsAi??Ai?? money).Ai?? It refers to the entire transit system and all operatingAi??Ai?? costs ($989 million in expenditures).Ai?? It represents the real cost to putAi??Ai?? someone onto transit for one day on average by TransLink.Ai?? Daryl isAi??Ai?? partly right, here – it might be reduced by at most $119 million if the listedAi??Ai?? roads, bridges and bicycle expenses arenai??i??t integral to transit operationsAi??Ai?? (that is, the expenses arenai??i??t bike racks for buses, busAi??Ai?? loop road modifications or SkyTrain bridge work, for example, seeAi??Ai?? Appendix 2A) to make the daily cost per rider for TransLink at least $8.22 onAi??Ai?? average (still too high):

http://www.translink.ca/~/media/documents/bpotp/10_year_plan/2012_plans/2012_supplemental_plan_moving_forward.ashx

In future years, the daily cost per rider will veryAi??Ai?? likely increase as 2010 was the year of the Olympics and an anomaly with manyAi??Ai?? more riders than normal (reducing the daily cost per rider forAi??Ai?? TransLink).Ai?? Operating expenditures over the next decade are forecast toAi??Ai?? increase by about 30% which could increase the daily cost per rider to muchAi??Ai?? more than $10 if ridership growth stalls or slows.Ai??Ai?? This isnai??i??tAi??Ai?? unexpected as transit use fluctuates up and down over time.

 

TransLink collected $690 million in taxes in 2010.Ai??Ai?? There isAi??Ai?? no way that it costs TransLink $660 million annually to operate transit asAi??Ai?? Daryl suggests.

Fourth, if there is any uncertainty aboutAi?? theAi??Ai?? degradation of the air quality from TransLinkai??i??s excessive use of diesel busesAi??Ai?? on SkyTrain routes, an environmental impact assessment would clear theAi??Ai?? air.Ai?? The relationship between diesel exhaust and cancer is wellAi??Ai?? known:

 

 

Fifth, the B-Line carries about 20,000 people daily (~500 trips averaging about 30 to 40 people per trip) with about 60,000 boardings from the same 20,000 people.Ai?? On weekends, summers and holidays it is about one-half this.Ai?? If ICBC counted drivers like TransLink counts transit users, there would be 7 million drivers for the 2.4 million population in Metro-Vancouver.

 

The B-Line has nothing to do with fast and reliable service.Ai?? From 6 am to 7:30 am on a two minute schedule, the B-Line operates (along Broadway with stop signs every few blocks) with almost no one on board before the UBC students roll out of bed.Ai?? TransLink has lots of money and can afford to operate empty buses every two minutes.Ai?? From about 8 am most buses to UBCAi?? are packed while the ones returning to Commercial Drive are ai???not in serviceai??? and totally empty.Ai?? At the same time, no one is using the #9 trolley buses operating on a 10 minute schedule.

 

If TransLink operated all buses to UBC (there are over 10 bus routes to UBC) at the same frequency (two minute or 10 minute, for instance), there wouldnai??i??t be any overcrowding on the B-Line to UBC and the B-Line would not be carrying about one-third of the students going to UBC.Ai?? However, TransLink is creating the overcrowding to make it seem as if transit by TransLink is ai???putting people on transitai??? and to purposely create the ai???overcrowding problemai??? so that it can offer the solution:Ai?? $3.5 billion for a SkyTrain route!

 

TransLink is merely stealing riders from trolley bus routes and increasing carbon emissions by 5,000 tonnes annually without increasing ridership with the B-Line service.Ai?? It is also impairing the health of residents with toxic PM.Ai?? This is so that the bureaucrats earning $20,000 monthly to $30,000 monthly at TransLink can spend the next 20 years doing studies and providing grants to UBC economics professors to prove that SkyTrain is economical.Ai?? If TransLink built a streetcar line to UBC, it would take one year and cost about $300 million, but then we wouldnai??i??t need TransLink…

 

It is getting late… the rest of Darylai??i??s post is just more gibberish.

 

ec

http://www.rockantenne.de/webplayer/?playchannel=alternative

 

 

Source 1:

Ai??

Ai??

Ai??

 

Source 2:

Onetime Toronto subway lover transfers support to LRT

However, underground and elevated systems are cheaper to operate, faster, safer,and more reliable than at street level systems, because they don’t cross road intersections.

The Toronto Star

{http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1136756–mayor-rob-ford-should-be-fired-demonstrators-say?bn=1}

Dave

Onetime Toronto subwayAi?? lover transfers support to LRT

JesseAi?? McLean Staff Reporter

Ai??A small group ofAi?? protesters rallied outside City Hall Saturday to say Mayor Ford should be fired,Ai?? not former TTC manager Gary Webster, who was axed “without just cause” onAi?? Tuesday.

Larry Peloso was once a staunch supporter ofAi?? Toronto getting more subway routes.

Envious of the serpentine systems in London, NewAi?? York and Paris, the freelance creative director thought his city deserved moreAi?? than ai???two stupid little lines.ai???

But as councillors and Toronto Mayor Rob FordAi?? sparred over transit plans, he decided to research the issue and make his ownAi?? opinion. He decided light rail makes the most sense for the city.

ai???Itai??i??s more community-oriented,ai??? he said. ai???AboveAi?? ground, transit becomes part of the fabric of the street and services theAi?? community better.ai???

There is also a plan in place to pay for it, heAi?? said.

ai???The funding is right there, in place. Ford hasAi?? been talking about subways for a year and we still have no idea where theAi?? funding is coming from.

ai???The timeai??i??s now. Good transit is longAi?? overdue.ai???

Peloso, 56, is not alone in his new-foundAi?? support for light rail. A recent Toronto Star poll found Torontonians areAi?? evenly split on whether to forge ahead with new subways or lightAi?? rail.

However, 57 per cent of the 801 residentsAi?? surveyed in the online poll said they were ai???unwilling to pay for subways throughAi?? road tolls or other increased fees or taxes,ai??? compared to 35 per cent who wereAi?? warmer to the idea of tolls. The poll was conducted by Angus Reid Public OpinionAi?? and has a margin of error of 3.5 per cent 19 times out of 20.

Ford has rejected the use of tolls, but recentlyAi?? hinted at a possible levy on private and pay parking lots designated to helpAi?? fund a Sheppard subway expansion.

The lack of firm details on how to fund Fordai??i??sAi?? subway model, however, is the reason some believe the poll also found thatAi?? residents have more faith in city council in handling transit issues than theyAi?? have in the mayor. Just over half of the respondents said they have ai???no trustai??? in Ford on transit/commuter issues.

ai???More and more people are actually looking intoAi?? the details of the transit plans ai??i?? they want to understand them,ai??? saidAi?? Councillor Josh Matlow, who supported the council-approved plan to build above- and below-ground light rail lines.

ai???I think most people in Toronto are beginning toAi?? recognize while the mayorai??i??s bumper sticker rhetoric may sound good, heai??i??s neverAi?? told them how his false promises will ever come to be.ai???

Peloso agrees. Never one to consider himself anAi?? activist, he co-organized a protest Saturday calling for Fordai??i??s firing after theAi?? mayorai??i??s allies axed TTC chief general manager Gary Webster. (Halfway into theAi?? demonstration, only about 20 people had shown up. They were outnumbered by thoseAi?? skating on the nearby rink at Nathan Phillips Square.)

Councillor Norm Kelly of Scarborough-Agincourt,Ai?? a supporter of the subway plan, said itai??i??s important to consider which plan willAi?? be better decades down the line.

ai???Itai??i??s a difference between cost and value. Letai??i??sAi?? do what we can afford. It might not be the best thing to do,ai??? he said. ai???TheAi?? value option is to figure out what the best rapid transit system would be forAi?? the city of Toronto.ai???

One way of financing it would be to add a 0.5Ai?? per cent sales tax within the city limits and allocate the revenue strictly toAi?? building subways, he said.

With files from DavidAi?? Rider

The Toronto Transit Fiasco, Brought To You By Rob “The Edsel” Ford

The following article aptly describes the Toronto transit fiasco, which has been unfoldingAi??for the past sixAi??months. The fiasco was created, when a politician, who had absolutely no knowledge of urban transportation, forced legally and illegally, aAi??hugely expensive subway solution for regional transit needs.

Subways cost a lot of money to build and even more money to maintain and are only used on routes that have the ‘transit demand’ that justifies the expense. To force willy-nilly subways on the taxpayer because of one’s personal dislike for streetcars and light rail and streetcars is ignorant, but when ignorant people gain the control of cities, provinces and countries, the results are nearly always disastrous, as Toronto’s taxpayers will soon find out.

Rob “The Edsel” Ford may have political savvy (though I am beginning to doubt this) his gross ignorance of ‘transit’ and his deep disregard for the taxpayer has put back transit development in Toronto by over a decade.

In Metro Vancouver, this sort of ignorant arrogance has been happening for over thirty-two years and the Vancouver region has now one of the most expensive transit systems in North America, with TransLink unrepentant, planning more and more SkyTrain and RAV/Canada Line light-metro, with the motto; “The taxpayer has endless pockets“.

Published On Fri Feb 24 2012

James: Mayor Rob Ford,Ai??aAi??crippled general laid bare
TORONTO STAR STAFF
By Royson James City Columnist

If the rules allowed it, Toronto city councillors would have an unassailable case to cite Mayor Rob Ford for contempt of council. For example:

The mayor killed Transit City without council approval. He then signed a private agreement with the province that exposes the city to as much as $100 million in liabilities and refused to let council vote on it ai??i?? even though the agreement says he must.

When council reinstated the elements of Transit City, Mayor Ford dismissed the vote as ai???irrelevant.ai??? And to back up the stunning declaration, the mayor fired the head of the TTC for advocating for the council position.

In essence, the mayor fired the TTCai??i??s chief general manager, Gary Webster, for agreeing with city council.

If that isnai??i??t contempt of city council, what is?

The raging debate on subways versus light rail raises the question: Is city council the supreme authority? Or does the mayor, the only politician elected city-wide, have the right to trump councilai??i??s wishes?

Current traditions, conventions and rules lead to one conclusion: Council is supreme. The mayor is a first among equals, but he rules by consensus, not by fiat.

A skilful mayor carries councillors along with him as he challenges colleagues to adopt his policies. He convinces skeptics with the force of arguments, facts, public opinion, and with the moral authority derived from a city-wide mandate.

Politicians and citizens can argue the advisability of subways or LRT. In Toronto, council has spoken. Under mayor David Miller city council said LRT. And, on Feb. 8, the current Toronto council ruled, by a 25-18 vote, to go with light rail.

Mayor Ford fought that vote. He called in all his favours. And still, some of his political allies abandoned ship and voted against him.

City council said the provincial agency Metrolinx should go ahead with the Eglinton LRT as originally proposed ai??i?? 11 kilometres underground between Black Creek Dr. and Laird Dr., and on the surface the rest of the way.

Council also said the Finch Ave. W. LRT should proceed from Keele St. to Humber College at Highway 27. And an expert panel is to advise council by March 21 on the future of transit along Sheppard ai??i?? either the subway the mayor wants, or the LRT originally proposed.

Councilai??i??s vote was dramatic and unequivocal. It came when city councillors deliberately seized the transit agenda from the transit commission and gave explicit directions on the road ahead.

Council acted because, for a year after he signed a memorandum of understanding with the province, Mayor Ford refused to take it to council, despite a legal requirement to do so.

Understandably, some citizens think a mayor in Ontario has the kind of mayoral powers seen on U.S. television. That is not nearly so. Councillor Doug Ford, the mayorai??i??s brother, has spent so many years in Chicago he wants to bring Chicago-style politics here. In the Windy City, the mayor gets to bring his administration with him into office. He hires and fires them. He comes with a political party. And the enshrined opposition party provides the checks and balances.

Here, we have eschewed party politics at the local level. Rules prohibit the mayor from hiring and firing the bureaucracy. Except for the city manager, the mayorai??i??s influence is muted. If he wants a bureaucrat removed he must do it by stealth and with city councilai??i??s nod. The mayor has one vote. He governs only by securing the majority vote in council.

Once elected, the mayor has the mandate to forge consensus on his election platform. He has a mandate to pursue the goal. But he must use all the skills of compromise, diplomacy and consensus to move the majority of the 45-member council.

Toronto City Council, with its own bylaw, has given the Toronto mayor more power than the average Ontario mayor. For example, the Toronto mayor appoints a 13-member executive that he may dismiss at will ai??i?? thus giving him their loyalty and votes. He also is allowed to make other key appointments ai??i?? so much so that he has as many as 20 ai???loyalai??? votes on a 45-member council.

That should be enough to rule, unchallenged. All he has to do is keep them in his camp. So, when a mayor starts losing important votes, the clear message is that he no longer has the confidence of his allies, and therefore, the council.

Mayor Ford has the mandate to lead council and drive them towards his vision of the city. He does not have the mandate to fire the transit boss whose views are aligned with the majority of council; he does not have the mandate to be vindictive; he does not have the mandate to thwart the will of council; he does not have the mandate to be in contempt of city council.

City council canai??i??t remove the mayor from office; only the people can, and the next election is October 2014.

Already, the majority of city councillors oppose the general thrust of the Ford administration. Daily he creates antagonism and division and loses the respect of more allies. Councillor Peter Milczyn was the latest to break ranks, voting to keep Webster. Councillor Michael Thompson canai??i??t be far behind, having advised against firing Webster. If 30 councillors line up against Ford, the mayor becomes, in effect, a lame duck with more than two years left in his mandate.

To get 30 votes, a two-thirds majority that can overcome all the procedural manoeuvres the mayor can employ, six of the following seven councillors would have to defect: Paul Ainslie, Michele Berardinetti, Gary Crawford, John Parker, Jaye Robinson, Milczyn and Thompson. Four are leaning.

Failing the absolute overthrow of the Ford regime, the council majority will still have enough clout to hobble the administration and force compromise or create gridlock. Through obstinacy, bad advice or a lack of respect for local democracy, Mayor Ford has shattered his honeymoon with councillors and now is a crippled general, fighting for his political life.

If the unthinkable happens and council seizes the agenda, without the office of mayor to administer and guide the bureaucracy, who, then, runs Canadaai??i??s largest city?

Toronto is on the precipice of a crisis created by a contemptuous mayor who acts like a monarch. And everyone is discovering the emperor has no clothes.

Royson James usually appears Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. Email: rjames@thestar.ca

http://www.thestar.com/news/cityhallpolitics/article/1136445–james-mayor-rob-ford-a-crippled-general-laid-bare?bn=1

What Fools We Mortal Be – Regional Mayors Support Road Tolling

I see many civic politicians are gambling with theirAi??political futuresAi??with taxpayer’s hubrisAi??by supportingAi??road tolling.

Are they mad?

Evidently so, as they all seem to have collective amnesia over the HST fiasco, which saw the humiliation of just reelected Premier Gordon Campbell beingAi??chased from office.

It seems tax and spend transit policies are the order of the day and zweisystem has a very uneasy feeling that the road tolls are going to be implemented so a $4 billion+Ai??SkyTrain subway is built under Broadway.

It has beenAi??mooted that TransLink wasAi??created to build the RAV/Canada Line subway in Vancouver, subsidized by regional taxpayers and there is an uneasy feeling that regional mayors are being duped again. No wonder the provincial government treat the taxpayers as rubes, because we keep electing village idiots to run municipal business.

Zwei has a few BRE-X and BRICK shares in the drawer, maybe the same mayors will like to buy them? The way they support the idea of road tolling, I think these guys are nothing more than carnival suckers, easy for the taking.

By KELLY SINOSKI, Vancouver SunFebruary 24, 2012

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Metro+Vancouver+mayors+hope+avoid+property+incease+with+host+tolls+road+taxes/6207420/story.html#ixzz1nPy0RNAlMetro

Vancouver politicians will push the B.C. government to introduce legislation for everything from a regional carbon tax to a vehicle levy by this spring in hopes of avoiding a potential property tax increase in 2013.

Langley Mayor Peter Fassbender, vice-chairman of the mayorsai??i?? council on regional transportation, said the mayors must find new short-term funding by this fall ai??i?? if itai??i??s to be approved as part of TransLinkai??i??s funding plan ai??i?? or they will be forced to hike property taxes by an average $23 per homeowner on Jan. 1, 2013.

Mayors are slated to meet with Transportation Minister Blair Lekstrom on March 7.

ai???Weai??i??ve given [Lekstrom] a list of things that could be added tools …,ai??? Fassbender said. ai???Once itai??i??s in the legislation then itai??i??s up to the mayors in the region to work with whatai??i??s in the legislation to find something in the short term.ai???

The mayorsai??i?? council, TransLink and the province are trying to find alternative sources of funding to generate $70 million annually for future transit projects, including the Evergreen Line and express bus service in Surrey and along Highway 1 to Langley. About $40 million of that funding will come from a two-cents-a-litre boost to the gas tax, but mayors hope to raise the other $30 million without raising property taxes ai??i?? although they have that option.

A 12.5-per-cent increase in transit fares is also proposed for 2013.

Lekstrom said Friday he believes there are short-term ai???opportunitiesai??? available but wouldnai??i??t elaborate, saying itai??i??s up to the mayors to come up with a ai???palatableai??? solution. ai???This is about the mayorsai??i?? council,ai??? he said. ai???Theyai??i??re going to have to talk to the people they represent.ai???

Fassbender said the mayorsai??i?? council hopes to have a range of legislation for short-term funding available so they can continue to finance projects while researching longer term options such as road pricing, which could see tolling major water crossings, tolling entry and exit points to defined areas of Metro Vancouver ai??i?? possibly varying by time of day ai??i?? or by tracking and charging for total kilometres driven.

A confidential report, Evaluation of Revenue Sources to Support Transportation Improvements in Metro Vancouver, obtained by The Vancouver Sun, estimates a toll of $1.60 per trip at major bridges and tunnels ai??i?? which are not named ai??i?? could raise $100 million a year. Another table suggests toll revenue could total between $100 million and $200 million a year.

Fassbender said regionwide tolls would be equitable for all residents in Metro and generate significant revenue. TransLink has tolls on the Golden Ears Bridge, and is likely to slap tolls on the new Pattullo Bridge. The province also plans to toll the new Port Mann, which means those living south of the Fraser will bear the brunt of the costs of those projects.

ai???If we do it on the North Shore bridges, south of the Fraser bridges and northeast sector bridges then nobody can say ai???weai??i??re the only ones paying,ai??i??ai??? he said.

Robin Lindsey, a professor of operations and logistics at the University of B.C.ai??i??s Sauder School of Business, said regionwide tolls would also be lower. Vehicles crossing the new Port Mann Bridge will soon be charged $3 each time, while unregistered users of the Golden Ears Bridge pay $4.10 per trip.

ai???As a means of generating revenue it is effective if itai??i??s done comprehensively; if you just toll the Golden Ears Bridge youai??i??re not going to collect a lot of money,ai??? Lindsay said. ai???If you charge for all tolls, which admittedly is a big step, on all the bridges and tunnels, then youai??i??re going to collect for all the trips. You can also argue itai??i??s fair; people are contributing equally.ai???

London has congestion tolling in and out of its city core, as do Shanghai and Singapore. In the U.S., Lindsay said, several states charge tolls on their HOV lanes, which are free to cars with two or more people but allow single-occupancy vehicles to use them for a price.

Lekstrom said he was surprised to hear tolls were being considered for all bridges, tunnels and even the Sea to Sky Highway. ai???Right now the government is not looking at putting tolls on the Sea to Sky.ai???

Richmond Mayor Malcolm Brodie said he would oppose regionwide tolls, as his residents would have to pay to get in and out of the island community. He said road pricing ai??i?? paying for the distance travelled ai??i?? would be a fairer alternative as a user-pay system. He also supports a vehicle levy, although Fassbender said that would be unfair to south of the Fraser families, many of whom need three or four cars because of a lack of transit.

But Brodie said Surrey and Langley will benefit the most from the money that will be generated in the future transit plan. ai???Weai??i??ve wasted a year getting to this point,ai??? he said. ai???We have to come up with something fast to get rid of the property taxes.ai???

Meanwhile, Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan said he doubts the mayors will be able to avoid raising taxes next year because the province is not likely to approve a vehicle levy ahead of a provincial election. ai???There are not a lot of palatable choices out there,ai??? he said.

ksinoski@vancouversun.com