The following editorial has been crossposted to Transit Toronto.
Pressure is mounting from various quarters for the provincial and federal governments to provide funding for Toronto’s $1.3 billion purchase of new streetcars to replace the current, aging fleet. Transport Minister John Baird inadvertently brought the issue to national attention when he was caught on tape swearing in frustration over Toronto’s application for economic stimulus money. Baird has since apologized for his intemperate words.
The deal that the City of Toronto reached with Bombardier to replace the TTC’s fleet of streetcars has a time limit. Bombardier’s price for 204 vehicles expires on June 27. The City of Toronto has committed to paying a third of this cost (roughly $40 million per year for the next ten years), and is hoping to have the province and the federal government step in to provide matching funds for the remaining two thirds. This formula matches the formula the province has adopted in the past in covering municipalities’ capital costs on public transportation, but ministers in the McGuinty and Harper governments have expressed surprise and frustration at this demand for more cash.
The rush in negotiations between Toronto, Queen’s Park and Ottawa highlights a flaw in the budget process for public transportation agencies in this province. Until 1996, Queen’s Park covered three quarters of the capital expenses of all public transportation agencies in the province, leaving the municipalities to cover the remaining quarter. This money was provided with few strings attached, and gave municipalities a predictable revenue source with which to pay for the bread and butter jobs that kept transit services operating in a state of good repair. At least, in theory.
Now, the fact that the province and the federal government are happy to offer Toronto two-thirds funding of such major transportation projects as new LRT lines across the city, but balk at funding the cost of replacing aging vehicles, suggests that the budget process is now being done on a far more piecemeal basis. Worse, it suggests that the province and the federal government are more interested in (and more willing to commit funds to) projects which are politically sexy; which they can cut ribbons in front of. So, major new LRT lines — which are needed and appreciated — get cash far more easily than new buses or streetcars for services that are already in place.
This is an unfortunate development. As was noted by a number of commentators, this is a return to the form of the early 1990s, when Toronto and Ontario politicians were far more interested in expanding Toronto’s subway system than they were in making sure that the system which remained had sufficient funds to operate safely. This rot increased to the point where a subway driver was able to take his train past a red signal that should have stopped him and accidentally plough it into a stopped train in front of him.
Negotiations between various officials at the City of Toronto, Ottawa and Queens Park are continuing, and it’s possible that Baird’s intemperate remarks might help get Toronto the funds it needs to replace its aging streetcar fleet, but it shouldn’t have to be this way. The McGuinty government criticized its Harris predecessors for downloading the onerous costs of public transportation onto municipalities. Re-uploading this cost means more than just agreeing to fund two-thirds of various projects you happen to like. As much as there is a need to expand the capacity of public transportation systems throughout the GTA and the province of Ontario, the day-to-day cost of replacing old buses and streetcars, of repairing station roofs, tracks, refueling facilities, bus shelters, and keeping these facilities clean, is no less important. And it is this that Queen’s Park and Ottawa have given short shrift to.
If Queen’s Park and Ottawa truly want to ensure that capacity exists in the region’s public transit network to keep the economy moving in future, it cannot focus solely on expansion projects. Until someone comes forward with a predictable funding formula that treats expansion of the new and maintenance of the old equally, our agencies will continue to live hand-to-mouth, and be unable to properly address the congestion issues of the future.
The problem is that there are serious question marks about the Mayor’s strategy here. Instead of applying for funds for new streetcars as a capital project, it was applied for as stimulus funding. The only economy the downtown order will significantly stimulate before 2011 is Thunder Bay’s.
Should the Bombardier streetcar line be aided? Absolutely. However, it should funded from the same sort of programmes that fund the auto industry. Should the federal government government assist the purchase of streetcars? Probably - but they are entitled to dictate which pot of money it comes from.
Mayor Miller has attempted to use the stimulus programme as a substitute for the national transit fund. If we did not have qualifying projects to do, I would think that a good thing - but we do. We are hundreds of millions in the hole on infrastructure repair in Toronto and that gap is widening. Even road repair can be seen as supporting transit when that road is a transit line and therefore its poor condition impacts the buses that travel it. We could even have applied to get the Queen’s Quay East line, portal and carhouse built with stimulus funds, store existing cars there and get Roncesvalles and Russell refurbished if we insisted on making transit the principal stimulus beneficiary. The cars themselves could then be funded from the city (with a quiet bailout from the higher levels when stage payments came due).
As for the deadline of June 27 - that was a deadline negotiated by the City without cash in hand from the feds. A higher level of government can’t simply be given a demand from a city to fund its requirements without a broad agreement in principle. Mayor Miller has not said explicitly that the federal or provincial governments had any direct knowledge of the city’s negotiations (and the intended contract expiry) as opposed to knowing that Toronto had offered a tender by reading about it in the paper. While I would argue that the local MPPs (like Smitherman) and MPs should have been proactive in requesting a briefing from the city on their intentions, we are where we are.
Trying to be objective about it, even as someone who will certainly benefit from better streetcars on the 504 - Baird was right if it’s true that every other municipality that applied looked for money that would principally benefit and create jobs within that municipality. The result of his gaffe is likely to be that Miller will get money for the downtown cars from the stimulus fund to spare Tory blushes. My worry is that by doing so, we as a nation will have pushed a national transit fund further into the distance.
The stimulus package was probably not an appropriate program apply for funds to the new streetcars. Most of the jobs won’t be created until the recession is over (hopefully). There are other projects that would be more appropriate if they move up the construction schedule, like the redesign of Queens Quay and Phase 1 of the Waterfront West LRT from Exhibition Loop to Dufferin.
If we don’t get the money for the streetcars, we could always cancel the Spadina Subway extension and use that money pay for them.
The issue of replacement streetcars for Toronto should have been no surprise to either Queen’s Park or Ottawa. This has been an ongoing development for the past two to three years, highlighted by the issue of the bid last year that resulted in no supplier being chosen. It is this reason that I was rather miffed at Smitherman’s reaction to the selection of Bombardier. Besides, what is wrong with announcing who you have selected to supply something even if you don’t have the money in hand to buy it today? It is not like the city has signed an irrevocable agreement to purchase.
All that said, when the story about Baird broke, it didn’t strike me the same way. Sure, there is a place for the federal government to step up to the plate and fund this sort of purchase, especially given that most of the facilities that supply these vehicles are outside of Canada, but it does seem to be a bit of a stretch to think that stimulus funding intended for local infrastructure projects would cover this item. The thing that really hit me when I heard the full quote of what Baird said, not just the F-bomb line, was that it was a bit of a commentary on how the great City of Toronto could not dot all their Is and cross all their Ts in their application. I have my doubts as to whether Baird was thinking this, but I thought about how many people have had to navigate the labyrinth of regulations and forms that the same great City of Toronto foists upon the public. Whether applying for a parking permit or a permit to play soccer in a park, Toronto seems to have wrote the book on making it complicated enough for them to easily deny the request. My reaction to Baird’s comment about Toronto was, “Turnabout is fair play.”
Sustainable transit funding is something that is badly needed. Hopefully, when gas prices reach $2 per litre and the public is crying to “do something about gas prices,” we will have elected politicians that have what it takes to realize that the something is to properly fund transit.
I sincerely hope those yokels don’t delay the order any longer than they have already.
Though I can’t imagine Bombardier playing hardball with that deadline - hopefully the city is just skillfully playing it to try and get the feds and QP to pony up cash faster.
I am aware that the city is pitching the idea with Bombardier to build low floor street cars.
Looking at designs of the low floor streetcars it appears that snow removal costs may increase the total operational budget. Scarborough RT has these existing limitations. The new streetcars size will be a major issue; The tunnels at Union may need more analysis due to height restrictions.
Removing political science from the equation and talking about the physical limitations of each design will be essential for this project to stay on budget. Out of all of the political shenanigans Dalton McGuinty, David Miller, John Baird can come up with will it really all matter?
We will crown one the leader in drama then move forward toward civil, mechanical, electrical and environmental limitations within Toronto. As for calling anyone ‘pony up the cash’ as Krupo has put it. It should go to Transportation Canada to start this analysis at once. This is a department already on the payband. So what are these limitations in Toronto??
-Ken
Let’s fix what we have first and then expand with the proper regular funding. Let’s fix the subway tunnels, subway access points, the roadways the buses run on. Let’s worry about that.
Then go for the improved streetcars, more routes, etc, etc.
Remember the powers to be come and go, we still have to use the system to get around. Will it matter to them when there gone?
Howard, if we want to fix what we have first, then we have to fix the streetcars. The fleet we currently have is closing in on thirty years old and is reaching the end of its service life. There is already questions on whether or not we have enough streetcars to meet passenger demands. If we want a system that is “fixed”, then the new streetcars that are being bought are as important as fixed subway tunnels, subway access points, et cetera. We also need to buy new buses. These vehicles do not last forever, and need to be replaced periodically.
But we mustn’t forget to expand the system. We’re not keeping up with our population growth. And an LRT tunnel under Eglinton will do much to move a lot of people.
Basically, maintenance and expansion are two separate but equally important priorities. Neither should be neglected at the expense of each other.
I was born in a farm. COMECON country and as such we didn’t know anything about subways in Madrid (for political reasons). When I read first article about the system about five years ago, there was a proclamation st the start by the King of Spain and the government - the citizens have a right to move around Madrid. So - it was in 1911 and the Spaniards are building since that time. They have re-financed the holding company about three or four times. This right (to travel) is often repeated around many European cities. We do not recognize such right. The result is, that politicians would like to build something new, but forget about a maintance of existing - and the supplied funds can be sent to T.O. (or not) depending on the whims of leading political party. —-
As for the proposed Transit City - I am surprised, that TTC would still consider poles not pantographs for the streetcars even for such long vehicles.
And another question: Can someone tell me, how will the streetcars get from Eglinton/Laird to Egl./Pharmacy and how will TTC construct its ROW there, as Eglinton is quite heavily congested in the morning? In other words - TTC likes to cloak itself in lots of numbers and analysis, but at the same time provides very little information about the project(s).
In answer to your questions, Jiri:
The new Transit City LRT lines will use pantographs rather than trolley poles. It’s the legacy system that will be sticking to trolley poles… for now. What some of us have noticed is that the TTC has quietly reworked some of the overhead to handle pantograph operation, so it’s likely we’ll be making the switch sooner rather than later.
As for the Eglinton LRT, the trains will exit the tunnel at Brentcliffe, east of Laird. There, the road widens considerably from four lanes (unsuitable for surface LRT) to six, with room to grow. It’s possible that the right-of-way will be on the south side of the road from Brentcliffe to Don Mills. The Don Mills interchange might be underground. East of Don Mills, the tracks will be on a reservation down the middle of the road.