A long time ago Feb 2007 I suggested that one way to save capital costs funding transit would be for cities to pool their capital and buy bulk where possible. I cannot believe this has actually happened through the participation of Toronto in a combined diesel locomotive purchase earlier this year.
Metrolinx, an agency of the Ontario Government and tasked with improving coordination and integration of all modes of transportation in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton areas, agreed in February to $53 million on 12 quiet diesel locomotives slotted for the new line running from downtown Toronto to the outlying Pearson International Airport.
Effectively, Metrolinx piggy-backed on a competitive tender conducted by Somona-Main County in California for a similar locamotive and knocked-off close to $47 million off the price for a 12 unit deal estimated $100 million had the deal been a stand along contract for Toronto .
Pooling capital resources makes sense on big-ticket item puchases that make sense (and the timing is right) when public transit dollars are hard pressed to be found.
Friday, September 2, 2011
Now that I've finished...
I can't believe I started this blog in 2007! Also, can't believe I haven't posted a post since 2009! We'll have to do something about that now...!
Friday, February 29, 2008
Could a regional transit authority be next?
Finally, the idea of a provincial transit authority is out in the open. Premier McQuinty of Ontario recently floated the idea of creating a regional transit authority, even suggesting that such a body might take over Toronto's bus and subway service, the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC). With transit issues just too big for local governments to deal with alone, it only seems logical that the provincial government, in putting up large sums of cash for transit, would what to influence where and how this money is spent.
Of course when Premier McQuinty floated the idea, Metrolinx (the province's GTTA Transit planning and co-ordinating body played the idea down, as did the big city mayors in Ontario. Metrolink, I suspect because they lack the legislative power to actively co-ordinate transit and need to be on the good side of the mayors, and the mayors, because they don't want to lose control of their own individual transit systems.
But, as the saying goes..."it's time to wake up and put the coffee on." Transit is just too big and too important an issue to be left in the hands of municipal governments as it is today. Premier McQuinty either knows this or is coming to realize this fact. A regional transit authority speaks to future provincial (and national) economic competitiveness. Given the size of Toronto and its surrounding GTA area we need to catch up to similarly important regions across the developed world and create a true regional transit authority. So hop aboard...it just makes sense!
Of course when Premier McQuinty floated the idea, Metrolinx (the province's GTTA Transit planning and co-ordinating body played the idea down, as did the big city mayors in Ontario. Metrolink, I suspect because they lack the legislative power to actively co-ordinate transit and need to be on the good side of the mayors, and the mayors, because they don't want to lose control of their own individual transit systems.
But, as the saying goes..."it's time to wake up and put the coffee on." Transit is just too big and too important an issue to be left in the hands of municipal governments as it is today. Premier McQuinty either knows this or is coming to realize this fact. A regional transit authority speaks to future provincial (and national) economic competitiveness. Given the size of Toronto and its surrounding GTA area we need to catch up to similarly important regions across the developed world and create a true regional transit authority. So hop aboard...it just makes sense!
Saturday, June 16, 2007
$17.5 Billion for GTA & Toronto transit...
Recently I wrote “as Toronto’s prosperity goes so too does the province’s prosperity go” commenting that “…their fates are so completely entwined with each other that policy coordination between them on the matter of cities” is “a matter of competitive necessity.” I should have added politically expedient too!
Ontario’s Premier McGintty’s recent announcement of a pre-election pledge of $17. billion for GTA transit expansion is what I believe the first fledgling steps in a process that will eventually see all level of governments co-ordinating policy on transit and many other issues. Not as in today with each level trying to win more political capital then the other with each announcement, but more in a lock-step, win-win capacity.
As gridlock and other issues would surely overwhelm us if nothing were done, the new political mantra is going to be your problems are my problems! So ironically, as our problems get bigger and the room for manoeuvre gets smaller, in ten years or so we are going to see governments behaving very differently in the level of inter-governmental co-ordination they being to the table. A “nice to” will be matter of competitive necessity in more ways then one.
Ontario’s Premier McGintty’s recent announcement of a pre-election pledge of $17. billion for GTA transit expansion is what I believe the first fledgling steps in a process that will eventually see all level of governments co-ordinating policy on transit and many other issues. Not as in today with each level trying to win more political capital then the other with each announcement, but more in a lock-step, win-win capacity.
As gridlock and other issues would surely overwhelm us if nothing were done, the new political mantra is going to be your problems are my problems! So ironically, as our problems get bigger and the room for manoeuvre gets smaller, in ten years or so we are going to see governments behaving very differently in the level of inter-governmental co-ordination they being to the table. A “nice to” will be matter of competitive necessity in more ways then one.
More Toronto Roundhouse Lunacy...
In my previous post “Toronto’s Roundhouse Madness” I commented on the sad fact that a low-end furniture store was moving into our last surviving roundhouse from the 1920’s and how this was a really inappropriate use of an important heritage civic asset.
Since the news broke the story gets worse. We now learn that the city’s mission with respect to the roundhouse was two fold; one, create a railway museum at no cost to the city, and two, find roundhouse tenants. On the first objective the new deal gives 3 of 32 train bays for a small museum, and on the second objective, 15 bays to the furniture store (the remaining bays presently occupied by the tourist-friendly Steam Whistle Brewery).
From a space perspective a 3 bay museum would all but useless (even if the remaining locomotives on-site were left outside to rust), what really seems so short sighted is that the city left the job of finding tenants up to a developer and as we well know in Toronto, what our developers what they get regardless of what the rest of us might have wanted.
So in a nutshell the city has a rare heritage civic asset across the street from a major tourist attraction, the CN Tower, and doesn’t want to spend a dime developing the site never mind leveraging CN Tower’s capacity to draw tourists to the area; gives a developer the job of finding a tenant without so much as demanding a heritage sensitive re-use and tourist-friendly outcome, and oh yes, throws in a token museum at no cost to the city. The heritage department we are told “is pleased” and so it is mission accomplished!
In reality, don’t spend a dime city marries “don’t pay a cent event” furniture store. Too bad few tourists are going to show up this for wedding. Even the Steam Whistle Brewery looses out in that their plans for a railway museum/event space were turned down by the city.
(See Chistopher Hume's recent Toronto Star article titled "Toronto's don't-pay-a-cent event, the Toronto Star, June 16, 2007)."
Since the news broke the story gets worse. We now learn that the city’s mission with respect to the roundhouse was two fold; one, create a railway museum at no cost to the city, and two, find roundhouse tenants. On the first objective the new deal gives 3 of 32 train bays for a small museum, and on the second objective, 15 bays to the furniture store (the remaining bays presently occupied by the tourist-friendly Steam Whistle Brewery).
From a space perspective a 3 bay museum would all but useless (even if the remaining locomotives on-site were left outside to rust), what really seems so short sighted is that the city left the job of finding tenants up to a developer and as we well know in Toronto, what our developers what they get regardless of what the rest of us might have wanted.
So in a nutshell the city has a rare heritage civic asset across the street from a major tourist attraction, the CN Tower, and doesn’t want to spend a dime developing the site never mind leveraging CN Tower’s capacity to draw tourists to the area; gives a developer the job of finding a tenant without so much as demanding a heritage sensitive re-use and tourist-friendly outcome, and oh yes, throws in a token museum at no cost to the city. The heritage department we are told “is pleased” and so it is mission accomplished!
In reality, don’t spend a dime city marries “don’t pay a cent event” furniture store. Too bad few tourists are going to show up this for wedding. Even the Steam Whistle Brewery looses out in that their plans for a railway museum/event space were turned down by the city.
(See Chistopher Hume's recent Toronto Star article titled "Toronto's don't-pay-a-cent event, the Toronto Star, June 16, 2007)."
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Toronto's Roundhouse Madness
I was astonished to read recently (the Star June 11, 2007) that Toronto's barley surviving 1929 CPR John Street Roundhouse was to be turned into of all things a gaudy Leon's furniture store.
One could only have hoped that an important historical asset like the roundhouse would have been brought back to life in a more historical context, but no, valuable tourist dollars were traded for “buy now pay next year” furniture sales. Why? Apparently because Leon’s is about to celebrate in 2009 its 100 anniversary as a family business so locating it a rare and priceless roundhouse from the 1920’s seemed to make the most sense to council!
As with our waterfront, now to with our roundhouse, lets give the our tourists condo’s and furniture stores to visit while we collect a few bucks on property taxes. Council, this isn’t the way to build the city of the future.
One could only have hoped that an important historical asset like the roundhouse would have been brought back to life in a more historical context, but no, valuable tourist dollars were traded for “buy now pay next year” furniture sales. Why? Apparently because Leon’s is about to celebrate in 2009 its 100 anniversary as a family business so locating it a rare and priceless roundhouse from the 1920’s seemed to make the most sense to council!
As with our waterfront, now to with our roundhouse, lets give the our tourists condo’s and furniture stores to visit while we collect a few bucks on property taxes. Council, this isn’t the way to build the city of the future.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Toronto, civic pride in transition...
Recent articles in the Globe & Mail (Margaret Wente, May 29th) and the Toronto Star (editorial, May 28th) comment on the perception that “Toronto the good” has somehow now lost its civic leadership, hope and optimism to places like New York and Chicago and they speculate how this could have happened.
Forgotten is Ontario’s election in 1995 of Premier Mike Harris who claimed he was going to run Ontario “like a business.” For Toronto it did not help that he neither understood nor even liked the city. Eight years later Toronto’s civic pride had been thoroughly browbeaten, traded in for tax breaks and an anti public, anti city attitude. Over a decade later his legacy still haunts Toronto proving you “never get tax breaks for free.”
Public space, the greatest enabler of civic pride, was seen by Harris as costly and not terribly important. Public infrastructure built during this period was often ascetically unappealing and seemed to apologize for its public role. Schools and community centres were starved of funds so making predicable our youth gun violence of today. Provincial service downloading robbed the city of its energy as suddenly there was a huge bill to pay all for these new services and no time to think about the future.
Yet despite this my perception is that the city is now in a transition period that will eventually see its political leaders of today make way for the new, bold, visionary leaders of tomorrow. Ironically, our problems (gridlock, crime, poverty, immigration integration, education issues and so on) are now provincial and federal problems too. As Toronto’s prosperity goes so too does the province’s prosperity (and the same can be said of other cities and their respective provinces). It is only a matter of time before each level of government truly recognizes that their fates are so completely entwined with each other that policy coordination between them on the matter of cities is not just a “nice to do” its a rather a matter of competitive necessity.
The Harris’ legacy proves that what we strive for today, good, bad or indifferent, the consequences will be with us for a very long to come. I am optimistic and look forward to Toronto (and other Canadian cites) taking their rightful place in Canada’s future success.
Forgotten is Ontario’s election in 1995 of Premier Mike Harris who claimed he was going to run Ontario “like a business.” For Toronto it did not help that he neither understood nor even liked the city. Eight years later Toronto’s civic pride had been thoroughly browbeaten, traded in for tax breaks and an anti public, anti city attitude. Over a decade later his legacy still haunts Toronto proving you “never get tax breaks for free.”
Public space, the greatest enabler of civic pride, was seen by Harris as costly and not terribly important. Public infrastructure built during this period was often ascetically unappealing and seemed to apologize for its public role. Schools and community centres were starved of funds so making predicable our youth gun violence of today. Provincial service downloading robbed the city of its energy as suddenly there was a huge bill to pay all for these new services and no time to think about the future.
Yet despite this my perception is that the city is now in a transition period that will eventually see its political leaders of today make way for the new, bold, visionary leaders of tomorrow. Ironically, our problems (gridlock, crime, poverty, immigration integration, education issues and so on) are now provincial and federal problems too. As Toronto’s prosperity goes so too does the province’s prosperity (and the same can be said of other cities and their respective provinces). It is only a matter of time before each level of government truly recognizes that their fates are so completely entwined with each other that policy coordination between them on the matter of cities is not just a “nice to do” its a rather a matter of competitive necessity.
The Harris’ legacy proves that what we strive for today, good, bad or indifferent, the consequences will be with us for a very long to come. I am optimistic and look forward to Toronto (and other Canadian cites) taking their rightful place in Canada’s future success.
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Toronto's future vision...
In a previous post I said that eventually our low density 905 residential sprawl developments will have to be torn down and replaced with higher density housing (not to be confused with overcrowding conditions) because eventually service delivery to these neighborhoods would become so costly to both municipality and homeowner that re-development would likely be the only way out.
Not so drastic in his views, Architect Jack Diamond recently coined the damaging effects of Ontario’s urban sprawl as “our inconvenient truth” (The Globe, May 18-07) and backed it up with some painful truths too numerous to recite here. His article was interesting in that in offering solutions to urban sprawl he was really articulating elements of a vision of the sustainable city of the future (referring to such elements as transit, environment, economy, people, etc.).
Following the damage done to Toronto by former Ontario Premier Mike Harris and now years of chronic under funding by our senior governments, Toronto has suffered a loss of confidence and pride which frustrates our ability to come up with a quintessential vision or idea of the city that can really bring all the elements Mr. Diamond spoke of and more into “one” coherent set of ideas about the city of the future. We see this played out in our problems in finding an enduring brand for the city and our lack of civic pride.
It is this future vision of Toronto that really interests me and reflecting on this is what prompted me to create Torontoperspectives.com
Not so drastic in his views, Architect Jack Diamond recently coined the damaging effects of Ontario’s urban sprawl as “our inconvenient truth” (The Globe, May 18-07) and backed it up with some painful truths too numerous to recite here. His article was interesting in that in offering solutions to urban sprawl he was really articulating elements of a vision of the sustainable city of the future (referring to such elements as transit, environment, economy, people, etc.).
Following the damage done to Toronto by former Ontario Premier Mike Harris and now years of chronic under funding by our senior governments, Toronto has suffered a loss of confidence and pride which frustrates our ability to come up with a quintessential vision or idea of the city that can really bring all the elements Mr. Diamond spoke of and more into “one” coherent set of ideas about the city of the future. We see this played out in our problems in finding an enduring brand for the city and our lack of civic pride.
It is this future vision of Toronto that really interests me and reflecting on this is what prompted me to create Torontoperspectives.com
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Change in direction
Well folks, I've learnt during the first rendition of the this blog (some 26 posts in total), but the fact of the matter is I'd like to re-think and re-focus Toronto perspectives. This process has already started with "About this site."
So while I'm doing this I'll leave some of my first edition posts up for you to read...
Regards, Mark
So while I'm doing this I'll leave some of my first edition posts up for you to read...
Regards, Mark
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Time to re-brand this blog I think...
In my previous post under "Being an armchair strategist" I talked about how hard it was to write about the issues facing Toronto without sounding like just another critic of city hall. It's not that I'm afraid of offering constructive criticism, it's just that city problems are complex and it will take time to learn all the in's and out's of each of the issues.
When I started this blog it was to be from the point of view of just commenting on the issues of the day. With an interest in city politics and not being directly involved, I thought a blog would be a good way to put down some of my ideas and thoughts and see what came back if any by way of comments.
But, given the complexity of the issues facing Toronto, and to do justice to any one of them, you need to focus on one, maybe two at most. Trying to comment on everything when you are on the periphery of the issues and not down at city hall on a daily basis is very difficult indeed. So over the coming weeks I'm going to re-think and re-focus my blog and then get back to adding new posts.
After all, one should never be afraid of questioning what you do or learning from your experiences!
When I started this blog it was to be from the point of view of just commenting on the issues of the day. With an interest in city politics and not being directly involved, I thought a blog would be a good way to put down some of my ideas and thoughts and see what came back if any by way of comments.
But, given the complexity of the issues facing Toronto, and to do justice to any one of them, you need to focus on one, maybe two at most. Trying to comment on everything when you are on the periphery of the issues and not down at city hall on a daily basis is very difficult indeed. So over the coming weeks I'm going to re-think and re-focus my blog and then get back to adding new posts.
After all, one should never be afraid of questioning what you do or learning from your experiences!
Sunday, April 15, 2007
NIMBY arguments will get Toronto nowhere...
Councillor Giorgio Mammoliti said recently “…he won’t tolerate any NIMBY arguments from residents…” when referring to Toronto’s largest affordable housing package (of 1500 people) in years. Well done Councillor Giorgio Mammoliti!
NIMBY-ism (or not in my back yard) is one of the biggest obstacles facing Toronto urban planners and city strategists. Whether it is affordable housing, dedicated transit lines or a train link to the airport, NIBY-ism can hold us back from doing the things we need to do to make this city great! When initiatives come down the “pipe” with important city wide economic and competitive implications, NIBY-ism has to be fought at all cost.
One idea may be to create a “strategic initiatives committee” that would only handle those issues flagged by city council vote as having city-wide “strategic importance.” The councillor membership (along with possible non elected experts and/or staff) would alternate according to each issue to avoid conflict of interest situations. The committees’ job will be to project manage the public consultation process based on a new strategic initiative deposition framework.
NIMBY-ism proponents will have to demonstrate to the committee how (1) stopping an initiative deemed strategic will have little or no effect on the city’s economic and competitive health and and/or (2) what alterations to the initiative will satisfy their major concerns. Once the consultative process is over the initiative along with any changes deemed constructive is sent back to council for a final go/no go vote.
Debate would be elevated to a city-wide strategic level and local NIMBY-ism arguments avoided. Over time people would start thinking about the big picture when it comes to strategically important initiatives, like a world-class rail link to the airport and NIBY-ism will be relegated to local non strategic issues.
It is the concept do-able? Well, the Ministry of Research and Innovation and the Trillium Foundation uses a similar idea in allocating financial grants to ensure process fairness and openness, and to insulate the organization from direct influence peddling and lobbying. So yes, I believe it is do-able in a form that would be consistent with city governance capabilities. The point is that somehow a process must be found to insulate our local councillors from the worst effects of NIMBY-ism on this city’s future development.
NIMBY-ism (or not in my back yard) is one of the biggest obstacles facing Toronto urban planners and city strategists. Whether it is affordable housing, dedicated transit lines or a train link to the airport, NIBY-ism can hold us back from doing the things we need to do to make this city great! When initiatives come down the “pipe” with important city wide economic and competitive implications, NIBY-ism has to be fought at all cost.
One idea may be to create a “strategic initiatives committee” that would only handle those issues flagged by city council vote as having city-wide “strategic importance.” The councillor membership (along with possible non elected experts and/or staff) would alternate according to each issue to avoid conflict of interest situations. The committees’ job will be to project manage the public consultation process based on a new strategic initiative deposition framework.
NIMBY-ism proponents will have to demonstrate to the committee how (1) stopping an initiative deemed strategic will have little or no effect on the city’s economic and competitive health and and/or (2) what alterations to the initiative will satisfy their major concerns. Once the consultative process is over the initiative along with any changes deemed constructive is sent back to council for a final go/no go vote.
Debate would be elevated to a city-wide strategic level and local NIMBY-ism arguments avoided. Over time people would start thinking about the big picture when it comes to strategically important initiatives, like a world-class rail link to the airport and NIBY-ism will be relegated to local non strategic issues.
It is the concept do-able? Well, the Ministry of Research and Innovation and the Trillium Foundation uses a similar idea in allocating financial grants to ensure process fairness and openness, and to insulate the organization from direct influence peddling and lobbying. So yes, I believe it is do-able in a form that would be consistent with city governance capabilities. The point is that somehow a process must be found to insulate our local councillors from the worst effects of NIMBY-ism on this city’s future development.
Being an armchair strategist...
Now that I have a few posts under my belt being an armchair strategist is tougher then I thought! For one, you have to constantly guard against falling into the trap of being just critical. Regardless of whether you agree my views or not, I hope overall that my comments are at least constructive, my perspective interesting and that I'm focused on solutions and vision without appearing to be critical of our city leaders. About this site.
Dogs, doo doo, parks and pet waste...
An amazing 25% of all waste going into city park trash bins is pet waste, or about 2,500 tons per year, which the city doesn’t know what to do with over the long term according to a recent report by Jim Byers (the Star April 11th, 2007).
With 300,000 dogs in Toronto (the Star) the problem is defined as far too many people using parks as their back yards, in places where children want to play, and way too much dog waste landing in city park garbage cans. There is no room for it in the city's green bins and trucking it to Michigan is not an option so the parks and environment committee has now asked city staff to report back on potential solutions.
In the long term, restricting dogs to certain zones within city parks and banning them from school yards (understandably ideas sure to upset dog owners) seems the way to go. Special dog waste stations should be installed in each park zone (as found in Pickering city parks) and biodegradable bags provided. With centralized pet waste collection sites, disposal and bio treatment should be easier and less costly as you benefit from economies of scale. A public education and awareness program should also be factored into the solution.
The intent would not be to single out or punish dog owners, but to include them as participants in an overall garbage strategy and solution. An even bigger issue though is excessive packaging and fast food litter that the province will not regulate and will not make the manufacturers and producers of that waste pay for clean up. Which means Toronto property taxpayer have to pay for it and that just adds to our garbage problem!
With 300,000 dogs in Toronto (the Star) the problem is defined as far too many people using parks as their back yards, in places where children want to play, and way too much dog waste landing in city park garbage cans. There is no room for it in the city's green bins and trucking it to Michigan is not an option so the parks and environment committee has now asked city staff to report back on potential solutions.
In the long term, restricting dogs to certain zones within city parks and banning them from school yards (understandably ideas sure to upset dog owners) seems the way to go. Special dog waste stations should be installed in each park zone (as found in Pickering city parks) and biodegradable bags provided. With centralized pet waste collection sites, disposal and bio treatment should be easier and less costly as you benefit from economies of scale. A public education and awareness program should also be factored into the solution.
The intent would not be to single out or punish dog owners, but to include them as participants in an overall garbage strategy and solution. An even bigger issue though is excessive packaging and fast food litter that the province will not regulate and will not make the manufacturers and producers of that waste pay for clean up. Which means Toronto property taxpayer have to pay for it and that just adds to our garbage problem!
Friday, April 6, 2007
Weighting in the garbage debate...
Toronto’s looming imposition of garbage user fees or charging different rates for different sized garbage bins is now big news. However, when ever you start charging for one essential service you usually end up transferring the savings (or in this case extra revenue) elsewhere to deal with the knock-on problem that you have inadvertently created. For example, cut transit funding and you get more cars and gridlock; cut recreation centres you get more youth crime; charge garbage fees and you get more illegal dumping and rodents.
Clearly, we have to do something about the volumes of garbage going into landfill (including the 30% of landfill which is torn down building debris?) recognizing that people are trapped too by the excessive amount of packaging used with just about every consumer item. Here are some things I think we should do (not all of them new ideas ):
- Create neighbourhood recycling depots (as in Europe) to alleviated road side pick-up pressures and cost.
- Offer property tax relief to business who permit public recycling depots on their property (properly zoned).
- Hold frequent, more convenient, fee-based special collection access days at city garbage depots to stem illegal dumping (as there will never by enough dumping inspectors)
- Extend recycling regulations to all commercial and residential building.
- Introduce a garbage collection tax on fast food businesses.
- Ban plastic bag use in Toronto stores.
- Consider special disposal “pet waste bins” for parks and residential buildings.
- Introduce education programs that infer a social stigma on poor residential and business garbage management practices.
- Develop waste reduction incentive plans (not sure yet what all I would do here yet).
- Significantly increase business dumping fines into tens of thousands for businesses and thousands for individuals (Norwich, England fines up to $30,000 illegal dumping).
- Demand new sub divisions and business developments incorporate waste management plans (pick-up frequencies, materials handled, recycling depots, etc) in their designs to act as waste reduction and disposal incentives.
- Design or reconfigure local municipal garbage depots to accommodate public/private fee-based garbage disposal.
- Build new high tech incinerators (in Paris they are neighbourhood located and are tourist destinations) as a future replacement for current landfill options and sites.
- Develop a demolished building waste management strategy
- Press for a national and provincial packaging standards to reduce excessive waste by-products.
Are these ideas practical? Some are now being considered while some even have new business opportunities in them. Ultimately, tackling land fill waste problems will require a national, provincial and municipal coordinated strategy. Unlikely to happen in the near future, but sure to come. In the meantime a non fee based plan combined with education and waste management strategies may be the way to go
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
I've been away!
I've just got back from Tunisia (great place), but have some new ideas for posts coming soon...
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Toronto's vision needs to excite people!
In Caroline Mallan’s recent article entitled “Waterfront”(the Star March 4, 2007) she describes how despite many disadvantages Liverpool, England has successfully embarked on city centre regeneration and concludes that Toronto could lean a lot from their experience. Indeed, Liverpool has crafted a vision for their city's future that holds real lessons for Toronto!
In Liverpool’s vision document you will find a quote by noted architect and urban planner Daniel Burnham (d. 1912), “MAKE NO LITTLE PLANS.” Sound advice, even today. Toronto needs to aim high, stand proud and articulate a vision we can all sink our teeth into. If economically disadvantaged Liverpool can accomplish so much, relying almost entirely on the persuasive power of its vision to draw all parties to the table, then yes, Toronto can learn from Liverpool's example!
In Liverpool’s vision document you will find a quote by noted architect and urban planner Daniel Burnham (d. 1912), “MAKE NO LITTLE PLANS.” Sound advice, even today. Toronto needs to aim high, stand proud and articulate a vision we can all sink our teeth into. If economically disadvantaged Liverpool can accomplish so much, relying almost entirely on the persuasive power of its vision to draw all parties to the table, then yes, Toronto can learn from Liverpool's example!
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Gas tax for cities...
Mayor Miller’s 1¢ of the GST NOW campaign (or $5 billion in total with $400-$500 million in Toronto) is certainly a good strategy to address Toronto’s fiscal problems, although inherently risky. Indeed, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty quickly “shot down” the Mayor’s plan.
Cities can feel justifiably aggrieved by the damage done to their budgets through service down-loading, but any calls for increased funding by senior governments are more likely now to fall on deaf ears following the federal government recent reduction of the GST rate one percentage point to 6%.
So the real risk in Mayor’s strategy is that our senior levels of governments may take the view that since Toronto has not yet used its new powers granted to them under the City of Toronto Act to raise revenues, they are really being asked to subsidize the city and refuse his request. Which means the mayor’s plan is needs a good defense strategy!
The 1¢ NOW campaign is clearly part of an evolving multi strategy plan to get Toronto out of its fiscal predicament. But, what if this initiative was articulated as part of a broad, national and local strategic framework or plan, extracted from Mayor's Miller's "What makes a city great" vision? Voters would clearly see the mayor’s local successes while minimizing any potential political fall-out should this and other high risk initiatives like “National Transit Strategy” get blocked by senior governments.
These larger, more politically risky funding initiatives could then be place in the context of striving to achieve the impossible, but striving none the less. Local success could be highlighted and promoted, but with the big ticket strategies like the gas tax, the risks would be minimized and any successes would be all gravy come election time!
Cities can feel justifiably aggrieved by the damage done to their budgets through service down-loading, but any calls for increased funding by senior governments are more likely now to fall on deaf ears following the federal government recent reduction of the GST rate one percentage point to 6%.
So the real risk in Mayor’s strategy is that our senior levels of governments may take the view that since Toronto has not yet used its new powers granted to them under the City of Toronto Act to raise revenues, they are really being asked to subsidize the city and refuse his request. Which means the mayor’s plan is needs a good defense strategy!
The 1¢ NOW campaign is clearly part of an evolving multi strategy plan to get Toronto out of its fiscal predicament. But, what if this initiative was articulated as part of a broad, national and local strategic framework or plan, extracted from Mayor's Miller's "What makes a city great" vision? Voters would clearly see the mayor’s local successes while minimizing any potential political fall-out should this and other high risk initiatives like “National Transit Strategy” get blocked by senior governments.
These larger, more politically risky funding initiatives could then be place in the context of striving to achieve the impossible, but striving none the less. Local success could be highlighted and promoted, but with the big ticket strategies like the gas tax, the risks would be minimized and any successes would be all gravy come election time!
Thursday, February 22, 2007
905 Affordability crisis in 15-20 years?
What will the 905’s low density subdivisions look like in fifteen to twenty years from now? My prediction is that factors such as vehicle running costs, poor public transit, growing tax and utility costs, decreased funding for social services, local education limitations, long job commute times, living preferences, environmental issues and simply being located on the edge of the city will make the economic viability of living in these areas questionable in the coming decades?
In fifteen to twenty years the 905’s low density areas will have felt the full effects of “thinned out” service delivery and infrastructure funding. Equally, the cost of what little services they do get will be much higher due to poor economy of scale factors. Located on or near the “fringe” (the greenbelt border) of an expanded Toronto they will become areas to avoid as they now resemble dilapidated projects; abandoned by all, home to the unemployed and the working poor; and incubators of crime.
To avoid this fate, sooner or later the 905’s low density subdivisions homeowners will have to be bought out and their houses torn down to make way for high density, economically sustainable development. Over the coming years the pressure to re-develop huge swaths of low density land will become impossible to resist as well as being an economic imperative (either this or a convenience in having the poor pushed out to the 905 fringe areas). This I see as the unspoken truth about urban sprawl.
In fifteen to twenty years the 905’s low density areas will have felt the full effects of “thinned out” service delivery and infrastructure funding. Equally, the cost of what little services they do get will be much higher due to poor economy of scale factors. Located on or near the “fringe” (the greenbelt border) of an expanded Toronto they will become areas to avoid as they now resemble dilapidated projects; abandoned by all, home to the unemployed and the working poor; and incubators of crime.
To avoid this fate, sooner or later the 905’s low density subdivisions homeowners will have to be bought out and their houses torn down to make way for high density, economically sustainable development. Over the coming years the pressure to re-develop huge swaths of low density land will become impossible to resist as well as being an economic imperative (either this or a convenience in having the poor pushed out to the 905 fringe areas). This I see as the unspoken truth about urban sprawl.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Heritage designations add to property values!
Real estate’s “article of faith” claim is that newly designated heritage properties immediately lose their market value. However, U.S. and Canadian studies suggest that properties values actually increase, or at worst remain the same. So why do some homeowners fight heritage listing and designation from being placed on their properties?
After observing recent heritage proceedings at Toronto city, a lack of information on heritage listing and designation market impacts seems to be the answer. A quick survey of local heritage web sites reveals technical and process information on heritage listing, designation and owner obligations, but nothing quantatative on market value impacts (that I could find). So fearful homeowners rely on their real estate agents for information, though inaccurate, and grow highly sceptical of the positive impacts of owning a heritage property.
Homeowners have two city committee meeting opportunities to argue against listing or designation. Their presentations are often emotional, rambling, and at times ridiculous, but most reflect underlying market value concerns. No statistics, reports or information sources are provided to the homeowner other then market value assurances that there was nothing to “worry about.” Lost on homeowners is the message that interested purchasers will pay a premium in order to live in a heritage property.
To get the “message” out heritage groups need to move away from “tree-hugging” preservation arguments to more business-like discussions. As money is limited, heritage groups need to pool their resources to pay for market value impact studies that demonstrate the positive business case for heritage preservation. Heritage preservation is good, smart business, and this “message,” unlike today, needs to be main selling point of our heritage preservation efforts.
After observing recent heritage proceedings at Toronto city, a lack of information on heritage listing and designation market impacts seems to be the answer. A quick survey of local heritage web sites reveals technical and process information on heritage listing, designation and owner obligations, but nothing quantatative on market value impacts (that I could find). So fearful homeowners rely on their real estate agents for information, though inaccurate, and grow highly sceptical of the positive impacts of owning a heritage property.
Homeowners have two city committee meeting opportunities to argue against listing or designation. Their presentations are often emotional, rambling, and at times ridiculous, but most reflect underlying market value concerns. No statistics, reports or information sources are provided to the homeowner other then market value assurances that there was nothing to “worry about.” Lost on homeowners is the message that interested purchasers will pay a premium in order to live in a heritage property.
To get the “message” out heritage groups need to move away from “tree-hugging” preservation arguments to more business-like discussions. As money is limited, heritage groups need to pool their resources to pay for market value impact studies that demonstrate the positive business case for heritage preservation. Heritage preservation is good, smart business, and this “message,” unlike today, needs to be main selling point of our heritage preservation efforts.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Transit capital "pooling" could free-up cash?
Later this month Canadian mayors hope to announce a new “national transit strategy” to repair the nation's aging transit systems and reduce environmental damage (the Star Feb 10-07). Most likely there will be a call for new government funding to help keep transit systems across the country rolling. However, if new funding does arrive it may not be enough. Therefore, transit authorities will continue to look for creative ways to increase funding and ridership, while reducing costs.
On the cost saving idea that may have merit is capital "pooling" to pay for big ticket items such as subway cars, LRT’s, buses, etc (much as the car companies do). For example, a combined three city order for buses would benefit from the economies of scale that a smaller, one city order would not. Small cities would also benefit by dove-tailing their bus orders with their big city brethren and accruing savings that normally would be denied them. Parts purchasing would also be cheaper as the common parts pool would be that much larger, while many warehousing and distribution costs would be shared.
Certainly, the challenges implementing such a scheme would be truly huge from selecting common rolling stock or components to conflicting city needs; never mind how the various transit suppliers could be given a fair opportunity to participate in the plan. What is important here is not the specifics of the idea, rather the concept of transit authorities looking beyond their own transit borders to partner and leverage the power of economy of scale be it capital, funding or otherwise).
A national transit strategy and innovative revenue generation tactics may keep transit systems in good repair. Looking outside for creative partnering synergies and opportunities may just be a way free up additional cash to improve transit for cities big and small?
On the cost saving idea that may have merit is capital "pooling" to pay for big ticket items such as subway cars, LRT’s, buses, etc (much as the car companies do). For example, a combined three city order for buses would benefit from the economies of scale that a smaller, one city order would not. Small cities would also benefit by dove-tailing their bus orders with their big city brethren and accruing savings that normally would be denied them. Parts purchasing would also be cheaper as the common parts pool would be that much larger, while many warehousing and distribution costs would be shared.
Certainly, the challenges implementing such a scheme would be truly huge from selecting common rolling stock or components to conflicting city needs; never mind how the various transit suppliers could be given a fair opportunity to participate in the plan. What is important here is not the specifics of the idea, rather the concept of transit authorities looking beyond their own transit borders to partner and leverage the power of economy of scale be it capital, funding or otherwise).
A national transit strategy and innovative revenue generation tactics may keep transit systems in good repair. Looking outside for creative partnering synergies and opportunities may just be a way free up additional cash to improve transit for cities big and small?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
