Something non-political for a change. Who is the NHL’s best general manager? Tough question to answer, but one way of answering is to look at how a club performed relative to what it spent — that is, who put together the best team for the fewest dollars? (recognizing of course that the GM in place often inherits the pluses and minuses of his predecessor). On that basis, here is the ranking from best to worst:

* since departed

It is surely a sign of the times that we subsidize driving while at the same time our public transit systems are so starved for cash. North Americans believe that it is a god-given right to have free access to roads. It is not. It’s time for cities like Los Angeles and Toronto to have the political leadership to do the right thing, even if it is unpopular.

In Toronto, you pay for the greater convenience of having less congestion on the privately-run Highway 407 (to avoid the chronically congested 401). But while the 407 tolls are profit for a private company, tolls on public roads would be reinvested in the transportation system — a portion could be set aside into a fund that is reinvested (to build a pool of funds for the long-term), a portion could be set aside for immediate maintenance of the roads, a portion could be set aside for new capital public transit projects, and a portion could be set aside to pay for the impacts of highway use (smog, CO2, asthma treatment, etc). It’s good public policy.

Traditional opposition to road tolling comes from the right who see it as another tax grab by big government. But free-market proponents argue road tolls is an effective means of properly accounting for the true impact of their use. Many on the left also oppose road tolls because they believe that we’ll end up pricing the poor off of roads, so that highways will become the exclusive domain of the rich. Moreover, since housing on the urban periphery is typically lower than in the central city (at least in L.A. and T.O.), many lower-income households live relatively far out and have no choice but to drive (because there isn’t effective transit in the periphery). But part of the reason why housing on the periphery is cheaper is precisely because municipalities don’t have to pay for public transit infrastructure — transportation (in the form of highways) is paid for by higher levels of government, subsidized to the benefit of tract housing developers. And it isn’t just transportation that is subsidized. When you build at low densities, fewer households are using the same amount of other forms of infrastructure — sewers, schools, street lights, surface streets, and so on. While an acre of urban land might serve 80 units, peripheral housing might serve only 4 units (i.e. a house on a 1/4-acre lot = 4 dwellings per acre) — 20 times less. I’m not opposed to everyone having a single family detached house. But the cost of that pattern of development is not being paid by those who choose it. We could charge higher impact fees (which will be passed along to the consumer). But we can also charge directly for the use of road infrastructure.

We all pay for a certain amount of infrastructure (of all kinds) whether we use it or not — and we do so because we cannot provide it for ourselves as individuals more effectively. But this base level funding doesn’t cover all the costs. In the case of highways, who pays for the lost hours due to congestion? Who pays for pollution? and the associated health impacts? Right now, nobody (or, if anyone, the government, which again means the cost of low-density, auto-dependent development is being borne by everyone). I believe that if you use it, you should pay for it. Clearly, those who use L.A.’s Metro of the TTC in Toronto pay every time they step on board. Why shouldn’t we expect the same for highway users?

Unlike many public policies that are politically expedient, but poor on performance, road tolling delivers results, and can promote change. If it suddenly costs you something to use the highways, maybe you will need to partner up with a buddy and carpool. Maybe you’ll buy a more fuel efficient car to offset the toll costs. Maybe you will give public transit a try. If its not available, maybe you’ll demand it. And if you have the means, maybe you’ll decide that spending dollars of gas and tolls would be better spent on a higher mortgage (thus building equity instead) on a house that is closer to your work or more centrally located (where you can avoid highways and maybe even use transit). Do the math: if you drive 60 miles from home to work and back (120 miles per day), 22 days/month at 20 miles/gallon and $3.50/gallon, that’s $462 per month in gas. A $5 toll each way for 22 days adds another $220/month. That’s $682/month. How much more could you have spent on your house to live in more central (non-highway dependent) location? At 7% interest for a 30-year loan, that extra $682 translates into $100,000 in house value. Wouldn’t that be a better investment that burning through gas and toll charges every month?

Our taxes help pay for roads, transit and everything else. So the notion that “I’ve already paid for the roads with my taxes” (and thus should not have to pay a toll) is no more valid than a transit user saying “I’ve already paid for the system with my taxes” (and thus should not have to pay for a ticket). The cost of transportation isn’t free. It’s high time that cities like Los Angeles and Toronto recognize this and implement highway tolls.

Electoral reform would be voted down by Ontarians, if the referendum was held today. That’s the message from a recent Environics poll. But it would be voted down not because of a lack of support, but rather because the vast majority of Ontarians have no idea about the alternative.

Yes, it’s been over a month (5 weeks to be exact) since the Ontario Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform submitted its report to the Ontario government, recommending moving to a one ballot – two vote system (where you vote for party and local candidate separately, instead of together, as is the case now). And yet, we have not seen anything remotely resembling a public education campaign to inform Ontarians of the choices they will face in 15 weeks (Oct 10). Even the non-profit YES campaign has barely made a peep.

Yes, with just 15 weeks before the referendum, the Ontario government and YES campaign have done zilch. Nothing. Nadda. Heck, it’s taken them this long just to write the question, which could have been done months ago:

Which electoral system should Ontario use to elect members to the provincial legislature?/Quel système électoral l’Ontario devrait-il utiliser pour élire les députés provinciaux à l’Assemblée législative?

The existing electoral system (First-Past-the-Post)/L’actuel système électoral (système de la majorité relative)

The alternative electoral system proposed by the Citizens’ Assembly (Mixed Member Proportional)/L’autre système électoral proposé par l’Assemblée des citoyens (système de représentation proportionnelle mixte)

(incidentally, I think Environics’ question is better than the government’s — Environics asked “Do you think Ontario should change to the mixed-member proportional electoral system as recommended by the Citizen’s Assembly on Electoral Reform?”)

And so, not surprisingly, with just 15 weeks to go, according to Environics, a whopping 72% of Ontarians have no familiarity with the alternative whatsoever — and just 4% of the population is “very familiar” with the proposal. (Sample: 585 people, margin of error: 4%, 19 times out of 20, conducted June 5-13). Overall, 36% are in favour, 32% are against, and 32% have no opinion at all.

Yet, of the 28% who have some familiarity with the proposal, 55% are in favour of it vs. 34% are against, while 10% have no opinion (that is, of decided voters who are familiar with the proposal, 62% are in favour vs. 38% against — which would meet the government’s 60% super-majority).

It is clear that Ontario is repeating the mistakes that British Columbia made when it held a referendum on the subject (which has resulted in them re-doing the referendum).

So, unless we seen a massive public education campaign begin immediately (literally), electoral reform in Ontario will fail. And potentially quite miserably. And it won’t be because Ontarians don’t like the alternative. It will be because they just don’t know what it is…

This week the Ontario Liberals announced a $17.5 billion plan to invest in public transit in the greater Horseshoe region (normally transit investments are split 3 ways between federal, provincial, and municipal governments, but in this case the province is covering the municipal costs — it remains to be seen if the federal government will contribute — but don’t hold your breath; as such, the “real” commitment for the Ontario government is about $11.5 billion). Among the initiatives are:

- expand capacity of several GO lines by adding a third track
- extend several GO lines further out
- electrify the GO Lakeshore network
- build a new crosstown GO line
- a couple new GO radial lines
- add dedicated bus rapid transit lines along 400 highways
- add dedicated bus rapid transit lines in Peel and Halton
- an air-rail link from Union Station to Pearson airport
- 2 new light rail lines in Hamilton
- various new light rail lines in Toronto
- extend the Scarborough and Sheppard light rail lines
- expansion of York Region’s VIVA network
- new light rail in Durham region
- extend Yonge subway line to Hwy 7

If we assume that the “real” (i.e. committed) money is only two-thirds, it is reasonable to assume that about a third of the above projects will not happen (unless the federal government ante’s up $500 million per year for the next 12 years — this could in fact become an issue in the next federal election).

So what are the priorities? DemocraticSPACE believes priority #1 should be to deliver real workable transit to the 905 region (but for transit to be viable in the 905, municipalities will need to allow more mixed-use, and yes, higher density mid-rise communities to form). So the various 905 dedicated bus rapid transit initiatives are critical. DemSPACE considers the GO Crosstown line essential, so that people don’t have to travel all the way downtown to get across the city. DemSPACE also considers the Pearson-Union link critical, but it’s only a first step, since Pearson clearly needs to be linked to Mississauga and North York (which have as many jobs as downtown), and eventually to other parts of the region. DemSPACE believes, however, that changes must be made to the current plan to ensure there are no street closures in Weston (which would cut the neighborhood in two) and to electrify the line rather than using diesel engines (to cut down pollution and noise). It will also be political difficult to cut the Hamilton light rail.

Among the candidates to be cut? DemSPACE suspects the extension of the subway to Highway 7 will get cut since subway construction is very expensive for little relative gain. New and extended GO lines further out are candidates to be cut (since after all, the whole point of their “Smart Growth” strategy is to rein in the GTA’s growth, and one could argue that we shouldn’t be subsidizing wealthy folks who live so far from the city-region). It’s also unlikely that electrification of the GO Lakeshore line win happen, since the priority will be to expand the capacity first. And several of the light rail lines in Toronto are likely going to have to wait.

Not surprisingly, people outside of the 905, including many Progressive Conservatives, are upset that the GTA is getting these big infrastructure dollars. I keep hearing the familiar, but incorrect, statements that rural folks are tired of subsidizing the GTA (in fact, rural areas receive more money than they contribute; of course, that doesn’t mean rural and Northern areas are getting enough help to meet their needs, just that what they do get is subsidized by GTA taxpayers).

And there are critics, particularly among NDPers, who are suggesting that the Liberals are just trying to buy votes in the 905 region for the fall election. Of course, if voters think it is a good idea, it is hardly “buying” votes, it is simply delivering what people want — which is an effort to finally provide transit alternatives in the 905 region (which could reduce congestion and smog). One could also argue that the best chance of ensuring this plan is actually implemented would be a Liberal minority government supported by NDPers — but only if NDPers actually support the plan, of course.

Overall, DemocraticSPACE strongly supports this initiative. The key, however, is not how much you can promise, but rather, how much you deliver. DemSPACE will therefore judge this initiative on whether it delivers results.

Well, well. Interesting news today. Ontario Democratic Reform Minister Marie Bountrogianni will not seek re-election this fall in part because of how Dalton McGuinty’s officials are handling the fall referendum on electoral reform.

Instead of acting on principle, apparently, the Liberals will use results from internal polling to determine whether they will support the Ontario Citizens Assembly’s recommendation to move to a one ballot-two vote system (where you vote for your local candidate and preferred governing party separately). If the polling says voters will be more likely to support a party supporting the recommendation, the Liberals will endorse it and if it looks like it will hurt the party, they will not support the Citizens’ Assembly.

This issue could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back for Dalton McGuinty. In 2003, Dalton McGuinty campaigned on a promise to bring in democratic reforms. And as opposition leader he said:

“We will give the people the right to decide—in a referendum—how we should elect members of the legislature. There is a lot of discontent with our first-past-the-post system. It often elects candidates to the legislature even though more than half the people in that riding wanted someone else. It gives one party all of the power, even though that party failed to capture a majority of the votes.” – Dalton McGuinty, 2001

Now that he has unfettered power (as a result of the voting system that awarded him 70% of the seats on only 46% of the vote), he is signing a different tune, refusing to take a public position on the matter:

“My advice to [the Citizens' Assembly] was to find success, not in any particular result flowing from the referendum, but, rather, find success and a sense of reward from the integrity of the process in which they’ve been involved and in the sincerity of the advice they’ve put forward.” – Dalton McGuinty, 2003

As University of Toronto political science professor Nelson Wiseman (himself not a fan of change) says:

“It’s not in McGuinty’s interest to have proportional representation,” Wiseman says. “It is in McGuinty’s interest to make it look like he’s open to reform … it’s manipulative, and in politics that’s fair game.” [But Wiseman proceeded to call McGuinty's refusal to take a public position on the assembly's proposal "reprehensible"]

Will McGuinty stand behind his democratic reform initiative or will be backtrack and risk yet another charge of broken promises? (he’s already on the hook for raising taxes when he promised not to, among other things like failing to shut down coal-fired power plants or failing to cover expensive behavioral treatment for autistic kids). True, McGuinty only promised to form the Citizens’ Assembly, but why would he form it, watch (and praise) them do their amazing work, only to cast aside its recommendations? Talk about a waste of taxpayers money, never mind a waste of time (8 months) for Assembly members who volunteered. Was McGuinty’s 2003 promise just a ruse to appear to be a more populist candidate (to help him win), or will he show leadership and follow through on this commitment?

Bountrogianni’s resignation suggests that McGuinty may indeed be willing to risk another broken promise. Let’s hope for his sake that he thinks twice and acts like the leader he claims to be.

Note: Apologies for the lack of posts in the last while. UCLA is on the quarter system, which means early June is the end of quarter (which means deadlines … so I’ve been rather busy).

***

Consider the latest poll of 2008 Presidential candidates:

Among Democrats, Hillary Clinton is leading Barack Obama 33% to 22%. Al Gore (undeclared) has 15% and John Edwards has 8%.

Among Republicans, Rudy Giuliani is leading Fred Thompson (undeclared) 27% to 21%. John McCain has 12% and Mitt Romney has 10%.

But look at the head-to-head match-ups. Giuliani would easily defeat Clinton 49% to 39%. Yet Obama would beat Giuliani 46% to 41% and even Edwards would beat Giuliani 46% to 43%.

To me, it looks like Democrats are placing their bet on the wrong horse (Clinton). Clinton is favoured among Democrats but would lose against the top Republican. Yet the #2 rated Democrat (and even the #4 rated) would beat the #1 rated Republican. This suggests that Obama and Edwards have a much greater potential to draw swing voters and Republicans than does Clinton. In fact, Clinton is such a polarizing figure it appears that in a match-up with Giuliani, some Democrats would vote for Giuliani. Likewise, it shows Giuliani has weaknesses against character candidates like Obama and Edwards.

I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again. Americans vote by character. If it’s Clinton vs. Giuliani, Giuliani will win, not because he is “better” than Clinton, but because he has stuck to his principles, favoring gun control, gay rights and access to abortion within a party that favours none of these. On the other hand, Clinton has morphed into a new person over the last couple years (moving away from leftist positions in order to appeal to centrists and Republicans). In both cases, Clinton and Giuliani have had trouble convincing their respective party bases (the far right and far left) of their credentials, which is why neither has a commanding lead.

Clinton’s chameleon act the past couple years may make her more appealing to those on the right, but in doing so, she has opened herself up to criticism that she is willing to compromise values in order to win. That won’t fly with your average American. Americans want someone with character who they can trust. Americans vote with their gut, their emotions more so than differences in policy (which are pretty small these days). I don’t see Clinton able to win on trust and emotion. Obama can, which why I think the Democrats would be wise to consider not what the party establishment wants, but rather what the American people want.