DOCSLIB.ORG

1 Transit-Oriented Governance: a Comparison

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1 Transit-Oriented Governance: a Comparison TRANSIT-ORIENTED GOVERNANCE: A COMPARISON OF THE IMPACT OF REGIONAL GOVERNMENT STRUCTURES ON PUBLIC TRANSIT USE IN TORONTO AND VANCOUVER A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of Architecture, Planning and Preservation COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science in Urban Planning By Jake Schabas May 2012 1 Abstract This thesis explores the relationship between regional government structures in the Toronto and Vancouver metropolitan areas and the development of comparatively high post-war transit use. While local government reforms and the impacts of regional development on transit use following World War II have received much attention in isolation, they have rarely been analyzed together. This paper investigates how the unique regional governance structures in Toronto and Vancouver allowed both cities to counter North American transportation trends by facilitating the creation of policies that favored transit use. By analyzing the historic operating and financial data from the transit agencies in both cities within the context of legislative reforms to local government and the resulting transportation policies, the impact of regional governance structures on transit use is examined. This paper finds that the success of transportation institutions in achieving high regional transit use is closely tied to the extent that local government bodies have fiscal autonomy, jurisdictional flexibility and involve local transit operating knowledge in transportation policy formation. Finally, the cases of Toronto and Vancouver suggest that the presence and long-term sustainability of these three capacities is inversely related to the involvement of senior government in local transportation planning. 2 Acknowledgements I would like to thank my thesis advisor Dr. Elliott Sclar and thesis reader Richard Barone for their direction and feedback throughout this process. In addition, I would like to thank the ten interviewees in Vancouver, Toronto, New York and London who were both generous with their time and very receptive to my questioning and data requests. Furthermore, transportation and land use classes taught by Dr. David King were also crucial to the crystallization of my thoughts and investigative methods around this topic. The hospitality provided by Martin and Lucy Peters in Vancouver along with the consistent support offered by my roommates, girlfriend and family also deserve many thanks. This thesis would not be what it is had it not been for these people. 3 Table of Contents List of Exhibits.............................................................................................................................................................5 Acronyms.......................................................................................................................................................................7 Introduction...................................................................................................................................................................8 Chapter 1: Background, Theoretical Literature & Methods ...................................................................... 12 Institutional Background .............................................................................................................................. 12 Literature Review............................................................................................................................................. 13 Methodology........................................................................................................................................................ 19 Chapter 2: Public Transit in Toronto................................................................................................................. 21 Summary............................................................................................................................................................... 21 Early History: The Toronto Transportation Commission ............................................................. 21 The TTC under Metro: Tough Beginnings ........................................................................................... 24 The Politics of Subways and the Transition to Subsidies: 1959 to 1970................................... 31 “New York run by the Swiss”: 1971 to 1989......................................................................................... 40 Growing Regional Fragmentation............................................................................................................. 52 The End of an Era: Ridership decline and the dissolution of Metro......................................... 55 Chapter 3: Transportation in Vancouver: Institutional Innovation.......................................................... 61 Summary............................................................................................................................................................... 61 Early History: Cooperative Regional Governance ............................................................................ 61 ‘Do it yourself planning:’ Transportation during the 1970s-1990s............................................ 65 The Provincial Control of Local Transit ................................................................................................ 67 A Return to Planning: The Creation of a Regional Transportation Authority .................... 71 Ridership Growth and the loss of the Vehicle Levy: 1999 to the present................................ 76 Capital Project Problems and Governance Reforms........................................................................ 82 Chapter 4: Findings and Recommendations.................................................................................................... 88 Findings................................................................................................................................................................. 88 Recommendations............................................................................................................................................. 93 Conclusion.................................................................................................................................................................. 96 Interview Schedule .................................................................................................................................................. 97 Bibliography .............................................................................................................................................................. 98 Appendix...................................................................................................................................................................105 4 List of Exhibits Exhibit 1: Top Ten North American Census Metropolitan Areas for transit use for the journey to work, 2006/2009.............................................................................................................................10 Exhibit 2: Population change in the Toronto area, 1941-1949 ......................................................26 Exhibit 3: Population Distribution in the Toronto Metropolitan Area, 1948.................................26 Exhibit 4: Toronto Transportation Statistics, 1955-1963...............................................................30 Exhibit 5: TTC Revenues and Expenses, 1962-1970.....................................................................35 Exhibit 6: TTC Ridership, 1960-1970............................................................................................37 Exhibit 7: Population Growth in the Toronto Census Metropolitan Area (CMA).........................38 Exhibit 8: Metropolitan Toronto Planning Jurisdiction and Urbanization, 1969...........................39 Exhibit 9: TTC Operating Statistics, 1971-1986............................................................................41 Exhibit 10: TTC Revenues versus Labor Costs, 1971-1975..........................................................44 Exhibit 11: Provincial Public Transit Operating Subsidy, 1976 ....................................................45 Exhibit 12: The Spadina Subway Line along the Partially build Spadina Expressway median. ...48 Exhibit 13: St. Clair West Station Intermodal Transfers ...............................................................50 Exhibit 14: Change in TTC Vehicle Fleet, 1971-1990 ..................................................................51 Exhibit 15: The Greater Toronto Area Regional Municipalities and Urbanized Area, late 1980s (clockwise, Halton, Peel, York and Durham surround Metropolitan Toronto) .............................53 Exhibit 16: Vehicles and Person Trips Crossing Metro Boundary, 7:00AM to 7:00PM, Two Way Totals, 1975-1977...........................................................................................................................54 Exhibit 17: Transit Ridership and Population Change in the Greater Toronto Area, 1981-1985/6 ........................................................................................................................................................54 Exhibit 18: TTC Ridership and Toronto Employment, 1998-2011 ...............................................56 Exhibit 19: TTC Operating and Financial Statistics, 1990-1996 ...................................................57
Load more

Recommended publications
  • City of Toronto Submission EGI Toronto
    ONTARIO ENERGY BOARD IN THE MATTER OF The Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998, S.O. 1998, c.15, Schedule 8, and in particular, S.90.(1) and S.97 thereof; AND IN THE MATTER OF an Application by Enbridge Gas Inc. for an Order granting leave to construct natural gas pipelines in the City of Toronto. CITY OF TORONTO SUBMISSIONS ON JURISDICTION (delivered January 8, 2021) The City of Toronto (the "City") delivers these submissions in response to the following questions posed by the Ontario Energy Board ("OEB"): a) Does the OEB have the jurisdiction to determine cost responsibility for the Proposed Pipeline, including any allocation of costs to Waterfront Toronto? If the answer to this question is “yes”, what steps, if any, should the OEB take to address this situation? b) If the answer is “no”, what steps can the OEB take to ensure that the costs of the Proposed Pipeline are not unfairly shifted to ratepayers and that the OEB is able to meet its statutory objectives which include protecting the interests of consumers with respect to prices and the adequacy, reliability and quality of gas service (OEB Act, s.2)? Overview of the City of Toronto's Submissions 1. The OEB has jurisdiction to determine cost responsibility for the Proposed Pipeline but only insofar as it may determine that it is appropriate to allocate the costs to ratepayers through the exercise of its rate setting function or decide that the costs must be borne by Enbridge shareholders. 2. In this case, the OEB's jurisdiction to set "just and reasonable rates" does not permit it to order Waterfront Toronto to pay costs Enbridge estimates will be incurred to build the Proposed Pipeline because: (a) Waterfront Toronto is not liable to pay rates since it is not purchasing gas or its transmission, distribution, or storage from Enbridge; and P a g e | 2 (b) no other statute or contract provides a legal basis to find that Enbridge is entitled to be indemnified by Waterfront Toronto for the anticipated costs of the Proposed Pipeline.
    [Show full text]
  • Toward City Charters in Canada
    Journal of Law and Social Policy Volume 34 Toronto v Ontario: Implications for Canadian Local Democracy Guest Editors: Alexandra Flynn & Mariana Article 8 Valverde 2021 Toward City Charters in Canada John Sewell Chartercitytoronto.ca Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/jlsp Part of the Law Commons Citation Information Sewell, John. "Toward City Charters in Canada." Journal of Law and Social Policy 34. (2021): 134-164. https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/jlsp/vol34/iss1/8 This Voices and Perspectives is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Osgoode Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Law and Social Policy by an authorized editor of Osgoode Digital Commons. Sewell: Toward City Charters in Canada Toward City Charters in Canada JOHN SEWELL FOR MORE THAN 30 YEARS, there has been discussion about how cities in Canada can gain more authority and the freedom, powers, and resources necessary to govern their own affairs. The problem goes back to the time of Confederation in 1867, when eighty per cent of Canadians lived in rural areas. Powerful provinces were needed to unite the large, sparsely populated countryside, to pool resources, and to provide good government. Toronto had already become a city in 1834 with a democratically elected government, but its 50,000 people were only around three per cent of Ontario’s 1.6 million. Confederation negotiations did not even consider the idea of conferring governmental power to Toronto or other municipalities, dividing it instead solely between the soon-to-be provinces and the new central government.
    [Show full text]
  • Table 31 Kitchener.Indd
    Kitchener CONTACT US Route number 30-31-33 Numéro du trajet Kitchener GO Train and Bus Schedule/ Gormley v: 202009 1 2 3 4 5 6 MISSISSAUGA / BRAMPTON 7 8 9 * 0 # 1-888-438-6646 Horaire des trains et des autobus GO 31 31A 31B 30 Maple 416-869-3200 31E 31F 31H 31 31B 31E 7 0 4 31J 31M Y 31H 31L 31N W RICHMOND H HILL TTY/ATS: 33 33A 33B 31N 31 31E 31H York Mills Richmond Hill 33D 33E Bramalea 1-800-387-3652 Transit 31L 31N Rutherford B R R Terminal A D M A D L IR E Etobicoke North Yorkdale A A V R Langstaff O D 31 31A 31B B Main St. N @ Bramalea Malton Barrie H 31M KT 30 31 33 U 31E 31F Richmond Bovaird Dr. W R O TORONTO N Hill T A R 33 33B 33D T M IO VAUGHAN R I A S S Weston Old Cummer F S T A I 33E 33F 33G L S G S TORONTO A A Steeles Ave. E @ First UGulf Blvd. / R G York gotransit.com/schedules R D A 33 33A 33B Brampton Steeles Ave. E @ RutherfordR Rd. S Kitchener D University Oriole Union Stn – 33E 1 31 31A 31B 40 Shopper’s Y H See Mississauga/Brampton inset Downsview HW W GO Bus Term. Kitchener World B Park 31E 31F 31H R York Mills A Hurontario St. @ Hwy 407 Y M A 7 L 0 Keele St. @ Bus Terminal 31J P E 4 Park & Ride 4 A Y R D W Hwy 401 2 R H T D Bloor S 33 33A 33B 33 33A 33B 7 D Etobicoke IR N A E V North Yorkdale E 33E O U 33E B Bus Terminal Q @GOtransitKT Guelph E 31 31A 31B 33 33C 33D Mount Weston TORONTO V 31 31A 31B A Pleasant S 31E 31F 31M 33E 33F 33G Union Stn – E 31M 31F Kitchener L T E S H Milton GO Bus Term.
    [Show full text]
  • THE FALSE PANACEA of CITY CHARTERS? a POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE on the CASE of TORONTO Andrew Sancton
    Volume 9 • Issue 3 • January 2016 THE FALSE PANACEA OF CITY CHARTERS? A POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE ON THE CASE OF TORONTO Andrew Sancton SUMMARY Toronto is unlike any other city, as its local boosters will not hesitate to point out. That was the basis, after all, of the “charter movement” that demanded special rights for a mega-city that the movement’s backers insisted was so vital that it even warranted a status similar to that of an entire province. Their efforts culminated in the province’s passage in 2006 of the City of Toronto Act, which appeared on its face to grant the metropolis the power it believed it required and merited. In reality, the Ontario government may have actually set Toronto back, leaving it more at the mercy of provincial power than other smaller municipalities. The few additional taxation powers that were granted by the ostensible Toronto “charter” — the City of Toronto Act — are, in reality, still overseen by the province, which retains the right to limit those revenue tools if it considers it “desirable in the provincial interest to do so.” But while Toronto may have been given just a small number of revenue tools, which it has used only sparingly, and the use of those tools is ultimately decided by Queen’s Park, their very existence has given the province licence to sidestep the city’s calls for more funding. The provincial Liberals have, in the past, insisted that Toronto make use of its own taxes before it demands more provincial funds. Meanwhile, the City of Toronto Act did nothing to curtail the power of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB).
    [Show full text]
  • Land Use Study: Development in Proximity to Rail Operations
    Phase 1 Interim Report Land Use Study: Development in Proximity to Rail Operations City of Toronto Prepared for the City of Toronto by IBI Group and Stantec August 30, 2017 IBI GROUP PHASE 1 INTERIM REPORT LAND USE STUDY: DEVELOPMENT IN PROXIMITY TO RAIL OPERATIONS Prepared for City of Toronto Document Control Page CLIENT: City of Toronto City-Wide Land Use Study: Development in Proximity to Rail PROJECT NAME: Operations Land Use Study: Development in Proximity to Rail Operations REPORT TITLE: Phase 1 Interim Report - DRAFT IBI REFERENCE: 105734 VERSION: V2 - Issued August 30, 2017 J:\105734_RailProximit\10.0 Reports\Phase 1 - Data DIGITAL MASTER: Collection\Task 3 - Interim Report for Phase 1\TTR_CityWideLandUse_Phase1InterimReport_2017-08-30.docx ORIGINATOR: Patrick Garel REVIEWER: Margaret Parkhill, Steve Donald AUTHORIZATION: Lee Sims CIRCULATION LIST: HISTORY: Accessibility This document, as of the date of issuance, is provided in a format compatible with the requirements of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA), 2005. August 30, 2017 IBI GROUP PHASE 1 INTERIM REPORT LAND USE STUDY: DEVELOPMENT IN PROXIMITY TO RAIL OPERATIONS Prepared for City of Toronto Table of Contents 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose of Study ..................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Background .............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Cross-Boundary Transit Service Integration Pilot Project
    9.8 Date: May 25, 2021 Originator’s files: To: Chair and Members of General Committee From: Geoff Wright, P.Eng, MBA, Commissioner of Meeting date: Transportation and Works June 9, 2021 Subject Cross-Boundary Transit Service Integration Pilot Project Recommendation 1. That the report to General Committee entitled “Cross-Boundary Transit Service Integration Pilot Project” dated May 25, 2021 from the Commissioner of Transportation and Works be received for information. 2. That Phase 1 of the Service Integration Pilot Project recommendations for enhanced cross-boundary travel be received for information. Executive Summary The Ministry of Transportation has convened a Fare and Service Integration (FSI) Provincial-Municipal Table that includes representatives of all transit agencies and aims to improve connections and the customer experience for inter-municipal transit travel. The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) has engaged a consultant team to develop an agency-driven FSI model to present to the Provincial-Municipal Table in partnership with surrounding transit agencies including MiWay. Currently MiWay, along with several other 905 agencies, are prohibited from providing local service within City of Toronto, resulting in TTC providing duplicate service for their residents. In addition, transit fares are not integrated between the TTC and MiWay. In partnership with the TTC, the Burnhamthorpe Road corridor has been selected for a transit service integration pilot project in the near-term (targeting fall 2021). 9.8 General Committee 2021/05/25 2 Background For decades, transit service integration has been discussed and studied in the Greater Toronto Hamilton Area (GTHA). The Ministry of Transportation’s newly convened Fare and Service Integration (FSI) Provincial-Municipal Table consists of senior representatives from transit systems within the Greater Toronto Hamilton Area (GTHA) and the broader GO Transit service area.
    [Show full text]
  • High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail
    HIGH-SPEED INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL Los AngelesSPEEDLINES County Metro Rail, a heavy rail rapid transit line in Los Angeles, includes the Red and Purple subway lines, as well as the Gold, Blue, Orange, March 2016 Silver and Green light rail lines. This is a look at the Red Line Vermont/Sunset Station which stops from San Fernando Valley, through Hollywood, to ISSUE #17 the historic Union Station Downtown LA. CALIFORNIA CHSRA’s 2016 Business Plan describing » p. 7 the latest project goals, financing, and development plans. HSR POLICY FORUM » p. 9 2 CONTENTS SPEEDLINES MAGAZINE 3 CHAIRMAN’S MESSAGE 4 TRANSIT IN SOUTHERN ONTARIO 7 CALIFORNIA 9 HSR POLICY FORUM The U.S. transportation system as such is in most other countries consists, actually, of networks of varied systems. 17 LEGISLATIVE UPDATE In America, the backbone is composed of an agglomeration of roadways. Subsidiary to this, of course, is the collection of various “ways” or rights-of-way on which trains, planes and watercraft travel. Within this broad, mobile band, 19 TRANSFORMATIVE HSR working high-speed rail – passenger and freight – is decidedly missing. That said, the pendulum, at long last, is moving in the direction of high-speed rail inclusion, even if slowly and that – good, bad or indifferent depending 21 SPOTLIGHT upon one’s point of view – has upset the status quo. 22 THE CHUNNEL CHAIR: PETER GERTLER VICE CHAIR: AL ENGEL 26 2016 STATES ROUNDUP SECRETARY: ANNA BARRY OFFICER AT LARGE: DAVID CAMERON IMMEDIATE PAST-CHAIR: DAVID KUTROSKY 36 HSR ROI STUDY EDITOR: WENDY WENNER PUBLISHER: AL ENGEL ASSOCIATE PUBLISHER: KENNETH SISLAK ASSOCIATE PUBLISHER: ERIC PETERSON 37 APTA RAIL CONFERENCE IN JUNE u PASSENGER RAIL SESSIONS LAYOUT DESIGNER: WENDY WENNER 38 HSR TRAINING SPEEDLINES is published in cooperation withthe: High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Committee and the 39 STB GUIDANCE American Public Transportation Association 1300 I Street NW, Suite 1200 East Washington, DC 20005 © 2011-2016 APTA - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 3 CHAIRMAN’S MESSAGE Our economy faces many challenges.
    [Show full text]
  • Status of Outstanding Payments in Lieu of Tax Amounts for Federal, Provincial and Municipal Properties
    GL7.4 REPORT FOR ACTION Status of Outstanding Payments in Lieu of Tax Amounts for Federal, Provincial and Municipal Properties Date: August 20, 2019 To: General Government and Licensing Committee From: Controller Wards: All SUMMARY This report provides information on the status of payments in lieu of taxes (PILTs) requested from federal, provincial and municipal properties, and identifies PILT payments from all levels of government that remain outstanding as at December 31, 2018. The status of outstanding payments in lieu of taxes is reported to Council annually in accordance with a recommendation from the Auditor General in 2015 (see Item AU4.3, Improving Controls Over Property Tax Assessments and Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILTs). PILTs are voluntary payments made to the City of Toronto by the federal, provincial and municipal governments and agencies to compensate the City for municipal services it delivers to their properties. In most cases, government agencies pay the full amount of PILTs that the City requests. There may, however, be outstanding PILT amounts requested from federal, provincial or municipal bodies that the Controller has concluded, in consultation with the City Solicitor, to be uncollectible. In these cases, the City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 71 (Financial Control) provides authority to the Controller, in consultation with the City Solicitor, to adjust for accounting purposes any outstanding receivables in respect of PILTs that have been determined unlikely to be paid. No PILT receivables are being recommended for adjustment/write-off at this time. RECOMMENDATIONS The Controller recommends that: 1. City Council receive this report for information. Payment in Lieu of Tax Amounts for Federal, Provincial and Municipal Properties Page 1 of 8 FINANCIAL IMPACT The PILT amounts noted within this report in Table 1 and detailed in Attachment 1 have been fully provided for in the City's Non-Program 2019 Operating Budget under the Payments-in-Lieu Provision account.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 MINUTES of the Board of Directors of the Toronto Waterfront
    MINUTES of the Board of Directors of the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation held at 20 Bay Street, Suite 1310, Toronto, Ontario on Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 8:00 a.m. local time. PRESENT: Mark Wilson, Chair Jack Cockwell David Johnson Gary Wright Denzil Minnan-Wong Ross McGregor Sheldon Levy Kevin Garland Sue Dabarno ABSENT: Michael Copeland The following additional persons were in attendance throughout the meeting, unless otherwise indicated: John Campbell, President and Chief Executive Officer; Chad McCleave, Chief Financial Officer; Marisa Piattelli, Chief Administrative Officer; David Kusturin, Chief Operating Officer; Chris Glaisek, Vice President Planning & Design; Meg Davis, Vice President Development; and Ian Beverley, General Counsel. Also in attendance were The Honourable Coulter A. Osborne, Closed Meeting Investigator for Waterfront Toronto, David Stonehouse and Irene Bauer of the City of Toronto. The Chair, Mark Wilson, took the chair and appointed Ann Landry to act as secretary of the meeting. With notice of the meeting having been sent to all Directors in accordance with the Corporation’s By-laws and a quorum of Directors being present, the Chair declared the meeting duly constituted for the transaction of business. John Campbell declared a conflict with regard to Artscape. It was agreed that he would remove himself from the meeting prior to any material discussions regarding Artscape. 1. Consent Agenda ON MOTION duly made, seconded and carried, it was RESOLVED that the Consent Agenda comprising the Minutes of the May 4, 2015 meeting of the Board of Directors be approved as presented. 1 2. CEO Report John Campbell referred to his report for the meeting posted publicly on the Corporation’s website and highlighted the following matters: Gardiner East Environmental Assessment (“EA”) – On June 10, 2015, City Council opted to move forward with the “hybrid” model.
    [Show full text]
  • By-Law No. 2A
    BY-LAW NO. 2A METROLINX (the “Corporation”) A by-law to establish the fares that shall be charged for transit services and establish the approximate routes, locations and frequencies of the transit services provided BE IT ENACTED as a by-law of the Corporation as follows: By-law No. 2A of the Corporation is hereby repealed and the by-law contained herein shall become the by-law of the Corporation with respect to the subject matter contained herein. 1. DEFINITIONS 1.1 In this by-law and in all other by-laws of the Corporation, unless otherwise defined or the context otherwise requires: (a) “Child” or “children” means a person or group of persons who individually have not yet reached thirteen (13) years of age; (b) “Convenience Fee” means, with respect to the UP Express contactless payment program and subject to section 2.5, the $2.00 processing fee charged in addition to the base fare where an acceptable contactless payment media user fails to validate their ticket; (c) “Inspection Fare” means, with respect to the UP Express contactless payment program, the base fare for one-way travel between Union and Pearson stations, plus the Convenience Fee (d) “Max Fare” or “Maximum Fare” means the base fare amount that may be charged to a PRESTO electronic fare card and acceptable contactless payment media for one- way travel on the transit system within the Tariff of Fares enumerated zones and represented by the furthest distance on the train line or bus route on which the journey was initiated, which amounts may be further set out on the Corporation’s Public Websites (e) “Minor” means a child who has not yet reached six (6) years of age; (f) “Tariff of Fares” means the Tariff of Fares attached hereto, setting out the amount to be paid for single one-way travel on the transit system within the enumerated zones, as determined by the Corporation from time to time in accordance with By-law 2A, approved by the Board of Directors the 26th of November, 2020 with effect as of January 1st, 2021 pursuant to Subsection 8.1(3) of the Metrolinx Act, 2006.
    [Show full text]
  • Michael Schabas
    Michael Schabas EDUCATION Michael Schabas has 35 years experience in development and 1981 Masters City and Regional Planning operation of rail passenger and urban transport systems. He has a (Transportation) reputation for devising innovative but practical solutions and helping to Distinguished Achievement, implement them. He brings a detailed understanding of project finance CMHC Scholarship, Harvard Kennedy School and Private-Public-Partnerships (PPPs). He has worked in more than 20 countries, for train operators, developers, funders, manufacturers, and 1979 Bachelor of government agencies. He has played leading roles shaping light rail, rapid transit, and high Architecture, University of Toronto speed rail projects in Vancouver, Toronto, and London, and has been a Director of train operating companies in Britain, Norway, Germany, and Australia. KEY SKILLS Innovative transport strategy Since 2014, Michael has led a team providing strategic advice on the planning and delivery and planning, PPPs, major of the $22bn upgrading of Toronto’s commuter network into electrified Regional Express projects economics, operations management and Rail. Since 2018 he has also been advising on the strategic planning and delivery of 3 forecasting analysis subway Toronto projects with total cost of $28.5bn. EMPLOYMENT Since 2016, Michael has been advising a range of public and private sector clients, 2008-current Partner Director, First Class developing high speed and regional rail to serve the San Francisco Bay area. Partnerships Ltd, UK From 1995 to 2003, Michael was a founder Director of GB Railways, which operated 100 1996-2008 Director, GB mph electric and diesel intercity trains in eastern England. He also launched GB Railfreight Railways Group plc, GB Railfreight, Hull Trains and Hull Trains, Britain’s first “open access” train company.
    [Show full text]
  • CV Print Friendly.Pdf
    CURRICULUM VITAE Michael Schabas +44 7973 241 214 [email protected] www.schabas.net EDUCATION MICHAEL SCHABAS has over 30 years experience in development and operation 1981 Masters City and of rail passenger, freight and urban transport systems. He has a reputation for Regional Planning developing innovative but practical business strategies. He prepares traffic (Transportation), Distinguished Achievement, Recipient of forecasts, business plans and feasibility studies as well as building core teams for CMHC Scholarship, Kennedy complex projects. He brings a detailed understanding of project finance and School of Government, Private-Public-Partnerships (PPP), concessions and franchises and the technical, Harvard University economic and political opportunities and constraints within which they must 1979 Bachelor of Architecture, University of Toronto operate. Michael is currently leading the technical and commercial team advising Eko Rail EMPLOYMENT on new metro line development in Lagos, Nigeria under a 25 year PPP concession. 2008-2010, Director 2012- He also has active projects in Germany, Canada, the USA and Britain. current Partner, First Class Partnerships Ltd, UK During privatisation of British Rail, Michael founded GB Railways plc which 2008-current Advisor, World operated Anglia Railways, launched GB Railfreight and backed the formation of Bank Hull Trains, Britainʼs first “open access” train company. GB Railways won 1996-2008 Director, GB Railways plc/FirstGroup plc, numerous awards for passenger service excellence and innovation.
    [Show full text]