The Case Against The Big Move Part 1

By: Jorden Moir

Read the Big Move plan here: http://www.metrolinx.com/thebigmove/Docs/big_move/TheBigMove_020109.pdf

“As the most ambitious long-term transportation plan on the books in North America” (The Big Move, pg. ii) it is, in my opinion, the most overreaching, anti free market proposal in Canada’s history. I want to share with you what I’ve learned.

To start, here’s an earlier article I wrote regarding the Metrolinx Act (passed in 2006). Take a look:
http://canadianawareness.org/2013/02/top-10-scary-things-in-the-metrolinx-act-of-20062009/

In summary, Metrolinx:

(1) Is a for-profit Private Public Partnership transportation monopoly (PPPs are corporate fascism),

(2) Owns and keeps 100% of all their assets and revenues (no revenues for municipalities through recycled investment),

(3) Have granted themselves the rights of a person and are exempted from almost all liability,

(4) Have expropriation powers to take land from private owners arbitrarily for PRIVATE rather than public gain (which is immoral),

(5) Can override municipal land use plans (usury), and

(6) Can demand new bylaws be made and can hire a private enforcement team to enforce them (no oversight or accountability).

Second, Metrolinx wants to restrict private ownership of vehicles as a means to increase transit ridership for their private monopoly. This is done under the guise of environmentalism, but has major implications on the restriction of civilians’ mobility rights:

“5.11 All relevant decision making… should promote a shift in travel behaviors to the maximum extent that is feasible, based on the following passenger transportation hierarchy: (i) Trip reduction, shortening, or avoidance. (ii) Active transportation (iii) Transit. (iv) Ride sharing and taxi’s and (v) single occupant vehicles” (Big Move, pg. 41)

“3.10 Any new additions or major improvements to the provincial, regional or local road network in the GTHA, shall be considered within the transportational hierarchy in Policy 5.11, and shall contribute to meeting the goals and objectives of the RTP.” (Big Move pg. 36)

“1.12 Road based transit shall make optimum use of existing road infrastructure, and minimize the need for road extensions, widenings and new roads.” (Big Move pg. 27)

“Our Vision in Numbers / 25 Years From Now / The distance that people drive every day will drop by ONE-THIRD compared to today.” (Big Move pg. 14)

Isn’t it ironic that the very Corporation that would financially benefit from personal vehicles (i.e. their competition) being restricted is proposing a payment scheme for the Big Move involving toll roads, parking fees and gas taxes? Ironic indeed.

Metrolinx uses internally commissioned and funded studies for statistics which benefit their cause. Also many of the stats they use are not sourced. This has a huge potential for bias and should be met with suspicion. Example:

“According to a study commissioned by Metrolinx on the economic costs of congestion in the GTHA, in 2006 the annual cost of congestion to commuters was $3.3 billion and the annual cost to the economy was $2.7 billion.” (Big Move pg. 6)

Also, I want to touch on the public stakeholder meetings. A stakeholder is merely an “authority figure” (usually unelected) from the community prescreened to be on board with Metrolinx’s plan. They don’t represent the public opinion. Metrolinx and their army of stakeholders are then able to stifle any dissenters to their plans with peer pressure and intimidation tactics. The popular Roundtable format for public meetings they use is a persuasion technique. Citizens brainstorm in groups with stakeholders present at each table guiding them towards a desired outcome. Dissenters want to belong to the group and are therefore scared to voice their opinions. Also, writing ideas down versus having a verbal debate means the opposing viewpoints can be marginalized or discarded later. The meetings have a foregone conclusion and the facilitator’s job is to structure the meetings to STIFLE DISSENT. This is called the Delphi Technique (search on Google/YouTube) and is how Metrolinx is able to make such strong claims of citizen support for the Big Move, such as these:

“For the first time, like so many of our global competitors, we are thinking like a single region.” (Big Move, pg. i)

“We listened to all the input we received and adjusted the plan where necessary to make it even more practical, realistic and workable.” (Big Move pg. ii)

Metrolinx never scraps plans, only “adjusts” them. As you can see, the game is rigged.

My argument is the Big Move is so overreaching and encroaches on every area of our lives that it resembles SOCIAL ENGINEERING more than a transportation plan. Take a look:

“over 80 per cent of residents in the region will live within two kilometres of rapid transit”. (Big Move pg. i) WHAT??? Are they asking us or telling us?

Also, they plan on implementing transportation demand management (TDM) to dictate “when, where and how people travel” (Big Move pg. 38, 99).

Telling us where and how we must live, with “Minimum Density Targets” (Big Move pg. 49).

Finally, I want to talk about regionalism. With Metrolinx’s push for a “region-wide integrated transit fare system” (Big Move pg. 42), combined with various rail systems crossing municipal boundaries and the ability to dictate municipalities’ land use planning, what we are seeing is the emergence of a 4th layer of Government - a regional unelected megabureaucracy. Once a regional transportation system is in place, a decision made by one municipal government affects the other municipalities. Metrolinx’s Board of Directors will be the new supervisors that will act as arbitrator. More and more citizens are losing the ability to have a say and influence their municipal representatives, as the powers are being shifted to a regional body. Hamilton’s sovereignty is at risk.

Here’s great article summarizing the dangers of regional plans: http://sustainablefreedomlab.org/2013/02/06/10-reasons-to-dump-regional-plans/

My final question is - WHY has Metrolinx not been chastised for coining and pushing the term “Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA)”? This term implies a loss of Hamilton’s sovereignty and should therefore be abolished.

My next article, “Case Against the Big Move Part 2” will touch on some unanswered questions about the Big Move, why we don’t need it from an environmental perspective, some Metrolinx conflicts of interest and possible alternative solutions to the project.