This blog has been churning along since January 2006, and for almost all of that time, Stephen Harper and his Conservatives have been running Canada. The idea that Ottawa would have a significant role in transit beyond the occasional showcase project simply was not part of the landscape.
Now, to everyone’s amazement, we have a Liberal majority government, one whose campaign platform includes a very substantial presence in infrastructure spending including the public transit portfolio.
We will get our communities moving again, by giving our provinces, territories, and municipalities the long-term, predictable federal funding they need to make transit plans a reality.
Over the next decade, we will quadruple federal investment in public transit, investing almost $20 billion more in transit infrastructure. [Liberal platform p 12]
That is a lot of new spending, but is has to stretch over the entire country and the next ten years. Advocates of many schemes will project their enthusiasm onto that pot of money saying “Look! We have funding”, but it’s not that simple.
It is instructive to look at how funding is divided up today. The federal gas tax allocations for 2014-15 totalled $2-billion of which $750-million went to Ontario, and of that about 20%, $150-million, to the City of Toronto for transit capital spending. On a proportionate basis, this would yield only $1.5-billion “more” funding over the next decade. This has to be read in the context of targeted funding for specific projects such as the Spadina subway extension that lies outside of the gas tax stream. If all of the new Liberal funding comes from that $20b pot, the actual change, all things considered, may not be as generous as expected.
Other funding lines in the Liberal platform focus on housing and non-transit infrastructure. These are not to be ignored especially to the extent that they relieve municipal governments of spending where they have carried a substantial share of the programs. However, if total spending goes up, Toronto may be forced to bump its investment level in transit and other portfolios because “we don’t have a funding partner” will no longer be a convenient excuse for inaction.
Whatever money does appear on the table, it will not be enough to build every single pet project, and Toronto cannot evade hard decisions about priorities claiming that the Feds will shell out for everything. There is also the delicate question of how much new matching funding will arrive from Queen’s Park Liberals who do not share the deficit spending plans espoused by their federal cousins.
Capital projects, especially on the scale of transit infrastructure, require a long view. Projects may be “shovel ready” in some cities, although Toronto has little in that status thanks to years of dithering and backtracking on transit priorities. Major proposals would do well to reach significant construction spending within the current federal mandate or even well into whatever follows. Toronto may build a bus garage here or renovate a subway station there in the short-to-medium term, but the big projects are years away.
This brings us to the rationale for new spending. If the idea is to stimulate the economy and create employment in the short term, a clear focus of Conservative programs, then long term project funding is doomed. Conversely, if the aim is to invest in the future of Toronto, the GTHA and cities in general, a longer view is possible at the expense of big, immediately visible results and ribbon cutting.
Inevitably, the conflict will be between one shot announcements and “long-term predictable funding”. These address very different political goals and produce very different outcomes. Without a shift away from unpredictable ad hoc decisions (the Scarborough Subway and SmartTrack promises are two examples), local pols will continue to jockey for yet more isolated planning to suit quick political ends, rather than looking at broad-scale goals and benefits. Long-term funding only works with long-term planning.
Absent from any federal platforms was new federal money for transit operating costs. These will grow through the combined pressures of inflation, population growth, shifts from auto to transit and eventually the need to operate all of the new buses, LRVs and subway trains that might arrive thanks to higher capital spending. Operating subsidies, service quality and fare strategies will challenge municipal budgets, and the long-standing question of provincial funding, of getting back to the “Davis formula”, cannot be ignored.
There is a new government, a new outlook on national priorities, and the debate on our transit future begins today. We all want more transit, but nothing is free, and even the “new” money has its limitations. Let us spend it wisely.
Steve Munro 
See we probably live fairly close or at least will use the same route. My analysis is correct that there is a divide in Scarborough on this absurd design. The closer you are to Kennedy the more ridiculous it becomes. So we have a problem. Please don’t think I don’t understand the benefits. IMO they just don’t outweigh the negatives in building a fair City and laying the footprint to integrate Scarborough in the future. If anywhere needs some respect in this Province, it’s Scarborough.
You’re right, we can’t go back so we need to design fairly to integrate the City while correcting the past mis-TAKES. Yes there’s a cost to do things right the first time. Saying there’s no car design that would work in the tunnel is BS & the easy way out. If we could waste billions on a subway stub we can certainly spend the necessary money to provide a seamless ride for Scarborough residents.
I have no idea what in the world you’re talking about — Yonge St in Barrie. But yes there will likely be a subway there before Scarborough. lol. And I guarantee the Star & Metroland wouldn’t have a barrage of articles every couple weeks trying to stop it.
I think many are in denial of the flaws in the design of Transit City. It should and hopefully will be improved.
Steve: OK I have had it with this “Scarborough residents” stuff. Please consider this thread at an end. We beat the whole through ride on Sheppard to death months ago here, and this is just rehashing old stuff in the usual context of “poor downtrodden Scarborough”. You have made that point at length, and it’s getting tiring.
LikeLike
I have no doubt. I just figured they would be cheaper than enlarging the tunnel. Could some of the clearance problems be aided by installing a third rail shoe on the LRVs? Also dual door coaches to handle low and high platforms are a common sight in Montreal.
Maybe somebody has hashed this out already. Maybe even Steve! But I haven’t chanced upon it yet, so I ask.
LikeLike
Hi Steve
Sorry. I didn’t realize you wanted to shut down the topic before I sent in my last comment! I don’t mean to pour gas on the blaze.
–Giancarlo
LikeLike
The problem with converting Sheppard to LRT from HRT that no one mentions is track gauge. The Subway is TTC gauge, 4′ 10 7/8″ while the Metrolinx LRT lines are to be standard gauge, 4′ 8 1/2″. Converting the track gauge in the tunnels would require major rebuild of the track base. Then there would be the cost of rebuilding all the platforms, stairs, escalators and elevators. To build a dual platform height car would be very inconvenient for riders. The cars in Montreal are 85′ mainline commuter cars, not rapid transit cars. The entire car, I believe, is high platform with traditional end of car low level stairs or a bi-level with high platform doors over the trucks, neither of which is suitable for LRT operation. The bi-levels would not fit in the tunnel and the single level cars would make loading and unloading very inconvenient as well as difficult for people with mobility problems.
LikeLike
Per Robert’s comment – there are 2 separate systems in Montreal trains from the West Island – the Old CP route near the southern side of the Island (Hudson) and the Deux Montagnes route – near the North Shore. I believe that Giancarlo is talking about the North Shore line:
CP – South Shore 2 high
Deux Montagnes
I fully understand what you are saying with mobility issues, as clearly the floor of the rail car is well above the lower doors in the case of the North Shore cars – and the 2 high ones on the South Shore route would be too big for a tunnel. These developed when CP and CN were each respectively running trains into downtown – into 2 stations. Gee wouldn’t it be nice to have 2 completely separate subway connected GO stations in the core.
LikeLike
One last information post about Sheppard for those that missed the last cycle of discussions.
Metrolinx Sheppard-Finch Benefits Case Analysis (June 2009)
Option 1 (standard Sheppard subway) would have 5.3K pphpd on the LRT. Combined Finch/Sheppard needs 121 vehicles in 2-car consists.
Option 2 (retrofit Sheppard subway to LRT) would have 6.5K pphpd on the LRT and 7.2K pphpd on the underground LRT section. Combined Finch/Sheppard needs 235 vehicles in 3-car consists.
The cost of the retrofit is estimated at $670 million (2008 dollars) and has been included in the capital costs. However, the additional vehicles required make the overall project $1.4B (2008 dollars) more expensive.
The question then becomes what services the City and riders better: $1.4B to avoid walking a couple hundred meters, or another LRT line or down payment (Don Mills, Malvern, etc.) on a new subway line (SSE or DRL)? As a comparison, the 2003 TTC study had a price tag of $1.75B for a Sheppard Subway to STC with 8 stations. It’s cheaper to have a surface LRT doubling up service between Yonge and Don Mills than to convert the subway.
LikeLike
I have to admit I like option 3 – running continuous LRT via Don Mills road. Combining that now, with a DRL at least as far as Don Mills & Eglinton, would likely also be the best in terms of diversion from Yonge. How much more capacity is really required north of Eglinton – as opposed to north of Danforth in the shorter term? I get 10k north of Danforth but is this is 5k or 9k north of Eglinton – does it make more sense to build LRT there north. Long term extending subway to Sheppard will likely be required and of course the idea of making Sheppard and Don Mills a major transit hub must have appeal to the owners of the Fairview Mall. From their perspective a Don MIlls LRT to hwy 7, LRT along Sheppard east out past Morningside road, subway to the core, subway to the NYCC all coming together attached to their mall – would make this very attractive retail space.
LikeLike
Build it once and build it right. It’s worth it to seniors & those that are not as agile. Why should Scarborough have to be inconvenienced by another areas political gain. Make it FAIR.
Its also more attractive for business not to separate the system. It connects more attractively for other to take a trip further into Scarborough, it doesn’t create an unnecessary divide in class & it’s disrespectful IMO.
I don’t care what the insane reason was for the subway. Fix it. All this wasted money in this Province and we can’t even do the right thing.
LikeLike
This thread has turned into a pissing match about through-running service on Sheppard and/or Finch, something that is (a) impractical and (b) never going to happen, with (c) a side order of oh poor Scarborough always gets shafted. Enough already. Any future comments in any thread attempting to re-establish this subject will be deleted, and I don’t care who posts them.
LikeLike
I think Toronto, and the GTA, need to come up with a short list of key substantial projects that are not yet funded, that clearly provide the critical links for long term capacity and transit connectivity in the city. These need to be planned – in their entirety and space reserved now, and an application made. I would argue the ones that seem most logical – in terms of the development of the city, are the DRL – from Sheppard through core, to a point to support western approaches and the additional tracking required in the Lakeshore East, Stouffville, and Kitchener right of ways, and extensions in both directions for LRT for the Cross-town – so that it connects at both ends with other important transit /commuter rail lines.
This makes for a short list of regional projects, which have clear connectivity and/or capacity objectives, and provide regional benefits. The role of the federal government needs to be two fold: 1 – provide critical funding and 2 – come up with a funding formula, that drives a funding process, that supports real transit benefits coming to the fore, not political ones.
Hopefully substantive help with these projects would be enough, to help get the region back on track, by providing the back bones to which all else can be connected. However, the region needs a substantial capital boost, to allow a more approachable problem. If the federal government could provide 50% funding for just these, I think the municipalities and province could find a way to fund the more local or lower capital projects. The province should be able to find 1 to 2 billion per annum for the region, and the Toronto, Mississauga, York, Durham should be able to find another 1 to 2 billion per annum between them to fund the balance of the projects that should be built. The federal government’s fiscal power, however, is required to get these handful of projects, plus perhaps a substantial rethink of the USRC, off the ground and moving, and move the region to a point, that it can at least begin to imagine catching up.
LikeLike
Steve, many of the recent comments have voiced opinions on design. Since you have such a long perspective on TTC plans that were implemented, or not implemented, could you be persuaded to list some of the instances when you thought planners’ designs turned out to have a big flaw, or, alternately, turned out to be exceptionally foresightful?
AJ Lennox planning for, and convincing everyone the Prince Edward viaduct should have a lower deck for rail, that is the kind of foresightful thing I wondered if you knew of other instances.
Cheers!
Steve: It was R.C. Harris, the Commissioner of Public Works, not A.J. Lennox, the architect of City Hall, who was responsible for the lower deck. At the time, there were thoughts that “interurban” service could come into downtown via a subway. Remember that, at the time, The Danforth had only begun to develop.
Other plans have included what we now call the Relief Line with a route up through Thorncliffe Park to Eglinton and Don Mills. This idea has been around for a long time.
The TTC had a scheme to build a suburban LRT network in the 1960s, but this was overtaken by the high tech transit scheme embraced by Premier Bill Davis, one of the more blatant examples of an “industrial strategy” that didn’t pan out and blocked a good proposal in the process. Toronto could have had rapid transit to the fields that once were Scarborough and other suburbs, maybe even a line to the airport, four decades ago.
LikeLike
The question that I would have – is the Kipling ROW still possible. I think – for the redevelopment of the East Mall, and connection of the 427 corridor, that this should be looked at – it is still feasible. Also – this line would look great on a map, running from the airport to the Lakeshore, connecting those other lovely lines that are either there or should be – WWLTR, GO Lakeshore, BDL, Eglinton Crosstown and of course GO Kitchener. Think that would look great on a system map, and might even be effective in terms of beginning to create real transit, and serving more destinations.
Steve: This line might be trickier now, in part because Hydro is less open to use of its corridors than 50 years ago. An interesting question, nonetheless.
LikeLike
The thing for me, is that one it creates the linkages, and two, some of the area is up for redevelopment. However, if it is viable, it is something the Toronto, plus Mississauga, and the province should be able to discuss and fund. Part of a plan to sew together a network from existing ROW – however, that must already include a solution to the mega buck problems of a DRL. The thing with getting a DRL – built with consideration not just for what is there today, but the network we need in the future, is that if built fully presents so many opportunities to connect so much else, that can be built over time, in a considered 1 piece at a time way. If the fed bails out the region, we just cannot stall again – playing with politics and industrial policy, like the area really has since the early 1980s.
I believe that the region as a whole spending 2 billion per year on new infrastructure would likely be enough – with a DRL in hand, and the RER issue resolved. I think in terms of East Bayfront prior, Scarborough RT replacement year 1, Eglinton extended to the airport and onto Kingston Road (say Guildwood)-year 2, Finch West to the Airport year 3, Sheppard East to Morningside year 4, Hurontario-Maine LRT year 3, and Dundas BRT year 4, a WW-LRT year 5, Finch West to Yonge, Brampton Queen BRT, Yonge LRT to Richmond HIll, Don Mills LRT to Major Mack (or whatever). These projects are all part of a relatively affordable regional build out, as long as we don’t just pander and delay all the time, promising subway where none is really needed, and/or building nothing, and stay conscious of the need to maintain parallel capacity. That is after we clear the truly mega project hurdles spending something on the order of a cup of coffee per day, per person, we can stay ahead of new demand for a long time.
LikeLike
As to the Trudeau governments commitment to help fund urban transit — and what share of that funding Toronto could expect, here is a press report of a recent transit proposal in London, Ontario…
Total cost? $1.2 billion. Cost picked up by London? $125 million — just over ten percent. The article asserts:
Ten? I count six: Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Ottawa, Calgary, Edmonton. Oh, eight, once we count the Mississauga transitway and Winnipeg’s transitway.
Wikipedia lists London as the fifteenth largest municipality in Canada, not eleventh.
LikeLike
They seem to be intentionally confusing city and urban area in their own list there. They are correct that they are the 11th largest urban Are: Brampton and Mississauga collapse into Toronto, Laval into Montreal, and Surrey into Vancouver.
Meanwhile, of the top 10 cities, 8 have actual rapid transit lines. If I was being favorable, I would assume they don’t know how Zum works and wrote the report while Hamilton had its bus lane. But given the trick they pulled on populations, I wouldn’t be surprised if they are just referencing to GO.
LikeLike
@arcticredriver,
You have to be careful with your geographical population terms.
Wikipedia lists London as the 11th largest population centre as Toronto, Mississauga, and Brampton fall under “Toronto”, Surrey falls under Vancouver, Laval falls under Montreal, Halifax loses some of the regional outskirts, and Kitchener-Waterloo are counted together.
LikeLike
The major issue, however, really should be need and relevance. I spend a reasonable amount of time in London, and there is no way that an LRT proposal makes sense. The density around the Whiteoaks mall in the South end – and for most of the length of Wellington does not come close to the requirements, the current use of buses does not come close to what could be run as bus. and even a very substantial increase could be easily taken in using BRT, if there is room along the entire corridor – I think the near core portions of Richmond and Wellington could be an issue. However – if something fits, BRT would likely make a great deal more sense, and in the scope of projects for the province, it is hard to imagine that London would be a place to spend a billion on the first 20 let alone the first 10. Rapid Transit – especially heavier capital projects, need to focus on where it will actually make a material difference, and London in my opinion does not make it. If you sit on Wellington in London, it is not like you see a bus every 2 minutes, it is more like every 15.
LikeLike
It was a bad idea then and now, and worse today. Those high rates only accomplish more aggressive tax planning, which is inefficient. Those who can’t avoid the taxes are given much better incentive to move.
1/3 of Canadians in our new top bracket are doctors. We already pay them less than their US counterparts, and we don’t need to give them any more incentive to pick themselves up and move out.
A minority of voters that already pay a hugely disproportionate share of taxes because our system is already so highly progressive, in absolute terms and relative to other countries. If we want more tax revenues, politicians need to raise it on the middle class. It’s where the real money is. Of course it’s tougher to do that, because they have the votes, which is why the Liberals proposed the exact opposite.
Since Tax Reform of ’87, the federal government has dropped rates in all brackets except the top bracket. It’s the most resilient. It was overdue for a cut of 3 or 4 points to restore to a more realistic progressive system, rather than getting raised. And I doubt anyone will believe these rates will drop in 3 years – it’s to fund a drop in the middle bracket from 22 to 20.5. Do you think anyone will impose a middle class tax hike in an election year budget?
LikeLike
You might be surprised to learn that Ottawa has a hefty infrastructure backlog for storm/waste water and transit. Ottawa had stopped building rapid transit for nearly as long as Toronto, and like it’s larger cousin its current construction projects are the tip of the backlog iceberg.
Consider that Ottawa is only $2B into the $9B conversion of Ottawa’s BRT network to LRT and electrification of its diesel LRT. Meanwhile this is starving funds for most of the planned new and extended BRT/LRT lines, which are another $4-5B. A decent airport link would be nearly half a billion. Ottawa also lacks any plans for a commuter rail system, badly needed to plug some holes at least temporarily, probably some permanently, and they would run another $1B to $3B. If Ottawa had even half the (relative scale) ambition of The Big Move, there would be a partially underground North-South line within the planning horizon, connecting the Airport through downtown and across the river to Gatineau.
Ottawa’s transit backlog is about $12B today, and about $20-25B by the time it can be cleared. By then, Ottawa-Gatineau will be larger than Toronto in 1967, when Toronto had 16 streetcar lines, 2 subway lines and the newly-born GO.
Those figures are only considering the 3/4 of the city on the Ontario side. The city also needs rapid transit to cross the river ASAP, and that won’t come free or easy (the inter-provincial aspect makes this is the one local transit project that the feds actually have more than a financial role to play).
Of course this is small compared to what the GTA needs, but the relative size of the backlog is quite similar.
The money the Liberals are talking about, as welcome as they may be, will barely make a dent when you look at the backlog of projects nationally.
LikeLike
Steve: I note that you have liberally sprinkled blockquote tags in this comment. I will attempt to unscramble them, but no guarantees that I will get it right.
Wikipedia lists London as the fifteenth largest municipality in Canada, not eleventh.
Agreed — the London writers were lazy or ill-informed or deliberately misleading to conflate cities and population centres.
Note, however, even if they were to count the Kitchener-Waterloo plus Cambridge conurbation as a single population centre, they shouldn’t have claimed the ION system as an existing system, as it is less complete than the Eglinton Crosstown.
Ah. That is interesting. How would you compare the density of London to the density of, say, Mississauga, North York, Scarborough or Etobicoke?
However – if something fits, BRT would likely make a great deal more sense…
The London Free Press article mentioned that an alternate BRT-only plan cost a third of the price of the preferred system, with a BRT and and LRT. Mind you it could have been shorter, as well.
I understand that a BRT wouldn’t require rails, and maybe the rolling stock might be cheaper, and capable of being re-used on conventional bus lines. But, if an BRT carries the same number of riders as an LRT won’t it require just as large a right of way? Won’t its stations be just as large, just as expensive? Leaving optics aside, why would planners recommend a BRT over an LRT?
Would it be due to bottlenecks, where the roadway is too narrow for a separate right of way, where an LRT would require tunneling, or elevated tracks, but riders could be told, for this 1 km, right downtown, the BRT shares the road with conventional vehicles. I think this is what Boston did when it initially added a Silver line, a BRT line, to its Orange, Blue, Red, and Green rail lines.
So, why would a city prefer a BRT over an LRT? If they want a “light” express bus system, that didn’t have a comparable infrastructure to an LRT, maybe the right comparison is to a streetcar, where vehicles share the street with ordinary autos? I have a google news alert on Toronto and streetcar, and it gives me hits on smaller US cities that are building, or considering, building new streetcar lines, on the premise they should emulate the successful Toronto streetcar model, at less cost than an LRT. Cincinnati is celebrating the delivery of its first five vehicles for its 3.6 mile streetcar line. Each vehicle is having a new beer introduced in its honour, as there are five breweries within walking distance of the route. It is not clear to me whether they plan to make do with just five vehicles. 3.6 miles seems like a pretty short route to start with.
LikeLike
The thing is that the DRL and a couple of LRT projects in Toronto, represent a similar need to the funded tunnelled portion of the LRT in Ottawa. A DRL was a need that was already identified, and a clear need, in 1987 – when I moved to Ottawa, and I remember the BRT then, and capacity was not already a huge issue. That is the DRL is like the LRT tunnel, except it is not yet funded. I would argue that this $12 billion number would represent the real backlog in Toronto, as it would fund a DRL, Scarborough LRT network, Finch West LRT, East Bay Front LRT. So the question – what is a real need today, and what should be built in order to plan a city properly. Toronto in 1967 was well ahead, now – not so much. The backlog in Toronto is not what should be built, or should be coming on stream now, but rather, what should have been built in the 1990s.
LikeLike
If you look at the current bus schedule on Richmond or Wellington, you will note the relatively low frequency. I think LRT & BRT take similar space, and LRT makes more sense where the ridership justifies it. However, if you are running a bus every 15 minutes, it is hard believing that increasing the population 20% would cause buses to run more often than every 3 and to me that would still not justify an LRT. London has lots of room to grow its transit, without BRT, even getting to BRT levels – say a bus every 5 minutes would be a huge increase in service.
Toronto – has needs to solve problems that have been a problem for decades – this proposal for London solves problems that will not exist for decades. Building it as BRT would be a huge leap in transit in London, LRT, would frankly represent massive excess capacity. If you build ridership to justify a bus every 5 minutes, you would only be able to justify a LRV every 15, 5 minute service is better.
If you look at Hurontario, at Burnamthorpe and even a couple of km in each direction, and the very core of London comes close, but well not for very far.
LikeLike
I think the debate here needs to be much more about the issue, of how people will behave, than about tax planning, and moving. It is more important that new doctors will set up practice elsewhere, than will move existing. You are making it harder for people to want to take risk and invest themselves here, not that people move once rooted.
The problem is that impact will happen slowly, not all at once. What the government should be focused in taxing the rich – is getting rid of all those stupid loopholes, and creating a simpler tax code. Taxing family income yes, but provide basic deductions, and elimination of double taxation of income – only. There are a lot of studies in the OECD library that show high marginal tax rates drive Total Factor Productivity down, it just takes a long time. Want to get the tax take, reduce the scope of deductions. The problem with really high marginal rates, is that you don’t see the damage – for a long time, and then are not sure why. It is not the businesses (or doctors) you lose, it is the ones you never see – and that is much harder to pick up on. More doctors – that are not yet in practice, will set up elsewhere, and that will be true for all business.
LikeLike
As to when to build a BRT rather than an LRT.
Yeah, but who could ever argue it would make sense to go to all the trouble of constructing a bus transitway where buses were so infrequent a rider waits 14 and a half minutes before they see one? Ninety-five percent of the time that bus transitway is going to look completely empty and like a complete waste of money.
LikeLike
The London Transportation Master Plan uses City Building as part of it’s scope. Plus, I believe the current report is more of an aim high and be glad of what you get report. With $130M in London funding, it’s likely they’d go the cheap all-BRT route with matching provincial and federal funds.
LikeLike
WRT tax policy, I wasn’t suggesting that high marginal tax rates are good or don’t weigh down productivity. Only that there is still a lot of room compared to historical figures for higher marginal tax rates and that those higher tax rates will not translate into a large loss in voter appeal.
I’d personally prefer to see a system of wealth taxes rather than income and sales taxes.
LikeLike
While this certainly feels fairer, it is very distorting to incentives, and really discourages investment – and would likely have a long term negative impact on growth. Value Added taxes – in terms of economic efficiency are likely best, however, tend to be very regressive, income taxes at reasonable levels are not bad, the trick is to manage so that we are not looking at really high rates to discourage desired behavior. Also taxing family units makes more sense, as it allows more choice – and better reflects actual ability to pay. What we really need to do – is simplify that income tax code, which would increase tax take, and reduce dead weight loss (loss to economic well being that is not transferred but simply lost).
A 45% tax rate and a simple tax code, would likely result in a higher net take than 53% with excessive deductions. Also limit the Smith maneuver (whereby you sell an investment asset to buy your house and take a loan to re-buy asset, thereby making loan effectively to buy house – deductible). Simple tax code, lower investment in tax planning, and decisions not driven by a convoluted tax code. Even the very wealthiest should not need an accountant and lawyer to plan their taxes.
Like in transit, there are simply far too many games being played.
Steve: The existing property tax is a form of “wealth tax” with the added distortion that it is based on the imputed value of what one owns (Market Value Assessment) rather than on real liquid wealth and income.
LikeLike
Tax matters are pretty off base. Wealth taxes would motivate cash reserves (such as Apple’s $203B) to be utilized rather than stored to avoid income/profit taxes. My preference would never come about in Canada because you’d need the provincial and federal governments to agree to it, but a well formulated system could overcome the historical trials of the system.
One of our biggest issues in the world is that we can’t/don’t do scientific trials to test if an alternative system would work better, whether in Health Care, Taxes, or Transit.
LikeLike
Steve – in light of the upcoming climate conference, would this not be a good time to be whispering in the Federal Government’s ear with regards to the impact of a widespread LRT network in Toronto, and its impact on carbon emissions?
Is this not a good reason to prefer – a wide LRT network, over the extension of subway – within Toronto? as it will displace more buses, and offers a short – healthy walk to transit to many more. Also would it not be easier to develop a rapid transit plan – that was more destination neutral, and hence likely to have a larger impact on mode selection across the city using LRT.
Also – while I would not suggest this politically, from a carbon emissions perspective, would it not make sense to actually forgo a lane of traffic, reduce this in many areas to 2 in each direction, and run LRT – in order to further encourage a modal shift? Would this not be something that should at least be proposed in the name of climate change action. If a truly destination neutral network was built (or something much closer than current) would this not radically increase the attractiveness of transit for are currently auto trips?
Steve: At the risk of sounding like a hotheaded radical — just because a street is wide does not mean that it deserves LRT. There is a lot that can be done with buses to make transit more attractive at a much better price point than LRT in many corridors. That is certainly the sort of short to medium term improvement that can make a big contribution. Moreover, this should not require as cor-requisite the use of electric buses or other alternative technologies. Toronto has a long history with being “green” and screwing transit’s attractiveness in the end. Can we please just have more transit NOW and consider the embrace of other propulsion schemes when they are ready?
Governments have a bad habit of being seduced into pouring money into technology projects that will establish Ontariariario as the centre of the universe, but with any transit benefit a secondary consideration. I am not saying that electric vehicles don’t have a place, but transit improvements should not be burdened with being the proving ground (or worse, industrial welfare) for technology.
Sadly, that was the whole idea of LRT, build something that was a known quantity like buses and commuter trains and subways, but thanks to Bombardier even a mode they produce like sausages elsewhere is cocked up in Canada. You would almost think that their heart isn’t in it.
LikeLike
I would fully agree – however, I have always thought that there are a number of routes that even TransitCity did not consider – simply because it would be too much at once. TransitCity whole, would be a reasonable start – to a much more neutral network.
Build a DRL as well, and you have really created a much more able network. Note – displace more buses, does not in my mind at least on every route, although I would like to see a study of additional routes in time. To me a much broader LRT network, means all of TransitCity – or its equivalent (where the concept could not be built) plus perhaps a couple, like maybe a look at Lawrence East, and Finch or Steeles East – although I do not know enough about the origins and destinations of these routes to speak with comfort.
I have to admit – I like the look of the cars, that Ottawa is proposing. Although perhaps a little large.
Steve: Lawrence East would make more sense once there is a DRL station at Don Mills. From there west, it’s effectively a branch of Eglinton, and in any event will be cut back to Eglinton/Don Mills station when the Crosstown opens. Finch is a challenge in the section from Yonge to Don Mills because of existing land use and road form. Someday, maybe. The only problem with Steeles is the joint jurisdiction with York Region, but it definitely should be a candidate.
LikeLike
I was under the impression that East of Bayview the issue on Finch was mostly an issue of valley crossing, cross slope issues, and the real road width issues only extended say 2 km east side of Yonge – and less west – as long as you would be willing to live width only 4 lanes of roadway – along with the LRT. So for argument sake a 2 km tunnel plus some interesting road work for Finch vs some very interesting politics on Steeles – not sure which would be more complex. However in either case, this would open a large area, and with an intercepting LRT on Don Mills – and a rapid transit route in the east connecting through to the STC – it would really add to a web for transit mobility – especially if both the Don Mills and eastern rapid route connected through to the Viva east west BRT.
Steve: I said “land use” too there. It’s all low rise residential except just east of Yonge. The section west of Bayview is the narrowest. From there eastwards, you can get some idea of the actual road allowance by looking at the Google satellite view which clearly shows the sidewalks running parallel to and some distance from the roadway. Even west of Bayview, there is some boulevard space between the road and sidewalk, but the houses are generally closer to the sidewalk line. I didn’t say it’s not possible.
The land use pattern in this part of the world is a direct result of Mel Lastman’s protection of its low rise status in North York’s planning.
I will be the first to say – regarding Lawrence – can only really work with a DRL and I had always imagined this going to an extended DRL or to a Don Mills LRT rail and running to a terminus on the DRL.
The region should really be looking to intensify – not spread further geographically, and to make this work, and actually sustain mobility – requires making existing rights of way support many more trips well. Nationally – if we are going to actually make a dent in greenhouse gases – a practical, viable – well used rapid transit system for our largest cities is critical.
Massive congestion, with auto as the primary mode, is more than just a huge waste of time and stressful, it is economically destructive – as goods cannot move, and environmentally very painful. The issue of bus vs LRT, diesel vs electric, is a footnote, to the private auto for one vs bus, trolley, lrt, with 25-50-70 or 200. So Steve amen, making transit work and seeing a massive growth in mode splits, is what really matters for the environment, and nifty new technologies are just icing on the cake – not even part of the primary meal.
PS: Insisting on electric or nothing, is like suggesting that you will not eat at all unless you get your favorite dessert.
LikeLike
I had noticed the continued existence of houses, even very close to Yonge. The implementation of an LRT would be a good chance to revisit the zoning along the entire length of a route, and might perhaps result in some intensification along substantial parts of it. I would really like to see a very substantial portion of the growth in population of the region actually result in redevelopment – and not sprawl. To support higher density, along with general growth, while achieving a more livable city, means actually creating walk-able neighborhoods – which to me means less parking, more density, more local services, and more transit – and zoning to match.
Steve: This brings us to a major challenge in transit planning which is already showing up in some suburban debates. Should there be a quid-pro-quo for higher capacity transit that the area it serves be redeveloped? Why should neighbourhoods through which a planner draws a line be subject to this when the line’s purpose is mainly to serve people from much further away?
I return again and again to the fact that rapid transit lines do not exist solely or even primarily because of immediately adjacent land use, but as corridors to handle demand between a large catchment area and one or more destinations. By analogy, the 401 could be a nice local road if only we told the people living in Durham and Peel regions to get lost.
LikeLike
While this is true – unlike a 401 with cars, it tends to make the land closest to service more attractive, and hence valuable. Building a substantial amount of LRT/BRT at once – or at least quickly would have the substantial upside, of providing more area, and hence a more gradual and less extreme possible conversion. I think one of the major issues, has been all that redevelopment, has been focused on too small and too few areas, and the density jumps too large, that they quickly and radically change the areas. The strong reaction to the sudden arrival of multiple 20+ story condos in a previously low rise neighborhood – is understandable, especially when they cast shadows well beyond their own property – for much of the day.
Slower, more moderate intensification, that would result from a much larger area, and mere moderate zoning changes, and permitting development to roll out over a long time – is likely better. Achieving a density of say 70 persons per hectare, would not mean high rises everywhere. It also does not require a huge jump all at once. As you note, most importantly it should serve to make, many, many more bus journeys shorter, and make the use of bikes much more effective – for even those not prepared to ride long distances.
I understand the resistance to being in a sea of high rise apartment buildings, however, creating enough density to bring more services within a walking distances, in my opinion, improves lifestyles. This – in my mind is a reasonable argument in favor of LRT over subway: you can open more space within walking distance of really good transit, and thereby decrease the pressure to build nothing but 30 story high rises close to the subway stops. This allows you to develop human scale, high service, walkable neighborhoods – kind of like old Toronto was along the streetcar lines.
Steve: In the Scarborough LRT vs Subway debate, a point made in one of the background studies was that LRT could actually stimulate more development because more property was in walking distance of its comparatively frequent stops.
LikeLike