[TheTigerMaster]

More nonsense: Patrick Brown is calling the toll a "tax on the 905".

Will he also whine when we tear down the Gardiner?

 

[Cobra]

More nonsense: Patrick Brown is calling the toll a "tax on the 905".

Don't you love these kind of politician criticizing the "905 tax" but have absolutely no alternatives nor won't commit to compensate for what Toronto's missing? Not a great way to win Toronto seats...

 

[gweed123]

Don't you love these kind of politician criticizing the "905 tax" but have absolutely no alternatives nor won't commit to compensate for what Toronto's missing? Not a great way to win Toronto seats...

He doesn't really need to though. Wynne's path to victory is the 905. If she/the Liberals tank there, they have no shot at forming a government.

 

[Euphoria]

This is the heart of the problem for development and transportation planning in the GTA: The 416 City of Toronto and surrounding 905 areas fail to see themselves as part of a city region and plan accordingly. Metrolinx is an attempt to bridge that gap. The transportation challenges aren't very different west of the 427 or north of Steeles, yet we continue to waste time, energy, and money on these petty squabbles.

 

[aquateam]

I'd rather bury the Gardiner.

Debt is bad when you have no viable way to repay it, for once, if all those new taxes and tolls passes, this debt is worth having. User taxes can be increased if there's a market fluctuation and interest rates start climbing.

The City has been borrowing the entire time to balance their books. That's the worst debt there is. Going into debt (credit card) to pay rent and grocery gets you eventually bankrupt. Going into debt (mortgage) to build assets and increase their value is an investment and a better use of debt

They're prohibited by provincial law from doing that: the city can't use debt to balance the operating budget. I know they've used a few accounting tricks, "capital from current" funding to plug a few holes but that's an exception.

Actually not if flipped over. What's wrong is her attempt to balance the case in the way she has.

The way to do that, and Miss. would be perfectly justified in doing this, is to to toll *Mississauga roads* that connect. Now if Toronto exempted Toronto drivers from the Gardiner tolls, she'd have a case, but that's not what's happening, at all.

I'm not sure exactly what you're proposing, tolls roads in Missisauga that connect to...what? 400-series highways? Missisauga doesn't own any provincially downloaded limited-access highways, so there are no practical roads to introduce tolls to. They definitely can't toll the 403/401/410/QEW because the Province owns them. And tolling their local roads is a "cut off the nose to spite the face" kind of move that will piss off Missisauga drivers more than Toronto commuters.

She's going to get called on this, and not to her liking. Best she petition Queen's Park to give Mississauga (and perhaps other massive metropolises) their own Act (As with the Toronto Act, an extension of the Municipal Act with taxing powers) and start tolling where apt to recover costs and tweak traffic flow.

It's a miracle that Toronto (and Tory of all people) is proposing tolls, I especially can't imagine the 905 introducing them.

 

[crs1026]

Who is "we" in this proposal? Toronto only had Gardiner/DVP/Allen downloaded, right? 427 is still provincially owned/maintained?

Sorry, a poor use of the term. What I was thinking, the 905/416 thing is so divisive, let's take this inclusively. So "we" becomes the GTA and not the City.

The roads are overcrowded right out to Mississauga Road. Tolls could be expanded into Mississauga. By arguing that Mississauga deserves a share of the toll revenue, Crombie is quietly endorsing tolls. Great....let's partner and talk about the right scope of the toll program, and the "fair" way to split up the revenue.

I see the Toronto Sun has gone back to claiming that this issue would all go away if we could squeeze more of the "waste" out of City Hall. Now, there's a value-added take on the problem.

- Paul

 

[Zach6668]

Over the past decades there have been three separate demand evaluations for an extension of Eglinton Line northwest to Pearson and each had independently determined that there was no notable demand for a light rail rapid transit connection to the airport. This would be the least used segment of the toronto rapid transit system, by a huge margin (we're talking a few hundred users at peak hour, at best)

The airport is a huge site with an unusual distribution of employment hours and employment sites, with employees coming more or less evenly from all around the region. Sticking a rail link in there with one or two stations isn't going to solve transport problems for all but a small fraction of the employees there (remember, this is an area the size of downtown Toronto). Leaders need to work on actual solutions to transportation challenges at the Airport, rather than haphazardly supporting rail connections, merely because building these rail connections to the airport makes intuitive sense.

What that likely means is a well thought out grid of frequent bus services around the Airport Corporate Centre linking to existing regional transit options and GO RER. And then, if those bus services are solving the airport's "last mile" problem and generating enough usage, perhaps an LRT connection to the airport can be justified. But as envisioned right now, an LRT link to the airport would be sparsely used and a waste of ~$500 Million.

Wouldn't it be normal, if not beneficial for the terminus of a rapid transit line to have lighter ridership than the heart of the line? You can't plan a line with ridership being loaded by the time you leave the first station. Also, would an airport connection have the same peak periods as regular commute times, if any? Lastly, the connection to the airport would be for city building purposes and connectivity goals. It doesn't all have to be about ridership across specific lengths. This is about building a network, and one that has some redundancy as well. A network is only as strong as its weakest link, so a missing gap between one transportation terminal and Toronto's rapid transit is pretty important.

 

[sixrings]

Wouldn't it be normal, if not beneficial for the terminus of a rapid transit line to have lighter ridership than the heart of the line? You can't plan a line with ridership being loaded by the time you leave the first station. Also, would an airport connection have the same peak periods as regular commute times, if any? Lastly, the connection to the airport would be for city building purposes and connectivity goals. It doesn't all have to be about ridership across specific lengths. This is about building a network, and one that has some redundancy as well. A network is only as strong as its weakest link, so a missing gap between one transportation terminal and Toronto's rapid transit is pretty important.

exactly... everyone complains about the sheppard stub yet they want a stub on Eglinton. we have to start building with the idea that the entire thing needs to get built. It can open in phases but still must be constantly worked at. Similar to the DRL. if the DRL randomly just ends at bathurst or dufferin im going to be very frustrated as it should have a proper terminus such as dundas west. Or if it jsut goes to pape ill lose my mind as well since everyone knows it needs to at the very least get to eglinton. Anyways the thing is we need networks and that goes for finch as well randomly stopping at keele instead of going all the way to yonge. And as much as I think the danforth extension is a mistake I do recognize that it will eliminate a transfer and will make in some cases a better network.

 

[amnesiajune]

Toronto only had Gardiner/DVP/Allen downloaded, right?

The DVP was built and always owned by Metro Toronto, as was the Allen Road and the Gardiner up to the Humber Bridge (which is why those two are named after Metro Toronto chairmen). The only freeway that was downloaded was the 6 km segment of the QEW between the Humber River and 427.

 

[W. K. Lis]

The DVP was built and always owned by Metro Toronto, as was the Allen Road and the Gardiner up to the Humber Bridge (which is why those two are named after Metro Toronto chairmen). The only freeway that was downloaded was the 6 km segment of the QEW between the Humber River and 427.

Who uses that 6 km segment more? The 905ers more than the 416ers. But the province dumped it so they would look good on their accounting books.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Wouldn't it be normal, if not beneficial for the terminus of a rapid transit line to have lighter ridership than the heart of the line? You can't plan a line with ridership being loaded by the time you leave the first station.

Up to a certain point. The terminal station at Pearson was expected to have only 10% of the ridership of Downsview station, our least used terminal station on our network. This extension from Renforth to Pearson comes at a cost of several hundred million dollars.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

everyone complains about the sheppard stub yet they want a stub on Eglinton

In what world is a 45 km rapid transit line a stub (Renforth to UTSC)? That's 15 km longer than the Yonge Line. Even without Crosstown East, Eglinton Line will "only" be 30 km (the same length as the Yonge Line).

 

[TransitBart]

Don't you love these kind of politician criticizing the "905 tax" but have absolutely no alternatives nor won't commit to compensate for what Toronto's missing? Not a great way to win Toronto seats...

John Tory got it right. Kudos to him. One can disagree with the toll proposal, but if you do, then put something else on the table and be prepared to champion it.

Anyone opposed to the toll idea needs to propose a viable alternative solution. Otherwise it's criticism for criticism's sake. Like Mr. Brown's.

Politicians have forgotten that in the British parliamentary system, Her Majesty's loyal opposition must always behave as a government in waiting; not only critiquing the government of the day, but ready to be in government with a set of viable alternative policies.

Mr. Brown needs a social studies course.

 

[steveintoronto]

I'm not sure exactly what you're proposing, tolls roads in Missisauga that connect to...what? 400-series highways? Missisauga doesn't own any provincially downloaded limited-access highways, so there are no practical roads to introduce tolls to. They definitely can't toll the 403/401/410/QEW because the Province owns them. And tolling their local roads is a "cut off the nose to spite the face" kind of move that will piss off Missisauga drivers more than Toronto commuters.

Well perhaps if you read the originating quote, you'd understand what follows:
View attachment 92517
View attachment 92518

Paul gets this exactly as I do:

The roads are overcrowded right out to Mississauga Road. Tolls could be expanded into Mississauga. By arguing that Mississauga deserves a share of the toll revenue, Crombie is quietly endorsing tolls. Great....let's partner and talk about the right scope of the toll program, and the "fair" way to split up the revenue.

I think you'd best make your case to Ms Crombie, Aqua. And btw: As discussed prior in this string, and made clear in the Toronto and Municipal Acts and elsewhere, there's absolutely no necessity for the thoroughfares to have to be "downloaded". In fact, the DVP has always been a Metro creation, as was the Gardiner to the Humber, the only provincial section being from the Humber west, technically the QEW at its inception.

It's a miracle that Toronto (and Tory of all people) is proposing tolls, I especially can't imagine the 905 introducing them.

Gasoline should be free too according to some...

 

[bobbob911]

The 100 year window is useful in pointing out that the existing structure does have substantial maintenance costs without a dedicated/user-based funding source, increased further by the mayor's throwing money at getting them done faster.

I do'nt think so. Its an arbitrary timeline that only serves to overinflate the cost with very little precision. Do you have any confidence in staff estimates of maintenance costs for the year 2116? We probably won't even be using cars by then A 30 year estimate is much more typical for any sort of construction. 50 at the most. Anything else is noise.

Really, the comparison should be based on short term construction costs only, with a "qualitative" note that the boulevard is likely to be somewhat cheaper to maintain in the long run. It should be in the subjective decision matrix, not in the cost. Otherwise, why stop at 100 years? Why not a 500 year projection?