News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.1K     0 

I think there also needs to be funding for transit operations as well. After all, there's no point in building new transit infrastructure if the transit agencies don't have money to use them. All transit in Ontario is severely underfunded at this point (no more 50% subsidy of net operation cost from the province). So maybe the regional gas tax should be for operations rather than capital costs. At 5 cents per litre, distributed based on ridership, TTC would receive around $250 million annually, GO ~$20 million, MiWay ~$15 million, and so on. All this money based on ridership would also encourage expansion (instead of service cuts).

I support the 1% sales tax and $1 per space commerical parking levy to pay for transit expansion, which apparently would result in $2.8 billion per year. A parking levy would be a great idea even if there was no transit expansion.

Highway tolls... I don't know. If there's already a fuel tax, I don't see the point. That would be like a double tax on motorists. Plus someone would have to build and operate this toll system.

Development charges: isn't buying property in the GTA already expensive enough? This would be dumb.
 
Last edited:
It could be argued that a toll would be charged for the congestion motorists cause (assuming the rate changes with demand), whereas the gas tax pays for the maintenance of road infrastructure (or some of it).

re: development charges, new developments should be required to bear the full cost of additional infrastructure required to service them. Of course, determining how much additional funding is required from each new development to provide additional public transit is an inexact science.
 
Electrify said:
I guess this means that Toronto cannot complain if it doesn't find some of the new taxes just. As they say, if you don't vote, you can't complain.
Click to expand...

If Toronto (more specifically Robbie) doesn't find some of the new revenue tools just, that's probably a good thing. Means our friends at Metrolinx are doing something right.
 
I have to say that I find it interesting that even when discussing the possibility of a range of new taxes to fund transit Metrolinx, the City, and (unsurprisingly) the Board of Trade avoid discussing taxes that would have draw significantly from the corporate sector versus middle income earners. All we have on that front are private parking space surcharges (easily passed on to commercial tenants and their customers) and payroll taxes (which would increase the cost of employees, not something to do in a period of high youth unemployment). Ontario's corporate income taxes are competitive within Canada and Canadian rates are lower than other G8 jurisdictions including the U.S. I really see no downside to having slightly higher rates (or at least cancelling the decrease in the corporate tax rate) and earmarking part of corporate income tax fund part of the Big Move.

I also expect that in the end the annual costs will be higher than the $2 billion forecast if we actually want to build and run the infrastructure proposed in the Big Move.
 
doady said:
Highway tolls... I don't know. If there's already a fuel tax, I don't see the point. That would be like a double tax on motorists. Plus someone would have to build and operate this toll system.
Click to expand...

Keep the gas tax as general revenue for the province and implement widespread congestion-sensitive tolls. While I can see that HOT lanes being preferred, it is simpler and there is more ROI to just toll the entire highway.
 
As a driver who REQUIRES driving a car for work (construction) I fully support fees for use.
Why the hell do I get free use of roads when driving but not when I get on the bus?
...or train.
People's sense of entitlement sickens me.
No offence to anyone, but the baby boom generation can't get old fast enough.
If everyone wasn't so busy racking up personal debt like a bunch of drunken university kids they might see that solving the problem in a timely fashion is in their best interest. But, no, I "need" that 60" telly and that third car. And let's have some more children we can't afford to raise.
Collectively sick.
 
Last edited:
MTown said:
As a driver who REQUIRES driving a car for work (construction) I fully support fees for use.
Why the hell do I get free use of roads when driving but not when I get on the bus?
...or train.
People's sense of entitlement sickens me.
No offence to anyone, but the baby boom generation can't get old fast enough.
If everyone wasn't so busy racking up personal debt like a bunch of drunken university kids they might see that solving the problem in a timely fashion is in their best interest. But, no, I "need" that 60" telly and that third car. And let's have some more children we can't afford to raise.
Collectively sick.
Click to expand...

Dude, seriously, the average number of cars per household in the GTA is only 1.39. Even Caledon of all places averages less than 2 cars per household. Only 8.5% of households in the Greater Toronto Area have 3 or more cars.

And this is Canada, an industrialized country. Canada's fertility rate is only 1.61 and falling, Ontario is 1.52 and falling - way below the 2.1 fertility rate required to maintain the same population level - our population would be shrinking rapidly right now if not for immigration. That's how few children there are these days. Even in a "bedroom community" like Mississauga there is only an average of 1.13 children per household. Your rant makes no sense at all, seriously.
 
I will be writing to my councillor about forcing a discussion in council, and about revenue tools in general, and I hope other people on this forum will do the same. Politicians need to be reminded that there are voters who are both in favour and passionate about raising money for public transportation.

For what it's worth I think the recommendations the council would have debated, listed in this globe article, come very close to what would be politically acceptable for all parties. In particular the charges on development and the parking levy.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ting-new-levies-on-motorists/article11464302/

".. a parking levy, increased sales and fuel taxes, and new charges on development."
 
dunkalunk said:
Keep the gas tax as general revenue for the province and implement widespread congestion-sensitive tolls. While I can see that HOT lanes being preferred, it is simpler and there is more ROI to just toll the entire highway.
Click to expand...

I would have to agree with keeping the gas tax going into general revenue. Electric cars would not pay any gas taxes, but still use the roads. Hybrid cars would use less gasoline (or diesel), but continue to use the roads as well. And with more and more efficient gasoline and diesel motors, because of legislation, relying on a gas tax is not the way to go.

See this link.

The average gas mileage of new cars and trucks in the U.S. will have to nearly double by 2025 under regulations that were finalized Tuesday by the Obama administration.

The new rules will require the fleet of new cars and trucks to average 54.5 miles per U.S. gallon (4.3 litres/100 km) in 13 years, up from 28.6 mpg (8.22 l/100 km) at the end of last year.
Click to expand...
 
I think the new revenues debate need to be coupled with a very public commitment by all to make sure that the accounting for the funds is transparent - it should not be rolled into general government revenues, and at this stage it should not even be used for SOGR and operating costs either. It's about visible service expansion, not maintaining existing service, and it wouldn't do anyone any good to have the pot hijacked for operating (i.e. labour costs), which will translate into a giant political headache going into the debate.

Hell, I would even go to the length of having a special czar with a reputation for the bottom line to oversee this pot of money. The stakes are too high for this new funding to be seen as a cookie jar, considering the level of public cynicism.

AoD
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top