[innsertnamehere]

^incognito or inprivate browsing gets you unlimited articles.


Horwath seems to be supportive as long as the taxes are corporate tax hikes instead. I still maintain that they will switch the HST hike to a corporate hike and get it passed.

 

[junior43]

^incognito or inprivate browsing gets you unlimited articles.

Thanks, I know, just can't use when at work. (incognito disabled)

 

[Adjei]

All true, but it's pretty obvious there is no consensus on taxes for transit. Wynne's on the second (at least) round of consultations on this topic. Also, it's generally assumed we're going to the polls in the spring if the Liberals add transit taxes to the budget.

Also, why is this the only point the Liberals are using from the Drummond report. He had many more suggestions for adding taxes and reducing spending, but they've been ignored.

Again, I'm not necessarily against transit taxes, but the Liberals have created some very bad optics around this topic and the deficit in general. I'm not in the least surprised to see so much resistance to it after all the various scandals.

** G&M has an article about Liberals announcing green (transit) bonds. Haven't been able to read it yet, I've reached my limit this month for free articles there.

My point is that this notion that we can fund all the transit we need through government efficiencies is nonsense. These politicians need to be truthful to voters instead of selling them nonsense. Why is the city of Toronto raising property taxes to pay it's portion of the subway, why hasn't the efficiencies Ford found or his private investors given us money to build all the subways we need? That's cause it's all lies. Looking at other places around the world they fund transit through taxes and levies. It's funny how some believe we can do so otherwise. Look at Paris which has an extensive transit system. How are they paying for new subways, it sure ain't through government efficiencies:

"The project will be funded through four main revenue sources, all applied in the Paris area only. They include an increase in the tax on office space, a levy on every resident in the region, a contribution from the state-owned public transit operator and a user fee paid by the company that will operate the new system."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/in-paris-a-different-vision-for-subways/article12901813/

But some how the genius politicians in Ontario think they know better than experts like Don Drummond or other places with extensive transportation systems.

Also if those Liberal scandals had not happened, I doubt that money would have been used to fund transit in Toronto.

And now cutting back other projects will now suddenly release money for transit. Sure you may scale things back, but you still need to find the money to build things. Hudak talks a big game but like Ford before him, he may find out that the efficiencies he does find may not be as much as he thought.

 

[ColMustard17]

Thanks, I know, just can't use when at work. (incognito disabled)

Few other tricks that could work for you:

Delete your cookies related to the Globe & Mail website
Hit the esc key after the text has loaded but before the entire page is done loading. This stops the loading of the page and will let you read the text.

 

[junior43]

My point is that this notion that we can fund all the transit we need through government efficiencies is nonsense. These politicians need to be truthful to voters instead of selling them nonsense. Why is the city of Toronto raising property taxes to pay it's portion of the subway, why hasn't the efficiencies Ford found or his private investors given us money to build all the subways we need? That's cause it's all lies. Looking at other places around the world they fund transit through taxes and levies. It's funny how some believe we can do so otherwise. Look at Paris which has an extensive transit system. How are they paying for new subways, it sure ain't through government efficiencies:

"The project will be funded through four main revenue sources, all applied in the Paris area only. They include an increase in the tax on office space, a levy on every resident in the region, a contribution from the state-owned public transit operator and a user fee paid by the company that will operate the new system."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/in-paris-a-different-vision-for-subways/article12901813/

But some how the genius politicians in Ontario think they know better than experts like Don Drummond or other places with extensive transportation systems.

Also if those Liberal scandals had not happened, I doubt that money would have been used to fund transit in Toronto.

And now cutting back other projects will now suddenly release money for transit. Sure you may scale things back, but you still need to find the money to build things. Hudak talks a big game but like Ford before him, he may find out that the efficiencies he does find may not be as much as he thought.

Although I generally agree with you. An argument can be made for funding transit through efficiencies. ON's budget is 125 billion, so 2 billion a year is less than 2% in 'efficiencies' or cutbacks (or a mix). But when you consider the entire deficit (13B) it's impossible to find 10% in efficiencies or cut backs.

What you missed mentioning though is the Fed's are conspicuously absent from this conversation (transit) as well.

My point is, the Liberals have poisoned the well, so to speak, because of previous scandals. So, even though some form of funding (efficiencies, taxes) is desperately needed, it's overshadowed by a lack of trust with the current provincial government. And, yes, Ford and Hudak have used this to their advantage (and our detriment), but they're politicians, and this is what they do, it's in their nature, unfortunately. Finally, it's a lack of knowledge by the general population that allows Ford and Hudak to get away with it. So there's more than enough blame to go around, for everyone.

 

[timio]

Delete your cookies related to the Globe & Mail website

Better yet: block cookies from those sites altogether.

 

[BurlOak]

... Same thing for the LRTs. the Liberals cancelled after the election. it was a "victory" move, as it was a major election promise. It was "Democracy" in every way whatsoever. The liberals (along with every other party) campaigned on cancelling the gas plants, so how is this any different? The Liberals (along with every other party) had support for the cancellations. They won 2 seats because of the promise. Again, I repeat, How is it any different?

- The Liberals cancelled their own plans for a cost of $1.1B.
- The Liberals paid more to cancel the Oakville plant than was required by the contract just to keep the issue quite.

It is as different as black and white.

 

[TOareaFan]

- The Liberals cancelled their own plans for a cost of $1.1B.
- The Liberals paid more to cancel the Oakville plant than was required by the contract just to keep the issue quite.

It is as different as black and white.

They also did not cancel them for a different technology....they just moved the same technology to a less influential and less antagonistic community.

 

[Wrenkin]

That's my point, the deficit didn't stop McGuinty from adding to it when it was for daycare. All of a sudden though, we need transit taxes. Why don't we need daycare revenue tools? It seem to me the last project to be added to the budget (deficit) all of a sudden needs taxes.

All day kindergarten, not daycare. If he had solved daycare that would have been something.

 

[innsertnamehere]

They also did not cancel them for a different technology....they just moved the same technology to a less influential and less antagonistic community.

They "fixed" the problem by moving them, same as "fixing" the LRTs.

I'm not really defending the gas plant cancellations, but I'm saying that at this point cancelling the LRTs would have an eerily similar style, reasoning, and cost.

Could you send me a link to a source saying they overpaid to keep it quiet? I haven't heard that one before. My understanding is that they had stupidly worked huge cancellation costs into the initial contract several years earlier that they had to pay, but didn't pay above the contracted amount to keep it quiet.

 

[TOareaFan]

They "fixed" the problem by moving them, same as "fixing" the LRTs.

I'm not really defending the gas plant cancellations, but I'm saying that at this point cancelling the LRTs would have an eerily similar style, reasoning, and cost.

I think you are the only one seeing it as the same thing

Could you send me a link to a source saying they overpaid to keep it quiet? I haven't heard that one before. My understanding is that they had stupidly worked huge cancellation costs into the initial contract several years earlier that they had to pay, but didn't pay above the contracted amount to keep it quiet.

I think the reference is to the AG's report where she said there would have been no cost if the government had just left it alone. The theory was that if the province did not cancel it, the Town of Oakville had already stated they would not approve any building permit and that the project would have been cancelled anyway. There were provisions in the contract that in that event no one would have owed anyone anything.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/1...s-plant-cancellations-as-high-as-1-1-billion/

But, of course, that would have prevented the government from promising to cancel it (ie. they would have to continue on through the process) which would not have won them any votes on election day.

 

[andrewpmk]

They "fixed" the problem by moving them, same as "fixing" the LRTs.

I'm not really defending the gas plant cancellations, but I'm saying that at this point cancelling the LRTs would have an eerily similar style, reasoning, and cost.

Could you send me a link to a source saying they overpaid to keep it quiet? I haven't heard that one before. My understanding is that they had stupidly worked huge cancellation costs into the initial contract several years earlier that they had to pay, but didn't pay above the contracted amount to keep it quiet.

It would be much easier to move the LRTs than the gas plants because we haven't actually started building most of the lines, we have only signed contracts for the LRVs from Bombardier. We could easily kill off bad proposals like the Sheppard East LRT, and build LRTs in areas where the demand is way lower (i.e. no one would seriously consider a subway) and where local politicians are supportive of LRT. For example, build the Hurontario LRT, the Hamilton LRT, and extend the Kitchener LRT to Cambridge. Possibly some LRVs could be transferred (with minor design changes) to Ottawa if phase 2 of their light rail system gets approved.

 

[TOareaFan]

It would be much easier to move the LRTs than the gas plants because we haven't actually started building most of the lines, we have only signed contracts for the LRVs from Bombardier. We could easily kill off bad proposals like the Sheppard East LRT, and build LRTs in areas where the demand is way lower (i.e. no one would seriously consider a subway) and where local politicians are supportive of LRT. For example, build the Hurontario LRT, the Hamilton LRT, and extend the Kitchener LRT to Cambridge. Possibly some LRVs could be transferred (with minor design changes) to Ottawa if phase 2 of their light rail system gets approved.

Didn't Ottawa turn them down because they got a less expensive bid from someone else?

 

[innsertnamehere]

Ottawa Bought Alstoms, yes.

AH, but Oakville hadn't started construction either. The big money lost on the Gas plants wasn't sunk construction costs, that was only around 1/5 final costs. The big costs came from cancelled contracts and the replacements long term operating costs. With the subway replacement that Hudak is proposing, you would have significantly higher operating costs over the long term, higher initial capital costs, and large, very expensive contract cancellations. (as seen by the $70 million to cancel the LRT order for the SRT replacement, on top of $85 million sunk costs)

By the time Hudak can cancel, the Contract for the Conlins yard should have been issued as well, meaning huge cancellation costs for that as well.

 

[andrewpmk]

I'm sure that there are lots of other light rail lines in the GTA that actually make sense, unlike Sheppard East. Maybe 501 Queen in Brampton could get a LRT. This is one of the busiest bus routes in the 905.