[adma]

Remember: the headline says it all:

Plan in place to save it, but province now wants to bring bridge over Credit River down

It's not the replacement proposal per se, so much as the fact that the "plan in place to save it" is being blithely stomped on. Basically, the Province being bully-boy "because it can". Same logic as that behind everything from municipal council reductions on down.

IOW for the Province, it’s “uneconomical” not because it’s structurally unsound; but rather because to them, rehab isn’t worth it for the sake of appeasing a few hysterical preservationists. A highway is a highway is a highway; get over it etc etc. And if you want to save it, *you* pay for it. Don’t force it on taxpayers. Hysterical preservation is not For The People, etc etc. And we'd have more and better highways sooner if it weren't for all those Freaking Historical and Environmental Studies, bla bla.

(And really. Letting it go just because it isn't readily visible to the public that isn't rowing the Credit embodies its own kind of shortsightedness. And it isn't the first case I've come across of something being unnecessarily written off because you can't easily see it from the street, etc)

 

[crs1026]

I put very little faith in people saying that “the Province had plans”. Our government has plans for more things than we can ever afford. Many of them were issued in the abstract to appease some group or another, without anyone actually believing the plan would ever be executed.

The only question that matters is, has the Province committed funding? Plans are infinite but funding is finite.

If a project is stopped after the funding has been released (or at least placed in the current fiscal year’s estimates) the yes its a “reversal” and arguably someone has been lied to. But if it’s simply a matter of cutting lines in a paper document, to narrow the overall spend down to what’s affordable, that’s just reality settling in. Announcements of commitments are somewhere in between.

We know that the spending budget of the last government was unrealistic and unsustainable. Much as I deplore some of the choices that Ford has made - and promising tax cuts is wrongheaded when there is so much funding needed for useful projects - I support a government that looks more realistically at budgets and tries to separate the essential from the nice to have. I just can’t see this particular expense staying on the list when autism, education, and even transit funding is needed.

Was this project Mississauga’s #1 priority for heritage preservation? How much has the overall heritage preservation initiative in the Region been cut back? How does this bridge rank among other possible uses of the funding in Mississauga? If half of the #avings were turned back to Mississauga, could it do something else of equal value to heritage?

I do suspect that MTO has a bricks-and-mortar engineering technocratic focus and leans to pure function over things like heritage preservation. But, pointing out the added spend of a heritage proposal and holding it up to the light of day is quite reasonable.

- Paul

 

[Tuscani01]

I put very little faith in people saying that “the Province had plans”. Our government has plans for more things than we can ever afford. Many of them were issued in the abstract to appease some group or another, without anyone actually believing the plan would ever be executed.

The only question that matters is, has the Province committed funding? Plans are infinite but funding is finite.

If a project is stopped after the funding has been released (or at least placed in the current fiscal year’s estimates) the yes its a “reversal” and arguably someone has been lied to. But if it’s simply a matter of cutting lines in a paper document, to narrow the overall spend down to what’s affordable, that’s just reality settling in. Announcements of commitments are somewhere in between.

We know that the spending budget of the last government was unrealistic and unsustainable. Much as I deplore some of the choices that Ford has made - and promising tax cuts is wrongheaded when there is so much funding needed for useful projects - I support a government that looks more realistically at budgets and tries to separate the essential from the nice to have. I just can’t see this particular expense staying on the list when autism, education, and even transit funding is needed.

Was this project Mississauga’s #1 priority for heritage preservation? How much has the overall heritage preservation initiative in the Region been cut back? How does this bridge rank among other possible uses of the funding in Mississauga? If half of the #avings were turned back to Mississauga, could it do something else of equal value to heritage?

I do suspect that MTO has a bricks-and-mortar engineering technocratic focus and leans to pure function over things like heritage preservation. But, pointing out the added spend of a heritage proposal and holding it up to the light of day is quite reasonable.

- Paul

Sure, if you buy into the myth that Ontario had a spending problem. Reality is that Ontario is a rich Province. We can afford to save this bridge, and should save this bridge. Mississauga shouldn't be forced into picking and choosing which heritage properties deserve more attention. Lets not forget that this bridge is provincially designated. The onus is on the Province to protect it.

Ontario Has a Revenue Problem, Not a Spending Problem - Raise the Hammer

raisethehammer.org

No one is asking for this to be designated now. It's already been designated. That protection should be upheld - otherwise, why bother with protecting anything?

 

[Northern Light]

......

Plans are infinite but funding is finite.

- Paul

To further @Tuscani01 's point.......

The Financial Accountability Office of Ontario, non-partisan, third party looked at revenues and it said this

"In 2017, the Ontario provincial government received $10,415 in total revenue per person[1], the lowest in the country. "

And this

"Ontario’s low per capita revenue is matched by similarly low government spending relative to other provinces. In 2017, Ontario spent $9,829 per person on programs, also the lowest among provinces.

• Ontario’s per capita program spending is more than $2,000 below the rest of Canada average, a gap that has widened since 2011."

From this report: https://www.fao-on.org/en/Blog/Publications/inter-prov-comparisons-feb-2019

Lets look at the implications of those numbers.

If Ontario raises its revenue per capita to the current Canadian average among provinces, it would raise revenue by: wait for it...........

28B per year.

That's enough to reduce the current deficit to ZERO and have 20B and change leftover.

Should we prioritize fiscal prudence, set aside 1.5B for contingencies and reserves and 3.5B to begin repaying existing debts, that still leaves 15B in non-deficit cash that could be expended on
capital and operating priorities.

Lets use 5B for new/enhanced healthcare services and 1B to nearly erase wait times.

Let's throw in 1B for childcare, and 2B to enhance social assistance payments and still another 1B for net new housing subsidies, 1B for public housing construction, and lets throw in 1B for universities and colleges; enough to slash tuitions by more than 25% overall; or 10% across the board and 65% or more for graduate programs that can currently cost over 20k.

Lets see, I just spent, 7B..........so I still have 8B leftover for infrastructure.......

****

What would that additional revenue look like:

Raise HST to same rate as Quebec, NFLD, NB, PEI and NS (10% provincial, 15% total) - 7B new revenue
Raise Corporate Tax to Canadian norms, around 11.5-12% - 3B new revenue
Raise provincial income tax to Canadian norms - a lift of roughly 2 points in every bracket - 7B new revenue

The rest falls into a mix of different fees/revenues categories and one could adjust for rounding.

But there's 17B in new revenue immediately, without making Ontario any less competitive than the Canadian average.

I'm not suggesting we actually go that high; but there is certainly ample room to generate more revenue.

From the FAO report noted above:

 

[crs1026]

If Ontario raises its revenue per capita to the current Canadian average among provinces, it would raise revenue by: wait for it...........
28B per year.
That's enough to reduce the current deficit to ZERO and have 20B and change leftover.

Can't argue with those numbers. The problem is, that's a huge "if" that ain't gonna happen. Raise revenue = raise taxes = loss at the polls.

That's a function of the voter, not any particular party or government, although Ford's insistence on tax cuts that reduce revenue are enabling bad voter decisions......but it still makes your point highly hypothetical. That increase is not going to happen.

The FAO also pointed out that Ontario's net debt is $338B....

Ontario continues to be the most indebted Canadian province and the most indebted sub-sovereign borrower.

Accumulated debt is the unkindest thing we are passing on to the current and future generations. We need to balance spending and save deficit spending for "crisis" years - which this ain't.

My bank manager tells me that I'm under-mortgaged. Sure, I could take on plenty of added debt without lowering my credit rating any. But that's not smart with personal finances, and it's no more smart on the provincial level. Use the avoided interest as our new-found money stream.

- Paul

 

[Northern Light]

Can't argue with those numbers. The problem is, that's a huge "if" that ain't gonna happen. Raise revenue = raise taxes = loss at the polls.

That's a function of the voter, not any particular party or government, although Ford's insistence on tax cuts that reduce revenue are enabling bad voter decisions......but it still makes your point highly hypothetical. That increase is not going to happen.

I simply do not accept this; I think Ontarian's can and will stomach a tax increase as long as they appear to get something for it.

McGuinty introduced Health Premiums, and still got reelected.

Premiers/Governments across Canada have managed hikes without being defeated. People won't accept a hike that seems to vanish into thin air (nothing back for it); or one which disproportionately burdens middle or low income earners.

But there is room for a hike, politically, and I think polls have shown this as well. Political cowardice is not the fault of the voter.

The FAO also pointed out that Ontario's net debt is $338B....

Accumulated debt is the unkindest thing we are passing on to the current and future generations. We need to balance spending and save deficit spending for "crisis" years - which this ain't.

I fail to understand your point.

I'm firmly anti-deficit. As I stated. But the deficit is primarily the result of under-taxing, period, full-stop.

The one big efficiency the Ontario government could deliver (merging the public and separate school boards), would save about 2B per yet net.

That too isn't happening due to political cowardice, but as it represents less than 1/4 of the stated deficit or about 1/2 of the real deficit; the residual problem remains one of revenues.

You can't be anti-deficit and anti-tax hike, the 2 positions are in conflict.

I think you're usually a pretty reasonable poster, but I find the thesis you've put forward in this series of posts doesn't meet your usual standards.

 

[Jonny5]

Accumulated debt is the unkindest thing we are passing on to the current and future generations. We need to balance spending and save deficit spending for "crisis" years - which this ain't.

My bank manager tells me that I'm under-mortgaged. Sure, I could take on plenty of added debt without lowering my credit rating any. But that's not smart with personal finances, and it's no more smart on the provincial level. Use the avoided interest as our new-found money stream.

That's totally false. Straight up, totally wrong. You are killing future generations by penny pinching and avoiding leverage to spend on assets that grow the economy and improve quality of life. Zero business would ever work in this manner. Zero professional money managers work in this manner. You are screwing yourself over and everyone else.

If you want to know the origins of "OK boomer" this is it.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Accumulated debt is the unkindest thing we are passing on to the current and future generations. We need to balance spending and save deficit spending for "crisis" years - which this ain't.
- Paul

Except when push comes to shove, we chose tax cuts over reducing the deficit (much less the debt) every-single-time. That's not the behaviour of a jurisdiction truly concerned about passing on accumulated debt "as the unkindest thing" - it is the behaviour of a jurisdiction that is intent on cashing out for the current generation without regards to the future.

AoD

 

[crs1026]

I'm firmly anti-deficit. As I stated. But the deficit is primarily the result of under-taxing, period, full-stop.

The one big efficiency the Ontario government could deliver (merging the public and separate school boards), would save about 2B per yet net.

That too isn't happening due to political cowardice, but as it represents less than 1/4 of the stated deficit or about 1/2 of the real deficit; the residual problem remains one of revenues.

You can't be anti-deficit and anti-tax hike, the 2 positions are in conflict.

Maybe I didn't state my position well. We are agreeing on most but disagreeing on one thing.

I'm anti-deficit. I believe that Ontario's accumulated debt has to be taken into account when considering whether more debt can be absorbed, and that significant net debt is a gamechanger where otherwise some debt might not be a big deal. One donut won't kill you , unless you have eaten so many in the past that you are already in danger of diabetes, obesity, and all those related complications.

I'm also agreeing that it is ridiculous for Ontario to take such an anti-revenue direction.

However, I do think that the Ontario voters will not accept any more taxation, no matter how logical that might be. The proof to me is first the support of the Ford government, which (while I'm not supportive) did win the day in the last election. The second proof is watching Toronto City Council grapple with spending decisions. There is absolutely no appetite for imposing additional taxation on Torontonians. Ask anyone in the 905 about that! So my point is, even if it defies all logic, if you can't actually impose the taxation.....you have to walk the voters' talk and enact the austerity.

The Federal election certainly demonstrated that Canadian voters in general are quite happy to see deficit spending - even the Cons had a very deficit friendly platform. And lots of Liberal strength (bid deficit advocates) was in Ontario. That may reflect the strength of Canada's overall debt restraint. It does not translate to Ontario having that latitude.

As for the "OK Boomer" comment - I was actually trying to say the reverse. I am appalled at how the Boomers are passing such a substantial debt burden onto their kids. The Boomers spent on themselves, it was not sound investment for the future. I find that is about the worst attribute that anyone can point to for that cohort. But will the following cohorts adopt the same abuse of deficit spending? I suspect they will not inflict the same thing on their future generations. You can't slag Boomers for using debt and then run up your own on the premise that it will benefit your own kids.

- paul

 

[ericmacm]

Honestly, I don't agree that this bridge is even worth saving. Yes, it's an older design from the 30s, but it's nowhere near the quality or ornateness of an old historical structure with cultural or heritage significance.

It's honestly just as utilitarian as highway structures today. If this were a prominent suspension bridge or something with a more visible skyline impact, then yes, I would say it would be worth preserving, but it's really not. The new bridge designs are much more practical and would probably last longer than a rehab anyway.

 

[adma]

Honestly, I don't agree that this bridge is even worth saving. Yes, it's an older design from the 30s, but it's nowhere near the quality or ornateness of an old historical structure with cultural or heritage significance.

It's honestly just as utilitarian as highway structures today. If this were a prominent suspension bridge or something with a more visible skyline impact, then yes, I would say it would be worth preserving, but it's really not. The new bridge designs are much more practical and would probably last longer than a rehab anyway.

You might as well be suggesting that we shouldn't be listing or designating 50s modernism because it hasn't the so-called "quality or ornateness" of High Victorian. Happily, the heritage realm has gone way beyond that kind of Joe Blow amateur mentality...

 

[adma]

Or, to put it more charitably: heritage experts have already had their say, and they see the bridge as having value. The question here is not about whether the bridge has heritage value or not, but whether such value is enough to override economic or practical concerns. If you start with a "honestly, I see no value here, it's purely utilitarian" mentality, you lose. If it's a "yes, there's value here, but..." argument, you have more ballast in your camp, even if it upsets heritage buffs.

And let's face it: to the discerning and sensitive among us, even if they're "just engineering", prewar concrete arches *are* sexy, wherever they are. (And being "just engineering" hasn't prevented Buffalo's grain silos from being cult objects and tourist attractions.)

And as proof, I'll paste the image of the bridge from the article.

Notwithstanding various add-ons (the outer arches *might* be 1950s, and that horizontal pipeline-or-whatever deck is a whole other matter), explain how this is "just utilitarian". Explain how this wouldn't trigger a certain aesthetic reaction in those who with a sensitivity t/w engineering heritage. And explain in such a way that doesn't bring in unfounded claims of fatal, irrepairable structural unsoundness (i.e. of a ready-to-collapse nature a la Genoa). Sure, it might not be *unique* unique, and it may be effectively invisible to casual passerby who aren't rowing the Credit. But just because it's not, say, the Bixby Canyon Bridge at Big Sur (to raise one comparable concrete-arch contemporary) doesn't mean it's devoid of worth. And if this is incapable of stirring you, you're truly absent something-or-another.

And what I'm offering is an argument on behalf of *appreciation* (and preferably of an "informed" sort), rather than on behalf of preservation per se--though appreciation is always a predicate to the preservation reflex (but of course, in the case of engineering structures and the wear and tear involved, it can be "complicated")

If you can't even appreciate this, even on a "yes, but..." level, then you don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to arguing for its removal.

(And interestingly, one creek to the east of here on the QEW's pre-expressway predecessor is the granddaddy of all concrete arches in Ontario.)

Middle Road Bridge (Sherway Drive Bridge) - HistoricBridges.org

Historic Arch Bridge in Mississauga and Toronto Peel Region, Ontario and Toronto City, Ontario. One of the first of its style ever built, this unique bridge has aspects of both a truss and an arch bridge.

historicbridges.org

 

[lenaitch]

^^ Lots of examples of concrete arch bridges in Ontario. Maybe the ones with the arches above the deck get more love.

 

[adma]

^^ Lots of examples of concrete arch bridges in Ontario. Maybe the ones with the arches above the deck get more love.

Or (as has been raised in this thread) the "visible" deck arches. That is, unlike the bridges at Bronte and Sixteen Mile Creeks, this one doesn't have a road going under it or much of anything that'd draw the gaze of casual passerby. (And if one is to use the anti-claim "see? it isn't unique"--uh, heritage judgment isn't based upon degrees of "uniqueness". Repetition of a type can actually *enhance* the case for heritage rather than undermine it--that's why bridge buffs rally for any threatened early c20 concrete arches in Wellington County even if they're "practically" identical to one another or even to Pottery/Don Mills Toronto examples.)

In terms of Toronto, the Rosedale Valley subway bridge gets more love because Rosedale Valley Rd runs underneath it; while the O'Connor Bridge is taken for more for granted because it's only bikes and pedestrians going underneath.

 

[adma]

Mississauga residents, council angry at Ontario government’s plan to demolish QEW heritage bridge

The QEW bridge is at the end of its useful life, Mississauga-Lakeshore MPP Rudy Cuzzetto says.

www.thestar.com