[spider]

The additional vehicle tax makes no sense for many reasons, the most obvious of which is that I am sure that a considerable number of the vehicles on our roads, which the tax is supposed to help maintain, are driven into town every day from the 905 area and conversely some suburban Toronto owned vehicles are driven more Kms outside of the 416 than inside. If you don't believe this statement place yourself at the Toronto border in rush hour on any main road or highway and make your own judgement.

The size of a vehicle as a means to measure the wear and tear to our pavement is only part of the equation, possibly less important than the Kilometers driven per year. If we are looking for culprits how about transit vehicles.

I am sad to say that the only way to spread the cost of building and maintaining roads is Tolling, we have the 407 example in plain view. As noted above many companies reimburse their employees for tolls paid in the course of their duties PLUS travelling to and from work.

 

[spider]

Yeah, sure! 10-15 bucks for a bike license - no problem.

Only in return for the same universal right to the roads and all their lanes as automobiles.

Bikes now have rights to every traffic lane, cars do not.
Bikes park free, cars do not.
Ever see a car driving on the sidewalk, the wrong way with no lights

 

[MisterF]

The size of a vehicle as a means to measure the wear and tear to our pavement is only part of the equation, possibly less important than the Kilometers driven per year. If we are looking for culprits how about transit vehicles.

Which is harder on the road, a bus carrying 50 people or 50 cars?

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

The TST (Toronto Sales Tax)

A city sales tax has serious problems -- because it would be in a relatively small geographic area, it would be easy to avoid (e.g., just drive to Mississauga or Vaughan). A sales tax is also regressive, especially so in this case because the people who can't easily avoid it are those with limited mobility, in other words, those of less means.

It would make more sense to bring back the vehicle tax -- that is far less regressive, and also is more directly related to city services (e.g., streets are cleared and repaired because of cars). There may be other revenue streams related more to city services.

You make two points about sales taxes that are both true AND the reason I'd advocate them:

1. Of course sales taxes are regressive. That's the point of them -- only buy what you need, and be incented to save the rest. A very low (1%) sales tax will not be particularly damaging to low income families, but if, at the margin, it stops someone from consuming and the save that money instead, so much the better.

2. Anyone that's driving to Vaughan to save on a 1% sales tax lives in Vaughan. So, their spending more time in Vaughan means we Torontonians do not need to provide them with roads/sewers/toilets/museums. All the better.

The vehicle tax was a general revenue stream. If you're going to charge a specific user fee, the user fee should sure as heck go to benefit the person charged. I have no problem with a vehicle registration fee if you can prove to me I get x% better roads because of it. I'm VERY sceptical. I'd rather they hiked rates on the pools, then subsidized them for lower income families, than bring back a 'car tax.' There's a reason why people hated that tax -- it was manifestly unfair.

 

[Marko]

Taxes/Fee Increases 13% tax hike and 10 cent TTC fare hike.

Only a 13% tax hike!? Why not go 20% and wipe it all out in one shot? Hell, why not go 40% and double every service?

(This sort of logic won Mary Trapani Hynes applause the other night, after all)

 

[spider]

Which is harder on the road, a bus carrying 50 people or 50 cars?

We know how heavy the bus is, we don`t know the cars weight. There are probably a 1000 civics on the road for every Escalade which would lead me to believe that the bus is likely to be the most destructive. How else to explain the ubiquitous pavement Knuckles that only appear at bus stops.

Please resist trotting out the myth that a bus carrying 50 passengers removes 50 cars from traffic.

 

[jn_12]

Only a 13% tax hike!? Why not go 20% and wipe it all out in one shot? Hell, why not go 40% and double every service?

(This sort of logic won Mary Trapani Hynes applause the other night, after all)

How about this one (just a loose idea for discussion, more than anything else), but $1.00 tax per 1000 km driven. I was thinking a penny per km, but it's too high, so 0.001 per km for a passenger vehicle. I personally drive about 25k a year, give or take, which would work out to $125 a year in "road toll taxes" which are applied wherever my car goes - not just the 401, not just a congested area, but all roads. It could be weighted slightly for vehicle size or type, but this would be the average.

I would have to be applied provincially since that's who is responsible for licensing - but funds directed as follows: 33% to transport and infrastructure, 33% to public transit and 34% to the municipality you reside in since they pay for police and emergency services. It could probably build 1km of subway per year.

You can pay when you get your vehicle serviced, when you renew your license, or pay as you go online if you don't want it to build and catch up with you in a lump. freshcutgrass should love this one since it's pay-per-per use for drivers.

I was just using the options they gave on the website. I'd be in favour of road taxes as well but those weren't offered. And besides, I'd argue 13% isn't that much if you look at the return.

 

[jje1000]

Please resist trotting out the myth that a bus carrying 50 passengers removes 50 cars from traffic.

Prove otherwise. If say there was no public transit in the suburbs whatsoever starting tomorrow, how do you think the hundred of thousands who use buses will get around? Most of them will need to carpool in the interim, but I bet you that eventually those thousands will eventually gravitate towards car use.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

Yeah, sure! 10-15 bucks for a bike license - no problem.

I've always supported bicycle licensing for anyone older than 16, $10-15 is reasonable. You write an exam just like a driver, you either pass or fail and carry the license when your cycling. That also helps educate cyclists and would only help improve cyclists obeying the rules of the road which could only be an improvement on what's going on out there now. Further, every bicycle including Bixi rentals should be plated. I am a cyclist and I see the craziness out there as any cyclist will attest to. Further, repeal the vehicle registration tax and toll all highways.

Another small group of about 100-150 cyclists took to Jarvis Street today around 6:45pm. I don't know who they are, I didn't know it was happening. I caught the tail end of them as they passed by my building in the two southbound Jarvis lanes then grabbed a zoom shot of them as they approached Gerrard St.

 

[tkip]

Are bicycle licenses really necessary? Sounds like a money grab to me. We rode bikes all the time as kids and things were fine. You didn't need a license and it makes no sense that when you become a adult, you would then need to write a test and pay for a license to ride a bike. If this is the case, then children have no business riding bikes. This nanny state nonsense is out of control.

 

[syn]

The Toronto Star has a "fix the budget" calculator. It was actually a lot easier to fix than I thought and required only one cut.
Cuts - Police (savings of $195million)
Revenue increases: unused 2010 surplus ($88million), 2011 Surplus ($50million), Hydro/Enwave Dividends ($15million), Land Transfer Tax ($25million), Assessment Growth ($30million), Other Revenue ($46million)
Taxes/Fee Increases 13% tax hike and 10 cent TTC fare hike.
Result: Short only $1.2million, essentially a rounding error.

If you're curious about the details check out the site to see where the money comes from.

I don't think peoople would be too impressed with a 13% tax hike .

I added every revenue steam and cut everything possible, and they were still nearly $80 million short. Once I added a 10 cent TTC hike and a 3% tax hike the city finally had a small surplus. It's pretty obvious there's a revenue problem.

 

[tkip]

I don't think peoople would be too impressed with a 13% tax hike .

I added every revenue steam and cut everything possible, and they were still nearly $80 million short. Once I added a 10 cent TTC hike and a 3% tax hike the city finally had a small surplus. It's pretty obvious there's a revenue problem.

Or a spending problem. Though it's most likely a combination of both. Either way, we're in a deep hole that's getting deeper.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

Are bicycle licenses really necessary? Sounds like a money grab to me. We rode bikes all the time as kids and things were fine. You didn't need a license and it makes no sense that when you become a adult, you would then need to write a test and pay for a license to ride a bike. If this is the case, then children have no business riding bikes. This nanny state nonsense is out of control.

Do you cycle? If you don't let me tell you it's madness out there on downtown streets, laws are being broken at every turn and something needs to be done. Things are only getting worse as more and more people take to cycling. I feel that licensing and plates would get some level of control over those who don't obey the rules of the road, which I'd say is about 70% of cyclists. Children shouldn't be licensed, I never suggested that. Kids riding bikes around neighbourhoods & parks are doing what kids do, but come 16 if they start cycling on city streets and paths I think it's time they get licensed. Along with Police being able to get a handle on cyclists doing all things illegal, there's also a revenue stream to be explored here too.

 

[spider]

Originally Posted by spider
Please resist trotting out the myth that a bus carrying 50 passengers removes 50 cars from traffic.

Prove otherwise.
If say there was no public transit in the suburbs whatsoever starting tomorrow, how do you think the hundred of thousands who use buses will get around? Most of them will need to carpool in the interim, but I bet you that eventually those thousands will eventually gravitate towards car use.

I think you just proved it for yourself. The only way that 50 people on a bus would automatically equate to 50 fewer cars on the road is if every single potential bus rider owned a car and was licenced to drive it. That is a silly premise because a very large contingent of passengers on any bus I have ever ridden were ineligible to drive due to their age.

 

[Armbruster]

Or a spending problem. Though it's most likely a combination of both. Either way, we're in a deep hole that's getting deeper.

Why aren't we talking about the TTC subsidy? This is the money we pay in order to keep the subways rolling unprofitably into the suburbs (and soon beyond). The subsidy is now around half a billion dollars a year. Isn't this pretty much our structural deficit, right here?

From Wikipedia:

Historically, the TTC recovered its operating costs from the fare box. This was especially true during the Great Depression and The Second World War, when it accumulated the considerable wealth which allowed it to expand widely after the war. It was not until the late 1950s that the newly formed Metro government was forced to provide operational subsidies, required primarily due to the TTC being required to provide bus service to the low-density suburbs in Metro Toronto.

Until the mid-1990s, the TTC received operational subsidies from both the municipal level of government, and the provincial level. When the Harris Conservatives in Ontario ended those subsidies, the TTC was forced to cut-back service, with a significant curtailment put into effect on February 18, 1996, and an increased financial burden was placed on the Municipal government. Since then, the TTC has consistently been in financial difficulties. Service cuts were averted in 2007 though when Toronto City Council voted to introduce new taxes to help pay for city services, including the TTC. As a result, the TTC became the largest transit operator in Anglo-America not to receive provincial/state funding.

Shouldn't any conversation about the structural deficit begin and end with this half billion dollar transit subsidy? Or would that only put Mayor Ford's Sheppard subway fanstasy in a bad light?