[junior43]

To maintain the city roads, property taxes are collected to do so. Which includes cyclists. And because the roads in the suburban areas are w-i-d-e-r, that means more material, which means a higher cost.

Ahhhh. So now I understand. So, because the city has spent the last 70+ years building roads to improve commutes and help the economy because we've lived in a car oriented world, you now want the current drivers - and suburban homeowners - to pay for the city planner's mistakes of virtually the last century for making the main arteries into the city too w-i-d-e and not building enough transit to accomodate people to make it appealing from the burbs.

I can see your point, in part, but you can't just say suburban homeowners now need to pay 20% more because their streets are w-i-d-e-r. They're as w-i-d-e as they are because the city planners said so, not because the locals were begging for w-i-d-e-r lanes and more traffic. Gradual increases for these reasons, maybe. But why should I, who works from home pay more taxes for the road? I couldn't care less if the main artery near me was cut to two lanes both ways, I don't use it at rush hours, on weekends it would be fine at 2 lanes. How about all the seniors in the burbs? They certainly don't use the roads at rush hour.

 

[junior43]

Ummm... despite y'all's childishness on cars and roads, this is a good idea. I'd be happy to pay a dedicated bike toll, tax, or annual fee, as long as I knew it was going to NOTHING but repaving bike paths and expanding the bike path network. A separated bike lane from WDL to Bay & Front or Bay & King, please!

I'd be happy to re-instate the vehicle tax and dedicate it to road paving and construction. Or toll the DVP. I'm paying every time I'm on the Autoroutes here in France, and it's a pleasure to get to go 130k and have well-paved highways. I'd be happy if they agreed to up the speed limit on the DVP by (a) tolling and (b) making it safer to drive at a higher speed.

I feel this is the reason for luke warm reponse to people not willing to pay for transit via tolls, or any other toll/tax scheme. No one trusts the government to actually spend it on transit. If the governement came out with legislation, explicitly stating every penny would go to transit, it would help, but McGuinty burnt a lot of those bridges on his first tour (no new taxes before the election, but I will drop the largest single 'fee' increase on you in the province's history once I'm elected.) It's a sad state of affairs, everyone's either cynical/skeptical or not even paying attention to any of the levels of government.

Tolls on bike is appealing on the surface, but tolling bikes is pointless. The bureaucracy involved would make it barely break even. You'd need to license/register all cyclists and track it, plus chase the cheaters, not really worth it overall - although I'd prefer it, in a utopian sense. But, in reality, it seems more wasteful than productive in real life. Similiar to this whole cars and roads debate.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

I feel this is the reason for luke warm reponse to people not willing to pay for transit via tolls, or any other toll/tax scheme.

I disagree. Tolling roads is very easy, and very easy to make road-specific by the very method the 407 and France have done it. Tolling the DVP and Gardiner would be as simple as putting out the tender.

Tolls on bike is appealing on the surface, but tolling bikes is pointless. The bureaucracy involved would make it barely break even. You'd need to license/register all cyclists and track it, plus chase the cheaters, not really worth it overall - although I'd prefer it, in a utopian sense. But, in reality, it seems more wasteful than productive in real life. Similiar to this whole cars and roads debate.

Agreed. But an annual license and fee attached, sold with every new bike and renewed via registration? With a transparent foundation and pro-bike board set up to administer nothing else but paving biking lanes and scouting new opportunities? I think it could work. And, I think bike advocates would sign on if they could see the tangible benefits -- starting with some repaving and a couple of proposals about separated bike lanes.

 

[junior43]

I disagree. Tolling roads is very easy, and very easy to make road-specific by the very method the 407 and France have done it. Tolling the DVP and Gardiner would be as simple as putting out the tender.

My point wasn't on the challenge of tolling the roads (I also think it would be relatively easy to implement) My point is, the public doesn't trust the government to actually spend the profits on transit and infrastructure and this is why they're hesitant.

Agreed. But an annual license and fee attached, sold with every new bike and renewed via registration? With a transparent foundation and pro-bike board set up to administer nothing else but paving biking lanes and scouting new opportunities? I think it could work. And, I think bike advocates would sign on if they could see the tangible benefits -- starting with some repaving and a couple of proposals about separated bike lanes.

Like your idea on the biking too, but it will probably need to wait for a different Mayor. He'd love the registration side, but hate the possibility of more bike lanes.

 

[bobbob911]

Its easy to toll roads if you are willing to take an existing lane (or lanes) and convert it to tolled. Its my understanding most proposals would involve creating a new tolled priority lane.

 

[DSC]

From Star:

Toronto makes the short list of world’s most intelligent cities
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...t_list_of_worlds_most_intelligent_cities.html

We would obviously be the clear winner if we wern't being dragged down by a Mayor whose intelligence is somewhat limited.

 

[canmark]

The Globe and Mail: Ford had advance briefing on airport expansion plans

Toronto Mayor Rob Ford received a “high-level” briefing on Porter Airlines’ controversial plans to transform the city’s downtown airport into a national hub two months before the official announcement.

Porter Airlines chief executive officer Robert Deluce met privately with Mr. Ford on Feb. 12 and again on March 19 with officials in the mayor’s office to discuss the company’s plan to buy jets capable of long-haul flights and extend the island airport’s runway.

The meetings were not included in the city’s lobbyist registry. In an e-mail to The Globe and Mail on Thursday, a Porter Airlines spokesman blamed the omission on an “administrative oversight,” and said the registry has since been updated.
* * *
The plan must be approved by the city, the federal government and the Toronto Port Authority. The tripartite agreement governing the airport bans jets.

Porter faces an uphill battle. Only seven councillors either support the plan or are leaning in favour of it, according to an informal tally by The Globe. Seventeen oppose or are leaning in that direction and nine are undecided.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Must be a lot of "administrative oversights" happening at City Hall lately.

 

[jje1000]

A whole lot of "do as I say, not as I do" going on. I wonder how much of this went on as compared to previous mayors.

 

[RC8]

I can see your point, in part, but you can't just say suburban homeowners now need to pay 20% more because their streets are w-i-d-e-r.

Your understanding of 'the economy' is precarious at best.

The central areas of Toronto have by far the highest population densities, they also have by far the most jobs per km2, they also have by far the greatest number of people commuting by transit walking or cycling, they pay by far the highest property taxes per m2, and most importantly the number of km2 of paved roads is several orders of magnitude below that of the unproductive suburbs.

Most road expenses in Toronto are not for arterial roads, but for secondary roads in subdivisions. You don't want to pay for these services that only you and others like you benefit from... whatever. But to argue that it's fine for those who live in smaller dwellings in more crowded areas while paying substantially higher property taxes and contributing more to the economy to pick up the bill just because you don't want to is ludicrous.

If you want the core to subsidise its suburbs as some sort of welfare initiative that's one thing. But to demand that this is the case while also denying downtown pedestrians, transit users, and cyclists from the priority they deserve in central neighbourhoods is offensive.

I concede that one of the reasons Toronto's suburbs are so damn uncompetitive is because tax rates are too high... this is why de-amalgamation works both for suburbia and for core.

Think about it, downtown transit doesn't even need any subsidies, it is wholly self-sufficient with its fares. People who take transit downtown are paying for transportation on top of property taxes. If more people could get by without driving we'd have a lot more disposable income in the economy that would create local jobs. Right now North American adults spend more money in their cars than in any other thing - that's where the largest individual share of their disposable income is heading... and guess how much of that money stays within Toronto? Close to zero.

 

[cdr108]

W5 new report on Rob Frod ... he and Doug have accused W5 of witch-hunting him ... lol

not sure if this is the proper link

http://www.ctvnews.ca/w5/fighting-controversy-the-ups-and-downs-of-populist-mayor-rob-ford-1.1226047

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I'm starting to think Rob is harmless. I mean, what serious damage has he done other than the whole transit fiasco? I really don't have a problem with him being reelected. As long as he shuts up and only plays football. Plus I would hate to lose the entertainment.

 

[pman]

I'm starting to think Rob is harmless. I mean, what serious damage has he done other than the whole transit fiasco? I really don't have a problem with him being reelected. As long as he shuts up and only plays football. Plus I would hate to lose the entertainment.

While I agree Ford can't do overwhelming damage under a weak mayor / strong council system, I'm concerned that for the Harper government and for the provincial PC's Ford appears to be the Voice of Toronto. Not that the Conservatives at either level would deign to piss on Toronto if we were on fire, but Ford's insane positions give the federal government and a potential PC provincial government some cover for simultaneously ignoring or adding to Toronto's problems, while continuing to treat us as a tax farm.

 

[Silence&Motion]

I agree. There is a real risk that if Hudak becomes premier, he might just go over Toronto council's head and impose elements of Ford's agenda from the provincial level. A very troubling (and realistic) possibility is that he might cancel something like Transit City based on the premise that it doesn't have the mayor's support, and replace it with only a vague promise to "look into" future subway expansion.

 

[Johnny Au]

Shades of Mike Harris would re-appear if Hudak becomes premier and Doug Ford becomes MPP.