rbt said:
This is almost a certainty. Toronto doesn't have money to contribute to a DRL without substantially raising taxes and even Miller was loath to raise taxes to a level where we could tackle large projects.

The province and feds will pay for it, the province will maintain ownership (and future non-trivial maintenance bills!), and TTC may (or may not) be contracted to operate it.
Click to expand...

Someone who doesn't have their head in the sand...
 
rbt said:
This is almost a certainty. Toronto doesn't have money to contribute to a DRL without substantially raising taxes and even Miller was loath to raise taxes to a level where we could tackle large projects.

The province and feds will pay for it, the province will maintain ownership (and future non-trivial maintenance bills!), and TTC may (or may not) be contracted to operate it.
Click to expand...

But realistically, what cities in the GTHA have enough money to solely (or fractionally) fund the goodies they were promised by the Prov? Most barely have enough to operate their present bus lines, let alone any future BRT/LRT/subway lines. Sure, Toronto isn't like York Region where we can simply blast open more greenspace and bank on more sprawl. But that doesn't mean we're not willing to contribute to our projects - whether the DRL or otherwise, or as a substantial capital amount or otherwise.

The Prov doesn't need to solely fund, own, or operate the DRL. And frankly I don't think they have the money to pay for even a fraction of it. That's why I hypothesize what this $150M (that they've gifted to themselves) is for: so they can delay the project indefinitely. When Keesmaat presented the B1-EQ alignment, that was an opportunity for the Prov to make a funding agreement for construction of phase 1. But they didn't do that. They offered money to themselves to continue whatever the hell YRNS is. How many public meetings has Metrolinx had for YRNS? How many residents of Leaside have they spoken to about possibly running a surface subway RL through their backyards? How many business owners on Front St E have they spoken to about possibly running a tram-style RL down their street? When the City/TTC presented our shortlist, why were they still presenting bonkers longlists? I think the whole thing is a fugazi, probably to delay paying any capital for the DRL indefinitely and to greenlight YNSE.
 
DonValleyRainbow said:
Sounds like a decent rationale, but did anyone manage to ask why we don't have a Queen station east of Yonge instead?
Click to expand...

I think they wanted that City hall link in their and as such needed to have it on West side of yonge. This is just my impression though from the meeting. Didn't get to ask specifically
 
rbt said:
This is almost a certainty. Toronto doesn't have money to contribute to a DRL without substantially raising taxes and even Miller was loath to raise taxes to a level where we could tackle large projects.
Click to expand...

It should be pointed out that City Finance will be reporting on revenue tools to build transit this June, something that story suggested he was open to.

And Toronto wouldn't necessarily have to substantially raise taxes to afford the DRL. For example, I've been told that preliminary numbers show that land value capture in the Portlands could generate tens of millions of dollars per year to pay for infrastructure, and that's just one area of the city.

Land value capture + 0.25% sales tax increase could realistically be enough to pay for half of the Relief Line from Dundas West to Sheppard.

There are about a dozen other revenue tools that are being examined. We'll know more in a few weeks.
 
rbt said:
This is almost a certainty. Toronto doesn't have money to contribute to a DRL without substantially raising taxes and even Miller was loath to raise taxes to a level where we could tackle large projects.

The province and feds will pay for it, the province will maintain ownership (and future non-trivial maintenance bills!), and TTC may (or may not) be contracted to operate it.
Click to expand...
TheTigerMaster said:
It should be pointed out that City Finance will be reporting on revenue tools to build transit this June, something that story suggested he was open to.

And Toronto wouldn't necessarily have to substantially raise taxes to afford the DRL. For example, I've been told that preliminary numbers show that land value capture in the Portlands could generate tens of millions of dollars per year to pay for infrastructure, and that's just one area of the city.

Land value capture + 0.25% sales tax increase could realistically be enough to pay for half of the Relief Line from Dundas West to Sheppard.

There are about a dozen other revenue tools that are being examined. We'll know more in a few weeks.
Click to expand...

Some numbers to put everything into perspective.

The Relief Line from Dundas West to Sheppard will cost $11.3 Billion. Let's say that Toronto pays for half of that, $5.65 Billion. A 0.25% sales tax would generate more than $125 Million per year, or $3.75 Billion over 30 years. This leaves a funding gap of $1.9 Billion, or of $63 Million per year over 30 years. Land value capture in the Portlands alone can generate more than half of that remaining gap. Now imagine if Toronto were to leverage land value capture elsewhere along the Relief Line. So Toronto can fund this thing with relatively minimal taxation if they really wanted to; it's more a matter of political will than financial impracticality.

City Finance has been raising alarm bells about recently; the City's reluctance to contribute to transit funding is hurting our credibility when asking for transit funds. This needs to change.
 
TheTigerMaster said:
Some numbers to put everything into perspective.

The Relief Line from Dundas West to Sheppard will cost $11.3 Billion. Let's say that Toronto pays for half of that, $5.65 Billion. A 0.25% sales tax would generate more than $125 Million per year, or $3.75 Billion over 30 years. This leaves a funding gap of $1.9 Billion, or of $63 Million per year over 30 years. Land value capture in the Portlands alone can generate more than half of that remaining gap. Now imagine if Toronto were to leverage land value capture elsewhere along the Relief Line. So Toronto can fund this thing with relatively minimal taxation if they really wanted to; it's more a matter of political will than financial impracticality.

City Finance has been raising alarm bells about recently; the City's reluctance to contribute to transit funding is hurting our credibility when asking for transit funds. This needs to change.
Click to expand...

No doubt the Port Lands are a windfall for land value capture to all parties involved (the City, Prov, and Feds), but I'm wondering if that quoted number is gross or net. Because one thing to consider (or maybe it was considered) is the cost of the new river mouth. That alone is a ~$1bn undertaking, and no doubt would eat into any net gain - which is probably why it hasn't yet been funded. Then add onto that other unfunded PL infrastructure... Sorry, didn't mean to take things off topic. But I'm definitely looking forward to the City's finance report you mentioned.
 
44 North said:
No doubt the Port Lands are a windfall for land value capture to all parties involved (the City, Prov, and Feds), but I'm wondering if that quoted number is gross or net. Because one thing to consider (or maybe it was considered) is the cost of the new river mouth. That alone is a ~$1bn undertaking, and no doubt would eat into any net gain - which is probably why it hasn't yet been funded. Then add onto that other unfunded PL infrastructure... Sorry, didn't mean to take things off topic. But I'm definitely looking forward to the City's finance report you mentioned.
Click to expand...

From the context of the conversation, it was gross. The costs of the naturalization would have to be taken out of that IF the province decided to pay for the naturalization using land value capture, which they haven't indicated they'd like to do.

Of course, the point of that example was to show that the City can readily fund the full Relief Line with relatively small tax increases and utilizing other revenues sources, such as land value capture. The specifics aren't particularly relevant yet.
 
Is there a reason (aside from cost) why the RL isn't planned to go any further north than Dundas West (i.e. up to the Crosstown Line/Mt. Dennis)? Is the UP Express and Go RER enough to handle current and projected demand?
 
treplow said:
Is there a reason (aside from cost) why the RL isn't planned to go any further north than Dundas West (i.e. up to the Crosstown Line/Mt. Dennis)? Is the UP Express and Go RER enough to handle current and projected demand?
Click to expand...

It's all very conceptual at this point. They'll be further evaluations of that in the near future.

The SmartTrack ridership forecasts demonstrated that there is significant latent demand for a Central Etobicoke to Downtown rapid transit line, with SmartTack showing peak demand of 11,415 pphpd eastbound into Dundas West Station at 5 minute headways. With SmartTrack now planned to have significantly reduced headways, it would make sense to bring the Relief Line up to Mt. Dennis to pick up some of that demand. Hopefully it gets added to the plan sometime soon.

YLIazyN.png
 
DonValleyRainbow said:
Pfft. What, the east end of the Osgoode RL station isn't good enough?
Click to expand...

Interchange answered this question a few pages back. A lot more underground infrastructure east of Yonge so easier and cheaper to build on the west side of Yonge.
 
TheTigerMaster said:
It's all very conceptual at this point. They'll be further evaluations of that in the near future.

The SmartTrack ridership forecasts demonstrated that there is significant latent demand for a Central Etobicoke to Downtown rapid transit line, with SmartTack showing peak demand of 11,415 pphpd eastbound into Dundas West Station at 5 minute headways. With SmartTrack now planned to have significantly reduced headways, it would make sense to bring the Relief Line up to Mt. Dennis to pick up some of that demand. Hopefully it gets added to the plan sometime soon.

YLIazyN.png
Click to expand...
Thanks very much for the ridership forecasts, good to see there is demand for such a service. (Admittedly I'm biased as I live near St. Clair and Caledonia.)
 
44 North said:
But realistically, what cities in the GTHA have enough money to solely (or fractionally) fund the goodies they were promised by the Prov?
Click to expand...

None at this point have the borrowing capacity left, and that problem isn't limited to Ontario either.

Ottawa was/is probably the closest, but they've done it by massively overpaying in transit operations for decades (small tax hikes over many years) and are finding quite a bit of their LRT capital by reducing operations costs. This of course isn't a repeatable source of savings for them.

I'd actually like to see a municipal sales tax (0.25% to 0.5%) applied province wide or even country wide. I think lower governments need a tax that growth/shrinks with the economy.

The Prov doesn't need to solely fund, own, or operate the DRL. And frankly I don't think they have the money to pay for even a fraction of it.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree and still think the Richmond Hill corridor could be rebuilt for a far lower price to be equally effective; despite Don Valley flood proofing, alignment changes, and a downtown (away from union) chunk.

That said, yet another $10B over a 30 years isn't outside of the reach of the province provided there isn't a recession in the next few years; a recession is very possible.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top