Toronto Eglinton Line 5 | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | Arcadis

[Mapleson]

I do not see how that makes sense - having the Eglinton line be distance based for ie. but not the other subway lines. I just do not see how that would work. The whole system has to be distance based and this needs to happen soon.

The whole system does not have the infrastructure in place to do distance-based billing, so the whole network cannot do so until we have the money to add the necessary infrastructure. Presto will allow distance-based billing and Eglinton will have Presto. That's all I was saying.

Many major cities in the world have a distance based transit system so there is no reason why Toronto cannot.

We have a multi-billion dollar infrastructure deficit, which is the reason why Toronto cannot for the next 5-10 years.

 

[Palma]

The Europeans always have been ahead of North Americans.

Quite frankly, that's just moronic.

Anyone proposing that here would be handily defeated in an election, as they should be.

 

[officedweller]

Why are people assuming that a privately operated line would have a different fare structure than TTC fares?
The contract can easily provide that TTC fare structure will apply to the new line (and the contractor and payments to it work within that structure).

Fares on the Canada Line in Vancouver are established by TransLink, not ProTrans/InTransitBC.
(I think you've had a very, very bad experience with Hwy 407 due to a poorly negotiated contract).

 

[ssiguy2]

Exactly.
Fares, service frequency, everything is determined by Translink. All fares are what they were before the line, transfers.......only the 0.01% who work at Translink see any differecne from regular transit.

 

[UrbanAffair]

Quite frankly, that's just moronic.

Anyone proposing that here would be handily defeated in an election, as they should be.

Actually its quite smart if done right, and very progressive. The negative thinking towards ideas like this is what actually holds us back.

 

[nfitz]

The negative thinking towards ideas like this is what actually holds us back.

It's the negative blow-back from the electorate that's the issue. Look at the electoral reaction from quite reasonable things like the vehicle tax in Toronto ... or the reaction to the Progressive Conservative HST federally in the late 1980s.

To get stuff like this through, you have to make the electorate beg for it ...

... which is how Miller sold the big TTC hike a few years ago (by making it look like a much more reasonable alternative than closing the Sheppard subway and severely reducing TTC service ... as if that was ever really going to happen). (it's also amusing that Ford has taken the same approach ... he knows that people will be practically begging for tax increases, over what has been suggested of late ... Ford must be laughing himself silly with Atwood leading the campaign for tax increases ...

 

[k10ery]

To get stuff like this through, you have to make the electorate beg for it ...

... which is how Miller sold the big TTC hike a few years ago (by making it look like a much more reasonable alternative than closing the Sheppard subway and severely reducing TTC service ... as if that was ever really going to happen). (it's also amusing that Ford has taken the same approach ... he knows that people will be practically begging for tax increases, over what has been suggested of late ... Ford must be laughing himself silly with Atwood leading the campaign for tax increases ...

I agree that's the strategy, but I can't see Ford wanting to raise taxes. He wants to cut, only probably he doesn't want to cut libraries. We'll find out in September and we're supposed to be relieved "it's only that". (My guess: asset sales.)

 

[gweed123]

I agree that's the strategy, but I can't see Ford wanting to raise taxes. He wants to cut, only probably he doesn't want to cut libraries. We'll find out in September and we're supposed to be relieved "it's only that". (My guess: asset sales.)

I think that's part of it. The other part is he's using the threat of library cuts to make smaller, less publicly noticeable cuts to other programs and services. You raise a big stink about libraries, then sneak the other cuts through the back door when no one is paying attention.

 

[k10ery]

I think that's part of it. The other part is he's using the threat of library cuts to make smaller, less publicly noticeable cuts to other programs and services. You raise a big stink about libraries, then sneak the other cuts through the back door when no one is paying attention.

The Ford boys want to run Toronto like a business, right? This is a classic business technique: the bait-and-switch.

 

[gweed123]

The Ford boys want to run Toronto like a business, right? This is a classic business technique: the bait-and-switch.

I think running a city like a business is a fundamental ideological flaw. It's not a business, nor should it ever be.

I'm not opposed to the idea of Ford cutting some 'gravy', but I think the way he went about it is entirely wrong. Many city departments are pretty bloated, and I do agree that something needs to change in that department. However, in my opinion the way he should have gone about it is to locate the inefficiencies, reduce them (either by procedure change, staff levels, or the way contracts get awarded), to give a total amount of reduced expenditures. Then, given that number, you cut revenue to match it. For example, if Ford had found $300 million worth of inefficiencies and cut them, that may not have been enough to eliminate the vehicle registration tax entirely, but would have been enough to reduce it (disclosure: I think that is a good tax, and I don't think it should have even been touched, I'm just going with what Ford wanted to do).

Cut expenses first, then reduce the revenue to match, not cut revenue and then try and find enough expense cuts to balance the budget. The conversation should have gone: "Ok, I have done an evaluation of the City expenses, and I have found this much that could potentially be cut without impacting services. Given that, we can give you an X% tax break." That would have been much more civil and forward thinking than the "Ok, I have just cancelled Transit City, removed the Vehicle Registration Tax, and frozen property taxes. Now, let's find some places where we can cut in the budget so that we don't go bankrupt."

 

[Mapleson]

I agree that's the strategy, but I can't see Ford wanting to raise taxes. He wants to cut, only probably he doesn't want to cut libraries. We'll find out in September and we're supposed to be relieved "it's only that". (My guess: asset sales.)

He's already on record saying a 1.8% tax increase is "reasonable" and he'd limit any tax hike to 3%, so I expect this to be in there and tied to a lower chopping to fire and police services.

As for asset sales, Doug Ford is on the record wanting to double or triple the THCH properties on the market (identified by Ooates). I think we'll have more of this in the mix from an ideological point of view, but I don't think it'll have a significant on budget or debt levels. A few dozen million isn't going to make a dent in our $4.4 billion debt.

Cut expenses first, then reduce the revenue to match, not cut revenue and then try and find enough expense cuts to balance the budget. The conversation should have gone: "Ok, I have done an evaluation of the City expenses, and I have found this much that could potentially be cut without impacting services. Given that, we can give you an X% tax break." That would have been much more civil and forward thinking than the "Ok, I have just cancelled Transit City, removed the Vehicle Registration Tax, and frozen property taxes. Now, let's find some places where we can cut in the budget so that we don't go bankrupt."

That's a sound strategy if you want effienct government, but the Ford Brothers are of the smaller government mindset. "Starve the beast" by moving the budget into a structural deficit and then complain there is no money to continue these programs, chop everything possible and then rince and repeat. Ford is the same breed as Harris, Harper, or Thatcher.

 

[k10ery]

He's already on record saying a 1.8% tax increase is "reasonable" and he'd limit any tax hike to 3%, so I expect this to be in there and tied to a lower chopping to fire and police services.

Good point. But CPI inflation is now running above 3% year-over-year, so a 1.8% increase for the first time in 2 years is a big tax cut. (Even taking out food costs, CPI is well above 1.8% in the past year.)

 

[Mapleson]

Good point. But CPI inflation is now running above 3% year-over-year, so a 1.8% increase for the first time in 2 years is a big tax cut. (Even taking out food costs, CPI is well above 1.8% in the past year.)

That is assuming property values remained constant, our main source of City income. After a couple soft years in 2008 and 2009, property values in Toronto rose an average of 9% last year and projected to rise 5% this year.

Average real estate prices in Toronto, corrected for inflation

A 3% tax hike represents about $250 million to the budget. If I was Rob Ford, I'd bite the bullet and apply these monies to extra debt repayments (from $440 million to $690 million) and pay off the City debt by 2030.

 

[nfitz]

That is assuming property values remained constant, our main source of City income.

If property values go up, it doesn't automatically effect the cities income.

The procedure is, to figure out the budget, figure out the tax base, and then EVERY YEAR divide the tax base by the budget, to get the mill rate.

So for 2011 when the tax rate was frozen, what really happened is the mill rate dropped (because the 2011 valuation for properties was higher than in 2010).

But I assumed you knew this ... perhaps I'm missing your point!

 

[k10ery]

Mapleson, I was about to say that the city budgets for the increase in the average residential levy amount in dollars, and the mill rate automatically adjusts to what MPAC says is happening to property values. So a 1.8% increase is exactly that. But it looks like nfitz already made the same point.