Debate on the merits of the Scarborough Subway Extension

[Hopkins123]

I live right beside a station. Won't bother me if we Stop building transit. In fact my house value will increase based on the rarity of The Property

Kind of facetious to deny 650,000 residents and hundreds of thousands of commuters daily through Scarborough the same level of convenience you seem to be taking for granted, no?

 

[sixrings]

Kind of facetious to deny 650,000 residents and hundreds of thousands of commuters daily through Scarborough the same level of convenience you seem to be taking for granted, no?

I think I have been clear that I would like to financially support transit in scarborough but it needs to be rational transit supported by experts not vote buyers. In regards to my house I do not take It's proximity to a subway station for granted. In fact I valued it so much that I paid a hefty 10-20% for the property. Perhaps others who want transit at their doorstep should do the same

 

[kEiThZ]

I think I have been clear that I would like to financially support transit in scarborough but it needs to be rational transit supported by experts not vote buyers. In regards to my house I do not take It's proximity to a subway station for granted. In fact I valued it so much that I paid a hefty 10-20% for the property. Perhaps others who want transit at their doorstep should do the same

And they will. When that subway goes up at STC, property values will rise. They'll be paying more in taxes. And any new development will charge more. So quite analogous to how much more you paid to live beside the subway.

 

[rbt]

I am hoping that Metrolinx absorbs the TTC at some point and that transit gets regionalized and taken out of the hands of local politicians.

I'm not sure having South-Western conservatives in charge of funding service on the local Toronto bus will be very effective at times.

 

[rbt]

Kind of facetious to deny 650,000 residents and hundreds of thousands of commuters daily through Scarborough the same level of convenience you seem to be taking for granted, no?

I'm not sure what "650,000 residents" has to do with the SSE proposal. The vast majority will not be within walking distance of the new station.

Now, if you proposed taking the same money and running 3 to 4 parallel BRT lines from the lake through to Steeles, you might get to walking distance of 30% of residents.

 

[syn]

Agreed. So stop hitting on Scarborough for the DRL fantasies not coming true. Not a single mayor has made the DRL their priority. And neither has most of council, who aren't from Scarborough. For that matter, neither has the province with MO2020.

Transit funding isn't unlimited. Sure. But Torontonians willingness to fund transit is ridiculously low. I would submit the only reason the SSE is so damn controversial is because other projects aren't getting built. Would you be complaining about the SSE so vociferously, if the DRL was being built right now? So the temptation to link the frustration over the DRL with the ever inflating SSE is natural. But wrong. If the SSE got cancelled tomorrow, there's not one shred of evidence that the DRL would suddenly be prioritized an all SSE funds would be directed towards it.

Yes, because it's absolutely insane.

I would submit that the SSE is controversial is because:

a) It's a massive investment that isn't justified by any numbers nor is it supported by transit experts
b) It's $5+ billion for a project that's less practical from an accessibility perspective than the current RT line that's been in place since the 80s
c) The ability to add stations in the future between STC and Kennedy is virtually non-existent

Like it or not, large transit projects do take away focus from others. In this case,

As long as Torontonians insist that Queen's Park pay for most of their transit construction, there will be no spending wisely. It's very hard to say no to the SSE, after building the northern portion of TYSSE. Toronto will have much more say when they start raising their own funds for transit.



Both the right and left are guilty of this. Let's not forget that when Miller launched Transit City, there was exactly zero dollars in the budget allocated to it. It was also a ridiculous lowballed figure of $6 billion for all the Transit City lines. And then he turned around and insisted that the Province pay for it. Has Toronto made a significant contribution to any of the Transit City LRTs? So if we're going to have fantasy LRT plans where Queen's Park picks up the tab, it was inevitable to see the same on the subway side.

Torontonians are frustrated because most of our tax dollars are sent to the provincial and federal governments, with a very limited amount reinvested back into the city. As we've discussed before, even with a large tax increase the city will have to rely on upper levels of government for significant funding. There's no way around that.

The money we're asking to be invested in transit is from tax dollars that originate in Toronto. We're a provincial and federal cash cow.

 

[syn]

I'm not sure what "650,000 residents" has to do with the SSE proposal. The vast majority will not be within walking distance of the new station.

Now, if you proposed taking the same money and running 3 to 4 parallel BRT lines from the lake through to Steeles, you might get to walking distance of 30% of residents.

A very simple reality that a lot of people don't get - it's about density, not total population.

 

[Rainforest]

I'm not sure what "650,000 residents" has to do with the SSE proposal. The vast majority will not be within walking distance of the new station.

Now, if you proposed taking the same money and running 3 to 4 parallel BRT lines from the lake through to Steeles, you might get to walking distance of 30% of residents.

Although few residents will be within walking distance from the new station, 30% or so will see their bus ride to the station shortened considerably.

BRT lines help if the roads are filled. If the general traffic runs smoothly, then BRT buses won't be faster than mixed-traffic buses. I don't know the local situation; if some of the roads are filled during the AM / PM peaks, then BRT should help, too.

 

[sixrings]

But my point was that if a person wants transit close to them they should consider that when they make their purchase or lease vs finding a random home and hoping one day it's serviced by transit. As well you seemed to make it sound like I was being mean to those without transit when I was walking distance from a subway and that this extension would make more people have the same access to them. I assumed that meant walking in but now you are mentioning brt. Is brt even on the table. This is the first I have heard about it since the transit city lrt and bus plan. I assume if you didn't support the transit city lrt plan then you wouldn't support the transit city bus plan. But what do I know. I'm the idiot who bought a house 100 meters from an existing subway.

 

[kEiThZ]

I would submit that the SSE is controversial is because:

a) It's a massive investment that isn't justified by any numbers nor is it supported by transit experts
b) It's $5+ billion for a project that's less practical from an accessibility perspective than the current RT line that's been in place since the 80s
c) The ability to add stations in the future between STC and Kennedy is virtually non-existent

Those are valid grounds for criticism. Stick to those. Suggesting that the DRL isn't happening because of the SSE is a nonsensical notion. That's my point.

Torontonians are frustrated because most of our tax dollars are sent to the provincial and federal governments, with a very limited amount reinvested back into the city.

Every urban area in the country is a net contributor to provincial and federal coffers. That's the nature of the heartland-hinterland model. And those complaints are a lot less valid now that Toronto has the unprecedented deal where Queen's Park is offering to build several multi-billion dollar LRTs at no cost to Toronto, an entire regional suburban rail system to feed Toronto, and pay for a significant portion of the SSE. There is no other city in the country getting as good a deal as Toronto.

As we've discussed before, even with a large tax increase the city will have to rely on upper levels of government for significant funding.

Except that Toronto has not raised taxes substantially at all. The complaints ring hollow when Toronto has the lowest mill rates in the province and lower taxes per soft in absolute terms than most (possibly all) of the 905 and every other major urban area in the province. Gone are the days when only Toronto needed rapid transit investment. Most of the 905 has terrible traffic and they want BRTs and LRTs. Ditto cities like Ottawa, KWC, London, Hamilton, and even Kingston. This means Toronto will have to start taking care of some of their own needs.

We're a provincial and federal cash cow.

Again, like every other urban area in the country. Indeed, if this is going to be the rallying cry, start expecting areas like Northern Ontario and Alberta to ask why so many finance and banking jobs based around the resource activities in their regions are based in Toronto. Toronto is the mining capital of the world. And there's no mine within 100 km of Front and Bay. If the argument is that Toronto contributes more, and Toronto refuses to recognize what that value added is based on, expect a lot more pushback from the hinterlands that have actually built the foundation for Toronto's finance sector.

Or maybe you agree with a straight accounting. Money generated in one region should stay there. In which case Alberta is right to resist the call for a national securities regulator. They could go further and insist that licenses for resource companies will be based around ancillary activities being based in Alberta. Would you agree with that?

But my point was that if a person wants transit close to them they should consider that when they make their purchase or lease vs finding a random home and hoping one day it's serviced by transit.

I don't mean this offensively, but this is quite frankly elitist. How much housing stock in this city is within 100m of a subway? And how much of the city's population do you think can afford that housing? This comes of as, "I became a millionaire. Why can't everybody else?" Given the cost of housing near a subway, my statement is actually not far off the market. Might actually be an understatement in many cases.

 

[OneCity]

Kind of facetious to deny 650,000 residents and hundreds of thousands of commuters daily through Scarborough the same level of convenience you seem to be taking for granted, no?

Scarborough Centre is going to be successful around this specific stop, ridership will be quite high for an end stop, density is already here, more is already proposed, and will be accelerated after the subway. The area had a stunt in growth with the rot of RT , and the uncertainty. The current route and, impact of Smartrack had on other options to seamlessly integrate Scarborough Centre is clearly not the most bang for the dollar. But going back to remove Smarttrack and have the discussion that should have happened before last election might not actually provide significant $ savings, more time will be lost, the RT shutdown will be back in play and further extension of the RT may be required as well in addition to what we have, and the transfer plan in all its glory is never going see the support here. If the conversation changed 3-4 years ago to a debate regarding the removal of transfers and possibly other optimizations which might have made the transfer line more palatable, maybe something better could have proceeded. It didn't happen, clearly it isn't ever going to happen. So barring a massive City meltdown after next election this McCowan corridor is really going to happen

Also If the SSE is really going to be $5 Billion as gets thrown around here as truth, Ill assume the same posters will adjust the DRL for this type of undocumented inflation

 

[kEiThZ]

I don't agree with the idea that ridership should be high at a terminal station. Anybody here happy that trains leave Finch station full every morning? Only in Toronto, is stupidity like this considered prudence.

 

[sixrings]

I assume the drl will be a fortune and much larger than its estimates. But I also think that it's ridership will be at the very least what they are estimating which means it is needed. That's the difference. The drl is a need vs the SSE which is a want.

 

[syn]

Those are valid grounds for criticism. Stick to those. Suggesting that the DRL isn't happening because of the SSE is a nonsensical notion. That's my point.

Have you not been paying attention to the thread?? People have been citing these reasons for years, only to be told the 'people of Scarborough don't want to transfer', or other comments along those lines.

No one is suggesting the DRL isn't being built directly because of the SSE.

However, transit funds are limited. Pointing out that wasteful spending on unnecessary extensions that make absolutely no practical sense diverts resources and attention from critical projects is perfectly valid.

Every urban area in the country is a net contributor to provincial and federal coffers. That's the nature of the heartland-hinterland model. And those complaints are a lot less valid now that Toronto has the unprecedented deal where Queen's Park is offering to build several multi-billion dollar LRTs at no cost to Toronto, an entire regional suburban rail system to feed Toronto, and pay for a significant portion of the SSE. There is no other city in the country getting as good a deal as Toronto.

None on the scale of Toronto, which has an economy larger than most provinces. That's what you should be comparing it to. Does Toronto get the kind of federal funding Quebec does? Why doesn't Toronto have the revenue tools available to other provinces?

The total cost of these projects doesn't come close to addressing the tax revenue imbalance.

Let's not forget that plenty of costs were downloaded to the city. I'm not sure the province helps at all with TTC operating costs, something they had originally agreed to when they mandated the city had to serve suburban areas. The TTC still has the lowest subsidy of any major transit system in NA:

• Montreal – $1.16

• Vancouver – $1.62

• Chicago – $1.68

• New York City – $1.03

• Mississauga – $2.21

• York Region – $4.49

• Toronto - $0.79

Except that Toronto has not raised taxes substantially at all. The complaints ring hollow when Toronto has the lowest mill rates in the province and lower taxes per soft in absolute terms than most (possibly all) of the 905 and every other major urban area in the province. Gone are the days when only Toronto needed rapid transit investment. Most of the 905 has terrible traffic and they want BRTs and LRTs. Ditto cities like Ottawa, KWC, London, Hamilton, and even Kingston. This means Toronto will have to start taking care of some of their own needs.

These cities aren't raising taxes because they want to fund transit, they're raising taxes because they're inefficiently designed suburbs.

The idea that Toronto hasn't raised taxes isn't accurate either. The land transfer tax brings in $400 million - $500 million a year.

A higher property tax rate would help, but the city will still need investments in transit that require significant Federal and Provincial contributions. With the system the way it is, there's really no way around that.

Again, like every other urban area in the country. Indeed, if this is going to be the rallying cry, start expecting areas like Northern Ontario and Alberta to ask why so many finance and banking jobs based around the resource activities in their regions are based in Toronto. Toronto is the mining capital of the world. And there's no mine within 100 km of Front and Bay. If the argument is that Toronto contributes more, and Toronto refuses to recognize what that value added is based on, expect a lot more pushback from the hinterlands that have actually built the foundation for Toronto's finance sector.

Or maybe you agree with a straight accounting. Money generated in one region should stay there. In which case Alberta is right to resist the call for a national securities regulator. They could go further and insist that licenses for resource companies will be based around ancillary activities being based in Alberta. Would you agree with that?

No I woudn't, as Toronto is on par with provinces economically.

Areas like Northern Ontario and Alberta can ask all they'd like, but the fact is they get a disproportionate amount of tax revenue reinvested in their communities. Would it be fair to ask them to raise their taxes to cover their needs?

I have no problem with Toronto's tax revenue being redistributed to other cities/towns - I simply think Toronto should get more of the tax dollars generated in Toronto reinvested into the city.

 

[syn]

I assume the drl will be a fortune and much larger than its estimates. But I also think that it's ridership will be at the very least what they are estimating which means it is needed. That's the difference. The drl is a need vs the SSE which is a want.

Exactly. The idea of need vs want seems to be a foreign concept to some.