Metrolinx $55 Billion Plan

[kEiThZ]

no time to fully address the equalization issue, but will say this: i don't necessarily see much of a role for *any* government in financing the RTP out of general revenue. I think it would be a lot better for the future viability of transit in the GTA if it were done via a mix of road tolls, maybe a small special sales tax, parking surcharge, and some creative debt financing. That seems to be what Metrolinx are proposing but we will have to see.

If that's what you are advocating, then there is no role for the feds. Any taxes (ie sales tax) that apply only to the GTA would have been applied by the province. And things like road tolls, parking surcharge, etc. would most likely fall under municipal jurisdiction. The debt issue is interesting. This is what I have been arguing in the other thread. Why not create a special fund with gas taxes (or any other tax) as its revenue stream and allow the fund to issue bonds against that revenue stream? That way we can build that infrastructure well ahead of schedule and amortize the cost over time.

Uh, at present the Scarborough RT is the *only* rapid transit connection available to Durham residents, who access it via Go's 94 Highway 2 / 95 Highway 2 Express services. The planned extension would make this an even easier connection for Durham services.

As for the LRTs, I think that all of the Scarborough LRT routes would have some Durham ridership as Scarborough is a major employment centre for Durham residents.

I just said, with what's revealed so far, there isn't much about these lines because the regional implications aren't as direct as GO Transit or the TTC lines that go into the 905 or the edge of the 416. That's not the same as having a bus drop off a few people at STC or McCowan. And that's not to say Metrolinx won't address them in the final draft. But I highly doubt the lines that strictly serve the 416 will be priority 1.

 

[MisterF]

Uh, at present the Scarborough RT is the *only* rapid transit connection available to Durham residents, who access it via Go's 94 Highway 2 / 95 Highway 2 Express services. The planned extension would make this an even easier connection for Durham services.

As for the LRTs, I think that all of the Scarborough LRT routes would have some Durham ridership as Scarborough is a major employment centre for Durham residents.

GO Transit is by far the best rapid transit option for Durham residents, especially those going downtown. When the Lakeshore line is electrified and frequency increased it'll be a real rapid transit line by any definition.

 

[DavidH]

I just said, with what's revealed so far, there isn't much about these lines because the regional implications aren't as direct as GO Transit or the TTC lines that go into the 905 or the edge of the 416. That's not the same as having a bus drop off a few people at STC or McCowan. And that's not to say Metrolinx won't address them in the final draft. But I highly doubt the lines that strictly serve the 416 will be priority 1.

I had read your statement in terms of the existing network, not in terms of proposed expansion.

Metrolinx seems to be pushing forward with Regional Express as the key to moving people over longer distances. The one problem area is that it looks as if the 401 corridor that was in the white papers will not be moving forward - although we won't know for sure until the plan is out. If so, we'll need to see how they handle it, as there is a real need for a long-distance east-west corridor north of downtown and close to the 401 (doesn't need to actually be on the 401).

 

[unimaginative2]

For the millionth time, no one--absolutely no one--is asking them to.

Toronto subsidizes the rest of the country. Its infrastructure and other needs could be easily met with a small fraction of that subsidy being re-invested locally instead of supporting public services in other parts of Canada.

allaboottmatt, I just don't understand where you get this. Is there a Regina exemption from federal tax that I don't know about? People pay the exact same rate of federal tax, whether they live in Moose Jaw or Toronto. That means that someone of the same income in either of those cities will pay the exact same share of a Toronto subway project or any other federally-funded project. The federal government doesn't tax municipalities, it taxes people.

The point is to push for projects where they are required, not to claim that people deserve more government spending because there are more rich people in their neighbourhood.

 

[DavidH]

The federal government doesn't tax municipalities, it taxes people.

Yes, but there is a discrepancy between where its income comes from and where it spends that income.

 

[Glen]

Toronto subsidises the rest of Canada, Ontario subsidises Toronto, therefore Vaughan, Markham, Mississauga, et. al subsidises the ROC [/Colbert bump]

 

[rbt]

Toronto subsidises the rest of Canada, Ontario subsidises Toronto, therefore Vaughan, Markham, Mississauga, et. al subsidises the ROC [/Colbert bump]

First, what is Toronto? GTA or Municipality of?

Second, what makes you think the portion of Ontario outside the GTA subsidizes the GTA? I do agree that Markham, Mississauga, etc. chip in on their fair share of GTA related expenses like Go Transit and local social issues.

 

[Glen]

First, what is Toronto? GTA or Municipality of?

Second, what makes you think the portion of Ontario outside the GTA subsidizes the GTA?

Toronto = Toronto proper , not the greater or CMA areas. So I am saying that Toronto is not the most hard done by municipality. The surplus that is commonly referred to in these 'fiscal imbalance' topics is a result of total taxation load. Within the GTA, all residents pay the same taxes at the same levels, save for property tax where Toronto residents pay considerably less. Furthermore average incomes are higher in the non Toronto municipalities of the GTA. Therefore those areas pay more net taxes, income, property and sales tax (allowing for higher incomes = increased spending). At the same time the federal government treats them the same while the province provides far more funding for Toronto compared to the rest of the GTA.

 

[rbt]

Toronto = Toronto proper , not the greater or CMA areas. So I am saying that Toronto is not the most hard done by municipality. The surplus that is commonly referred to in these 'fiscal imbalance' topics is a result of total taxation load. Within the GTA, all residents pay the same taxes at the same levels, save for property tax where Toronto residents pay considerably less. Furthermore average incomes are higher in the non Toronto municipalities of the GTA. Therefore those areas pay more net taxes, income, property and sales tax (allowing for higher incomes = increased spending). At the same time the federal government treats them the same while the province provides far more funding for Toronto compared to the rest of the GTA.

True, but a huge chunk of taxes collected in Ontario are commercial taxes, and a big chunk of those come from head offices located within Toronto. Any business which pays dividends also pays a lot of taxes and they tend to have registered addresses within Toronto.

Works the same municipally. My employer is located in Montreal but I pay income taxes as resident of Toronto. Corporate taxes collected elsewhere but paid as a registered resident of Toronto (head quarters is the important bit for taxation levels) count for Toronto.

I don't doubt the per capita Toronto residential taxation is lower than the suburbs of Toronto but even that may change if enough millionaires move into Toronto condominiums bringing up the average taxation levels by increasing the average income.

 

[Tdot_one]

I don't doubt the per capita Toronto residential taxation is lower than the suburbs of Toronto but even that may change if enough millionaires move into Toronto condominiums bringing up the average taxation levels by increasing the average income.

Same here. I thought the rates were lower in Toronto, because the principal (i.e. housing price) is much greater than the rest of GTA.

Do you (Glen) have a source suggesting otherwise?

 

[kEiThZ]

Same here. I thought the rates were lower in Toronto, because the principal (i.e. housing price) is much greater than the rest of GTA.

Do you (Glen) have a source suggesting otherwise?

The mill rates are indeed much lower in Toronto that the rest of the GTA. It's just that property in worth more in the 416, making taxes here work out to be higher. But that's not a sign of T.O. getting the shaft.

I am curious to see what Metrolinx recommends for a funding model and source of funds....Gardiner tolls perhaps?

 

[afransen]

Tolling just one highway would probably be a mistake and put too high a burden on one smaller group. Tolling all the highways is necessary beyond a revenue-generating perspective in terms of easing congestion during peak load periods.

 

[Glen]

Same here. I thought the rates were lower in Toronto, because the principal (i.e. housing price) is much greater than the rest of GTA.

Do you (Glen) have a source suggesting otherwise?

Despite the differences in assessment values (not as big as you might think though) the actual dollar average is still considerably lower in Toronto.

http://www.thestar.com/GTA/Columnist/article/407435
http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/407487
http://www.milton.ca/ecodev/TAX_COMPARISON.pdf (rates)

 

[Tdot_one]

Despite the differences in assessment values (not as big as you might think though) the actual dollar average is still considerably lower in Toronto.

http://www.thestar.com/GTA/Columnist/article/407435
http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/407487
http://www.milton.ca/ecodev/TAX_COMPARISON.pdf (rates)

From the second article:

Chris Brown, Oshawa's director of finance, acknowledges that residents in his city face significantly higher taxes than others, but says it's caused by a confluence of events, including low property values and the fact that the city has made a long-term decision to invest heavily in infrastructure projects.

 

[Glen]

From the second article:

NB. Chris Brown speaks only for Oshawa. That does not explain why all the other municipalities listed have considerably higher property taxes. Also missing from the the stats is the corresponding municipal spending. The principal of municipal taxation (somewhat lost) is that local taxes are to pay for local services.

In this context lets compare Toronto to Mississauga/Peel. Using 2006 data from the Municipal Performance Measurement Program it shows that Toronto spent $8,422 per household in 2006. On the other hand Mississauga and the region of Peel combined, spent $3,848.29 per household.

So the average household in Mississauga pays more than $500 per year in property tax ($2800 avg.) than the average household in Toronto ($2279 avg.) and gets $ 4,573.71 less in services.

Toronto's average residential property tax represents only 27% of the cities spending. In Mississauga/Peel residential property tax represents 72% of spending. Mississauga also has much higher user fees.