Politics: Tim Hudak's Plan for Ontario if he becomes Premier

[denfromoakvillemilton]

doady has always supported the eglinton subway. He supported the Scarborough subway.

 

[nfitz]

Ottawa is the first case on the planet to do the conversion iirc

Surely not ... I don't travel to most cities in the world, and I've noticed over the years that the BRT tunnel in downtown Seattle now has LRT trains running in it too. Currently sharing with buses, but after the next LRT extension, I've heard it will be LRT-only.

 

[Adjei]

The National Post debunks all this nonsense about building our past subways through so called efficiencies:

"The idea of funding subways via efficiencies has been discredited both by the Drummond Report (to which the Tories tip their hats when it suits them) and by the observed experience of the Ford administration. Mr. Hudak demeans and discredits himself and his party when he spews such rubbish. But it’s nothing new.

No, the jaw-dropper there is the idea that Toronto hasn’t raised taxes in the past to build subways; that we’ve funded them by finding efficiencies.

I’m not aware of any tax increase that was specifically earmarked for the original Yonge Street subway. But it certainly wasn’t built on the back of “efficiencies.†The TTC had money in reserve because wartime riders had swollen its coffers; and those same riders would pay off the TTC’s subway-building debts with their fares going forward.

But the original Spadina and Bloor-Danforth lines, approved in 1958, were absolutely funded by raising taxes. Metro Council earmarked all proceeds of a two-mill levy to subway construction for 10 years."

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...m-hudaks-subway-plan-fails-economics-history/

 

[picard102]

I'm a little confused at how a relatively small amount of money, in comparison to the Ontario budget, needs a new tax when they could just slash some other line items budget and divert the money to transit if it's such a high priority. Isn't that how budgeting works, prioritizing things, and then allocating the money in that order?

 

[innsertnamehere]

^because there is $11 billion on top of this that is needed just to balance the budget. $2 billion is around 1.5% of the annual budget, but $13 billion is closer to 10% and suddenly isn't such small change.

Plus there is the fact that they are looking for DEDICATED funding, meaning that Metrolinx will finally be out of control of politicians hands to a certain extent. to take the money out of the budget would be to continue the process of the last 30 years where projects only get funding every once in a while on politicians whims in ridings they want to win.

 

[junior43]

^because there is $11 billion on top of this that is needed just to balance the budget. $2 billion is around 1.5% of the annual budget, but $13 billion is closer to 10% and suddenly isn't such small change.

Plus there is the fact that they are looking for DEDICATED funding, meaning that Metrolinx will finally be out of control of politicians hands to a certain extent. to take the money out of the budget would be to continue the process of the last 30 years where projects only get funding every once in a while on politicians whims in ridings they want to win.

The deficit didn't stop McGuinty from instituting all day daycare to the tune of 1.5-2 billion per year (IIRC). If I remember correctly (the cost of daycare) we could slash that and follow the Drummond report on increasing class sizes and you have your 2+ billion for transit.

This is also why I'm hesitant to support transit taxes, it appears to me, the Liberals only decided they needed increased revenue when they added this last item (transit) to their wishlist.

 

[Rainforest]

^ Transit construction takes long time and the benefits do not materialize until the construction is complete. Therefore, if transit funding remain a part of general budget, it will rarely win against other priorities.

In order to ensure continuous expansion of the transit system, dedicated taxes are needed. (And if "efficiencies" can be found elsewhere, they can be used to eliminate deficit and then reduce the general tax rates.)

 

[innsertnamehere]

The deficit didn't stop McGuinty from instituting all day daycare to the tune of 1.5-2 billion per year (IIRC). If I remember correctly (the cost of daycare) we could slash that and follow the Drummond report on increasing class sizes and you have your 2+ billion for transit.

This is also why I'm hesitant to support transit taxes, it appears to me, the Liberals only decided they needed increased revenue when they added this last item (transit) to their wishlist.

no, you would have $2 billion off of the deficit. Again, come back to me when you have found $13 billion.

 

[Adjei]

The deficit didn't stop McGuinty from instituting all day daycare to the tune of 1.5-2 billion per year (IIRC). If I remember correctly (the cost of daycare) we could slash that and follow the Drummond report on increasing class sizes and you have your 2+ billion for transit.

This is also why I'm hesitant to support transit taxes, it appears to me, the Liberals only decided they needed increased revenue when they added this last item (transit) to their wishlist.

Go read the Drummond Report, it even recommends these transit taxes or fees:

“While general tax revenues will also be a certain source of funds in the foreseeable future, jurisdictions elsewhere are looking at alternatives: congestion charges, comprehensive road tolling, high-occupancy/toll (HOT) lanes, regional gas taxes and parking surcharges. Each produces various incentives that require thoughtful analysis and consideration. However, without clear input from citizens, striking the right balance of these measures will be near impossible,” it reads.

It recommends engaging citizens in an open, public dialogue on how to best create new revenue sources for future transportation capital needs.

http://www.obep.ca/pub/Drummond-rep...ansit-reform-recommendations-for-Ontario.html

 

[junior43]

no, you would have $2 billion off of the deficit. Again, come back to me when you have found $13 billion.

That's my point, the deficit didn't stop McGuinty from adding to it when it was for daycare. All of a sudden though, we need transit taxes. Why don't we need daycare revenue tools? It seem to me the last project to be added to the budget (deficit) all of a sudden needs taxes.

 

[Palma]

Ugh. The Sheppard East and Finch West LRT lines really need to happen. If Hudak's PC party becomes the next government, his choice to cancel those lines would be just like when Harris pulled the plug on the Eglinton West subway. That's not how you build transit.

Why have these lines not started? This is crazy how long something takes to happen here. And now with municpal election next year, ford will campaign he will killl LRT along Sheppard and Finch. If thsoe projects had started it would be more difficult to undo.

 

[Solid Snake]

Ahh but you see that is a minor point that everyone has no problem with, it is the problem of the "wasting of 1.1 billion" that gets everyone yelling and screaming. You could easily come up with a $3 billion + figure for the cancellation of the lines, if Sheppard gets built, and it would be the EXACT same situation the liberals got bitten in the ass for. come into power, cancel a project. Claim minimal cancellation costs (probably around $200 million) at first, and relocate the funding elsewhere (to the sheppard subway). Get auditor generals report out, looking at long term costs as well, and viola, hundreds of millions if not billions extra come up! Exact. Same. Scenario. just replace the words "gas plant" with "LRT", and you get the situation exactly, but with probably much larger numbers.

You sound like the gas plant is no big deal... are you for real????
It's horrible what they've done. Wasting that much money to win votes is irresponsible and just shows contempt for all of us. The cover up is just criminal.

If Hudak wins and cancels billions of dollars of transit lines, it what we call "DEMOCRACY". He said in advance what he wanted to do and Ontarians will judge him on that. If his plans is that terrible, well you know what? He won't be Premier. But if he wins, it means that's what the majority wants and he will have the legitimacy no matter how bad you disagree with it to cancel them.

The same applies with Rob Ford. No matter how much people disagree with cancelling Transit City, he campaigned on it and was elected, meaning the majority didn't want LRT.

You as a citizen is free to do whatever you can (legal stuff) to stop him.

Hudak's plan being worse than the gas plant just shows how bad you need to be reminded what democracy is.

 

[innsertnamehere]

... Same thing for the LRTs. the Liberals cancelled after the election. it was a "victory" move, as it was a major election promise. It was "Democracy" in every way whatsoever. The liberals (along with every other party) campaigned on cancelling the gas plants, so how is this any different? The Liberals (along with every other party) had support for the cancellations. They won 2 seats because of the promise. Again, I repeat, How is it any different?

 

[Palma]

I think it's interesting how by cancelling suburban LRTs he plans to win suburban ridings...

Ya but he is promising to extend subway in RichmondHill. Just as abd as extending Spadina to Vaughan, This is what politicans do - cater to suburban voters becuase they know it also increase property values and thats their main concern. Thas why TTC should be in charge of which projects get built with political interference and threat of losing jobs implied or not. There should not even be a councilor on TTC board. TTC knows which routes are busy and which are not and its not absed on what voters say or want

 

[junior43]

Go read the Drummond Report, it even recommends these transit taxes or fees:

“While general tax revenues will also be a certain source of funds in the foreseeable future, jurisdictions elsewhere are looking at alternatives: congestion charges, comprehensive road tolling, high-occupancy/toll (HOT) lanes, regional gas taxes and parking surcharges. Each produces various incentives that require thoughtful analysis and consideration. However, without clear input from citizens, striking the right balance of these measures will be near impossible,†it reads.

It recommends engaging citizens in an open, public dialogue on how to best create new revenue sources for future transportation capital needs.

http://www.obep.ca/pub/Drummond-rep...ansit-reform-recommendations-for-Ontario.html

All true, but it's pretty obvious there is no consensus on taxes for transit. Wynne's on the second (at least) round of consultations on this topic. Also, it's generally assumed we're going to the polls in the spring if the Liberals add transit taxes to the budget.

Also, why is this the only point the Liberals are using from the Drummond report. He had many more suggestions for adding taxes and reducing spending, but they've been ignored.

Again, I'm not necessarily against transit taxes, but the Liberals have created some very bad optics around this topic and the deficit in general. I'm not in the least surprised to see so much resistance to it after all the various scandals.

** G&M has an article about Liberals announcing green (transit) bonds. Haven't been able to read it yet, I've reached my limit this month for free articles there.