This disinformation campaign that Toronto's residents only pitch in 15% is getting tiresome. First off, you conveniently ignore the contribution of business taxes and the fact that a good portion of the businesses in Toronto are sustained by Toronto's residents. Next you ignore the fact that the vast majority of the TTC's patrons are Toronto residents. So your assertion that Toronto residents only pitch in 15% of the TTC's funding is ludicrous at best. And an insulting attempt at discounting the support that the TTC gets from the residents of Toronto.
There may be two small subdivisions on the south side of Sheppard around Meadowvale, across the street from ward 42, but even if we add these pockets of people to "Malvern," you end up with a small population receiving billions of dollars of infrastructure, none of which is especially warranted or viable based on what the rest of the city needs.
The RT was never extended and when the time came to replace it, the belief that it needed to go Malvern trumped the common sense and economic sense option to extend the subway (a move that would improve transit for Malvern riders). Instead, the rest of Scarborough suffers so that money can spent on Malvern. Keeping the RT helps fewer people and costs more to do so, but some people see it as better for Malvern, so it was recommended.
It's blatantly obvious that UTSC is best approached from the west, meaning a line along Ellesmere. If it is routed along Sheppard, that'll be overlapping lines in Malvern. The Eglinton line should be ran over to Kingston.
Relegated? They'll have three TTC lines to choose from.
I'm including subways - all transit lines - in what each area's getting. Malvern is getting three lines, all of which will require massive subsidies due to the low ridership they'll see.
In the future, there will be fare integration - spending billions of dollars to build parallel transit systems instead of spending millions of dollars on an integrated fare system is obscene, but it's what you're suggesting we do. Peak service is the only service that really matters and since demand is highest then, it dictates what gets built.
It's not conspiracy theory, it's the truth. The city clearly has no interest in doing things cheaply or they wouldn't have proposed so many billions of dollars of projects, none of which have gone through even the slightest streamlining process to keep costs under control.
Well, first off, it's not a "disinformation campaign", it's an argument. It's made here. You're free to rebut it. That's the point here. But deep breaths, okay?
The usual tag-line is about how Toronto residents are paying taxes to the TTC, and 905ers are not, so 905ers are free-riding. Well, that's just not true. Toronto residential property-holders, which is about as close as it comes, are contributing about 13% in taxes. Technically, if you are renting your dwelling then you are not contributing any property tax at all although, just like everyone else, your farebox revenues and your economic activities that supports businesses that do pay taxes, are indirect contributions.
I am not "ignoring" business taxation. In fact, I trumpet it constantly. Every 905er who makes an informed choice and takes the subway to a Toronto job, is contributing to the business taxes that go to paying for the subway. The entire GO train system is a massive infrastructure set up to ensure that employers in and around the Financial District can continue to draw in people who live in other municipalities, and can continue to pay taxes to the TTC. It is an enormous boon to Toronto. The idea that 905 salarymen working in Toronto are somehow free-riders on Toronto is just silly.
I think it will be easier for both of us if you avoid trying to read my mind or divine my intentions. I also think it would be grand if the City of Toronto decided that, as a matter of policy, the TTC -- which, to this day, is entirely a City of Toronto service and only ventures outside it when someone else picks up the tab (I do not, obviously, have a problem with this) -- was something whose operational costs they were going to pay more than 24% of, all res/bus muni taxes in. But there's for them, and you as a voter, to decide, I guess.
Right. Well, I am also willing to bet money that a whole bunch of those are students, many of whom live in suburban areas in the 416, and in suburban areas in the 905, and in urban areas in either. But we are getting off topic here, no? What does high non-peak ridership have to do with demonstrating that my taking issue with portraying 905ers as free-riders is secretly an attempt to insult Toronto the Good?
But I hope you won't mind if folks dare to debate these policies. Even those aren't among the 2.5 million who live in the 416. Even those who think that the Toronto we want and need and already live in does not correspond to the magical 416-905 boundary, and that we need better regional coordination and planning and service delivery in order to better align our infrastructures and services with our lives and social networks.
I'm afraid you've lost me again.
First, this business about the 905 wanting the TTC to become a regional service is a bit hyperbolic, isn't it? If I live, say, a kilometre north of Steeles, and I take the family out for a bite on Steeles -- just for fun, I will not tell you whether on the north or south side -- or want to use the Goodlife at Finch station (yes, it is a whole 4 kilometres away from me), is that regional? How 'bout when I am at North York Centre? Maybe when I nip down to visit my brother at the Minto and Eglinton, am I "regional" then (and if so, do I get to ride a GO train to Eglinton?)? When you talk about the 905 needing to be a distant second and everything that happens to move between the two as being "regional" then, I'm very sorry, but to me this is the kind of thinking that does not good urban planning or placemaking make.
Second, what kind of costing are you talking about? Reading the above, I have no idea what you are railing against. Most of us are for a fair apportionment of costs, I think. Are you? If so, what is it? If 10 people get on at Steeles (ooh! border!) and 10 at Langstaff and 10 at North York Centre, are you saying you don't cost operating responsibilities at half Toronto and half York Region?
Like, is what you want to do to measure how far each of those people goes, so that if the Langstaffer heads to Union and the North York Centrer heads up to Clark and the Steeleser goes to Eglinton, you'd kind of want to count how many stops (or km, or whatever) each one goes, call that a cost-of-transit, and apportion the costs to the origin point accordingly? Because, yeah, I guess that could work (we'd have to move to a DC style fare system, mind you) but you're still stuck with what you do with return trips, and defining (for that matter) which is a return trip. Maybe all pre-noon trips get charged to the origin point, and all post-noon trips charged to the destination point? It all sounds very complicated to me -- but I'd be curious to know what it is you have in mind.
There are several issues in what you have calculated. You can't inflate just from 2002 to 2008; most of the money was spent well before 2002. You have to inflate from the year of expenditure - starting in 1995; the bulk of the spending was in the late 1990s.When it opened, the 6.4 km (including tail track) 5 station Sheppard subway line costed just under $1.0 billion in 2002 (factor in inflation and that works out to $1.1 billion in 2008 dollars & thus $171.9 million/km in 2008 dollars).
1. Why is the capital portion of TTC expenses, and who contributes, being ignored?
First off that 13% is already more than any 905er pitches in. Next, are you serious in comparing 2 subway tokens and lunch money to the contribution of someone who lives here, shops here, works here and pay taxes here?
And you bring up one of my counter-arguments. The outer suburbs are adequately served by GO transit. And with the advent of all day express service, the need to extend subways into the 905 is far less pressing. Also the fact that GO exists to largely serve the 905 bolsters my argument that the TTC should not be competing with another provider to service the same set of commuters. Duplication of efforts.
However, I'm more than willing to concede that the latter is not quite right. It applies to each individual rider in isolution, obviously, but with enough 905 riders showing at subway stations in the City of Toronto, it's no longer just operational; you need to spend capital costs to upgrade the system so that those 905ers can get to their employers, favourite stores, neighbours, gyms, whatever.
Hey, youâ€™re the one who pointed out that itâ€™s all one ward. Anyone you are still ignoring the fact that a good portion of each of these lines does not serve Malvern. How come youâ€™re not slagging Agincourt for getting LRT? Or Kingston for getting LRT? Or the half of the RT thatâ€™s not in Malvern?
I have said this before and Iâ€™ll say it againâ€¦.letâ€™s wait and see what happens. Malvernites donâ€™t want ART Mk IIs in their neighbourhoods any more than you do. The city says on their website that conversion to LRT is being considered. So maybe weâ€™ll get the BD line (that I support as well) and the LRT to Malvern (that I prefer).
I still fail to see how this targets Malvern. So they arenâ€™t approaching UTSC from the East. How is that Malvernâ€™s fault? The TTC decided that itâ€™s better to connect UTSC with Kennedy Station while serving Kingston and West Hill along the way. Yet, thatâ€™s somehow all the fault of those dastardly Malvernites. I am fine with the line not coming to Malvern. But I strongly agree with the rationale that UTSC should be connected by higher order transit to major node like every other university campus in this city. And I strongly agree with the city that Kingston is ripe for avenueization.
Thatâ€™s kind of how nodes work. Lines tend to meet up at one. In this case, the node happens to lie in Malvern.
My point to be made again and again and again and again. THE LINES DO NOT SOLELY SERVE MALVERN. If thereâ€™s low ridership on these lines then Kingston, West Hill, eastern portions of Scarborough Centre, Dean Park, the Zoo and most of Sheppard East are all equally responsible in not generating enough riders.
I disagree that peak service is all that matters. If that was the case, letâ€™s take this viewpoint to its logical conclusion and only offer only peak service to all of Torontoâ€™s inner suburbs. Like any other neighbourhood in Toronto, residents along these lines (againâ€¦NOT JUST MALVERN) will use these lines all day long.
Your opinion. I for one, appreciate that something is going to get built and that we wonâ€™t be left with a stubway and a hole in the ground like in the 90s. I strongly suspect that the TTC is weary of itâ€™s experience in the 90s and has opted to find a cheaper way to build a network. I applaud them for it. There are many who will bray about MO2020. I ask them what would have happened if Torontoâ€™s subway bill equaled as much as that being spent in rest of the GTHA? What would the political response have been if we asked for 20-30 billion worth of subway lines. I applaud the TTC for deftly navigating the political realities, working within those constraints to come up with a plan that while not the 100% solution has a reasonable chance at success.
For the record, Malvern is only from Markham road to Morningside, About 3.25km,
*In order for many of the Transit City LRT lines to be successful they cannot be standard LRT that is cheaper to build, it'll have to have significant platform increases vs. a lot of these American LRT systems that don't have pre-paid fare platforms, among other things.
*Because of the need for a higher quality system, I believe it will cost significantly more than these estimates currently being given.
*In lieu of this, a study needs to be done to figure out the cost benefit of building a higher quality LRT system vs. just building a subway on key routes like Eglinton, the DRL, and finishing Sheppard appropriately.
For the record, Malvern is only from Markham road to Morningside, About 3.25km,
And there seems to be a good chance that the SRT extension will use LRT instead, this will be significantly less expensive and more appropriate, and share tracks with lines that are already planned..
And with the Scarborough malvern line, if it does go to UTSC, then there is no point of not going further, as there is really nothing in the way, and it will need to connect with sheppard for access to a yard, and allow riders to switch between lines.
I was being generous to Scarberian. For him all of north-east Scarborough = Malvern.