News   Apr 01, 2026
Transit Progress and Tall Towers Made Headlines in March, 2026
 143     0 
News   Apr 01, 2026
News Roundup for April 1, 2026
 291     0 
News   Apr 01, 2026
Lombard Canyon
 481     1 

TTC: Other Items (catch all)

turbanplanner said:
I know it’s normally 30% but was 50% during the Syrian crisis and I don’t see why it would be lower now with the Ukraine issue. A lot of homeless in Toronto are from other parts of the province as only we have the resources to at least try and help them
Click to expand...
Ukrainians are not considered refugees, and - as a result - aren’t allowed to access the shelter system in the same way as actual refugees. Many of them are privately housed by the Ukrainian community.

 
Northern Light said:
Not in the least. I'm not particularly angry, somewhat disgusted, but not angry.

Also, you're not right, so the entire statement is without value.



This is somewhat misleading. You can earn 200k per annum and be $200 per month from having to dip into savings.

For some Canadians, the problem is not that they are $200 per month from having to cut one of their streaming services, or maybe flying economy on their next vacation, but instead that they already are $200 short of the money they need for groceries.

*****

Lets further note, this is actually an opinion poll, and both sources you cited refer to the same poll. Not exactly sound data points.

*****

Then lets note that if the average Toronto homeowner saw a 10% property tax hike, that would be ~$400 more, per YEAR, not month.

An extra $33 per month roughly.
Click to expand...
So what do you think the reality is? Everyone is swimming in cash and nobody is on the brink? Especially with people on variable interest?

We have another 10-15% hike next year to maintain things as they are.

Gas will go back to around $2 a litre, groceries are way up. It’s like people here are totally detached from reality
 
turbanplanner said:
So what do you think the reality is? Everyone is swimming in cash and nobody is on the brink? Especially with people on variable interest?
Click to expand...
I mean, clearly the article was wrong: supposedly, interest rates increasing from 1.75% in 2019 was going to be catastrophic and we were going to see a rise in financial insolvencies as Canadians were right on the brink. That didn’t happen.

I don’t think that people are swimming in cash, but I don’t think that the article you cited as proof lived up to its characterization of the situation either.
 
turbanplanner said:
A lot of homeless in Toronto are from other parts of the province as only we have the resources to at least try and help them
Click to expand...
Seems like you should direct your frustration at the provincial government then. They got rid of license plate fees ($1 billion that could have gone to helping with homelessness) and have done nothing to help with the incidents on the TTC (has Doug Ford said anything? He’s usually very visible when it comes to his opinion on how Toronto has to be run)

Also, fun fact: according to the city’s own stats, the provincial government has put the least into helping with affordable housing after the city and the federal government. If there’s a level of government slacking, you have to start there.
 
turbanplanner said:
A lot of homeless in Toronto are from other parts of the province as only we have the resources to at least try and help them
Click to expand...

This may come as a surprise to those other parts of the Province who have huge homeless issues of their own.

Waterloo Region is one that I am aware of - they are grappling with homeless encampments and trying to implement small-structure alternatives.

You seem to want "everybody else" to be the problem.

- Paul
 
allengeorge said:
Ukrainians are not considered refugees, and - as a result - aren’t allowed to access the shelter system in the same way as actual refugees. Many of them are privately housed by the Ukrainian community.

Click to expand...
Not just the Ukrainian community. Polish and other Slavic communities as well. Even Russians, who tend to be anti-Putin, as well. See link.
 
Northern Light said:
Umm, you do realize I think before I post, and responding as if to suggest I'm an idiot does nothing but make you look bad. If you don't understand the gist of my point, a question like "Why do you view that as a problem?" might be a more reasonable take.

****

Evidence: (most recent data I could grab)

View attachment 453148


Family Doctors per capita by province:

View attachment 453149


*****

Notice something?

For less spending per capita, you're getting a lesser result, way fewer hospital beds, and fewer doctors.

That's not efficiency, its negligence.
Click to expand...
It's much more expensive to serve 800k people who are spread out over thousands of KMs than it is to serve that same number of people who live in one dense city. You can even compare within Ontario - the cost to service Northern Ontario is much higher per capita, the number of hospitals you need to serve all those people spread out, the number of CT, MRIs, and technicians to operate these machines at each location, it's a high cost. I'm not sure if you've taken that into consideration or not, nobody is trying to make anybody look like an idiot. When the bulk of a province's population lives in urban dense areas - there are economies of scale, capital costs of not requiring 10 hospitals to serve 800k people, 10 Hospital CEO salaries, running 10 endoscopy clinics, when all those people could be serviced in one unit in a GTA hospital. It should be of no surprise that it's more expensive to serve people who live in low density, rural, remote provinces. That's not to say our system isn't flawed or underfunded, but saying we should be spending more per capita than a place like the Norwest Terroritories is absurd. Where do you think Ontario should be on a list of per capita spending, given our high densities? Do you think we should be in the middle? At the top?
 
toaster29 said:
It's much more expensive to serve 800k people who are spread out over thousands of KMs than it is to serve that same number of people who live in one dense city. You can even compare within Ontario - the cost to service Northern Ontario is much higher per capita, the number of hospitals you need to serve all those people spread out, the number of CT, MRIs, and technicians to operate these machines at each location, it's a high cost. I'm not sure if you've taken that into consideration or not, nobody is trying to make anybody look like an idiot. When the bulk of a province's population lives in urban dense areas - there are economies of scale, capital costs of not requiring 10 hospitals to serve 800k people, 10 Hospital CEO salaries, running 10 endoscopy clinics, when all those people could be serviced in one unit in a GTA hospital. It should be of no surprise that it's more expensive to serve people who live in low density, rural, remote provinces. That's not to say our system isn't flawed or underfunded, but saying we should be spending more per capita than a place like the Norwest Terroritories is absurd. Where do you think Ontario should be on a list of per capita spending, given our high densities? Do you think we should be in the middle? At the top?
Click to expand...

It would help if you actually read my post, as I included the information your now seeking in said post.

I won't repeat it. Go look.
 
Northern Light said:
Sure; but that might be said of income taxes too, in as much as the rate is the same for all Ontarians, but those in the GTA earn more money and therefore pay more...

In terms of tax fairness, if a tax is charged as rate, based on income or assets; the rate itself is the fair basis of comparison.
Click to expand...
But is a house really an asset if it's mortgaged to the hilt? In which case, perhaps the mortgage holder should be paying their share! :)

The proper comparison is what the average (mean ... or median) valued home pays in municipal taxes. Toronto get's close to this as they occasionally publish these numbers for various communities - but it would have more meaning if it removed the education taxes (which would then expose that Toronto average taxes are even lower than one would think!).

The bottom line though, is that a house in Pickering with a 60-foot street frontage and a deep lot, are going to disproportionately use a lot more city services than than a Toronto-house with a 14-foot wide shallow lot.

Of course there's other taxation alternatives, such as a municipal income tax and sales tax (both of which we see in some USA cities). An asset tax would be tough if it went beyond property - on the other hand, it might help densify areas like Bridle Path - currently a transit desert.

Northern Light said:
Sure, but doesn't take away that Toronto's property tax rate per assessed dollar of value is notably lower than peer-municipalities.
Click to expand...
This is true. And this is what you'd expect, with the economies of scale you get with densification. Look at the per ride cost of running public transit in Toronto compared to York Region. If the Toronto subsidy per ride was as high as York Region, they'd be paying us to take the TTC!

That being said, I do think Toronto municipal taxes are too low. And in the absence of a completely new source of income (like using road tolls or annual mileage fees) to pay for transit, we need to raise municipal taxes to fund TTC, not to mention other department that have taken the brunt of funding cuts over the years, like the library system (which also is impacted by the current social issues, and is a de-facto service provider to the poor these days). And park maintenance (simple things like emptying garbage cans, and keeping bathrooms running - again related to the current social issues).

The current move to cut TTC service (far beyond that necessary to match pre-Covid service to current ridership) is short-sighted and will only make the city even more unlivable.

crs1026 said:
No one should expect Canada or Toronto to be a "low tax" environment . Canadians demand a social structure that includes excellent health care, education, wealth redistribution, and infrastructure. Those things cost money. In our social vision the country I would most compare us to (with considerable affection and respect) is Norway.
Click to expand...
Absolutely!

And it's far beyond TTC. The province's recent move to again cut into Toronto's own funding stream from development charges is obscene.
 
Northern Light said:
It would help if you actually read my post, as I included the information your now seeking in said post.

I won't repeat it. Go look.
Click to expand...
I don't see why you're being so rude to everyone?
nfitz said:
But is a house really an asset if it's mortgaged to the hilt? In which case, perhaps the mortgage holder should be paying their share! :)

The proper comparison is what the average (mean ... or median) valued home pays in municipal taxes. Toronto get's close to this as they occasionally publish these numbers for various communities - but it would have more meaning if it removed the education taxes (which would then expose that Toronto average taxes are even lower than one would think!).

The bottom line though, is that a house in Pickering with a 60-foot street frontage and a deep lot, are going to disproportionately use a lot more city services than than a Toronto-house with a 14-foot wide shallow lot.

Of course there's other taxation alternatives, such as a municipal income tax and sales tax (both of which we see in some USA cities). An asset tax would be tough if it went beyond property - on the other hand, it might help densify areas like Bridle Path - currently a transit desert.

This is true. And this is what you'd expect, with the economies of scale you get with densification. Look at the per ride cost of running public transit in Toronto compared to York Region. If the Toronto subsidy per ride was as high as York Region, they'd be paying us to take the TTC!

That being said, I do think Toronto municipal taxes are too low. And in the absence of a completely new source of income (like using road tolls or annual mileage fees) to pay for transit, we need to raise municipal taxes to fund TTC, not to mention other department that have taken the brunt of funding cuts over the years, like the library system (which also is impacted by the current social issues, and is a de-facto service provider to the poor these days). And park maintenance (simple things like emptying garbage cans, and keeping bathrooms running - again related to the current social issues).

The current move to cut TTC service (far beyond that necessary to match pre-Covid service to current ridership) is short-sighted and will only make the city even more unlivable.

Absolutely!

And it's far beyond TTC. The province's recent move to again cut into Toronto's own funding stream from development charges is obscene.
Click to expand...
A mileage toll is a great way to get people to register their car outside the city, or even worse everyone's car will be "mileage corrected" yearly. And I think a municipal income tax would just get people to move out of the city and wfh
 
Northern Light said:
I essentially agree with what you're saying above.....but I do want to break some of it out.



Oddly, I think this isn't true. I know its common political instinct to cut ribbons. But I think operating investments can actually produce better, results w/the public, done properly. Let me acknowledge, up front, that small increases or decreases in personnel don't really move votes; and further that jobs that aren't public facing, or where the results of any under-staffing aren't seen quickly can be a tempting place to 'cut' from a political perspective to fund something with more flash.

But the thing w/operating expenses in many areas it that a wise increase can be seen and felt quite quickly, where a capital project may take years to come to fruition.

As an example, most Toronto recreation centres close mid-afternoon on Saturdays and Sundays around 4pm'ish.

For a comparatively small sum, 10-15M per year, you could open most of those facilities until 10pm on weekends. Not only would them being open be instantly felt, but so would reduced crowding in earlier portions of those weekend days.

Likewise, strategic improvements in TTC service can be felt pretty quickly. Particularly for routes w/low service frequency. Taking an every 20M bus to every 15M is possibly on many routes by adding a single bus to one shift. Most long-haul routes w/lots of vehicles are already more frequent.

So if you took 10 low-service routes and bumped them to every 15M or better, you might be able to do that 5M per year. Boost overnight frequency for about the same; add some additional overnight routes for maybe 10M per year.

Taken in the context of a 15B budget, these are relatively small sums that can create a very visible effect and a halo for politician who delivers them.
Click to expand...

You’re right, visible increases in services can be a very powerful political tool. Sadly I feel that services tend to be very cyclical in popularity, especially in a municipal setting, where the idea of cutting waste (not to say that our municipal government is allocating resources particularly efficiently) can really grab hold of a population seeing expenses increase in all other areas of their life. However, given the attention the decay of the TTC, as well as the rest of Toronto’s infrastructure and services have gotten in the media lately, I think that we’ve hit a breaking point, and anecdotally, I see a lot of sentiment that people are generally fed-up with the state of affairs in a city that has been booming for over a decade now.
 
mildlyamusingusername said:
You’re right, visible increases in services can be a very powerful political tool. Sadly I feel that services tend to be very cyclical in popularity, especially in a municipal setting, where the idea of cutting waste (not to say that our municipal government is allocating resources particularly efficiently) can really grab hold of a population seeing expenses increase in all other areas of their life. However, given the attention the decay of the TTC, as well as the rest of Toronto’s infrastructure and services have gotten in the media lately, I think that we’ve hit a breaking point, and anecdotally, I see a lot of sentiment that people are generally fed-up with the state of affairs in a city that has been booming for over a decade now.
Click to expand...
The route I live near generally has bad frequency. When I see it pass at 3am it runs every 30 mins like most overnight routes. I see at most 1 passenger. (Let's also ask ourselves what is the potential demand and 1 or 3 am? Would 15 min service make any difference at that hour?)

I personally will drive to the subway because even if the bus is running every 15 mins when I leave (which is frequent enough I'd consider not driving) the issue is coming back home there's nothing worse than waiting 25+ mins in a station because it's now the evening and that 15 or 20 min frequency runs out at 8pm.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top