You cannot divorce infrastructure from its impacts. Rail is no different on this front than building a highway. If HSR was built to London, it wouldn't be built to service commuters. But there's no way to stop commuters from using it. And without at least some element of commuting there's definitely no business case. There's no HSR in the world that does not rely on a long distance commuter base to provide base demand.
So it really does come down to whether you want HSR with all the second order effects that rapid rail transportation brings, or no HSR. Cities should be given the choice. But no wavering. It's expensive to build HSR through a city with no station there. If London wants cheap housing, they can be bypassed with any rail corridor routed direct to Windsor. Or better yet, terminate in Kitchener, where people actually want improved rail service. And Londoners can live with that decision for the decades to come.
That said, my wife's from London. And I've not heard a single one of her relatives or friends say anything but that they would love a better connection to Toronto and better local transit service.
This is not about divorcing it, but it is about planning for it. So, for example, the city needs to prepare the city for the explosion in growth that it will face. If they can tune the growth to the need, prices will rise, but not that extreme. The problem is that we tend to plan growth as an after thought to the transportation improvements. Building HSR out to Kitchener first isn't a horrible idea. The 401 used to be 6 lanes to Kitchener and then 4 lanes to Windsor. It is only recently that the section between Woodstock and Kitchener was widened to 6 lanes.
I have a cousin who recently bought a house. First time home buyer. She had been think about it for about 10 years, and has told me that in the last 5 years, she noticed that the houses were going for a much higher rate in the same area than before. She did end up in a bidding war with people from Toronto. She won not because she was the highest bidder, but because they were from Toronto and she was from London, and the sellers had lived in that house for 40 years.
That's how assessment works. But not how property taxes work.
Cities set a budget and then adjust the
mill rate which allocates the tax levy against the assessed value. You don't pay a percentage of the assessed value. You pay the mill rate. Therefore, a rising home value won't increase your taxes, unless your home value is rising at a much faster rate than the rest of your community. If every single house in a city gains 10% in value, there will be no change in property taxes unless the city wants to raise more revenue. If your house goes up 10% while the rest of the city sees no gain, than your taxes will go up 10%.
As places like London and Peterborough and Cobourg turn into larger bedroom communities, they will see some appreciation. But that lift will be broad, across the whole community. There won't be substantial tax increases for anyone, except maybe in the trendiest of neighbourhoods.
" It is a figure that represents the amount per $1,000 of the
assessed value of the property, which is used to calculate the amount of property tax. "
In other words, if your house was assessed $10,000 higher, you pay a higher tax due to that 10x $1000 that it has risen by.
Another factor is that if your neighbour has been there for 40 years, and you just bought the house, for a few years, you will pay more than them, as when you buy, your tax rate is based off of
No disrespect meant to your spouse, or her friends and family, but I have long been looking for a sign that Londoners have turned the corner from their traditional "just lower my taxes and I will live with the result" mentality. I do hope that's changing.
The Highway 401 construction, and the way that 401 congestion is growing faster than lanes can be added, screams for a rail solution. Toronto-London may not be HFR/HSR's first priority, but it's sure a case study that makes the case. It's the one place on the corridor where "build it and they will come" is a sound business case.
And, as importantly, putting these communities on a HSR/HFR map will lead to development, which broadens the tax base, which means government can provide better services within the existing mill rate. The sooner this happens, the better. The economics of real estate market versus transportation cost and time spent will work just fine to determine who wants to be a long distance commuter and who prefers to live closer to the office.
- Paul
London is it's own city. No one really commutes far from it for work. The idea of making it like Kitchener; a bedroom community for Toronto, for some, is a horrible thing. One day, I can see GO going there from Hamilton and Kitchener. Even HSR will go there. The challenge will be preventing crazy growth. Part of the problem with growth is the city is surrounded by prime farmland. Every time I go for a visit, it saddens me than a new area is now converted from farmland to urban sprawl. It really hit me in the North End when the Walmart was located there. I've lived there for a few years, and although it is a large city, it doesn't feel like it.
If in a particular neighbourhood, prices go up, say 20%, but only 10% overall in that city, then your taxes may go up. But those variations don't tend to sustain themselves, and ultimately tend to cancel each other out.
If everyone's house suddenly went up 100% overnight, then no one's property taxes would change - other than the city needing more money because of inflation, etc. (though often this is counter-balanced by growth).
The evening out happens every few years, when MPAC does a reassessment on the properties.
That's still there. I doubt they want to actually pay anything for the infrastructure. Just look at their debate on an LRT or even BRT network. But, I haven't heard anyone say they wouldn't want better rail service to Toronto, because they are somehow concerned that yuppies from TO will drive up home prices. This is already happening in London with existing infrastructure and they recognize it as a fact of life. Heck, most of them see this as a positive.
It may be a fact of life, but it still upsets people. Several of my family members have spoken about that.
Yep. The congestion is getting terrible. We drive from Scarborough to London. Routinely takes closer to 3 hrs with traffic pre-Covid. On some days and at certain times, far worse than that. It's a great market for any rail investment. Even if all they get is an HFR project that has hourly service and 2 hr trips from London to Union, I think it'll be very popular. Especially if there's a stop at Pearson en route. There's also the London-Kitchener commute potential too.
Converting the 4 lanes to 6 lanes really has helped. I am seeing bridges being rebuilt to accommodate more lanes. This a good thing. The province is working with the roads.
Yep. Building these transport links is really the only way to rejuvenate rust belt towns. Here and in the US. It allows development to spread out. And London has a solid base to build on with the insurance sector there.
It's manufacturing is still a decent base too. Funny thing is my cousin works in insurance and her husband in manufacturing.
