#2…conservatives are admitting Toronto’s problem is not primarily overspending but insufficient revenue…this language suggests a valuable new framing in which funding infrastructure, not cutting services, is central.

As many others have pointed out, if the toll revenue is earmarked for the needlessly expensive capital projects Tory and previous mayors/councils have planned, but not funded, then it does not help against the chronic budget shortfalls experienced by the TTC. The TTC was being pressured to "cut services" (or raise fares, making its services less affordable) before Thursday's announcement, and it is still being pressured today.

The Suzuki Foundation advocates for a "sustainable Canada." In the common framing, sustainability has environmental, social, and economic dimensions. Repeated decisions to underfund transit operations prevent the economic viability—much less sustainability—of transit, and thus prevent us from realizing its potential environmental and social benefits.

Why should Tory escape scrutiny on this continued malfeasance, simply because he decided to raise some money to rebuild a highway for cars to drive on? This is precisely the kind of situation where we need groups like the Suzuki Foundation to help keep the focus on the long-term.

You're totally right about economic sustainability and feasibility. Here in Singapore NOTHING transit-oriented is built unless it satisfies both conditions (among many others).

Another note, while the TTC is raising fares, Singapore is now lowering fares.

Hong Kong is an even better example of economic dimensions shaping transit building. Given the surge in Toronto's real estate prices, the city should look to capitalize on this (no pun intended) in order to fund transit projects through more creative designs.

Ugh...HK again? We've been over this before. Hong Kong built its subways specifically to make money off the land deals. Toronto has built up too much to be able to do that.

As for Singapore, command economies who choose to subsidize are not a good example for a democracy.

I pay 4% income tax. How much do Canadians pay ? 30% 40% seems like Canada is subsidizing far more than Singapore.

What about the subsidized TTC employees, not to mention the subsidized transit agency (metrolinx).

I've been trying to make the same point to my circle of friends for awhile now, to no avail. If people spend so much in taxes, then they should be receiving FREE services left and right, not being slapped with fees whenever they access public 'services'. Moreover, the quality of those services ought to be top notch, but they're often not. Anyways, I'm looking for an alternative place to settle...I'll start to check out Singapore. They seem to know what's up.

Toronto has "built up too much" LOL. Have you been to Hong Kong? There is not 1 inch of unused space. Toronto has too much NIMBY-ism.

Toronto has different ways of being than Hong Kong, sir, and we can't just do what Hong Kong did as far as public transit's concerned 'because'.

I think there are merits looking at some principles of successful transit systems. One aspect is sustainable income to fund transit. Our transit (TTC, Metrolix, etc) focuses on just transit, and are not tied to city planning. There are opportunities to more actively create destinations along expansions, eg stations along Sheppard line, Eglinton cross town, even the old Islington / Kipling stations. This better utilize space where stations are located, provide convenience for transit users, and create an ongoing income stream. Of course, infrastructure upgrades like signal system is important. People in many cities take transit because it reliable takes them to destinations faster. Without that, it is hard to convince people to take more transit.

Insufferably yet unjustifiably smug torontonian alert !!

I've met many people like you while here who extol 'our way of doing things that must not change' while archly dismissing other places that are far better governed (Singapore being but one example of this).

Must be something in the Lake Ontario water...

CANE HIM!

I'd respect Suzuki more if he smartened up and supported nuclear power, and told his acolytes to do the same.

Until they show they have the ability to cut out spending, wasting taxpayers money, managing funds like most of do in our households, this is just another way to burden us by making us pay for services we already pay for. Until we stop this spending and dreaming up ways to spend more we are all heading for bankruptcy, with no good sidewalks to walk, never mind streets to drive on!!!

Except that the 905 uses the expressways for free, out of the 416's property taxes.

"Until they show they have the ability to cut out spending, wasting
taxpayers money, managing funds like most of do in our households"

Government is NOT like running your household.

Whoever told you that was selling something stinky.

On another note, they just did sidewalks in my neighbourhood.

Pretty good to walk on, as are the vast majority of sidewalks in this city (unless you live in Etobicoke with its aversion to spending money).

How do you Gage waste? Is it something you decide, with a gut feeling or do you use third party services using actual data.

Excuse me, lady? Life is not about just driving everywhere, and this congestion tax is needed. Put the National Post down.

I don't see how road tolls will cut congestion. Every time there is a closure on the DVP, my area is choked with motorists taking the local arterial road to bypass the DVP and Victoria Park. Don Mills and Victoria Park become extremely congested, and the traffic crawls its way to the 401 or downtown, depending on the time of day.

Many of us have poor transit options. I wrote to the Toronto Planning department asking about rapid transit in my part of North York. They wrote me back to say there no plans to fix transit in my area because it is geographically isolated by the Don River, and the DVP. I guess I just have to live with the 75 minute commute or retire sooner than I planned.

They shouldn't implement tolls until GO implements its RER service. Also, the province, city, and feds should subsidize the operation of transit (not just capital projects for the photo ops), since it has been underfunded since 1995.

So in other words, you would rather wait for the very unlikely in order to do the necessary.

The federal and provincial governments will also have to make a significant contribution to the capital costs - The proposed road tolls will only raise $6 to 7.5 billion over a period of 30 years towards the $30 to 38 billion in new infrastructure projects currently on the books - http://www.torontotransitbl...

"I don't see how road tolls will cut congestion"

Works in other places. Why not here?

Other places have better transit so people have a real alternative to driving.

The subway's only pitiful because people like you want it all over Toronto in places where it doesn't belong (like the Sheppard STUBway) and were (in your case probably) against light rail being built.

Dusty, if the Sheppard Line connected to the University Line, it would take some of the pressure off the Yonge Line because people do get off west of Yonge. The fact that Toronto does not believe in networks of transit caused the problems we have now with over-crowding of the lines we do have. The rapid transit lines are too short for a city of this size. Light Rail is fine if grade separated with intersections properly safe-guarded, which is not the Toronto way.

Bullshit to that; light rail can be just as much a part of Toronto as light rail has become in other cities in North America and Europe. And the Sheppard line is connected to the University line. Plus, what the frack do you mean that 'the rapid transit lines are too short for a city of this size'? They're as long as they need to be.

No the lines are too short. And the University line only connects to the Bloor/Danforth line , not to the Sheppard line which ends at Yonge. If the lines were as long as they need to most people would take them. TTC trips of over 60 minutes each way show that the rapid part of our transit system is not there. My trip by TTC is 75 minutes each way. That is why 70 percent if Toronto commuters drive.

I agree that there is a place for LRTs in this city, but the Sheppard East Subway and the Scarborough Subway Extension need to be connected to each other with a subway - https://uploads.disquscdn.c...

We said!

No thank you, this is just wishful bullshit planning and thinking. We don't have the density for any of the first three lines, at all, and we don't need to have what's in those lines; light rail should be enough to fill in any gaps and deficiencies. If you love the first three cities's subway lines so badly, please live in those cities and leave Toronto alone.

In a few years I hope to retire to a city with far lower population. Until then I plan to engage with the smug pundits such as yourself.

How about you get out of here now, and take most of the 'subways, subways, subways' bunch with you?

Enjoy your clogged city, sweetie!

I'd rather have a clogged city with a lot of traffic than have a city full of white elephant subway lines that don't pay for themselves and have low ridership.

Paris

Hmmm ..... I choose Paris!

Well done Ian!

The Eglinton Crosstown serves as proof that there is not much difference in cost between LRTs and subways - Subways are said to average about $300 to 400 million per kilometre - In fact; LRTs can cost more - The TYSSE is at $377 million per kilometre; while the Eglinton Crosstown LRT is running at $525 million per kilometre - http://www.torontotransitbl...

Bereft of solutions, all that you can do is quote your own blog, which is just full of errors.

Let me give you some real info: http://lrt.daxack.ca/Myths....

Dusty - Your lrt.daxack.ca “real info” claims that the notion that “subway construction is underground and does not mess up surface traffic” is a myth – This may be the case, but I am sure those living and working along Eglinton Avenue will almost all agree that LRT construction, whether above or underground, is having a far greater impact on their well-being than the construction of a subway would have

Bullshit-said construction's no more damaging than subway construction on a street it (and it would be if people hadn't elected an asshole like Rob Ford that didn't want full light rail and insisted on half and half construction.) They'll get through this.

So what is it that you don't like about my plans? - Is it the Markham Road LRT built with the extra $1 billion that the city considered spending to route the Scarborough Subway Extension along Markham Road instead of McCowan Road because of Markham Road's better potential for future development? - Or is my proposal for an Express LRT along Lawrence Avence connecting Mississauga, Brampton, Pearson Airport, and Durham with the City of Toronto at speeds of up to 100 km/hour? http://www.torontotransitbl...https://uploads.disquscdn.c...https://uploads.disquscdn.c...

As yes, sorry; my proposed Express LRT would need a tunnel to pass under the real assholes living in the Bridlepath and Post Road area

If you know what a demand elasticity is, you're familiar with the concept of margins.

What you're claiming is that there are zero marginal people (currently close to indifferent between driving and transit) whose decisions will be changed by a $2 toll.

Prove it!

When you say "no (decent) alternatives" and "without alternatives," you're making a statement about the average. It may be true that most (~50%) of drivers will not change their travel behaviour at a toll of $2/trip or less, because they feel, individually, there is "no alternative." But this is almost completely irrelevant.

In order to reduce congestion, only a small fraction of drivers must change their decisions. There need not even be a viable alternate mode; they could simply choose to carpool, if they find it preferable ($1, 50¢ or less per day, instead of $2) to solo driving. If for instance 10 per cent of drivers chose to carpool at a price of $2, then traffic would decrease 10%.

If you actually mean that "the toll price elasticity of demand is very low," then you're making assertions about the shape of a demand curve that even the city has not measured precisely. What is your source?

(I know you don't mean "demand is completely inelastic with respect to toll price," because that would imply zero people will change their behaviour at $2. That's easy to falsify: e.g. I would change my behaviour.)

The figures about the 407 of course do not inform, because they don't factor in the cost/preferences across alternatives, demographic and land-use change, etc.

That's the problem isn't it? This should be studied, but yet they are just pushing forward without these economic impact studies.

I can tell you what Stats Canada says with respects to the increase in VKT's and Vehicle Registrations in the GTHA year after year.

Wishing people just stop using their vehicles is not science.

Transportation is an inelastic service. We can't use less to get around. Population growth, improper planning of that growth and inadequate public transit makes the problem worse... anecdotally of course. To suggest it anecdotally we can look at what has been reported on the opening of 407 ETR.

I have a lot of the older articles that sold us the 407 ETR's model.

April 19th, 1997-The Toronto Star’s, Jim Kenzie writes, “Open Up Highway 407 and let drivers try it for free. If commuters fall in love with the toll way, it’ll cut traffic elsewhere”…

June 12th, 1997-The Toronto Star’s Bob Mitchell writes “Toll Road Finally Open” and quoted excited commuters.

June 14th, 1997-The Toronto Star’s Jim Kenzie writes, “Highway 407 is worth it-for free True value will be seen in how 401 congestion is relieved”

September 28th, 1997-The Toronto Star received a letter from Wayne Debly of Maple where he did some math and the 407 toll figures were 4 times higher than in the U.S. and that’s when the tolls were about $.10/KM

Most noticeable was this article in the Toronto Star of October 15th, 1997; the day people were charged to use the toll highway. It was a retreat back to the 401. Minister Al Palladini, who drove the toll way during the morning rush hour with his successor, Tony Clement is quoted as saying, “There’s no question traffic was very light, but once motorists get tired of getting stuck in bumper-to-bumper traffic on Highway 401 and other routes, they’ll be back.”

This was when we were only paying about $.10/KM. The minute they started to charge a toll on the 407, the increase in traffic on the 401 and other vital routes was duly visible. This is something we cannot ignore given the increase in the amount of Vehicle Registrations and Vehicle Kilometers Traveled that took place in the GTA since 1997, the lack of reliable data from 407ETR and the model of optimizing trips to generate ever increasing EBITA to enrich owners instead of trip optimization actions and alternatives for congestion relief.

This Swedish experience is rubbish. We live in Canada, not Sweden!

I think I'm just going to stop discussing elasticities with people who don't know what they are.