Danforth Line 2 Scarborough Subway Extension

[syn]

Oh, the need is there, you and the "intelligentsia" just refuse to see it. 36 million annual projection ridership for the extension in its one-stop configuration alone is evidence of its need. In case you haven't noticed, those cities I cited have far less of a population than our's yet are fully capable of building fully grade-separated rapid transit systems without the decades long debates, theatrics and flat out deception to the voting public. We've have yet to see what the Ford government will do until the budget has passed. All this speculation that the project is dead on the water because of lack of private sector interest is still just that... speculative. Surplus development at SCC alone could be enough to cover the costs for stations at Danforth/Eglinton and at Lawrence East.

The Fords have been pushing private sector funding for transit for nearly a decade now, and it hasn't come even remotely close to ever working. The private sector isn't interested.

The cities you've cited aren't building 6km, 1 stop underground extensions where they aren't needed. That's the point.

 

[Rainforest]

We've have yet to see what the Ford government will do until the budget has passed. All this speculation that the project is dead on the water because of lack of private sector interest is still just that... speculative. Surplus development at SCC alone could be enough to cover the costs for stations at Danforth/Eglinton and at Lawrence East.

Certainly it isn't dead in the water, but the direction the current government is taking is a bit unnerving. By now we should be building the line, not looking how to modify the funding mechanism.

The scale of development at SCC is impressive, and can be used to collect fees sufficient to fund 1 or 2 in-line stations. The question is what % of permits etc has already been issued to developers. If they already own the land and hold all permits, it won't be possible to charge any new fees.

 

[rbt]

The Fords have been pushing private sector funding for transit for nearly a decade now, and it hasn't come even remotely close to ever working. The private sector isn't interested.

Private sector funding of transit works exactly as desired; Ford wins an election and nothing else matters (to Ford).

 

[OneCity]

The Fords have been pushing private sector funding for transit for nearly a decade now, and it hasn't come even remotely close to ever working. The private sector isn't interested.

The cities you've cited aren't building 6km, 1 stop underground extensions where they aren't needed. That's the point.

Geez? "Pushing for over a decade?" Like most anti SSE post we see dramatically exaggerated figures to create false narrative.

Rob was Mayor for 4 years and most of that time with council controlled the transit file or it was being directed from the Liberals. Between his death spiral, the libe uncertainty and the control from an uncompromising council I don't believe anything was actively pursued.

No Ford was in office from 2014-2018. And Doug after 6 months has just announced he we look to partner with developers.

Really not worth the hysteria. It's a good thing if they find $1. It's great if they can pay for a station or two.

My feeling is also this isn't as much about developers around the other stations as it could be setting the stage for a negotiation with Oxford properties which stands to profit the most. And they should be investment partners with the public given the amount of money they have at stake with the subway.

Should have been done from the get go. But it was actially the Liberals in power for the last decade

 

[crs1026]

Geez? "Pushing for over a decade?" Like most anti SSE post we see dramatically exaggerated figures to create false narrative.

Really not worth the hysteria. It's a good thing if they find $1. It's great if they can pay for a station or two.

I agree totally with your last statement....the even if they find $1 it’s a good thing part. The Star article documented evidence that this idea will raise some money, but possibly not enough.

However....One can’t build a false narrative saying “We will pay for the subway out of a partnership with developers” and then accuse others of building a false narrative when they ask skeptically if this will work.

I like the idea of looking for development revenue, but if it doesn’t raise the full amount, I’m fine with the taxpayer paying for the rest. I don’t hear any politcian of any stripe talking seriously about how to do that.

Instead of framing the debate along partisan lines we should be asking, how is the design shaping up and is it the right approach. We can’t wait until it is 30% complete - which is the next reporting gate for the project, due later this year.

eg - Are we past the point of no return for a deep bore alignment? Putting the subway close to the surface would save a huge amount of money, especially if we add stations back in. Is it too late for any of that?

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

The private sector isn't interested.

In Toronto and most of the GTHA, agreed. It's not that the concept isn't a good one, it's an excellent one, and is being used in other nations, one very similar to ours with stunning results, but with caveats/provisos:

[...]1. Introduction At the outset of the establishment of the Crossrail project to deliver the new Elizabeth line east–west railway across London, the UK government’s preferred delivery model was a privately financed concession. When this proved to be unachievable the Treasury capped the contribution from the central exchequer at around a third of the overall cost, requiring the remaining funding to be generated from the ‘beneficiaries’ of the project. The Department for Transport (DfT) and Transport for London (TfL) – together the ‘sponsors’ – collaborated with the business and property development communities in London to assemble a finance and funding package. The quality of the cost estimate together with the confidence generated by the risk analysis enabled the sponsors to make the political and financial commitments necessary. In turn, the certainty of funding provided the project company with a high level of financial stability and covenant to proceed and sustain the project.
[...]
9. Beneficiaries: property developers Property developers, both existing and prospective, stood to gain substantially from the proximity of their land and buildings to the new railway. Particular among these were Canary Wharf Group, the owners of the Canary Wharf estate in Docklands, and Berkeley Group, owners of the Woolwich Arsenal estate in Woolwich (Figure 4), both of which would experience substantial uplift in the development potential as a result of the railway. The Canary Wharf Group were early movers lobbying strongly for Crossrail to be built and agreeing first to build the proposed station at Canary Wharf, and also to make a contribution of £150 million towards the cost. In return, government granted rights for Canary Wharf Group to develop retail and leisure above the station (Figure 5).
[...]
When the House of Commons hybrid Bill select committee instructed the promoter to provide a station at Woolwich, the Berkeley Group – in the partially developed estate where a station would be sited – and the London Borough of Greenwich collaborated with CLRL to make a proposal to government to construct the station. Initially, the agreement provided for the construction of a station box which would support a residential development above. A subsequent agreement provided for the cost of fitting out the station to be met between the developer and the sponsors.[...]

Crossrail project: finance, funding and value capture for London’s Elizabeth line Martin Buck FICE FRICS Director, Crossrail Limited (2003–2016), London, UK
https://learninglegacy.crossrail.co.../1C-002-Finance-Funding-and-Value-Capture.pdf

Why can this work with London, and not Toronto? Obviously the much greater powers of municipal jurisdiction play a big part, as does the absence of a provincial jurisdiction, and thus national funding, participation, regulation and approval.

Meantime, for Ontario:

APRIL 22, 2011 BY STEVE
The Mythical Private Sector Subway
The Ford Administration and its followers at City Hall would have us believe that transit developments in Toronto can be had essentially free of public cost and that the private sector, whatever that means, will pony up the investment to build the subway.
Almost as soon as the scheme for a privately financed Sheppard Subway was announced, the wheels started to come off the plan. Actually, “come off” assumes that it had wheels to begin with, and statements by the Fords showed clearly that they had not worked through the details.
Oddly enough, their hands were out for any public sector funds that might be available including $330-million or so originally earmarked by Ottawa for the Sheppard LRT, up to $650m in “left over” funding that might not be needed for the Eglinton tunnel project by Queen’s Park, and whatever investment could be pried loose from Ottawa’s “PPP Canada”. Additional money might come from a quick sale of waterfront lands by the City to would-be developers.
The scale of the Sheppard project may well shrink to only the eastern leg from Don Mills to Scarborough Town Centre so that the total cost stays in the $2-billion range.
Recently, I learned that Queen’s Park had offered $2b toward the Sheppard Subway provided that the Fords would allow the eastern part of Eglinton to remain on the surface, but this was turned down flat. So intransigent is the Mayor on the subject of incursion by transit into road space that the possibility of substantial funding for his pet project was not an option worth embracing.
You may have noticed by now that there isn’t a lot of private sector money in this story, except for the buy-out of waterfront lands, and that’s a sale of public assets, not a private sector investment in transit.
Meanwhile, we hear a lot about private sector investment elsewhere, usually with little context. Vancouver’s Canada Line comes up now and then, including in comments on this site, and some people think it’s a private sector show all the way. In fact, various public agencies have over $1-billion in the project, more than half of the total cost. Even the “private” partner, a joint venture, includes investment agencies that manage public funds including pension plans.
Probably the most successful example of investment-supported transit is in Hong Kong, but this must be seen in the context of local conditions. Not only is Hong Kong an extremely dense city, it is one in which the land ownership and planning are firmly in public hands. Private buildings abound, but they sit on land leased from the public sector which reaps the benefit of land development. (For an extensive look at the Hong Kong system’s financial and planning development, see Rail+Property Development by Cervero and Murakami [14MB]). [...]

https://stevemunro.ca/2011/04/22/the-mythical-private-sector-subway/

It's truly unfortunate that such an ability to tap private investment that is alive in Australia and the UK, to name just a few, is so difficult here. Many nations do it effectively. Ford can claim to be "Open for Business" all he likes. The fact that honest business wants nothing to do with him is telling.

Meantime Montreal pushes ahead with REM, which politically has some problems, but it's getting built, and fast, and mostly with Caisse money.

 

[sixrings]

The spin on here makes Donald Trump look normal in comparison.

 

[pstogios]

The spin on here makes Donald Trump look normal in comparison.

And the fake news, irrationality, paranoia, conspiracy-theorizing, anger and hatred that is rampant in this thread would make Trump cringe.

 

[steveintoronto]

And the fake news, irrationality, paranoia, conspiracy-theorizing, anger and hatred that is rampant in this thread would make Trump cringe.

And turn his skin orange. It's truly odd how the rabid right is so allergic to presenting "business cases". Still, someone has to keep the label businesses in work. When you don't like the message, even your own, you shoot the messenger. There's a label for that...and it's yellow. And self-sticking.

 

[crs1026]

I have to admit that in spite of everything that has been said here, when I put myself in the shoes of any local politician, this issue of how to raise money gives me pause.

The Star today ran an article about a proposal for a 2% GTA sales tax. The pitch (which was made by some 'experts', not necessarily the Star's editorial position) was that such a tax could solve the GTA's budget woes....yes, transit, plus crime, policing, housing, you name it. The issue being that with development revenue potentially falling, we may not even be able to fund a municipal budget that tracks inflation, unless we add new revenue sources, er, taxes.

I'm not raising this to debate the idea...what I'm pointing to is the straw poll that the Star inserted to let people have their say about whether they favoured it. As of this moment, the poll is running 66% in opposition to higher taxes of any sort (my inference, based on the wording of the item).

If you take that poll as even slightly representative (on technical grounds that may be debatable, but let's presume it reflects the attitudes of some Torontonians, and if anything it's a 'lefty' viewpoint) there is just no appetite for taxation. That explains (as opposed to excuses) the obsession of many politicians with tax breaks, holding taxation to inflation, and pretending there are no-pain solutions where we can 'find' billions of dollars to pay for things we want.

If this is what people actually want, in a democracy it's what they are going to get.

Maybe we should stop blaming politicians, and start blaming the populace.

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

^ It really forces the hand on private investment taking the lead on transit schemes. People are their own worst enemies. On the up side, it does underscore the rationale of Trudeau's Carbon Tax approach. Like yourself, not supporting or deriding it in that statement, just pointing out that if people are unwilling to pay for what is needed, it will have to come another way. And they still pay...

Must run, but as with "DBFOM" and "P3" altogether, it's past time for UT to add a string on the subject. It portends the future far more than many realize. Better to get in front of it than behind. And most fail to realize DBFOM is already here. P3 (in a more direct form) is building Montreal's REM as I type, and it puts to shame anything Toronto is undertaking at this time, for better or worse.

 

[Neutrino]

Sometimes it seems like Toronto's transit finances are in a no win situation: we don't have enough money for basic maintenance of the current system, never mind the increased maintenance expenses that will come with system expansion (and forget about the capital expenses for building expansions in the first place). At the same time, the cost of living is very high and one can understand why people don't want higher taxes. It's truly a Gordian Knot.

 

[W. K. Lis]

I have to admit that in spite of everything that has been said here, when I put myself in the shoes of any local politician, this issue of how to raise money gives me pause.

The Star today ran an article about a proposal for a 2% GTA sales tax. The pitch (which was made by some 'experts', not necessarily the Star's editorial position) was that such a tax could solve the GTA's budget woes....yes, transit, plus crime, policing, housing, you name it. The issue being that with development revenue potentially falling, we may not even be able to fund a municipal budget that tracks inflation, unless we add new revenue sources, er, taxes.

I'm not raising this to debate the idea...what I'm pointing to is the straw poll that the Star inserted to let people have their say about whether they favoured it. As of this moment, the poll is running 66% in opposition to higher taxes of any sort (my inference, based on the wording of the item).

If you take that poll as even slightly representative (on technical grounds that may be debatable, but let's presume it reflects the attitudes of some Torontonians, and if anything it's a 'lefty' viewpoint) there is just no appetite for taxation. That explains (as opposed to excuses) the obsession of many politicians with tax breaks, holding taxation to inflation, and pretending there are no-pain solutions where we can 'find' billions of dollars to pay for things we want.

If this is what people actually want, in a democracy it's what they are going to get.

Maybe we should stop blaming politicians, and start blaming the populace.

- Paul

View attachment 172090

Cities in the United States, such as New York City, has their own sales tax. They also have their own income tax, as well.

 

[steveintoronto]

Cities in the United States, such as New York City, has their own sales tax. They also have their own income tax, as well.

And they have far more powerful enabling legislation than Cdn provinces have. It must be remembered that Canada is one of (if not the most) loosest federations in the developed world, and under the Constitution, for all the complaints from the likes of Quebec (in the past) and Alberta (today), the provinces have the status of nations within the confederation. And municipalities are almost totally overlooked in the Constitution.

But your missive sets-up a perfect proviso for the apparently *dominant* mindset of GTHA voters: Those US municipalities and states with taxing power also apply it to *highways*.

What the Ontario reluctant taxpayers' completely overlook is "What's apt for the Goose is also apt for the Gander". You wanna be such unrealistic tightwads? Then pay to drive dammit. Poll the highways if transit is getting shafted.

I do have *some* sympathy for the mindless minions though:
Over half of Canadians are $200 or less away from not being able to pay bills

But some of us are from backgrounds of dire poverty (don't get me started...) and yet still have the where-with-all to see what's necessary in the bigger picture for this society as we know it to survive. And it isn't by cars...

 

[Rainforest]

I would favor a dedicated municipal sales tax for transit expansion.