Families in Toronto

[LordWanker]

Finally, let me point out that our transportation budget is as low as it is because we are doing a horrible job at servicing our streets. The streets I ride on every day downtown are worse than any others I've had to put up with - and I've lived in third world countries! Suburban folk get hundreds of times more metres of asphault per person than downtowners do, and yet their streets are in the same or better shape... what does that tell you?

First, would you like some cheese?
Second, it would be nice if you can compare streets that are of similar age.

 

[Glen]

Estimated number of cars that a TTC vehicle replaces during a typical morning rush hour:
- Bus: 45
- CLRV streetcar: 65
- ALRV streetcar: 95
- SRT train (4 cars): 195
- Subway train (6 cars): 890
- Toronto Rocket train (6 cars): 960

Guess who benefits from that the most?

Information on TTC lines and ridership is readily available Glen, just take a look. There's several bus routes in the old city of Toronto that have ridership levels equivalent or higher to those of the Sheppard subway at operating costs orders of magnitude lower. Most TTC routes pay for themselves, and routes in the old city - which is grossly under-served by transit - usually produce revenue for the system. Still, the TTC is arguably more important to people in the periphery of the old city and the old suburbs than to downtowners. Well over 50% of downtown residents don't drive or use the TTC to commute - cycling or walking instead.




The TTC currently pays 70% of its operating costs, though. It is a very efficiently run system all in all, and a pretty neat service. We run empty buses in Rosedale and Etobicoke more as a social service than anything, but there's nothing wrong with that.

I for one, as most people who live downtown, pay an exorbitant amount of property taxes per metre squared, and I rarely if ever use the TTC or our extensive suburban road system. If you look at which parts of the city contribute the most to our municipal budget, it's the parts of the city that have a combination of higher commercial and residential density and higher property values.

Finally, let me point out that our transportation budget is as low as it is because we are doing a horrible job at servicing our streets. The streets I ride on every day downtown are worse than any others I've had to put up with - and I've lived in third world countries! Suburban folk get hundreds of times more metres of asphault per person than downtowners do, and yet their streets are in the same or better shape... what does that tell you?

How many cars public transit can replace is not the issue. You seem to think that Toronto (or cities in general) have a divine right to have a public transit system that facilitates the density. Density, at least once you factor in the cost of supporting it (and the incidence of such), is not necessarily as efficient as you believe.

Regarding your lament about poor downtowners paying more property tax per square foot, outside of the 'fair share' undertones, it is nothing more than a Strawman. Expenses per household are what matters. As the budget shows, transportation is not a large portion. Most services that the city provides do not scale with density. Have a look at the FIR data again and you will see that, using Mississauga as a comparison, Toronto has no efficiency afforded by density. I quickly compared per household police and fire expenses and they are practically equal.

 

[RC8]

A very significant portion of the current city of Toronto is almost as suburban as Mississauga itself. It's not just a matter of density either, but of a built-form that fosters strong communities and attracts economic activity.

In any case, try living in Mississauga without a car and see how you like it.

At the end of the day, downtown Toronto has much worse services than it would were it not amalgamated to the suburbs. Wealthier Toronto suburbs also have worse services than they would were they not amalgamated to parts of the city that are chronically under achieving. A very large and overwhelmingly suburban part of Toronto gets much much more in services than they could afford.

Scarborough and Etobicoke are stagnating, leaking jobs, and failing to attract investment due to their terrible built-form.

 

[TrickyRicky]

I'm not sure what this has to do with familes living in the city but I am often amused by the irony of suburban voters voting for a conservative economic platform that aligns with the idea of free market and low taxation, while "lefty" urban residents vote for a more socialist egalitarian economic platform.

The reality is as a resident of the old city of Toronto you could privatize every government service and and my quality of life would actually increase, while those in outlying areas pay more for poorer service or have current services become unavailable. I would have the best schools, best parks, ample money for transit expansion, the best healthcare, the best telecommunications services the best etc. Why? Because the demographics would support it. I don't need any proof or fact or statistic to generate the evidence that this phenomenon would occur. It makes you wonder why residents of central Toronto care so much about progressive ideals.

 

[RC8]

Because North American conservatives are for the most part in bed with corporate giants who would like to destroy everything we love about the Old City.

In Ontario, conservative = big box retail, car-oriented developments, guns, etc.

Also, people in the Old City must interact with other people daily, and so they realise the advantages of not alienating certain social classes completely (which would lead to increased crime, undesirable neighbourhoods, lower quality labour and service, etc).

In other countries where conservatives are actually true to fiscally conservative policies you see them implementing bike lanes and bike sharing programs, etc.

 

[BobBob]

I think the divide here has more to do with culture than economics: the Ford Nation types aren't really fiscal conservatives at all. They are socialist egalitarians, but only for things they 'like'. For example, parking and roads should be free (subsidized by everyone), unlike infrastructure for things they don't 'like'. Even when there are costs to reducing such infrastructure, it's considered money well spent.

 

[Glen]

A very significant portion of the current city of Toronto is almost as suburban as Mississauga itself. It's not just a matter of density either, but of a built-form that fosters strong communities and attracts economic activity.

Toronto population density.... 4,149/km2, Mississauga ..... 2,439.9/km2. Toronto's cost advantage in supplying municipal services..... $0. You can make the comparison with any other municipality in Ontario and you will find similar results. Again, property taxes per square foot is a bull shit metric, employed by those whom want to feel aggrieved. Your little condo is not served by little police officers, little fire fighters, little libraries, etc. so you should not expect a little tax bill. The use of assessment values as a means to calculate property tax is far from perfect, but it is at lease an attempt to make it progressive. Something your comments suggest that you are against.

At the end of the day, downtown Toronto has much worse services than it would were it not amalgamated to the suburbs. Wealthier Toronto suburbs also have worse services than they would were they not amalgamated to parts of the city that are chronically under achieving. A very large and overwhelmingly suburban part of Toronto gets much much more in services than they could afford.

Toronto's commercial core would not exist without the supply of labour from the entire region. It would not have materialized without the subway bringing in people (and paid for) by people throughout the city. Suggesting that the people of the core should be the only ones to share in the tax spoils that they provide is ridiculous. As far as those regions 'chronically under achieving'. perhaps if they had the same indirect subsidies as those in the core (F.I.R.E.) such as to big to fail policies, protection from foreign competition, captive markets, and large portions of income taxes at half the rate of regular wages, they would fair better.

Scarborough and Etobicoke are stagnating, leaking jobs, and failing to attract investment due to their terrible built-form.

You do realize that Mississauga, Vaughan, Markham etc. have similar built-form yet performed in the opposite? Once again you seem to be making up your own reality.

 

[TrickyRicky]

Isn't that really the point then Glen? People look after what they perceive to be their best interest and oppose subsidization of others or at least the subsidization of others that they perceive. The same people who oppose redistribution of wealth based on taxation seem quite comfortable in their desire to distort markets through policy in order to redistribute benefit.

RC8, I like and find this statement interesting:

"Also, people in the Old City must interact with other people daily, and so they realise the advantages of not alienating certain social classes completely (which would lead to increased crime, undesirable neighbourhoods, lower quality labour and service, etc)."

 

[RC8]

Glen, what part of 'it's not a matter of density' don't you understand?

^^^ that increases density substantially, but it provides fewer benefits than a functional urban form would.

In any case, Mississauga and Vaughan are unsustainably built boom-towns. Scarborough was once a booming suburb, too! What happened to it?

The typical North American suburb is only viable when incomes are very high (or cars and gas are very cheap), and land/person is plentiful. Even then, they can't match a functional urban form when it comes to fostering economic activity and creativity.

I propose we make a bet, de-amalgamate, and see what happens.

 

[Glen]

Scarborough was once a booming suburb, too! What happened to it?

CVA. Its urban form did not change.

 

[spider]

Originally Posted by RC8
Estimated number of cars that a TTC vehicle replaces during a typical morning rush hour:
- Bus: 45
- CLRV streetcar: 65
- ALRV streetcar: 95
- SRT train (4 cars): 195
- Subway train (6 cars): 890
- Toronto Rocket train (6 cars): 960

True, if every one of those TTC riders owns a car and chose to leave it in the driveway which is a silly assumption that adversely infects any other "logic" you may offer here on UT.

 

[scar_resident]

I just read through this whole thread and there's a couple things I find odd. Who are these suburban people that only eat at milstones? There are PLENTY of independant restaurants that you will never find anything close to downtown (Chinese, Malaysian, Indian, Thai (made by people from Thailand)). The BEST hakka is in Mississauga and Scarborough, you can't even find hakka downtown.

Also when I viewed the transit tomorrow survey results most people who live in the 905 generally work there, I believe all adjoined 905 regions were 50% - 70%. If you or your spouse work in the suburbs you will most likely live there. It's easier to live in the suburbs and have 1 spouse commute to Toronto then vice versa. Most people that live in 905 are not doing big 1 to 2 hour commutes, they are living where they work. Isn't that what downtowners keep preaching, how great it is to live near where you work?

 

[junior43]

I just read through this whole thread and there's a couple things I find odd. Who are these suburban people that only eat at milstones? There are PLENTY of independant restaurants that you will never find anything close to downtown (Chinese, Malaysian, Indian, Thai (made by people from Thailand)). The BEST hakka is in Mississauga and Scarborough, you can't even find hakka downtown.

Also when I viewed the transit tomorrow survey results most people who live in the 905 generally work there, I believe all adjoined 905 regions were 50% - 70%. If you or your spouse work in the suburbs you will most likely live there. It's easier to live in the suburbs and have 1 spouse commute to Toronto then vice versa. Most people that live in 905 are not doing big 1 to 2 hour commutes, they are living where they work. Isn't that what downtowners keep preaching, how great it is to live near where you work?

Too true! I find these boards fascinating for what the perception of everyone in the suburbs is like. I've lived in Scarborough for over 40 years and never been to a Milestones, in fact, the only Jack Astor's I've been to was downtown (work thing). And I've never circled a parking lot for toilet paper (christmas sure, but seriously?) Somehow window shopping and asphalt everywhere is awesome, but living in quiet greenery is commuting hell and not worth it. I have a ten minute walk to stand on the beach and have the waves from Lake Ontario run over my feet - and not see one man made structure. While I'm there, if I'm lucky, I can check out the deer, beavers, minks, coyotes and billions of birds. And when I go to work, I can jump on a GO train and be at my desk in 25 minutes. Plus, any time my dog wants to take a leak, I open the backdoor and he has the entire backyard to choose from, I don't have to wait for an elevator, then find some grass. I would not trade living in my area, or house, for anything. I find downtown to be like that old saying for grandchildren, happy to see it and enjoy it while I'm there, but even happier when it's gone too.

No, my experience doesn't represent all of suburbia (if it did, Milestones would be bankrupt) but it appears like all of suburbia is painted with the same brush here........

 

[RC8]

There is nothing inherently wrong with suburbia. But there is something awfully wrong with both of these places:

I understand and respect those who want to live in more intimate settings, but in order to make those settings work in the long run people need to be willing to adapt to certain physical and economic realities. The GO Train system is a triumphant example of people adapting. I also believe it is possible to significantly increase population densities without renouncing to that 'natural' feel junior43 speaks of. In fact, I would go as far as to say it is easier to create that feel by increasing densities and limiting cars than the other way around. The residential areas in the Toronto islands feel pretty damn idyllic to me!

 

[js97]

In fact, I would go as far as to say it is easier to create that feel by increasing densities and limiting cars than the other way around. The residential areas in the Toronto islands feel pretty damn idyllic to me!

You need to come back to reality...
Toronto Island residents represent the 0.00004% (what is it, 100 residents in 2.5M), that model is not scalable. And Islanders would be the first ones to oppose further 'densification' or further development.

Face it, as a previous poster pointed it out, it's not an economic or reality based argument you're putting forward, but simply a culture prejudice you have.