TheTigerMaster
Superstar
I think you're right. Well in that case, every LRT and BRT in the province. I don't see how anyone views this as beneficial
|
|
|
New Transit Funding Sources
- Thread starter denfromoakvillemilton
- Start date
I think you're right. Well in that case, every LRT and BRT in the province. I don't see how anyone views this as beneficial
innsertnamehere
Superstar
He has only promised to fund the subways IIRC. He just says he "supports GO expansion more" whenever he is asked about suburban LRTs.
ssiguy2
Senior Member
I'm glad my idea has created so much conversation.
Of course that won't mean anything as Toronto won't ever do it even though it would raise billions for the city with almost no overhead costs and yet wouldn't cost the citizens of Toronto a cent.
As far as an "us vs them" mentality it creates between the City and the 905, that is absolutely true. That however has never stopped GO from creating a commuter rail system that almost no one in Toronto uses because the prices are ridiculously high for even short distances. Metrolinx has made it quite clear that they consider GO rail as nothing more than a 905 service and Toronto is just the houses you go by to get to Union and all Torontonians get is the smell, noise, and pollution from the diesel trains.
It's about time Toronto stopped being the sacrificial lamb in the GTA and put itself first. If they want to use the roads that your taxpayers are maintaining them send the bill for their portion.
Of course that won't mean anything as Toronto won't ever do it even though it would raise billions for the city with almost no overhead costs and yet wouldn't cost the citizens of Toronto a cent.
As far as an "us vs them" mentality it creates between the City and the 905, that is absolutely true. That however has never stopped GO from creating a commuter rail system that almost no one in Toronto uses because the prices are ridiculously high for even short distances. Metrolinx has made it quite clear that they consider GO rail as nothing more than a 905 service and Toronto is just the houses you go by to get to Union and all Torontonians get is the smell, noise, and pollution from the diesel trains.
It's about time Toronto stopped being the sacrificial lamb in the GTA and put itself first. If they want to use the roads that your taxpayers are maintaining them send the bill for their portion.
doady
Senior Member
The province only owns a few roads in outside Toronto.
I'm in favour of tolling Gardiner and DVP, but let's not act like Torontonians don't drive on munipically-owned roads in the 905.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Nobody here is pretending. They're free to toll whoever they like as far as I'm concerned.
TOareaFan
Superstar
I just don't see "tit-for-tat" road tolling as a solution for a regional issue.
Adjei
Senior Member
So the province owns and maintains all the roads in the GTA?
denfromoakvillemilton
Senior Member
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2008
- Messages
- 7,448
- Reaction score
- 1,507
- Location
- Downtown Toronto, Ontario
Yeah.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
all 400 series highways. Thats my beef, why is the DVP and Gardiner, clearly highways of regional importance, municipally owned? local roads should obviously be municipally owned, but why should highways?
doady
Senior Member
Because the DVP and Gardiner were built by the city, not the province.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
The province built the QEW as far east as the Humber River. The city basically extended the highway to downtown and up the Don River valley to the 401. Then the province turned around and instead of taking over the maintenance costs of the Gardiner Expressway and Don Valley Parkway, dumped the QEW from west of the 427 to be maintained by the city. That way the maintenance costs do not turn up on the province's books.
Several old provincial highways (IE. 7, 50, etc.) were dumped on municipalities so that they would be maintained and the costs paid by the municipalities, to show everyone that the province can save money by having someone else (IE. cities) pay for them.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
a big chunk of the Gardiner was once provincially owned, and the Gardiner was a natural extension of the QEW to replace lakeshore road, which the province would have done anyway had Toronto not.
doady
Senior Member
Umm, didn't I point that out earlier in this thread already?
Obviously I was referring to the portion of the Gardiner that the City built (approx 2/3 of the current Gardiner), including the entire elevated portion, when I said the Gardiner was built by the city. Sheesh.
The point is, the city built the Gardiner and DVP, don't blame the province for it. The only thing the province should cover that former QEW portion. The rest is Toronto's mistake. Toronto should deal Toronto's mistake, not the province. By all means, toll them, I totally support that. But don't expect the province to help in any way.
Obviously I was referring to the portion of the Gardiner that the City built (approx 2/3 of the current Gardiner), including the entire elevated portion, when I said the Gardiner was built by the city. Sheesh.
The point is, the city built the Gardiner and DVP, don't blame the province for it. The only thing the province should cover that former QEW portion. The rest is Toronto's mistake. Toronto should deal Toronto's mistake, not the province. By all means, toll them, I totally support that. But don't expect the province to help in any way.
Dan416
Senior Member
Any kind of tolling by residency is doomed to failure and is a completely hare-brained idea. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.
I've seen some pretty bad ideas on these boards, but this certainly ranks up there with the worst.
I've seen some pretty bad ideas on these boards, but this certainly ranks up there with the worst.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
how is it biting the hand that feeds you? you honestly think that the majority of people in the GTA will manage to minimize use of the DVP or Gardiner to less than 6 times a year? the majority of suburban residents need the DVD and Gardiner. to them it would be inconvenient, but necessary to have access to Toronto. And this is coming from someone living well outside Toronto. its not a usage based fee, it is an annual access fee. It doesn't discourage extra trips beyond the "essential" trips that occur at least 6 times annually, and for that reason I think it is palatable.
Last edited: