Hendsbee talking about tolls to downtown again.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Heard this in the news again today:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2013/03/13/ns-toll-road-halifax-peninsula.html

Sorry if this has already been discussed here - did a quick scan but couldn't find any threads.

Opinions on this?

To me it seems like an ass-backwards way of dealing with the downtown traffic situation. Charging drivers for the honor of driving downtown is ludicrous in my opinion - this appears to be a simple tax grab that will do nothing to keep traffic out of the downtown. It would, however, make the traffic situation much worse by causing backups while people stop to pay tolls. Not to mention that it would simply take money away from people who are already feeling the pinch of the economy.

If it is successful, then I see less people choosing downtown as a potential shopping district and thus having a negative impact on retail business. A lose-lose situation IMHO.

Seems to me the best way to get people to leave their cars at home but still go downtown would be to make it more convenient for them to do so - i.e. improved busing, LRT, etc. etc. Not to mention that it would be an investment into Halifax's future growth as a city.

My god it seems like it's difficult to get somebody in public office here who will use logic and common sense! Am I missing something?

What's next? Curing obesity by charging a toll to get into grocery stores? :koko:

[ILoveHalifax]

We only need one toll and that would be about $100.00 to get down Hendsbee's street. Maybe he would fail to show up for council sessions.
There are a lot of reasons why not everyone can take transit, possibly a car full of samples or several brief cases of binders, laptop, etc.
If this is the best idea he can come up with I hope he is not re-elected next time.

[someone123]

Terrible. The tax system is already slanted against the Peninsula and downtown.

We only need one toll and that would be about $100.00 to get down Hendsbee's street. Maybe he would fail to show up for council sessions.

Finally some good ideas!

[Hali87]

This is the underlying concept:

To change habits it’s going to have to cost people to do that.

I don't think this is necessarily true. If there were better options on/off the Peninsula, fewer people would drive because it's already costing them (gas $, and particularly, time). The article goes on to clarify that he thinks that the toll would have to come with improved infrastructure etc. which seems reasonable enough. He doesn't seem to consider that with the improved infrastructure the toll might not even be necessary; I guess some people just firmly believe that you can't have a carrot without a stick.

The last couple paragraphs:

But not everyone around the council table agrees.

“It’s certainly not an idea that I'm in favour of. I think there's other alternate things we can be looking at express bussing and even perhaps ferry, fast light rail,” said Coun. Brad Johns.

Hendsbee said he expects tolls will be part of several public transit discussions in HRM over the upcoming months.

Still, he said tolls are at least a decade away.

[MonctonRad]

This is a ludicrous suggestion on Councillor Hendsbee's part.

The solution to Halifax's downtown congestion and commuter woes is improved regional transit (commuter rail and perhaps high speed ferries) not restrictive tolls!

If realistic transit options existed, people would use them. I know if I still lived in Halifax, and was commuting from the burbs to downtown for work that I would absolutely use commuter rail.

Build it and they will come!!!

Tolls are a complete non starter. They use them in London England (where they are not popular), but Halifax is not London. If your intent is to kill the remaining retail in the city centre and the pub/restaurant scene, then by all means institute a congestion toll. If your intent is a more realistic solution to the problem then by all means do not re-elect Hendsbee in the next civic election......

I guess the next election is about three years away, right? :(

[Drybrain]

Congestion pricing like this can be a really great way to promote alternative forms of transport. But that's in cities like London, NYC, etc. Halifax does not have the traffic problems those cities have, and I think this might deter downtown visitors—this is an idea to keep in our back pocket, for a few decades down the road.

(That said, if it was a teeny-tiny toll, and the money were all to go toward building a rail-based transit system, I might feel differently.)

[q12]

:facepalm::facepalm::shitstorm:

London has the tube, New York has the subway. Halifax has the Bus :banaride: and a ferry :titanic:.

No comparison.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Here's a novel idea... people have to pay to go to the burbs. If these people can afford cars and to live out there, they are the ones that are the problem.

Not only are the suburbs being subsidized by everybody who pays higher taxes on the peninsula, it also leads to more sprawl.

There is no logic here. Why is council full of such morons? I'd like to think there are smart people who have common sense in Halifax/

[ILoveHalifax]

Here's a novel idea... people have to pay to go to the burbs. If these people can afford cars and to live out there, they are the ones that are the problem.

Not only are the suburbs being subsidized by everybody who pays higher taxes on the peninsula, it also leads to more sprawl.

There is no logic here. Why is council full of such morons? I'd like to think there are smart people who have common sense in Halifax/

Good thought and maybe we should have a zone system on public transit as well. Those who live way out should pay more to get into town on buses than those who live in town who only travel a few miles.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Good thought and maybe we should have a zone system on public transit as well. Those who live way out should pay more to get into town on buses than those who live in town who only travel a few miles.

In the case of Halifax, this would only target the poor. I think it needs to be more tied to those who can afford cars.

All the people who can afford cars should really live in apartments/houses on the peninsula and use transit in general.

[OldDartmouthMark]

In the case of Halifax, this would only target the poor. I think it needs to be more tied to those who can afford cars.

All the people who can afford cars should really live in apartments/houses on the peninsula and use transit in general.

There is very little discernible logic in this statement.

[worldlyhaligonian]

There is very little discernible logic in this statement.

Its just a judgement call I'm making on what it costs to own an automobile per year versus what the rent differential is for peninsula versus off peninsula. Furthermore, the anti-development camps have reduced the amount of potential apartment units on the peninsula

If somebody lives in the burbs and DOESN'T drive a car... they are likely looking for a better rent and shouldn't have to pay more to go work on the peninsula.

Do you get my logic? Why should people have to pay more for bad transit service they have to take long distances because rent is artificially higher on the peninsula due to a lack of density. All those with cars who live in the burbs are paying for their cars with the reduced rent... they could likely afford to not have a car and live in walkable or short bus distances.

Much of it has to do with the HRM concept.

[worldlyhaligonian]

There is very little discernible logic in this statement.

By tied to affording cars, I mean that if you drive home to your place in the burbs every day you have to pay... i.e. the opposite. From an economics perspective it would make the burbs less attractive in every sense.

Those taking the transit service shouldn't pay extra to live out there when taking the bus (if they can't even afford a car or choose not to own one...) this would increase ridership and put pressure on transit to be better.

[OldDartmouthMark]

All the people who can afford cars should really live in apartments/houses on the peninsula and use transit in general.

Sorry, I should not have quoted the first part of your statement as I do not disagree with it. Also, I should have explained my point a little further:

- Owning a car doesn't mean you are rich. For example, a 10 year old Hyundai can be quite cheap to buy and maintain. However, many people (esp. with families) do require the utility of a car and therefore should not be penalized or berated because of it.

- Those that need to own a car, or choose to own a car might not be able to afford to live on the peninsula, or they may not want to live on the peninsula.

- Therefore it's somewhat nonsensical to suggest that anybody who can afford a car should live in a location that may not fit their needs or wants.

However, I do agree that good transit options should be made available to all citizens of HRM, regardless of whether they live on the peninsula or not. That's not to say that every suburb should have a bus snaking through every street, but efficient transit with common pickup points (i.e. a LRT station with sufficient parking area) would do wonders in reducing traffic downtown.

I also agree that HRM should increase population density to the peninsula area to make it more affordable to those who choose this lifestyle. Peninsula living should not only be affordable to the rich. I believe the free market would likely determine the saturation point.

I hope this helps explain my position a little better.

[Keith P.]

If Hendsbee's position is as stated, it is ludicrous to impose a toll for getting on to the peninsula. If you need to go from Dartmouth to, say, Tantallon, you need to transit across the peninsula. There is no other way to get there. Why pay a toll for that - unless you are trying to penalize people who want to go to Tantallon.

[someone123]

This quote is illuminating:

Right now, people on the eastern side of the harbour pay to get into the peninsula over the bridges, but traffic from the western side of the municipality pay nothing so if there's going to be traffic on the peninsula why doesn't all the residents pay for it in some form or fashion? So there would be a user fee.

People in Dartmouth pay more because they need bridges to get across and the bridges need to be paid for. The western side has a natural advantage in terms of getting onto the peninsula (which is reflected in the fact that you can buy a cheaper house in Dartmouth), but this seems unfair to Hendsbee -- everywhere must be equally penalized.

Is it any wonder why Halifax's transportation system is such a disaster when this is the kind of stuff councillors are saying? In most cities people want to fix travel problems with new infrastructure. In Halifax, at least one councillor likes to go off on wild tangents and try to think of ways to make it harder to get around.

[worldlyhaligonian]

Sorry, I should not have quoted the first part of your statement as I do not disagree with it. Also, I should have explained my point a little further:

- Owning a car doesn't mean you are rich. For example, a 10 year old Hyundai can be quite cheap to buy and maintain. However, many people (esp. with families) do require the utility of a car and therefore should not be penalized or berated because of it.

- Those that need to own a car, or choose to own a car might not be able to afford to live on the peninsula, or they may not want to live on the peninsula.

- Therefore it's somewhat nonsensical to suggest that anybody who can afford a car should live in a location that may not fit their needs or wants.

However, I do agree that good transit options should be made available to all citizens of HRM, regardless of whether they live on the peninsula or not. That's not to say that every suburb should have a bus snaking through every street, but efficient transit with common pickup points (i.e. a LRT station with sufficient parking area) would do wonders in reducing traffic downtown.

I also agree that HRM should increase population density to the peninsula area to make it more affordable to those who choose this lifestyle. Peninsula living should not only be affordable to the rich. I believe the free market would likely determine the saturation point.

I hope this helps explain my position a little better.

Purchase price is the smallest factor though. Owning a car is actually very expensive in NS on an annualized basis. If you took that price and placed it on top of the rent differential of the north end or parts of the west end it would probably make living in the suburbs much more expensive.

[Hali87]

If Hendsbee's position is as stated, it is ludicrous to impose a toll for getting on to the peninsula. If you need to go from Dartmouth to, say, Tantallon, you need to transit across the peninsula. There is no other way to get there. Why pay a toll for that - unless you are trying to penalize people who want to go to Tantallon.

How often do you think the average Dartmouthian needs to go to Tantallon?

[halifaxboyns]

We had the Toronto Transit Commission Chair Karen Stintz in Calgary for a talk on public transit and she, along with former Chief Planner Paul Bedford talked about all of the taxation options available to raise money to help fund transit.

While toll roads was considered one, what interested me more was a sales tax. If HRM had the power to levy a 1% sales tax on all purchases, I can't imagine how much money that would raise. Just looking back at the Toronto stats, I seem to recall that it was somewhere in the $2 billion range, at 1%. Looking at the economy of scale principle, that would likely be somewhere around $500 million in HRM I'm guessing, but would rise over time? But the key was the tax could not be used for anything other than public transit - which a recent pole showed 67% of GTAA residents would support. I suspect you would get a similar response in HRM if they saw that it was going to support new rapid transit (LRT, high speed ferry, etc.).

The issue I have with congestion charging and looking at the London example is that while it did reduce the traffic volumes, eventually they came back to the same levels pre-tax. PBS's series E squared did an episode on it and I was shocked by this because I expected, it would've actually stayed low but it didn't. My concern would be we'd be charging this 'toll' and if the goal was to reduce traffic - would we actually see that in say 10 years after everyone got used to it or would it be like London and eventually people just paid it and the amount of traffic went back to the way it was?

Although I do agree with Hensbee's comment about fairness and that the people on the Mainland do have it easy because their access isn't subject to a charge/fee. If that's the case, then maybe we should look at some sort of access charge there too? But I wouldn't go overboard - make it the same as the bridge. I suspect this fairness issue might reduce/be eliminated if a NW arm crossing was built, since it would be under the control of the HDBC and they would definitely tool it.

But I don't think road tolls exclusively will solve the traffic/transit issue in HRM. It has to be a multi-phased approach. They also raised the issue of additional taxation on surfacing parking lots throughout Toronto as a way to raise money (such as major shopping centres) which was really interesting too. I don't have the presentation here, but when I get home I'll post what they talked about as it was quite an extensive list of taxation and fee tools they were looking at (including re-instituting the municipal vehicle registration charge; which Ford had struck down).

For me; the key to all this is where the money goes. If you want people to support paying it and the intention is for traffic improvements through constructing new transit - that is where it has to go. It can't just go into general revenues and then be used to repave a street in god knows where. It must be designated for transit and only used for that purpose.

[Hali87]

All the people who can afford cars should really live in apartments/houses on the peninsula and use transit in general.

There are more reasons to live in the suburbs than simple economic ones. I get the feeling that most of the people on this site would prefer to live in a high-density urban area, use public transit, etc. Not everyone wants this though.

Consider that the peninsula is in the process of densifying. It's probably relatively hard to find a single-family home with a backyard and some privacy on the Peninsula as it is, and it will be even harder the more developed the Peninsula becomes. Many families with young kids, or even just people with dogs etc, would probably want to live in a house with a yard that belongs just to them, not to them + 40 other families. So while the dense, walkable-bikable-transit-friendly apartment-dwelling crowd should be attracted to the Peninsula, it's not really fair to say that anyone who can afford a car should live on the Peninsula and use public transit because they could easily afford to if they didn't have a car.

[ILoveHalifax]

So a person living in Tantallon and working in Burnside would pay a toll to get on the peninsula and also to cross the bridge.
It annoys me that these people we elect seem to think they know where everyone is going and the reason why they are going. There are 415,000 of us in Halifax and another 100,000 nearby and we are all going somewhere different. They (councillors) should stop trying to put us all in the same box. We all want options. Some like highrise, others like country, some need their cars for a variety of reasons and some prefer to take a bus. They (councillors) should be looking to provide all the options in the best way possible. Stop putting us in boxes.

[Hali87]

While toll roads was considered one, what interested me more was a sales tax. If HRM had the power to levy a 1% sales tax on all purchases, I can't imagine how much money that would raise. Just looking back at the Toronto stats, I seem to recall that it was somewhere in the $2 billion range, at 1%. Looking at the economy of scale principle, that would likely be somewhere around $500 million in HRM I'm guessing, but would rise over time? But the key was the tax could not be used for anything other than public transit - which a recent pole showed 67% of GTAA residents would support. I suspect you would get a similar response in HRM if they saw that it was going to support new rapid transit (LRT, high speed ferry, etc.).

The problem is that adding a 1% sales tax in Calgary would not be that big a deal, but adding even 1% in Halifax would make us [b]the single most heavily-taxed jurisdiction in the country[/i]. The average Haligonian probably has much, much less disposable income than the average Calgarian. So I think it would be extremely hard to get Haligonians to support this.

What I would personally like to see would be an infrastructure levy applied to all new developments in the suburbs. This seems like the most fair way of doing it and would probably yield the best overall results (avoids tax reform for now, discourages sprawl, raises money for roads/transit etc).

[Hali87]

So a person living in Tantallon and working in Burnside would pay a toll to get on the peninsula and also to cross the bridge.
It annoys me that these people we elect seem to think they know where everyone is going and the reason why they are going. There are 415,000 of us in Halifax and another 100,000 nearby and we are all going somewhere different. They (councillors) should stop trying to put us all in the same box. We all want options. Some like highrise, others like country, some need their cars for a variety of reasons and some prefer to take a bus. They (councillors) should be looking to provide all the options in the best way possible. Stop putting us in boxes.

I don't quite understand why someone who works in Burnside would choose to live in Tantallon though, or vice versa. I think most people would choose not to live on the complete opposite side of the urban area from where they work, and as for the people who do choose this, should we really be basing our policies around making things easier for them?

[Nouvellecosse]

...

The issue I have with congestion charging and looking at the London example is that while it did reduce the traffic volumes, eventually they came back to the same levels pre-tax. PBS's series E squared did an episode on it and I was shocked by this because I expected, it would've actually stayed low but it didn't. My concern would be we'd be charging this 'toll' and if the goal was to reduce traffic - would we actually see that in say 10 years after everyone got used to it or would it be like London and eventually people just paid it and the amount of traffic went back to the way it was?
...


But that isn't really the point though. Sure the traffic levels might have returned to pre-tax levels after 10 years, but they've been able to raise significant revenue for that 10 years which they can use to do something about the traffic - like building more road and transit infrastructure, And they've managed to take pressure off the roads during the 10 year period required to do it.

Without the tax, congestion levels would have remained just as bad for the full 10 years - or even gotten worse - and they would still be stuck looking for funding to remedy it.

[Nouvellecosse]

I don't quite understand why someone who works in Burnside would choose to live in Tantallon though, or vice versa. I think most people would choose not to live on the complete opposite side of the urban area from where they work, and as for the people who do choose this, should we really be basing our policies around making things easier for them?

Maybe his wife works in Tantallon and can't find anything as good in the city, and she doesn't want to live in Dartmouth as she'd be the one spending a long time commuting. And he was able to find an amazing job in his field in Burnside that he just couldn't pass up.

Remember, we're not always talking about someone. Many people make decision about where to live as a couple.

[OldDartmouthMark]

I don't quite understand why someone who works in Burnside would choose to live in Tantallon though, or vice versa. I think most people would choose not to live on the complete opposite side of the urban area from where they work, and as for the people who do choose this, should we really be basing our policies around making things easier for them?

Sometimes it's not so simple, though:

(1) For example, people tend to purchase a house on where they would like to live, including vicinity to schools, etc., and although the commute is factored in it is not necessarily the deciding factor for everyone.

(2) People change jobs. They might have purchased their house due to the vicinity to their job, but later take a better job in another area but do not want to move as they love their house, neighborhood, etc. I personally know somebody in this position.

(3) In some cases both spouses work. While their house may be a convenient commute for one it may involve a longer one for the other.

None of these cases should be penalized by policy conjured up by the elected officials who are supposed to be looking out for their needs.

[RyeJay]

I also agree that HRM should increase population density to the peninsula area to make it more affordable to those who choose this lifestyle. Peninsula living should not only be affordable to the rich. I believe the free market would likely determine the saturation point.

I agree with you, and would like to contribute to this notion of density by proposing it isn't limited to the peninsula.

I would also like to express my concern about people believing there is a 'choice' in urban/suburban living arrangements, when future generations clearly don't have a 'choice' with the debt we force upon them as we go further into debt subsidising the suburbs.

Our thinking, perhaps, needs to be less along the lines of what we can 'choose' and instead more focused on what we can afford.

We cannot afford to not bring density to the peninsula and every other core region of HRM.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Purchase price is the smallest factor though. Owning a car is actually very expensive in NS on an annualized basis. If you took that price and placed it on top of the rent differential of the north end or parts of the west end it would probably make living in the suburbs much more expensive.

As a lifelong NS resident and car owner, I'm very aware of the costs of owning a vehicle here. My only point is that a savvy car owner can do it quite inexpensively, but it sometimes involves gaining knowledge and exerting effort (and occasionally getting your hands dirty). To take it further, if you consider the cost of owning a car in most of Europe or many parts of Asia, it is dirt-cheap to own a car in Canada. That wasn't really my point, though.

Again, my main point is the idea of dictating where somebody should live based on their perceived income is somewhat absurd. I like living in a free country where things such as this are still choices.

That's all. :cheers:

[ILoveHalifax]

I don't quite understand why someone who works in Burnside would choose to live in Tantallon though, or vice versa. I think most people would choose not to live on the complete opposite side of the urban area from where they work, and as for the people who do choose this, should we really be basing our policies around making things easier for them?

The point is we should not be basing policy around anybody. People live where they want and work where they want. Maybe the guy's wife works in Tantallon and he works in Burnside, but it is not for us to decide for them. Policy should be to develop the nicest city we can for everybody with lots of options.

[Hali87]

The point is we should not be basing policy around anybody. People live where they want and work where they want. Maybe the guy's wife works in Tantallon and he works in Burnside, but it is not for us to decide for them. Policy should be to develop the nicest city we can for everybody with lots of options.

I didn't mean that that shouldn't be allowed, and I don't necessarily agree with the tolls idea, but what I did mean is "we shouldn't have tolls on/off the peninsula because that would make it harder for someone to live in Tantallon but work in Burnside" is kind of a weak argument when you think about what you're saying, especially in light of the current planning regime - ie. reduce live-work distances and increase the efficiency of infrastructure.

[ILoveHalifax]

when you think about what you're saying, especially in light of the current planning regime - ie. reduce live-work distances and increase the efficiency of infrastructure.

The point is that politicians should not be making these choices for anybody. 'The regime' has no place in our private lives. Their job is to plan the nicest city possible and let the individual decide how they will use the infrastructure.

[RyeJay]

The point is that politicians should not be making these choices for anybody. 'The regime' has no place in our private lives. Their job is to plan the nicest city possible and let the individual decide how they will use the infrastructure.

'The regime' can easily be 'the corporation', especially one that has monopolised industries.

Unfortunately, letting individuals decide what they want often means little to no regard for how they'll pay for it, hence the high levels of personal and public debt.

[ILoveHalifax]

'The regime' can easily be 'the corporation', especially one that has monopolised industries.

Unfortunately, letting individuals decide what they want often means little to no regard for how they'll pay for it, hence the high levels of personal and public debt.

Seems like a lot of assumptions. How does personal freedom relate to debt? That's a big jump in logic. The regime is our current government, not a corporation and again a big jump to monopoly.

[someone123]

The Vancouver-area transit agency gets some of its funding from a gas tax.

HRM doesn't need to raise taxes to pay for transit, it needs to change its spending priorities and come up with more compelling transportation projects that are eligible for provincial and federal funding, like the BRT project was. The fact is that the city already has a huge budget (nearly $1B per year) and it is often spent on initiatives that should be relatively low priority. The province similarly is constantly spending money to expand roads; if they wanted, some of that could be diverted to transit. That sort of investment probably makes more sense in Halifax at this point than the 102 expansion that they are contemplating.

It might be useful for the city to shift the tax burden around by raising suburban development fees and dropping fees elsewhere, but development fees are a notoriously fickle revenue source.

[Hali87]

NSP = monopolized industry.

Personal freedom relates to debt in that the municipality cannot necessarily afford to allow people to live "wherever/however they want" and still receive municipal services. In order for the municipality to function, not everybody can get exactly what they want all of the time. However, most people (everybody, really) should be able to get most of the things they want most of the time (within reason). This is easier to accomplish when everything isn't a total free-for-all.

I should clarify that by "planning regime" I meant "planning strategy", as in the current plan for the nicest city possible acknowledges that allowing people to live closer to where they work will make for a more efficient city. I guess I sometimes equate "allowing people to live closer" with "encouraging people to live closer", although really they're not necessarily the same thing.

[OldDartmouthMark]

I agree with you, and would like to contribute to this notion of density by proposing it isn't limited to the peninsula.

I think there is density increasing in the suburbs - look at the Larry Uteck area, for example.

I would also like to express my concern about people believing there is a 'choice' in urban/suburban living arrangements, when future generations clearly don't have a 'choice' with the debt we force upon them as we go further into debt subsidising the suburbs.

Please explain this. Who is going into debt? Are suburban areas truly being subsidized by other areas? Why do you think the younger generations will no longer be able to choose where they live? Will they not have jobs?

Our thinking, perhaps, needs to be less along the lines of what we can 'choose' and instead more focused on what we can afford.

To my way of thinking, "choice" and "affordability" are contiguous. Are you suggesting that the younger generation is attempting to live beyond their means?

We cannot afford to not bring density to the peninsula and every other core region of HRM.

Agree, but density has to be backed up with infrastructure (focusing on but not limited to, transit, IMHO), so it's not a simple matter of just building density where you want to - it needs to be backed by all levels of government. Will this infrastructure and service involved with suburban density cause an increase to the debt that you have referred to above? Does that mean that increasing density in the suburbs will increase the subsidization of the suburbs that you were pensating above?

[halifaxboyns]

One of my major issues with people's 'choice' to live in the suburbs is that they have a tendency to look at the cost of the houses and say - oh I could get bigger/better in the rural or suburban than on the peninsula and then they buy. What they forget (or purposely factor out) is the cost of the car they will need (for the most part), the gas, maintenance and if it's a couple - perhaps even two cars? When you factor those things in - the cost gap closes rather quickly.

But the key thing that people never factor in, which I think is the critical element, is the cost of their time. What is your time worth? Toronto is talking about the issue of congestion with their 'what would you do with 32' campaign. If nothing is done, congestion will add another 32 minutes to the commute. But that is what people factor the least, if at all. How much would you value your time if you had to commute from some rural area 1.5 hours each way to get downtown? For me - my time is hugely valuable, so I would pay the price to live on the peninsula in a house/condo whatever because I do not particularly want to be in a car/bus for 3 hours a day. But that's just me...

[halifaxboyns]

Oh I forgot to look at those presentations (like I said I would earlier), but if you go to the City of Toronto's website on congestion (http://www.feelingcongested.ca/#have-your-say) they have listed all the revenue generators that I was mentioning.

There is everything from a vehicle registration tax, highway tolls, congestion charging, to sales/fuel taxes, value capture tax (a tax on increase value of your home) to payroll taxes on businesses over a certain size. It's really interesting because you can actually try to help figure out how to raise the $2 billion/year they need to help build transit.

[Drybrain]

Oh I forgot to look at those presentations (like I said I would earlier), but if you go to the City of Toronto's website on congestion (http://www.feelingcongested.ca/#have-your-say) they have listed all the revenue generators that I was mentioning.

There is everything from a vehicle registration tax, highway tolls, congestion charging, to sales/fuel taxes, value capture tax (a tax on increase value of your home) to payroll taxes on businesses over a certain size. It's really interesting because you can actually try to help figure out how to raise the $2 billion/year they need to help build transit.

That website is the brainchild of their chief planner—unfortunately, with the curent mayoral regime there, there's no chance of any of this being implemented in the short term. (They used to have a vehicle registration tax of 60 bucks, but Ford killed it his first month in office, and they currently have a land-transfer tax on home sales, but that's being phased out as well. Discouraging.)

[beyeas]

The biggest single easy-to-implement thing that council could have proactively done, but did not, is stop subsidizing the sale of cheap land in business parks for non-industrial uses.

They have to cure their addiction to the revenue they get from that sale. Until they do so, combined with increasing the tax revenues from the businesses that open on that cheap land (by comparison to the expensive commercial taxes paid by downtown businesses), we are just going to end up with more and more businesses moving out of the core. At that point, people's housing and entertainment choices will follow, and the move to high tax burden subdivisions will continue.

[halifaxboyns]

The biggest single easy-to-implement thing that council could have proactively done, but did not, is stop subsidizing the sale of cheap land in business parks for non-industrial uses.

They have to cure their addiction to the revenue they get from that sale. Until they do so, combined with increasing the tax revenues from the businesses that open on that cheap land (by comparison to the expensive commercial taxes paid by downtown businesses), we are just going to end up with more and more businesses moving out of the core. At that point, people's housing and entertainment choices will follow, and the move to high tax burden subdivisions will continue.

To me; this is a first step - but there are many other steps left to go. Such as no longer providing additional funds for construction of initial infrastructure for new greenfield communities.

That is part of a huge debate happening out here in Calgary right now and frankly the development industry is steaming. I get the sense that they figured our new Municipal Plan (Plan it Calgary) was approved but was just going to sit on a shelf and they are shocked we are going ahead and actually implementing it.

I remember reading about the issues that were happening with Bedford West and the interchanges for 102/Larry Uteck, that the City was on board for something like half of the cost. My question would be: If we don't want to encourage this development but may have already given zoning approval previously; why does the city have to help fund the infrastructure? That wasn't part of the zoning approval so just say no. We didn't ask for you to build it, we don't want it - build it yourself and turn the tap off.