ION Phase 2 - Cambridge's Light Rail Transit

[ijmorlan]

Another is that municipalities just don't have the proper tax tools at the moment. Taxing properties is not the right way to fund transit.

I'll certainly agree with you on that!

I figure we should increase the HST back to where it was (2% points higher than it is), with the extra money going directly to municipalities. Municipalities can’t impose their own sales taxes (and I don’t really like the idea of having thousands of sales tax jurisdictions in the country) but it makes sense to give them a share of the single tax.

[westwardloo]

I'll certainly agree with you on that!

I figure we should increase the HST back to where it was (2% points higher than it is), with the extra money going directly to municipalities. Municipalities can’t impose their own sales taxes (and I don’t really like the idea of having thousands of sales tax jurisdictions in the country) but it makes sense to give them a share of the single tax.

I wouldn't mind the idea municipalities over a certain population being able to increase sales tax to pay for local investments in infrastructure. Unfortunately it would pretty much guarantee referendums on the subject which would result in no sales tax increase. I lived in Vancouver when we had a referendum on a 1% sale tax increase to pay for a new (skytrain) subway, a couple lrt lines and a couple brt lines. I think it would have cost the average person $50-100 a year. Ultimately the anti tax groups are very good at convincing the public that taxes are bad. Pretty much delayed transit expansion in Vancouver by 5 years. Basically ever city in the USA that is undergoing a massive transit expansion implemented a sales tax increase. examples include Seattle, Portland, Denver and Los Angeles.

[danbrotherston]

I figure we should increase the HST back to where it was (2% points higher than it is), with the extra money going directly to municipalities. Municipalities can’t impose their own sales taxes (and I don’t really like the idea of having thousands of sales tax jurisdictions in the country) but it makes sense to give them a share of the single tax.

I wouldn't mind the idea municipalities over a certain population being able to increase sales tax to pay for local investments in infrastructure. Unfortunately it would pretty much guarantee referendums on the subject which would result in no sales tax increase. I lived in Vancouver when we had a referendum on a 1% sale tax increase to pay for a new (skytrain) subway, a couple lrt lines and a couple brt lines. I think it would have cost the average person $50-100 a year. Ultimately the anti tax groups are very good at convincing the public that taxes are bad. Pretty much delayed transit expansion in Vancouver by 5 years. Basically ever city in the USA that is undergoing a massive transit expansion implemented a sales tax increase. examples include Seattle, Portland, Denver and Los Angeles.

Yes, the anti-tax brigade has set us back considerably.

I don't actually like a sales tax though, I think they end up, in practice being fairly regressive. A progressive income tax is best, but even property tax, essentially amounts to a wealth tax (something that is horrifying people in any other form). If we got rid of the regressive features of property tax (where certain rental buildings pay double) I don't see why it is such a bad idea.

[ijmorlan]

I figure we should increase the HST back to where it was (2% points higher than it is), with the extra money going directly to municipalities. Municipalities can’t impose their own sales taxes (and I don’t really like the idea of having thousands of sales tax jurisdictions in the country) but it makes sense to give them a share of the single tax.

I wouldn't mind the idea municipalities over a certain population being able to increase sales tax to pay for local investments in infrastructure. Unfortunately it would pretty much guarantee referendums on the subject which would result in no sales tax increase. I lived in Vancouver when we had a referendum on a 1% sale tax increase to pay for a new (skytrain) subway, a couple lrt lines and a couple brt lines. I think it would have cost the average person $50-100 a year. Ultimately the anti tax groups are very good at convincing the public that taxes are bad. Pretty much delayed transit expansion in Vancouver by 5 years. Basically ever city in the USA that is undergoing a massive transit expansion implemented a sales tax increase. examples include Seattle, Portland, Denver and Los Angeles.

This is what I mean. It’s not a good idea to let individual municipalities impose sales taxes. It would mean that in effect each municipality would be a separate sales tax jurisdiction, which would be insanely complicated and lead to weird effects at municipal borders. My idea in effect gives every municipality the same sales tax rate, administered as part of the HST. No increase in administration expense, except for a trivial amount associated with sending the money to the municipalities (and in particular, no difference for businesses).

[tomh009]

I don't actually like a sales tax though, I think they end up, in practice being fairly regressive. A progressive income tax is best, but even property tax, essentially amounts to a wealth tax (something that is horrifying people in any other form). If we got rid of the regressive features of property tax (where certain rental buildings pay double) I don't see why it is such a bad idea.

Income tax is fully progressive in that the rates increase with income. Property taxes and sales taxes are not, as the tax rate stays constant regardless of the annual spending amount (for sales tax) or the property value (for property taxes). In both of those cases, higher-income people do end up paying more taxes as they tend to live in more expensive properties and they tend to spend more money, but it's taxed at the same rate as everyone else.

If we want additional municipal funding, and we want it to be progressively taxed, it would either need to be a bump to the income tax rates (increase each tax rate bracket by 1/50 of its current rate, or whatever) or else change the legislation to allow property tax rates to increase with the value of the property.

[danbrotherston]

I wouldn't mind the idea municipalities over a certain population being able to increase sales tax to pay for local investments in infrastructure. Unfortunately it would pretty much guarantee referendums on the subject which would result in no sales tax increase. I lived in Vancouver when we had a referendum on a 1% sale tax increase to pay for a new (skytrain) subway, a couple lrt lines and a couple brt lines. I think it would have cost the average person $50-100 a year. Ultimately the anti tax groups are very good at convincing the public that taxes are bad. Pretty much delayed transit expansion in Vancouver by 5 years. Basically ever city in the USA that is undergoing a massive transit expansion implemented a sales tax increase. examples include Seattle, Portland, Denver and Los Angeles.

This is what I mean. It’s not a good idea to let individual municipalities impose sales taxes. It would mean that in effect each municipality would be a separate sales tax jurisdiction, which would be insanely complicated and lead to weird effects at municipal borders. My idea in effect gives every municipality the same sales tax rate, administered as part of the HST. No increase in administration expense, except for a trivial amount associated with sending the money to the municipalities (and in particular, no difference for businesses).

Why a sales tax though? Why doesn't the province just give municipalities a set funding according to some formula, and the province can fund that with whatever.

This is more flexible than tying it to a sales tax, and we can set the formula to achieve whatever ends we wish to achieve.

[ijmorlan]

Why a sales tax though? Why doesn't the province just give municipalities a set funding according to some formula, and the province can fund that with whatever.

This is more flexible than tying it to a sales tax, and we can set the formula to achieve whatever ends we wish to achieve.

I originally had the idea around the time the federal government dropped its portion of the HST rate from 7% to 5%. I was thinking the provinces should just create a municipal share out of that 2%.

I’m also fine with other approaches, such as increasing all the marginal income tax rates by some amount and dedicating the new revenue to municipalities.

You may also remember that I’m Mr. Block Grant — I like the idea of the federal government taking some huge amount of money and distributing it per capita, a certain percentage to the provinces, a certain percentage to municipalities, and a certain percentage directly to individuals. This would ensure a certain level of funding for everybody and their sub-federal governments, which should avoid a lot of the problems with things like less well-off areas having worse schools.

Speaking of schools, their funding probably should be moved from property taxes to general provincial funding. Given the way the schools in Ontario are now run, I don’t see the benefit of using property taxes to collect the funds. Anything obvious that can be shifted off of property tax reduces the issues with property tax, even if no other changes are made.

[dtkvictim]

On the idea of distributing a certain percentage of tax revenue to municipalities on a per capita basis: How are large infrastructure project normally financed? For projects that are more piecemeal (like GO expansion, if it was a municipal project), the small and consistent cash flow would work fine. But what about projects like the LRT? Did we pay it all off at once, or is the region receiving continuous money from the province and federal government for their portions to pay down a debt?

While interest rates are low taking on debt for large infrastructure projects can be favorable, but surely there are some times where a massive lump sum payment is favorable for shovel-ready projects, which municipalities would otherwise have to "save up" for.

[tomh009]

Speaking of schools, their funding probably should be moved from property taxes to general provincial funding. Given the way the schools in Ontario are now run, I don’t see the benefit of using property taxes to collect the funds. Anything obvious that can be shifted off of property tax reduces the issues with property tax, even if no other changes are made.

This would be the simplest ... redirecting that part of the property taxes would add somewhere around 20% to municipal budgets.

[Bob_McBob]

But what about projects like the LRT? Did we pay it all off at once, or is the region receiving continuous money from the province and federal government for their portions to pay down a debt?

AFAIK the provincial and federal contributions were just lump sum payments, or in any case have already been spent or allocated. The region's contribution was funded by a short-term loan taken out at the beginning of construction and several long-term bonds issued as construction progressed, all through GrandLinq itself. There was also some other ancillary financing the region is responsible for repaying. The property tax increases were meant to get the regional budget to the point the annual expenses over the term of the contract are manageable, since a considerable amount of tax revenue needs to be allocated. Servicing the long-term debt is something like 40% of the budget of the rapid transit department. It's a good example of how hard it is when these expenses are dumped on the municipal level because the province and federal government aren't willing to provide full funding.

[Bjays93]

Going back to grade separation, I don't think the issue has anything to do with grade separation at stations. It has to do with grade separation at a few key intersections. The crossings at Wilson, Courtland and Northfield are the 3 biggest issues along the phase one rout. Had those intersections been grade separated or even planned differently, there would be a lot less hassle and hold ups with the currently lrt system.

Seeing them bridge fairway here is a positive and I think the way this thing runs through most of cambridge is fine. I'm hoping everything works out where the train runs into galt. That's probably the most interesting and important part of this development to me. Theres already limited road in galt, so inhibiting traffic further would not be ideal. So long as the trains cause minimum disruption all should be ok.

[danbrotherston]

Going back to grade separation, I don't think the issue has anything to do with grade separation at stations. It has to do with grade separation at a few key intersections. The crossings at Wilson,  Courtland and Northfield are the 3 biggest issues along the phase one rout. Had those intersections been grade separated or even planned differently, there would be a lot less hassle and hold ups with the currently lrt system.

Seeing them bridge fairway here is a positive and I think the way this thing runs through most of cambridge is fine. I'm hoping everything works out where the train runs into galt. That's probably the most interesting and important part of this development to me. Theres already limited road in galt, so inhibiting traffic further would not be ideal. So long as the trains cause minimum disruption all should be ok.

I mean, yes, they do hold up traffic for a short time, and yes, drivers do seem to be offended by that, but it in no way holds up the LRT. Building massive overpass structures in those locations would have cost at least 100 million dollars and created large imposing obstacles in the built environment. And the ONLY beneficiary would be driver, it would be yet another subsidy paid to motordom.  Worse, the cost would have been assigned to transit. And all to avoid what is a completely reasonable level of delay.

[ijmorlan]

I mean, yes, they do hold up traffic for a short time, and yes, drivers do seem to be offended by that, but it in no way holds up the LRT. Building massive overpass structures in those locations would have cost at least 100 million dollars and created large imposing obstacles in the built environment. And the ONLY beneficiary would be driver, it would be yet another subsidy paid to motordom.  Worse, the cost would have been assigned to transit. And all to avoid what is a completely reasonable level of delay.

Before spending money on grade separations, they should start by improving the design of the existing crossings. For example at Erb/Caroline, there is no conflict between southbound LRT traffic and Caroline St. traffic. So why does the entire intersection come to a halt when a southbound LRT goes through? Also, when a northbound LRT goes through the crossing protection starts way too early, while it’s still in station. Vehicle and pedestrian traffic has to stop (which is fine); but for no reason at all other than laziness in designing the crossing protection (which is not fine). As a driver, I don’t mind stopping for pedestrian, cyclists, LRVs, and other motor vehicles; but I do object to stopping for nothing at all.

[danbrotherston]

I mean, yes, they do hold up traffic for a short time, and yes, drivers do seem to be offended by that, but it in no way holds up the LRT. Building massive overpass structures in those locations would have cost at least 100 million dollars and created large imposing obstacles in the built environment. And the ONLY beneficiary would be driver, it would be yet another subsidy paid to motordom.  Worse, the cost would have been assigned to transit. And all to avoid what is a completely reasonable level of delay.

Before spending money on grade separations, they should start by improving the design of the existing crossings. For example at Erb/Caroline, there is no conflict between southbound LRT traffic and Caroline St. traffic. So why does the entire intersection come to a halt when a southbound LRT goes through? Also, when a northbound LRT goes through the crossing protection starts way too early, while it’s still in station. Vehicle and pedestrian traffic has to stop (which is fine); but for no reason at all other than laziness in designing the crossing protection (which is not fine). As a driver, I don’t mind stopping for pedestrian, cyclists, LRVs, and other motor vehicles; but I do object to stopping for nothing at all.

"I do object to stopping for nothing at all"...lol...pedestrians know that pain well:

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.453789,-...384!8i8192

Trust me, I have nothing nice to say about the folks at our region which program our signals. There's many many pedestrian signals which can be walk, while the train goes by, I pretty much ignore them all.  Caroline is an utter disaster.

That being said, I don't think there's much room for improvement at the other intersections mentioned. The point is to avoid holding up the LRVs, so the signals must start flashing and arms come down 5-10 seconds before the arrival of the LRV, because the signal for the LRV won't trigger until the gates are fully down.

I *WOULD* argue that we don't need full railway gates, and we should be able to manage with just faster, lighter weight traffic signals, but given the drivers in the city, and their propensity for hitting LRVs, I don't think I can really stand behind such a claim.

[ijmorlan]

"I do object to stopping for nothing at all"...lol...pedestrians know that pain well:

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.453789,-...384!8i8192

Yes, that one is particularly egregious. Somebody (ideally the Region, but whoever really) should bag the spurious signals.

At Erb/Caroline I’ve been known to either walk or go through on my bike at speed diagonally parallel to the tracks while the gates are down.

Just the other day I had the vague idea for some sort of performance art project which takes over Erb immediately east of Caroline each time the gates are down and clears out by the time they’re up again.