# Huge funding for public transit



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Something that cities across Canada have always been asking for ... Trudeau has now pledged $5.9 billion which is available immediately, for current projects. There will also be a permanent transit fund with $3 billion *a year* starting in 2026. This can provide reliable funding for major transit projects, instead of having cities and provinces constantly begging for new transit funding.



https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-transit-fund-1.5908346



This is huge for the cities. A coalition of mayors said this announcement satisfies one of their key demands and many are expressing thanks to the Liberals.

I'm very happy with this new funding. This is exactly the kind of domestic infrastructure investment the country needs.


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

Nice... I'm eagerly awaiting BC's 0.5% share of the funds... lol.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Hope they spend it on something sensible like battery electric city buses.


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

If only there was an all-Canadian company that has been building buses for decades that also built electric buses here in Canada today that would be a big beneficiary. You would think they could raise $5B in a SPAC and go to the moon given where the valuations are on other electric vehicle manufacturers that haven't made anything.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

NFI is the closest there is.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

james4beach said:


> Something that cities across Canada have always been asking for ... Trudeau has now pledged $5.9 billion which is available immediately, for current projects. There will also be a permanent transit fund with $3 billion *a year* starting in 2026. This can provide reliable funding for major transit projects, instead of having cities and provinces constantly begging for new transit funding.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You will see that nothing gonna change and money will disappear.
from the same article james posted
_The federal government has invested over $13 billion in more than 1,300 public transit projects across Canada since 2015 - _and in GTA public transit became only worse...
For years they were talking about some "speed-tram" oh Eglington (from Oakville to Toronto) and as usual ... nothing ..
P.S. After fiasco with Covid vaccines , JT is trying to switch focus again by wasting billions on things that never gonna get accomplished


----------



## milhouse (Nov 16, 2016)

I'm pretty supportive of public transit infrastructure and services funding even though I'm more of a casual user because I think it's key infrastructure of a city/metro region. But I'm also pretty suspect of it being spent wisely. Show us the results and good stewardship of the dollars, get additional funding.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

AltaRed said:


> NFI is the closest there is.


Yea but SNC/BBD will get most without tenders as usual. You have to expect that from JT.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

At least this piece of news looks good on the front page ... we'll see where the money actually go to ... after where it's coming from.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

doctrine said:


> If only there was an all-Canadian company that has been building buses for decades that also built electric buses here in Canada today that would be a big beneficiary. You would think they could raise $5B in a SPAC and go to the moon given where the valuations are on other electric vehicle manufacturers that haven't made anything.


Maybe these names should be added to a watchlist?

GPV.V
BUS.V
NFI.TO


----------



## Juggernaut92 (Aug 9, 2020)

MrBlackhill said:


> Maybe these names should be added to a watchlist?
> 
> GPV.V
> BUS.V
> NFI.TO


Thanks for posting about this. Have not heard of gpv.v or bus.v . It looks like both got a nice boost based on the EV craze. I may actually buy some NFI though since that is the only company that has a lot of product on the road already.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

With NFI negative EPS and P/E (-2.95 and -9.9) I'm kinda skeptical


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

gibor365 said:


> With NFI negative EPS and P/E (-2.95 and -9.9) I'm kinda skeptical


It had a bad pandemic year with factories shut down for awhile and conventional orders cancelled. One needs to look before and beyond 2020. 

Disclosure: I have been a shareholder for a few years with NFI as one of my industrial sector holdings. Slightly underwater by ~$5/share but a holding I will keep for at least for a few more years.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> Something that cities across Canada have always been asking for ... Trudeau has now pledged $5.9 billion which is available immediately, for current projects. There will also be a permanent transit fund with $3 billion *a year* starting in 2026. This can provide reliable funding for major transit projects, instead of having cities and provinces constantly begging for new transit funding.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is clearly an election plank to buy votes in big cities.
I don't think it is the responsibility of the Federal government to fund municipal infrastructure.
If the big cities charged reasonable property taxes for the services they provide, they'd have money to fund all this stuff.

The problem is that there is a mismatch between tax and services. 
If Toronto charged a more reasonable rate, maybe 1%, it would serve 2 purposes.
1. Massively increase revenue.
2. Drop real estate prices significantly.








Ontario Property Tax Rates: Lowest and Highest Cities


Zoocasa ranked the property tax rates of 35 Ontario cities and municipalities to see who had the lowest and highest property tax rates.




www.zoocasa.com


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> This is clearly an election plank to buy votes in big cities.
> I don't think it is the responsibility of the Federal government to fund municipal infrastructure.
> If the big cities charged reasonable property taxes for the services they provide, they'd have money to fund all this stuff.
> 
> ...


Average house price in Toronto is $913,894. 1% of that would be $9138 a year in property taxes or $761 per month.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> Average house price in Toronto is $913,894. 1% of that would be $91,389 a year in property taxes or $7615 per month. Not sure that it would massively increase revenue but it would surely drop real estate prices as everyone went bankrupt and left the city.


I think it would 9,139 not 91,389


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Money172375 said:


> I think it would 9,139 not 91,389


Sorry you are correct, I got carried away. So it would only be $761 a month. It is probably about that now.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

MrMatt said:


> This is clearly an election plank to buy votes in big cities.
> I don't think it is the responsibility of the Federal government to fund municipal infrastructure.
> If the big cities charged reasonable property taxes for the services they provide, they'd have money to fund all this stuff.
> 
> ...


Toronto is ridiculously low.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> Sorry you are correct, I got carried away. So it would only be $761 a month. It is probably about that now.


Actually it’s under $500. Their is rate about 0.6%


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

gibor365 said:


> For years they were talking about some "speed-tram" oh Eglington (from Oakville to Toronto) and as usual ... nothing ..


Gibor, this line is under construction. It is a bit of a mess in terms of being a mixture of solutions and not delivering great value for money. That is largely because it was designed by politicians and not engineers. It is mostly underground, and yet inexplicably using low floor Light Rail vehicles. We're paying subway prices and putting a streetcar in a tunnel.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> This is clearly an election plank to buy votes in big cities.
> I don't think it is the responsibility of the Federal government to fund municipal infrastructure.
> If the big cities charged reasonable property taxes for the services they provide, they'd have money to fund all this stuff.
> 
> ...


There are many things the federal government does that are not strictly speaking its jurisdiction. Funding health and education, for instance.

Cities should be given appropriate revenue tools and the ability to use debt financing effectively. They are restricted to property taxes and user fees currently. Toronto wanted to put in road tolls, but the province stripped them of that ability.

Practically speaking, big infrastructure projects need to be funded by levels of government that have the revenue tools available to borrow cost effectively to fund them. That means province and feds. Usually cities kick in about 1/3 of project cost, and pick up all the operating expense.

It is also misleading to look at property tax rates. What is more meaningful is comparing median property tax bill to median income. The rate looks low because property values are very high in Toronto. I'm not saying there is not room to increase property taxes in Toronto, just that the rate gives a misleading impression.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> Average house price in Toronto is $913,894. 1% of that would be $91,389 a year in property taxes or $7615 per month. Not sure that it would massively increase revenue but it would surely drop real estate prices as everyone went broke and left the city.


Well, if they inched from where they are to the provincial average, it would have the twofold effect of funding things, plus lower prices.

Honestly, I wouldn't mind paying for public transit, if it served my neighbourhood.
I don't like paying for a service I don't get though.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> There are many things the federal government does that are not strictly speaking its jurisdiction. Funding health and education, for instance.
> 
> Cities should be given appropriate revenue tools and the ability to use debt financing effectively. They are restricted to property taxes and user fees currently. Toronto wanted to put in road tolls, but the province stripped them of that ability.
> 
> Practically speaking, big infrastructure projects need to be funded by levels of government that have the revenue tools available to borrow cost effectively to fund them. That means province and feds. Usually cities kick in about 1/3 of project cost, and pick up all the operating expense.


Yes, and since they're not federal responsibilities, they shouldn't be funding them.

The way it is now, the Federal government takes the taxes, attaches strings, then gives it to the provinces.
Why not just let the provinces tax & spend for areas under their jurisdiction.

I think that's the fundamental difference between liberals and The Liberals.
I want the people responsible to take charge. Liberals want some high powered central committee planning everything.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

james4beach said:


> Something that cities across Canada have always been asking for ... Trudeau has now pledged $5.9 billion which is available immediately, for current projects. There will also be a permanent transit fund with $3 billion *a year* starting in 2026. This can provide reliable funding for major transit projects, instead of having cities and provinces constantly begging for new transit funding.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I just wanted to clarify that $3B per year for all of Canada is not 'massive' funding. It is pretty paltry. That would be enough to complete one moderate sized transit project per year in the whole country. For instance, the Ontario Line subway project proposed in Toronto by the provincial transit agency Metrolinx is going to cost around $10B. 

The province of Ontario's transit agency for the GTA, Metrolinx, is planning to spend around $26B over ten years in the GTA on capital transit projects, and spent around $24B in the ten years 2009-2019.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Yes, and since they're not federal responsibilities, they shouldn't be funding them.
> 
> The way it is now, the Federal government takes the taxes, attaches strings, then gives it to the provinces.
> Why not just let the provinces tax & spend for areas under their jurisdiction.
> ...


I seem to recall conservatives spending money on subsidizing peewee hockey. So, I'd say neither conservatives or liberals are covered in glory.

Infrastructure is important for maintaining a healthy economy. I don't think you'll find many OECD countries that have low spending on infrastructure by the national government. Canada is probably already near the bottom of the list.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

We need less restriction on using appropriate vehicles on sidewalks.

If necessary... use infrastructure money to widen the sidewalks. It is much cheaper than widening the road to create bike lanes.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

andrewf said:


> I just wanted to clarify that $3B per year for all of Canada is not 'massive' funding. It is pretty paltry. That would be enough to complete one moderate sized transit project per year in the whole country. For instance, the Ontario Line subway project proposed in Toronto by the provincial transit agency Metrolinx is going to cost around $10B.
> 
> The province of Ontario's transit agency for the GTA, Metrolinx, is planning to spend around $26B over ten years in the GTA on capital transit projects, and spent around $24B in the ten years 2009-2019.


I agree, we need even more federal funding of major transit projects.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

MrMatt said:


> If the big cities charged reasonable property taxes for the services they provide, they'd have money to fund all this stuff.


I do agree that they should charge much higher property taxes, or have other tax revenues.

Sadly, the real estate and developer lobby has a lot of influence in cities. A friend of mine is in a financial role working for a big city and he is routinely threatened by real estate developers. He even considered going to the city police to ask for assistance, after getting some threats.

Property developers can be real thugs.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> I seem to recall conservatives spending money on subsidizing peewee hockey. So, I'd say neither conservatives or liberals are covered in glory.
> 
> Infrastructure is important for maintaining a healthy economy. I don't think you'll find many OECD countries that have low spending on infrastructure by the national government. Canada is probably already near the bottom of the list.


I think the government does have a role in health initiatives, but I'd have to consider them.

I agree the CPC also hands out way too much money.
Of course Canada is near the bottom of the list, because decent public transit isn't much use outside large cities.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

Makes you wonder why we live here......bad transit, high taxes, crappy covid management, bottom feeder vaccine delivery, high real estate costs, upcoming primary residence tax, legalized drugs, dumb (or criminal doctors), crooked politicians.....


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

It didn't take long.....our son got told today to expect to work in Toronto area a lot this year, as big projects are now going forward.

He isn't thrilled about being away from home so much (he has to stay in hotels in Toronto all week) but he earns a lot more in TO wages.

The new spending will create a lot of good paying jobs quickly.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Of course Canada is near the bottom of the list, because decent public transit isn't much use outside large cities.


I meant infrastructure spend, of all kinds (including pipelines, ports, highways, rail, power, etc.), by the national government. Most countries see much higher levels of infrastructure investment by the national government that we do in Canada.

And Canada is more urbanized than most countries, so if anything, transit spending should be higher here.

At least the political deadlock seems to have largely broken in Ontario. Both conservative and liberal governments have been committed to heavy investment in transit. It's simply imperative to deal with the rapid growth and congestion in our big cities, most notably Toronto. We should probably dream a bit bigger on transit spending in Ontario, but also focus on getting good value for money. Not everything need to be a subway--we don't do a good job of building transit quickly or cost effectively when we compare ourselves to peer cities and countries. We should be willing to build above-ground metro service like Vancouver SkyTrain (Ontario Line will feature elevated segments, so there's progress). We should be building a lot more bus rapid transit. So we should get more efficient, and spend more.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Worth noting that the Toronto Metropolitan area alone has the same population as the combined populations of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I like the elevated platform idea. 

I wish we had one in our city and could park all the buses. At the very least, smaller electric buses running more frequently would be an improvement.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

sags said:


> It didn't take long.....our son got told today to expect to work in Toronto area a lot this year, as big projects are now going forward.
> 
> He isn't thrilled about being away from home so much (he has to stay in hotels in Toronto all week) but he earns a lot more in TO wages.
> 
> The new spending will create a lot of good paying jobs quickly.


Wow! Talk about tangible economic effects.

Good transit linkages between cities and suburbs also help the economy due to improved mobility and choice, for workers.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

sags said:


> Worth noting that the Toronto Metropolitan area alone has the same population as the combined populations of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.


Now look at how many seats in parliament there are:

62 seats in the House of Commons for AB+SK+MB
And for GTA, looks like it's maybe 43 ish?

The rural areas have too more power and representation... too much impact on federal politics. A vote from a city dweller doesn't count as much.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

It looks like an update to electoral district representation will occur after the 2022 census.









Redistribution of Federal Electoral Districts 2022 – Elections Canada


How electoral boundaries are set.



www.elections.ca


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The new spending will add to an already forecast GDP of over 5% for Canada this year.

There is also billions of previously allocated funding in place for infrastructure projects that should get ramped up.

There is never a better time to build infrastructure than today.........especially with historic low interest rates.

Delays cost money and we benefit greatly today from the money spent on infrastructure decades ago.

Imagine the cost of building the 400 series highways today, or hospitals, schools, water treatment plants.....compared to what they cost decades ago.

Cutting back spending on national priorities cost a lot more money in the long run. Austerity measures lead to a countries ruin.

If you aren't moving ahead you are falling behind.


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> We should be willing to build above-ground metro service like Vancouver SkyTrain (Ontario Line will feature elevated segments, so there's progress). We should be building a lot more bus rapid transit. So we should get more efficient, and spend more.


Speaking of which, we've been trying to get some federal funding for Skytrain extensions to UBC and from Surrey to Langley. I think we get lumped in with underpopulated "west", even though we have nearly 3 million people living in just the Metro Vancouver/Fraser Valley region, and expecting additional 1 million over the next 20 years. These projects needed to be started yesterday.

Still no guarantees even with the new funding announced. SkyTrain to UBC and Langley still not a done deal even with federal transit funding in place


----------



## Ponderling (Mar 1, 2013)

I was part of a bid, which our consortium did not win, to plan a concept design of a dedicated corridor just for busses to run parallel to highway 407 in Ontario from hamilton to past oshawa. The idea was to make sure enough property was kept public to allow for overpasses of crossing roads, interchange terminals, some commuter car parks local bus connections and inline stations, storm water management ponds along the way, power substations if they wanted to go electric tram, etc, 

Not a bad idea. Then they allow high density zoning next to the corridor with the idea that the development charges that these high density lands bring when built on work to pay for the freight to build the local parts feeding the corridor


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

nathan79 said:


> Speaking of which, we've been trying to get some federal funding for Skytrain extensions to UBC and from Surrey to Langley. I think we get lumped in with underpopulated "west", even though we have nearly 3 million people living in just the Metro Vancouver/Fraser Valley region, and expecting additional 1 million over the next 20 years. These projects needed to be started yesterday.
> 
> Still no guarantees even with the new funding announced. SkyTrain to UBC and Langley still not a done deal even with federal transit funding in place


New funding will go to JT friends in QC


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> And Canada is more urbanized than most countries, so if anything, transit spending should be higher here.


I completely agree.
In municipalities that are highly urban, they should provide a higher level of services and charge the higher level of taxes to support it.
To drive to work, is <30 minutes round trip.
To take the bus is almost 4 hours (2 1/2 in the morning 1 1/2 on the way home.
I need a car.

I know people who live in Toronto and for them it's the opposite.






Having a transit corridor to move goods across the country is a national issue.
Having a bus drive you to work is a city issue.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> I completely agree.
> In municipalities that are highly urban, they should provide a higher level of services and charge the higher level of taxes to support it.
> To drive to work, is <30 minutes round trip.
> To take the bus is almost 4 hours (2 1/2 in the morning 1 1/2 on the way home.
> ...


We can go down this road, but maybe we should just download revenue tools to cities as well. Let Toronto collect personal and corporate income tax, and contribute to the national budget on a per capita basis. Not sure that would work out well for rural areas.  While we're at it, we should stop requiring telcos etc. to provide national service and cross-subsidize rural access with urban customers. And fed gov't should not be doing anything to promote internet access in rural areas.

At the end of the day, cities create a lot of wealth and tax revenue for the federal government. It is in everyone's interests that our cities are strong. Real countries like USA, UK, France, Germany all spend heavily on urban infrastructure on the national level.


----------

