Comment 29063

By Accountant (anonymous) | Posted February 25, 2009 at 07:48:06

Ryan said in opposition to the RHVP:

"Negative municipal ROI on construction and maintenance costs. Net increased property tax assessment on new developments oriented to the highway would have to exceed $20 million per year just to cover the debt servicing, maintenance and lifecycle costs, let alone the actual cost of construction."

You are not factoring in the savings in servicing Centennial Parkway, Parkdale, Kenilworth etc. which are now not used as much because of the RHVP. Also you are not factoring in the human benefits of having a proper road for all those trucks and cars which were once in neighbourhoods. That's a pretty good ROI; also, the assessment growth will grow as the North Glanbrook Ind park is now being serviced to attract industry, which wasn't possible without the RHVP. Your early snapshot in time is incomplete and inaccurate.


" Subsidizes excessive driving by making it easier to drive long distances. This increases overall per capita energy consumption and air pollution."

I don't think that RHVP users are coming here just to use the road; they have always been using LOCAL roads, even the out of towners; quicker access to the east mountain means gas savings; as well, the fact that it isn't stop and go traffic because of the lights etc. means more efficient gasoline usage.


"Subsidizes low density land use by opening road access to greenfields in the far east mountain. This destroys prime agricultural land and results in a net drain on city finances since developer charges and property taxes are not enough to pay for the public infrastructure these developments require."

Check your facts. Only the more dense development doesn't pay its share; the larger homes more than subsidize the denser development. However, the road also opens up employment lands.


"Some proponents have distanced themselves from it by claiming that it was undertaken poorly - that it would have supported economic development if the land use and zoning were done differently.

That's a cop-out. The biggest political and economic supporters of the RHVP in the 2003 election were residential home builders, and their most-supported candidates were the people who won a majority on council and finalized the highway."

Who are these proponents? Quote them or point to their statements. I look pretty carefully and haven't found this to be the case. I also attend most of Council meetings and have not found this to be so. As for the 2003 election, voters had a choice and they made it. They may not have elected the right people according to you, but they did elect people who supported the road. And from I see, businesspeople support everyone who runs...they hedge their bets.

Ariel may be incorrect about the Pan Am issue, but this project as expensive as it was paid for by the city taxpayers and the provincial coffers-not the Federal ones as was mis-stated-(and Yes, Rusty, it is all the same taxpayer, however, the money that goes from us to Toronto doesn't always come back. This time it did.)has already proven itself.

I have no need to use the road because I live in the lower city and only use it to connect from the QEW or Burlington street to the Queenston Road area. Just this alone has saved much grid lock on Barton Stret near Woodward and that is great for that neighbourhood.

As for 'induced demand' (thanks for the lecture by the way, you aren't the only knowledgeable one in the world, Ryan); that is why the road was underbuilt; it should have been built wider, and can still be widened. And if they had listened to people like me, it would have been.

Over and out.


Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds