New Transit Funding Sources

[denfromoakvillemilton]

This is the most appropriate existing thread for this, so I figured I'd post it here: http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2017/01...cil-rejects-requiring-data-determine-priority

Basically, TO Council said they would rather continue prioritizing projects based on politics than based on actual data.

Embarrassing.

 

[gweed123]

If we apply similar logic to other government spending should we start to pass motions such as: Government should base future funding of healthcare dollars on the basis of the relative contributions of the patients work to society, or Government should fund education based on the relative academic aptitude of the student? Those might make some "logical" sense based on resource allocation but why would you handcuff your policy in this way and how are you improving public trust and buy-in by making people feel like little Johnny or Aunt Suzy are getting hosed.

I think a more apt comparison would be putting the hospital where the demand is, instead of putting it somewhere as an economic booster.

The metrics that would be used wouldn't be based on the nearby residents "worth", but rather more general metrics like density, projected development, and present & future demand. The reality is that we have limited transit dollars, so we should be spending them where they will have the most impact. That "impact" is pretty easy to quantify, which is exactly what Matlow's motion would have done.

There would be nothing stopping a politician from making the case that their pet project should be worthy of consideration. They would just have to do a better job making the case in comparison to other projects on the list that would quantifiably have a more significant impact.

 

[WislaHD]

If that were the case the City should vote to privatize the public transit system immediately. Resources would then flow absolutely and directly to the most efficient routes.

Hogwash.

All data shows that privatized public transit is terrible terrible idea everywhere it is applied with the sole exception of Japan, which is an entirely different circumstance.

 

[W. K. Lis]

This reduction in TTC service is brought to you by John Tory and his clique at city hall. Where service is their last commitment.

See link.

The general lack of buses requires the TTC to decrease the frequency of service along many routes, mostly Mondays to Fridays during morning rush hours:

• 6 Bay;
• 14 Glencairn;
• 16 McCowan;
• 32 Eglinton West;
• 38 Highland Creek;
• 46 Martin Grove;
• 51 Leslie;
• 85 Sheppard East;
• 112 West Mall;
• 123 Shorncliffe; and
• 190 Scarborough Centre rocket.

Also see the TTC website on Service Changes at this link.

 

[Leo_Chan]

Maybe the Government of Ontario can create a Public Transport/Transit tax, which you can voluntarily NOT pay with sufficient proof/evidence that you do not use Public Transit. Does this model work?

 

[amnesiajune]

This reduction in TTC service is brought to you by John Tory and his clique at city hall. Where service is their last commitment.

It's actually brought to you by the Humber River bridge that's aging and needs to be refurbished, just like most bridges do after a while. John Tory hasn't had anything to do with that as far as I'm aware. The operating budget cuts don't affect capital expenditures, and not having enough buses is a capital expenditure issue.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Something the auto addicted suburban councillors (and 905) would not consider, from link:

One British City’s Transit Solution: Tax Parking

A tax on parking in Nottingham, England, has funded a major tram expansion. Photo: Brian Fagan via Wikimedia Creative Commons

Raising money for transit by charging more to drive is good public policy but difficult politics. If it was easy, many more cities would have a congestion pricing system in place by now.

But one British city has recently managed to enact a transit funding stream with a fee on cars. The system is easy to administer to boot.

Nottingham, England (population 300,000), is winning recognition around the U.K. for its successful commuter parking program, which charges employers for the spaces they provide to employees and directs the revenue to transit.

The “Workforce Parking Levy” was enacted in 2011 — after an intense political fight. It requires any employer with more than 11 parking spaces to pay £375 per space per year (about $465 U.S. dollars). About 25,000 permitted parking spaces pay into the program, according to a policy briefing by the Campaign for Better Transport, a national advocacy organization [PDF].

When the idea of a parking tax was introduced, business leaders furiously opposed it and some predicted the city would become a ghost town. Those predictions turned out to be wrong. The number of employers moving into the city is rising faster than before, the Campaign for Better Transport reports. And the transportation benefits are substantial.

The Campaign for Better Transport reports that the main effect of the program has not been a direct reduction in car trips. Instead, the transit investments funded by the program are what makes a difference.

In its first three years, the parking levy injected more than £25 million into local transit, funding bus service and two new tram lines. About 40 percent of trips in Nottingham are now by transit, a relatively high share for the U.K., and planners expect a 7 percent reduction in traffic with additional transit investments coming online.

A bit like taking from the "rich" (automobiles) to give to the "poor" (public transit). For ALL cities in Ontario, not just Toronto.

 

[steveintoronto]

Something the auto addicted suburban councillors (and 905) would not consider,

It's the same old resistance as per pedestrianizing the core of a city:
"Those predictions turned out to be wrong. The number of employers moving into the city is rising faster than before, the Campaign for Better Transport reports. And the transportation benefits are substantial."

Cars are smokers.

 

[Johnny Au]

It's the same old resistance as per pedestrianizing the core of a city:
"Those predictions turned out to be wrong. The number of employers moving into the city is rising faster than before, the Campaign for Better Transport reports. And the transportation benefits are substantial."

Cars are smokers.

Both cars and tobacco are addictive and emit carcinogens.

 

[Euphoria]

No, cars are an essential part of the mix. I'd suggest that by making them too costly to be affordable to the middle class, you are playing the role of the rich elitist who will be able to pay all the parking, licensing, gas taxes, tolls, and other related fees, while the rest of us will be limited to transit options and home bound. This is the secret of "environmentalism". It's about making common people pay so the rich can do as they like. That's why I'd be very careful with highway tolls. I bet if most of Council and most Torontonians knew that the cost of the Gardiner Hybrid would be tolls on existing highways, they'd support the cheaper boulevard option and accept a few extra minutes of commute time in the southeastern core. The boulevard option would also reduce the highway aesthetic in a part of the city where that's the right move.

 

[sixrings]

Euphoria is as dramatic about underground highways as coffey1 was about the Scarborough subway

 

[Euphoria]

Actually, I'm not as big on the underground highways idea as you might think. I'd settle for scrapping the Gardiner Hybrid idea and going with the boulevard option instead to free up money to build the DRL and other transit. Just don't toll existing highways. Those tolls would just add to our cost of living and limit our travel options. Cost matters. If people are as anti-car as they proclaim on here, they'll be quite happy to sacrifice the Hybrid for better transit and a more pedestrian/cyclist friendly boulevard, especially as the gateway to a naturalized Don River in a redeveloped Port Lands.

 

[WislaHD]

Euphoria is right though, I would have loved to have entertained a Gardiner debate where it was known that tolls would be coming to any non-boulevard option.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Meanwhile, the TTC is busy looking for pennies on the street to pay for operating its transit fleet.

Maybe they'll be lucky and find a half penny.

 

[Cobra]

Possible location for the Infrastructure Bank

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ary-mayor-naheed-nenshi-says/article33698154/

Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi, who is scheduled to meet with the ministers during the retreat, told The Globe and Mail that he is urging Ottawa to set up the bank in Calgary.

“You need innovative, creative financial thinking outside of the Bay Street bubble,” said Mr. Nenshi in explaining his pitch for his city to play host to the bank. “All the world’s global investment banks have locations in Calgary. Eight out of the 10 largest banks in the world have locations in Calgary and we do a lot of very creative things in finance.”