In the original option years 10-20 would have had annual increases of 0.25 to 0.5% overall. So again, in the end it should not be less money, though there will be less money in the intermediate years.
I'd be less inclided to question the report if they had more supporting data included, for example a table of yearly increases.
20 years at 1% growth: 22% increase over 20 years (1.1% nominal)
5 years at 3% and 15 years at 0.5% growth: 25% increase over 20 years (1.25% nominal)
The difference in actual spending is 116.2% vs 122.8% 'average spending per year in current year spending'. That a 25% reduction in annual investment. I can live with that realisation, but I doubt you can reduce the total money spent without affecting the mode-split.
Also, what about growth of bicycle and pedestrian traffic? If 10% of the population changes from cars to transit over the next 20 years, what strides will be met on those fronts? Will less than half of all Regional trips be non-automobile based in the next two decades?
If it does happen, I'll be highly amazed and KW (having merged by then) will truly be a world-class city, rather than the world-class town it is (City being 1m+ and Town being 100k+).
Yep. I would have liked to see even more investment, but a 3% tax increase (and especially now) could easily have become a losing proposition come election time.
Is declining farebox recovery a winning or losing election position? Is delaying implementation of new services for 5- or 10-years worth asking people if the want to pay for it? But yes, the King St LRT is a winning proposition come election time, but not come tax time. Maybe I'm too cynical, and the majority of the Region that lives in subdivisions outside the central corridor will be a minority in 2025.
