Do we care too much about public transit's revenue?

[drum118]

http://www.thelocal.ch/20130605/mps-back-vat-increase-to-finance-rail-works

MPs favour VAT increase to finance rail works

Published: 05 Jun 2013 22:11 GMT+02:00 | Print version
Updated: 05 Jun 2013 22:11 GMT+02:00

Switzerland’s valued added tax (VAT) looks set to increase to 8.1 percent from eight percent to raise revenues for rail infrastructure.

• Federal Railways guides commuters to seats (13 May 13)
• SBB warns rail upgrades mean timetable changes (03 Apr 13)
• Tests underway for new Swiss 'monster' trains (26 Sep 12)

The National Council, the lower house of parliament, voted on Wednesday to approve the hike between 2018 and 2030 in a bid to defray 6.4 billion francs ($6.8 billion) in planned spending to upgrade the national railway system.
The sales tax increase is forecast to raise 300 million francs a year in revenues, the ATS news service reported.
MPs voted 125 to 65 in favour of raising the tax, rejecting other proposals such as the elimination of income tax deductions for commuters.
The majority agreed that it was necessary to raise the extra revenue after the plan on infrastructure spending was virtually doubled.
The federal government previously envisaged spending 3.5 billion francs on rail improvement projects between now and 2025.
The senate earlier backed the VAT increase.
MPs have yet to debate details for infrastructure improvements.
The Swiss association for transport and the environment (VCS) maintains the rail spending plan is not enough.
It earlier launched an initiative, to be puit to a national vote, to boost financing for rail improvements to 11-12 billion francs between now and 2030.
The ATE and 20 partner organizations collected almost 140,000 signatures for the “initiative for public transportâ€.
The organization complains that trains are already packed with passengers and the situation will not improve under the current plans.
The organization said the current transport funding plan favours roads and will not allow for a policy that respects the environment and the need to combat climate change.

Malcolm Curtis (news@thelocal.ch)

 

[Electrify]

If we were prioritising revenue we would have built a DRL before any other section of Transit City.

My opinion is that Toronto treats transit and cycling as social services geared towards the poor - rather than as viable transportation alternatives for everyone.

I think the reason why the DRL has so much trouble getting off the ground is because its astronomical capital costs, rather than its potential profit from operations.

 

[Adjei]

http://www.thelocal.ch/20130605/mps-back-vat-increase-to-finance-rail-works

MPs favour VAT increase to finance rail works

Published: 05 Jun 2013 22:11 GMT+02:00 | Print version
Updated: 05 Jun 2013 22:11 GMT+02:00

Switzerland’s valued added tax (VAT) looks set to increase to 8.1 percent from eight percent to raise revenues for rail infrastructure.

• Federal Railways guides commuters to seats (13 May 13)
• SBB warns rail upgrades mean timetable changes (03 Apr 13)
• Tests underway for new Swiss 'monster' trains (26 Sep 12)

The National Council, the lower house of parliament, voted on Wednesday to approve the hike between 2018 and 2030 in a bid to defray 6.4 billion francs ($6.8 billion) in planned spending to upgrade the national railway system.
The sales tax increase is forecast to raise 300 million francs a year in revenues, the ATS news service reported.
MPs voted 125 to 65 in favour of raising the tax, rejecting other proposals such as the elimination of income tax deductions for commuters.
The majority agreed that it was necessary to raise the extra revenue after the plan on infrastructure spending was virtually doubled.
The federal government previously envisaged spending 3.5 billion francs on rail improvement projects between now and 2025.
The senate earlier backed the VAT increase.
MPs have yet to debate details for infrastructure improvements.
The Swiss association for transport and the environment (VCS) maintains the rail spending plan is not enough.
It earlier launched an initiative, to be puit to a national vote, to boost financing for rail improvements to 11-12 billion francs between now and 2030.
The ATE and 20 partner organizations collected almost 140,000 signatures for the “initiative for public transport”.
The organization complains that trains are already packed with passengers and the situation will not improve under the current plans.
The organization said the current transport funding plan favours roads and will not allow for a policy that respects the environment and the need to combat climate change.

Malcolm Curtis (news@thelocal.ch)

This is why Switzerland is rated the most competitive country in the world:http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GlobalCompetitivenessReport_2012-13.pdf .

They understand the importance of investing in public infrastructure which helps build up their economy. Through initiatives such as this, they are able to continually build new infrastructure and maintain what they have. They are forward thinking and not the backward thinking we find increasingly in Toronto and Canada from politicians and a large part of the populace. Even in a country with such excellent infrastructure, they are looking to continually invest while here we continue fighting and doing nothing.

 

[Electrify]

I think the reason why the DRL has so much trouble getting off the ground is because its astronomical capital costs, rather than its potential profit from operations.

Wanted to add that while a downtown subway line may not be ready to go, there is no reason as to why the TTC could not run some kind of limited stop bus route or BRT in its place, or at least a loop through downtown. I guess the TTC is just making too much money running overcrowded streetcars along King and Queen with obscenely close stops - even for a downtown area, to consider such a thing.

 

[kEiThZ]

Maybe heresy to say this on UT. But properly integrated electrified all day-GO would have done more for inner suburban residents than the DRL.

Not to devalue the need for the DRL....

But if people here and the pols want voters to agree to new fees and taxes to pay for transit, they had better start thinking of how to show them substantial benefit. Or there will never be a DRL....

 

[ssiguy2]

If we were prioritising revenue we would have built a DRL before any other section of Transit City.

My opinion is that Toronto treats transit and cycling as social services geared towards the poor - rather than as viable transportation alternatives for everyone.

Exactly right.

Toronto {especially Miller types} see transit as a way for "great city building" and as a social service for the poor.
The TTC is not a welfare office, an urban design organization, or a community centre. The ONLY mandate of a transit service should be to move people in an efficient, cost effective, comfortable, and safe manner and if they try to turn around and make it a urban redevelopment organization or social service then they have over stepped their boundaries and mandate.

This is why you get the fiasco of Leslie where a few condo owners demand a transit station so they can get to a park and not have to walk 3 blocks. This is why you get supposed rapid transit lines along Finch and Sheppard that will be no faster than a bus but reek havoc on the road's traffic flow.

As for the UPX, the issue of it not being part of the standard TTC system because it is a GO/Metrolinx project goes to the very heart of the problem with transit planning in the GTA.

The GTA transit system will never become a coordinated, effective transportation system when you have so many different agencies who's over riding concern is the maintenance of their own fiefdom and the travelling public be damned. This kind of mentality, bureaucracy, and political turf wars has helped create the parochial mentality that the GTA has where thinking on a regional basis is unheard of.

The lack of coordination of different modes of transit also exemplifies this thinking where the different modes of transport {walking, biking, carpools, vanpools, HOV, HOT, transit, and road infrastructure are seen as completely incompatible and helps explain why the GTHA makes such shockingly little use of the highway infrastructure.

Vancouver's Translink has it's issues but the premise of it is an excellent one and one that the GTHA should emulate because it is a regional transportation authority. It sees all forms of transportation as a whole and sees the areas it serves as a region and not a bunch of individual fiefdoms with turf to protect and politics to adhere to.

Transportation in the GTHA will never become a truly viable alternative for most people until Toronto gets such an system.

 

[Electrify]

This is why Switzerland is rated the most competitive country in the world:http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GlobalCompetitivenessReport_2012-13.pdf .

They understand the importance of investing in public infrastructure which helps build up their economy. Through initiatives such as this, they are able to continually build new infrastructure and maintain what they have. They are forward thinking and not the backward thinking we find increasingly in Toronto and Canada from politicians and a large part of the populace. Even in a country with such excellent infrastructure, they are looking to continually invest while here we continue fighting and doing nothing.

This is also part of the reason why I was so impressed with Montreal. They invested heavily in infrastructure to ensure it was not only efficient, but attractive too. Bus and bike lanes and a relatively comprehensive subway and commuter rail system provide excellent alternatives to driving while stimulating the senses with their public art and architecture. Oh, and if you choose to drive - note that you will have to contend with complex one way streets and Montreal drivers - there is an underground highway through the city centre to move cars as well.

That said, it does seem they are having some issues maintaining this infrastructure, but at least they got it built rather than fight and redraw plans every few years.