New Transit Funding Sources

[BurlOak]

It seems that a few month ago this thread seemed to think that about$1B per year was a good amount to fund transit. Now it seems that $2B per year is what is needed. It does show a couple of things. 1) Metrolinx has not properly publicised what it is doing and what the costs are for their plans. 2) It appears that the intent may be to eliminate current funding for transit and use that money for General Revenue. Then it will be the job of these revenue sources to make up the differnce, plus any new money needed.

The list of 10 funding options are (http://transit.toronto.on.ca/) are:

1.Personal income tax increase of 1 per cent (raises $1.4 billion annually)
2.Sales tax increase of 1 per cent ($1.3 billion)
3.Property tax increase of 1 per cent ($90 million)
4.Payroll tax of 1 per cent ($500 million)
5.Highway tolls of 10 cents/per km ($1.5 billion)
6.Fuel tax of 10 cents per litre ($500 million)
7.Vehicle tax of $100 ($300 million)
8.Commercial parking levy of $365 per space ($1.08 billion)
9.Land-transfer tax of 1 per cent ($600 million)
10.Development charges of $5,000 per unit ($200 million)

The best option is a combination of several of the above (a percentage of the above, not the entire values). I think it also best to collect less than needed (on average for 25 or 30 years) and when some progress is shown, the amounts could be increased Politically, it may best to grossly hit one segment hard with high taxes and spare the others. Although not fair, the adage "if you take from Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on the support of Paul" has been applied before.

Here is a link to some post at Spacing regarding funding options (http://spacingtoronto.ca/author/dylan/)

 

[drum118]

It seems that a few month ago this thread seemed to think that about$1B per year was a good amount to fund transit. Now it seems that $2B per year is what is needed. It does show a couple of things. 1) Metrolinx has not properly publicised what it is doing and what the costs are for their plans. 2) It appears that the intent may be to eliminate current funding for transit and use that money for General Revenue. Then it will be the job of these revenue sources to make up the differnce, plus any new money needed.

The list of 10 funding options are (http://transit.toronto.on.ca/) are:

1.Personal income tax increase of 1 per cent (raises $1.4 billion annually)
2.Sales tax increase of 1 per cent ($1.3 billion)
3.Property tax increase of 1 per cent ($90 million)
4.Payroll tax of 1 per cent ($500 million)
5.Highway tolls of 10 cents/per km ($1.5 billion)
6.Fuel tax of 10 cents per litre ($500 million)
7.Vehicle tax of $100 ($300 million)
8.Commercial parking levy of $365 per space ($1.08 billion)
9.Land-transfer tax of 1 per cent ($600 million)
10.Development charges of $5,000 per unit ($200 million)

The best option is a combination of several of the above (a percentage of the above, not the entire values). I think it also best to collect less than needed (on average for 25 or 30 years) and when some progress is shown, the amounts could be increased Politically, it may best to grossly hit one segment hard with high taxes and spare the others. Although not fair, the adage "if you take from Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on the support of Paul" has been applied before.

Here is a link to some post at Spacing regarding funding options (http://spacingtoronto.ca/author/dylan/)

Here a link to what Germany is doing.
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/co...ans-ride-5-times-more-transit-americans/3510/

One has to keep in mind as you tax things, some of them will see decline in them overtime as people and business make changes to deal with the cost.

We are see seeing a decline in parking spots now as parking lots disappear to make way for new development to the point there is less parking spots being offer to replace those existing spots.

Once you start taxing Big Box and mall parking spaces, there will be a shift to reduce them as it will be hard to past the cost onto the lessors of stores in higher rent who will either eat the increase with a lost of profit or past it on to us.

The rates for 6, 7, 8 and 10 are too low and should be 2-5 times higher.

I have long advocated that a sliding scale should be used for the number of cars a household/property can have to the point the more cars you have over 1/2, the higher the cost becomes for each car over that limit.

15-25% of household will not have an issue with these proposal or any of the 10 items as they have the money to pay for them so long as it chase other drivers off the road so they can get to where they want to go in the first place that will be faster than it is today.

As for 1 & 4, that is double dipping if both are used.

A value tax should be added base on the square foot of a house as well land. If one looks at what some people pay per sq ft for living in an apartment/Condo vs. a house of the same value, apartment/Condo are paying a lot more per foot than houses. It cost more to maintain low density areas than higher ones.

 

[BurlOak]

The things we need before one can ask for money is a credible plan on where the money will be spent and credible managers who will spend the money wisely. We have neither of these.

It was bad enough that Harris cancelled the Eglinton Subway, but there are numerous examples.
- McGuinty announce Transit City and expected to finish (all phases) by +/-2015. Within 2 years that was changed to funding 4 lines by +/-2018 and now (with a one year delay by Ford) it is 4 lines by 2021.
- Stintz approved the 4 Transit City projects and within months proposed a differnt plan.
- Metrolinx announces the private sector will design, built, operate, etc. the new transit lines and weeks later agrees that TTC will operate them.

In terms of spending money wisely, there is the numeorus Provincial examples like orange, e-health, gas plants, etc. For the TTC, the examples are the elaborate stations and lack of cut-and-coveralong the Vaughan subway extension.

 

[M II A II R II K]

If the Eglinton Subway wasn't cancelled it would have ended up with an LRT route attached to the stump at both ends, and have 2 transfers to use the entire length of it.

 

[nfitz]

If the Eglinton Subway wasn't cancelled it would have ended up with an LRT route attached to the stump at both ends, and have 2 transfers to use the entire length of it.

Who knows. With the current plan, it would have cost the same to build it as LRT or subway as far as Don Mills. So maybe it would have had LRT east of Don Mills.

 

[innsertnamehere]

probably would have been a subway all the way to kennedy, and would have cost a little bit more than the current plan. the final plan probably would have been an eglinton subway to kennedy, SRT rebuild, and both phase one and two of the SELRT. finch probably wouldn't have made the funding cut from the original transit city plan.

 

[BurlOak]

Who knows. With the current plan, it would have cost the same to build it as LRT or subway as far as Don Mills. So maybe it would have had LRT east of Don Mills.

Actually less. HRT requires a smaller diameter tunnel, which in turn could result in shallower stations (which require cut-and-cover construction) so the disruption may be a bit less too.

Maybe it would have been elevated through Scarborough to Kennedy and to YYZ.

Only the "LRT or nothing crowd" would suggest an LRT on either end of a subway.

The correct answer is who knows because even if the first part was built the priority for McGuinty was to put a subway up to Sorbara's developpment lands in Vaughan.

 

[M II A II R II K]

Maybe a previous Eglinton Line would have been extended beyond it's stump. It wouldn't have been extended all the way to the airport or Kennedy, it would have had LRT on either ends.

 

[nfitz]

Actually less. HRT requires a smaller diameter tunnel, which in turn could result in shallower stations (which require cut-and-cover construction) so the disruption may be a bit less too.

About 10-cm shallower stations ... ballpark costs would be similar.

 

[rbt]

About 10-cm shallower stations ... ballpark costs would be similar.

I believe the trams on order are capable of climbing a steeper grade than Toronto subway trains.

If we took advantage of that when designing the tunnels (not sure if we did) then some stations would have been significantly shallower and cheaper by committing to LRT for the forseeable future.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

BurlOak:

The things we need before one can ask for money is a credible plan on where the money will be spent and credible managers who will spend the money wisely. We have neither of these.

Those questions should be asked, but "before" we ask for money? There will always be someone somewhere that will complain about how a plan is bad because it isn't their's, and sorry, we haven't got 20 years for another debate that goes nowhere. And besides, one can plan all they want and it might even look credible, but at the end of the day, you really won't know until you start doing it - and that requires money.

Only the "LRT or nothing crowd" would suggest an LRT on either end of a subway.

All subways end at *some* point (ok, you can have loop lines, but I digress), and beyond it riders will be served by a different mode. The question isn't whether it is suggested by the LRT crowd, but whether that decision ultimately makes sense.

AoD

 

[sixrings]

I hate the bus

 

[nfitz]

If we took advantage of that when designing the tunnels (not sure if we did) then some stations would have been significantly shallower and cheaper by committing to LRT for the forseeable future.

Good point. Not sure if we did or not ... though the depth is mostly a function of where the utilities and geology are, etc. Deeper isn't necessarily cheaper. Montreal's system is much deeper than ours - and generally cheaper to construct (because they go deep to get into competent bedrock, rather than doing what we have to do, and trying to tunnel in unconsolidated soils).

 

[gweed123]

Here a link to what Germany is doing.
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/co...ans-ride-5-times-more-transit-americans/3510/

One has to keep in mind as you tax things, some of them will see decline in them overtime as people and business make changes to deal with the cost.

We are see seeing a decline in parking spots now as parking lots disappear to make way for new development to the point there is less parking spots being offer to replace those existing spots.

Once you start taxing Big Box and mall parking spaces, there will be a shift to reduce them as it will be hard to past the cost onto the lessors of stores in higher rent who will either eat the increase with a lost of profit or past it on to us.

The rates for 6, 7, 8 and 10 are too low and should be 2-5 times higher.

One issue though, if a parking space tax is implemented, virtually all municipalities (upper, lower, and single tier, depending on the situation), will need to amend their Zoning By-laws to either remove, reduce, or make their minimum parking space amounts optional.

I know that, at least when I was designing Site Plans in the City of Ottawa, they had some pretty rigid guidelines on the minimum number of spaces allowed for a building of that size and of that use type. Many times, it was higher than what we thought was needed, or what the client wanted.

If a parking space tax were to be implemented in that scenario, then people would be in essence forced to pay a minimum amount for parking spaces, regardless of if they're actually needed or not, because they're mandated by By-law. Yes, you can ask for a minor variance to reduce that amount, but that's just an extra hurdle. Making that number optional should be the rule, not the exception, if a parking space fee is involved.

 

[drum118]

One issue though, if a parking space tax is implemented, virtually all municipalities (upper, lower, and single tier, depending on the situation), will need to amend their Zoning By-laws to either remove, reduce, or make their minimum parking space amounts optional.

I know that, at least when I was designing Site Plans in the City of Ottawa, they had some pretty rigid guidelines on the minimum number of spaces allowed for a building of that size and of that use type. Many times, it was higher than what we thought was needed, or what the client wanted.

If a parking space tax were to be implemented in that scenario, then people would be in essence forced to pay a minimum amount for parking spaces, regardless of if they're actually needed or not, because they're mandated by By-law. Yes, you can ask for a minor variance to reduce that amount, but that's just an extra hurdle. Making that number optional should be the rule, not the exception, if a parking space fee is involved.

I have been fighting with various councils to reduce parking standards, as that is the root of traffic problems today as while down the road.

It starts in the driveway of residential homes/condos/apartments and if you don't reduce that number now, you will have no road capacity down the road if no more lanes/roads are built to the point you will have 7/24 gridlock.

Many developers are forced to provide x spots when they want less as they know most of the excess will never be used as well cutting down on the cost and time to build extra floors for these empty spaces in towers.

I know of a few developments where the developers have come in and said no to the current by-law for parking requirement and final got the requirement change for the site.

If you remove various surface parking spots, you will have more room for more development.

I have seen extra parking allow for residential places after they been built to the point I have said to council that allowing it only adds to the current traffic problems. Most of all, it takes riders off transit that helps to decrees the cost ratio and operation of a route to the point it will see poor service or get kill.

Time to kill the zoning requirement or say X is the maximum you can have on a site with no minimum number.