New Transit Funding Sources

[interchange42]

We have a new front page story where David Brake tries to get answers about the other 50% of the funding for the federal infrastructure spending.

42

 

[steveintoronto]

These new revenue tools they are searching for and the city will discuss this fall, will City Hall just be reviewing them or will they also have to be voted on?

Voted on.

 

[steveintoronto]

We have a new front page story where David Brake tries to get answers about the other 50% of the funding for the federal infrastructure spending.

42

Excellent to see the Brake Man back on the train!

 

[jcam]

Voted on.

Yeah, my colleagues have spent a lot of time on the report, and continue to, so it should be robust enough for the City to make a decision to move forward on. But, we also did the revenue tools study for Metrolinx, and that's sat on a shelf for a while.

 

[W. K. Lis]

From Ryerson University's report on "Suburbs on Track: Building transit-friendly neighbourhoods outside the Toronto core" at this link:

First, we need to situate enough residents and employment to generate optimal ridership to help pay for the operation and maintenance of new transit lines through the fare box. The TTC subsidy per rider remains the lowest in North America at 88 cents. By comparison, Montreal’s is $1.21, New York City’s $1.14 and York Region’s is $4.34.

...the Sheppard subway opened in 2002 at a cost of about $1 billion and, nearly a decade-and-a-half later, it continues to be underutilized, meaning that each ride is currently estimated to be subsidized by about $10 per rider...

Therefore, to appease John Tory's demand for a budget cut at the TTC for 2017 of 2.6%, the TTC should close the Sheppard Subway and save some of the money, as he requested. 88¢ versus $10, why not? The TTC should obey John Tory's orders, as it was written so it shall be done!

 

[ssiguy2]

Tory said he wants a budget cut of 2.6% for all departments including the TTC but only cuts that will not effect service levels.

This of course is lunacy and Tory knows it but I can see why he demanded it of the TTC. If he gave an exception to one department then they would all want one or would scream "that Tory cares about this more than that." He never said he had any intention of cutting anybody's budget but he has to come off as being fair while trying to find savings or efficiencies. In the long run it will probably work to the TTC's advantage as he is actively looking for revenue tools and he could justifiably say that the TTC has no room for further cuts without huge service cutbacks and use it as an excuse to create new transit-only revenue tools so as not to conflict with his promise of no property tax rate increases higher than inflation.

I don't think Tory will use the exercise as a way to cut the TTC but quite the opposite, to prove that there is no fat left to trim and in order to pay for future transit there must be new revenue tools. I think the TTC's inability to find a 2.6% cut will work to it' advantage as Tory uses it as a political excuse for transit revenue tools.

 

[W. K. Lis]

... not to conflict with his promise of no property tax rate increases higher than inflation...

Yet no mention of inflation in cutting budgets.

 

[ssiguy2]

Voted on.

That's good to hear.

So will this be a final vote with a set date of when the revenue tools come into effect and by how much?

 

[W. K. Lis]

Nottingham, UK is taking from the rich (with cars) to give to the poor (transit users).

See link.

Why other cities should copy Nottingham's revolutionary parking levy

Nottingham's controversial workplace parking levy is now boosting public transport, cutting traffic and pollution and helping the city to thrive.

Since the 1980s, there has been a dispiriting narrative in transport in some UK cities. Bus deregulation in 1986, and the loosening of planning controls permitting new out of town shopping developments, was followed by significant growth in car ownership and use.

Since then, there has been a tendency in many cities to equate development and progress to increased car use, roads and car-based development. Cuts in government spending have been a further disincentive to promoting or funding public transport projects or other alternatives to car use.

Plenty of cities are doing good things on transport, however. The new Urban Transport Group, which brings together the urban transport authorities in London and other cities, is helping showcase what is happening on the ground and lobbying for the powers and funding to improve things.

But one city stands out as having achieved huge amount in this area. Nottingham is a medium-sized city of some 300,000 people (though the wider urban area is over 700,000). Yet it has some of the highest levels of public transport use outside London.

Nottingham City Council has developed a reputation for innovation and achievement in transport policy. It's retained its ownership of the local bus company, Nottingham City Transport. It has also implemented a tram network – and it has implemented a levy on workplace parking spaces, the money from which goes towards transport projects in the city.

To say that this levy, more or less the first of its kind in the world, has been controversial is to understate things. It took the city council nearly 10 years to get this through, following the Transport Act 2000 promoted by John Prescott which authorised such levies in principle. Nottingham ended up having to employ lawyers to write the secondary legislation themselves.

It faced constant battles with the city's biggest employers and the chamber of commerce, and constant lobbying from national business groups like the CBI, who tried to persuade ministers to set aside any localist tendencies they might have and veto the plans as a terrible business-bashing precedent. There were forecasts of businesses deserting Nottingham for other cities nearby, tumbleweed through the streets and so forth.

Despite all this, the levy went live in 2012, after a period requiring employees to license their parking spaces. All employers with 11 or more spaces had to pay £288 per year per space; it has since risen to £375 a year, although there are various exemptions. The revenue from this scheme has contributed towards two further tram lines, the upgrade of the main railway station, support for the 'Linkbus' network of non-commercial bus services, and a business support package of travel planning and parking management.

The results are becoming clear to see. Public transport use, already high, has now nudged above 40% of journeys in the city, a very high percentage for the UK.

The wider economic impacts are perhaps more interesting: all the predictions of loss of jobs and businesses have proved unfounded. Recent statistics show jobs growth in Nottingham has been faster than other cities, while traffic congestion has fallen. The levy, with the other measures, has also helped Nottingham reach its carbon reduction target a few years early.

Although every city is different, there might be some wider lessons here. One, for the transport economist geeks, might be to stop obsessing with congestion charging. Efficient in economic theory though this might be, Nottingham looked at it and decided that it would be very costly – all those cameras and enforcement – and would not target peak hour traffic jams and single-occupancy car commuting as effectively as the levy would.

The wider lesson from this is that the politics of a levy are different, too. With congestion charging you have to get support from the whole city and potentially its hinterland; and referenda in Manchester and Edinburgh show how difficult that is. With a workplace parking levy, there is a narrower and potentially more politically winnable discussion with businesses and commuters about what a levy could pay for – things that might make journeys to work easier and cut peak hour jams and pollution.

Another lesson is that, in cash-strapped times, this levy might be something for other cities to follow. In Nottingham, it is now generating around £9m a year, a reasonable sum for a city that size. There is interest in other cities: Oxford is actively pursuing such a policy, and other places are eyeing it up, too. Cambridge recently announced a radical city deal which includes a workplace parking levy (there is of course a strong argument for giving local authorities a range of revenue raising powers, as the rest of the world does; but let's not get carried away).

And the final lesson is that cities can, in fact, grow their economy without increased traffic and congestion, and while reducing carbon emissions. This might be something for the candidates for mayors in the city regions to take on board as they start to construct their manifestos.

From this link:

Nottingham is the first city in the UK to introduce a levy (i.e. tax) on all workplace parking to finance public transit. Stephen Joseph at the UK’s Campaign for Better Transport thinks it’s a better strategy than congestion pricing (or as I have always advocated calling it, decongestion pricing):

This is not the first parking levy in the world: Sydney, Melbourne, and Perth in Australia all have them in their inner cities, as does Montreal in Canada. Toronto is debating the issue now, while in the UK, Cambridge is considering following Nottingham’s lead.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

I always found parking to be the most effective means of controlling automobile use - every car heading into the core needs to be parked somewhere.

I wonder how much money a city like Toronto could generate from a similar levy. Nottingham is a fraction of our size and they generate 9 million pounds of revenue. It would be an interesting idea to study.

That being said, in Toronto's case, we lack the public transit alternatives that such a levy would necessitate having.

 

[gweed123]

I always found parking to be the most effective means of controlling automobile use - every car heading into the core needs to be parked somewhere.

I wonder how much money a city like Toronto could generate from a similar levy. Nottingham is a fraction of our size and they generate 9 million pounds of revenue. It would be an interesting idea to study.

That being said, in Toronto's case, we lack the public transit alternatives that such a levy would necessitate having.

Perhaps the parking levy amount can be inversely related to the distance that business is from the nearest rapid transit line? For example, an office tower at Yonge & Sheppard would have a higher per space rate than an office tower at Markham & Hwy 401.

This would provide the government with an incentive to "fill in the gaps" in the RT network, in order to further increase revenues. It would also push the government to provide more cost-effective RT projects, since for example the Scarborough LRT would generate far more levy income than the Scarborough Subway. OPs and the Places to Grow Act have sufficiently limited the ability for significant commercial development outside of designated growth areas, so there's little chance of a downtown exodus as a result of such a policy.

To maximize effectiveness though, I would have this implemented at the regional level instead of the municipal level.

EDIT: I should add though, that any such parking levy introduction would need to go hand in hand with the removal of mandatory minimum parking amounts in the ZBL. A switch to "suggested" would still allow developers to scale their parking appropriately, but they would no longer be legally required to do so.

 

[W. K. Lis]

I always found parking to be the most effective means of controlling automobile use - every car heading into the core needs to be parked somewhere.

I wonder how much money a city like Toronto could generate from a similar levy. Nottingham is a fraction of our size and they generate 9 million pounds of revenue. It would be an interesting idea to study.

That being said, in Toronto's case, we lack the public transit alternatives that such a levy would necessitate having.

If Montreal can do it, so can Toronto.

 

[aquateam]

I always found parking to be the most effective means of controlling automobile use - every car heading into the core needs to be parked somewhere.

I wonder how much money a city like Toronto could generate from a similar levy. Nottingham is a fraction of our size and they generate 9 million pounds of revenue. It would be an interesting idea to study.

That being said, in Toronto's case, we lack the public transit alternatives that such a levy would necessitate having.

From the Torontoist:

The parking levy could bring the City a substantial amount of money. In its June report, KPMG looks at three scenarios, estimating the income from a levy of 50 cents, $1, and $1.50 per day per space. The net revenue ranges from $171 million to $535 million a year. Even at the low end, these dollars could, for example, allow the TTC to avoid transit fare hikes and $70 million in proposed service cuts. KPMG says the levy “could have a positive impact on the City’s ability to generate sustainable revenue streams.” This from one of the country’s most respected consulting firms.

And ideally this money would go to a dedicated revenue stream for creating that public transit alternative. Half a billion a year can get you somewhere.

 

[pman]

A parking levy checks all the boxes: disincents driving, potential to raise a lot of money, encourages more rational land use and building design. I guess that's why some other cities have adopted it. However, this is Toronto, and it's just one of the many good policies that will never happen here. Why not, you ask? Because we're collectively insane. As proof: Mamolitti, Karygiannis, Minnan-Wong, Pasternak, Shiner, Holyday, the Fords and Ford Nation generally. Tory is in favour of massive subsidies to drivers in the form of his opposition to road tolls and his against-all-professional-advice advocacy of the eastern Gardiner rebuild.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

From the Torontoist:

And ideally this money would go to a dedicated revenue stream for creating that public transit alternative. Half a billion a year can get you somewhere.

Yes, it can. Those are the kind of revenue generating tools that can help finance big transit projects.

Perhaps the parking levy amount can be inversely related to the distance that business is from the nearest rapid transit line? For example, an office tower at Yonge & Sheppard would have a higher per space rate than an office tower at Markham & Hwy 401.

This would provide the government with an incentive to "fill in the gaps" in the RT network, in order to further increase revenues. It would also push the government to provide more cost-effective RT projects, since for example the Scarborough LRT would generate far more levy income than the Scarborough Subway. OPs and the Places to Grow Act have sufficiently limited the ability for significant commercial development outside of designated growth areas, so there's little chance of a downtown exodus as a result of such a policy.

To maximize effectiveness though, I would have this implemented at the regional level instead of the municipal level.

EDIT: I should add though, that any such parking levy introduction would need to go hand in hand with the removal of mandatory minimum parking amounts in the ZBL. A switch to "suggested" would still allow developers to scale their parking appropriately, but they would no longer be legally required to do so.

If the parking levy was done at a regional level (Metrolinx finally getting a revenue tool of worth?) then I see it leading to issues of inequality. Parking revenue from Toronto would go to subsidizing other parts of the 905.

I do like the idea of making it inversely related to proximity to a rapid transit line.