W. K. Lis
Superstar
A parking tax/fee should be implemented after 2020. That would be after the Line 1 extension opens, after the Crosstown LRT opens, and maybe with GO RER service improvements.
|
|
|
New Transit Funding Sources
- Thread starter denfromoakvillemilton
- Start date
The way I see it, there are two ways it could work:
1) It all gets lumped into transit project funding that was coming down the pipe anyway. Basically status quo, but with part of the money coming from this instead of general revenue.
2) It all gets incorporated into a region-wide funding formula, which I've proposed in the past. Basically, the pot would be divided 50% based on transit ridership, and 50% based on population. GO would be given a certain percentage right off the top, seeing as how it doesn't actually have a "population" like a municipality does.
Each municipality would identify what their priorities are, and the funding from this pot would go towards those projects. If their allocation exceeds their priority project cost, they can divert the balance to priority #2. If it comes short, they need to cover the project balance through their municipal tax base (ex: Scarborough Subway).
Naturally, I would prefer #2, but I think #1 would be the more likely result. I just think that if it isn't implemented region-wide, that we could see a redux of the exodus to the 905 that we had in the 80s and 90s.
Or start it now at a very modest rate, and increase it every year, ramping up to the "ideal" cost when all of those projects are complete. So start at something like 10 cents in 2018, increasing by 10 cents per year, which would bring it up to 50 cents by 2022, which is when most of the improvements you mention should be finished.
Put the money raised between now and 2022 into quick-win system improvements (better bus service), etc, and post-2022 funds into bigger ticket items.
ssiguy2
Senior Member
I think parking levies and gas taxes are the way to do.
The thing is the system has to fair. The day they bring in these new levies/taxes should be the same day they reduce transit/Metropass/GO fares. Certainly some should go to long term infrastructure but if people don't see an IMMEDIATE reduction in the transit fares when they are paying more transit taxes they will automatically believe that the money will end up in general revenue slush funds or infrastructure projects that never get built.
The TTC and GO have stellar records of declaring new projects that don't ever get built, or come in way over budget and way behind schedule. The public has a right to be very sceptical of new transit announcements as the vast majority never materialize. By bringing in lower fares/integration the day the new taxes start people will fell that they are actually getting a benefit to the new taxes paid as opposed to just another environmental review and Royal Commission that cost a fortune and result in nothing.
The thing is the system has to fair. The day they bring in these new levies/taxes should be the same day they reduce transit/Metropass/GO fares. Certainly some should go to long term infrastructure but if people don't see an IMMEDIATE reduction in the transit fares when they are paying more transit taxes they will automatically believe that the money will end up in general revenue slush funds or infrastructure projects that never get built.
The TTC and GO have stellar records of declaring new projects that don't ever get built, or come in way over budget and way behind schedule. The public has a right to be very sceptical of new transit announcements as the vast majority never materialize. By bringing in lower fares/integration the day the new taxes start people will fell that they are actually getting a benefit to the new taxes paid as opposed to just another environmental review and Royal Commission that cost a fortune and result in nothing.
narduch
Senior Member
Aren't we supposed to be getting a slew of new Carbon Taxes starting in January?
What is the Wynne government planning to do with that money? Should some of it go to transit funding?
What is the Wynne government planning to do with that money? Should some of it go to transit funding?
But a commercial parking levee in many cases would not be borne by people taking transit, or in many cases even drivers. They would be borne by the property owner. In places that charge for parking, yes the cost would be passed on in the form of higher parking rates, but in places where parking is free, the cost would be passed on to tenants.
This isn't like a gas tax or a toll, where the impact on the user is immediate and visible. In many cases the cost will be buried in a property tax line item, and the property owner has the choice to either shoulder the cost, or pass it on in a variety of means.
Some of it is, yes. But a lot of it is being pumped back into rebates and grants to allow businesses and individuals to lower their carbon footprints (electric car rebates, home reno rebates, commercial/industrial equipment rebates, etc). In the grand scheme of things, the percentage of that money going into public transit will be pretty minimal, especially compared to the existing funding commitment.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
For the parking tax, they can make an exemption for handicap spaces. (Maybe they better tack on a maximum number in case they make the entire lot handicapped spaces only.)
Last edited:
WislaHD
Superstar
For the parking tax, they can make an exemption for handicap spaces. (Maybe they better tack on a maximum number in case they make the entire lot handicapped spaces only.)
Or maybe add exemptions for electric car charging stations too?
That could be one way to incentivise the marketplace to adopt charging stations.
That's a good idea. A business can either pay an on-going levee for that space, or they can take a one-time hit and install a charging station at it. Even if they put it in as a metered charging station.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
When funding for safety has to be delayed, delayed again, or delayed indefinitely due to funding cuts.
New Jersey train in crash that killed at least one not equipped with technology to slow down
More than 100 injured when New Jersey Transit commuter train crashed through a barrier at the end of the track.
From link.
New Jersey train in crash that killed at least one not equipped with technology to slow down
More than 100 injured when New Jersey Transit commuter train crashed through a barrier at the end of the track.
From link.
Johnny Au
Senior Member
That was close.
I took the NJ Transit train from Newark Liberty to Secaucus Junction then took a taxi to a hotel in North Bergen when I was visiting NYC.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
So today I learned that the City collects only 6 to 7 percent of taxes collected within the City of Toronto. Increasing that rate slightly would fix our infrastructure ailments and have a tiny (tiny!) impact on overall taxation burden.
WislaHD
Superstar
Source? I thought it was close to double that. (Though I wouldn't be surprised)
The problem is that the municipality is somewhat limited in what it can do to raise funds. I don't think raising property taxes beyond inflation is palatable.
TOareaFan
Superstar
I don't think "we don't tax you nearly as much as the other guys tax you" is a good way to sell tax increases...but that is just one man's opinion.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
It's it's saying "we don't tax you as much as the other guys". It's saying, "you'll be paying 0.3% more taxes and actually be able to make it to work on time".
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
To expand on that thought, the city collects around $11 Billion in annual taxes. A 5% tax increase for infrastructure would net $550 Million/year. Since the city collects only 6% of taxes generated in the city, a 5% tax increase is actually an increase in taxation burden of 0.3%. With reasonable federal and provincial contributions, that's enough funding to build City Planning's transit plan in less than 15 to 20 years.
0.3% is all it takes.
0.3% is all it takes.