News   Jul 15, 2024
 25     0 
News   Jul 15, 2024
 493     0 
News   Jul 15, 2024
 596     1 

New Transit Funding Sources

On how to pay for the transit projects and operations. Consider that in the U.S. election this week, about 70% of referendums for transit passed. See link.

These included sales tax increases, some of which needed ⅔ majority in the referendum.

Nearly 70% of US transit ballot measures pass

PUBLIC transport across the United States was a major winner in the November 8 election as 33 of the 48 local and state-wide public transit measures up for a vote were approved; a passage rate of 69%, based on unofficial results.

According to the American Public Transportation Association (Apta), the 49 ballot measures totalling nearly $US 200bn that were voted on were the largest in history.

“Yesterday's success demonstrates that voters have once again continued their legacy of strong support for local investment in transit options. Since 2000, the average success rate of transit measures is 71%,” Apta said in a statement.

The largest measure in the country, Los Angeles County's Measure M, was passed with 69% approval with all precincts reporting. The sales tax increase needed a two-thirds majority to pass and is expected to raise $US 120bn over 40 years to help fund transport improvement projects, including Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) schemes to connect Los Angeles International Airport to LACMTA's Green Line, Crenshaw/LAX line and bus services; extend the Purple Line metro to Westwood; extend the Gold Line 11.7km; extend the Crenshaw Line north to West Hollywood; and build a 6.1km downtown light rail line. The measure will also provide $US 29.9bn towards rail and bus operations, and $US 1.9bn for regional rail.

California's other big transit wins include Measure RR in the San Francisco Bay area, which will authorise $US 3.5bn in bonds for Bay Area Rapid Transit rehabilitation and modernisation. It required a cumulative two-thirds vote in San Francisco, Alameda and Contra Costa counties for passage and received 70% approval.

Measure B, which would raise sales tax by a half-cent for 30 years to provide $US 3bn in funding for Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority projects, passed with 71% approval and required a two-thirds majority to move forward.

One measure that failed to pass was in San Diego where Measure A, an initiative that would have raised $US 7.5bn for public transit, did not reach the required two-thirds majority, but did win a 57% approval.

Seattle was also a major winner while Atlanta voters approved a half-cent sales tax increase to raise $US 2.5bn over 40 years to fund rail and bus improvements to Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority's system.

If all the municipalities in Ontario had a sales tax directed for public transit, that could be an acceptable revenue tool. After all, if we buy something in a U.S. city, tourists are funding their transit projects. Shouldn't tourists to Ontario do the same?
 
On how to pay for the transit projects and operations. Consider that in the U.S. election this week, about 70% of referendums for transit passed. See link.

These included sales tax increases, some of which needed ⅔ majority in the referendum.

Nearly 70% of US transit ballot measures pass



If all the municipalities in Ontario had a sales tax directed for public transit, that could be an acceptable revenue tool. After all, if we buy something in a U.S. city, tourists are funding their transit projects. Shouldn't tourists to Ontario do the same?
tourists, if they choose to, can apply to get their sales taxes rebated to them. I a not commenting on the viability of sales taxes to pay for transit....but it is wrong to think that sales taxes are levied equally on visitors as they are on residents.....if you want to target visitors you might look at hotel taxes or car rental taxes or things like that....but sales taxes are directed at the residents of a jurisdiction.

EDIT: oops...got the research then type thing reversed....I see now that we ended our sales tax rebate program a while ago (2007)....carry on.
 
Wouldn't it be great if we could get something like that on the ballot here? Of course, LA County also has the advantage in that they cover the vast majority of the LA metro area. There's not really a regional equivalent here.
 
If all the municipalities in Ontario had a sales tax directed for public transit, that could be an acceptable revenue tool. After all, if we buy something in a U.S. city, tourists are funding their transit projects. Shouldn't tourists to Ontario do the same?

I don't think we'll be able to do per-municipality sales tax for a long time. The feds are very much against it (under both Conservative and Liberal) which leads me to believe it's a technical issue for them (either software limitation or a large expense to enforce proper rates are collected).

Getting rural Ontario onboard with a sales tax increase in order to fund GTA transit is a hard sell even if they get money back for their own roadways/bridges.

Bringing sales tax collection back inhouse isn't really an option.

An added 1% corporate tax rate, however, would likely go through without much complaint. Rural feed/gravel/farm/... companies are huge complainers about local roadways because they see the impact on their equipment; they won't complain if extra money goes into resurfacing roadways or clearing snow.
 
Last edited:
Keep in mind that those local referenda projects mostly assumed some level of federal or state co-funding. We don't know that the incoming Administration and Congress will support that. If anything the Republican platform called for less transit funding.

Also, these referenda took place in urban areas - that's where transit is needed, after all. Most urban areas in the US voted Democrat. I'm not sure a Republican administration would be in a hurry to reward the people who voted against them, over the rural population who voted for them.

Some of these funding plans, while successful, may lead to naught.

- Paul
 
Keep in mind that those local referenda projects mostly assumed some level of federal or state co-funding. We don't know that the incoming Administration and Congress will support that. If anything the Republican platform called for less transit funding.

Also, these referenda took place in urban areas - that's where transit is needed, after all. Most urban areas in the US voted Democrat. I'm not sure a Republican administration would be in a hurry to reward the people who voted against them, over the rural population who voted for them.

Some of these funding plans, while successful, may lead to naught.

- Paul
Good points, and Trump is nothing if not an unknown quantity, even if the Senate holds him in check, but these pertain:
US Cities, Spurned by Washington, Fund Transit Themselves
Here, a well-deserved break from the presidential election post-mortems: Some November results that may well change your life that have nothing to do with chyrons, Twitter feeds, or exit polls. On Election Day, Americans in cities and regions across the US approved some $170 billion in public transit funding, plus billions more to improve roads, rail, ports, and bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure.

A year ago, Congress finally passed a longterm transportation bill, increasing federal funding but maintaining the status quo focus on cars and highways. It’s not enough, cities, regions, and states say, their roads still pitted, their regional transit visions unfunded. It hasn’t been enough in a long time.

So over the past three decades, local policymakers have turned away from Washington, using ballot referendums to ask voters to fund projects themselves. And this year, more than ever, US cities had a message for the feds: Fine, we’ll do it ourselves.

Election Day 2016 saw nearly 400 of these transportation initiatives, all over the country. In Los Angeles, voters gave an enthusiastic OK to a 1/2-cent sales tax hike that will fund $120 billion in transit operations and construction over the next 40 years. (The dream of a car-optional LA beckons.) California’s Bay Area thumbs-upped $3.5 billion in much-needed BART infrastructure renewal. Atlanta will put $2.5 billion into expanding mass transit and $340 million into smarter traffic signals, plus sidewalk and bike paths, all from a new sales tax. New Jersey voters will put theirnewly-increased gas tax revenuetoward transportation projects. Rhode Island passed a $70 million bond for port improvements. Southeast Michigan rejected funding for a much-needed regional transit plan, but the lakeside town of Grand Haven will invest in bicycle paths.

“You can think of the [transportation] program in decades past as the federal government sitting on top and raining money down on states and on localities with large shares of federal involvement,” says Robert Puentes, president and CEO of the Eno Center for Transportation. But between 2008 and 2012, according to the Pew Charitable Trusts, just a quarter of the money spent on highways and transit came from DC.

Blame the drought on Congress, which has refused to raise the gas tax, even for inflation, for two decades. So the federal highway transit fund—the source of most transpo do-lo—has faced serious shortfallsover the past decade-plus. By 2026, the Congressional Budget Office says, that deficit might hit $107 billion. With newly reelected Republican majorities in the House and Senate, don’t expect that to change.

“There is no cavalry coming from Washington,” Punetes says. “It’s up to you.”

Which brings us to November 2016. According to data from the Center for Transportation Excellence, 69 percent of the 48 transit-related ballot measures passed. That success rate matches elections over the past decade, but the difference now is cities are putting more of these things on the ballot. In 2000, Americans voted on 33 transportation funding initiatives. In 2010, it was 59. Now, 77 have made it onto ballots throughout all of 2016. (The final tally for the 400 total transportation and infrastructure referenda is still rolling in.)

Federal money would be nice, but local control has its benefits. “For years, transportation decision-making took place in the back rooms and the board rooms of the highway establishment—it was really an impenetrable process,” says Puentes. “Folks want to have more say in these decisions that have as much to do with the health, pace, and shape of their communities as any other area in domestic policy.”

That is, perhaps, why some sections of the country see increased enthusiasm and funding for public transportation, or bikeshare, or bike lanes.

“We know we can’t rely on someone else to solve our problems,” LA Mayor Eric Garcetti said Wednesday, after the city’s proposed sales tax had officially passed. “We have to take care of them right here.” In the face of a hazy Donald Trump infrastructure plan, a 2016 GOP platform that wants nothing to do with public transit or walk- and bike-friendly infrastructure, that might just be cities’ best bet right now.
https://www.wired.com/2016/11/us-cities-spurned-washington-fund-transit/

Continued next pane...
 
What President Trump Means for Local Transit Funding
Trump’s ascension to the White House puts federal transportation funding at risk.

  • Casey Jaywork
  • Wed Nov 9th, 2016 11:03am
  • Last night, as liberals across Seattle marvelled at the election of businessman and huckster Donald J. Trump to the US presidency, the successful passage of a regional $53.85 billion transit package was a candle of hope in a dark night. Passed by Washington voters by a margin of nearly 10 percent, Sound Transit 3 promises to add 62 miles of new light rail in the Puget Sound area.

    But Trump’s election may signal a reduction of federal funding for urban transit, and 13 percent of ST3’s budget is anticipated federal funding. If President Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress reduce funding or redirect it toward car infrastructure, a significant chunk of the ST3 budget will be gone. As Seattle Transit Blog puts it, “With a Republican sweep in both houses of Congress accompanying a Trump Presidency, federal funding programs and formulas are likely to change over the next four years, and very likely in a way that favors rural roads over urban transit.”

    Jonathan Hopkins, spokesperson for the advocacy group Seattle Subway, says it’s not yet clear what Trump will do to Seattle transit funding. “One [possible outcome] is if there’s ever a reduction on urban transit funding out of the highway trust fund…that could have a negative impact on Sound Transit’s budgeting,” he says. “At the same time, they have intentionally left padding in the budget because they can’t promise what the economy’s going to do. Whether or not they can handle a reduction in federal funding depends on the economy.”

    That’s not much cause for relief. When Trump won, the stock market tanked. During the election, economists widely predicted that Trump’s stated economic policies (insofar as the improvisational candidate can be said to have coherent policy positions) would devastate the national and global economy. On infrastructure, Trump has promised to “patch up roads, airports, bridges, water systems and the power grid,” according to the Wall Street Journal, though he has not articulated a way to fund that work.

    On the other hand, Trump could have little or no effect on federal transit funding, notes Hopkins, or could theoretically increase it as part of a larger increase in infrastructure spending generally. “The question is whether Republicans allow investment in urban transit,” he says.

    Seattle city councilmember and former Transportation Choices Coalition director Rob Johnson says he’s worried, too. “Obviously the presumption about [ST3] included approval from some arms of the federal government. That seems unlikely to happen now…We need to redouble our efforts at the state,” he says.

    “There are a lot of us in Seattle that feel like we live in a liberal bubble,” says Johnson. “It’s now even more incumbent on us as local government to lead.”
  • http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/what-president-trump-means-for-local-transit-funding/


 
tourists, if they choose to, can apply to get their sales taxes rebated to them. I a not commenting on the viability of sales taxes to pay for transit....but it is wrong to think that sales taxes are levied equally on visitors as they are on residents.....if you want to target visitors you might look at hotel taxes or car rental taxes or things like that....but sales taxes are directed at the residents of a jurisdiction.

EDIT: oops...got the research then type thing reversed....I see now that we ended our sales tax rebate program a while ago (2007)....carry on.
Not to mention that the quote is for the US:

The United States Government does not refund sales tax to foreign visitors. Sales tax charged in the U.S. is paid to individual states, not the Federal government - the same way that VAT is paid in many countries.
 
From this link:

...

Toronto also surpassed 4 million international visitors for the first time in 2015 with hotels in the Toronto region selling a record 9,647,500 room nights, an increase of 2.6 per cent.

Overall, Toronto welcomed 40.4 million visitors in 2015 who spent a whopping $7.2 billion during their trips.

Now if Toronto had been able to charge a fraction of percentage from a sales tax...
 
Not to mention that the quote is for the US:

The United States Government does not refund sales tax to foreign visitors. Sales tax charged in the U.S. is paid to individual states, not the Federal government - the same way that VAT is paid in many countries.
and the post I responded to proposed that all Ontario municipalities should have a sales tax for transit.
 
Atlanta voters approved a half-cent sales tax increase to raise $US 2.5bn over 40 years to fund rail and bus improvements to Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority's system.
Even Hotlanta of all places approved a sales tax increase to pay for improvements to the MARTA. That would help improve that system's reputation.

We can do the same, but our politicians are spineless. The joke's on us.
 
Perhaps it is easier to raise taxes for transit when the tax people are paying is 8% rather than one that is already at 13% ? Perhaps they are not as close to the "enough already" level?
 
Perhaps it is easier to raise taxes for transit when the tax people are paying is 8% rather than one that is already at 13% ? Perhaps they are not as close to the "enough already" level?

The U.S. pays a hidden federal excise tax. In Canada, the hidden excise tax was replaced by a visible goods and services tax.

See link for the table of sales taxes in each state in 2015.
 
Poll shows support for congestion fees
By Tess KalinowskiTransportation Reporter

Sat., Nov. 5, 2011
They don’t want taxes or tolls, but more than half of Toronto area residents say they would support a congestion charge for motorists driving into the downtown, according to an Angus Reid poll for the Toronto Star.

Although most residents indicated they were relatively satisfied with the region’s transportation system, a majority would also like to see their daily commute improved. Many, however, fear that it’s only going to get worse in the coming decade.

While commuters are overwhelmingly opposed to the tax and toll schemes being floated to fund public transit improvements, the poll showed congestion fees were a measure they might be willing to consider.

Fifty-five per cent of the 1,001 people surveyed said they strongly or moderately support a congestion charge like the one used to curb traffic in central London, England. Only 38 per cent were opposed to such a fee.

Respondents living downtown gave the strongest support to a charge that would be levied on drivers entering the core at certain times.

“More than a toll, this is a way of addressing how to fund (transportation) but it’s a way also of just reducing congestion. I think anyone who comes to Toronto on a regular basis recognizes traffic’s a pretty big problem,” said Jaideep Mukerji, Angus Reid vice-president of public affairs.

The poll did not, however, determine how respondents would feel if they were personally affected by congestion fees, he said.

There was, however, solid opposition to a number of other money-making schemes.

A 1 per cent sales tax to fund transit was rejected by 67 per cent, and 54 per cent were opposed to highway tolls. Fifty-four per cent said a 10 per cent increase on the gas tax was a bad or very bad idea, compared with 34 per cent of respondents who thought it was a good idea.

While they may complain about traffic and transit service, 65 per cent of people can find something good to say about the transportation system.

Fifty-four per cent rated transportation in the Toronto area as good or very good. Only 40 per cent considered it poor. Forty-five per cent, however, indicated it had declined in the past decade and 40 per cent expect commutes will get worse in the next 10 years.

“Overall people don’t think it’s that bad. You do have a sense that things have got worse in the past 10 years, and there’s a pretty strong number of people that think it could get worse in the next five or 10 years,” said Mukerji.[...]

https://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2011/11/05/poll_shows_support_for_congestion_fees.html

There’s another way to fight Toronto’s gridlock—if we’re willing to be bold
A congestion charge zone would encourage more drivers to leave the car at home.


Jul 18, 2013 Trevor Melanson
If there’s one thing all Torontonians can agree on, it’s that gridlock is a problem. It could be an $11-billion problem every year, in fact, according to CD Howe’s latest report, which I covered in a recent feature. In that piece, I advocated dedicated revenue tools—the sort suggested by Metrolinx, the Toronto Region Board of Trade and Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne. They would help raise the money needed to fund transit expansion, something the region desperately needs.

But the war on gridlock would be best fought with a double-edged sword. While better transit options will persuade fence-sitters, complacent drivers won’t necessarily make the switch—at least, not without a push.

That’s the idea behind congestion charge zones, like they have in London and Stockholm. In London, drivers pay £10 per day to drive through the downtown core, while Stockholm’s fees vary depending on the time of day: rush hour is the costliest, but evenings are free. In both cities, cameras snap licence plates and billing is automated. In London, your payment is due the next day; in Stockholm, you have until the end of the month. [...]
http://www.canadianbusiness.com/blo...-torontos-gridlock-yet-no-ones-suggesting-it/

Road tolls needed to ease congestion in Toronto: expert
"If you want to get to work faster, you're going to have to pay for it," says Transport Futures director Martin Collier
By: Luke Simcoe Metro Published on Tue Sep 15 2015
The solution to Toronto’s congestion problem can be found inside drivers’ wallets, says one transit expert.

With an average travel time of 65 minutes, drivers in the city already face one of the longest commutes in Canada. Transport Futures director Martin Collier believes road tolls and congestion pricing are the only way to get people moving again.

“In Toronto, there’s no more room to build new infrastructure, so we have to manage demand,” he said. “And the best way to do that is through road pricing.”

Collier’s comments come at a time when the city is considering adding tolls to the Gardiner Expressway and Don Valley Parkway. A recent staff report suggests adding a three-dollar charge to the roadways could reduce travel times by 11 per cent on the Gardiner and 16 per cent on the DVP.

Collier said tolling the Gardiner is a “no-brainer.”

“It costs so much to keep it up. Making everyone in the city who doesn’t use it have to pay is ridiculous,” he said.

While politically unpopular, road tolls and other pricing mechanisms have been successfully implemented in other cities. According to Collier, places like London and Stockholm have seen traffic in their downtown cores drop by as much as 30 per cent, while also raising revenue for other infrastructure projects.

“You can use that money to make transit better, build complete streets and make it safer for pedestrians and cyclists,” he said. “All it takes is political leadership.”

Four cities that have embraced congestion pricing
[...]
http://www.metronews.ca/news/toront...o-ease-congestion-in-toronto-says-expert.html

The Case For Congestion Charging to Manage Traffic
Posted July 28, 2015

tumblr_inline_ns5gboEXUp1r97ndl_540.png

A recent post on Architect This City, The Tragedy of the Commons, raised a fundamental but all too often forgotten point about transportation: That in networks where the price of use doesn’t change when demand changes, there is no effective mechanism to manage that demand.

Because there is no incentive to act in the public good, we often act in what we perceive to be our own personal interest, which is often the antithesis of the public interest. And remember that if we are driving, we are traffic. So often people will sit fuming in their cars in the midst of congestion with thoughts like in this cartoon. But of course with unpriced roads, there is no real price signal to these drivers to consider taking the bus.

In a world where time is money, we are constantly berated about the economic costs of congestion. In 2011, the Toronto Board of Trade estimated that congestion in the Toronto region alone cost the regional economy $6 billion a year, rising to an estimated $15 billion in 2031 should no action be taken. More recent research by the CD Howe Institute pegs this figure at up to $11 billion.

Given these sorts of eye-watering figures, one might be tempted to think that car drivers, and in particular the goods industry, would be flinging their wallets open at the chance to buy their way out of congestion. And in fact Toronto has the 407 Express Toll Route which has elements of variable road pricing. However, while the 407 ETR carries around 350,000 vehicles per day, price increases have been matters of controversy. It provides some ability for those who can afford it to bypass Toronto’s notorious traffic congestion, but its fundamental weakness is that it’s just one road in one of North America’s largest city-regions. [...]
http://www.sustainablecitiescollective.com/donnellyb/1091236/guest-post-whom-road-tolls
 
Last edited:

Back
Top