New Transit Funding Sources

[amnesiajune]

Any toll has to be approved at Queen's Park, and that's not going to happen if the government that approves it has to campaign with "road tolls that don't apply to Toronto elites" on their record.

And again, this is stupid. The point of road tolls is to reward people who use public transit or carpool, not to shake your fist at people on the other side of an arbitrary, imaginary line.

 

[chicu1981]

Ha! I am all in favor of increasing property taxes, but that (and begging the other two governments) are pretty much the *LEAST* sustainable alternatives there are!

Why make them a stake holder. you underestimate politcal anger.

If feds back away from funded project, its very easy to attribute blame. IF there is overcrowding on TTC and people know that its Justin Treadue who backed out, it would not matter how good his hair look. he will take a beating in the court of public opinion.

 

[crs1026]

Any toll has to be approved at Queen's Park, and that's not going to happen if the government that approves it has to campaign with "road tolls that don't apply to Toronto elites" on their record.

And again, this is stupid. The point of road tolls is to reward people who use public transit or carpool, not to shake your fist at people on the other side of an arbitrary, imaginary line.

We don't need to bring transit into this. It's about applying supply and demand to roads, period. Until the last decade, people had an expectation that there would be road capacity any time they wanted it. That is no longer possible.

Density, not transit, has killed the automobile. Transit becomes the solution, but not because we dislike the auto. We can't build a road network that's big enough to hold all the cars, unless we abandon density. The folks in Mammolitiville just don't see that yet.

I'm waiting for events like the Six Points project to drive this home. When they tear down the cloverleaf in the center of Etobicoke, and add all the new development in the area, Etobicoke's roads will fill up. That's not a war on the car, it's the consequence of development.

- Paul

 

[kEiThZ]

Why make them a stake holder. you underestimate politcal anger.

If feds back away from funded project, its very easy to attribute blame. IF there is overcrowding on TTC and people know that its Justin Treadue who backed out, it would not matter how good his hair look. he will take a beating in the court of public opinion.

Absolute BS. We've had crap conditions on transit since the Harris days and the Chretien cuts to the provinces. How many Torontonians blame the federal and provincial government for chronic under-funding?

 

[Crimson Alchemist]

I believe this is the step in the right direction. Toronto needs a revenue source to fund its transit projects. Selling off public assets is not only unwise but only yields a one time payoff. As politically tough this may be, Tory has made the right decision, he's governing rather than electioneering. He needs to frame this as for the good of the city and the region to put people at ease.

 

[kEiThZ]

Any toll has to be approved at Queen's Park, and that's not going to happen if the government that approves it has to campaign with "road tolls that don't apply to Toronto elites" on their record.

And again, this is stupid. The point of road tolls is to reward people who use public transit or carpool, not to shake your fist at people on the other side of an arbitrary, imaginary line.

Notice that I did not suggest a blatant discount. The additional 416 plate toll at $100 was not cheap. If you consider a $1.25 toll difference and a transponder cost of $20, the Toronto resident would have to take 64 trips before they get a financial advantage. That's great for a commuter. But most Toronto commuters (especially to the core) are transit users, so they'd never see a net gain.

Alternatively, set a fixed toll and give any vehicle registered in Toronto a credit on their toll bill equivalent to the plate charge. Non-refundable. Non-renewable and valid for one year. Ergo 30 "free" (pre-paid in reality) trips.

Next, offer the 905 municipalities to join the program. They can pay $100 in plate tax to Toronto and do the same if they want for their residents. I, suspect, most don't have enough Toronto centre bound commuters to really care.

 

[gweed123]

We don't need to bring transit into this. It's about applying supply and demand to roads, period. Until the last decade, people had an expectation that there would be road capacity any time they wanted it. That is no longer possible.

Density, not transit, has killed the automobile. Transit becomes the solution, but not because we dislike the auto. We can't build a road network that's big enough to hold all the cars, unless we abandon density. The folks in Mammolitiville just don't see that yet.

I'm waiting for events like the Six Points project to drive this home. When they tear down the cloverleaf in the center of Etobicoke, and add all the new development in the area, Etobicoke's roads will fill up. That's not a war on the car, it's the consequence of development.

- Paul

Very true. Conversely, density has revived transit. Increased density along many transit routes has allowed routes to pass over a minimum threshold whereby they're actually viable. 15 units/ha is generally seen as the minimum needed to drive decent ridership on a bus route running every 15 minutes. Most suburbs in the 50s-90s were being built at about half that. Now with the explosion of condos, coupled with infill developments that are at least townhomes, that 15 units/ha threshold is being hit in a lot more places.

The same density that is driving that transit is driving the road capacity crunch though, since many of the people moving into the "1950s strip mall turned townhomes with ground floor retail" aren't exclusively transit users, but they aren't exclusively drivers either.

 

[crs1026]

Very true. Conversely, density has revived transit. Increased density along many transit routes has allowed routes to pass over a minimum threshold whereby they're actually viable. 15 units/ha is generally seen as the minimum needed to drive decent ridership on a bus route running every 15 minutes. Most suburbs in the 50s-90s were being built at about half that. Now with the explosion of condos, coupled with infill developments that are at least townhomes, that 15 units/ha threshold is being hit in a lot more places.

The same density that is driving that transit is driving the road capacity crunch though, since many of the people moving into the "1950s strip mall turned townhomes with ground floor retail" aren't exclusively transit users, but they aren't exclusively drivers either.

The irony is that this density (and more, those strip malls are getting highrise buildings as often as they get townhomes) is driving the "urban" standard of living into neighbourhoods that currently complain bitterly about being outside the "urban elite". I wonder how this will change attitudes. Pretty soon many more people will be part of that elite.

How very inclusive of that elite to add so many new members.

- Paul

 

[gweed123]

The irony is that this density (and more, those strip malls are getting highrise buildings as often as they get townhomes) is driving the "urban" standard of living into neighbourhoods that currently complain bitterly about being outside the "urban elite". I wonder how this will change attitudes. Pretty soon many more people will be part of that elite.

How very inclusive of that elite to add so many new members.

- Paul

Much of that density is along major arterials though, with little of it being added inside of established neighbourhoods. Just look at NYCC or the Sheppard corridor for example. Condos and office towers along the main strip, with 1960s single family homes a block or two in. Even in the south of Bloor area, most of the new construction is fronting onto arterials, with the occasional midblock early 20th century single detached being replaced with a semi.

It may happen where eventually that urbanization will spread further away from the arterials, but right now that's largely where it's confined to. Still, that has increased transit usage on the routes along those arterials, and has also increased auto use.

Come to think of it, that may be where some of the "urban resentment" comes from. People who were used to the single family house with the strip mall at the end of the street and the relatively free-flowing arterial are now seeing condos at the end of the street and a gridlocked arterial, and are naturally assuming the condo is to blame (which it partly is).

 

[rbt]

This is far braver than I would have credited Tory being.

Agreed. It's exactly the kind of thing Tory would have run against 13 years ago.

 

[Cobra]

It maybe fair, but that's definitely something that would exacerbate the complaints of the 905.

AoD

True but compared to what London has done with their core, they are still getting off easy in my opinion

 

[crs1026]

Come to think of it, that may be where some of the "urban resentment" comes from. People who were used to the single family house with the strip mall at the end of the street and the relatively free-flowing arterial are now seeing condos at the end of the street and a gridlocked arterial, and are naturally assuming the condo is to blame (which it partly is).

Exactly, this is absolutely what is happening. People buy to get the single family home on the quiet street, assuming they can drive as they need to. And when they do drive, they find the roads jammed. And they wonder who has screwed it all up.

I could list a few lesser roads that have become arterials in the process.... as overflow routes, or now used as short cuts where before congestion there was no incentive to take a back route. Urbanisation is finding those routes.

- Paul

 

[TheTigerMaster]

she didn't calculate anything - that's the figure given in the city report.

http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2016.EX20.2

I got it. The toll will generate $160 Million per year. This report is saying that $1.40 of the $2.00 toll will need to go towards paying for the Gardiner rebuild over the first 10 years.

That's fine, in my opinion. Remember this road toll generating $160 Million/year isn't the only revenue source for transit. We also have the $70 Million property tax levy and $20 Million hotel tax, totalling $250 Million/year. The first four years of these revenues will be dedicated to the Gardiner and the rest is free to be used on transit. Let's not let those four years being dedicated to the Gardiner cause opponents to throw out potentially decades of sustained transit building progress. This is the closest we've been to having a municipal source to fund a continual program of rapid transit expansion. We need to push forward. Dedicating four years of revenue to the gardiner is a small price to pay for that.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

True but compared to what London has done with their core, they are still getting off easy in my opinion

Of course, but given the fragmented politics of our region, it is probably best to go slow and easy.

AoD

 

[amnesiajune]

We don't need to bring transit into this. It's about applying supply and demand to roads, period. Until the last decade, people had an expectation that there would be road capacity any time they wanted it. That is no longer possible.

Virtually all of the evidence shows that road tolls don't dissuade people from driving. Even by the city's projections for DVP and Gardiner tolls, very few people would be choosing to take public transit because of this. The vast majority would just pay the toll, or drive on local roads and pay indirectly through higher fuel consumption. All they do is make people pay more for that driving, and help to pay for public transit that actually gets cars off the road.