News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto Year-End Poll: Vote on the Best Buildings of 2024, presented by Sapphire Balconies
 1.1K     5 
News   Dec 20, 2024
UrbanToronto's Social Media Presence Skyrocketed in 2024
 862     2 
News   Dec 20, 2024
Mattamy Homes Records A Year of Accomplishments
 1.7K     0 

New Transit Funding Sources

TOareaFan said:
I see...so the tax raising authority the city received that no one else did are not enough so we might as well not collect them and then complain that we don't have the ability to raise the revenue we need? Nevermind that now, some 10 years after the powers were granted that would add up to $1.2B......so perhaps it was an opportunity lost?
Click to expand...

Exactly. Implementing several new taxes to generate a paltry $1.2 Billion isn't worth the effort. And the public would be unlikely to support such a transit tax, since it wouldn't make a substantial improvement to their commutes (unlike a sales tax, for example).
 
TOareaFan said:
I am sure the list of politically palatable taxes/tax increases is fairly short.
Click to expand...
There is a difference in visibility between the different tax sources. Some, like the VRT, are much more visible and affect people more directly, others are hidden within the costs of other things and can be raised without much notice. The visible ones are much less politically palatable for politicians to push for and allow for demagogues like the Fords to grandstand on.

It might be difficult for downtowners to understand the opposition to the VRT but think about it from the perspective of a resident of northern Scarborough already struggling to get by. They depend on their car for work, grocery shopping, picking up their kids from school - there is no getting away from car ownership. That extra $70 they would be forced to pay with the VRT is taken directly away from their discretionary income - that is $70 less they have to spend on food, clothes. And the VRT is very visible, sitting right there staring at their faces.

And people wonder why Ford gained so much support in removing the VRT? Ford is not so out-of-touch with people as some downtowners appear to be.

I think the province was very aware in choosing which taxes to give to Toronto.
 
Integrating development into subway stations and getting the developer to pay is probably the only alternative revenue tool that has any chance of making sizable amounts of money. Advertising, renting space underground to retailers, etc. probably account for a much smaller amount.
Everything else that is talked about is taxes, and not alternative revenue tools.
 
BurlOak said:
Integrating development into subway stations and getting the developer to pay is probably the only alternative revenue tool that has any chance of making sizable amounts of money. Advertising, renting space underground to retailers, etc. probably account for a much smaller amount.
Everything else that is talked about is taxes, and not alternative revenue tools.
Click to expand...
Ironically, the oft-talked about Tax-Increment Financing for SmartTrack, might actually be a very efficient way to fund a part of the Relief Line's northern extension. There are so many development sites along Don Mills between Sheppard and south of Eglinton.
 
BurlOak said:
Integrating development into subway stations and getting the developer to pay is probably the only alternative revenue tool that has any chance of making sizable amounts of money. Advertising, renting space underground to retailers, etc. probably account for a much smaller amount.
Everything else that is talked about is taxes, and not alternative revenue tools.
Click to expand...

Still waiting for the Crossways people (Dundas West Station) to do just that. Its been decades, and I'm still waiting for a connection between the subway and the Crossways building and GO & UPX's Bloor Station.
 
It appears to be easier to negotiate with developer, be they have built what they needed.

WislaHD said:
Ironically, the oft-talked about Tax-Increment Financing for SmartTrack, might actually be a very efficient way to fund a part of the Relief Line's northern extension. There are so many development sites along Don Mills between Sheppard and south of Eglinton.
Click to expand...
What exactly is TIF, a development fee that is added to property tax in future, instead of charged to builder up front?
 
WislaHD said:
There is a difference in visibility between the different tax sources. Some, like the VRT, are much more visible and affect people more directly, others are hidden within the costs of other things and can be raised without much notice. The visible ones are much less politically palatable for politicians to push for and allow for demagogues like the Fords to grandstand on.

It might be difficult for downtowners to understand the opposition to the VRT but think about it from the perspective of a resident of northern Scarborough already struggling to get by. They depend on their car for work, grocery shopping, picking up their kids from school - there is no getting away from car ownership. That extra $70 they would be forced to pay with the VRT is taken directly away from their discretionary income - that is $70 less they have to spend on food, clothes. And the VRT is very visible, sitting right there staring at their faces.

And people wonder why Ford gained so much support in removing the VRT? Ford is not so out-of-touch with people as some downtowners appear to be.

I think the province was very aware in choosing which taxes to give to Toronto.
Click to expand...

I think the best way to market a transportation tax would be to show that the tax is a way to pay for a specific set of expansions (such as the ones proposed by city planning).
 
So I am assuming that the carbon tax will mostly go to transit? Is that a reasonable assumption?

Tory basically has to come up with a funding plan this year or none of his plans will be able to move forward. Wonder what his plan will be.
 
georgevicbell said:
So I am assuming that the carbon tax will mostly go to transit? Is that a reasonable assumption?

Tory basically has to come up with a funding plan this year or none of his plans will be able to move forward. Wonder what his plan will be.
Click to expand...

Probably not. While transit is one of the things that carbon tax revenue may be spent on (there's a list in Schedule 1 of the Climate Change Mitigation and Low-Carbon Economy Act, check it out here http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_detail.do?locale=en&Intranet=&BillID=3740), and it obviously helps, transit improvements are not actually a cost-effective way to fight climate change. You need to spend a lot of money before you create ridership gains that are significant enough to make a real difference in total emissions count.

By contrast, things like subsidized insulation retrofits for owners of older properties are far less expensive and have a far greater impact in the war on carbon emissions.

What we may very well see, though, is the use of carbon tax revenues to decrease the carbon footprint of transit. For example, funding for, say, platform screen doors (reduces heating and cooling needs in stations) might get some money. Another thing is that when buying new transit vehicles, the government may use carbon tax revenues to fund any additional capital costs a city might incur by buying a more fuel efficient model.
 
1overcosc said:
Probably not. While transit is one of the things that carbon tax revenue may be spent on (there's a list in Schedule 1 of the Climate Change Mitigation and Low-Carbon Economy Act, check it out here http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_detail.do?locale=en&Intranet=&BillID=3740), and it obviously helps, transit improvements are not actually a cost-effective way to fight climate change. You need to spend a lot of money before you create ridership gains that are significant enough to make a real difference in total emissions count.

By contrast, things like subsidized insulation retrofits for owners of older properties are far less expensive and have a far greater impact in the war on carbon emissions.

What we may very well see, though, is the use of carbon tax revenues to decrease the carbon footprint of transit. For example, funding for, say, platform screen doors (reduces heating and cooling needs in stations) might get some money. Another thing is that when buying new transit vehicles, the government may use carbon tax revenues to fund any additional capital costs a city might incur by buying a more fuel efficient model.
Click to expand...

Exactly. In the Yonge Relief Network Study, they actually found that the Relief Line Short would have a net negative effect on carbon emissions (meaning that it will cause additional carbon emissions). The Relief Line Long was net positive.
 
I really worry about the timing of this. A rough timeline would have this proposal come to council during election season, which could rally up the Nayshun base to pressure politicians to vote against it, especially if they represent suburban wards.

It wouldn't be very hard at all for the political troglodytes to paint this as "the lefty council is tolling highways to pay for a new downtown subway" (since the DRL will be likely awaiting funding in 2018 too.

I'm not saying this shouldn't go forward, but never underestimate the ability for idiots to steer the discussion into a ditch. It would hardly be the first time that transit and infrastructure debates have devolved into facepalm moments for anyone with even a basic understanding of the issues.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top