New Transit Funding Sources

[Northern Light]

When is Green P going to be dumped? All the money wasted on subsidized parking encouraging driving when we're trying to resolve congestion problems. Can anyone take Toronto seriously about mass transit with all of the Green P lots?

Actually, not only does the Toronto Parking Authority (Green P) make money; it makes a lot of money for the City; it returns over $40,000,000 in net profit to the City (75% of gross profit) every year.

It also periodically returns excess 'working capital' which ranges from a few million to more than 10 million some years.

That said; while it is not subsidized (it receives no tax dollars whatsoever); it does set rates artificially low.

To my recollection the policy is something like '75% of market-value. We're a full market rate applied, it would return anywhere from 25-33% more profit to the City. But the for reasons I fail to understand, the option isn't even presented to Council to consider this option (or hasn't been in a number of years).

That would likely mean a peak-parking rate (on-street) of closer to $6.00 per hour, rather than the current $4 (Green P runs the street parking too); Lots would obviously vary, but prices would be higher at most lots.

***

I hasten to add, if you (or anyone else) thinks that prices should be market-based, it wouldn't be a bad idea to suggest that to the TPA (Green P) board.

I could only find this general email address, but the Board of Directors names and titles are included, below.
greenpcs@toronto.ca

Michael Tziretas-Chair

Geri Kozorys-SmithBoard Vice Chair

Ana Bailão Councillor

Giorgio Mammoliti Councillor

Paul Scargall

Shimshon Posen

Darius Mosun

Lorne Persiko President

 

[Brampton Mom]

If Green P were actually market priced and not subsidized, I wouldn't have issue with them. The entire point of creating them, was to keep parking costs down though.

 

[Northern Light]

If Green P were actually market priced and not subsidized, I wouldn't have issue with them. The entire point of creating them, was to keep parking costs down though.

I don't want to sound snippy. I'm always glad to see someone new at the forum.

But just so we're clear GREEN P is NOT subsidized.

You're misusing that word, I assume inadvertently.

There is not City money going into GREEN P; it is PROFITABLE.

A subsidy is a cash/in-kind transfer to allow a good or service to be delivered at a loss; which this is not.

The parking is not offered below cost; it is not even offered non-profit; it is offered at reduced-profit.

A policy with which I happen to disagree! (in other words we're on the same side.

But its important to keep the terms straight. Below-market is not the same as subsidized.

Rant over. (my apologies if that seemed in any way rude, it was not intended as such)

 

[Dan416]

I really hope no one takes you up on your suggestion to run Green P at market rates. I always use Green P because they have decent rates. If Green P rates went up, I'd probably just go downtown less.

 

[W. K. Lis]

I really hope no one takes you up on your suggestion to run Green P at market rates. I always use Green P because they have decent rates. If Green P rates went up, I'd probably just go downtown less.

Green P does not run the parking at the Eaton Centre, and I have seen the entrance to the garage closed off because it was full. $3.00 per half hour, and still they come?

 

[Brampton Mom]

I don't want to sound snippy. I'm always glad to see someone new at the forum.

But just so we're clear GREEN P is NOT subsidized.

You're misusing that word, I assume inadvertently.

There is not City money going into GREEN P; it is PROFITABLE.

A subsidy is a cash/in-kind transfer to allow a good or service to be delivered at a loss; which this is not.

The parking is not offered below cost; it is not even offered non-profit; it is offered at reduced-profit.

A policy with which I happen to disagree! (in other words we're on the same side.

But its important to keep the terms straight. Below-market is not the same as subsidized.

Rant over. (my apologies if that seemed in any way rude, it was not intended as such)

They're losing money, when they don't charge market rate. You're getting your panties in a twist over choice of words. I don't give a crap. They are giving people a break where there shouldn't be one.

 

[Brampton Mom]

I really hope no one takes you up on your suggestion to run Green P at market rates. I always use Green P because they have decent rates. If Green P rates went up, I'd probably just go downtown less.

Then go DT less. They are not decent rates. They are the cheapest I've ever seen. In London, you're charged thirty-five pounds for 24 hours. The rates in Toronto are unreasonably cheap. It's a sin to complain about all the congestion in Toronto when it's so easy to park here.

 

[Northern Light]

They're losing money, when they don't charge market rate. You're getting your panties in a twist over choice of words. I don't give a crap. They are giving people a break where there shouldn't be one.

Panties are not my choice of under-attire, twisted or otherwise.

Be that as it may.

I went out of my way to be polite, but I see that is not an approach that suits you.

Your choice of words is not legitimate; as it misstates facts. But I won't bicker on about it; there are far more important things in life.

 

[TOareaFan]

The Green P discussion is an ineresting one in a city/region where parking tarrifs/taxes are often included in the potential suite of renvenue generation tools availalbe to raise money for transit. Is taxing parking a legitimate possiblity in raising revenue? If new taxes are applied to private parking lots (they already pay taxes) it will lead to higher parking rates as those new taxes are passed through.....will the lots that currently don't pay taxes (Green P) increase their rates too? To market rates or just to the level of their current competitive advantage provides? If parking revenue can be used to raise revenues, why are they not already charging market rates?

Interesting discussion indeed.

 

[Brampton Mom]

The Green P discussion is an ineresting one in a city/region where parking tarrifs/taxes are often included in the potential suite of renvenue generation tools availalbe to raise money for transit. Is taxing parking a legitimate possiblity in raising revenue? If new taxes are applied to private parking lots (they already pay taxes) it will lead to higher parking rates as those new taxes are passed through.....will the lots that currently don't pay taxes (Green P) increase their rates too? To market rates or just to the level of their current competitive advantage provides? If parking revenue can be used to raise revenues, why are they not already charging market rates?

Interesting discussion indeed.

Income Taxes are already charged to employees who get parking at the airport. Parking isn't free and people shouldn't be misguided by "free" and "reduced rate" parking. Your receipts show you what you paid in taxes, you should be able to see what parking spaces really cost. It should be up front and in your face.

It's a mistake to assume that because someone showed up by car and spent money that it makes up for the costs of another car using infrastructure and adding to congestion. When choosing to use private transportation, we should actually have to pay the full costs related to it. A car is a luxury. Using private transportation with your own private space to converse and not worry about pick pockets or the such. People forget this. We want that luxury, we should pay all of the costs associated with it.

 

[gweed123]

It's a mistake to assume that because someone showed up by car and spent money that it makes up for the costs of another car using infrastructure and adding to congestion. When choosing to use private transportation, we should actually have to pay the full costs related to it. A car is a luxury. Using private transportation with your own private space to converse and not worry about pick pockets or the such. People forget this. We want that luxury, we should pay all of the costs associated with it.

I get what you're saying, but let's not forget that a transit user, when they pay their fare, is actually only paying ~80% of the true cost of that trip. ~20% of that trip is being subsidized by general tax revenue. So for the City to be charging ~20% below market rates, while still making a hefty profit, isn't exactly an injustice.

And don't forget, the heaviest amount of 'subsidization' for Green P is in the overnight hours (usually 6pm to 7am). During the daytime hours, Green P costs are actually pretty high, although certainly they vary depending on their location.

You're also assuming that the City is aiming to reduce the number of cars downtown, I'd suggest that isn't the case. The City is trying to maximize it's profits with Green P. I'm sure they've done an analysis, and concluded that they are getting the maximum total revenue with the rates they're charging now. Personally, if people are going to park downtown, I'd rather they park in Green P lots as opposed to private lots, because at least with Green P the money is going to the City. Driving up the price at Green P will only increase the number of people parking in private lots.

 

[ssiguy2]

Downtown Calgary has consistently been the most expensive place in NA to park besides NYC. This forward thing policy was brought in the late 60s to encourage people going downtown to take transit and leave the car at home. Well, needless to say it has been a stellar success. Downtown Calgary has developed beyond belief since the 1960s and transit ridership to the city centre is very high and even moreso when you consider Calgary's relatively small 1.1 million and extremely high income levels and rate of car ownership.

Of course Calgary also backed this up by giving the workers downtown viable transit options that no other city in NA has for a city it's size. They also did this by greatly restrickting the amount and height of office space allowed outside the downtown/inner core areas. It led to far higher ridership levels and a burgeoning downtown population.

It requires political will and that unfortunately is shockingly absent in Toronto.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Downtown Calgary has consistently been the most expensive place in NA to park besides NYC. This forward thing policy was brought in the late 60s to encourage people going downtown to take transit and leave the car at home. Well, needless to say it has been a stellar success. Downtown Calgary has developed beyond belief since the 1960s and transit ridership to the city centre is very high and even moreso when you consider Calgary's relatively small 1.1 million and extremely high income levels and rate of car ownership.

Of course Calgary also backed this up by giving the workers downtown viable transit options that no other city in NA has for a city it's size. They also did this by greatly restrickting the amount and height of office space allowed outside the downtown/inner core areas. It led to far higher ridership levels and a burgeoning downtown population.

It requires political will and that unfortunately is shockingly absent in Toronto.

It used to be that Toronto (or Metro Toronto back then) wanted to create "downtown" nodes at different locations around Toronto. This included North York Centre (Yonge & Sheppard) and Scarborough Town Centre. Other nodes were considered at Black Creek & Eglinton and in Etobicoke, but never really happened.

 

[Dan416]

I use Green P nearly always at off-peak hours...

 

[M II A II R II K]

GTA transit expansion: the planning, the paying

Read More: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2013/02/14/f-toronto-transit-consultation.html

Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/FeelingCongested?ref=ts&fref=ts

.....

The city-led consultation — which goes by the name Feeling Congested? — held its fourth public event at city hall on Wednesday. Toronto’s chief planner, Jennifer Keesmaat, addressed approximately 100 people who came to the event.

- Each work group presented their results and opinions to the crowd, which were then recorded by the event’s facilitator, Nicole Swerhun, on a laptop that projected the results back to the room. “The city has a set of transportation policies, but we have not identified a set of priority projects, and nor have we provided Metrolinx staff with our desired revenue tools,†said Swerhun.

- Metrolinx has a deadline to present an investment strategy report for the Greater Toronto and Hamilton area to the province by June 1. Spokesperson Vanessa Thomas said the agency will be working closely with city of Toronto staff to feed the information they gather from the Feeling Congested? campaign into the Metrolinx report.

- One participant, Scott Randall, said he's frustrated by his daily commute and came to the meeting to have his say about the future of transit in Toronto. "Sometimes you feel like a second-class citizen if you don’t have a car in Toronto," he said. “I live at Main and Danforth but work at Don Mills and Eglinton, which by car would be only 15 to 20 minutes. By bus and subway it works out to 40 to 45 minutes. Most of the time you’re packed in like a sardine."

- In addition to the meetings, Feeling Congested? is relying on social media to spread their campaign, which includes a Facebook page, a Twitter account and a website that has an interactive survey on transit funding options. In less than two weeks, almost 7,000 people have visited site. About 4,000 people have completed the online survey. “I think it’s a strong campaign, and there’s plenty of opportunity for the public to give feedback through the online forum,†said Ryan Anders Whitney, who works for the Toronto Centre for Active Transportation.

- The results of data collected from the website will be combined with the opinions expressed at the public meetings to generate a report that influences the second stage of the consultation. Swerhun believes the upcoming second and third phases of Feeling Congested? will increase the public’s willingness to engage.

- In the second phase, planned to run from April to June, the public will be asked to choose their preferred projects. In the third and final phase, running from July to November, those priorities will be matched with the revenue sources identified in the first phase. “That online tool is going to continue to change. In each phase we’ll present new information and we’ll take new feedback,†said Swerhun. “You actually end up with a transportation strategy, an investment strategy, and that’s the big thing the city hasn’t had so far.â€

The questions came in two parts:

• A discussion about how the city should prioritize new transit plans.

• A debate over how to generate money to pay for the regional transportation budget put forward by Metrolinx, the provincial body that oversees transit planning for the Greater Toronto and Hamilton area

The online survey allows citizens to consider a handful of potential revenue tools including:

• Increases in fuel taxes.

• Increases in personal income taxes.

• A vehicle registration tax.

• Highway tolls.

• Utility bill levies.

One or a mix of the options will have to create $2 billion year to support the Metrolinx plan.

.....