Tuesday’s headlines

16 comments

1. Hume has hit the nail on the head….not only are their driver benefits to a road tolls for the inner city, it’ll generate cash for transit, keep us moving forward as being a city almost committed to being greener and we will be noted with other cities that by many accounts are “world class”. I’m sure there are some, but can someone please enlighten me of the cons of this type of change….I can’t seem to put my finger on them. Perhaps a trial is the only way to see what they are!

2. I’m just curious… how do other “world class” cities pay up for their transit. How is it that they have one and we don’t?

   Could it be that part of our problem as a city is that we’re getting too big, and there’s too many people in charge? Too many municipalities and too many differen transit systems.

   I’m not an expert on this subject or anything, but seeing how messed up this car-culture v transit dillema is getting, it disgusts me to see us “stall” in our development plans for a world class city. And why not world class?? We’re one of the top 5 countries to live.

3. IF YOU ARE NEAR QUEEN AND HAVE TO GET TO A DESTINATION ALONG QUEEN ON THE OTHER SIDE OF TOWN IT IS USUALLY FASTER TO MAKE YOUR WAY TO THE SUBWAY, ACROSS, AND BACK DOWN AGAIN!

4. Parkdalian:

   Other cities pay for their public transit by receiving stable, reliable operating subsidies from higher orders of government, something we can’t seem to do for very long.

5. Parkdalian, there are several models by which world-class cities pay for transit. Getting too big is certainly not the problem — though you do want to amalgamate and create superregional transit structures or at least superregional tax structures. I’m sure many people can correct me on some of the specifics below, but here is my general take on some examples of funding models:

   ——–

   In New York many of the tolled bridges and tunnels create a surplus that is used to fund transit, as the transit agency owns those car crossings. The State, advertising, real estate rents, fares and other revenues pick up the rest. Toronto could try this if it started tolling highways or congestion zones and feeding the revenue to the TTC rather than some PPP third party (407!).

   ——–

   Toronto is an example of trying to get the riders to pay for the bulk of the system — TTC fares are the highest cash fares on the continent, as riders are a bigger source of revenue in Toronto than in virtually any other city. Anyone who thinks TTC fares are “chicken feed” has not been to another city lately, especially an American one. You will likely pay more in, say, Washington DC on a long ride where multiple zones are crossed, but then again a short trip off-peak on the subway or bus there will cost only $1.35/$1.25. (That’s like 1990 prices for Toronto). TTC is maxed out on fares and should be reducing them, not increasing them.

   ——–

   Hong Kong may be the only transit system in the world that actually makes money, but they have tremendous real estate holdings and are not afraid to use them. If the TTC went condo and retail crazy at grossly underdeveloped stations it might be able to get some cash, but we’re just not as dense as Hong Kong.

   ——–

   Many successful systems have direct funding mechanisms tied to their superregion, via a dedicated sales or payroll tax. San Francisco gets 30% of funding for BART from a small increase to the sales tax in SF and surrounding counties. Thirty percent! Imagine what that would do for the TTC.

   Paris uses a payroll tax for most of their transit funding. That idea always runs into problems with suburban pols, but they can be re-educated if they have forgotten which central city drives their property values and revenue. Still, a local tax may drive businesses elsewhere over time, to regions that are not transit-friendly and have lower taxes, so it is vital that any transit tax apply to all of southern Ontario, as far out as Barrie and Guelph and Port Hope, to avoid tax-shopping. Good luck getting that through the legislature.

   ——–

   If a direct tax does not work, that only leaves increased basic general government funding — the simple truth is that the best transit systems receive enormous public funding from general government revenues, on the basis of the merits of public transit for all. Even before congestion pricing, TfL did not need to get funding from London the city or London the region — the federal government in the UK served up the cash because what’s good for London is good for the UK. It was simply not a city budget item. On the whole European cities get 15-30 per cent of transit operating costs and 30-100 per cent of capital requirements from their federal governments.

   ——–

   So, to summarize, Toronto has already tried one of these models, the farebox, and not only has it not been enough but it has annoyed riders who tire of paying directly out of their pocket for the most expensive transit system in North America. Time to try a new model, something that gets everyone to pay their share, even though who do not use transit but benefit in so many ways from being in a city with a good transit service.

6. Instituting congestion tolls would require a whole level of bureaucracy and physical infrastructure that would complicate its implementation.

   Instead, you could dramatically increase parking rates in the desired area. It would accomplish virtually the same goal, with basically no new bureaucratic infrastructure, *and* at the same time you would be eliminating the near-criminal subsidy of parking.

7. It’s simple-minded to believe that all you have to do to get cars off the road is to tax drivers more.

   Drivers already pay a fortune in additional taxes, fees and charges, and most of them would jump at the chance not to have to do that any more.

   But for the most part, there is no other way for them to get to work and back.

   Drivers drive because the rest of us have left them no choice. Seeking to punish them for our failure to provide adequate public transit is wrong. And seeking to justify our thirst for punishing those with different needs than us is very wrong.

8. Entrepreneurial? City’s dead last
   http://www.thestar.com/business/article/712698–entrepreneurial-city-s-dead-last#comments

9. yrt’s fares are more expensive at $3.25 for one zone, and that is also with 50% subsidy and far poorer service.

10. Diane,

    Simply put we are taxing them to death, yet they still drive. Let’s tax them some more!!

    Let’s actually get those taxes sent directly to public transport authorities to improve the systems.

    True, then they’ll have a choice.

    There is always a different way to get to work, already exists and always will be.

    Oh so sad, poor drivers.

11. Most of what iSkyscraper says is bang on (except we do not the highest fares in North America. YRT, as ben smith points out is more, as is OCTranspo in Ottawa, and Montreal also charges 2.75 for a single fare).

12. You are right, Ben Smith, so let’s broaden the argument. The entire GTA
    is infected with unworkable transit funding and implementation. In no
    other metro region do riders pay more for less. And yet, the GTA has
    higher transit use than most other regions. A paradox.

    Or, maybe it’s Leafs Syndrome – the more you prove you are willing to put
    up with less, the more you pay for it and the less you get. Let Atlanta
    and Dallas and Denver have cheap fares and rich subsidies – only 3rd
    class citizens ride buses or take trains, so they need the encouragement.
    Toronto’s ridership is at record highs, so those guys can
    afford to pay more! Right?

    We need a Premier (not a powerless Mayor) with the vision to fix this mess.

13. Glen,

    Toronto should climb at least 40 places once Miller and his Executive are gone. Just the thought of them drives business away and keeps others out.

14. Ahh, nice to be able to post on a PC and not my cell phone (can now use capital letters with ease).

    Anyways, as one of the more “pro-car” people here, even I think Toronto could support some kind of road toll or congestion charge into downtown. Transit into and around downtown is at the very least adequate, and having this kind of a charge would make some people think twice about driving into the core unless they absolutely had to.

    With that said, the Greater Toronto Area covers a vast amount of area. More so when you include the Golden Horseshoe, and much of it is not well served by transit. Also many businesses rely on goods and services from outside the core, some of which cannot be carried on transit. Because of this, much thought must take place on how to make any tolling fair. A zero thought approach to this issue (which Diane was afraid of, and Midland57 foolishly supports) could be catastrophic for the social and economic health of the city.

    Operating tolls only during rush hour, improving GO Lakeshore service and rethinking parking fees on the YUS line (since these routes are better suited for long distance commutes into downtown), and only operate tolls on highway ramps into downtown are just some suggestions to make this work effectively.

15. How Traffic Jams Help the Environment

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703746604574461572304842840.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_RIGHTTopCarousel

    make of it what you will.

16. Though the 407 charges the highest tolls in North America, hundreds of thousands of motorists each day prove willing to pay that added price for the dubious advantage of traveling marginally faster than the 401 (and over a longer route) to get in and out of Toronto.

    I maintain that a new congestion toll will not, as some believe, magically make Toronto streets less congested to any significant degree.

    What MIGHT do so is better transit that can deliver these same commuters in less time than they can drive to their destinations.

    And the money to subsidize this better transit is being taken from drivers at (almost) every opportunity. It’s just not being spent as intended.