The ongoing debate about trasnsit funding produced a few rather strange proposals recently.
On April 1, writing in Metro, John Sewell suggested that the “crybabies on Council” who think Transit City is so important should just raise property taxes by $500 per house to generate $400-million/year. This is a ridiculous proposal for many reasons, notably that a jump of that magnitude would not be politically saleable to anyone on Council. This year’s increase is far, far lower, and even that produced howls of outrage from those who claim the city taxes too much already.
If taxes were raised enough across the board to generate $400m, that would be a 14% increase. I can hear the Board of Trade screaming now about how uncompetitive Toronto would be. If the whole load goes on the backs of the residential taxpayers, the percentage increase would be much higher.
Sewell, of course, is setting up a phony argument here by saying Toronto taxes are so low relative to those in the GTA, and if only we would raise them to the average, we would have all the money we need. Does he honestly think voters would tolerate such a change? If he were still mayor, would he run on that platform?
Meanwhile, over at The Star, Royson James writes about the shortcomings, as he sees them, and suggests a $100m/year subway building program. Once upon a time, spending at that rate would give us something we could actually ride fairly soon, but with subways now coming in at $300m/km and climbing, we would wait a very, very long time before we actually ride anything. The Spadina extension to Vaughan would have taken a quarter-century to complete. The Eglinton subway would be at least four decades in the making — the central 12km alone would take 36 years to build. The downtown relief line would ease the pain of commuting for children, no, grandchildren of today’s riders.
The key line in James’ article is:
… our political leaders are not bold enough to tax us to generate the funds or innovative enough to seek other funding options with the private sector.
I think we know why our political leaders are not bold enough to tax us. He need only read his own newspaper and those of his colleagues who rail against high taxes and wasted spending.
As for the private sector, they are strangely absent in the discussion. “Alternative financing” is a favourite catchphrase at Queen’s Park, but we tend to see it only for relatively simple, smaller projects like the construction of hospitals or office buildings, things the development industry knows about.
Both the Scarborough RT and the Finch LRT were originally mooted as private sector projects, and yet there is no sign of this in the recent budget cuts or the plans to stretch out delivery of the Metrolinx Big Move. If the private sector were sitting ready with piles of cash to invest in transit, why is the province acting as if the entire burden is on their own books? Could it be that the numbers for “alternative financing” didn’t look quite as rosy as they hoped? Could it be that investors want to take their money elsewhere for a better return?
Another “alternate” scheme proposed by some involves development charges and/or tax increment financing. These represent either up front charges against developments to finance public works, or dedicated tax increases to pay down debt on, say, a new transit line serving buildings on a route. These both run aground for a few important reasons.
Developers are inherently looking to build for as little as possible, and don’t want to pay a premium for their new building that older nearby buildings didn’t pay. Everyone would benefit from a new transit line, but new developments don’t want to be alone in footing the bill. We were supposed to have development charges to pay for the Sheppard Subway, but they were cleverly implemented after, not before, developments along that line were approved.
Tax increments sound good in theory, but they have to generate a lot of revenue, and that revenue will not flow until the new developments are in place. This may take decades (as one can see with the Sheppard and Spadina lines), or may never happen (for lines passing through stable neighbourhoods).
Taxes are also supposed to fund a host of other municipal services, and any transit tax must be a surcharge. People often talk of the benefits of development as tax generators, but this has to be real, new revenue to support a broad range of city programs, not just to service the debt on a nearby subway line.
Again, some context is needed. If we build a line for $4b and finance the lion’s share to be paid back from taxes, we are probably looking at annual carrying costs of around $200m (give or take depending on interest rates). That’s half of the $400m needed just to keep the TTC in a reasonable state of repair, let alone expand the system. If the private sector has so much money to throw around that we might finance a line from nearby development, how does this square with the constant complaints that businesses are already overtaxed?
Finally, Richard Gilbert, also writing in The Star, rails against spending on transit lines that do not serve areas of strong and growing ridership. He has little use for recent transit projects.
The lamentable record began with the decision in the early 1970s to route the Spadina subway line through a low-density residential area that has still not been redeveloped to justify a high-capacity transit service. The result is a hugely underused resource.
Other examples of ineptitude are failure to provide for sufficient development at stations along the Bloor-Danforth subway line; construction of costly, unnecessary streetcar tunnels at Union Station, Bloor and Spadina, and Bathurst and St. Clair; and installation of the absurdly expensive and soon-to-be-replaced Scarborough RT line.
The worst example has been the billion dollars spent on the Sheppard subway line, which has done nothing to increase ridership along that corridor. The $2.6 billion being spent on extending the Spadina subway line could be almost as wasteful, chiefly because there is no plan for high-density redevelopment at its stations to provide ridership sufficient to justify the extension.
Taking his argument back to the 1960s when the BD subway was opened, Gilbert seems to argue that every subway should be built for the sole purpose of redeveloping the neighbourhoods through which it passes. Try telling that to any established community who are about to gain a new subway station.
The streetcar tunnels at Union, Spadina and St. Clair West Stations are not, by any stretch, “unnecessary”. If anything, the connection at Union is far too small, and the TTC has proposed substantial expansion to handle the growing demand new waterfront transit lines will bring. Spadina Station is a major transfer point between the subway and surface network, and again, if anything is too small, but it was shoehorned into available space. St. Clair West Station loop handles a large amount of bus and streetcar traffic, and its underground location freed surface lands for commercial development that would otherwise be impossible.
Gilbert argues that redevelopment of the Eglinton corridor could raise its demand to subway levels and, thereby, justify the cost of underground construction. He completely misses the point that subway lines do not draw their primary demand from “walk in” trade, but from a large network of feeder buses. One need only visit Finch, Kennedy and Kipling just for starters, not to mention many more-central stations like Eglinton, Dufferin and Pape to see where the riders come from. At my home station, Broadview, there is walk-in trade, but the vast majority of riders getting off the subway trains head for the bus and streetcar platforms, not for Broadview Avenue.
As almost a throwaway, Gilbert argues that we should convert Eglinton to a trolleybus line using new vehicles such as are now in Vancouver. He misses his own point that this is already a corridor with streetcar-level demand, and that trolleybuses would limit the capacity for growth while adding the infrastructure needed for a new mode on Eglinton.
A common thread in all of these positions is that there is some magical way to get new money for transit, and it won’t hurt a bit. No. It will hurt a lot, especially if the property tax base is the only way we have to raise revenues.
Oddly enough, nobody talks about the regional context. When will the 905 municipalities step forward with transit funding? York Region doesn’t even want to contribute to the operating costs of the Spadina subway even though Toronto taxpayers will subsidize York’s riders with a single TTC fare all the way to downtown.
A transit network serves the region, as we are so often told by those who want fast routes with widely spaced stations. Funding for that network must also be regional, but it’s a hard sell to 905ers that they should fund construction and operation of a subway on Eglinton, let alone a “downtown relief line”.
Queen’s Park does not want to hear the word “tax” or “user fee” or “toll” until well after the election in 2011. However, if we’re going to have a big shiny new transit network, somehow we have to pay for it.
Yes, the answer in a way is “just raise taxes”, but this must come in a positive, forward-looking context, not as a continued electoral campaign against the Miller regime or claims that somehow we can have a big transit network without somebody to pay for it.
Steve Munro 
How do we pay for the things we need? Although I do not support a property tax increase, to suggest that everyone is going to flee from Toronto rather than pay $500 per household is somewhat absurd.
What I do support is “sin taxes” that tax socially undesirable behaviour in order to discourage it. As far as transportation is concerned, the most undesirable behaviour is driving private cars.
Particularly disturbing is Toronto’s Medical Officer of Health’s 2007 report which concluded that car pollution kills 440 people in Toronto every year, and injures 1,700 people so seriously that they have to be hospitalized. The costs of the deaths alone comes to $2.2 billion.
So here is how I would raise a lot more than $500:
1. Road tolls on all Toronto roads using the Dutch kilomterheffing technology. These would be set at 20 cents per kilometer except on “smog alert” days when car pollution is most lethal and deadly. On those days it would be $1.00 per kilometer to actively discourage car use.
2. A parking tax of $500 per year per car parking spot.
3. Increasing the existing Personal Vehicle Tax from $60 to $600 per year. This is a currently-existing tax paid to maintain a car’s annual registration.
4. Promptly towing away and impounding all cars and courier vans parked in bicycle lanes with a $1,000 ticket plus impound, storage and towing fees. All of which must be paid before the car or van is released.
5. The dollar amounts in measures 1-4 would be indexed to inflation plus 5%. So every year they keep going up at 5% more than inflation in order to progressively discourage car use.
I predict that these measures would actively discourage car use and raise a ton of money from those who are so addicted to their cars that they’ll pay the true social costs of their driving habit. Getting the parked cars and courier vans out of the bike lanes will make cycling a lot more pleasant.
With the money raised, it will be possible to fund “Transit City” and fund the “Toronto Bike Plan” and fund a proper Bixi-style bikeshare program. Toronto will be a much more pleasant city in which to live. I particularly look forward to living without the noise, pollution and physical intimidation of cars that make the streets a hostile place for all people, particularly children.
Most important, moving people by public transit and bicycle instead of cars will mean that car pollution is no longer killing 440 people a year and injuring 1,700 people so seriously that they have to be hospitalized.
LikeLike
You would think people who regularly ask about how much political ideas are going to cost would be asking about costs with these ideas? I despair of our supposedly only liberal thinking newspaper. For some reason, they seem to have now bought into the subway only approach, without looking at the realistic costs. This is quite a change from a few years ago when they were championing Transit City as the right thing to do.
Outside of the internet, the disgraced TTC chair, and the lameduck vilified mayor, is there anybody actually challenging the subway only approach?
Steve: Some transit activists, and a few members of Council. The dynamics of the situation are simple. Transit City was a Miller/Giambrone plan. Everyone is running against their record, and therefore TC, and by extension LRT, is a very bad thing. We will wind up with almost nothing, or the same one short subway every decade, if we follow this path.
LikeLike
I disagree with the phrasing in the second last paragraph. I would rephrase to say that Queen’s Park would consider those options, immediately after the election. Ambitious government projects occur well before election cycles.
If the provincial government is in such dire need of funds, perhaps it shouldn’t be cutting corporate income taxes to obscenely low levels while racking up record deficits. However, I don’t hear the fiscal conservatives at the Globe howling about this.
LikeLike
I am heartened, maybe even encouraged, to hear talk of trolleybuses again, but the LAST route I would have thought of for conversion was anything on Eglinton.
Back in the day, trolleybuses were actually bigger than standard buses, hence the premise that some routes, like Lansdowne, were too quiet for streetcar service, but too busy for bus service. Now that diesel (and hybrid) buses are anywhere from 35 to 60 feet in length, the issue is not so much capacity but a shift away from multi-vehicles using fossil fuel. But LRT is still the practical, albeit expensive, solution for high-volume corridors.
Where trolleybuses excel, for the most part, are on hilly terrains, and moderate volume traffic. They would seriously outperform diesels on such roads as Wilson/York Mills, or along any route traversing the pre-historic Lake Iroquois shoreline (Davenport in the west, btw. Queen and Kingston Rd. in the east.
Even though the majority of the original trolleybus lines went through the older industrial sections of Toronto, one major selling point is the trolleybus’ environment-friendly and virtual noiseless operation (short of the hum of the motor, and the tweeting sounds made when trolley poles cross support wires — ah, music to my ears!) I do not buy the argument about visual pollution: when trolleys were operating along Mt. Pleasant and Avenue Rd, there was enough foliage to virtually mask the wires. And, having lived off Mt. Pleasant at Lawrence, well, even one block in and one could hear the diesels on Lawrence, but NOT the trolleys on Mt. Pleasant.
Alas, there will never be the initiative in this country, never mind the continent, to increase trolleybus operation: everyone is hoping for the success of the hybrid, or even hyrdogen bus — failures, all, to date.
It seems only Europe and “third world” Asia still believe in the trolleybus.
As for taxes: well, how much more can be done before our tax forms are simplified to two instructions:
1. Tell us how much you make.
2. Hand it over.
Short of encouraging/forcing private enterprise to co-operate, what other answers have we got?
Steve: At the risk of sounding like a member of the Board of Trade, it’s all very well to say “force private enterprise”, but they’ve got to have money to pay us with in the first place. Too often, the call is for a tax increase on specific groups rather than a recognition that taxes overall have been cut too much in the name of small government.
By the way, as an example of private enterprise thinking, there was a court case that wrapped up recently where the proprietors of the large office towers downtown were trying to get out of paying property tax on vacant space. They lost, and the city reaped a tidy sum in additional tax revenue. Private enterprise will try to take advantage of any scheme plus sob stories in the business press to minimize their liabilities under any tax. They’re just like you and me, but with access to a bigger soapbox when they don’t get what they want. I have a very hard time believing that they would volunteer to fund massive transit construction unless there was something very profitable in it for them, and with almost zero risk.
LikeLike
Another key point is that although Toronto’s property taxes are lower than most of the GTA, house prices are higher in Toronto and as a result, Torontonians tend to have larger mortgages than their 905 counterparts. To raise Toronto’s residential property tax so that it matches the 905 would be untenable for many. I certainly couldn’t afford to pay the amount of taxes my parents pay in Pickering along with my existing mortgage payments (a difference of over $2000/year for a similarly sized home).
LikeLike
Mayoral Candidate, Sarah Thomson, suggested putting tolls on two city highways, the Gardiner Expressway and the Don Valley Parkway. No new tax grab is going to be popular but Toronto does need a new way to generate revenue for transit expansion. Seoul, South Korea has invested massively in public transit and maybe Toronto should study how they generated so much revenue for its rapid expansion of its public transit system. An older system is Madrid’s and they have expanded massively recently. Both countries have a denser population base then Canada, but, Toronto itself has a large population, I just don’t think much funding can come from the federal level because people in my former long time home of Vancouver, don’t like the idea of paying for transit in Toronto. I was born and raised in Montreal as well and they don’t look highly on TO as well.
I hope we can get more federal funding like Spain and Korea do for transit but like I said it would be hard to convince the rest of Canada to jump on board this needed revenue for transit, not only in Toronto, but all large urban areas across Canada. The GTA should just get more because more people live in this region then elsewhere.
Steve: A lot of the money for Madrid’s construction came from the EU and the Spanish federal government. I’m always amazed when people say “we need to build like Madrid”, but are not prepared to pay for it.
LikeLike
Why not just stiff the gas tax? Its a captive market, such that people need gas and will pay as much as it costs to buy it because their cars wont run without it. Or we could (on a federal level) institute a carbon tax similar to that in the EU whereby cars are charged a levy based on their carbon emissions.
Steve: People who drive are not the only ones who benefit from the existence of a good transit system, and it’s unclear why only they should pay for it.
LikeLike
Former Conservative Deputy Prime Minister, Jean Charest, current Premier of Quebec is raising taxes. As is New Democratic Premier of Nova Scotia, Darrel Dexter. Even Federal Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has plans to rescind some tax cuts.
Perhaps it is time to raise taxes, and not just at the municipal level.
LikeLike
Sarah Thompson would bring in road tolls so that she spend money on fewer lines (than Transit City) to serve fewer people.
No Thanks!
LikeLike
Greatest respect to your friends in Vancouver George, but the recently completed “Canada Line” was named so in recognition of the large federal contribution to the project (nearly $500M). They have also committed over $400M to the Evergreen Line. Granted, the Feds have supported the Vaughan subway extension to the tune of about $600M, but they have been dreadfully inconsistent overall in terms of their position on transit and infrastructure investment (remember Flaherty: “we’re not in the business of fixing potholes”).
I guess we’re “lucky” to have the gas tax.
If I remember correctly, the City of Niagara Falls has a “tourism tax” which is charged on just about anything purchased within the city, and is used specifically for tourism promotion and marketing. I wonder if a “transit tax” would be the way to go for Toronto, since NF is a “tourism city” and we are a “transit city”.
LikeLike
Kevin Love, do you by any chance own or operate a motor vehicle yourself? Have you ever imagined or sympathized with the personal plight of someone who is *required* to maintain a motor vehicle? Does such a person exist in your imagination? I find some of the anti-motorist commentary on this blog to be, frankly, reactionary, and punitive in tone. As reactionary as the right-wing anti-LRT responses of the politicians. Autos have their part in the transportation mix. For all the peak oil true believers, and those who want to punish users of a ubiquituous and flexible technology which even our transit-supporting mayor employs from time to time (the auto, aye!), I ask you a simple question:
*Do you really think the TTC or any transit system in North America could handle a massive, or nigh-overnight, migration of commuters from private transport to public?*
Be careful what you wish for, my fellow transit advocates. These reactionary responses cloud the issue Mr. Munro is invoking. ALL of society benefits from transit expansion and use, and it is reasonable to ask a wide spectrum of groups in society to participate in the funding of such expansion. And not in a punitive manner, my ideological friend… because the response can be quite reactionary (in case the Harris years have fallen from your memory).
LikeLike
Neither article mentions the pro-car bias that exists at higher levels of government. The combined Canadian auto industry bailout amounted to $10.5 billion dollars, $3.5 billion from the Government of Ontario. Both parliaments acted swiftly and decisively, with nary a whisper of debate compared to the circus acts that usually go on. And now in 2010 we hear that Metrolinx must defer $4.0 billion of investment. If only we had $3.5 billion kicking around somewhere, and maybe some money from Ottawa…
Granted this bailout is, as I understand it, a loan; but wise investment in transit ought to reap its own rewards over the long-term. We won’t see the necessary investment in transit until the bias of mainstream politics shifts, or we elect a substantial number heavily pro-transit MPs.
LikeLike
Seems that the federal and provincial government have $138.7-million for roads and bridges in today’s announcement for this year, but not enough for transit over a few years. I would rather see that money spent on Transit City.
LikeLike
Toronto elects 10 MPs. In a sea of 300, thats like a drop in the proverbial bucket, unless of course you plan to sell Transit City to Bruce, Grey and all the other netherland regions of Canada.
LikeLike
You might be interested in the comparison of monthly transit pass costs in selected Canadian and US cities that I just posted on my blog. I could not find anything close to Toronto for the cost of a basic monthly pass.
After riding home on a St. Clair streetcar with water leaking through the roof (yes, the roof and not around the windows) this afternoon, I decided to check the web to see how much transit patrons in other cities were paying.
Buck of Buck Tracks (transit blog)
LikeLike
“Steve: People who drive are not the only ones who benefit from the existence of a good transit system, and it’s unclear why only they should pay for it.”
I’ve only been following this website for 6 months, but every time I see someone mentioning a gas tax you are quick to shut down the suggestion. Vancouver has a gas levy that is at least 7.5 cents/L and is applied from West Vancouver to the US Boarder and out Langley and Maple Ridge. Yes, Translink runs all of Metro Vancouver’s transit, but something similar could apply here. If it were applied to Halton, Peel, York, Toronto and Durham, it would discourage people driving for cheaper gas outside the region. Each regional municipality would keep the money raised from the levy in their region and it would go directly to transit. I’m not sure how much it would raise, likely not enough for subways, but it would be a start. There currently seem to be two choices fare increases and property taxes. If the two higher levels of government keep refusing to provide sustained transit funding, the GTA needs to get creative. A levy on downtown parking was mentioned in response to a previous post and it should also be considered.
I don’t object to drivers taking that burden. I’d rather see that than fares rise and burden people who’s only choice is transit. It also never deterred me from driving a SOV daily in Vancouver (even when our gas hit $1.50/L in the summer of 2008). I could have taken the bus, but it was a short drive and I had free parking at work. In Toronto where my commute is longer and parking is more than the cost of a Metropass I take the subway to and from work.
I realise these levies will be seen as more of Toronto’s war against the car. While applying these levies, Toronto should identified some car priority routes into the core (Avenue, Mt. Pleasant, Bloor, etc.) and maintain them as such.
Steve: I am not against a gas tax, but feel that it is being treated as a bottomless pit, and the only source of money we should go after. Don’t forget that Vancouver also gets money from other sources, not just gas taxes. What I oppose is a viewpoint that paints all motorists as evil and, by extension, fair targets for selective taxation.
As for car priority routes, no I don’t think so. That path leads to declaring the some streets are almost exclusively for cars to the detriment of the neighbourhoods through which they pass.
LikeLike
On Richard Gilbert:
Original Spadina Subway;
Even back in the day the University Line was under construction, people already knew then that the subway shouldn’t be along the Spadina Expressway, it should have run under Bathurst. Bathurst between Eglinton and Queen is less dense than Bathurst north of Eglinton. The density came to Bathurst even with the subway 4 to 5 blocks away. However, Richard Gilbert neglects the highway’s impact on the accessibility or attractiveness of that subway, and by extension the highway’s impact on development around that corridor, too. He’s still right about that line being a folly as-built.
TYSSE:
Partly agree, partly disagree. I think the GO connection at Chesswood is positive since the Barrie corridor is now owned by GO in full and slated for all-day service in the near-future. The Finch West LRT connection is positive as well. But it’s all downhill north of Finch, and I remember York U getting blasted for lobbying for the subway to their campus while simultaneously flooding its master plan with low density development. That rubbed some important people the wrong way.
Streetcar Tunnels:
St. Clair West: I agree with Richard Gilbert. If you happen to look at the Heath St exit, where a not-so-small-but-purely-ornamental entrance is erected, that site – if expanded – could have been used by the buses on the surface, with streetcars simply running straight through the tunnel without the over-sized expensive underground loop. Nothing is built around the Heath St exit; it’s open space. I support the streetcars dipping underground into a fare-paid area, but there’s no need to deviate off the mainline track into a loop facility. That’s just a waste of track and excavation; all that’s needed are flanking platforms underneath the intersection of St. Clair and Wells Hill Aves. That would allow the commercial development to go ahead without the bus/streetcar terminal beneath it (just the subway and its mezzanine). A small, cheap surface loop in the southeast quadrant of St. Clair and Spadina would facilitate short-turn movements or a northerly extension of the 511.
Spadina: I agree with Richard Gilbert here, too; the bus loop structure could accommodate streetcars (looks like a 13m radius), and it looks like it would have an easier time accommodating the longer new LRVs than the current underground arrangement. The 127 could have been routed to another connecting point for the Bloor-Danforth line, such as St. George, which has a mothballed bus bay sitting unused.
But coulda woulda shoulda.
On Bloor-Danforth, Eglinton, and the Bay St LRT tunnel, I disagree with Richard and agree with Steve.
As for Sheppard, that’s just a mess on so many levels.
LikeLike
Let’s do it some American cities are now doing: hold a referendum proposing a municipal sales tax (or property tax increase), with the proceeds going to public transit capital projects. Believe it or not such measures have been known to pass, e.g. in Los Angeles. I figure that voters are much more likely to support a tax increase if they know that it will be allocated to specific projects (e.g. Transit City) as opposed to simply going into general revenues.
LikeLike
The way these funding promises come, then for what ever reason, they end up being retracted. Is anything at all going to be completed? The shovels are in the ground for the Sheppard LRT for Utility moving,but somehow I get the feeling it will end up like the Eglinton Subway never built.
New Government comes in: Oh,we can’t continue this project.
No money.
Over the last 25 years, so much money has been spent on studies for transportation, then shelved. We could have had a completed Eglinton subway by now for a bargain if it was started in 1985, for all the wasted time and money spent with no results.
LikeLike
Steve said … “Transit City was a Miller/Giambrone plan. Everyone is running against their record, and therefore TC, and by extension LRT, is a very bad thing. We will wind up with almost nothing, or the same one short subway every decade, if we follow this path.”
This must be very frustrating for you, but why do you keep advocating for transit expansion in Toronto? We’re a lost cause — completely hopeless. I would have thrown in the towel years ago.
I actually thought TC was going to be fully built because I figured there could never be another subway mega-project of “Bloor-Danforth-University” proportions in our lifetimes. The question is … how the heck did we do it back then? You’re more of the historian than I am, so what’s your take on it? We built subway almost non-stop from ’59 to ’78. Were subways that much cheaper to build in the 60s/70s? BDU came in at about $260M — I wonder what that $260M would be in today’s dollars vs. the cost of building the exact system today.
Steve: Fifty years ago, subways and transit generally were seen as part of building the city out into the fields of suburbia. Now that the suburbs are in place, complete with far too much car-oriented travel, transit does not have the push it once did except in handling high density commuting traffic where the road system failed to have the capacity a long time ago.
LikeLike
Part of the problem is that the election of mayor’s is being directly tied to the type of transit that is going to be built…this is the wrong way to make a decision like this. Most transit cannot be designed/built in less than four years.
Instead we should decide what we want to build and how much it will cost(referendum) and then decide who we want to build it.
Has there been any thought of a ballot initiative to get a “transit-tax” of some type on the ballot, either in Toronto or Ontario. Potentially a ballot for road-tolls in southern ontario, or a regional sales tax.
LikeLike
I say the following only partially tongue in cheek: Why not raise revenues by serving beer on the TTC? or Tim Hortons coffee? Why are these debates always framed in a way that is punishing a group of people (ie home owners / car drivers) Why can’t we raise revenue in a way that is win / win? Why not charge for a TTC based Iphone / Ipad app that kicks a$$ in some way? It would be something like a progressive tax since you are only charging people that have expensive gadgets to begin with. Why not explore the air rights issue? Expand the presto brand so that it can be used as an incentive card (like air miles). This whole debate seems so pointless as if all sides are bereft of interesting ideas and just retreating into talking points.
Steve: There’s an important point to remember in any revenue generating scheme. How much reasonably can be extracted from whoever you target versus what you need. All together, we are looking for $400m in annual operating subsidy, about the same amount again for ongoing capital repairs, and then a much larger number to fund construction of new lines. That’s a lot of coffee or iPhone apps.
LikeLike
Re Kevin Love:
Just wondering, do you believe that the computer you are using to post arrived at the retailer via a TTC bus? Do you believe that the food you purchased from your grocery store got there via a bicycle? Hell, I’ve delivered architectural blueprints for various transit projects (including Union Station, Aurora GO, Sheppard LRT, Dufferin Station, etc) by car because the locations for delivery are spread out across the GTA. All your plan would do is create hyper-inflation so intense that Toronto would literally become a ghost town.
When it comes to electricity, environmentalists want us to cut back and to not be wasteful with it. Only the most radical want society to live like the Amish. Same goes for cars: It isn’t about having society give up the car en mass, but to create attractive alternatives and when we do drive, we drive vehicles which produce less emissions and use less gas.
Your way of thinking is no more productive than those who believe we should build highways everywhere. You put your own ideology above the reality of the situation, to hell with others who have differing viewpoints and ideas, and nothing gets done as a result.
LikeLike
Focusing on gas taxes, parking taxes, and road tolls is popular not only because it takes money from those who aren’t already paying directly for the service, but it also functions as a social engineering scheme. (Think about taxes on cigarettes as an analogue)
The problem with social engineering taxation is that it’s a carrot and stick game – and you need both in place for it to work. In this case, the additional taxation and fees behave as a stick, but until the new transit lines become reality, where is the carrot?
I agree with Steve – we cannot focus on a single revenue generating style to pay for what transit needs. Transit needs to be viewed as a society-building enterprise, and to that end it should be funded out of all revenue streams available to it.
New construction and upgrades, IMO, should always come out of long-term-planning revenues (in our current governmental model, generally income taxes). Rehabilitation and maintenance might be largely funded through a dedicated portion of the property taxes, just as other base infrastructure is maintained. And operating subsidies might be raised primarily through the driver taxes. That way the appropriate levels of revenue generation are assigned to the appropriate arenas of debate, and we can properly decide as a society what our overarching goals are with respect to transit.
Perhaps each revenue stream capacity might not match the needs I’ve identified, but as a principle I think something like this would be a good place to start.
LikeLike
This city is plagued by naysayers who love the status quo. According to them, nothing can be done, everything is impossible. Apparently to them all the transit successes in other global cities around the world are just a mirage. As long as they are in charge, nothing will be done.
Obviously there are a lot of moving parts to the TTC problem, but at root it goes back to the high wages we pay the public sector managers and unions, while the media’s ‘big bad tax-man’ hysteria simultaneously empowers our managers to skimp on everything else EXCEPT salaries (ie actual trains, technology and service) –> Guess what – when you pay public servants disproportionately high wages for secure, minimal-pressure work, and then castrate their ability to do anything beside the bare minimum (with the silent approving wink of the unions – who prefer having no responsibility for decision making, b/c it absolves them when things go wrong), you attract a lot of people who prefer things just the way they are and can’t be bothered to fix anything!
Some ideas to lower TTC operating losses and raise $$
1) Bring back zone-based fares to maximize revenue and rider value
a) if suburbanites then abandon zone-based transit in favour of the highway, so what, you can reduce service on some of the more expensive routes and – they can take GO instead and
2) We can institute road tolls to capture their usage and pour that money into tranist
3) Smart Cards and automated vehicles should free up quite a few employees to do other more productive work
4) Dedicated subway/LRT-construction/operation taxes, yes, via a referendum! If you make the request using the right language, people will say yes!
LikeLike
When I read Richard Gilbert’s article a few weeks ago, I nearly fell off my chair in hysterics.
Gilbert writes. “The [Transit City] plan is firmly in the tradition of Toronto’s 40-year record of inept decision-making about transit and associated land development. It should be reconsidered.”
This is hilarious because just a small handful of individuals have had actual power over transit services and policies and Gilbert is one of them. As Gilbert reminds us, at the end of his article, “he was a City of Toronto and Metro Toronto councillor from 1976 to 1991.” If we follow Gilbert’s reasoning that we have 40 years of inept decision-making — an argument that I don’t entirely buy — then surely Gilbert is telling us that he himself is inept because he took part in making the very decisions he deplores.
Kind of undermines his whole article, doesn’t it?
Steve: Richard Gilbert has also wafted from supporting one technology to another. At one time, he was a big subway advocate, then morphed into an LRT advocate, and now seems to be back in subway land (where it’s not a trolleybus). His arguments about land use don’t hold up in many cases because he confuses development at stations with demand in corridors. He also completely misses the intent of the City’s Official Plan.
LikeLike
We should also look at reducing the overall need to commute, especially during peak hours:
1) Incentives to employers that permit work-from-home arrangements.
2) Encoraging flexible work hours.
3) Land usage policies that lead to shorter commute distances.
Steve: This is all very well, but the GTA already exists with a massive transportation problem. Many jobs do not lend themselves to work-from-home, and businesses are not very forthcoming about flexible work hours. As for land use, we have been saying this for decades, but have done nothing. Now we have to live with and provide for the travel patterns we have created.
LikeLike
First a correction to someone’s post above, while Toronto is under-represented politically it is not 10/300; its 22/308.
We should have roughly 7.8% of seats by population, we have roughly 7.1.
So Toronto proper, is only off by about 3-4 seats.
Now the GTA, as a whole is very slightly more under represented.
It should be added, that of all the amusing things, if the Bill currently before Parliament passes this issue will substantially be resolved in Toronto’s favour … thanks to Stephen Harper …
Though the effect would not be felt till the election AFTER next.
*****
Back to the core subject at hand.
I remain not on the same page as Steve.
I see fares as direct per-use tax on transit riders, and want to see the same applied to drivers and parkers.
I say this as a car-owning, licensed driver.
To me this isn’t punitive it helps ration use and demand.
Now that said, if someone suggested dedicated gas taxes do this already, I’d be fully in favour of reducing gas taxes by an offsetting amount.
The reason, for this is that I very much like the idea of driver’s getting an itemized bill at the end of the month costing their travel.
I think that is more real that a tax hidden in the price of gas.
I also want to see taxes on parking such that is not an encouraged land use; and on the basis that its existence represents an adverse-tax impact to government and society, owners/users need to compensate the rest of us for that.
If gas taxes were reduced, it might then be necessary to raise general taxes (if one did not gouge on tolls) but that would be truly for general revenue, as opposed to transportation.
I would close by noting that I do agree completely that before any toll or parking tax scheme kicks in we do need to free up some additional room on transit if we are going to encourage people to take it!
And in suburban areas in particular, we need also to make the service a better and more realistic option.
LikeLike
There are two aspects of transit taxation…how much we could pay, and how much we are willing to pay…the goal should be to increase the amount we are willing to pay…
There are a bunch of ways to do that…
Increase the number of people who live a “transit lifestyle”…that means everything from encouraging monthly pass purchases, to running a complete network of busses, having clean vehicles and easy to use services and offering tax deductions for using transit. It also includes ensuring easy acces to alternate forms of transport (autoshare, bikeshare, bike racks, walking, bike lanes).
Decrease the number of people who “would never use transit”…there are a bunch of ways to do that…keep it clean, encourage “first timers” with free trips to busy events, early childhood education (free transit for camps/schools?), keep it safe, open houses, advertising, co-branding (ie. 1/2 price with admission to the ex, or baseball/hockey games), make stations destinations in themselves, ensure they are accessible.
LikeLike
M. Briganti writes: “The question is … how the heck did we do it (build the Bloor-Danforth subway) back then?”
I think we were in an economically stronger position back then. We’d entered a prolonged economic boom, Metro coffers were flush with new taxes and development charges, provincial and federal coffers were flush with new taxes, and it became the age of great city and nation building. Could you imagine our federal government, whatever its stripe, implementing our Canadian medical system in this day and age? Probably not. But back then, the funds were available because the taxpayers were young and progressing quite well in their high-paying jobs.
Starting with the OPEC oil crisis in 1973, and continuing with low-cost competition for our manufacturing sector by Japan and the developing world, North America as a whole has had something of a fragile economy over the past couple of decades. Our only bright spots (and they have been bright) have been in the high tech/biotech sectors, but these areas haven’t grown to such an extent that they can entirely replace our manufacturing base.
Ontario’s economy hasn’t quite made the transition, and governments of all stripes have to deal with decades of accumulated debt. And our baby boomers are getting older and starting to retire. Our ability to do things simply isn’t at the state it was back in the 1950s when everything seemed possible.
Steve, on the issue of which taxes we should think about raising, I’d like to say that while I wholly disagree with Ms. Thomson’s desire to build exclusively with subways (BTW, have you checked out her map? She apparently wants to put mid-block stations at Willowdale on the Sheppard line, and at Glencairn and Glen Echo on the Yonge line), I’ll credit her for being the only mayoral candidate to be willing to talk about raising taxes (in this case, tolls) to raise funds. One wonders what she could accomplish if she maintained her policy on tolls, but stuck with the Transit City proposal to build the LRT under Eglinton and convert the Scarborough RT to an LRT. Perhaps her desired DRL and Sheppard subway would become feasible? Or perhaps not.
But in another post, you suggested a regional sales tax. And it’s interesting to note that the NDP government in Nova Scotia is advocating a 2% increase in their HST, effectively bringing Nova Scotians back to 2006, before the federal Conservatives cut the GST by 2%. It looks like this will pass without fatal political damage being done to the NDP there.
Perhaps it’s time to ask the 416 and 905 municipalities to petition the province to raise the Ontario portion of the coming HST by 2%, bringing us back to the 15% tax we paid in 2006. All funds would go to municipal infrastructure projects within the 416 and 905 area codes. I don’t think this is politically insane. As sexy as a GST cut might seem on paper, I know most people I’ve talked to haven’t noticed any savings as a result. Indeed, some have said that if two cents off of their cup of Tim Hortons’ coffee would have been enough to keep this nation out of deficit, the government could have that cut back. And as much as the provincial Conservatives and the NDP would like to make hay over McGuinty’s HST initiative, it doesn’t seem to have dealt a fatal blow to the Liberal party.
Steve: You may remember Miller’s One Cent campaign that fell completely flat thanks to it being villified in the press and sundry political circles. Times are changing, and people finally realize that they have to shell out for their new toys.
LikeLike
Karl said …
“He’s still right about that line [Spadina Subway] being a folly as-built.”
No — he’s dead wrong. When the Spadina Subway was closed for a week after the Russell Hill accident, the Yonge line was bursting at the seams. Spadina is absolutely essential now as a Yonge interceptor from the west regardless of its exact alignment. Try closing it now and see what happens when all that traffic moves over to Yonge.
Steve: The Spadina line neatly proves my point that you can have demand without the line being built through wall-to-wall high density development. The riding comes from feeder routes that would otherwise go to the Yonge line. Yes, it would have been nice if we could have generated some development on, say, Bathurst or Dufferin, but even this would not contribute the lion’s share of the demand.
There is also the small matter of Yorkdale Mall which is the reason the subway and the expressway go where they do. It may not have been the kind of development some would like, but it’s no coincidence.
LikeLike
A couple of things I’d like to add:
1. One problem with municipal revenue tools is that once outside Toronto proper, you are immune to them. Either all municipalities should have them, or none. I think it is time for Toronto politicians to stop beating around the bush and tell home owners to brace themselves for some steep property tax increases (while getting rid of municipal user fees) until the books are in check. Yes, $300,000 will buy you far less than it will in the burbs, but no one is forcing you to live in Toronto either. Also, that same $300,000 will buy you even more once beyond the GTHA.
2. Believe it or not, I actually agree with some of the points Royson James makes in his article, specifically about Transit City travel speeds. However, I believe he misses the reason why TC will be slow. It will be slow due to stop spacing, not technology used.
He perceives streetcars as slow, while subways and buses are beacons of speed. However, this is a misconception. Subways seem fast because you have the tunnel walls flying by an inch away. In reality, you are only going about 60-70km/h. Buses seem faster than streetcars because you have the engine revving. In reality, a bus in a high density setting is accelerating just as quickly as a streetcar. If anything, it is accelerating slower since fossil fuels do not produce as efficient acceleration as electricity does. If Transit City LRT lines had stop spacing every 1-2km, give or take, then it would be just as fast as a subway.
As someone who used to subscribe to the myth of buses being quicker than streetcars, I do understand his perceptions. For someone who isn’t a transit/transportation geek, it is quite easy to see where they are coming from – especially considering how they are operated in Toronto. I plan on emailing him this weekend to try and educate him, and will let you know if I hear anything back.
LikeLike
Steve said …
“The Spadina line neatly proves my point that you can have demand without the line being built through wall-to-wall high density development.”
I agree, but then why would this same concept not apply to an Eglinton subway, given that it would be fed by practically every N-S bus in the TTC’s service area? Some ridership estimates I’ve seen put a full crosstown Eglinton subway at approx. 160,000 passengers per day on opening day. A lot of this would be diverted from Bloor-Danforth, but the TTC’s estimate that an Eglinton subway couldn’t possibly attract enough riders just doesn’t wash. They’re low-balling the numbers to fit their LRT agenda.
LikeLike
John Sewell failed as mayor. Perhaps his role as a transit/urban development critic is an equally misguided venture.
To Mr. Munro, Mr. Drass & Co.: thank you for your years of commitment and educating of the public regarding these infrastructuire issues in the face of such disingenuous fodder.
LikeLike
This is the most ridiculous argument that I ever heard…………..
“Sewell, of course, is setting up a phony argument here by saying Toronto taxes are so low relative to those in the GTA, and if only we would raise them to the average, we would have all the money we need. Does he honestly think voters would tolerate such a change? If he were still mayor, would he run on that platform?”
You seem to be accepting that political constraints are reality. They are most certainly not. This thinking is what got us in trouble in the first place. We have Mayor that promised tax hikes in-line with inflation, yet increased spending by 3x. Could he have gotten elected if he stated “we are going to increase spending and taxes at three times the rate of inflation”, No. Eventually the real reality, not the political one, catches up. After the warnings to council to other day, tax increases of 48% over the next four years, it looks to be happening starting next year.
Steve: Spending in Toronto has not increased by 3x. That is total fabrication.
LikeLike
Speaking of revenue generators, why does stevemunro.ca not advertise?
I am sure Bombardier or Siemens or Local 113 would advertise on the site.
Steve: Do you honestly think anyone would trust what I write if I took commercials from Bombardier or 113? As it is, a goodly chunk of the community thinks I am personally responsible for the end of civilization as we know it.
LikeLike
Steve according to the BoC we have had 9.95% inflation since Miller’s first budgets (2004). The operating budget has risen by 24%. The capital budget has increased by 43% in the same period.
Combined the increases have been 26.1%. While not quite 3x the rate of inflation, it is certainly closer than what we were lead to believe.
Steve: You didn’t say 3x the rate of inflation, only 3x. I will have to look at the details, but it is important to distinguish the reason for increases, and the degree to which these have been offset by revenues. (I assume that you do know that the $1b of TTC fares is included in the “revenue” side of the budget along with any subsidies, and the total TTC cost, including that due to service expansion, shows up on the “cost” side.) The capital budget, in particular, is subject to swings due to timing of projects. Right now, we are in the midst of all the stimulus spending by Ottawa and Queen’s Park, and that shows up in the gross figures on the capital side.
If you’re going to quote numbers, at least do so in the proper context.
LikeLike
One thing I am passionate about is property taxes and the question about whether they are “high” or “low” in Toronto. First off, we need to remember that a substantial portion of Property Tax is the Education Tax and that it is appropriated by the Province and spent as the Province sees fit. Education taxes collected in Toronto far exceed the amount that is spent on Education here. Since this is a fee for a local service – educating our youth – there is no reason why a person in another community should pay less than the true cost while Toronto (and GTA – 905) residents pay more. Social equity transfers to less well off parts of the Province should be handled through the Income Tax system and not the fee for service Property Taxes.
Turning to the City portion. Once again, Property taxes are a “fee for service” – police, snow clearing, garbage pick up, water, sewers and the like. The Property tax – while based on the market value of a Property – is not a wealth tax. It is a service tax. There is a little bit of a social equity component in City Property Tax, because a three bedroom house in Rosedale pays more than a three bedroom house of equivalent size in Scarborough. However, roughly speaking, in an imperfect system, Property Taxes within each community reflect the services provided to the taxpaying residents on a (reasonably) equitable basis.
Cities, with a denser, more compact population, are cheaper to service than inefficient suburbs. Property values are also substantially higher for an equal number of square feet or number of bedrooms or property size when compared to sprawling suburbs.
Property tax has two components – the Mil Rate (multiplier) and the assessed value of the property. While, as noted above, there are inequities within Toronto, Property Tax, resulting from multiplying the Mil Rate times the assessment, roughly equals the cost of services to each taxpayer.
In Toronto – a desirable place to live – the typical assessment is quite high. Therefore the Mil Rate necessary to deliver the required cost of services is proportionately lower. However, it is an utter falsehood to compare the Mil Rates of various municipalities and draw a conclusion about the “Property Tax Rate”. A high or low Mil Rate tells you nothing without looking at the assessment rates to which they are applied.
It is true that this imperfect system does provide some opportunity to show that taxes are apparently lower in Toronto. Properties of a similar nature – both suburban – near a divide such as between Toronto and Thornhill, appear to illustrate an inequity. These properties are a similar size and yet the Thornhill Property commands a much higher Property Tax. What this illustrates is not – as commentators like to suggest – that Toronto Taxpayers as a whole are enjoying some kind of “free ride” or discount. What it actually shows is that the Toronto resident “just south of Steeles” is enjoying a tax subsidy courtesy of downtown condos, Rosedale mansions and most importantly apartment residents. (Apartments are “businesses” and the tenants have the much higher business tax passed through on their rents.)
Unfortunately, the “politics of resentment” is very popular these days. It is much easier for the media to simplify these complicated matters and draw a conclusion that bad old Toronto is enjoying some kind of subsidy. It is not, and as Property Taxpayers, Toronto Residents are paying More (primarily in Education Tax) not less than their fare share.
Steve: Speaking of the high taxes paid by apartment dwellers, several years ago, the City of Toronto sent notices to all tenants showing how much of their rent was consumed by property tax. In my case, a two bedroom apartment in a mid-60s building was paying over $2k/year, and I’m sure it’s considerably higher now.
LikeLike
You don’t know what “as-built” means. That’s fine, but that’s not an excuse to distort someone’s argument beyond recognition.
I never said the Spadina line should never have built period. I said the folly was with its as-built state, i.e. another design/alignment would have made it more successful/attractive. The way the Spadina line was built, particularly north of St. Clair W, is a textbook case of bad planning and how not to build transit.
Steve: Of course, the intent was to sanitize the proposed expressway by putting a subway in the middle. These days, we call this “greenwashing”.
LikeLike
With the province postponing (killing) the TC projects, what creating reserved bus lanes in the middle of the street, similar to Viva’s plan for York Region be a possible cost-saving/face-saving compromise?
Steve: No. Critical parts of several TC lines require grade separation, and this is the most expensive part of the whole deal. Lurking below the surface of much TC criticism is the issue of taking road space away from cars, and this is common to both BRT and LRT proposals. It is important to note that many suburban BRT schemes are planned for roads where the right-of-way is wide enough to handle more lanes. In effect, “BRT” is a road-widening project, especially when it is couched as “BRT Light”, or curbside bus lanes.
While some individual links of TC might lend themselves to BRT, the network as whole will not. Moreover, BRT does not have the potential to expand ridership the way LRT will and support the goals of the Official Plan.
LikeLike