[gweed123]

Divide by ridership and it starts to make sense.

GRT: 14 million
OC Transpo: 100 million
TTC: 500 million

Ottawa's deal still looks a bit chintzy. But put in matching funding from the feds and it's similar too.

I don't think ridership is a good metric to use, especially when you're talking about tax dollars. Why? Because ridership is dependant on funding. If you pump in more money, you're going to get more ridership. If you cut the amount of money going into transit, ridership is going to drop. It's a chicken and egg scenario. How are municipalities going to increase transit ridership if they don't have the money to build the infrastructure to do it?

I think basing the number on population, or more specifically the number of people in a given population who pay taxes, then you get a good idea. It's not like the Provincial funding is only coming from people who take transit. Everyone who pays taxes is helping pay for the infrastructure.

And when you break down the ridership numbers you posted above, Toronto averages 200 trips per person per year, while Ottawa averages 111. 1.8x the number of trips per person per year does not equal 5x the funding per person. If you want to use your funding formula, then Toronto should be getting 1.8x whatever funding Ottawa gets, because that's the ratio of transit trips to population.

 

[Jonny5]

Someone tell McGuinty to cut a cheque for $35.00 so Moose Factory can get their population rated share of the transit pie and start on the Birch Street LRT. You have to plan for the future!

Looking at one metric, such as population, to determine correct funding allocations is dumb. Larger and denser metro areas have more complicated transit needs that are naturally more expensive. Toronto should be getting more dollars per person than Kitchener or Hamilton and there are places in Ontario that should be getting 0 transit dollars.

 

[k10ery]

I don't think ridership is a good metric to use, especially when you're talking about tax dollars. Why? Because ridership is dependant on funding. If you pump in more money, you're going to get more ridership. If you cut the amount of money going into transit, ridership is going to drop. It's a chicken and egg scenario. How are municipalities going to increase transit ridership if they don't have the money to build the infrastructure to do it?

I think basing the number on population, or more specifically the number of people in a given population who pay taxes, then you get a good idea. It's not like the Provincial funding is only coming from people who take transit. Everyone who pays taxes is helping pay for the infrastructure.

And when you break down the ridership numbers you posted above, Toronto averages 200 trips per person per year, while Ottawa averages 111. 1.8x the number of trips per person per year does not equal 5x the funding per person. If you want to use your funding formula, then Toronto should be getting 1.8x whatever funding Ottawa gets, because that's the ratio of transit trips to population.

That's why I mentioned the federal funding.

If you want per capita "transit" funding, Hudak's your man. But come on, a lot of TTC riders don't even live in the city of Toronto.

 

[gweed123]

Looking at one metric, such as population, to determine correct funding allocations is dumb. Larger and denser metro areas have more complicated transit needs that are naturally more expensive. Toronto should be getting more dollars per person than Kitchener or Hamilton and there are places in Ontario that should be getting 0 transit dollars.

So just because someplace is bigger that means that they should be getting a disproportionately large amount of the transit dollars available? Toronto gets $8.2 billion in transit funding from higher levels of government, and doesn't even have to put in a penny, while cities like Ottawa and Kitchener need to put in over 1/3 of the cost of their projects, just because they don't have as "complicated transit needs" as Toronto does? What a croc of crap.

I have no problem with Toronto getting more money than Ottawa does, because Toronto has 2.8x as many people than Ottawa does. But does that mean that Toronto should get 6.8x as much funding as Ottawa does (when federal funds are factored in)?

I'm not saying Toronto should get fewer transit dollars than it is currently getting, but you have to admit that the deals that Ottawa and K-W got look really shitty in comparison.

 

[gweed123]

Just to further on that, what I'd ultimately like to see is a permanent Provincial Infrastructure Funding Arrangement (PIFA) created. What this would entail is a simple $X/citizen for every City, Region, or County in the Province that can be spent on anything transportation related. It would be a steady source of funding for municipalities to arrange capital transportation infrastructure projects. For a nice round number, something around $200 per citizen per year.

For a City like Toronto, this would be about $500 million per year from the Provincial government that they could put into anything transportation related, but for a larger city like Toronto it would hopefully be spent on transit. The course of a big infrastructure project is usually about 8 years, so the City could count on about $4 billion for that project over the planning/construction period.

For a City like Ottawa, it would be around $180 million per year. Still nothing to sneeze at, as it would have funded a significant portion of the LRT project.

Even for a small town, it could mean a renewal of Main Street, or building a new bridge.

But the biggest benefit of all would be the elimination of the 'hat in hand' method that is currently employed every time a municipality asks for funding. A constant and dependable stream of money to help build infrastructure. If they want more, implement revenue generation tools to come up with the money on your own (ex: road tolls).

 

[GenerationW]

If I may throw a dark cloud into the proceedings, what happens if those expected Provincial budget cuts this spring reduce transit funding to Toronto even more? An Eglinton line that only goes from Black Creek to Don Mills perhaps??

 

[nfitz]

But come on, a lot of TTC riders don't even live in the city of Toronto.

Which does raise the question of why they are paying the same TTC fare as those that live in Toronto, given that about 1/3 of the cost of operations comes out of the City of Toronto budget.

 

[kEiThZ]

Which does raise the question of why they are paying the same TTC fare as those that live in Toronto, given that about 1/3 of the cost of operations comes out of the City of Toronto budget.

This line of thinking is very dangerous. It's a real threat to the proper integration of transit across the region. And it's a threat to the city's own interest. You can impose additional fees for out of towners, or give discounts to residents. But what if the 905'ers decide then that they don't want to pay for subways in Toronto? What if they start pressing politicians to reduce GO service in Toronto (or charge more to 416 residents)? And what happens if the burbs respond in kind? Imagine the mess we'll have as people flock to their cars in response.

Proper public transit service is as much in our own interest as it is in theirs. Also, there's no way that more than 1/3rd of the TTC's ridership is composed on non-residents. So you could argue that the city is still mostly subsidizing Toronto residents.

 

[nfitz]

This line of thinking is very dangerous.

I completely disagree. I'm not suggesting that they pay more fares. I'm suggesting that TTC be funded appropriately from other Regional and Provincial governments to account for the very high number of non-Toronto residents who use TTC, in comparison to Toronto residents who use other systems.

Proper integration of transit isn't going to happen without appropriate funding being provided to the agency (TTC) that would take the biggest hit.

Also, there's no way that more than 1/3rd of the TTC's ridership is composed on non-residents. So you could argue that the city is still mostly subsidizing Toronto residents.

That's a very odd piece of logic. Simply because most riders are Torontonians doesn't mean Torontonians should be subsidizing the 905ers who use TTC.

 

[rbt]

Just to further on that, what I'd ultimately like to see is a permanent Provincial Infrastructure Funding Arrangement (PIFA) created. What this would entail is a simple $X/citizen for every City, Region, or County in the Province that can be spent on anything transportation related.

This is a lousy way to do it from a business perspective. Given every department an equal $N without regard to actual requirements or income from that area. It might appear most fair but can really hurt the pocket book of everybody in the provice.

How does it hurt everybody?

Different regions have different constraints on their economic growth. Targetting those specific constraints will best boost all growth overall. Toronto's main constraint at this time is in moving people. Building a new highway in Thunderbay (something they want) isn't going to help the jobs situation there thus no new hospital/education money (income tax revenue).

Growing Toronto does mean new hostpital/education money and that does tend to get distrubuted pretty evenly; with Toronto reveiving significantly less than paid in those categories.

So, how do you improve health-care in Thunderbay? Projects like the Georgetown corridor and Union Station capacity improvements is one way to do it. It's indirect and time consuming, but it is sustainable income that does not require long term deficit spending to accomplish.


That's why Toronto deserves higher than normal transportation spending at this time. FYI, a Toronto specific road toll or tax would be an acceptable way to accomplish this higher spending level but we don't seem to be able to do that.

It would take one heck of a huge tax ($30 or more per day) to offset the benefits a DRL and electrification of GO would have. $5/day/person would be easily absorbed by the region if GO capacity doubled.

 

[k10ery]

This line of thinking is very dangerous. It's a real threat to the proper integration of transit across the region. And it's a threat to the city's own interest. You can impose additional fees for out of towners, or give discounts to residents. But what if the 905'ers decide then that they don't want to pay for subways in Toronto? What if they start pressing politicians to reduce GO service in Toronto (or charge more to 416 residents)? And what happens if the burbs respond in kind? Imagine the mess we'll have as people flock to their cars in response.

Proper public transit service is as much in our own interest as it is in theirs. Also, there's no way that more than 1/3rd of the TTC's ridership is composed on non-residents. So you could argue that the city is still mostly subsidizing Toronto residents.

Everybody's getting subsidized, car and transit riders alike, so everybody argues about why their subsidy should be bigger. If you could eliminate the subsidies you eliminate the whole problem. The starting point is cars. Best estimates say the subsidy to urban car commuters is about 5 cents per kilometre. If you start taxing that say through a GTA gas tax you are going to generate at least $1 billion a year in revenues. Then eliminate the TTC/Go operating subsidies, so taxpayers aren't subsidizing transit users either. You can plough all the money from travel pricing into building new transit capacity.

With $1-2 billion a year I suppose you could build subways everywhere. And they'd be full, even on Sheppard.

Easy as pie right? Except you have to start by raising the price at the pump about 50 cents a litre.

 

[11th]

With $1-2 billion a year I suppose you could build subways everywhere. And they'd be full, even on Sheppard.

Easy as pie right? Except you have to start by raising the price at the pump about 50 cents a litre.

If the new tax is advertised as "temporary", let's say 50 cents per litre for five years, and then 10 cents per litre afterwards, maybe it'd be a better sell. I bet one of the big reason people do not like additional taxes is because most of the time, it is a permanent measure.

 

[voxpopulicosmicum]

Everybody's getting subsidized, car and transit riders alike, so everybody argues about why their subsidy should be bigger. If you could eliminate the subsidies you eliminate the whole problem. The starting point is cars. Best estimates say the subsidy to urban car commuters is about 5 cents per kilometre. If you start taxing that say through a GTA gas tax you are going to generate at least $1 billion a year in revenues. Then eliminate the TTC/Go operating subsidies, so taxpayers aren't subsidizing transit users either. You can plough all the money from travel pricing into building new transit capacity.

With $1-2 billion a year I suppose you could build subways everywhere. And they'd be full, even on Sheppard.

Easy as pie right? Except you have to start by raising the price at the pump about 50 cents a litre.

You're correct and it's ridiculous that we're still having this conversation. Corporate welfare bums owe us all a lot of money.

 

[Nick.]

maybe the taxes that people in a city pay, should go directly to that city's infrastructure.. sorry if this idea is too crazy.

 

[nfitz]

maybe the taxes that people in a city pay, should go directly to that city's infrastructure.. sorry if this idea is too crazy.

But then who would subsidize the costs for roads, schools, hospitals, etc. for those that choose to live in the largely vacant, rural portions of our province?