[AlvinofDiaspar]

The problems aren't mutually exclusive. We're the only G8 country where the feds don't fund transit. Fact is, Harper et. al like to look back to the Constitution, the one written in 1867 when we were a country of farmers, and say, "not our problem." Remember Jim Flaherty and his "we're not in the pothole-filling business" remark a few years back? (And this isn't JUST the current Conservative government, though Paul Martin seemed to be moving in the right direction during his short time at the top...) Legislatively, the prov has the upper hand on the munis and the feds over them so the buck gets passed literally in one direction and not in the other and municipalities with needs are at their mercy. (Toronto less so, because it has its own legislation, but still...)

I am curious though - are we the only G8 country where we have a federal tax credit for riding transit? Really, please stop bribing me with my money and flow it to the transit system instead.

They do it on a piecemeal basis, when it suits them. If I implied they NEVER fund transit, that would be inaccurate. But they do not fund transit on anything resembling an ongoing basis and that is a unique situation.

Let's be blunt - they fund it on the basis of political expediency, not need.

AoD

 

[TOareaFan]

They do it on a piecemeal basis, when it suits them. If I implied they NEVER fund transit, that would be inaccurate. But they do not fund transit on anything resembling an ongoing basis and that is a unique situation.

well may just be in the language but "feds don't fund transit" did suggest that was what you were saying....thanks for clearing that up.

 

[salsa]

I am curious though - are we the only G8 country where we have a federal tax credit for riding transit? Really, please stop bribing me with my money and flow it to the transit system instead.

AoD

Still way better than that income splitting plan.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

I suspect plenty of other countries have transit tax credits (a quick Google search shows the US has at least something) and I wouldn't be surprised if they're more permissive than ours too. It's a real low-hanging fruit for them to offer, obviously.

The political expedience of federal involvement goes without saying but I thought the Scarb subway debacle really encapsulated it. The province has a regional transit plan and has actively asked the feds to chip in, dating back to 2007. Then, in the midst of the campaigning going on, Harper drops in to Rob Ford's backyard to fund his personal subway vision; something not even on the regional plan. (Harper's refusal to even meet with Wynne is subsequently established, showing it's not just political; it's a way to stick it to her personally.)

Most people, including Ford, don't even understand it's not new funding, just an advance on a new fund that can be used for any municipal infrastructure; except Toronto has now just pre-determined their whole share is going to this one pet project that isn't a federal, regional or provincial priority.

That's how federal transit funding works in this country and, Harper being a jerk aside, it needs to change. If we had that and provincial revenue tools, things would be fundamentally different around these parts.

 

[rbt]

They do it on a piecemeal basis, when it suits them. If I implied they NEVER fund transit, that would be inaccurate. But they do not fund transit on anything resembling an ongoing basis and that is a unique situation.

We're the only G8 country where the feds don't fund transit.

These statements are so yesterday.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-c...ransit-projects-in-biggest-cities-sources-say

$1B/year at the federal level is a pittance, but being transit only the GTA should get about 1/4th of it or $2.5B per decade.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Still way better than that income splitting plan.

Or the laughable childcare benefit that does to what, families that doesn't need childcare. Or that stupid sport equipment tax break.

These statements are so yesterday.

$1B/year at the federal level is a pittance, but ought to be enough for 1 major project on the scale of SmartTrack in the GTA per decade.

Until you chew it through the regional lens of federal funding in any case. I do think you are being sarcastic - right?

AoD

 

[wopchop]

These statements are so yesterday.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-c...ransit-projects-in-biggest-cities-sources-say

$1B/year at the federal level is a pittance, but ought to be enough for 1 major project on the scale of SmartTrack in the GTA per decade.

Except for the part where we need to share it with the rest of the country.

 

[rbt]

Or the laughable childcare benefit that does to what, families that doesn't need childcare. Or that stupid sport equipment tax break.

Until you chew it through the regional lens of federal funding in any case. I do think you are being sarcastic - right?

Best part is I bet the Scarborough Subway money Ford secured will come out of this pot too. Net change to Toronto rapidly approaches zero.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

These statements are so yesterday.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-c...ransit-projects-in-biggest-cities-sources-say

$1B/year at the federal level is a pittance, but being transit only the GTA should get about 1/4th of it or $2.5B per decade.

Mea culpa, not keeping up with the news!
I like this bit:
"Sources suggested the commitment would not amount to $1 billion in Year One but would build to reach that amount in the out years."

It will BUILD in the OUT YEARS? Do they have any sense how much it costs to build anything? York Region's BRT, which is about as cheap as you get, is over $2B alone.

So, let's say they're starting with $750M, to be generous. Why, that's enough to build nearly 1/4 of the Yonge north subway extension! It's probably enough to even start digging a hole for the DRL, as long as no one else in this entire country has any projects we need to share with. It was similar when they announced their renewed federal infrastructure fund a few months ago. FCM applauded it etc. but it's a pittance. (It's a bit of a tangent but given the tenuous Conservative hold on Thornhill, dropping in there with a few hundred mil for their subway is a smart play, politically. I can't imagine they'd give enough money to actually make it viable, however.)

Best part is I bet the Scarborough Subway money Ford secured will come out of this pot too. Net change to Toronto rapidly approaches zero.

No, that comes out of a different pot; the new fed infra fund I mentioned above. Here, it's this one:
http://www.infrastructure.gc.ca/plan/plan-eng.html

$14B over 10 years! Why, that sounds AMAZING! It's $1.4B for the whole country each year, on average. Says there it's worth about $2.7B to the province of Ontario over 10 years and Toronto already spent $600M, right? 9 years for the rest of the province to spend the remaining 3/4.

 

[W. K. Lis]

American Roads Depend on Handouts From Bus Riders, Cyclists, Pedestrians


From Streetslog NYC, at this link:

Paying for roads costs everyone, not just people who drive. Graphic: U.S. PIRG

Once upon a time in America, the road system was largely funded by the gas tax. But that was many Highway Trust Fund bailouts ago.

Gas taxes, tolls, and other fees on driving account for a rapidly declining share of road spending. Graph: US PIRG

Today, only about half the money spent on the U.S. road system comes from fuel taxes, tolls, or other fees paid by drivers, according to a new report [PDF] by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. Taxes with no relation to the amount people drive — property taxes and sales taxes, for instance — account for about 42 percent of road and highway spending, PIRG reports. Another 10 percent comes from bonding, and given elected officials’ deep reluctance to raise gas taxes, a lot of those bonds won’t be paid off by drivers.

Between 1947 and 2012, the total subsidy for American roads amounted to about $1 trillion, according to PIRG’s analysis of data from the Federal Highway Administration. On an annual basis, the road subsidy has only been getting larger recently, as inflation eats away at gas tax revenues and cars become increasingly fuel efficient. Today, drivers cover roughly 50 percent of spending on roads, compared to 70 percent in the 1970s.

The average American household now supports the U.S. road system to the tune of between $1,100 and $1,848 per year in sales taxes, property taxes, and other indirect subsidies, such as the cost of traffic collisions to government agencies, according to PIRG.

“Our transportation finance system resembles a ‘users pay’ model less than at any time in modern history,†write authors Tony Dutzik, Gideon Weissman, and Phineas Baxandall. “The conclusion is inescapable: all of us, regardless of how much we drive, now bear the cost of our roads.â€

In fact, federal, state, and local governments spend more money subsidizing roads than they spend on transit, biking, and walking combined, PIRG finds.

So, keep this research handy the next time someone tells you that America’s transportation system is paid for by drivers whose money gets diverted to other priorities like transit and biking. The truth is that we all pay for roads, whether we drive or not.

 

[gweed123]

Interesting article, W. K. I wonder if the same scenario would hold true for Canada, or if the gas tax still covers what it used to.

 

[k10ery]

^Ontario drivers paying up to 90 per cent of road costs, study reveals

Love to see the smart people here debunk this study ...

 

[nfitz]

Love to see the smart people here debunk this study ...

Well, good place to start is here "The study, which was initiated and paid for by the Canadian Automobile Association".

 

[aquateam]

^Ontario drivers paying up to 90 per cent of road costs, study reveals

Love to see the smart people here debunk this study ...

Just sidestepping the issue of roads for a second, the biggest hidden subsidy to drivers isn't just the roads, it's parking. If you're ever at a grocery store, crossing the giant expanse of asphalt between the sidewalk and the store entrance, you should reflect on how much land is used just for the storage of people's vehicles. Not the cost of purchasing/maintaining/taxes for that land, but the opportunity cost of using all that space as vacant land instead of as retail/rental properties/homes, which could generate profits. The cost of a single underground parking space is around $40 000 just for construction. The cost of this parking is folded into the price of anything bought at that store, is folded into the price of any purchased house with parking, or is taken out of the salary of workers at any place of employment that has parking, and is paid whether you came by bus or by SUV.

 

[wopchop]

Just sidestepping the issue of roads for a second, the biggest hidden subsidy to drivers isn't just the roads, it's parking. If you're ever at a grocery store, crossing the giant expanse of asphalt between the sidewalk and the store entrance, you should reflect on how much land is used just for the storage of people's vehicles. Not the cost of purchasing/maintaining/taxes for that land, but the opportunity cost of using all that space as vacant land instead of as retail/rental properties/homes, which could generate profits. The cost of a single underground parking space is around $40 000 just for construction. The cost of this parking is folded into the price of anything bought at that store, is folded into the price of any purchased house with parking, or is taken out of the salary of workers at any place of employment that has parking, and is paid whether you came by bus or by SUV.

Basically, this. The cost of providing parking has been completely passed on by the government through the building code, which forces developers to provide certain ratios. Like you said, providing parking (which I'll admit, may be necessary to generate profits as you need people at your building) also has a flip side where it has a large opportunity cost.