Mapleson
Active Member
While I agree the TTC is chronically under-funded and is not keeping pace with demand, I do believe -- like with all things -- that there is a breaking point. A point at which, a solution will be found when push comes to shove. Markets and people have a funny way of solving problems when faced with adversity. Political will is found to undertake things when the going gets tough.
I think that the TTC is sort of in that "good enough" phase for people. Everyone knows the TTC is kind of crap compared to other transit systems in the world; it's still using tokens instead of smart cards, there hasn't been much investment in new subway lines in decades except for the Line to Nowhere(tm), etc.
What I do know is, that having a collapse of government finances would be far more painful than having a below-average transit system. I'd prefer to fix the problem without putting government finances in jeopardy. That means convincing the public to accept higher costs, and perhaps extend special consideration to low-income people (perhaps a re-imbursement program of part of the fare). But I think a significant fare hike should be on the table. And even congestion taxes like in Stockholm and London.
I happen to be a fan of user fees.
Generally, when things reach a breaking point it's more expensive to fix them than if you had acted with forethought. I would agree the TTC is still in the "good enough" phase, but as you can see from the interest in this forum, a growing part of the public feel that it's exiting the "good enough" phase. I'm a young professional myself, so I am concerned about when I'm in my 50s in the 2030s and the state of the city/provience/country will be in then.
A collapse of government finances is much less likely than cronic congestion. Look at how badly Greece messed up their finances and still gets bailed out by the brotherhood of nations. Canada is too economically integrated into the US economy to be allowed to collapse for the same reasons Germany couldn't allow Greece to do so.
I'm all for fixing government finances, but a tranportation/transit discussion board isn't where I'd do it and blaming infrastructure is not how I'd do it. You can expect less than two years worth of healthcare funding put towards infrastructure in your lifetime. I don't see you advocating a system of healthcare where users pay direct costs.
The world isn't locked into a dualistic choice. Debt isn't universally good/bad. Deficit spending isn't universally bad/good. If you can accept those statements, then we reach the reality of economic decisions tainted by political factors. In my ideal world, all taxes relate to a specific service would be elective and price at cost per capita. I hold as much hope of this occuring as I dread a forthcoming fincial collapse.
Good luck on identifying anything approaching a line itemization of debt. In theory, Ontario is still carrying debt from 1872 and we've only been paying the interest. It will be a political compromise if anything and Ontario would want to be compensated for the loss of net revenues.Not necessarily, if a "Province of Toronto" where to happen, the debt would be divided; For example, any debt associated with Spadina subway expansion would make "Province of Toronto" libialy because it falls in their region. Lenders can't come after the "Province of Toronto" just because of "WhatsleftofOntario" GDP isn't good enough for them, and vice-versa.