[gweed123]

That's not exactly true. The province of Ontario put the money for TYSSE into a trust account years ago. So specific pet projects can get guaranteed funding. However we cannot afford to rest on our laurels anymore. We need a political champion to act on the 416's behalf like Sorbara did, who sees subways as the only lasting solution. The municipal contribution to transit project funding has to be beefed up, whether it stems from taxes, fees, tolls or a combination of all three. If Toronto buys into its own future, no other city has the right to complain. But now is the best time to act while its widely acceptable by the public that times are bad and it takes a continuous cash flow to keep public services up and running. If we wait around for the economy to fully recover, it'll be a tougher sell by then.

Well yes, but what I was saying is that increasing a general tax (like the gas tax) will not boost funding for transit/transportation infrastructure by that same amount. Yes, capital funds may be earmarked for future projects years before they're built, but that doesn't mean that the funds for the Spadina extension came directly from the gas tax. Part of it came from the gas tax, but parts also came from income tax, PST, 'sin taxes', etc. It all came from a general pool. That's just the point I was trying to make. So people who think that "well all we need to do is increase this tax by X%, and it'll increase funding for transit by X%".

 

[kEiThZ]

While new revenue streams are great, they need to at least use the revenue streams that are there already for what they were meant to be used for.

For starters, how about using gas tax money for actually maintaining the roads, which in turns frees up tons of municipal roads expenditure for transit maintenance and expansion.

In my ideal world, Metrolinx would be in charge of all transport infrastructure and management in the GTHA. So that they would collect parking taxes/fees, road tolls and gas taxes and dole it out appropriately for both road maintenance and transit maintenance and expansion. They would also be responsible for setting the rates (which they could do based on demand, congestion, time of day, etc. - whatever policy demands).

 

[gweed123]

While new revenue streams are great, they need to at least use the revenue streams that are there already for what they were meant to be used for.

For starters, how about using gas tax money for actually maintaining the roads, which in turns frees up tons of municipal roads expenditure for transit maintenance and expansion.

In my ideal world, Metrolinx would be in charge of all transport infrastructure and management in the GTHA. So that they would collect parking taxes/fees, road tolls and gas taxes and dole it out appropriately for both road maintenance and transit maintenance and expansion. They would also be responsible for setting the rates (which they could do based on demand, congestion, time of day, etc. - whatever policy demands).

And what I'm saying is the tax system doesn't work like that. It all goes into one big pot, and then gets divided up accordingly. There are other programs (healthcare, education, etc) that depend on the Provincial gas tax money just as much as transportation does. Diverting 100% of the gas tax funds to transit projects would leave those services with multi-billion dollar funding gaps.

 

[GraphicMatt]

The tax system certainly can work like that. It's entirely possible to direct all revenue from a tax, surcharge or user fee to one program. The Ontario Health Premium is a good example of this. Locally, there was a recent battle to make it so all the revenue from the new billboard tax went directly to the arts. (It didn't end up going that way, but still.)

You are correct that it wouldn't be wise to take gas tax revenues that are currently being used to support any number of things and divert that money to transit, but you could quite easily increase the gas tax and direct all new revenue to transit.

 

[gweed123]

The tax system certainly can work like that. It's entirely possible to direct all revenue from a tax, surcharge or user fee to one program. The Ontario Health Premium is a good example of this. Locally, there was a recent battle to make it so all the revenue from the new billboard tax went directly to the arts. (It didn't end up going that way, but still.)

You are correct that it wouldn't be wise to take gas tax revenues that are currently being used to support any number of things and divert that money to transit, but you could quite easily increase the gas tax and direct all new revenue to transit.

I think that it would be better to simply create a new tax, for example on parking, rather than modifying an existing tax and creating a complex transfer system, where X amount of the increase in this tax, which makes up X% of the overall tax, goes to fund this. A tax on parking would be much more malleable as well, as you could target individual areas more than a gas tax. For example, the tax on parking could be more in downtown Toronto than in other areas of the GTA.

The other option is to tax property owners based on the number of parking units they have. If SmartCentres wants to build a new big box location and provide a sea of parking, let them get taxed up the ass for it. Some combination of location and quantity would be the right fit. And if under provincial jurisdiction, could be implemented by Metrolinx.

 

[gweed123]

The only problem I can foresee with a legislated parking space tax is that residential units would likely need to be exempt from it (specifically condos). They have legislative requirements for minimum parking spaces per person. Either that law would need to be changed, or they would need to be exempt. Because it would not be fair to condo developers to force them to put in parking spaces, and then turn around and tax them for it. Commercial parking spaces however are much more malleable, as many suburban parking lots are over-built, with parking spaces determined by the projected volume of the Christmas rush. For the majority of the rest of the year, a lot of those spaces sit empty. So I say tax 'em.

 

[gweed123]

This has really got me on an interesting thought line, haha. So I'm going to brainstorm here a little and evaluate the options:

Any type of additional fee would have 2 primary goals:
1) Generate increased revenues for transit capital and/or operating.
2) Change behaviours to increase the usage of alternative forms of transportation (transit, cycling, walking, etc).

The first one is easy. You have two options; user fees or taxes. Road tolls, flat rate parking increases, etc, would all be considered user fees. For taxation, you can either tax the users, or tax the suppliers (ie those who are supplying the parking spots that people who are driving are using). The former would likely spark a pretty big public backlash, whereas the latter would get a backlash from businesses, but a broader base of public support.

The second one has a few more options to it. Taxing the user would change the behaviour of the user, but likely not the suppliers, as they would have little incentive to change their development patterns to a more sustainable form. Taxing the supplier would give them incentive to change development patterns (ie provide fewer parking spaces, make their neighbourhoods more walkable/bikable/transit accessible), AND would change user patterns as developers would likely raise prices for parking as it would now be more costly for them to have it. So in essence, by taxing the supplier, you change the tendencies of both the supplier AND the end user.

Feel free to debate my logic here, I'm open to suggestions.

 

[valkoholic]

I have trouble seeing how a parking tax, spread accross a dozen municipalities with exemptions to residential uses would be easier to implement than road tolls. Even counting the parking spaces accross the GTA would be an enormous logistaical excerice, let alone asking thousands of property owners to pay an additional tax per month. And the tax would have to be on the property owners, because the vast majority of parking facilities in the GTA do not have a means to collect revenue from users.

 

[kEiThZ]

And what I'm saying is the tax system doesn't work like that. It all goes into one big pot, and then gets divided up accordingly. There are other programs (healthcare, education, etc) that depend on the Provincial gas tax money just as much as transportation does. Diverting 100% of the gas tax funds to transit projects would leave those services with multi-billion dollar funding gaps.

I am not saying it works that way. I am saying it SHOULD work that way. By allowing the diversion of funds from dedicated taxes, our government has already created holes in the infrastructure. That's what's unacceptable. If Metrolinx were in charge of all transport activities in the GTHA and had the power to set rates and collect all revenue from transport activities in the region (registration fees, gas taxes, road tolls, parking taxes, and maybe even a portion of the transit fares), I am fairly certain we would see much more progress on transit issues and maybe even some better maintenance of our roads.

 

[kEiThZ]

I have trouble seeing how a parking tax, spread accross a dozen municipalities with exemptions to residential uses would be easier to implement than road tolls. Even counting the parking spaces accross the GTA would be an enormous logistaical excerice, let alone asking thousands of property owners to pay an additional tax per month. And the tax would have to be on the property owners, because the vast majority of parking facilities in the GTA do not have a means to collect revenue from users.

Why would it be that difficult? Much of it is contained in zoning issues and it could be pulled off over time. And you can bet that municipalities would be excited to get it done quickly if there was a promise of new revenue involved.

 

[gweed123]

I have trouble seeing how a parking tax, spread accross a dozen municipalities with exemptions to residential uses would be easier to implement than road tolls. Even counting the parking spaces accross the GTA would be an enormous logistaical excerice, let alone asking thousands of property owners to pay an additional tax per month. And the tax would have to be on the property owners, because the vast majority of parking facilities in the GTA do not have a means to collect revenue from users.

You don't think the City can calculate how many parking spaces are in each commercial space? They're specified in the zoning by-laws! It's not that hard to go through with a calculator, or to write an algorythm to do it.

And yes, the tax would be administered to the commercial property owners, likely as an adjunct to property taxes. If the parking on the property already has users paying for parking, the property owner may choose to raise parking rates to offset the taxes, creating the same effect as charging more for parking.

And I never said it would be easier, I said it would be more effective. There's a big difference.

 

[valkoholic]

You don't think the City can calculate how many parking spaces are in each commercial space? They're specified in the zoning by-laws! It's not that hard to go through with a calculator, or to write an algorythm to do it.

I work a lot with City staff and I promise you they could not accomplish this.

- the exact number of parking spaces is not specified in zoning by-laws, usually only a minimum, sometimes a maximum, sometimes nothing. Remember, some sites in Toronto were built a very long time ago based on by-laws that have been superseded several times. The only way to determine the number of parking spaces on a site would be to have someone go to the site and count them. If you're going to tax people, say, $3000 a year for possession of something everyone involved will want to get it right. I've worked for dozens of property owners who can't accurately say how much parking they have or produce a by-law saying how much they require.

- strange question but what's a parking space? A huge number of parking spaces in the City do not meet by-law standards or are not completely usable. One persons parking space will be someone else's storage space. Trust me, many owners will go space by space and argue endlessly. There will be appeals processes, lawsuits, you name it.

- if you're talking about taxing all non-resident parking spaces in the GTA just look at google earth. The number of sites and number of spaces is enormous. Not only would it take a decade to count them, it would require constant updating. If the TD centre removes a parking space to expand its bike parking area they will need to call the City for an update on their tax bill.

- exempting residential parking spaces would be very complicated. There are sites in Toronto where residents share parking spaces with commercial users. Should the owner of the space be exempt?

- the City cannot go to the bathroom at this point without hiring an overpaid consultant to tell them when they should do it and whether they should sit or stand. As an overpaid consultant I applaud this, but as a taxpayer I'd be scared of how badly this would be handled. The City or metrolinx or whoever would hire a consultant to do it (probably IBI), the consultant would bill them millions, and every major property owner in the City would hire every other consultant in the City to deal with the appeals on IBI's work. The economy is going good, we don't need the work.

Trust me, just toll the highways (400's and City highways) and be done with it. Tolls are relatively painless to manage and are better suited for influencing travel behaviour by increasing rates during peak periods.

 

[kettal]

I work a lot with City staff and I promise you they could not accomplish this.

- the exact number of parking spaces is not specified in zoning by-laws, usually only a minimum, sometimes a maximum, sometimes nothing. Remember, some sites in Toronto were built a very long time ago based on by-laws that have been superseded several times. The only way to determine the number of parking spaces on a site would be to have someone go to the site and count them. If you're going to tax people, say, $3000 a year for possession of something everyone involved will want to get it right. I've worked for dozens of property owners who can't accurately say how much parking they have or produce a by-law saying how much they require.

I'd say $200 - $300 per year per parking space is more realistic. Get them to declare how many parking spaces when they submit their taxes. Send an auditor to suspiciously low claims. It's not that difficult.

Every site built in the last 20 years, especially commercial, knows exactly how many parking spots they built.

- if you're talking about taxing all non-resident parking spaces in the GTA just look at google earth. The number of sites and number of spaces is enormous. Not only would it take a decade to count them, it would require constant updating. If the TD centre removes a parking space to expand its bike parking area they will need to call the City for an update on their tax bill.

They will have one less spot in next years declaration. Again, what's the problem?

- exempting residential parking spaces would be very complicated. There are sites in Toronto where residents share parking spaces with commercial users. Should the owner of the space be exempt?

Only the minimum requirement should be exempt. If that's 1 spot per residential unit (different for different zone types, of course), then one spot is exempt from tax. Anything in excess of that is not exempt. It's not that complicated.

- the City cannot go to the bathroom at this point without hiring an overpaid consultant to tell them when they should do it and whether they should sit or stand. As an overpaid consultant I applaud this, but as a taxpayer I'd be scared of how badly this would be handled. The City or metrolinx or whoever would hire a consultant to do it (probably IBI), the consultant would bill them millions, and every major property owner in the City would hire every other consultant in the City to deal with the appeals on IBI's work. The economy is going good, we don't need the work.

I guess there needs to be more competition in the consultant field.

 

[gweed123]

kettal: Thank you for a logical rebuttal. I was trying to think of ways to rebuttle those claims myself, but it's late and my mind isn't going at full steam, haha. The tax return is an excellent idea for collecting the data. Come to think of it, property assessments occur every 4 or 5 years on most properties, so if worse comes to worse you can tag that onto their examination list.

 

[valkoholic]

- $300 per year for downtown Toronto (which I think has something like 17,000 commercial spaces) gets you $5 million a year and is equivalenet to a $0.50 toll each way. It would be more than that or it wouldn't even be worth doing.

- it would be very complicated. There's a mixed-use site in Toronto with 800 spaces (100 of which dont meet by-law requirements), a by-law requirement of 1300 spaces (yep), with 200 spaces leased formally to an adjacent residential building (whose by-law requirement for spaces would have been about 400), another 100 spaces or so rented to residents informally, but the entire garage is operated as a commercial garage. The City would say it's 1300 spaces at first, then admit to 800 spaces after an audit (which would takes months because the owner would claim their non-comforming spaces shouldn't count). Then they're would be an appeal for relief for the 400 spaces that are for residents (even though only 200 are actually leased). The residents group would get wind of it and say they only have 200 spaces, etc..... urban parking is very complicated and very politcal.

- Parking economics is already weird enough. In downtown toronto monthly (i.e. regular commuter) parking is a loss-leader for developers. $75k for a space does not justify $3500 a year in rent. Parking is subsidized downtown the same way it is subsidized at a suburban walmart ($3000 to build, free to park) or a busniess park in Mississauga with a parkade ($20k to build, free to park). What makes you think increased property taxes will not be simply absorbed by the building owners and passed on in higher rents (i.e. the same way things work now)? Do you really think that a Loblaws in Vaughan will charge people $5 to park just because they have to pay a parking property tax? They won't, but you'll pay more for brocoli. There's a real danger owners would absorb costs and the whole complicated program would have minimal impact on behaviour.

Road tolls are the way to go.