News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.3K     0 

Status
Not open for further replies.
gweed123 said:
But 80% of the TTC's revenue comes from the farebox, which means only 20% comes from subsidies. And 2% of the gas tax isn't very much in the grand scheme of things. When you do the math, transit riders subsidize roads and drivers way more than drivers subsidize transit.

If your supposition were true, 80% of the cost of roads would be subsidized through the gas tax (same % as the farebox subsidizes the TTC). Obviously this isn't the case, so a substantial amount of the funding going to roads is coming from the general tax base, not specifically the gas tax.
Click to expand...

Drivers also pay elevated taxes every time they purchase a vehicle to drive in...for all that transit users subsidize drivers, it is on a compeltely different scale. I'm not saying there shouldn't be more sustainable funding for transit to alleviate the reliance on a 70% fare box return. But don't kid yourself by thinking that transit users are hard-done by. There are a bunch of externalities associated with owning a car and being a driver that all contribute to paying for it. With transit you just purchase the metro pass, etc.

We all pay for everything. It's very easy to get lost in the big city mentality where even in the suburbs transit is still a very efficient means of transportation. For all of it's faults, the TTC is one of the best services I have ever used. In the outer cities people have no choice but to use their car.
 
Last edited:
Taxes continue to skirt historical lows while the cost of infrastructure and services continue to rise. We need to have adult conversations about how much it actually costs to provide the services people rely on. No reasonable economist would buy any argument that road users (drivers) cover anywhere near their own cost.
 
GraphicMatt said:
Taxes continue to skirt historical lows while the cost of infrastructure and services continue to rise. We need to have adult conversations about how much it actually costs to provide the services people rely on. No reasonable economist would buy any argument that road users (drivers) cover anywhere near their own cost.
Click to expand...

and no reasonable economist would buy that transit users cover anything near their own cost...the 70% back from the fare box is just operating. Has nothing to do with capital investment. Which is used for important and necessary expansion of the system. Yes we could have a five stop subway line that everyone is funneled on and it would pay for itself, but what's the point of having an efficient transit system that isn't really convenient to anybody? And I'm sure if we took the % of drivers compared to transit users throughout the region who use the highways, I'm sure the amount of tax revenues received by the former through land, gas, and associated externalities including jobs created by the former would out-perform the latter.

this is coming from me, a guy who would rather take transit than drive...

but I'm not going to act like I pay a lot for transit, when I compare the $120 metropass (x12), over 30K it costs for a car + taxes + the $50 per week for gas + $4k per year for insurance, not to mention the costs associated with repairing and maintaining a car (like oil change, etc).
 
Last edited:
Transit users don't cover their own costs, no, but every net transit rider is beneficial to the government -- and, sure, society -- in a way that automobile drivers are not.

The road system for cars and trucks will likely always be subsidized to some degree by government spending, but we currently face a situation where the subsidies required are negatively impacting governments' ability to build necessary infrastructure for transit. Something has got to give.
 
GraphicMatt said:
Transit users don't cover their own costs, no, but every net transit rider is beneficial to the government -- and, sure, society -- in a way that automobile drivers are not.

The road system for cars and trucks will likely always be subsidized to some degree by government spending, but we currently face a situation where the subsidies required are negatively impacting governments' ability to build necessary infrastructure for transit. Something has got to give.
Click to expand...

I can agree with this.
 
BMO said:
Drivers also pay elevated taxes every time they purchase a vehicle to drive in
Click to expand...

That's a rather meaningless argument since most transit users also have purchased a vehicle, even if they aren't in it at that very moment.

Even for those who haven't purchased a vehicle, presumably they have spent that money on something else, generating similar sales and other tax revenues for the government.

I'd suggest you have a look at the actual budgets. Look at the amount of the TTC budget, the amount of operating subsidy they get from the city and the amount of the gas tax contribution.
 
BMO said:
because streets are public domain, I can live my life perfectly without ever stepping foot in a hockey arena or community centre, but I will 100% have to step outside of my house and use the public roadwork, whether it is walking to school, or driving to work, or walking to the bus stop.



That's why i support user fees, but don't make me pay for someone who is driving down the DVP with my taxes, when I take public transit. Either provide transportation services (a necessity) for free with elevated taxes, or reduce the taxes and charge reasonable user fees. When I drive I can't use the tunnels built for transit. When I take transit I don't use the gardiner to get to work.
Click to expand...
You could live your life perfectly without ever stepping foot in a private vehicle. You don't walk down the DVP to work, nor was anyone suggesting a sidewalk toll.

You are inducing a false dicotomy. You pay for someone to drive down the DVP with your taxes, and someone driving on the Gardiner is paying for you to take the TTC. It's the common basis of society. We could raise taxes, but the 'common people' would rebel and yell about 'higher taxes' and 'overpaid underworked public sector unions'. We could reduce taxes and replace it with a user fee, but that does not address the issue of a lack of overall funds.

The idea of user fees is to attach the cost of maintaining the status quo to those that enjoy the status quo. Full cost-recovery transit tickets are equally valid as road tolls/user-fees for collecting the money necessary from those that will benefit the most for it.
 
I would rather see more commuter rail, rapid transit, and rail transit around the city of Toronto, and restrict the highways to truck, bus, and commercial traffic only. Won't happen.
 
I wish they would do Gardiner Tunnel + Rail Tunnel + Grand Boulevard (Lakeshore) on top.

And toll the tunnel. Given a sufficiently long timeframe, it'll be paid off in due course.
 
kEiThZ said:
I wish they would do Gardiner Tunnel + Rail Tunnel + Grand Boulevard (Lakeshore) on top.

And toll the tunnel. Given a sufficiently long timeframe, it'll be paid off in due course.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. I mean it's not so far from some of the plans offered here. Decking over the rail tracks, burying the Gardiner, eliminating the Gardiner.

Would it be insanly expensive? Damn right, but look at a map and places where the Gardiner, Rail tracks, and Lakeshore blvd abut each other side by side. That's a pretty wide swath of land to free up for parks, development etc.
 
As much as I think Ford is an ass, this idea is a good one.
Why?....................because he is viewing the entire area as having a TRANSPORTATION plan not just transit or freeways.
Successful cities have great transportation systems which encompasses everything. Look at all your great transit cities and you will notice they also have great roads. Transportation is a system not a bunch or this way or no way fiefdoms.
He also knows that something is going to have to be done with the Gardiner. It's getting pretty old and it's ongoing maintenance costs will only go up and sooner or latter it's going to need a MAJOR reno which will mean megabucks which the city won't have.
He also knows that he can't go crying back to Queen's Park for DRL money. The city MUST start working with the private sector and think creatively to solve it's huge infrastructure deficit.
I'm not saying that this particular proposal will work but it's good that he is willing to entertain {unlike Miller} alternative funding options.
Remember Harper will be much more likely to support some form of PPP for the Gardiner/DRL than just signing over a cheque. Remember even in the last budget Harper maintained the $2 billion infrastructure fund and the $1.2 billion PPP fund and it's just there waiting to be used.
Ford has a lot of odd ideas but it's good that he realizes that waiting for government handouts for infrastructure is no longer optional.
 
It's a bit galling to see Doug Ford getting some sort of credit for original thinking here. A report came out several years ago on the Gardiner, and Waterfront Toronto has had a design initiative going for two or three years, although it has seemed stalled for some time. The plan was to hold a competition to attract innovative solutions for the corridor that would maximize its development potential while maintaing its transportation capacity. When Ford was elected mayor they announced they were going to consult with him to see if it was worthwhile continuing. Quite reasonably they assumed that the car-loving funball would declare the Gardiner sacred. But suddenly the whole question is back on the table just because the mayor's brother has had the brilliant inspiration that an ugly crumbling overbuilt elevated expressway is not the best use of waterfront property. Gee, why didn't we think of that before?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top