News   Jul 26, 2024
 758     0 
News   Jul 26, 2024
 1.9K     2 
News   Jul 26, 2024
 1.6K     2 

Miller Eyes Parking Lot Tax

M

MetroMan1000

Guest
Miller eyes parking lot tax
Mayor floats possible surcharge as one way to use city's new taxing powers to fulfill his green agenda
Nov. 27, 2006. 01:00 AM
JIM BYERS
CITY HALL BUREAU CHIEF

Mayor David Miller, freshly armed with new taxing powers by Queen's Park, is considering the possibility of parking lot surcharges in downtown Toronto and North York's city centre.
And newly elected Toronto councillor Adam Vaughan said the city could perhaps go further, charging for city parking permits according to the size of the car you're driving.
"If you think about it, why should someone who drives a Hummer pay the same for a parking permit as someone who drives a Smart car?" Vaughan asked.
"You could have a system where owners of cars that give off higher emissions pay more for parking permits."
Miller's parking lot surcharge, mentioned now as just a possibility, would both limit car use in the downtown — if you're going to pay more for parking, the thinking goes, you'll more quickly consider public transit — and raise money for programs that help cut the smog that poisons our air.
"I think we can be a leader," Miller told the Star. "We're going to work to develop new strategies to deal with climate change."
The mayor said he'd limit the parking lot surcharges to downtown Toronto and North York's city centre because, he argued, it wouldn't be fair to implement such a tax in areas where people depend on cars to get to work.
It's a different story, he noted, in the two downtowns, both of which are well-served by public transit.
Miller's taken aim at cars in the downtown before — campaigning for the mayor's job in 2003, he briefly floated the idea of charging drivers a $2.25 toll to use the Gardiner and the Don Valley Parkway.
Miller said the need for action is underscored by a recent survey that placed Canada near the bottom in a list of 56 countries working to stop global warming.
The survey, by the environmental groups Germanwatch and Climate Action Network-Europe, ranked Canada in 51st place, between Thailand and Kazakhstan, but ahead of the United States and China.
"To finish 51st in the world, that's unacceptable," Miller said. "We can change Canada's ranking by working with cities around the world."
Rather than wait for an unwilling Ottawa to do its part, Miller said, he's looking at the historic, far-reaching powers he and Toronto council are about to assume thanks to new provincial legislation.
Miller said he intends to push his green agenda by immediately using those powers, designed to influence public behaviour in all sorts of new ways, and by exercising the mandate given him by his recent re-election landslide.
Miller plans to outline some of his ideas at the inaugural city council meeting on Dec. 5, and told the Star he has several ideas on how to position Toronto as a leader in climate change. In addition to parking lot surcharges, he's also looking at having business improvement associations generate solar power en masse and sell unused power back to the city.
Miller was one of several North American mayors lauded by Vanity Fair magazine this year for their green initiatives. The magazine also mentioned the efforts of Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley and San Francisco's Gavin Newsom.
In a speech delivered this month, the mayor said it's up to the city to make a difference.
"The federal government hasn't shown leadership. We're working with cities around the world to demonstrate that we can make real change to the actions of individuals, and local government and local non-profit organizations. We need to let people know and give them the options because people want to make a change."
Miller's election platform said he would "develop a comprehensive climate change plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions to help combat global warming." He also pledged to "implement the remaining components of the city's smog plan and develop a new, aggressive clean air action plan that will reduce smog-causing pollutants by 20 per cent by 2012."
Miller said this week that, under his leadership, council already has taken steps to battle climate change.
"We've purchased hybrid buses and hybrid vehicles," he said.
"We have a plan to combat smog. We can bring in a transportation plan with real alternatives such as cycling, and we can make it so people can work near where they live or work at home."
A report in September by the Toronto Environmental Alliance said Miller and city council have been all talk and little action over the past three years. But Miller said the city didn't have the tools it needed in the past. That has changed with provincial approval of the City of Toronto Act, which bestows new taxing powers and other privileges to make the city less of a child of the province and more of an independent body.
"We can create incentives that we weren't able to create before," the mayor said.
He's not the only council member looking at Toronto's new powers.
Vaughan, a councillor-elect, said he was stunned at a recent briefing on the City of Toronto Act, learning about all sorts of powers enshrined in the act that the city could use.
In addition to higher parking fees for bigger cars, Vaughan noted, the city could create development fees based on how "green" a new building was.
"If you have a green roof and solar panels and good windows and such, you pay a certain amount. But if you want to cut corners you pay a higher price and generate revenue for the city. People who don't build best-use projects, you could whack them pretty hard," he said.
Miller isn't saying how much a parking surcharge might be, if it's the ultimate decision of council.
In addition to new powers for council as a whole, the mayor has also been granted the power to appoint council committee chairs — and fire them if they don't follow his mandate.
That gives Miller the ability to push his environmental agenda — and other platform pledges — with a much stronger force than he could muster in his first term.
He also has a new, environmentally friendly council. In addition to Vaughan, the new council features Gord Perks, the former senior campaigner for the Toronto Environmental Alliance and an outspoken environmentalist.
"It's full-steam ahead," Miller said.
"This is a critical action item for council, and we're going to be leaders on climate change."

====================================

Remember this image?

contents.jpg


Now this is the strong mayor we've been hoping to see emerge from Miller.
Critics were being unreasonable when they charged that Miller hadn't done enough in his first term.
As I had always argued, Miller was quietly building the foundation to move ahead. He's been setting the chess board in his favor and now we see some real leadership emerging and major moves on the horizon.

The next 4 years are going to be very exciting. :)
 
I don't want the mayor to be concentrating on global warming or trying to keep cars and the visitors and business commuters they carry out of the city. No, I'm not saying global warming and congestion are not important issues, because they are, and my children's future is dependant on that. However, IMO, global warming should be a provincial and federal issues primarily, with the cities getting instruction and funding accordingly.

What I'd like to see Miller fix is the overall appearance of Toronto. Get the beggars off the street, no not just the aggressive ones, but anyone who sits outside a bank, theatre or place of business with his hand out or a sign asking for money must be removed. There should be no sleeping in public parks at night. I was visiting Halifax last year, and their best parks are locked at night, great idea, IMO. New York managed to eradicate its beggar problem, and Toronto used to manage this well, but in our PC era, we seem to have forgotten that the greater good of the city trumps the needs of the beggar and tramp.

Get rid of grafitti and litter, make it mandatory for property owners, both private (when visible) and public to remove grafitti and litter from their property within 24 hours. Get rid of abandoned or boarded up buildings, Toronto's housing is in high demand, so there's no excuse for empty or vacant buildings, either use it or lose it. It should be illegal to put signs and posters on utility polls and on vehicle windsheid, these end up as litter, and make the city look dreadful, IMO.

Miller should push the province and outter cities to take their share of the shelters and rooming houses - make it clear to the nation's poor and destitute that Toronto is not the place to head for emergency or transiet housing (most other cities do this, i.e. you don't see poor folks from the Maritimes or other parts of Canada going to Mississauga, Woodbridge or Oakville, because the services are not there). Toronto should take care of its own homeless and destitute, but if you're not from Toronto, and you're down on your luck, don't think of coming here to live off of Toronto taxpayers.

Clean up and build the TTC. Clean up the subway, make it safe to stand at a train station in Scarborough at night. Get more subways built, find the money, no excuses. I'd gladly pay a $500 more each year in property tax if it was going directly to building a new subway stop each year or two.

Do something with the water front. If Chicago can do it, we can too.

Stop bidding for Olympics, Expos, Commonwealth Games, World Cup and all that malarky. Toronto is a dirty, worn-out, litter strewn city where vagrants bully and scare our tourists and citizens. Until that's fixed, you can forget about trying to attract marquis events.

That is what I want our mayor to do. Don't worry about global warming, that's a fed and prov issue.
 
allbootmatt:

Why bother? The reality is Miller won.

AoD
 
If you want to encourage transit use, build better transit. A buck or less will not increase transit use (it will probably encourage people not to go downtown before it increases transit use. In other words, it would be interesting to see a study that says that a little increase in parking prices would encourage more people to use transit as opposed to encouraging people to shop and eat in areas with cheaper or free parking).

And is the increase in parking fees going to go to transit?

I do not see this as a major 'green' initiative. My concern, is that it will affect the businesses in the core more than it will increase transit use.
 
If you want to encourage transit use, build better transit.
But we never think this way. Instead we always concentrate on trying to make the private vehicle so expensive and unattractive that the public will have no choice other than to use transit, assuming they'll still want to come to the city.

Why not make transit better? I've travelled throughout Europe. In Germany cities, there are plenty of parking spots and lots of roads, but almost everyone takes transit, because it works well, it's clean, seemingly safe and afforable.

I wonder what would happen if the TTC dropped the fare to $1 per trip. Would usage dramatically increase to compensate, or would the system go bankrupt?
 
Abeja:

I think you just answered your question, partly - driving IS an expensive proposition in Europe; that, coupled with an urban form that is more conductive to transit usage, governments that are more willing to fund the system, as well as a culture that doesn't take driving as a god given right is the reason why there is such a differential.

Dropping the TTC fare would probably bankrupt the system - system capacity is maxed out as is, and there is a per capita subsidy for the system as a whole - that lowering the fares would cut deeply into revenues while having a system that is more or less at capacity doesn't help.

AoD
 
I think a parking space tax is an excellent idea, and much more feasible than a congestion charge. This is what New York does, for instance. The money will have to go into increasing TTC spending (not as a substitute to existing funding).

What needs to be fixed immediately is capacity on the buses and streetcars. With the Orion VIIs, buses are jam packed at all hours and bunching is getting worse. And a portion of downtown parking taxes should go into into a slush fund for more downtown rapid transit.
 
If the funding goes into the bottomless pit of general revenues then I don't really know if I support it (nor am I particularly against it).

While in theory Vaughn's idea of charging vehicles according to emission levels sounds dandy but I have become skeptical of government initiatives that require endlessly inceasing levels of beaurocratic effort to micro-manage and enforce. A simple initiative effectively implemented and enforced beats a complex "smart idea" in most situations from my experience.
 
This is a good start.

As long as the money goes to transit, or more bikelanes, or bike lock-up facilities at subway stations, etc...

This will help business too... every other city in the world which has implemented congestion charging (which this is a pale-cousin of) has seen an increase in business activity because their downtowns have become less congested - allowing people and goods to flow more freely.

This only works if the money raised go into non-auto transportation promotion, though.
 
Abeja noted that:

...we never think this way. Instead we always concentrate on trying to make the private vehicle so expensive and unattractive that the public will have no choice other than to use transit, assuming they'll still want to come to the city.

I think the above statement is true. And I also think that there has not been enough emphasis on transit. But this is not the fault or sole responsibility of the mayor alone. Provincial and Federal levels of government should be providing sustainable funding for this type of infrastructure. An efficient, useful and ever improving system will attract people to use it. Linking development and transit will also aid in making transit a first choice. With sustainable funding and long-term planning in place, the city can also finally focus on developing needed pedestrian and cycling assets.

Alvin responded that:

Dropping the TTC fare would probably bankrupt the system - system capacity is maxed out as is, and there is a per capita subsidy for the system as a whole - that lowering the fares would cut deeply into revenues while having a system that is more or less at capacity doesn't help.

Which is also true. Transit has become one of those public assets that have been put on a starvation diet. It is too necessary to let it die, but not viewed as essential enough to fund to a degree where planning and expansion are a constant activity. The view right now is if you don't like transit, take your car and deal with the traffic. There is no solution being offered by senior levels of government. Instead, the public is left with two competing systems which are increasingly unsatisfying to the users of both. In the long run, this will cost the city and the region.
 
living near a subway line, if fares were dropped to $1 i would use the TTC more, but how much more and if it's profitable for the TTC needs to be calculated.

Miller is going in the right direction from my perspective, no doubt. grab a dollar off of each parked car in downtown lots and you got some extra funding...it's a small step, but really who can argue that we don't need it?
 
I don't think the business community in the CBD will respond favorably... I would be concerned that this would be viewed as another business tax expense and ecourage some businesses that are on the fringe of profitability to consider the 905... where everyone has no choice but to drive. So how does that help the situation?

I prefer the carrot vs the stick approach to encouraging public transit... of course there is no money for any carrots, so the answer always seems to be the use that stick to get more money out of drivers.
 
I think driving to downtown and parking there during work is a fairly inelastic - the cost of parking is already so high, that a limited tax would probably not do a lot to deter those who will be inclined to do so. The same principle could be applied to tolling the Gardiner or DVP - as long as the tax is reasonable, people will still do it. I suspect if a business had to look at the parking margin in order to stay in downtown, they're already on the way out and a percentage point or two from parking tax wouldn't have made any difference.

AoD
 
AoD,

It is never one tax increase or business cost increase the usually informs the final decision to move... it's almost always death by a thousand cuts and this move will be seen as anti-business by an administration that is often generally viewed as being anti-business.

We haven't seen any specifics of course, but I hope Miller is very careful on this file.
 

Back
Top