News   Nov 19, 2024
 202     0 
News   Nov 19, 2024
 350     0 
News   Nov 19, 2024
 695     3 

New Transit Funding Sources

I believe the trams on order are capable of climbing a steeper grade than Toronto subway trains.

If we took advantage of that when designing the tunnels (not sure if we did) then some stations would have been significantly shallower and cheaper by committing to LRT for the forseeable future.

I thought the tunnels were at least 0.5m larger for LRT. Thus, the station would also be at least that much less depth. I would also guess that depth of cover to a tunnel may be a bit less for a smaller diamter tunnel.

When they discussed the LRT tunnel, it was always stated that it could be converted to HRT, so I would assume the alignment is good for both.
 
I thought the tunnels were at least 0.5m larger for LRT. Thus, the station would also be at least that much less depth. I would also guess that depth of cover to a tunnel may be a bit less for a smaller diamter tunnel.

When they discussed the LRT tunnel, it was always stated that it could be converted to HRT, so I would assume the alignment is good for both.

The depth of the station is mostly dependent on nearby hills and valleys; it's rare that the surface is flat. If the tunnel can climb 2 degrees instead of 1 degree after going under the valley, due to a rolling stock difference, there might be a difference of 10 meters at the actual station site.


However, as nfitz correctly points out, shallower isn't necessarily cheaper.
 
I thought the tunnels were at least 0.5m larger for LRT. Thus, the station would also be at least that much less depth. I would also guess that depth of cover to a tunnel may be a bit less for a smaller diamter tunnel.

When they discussed the LRT tunnel, it was always stated that it could be converted to HRT, so I would assume the alignment is good for both.

It would be larger for the LRT if they continue to run through it using the overhead catenary because of the low-floor of the vehicles. They could run it switching to a third rail (like they have in some high platform setups where they do switch back and forth between catenary and third rail), but then it would become hazard because of access from the low-floor platforms. Keeping the overhead catenary throughout is better for safety, but requires higher ceiling, hence a larger tunnel.
 
Interesting idea that was floated in the G&M forum: Create a public option for auto insurance in Ontario, competitive with private insurance, and use the profits to fund infrastructure expansion. Insurance usually has huge profit margins, so some of that money can be put back into transit. No tax increase is involved (although some other tool will certainly still be needed), but money is still raised.

The LCBO generates billions in revenue for the Province every year. No reason a public auto insurance option couldn't do the same.

EDIT: I did a little bit more research on it, and yes, the profit margin is pretty huge for the auto insurance industry in Ontario. In 2011, the industry had a profit of $3.5 billion. If Ontario can set up a public option that has only marginally lower rates, that could be a huge cash cow for transit expansion. Even with a 20% reduction in premiums and only capturing 20% of the market, we're still talking about over $500 million per year.

Source: http://www.bonnlaw.ca/blog/?p=185 (admittedly not the most reliable, but I read some news articles and while they didn't give numbers, they paint the same basic picture)
 
Last edited:
BurlOak:

Those questions should be asked, but "before" we ask for money? There will always be someone somewhere that will complain about how a plan is bad because it isn't their's, and sorry, we haven't got 20 years for another debate that goes nowhere. And besides, one can plan all they want and it might even look credible, but at the end of the day, you really won't know until you start doing it - and that requires money.

AoD

People need to have an idea on what their money will be spent on - now they do not. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...-about-metrolinx-transit-plan/article4597670/)

I think the biggest problem with Transit City was that improvements to GO and other rapid transit (i.e. DRL subway) were not known by anyone. They viewed TC as a means of sending more people to the already crowded existing subway system. If TC could get people to a GO line with integrated fares and good frequency and hours of operation, it would have been an easier sell.
 
BurlOak:

People need to educate themselves about the state of transit in the GTA. Whining and bitching about how transit is bad when one doesn't have an inkling of what improvements are made, how much things costs and who's responsible for transit planning and one is to expect them to make good (and wise) decisions about leaders who will be at the helm on these issues? Sorry, "the people" need to take some responsibility of their own instead of telling others to do so while staying willfully uninformed.

AoD
 
BurlOak:

People need to educate themselves about the state of transit in the GTA. Whining and bitching about how transit is bad when one doesn't have an inkling of what improvements are made, how much things costs and who's responsible for transit planning and one is to expect them to make good (and wise) decisions about leaders who will be at the helm on these issues? Sorry, "the people" need to take some responsibility of their own instead of telling others to do so while staying willfully uninformed.

AoD

To be fair though, having people like the Fords spreading downright lies about transit doesn't really help things. The same people who are politically inclined to believe him are the same people who are too lazy to actually look at the proposed plans for themselves.
 
To be fair though, having people like the Fords spreading downright lies about transit doesn't really help things. The same people who are politically inclined to believe him are the same people who are too lazy to actually look at the proposed plans for themselves.

It can not be blamed on Ford. Most mayoralty candidates made their own transit plans and did not articulate how any of these plans fit in with the Big Move plans.

The Liberal got into electoral trouble for falling way behind their own schedule for implementing the Big Move, and they got caught wasting huge sums of money on other things. It was their decision to stop promoting this - which in turn lead even those who pay attention to believe that the whole thing was another plan that had come and gone.
 
Several U.S. Communities Vote to Tax Themselves to Support Transit

From this link at DC.Streetsblog.org:

Election Day brought many successes on some smaller ballot initiatives. According to the Center For Transportation Excellence, pro-transit campaigns had an 80 percent success rate this year at the ballot box, with more ballot measures coming up for a vote than any previous year.

Arlington County, Virginia voted by a 4-to-1 margin to approve a $32 million bond, with about half the proceeds supporting Washington Metro capital projects and the rest paying for street repair, bike/ped infrastructure, and traffic calming. The path to victory is easy in Arlington – it’s the country’s third-wealthiest county, and no bond measure has failed there since 1979, according to the Washington Post.

Richland County, South Carolina, home to the city of Columbia and the University of South Carolina, passed a one-cent sales tax – one-quarter of which will pay for regional bus service, with the rest funding road improvements, greenways, and bike lanes.

In Lynden, Washington, outside of Bellingham, voters approved a 0.2-cent sales tax hike expected to bring in $300,000 over two years to pay for road maintenance and walking trails.

And Stephenson County, Illinois, approved an advisory measure voicing support for a countywide transit system funded by federal, state, and local sources.

Much of this information comes from the Center For Transportation Excellence, which tracks transit-related ballot measures. CFTE doesn’t track referendums for road projects, so don’t take the passage of these measures to mean that transit is uniquely successful at the ballot. The biggest bond measure to pass this year — for anything — was $1.3 billion for roads in Arkansas. Despite the fact that it levied a half-cent sales tax to pay for the bonding, voters approved it 58 to 42. Alaska also approved a $453 million bond measure to pay for ports, harbors, and roads. And Maine approved a $51.5 million bond for road repair [PDF].

There were some anti-transit measures on the ballot, too. One went down in Gainesville’s Alachua County, Florida – but it’s hard to know if it’s a victory for transit or just anti-tax sentiment. The .75-cent transportation sales tax on the ballot carried with it an explicit prohibition on transit spending. “Original plans called for two separate sales tax measures — one for roads and one for transit,†explains CFTE, “but the County Commission decided against the transit measure.â€

Another anti-transit measure, framed as a pro-democracy initiative, got voter support in Tigard, Oregon, a Portland suburb. Voters there approved by a whopping 81 percent a charter amendment that would require that any tax or fee increase for light rail go before a public vote. “These charter amendments are really aimed at stopping light rail expansion and doing so under the guise of expanding public involvement in the decision-making process,†Jason Jordan of CFTE told reporters yesterday. “They hold rail transit to a much different standard than any other mode of transportation.â€

The Portland suburbs were home to another defeat – a 0.1 percent sales tax hike to fund light rail and bus rapid transit went down to defeat in Clark County, Washington, just on the other side of the Columbia River. Perhaps the residents of the county had sales tax fatigue – voters approved a similar measure last year to save the public transportation system from 35 percent service cuts. But more likely, say some observers, voters were expressing dissatisfaction with the Columbia River Crossing mega-project.

As Michael Andersen wrote just before the vote on his Portland Afoot blog:
This 0.1 percentage point sales tax hike in urban areas would actually just help C-Tran pay for light rail and high-capacity bus transit operations, money that C-Tran might be able to do without. But Clark County representatives in both the federal and state legislature have decided to treat it as a referendum on the Columbia River Crossing as planned – with tolls, rail and eight lanes of through traffic. If Proposition 1 fails, Clark County could have to wait another decade for high-capacity transit – and the pro-highway lobby will have a significantly harder time persuading Clark County lawmakers to carry water for them in the legislature.​

Meanwhile, in Pierce County, Washington, which straddles Tacoma and Mt. Rainier, a sales tax measure is still too close to call. The $28 million it would raise every year would prevent the bus system from having to eliminate night and weekend service – a prospect that has riders worried.

Another one that’s still too close to call is Alameda County, California’s amendment to double the sales tax. The funds would pay for improvements to everything from freeways to bike/ped to transit east of the San Francisco Bay. Like Measure J in L.A., the measure needs a two-thirds majority and though it’s trailing at the moment, it still has widespread voter support. At last count, the measure had won 65.6 percent of the vote – one percentage point shy of what it needs to pass.

Just to the north, Napa County overwhelmingly passed a renewal of a half-cent sales tax that used to go toward flood control and now will be used exclusively for street and sidewalk repair and maintenance.

All of these successes tell a different story than if you only look at the highest-profile referendums of the year – Measure J in L.A. and T-SPLOST in Atlanta. Both of those measures failed against unusual obstacles – including the fact that many transit advocates organized against them.

Despite the overwhelming victory of so many transit measures this year, “the solution can’t be to shift all the burden over to the locals,†Art Guzzetti of the American Public Transportation Association emphasized on the call with reporters yesterday.

“This is a partnership,†Guzzetti said. “It’s easy to say, ‘If the locals are so happy to tax themselves, let them.’†He said locally-raised tax money used to be the last piece of the puzzle, once state, federal, and private dollars were already pledged. It can’t be the only piece of the puzzle
 
One of the issues ahead that Toronto will have to deal with is funding from Ottawa. Flaherty has recently stated that the federal government will bring new stimulus measures in if the ccountry looks like it is about to enter a recession. Seeing that interest rates can't go any lower than they already are that means job training, business tax incentives and infastructure.

Toronto is going to have a far harder time getting infrastructure funding than probably anywhere else in the country and no it's not because the feds hate Toronto. The hurdle is that Toronto was given $300 million in the last stimulus budget 3 years ago and still hasn't spent on the Sheppard line. Toronto's constant bitching to Ottawa seemed to pay off but when they finally got the money they didn't know how to spend it. Stimulus money is exactly that, funds to help kick start a slowing economy with the benefit of long term infrastructure gain to improve quality of life and economic growth in the future and creating much needed jobs, atleast in the short term.

Due to political infighting, incompetent planning, Toronto's refusal to chip in it's fair share of the funds, and a bloated bureaucracy Toronto did nothing with the funds. The funds are to be used for short term construction projects and not be "banked" for some future project when the city can get it's act together. It defeats the purpose of stimulus during a recession when jobs are needed and wages and constructions costs relatively low.

How is Toronto now going to go back to the feds and ask for more money when ottawa could very justifiably turn around and tell them that they didn't use the last amount of money that was offered? How are they going to convince Ottawa that Toronto desperately needs transit money but aren't desperatte enough to kick in money of it's own? There are too many other cities plying for the same funds that actuallyuse the money immediately and will contribute their fair share.

As for the ever politically popular idea of blaming Ford for the cancellation of the Sheppard LRT that has some merit but will mean nothing to Ottawa. That also does nothing to explain why the funds weren't being used to tunnel the section from DM to Consumers which was part of both Ford's subway dreams and Miller's LRT wet dreams. There is absolutely NO reason why this project shouldn't already be nearing completion little alone not even started and noww off to collect dust in the TTC files like every other Toronto transit project.

Stimulus money is for short term economic growth and jobs which has long term benefits but it is also for politics. If Ottawa is going to contribute money they will want to see a nice ribbon cutting ceremony before the next election to get some political leverage out of it and with Toronto that just doesn't seem possible. There are too many other cities that will kill to give their MPs those ribbon cutting ceremonies if it meant they got improved transit but not Toronto.

The only way Toronto will see any future stimulus money for transit is if it has "shovel ready" projects and really does have them shovel ready. That means all enviornmental reviews, community consultation, road planning etc done BEFORE it asks for the money so they, quite literally, be able to put the constracts out to tender the day the money is announced and have timetables demanded that the projects be done very quickly so Ottawa can see the political gain and hopefully have the project cut down into smaller sections with resulting in many different companies getting tenders so they can work at all sections of the project at the same time.

Als that is asking too much of the TTC, City Hall, bureaucracy, and Torontonians and they will find themselves on the short end of the stick but it will be due to Toronto itself and not Ottawa that is to blame.
 
Stimulus money is for short term economic growth and jobs which has long term benefits but it is also for politics. If Ottawa is going to contribute money they will want to see a nice ribbon cutting ceremony before the next election to get some political leverage out of it and with Toronto that just doesn't seem possible. There are too many other cities that will kill to give their MPs those ribbon cutting ceremonies if it meant they got improved transit but not Toronto.

The only way Toronto will see any future stimulus money for transit is if it has "shovel ready" projects and really does have them shovel ready. That means all enviornmental reviews, community consultation, road planning etc done BEFORE it asks for the money so they, quite literally, be able to put the constracts out to tender the day the money is announced and have timetables demanded that the projects be done very quickly so Ottawa can see the political gain and hopefully have the project cut down into smaller sections with resulting in many different companies getting tenders so they can work at all sections of the project at the same time.

Als that is asking too much of the TTC, City Hall, bureaucracy, and Torontonians and they will find themselves on the short end of the stick but it will be due to Toronto itself and not Ottawa that is to blame.

I always thought that B-D extension to Honeydale Mall (427) would a great project to persue immediately. It has a benefit to both Toronto and Missisauga for when their BRT is opened - creating political benefity from 2 municipalities. It can be done immediately adjacent to the railway ROW so their should be no public complaints. It could be above ground to have a reasonably low cost. It would still keep the option of an extension to Sherway or Mississauga open. It would be a stand alone project with no connecting LRT or subways.

The problem is, TTC refuses to look at inexpensive subway expansion, so this is not considered a priority.
 
That is exactly true.

In Toronto a subway expansion automatically means tunneling even in the burbs while Vancouver and Calgary it means at grade/elevated except where tunneling is absolutely neccesary hence Vancouver and Calgary's massive rapid transit expansions over the last 30 years and Toronto's little 6km Stubway.

The trouble again is that even if Toronto decides it's a priority they wait and bitch for money and then several years later MAY begin construction. Senior levels of government want to know that the money they provide will see real benefits for their political advantage and want to know that the projects will be built on time and on budget something Toronto seems incapable of doing. The Spadina extension exemplifies that where even a tiny 8km extension thru a suburban wasteland is costing $300 million per km and is already running late due to the TTC and City Hall flately refusing to even consider at grade subway or elevation but demand Taj Majal stations.

This is one of the benefits of PPP projects like the Canada Line. Not only did the Canada Line open 3 months early but came in on budget and the reason for that is that if the line was late there were VERY severe financial penalties and any cost overuns were to be paid 100% by the private partner............none of this "escalated costs" crap that is the mantra at the TTC which basically gives the builders carte blanche to go over budget with little concern for deadlines. If the Spadina ext was built the way the Canada Line was Toronto would save a cool billion and it certainly would not be behind schedule.
 
That is exactly true.

In Toronto a subway expansion automatically means tunneling even in the burbs while Vancouver and Calgary it means at grade/elevated except where tunneling is absolutely neccesary hence Vancouver and Calgary's massive rapid transit expansions over the last 30 years and Toronto's little 6km Stubway.

The trouble again is that even if Toronto decides it's a priority they wait and bitch for money and then several years later MAY begin construction. Senior levels of government want to know that the money they provide will see real benefits for their political advantage and want to know that the projects will be built on time and on budget something Toronto seems incapable of doing. The Spadina extension exemplifies that where even a tiny 8km extension thru a suburban wasteland is costing $300 million per km and is already running late due to the TTC and City Hall flately refusing to even consider at grade subway or elevation but demand Taj Majal stations.

This is one of the benefits of PPP projects like the Canada Line. Not only did the Canada Line open 3 months early but came in on budget and the reason for that is that if the line was late there were VERY severe financial penalties and any cost overuns were to be paid 100% by the private partner............none of this "escalated costs" crap that is the mantra at the TTC which basically gives the builders carte blanche to go over budget with little concern for deadlines. If the Spadina ext was built the way the Canada Line was Toronto would save a cool billion and it certainly would not be behind schedule.

A side note for some of the delays was water. It took 3-9 months to solve the water issue at a few location as it was unknown where the water was coming from. It also required construction changes to deal with the water issue that required more work and material.

TTC would not save that Cool Billion, but would have be a few 100's millions.

If you want to kill some issues regarding traffic and funding transit you start with your driver license. It will cost you $3,000 to get one in the first place. Cost you $1,000 at renewal time. It cost you $500/year to park your first car at your resident and climb on a sliding scale of $1,000/extra car you have. If you have 4 cars, it will cost $6,500 a year. You add 20 cents/liter for fuel. All parking spot are tax at $3,500/year regardless where they are outside the residents. It will cost you $20 a day to enter the city core. 1 cent sales tax going to roads and transit only. Parking standards be reduce in the city core to 25% of the development or less. Max standards for parking as you move away from the city core will be 1.

As for stations, they fail in comparison to ones in Europe that look and function way better than what TTC has today or on the board.

All projects should be open shop, not close like it is today that add $100's of thousand to the cost in the first place.

You have to be careful when saying the lines should be at grade since there not many places you can do it. Going elevated has it plus and minus, but should happen in various places.
 
A side note for some of the delays was water. It took 3-9 months to solve the water issue at a few location as it was unknown where the water was coming from. It also required construction changes to deal with the water issue that required more work and material.

TTC would not save that Cool Billion, but would have be a few 100's millions.

If you want to kill some issues regarding traffic and funding transit you start with your driver license. It will cost you $3,000 to get one in the first place. Cost you $1,000 at renewal time. It cost you $500/year to park your first car at your resident and climb on a sliding scale of $1,000/extra car you have. If you have 4 cars, it will cost $6,500 a year. You add 20 cents/liter for fuel. All parking spot are tax at $3,500/year regardless where they are outside the residents. It will cost you $20 a day to enter the city core. 1 cent sales tax going to roads and transit only. Parking standards be reduce in the city core to 25% of the development or less. Max standards for parking as you move away from the city core will be 1.

As for stations, they fail in comparison to ones in Europe that look and function way better than what TTC has today or on the board.

All projects should be open shop, not close like it is today that add $100's of thousand to the cost in the first place.

You have to be careful when saying the lines should be at grade since there not many places you can do it. Going elevated has it plus and minus, but should happen in various places.

I'm okay with the lisence fee the renewal fee the tax on the gas. But you want to charge people to park their own car in their own drive way really crosses the sanity line. Especially the second or third car being taxed incrementally more. So my collector car that I drive once a member month should be taxed to park? I know I can afford the fee but it still s ems kind of excessive and by the way how is my second car causing congestion.
 

Back
Top