Filip
Senior Member
The problem is they don't.
|
|
|
New Transit Funding Sources
- Thread starter denfromoakvillemilton
- Start date
The problem is they don't.
WislaHD
Superstar
Prime Minister announces support for public transit in the Greater Golden Horseshoe Area
http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2017/03/31...-public-transit-greater-golden-horseshoe-area
"
Etobicoke, Ontario
March 31, 2017
The benefits of public transit – shorter commute times, less air pollution, more time with family and friends, and stronger economic growth – are well understood. So too is the cost of inaction. The gridlock that results from traffic congestion costs Canada’s economy billions of dollars in lost productivity every year.
To address these concerns, the Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, today announced that the Government of Canada will invest more than $1.8 billion in the GO Transit Regional Express rail project in the Greater Golden Horseshoe Area.
This investment – provided through the New Building Canada Fund – will create good, well-paying middle class jobs, and support a modern, efficient transit system, which will result in a faster commute, less time in traffic, and more money in Ontarians’ pockets as they trade their cars for public transit.
Along with the province’s contribution to the GO Transit Regional Express rail project, this investment will be the single largest transit project in which the federal government has ever invested.
Prime Minister Trudeau also announced today that more than 300 additional projects have been approved in Ontario under the Public Transit Infrastructure Fund. These projects will provide efficient and affordable transit services across the province, and transform the way Ontarians move, work, and live.
"
http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2017/03/31...-public-transit-greater-golden-horseshoe-area
"
Etobicoke, Ontario
March 31, 2017
The benefits of public transit – shorter commute times, less air pollution, more time with family and friends, and stronger economic growth – are well understood. So too is the cost of inaction. The gridlock that results from traffic congestion costs Canada’s economy billions of dollars in lost productivity every year.
To address these concerns, the Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, today announced that the Government of Canada will invest more than $1.8 billion in the GO Transit Regional Express rail project in the Greater Golden Horseshoe Area.
This investment – provided through the New Building Canada Fund – will create good, well-paying middle class jobs, and support a modern, efficient transit system, which will result in a faster commute, less time in traffic, and more money in Ontarians’ pockets as they trade their cars for public transit.
Along with the province’s contribution to the GO Transit Regional Express rail project, this investment will be the single largest transit project in which the federal government has ever invested.
Prime Minister Trudeau also announced today that more than 300 additional projects have been approved in Ontario under the Public Transit Infrastructure Fund. These projects will provide efficient and affordable transit services across the province, and transform the way Ontarians move, work, and live.
"
Cobra
Senior Member
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...tructure-cash-for-go-transit/article34515481/
That's our only window to have 100% Relief Long to get built assuming we're capable of getting Ottawa to pay for 50% of the project. Toronto will be able to raise revenues for their share of the project or borrow from the Infrastructure bank once its set up. Queen's Park always said they would build it.
That's our only window to have 100% Relief Long to get built assuming we're capable of getting Ottawa to pay for 50% of the project. Toronto will be able to raise revenues for their share of the project or borrow from the Infrastructure bank once its set up. Queen's Park always said they would build it.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Hasn't Ottawa already said they're not going to pay anymore than 40%?
steveintoronto
Superstar
In fact, they've only committed $660,000 so far, and may not even commit the rest unless a reasonable business case is proven.
Guess what?
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Excellent article from Torontoist on how TTC's and Metrolinx's governance structure compares to London and Vancouver, and what we can do to de-politicize transit planning and operation: http://torontoist.com/2017/03/politics-removed-transit-planning/
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
I believe Toronto Hydro's governance structure is a great model for a hypothetical "Transport for Toronto". The City of Toronto is Hydro's sole shareholder, however we don't see much of any political interference in the operations and expansion plans of Hydro. Interference can, and occasionally does, happen, but it's incredibly more difficult than interference with the TTC Board, or any other municipal agency I can think of.
From the Toronto Hydro website: "The Board of Directors of the Corporation is composed of eight independent directors and three city councillors. All directors are appointed by the sole shareholder of the Corporation (the City of Toronto)"
Note that of the 11 Hydro Board positions, only three are City Councillors, while eight are citizen members (appointed by the City of Toronto). Compare this to the TTC, where 7 of 11 of the TTC Board positions are City Councillors
Toronto Hydro's Board structure does leave room for political medelling, in that the City does directly appoint the board members. I believe potential for political meddling can be reduced by:
- appointing board members for terms of five, six or seven years, such that the board appointments are not synchronized with municipal elections
- limiting board members to a single term on the board. This means that board members will have no incentive to cater to the political desires of City Hall, to increase their chances of being renewed on the board
- Having no fewer than one, but no more than two Board members appointed/replaced each year. This makes it impossible for a new Council or Mayor to replace the Transport for Toronto board at once.
- Prohibiting City Council from removing a TFT Board member, unless there has been serious misconduct
Of course, the enabling legislation for Transport for Toronto would come from City Council. The City Council can completely overhaul the board structure with a single vote. However, the aforementioned restrictions would make that significantly more difficult than it is today.
From the Toronto Hydro website: "The Board of Directors of the Corporation is composed of eight independent directors and three city councillors. All directors are appointed by the sole shareholder of the Corporation (the City of Toronto)"
Note that of the 11 Hydro Board positions, only three are City Councillors, while eight are citizen members (appointed by the City of Toronto). Compare this to the TTC, where 7 of 11 of the TTC Board positions are City Councillors
Toronto Hydro's Board structure does leave room for political medelling, in that the City does directly appoint the board members. I believe potential for political meddling can be reduced by:
- appointing board members for terms of five, six or seven years, such that the board appointments are not synchronized with municipal elections
- limiting board members to a single term on the board. This means that board members will have no incentive to cater to the political desires of City Hall, to increase their chances of being renewed on the board
- Having no fewer than one, but no more than two Board members appointed/replaced each year. This makes it impossible for a new Council or Mayor to replace the Transport for Toronto board at once.
- Prohibiting City Council from removing a TFT Board member, unless there has been serious misconduct
Of course, the enabling legislation for Transport for Toronto would come from City Council. The City Council can completely overhaul the board structure with a single vote. However, the aforementioned restrictions would make that significantly more difficult than it is today.
Last edited:
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Expanding on my previous post:
Like Transport for London, Transport for Toronto would be in complete control of everything transport related in the City of Toronto. This means:
This would allow us to build a proper network of all modes of transport, rather than the "wars" between competing modes, we see on Council today.
Funding arrangements could also be modelled off of London. Transport for Toronto would control fares, road tolls, parking rates, vehicle registration fees, and other transport-related fares and charges. Multi-year arrangements would be made with the three levels of government to fund the agency as a whole. So every few years, the agency would go to the three levels of government, with a request for a certain amount of funding for operations and expansion for a certain time period. The agency should also be permitted to directly charge businesses and residents a small levy, since everyone in the city does take advantage of its transportation infrastructure. This is more or less how Transport for London gets their funding.
Like Transport for London, Transport for Toronto would be in complete control of everything transport related in the City of Toronto. This means:
- Toronto Transit Commission
- City of Toronto Transport Services
- Road maintenance, planning and construction
- Transit maintenance, planning and contruction
- Bike lanes, bike sharing and other bike facilities
- Ferries
This would allow us to build a proper network of all modes of transport, rather than the "wars" between competing modes, we see on Council today.
Funding arrangements could also be modelled off of London. Transport for Toronto would control fares, road tolls, parking rates, vehicle registration fees, and other transport-related fares and charges. Multi-year arrangements would be made with the three levels of government to fund the agency as a whole. So every few years, the agency would go to the three levels of government, with a request for a certain amount of funding for operations and expansion for a certain time period. The agency should also be permitted to directly charge businesses and residents a small levy, since everyone in the city does take advantage of its transportation infrastructure. This is more or less how Transport for London gets their funding.
CodeMonkey
Active Member
The only problem with this model is that it doesn't solve the funding problem. Toronto Hydro has various revenue generating tools at it disposal to fund its operations and expansion plans, while the province puts regulations how the city can raise revenue from its transit infrastructure.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
TfL has the same problem. Only 40% of their revenue comes from fares, while 25% comes from government grants and 20% through loans.
Their way of dealing with the funding problem is by requesting a grant from the various levels of government to fund TfL operations and expansion for a certain number of years. This means that politicians aren't directly deciding what is funded or what is prioritized. Politicians can still tamper, but it takes considerately more political capital under this arrangement. Threatening to withhold funding from TfL, because a politician does not like a particular project, may not go over well with voters - withholding funding means withholding funding for all things transport related in the city, whether they be bike lanes, snow removal, bus service levels or renewal of a highway structure. A politician would be hesitant to make such a move, unless they were certain that whatever project they were fighting against had enough opposition from citizens that they'd approve of such a drastic measure.
Certain projects in TfL's portfolio are far too large to be funded through normal means. These projects do occasionally receive direct government grants for their construction. I believe Crossrail 1, coming in at $25 Billlion CDN, is the only project funded this way.
So a hypothetical scenario under this governance structure: Transport for Toronto might receive a grant totalling $12 Billion from all levels of government combined, intended to last the next 5 years. With these funds, TfT could directly pay for the operational subsidies of the TTC and Transportation Services, and construct the Gadiner East, Eglinton West LRT, Eglinton East LRT, waterfront transit and part of the Relief Line. It would be TfT deciding if, when and how to build these projects, not City Council. Additional funds for the Relief Line could be through a separate grant (similar to Crossrail)
We live in a democratic country, so a certain amount of political "tampering" is a healthy thing to have. However, this structure put up enough barriers to prevent the drastic year-to-year infrastructure policy changes we've been seeing in the city. I believe this would also allow the Liberal's proposed infrastructure bank to have more confidence in the City's plans to follow through on project implementation, which should lower borrowing costs.
Last edited:
steveintoronto
Superstar
Many are. It allows sleight of hand, especially obvious in a number of programs Harper promised if they were elected. Many wouldn't kick in until well into their second or third term in office...the likelihood being that they wouldn't see. It's called 'kicking the can down the road' for the bill. Many projects (like pension plans or the nation-building ones like the St Lawrence Seaway) are spread over decades.
Actually not. The infrastructure/investment bank will *fund* projects as *investments* with an agreed fixed rate of return or on an operating incremental return (some risk) as the investors and government alike are shareholders of the *incorporated* entity. The Bank will build with the Bank's own money/assets and be overseen by an investment board, on which taxpayers have representatives for the tax share of the investment. I've detailed links elsewhere, much in the VIA string, but this is a good start:
http://dailycommercialnews.com/en-U...ight-on-infrastructure-bank-details-1022729W/
For Phase ll, yes, but even that is contentious. *Approval* to finance that 40% is broken down further to, in many cases, '70% ridership, 30% area population served'. The Feds are about to close funding from the present stream and do it through investment based criteria, even before 'The Bank' is up and running.
There's a problem with Toronto Hydro though, I get your gist, but Toronto Hydro is anything but accountable.
https://www.thestar.com/news/city_h...-hydro-and-the-power-of-secrecy-analysis.html
London has done very well indeed, having learned that the prior political mish-mash was next to impossible in so many ways. The UK is far easier to set-up that arrangement, as munis are directly accountable to Parliament, there is no in-between layer of government like a province. Almost all of Toronto's problems reside in Queen's Park and the Toronto Act.
Crossrail is really the workable model to copy, as per project rather than government structure, and now being exported as exactly a model to others:
http://learninglegacy.crossrail.co....tives-at-the-construction-stage-of-crossrail/
Much more on-line if Googled.
muller877
Senior Member
Toronto Hydro is probably the worst run electrical system in Ontario. The reason is they are accountable to no one (other than a quasi-regulator). Have you seen our Hydro bills lately? 100% on the backs of the Board. They set their costs, get them approved by the regulator and earn a % mark-up. Since they have not managed costs our rates have gone up.
Their job should be (1) giving us reliable hydro; (2) Keeping rates low; and (3) responding to customer concerns.
FAIL FAIL and FAIL
The closest city that we can compare to is Hamilton (similar aged core city infrastructure and should be a bit higher since it includes St Kitts and the top of the Mountain with their low density). They have rates about 20% lower than ours.
At least we can complain to city hall about the TTC. They have washed their hands of Hydro so we have no one to complain to. Incompetent as the TTC is at least there is some accountability.
salsa
Senior Member
steveintoronto
Superstar
It's smack-down time for Tory. Like it or not, the game has changed, and patience has run-out at QP. The writing on the crumbling wall has been clear for weeks.
Here's an idea for Tory: Go whining for more money and see how far it gets you.
Bad politics from all sides. Tory has one option left: Increase taxes. (Or as the neighbours would put it: Pay your own way) I don't like that, not one bit, but is it any surprise that this is what's now unfolding?
Well, I don't know why I came here tonight
I got the feeling that something ain't right
I'm so scared in case I fall off my chair,
And I'm wondering how I'll get down those stairs
Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right,
Here I am, stuck in the middle with you
Yes, I'm stuck in the middle with you,
And I'm wondering what it is I should do
It's so hard to keep this smile from my face,
Losing control, and I'm all over the place
Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right,
Here I am, stuck in the middle with you
[...]
Stealer's Wheel
https://play.google.com/music/previ...rch&utm_campaign=lyrics&pcampaignid=kp-lyrics
Edit to Add:
Here you go:
The premier’s prerogative ensures Toronto rarely gets what it wants: Keenan
Queen’s Park holds all the power and — guided by ever-shifting political winds — is not afraid to dismiss the city’s needs.
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...toronto-rarely-gets-what-it-wants-keenan.html
So let me ask again, since certain posters refuse to answer:
Where's the money for transit? Once QP says no, so will the Feds.
Last edited:
BurlOak
Senior Member
It's bad enough, but somewhat understandable, when the party in power changes and plans are altered.
However, here we have the same party that has changed their minds and direction so many times. From supporting LRT and changing to subway.
Supporting road tolls to not, etc. For the past 5 years of more there is no coherent plan, just scramble to try to salvage favour with the voters.
However, here we have the same party that has changed their minds and direction so many times. From supporting LRT and changing to subway.
Supporting road tolls to not, etc. For the past 5 years of more there is no coherent plan, just scramble to try to salvage favour with the voters.