TO City of Light
Active Member
Some good ideas and in many ways the PATH issue reflects part of a larger frustration in TO.
There are so many ways that aspects of life in the city could be improved - at both "big picture" and site specific levels. Yet there is unfortunately a lack of collective will/leadership to make it happen. Much as we need to admire the spirit and initiative of the individual shop/franchise owner and developer, in matters like improving the PATH, we will continue to muddle through until there is an overall structure and recognized leadership.
Money wouldn't hurt but it is probably not the most important factor.
Important also is the need for ancillary actions by entities like the TTC, as J suggests. There are plenty of precedents of reduced/free public transit fares for tourists. In Geneva (Switzerland rather than upstate NY) anyone checking into a hotel receives a free pass for unlimited use of the public transit system during their stay - a system that is very, very good by the way. It's an easy programme to administer with hotels simply handing out the passes at check-in.
There are at least two killer objections to such a scheme in Toronto. First, all the "victims" - the aggrieved groups of poor students, disabled, homeless, etc. as well as the well-off downtown condo residents, suburban McMansion owners, etc. - would demand equal treatment.
"All those wealthy foreigners are getting something for nothing; we residents should have at least the same."
Second, funding of municipal services in Canada as now done pretty well ensures that imaginative schemes to improve urban life will not get funded. In Toronto why would the TTC bear an additional cost, e.g. free fares or improving access to PATH, when the financial returns from a larger number of visitors goes mainly to others, in this case shop owners, hotels, etc.
In the Swiss model, the most important level of government is the canton. Thus the Geneva authorities can trade off a loss of fare box revenue with the added income they would get from business taxes on shops, residents, hotels, etc. The calculation is simple - will added revenue from an action exceed the incurred cost? If yes, then do, if no, then don't do.
In the Canadian model, the level of government providing municipal services is all too often not the level that can tax back part of the benefits. Thus funds for improving PATH would have to come from a city that would benefit only marginally from any additional income that would come from increased tourism income. The latter would include business taxes, gasoline taxes, airport taxes and fees, etc. all of which would presumably rise because of increased numbers of visitors driving, flying, otherwise coming to the city but would be collected by federal and provincial authorities.
If all the TO taxpayers or municipal agencies such as TTC see in government expenditures is the costs, it is going to be difficult to convince them to accept new schemes.
Giving municipal governments more authority to tax back the gains resulting from their public infrastructure investments would result in a very different urban structure. This is starting to happen but will be a long and divisive road.
a
