Rapid Transit

[drpgq]

"Prior to installing LRT the document recommends we get our overall transit ridership up to about double the current level. That would put us on a par with a city like Calgary which has LRT."

So to get LRT, let's get ridership up to the level of somewhere with LRT, without LRT.

I think the main issue is that if the province is going to kick in money to communities for investing in transit and we need to pony up a bit or receive nothing. Where would the city get the money? Easy, fire Glenn De Caire and get rid of his Zapp Brannigan style of policing and control the growth of the police budget for the next five years and use the saving for transit investment.

[Dr Awesomesauce]

^That comment about Calgary is so asinine. They've got to where they are today because of LRT full stop. And talk of voters being more 'sophisticated' is absurd. That automatic 'Don't raise my taxes!' response is precisely the opposite of sophistication.

I'm so weary of this. It may in fact be impossible to ever do anything of value in this city. Of course, we're not alone in this regard but I happen to think we're the city most afflicted with this form of brain damage in the country.

[Jon Dalton]

^^ I had the same argument about LRT in Edmonton which has a ridership of 90,000.

"Of course LRT works there, their ridership is so high"

"Yes, now that it exists"

[thistleclub]

New ways to pay (and pave) our way out of gridlock
(Toronto Star, Martin Regg Cohn, May 25 2013)

The Big Move has a big problem: It hasn’t gained traction — yet.

On Monday, that should change: Metrolinx, the provincial transit agency, will finally tell us how to bankroll its $40-billion transit blueprint to unblock GTA gridlock over the next two decades.

The final 75-page report from Metrolinx will argue that to get things moving in a big way, we need to tap these rich but controversial revenue sources:
A higher province-wide HST. A regional GTA-Hamilton gas tax. And a local commercial parking levy.

Resistance is futile. Not because the Big Move can’t be stopped in its tracks — any populist politician can rally people against new taxes — but because stalling the Big Move is a dead end.

Brace yourself for a new, high-stakes debate over how to come up with $2 billion a year to fund new transit. It will likely culminate with a transportation election — this fall, or perhaps 12 months from now over a gridlock(ed) spring budget.

But it begins with Monday’s final report from Metrolinx, which prunes an earlier shortlist of potential revenue sources. That controversial list, released in early April, included road tolls, gas taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, payroll taxes, parking levies and distance charges.

Now, after two months of consultations, Metrolinx has rejected some of its most contentious ideas — distance charges, property and payroll taxes — narrowing its focus to more lucrative but no less controversial measures: A sales tax, gas tax and parking levy. (Other more symbolic measures that raise less money, such as optional toll lanes, will remain on the shortlist.)

[SteelTown]

GTA: Metrolinx backs hikes in HST, gas tax and new parking levy
STEVE RUSSELL,TORONTO STAR

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/323858...kes-in-hst-gas-tax-and-new-parking-levy/

It will cost the average Toronto region household an additional $477 a year in taxes to overcome a generation of public transit neglect and crippling road congestion under a transit investment strategy being unveiled by Metrolinx on Monday.

The Toronto Star has learned that the provincial transportation agency is recommending a 1 per cent sales tax, 5-cent/litre gas tax, a 25-cent-per-day non-residential parking levy and a 15 per cent hike in development charges to raise just over $2 billion annually.

That's the cost of building the Metrolinx 25-year, $50-billion Big Move transportation plan. It calls for more than triple the region's 500 km of rapid transit to about 1,700 km and would put a transit stop within 2 km of 75 per cent of residents.

The impact on taxpayers is far less than the $1,600 a year Metrolinx estimates congestion costs the average regional household. It is also less than half the $1,000 floated recently by some local politicians.

Five years in the making, the funding plan represents "a watershed moment" for the region, said Metrolinx CEO Bruce McCuaig in an interview last week.

He said his agency has done its best to come up with a strategy that reflects residents' hunger for accountability and fairness in the way the money is collected and distributed. Now it's up to the province to consider implementing the plan.

"These are difficult choices but they're important choices," said McCuaig, adding that he's confident Premier Kathleen Wynne understands the urgency of the region's mounting $6 billion-a-year congestion crisis for business and quality of life.

Without a stable, dedicated source of funding, the Toronto area's transportation system won't improve, he said.

"We want to get to a system that functions the way people want it to function, that gives people the time that they want both at work and at home, that gives people choices," said McCuaig.

To ensure the new taxes are used exclusively for transit, Metrolinx is recommending the money flow to a dedicated transportation trust fund that McCuaig said "avoids year to year pressures of government budget-making."

The province has already committed about $16 billion of the $50 billion cost of the Big Move to a "first wave" of blockbuster transit projects, including four Toronto LRTs and bus rapid transit in York Region. The new taxes would help pay for a "second wave," including the downtown relief subway in Toronto, the electrification of some GO lines and a Hurontario LRT in Mississauga.

McCuaig confirmed that the investment strategy also proposes a mobility tax credit to protect low-income residents from the "regressive tendencies" of a 1 per cent hike to the HST. Sales taxes have been used around North America, including in Los Angeles, to help pay for transit. Metrolinx calculates the 1 per cent would add between $1.3 billion to the regional pot.

It will be up to Queen's Park to decide whether to confine that tax to the Toronto area or implement it province wide and stream the funds to local infrastructure priorities.

The variable parking levy will cost businesses 25 cents a day on average per space on all off-street, non-residential spaces, confirmed McCuaig. It would be based on the assessed value of the property "to make sure there is fairness and parity across the region," he said.

Expected to raise about $350 million a year, it also ensures corporate participation.

In another indication that Metrolinx has been listening to the charged debates about transit funding around the region, it is also recommending a change to its own governance. It is proposing that municipal politicians be allowed to nominate six citizen appointees to the Metrolinx board. Elected officials cannot participate directly. However, the move provides for local input into how transit taxes are spent.

Metrolinx has evolved since it was created in 2006 from a planning organization, to incorporating the operation of GO Transit and building new lines such as the Eglinton-Scarborough Crosstown LRT and the UP Express to Pearson.

"It's reasonable to expect our governance is keeping up as well," said McCuaig.

After the Metrolinx board formally approves the investment strategy Monday, McCuaig and his staff will take it on the road to make sure regional residents and leaders understand it. But it will be up to Queen's Park to take the next steps while its Toronto region transit agency gets back to the business of building the transit that already has funding.

"When we look around the world, what makes the Toronto region unusual is not the fact that we have challenges in terms of coming to final decisions on infrastructure. I think every city and region has those kinds of issues. But what makes us unusual is that we have a relatively incomplete way of financing and having the stability in how we fund our infrastructure," said McCuaig.

QUICK FACTS

Metrolinx recommended revenue tools:

• 1% on the HST for $1.3 billion

• 25-cent-per-day (on average) commercial parking levy for $350 million

• 5-cent/litre gas tax for $330 million

• 15% development charge for $100 million

What the Metrolinx investment strategy will cost residents

•Average cost per Ontario household: $477 a year or $9.17 per week

•Average cost for a senior who doesn't drive much: $140 a year of $2.70 per week

•Average cost for a student: $117 a year or $2.25 a week

•Average cost for a family of five with two cars: $977 a year or $18.79 a week


Toronto Star

[Dr Awesomesauce]

^Very interesting. Waiting with bated breath for the response from the various councils, taxpayers, etc. Let the games begin in earnest.

[SteelTown]

At least all of the measures won't need council involvement. It's all up to Premier Wynne now.

[thistleclub]

Ontario premier will pitch tax hikes, fees to fund transit expansion
(The Globe and Mail, Adrian Morrow, May 27 2013)

Premier Kathleen Wynne plans to come to the Legislature by next spring with a series of tax hikes to raise funds for an ambitious expansion of public transit in Southern Ontario.

Transit agency Metrolinx will release its report on recommended measures to fund its construction plans on Monday.

It will hinge upon a 1-per-cent sales tax increase, sources told The Globe and Mail, with a commercial parking levy, five-cent-per-litre gas tax and more charges to developers making up the rest.

Ms. Wynne will then consult with municipalities, business and community groups, bringing a final proposal to the Legislature no later than spring 2014, sources said.

The minority Liberals’ plan to build more subways and rail lines will set the stage for negotiations with opposition parties at Queen’s Park and a battle between Toronto, whose city council opposes most new sources of funds for transit, and the suburbs, which have been more active in supporting transit expansion. Ms. Wynne needs the support of at least one other party for her funding plan to pass.

If she cannot, the province could face a snap election on the issue.

For now, the Premier is keeping her powder dry.

[thistleclub]

MTO PR:

Minister's Statement on Metrolinx Investment Strategy
(Ministry of Transportation, May 27 2013)

Today, Glen Murray, Minister of Transportation and Minister of Infrastructure, released the following statement on the Metrolinx investment strategy:

"The Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA) is facing a gridlock crisis that is costing our economy an estimated $6 billion a year and is compromising the quality of life for residents. If not addressed, this problem will continue to grow as our population increases and further burden our economy.

There is much work to do to address this challenge and the new Ontario government is taking action to expand the GTHA transportation system by building roads, expanding the region's public transit network and integrating active transportation systems. Our government will continue to expand the transportation and transit system, beginning with building the next wave of projects identified in the Metrolinx Big Move plan.

I'd like to thank Rob Prichard, Bruce McCuaig and the Metrolinx team for their hard work and diligence in delivering thoughtful proposals for funding public transit expansion in the GTHA. I would also like to recognize and thank the thousands of individual citizens, organizations, transit experts and advocates and other governments for their important contributions to Metrolinx's investment strategy released today, Investing In Our Region, Investing In Our Future.

The provincial government has committed to identify and implement a dedicated revenue stream to pay for this historic transit investment. The recommendations in the Metrolinx investment strategy will be a valuable factor in our government's decision-making process.

We accept the guiding principles of the Metrolinx funding strategy: revenue must be dedicated to specific outcomes; costs and benefits of transit expansion must be fairly distributed; all parts of the GTHA should benefit from transportation infrastructure investments; spending must be transparent; and, projects held to high standards of public accountability.

We agree that transportation expansion must consider growth and land use planning and that the Big Move projects must realize the best value for public investments in infrastructure.

The Ministry of Transportation will evaluate the revenue tools proposed by Metrolinx by conducting a detailed analysis and study additional funding options for transit expansion.

Additionally, our government will establish an advisory panel to help guide our next steps. The panel will help lead an engagement process with the people of Ontario, municipal governments, stakeholders and communities on the recommendations outlined in the Metrolinx investment strategy, including our commitment to the conversion of select High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes in the GTHA to High-Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes as identified in Ontario's 2013 Budget.

The panel and the Ministry of Transportation's work will help guide our government's comprehensive plan to address congestion in the GTHA and will be brought forward to the Legislature."

[thistleclub]

Metrolinx webcast streaming live now.

[thistleclub]

Investing In Our Region, Investing In Our Future

Executive Summary

Full Report

Appendix A: AECOM KPMG Big Move Implementation Economics Revenue Tool Profiles

Appendix B: Other Investment Tools Considered

Appendix C: The Big Conversation Public Roundtable Meeting Summary Report

Appendix D: Public and Stakeholder Input Received

Appendix E: Report of Residents’ Reference Panel

Appendix F: Project Prioritization Framework

Appendix G: Canada’s Regional Transportation Authorities: Delivering Real Results for Canadians

[bigguy1231]

Anybody notice that the group that is most affected by this so called congestion isn't listed in this tax grab. I don't see a corporate tax increase anywhere on that list.

As for the city of Hamilton, I can see us opting out because of these taxes. If council votes yes they will get the blame for the increased taxes and will suffer the consequences next election. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing in some people's minds.

[thistleclub]

Municipalities would presumably be responsible for delivering the development charges and commercial parking levy.

As it happens, those were two of the measures Hamilton's council flatly rejected about a month ago.

Then again, this is hardly the final word.

[durandy]

didn't they also recommend a land value capture near transit nodes?

[thistleclub]

Originally Posted by durandy

didn't they also recommend a land value capture near transit nodes?

They did. It's detailed in Appendix A.

AECOM/KPMG's illustrative example is for developments within a half-mile (800m) of a rail station. But it's pretty vague -- it's proximity to a new transit initiative (hubs and corridors) that they seem inclined to use. Between B-Line LRT and all-day GO, you would be able to rope in much of the lower city.

The report's authors have their caveats, however, and downplay the revenue potential. They cite the example of Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, which used LVC to accrue $150m in development activity in the space of 15 years.

[matt602]

Given how much of a stranglehold the suburban home builders have on City Hall, I can't imagine them being too keen on new development taxes. It's gonna be a pretty tough pill to swallow for more urban and progressive municipalities like Toronto and Mississauga as it is. I don't think it will fly at all here and LRT is gonna be an unfortunate casualty.

[thistleclub]

Concluding thoughts from a worthy long read, Can the Metrolinx Investment Strategy Succeed? (Torontoist, Steve Munro, May 28 2013):

Metrolinx and Queen’s Park face a considerable political challenge in convincing Ontario residents that new taxes will bring meaningful, timely improvements to their travel experience. Polls and community meetings suggest that everyone—including the business community—accepts the need for greater transit spending, but the preferred source is often “anyone but me.”

The new taxes will place varying burdens on different groups, but these will be eventually offset by the transfer of personal expenses (eliminating a second or third car, reducing the time needed to commute) to public ones. That “eventually” is the nub of Metrolinx’s problem. Voters will pay for many years before they benefit from better transit, and those years must see plans and funding survive swings in government policy and economic activity.

With an annual population growth of 100,000, the GTHA will be one million people bigger before most of the Next Wave finishes construction. That’s a million more people who will complain about congestion, but most will drive for want of an alternative. Even the hoped-for changes in land use sought by Metrolinx will take decades to produce a meaningful shift in population and travel patterns across the region, and the network will have to serve the sprawling GTHA as it is built, not as it might exist in a planner’s fantasy.

In its staging plan, Metrolinx must show how improvements will be felt in the near and medium term, not just in a hypothetical future where all of The Big Move is in operation. Savings in travel time and reductions in congestion must be calculated and demonstrated for the intermediate stages when only parts of the plan are finished. Good results will beget support for more transit projects, but the government—whatever its party—must have the will to stay with the plan rather than amending it to suit electoral needs.

This is a very large, some would say impossible, expectation. In the short term, the government must survive long enough to implement the new taxes and push enough projects out the door to establish momentum for transit expansion. Even a political optimist will see this as difficult, but with good will and continued strong support from senior figures at Queen’s Park it remains possible.

The pessimistic view—more stalemates, little or no expansion, a further relegation of transit to a distant secondary role—does not bear consideration.

[thistleclub]

Fortnightly footsie.

Metrolinx coming to Hamilton to talk transportation
(Hamilton Spectator, June 2 2013)

Metrolinx is coming to Hamilton to talk about its regional transportation plan and how to fund it. The briefing and question period is on June 12 from 9:30 to 10:30 a.m. at Liuna Station at 360 James St. N. RSVP to [email protected]

[thistleclub]

Glen Murray talks transit revenue tools with Spacing
(Spacing.ca, John Lorinc, June 4 2013)

Everyone knows that Mayor Rob Ford likes revenue tools about as much as the Pride Parade. But when federal Tory finance minister Jim Flaherty waded, unbidden, into the debate last week, heads turned. In a pointed letter to his provincial counterpart Charles Sousa, Flaherty shot down “recent musings by the Wynne Government” that it might look to a regional increase in the HST to help finance the Big Move. Not on our watch, Flaherty declared, pointing out that regional hikes weren’t allowed under the federal-provincial HST agreement.

Sousa has called for a meeting with the Feds — of course. But the always entertaining game of inter-governmental whack-a-mole is a distraction from the main event. Over the summer, Liberal transportation minister Glen Murray will lead a taskforce to review the Metrolinx revenue tool proposals (HST, gas tax, parking levy and development charges) and come up with a legislative agenda. Last month, Murray got his knuckles rapped for casting doubt on Metrolinx’s presumed short-list on budget day. In an interview Friday, he didn’t sound any more upbeat about the proposed tools, and talked instead about far more modest techniques, such as “pay-as-you-go” financing (an idea that did not make even the long Metrolinx list).

Of course, a savvy politician who knows his government plans to hit up voters with new taxes might be well advised to adopt a conspicuously reluctant pose to show voters that such moves are a last resort. Whatever his actual views, Murray will somehow have to recast his very public skepticism into genuine salesmanship by the fall if he hopes to deliver Premier Kathleen Wynne’s signature promise.

Spacing: How do you intend to make a case for asking people for more money to pay for the Big Move? Obviously, based on the polls, they are not yet convinced.

Murray: One wouldn’t expect them to be. There are some people who are saying, “this is an inordinately long process you’re involved in, you’re only going to start another conversation now.” And there are other folks who are saying, “you haven’t got a consensus yet.” Well, both are true.

We are now moving from a consultation Metrolinx has had, with a series of options they’ve presented. They’ve provoked criticism of those [recommendations] and other ideas. I will be leading a panel this summer that will be looking at all that criticism and looking at those other ideas. The government will take some ownership of this in the fall. Within the next twelve month, targeted by the 2014 budget, the government will declare its position and it will be my job to go out and ensure that it’s something that has reasonable support amongst Ontarians and people in the GTHA.

Spacing: Will you table legislation by budget 2014?

Murray: I think it’s within the next twelve months. Whether we proceed with the legislation before the next budget, in the fall, or whether we wait and introduce this with other budget measures, depends on the nature of the final recommendations.

Spacing: Do you see yourselves fighting an election on these revenue tools?

Murray: No, I see us fighting an election on building a high quality transit and transportation system in the GTHA that deals with congestion and makes this region economically more competitive and one that reduces the net cost to families. That $6 billion a year is being taxed out of their incomes and out of their businesses by congestion. [It] is a much more onerous burden than any investment we could make in transit.

[thistleclub]

Council's LRT enthusiasm hitting the brakes
(Hamilton Spectator, Emma Reilly, June 15 2013)

First, councillors gave the brush-off to a list of potential taxes and fees to help pay for major transit projects.

A dozen days later, Russ Powers became the first councillor to officially bail on the city's plans for light rail transit (LRT), arguing that the massive city-building project was unaffordable.

Fresh on the heels of those decisions, councillors on the public works committee balked at a implementing a long-planned bus-only lane on King Street, a pilot project seen as a crucial stepping-stone on the road to LRT. That decision was later reversed with a 9-5 vote at council.

These three developments, which all took place in May, have given the community crucial insight into what some say is council's increasingly shaky stance on LRT. While some councillors have held firm in their support, these decisions have led residents and elected officials alike to wonder whether council support for LRT is dying out.

"I think what we've seen from council is that support for LRT is about a centimetre deep. While they support the reports, the concept of LRT, when it comes to taxpayers funding the programs with new dollars, there's no support," Councillor Brian McHattie said after council rejected mechanisms proposed by Metrolinx, the province's transportation agency, to fund transit projects.

"This is a very consistent position with the three councils I've been a part of. We've put zero municipal levy dollars into public transit in the past 10 years. That is really the measure of where this council sits on transit."

The LRT upheaval has also hit city staff. Last week, the city lost its last dedicated rapid transit manager.

Justin Readman has taken a senior transportation management role with the City of Kitchener. His predecessor, Jill Stephens, resigned in late 2011 to take a similar job with Niagara Region, around the same time Hamilton shrank a six-person rapid transit team to one manager.

The city may not refill the position, said transit director Don Hull, because council has only budgeted cash for dedicated LRT positions until the end of 2013. But, he added, Christine Lee Morrison, manager of mobility programs and special projects, has played a "huge role" in LRT planning and will be in charge of the file.

Despite the recent roadblocks councillors have put up against LRT, council has repeatedly affirmed its philosophical support of rapid transit over the past several years. Councillors have agreed to spend $10 million studying the LRT corridor, $5 million of which came from Metrolinx.

The most recent example of council's support came in February, when councillors endorsed a report that outlined the city's plans to build an east-west LRT line stretching from Eastgate Square to McMaster University. That document, called the Rapid Ready report, has been forwarded to the province in hopes that Premier Kathleen Wynne's Liberal government will endorse the project — and pick up the tab.

Still, McHattie points out that several councillors' endorsement of the Rapid Ready report was restrained. Chad Collins said he's not prepared to offer "blind support" to the project, while Tom Jackson has consistently based his support for LRT on whether there's an "exit ramp" in the future.

"I thought there were a lot of qualifiers from different councillors," McHattie said. "I think it's fair to say that there's not currently a lot of support for transit from councillors."

Rapid Ready said the city could expect three times the development along an LRT corridor compared with maintaining the status quo. Staff also estimated that an LRT line could generate new tax assessment of $22 million, while building permit fees and development charges would bring in $30 million. Bus rapid transit isn't expected to spur nearly the same amount of development and economic spinoff.

It's for reasons like these that LRT has earned the support of the Hamilton Chamber of Commerce and the Hamilton Hive, a group for young professionals and entrepreneurs — and why both of these groups want council to keep LRT on the table.

"LRT was one of the few political issues that Hive took a stance on. We were very supportive of it because we saw it as a way to attract and retain young people — to make it fast and easy and cool for young people to get into the core," said Mike Kubes, Hive administrator. "We still support LRT 100 per cent, and really want to see city council act as ambassadors toward that."

But Peter Hutton of the Hamilton Transit Users Group agrees with McHattie. He argues that since LRT is quickly becoming a reality — and an expensive proposition that almost certainly will mean some form of new tolls, taxes or fees imposed by the province — councillors are losing their mettle.

"I genuinely believe the majority of councillors when the idea of LRT was presented to them, they said, 'Yeah, that would be great.' But the money question has always plagued them," said Hutton. "When it comes to putting the money behind those critical decisions, we have, historically, in the City of Hamilton not been able to get the community consensus to make those investments."

....

While Hamilton has kept relatively in line with comparable municipalities when it comes to funding transit, those investments have taken different forms. Whereas Hamilton — which has a mature, established transit system — has focused on beefing up its service along existing routes to meet demand, other cities, such as Mississauga and Brampton, have been expanding service to meet explosive growth in those areas.

Hamilton needs to address its existing problems before investing in expanded transit service, Hull says. If five or six packed buses are passing riders by because they're too full, those issues should be resolved before the city begins expanding its bus network.

"The very first priority was to address service levels," Hull said. "You can't attract people to transit if their first experience is they can't get on the bus."

However, McHattie correctly points out that over the past 10 years, no investments have been made specifically to expand service. Meanwhile, cities that have invested in expansion are seeing a ridership boost that's not being echoed in Hamilton. In fact, Hamilton's transit ridership dropped by 5 per cent between 2006 and 2011.


That shortfall may be a consequence of the city's Transportation Master Plan anticipating a transit ridership increase during the 2006-2011 period, a modal share growth from 6% to 9%.

CATCH notes that the HSR's 2011 ridership was a slight improvement over 2006 numbers, though intervening years were often below 2006 performance and per-capita ridership has essentially remained static at 42 rides per capita.