Transit Fare Hike Bad Way for City to Reward TTC Users
I’m sorry, did I miss something? I thought we were supposed to ride the TTC and that the City liked that 300 000 people give them the hundred and ten bucks a metro pass goes for each month without fail. Now they’re saying that because of the popularity of transferable passes (read more people riding the TTC) they are facing a $17 million shortfall this year and if someone doesn’t step in to cover it (another level of government), they will need to raise transit fares. It would mark the third transit fare increase in four years, and is a short sighted act that goes against the city’s climate change agenda, common sense and long term transit planning.
In my last post I suggested these guys are marching us toward a dangerous financial picture, and while I still agree with that statement, I honestly think the TTC needs to find a more creative solution than penalizing transit riders with yet another transit hike. They know all too well that the TTC only makes sense so long as the price point of a transit fare is reasonable to riders. This isn’t my opinion this is basic economics. The more pressure they put on the affordability of public transit, the more ridership will fall off.
What’s more, I can tell you from running for City Council in an area with many low income transit riders, that metro pass affordability is already an issue as it and rent are generally paid for at the same time of the month. Putting any upward pressure on the cost of a monthly pass would hurt the low income users who rely on them, and may force them to use more expensive fare options such as cash or tokens for the entire month.
The City has an $8.6 billion budget. They surely can find the $17 million and recognize this short fall needs to be filled in a way that matches their overarching transit strategy and doesn’t hurt transit users unfairly. They found $400 million for LRTS in less than 24 hours just two months ago to support enhancing public transit. The TTC is far more than an financial transaction. It is part of our urban planning framework and daily life in Toronto for many residents.
While I wouldn’t be shocked if the City went ahead and raised the fare, I believe it would be a serious mistake, especially right now. Bad economic times are a good opportunity to raise ridership by encouraging folks to take the TTC to work more frequently and leave the car at home. Bad economic times are even worse times to raise the cost of transit fares and hurt ridership.
No one can disagree with that point. Let’s hope the City recognizes how bad of an idea this is before they make it.
1 Comment »Disclosure of New Sick Pay Liability Demonstrates 'Monopoly Money' Mentality at City Hall
When I read in the Toronto Star yesterday that the City of Toronto’s sick pay liability was actually $450 million, not $250 million as discussed during the 39 day strike this summer, I was a bit stunned. Decisions were made on a much lower number, and while I didn’t believe the City should walk away from existing liability to workers, it would have been nice to know what we were actually talking about when forming those opinions. Reading the amount of confusion the City seems to have in understanding a) how they were off by $200 million, and b) the various explanations for the addition $200 million in liability; it demonstrated a total lack of concern of taxpayers dollars.
Blaming it on a software error is not only an epically weak excuse, but it fails to recognize the serious repercussions of the error. Consider for a moment that between this, and the LRT deal this Council signed during the strike, they added $600 million dollars in future expenditure (read budget shortfalls for later) in less than 30 days. The LRT financing was something the City developed and voted on in less than 24 hours, adding $400 million dollars in totally unplanned spending to the capital budget. These actions are simply irresponsible and demonstrate a lack of appreciation for what it is they are tasked with doing.
Consider that each additional $30 million of revenue this Council adds to the expenditures, a 1% property tax increase is needed. This Council is already facing a staggering $500 million dollar budget shortfall in 2010. In 2003, the City of Toronto had a $6.4 billion dollar operating budget, by 2009 the annual operating budget is $8.7 billion dollars. This is a 35% increase in annual operating expenses over six years, with little or nothing by way of service improvements to show for it.
I do believe government spending can be positive and targeted in a way to have a demonstrated value for residents.But ,I become very concerned when I look at staggering numbers like this and realize that through the irresponsible spending we’ve watched at the municipal level in Toronto, we now have a chronic budget shortfall, no real service improvements to point to in exchange, and quite likely some service cuts on the way.
City Council needs to get real, and recognize they are putting Toronto on the path to bankruptcy. They need to actually think before the spend, to revisit previous priorities and announcements to determine if funding and projects are meeting their objectives and if not, make some decisions about deployment of resources. If we start the process now, it doesn’t need to be painful, but if Council waits until the situation is entirely out of control, they will be forced to cut deep into both the operating and capital budgets in ways all citizens will feel.
2 Comments »Why I Support Banning Developers From Donating to Municipal Candidates – Exhibit A
This bizarre proposal to demolish an occupied heritage building that is currently serving its purpose to build a condo development that does not comply with current planning rules, and frankly isn’t practical enough to make sense is a pretty clear example of why developers should not be allowed to donate to municipal campaigns.
Planning staff at City Hall did not endorse the concept stating quite rightly that failing to uphold the planning by-laws would set a negative precedent and undermine their purpose. They were correct, the political decision by the Toronto and East York Community Council to overrule the professional staff in the planning department was not correct.
While I support intensification of the downtown core, I strongly support preserving our architectural legacy and believe all planning must be realistic. Having a building with absolutely no parking available on a street where no parking is available is a bad idea. Demolishing a well maintained, well used heritage building to accommodate a building that does not meet the legal requirements of planning in our City is a bad idea. Having City Councillors overrule professionals to assist a developer in getting around the rules is even worse.
There needs to be a clear separation between development proposals and municipal councillors. That’s why we have a planning department. Councillors should set the Official Plan with planning staff and then stick to it for the next few years and refuse to bow to pressure from folks who want to do something that is in their best financial interest, but not in the interest of our City.
In short, Councillors should set policy, planners should evaluate projects and developers shouldn’t be able to weasel their way between the two.
For more about this read: ‘Car-free’ condo: 42 storeys, no parking. – Toronto Star
8 Comments »
