Hank July 10, 2007 at 10:56 a.m.

Are you suggesting that you are against the concept of congestion pricing?? If so, I am very curious very that is. While it might cost certain people a few extra dollars, there is no denying that it is a necessary step in our goal to create a greener city. Certain changes are going to certainly involve sacrifice, but it would be much better if these changes could be implemented without the city needing some sort of emergency wake up call in order to be forced into action.
In this particular case, the TTC is merely asking for 8 extra buses and some extra man hours to accommodate the increased flow of transit users. The real problem here is the lack of funding for a TTC that is growing at an enormous rate. 426 million people annually! The TTC should have all the funding it needs.

Cutegirl08 July 10, 2007 at 12:04 p.m.

For the first time ever, I agree with Hank. Sacrifices will have to be made to implement significant changes to Toronto's transit system. I live in Markham, and I've been riding the go-train and the subway since I was 13. Like all the millions of people who ride the commuter train, I know it's a pain to have to pay higher TTC fares, but until the Government increases its funding to the TTC, we will have no other choice but to pay the increasing fares. A problem I foresee is that higher subway fares may discourage people from taking the TTC. If it is becomes less expensive to park at the Eaton's Centre than to pay round trip subway fare...then we have a problem.

Carl Spanx July 10, 2007 at 12:06 p.m.

I say forget the TTC and let's focus on putting our money into alternative tranportation methods!

Hank July 10, 2007 at 12:27 p.m.

Cutegirl, I think you missed the point of what the report was about. Its not about increased wages to ride the TTC, its about implementing charges for those people who take their cars to work every day..."congestion pricing". Most regular commuters have Metro Passes anyways, which should save them large amounts of money every month. Congestion pricing would hopefully act as a deterrent for those people who take their cars into work, and I think its a very important step. While I do agree with Mr. Preville in terms of the TTC not being prepared to deal with any increased volume of transit users as it is, I still think it is a necessary alternative, one that has worked extremely well in major cities like London. The fact of the matter is that most of the 'green' changes that are going to be taking place over the next several years (hopefully) will require some sacrifices, need to take place.
Its funny, during our discussion regarding new transit possibilities, congestion pricing was never mentioned, even though it is certainly a good method of getting people out of their cars.

Cutegirl08 July 10, 2007 at 12:40 p.m.

OOPS my bad! Well I think that congestion pricing is a great idea. I also think that the government should be giving tax breaks and certain incentives to hybrid car owners. ie. reserved parking spots, no congestion charges, tax breaks etc.

anything to get people of of their Durangos!

Arnold Durps July 10, 2007 at 1:32 p.m.

Greetings, I’m new to this blog. I like your points Hank. It appears that Mr. Preville’s “argument” is no argument at all until the requested budget is rejected. If it is not then there WILL be enough room to accommodate Toronto’s commuters and the argument becomes that the city is taking the necessary steps to deal with the influx of TTC travelers that is to be expected from congestion pricing.

Mark Dowling July 10, 2007 at 2:07 p.m.

TTC is experiencing an increase in capacity arising from the increase in sales of Metropasses. This is because they routinely underestimate growth at Budget time (see stevemunro.ca who details this). As TTC only recovers 80% of cost, the city has to provide the other 20%. The question becomes where does the revenue for that 20% come from. Ideally it should come from vehicle taxes, and even more ideally those taxes should be geared to usage - fuel taxes, parking taxes, congestion taxes.

Toronto can't charge its own fuel tax rate directly, it has shied away from parking taxes for fear of monied bay streeters and is weakly suggesting congestion taxes. Instead it's taking the easy way out and levying a registration tax. This tax was overwhelmingly opposed at "consultation" meetings so they decided to propose it be $20 more than they "consulted" about!

Congestion pricing would have the advantage of taxing 905ers who drive downtown who are unaffected by the registration tax-grab. My concern would be infrastructure and billing. My suggestion would be that the 407ETR billing system be separated from the 407 road and made an Ontario crown corp like LCBO so that any municipality or tollroad operator could sign up. In this way one bill could be paid for two or more systems and 407ETR could concentrate solely on maintaining the highway, receiving bulk payment from the billing company, and incidences of mistaken identity could be minimised and brought within the scope of the Ontario ombudsman.

Arnold Durps July 10, 2007 at 3:43 p.m.

Reading over some of your previous topics Mr. Preville I am noticing that your comments aren't as 'Previllent' as one might expect from a blog host...

Rational Policies July 10, 2007 at 6:21 p.m.

Encouraging transit ridership is a good idea, however Toronto does not need any further disincentives to lkocate businesses in the city. Congestion pricing would drive even more work to Mississauga and Markham, especially when alternative methods aren`t feasible or can`t handle ridership increases.

Toronto needs to get away from taxing businesses and start only taxing residents. Oakville charges much higher residential rates and is still growing its population and growing its economy. Toronto is losing jobs and people, and following the path of Detroit, chasing out the very things that keep the city alive.

FrankLopez July 11, 2007 at 12:43 p.m.

Congestion price is not a determining factor in the creation and destruction of downtown businesses. 905ers come to the Downtown for two reasons: to work, and to go clubbing. If congestion prices only exist in daytime during peak hours, which i think is reasonable, then downtown business will not be affected. As for businesses moving elsewhere...while your argument seems rational, there are tertiary forces pulling and pushing business outside. Let me be clear, large corporations are moving to the burbs because technology has allowed for a geographically dispersed business space. Operations departments no long have to be downtown, and furthermore, most of the employees are from the surrounding area. However this is driven mostly by office space rental costs, and would not be seriously affected by a congestion charge. I am a Torontonian, but I am writing from Boston. Right now I am looking out my window at a revitalized urban area complete with green space that was once a gardiner like freeway that stifled movement and business in the city and it made me wish that our politicians would step up and make some serious changes on the city's waterfront. just a thought.

Hank July 11, 2007 at 1:39 p.m.

So you are suggesting we take aim at the Gardiner...and do what with it exactly??
I certainly agree that peak hour congestion pricing is extremely reasonable, though I just read an article today that made it very clear that the TTC is desperately in need of drastic improvements. Management is so poor that even with the massive influx of transit users, they are still running at a deficit. There needs to be an overhaul in the TTC, get someone who is actually willing to take on ambitious projects, someone who will actually request an appropriate budget, rather than asking for too little, which has been the case for so long.
Rational policies, the surrounding areas of Toronto are growing, but to argue that Toronto is killing its own industry is far fetched. The biggest city is simply not going to lose its vital interests in the face of an Oakville, its just not plausible.

Arnold Durps July 11, 2007 at 3:43 p.m.

I'm with Hank, I'm lost on what FrankLopez suggests we do with the Gardiner. Yea, Boston has revitalized the core by having buried their major throughway, but do you know why the call it "the big dig?" Because they are still digging!!! At close to $12 Billion over budget they might as well call it the big Wife, endlessly draining your wallet but never quite satisfied. The Gardiner is a poor urban planning decision that will forever be as Torontonian as Pasteis de Nata’s on West Dundas. The fact of the matter is Frank, that someone is looking at making some serious changes to Toronto's waterfront; and that would be the city of Toronto via the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation (TWRC). Check out their site www.waterfronttotonto.ca. I digress…

Arnold Durps July 11, 2007 at 3:44 p.m.

www.waterfronttoronto.ca

Carney I am Not July 11, 2007 at 4:19 p.m.

I ride the TTC in Toronto all the time. Although I recognize the issues that have been addressed in this discussion as important, I feel we are missing out on another possible issue:

The physical construction of the TCC: the Railing are two wide.

As a person who suffers from an illness that gives me very small hands, and i find the railings extremely challenging to hold on to.

I believe that should not model them for the ease of the average but what about the ease of the few? We do put brail on signs and offer captions on TV, why not consider the interest of people with very small hands? I am not disabled and certainly not a “Carney” but I feel my interests are not being represented