Grand River Transit

[danbrotherston]

I mean...is that an excuse?

The money has to come from somewhere. Are you volunteering to contribute?

That being said, it does seem like a good policy, and as a political matter I think I’d be in favour.

I mean...yes...in that my taxes (or at least, if I lived in the city) should pay for it.

Our government should be making these good decisions.

[plam]

I mean...yes...in that my taxes (or at least, if I lived in the city) should pay for it.

Our government should be making these good decisions.

Should be but GRT gets given a budget amount and it's kind of a zero sum game within that amount... RC should fund it.

[taylortbb]

I mean...yes...in that my taxes (or at least, if I lived in the city) should pay for it.

Our government should be making these good decisions.

Should be but GRT gets given a budget amount and it's kind of a zero sum game within that amount... RC should fund it.

If GRT was operated as a transit commission, like the TTC is, then it would be as you describe. However, GRT is operated directly by the region, which comes with upsides and downsides.

As an upside, it's not really a zero sum game with the GRT budget because there is no separate GRT budget, just a regional budget. If ridership is lower than forecast that budget gap doesn't necessarily come out of the GRT budget. A promotion like free NYE fare costs the region money, but it doesn't have to come out of the GRT budget, or require coordination across two agencies (the transit commission and the municipal government).

As a downside, it's not really a zero sum game with the GRT budget because there is no separate GRT budget, just a regional budget. If ridership is higher than forecast, the budget surplus gets returned to the general regional pool, and likely not spent on transit-related things. It might even get spent on road expansion.

I've talked to senior regional staff about this situation, and they feel that it's better to keep GRT as a directly operated service for now so that route planning can be more deeply integrated with the rest of the planning department. Especially given ION construction/expansion (I last had these conversations pre-ION opening). But it does cause internal friction, as it means GRT planning and operations are somewhat separated from each other, and the feedback from one to the other isn't as good as it would be if they were under a single a transit commission, which had more autonomy to make service adjustments. My understanding is that the current structure has a single planning group, which has effectively two separate "contractors" operating their schedules, GRT bus operations and Keolis LRT operations.

[danbrotherston]

Should be but GRT gets given a budget amount and it's kind of a zero sum game within that amount... RC should fund it.

If GRT was operated as a transit commission, like the TTC is, then it would be as you describe. However, GRT is operated directly by the region, which comes with upsides and downsides.

As an upside, it's not really a zero sum game with the GRT budget because there is no separate GRT budget, just a regional budget. If ridership is lower than forecast that budget gap doesn't necessarily come out of the GRT budget. A promotion like free NYE fare costs the region money, but it doesn't have to come out of the GRT budget, or require coordination across two agencies (the transit commission and the municipal government).

As a downside, it's not really a zero sum game with the GRT budget because there is no separate GRT budget, just a regional budget. If ridership is higher than forecast, the budget surplus gets returned to the general regional pool, and likely not spent on transit-related things. It might even get spent on road expansion.

I've talked to senior regional staff about this situation, and they feel that it's better to keep GRT as a directly operated service for now so that route planning can be more deeply integrated with the rest of the planning department. Especially given ION construction/expansion (I last had these conversations pre-ION opening). But it does cause internal friction, as it means GRT planning and operations are somewhat separated from each other, and the feedback from one to the other isn't as good as it would be if they were under a single a transit commission, which had more autonomy to make service adjustments. My understanding is that the current structure has a single planning group, which has effectively two separate "contractors" operating their schedules, GRT bus operations and Keolis LRT operations.

Thanks for the deep insight here.

FWIW...I'm inclined to agree with staff...but I don't think GRT even maximizes it's integration with the region. I do think this is a weakness with Metrolinx...it has no relationship with MTO which means MTO infra rarely ever facilitates GO Transit buses....I guess they get bus lanes sometimes...but even signal priority seems a challenge.

[bravado]

Should be but GRT gets given a budget amount and it's kind of a zero sum game within that amount... RC should fund it.

If GRT was operated as a transit commission, like the TTC is, then it would be as you describe. However, GRT is operated directly by the region, which comes with upsides and downsides.

As an upside, it's not really a zero sum game with the GRT budget because there is no separate GRT budget, just a regional budget. If ridership is lower than forecast that budget gap doesn't necessarily come out of the GRT budget. A promotion like free NYE fare costs the region money, but it doesn't have to come out of the GRT budget, or require coordination across two agencies (the transit commission and the municipal government).

As a downside, it's not really a zero sum game with the GRT budget because there is no separate GRT budget, just a regional budget. If ridership is higher than forecast, the budget surplus gets returned to the general regional pool, and likely not spent on transit-related things. It might even get spent on road expansion.

I've talked to senior regional staff about this situation, and they feel that it's better to keep GRT as a directly operated service for now so that route planning can be more deeply integrated with the rest of the planning department. Especially given ION construction/expansion (I last had these conversations pre-ION opening). But it does cause internal friction, as it means GRT planning and operations are somewhat separated from each other, and the feedback from one to the other isn't as good as it would be if they were under a single a transit commission, which had more autonomy to make service adjustments. My understanding is that the current structure has a single planning group, which has effectively two separate "contractors" operating their schedules, GRT bus operations and Keolis LRT operations.

Useless complaint time: What makes me angry about this discussion/reality is that nobody is tracking the "ridership" on our roads after they get built and the infrastructure maintenance bills start to roll in. It's only a problem when not enough people don't cram into a bus and the people living on empty over-built roads get mad about the cost.

[danbrotherston]

If GRT was operated as a transit commission, like the TTC is, then it would be as you describe. However, GRT is operated directly by the region, which comes with upsides and downsides.

As an upside, it's not really a zero sum game with the GRT budget because there is no separate GRT budget, just a regional budget. If ridership is lower than forecast that budget gap doesn't necessarily come out of the GRT budget. A promotion like free NYE fare costs the region money, but it doesn't have to come out of the GRT budget, or require coordination across two agencies (the transit commission and the municipal government).

As a downside, it's not really a zero sum game with the GRT budget because there is no separate GRT budget, just a regional budget. If ridership is higher than forecast, the budget surplus gets returned to the general regional pool, and likely not spent on transit-related things. It might even get spent on road expansion.

I've talked to senior regional staff about this situation, and they feel that it's better to keep GRT as a directly operated service for now so that route planning can be more deeply integrated with the rest of the planning department. Especially given ION construction/expansion (I last had these conversations pre-ION opening). But it does cause internal friction, as it means GRT planning and operations are somewhat separated from each other, and the feedback from one to the other isn't as good as it would be if they were under a single a transit commission, which had more autonomy to make service adjustments. My understanding is that the current structure has a single planning group, which has effectively two separate "contractors" operating their schedules, GRT bus operations and Keolis LRT operations.

Useless complaint time: What makes me angry about this discussion/reality is that nobody is tracking the "ridership" on our roads after they get built and the infrastructure maintenance bills start to roll in. It's only a problem when not enough people don't cram into a bus and the people living on empty over-built roads get mad about the cost.

They do track VMT....but there is never a question when there is too little, only because drivers do not pay. Only when there is too much, then it's time for more money.

But ultimately I think a lot of financial discussions miss the point. Roads cost us tons...but do you count the cost of private parking lots when you estimate the cost of roads...those are real costs incurred because of car dependence, but how do you account that?

I think the more valuable strategy is to talk holistically about the type of places we want. I always hate it when they do shitty business case analyses at Metrolinx, they are so utterly incomplete, it's basically just something you make up to justify what you want.

[plam]

If GRT was operated as a transit commission, like the TTC is, then it would be as you describe. However, GRT is operated directly by the region, which comes with upsides and downsides.

Wow, that's interesting to know... huh.

[ac3r]

Waterloo Region asked to offer free transit for children under 12, seniors: https://www.therecord.com/news/council/2...niors.html

[ac3r]

Waterloo Region asked to offer free transit for children under 12, seniors: https://www.therecord.com/news/council/2...niors.html

I certainly support it. And I also think the region should offer free transit to the homeless (if they can somehow prove they are...not sure how they'd do that however) rather than discounted fares. It would facilitate them with finding a job (and then getting to it), seeing family and friends who can act like social supports, going to psychiatric or social support obligations and potentially get them out of downtown to a better designed, maintained and secured (24/7 security) encampments the region is attempting to get operational. Many complained the proposals are too far away and that is very true, so maybe having free transit for them to get to ones further away and would hopefully lessen the size and number of the shanty and tent towns they've got set up.

[ijmorlan]

Waterloo Region asked to offer free transit for children under 12, seniors: https://www.therecord.com/news/council/2...niors.html

I certainly support it. And I also think the region should offer free transit to the homeless (if they can somehow prove they are...not sure how they'd do that however) rather than discounted fares. It would facilitate them with finding a job (and then getting to it), seeing family and friends who can act like social supports, going to psychiatric or social support obligations and potentially get them out of downtown to a better designed, maintained and secured (24/7 security) encampments the region is attempting to get operational. Many complained the proposals are too far away and that is very true, so maybe having free transit for them to get to ones further away and would hopefully lessen the size and number of the shanty and tent towns they've got set up.

Of course, this would further increase the effective marginal tax rate applying to low-income people.

Also, I hope it’s obvious that you would need to design the program in such a way that one could not simply hang out on the LRT all day.

[tomh009]

I certainly support it. And I also think the region should offer free transit to the homeless (if they can somehow prove they are...not sure how they'd do that however) rather than discounted fares. It would facilitate them with finding a job (and then getting to it), seeing family and friends who can act like social supports, going to psychiatric or social support obligations and potentially get them out of downtown to a better designed, maintained and secured (24/7 security) encampments the region is attempting to get operational. Many complained the proposals are too far away and that is very true, so maybe having free transit for them to get to ones further away and would hopefully lessen the size and number of the shanty and tent towns they've got set up.

Of course, this would further increase the effective marginal tax rate applying to low-income people.

What would increase the tax rate? I don't think free transit would be taxable, would it?

[danbrotherston]

Of course, this would further increase the effective marginal tax rate applying to low-income people.

What would increase the tax rate? I don't think free transit would be taxable, would it?

I assume the point was that funding free transit would increase the tax rate...which is not unreasonable I don't think.

(I of course, would fund such projects by cutting things like our roads budget, but that's just me).

[tomh009]

What would increase the tax rate? I don't think free transit would be taxable, would it?

I assume the point was that funding free transit would increase the tax rate...which is not unreasonable I don't think.

(I of course, would fund such projects by cutting things like our roads budget, but that's just me).

OK, so property taxes, not income taxes (marginal rates typically refer to income taxation) ... but I think the effective cost of offering free transit passes rather than discounted passes to low-income people would be minimal in terms of increasing property taxes. I don't have numbers handy but I think the impact would be in the low tenths of one per cent.

[danbrotherston]

I assume the point was that funding free transit would increase the tax rate...which is not unreasonable I don't think.

(I of course, would fund such projects by cutting things like our roads budget, but that's just me).

OK, so property taxes, not income taxes (marginal rates typically refer to income taxation) ... but I think the effective cost of offering free transit passes rather than discounted passes to low-income people would be minimal in terms of increasing property taxes.  I don't have numbers handy but I think the impact would be in the low tenths of one per cent.

I would generally agree. I also disagree that we "have" to increase taxes...I believe there's plenty of money in the budget...we just need to allocate it more effectively.

But challenging the status quo is not something our government has been overly willing to do.

[taylortbb]

Of course, this would further increase the effective marginal tax rate applying to low-income people.

What would increase the tax rate? I don't think free transit would be taxable, would it?

I think the point is that the marginal increase in going from homeless to housed-but-low-income would now be larger. Someone making that transition would, in addition to suddenly having to pay for rent, also effectively have their taxes (in the form of transit user fees) raised. I believe the suggestion is that free transit should perhaps be more gradually phased out.