[URBAN NOTE] "Los Angeles vs Toronto: Funding and Building a Transit Network"

[rfmcdonald]

Toronto transit writer Steve Munro compares mass transit in Toronto and area to what's going on in Los Angeles, and finds Toronto lacking Los Angeles' coherent vision of the future.

Thoughts, people? Is this a real contrast/compare, or is Munro just summoning a Los Angeles into existence to contrast to an actually existing Toronto?

Back in early April, John Lorinc wrote in the Globe about the LA transit plan and the funding — a dedicated regional half-percent sales tax — that underpins the whole scheme. Two weeks later, Richard Katz was in Toronto talking about transit funding. Katz is an advisor to Mayor Villaraigosa, chair of the regional commuter rail system, Metrolink, and a member of the LA County Metropolitan Transportation Authority board.

[. . .]

A few key issues need to be mentioned up front:

Political leadership, transparency and inclusiveness are essential. Without a major figure like Mayor Villaraigosa championing the program, transportation improvements and funding for them would never get the broad political support needed. Plans have to be public and their benefits to a wide variety of communities well-understood.
Los Angeles didn’t start to focus on transit yesterday, but started its rapid transit program in the 1990s. At that point, the work was ridiculed in some quarters as a waste of money, but it built the foundation for a broader network.
LA’s half-cent sales tax, the subject of much recent comment in Toronto, is only one of several revenue sources for both capital and operating dollars. Indeed, there were two other half-cent taxes (for a total of 1½%) already in place, and the mechanism is familiar to voters.

Los Angeles County is a huge region of just over 4,000 square miles of which two-thirds is unincorporated even though there are 88 cities within the county. The largest of these is the City of Los Angeles (503 square miles) home to about 40% of the county’s population. By contrast, the City of Toronto is a mere 240 square miles. The City of Toronto’s population density is about 25% higher than the City of Los Angeles, but beyond these boundaries comparisons get tricky depending on what areas one includes as part of the “metropolitan” region.

From a transit planning point of view, both regions contain large areas whose populations and travel patterns are unlikely to be well-served by transit, but which contribute to overall regional demand especially if their population grows.

Los Angeles has been a large city-region for much longer than Toronto and its famous “sprawl” was made possible by a network of steam and electric rail lines, not to mention a large streetcar system. Privately-owned transit lines existed to support real estate development, a model that declined as personal transport became more common.

[. . .]

Richard Katz’ presentation begins with an overview of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Daily ridership is roughly equal to the TTC (which has a much smaller service area and population), although it is more concentrated to peak periods (less than half of TTC riding occurs during the peak). This translates to very different service levels and patterns in LA than we see in Toronto.

The most recent half-percent sales tax came through “Measure R”, a ballot initiative (we would call it a plebiscite or referendum) in the fall 2008 election that was approved by just over 67% of voters (a two-thirds majority was needed to implement a new tax). This tax is expected to generate $36.1-billion from 2010 to 2040 when the tax will expire. Only 35% of the revenue will be dedicated to rail expansion projects, 25% will go to operations and 20% to highway projects. This is an important distinction compared with Toronto where all debate has turned on the funding of transit capital at a time when local municipalities are cutting back on transit operating funding and service. As for highway funding, that’s part of the political reality in LA as the highway network is so important a part of local travel. A transit-only tax would simply not generate enough voter support.

[. . .]

Translating all of this to a GTA context takes some doing, and would have been helped by a comparative overview of the economies, geography and politics of the Los Angeles and Toronto regions. The LA experience shows that if there is a will to take on new revenue sources, then capital and operating investments can follow.

What Toronto lacks is leadership at the municipal and provincial levels. I will turn to the general problem of funding transit and the required scale of investment in my next article.