Newsletter Signup

Transit funding shifted to infrastructure

Council voted to shift an additional percent of gas tax funding from transit to roads. Council amended the federal gas tax split from 70% roads and 30% transit, to 80% roads and 20% transit. This provides an additional $500,000 for roadways resurfacing infrastructure.
Burlington transit bus terminal

Burlington transit bus terminalAt our budget meetings in March, council voted to shift an additional percent of gas tax funding from transit to roads. Council amended the federal gas tax split from 70% roads and 30% transit, to 80% roads and 20% transit. This provides an additional $500,000 for roadways resurfacing infrastructure.

The gas tax money is for intended for transit capital costs (for example, new buses) and does not affect operating funds. In making the vote, council heard that the capital dollars are not needed till 2021.

At the budget meeting, council heard from a number of residents who expressed concern about taking money out of transit to fund roads.

What do you think? What is the best split in gas tax funding for roads and transit – the new one, the previous one, or some other ratio? Please comment below or email your thoughts to me

My Take: I’m a big believer in transit – it’s an investment in our community and a greener future.  However, I did support the shift as a temporary measure to inject much-needed funds into our growing infrastructure gap – and buses use roads as well. We will have an opportunity to review the gas tax ratio at next year’s budget. By that time, we will have the results of the Transit Master Plan review which will provide necessary information on capital needs going forward.

Receive new post notifications by email

6 thoughts on “Transit funding shifted to infrastructure”

  1. Marianne:
    As I have said in the past Burlington is in need of a Transit shift from the elephants presently roaming the streets to small vans equiped to carry the three or four people that occupy the few seats of a Bus needed in a City like Toronto. Here we need small Vans built to carry eight to twelve people on the secondary routes at non rush hour times. (although with proper planning they could handle all times of the day) These vans could be purchased from a manufacturer such as Chrysler, Toyota or any other major manufacturer in a stipped down model without the added extras a Family Van would come wiith. The City could then purchase the same amount of Buses at a fraction of the cost and operate at a much lower overhead due to operating cost and storage due to the difference in size. 

  2. As you say yourself, the gas tax money is intended for ‘transit capital costs’. Yes, buses use roads too, but the roads this money is earmarked for are back streets such as 1st street where buses do not go. As a result, this looks like a piece of sharp practice by the city to take transit money and use it for cleaning up residential streets. If it’s not against the letter of law, it’s certainly against the spirit.

  3. Burlington Transit is an essential service relied on by many of Burlington’s citizens. Better service would attract more people to transit, and that requires more frequent service and longer hours of service on some routes.  The City needs to invest more money from the gas tax on buses in order to provide better service. I hope the reduction of the gas tax split from 30% to 20% for transit is for this year only.

  4. Public transit vehicles are obviously taking a beating on our rough arterial streets. Shocks, suspensions, tires, etc. costs all add up in providing public transit. (Also other City owned vehicles too)
    I am fully in favour of spending gas tax money to make our arterial roads safer, better for transit, and a smoother ride.

  5. Transit isn’t much good if the roads on which it travels fall apart??? My vote would be to spend more money on the roads.

  6. Public transit has to take priority – if the funding was
    earmarked for transit, why is it now up for discussion and diversion to
    road ways – which are the conveyance of transportation not transit?  As
    we know, the city core is subject to higher population as tower blocks
    are constructed – as citizens age and are subjected to the aging
    mobility constraints, public transportation is a must. To encourage its
    use any such funding overages could be use to provide transportation
    discounts or the reintroduction of “Dial-a-Bus” that operated in the

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Here are guidelines before you comment, and our expectations before we will post:

  • Be civil. Would you speak this way to a good friend? If not, rewrite.
  • Focus on the issues. Build your argument and make your case in support of your opinion from facts, research or other sources. That way we can all learn. “I disagree with so-and-so because…” is fine; “So-and-so is naïve/stupid  for thinking the way he/she does and here’s why…” is not acceptable.
  • Don’t make personal attacks. Don’t assume motives of those you disagree with, make unfounded allegations, spread rumours, or engage in any other behaviours that would discourage you from participating if someone said this to, or about, you. The Golden Rule applies: Do unto others as you would have done to you. We will edit or not post comments with this type of content.
  • Say it once: When comments from the same individual or individuals become repetitive, going over ground already stated, we reserve the right to close commenting.
  • Use your full, and real, name. If wish to make a comment in public, we expect you will publicly stand behind it with your name. If you don’t want to publicly reveal your name, that’s fine; you are always welcome to share your thoughts with me privately via my email below. I welcome and consider all feedback in making decisions for the community.
  • Have fun, consider and learn. Share your views and read those of others. May we all benefit from a healthy exchange of ideas, and learn a little more about the people in our community, what you think, and what’s important to each of you. You may end up changing your mind about an issue; even if you don’t, we hope everyone will gain a greater understanding of why people have different perspectives.
Marianne Meed Ward

Marianne Meed Ward

I was inspired to seek public office because I believe, like so many of you, “I can do something about that” on the issues we face. As councilor, my role is to take a stand on what’s best for residents and go to bat for it. Pushback is inevitable from those who don’t have the community’s interests at heart. I will stand with you and for you, to achieve the best interests of our city, without caving to unacceptable compromise in the name of consensus.

Newsletter Sign Up

Phone: 905-335-7607

Media Specialist: John Bkila