03-23-2017, 09:47 AM
(03-23-2017, 09:21 AM)MidTowner Wrote: I think that's rightt: the logic was that capital funding would be provided to municipalities for improved transit, so the tax credit was not needed.
I don't know what would have a bigger impact on user behaviour: better service, or a very visible "discount." Maybe it would depend exactly how the money was spent by each jurisdiction.
This is a tricky question, I see both sides, well, two sides, not the third. Providing municipalities money is great, but it's an entirely different policy from discounting transit, which changes people's perception. People love discounts. Still, perhaps increased funding could eventually improve service, which we all know is the most effective way to improve ridership. But it's a long bumpy road.
However, the tax credit wasn't refundable, therefore those who didn't make enough didn't benefit from it. Worse, those who used tickets because they couldn't afford passes, also don't benefit from it. A direct subsidy for those who have the most difficulty affording it would probably be a more egalitarian use of money. Whether it's more effective at increasing use of transit, who knows.
Still, we really should be doing all three.