News   Mar 28, 2024
 90     0 
News   Mar 27, 2024
 1.4K     1 
News   Mar 27, 2024
 1.1K     2 

Congestion taxes?

For me personally, I'd be more likely to switch to the TTC if fares were reduced by 50%, than if the cost of driving increased by the same amount. If gas cost $3.00 per litre, I could still afford to drive and for most trips I still would. But if the TTC was free, I'd probably ride the subway 20 extra times a month. It's funny - even though I have an actual car, I still feel like I have more freedom when I have a TTC day pass.
I agree in principal, but it's sort of hard to fund the cheaper fares and increased services without getting the revenue from somewhere else.
 
Drivers aren't paying anywhere near the true cost of the infrastructure required to support this car culture of ours. That has been proven in countless studies. Transit riders are far closer to paying the true costs of their commute.

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean the solution is to punish the other side. I've never said transit users should be paying the whole whack themselves. I just disagree with targeting drivers for that extra money.

In the same way we all contribute to road and highway construction (because it's a public good that we all benefit from) so too should public transit be contributed to by everyone. Drivers already fork over an additional $6 billion in gas taxes.

I think a lot of drivers do have money to spare, but certainly not all. That's not the point here anyway.

Well, that is the point though, isn't it?

It's assumed that with congestion charges people who can't afford to pay the extra fees will be forced to switch to public transit, while those who can afford to pay will continue to do so.

If the issue was extra money, we'd be talking about raising all of our taxes (maybe an extra % added to the PST). But that's not the conversation, we're just talking about raising drivers' taxes as an added punishment for driving.

That may not be what's meant by all of this, but that's definitely the underlying issue.
 
It's assumed that with congestion charges people who can't afford to pay the extra fees will be forced to switch to public transit, while those who can afford to pay will continue to do so.
Or that transit becomes a better option even though they can still afford to drive if they choose. Germans, Brits and the Dutch still love their cars yet they pay a hell of a lot more for the privilege than we do!

If the issue was extra money, we'd be talking about raising all of our taxes (maybe an extra % added to the PST). But that's not the conversation, we're just talking about raising drivers' taxes as an added punishment for driving. That may not be what's meant by all of this, but that's definitely the underlying issue.
I think all ideas are on the table, even though these posted articles are mostly dealing with "congestion taxes." I do have to say though that driving is the most inefficient, polluting and wasteful means of moving large numbers of people. Punishment may not be the right word here, but surely you can recognize why some are calling for them to pay a greater share?
 
Or that transit becomes a better option even though they can still afford to drive if they choose. Germans, Brits and the Dutch still love their cars yet they pay a hell of a lot more for the privilege than we do!

That doesn't mean they have the right idea. And we're certainly not at a place with our public transit that it's a fair comparison.


I think all ideas are on the table, even though these posted articles are mostly dealing with "congestion taxes." I do have to say though that driving is the most inefficient, polluting and wasteful means of moving large numbers of people.

I try to make up for it by not using air conditioning, minimizing jet travel, and owning a small efficient car (which I love dearly)

Punishment may not be the right word here, but surely you can recognize why some are calling for them to pay a greater share?

Which is why they already pay a greater share. Is this detail going to be perpetually missed?
 
I'm all for raising taxes to increase public transit spending. I am not all-for raising the taxes of a small subset of the population.

You have to separate the environmental issue from the transportation issue. They're related now, but they won't always be.

As someone says down thread, all of the options are debated. This is just one. It does have the advantage of being a frequently avoidable tax; not driving does help avoid gas taxes. It is not so avoidable that I, at least, would argue for draconian, European-level taxation on gasoline. Moderately higher gas taxes, if spent on road maintainence and increased transit have the advantage of 1. slightly alleviating congestion (resulting in a return on investment for the ones who still drive) by discouraging driving, and 2. provide positive incentive for those who take transit (by providing increased coverage and better service, and possibly lower fares). There is obviously a level at which the taxes have stopped being a positive return on investment for drivers, and when it is a ludicrous subsisdy for transit takers. I don't think we're close to that, though.


Very. Consider construction costs, administration costs, etc. I wonder what really would come out ahead. I wish it was something like Street-car (which separated from road/street construction might actually be it) but it'll probably turn out to be something unsexy like the Bus.

The bicycle, probably. Kidding aside, I'm fairly certain I rememberreading that it is indeed the Bus, particularly in areas with low ridership. A prius with 4 passengers costs less than a subway used once with four passengers, certainly, so it would take a lot to work out what was less expensive, and would change a lot with the initial assumptions.

On the other hand, does Revenue Canada give a mileage allowance? That is, if you drive for work you can claim X cents per kilometer deduction on taxes? The IRS allows this, and it doesa pretty good job of estimating the cost of insurance, fuel, maintainence and depreciation on the car. That might give half of hte equation.
 
As someone says down thread, all of the options are debated. This is just one. It does have the advantage of being a frequently avoidable tax; not driving does help avoid gas taxes. It is not so avoidable that I, at least, would argue for draconian, European-level taxation on gasoline. Moderately higher gas taxes, if spent on road maintainence and increased transit have the advantage of 1. slightly alleviating congestion (resulting in a return on investment for the ones who still drive) by discouraging driving, and 2. provide positive incentive for those who take transit (by providing increased coverage and better service, and possibly lower fares). There is obviously a level at which the taxes have stopped being a positive return on investment for drivers, and when it is a ludicrous subsisdy for transit takers. I don't think we're close to that, though.

I suppose it comes down to whether you're an optimist or a pessimist. If those dollars were going to go to nothing else but transit improvements (and if the TTC made a real effort to bring its costs inline with the rest of the world) then I'd be super gung-ho. The reality, though, is that more than this is already deducted from drivers' pockets and it just goes to fund pet projects, and seldom (if ever) finds its way back into transportation. I see no reason to believe this new tax won't operate the same way.

The easiest answer to all of this (and will have the eventual result of lessening congestion) is to use the money already collected for its rightful purpose. If we need more after that, then we'll talk.
 
I suppose it comes down to whether you're an optimist or a pessimist. If those dollars were going to go to nothing else but transit improvements (and if the TTC made a real effort to bring its costs inline with the rest of the world) then I'd be super gung-ho.

I tend to aim for cynic, really. I don't tend to believe that increasing road size decreases congestion, fwiw. Improving the conditions of the roads does, though.

The easiest answer to all of this (and will have the eventual result of lessening congestion) is to use the money already collected for its rightful purpose. If we need more after that, then we'll talk.

You've mentioned this before, and I think I'm missing something. Are you stating that extant gasoline taxes go to something other than roads and transit? It sounds like you aren't opposed to using gas taxes to fund transit, but that you take the reasonable stance that it shouldn't go beyond transportation. Or am I missing something?

What else are gas taxes being spent on?
 
You've mentioned this before, and I think I'm missing something. Are you stating that extant gasoline taxes go to something other than roads and transit? It sounds like you aren't opposed to using gas taxes to fund transit, but that you take the reasonable stance that it shouldn't go beyond transportation. Or am I missing something?

What else are gas taxes being spent on?

From the great wikipedia (it's milage may vary):
"The Government of Canada collects about $5 billion per year in excise taxes on gasoline, diesel, and aviation fuel as well as approximately $1.6 billion per year from GST revenues on gasoline and diesel (net of input tax credits).

Collectively, the provincial governments collect approximately C$8 billion per year from excise taxes on gasoline and diesel.

Taxes collected by the federal government do not get reserved for any specific program. However, provincial taxes usually go to fund road repair and construction with a portion also being directly downloaded to municipalities.[3]"

Ontario seems to collect about $3 billion in gas tax. It's broken down here

At a glance, it doesn't seem to add up to $3 billion.

That's already a lot of money.
 
A proposal for free transit in NYC.

http://secondavenuesagas.com/

Kheel: The subways could be free, but…
Published on January 25th, 2008 in Congestion Fee, MTA Economics.

Theodore Kheel, the 93-year-old public advocate with a lot of money and a hate of traffic, unveiled his much-anticipated transit fare-congestion pricing report on Thursday. The report — entitled Balancing: Free Transit and Congestion Pricing in New York City — is the culmination of an 11-month, $100,000 effort funded by Kheel.

The plan itself is audacious and thorough. Theoretically, it would work perfectly, and I love it for its promise and all that it could represent for the future of the MTA. Too bad it will never happen.

First, the details. You can read the whole thing right here. It’s a 55-page PDF file, but it reads fast.

Kheel’s plan proposes a massive increase in the congestion fee. He wants to charge cars $16 and trucks $32 at all times to enter Manhattan south of 60th St. But that’s not all; the proposal also calls for medallion cab fares to increase by 25 percent and for curbside parking in the Manhattan Central Business district and outside of the zone to go up to as much as $4. This way, there is no incentive for people to drive to the edge of the congestion zone and park for below-market rates.

Now, here’s the brilliant trade-off. All of this money will go toward public transit. And not only just toward public transit but for making public transit 100 percent free. As Kheel’s analysis shows, by implementing his plan, traffic would decrease by 25 percent in the central business district and nine percent outside of it, and public transit would receive a dedicated source of funding that far exceeds what they currently draw in through the fare box and what they plan to draw in through the relatively modest fare hike. Based on the models, the subways would draw in an additional $700 million a year that could go toward improving the system.

From a productivity perspective, Kheel’s plan is rife with results. Besides the decrease in traffic, mobility in the city would go up. People who choose to venture into the congestion zone will find their trips easier; people outside of the zone will notice the decreased traffic as well. The city on the hole should save $4 billion in productivity lost to traffic and approximately 100 million vehicle hours. Fewer cars would allow the city to dedicate more space to wider sidewalks, dedicated bike lanes, and a well-implemented bus rapid transit plan — which is a key part to the Kheel plan as many former drivers would turn to BRT lines in the non-subway accessible parts of the Outer Boroughs.

Now, the obvious answers as far as we’re concerned involve potentially crowded and insecure subways. Won’t free transit mean more vagrants and vandals in the trains? Won’t it also mean a massive increase in the volume of people riding the subway? To these questions, Kheel responds worry not.

First, Kheel notes that a lot of the traffic in the city is brought on by off-peak users who don’t want to turn to a slower subway system. The congestion pricing should add an estimated 28,000 commuters to the rush hour trains and more to off-peak, underutilized (in that they aren’t packed to the gills) trains. Meanwhile, Kheel figures that a good number of people will switch to the speedier commuter rails and those folks living close to the CBD will simply bike instead of taking the train. In fact, he estimates that the subways would see an initial net loss of 5000 commuters. Considering that nearly 8 million people a day ride the trains, those numbers are insignificant.

As for the safety of it, Kheel’s plan has it more that covered. Transit workers currently tasked with fare-related jobs can turn their attention to safety, for one. Furthermore, with $700 million in extra revenue, the MTA can finally get to outfitting the cars and stations with security devices, and the MTA and NYPD can hire more officers to patrol the trains.

To make matters better, Kheel’s plan scales as well. Charge $16 but don’t implement it 24/7, and transit fares could decrease by 80 percent. Charge $12 24/7, and the fares could decrease by 75 percent. These other plans however cut into the traffic-alleviation part of it. Kheel’s researches include a very detailed chart with a few alternatives on page 13 of the report.

So with this topline summary in mind — and I really do urge you to read the report — let’s go back to the beginning. Once a skeptic, I love this plan, but it will never happen for the simple reason that it would be political suicide for any elected official to support a $16, 24/7 congestion fee plan even if it makes economic and environmental sense for the city. And forget the plans to raise curbside parking to $4 an hour.

People in New York City are, stupidly, married to their cars. They demand below-market, on-street parking. They demand access to roads at the expense of wide sidewalks and bike lanes. They demand access to roads at the expense of common-sense bus rapid transit lanes. They demand the right to drive as though it were protected by the Constitution, and this is simply a misguided and harmful attitude.

For New York City to remain a thriving, viable city long into the 21st Century, we have to leave behind 20th Century conceptions of travel and personal space. As much as I hate to preach about this, automobiles in vast urban areas are a dying breed. We can’t widen the city roads to accommodate the cars, and anyway, widening roads simply leads to more traffic. Our nation refuses to adopt clean-air technology for cars in a timely fashion so in order to combat urban smog, politicians are turning to a highly-contentious congestion fee.

Opponents, meanwhile, turn this congestion fee fight into a populist battle. We can’t let the politicians curtail our right to drive, they say, pointing out how it affects the middle and lower classes more than the upper classes. Well, guess what? The middle and lower classes don’t own cars and would be much better served with a free transit system that enjoys a $700 million annual operating surplus.

But sadly, the ideal society where a Kheel plan could pass because it would negatively impact the people who could afford and positively impact the people who need it doesn’t exist. Ted Kheel should be applauded for his vision, and his plan deserves as much attention as anything under consideration now. It’s groundbreaking; it’s visionary; it would work; and it just won’t happen.
 
Drivers aren't paying anywhere near the true cost of the infrastructure required to support this car culture of ours. That has been proven in countless studies. Transit riders are far closer to paying the true costs of their commute.

I think a lot of drivers do have money to spare, but certainly not all. That's not the point here anyway.

IIRC, many of those studies fail in the methods they attribute those costs. It has been some time since I read some, though, if I remember correctly most simply divide the cost on a per-person basis. Split among private vehicles and transit users. They fail to account for the inherent fixed costs.

Even if Toronto banned private transportation completely they could not avoid the capital cost of building roads. Public transportation requires the use of these road, so does emergency vehicles. It is much to simplistic to suggest that large capital cost are proportional to utilization.
 
It's been a while since I've read any of those studies either, but I'm sure some are measured the way you suggested (which may produce skewed results), however I'm sure others take into account the inherent fixed costs.
 
Strong premier would steer toward road tolls
Toronto Star
Christopher Hume


So Premier Dalton McGuinty agrees with the advisory panel that says Toronto needs a strong mayor. Too bad it didn't also demand a strong premier.

With the exception of Bill Davis, no premier has done more for this city, or grasped the fact that Ontario is an essentially urban province, than McGuinty. Before he was first elected he met with the late Jane Jacobs and since then has introduced legislative changes that, though timid and inadequate, recognize Toronto is a big city with unique needs.

But unlike his Progressive Conservative predecessor, McGuinty remains unwilling to grapple with the issue of cars, highways and cities. Davis, who stopped the Spadina Expressway, said no to those who would have had us believe that increased mobility was just a matter of adding another 10 lanes of asphalt.

By flatly rejecting the same panel's proposal to put tolls on the 400-series highways, the Don Valley Parkway and the QEW, McGuinty has shown himself less a leader than a politician.

In saying no to Spadina, Davis turned down an idea that, although appealing at the time, would reveal itself to be enormously destructive. The notion of ramming highways through urban neighbourhoods made sense to many then, but today, few would agree. From Boston and Oslo to Seoul and New York, highways are being dismantled. A few years ago, there was even talk here about taking down the Gardiner. That went nowhere.

Regardless, road tolls are an idea whose time has come. In fact, they represent a continuation of the process started by Davis 30 years ago. This may not be a majority position yet in these parts, but experience around the globe tells us they reduce traffic and cleanse the air. They also raise money that can help pay for transit. That's why they will happen; it's only a matter of time.

Three decades ago, Ontario could claim to be in the vanguard of change; now it seems we occupy the rearguard, reluctant even to follow until forced by circumstances to do so.

If the past is any indication, McGuinty's argument against tolls (and that of Toronto Mayor David Miller) is that neither the province nor the city have provided an alternative to highway driving. In other words, they insist, public transit is inadequate.

Of course, public transit is something they plan to get around to any decade now. Until then, the status quo will have to do. We really have no choice, they say, but to remain in the past.

If Davis had used the same logic, the Spadina Expressway would have been built. Taking care of vested interests should not be confused with doing the right thing.

The implications of McGuinty's most progressive legislation – the Places to Grow Act, Greenbelt, City of Toronto Act, etc. – lead inevitably to road tolls. However limited, they represent an attempt to control sprawl and empower the city.

Tolls won't make McGuinty popular with large numbers of Ontarians, but by the government's own logic, they are the right way to go.

As has often been noted, the price of democracy is bad government, but in an age of global warming, which McGuinty himself has called "one of our greatest challenges," that's a cop-out.

As the premier has also noted, we need to take action. Road tolls would be a good place to start. But they're not for the faint of heart. Introducing tolls will require courage and commitment, which means they're not likely to happen until it's too late and there's no other choice.

Christopher Hume can be reached at chume@thestar.ca
 
NYC Kheel plan:

As someone who does business in Manhattan on a regular business and has missed the last Air Canada flight out on occasion because of the crush of cars that cannot be described, this is a refreshing idea.

Think how it would work for Toronto.

It's worth a trial, I think.
 

Back
Top