TKTKTK
Senior Member
Sorry, is this showing that more money is being spent on road infrastructure than is coming in? Or just that the Federal government isn't pulling its fair weight when it comes to releasing tax revenue?
|
|
|
Congestion taxes?
- Thread starter isittimetomoveyet
- Start date
Sorry, is this showing that more money is being spent on road infrastructure than is coming in? Or just that the Federal government isn't pulling its fair weight when it comes to releasing tax revenue?
JasonParis
Moderator
Tolls strike fear, loathing in hearts of car junkies
Toronto Star
January 23, 2008
Christopher Hume
Canada and Ontario have grown old before their time. Compared to other nations we are young, not even middle-aged, but as a culture we have become tired and sclerotic, slow to respond and slower still to act.
Evidence is everywhere around us. It can be seen in our failure to keep pace with the rest of the world in everything from environmental policy to self-governance.
The most recent example was the unseemly rush at Queen's Park to dismiss the report prepared by Trent University economist Harry Kitchen. Provincial politicians lined up to dump on a document that essentially proposes that those who use Ontario highways should pay for the privilege.
Public transit riders have been familiar with the concept since the beginning; they're called fares, and everyone who rides the rails pays them. In Toronto, fares on the much-unfunded TTC rank among the highest in North America.
But for some reason, those who ride the roads have always been exempt from almost any sort of user fee beyond gas taxes, which, conveniently, are about half what they are in Europe and much of the civilized world. (This doesn't include the U.S., a country so addicted to petroleum that even failed oilman-turned-president George W. Bush admits his people need help.)
That's why long faces greeted Kitchen's suggestion that we might want to consider putting tolls on the 400-series highways and others including the QEW, the Don Valley Parkway and the Gardiner Expressway. He also proposes increasing the fuel tax. And in a move that can be counted on to strike fear and loathing into the heart of every driver in the region, Kitchen recommends municipalities levy a tax on non-residential parking spaces. About time, too.
In many parts of the world, such notions are acceptable, if not popular, because they're necessary. By reducing the number of cars and trucks, we help clean the air and alleviate the growing congestion crisis. It's true the other side of this coin is adequate public transit, something we let go 30 years ago. But as Kitchen argues, the $1 billion-plus raised by the taxes could go straight to the Better Way(s).
For now, those charged with the responsibility for updating provincial transit, people such as Metrolinx chair Rob MacIsaac, have next to nothing to show for their efforts. But then, their real job is to fiddle while Queen's Park burns.
That means smiling a lot, going to conferences, saying the right things and travelling to Madrid to find out how that city manages to build subways at one-quarter what it costs us. Dig a little deeper, though, and it's clear that that's just how Ontario wants it; keep the cost of public transit as high as possible to justify the lack of alternatives. In other words, in this province we can't afford not to drive everywhere. We'd love more subways and an expanded GO system, but they're just too expensive.
And as for Kitchen's proposals, well we can't afford those either. So says no less an expert than former finance minister Greg Sorbara.
"I wouldn't be one who would be recommending increasing taxes," he declared, obviously unaware his logic was as clumsy as his syntax.
Bottom liner, bottom feeder, what's the difference?
Just as we can't afford public transit, we can't afford less pollution, less congestion, smarter environmental laws, improved quality of life or a better future.
Why? Because if we did any of those, that would mean we couldn't afford to pay for parking, highways or gasoline. It's one or the other, they tell us, and in Canada we know what that means.
Christopher Hume can be reached at chume@thestar.ca
Toronto Star
January 23, 2008
Christopher Hume
Canada and Ontario have grown old before their time. Compared to other nations we are young, not even middle-aged, but as a culture we have become tired and sclerotic, slow to respond and slower still to act.
Evidence is everywhere around us. It can be seen in our failure to keep pace with the rest of the world in everything from environmental policy to self-governance.
The most recent example was the unseemly rush at Queen's Park to dismiss the report prepared by Trent University economist Harry Kitchen. Provincial politicians lined up to dump on a document that essentially proposes that those who use Ontario highways should pay for the privilege.
Public transit riders have been familiar with the concept since the beginning; they're called fares, and everyone who rides the rails pays them. In Toronto, fares on the much-unfunded TTC rank among the highest in North America.
But for some reason, those who ride the roads have always been exempt from almost any sort of user fee beyond gas taxes, which, conveniently, are about half what they are in Europe and much of the civilized world. (This doesn't include the U.S., a country so addicted to petroleum that even failed oilman-turned-president George W. Bush admits his people need help.)
That's why long faces greeted Kitchen's suggestion that we might want to consider putting tolls on the 400-series highways and others including the QEW, the Don Valley Parkway and the Gardiner Expressway. He also proposes increasing the fuel tax. And in a move that can be counted on to strike fear and loathing into the heart of every driver in the region, Kitchen recommends municipalities levy a tax on non-residential parking spaces. About time, too.
In many parts of the world, such notions are acceptable, if not popular, because they're necessary. By reducing the number of cars and trucks, we help clean the air and alleviate the growing congestion crisis. It's true the other side of this coin is adequate public transit, something we let go 30 years ago. But as Kitchen argues, the $1 billion-plus raised by the taxes could go straight to the Better Way(s).
For now, those charged with the responsibility for updating provincial transit, people such as Metrolinx chair Rob MacIsaac, have next to nothing to show for their efforts. But then, their real job is to fiddle while Queen's Park burns.
That means smiling a lot, going to conferences, saying the right things and travelling to Madrid to find out how that city manages to build subways at one-quarter what it costs us. Dig a little deeper, though, and it's clear that that's just how Ontario wants it; keep the cost of public transit as high as possible to justify the lack of alternatives. In other words, in this province we can't afford not to drive everywhere. We'd love more subways and an expanded GO system, but they're just too expensive.
And as for Kitchen's proposals, well we can't afford those either. So says no less an expert than former finance minister Greg Sorbara.
"I wouldn't be one who would be recommending increasing taxes," he declared, obviously unaware his logic was as clumsy as his syntax.
Bottom liner, bottom feeder, what's the difference?
Just as we can't afford public transit, we can't afford less pollution, less congestion, smarter environmental laws, improved quality of life or a better future.
Why? Because if we did any of those, that would mean we couldn't afford to pay for parking, highways or gasoline. It's one or the other, they tell us, and in Canada we know what that means.
Christopher Hume can be reached at chume@thestar.ca
unimaginative2
Senior Member
An excellent column by Hume, but Sorbara obviously has a point. People were polled again and again, and strong majorities always said that they would be willing to pay an additional tax if it went to fund health care, at the time Canadians' top priority. Then, he actually did it, and everyone knows what happened.
JasonParis
Moderator
Why were all the papers using Sobara quotes regarding this anyway? It's not like he has a major say on this anymore.
H
Hydrogen
Guest
The 400 series highways should be tolled to provide funding for those highways. Money otherwise earmarked for these highways should then be diverted to transit.
I don't think that tolls should be set up like guard posts around only the city. The system of highways should be polled equitably.
I don't think that tolls should be set up like guard posts around only the city. The system of highways should be polled equitably.
isittimetomoveyet
Active Member
Good article by Hume, although I am not sure his type of sarcasm is effective, but I agree with his points.
Clearly, we need to do something. The subsidization factor (comparing investments for public transit as opposed to roads and highways) is huge, and this argument needs to be articulated a lot better.
I couldn't agree more with the paper. Gas in Europe is sometimes 2 - 5 times more expensive than ours, and yet, somehow, they manage to survive. It drives me crazy that the fear mongering about this stuff still goes on.
I think the key here is consistency and fairness. But to what end? A toll on every stretch of the highway system in the province? Or just within a 100 km radius of Toronto, and within the downtown core?
I would really like to see someone show some balls and put this through. I'm curious what the official Metrolinx stance on this would be. I believe I have heard that Metrolinx has tossed around the idea...but they have no power! Argh!!!
Clearly, we need to do something. The subsidization factor (comparing investments for public transit as opposed to roads and highways) is huge, and this argument needs to be articulated a lot better.
I couldn't agree more with the paper. Gas in Europe is sometimes 2 - 5 times more expensive than ours, and yet, somehow, they manage to survive. It drives me crazy that the fear mongering about this stuff still goes on.
I think the key here is consistency and fairness. But to what end? A toll on every stretch of the highway system in the province? Or just within a 100 km radius of Toronto, and within the downtown core?
I would really like to see someone show some balls and put this through. I'm curious what the official Metrolinx stance on this would be. I believe I have heard that Metrolinx has tossed around the idea...but they have no power! Argh!!!
TKTKTK
Senior Member
Right. And less pollution, less congestion, smarter environmental laws, and improved quality of life, or a better future should obviously be funded out of drivers' pockets.
If the province wants more money for public transit, raise taxes - don't foist it on the shoulders of a few to benefit the many. There seems to be some strange belief that drivers have money to spare, and should be ponying up that extra money to benefit others.
It's lazy to always look for the punitive answer to the problem, which is exactly what "make driving more expensive so that fewer people can do it, and are forced to change their ways" is. If transit is cheaper and more convenient, people will naturally choose it - you don't need to falsely make it more attractive by scuzzying up the rest of the universe.
As an aside, what IS the cheapest way to move people from point A to B? Is it streetcar, subway, bus, car-share, car-pool...what?
afransen
Senior Member
Currently, demand for highway lane-space exceeds supply, at least at times. Observe:
The way to correct this market failure is to put a price on the use of highway lane-space. Pretty simple. Sure, it's an additional cost, but it means that when you need to get from point A to B quickly by car, you can probably get there without languishing in traffic. Off-peak travel would/should remain quite cheap. In the grand scheme of things, this is hardly an onerous tax, and it could probably do more to change the pattern of development in this city than the last 8 or so reports on the matter.
The way to correct this market failure is to put a price on the use of highway lane-space. Pretty simple. Sure, it's an additional cost, but it means that when you need to get from point A to B quickly by car, you can probably get there without languishing in traffic. Off-peak travel would/should remain quite cheap. In the grand scheme of things, this is hardly an onerous tax, and it could probably do more to change the pattern of development in this city than the last 8 or so reports on the matter.
J
justin
Guest
Well, the discussion is about raising taxes. It is about an additional 6% tax, or .06 per litre on gasoline. To put this in perspective, someone who drives 20,000km/year in an average car would pay $120 a year. Will you feel better if they raise metro passes the same $10 a month? The pollution, congestion and worse future are being, in part, caused by those drivers. Who else should pay for it?
Cheapest how? Total energy cost? Marginal cost? Marginal cost per passenger mile? Lowest negative externality? Is the value of the persons time taken into account, and if so, at what rate? It's a tough question to answer.
Hipster Duck
Senior Member
Excellent point, and the sad part is that they did exactly that: gouge transit users by an extra $10/month.
tempperm
New Member
TKTKTK
Senior Member
Currently, demand for highway lane-space exceeds supply, at least at times. Observe:
I understand your point, even if that isn't a Canadian highway.
There are a few things wrong with your suggestion.
1) It isn't up to us to decide whether people should want to sit in traffic or not. If they do, let them. If they don't, they'll figure out a solution. If the issue is environmental, we should be lobbying for stricter environmental controls (something we should have been screaming for AGES ago).
2) A tariff isn't the only way to control behaviour, it's just one of the easiest and most obvious. We could put something in place that only allows drivers to use the highway 4 out of 5 business days, or 3 out of 5 if you want to be extreme.
3) Few taxes are onerous on their own. Combined with the taxes already collected (though not properly used) for this purpose, and you start to have an unnecessary and unfair burden.
At the end of the day though, it's obvious the main point in this conversation is how we can justify extracting more money from an assumed-to-be-flush demographic, rather than how we can fairly and effectively reduce congestion.
TKTKTK
Senior Member
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.
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.
JasonParis
Moderator
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.
Chuck
Senior Member
I prefer incentives rather than decentives. The way to get people onto transit is by improving service, decreasing waits, lowering fares, and expanding service. It would be much better if ridership increased because people were attracted to transit, rather than because they were turned off of driving and had to settle for the bus.
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.
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.