Are roads heavily subsidized

[RC8]

Nice try.
What in the world does the price I paid for my car have to do with it? I could own a $100 beater or a $400,000 Bentley and place the same strain on the roads. In fact I could own both or 6 cars but since I can only drive one at a time, the purchase price(s) is irrelevant to the survey.

Exactly. Tell that to the authors of the report that you clearly did not read. That's why I clearly stated - and you quoted me - that we should look at their calculations where they exclude the cost of cars, and draw conclusions from there.

It's funny to see you inadvertently argue for my point and against the report's findings.

 

[TOareaFan]

Exactly. Tell that to the authors of the report that you clearly did not read. That's why I clearly stated - and you quoted me - that we should look at their calculations where they exclude the cost of cars, and draw conclusions from there.

It's funny to see you inadvertently argue for my point and against the report's findings.

I am lost about what you guys are arguing about.

 

[Admiral Beez]

It seems like "car" is being used to describe the users of the highway and road network. I am not sure if the study considered the other users of the road network which benefits society as a whole - and who actually do more physicial harm to the infrastructure than cars do. These include comercial truck, garbage trucks, emergency vehicles, etc., etc.
A one or 2 tonne car creates next to no wear and tear compared to 50 tonne or more trucks with 10 tonne axles.

Now that's a point worthy of discussion. Just in Time inventory management has transfered the cost of holding inventory onto the roads. Have you ever wondered why factories and Wal-Mart or other large retailers do not have huge warehouses? In the old days, trains would service these large freight users.

 

[Glen]

Then there's the question of who these drivers are paying this money to. Is it the municipal governments? Responsible for actually fixing the majority of roads - and pretty much all roads shared with other modes of transport? Nope. Most of what drivers pay goes elsewhere... which means that, at the municipal level, drivers remain highly subsidised compared to other forms of transportation.

Not compared to Public Transit users, they are not.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Not compared to Public Transit users, they are not.

Originally, the land owners had to maintain the road in front of their property. Over time, cities took over the maintenance through property taxes. The wider the road, the more expensive the cost to maintain it. The most expensive roads in Toronto to maintain are the expressways. The Don Valley, the Gardiner, and city streets are NOT maintained by the province, so fuel taxes do not pay for it.

 

[js97]

This is a rediculous argument either way. Public housing is heavily subsidized. Wheel trans is heavily subsidized, our healthcare system is heavily subsidized..
and of course, public transit is heavily subsidized..

what's the point?

 

[spider]

This is a rediculous argument either way. Public housing is heavily subsidized. Wheel trans is heavily subsidized, our healthcare system is heavily subsidized..
and of course, public transit is heavily subsidized..

what's the point?

I think the point is that the general public have been conditioned to think that motorists have been heavily subsidized for all these years and as subsidy sucking scum were a deserving target when other groups such as transit and cycling fans were looking to tax someone other than themselves to finance their needs/desires.

Quelle surprise! It turns out that this perception is not the case. Revenue tools (you know gas tax, parking tax, road tolls, dual registration etc) that up until now have been exclusively aimed at motorists may have to be redirected to the users if fairness is to be recognized.
Let's see.

 

[W. K. Lis]

I think the point is that the general public have been conditioned to think that motorists have been heavily subsidized for all these years and as subsidy sucking scum were a deserving target when other groups such as transit and cycling fans were looking to tax someone other than themselves to finance their needs/desires.

Quelle surprise! It turns out that this perception is not the case. Revenue tools (you know gas tax, parking tax, road tolls, dual registration etc) that up until now have been exclusively aimed at motorists may have to be redirected to the users if fairness is to be recognized.
Let's see.

If the revenue tools go to the province, then they do not pay for maintaining city roads.

 

[TOareaFan]

Originally, the land owners had to maintain the road in front of their property. Over time, cities took over the maintenance through property taxes. The wider the road, the more expensive the cost to maintain it. The most expensive roads in Toronto to maintain are the expressways. The Don Valley, the Gardiner, and city streets are NOT maintained by the province, so fuel taxes do not pay for it.

Maybe that is the most telling thing to come out of this study....some idea over who is paying....+/- how much...and who is getting the money.

The study is clear in its statement that while motorists are paying fees and taxes that represent a very high percentage (in some cases more than 100%) of the cost of providing/maintaining/policing the roads they drive on....the money may not be getting into the hands of the level of government that is charged with providing those services.

Particularly in a city like Toronto/GTA where the study shows that drivers are paying more than the cost but it is, mostly, going to the feds/province while a significant amount of the cost is falling to the regions/cities.

If anything this document is a support document for increased transfer payments from higher level governments to the cities/regions to support their infrastructure.

 

[rbt]

Maybe that is the most telling thing to come out of this study....some idea over who is paying....+/- how much...and who is getting the money.

I don't see how that is relevant. Yes, drivers do pay.

Drivers are also the ones complaining about roadway congestion and want something to be done about it. Another way of wording this, is drivers feel there is not enough infrastructure for moving people around and as a result they are being delayed.

Building extra infrastructure to get cars out of the way of drivers requires additional funding. Since drivers are one of the largest complaining groups, it's not unreasonable for them to chip in on this additional infrastructure that gets cars out of the way of drivers.


The fact that we're building transit instead of additional highways isn't really relevant. We're not demolishing neighbourhoods and nobody is willing to pay $20B for 6 lanes of underground highway. The point of the transit investment is to take cars out of the way of drivers who are willing to pay for a clear. free flowing, roadway.


If drivers don't want to pay more; fine. They can have their increased roadway congestion.

 

[spider]

If drivers don't want to pay more; fine. They can have their increased roadway congestion.

As a driver I agree 100%, I only ask that the same burden be placed on the shoulders of transit users for the same reasons, why not?
Cyclists, here's a thought, if motorists are paying their way why don't you pony up too? I see bikes all over the roads I am paying for as well as the sidewalks. If you don't want to pay your own way then maybe you should be restricted to riding on the sidewalk.
Just kidding but fair is fair.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

As a driver I agree 100%, I only ask that the same burden be placed on the shoulders of transit users for the same reasons, why not?
Cyclists, here's a thought, if motorists are paying their way why don't you pony up too? I see bikes all over the roads I am paying for as well as the sidewalks.

Probably because if we were to collect fees from cyclists, it would cost us more to collect the tax from them then the revenue that is generated.

 

[Adjei]

How would you even collect fees from cyclists? Do we collect fees from little ten year olds riding their bikes on the road?

 

[BurlOak]

As a driver I agree 100%, I only ask that the same burden be placed on the shoulders of transit users for the same reasons, why not?
Cyclists, here's a thought, if motorists are paying their way why don't you pony up too? I see bikes all over the roads I am paying for as well as the sidewalks. If you don't want to pay your own way then maybe you should be restricted to riding on the sidewalk.
Just kidding but fair is fair.

I would not know how to go about this calculation, but I always wonder if bicycles pollute more that cars.

There is a whole bunch of pollution required to pava a road, and then there are very small amounts of pollution produced by each car - and none by bicycle. Now if you divide the paving pollution up in the ratio of 1.5 to 3.25 for bicycle and cars (bike lane = 1.5m, car lane = 3.25m) and divide by the number of users for the life of the road (which is probably several orders of magnitude higher for cars), then it could well be that the bike lane and bikes using them produced more pollution than the car lanes and the cars.

 

[Forgotten]

I would not know how to go about this calculation, but I always wonder if bicycles pollute more that cars.

There is a whole bunch of pollution required to pava a road, and then there are very small amounts of pollution produced by each car - and none by bicycle. Now if you divide the paving pollution up in the ratio of 1.5 to 3.25 for bicycle and cars (bike lane = 1.5m, car lane = 3.25m) and divide by the number of users for the life of the road (which is probably several orders of magnitude higher for cars), then it could well be that the bike lane and bikes using them produced more pollution than the car lanes and the cars.

Don't forget that using a bicycle causes the cyclists to eat more food (more production required) and use more air than they otherwise would (more CO2), causing more greenhouse emissions.