"Businesses Fleeing to the 905"

[Dichotomy]

A no-fee public service is always going to be used to its limits. The answer is road tolls coupled with investment in alternatives. I'm sure the Board of Trade appreciates this



That's just more convenience. Taking kids to clubs and soccers, etc. only requires a car when these things are spread out too far and there no convenient transit to get to them. When brownies meet at the public school 2-4 blocks away driving is neither necessary, nor appealing. If your 12 year old doesn't have to cross a bunch of 6 lane nightmares to get to soccer practice, then she can go on her bike rather than relying on parental chauffeurs.

The more these 'social engineers' force the priorities of the car on our communities, the more difficult it becomes.

The 6 billion in gasoline taxes collected by the government is hardly chump change. The $3,500 in taxes I paid when I bought my car is hardly chump change. Every time I fill my tank, I pay $25 or so in taxes: hardly a free ride. How much do cyclists pay to occupy the same road gasoline taxes paid for?
Parents I know escort their children to events because of fear of crazy people out there, not the traffic. Would you let your 10 year old come home from Scouts on the TTC alone at night - downtown or in Birchcliffe? Have you taken kids to soccer or hockey? Try dragging the hockey bags and crap on a bus!
I wonder how many parents in Manhattan or Hong Kong take their kids to soccer or any other form of organized sports?

 

[Hydrogen]

Where do people get the impression that roads are free?

 

[afransen]

Because they are. You can whine about the immense strain of the tax burden on cars, but the fact is, there is no fee for occupying space on a highway lane. Therefore, it's 'free' to use.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Because they are. You can whine about the immense strain of the tax burden on cars, but the fact is, there is no fee for occupying space on a highway lane. Therefore, it's 'free' to use.

How much to repave your driveway? Then multiply that to fit your street. Except that it would be torn up by a heavy truck in one month, so it would have to be redone done again, and again, and again.

 

[TKTKTK]

Because they are. You can whine about the immense strain of the tax burden on cars, but the fact is, there is no fee for occupying space on a highway lane. Therefore, it's 'free' to use.

Again, wrong.

The fees are hidden and levied as taxes and other charges, and in the case of gas taxes - you then pay tax on the tax. Your argument also ignores that streets and roadways are a public good. They're used by everyone, for a variety of purposes.

 

[urbanfan89]

Again, wrong.

The fees are hidden and levied as taxes and other charges, and in the case of gas taxes - you then pay tax on the tax. Your argument also ignores that streets and roadways are a public good. They're used by everyone, for a variety of purposes.

There are also a lot of hidden costs. So thousands are killed and injured because of excessive car use. Who pays? The rest of us (luckily; in the US it's the victim who pays). Air pollution causes asthma and creates acid rain. The rest of us pay. Then there's global warming. It's the rest of us who pay for it.

Cars obviously have their place in society in terms of transportation. It's the notion that "I want to drive! Now! I want it cheap! I don't want to pay for the costs!" mentality that needs to end.

I'd like to see Dion's carbon tax come into effect, but only if there are matching income tax cuts. Bonus, the price of fuel won't change since the existing fuel tax will pay for it. We're also getting penalized for buying a car and rarely using it, because of the expensive premiums. If car insurance was based on how many miles driven, then this problem would be fixed.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Streets and roads are indeed a public good - but that does not equate to having it scaled to the point where a significant percentage of the population can take advantage of this benefit at the same time, which is what's happening right now.

Beyond that, I am sure you're all familiar with the phrase "tragedy of the commons".

AoD

 

[TKTKTK]

There are also a lot of hidden costs. So thousands are killed and injured because of excessive car use. Who pays? The rest of us (luckily; in the US it's the victim who pays). Air pollution causes asthma and creates acid rain. The rest of us pay. Then there's global warming. It's the rest of us who pay for it.

Why stop at cars though? All of our personal choices have far-reaching results - not just drivers. We don't have asthma and global warming solely because of cars, don't be disingenuous.

Cars obviously have their place in society in terms of transportation. It's the notion that "I want to drive! Now! I want it cheap! I don't want to pay for the costs!" mentality that needs to end.

And we're trying to remind you that the only people saying those things are the anti-drivers trying to put words in our mouths. Most drivers will be honest about the extra money they need to spend to keep a car on the road; it can be a considerable amount.

Perhaps before you call for more fees and taxes, you should find out where the money already collected is going. Are you sure you need more?

 

[TKTKTK]

Streets and roads are indeed a public good - but that does not equate to having it scaled to the point where a significant percentage of the population can take advantage of this benefit at the same time, which is what's happening right now.

Do you think we need fewer roads? I wonder if there's an optimal amount of roadway required for a city to grow. I can't think of many agrarianopolises, but surely this planning method's already born fruit?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Most drivers will be honest about the extra money they need to spend to keep a car on the road; it can be a considerable amount.

Drivers are quite honest about the extra money they have to spend directly to keep a car on the road - but that does not equate to knowledge as to what the cost are, monetary or otherwise that their actions have as whole. It isn't like most are keeping tabs on how much money is being spent on building and upkeep or roadways, not to mention other less tangible costs.

Do you think we need fewer roads? I wonder if there's an optimal amount of roadway required for a city to grow. I can't think of many agrarianopolises, but surely this planning method's already born fruit?

What does "fewer" mean, exactly; and what does "growth" mean, exactly? Considering the growth (economic, social, cultural, population, size) of a city is subjected to many variables, I wouldn't be the one making such a general statement. One thing for sure though - great a many American cities have "ring roads" and "more roads" - including Rochester - and they certainly didn't help the city become anything.

AoD

 

[TKTKTK]

Drivers are quite honest about the extra money they have to spend directly to keep a car on the road - but that does not equate to knowledge as to what the cost are, monetary or otherwise that their actions have as whole. It isn't like most are keeping tabs on how much money is being spent on building and upkeep or roadways, not to mention other less tangible costs.

Yes, and my point was that that kind of granular vision can be applied to everyone, and virtually every choice, and leave them looking just as wasteful.

What does "fewer" mean, exactly; and what does "growth" mean, exactly? Considering the growth (economic, social, cultural, population, size) of a city is subjected to many variables, I wouldn't be the one making such a general statement. One thing for sure though - great a many American cities have "ring roads" and "more roads" - including Rochester - and they certainly didn't help the city become anything.

My point, though sarcastic, was that we need roads, needed roads, to grow economically. We've had paved roads and streets far longer than we've had cars, so there's obviously been a separate (and long-lasting) need.

The arguments that we NEED extra user fees for roads is rendered moot by the fact that the already-collected fees aren't being used for roads. The argument that motorists should be solely shouldering the bill for roads (construction and upkeep) is rendered moot by history.

 

[syn]

The arguments that we NEED extra user fees for roads is rendered moot by the fact that the already-collected fees aren't being used for roads. The argument that motorists should be solely shouldering the bill for roads (construction and upkeep) is rendered moot by history.

But motorists don't just foot the bill for roads. Everyone does.

 

[TKTKTK]

But motorists don't just foot the bill for roads. Everyone does.

And motorists aren't the only ones to use roads, as evidenced by roads pre-existing motorists historically. Cities weren't grass-pathed parks before the car was popularized. Cars really aren't that old of an invention.

Do you honestly believe you don't benefit (in direct ways) from roads and streets? Are people really that myopic?

 

[syn]

And motorists aren't the only ones to use roads, as evidenced by roads pre-existing motorists historically. Cities weren't grass-pathed parks before the car was popularized. Cars really aren't that old of an invention.

Do you honestly believe you don't benefit (in direct ways) from roads and streets? Are people really that myopic?

No one is claiming otherwise. However the maintenance requirements resultant from heavy auto usage are a lot higher than they would be if most people used transit.

 

[Dichotomy]

There are also a lot of hidden costs. So thousands are killed and injured because of excessive car use. Who pays? The rest of us (luckily; in the US it's the victim who pays). Air pollution causes asthma and creates acid rain. The rest of us pay. Then there's global warming. It's the rest of us who pay for it.

Cars obviously have their place in society in terms of transportation. It's the notion that "I want to drive! Now! I want it cheap! I don't want to pay for the costs!" mentality that needs to end.

I'd like to see Dion's carbon tax come into effect, but only if there are matching income tax cuts. Bonus, the price of fuel won't change since the existing fuel tax will pay for it. We're also getting penalized for buying a car and rarely using it, because of the expensive premiums. If car insurance was based on how many miles driven, then this problem would be fixed.

Would you trust these guys (or any other government) to stick to a revenue neutral tax? Wasn't the income tax brought in to pay for WWII? Wasn't the GST supposed to pay down the debt?
Only 20% of the pollutants come from automobile exhaust. Trucks and buses are far worse polluters. 'Revenue neutral.' Ha!
Insurance premiums are supposed to be based on mileage driven, but in Toronto we are paying a premium, well...never mind