"Businesses Fleeing to the 905"

[Dichotomy]

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.

Gotta laugh at that one: are the deep ruts at many of the bus stops in the suburbs from cars? Pharmacy/Eglinton have paths carved where the bus pulls over. And I suppose it is the car rails that cause the concrete on Dundas, College, Queen etc. to heave and require the roadway to be dug up (at considerable inconvenience and expense) every decade or so!
Trucks do far more damage to the roads than cars. Try getting the truck lobby to pay more fees! Good luck with that one. We can blame 'just in time' delivery for the factories (what are left of them) in the area that require truck delivery, rather than the much more environmentally friendly train delivery.

If the automobile disappeared tomorrow in some Telaxian plot, roads would still be unfriendly for cyclists (trucks!), pollution would still be an issue, and you would have to wait for 6 King streetcars to go by before being able to get on, instead of 3 or 4.

And TKTKTK, the 'agrarianopolis' remark was hilarious!

 

[Hydrogen]

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.

Gee, I don't recall whining. What I said is: where do people get the impression that roads are free? It's a question (one that you seemingly can't answer), not a whine. Just because you conjure up some narrow and otherwise incorrect interpretation does not mean that in reality roads are free.

Everyone generates benefits from the road system - whether they have a car or not. This is not about paving over the city or demanding multiple highways. There is a difference.

 

[afransen]

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 is no fee to use highway lane space. All the taxes and fees associated with driving are fees/taxes on things other than highway lane space. It's really quite simple. There is no marginal fee for using roadspace, all else equal.

 

[Hydrogen]

But the point is that they are not free. Roads cost money to build and maintain, and that money is acquired through taxation.

 

[Dichotomy]

But the point is that they are not free. Roads cost money to build and maintain, and that money is acquired through taxation.

So do subways and transit - so what's your point? Nothing is 'free.' If you walk to work, the sidewalk was paid for with taxes. The steetlights are there for everyone to use.

 

[syn]

Gotta laugh at that one: are the deep ruts at many of the bus stops in the suburbs from cars? Pharmacy/Eglinton have paths carved where the bus pulls over. And I suppose it is the car rails that cause the concrete on Dundas, College, Queen etc. to heave and require the roadway to be dug up (at considerable inconvenience and expense) every decade or so!
Trucks do far more damage to the roads than cars. Try getting the truck lobby to pay more fees! Good luck with that one. We can blame 'just in time' delivery for the factories (what are left of them) in the area that require truck delivery, rather than the much more environmentally friendly train delivery.

If the automobile disappeared tomorrow in some Telaxian plot, roads would still be unfriendly for cyclists (trucks!), pollution would still be an issue, and you would have to wait for 6 King streetcars to go by before being able to get on, instead of 3 or 4.

And TKTKTK, the 'agrarianopolis' remark was hilarious!

lol

More personal experience I see.

 

[Hydrogen]

So do subways and transit - so what's your point? Nothing is 'free.' If you walk to work, the sidewalk was paid for with taxes. The steetlights are there for everyone to use.

I thought the point was clear. All this infrastructure costs money. There are benefits for all derived from this investment. Roads have a net benefit to all people within the city - regardless of whether they own a car or not. The same goes for the other items you mentioned.

 

[urbanfan89]

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?

In Canada income tax was brought during WWI. Back then the role of the state was much smaller, with very few public services compared to today (that means no schools, hospitals, and yes, paved roads). And no one ever said the income tax would be neutral. On the other hand...

There used to be a Manufacturing Tax in Canada. Then they decided to abolish this tax in the 1980s and introduce a GST. Every economist has agreed this shift is revenue neutral, but try explaining that to Joe Bloe.

And then the GST was cut back thanks to Stephen Harper.

Only 20% of the pollutants come from automobile exhaust. Trucks and buses are far worse polluters.

Let's put all the bus passengers in cars, and let's make everyone drive to the factory to pick what they need. That will do wonders for air quality.

From an economics perspective it's cars getting in the way of trucks, since each truck has more economic value than two or three cars.

Insurance premiums are supposed to be based on mileage driven, but in Toronto we are paying a premium, well...never mind

I thought insurance premiums are based on factors like, say, type of car, maintenance, safety, etc? Right now we're wasting money by buying a car and letting it sit in the driveway 95% of the time.

Maybe we should throw billions into new roads further into the 905 just in time for them to be opened as expensive bike paths, with the way fuel is going.

 

[TOinTO]

It seems that by calling roads a 'no fee service' I set off a storm of debate.

I wasn't saying that they are 'free' or that drivers are getting a deal, simply that there is no fee per use. Aside from the 407, this is true.

I was responding to Dichotomy's complaint that the roads are now too congested, even on Sundays.

If you want to reduce congestion, the only way to do it - short of bulldozing established neighbourhoods for new highways - is to increase the cost of using the roads.

And, to void just stifling movement, you need to support alternatives to using the more expensive roads.

Its pretty much common sense. Its not about sticking it to drivers. It may seem fair to charge cyclists a toll as well, but cyclists are not numerous or intrusive enough to contribute significantly to congestion. Especially since the worst congestion is on highways and suburban roads that rarely see cyclists.

 

[Dichotomy]

It seems that by calling roads a 'no fee service' I set off a storm of debate.

I wasn't saying that they are 'free' or that drivers are getting a deal, simply that there is no fee per use. Aside from the 407, this is true.

I was responding to Dichotomy's complaint that the roads are now too congested, even on Sundays.

If you want to reduce congestion, the only way to do it - short of bulldozing established neighbourhoods for new highways - is to increase the cost of using the roads.

And, to void just stifling movement, you need to support alternatives to using the more expensive roads.

Its pretty much common sense. Its not about sticking it to drivers. It may seem fair to charge cyclists a toll as well, but cyclists are not numerous or intrusive enough to contribute significantly to congestion. Especially since the worst congestion is on highways and suburban roads that rarely see cyclists.

The DVP and Gardiner were designed/built in the '50s. Toronto has doubled since then. No neighborhoods have to be bulldozed to improve their flow. Strategic addtion of one or two lanes on both highways would at least allow them to handle the normal day to day traffic - something which they are wholly uncapable of now.
We keep concentrating on commuters, but the infrastructure in the core is 40-50 years old and cannot handle regular volumes any more. Of course it is too late to do anything about Yonge St., Kingston Rd., Mount Pleasant (to name a few) but we can improve the existing highways without disturbing the neighborhoods that they already cut through.

What is going to happen when all these condo towers are finished? Do they or do they not have garages under them?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Strategic addtion of one or two lanes on both highways would at least allow them to handle the normal day to day traffic.

They wouldn't - considering what Chuck has already said about additional highway capacity.

What is going to happen when all these condo towers are finished? Do they or do they not have garages under them?

Let me tell you what will in all likelihood happen - people will use their cars when they consider it to be convenient and worthwhile to do so, while taking local traffic conditions into account when they make such decisions. Having a car parked in the garage doesn't equate to using it 24/7 like one in the burbs does.

AoD

 

[Dichotomy]

In Canada income tax was brought during WWI. Back then the role of the state was much smaller, with very few public services compared to today (that means no schools, hospitals, and yes, paved roads). And no one ever said the income tax would be neutral. On the other hand...

There used to be a Manufacturing Tax in Canada. Then they decided to abolish this tax in the 1980s and introduce a GST. Every economist has agreed this shift is revenue neutral, but try explaining that to Joe Bloe.

And then the GST was cut back thanks to Stephen Harper.


Let's put all the bus passengers in cars, and let's make everyone drive to the factory to pick what they need. That will do wonders for air quality.

From an economics perspective it's cars getting in the way of trucks, since each truck has more economic value than two or three cars.


I thought insurance premiums are based on factors like, say, type of car, maintenance, safety, etc? Right now we're wasting money by buying a car and letting it sit in the driveway 95% of the time.

Maybe we should throw billions into new roads further into the 905 just in time for them to be opened as expensive bike paths, with the way fuel is going.

Insurance premiums are based on the factors you stated, but also on whether you drive to work or not. 'Casual' use is supposed to get a discount, although I am not convinced that is the case.
Expensive bike paths? Europe and Brazil are paying nearly twice what we are for fuel and I don't see empty highways/streets there.

I guess 200 trucks a day shipping our garbage to Michigan is a good use of public roads?
I suppose you are being facetious about everyone going to the factories in their cars. Transportation efficiency was slain on the alter of cheaper goods at Wal-Mart a long time ago. The bean counters decided it was cheaper to ship 500 widgets a day to the plant by truck, rather than warehouse 5,000 widgets shipped by train.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I guess 200 trucks a day shipping our garbage to Michigan is a good use of public roads?

200 trucks a day is what percentage of the road capacity over a 24 hour period? Compared to single vehicular traffic? I don't know about you, but I consider that to be a good use of roads - particularly since it was for a public good as well.

AoD

 

[Dichotomy]

200 trucks a day is what percentage of the road capacity over a 24 hour period? Compared to single vehicular traffic? I don't know about you, but I consider that to be a good use of roads - particularly since it was for a public good as well.

AoD

You do? That seems like heresy, though, in the greater environmental scheme of things. I mean, shipping, by diesel spewing trucks, household garbage 5-600km when a train to Kirkland Lake or incineration (like in Brampton) could have less of an environmental impact. Holy carbon footprint!

The greater point here is that the explosion of truck traffic in the past 15-20 years has had a lot to do with the way businesses have altered their manufacturing processes.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

You do? That seems like heresy, though, in the greater environmental scheme of things. I mean, shipping, by diesel spewing trucks, household garbage 5-600km when a train to Kirkland Lake or incineration (like in Brampton) could have less of an environmental impact. Holy carbon footprint!

I was commenting on the use of the highway for this particular purpose as a public good - which is to get rid of garbage - not the greater debate about waste disposal - which is beyond the scope of this thread.

But since you want to talk about carbon footprint - perhaps a thought exercise of what a person's carbon footprint would be if they drive 24/7 everywhere and compare it to the contribution of carbon emissions made by shipping the said person's waste to St. Thomas. I am sure that would be most enlightening.

AoD