Roads: Gardiner Expressway

[Hydrogen]

Hydrogen, if you want to debate in your own personal language where you can ascribe whatever meaning you want to words, please set up your own forum. The language of this forum is English.

You don't police the debate here, nor do you get to dictate the terms of usage by anyone. If you wish to do that, set up your own little dictatorial forum. You'd be good at it. Of course you'd tax it, too.

The term public good is used outside of economics. Try, for example, philosophy.

Hydrogen is incorrect, highways are not a public good in the economic sense of the term.

And I stated that I was not restricting myself in any way to what you read in your little economics textbook. You might want to review your capacities in english.

 

[afransen]

Hahahaha!

Well, I think dental care and prescription drugs should be shared more evenly across the social net (like healthcare). Not so much for donuts though.

If you think highways are akin to donuts...well...uhhh, sure.

So you do think I should be able to get free (*cough* prepaid) drugs, braces, etc? Sweet. Where do I sign up?

I wager you think transit, air flights, intercity rail should all be given away at no additional cost, ie 'prepaid'? These are all vital to the economy, and the government directly or indirectly subsidizes all of these things. Why are highways special?



Hydrogen: don't sulk. This is a debate about economics. Don't complain when your meaning is unclear because you overloaded jargon with your own meaning from a different context. It is perfectly fair to call you on it, and I didn't even have to use italics to torque your meaning.

 

[TKTKTK]

So you do think I should be able to get free (*cough* prepaid) drugs, braces, etc? Sweet. Where do I sign up?

I'm not sure I understand what's so subversive about that idea.

I wager you think transit, air flights, intercity rail should all be given away at no additional cost, ie 'prepaid'? These are all vital to the economy, and the government directly or indirectly subsidizes all of these things. Why are highways special?

Well, I hope you don't gamble often, you'd have lost that wager.

I don't think it's hard to see how highways might be necessary for the movement of goods in a way that air travel isn't quite. Or that highways fill a basic need where air travel caters to a more select group.

 

[afransen]

Not freight, Tk. We are talking people, no? When companies are paying $4 per km for a truck, I don't think they'll be busted by tolls. Actually, the time savings would probably make up for the toll.

Why aren't rails maintained by government for CN/CP's use?

I think you're splitting hairs to justify highways being free...

 

[Whoaccio]

And I stated that I was not restricting myself in any way to what you read in your little economics textbook. You might want to review your capacities in english.

Well, what do you mean by "public good"? It is an economics term, and if you want to use it outside that you should qualify it. Presumably you mean that the good provides strong positive externalities. For instance, subsidized drugs for orphans. It takes a real cold bastard to disapprove of that. It is a malleable definition though. The oil companies generate extremely positive (and negative) externalities by providing the energy for our economy. I have never heard anyone refer to oil companies as a "public good" though. Indeed, virtually the entire economy is a "public good" because it produces benefits.

TKTKTK - I don't think it's hard to see how highways might be necessary for the movement of goods in a way that air travel isn't quite. Or that highways fill a basic need where air travel caters to a more select group.

"Necessity" is a meaningless word. Quite frankly, the service can't be that necessary if people aren't willing to pay the 19c/km to use it (marginal utility being lower than marginal cost). I would agree that there is probably a stronger demand for highway space than air travel but just because there is stronger demand though doesn't somehow mean the market place is non-appropriate.

In any case, air travel used to be treated roughly similar to the current treatment of highways. Air carriers were national companies that were highly subsidized in the name of "national interest", the Cold-War equivalent of "public good" (in the philosophical sense). Since deregulation, the air travel industry has expanded by leaps and bounds and the cost of the service has dropped through the floor. Air travel has never been more affordable. Air travel "necessity" in the movement of goods and people is undeniably much greater now than pre-deregulation.

 

[CDL.TO]

Debates about semantics are always cyclical and pointless. Geez, guys.

 

[Hydrogen]

Well, what do you mean by "public good"? It is an economics term, and if you want to use it outside that you should qualify it.

You can read discussions of the public good as written by Aristotle, Kant, Mill and others, so by no means is it an exclusive term of economics. Discussions of "public good" relate to such diverse things as public moral behaviour, to ideas surrounding the good of the state and and the individuals who occupy it. I don't see one locked-down definition in effect

This thread is not restricted to economics; it is about the potential fate of the Gardiner Expressway. Maybe you should qualify yourself when you wish to restrict your statements to economics alone. Otherwise, as far as I'm concerned, people can speak on this issue as they want.

 

[TKTKTK]

Not freight, Tk. We are talking people, no? When companies are paying $4 per km for a truck, I don't think they'll be busted by tolls. Actually, the time savings would probably make up for the toll.

And that savings will be passed on to all of us

As there are virtually no alternatives to using the highway for most people, I don't see how a toll is going to actually cut down on congestion.

Why aren't rails maintained by government for CN/CP's use?

Don't know, not sure I care that much. Just because one thing's privatized doesn't mean everything should be. Maybe if the rails were maintained by government we'd have high-speed rail service linking major cities.

I think you're splitting hairs to justify highways being free...

How so? By putting words in your mouth and then wagering on them?

 

[TKTKTK]

"Necessity" is a meaningless word. Quite frankly, the service can't be that necessary if people aren't willing to pay the 19c/km to use it (marginal utility being lower than marginal cost). I would agree that there is probably a stronger demand for highway space than air travel but just because there is stronger demand though doesn't somehow mean the market place is non-appropriate.

"Needs" aren't meaningless, but they are subjective.

In any case, air travel used to be treated roughly similar to the current treatment of highways. Air carriers were national companies that were highly subsidized in the name of "national interest", the Cold-War equivalent of "public good" (in the philosophical sense). Since deregulation, the air travel industry has expanded by leaps and bounds and the cost of the service has dropped through the floor. Air travel has never been more affordable. Air travel "necessity" in the movement of goods and people is undeniably much greater now than pre-deregulation.

I can't imagine that has anything to do with the democratization of new technology. Heck, Tang was a by-product of the space race. But never mind that your argument ignores all the bail outs that have been necessary to keep our airlines running

 

[Glen]

Glen, are police, fire, ambulance, and health care not free? And if so, do you have any good reason why the entire economy should not be 'prepaid', as you called it (aka, communism).

No they are not free, just as Hwys are not. Your idea to tax services to the point that they perform optimally is absurd. Should we apply the same to deal with hospital wait times? Extra billing to the point that those whom cannot afford health care get to die? You can go on about marginal cost all you want but the fact remains that the taxes on fuel negate any argument that automobile travel is not somewhat proportionatly taxed already. There are also other homeostatic mechanism in place that make congestion self limiting, such as time. The combination of cost and time set the point at which individuals, not planners, decide when better alternatives exist. Not the speed limit.

I also cannot understand how someone who argues arbitrary state intervention, by means of additional road taxes, calls the current system communist. You have got it backwards. It is you arguing for coercive measures.

 

[Hydrogen]

Hydrogen: don't sulk. This is a debate about economics. Don't complain when your meaning is unclear because you overloaded jargon with your own meaning from a different context. It is perfectly fair to call you on it, and I didn't even have to use italics to torque your meaning.

It's amusing to read your attempt to cover up how you can't understand a few words outside of any context that you refuse to acknowledge. And I agree with Glen, you appear quite confused on how to apply taxation. Rather than constantly trying to pick what turn out to be inappropriate comparisons, stick with your one point.

 

[kEiThZ]

What about approaching it a different way? A big part of the mayor's anti-car crusade is based on the fact that the Gardiner is expensive...so why not let a private consortium bury it and charge for it? It can charge for it at a rate that recovers capital and maintenance costs and a certain amount of profit.

Better still, coordinate with them to bury those rail lines nearby as well. This way, the mayor is freed of his burdensome highway, it'll be a small charge for those who want to use it, and the Mayor will still get his lakeshore grand avenue.

 

[Dichotomy]

Okay, this little pissing match even lost me a couple pages back.

To wrap this up, I would only support tolling on any of the city's highways for extra capacity being built, not for what we already have. If some consortium wants to build a 8 lane expressway under the Humber Bay and charge for it (a good idea, IMO), then that is their perogative.

The capacity of the Gardiner/Lakeshore is barely enough to handle normal traffic flow in and out of the core. Has anyone here driving in-bound on a Saturday night around, say, 9 pm? I did two weeks ago when returning from a funeral in Mississauga: the usual choke point at Kingsway eastward.

With all the planned development downtown over the next 20 years, I am sure a business model exists for a 407-like tunnel to be constructed under the Humber Bay and perhaps eastward to the Bluffs. Certainly by the time any such project was actually built (probably 15-20 years, the way things work in this city) the gridlock and volume would justify a huge profit for any such corporation. If not a tunnel, then perhaps a skyway, constructed a few km out in the lake - hell, line it with wind turbines to help pay the bills: then everybody is happy!

 

[TOareaFan]

This is where I (admitedly) get lost.....is the goal of road tolls to end/reduce/limit congestion? or is it to raise money?

If it is the latter they will be successful. If it is the former it will have no impact on congestion unless, and until, there are viable alternatives to using the tolled roads....that is why I suggested the wait until the higher priority parts of the Big Move were implemented.




Again, this will limit the impact on tourists...sure but are the people driving into rush hour to get to their jobs going to not drive to work because there is a toll? Not likely....so, if it is a tax grab to raise money it will work....if it is seen as a congestion fighting measure....it will fail.

Just bumping a question that I posed a few pages ago....I fear it got lost while "we" debated the definitions of free and prepaid.

 

[afransen]

If the question you're referring to is in the last paragraph, then I would say it depends. It's true that the demand is pretty inelastic in the short term, but in the medium to long term, people will make decisions about where they live and where they work that would tend to reduce or eliminate the time they need to spend on highways during rush hour. It will also affect where busiensses decide to locate themselves, as requiring your employees to drive to a suburban office park would probably require some incentive through increased salaries to offset the transportation cost to the point where the company might decide to locate in a more accessible area.

I agree the whole free/prepaid business is pretty irrelevant to the goal of changing behaviour.