Toll Roads

[afransen]

TK, I don't think your interpretation is correct on either count. There are many goods that people would be seriously inconvenienced to do without for a day. Say, food. This does not make food a public good, or a common-pool resource.

And sorry, it doesn't make sense to model a highway as a stock/flow. That is usually used to describe things like water resources, ozone, wildlife, etc.

 

[kEiThZ]

That is two today....am I the only one who understands that the Gardiner is not a road simply used by people in Oakville and Clarkson? A lot of people who do not have anywhere near the access to transit that Lakeshore GO riders have today (nevermind the soon to be 1/2 hourly service) rely on that network of roads.....so 2 people today would add insult to that lack of transit by making the north Mississauga, Brampton and Etobicoke commuter pay a toll because there is great transit to Oakville!?

Nobody here said we shouldn't improve service to those communities. If that's what prevents tolls from being implemented, I am all for it. I still can't understand why GO isn't considering electrification for some of the other lines. I'd like to see 30 min frequencies on the the Milton and Georgetown lines until at least Meadowvale and Brampton respectively as well.

Anyway, these are just ideas that can be refined. No need to take it personally (or communally in this case).

 

[TKTKTK]

TK, I don't think your interpretation is correct on either count. There are many goods that people would be seriously inconvenienced to do without for a day. Say, food. This does not make food a public good, or a common-pool resource.

The issue isn't whether you're inconvenienced by something. You were wondering where the Cost/Difficulty was in "exclud[ing] potential beneficiaries from obtaining benefits of its use"

Food is a private good. If you don't have money, you can't buy bread. I suppose you could grow your own food - but then it would just be your own private good.

A highway is not a private good.

And sorry, it doesn't make sense to model a highway as a stock/flow. That is usually used to describe things like water resources, ozone, wildlife, etc.

It is usually used to describe those things! But it also describes highways. It isn't about modeling highways on stock/flow, it's about a giant semantic conversation wherein we relate highways to one of 4 types of good. You could also argue that highways are a club good, but common good administered as a public good is, I think, the most correct

What about you? How would you define it?

 

[kEiThZ]

And sorry, it doesn't make sense to model a highway as a stock/flow. That is usually used to describe things like water resources, ozone, wildlife, etc.

The engineer in me says there is nothing wrong with modeling highways that way. I bet that's how its done albeit with different terminology than stock/flow. A highway grid can be assessed the same way as any other grid ie electrical grid, plumbing network, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_flow

 

[nfitz]

Let's say the Kingston resident wants to stop for some food. He would proactively avoid going to Toronto, which creates lost economic activity. Any policy must be a blanket one so that people do not take advantage.

Let me assure you, that as a former Kingston and Kitchener resident, who frequently drove through Metro - getting off the 401 - anywhere between Hurontario and Ajax was something to be avoided if at all possible. Losses would be minimal. While it's not a big deal if you know the city - it's somewhat terrifying if you are not familiar with the area.

 

[urbanfan89]

The example I would always cite in this case, and one I am surprised rarely comes up on UT given its unnerving similarity to Toronto, is Sydney or Melbourne. Both generally lack "decent" public transit and are low density "new world" cities that have predominantly developed in the automotive age. Both of them have very well developed networks of tollways, often private. Its great. Things which are impossible in Toronto, like tunneling freeways under the downtown, are possible there because there is an economic justification behind doing it. Thats maybe a bit simplistic, but it is fair to say that they have a far superior highway network partially because it is economic to do so. The Gardiner, on the other hand, is a liability. You don't have to be Tokyo or London for this idea to work.

Many of Sydney's toll operators have been going in-and-out of bankruptcy, taxpayer bailout, and then demanding the government reduce capacity on surface streets to force drivers. To add insult to injury some contracts require the government to compensate if usage is lower than forecast.

If this is the success of private enterprise, it's an AIG-style success.

 

[lordmandeep]

Let me assure you, that as a former Kingston and Kitchener resident, who frequently drove through Metro - getting off the 401 - anywhere between Hurontario and Ajax was something to be avoided if at all possible. Losses would be minimal. While it's not a big deal if you know the city - it's somewhat terrifying if you are not familiar with the area.

Yep driving one the 401 for the first time is rather scary even if you have been on it as a passenger a hundred times.



About Sydney, I have been there and I must say their traffic system sucks. First of all they have lights on their so called Motor ways and those Tunnels are choking with fumes.

 

[afransen]

The engineer in me says there is nothing wrong with modeling highways that way. I bet that's how its done albeit with different terminology than stock/flow. A highway grid can be assessed the same way as any other grid ie electrical grid, plumbing network, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_flow

I know a thing about network flow theory. The difference between stock/flow models and most network flow models (like electricity or internet traffic, or indeed, highways) is that there is no stock in a network flow model, only sources and destinations, and the nodes all have to clear in the sense that what goes in must come out. So yes, there are flows, but there are no stocks. You can't stockpile highway capacity. It is used or it is wasted.

 

[cacruden]

Agreed. However, what's the goal here? Changing habits in our region or targeting out-of-towners for revenue? With my idea if the bloke gets off the express in the city, he only gets charged till his exit. That's a minimal impact on anyone visiting the GTHA or transiting through. If we decide to charge anyone taking the nearly 100km drive through the GTHA, I can guarantee you that the toll will stop being a regional issue and will become a provincial matter. And there's also the risk of adverse economic impact to the region.

My goal in relation to tolls is the cost of building and maintenance can directly be tied to those that use the roads and highways - instead of swishing revenues and cost through general tax revenues, and the inclusion of supply and demand (i.e. variable tolls posted on electronic signs overhead). This revenue would then be plowed back into the development of the roads and highways (business development) - where the demand for such roads are. Now 30 years ago the technology was just not there to allow this sort of model to exist - so we reverted to gas taxes and general revenues - but technology allows for it now. Gas taxes are based on vehicle efficiency and size - and is swished through general revenues - so the real cost of a vehicle is hard to actually determine (and thus argueable).

Now with the variable tolls, if one road is more congested than another - the cost of usage goes up until the supply and demand are balanced. This will provide more revenue, which will then be plowed back into the development of new roads (if possible) - if not then the money has to be routed to development of transit to lower demand of that road. Now if the cost of driving actually goes up, then it opens up the ability for usage fees for transit to go up as well - which will also provide more money for transit.

If a driver has two alternatives to get to a destination, one is less congested - but takes 5 minutes longer, and based on the variable tolls - becomes cheaper then the limited resource (highways in the city) become a choice that each individual has to make - take 5 minutes longer - or pay more.

I don't expect the fuel tax to go down to completely offset the move to a toll based system since there are a lot of people that thing CO2 is a problem and are pushing for carbon cap and trade, or a carbon tax - which is what the fuel surtax essentially becomes. Whether it is carbon cap/trade (which the government restricts and raises revenue from), or a carbon tax - it will end up in the same thing - fuel prices based on carbon sources will not go down. The toll based system also means that electric cars also have to pay for usage of the highway network.

 

[TOareaFan]

Nobody here said we shouldn't improve service to those communities. If that's what prevents tolls from being implemented, I am all for it. I still can't understand why GO isn't considering electrification for some of the other lines. I'd like to see 30 min frequencies on the the Milton and Georgetown lines until at least Meadowvale and Brampton respectively as well.

Anyway, these are just ideas that can be refined. No need to take it personally (or communally in this case).

To say that is to not understand the context of my comment today....2 separate posters in a short period of time suggested that tolls should not be implemented until there is a viable transit option...then, independantly, both of them gave the example of the Gardiner and said that it should be tolled once the next service level on the Lakeshore line is achieved (ie. 30 minute frequnecies)...all I am saying is that this would be punitive to a great number of people (I would suggest the majority) who use the Gardiner today.....taxing them while they have no transit option and then justifying it because the people in Oakville do have a transit option.

 

[cacruden]

^ An environmental addendum to my last post

The status-quo is not really an option, where it is free and limited at the same time - which leads to an overuse of that resource - which leads to lengthy traffic-jams. Cars caught in traffic-jams will produce more CO2 (more than that of lowering the CAFE standards) - so I expect every proclaimed environmentalist with a car to support some sort of control

 

[Glen]

Meh. By the time they get around to tearing it down I will be driving an electric car.

 

[cacruden]

But then you won't be paying for any usage of the road

 

[Glen]

But then you won't be paying for any usage of the road

So you are saying, in the future roads will build themselves?

 

[cacruden]

Well, if gas taxes are used to build roads - and you are not buying any gas - and other people are not buying any gas - then no more roads should be built until a new funding source can be found. So no, roads will not build themselves.