billonlogan
Active Member
Eventually suburban commuters will make adjustments.
Over time, the revenue generated by tolls will be a fraction in lost business to the city. I think Miller knows this and is wary to pursue further.
|
|
|
What's wrong with tolls?
- Thread starter passthedutchie
- Start date
Eventually suburban commuters will make adjustments.
Over time, the revenue generated by tolls will be a fraction in lost business to the city. I think Miller knows this and is wary to pursue further.
passthedutchie
New Member
I've been away on business and I just got to go through the thread since my original post.
It's an interesting discussion going on here, but I'm still very supportive of tolls.
Much of the opposition to tolls look at the inadequate alternative infrastructure and the risk of unreasonable charges. It’s hard to deny that Toronto's overly touted TTC transit system is unfit to carry the city into the future, and the steps taken so far in regards to future expansion (using primarily light rail) will be nothing more than simply catching up to where the city should be. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if there is a strong argument that it'll still be inadequate once major construction is complete. Toronto needs to get started planning and building for that infrastructure now, and be building for five years in the future, rather than catching up for ten years of neglect and mismanagement.
And I do agree, right now it's a tough sell to bring people out of their cars and into a system that sucks. It downright sucks. I'm sorry.
But do you see city council, which still has a planned deficit, being able to raise the monies needed for visionary expansion of the TTC? I don't.
In regards to the toll charges, I would also be worried about the charges if the current city council has the power of regulating it. I believe it should be set up properly with a equal balance of stakeholders whose goal is to manage the resource (aka efficient highways) for the public good. Right now there is a lot at stake. A tremendous amount of money is needed to invest in public transit and infrastructure, to remedy the $400 million backlog of road maintenance and replacement, and an in environmental shift where vehicles are a primary cause of damage. I think tolls are a very effective way of managing the money needed to invest in these necessary goals, and creates a greater way of effectively managing the expenditure of public money.
I don't mean to pick on city council so much, when in fact all levels of government are failing this city. That's ultimately the reason I favour tolls, dependent upon how they are set up and the benefits to the public.
It's an interesting discussion going on here, but I'm still very supportive of tolls.
Much of the opposition to tolls look at the inadequate alternative infrastructure and the risk of unreasonable charges. It’s hard to deny that Toronto's overly touted TTC transit system is unfit to carry the city into the future, and the steps taken so far in regards to future expansion (using primarily light rail) will be nothing more than simply catching up to where the city should be. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if there is a strong argument that it'll still be inadequate once major construction is complete. Toronto needs to get started planning and building for that infrastructure now, and be building for five years in the future, rather than catching up for ten years of neglect and mismanagement.
And I do agree, right now it's a tough sell to bring people out of their cars and into a system that sucks. It downright sucks. I'm sorry.
But do you see city council, which still has a planned deficit, being able to raise the monies needed for visionary expansion of the TTC? I don't.
In regards to the toll charges, I would also be worried about the charges if the current city council has the power of regulating it. I believe it should be set up properly with a equal balance of stakeholders whose goal is to manage the resource (aka efficient highways) for the public good. Right now there is a lot at stake. A tremendous amount of money is needed to invest in public transit and infrastructure, to remedy the $400 million backlog of road maintenance and replacement, and an in environmental shift where vehicles are a primary cause of damage. I think tolls are a very effective way of managing the money needed to invest in these necessary goals, and creates a greater way of effectively managing the expenditure of public money.
I don't mean to pick on city council so much, when in fact all levels of government are failing this city. That's ultimately the reason I favour tolls, dependent upon how they are set up and the benefits to the public.
TKTKTK
Senior Member
Well, if the city needs some money for roads (from its users) while it contemplates enacting tolls; it should start ticketing cyclists.
afransen
Senior Member
Cyclists don't inflict much wear and tear on city roads, and you can fit a large number of them on city streets (though they may increase congestion for motorized transit). There are also almost none of the negative externalities associated with cars with bikes.
As far as who receives toll revenue, I'd favour the GTTA collecting and investing toll revenue, including possibly selling bonds against future revenue streams to accelerate investment in transit.
As far as who receives toll revenue, I'd favour the GTTA collecting and investing toll revenue, including possibly selling bonds against future revenue streams to accelerate investment in transit.
TKTKTK
Senior Member
If the issue is just revenue than there's no problem. We might not be able to collect much through properly applying the law to scofflaw cyclists, but every little bit helps - especially if it'll keep tolls off the roads.
afransen
Senior Member
Sorry, but discouraging bike use is pretty damned illogical. I could imagine bike tolls only after cars have become quite heavily tolled. Remember, also, that we're only talking about tolling highways. Bicycles are prohibited from use on highways...
TKTKTK
Senior Member
I didn't say bike tolls
I only suggested an alternative revenue source to tolls, albeit a minor one.afransen
Senior Member
Isn't a minor alternative no alternative at all?
TKTKTK
Senior Member
Progress is progess, dollar by dollar if need be.
gibsonm
Active Member
Go big or go home!
Even though I live in Oakville and drive into Toronto, I would not at all be opposed to paying a toll on the Gardiner if it meant that the elevated expressway was replaced by an underground one, and if an additional alternate route, such as the moribund Front Street extension proposal, was to go ahead. Such a move would radically alter the connection to the waterfront, maintain, perhaps even improve, flow of traffic, as well as increase property tax revenue for the city as new lands along Lakeshore Rd. become available and better suited to development. I know this is an old vision for the city that has been by and large given up for dead, but it takes these kinds of large-scale projects to build the kind of destination people want to bother to visit. People pay the congestion charge in London or put up with going without their car there, largely because London is worth the sacrifice. It will take bold moves to create the kind of "City Beautiful" we hear Miller blowing his horn about. If you want a revived Lakeshore Blvd. with real tree-filled boulevards, you can't do it with a massive concrete and ashphalt slab overhead. Toronto has to do a lot better than that. If highway toll money went into improved transit and beautification -- and not just along the waterfront, -- it would be a small price that most people would willingly pay. The elevated Gardiner and all its concomitant tacky signage weighs the city down with "rust belt" baggage. Make the city something special downtown and on the water, and the toll will be accepted as the cost of doing business. Oh yeah, and demand more money from those cheapskates in Ottawa!
Even though I live in Oakville and drive into Toronto, I would not at all be opposed to paying a toll on the Gardiner if it meant that the elevated expressway was replaced by an underground one, and if an additional alternate route, such as the moribund Front Street extension proposal, was to go ahead. Such a move would radically alter the connection to the waterfront, maintain, perhaps even improve, flow of traffic, as well as increase property tax revenue for the city as new lands along Lakeshore Rd. become available and better suited to development. I know this is an old vision for the city that has been by and large given up for dead, but it takes these kinds of large-scale projects to build the kind of destination people want to bother to visit. People pay the congestion charge in London or put up with going without their car there, largely because London is worth the sacrifice. It will take bold moves to create the kind of "City Beautiful" we hear Miller blowing his horn about. If you want a revived Lakeshore Blvd. with real tree-filled boulevards, you can't do it with a massive concrete and ashphalt slab overhead. Toronto has to do a lot better than that. If highway toll money went into improved transit and beautification -- and not just along the waterfront, -- it would be a small price that most people would willingly pay. The elevated Gardiner and all its concomitant tacky signage weighs the city down with "rust belt" baggage. Make the city something special downtown and on the water, and the toll will be accepted as the cost of doing business. Oh yeah, and demand more money from those cheapskates in Ottawa!