[rbt]

^Ontario drivers paying up to 90 per cent of road costs, study reveals

Love to see the smart people here debunk this study ...

I don't see a link to the actual study in that article which makes it difficult to read what they included and excluded. For example, did they include a %age of sewer infrastructure (necessary to prevent flooding and washing out of roadways) in their roadway costs? I don't see a mention of health-care related costs, emergency response (fire/police/ambulance), or law enforcement (court costs).

Just from the article we can see that revenues mentioned are collected by the province and federal government. Much of the infrastructure necessary for driving is paid for at the municipal level. At very least there is a disconnect between revenue collected and expenses.


If you assume that the study is entirely correct and drivers are paying 90% of driving related infrastructure costs, so what? There are 2 ways of helping reduce highway congestion (not something us sidewalk folks have much concern about); a $50B transit investment (which isn't happening) or a $300B tunnelled highway investment. Do drivers want a 15% increase in driving costs or a 250% increase in driving costs? Get the GTA driving revenue surplus up to about $5B/year and we can start on doubling roadway capacity in the GTA over a 30 year period (Chicago style, stacked streets/highways, and you can't double highway capacity without doubling up many streets feeding them).


The general problem is moving people which impacts all resident; even those who telecommute from home or intend to retire in a few years. I prefer the cheaper solution but I'll happily accept the far more expensive solution if someone else wants to volunteer to pay for it.

 

[W. K. Lis]

From the U.S..

New Report Finds Drivers Pay Less Than Half the Cost of Roads

From this link:

Webinar to Explain Why Raising Gas Taxes Won’t Necessarily Solve Problems


​

As Congress struggles to renew the federal transportation law, a new report from the U.S. Public Interest Research Group Education Fund [U.S. PIRG Education Fund] and Frontier Group finds that drivers currently pay less than half the total cost of roads, and argues that while increasing gas taxes could fill the shortfall, it would leave other problems unaddressed.

The new report, “Who Pays for Roads? How the ‘Users Pays’ Myth Gets in the Way of Solutions to America’s Transportation Problems†exposes the widening gap between how Americans think we pay for transportation – through gas taxes and other fees – and how we actually do. The authors of the report will cohosta live webinar today at 1pm [EST] to explain the report findings and answer questions (click here to register and attend).

The new report comes with just a month left before expiration of the federal transportation act, and with the federal Highway Trust Fund on the brink of insolvency. Revenues from gas taxes and other user fees this year are expected to come up $16 billion short of the level needed to maintain current federal transportation spending, leading to the need for urgent congressional action.

“Congress is stuck in an endless loop,†said Phineas Baxandall, Senior Analyst at U.S. PIRG and coauthor of the report. “Either Congress will have to raise gas taxes to the high levels that would be needed to fully pay for the costs of highways or it will have to admit that the ‘users pay’ system no longer exists and needs to be reformed.â€

“Congress faces important choices about transportation,†Baxandall continued. “Playing make believe about where our transportation dollars come from shouldn’t be an option.â€

The new report pulls back the veil on the “users pay†myth, finding that:

· Gas taxes and other fees paid by drivers now cover less than half of road construction and maintenance costs nationally – down from more than 70 percent in the 1960s – with the balance coming chiefly from income, sales and property taxes and other levies on general taxpayers.

· General taxpayers at all levels of government now subsidize highway construction and maintenance to the tune of $69 billion per year – an amount exceeding the expenditure of general tax funds to support transit, bicycling, walking and passenger rail combined.

· Regardless of how much they drive, the average American household bears an annual financial burden of more than $1,100 in taxes and indirect costs from driving – over and above any gas taxes or other fees they pay that are connected with driving.

“The ‘users pay’ myth is deeply ingrained in U.S. transportation policy, shaping how billions of dollars in transportation funds are raised and spent each year,†said Tony Dutzik, co-author of the report and Senior Analyst at Frontier Group, a non-profit think tank. “More and more, though, all of us are bearing the cost of transportation in our tax bills, regardless of how much we drive.â€

“We need to dispel the myth that user fees are paying for the building and maintenance of our road network. The reality is that these funds are barely covering a fraction of the cost,†said Gabe Klein, SVP of Fontinalis Partners, and former Commissioner of Transportation for Chicago and Washington, D.C. “The highest return on investment is on bike, pedestrian and transit projects,†he said.

State and federal policies often give priority to spending on highways based on the assumption that drivers pay the cost of roads through gas taxes and user fees. The report argues that, with the nation’s transportation needs changing and general taxpayers bearing an ever-greater share of the cost of transportation, America should instead invest transportation dollars in projects that are likely to deliver the greatest benefits.

Ordinary Americans agree. Nearly two-thirds of Americans believe it is appropriate to use gasoline tax revenue to support public transportation, according to a national study released last week by researchers at the Norman Mineta Transportation Institute. Other recent opinion polls suggest that Americans believe that the nation should give greater priority to transit, bicycling and walking in transportation spending.

 

[k10ery]

I don't see a link to the actual study in that article which makes it difficult to read what they included and excluded. For example, did they include a %age of sewer infrastructure (necessary to prevent flooding and washing out of roadways) in their roadway costs? I don't see a mention of health-care related costs, emergency response (fire/police/ambulance), or law enforcement (court costs).

Just from the article we can see that revenues mentioned are collected by the province and federal government. Much of the infrastructure necessary for driving is paid for at the municipal level. At very least there is a disconnect between revenue collected and expenses.

Good points. In brief, they count police and courts but not as far as I can see sewers. And they mention accident costs but don't include (these would of course be quite large).

If you assume that the study is entirely correct and drivers are paying 90% of driving related infrastructure costs, so what? There are 2 ways of helping reduce highway congestion (not something us sidewalk folks have much concern about); a $50B transit investment (which isn't happening) or a $300B tunnelled highway investment. Do drivers want a 15% increase in driving costs or a 250% increase in driving costs? Get the GTA driving revenue surplus up to about $5B/year and we can start on doubling roadway capacity in the GTA over a 30 year period (Chicago style, stacked streets/highways, and you can't double highway capacity without doubling up many streets feeding them).

I guess this is right. I for one am surprised that a reputable study finds that road taxes pay for roads. But it's not really the point. Road (fuel) taxes are a good idea for lots of reasons. This finding does not change the argument for higher fuel taxes, or for road tolls. That argument is based on other factors like the need to manage congestion, and help the environment. As well, fuel txes have always been a good source of revenue, so tough luck drivers. Cigarette and alcohol taxes more than pay for the damage those things cause to our society, but you don't see their users get all sanctimonious about it the way drivers (who pay less) seem to. Well, not much anyway...

 

[k10ery]

From the U.S..

New Report Finds Drivers Pay Less Than Half the Cost of Roads

From this link:

WK, you realize that is the same study you already linked to? At first I thought we were getting a groundswell of these things...

 

[crs1026]

This presentation has some interesting commentary about proposed changes to development charges in Ontario.

http://files.ctctcdn.com/64e5f8dd201/c846a8b3-43fb-4428-8307-6c54f16b95a6.pdf

There are a couple interesting revenue changes:
- Eliminating the 10% discount in computing the amount charged, when transit is a consideration
- Creating authority for the Province to compel municipalities to impose area-rated development charges (meaning that development charges for projects close to transit projects would be higher than elsewhere)
- Creating authority to assess service levels beyond a 10-year average

While the Wynne government has been reluctant to openly impose "revenue tools", each of these changes will certainly increase the revenue extracted from new development, by virtue of and flowing to transit investment.

My take: If it quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it probably ought to be called a duck.

- Paul

 

[ssiguy2]

The middle recommendation looks like it could be counter-productive. By increasing development charges near transit projects you would think that would be an incentive for businesses to NOT develop near transit lines which makes transit less useful to more people.

 

[aquateam]

The middle recommendation looks like it could be counter-productive. By increasing development charges near transit projects you would think that would be an incentive for businesses to NOT develop near transit lines which makes transit less useful to more people.

This. Transit use is really more a function of land use patterns than the infrastructure present. Transit-dependant development is something that should be incentivized, not punished. A big part of the reason the Yonge subway was so successful is because of the many incentives the city gave for dense development around stations (FAR bonuses, long-term leases to avoid property costs, strongly-supported station boxes so building foundations wouldn't have to be reinforced, etc.)

If the province wants to extract the maximum value out of its investment in higher-order transit (i.e. higher ridership), it should be encouraging development along routes, not trying to wring capital costs out of TODs. Development charges are already structured to favour sprawl.

 

[W. K. Lis]

However, under Rob Ford, he wanted development charges to pay for the entire construction of subways, subways, subways. Maybe this is the outcome.

 

[gweed123]

The middle recommendation looks like it could be counter-productive. By increasing development charges near transit projects you would think that would be an incentive for businesses to NOT develop near transit lines which makes transit less useful to more people.

Good point. Perhaps though the municipalities will also allow additional density in those same areas. Depending on the increase in the development charges, developers could still come out ahead ($X for Y increase in # of units > $Z dollars of increase in development charges).

 

[W. K. Lis]

Monday, June 29, 2015, there is a special TTC Budget Committee Meeting on the Preliminary 2016-2025 TTC Capital Budget. See link.

Some notes of interest are:

Waterfront Toronto ($90 M) - Unfunded

•Expansion Projects:

• East Bayfront Streetcar Line (EFC $474M)
• West Donlands Streetcar Line (EFC $34M)
• Bremner Blvd Streetcar Line (EFC $24M)
• Portlands Streetcar Expansion (EFC $200M)

Now if I can only find out what the acronym "EFC" stands for? Don't think it means "Enemy Flag Carrier", "Energy Future Coalition", "Expected Family Contribution", "Earth Fault Current", nor "Eco-Friendly Cleaning".

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

Estimated Financial Commitment?

 

[rbt]

Now if I can only find out what the acronym "EFC" stands for?

Probably Estimated Final Costs. They've been using that acronym for nearly a decade but rarely provide the definition.

It would include non-construction capital related costs like rolling stock, engineering, project management, the EA process, etc.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Something for us to watch.

From The Globe and Mail, at this link:

B.C. transit votes are in, key players planning for either outcome

As the counting of ballots begins in Canada’s first public vote on whether to finance expanded transit with a new tax, key players are considering what they would do whether it is the Yes side or the No side that wins.

“We have been thinking about how we would make sure we support either outcome as a province,” Premier Christy Clark told reporters last week.

“Whatever happens, people in the Lower Mainland want more transit. I think everyone agrees with that. The question they are being asked right now is how do they want to pay for that transit.”

Voting ended Friday in an exercise that saw Lower Mainland voters asked whether they would approve a 0.5-per-cent increase to provincial sales tax applicable in Metro Vancouver to help fund $7.5-billion in transit expansion over the next decade to help move people as the region’s population increases.

Results are expected later in June, says Don Main, communications manager for Elections BC. He said more time is needed to count the votes because the agency is working with fewer staff than would be deployed for a provincial election.

On the Yes side of the transit debate have been the B.C. government, most of the region’s mayors, environmentalists, unions and the business community.

The No side, energized by concerns about mismanagement in TransLink, the regional transit authority, has largely been personified by Jordan Bateman, B.C. head of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

Ms. Clark promised the vote back in 2013 when her B.C. Liberals were facing a tough fight against the NDP in that spring’s provincial election.

Ms. Clark, who divides her time between her Kelowna-area riding and a residence in the Lower Mainland, said she had voted Yes. But, she added, “I’ve stopped making hockey and election predictions so I’m not going to predict the outcome.”

While the Premier is not making a bet, Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson said he is “cautiously optimistic” voters would vote Yes.

Although a Yes result would provide key funding, Metro Vancouver mayors would still have to seek funding from Ottawa and make use of already committed provincial funding to pay for buses and other items on the transit agenda.

One key piece of transit Vancouver is hoping a Yes vote would help fund is a new subway across several kilometres of the city’s Broadway corridor.

The last data released May 27 said the turnout was about 45 per cent – or 698,900 of more than 1.56 million registered voters. No further update is expected until the release of the final results.

“It’s certainly a decent turnout, higher than municipal elections,” Mr. Robertson told a news conference when asked about the numbers. “I’m still cautiously optimistic. I think it will be an anxious wait until the ballot count is done.”

Mr. Robertson is not talking about a Plan B in case the vote goes against the mayors’ plan.

The night she was first elected mayor last November, Surrey’s Linda Hepner said she would build 10 kilometres of a planned 27-kilometre light rail system and have it running by election night, 2018 whether or not there was a Yes or No vote.

On Friday, Ms. Hepner said she was not backing down from that pledge.

She said the turnout suggests voters were engaged by the plebiscite, however she’s waiting to see which way voters leaned. “I am not making any predictions,“ she said in an interview.

Mr. Bateman has also found solace in the turnout, suggesting motivated voters probably dismissed the sales tax. “We’re feeling confident our No voters got out and voted,” he says.

David Moscrop, a PhD candidate in the psychology of political decision making at the University of British Columbia, said the turnout suggests Metro Vancouver residents are engaged in the transit issue.

“Even if the ‘No’ side wins, the issue is unlikely to disappear. Transit is on people’s radar now; it’s on their minds and I suspect that each time a bus flies by them or the SkyTrain shuts down, a decent number of them are going to think about this plebiscite – either as a much-needed win for infrastructure, or a missed opportunity,“ Mr. Moscrop said in an e-mail exchange.
​

Transit plebiscite results to be released on Thursday

From link:

Elections BC says the results of the 2015 Metro Vancouver transit plebiscite will be released at 10 a.m. on Thursday, July 2.

That's Vancouver time.

 

[ssiguy2]

After all these "revenue options" studies, when at what is Toronto going to do or was this just a make-work project?

 

[Towered]

Interesting to see the Bremner streetcar on the TTC's radar - I thought that had been indefinitely shelved. It certainly hasn't been mentioned on an official level in years, and no politician has been championing it either.

Also, what's the West Donlands streetcar that's mentioned? Cherry Street has been done for a while...

The Portlands streetcar expansion is intriguing as well, seeing how it'll be a very long time before that area gets redeveloped, probably several decades due to the polluted land.