[Whoaccio]

My problem with tolls is that they are already on top of taxes which were implemented for the same purposes. Furthermore they are just as poor as gas taxes in appropriating the true cost/benefit from the users.

Well, in an ideologically pure world, taxes currently directed towards highway upkeep would be eliminated. I would admit that this isn't bloody likely. Sort of like user fees on garbage. Its theoretically right and "better," but in practice didn't seem to take anything off the tax bill. Thats probably why "revenue neutral" government policies tend to have such little credibility.

I still think it is a good policy, though likely awful politics.

 

[TKTKTK]

TKTKTK:
Yes, and what we have right now is tragedy of the commons.

I don't believe that the Tragedy of the Commons is always inevitable.

As highway congestion and delays go up, people (if they can) shift to alternate means.

 

[TKTKTK]

You can sell access to anything? How can you sell access to the police? National security? Sidewalks? Local roads? Parks? The air? There is no practical way to sell access to these things. Without suggesting Jetsonian solutions to charge people for the amount of air they breathe, you don't have to be a master logician to see there are clearly goods we all find valuable which are impossible to deal with in a normal economic manner.

You can't sell access to the Police? Sure you can. The Police just wouldn't be sent to certain people's houses were they to call. That already happens.

National Defense? Why not? Just sit back while some Banana Republic bombs Iqaluit.

There are already private roads in the city (Percy St. just down the block from me). We used to toll Bloor Street.

You can sell access to anything, you just have to come up with a way of administering it if you're really serious about denying others the service. It isn't a matter of being a master logician; we don't entertain these ideas because we're not completely self-interested assholes

It doesn't take an "ingenious sales method" to sell roadspace on limited access roadways. There are on ramps, there are off ramps. They are designed to be excludable and non-excludability is one of of the definitions of a public good. Quoting from the Wiki article you posted, "In economics, a public good is a good that is non-rivaled and non-excludable. This means... that no one can be effectively excluded from using the good." Highways don't meet the other qualifier, non-rivalrousness, either. My usage of a given patch of highway at a given time, thanks to the laws of physics, clearly prevents someone else from using an approximate space at the same time.

That isn't the spirit of the definition. If you were to use that same level of hyperbole than Air is also excludable and rivalrous as you can't breathe the breath I just took, nor what I just exhaled as my lungs have destroyed the air quality by extracting the oxygen and replacing it with carbon dioxide.

I'm not breaking any economic conventions here, the articles you posted on "public goods" in the first line describes them as "a good that is non-rivaled and non-excludable. This means, respectively, that consumption of the good by one individual does not reduce availability of the good for consumption by others; and that no one can be effectively excluded from using the good." How does a limited access roadway meet either of your two criteria?

This goes back to (almost) exactly what I said:

Roads are a common-pool resource owned by the government and administered (I left that word out) as a public good

(the definition of a common-pool resource: In economics, a common-pool resource (CPR), alternatively termed a common property resource, is a particular type of good consisting of a natural or human-made resource system, the size or characteristics of which makes it costly, but not impossible, to exclude potential beneficiaries from obtaining benefits from its use. Unlike pure public goods, common pool resources face problems of congestion or overuse, because they are subtractable. A common-pool resource typically consists of a core resource, which defines the stock variable, while providing a limited quantity of extractable fringe units, which defines the flow variable. While the core resource is to be protected or entertained in order to allow for its continuous exploitation, the fringe units can be harvested or consumed.) Wiki

 

[Glen]

I don't believe that the Tragedy of the Commons is always inevitable.

As highway congestion and delays go up, people (if they can) shift to alternate means.

I the original Commons the cattle died.

 

[afransen]

You can't sell access to the Police? Sure you can. The Police just wouldn't be sent to certain people's houses were they to call. That already happens.

National Defense? Why not? Just sit back while some Banana Republic bombs Iqaluit.

There are already private roads in the city (Percy St. just down the block from me). We used to toll Bloor Street.

You can sell access to anything, you just have to come up with a way of administering it if you're really serious about denying others the service. It isn't a matter of being a master logician; we don't entertain these ideas because we're not completely self-interested assholes




That isn't the spirit of the definition. If you were to use that same level of hyperbole than Air is also excludable and rivalrous as you can't breathe the breath I just took, nor what I just exhaled as my lungs have destroyed the air quality by extracting the oxygen and replacing it with carbon dioxide.




This goes back to (almost) exactly what I said:

Roads are a common-pool resource owned by the government and administered (I left that word out) as a public good

(the definition of a common-pool resource: In economics, a common-pool resource (CPR), alternatively termed a common property resource, is a particular type of good consisting of a natural or human-made resource system, the size or characteristics of which makes it costly, but not impossible, to exclude potential beneficiaries from obtaining benefits from its use. Unlike pure public goods, common pool resources face problems of congestion or overuse, because they are subtractable. A common-pool resource typically consists of a core resource, which defines the stock variable, while providing a limited quantity of extractable fringe units, which defines the flow variable. While the core resource is to be protected or entertained in order to allow for its continuous exploitation, the fringe units can be harvested or consumed.) Wiki

TK, highways are not common-pool resources in that it is not difficult/costly (I think costly in this case refers to a general idea of raising too little revenue to justify the cost of collecting said revenue) to 'exclude potential beneficiaries from obtaining benefits of its use'. Also, there is no 'stock' of highway capacity. You can't save unused highway capacity today and use it tomorrow. Highways are similar to say, electricity from a nuclear power plant.

 

[kEiThZ]

I voted yes.But I have many reservations.

Tolls can only work, imho, if transit is built up already. Everyone loves to cite the London congestion charge. However, people forget that there was a decent amount of public support for the charge being implemented. Additionally, London's public transport was sufficiently effective and had enough capacity to accommodate the influx in ridership arising from the implementation of the charge. Today, this is not the case in Toronto.

What I would love to see is for Metrolinx to be allowed to issue bonds to be backed by tolls. This way they could take on debt (at today's rates that would be amazing) and build up public transit as quickly as possible and then implement tolls to pay them off. A phased approach is also a good idea. ie. As soon as we see the GO lakeshore electrification finish slap a toll on the Gardiner and as soon as we see the DRL built, slap a toll on the DVP and the 427 (when the DRL west is built). That's the only way I can see public support for tolls.

 

[Automation Gallery]

.

What I would love to see is for Metrolinx to be allowed to issue bonds to be backed by tolls. This way they could take on debt (at today's rates that would be amazing) and build up public transit as quickly as possible and then implement tolls to pay them off. A phased approach is also a good idea. ie. As soon as we see the GO lakeshore electrification finish slap a toll on the Gardiner and as soon as we see the DRL built, slap a toll on the DVP and the 427 (when the DRL west is built). That's the only way I can see public support for tolls.

That sounds all dandy but would the general taxpayer still borne the costs of maintaining the road and highway infrastructure.

 

[kEiThZ]

That sounds all dandy but would the general taxpayer still borne the costs of maintaining the road and highway infrastructure.

It all depends on how we want to strucuture things and what our goals are. If it's just reducing congestion then it's likely the taxpayer will still get stuck with maintaining roads because the primary goal of the charge would be to reduce congestion not raise revenue. However, I'd support a solution like what they did in the London. Transport for London (TfL) collects revenues from the tolls but uses them to maintain roads and public transit services. I'd like to see Metrolinx evolve into a TfL type of agency. That would resolve a lot of problems.

 

[kEiThZ]

Here's how London does it:

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

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/congestioncharging/default.aspx

One interesting fact to consider is that London has through routes where those cutting through the city will not be charged if they don't exit the 'free thoroughfare'. I would see the 401 Express in Toronto in the same light. I don't think its fair to charge a Kingston resident driving to Windsor a road toll.

 

[urbanfan89]

Perhaps Metrolinx (or someone else) should be given power to tax non-residential parking space, proportional to some formula which accounts for transit availability, density, and location. It would encourage developers not to devote land to surface parking, and provide a relatively stable source of revenue.

Or perhaps each municipality or zone could be allocated a quota of non-residential parking space and then allow everyone to "trade" the spaces.

We really do not need Big Brother-style tolls, and tolling the highways will only create congestion on parallel roads. Not gonna fly.

EDIT:

I would see the 401 Express in Toronto in the same light. I don't think its fair to charge a Kingston resident driving to Windsor a road toll.

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.

 

[Whoaccio]

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.

 

[kEiThZ]

I for one would strongly support tolling the Gardiner both to help us pay for a buried version and raise revenue for the parallel GO lines.

 

[kEiThZ]

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.

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.

 

[TOareaFan]

I voted yes.But I have many reservations.

A phased approach is also a good idea. ie. As soon as we see the GO lakeshore electrification finish slap a toll on the Gardiner and as soon as we see the DRL built, slap a toll on the DVP and the 427 (when the DRL west is built). That's the only way I can see public support for tolls.

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!?

 

[TKTKTK]

TK, highways are not common-pool resources in that it is not difficult/costly (I think costly in this case refers to a general idea of raising too little revenue to justify the cost of collecting said revenue) to 'exclude potential beneficiaries from obtaining benefits of its use'.

I was imaging cost/difficulty in this case relating to how much the highways directly facilitate business activity in our city. It would be hard to argue that shutting down all of our highways for a day wouldn't severely impact Toronto's economy. How many people do we need to restrict from the highways to benefit the city? How many people do we need to restrict from the highways before we negatively impact the city?

Also, there is no 'stock' of highway capacity. You can't save unused highway capacity today and use it tomorrow. Highways are similar to say, electricity from a nuclear power plant.

The 'Stock' of the highway is its condition (ability to operate at all), the fringe unit is its capacity (limited by both original design and current condition). Overuse of capacity risks negatively impacting the highway's condition, which would reduce capacity further.