[gibsonm]

Considering that Canada has one of the largest oil reserves in the world and residents have far greater distances to travel than in most countries, and especially comparing cost to our southern neighbours, our gas taxes are very high. Some of that gas tax is used for transit. In any event, the capital costs of existing highways are already paid. We now only have the operating costs of maintenance. Now if you want to toll future highways to cover construction and ongoing maintenance costs, that's a more compelling argument.

 

[afransen]

I don't support schemes that take money from people who earn it and give it to those who don't except to prevent hunger, homelessness, and other clear social ills. Tolls in a country with high gas taxes and many other transportation taxes would be another cash grab tax on existence, a mismanaged pet project that creates winners and losers based on who the program designer favours. No thanks. Equity here has nothing to do with fairness. It's code for a biased collectivization and redistribution of property. However, I can see the need to tax electric vehicle mileage once the percentage of EVs reaches a certain proportion of all vehicles, perhaps around twenty percent.

Why should we tax people to build unused highways? If you object so strongly, maybe the taxpayer should recover their investment and sell the Ontario highway network to private operators to do with as they see fit.

The issue is that gas tax is going away as the fleet electrifies.

ETA: addressing equity concerns is around compensating people who live in places where transit alternatives aren't perfect yet, as some have raised as a red herring to say we can't price roads, even when they routinely grind to halt due to being overloaded.

 

[gibsonm]

Well if tolling existing highways is your proposed way to pay for their maintenance, then eliminate the gas taxes that currently fund them or move to a general bill by mileage, based on some kind of GPS device attached to your odometer. I think some form of that is inevitable as EVs proliferate and given the trend in surveillance capitalism to monitor everyone's comings and goings.

It all feels like social engineering. Well if that's where it's going there need to be bigger conversations at the social policy level regarding transportation infrastructure use and the nature of work. For example, will the workforce be permanently cohorted, such that most workers are divided into two groups: One week Group A works three days on-site and two days from home while Group B does the opposite and the next week Group B is on-site three days and at home for two, and so forth? That immediately slashes the quantity of vehicles on roads and the number of transit users in the system. Such a move feels somewhat inevitable as populations grow and the fight against climate change accelerates.

Such a scheme would solve most traffic problems and reduce maintenance costs without increasing taxes, though a kind of neutral tax shift would occur. However, it raises major privacy concerns, sets limitations around how and when people work, keeps people physically apart for large blocks of time, and puts pressure on employers to accommodate schedules. Many people say they learned how to work from home effectively over the pandemic and don't want to go back to the workplace full time. I'm not sure that's the world I want to live in, but there you have it.

Now if one of the days we're not at work was a day off, even once every two weeks, that has some real appeal, though I'm not sure many companies could do it competitively unless most other countries follow suit. Nice to dream.

I know I'm saying a lot, but when you start talking about tolling all highways or other large policy changes, it raises many other considerations.

 

[afransen]

It all feels like social engineering. Well if that's where it's going there need to be bigger conversations at the social policy level regarding transportation infrastructure use and the nature of work. For example, will the workforce be permanently cohorted, such that most workers are divided into two groups: One week Group A works three days on-site and two days from home while Group B does the opposite and the next week Group B is on-site three days and at home for two, and so forth? That immediately slashes the quantity of vehicles on roads and the number of transit users in the system. Such a move feels somewhat inevitable as populations grow and the fight against climate change accelerates.

Such a scheme would solve most traffic problems and reduce maintenance costs without increasing taxes, though a kind of neutral tax shift would occur. However, it raises major privacy concerns, sets limitations around how and when people work, keeps people physically apart for large blocks of time, and puts pressure on employers to accommodate schedules. Many people say they learned how to work from home effectively over the pandemic and don't want to go back to the workplace full time. I'm not sure that's the world I want to live in, but there you have it.

Personally, I'd rather just pay the toll or choose another time/way to get where I'm going rather than be ordered to not use the highways/leave my home on certain days. Tolling certainly seems less intrusive and oppressive! Next you'll be saying you'd rather be assigned a day you're allowed to go the mall or a Jays game than suffer the injustice of having to pay for parking.

 

[gibsonm]

Not at all. I think that any such schemes should be voluntary and I still don't think I'd support them. Just keep in mind that there are consequences for tolling all highways or charging people a mileage tax. We shouldn't be paying double the taxes for the same infrastructure. It's one thing to replace one tax with another. I don't want to see tolls added to any existing highways unless certain other taxes are eliminated.

 

[afransen]

Not at all. I think that any such schemes should be voluntary and I still don't think I'd support them. Just keep in mind that there are consequences for tolling all highways or charging people a mileage tax. We shouldn't be paying double the taxes for the same infrastructure. It's one thing to replace one tax with another. I don't want to see tolls added to any existing highways unless certain other taxes are eliminated.

I'd be fine with eliminating gas tax and replacing with a per km vehicle registration tax. Then I would say min toll could be zero on highways/roads that are not congested. But the city is going to choke and die if we do nothing about congestion. Road pricing is the only way to meaningfully manage congestion. Providing alternatives (transit) is in the interests of those paying the tolls, as it lets the tolls be lower while keeping roads moving.

I do not understand people who think the right thing is to allow highways to be "pay with your time" than "pay with your wallet" to use. Wasting time in crushing traffic benefits no one.

 

[Northern Light]

Not at all. I think that any such schemes should be voluntary and I still don't think I'd support them. Just keep in mind that there are consequences for tolling all highways or charging people a mileage tax. We shouldn't be paying double the taxes for the same infrastructure. It's one thing to replace one tax with another. I don't want to see tolls added to any existing highways unless certain other taxes are eliminated.

There are multiple problems with this logic, from my perspective.

1) Gas taxes are not dedicated to maintaining highways/roads.

2) The revenue they generate has fallen significantly due to inflation, and fuel efficiency, so they don't bring in what they once did.

3) Governments are in deficit, as apart from Covid.

4) Our infrastructure has not kept pace with demand.

****

Whatever your political preferences...........the reality is that wholesale cuts aren't coming to the majority of government programs.

While there's always room for efficiencies, so many services are below the standard most people would want, and so much infrastructure inadequate to our needs, that the most optimistic savings
would never equal the need.

If you choose not to raise revenue through tolls, you'll have to find other ways.

I also don't like the idea that transit riders should have to pay-per-use by highway drivers do not.

* Said as a car-owning driver.

 

[gibsonm]

How much do you pay when you buy a car, including HST, pdi, freight? How much do you pay for insurance, licensing, annual sticker? How much do you pay per litre of gas in taxes? How much of your income and land tax is redirected to transportation infrastructure funding? Tolling the 407 and additional highways that are advertised as toll highways from the get-go, prior to construction is one thing. Being tolled for existing highways for which the construction costs are already paid and the maintenance is paid for through the multiple taxes I already pay? I don't think so. Again, if you want to talk about replacing one tax (gas, for example) with another (tolls), that's a conversation. My only caveat is that tolling certain segments of highway to pay for an enhancement (and nothing more), might be justified in certain circumstances, such as burying the Gardiner.

Here nor there. As EVs proliferate the gas tax won't suffice and a general fee for all road use is on the way. It will likely be mileage based at point of origin, your vehicle. The transportation authority can make it as "smart" as they want with different charges for peak periods on specific roads/highways because they'll know exactly where you are at all times. I just hope the information doesn't get shared with the police the way the 407 and parking authorities work with MTO. You can't renew your license without paying off unpaid 407 tolls and parking tickets. Lucky us. I wonder if police will be able to access that tracking information. Creepy. The argument will be that it helps find missing persons during Amber Alerts of course, but it will get abused I'm sure.

 

[Northern Light]

Being tolled for existing highways for which the construction costs are already paid and the maintenance is paid for through the multiple taxes I already pay? I don't think so.

But you're fine with transit users paying a fare, after having also paid municipal taxes just like you?

Also, since when is the 401, the 427 or the 404 covered by municipal taxes?

 

[afransen]

How much do you pay when you buy a car, including HST, pdi, freight? How much do you pay for insurance, licensing, annual sticker? How much do you pay per litre of gas in taxes? How much of your income and land tax is redirected to transportation infrastructure funding? Tolling the 407 and additional highways that are advertised as toll highways from the get-go, prior to construction is one thing. Being tolled for existing highways for which the construction costs are already paid and the maintenance is paid for through the multiple taxes I already pay? I don't think so. Again, if you want to talk about replacing one tax (gas, for example) with another (tolls), that's a conversation. My only caveat is that tolling certain segments of highway to pay for an enhancement (and nothing more), might be justified in certain circumstances, such as burying the Gardiner.

Here nor there. As EVs proliferate the gas tax won't suffice and a general fee for all road use is on the way. It will likely be mileage based at point of origin, your vehicle. The transportation authority can make it as "smart" as they want with different charges for peak periods on specific roads/highways because they'll know exactly where you are at all times. I just hope the information doesn't get shared with the police the way the 407 and parking authorities work with MTO. You can't renew your license without paying off unpaid 407 tolls and parking tickets. Lucky us. I wonder if police will be able to access that tracking information. Creepy. The argument will be that it helps find missing persons during Amber Alerts of course, but it will get abused I'm sure.

Why do I have to pay for water, sewer, hydro? Much of that infrastructure was built with taxes. Why do I have to pay for parking? Taxes pay for city streets. Why do I have to pay navigation taxes when I buy a plane ticket?

There is no sacred promise that roads, much less highways must always and everywhere be free to use, congestion be damned. You can be free to oppose road tolls and continue to languish in soul destroying traffic (pay for road use with your limited hours on this earth). It isn't economically efficient to build beautiful, high design standard highways and then plug them with 30 kph traffic. It is as blatantly irresponsible for the government to undercharge for road access resulting in extreme congestion as it would be for a government to undercharge for water to the extent that half the time you opened the tap, nothing came out. Or for power that half the day you experienced blackouts. Some countries are that dysfunctional and experience those problems. Crushing road congestion is a similar problem, and it is eminently addressable in a way that would strengthen the economy of the city and create more wealth for everyone.

 

[gibsonm]

We pay for all those things as working taxpayers and there are many programs I didn't choose to support or implement that I also pay for through taxes. If you're asking that drivers pay more for infrastructure that is already built and paid for in the name of a special interest side benefit, that's not on. As a transit enthusiast you should like traffic because it pushes people onto transit, which is also subsidized by taxpayers. Drivers pay user fees at the gas pumps and through a slew of other taxes that partly subsidize transit.

It's a mistake to pit drivers against transit users in such discussions about funding, because the reality is that it is impractical for many drivers to use transit even if they wanted to outside the 416. Distance-based fares and regional transit integration will help shift drivers onto transit, but many drivers simply don't have a choice. They can't roll out of the Four Seasons in Yorkville into the subway station like some people. Also, many transit users want the ability to drive or be driven outside the city into the country for a variety of reasons.

Making driving unaffordable to make transit more affordable won't work. If people drive less due to your exorbitant tolls, traffic may thin out but so will toll revenue and tax revenue because people will make fewer trips, period. They won't just switch all their drives to transit rides. It's called killing the economy. Ultimately fewer people will come to the city because the people with choices will choose to spend their money elsewhere.

Now, if you want to add underground highways and toll them you have my complete support. Those could be fully paid for by users and they would reduce traffic on other highways, but the downtown NIMBYs don't want more highways, even buried ones. Instead they want to add costs to drivers by tolling existing highways to pay for another subway stop in the neighborhood (as long as the tracks run down the back of someone else's garden).

I say all of this as someone who wants more subways and transit. You can't take cars out of the regional mix anymore than you can remove subways, because people want choice. Modes of transportation are like forms of housing. Very few people want to live in a place with only one housing option, whether that's a condo tower or a townhome.

 

[Northern Light]

We pay for all those things as working taxpayers and there are many programs I didn't choose to support or implement that I also pay for through taxes. If you're asking that drivers pay more for infrastructure that is already built and paid for in the name of a special interest side benefit, that's not on. As a transit enthusiast you should like traffic because it pushes people onto transit, which is also subsidized by taxpayers. Drivers pay user fees at the gas pumps and through a slew of other taxes that partly subsidize transit.

It's a mistake to pit drivers against transit users in such discussions about funding, because the reality is that it is impractical for many drivers to use transit even if they wanted to outside the 416. Distance-based fares and regional transit integration will help shift drivers onto transit, but many drivers simply don't have a choice. They can't roll out of the Four Seasons in Yorkville into the subway station like some people. Also, many transit users want the ability to drive or be driven outside the city into the country for a variety of reasons.

Making driving unaffordable to make transit more affordable won't work. If people drive less due to your exorbitant tolls, traffic may thin out but so will toll revenue and tax revenue because people will make fewer trips, period. They won't just switch all their drives to transit rides. It's called killing the economy. Ultimately fewer people will come to the city because the people with choices will choose to spend their money elsewhere.

Now, if you want to add underground highways and toll them you have my complete support. Those could be fully paid for by users and they would reduce traffic on other highways, but the downtown NIMBYs don't want more highways, even buried ones. Instead they want to add costs to drivers by tolling existing highways to pay for another subway stop in the neighborhood (as long as the tracks run down the back of someone else's garden).

I say all of this as someone who wants more subways and transit. You can't take cars out of the regional mix anymore than you can remove subways, because people want choice. Modes of transportation are like forms of housing. Very few people want to live in a place with only one housing option, whether that's a condo tower or a townhome.

No one here is talking about taking all cars out of transportation mix.

That would shutting down all highways (and roads) not tolling them.

 

[gibsonm]

Ultimately adding additional fees to drivers is about reducing the number of drives under your argument that it will reduce congestion. The argument has the added hope that maybe some of those additional fees/taxes can be skimmed to pay for non-vehicular infrastructure, i.e. transit. It's also the argument for congestion charges. Well Toronto doesn't have the gravitas of London to justify such a move. As you've all heard, there was a net migration out of the city during the pandemic. Be careful not to disincentivize coming to Toronto.

 

[afransen]

. If you're asking that drivers pay more for infrastructure that is already built and paid for in the name of a special interest side benefit, that's not on. As a transit enthusiast you should like traffic because it pushes people onto transit, which is also subsidized by taxpayers.

Having highways that function is not a 'special interest side benefit'. The board of trade supports road pricing!

Drivers pay user fees in wasted time. So do businesses. People's willingness to waste time is the only meter on how bad traffic can get. One person wasting time on the road does no good to anyone else. It would be better for everyone, including the people paying the toll, to pay in tolls rather than wasted time to use highways at peak times.

No one is talking about making diving unaffordable, we're talking about matching road demand to supply, and maximize the utility of our road assets. Realistically, we can't add any additional highway capacity in the city. There is no room to expand the supply. So we can only manage the demand and make sure those using the highways, at peak times, are those deriving the most value from it at that exact time. Many people could just shift when they drive, particularly with a bit of encouragement in the form of tolls.

Here's an anecdote: my employer has two work locations about 35km apart in the city. I sometimes have to drive between them for meetings (in pre-COVID days). At peak times like 8-9am, it can take as long as 75 minutes to make that drive. If I arrange to do it mid-day, I can make the same drive in 30-35 minutes. My employer is paying me much more than a toll would cost to sit in traffic. No one benefits from me wasting my time. It would be better for everyone if my employer paid a toll to save me that 45 minutes at peak time, or encourage me to travel off peak as much as possible.

 

[afransen]

Ultimately adding additional fees to drivers is about reducing the number of drives under your argument that it will reduce congestion. The argument has the added hope that maybe some of those additional fees/taxes can be skimmed to pay for non-vehicular infrastructure, i.e. transit. It's also the argument for congestion charges. Well Toronto doesn't have the gravitas of London to justify such a move. As you've all heard, there was a net migration out of the city during the pandemic. Be careful not to disincentivize coming to Toronto.

There is already a strong disincentive to drive to Toronto: the absurd congestion! I know many people from the outer golden horseshoe who absolutely refuse to drive to Toronto because of the traffic.

And for tolls to be effective, it does not need to even reduce driving trips, it could work just by shifting trips off peak. A large number of trips are not time critical/commuting trips.