[Northern Light]

I think that's a bit more complex. People on very low income, who cannot afford a car at all, would benefit from the expansion of public transit and won't lose anything from road tools etc. On the other hand, there exists a sizeable group of "working poor" who can afford cheap cars, often second-hand, and who must use the car to earn their income. Either their daily trip to work is impractical by any means other than a car, or driving a car is part of their job.

Not to be bluntly against the road tolls, but there are some nuances here that need to be taken into account.

Of course, transit users pay tolls; we call them 'fares'.

 

[ARG1]

Of course, transit users pay tolls; we call them 'fares'.

The difference though is what the users pay for. When a transit user gets on a bus, they're paying the bus driver the labour cost, they're paying the maintenance of the vehicle, they're paying for the vehicle itself, and finally the maintenance of the infrastructure. When a person drives their car, they're the ones putting in the mobility labour, and they're the ones that have to pay the insurance cost, the maintenance of the vehicle, the vehicle itself, and any additional fees such as fuel or electric charge. In essence, the "fare" that car users pay are all of the additional costs they have to pay to have a functioning vehicle. The only thing they don't have to pay for is infrastructure maintenance, but even then an argument could be made for whether or not public infrastructure such as roads or bridges should be made freely available as a public good.

 

[sixrings]

The difference though is what the users pay for. When a transit user gets on a bus, they're paying the bus driver the labour cost, they're paying the maintenance of the vehicle, they're paying for the vehicle itself, and finally the maintenance of the infrastructure. When a person drives their car, they're the ones putting in the mobility labour, and they're the ones that have to pay the insurance cost, the maintenance of the vehicle, the vehicle itself, and any additional fees such as fuel or electric charge. In essence, the "fare" that car users pay are all of the additional costs they have to pay to have a functioning vehicle. The only thing they don't have to pay for is infrastructure maintenance, but even then an argument could be made for whether or not public infrastructure such as roads or bridges should be made freely available as a public good.

Ok make it fair by making fare by distance which could include the tolls.

 

[afransen]

Ok make it fair by making fare by distance which could include the tolls.

"Fair" has nothing to do with it. We have too many vehicles trying to use limited lane capacity. We can let the city grind to a halt, or we can allocate the road capacity to maintain flow and use the proceeds to give alternatives to people to free up road space. Even if peak hour toll rates just spread out demand over larger windows, it would be a win.

 

[allengeorge]

The only thing they don't have to pay for is infrastructure maintenance, but even then an argument could be made for whether or not public infrastructure such as roads or bridges should be made freely available as a public good.

Can I use the same argument for public transit as well? As a public transit user I would like the maintenance of transit infrastructure not to be covered by fares. After all, an argument can be made that it too should be made freely available as a public good.

 

[ssiguy2]

I think the fairest method is simply METERED parking fees BUT they should be the same across the city and involve ALL parking including street, parking garages, big box, malls, government offices, supermarkets, hospitals, schools etc. The ONLY thing that should be exempt is delivery/15 minute parking.

It's fair for everyone who drives no matter what part of the city you live in or where you are going. It, unlike a general tax, is not passed onto the consumer who make take transit.

 

[sixrings]

"Fair" has nothing to do with it. We have too many vehicles trying to use limited lane capacity. We can let the city grind to a halt, or we can allocate the road capacity to maintain flow and use the proceeds to give alternatives to people to free up road space. Even if peak hour toll rates just spread out demand over larger windows, it would be a win.

I agree with you. I think people use the it’s an attack on poor argument so quickly when they are against something. Coincidentally some of these people are for the most expensive transit infrastructure in the suburbs.

 

[afransen]

I think the fairest method is simply METERED parking fees BUT they should be the same across the city and involve ALL parking including street, parking garages, big box, malls, government offices, supermarkets, hospitals, schools etc. The ONLY thing that should be exempt is delivery/15 minute parking.

It's fair for everyone who drives no matter what part of the city you live in or where you are going. It, unlike a general tax, is not passed onto the consumer who make take transit.

This makes absolutely no sense. Parking rates should be driven by what people are willing to pay. Fair has nothing to do with it. It's like complaining that it's unfair that a house on the waterfront cost more than in the middle of nowhere. Yeah, that's life! If you mean a tax on parking spaces, maybe. A good start would be to eliminate minimums. Then maybe you could have an annual tax per off-street parking spot. It would be up to property owners to determine how they want to monetize them.

 

[sixrings]

This makes absolutely no sense. Parking rates should be driven by what people are willing to pay. Fair has nothing to do with it. It's like complaining that it's unfair that a house on the waterfront cost more than in the middle of nowhere. Yeah, that's life! If you mean a tax on parking spaces, maybe. A good start would be to eliminate minimums. Then maybe you could have an annual tax per off-street parking spot. It would be up to property owners to determine how they want to monetize them.

Maybe that’s true. But there are plenty of free parking which encourages driving which could and should be eliminated. Big box stores, plazas and malls first come to mind. But again then that would be an attack on the poor and unfair.

 

[afransen]

Maybe that’s true. But there are plenty of free parking which encourages driving which could and should be eliminated. Big box stores, plazas and malls first come to mind. But again then that would be an attack on the poor and unfair.

It's an attack on the poor to require parking for development as it makes housing more expensive and makes it harder to get around without a car.

 

[sixrings]

It's an attack on the poor to require parking for development as it makes housing more expensive and makes it harder to get around without a car.

That’s true but the houses are already built so there’s nothing we can do but build subways everywhere, not increase transit fares, but also not increase driving costs until the subways are finished being constructed. This is sarcasm by the way but not too far off from some arguments I’ve heard especially from Scarborough. You can’t toll the dvp until the drl is built because how can the poor people get downtown in a both financially effective and time efficient way. I never understood how the poor people pay for downtown parking in this argument but bleh at do I know. I’m a downtown elite.

 

[Rainforest]

Maybe, a more fair approach is to toll all cars entering the defined downtown area, regardless of the method they entered.

This may be harder to administer than tolling the highways.

But the advantages are:
- Less risk of overflowing the local roads leading into downtown, because the riders will have no incintive to use local roads instead of highways.
- Everyone driving into downtown has to pay something, while people living and working outside downtown, where transit is less viable, are not penalized.

 

[Undead]

Maybe that’s true. But there are plenty of free parking which encourages driving which could and should be eliminated. Big box stores, plazas and malls first come to mind. But again then that would be an attack on the poor and unfair.

Cart in front of the horse. No one's going to take transit to big box malls and plazas in the middle of nowhere. A tax on such spots achieves nothing other than poison the well for transit improvements. Unfortunately, once the built form is in place, it's very difficult to change. Makes these issues even more tricky. The solution is not as simple as "tax every single parking spot."

 

[Northern Light]

Cart in front of the horse. No one's going to take transit to big box malls and plazas in the middle of nowhere. A tax on such spots achieves nothing other than poison the well for transit improvements. Unfortunately, once the built form is in place, it's very difficult to change. Makes these issues even more tricky. The solution is not as simple as "tax every single parking spot."

There are malls that are well serviced by transit; Yorkdale and Fairview both have subway stations at their door; STC has the SRT (for now); I think a parking tax, within Toronto, where transit is more comprehensive probably does make sense. It doesn't need to be high to be useful.

Take Fairview, I dont' remember what the current number of spaces is; but it used to about 4,200.

At $1 per day, per space (which with turnover is well less than $1 per parker/customer) you generate $4,200 per day which is about $1,500,000 per year.

That's for just one mall property.

For a (slightly out of date) analysis of potential issues with and revenue that might be derived from a Parking Tax, see this KPMG report for the City of Toronto.

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2016/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-94513.pdf

Parking Tax Discussion and precedents begin on page 48.

From said report:

I favour this tax, along with highway tolls.

I don't oppose a downtown congestion charge in theory; though I think its more cumbersome to implement and does nothing for suburban congestion.

 

[sixrings]

Cart in front of the horse. No one's going to take transit to big box malls and plazas in the middle of nowhere. A tax on such spots achieves nothing other than poison the well for transit improvements. Unfortunately, once the built form is in place, it's very difficult to change. Makes these issues even more tricky. The solution is not as simple as "tax every single parking spot."

As a former exclusive transit user it used to infuriate me that big box stores had parking in front of the business and as a pedestrian and transit user I had to walk through a ocean of parking lot to make it to my destination. This has been a problem for a long time. I have no idea why the parking could not be behind the business and the businesses be located right beside the street. And I’m not talking about 50s plazas here. They continue to build them this way to this day. So I understand what you are saying but somehow or another businesses need to be incentivizing more pedestrian or transit shoppers.