General Road and Highway Discussion

[SammyOES2]

I know of only one in our market- Desjardins- that has an OBD interface that collects data to gauge driving style. Their program offers discounts only, not penalties, and is very limited (the discounts are capped at a low level). It's a pilot.

But that is exactly what I mean- giving insurers more data and allowing them to charge according to the risks the data suggest would penalize the driving habits you described above. But right now, in Ontario, giving insurers those ability would be met with an outcry.

I like this in theory, my biggest problem is that I don't trust insurers.  Everybody makes mistakes, and I worry insurance companies will abuse the data in ways that we don't necessarily anticipate for their own benefit.  Although I'm sure there are safeguards that could be in put in place.

This quote from your linked article kind of tickled me:

"To further ease fears of government surveillance, driving data will be collected by a private company and then reported to the state DoT." 


I don't love the government surveillance part of the VMT tax, but I find it amusing that I'm suppose to feel comforted by random profit-maximizing private company having the data instead.

[SammyOES2]

I'm not sure what you mean about insurance - it's absolutely criminal the way it's handled. My side impact airbag deployed once when I "hit" a pothole. Insurance wouldn't touch it because I said "I hit a pothole". If I'd used different verbiage when I called in, I was told, they would have.

I believe there are already insurance companies that offer an OBD dongle that monitors driving style.

Similar thing happened to us.  My wife was rear-ended and said one thing wrong and the insurance company used it to make her 50% at fault.  They wouldn't even consider the pictures she'd taken proving that she wasn't at fault because she'd already 'admitted' to something that they could use to blame her.

[tomh009]

Similar thing happened to us.  My wife was rear-ended and said one thing wrong and the insurance company used it to make her 50% at fault.  They wouldn't even consider the pictures she'd taken proving that she wasn't at fault because she'd already 'admitted' to something that they could use to blame her.

Ontario has no-fault insurance so the fault is always shared from an insurance point of view, regardless of what actually happened.

[SammyOES2]

People generally misunderstand "no-fault" insurance (not sure if this is what you did here).  I believe the primary point of "no-fault" insurance is just that you always deal with your insurance company regardless of the details of the accident.  Then your insurance company deals with the other parties insurance company on your behalf.

In accidents you still get assigned a percentage that you're at fault.  This influences the amount of your deductible that you pay.  More importantly, it also impacts whether your rates can be increased.  If you're found to be <25% at fault, your rates won't go up.  I think this is in all cases, but maybe this is insurance company specific.

Edit: For a 'fun' read, you can actually see how insurance companies have to determine fault in Ontario: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/900668

[embe]

I got lost in the last couple pages in this thread about taxes and tolls and what-not with roads and provincial highways.  If you buy a new vehicle, you pay a tax.  Same with a used vehicle.  Fill up your gas tank you're taxed, whether it's a miser or a guzzler (more gas consumed = more tax paid).  Need to repair a part?  You pay tax on the part and most times the labor (unless you DIY, ).  Income tax, property tax, sales tax all go towards maintaining a standard of living in your municipality. 

So unless I'm renting an apartment, without a job, and not buying anything, I'd expect road maintenance to be covered in the taxes paid.  Just like if I'm walking on the sidewalk or cycling in a park, the cost of maintaining that isn't free either.

[tomh009]

Tolls are effectively user fees: the more you use, the more you pay. We could pay for transportation based on how much you earn (income tax), on how much you spend (sales tax), on how much fuel you use (gas tax), on the value of your house(property tax), on how many cars you own (annual licence fee) -- or based on how much you drive. In the end we're collecting money to pay for the infrastructure.

To me personally, usage-based taxation, either by distance or by fuel consumption, makes the most sense for transportation infrastructure. But it's a debate with many strong opinions, to be sure.

[danbrotherston]

I got lost in the last couple pages in this thread about taxes and tolls and what-not with roads and provincial highways.  If you buy a new vehicle, you pay a tax.  Same with a used vehicle.  Fill up your gas tank you're taxed, whether it's a miser or a guzzler (more gas consumed = more tax paid).  Need to repair a part?  You pay tax on the part and most times the labor (unless you DIY, ).  Income tax, property tax, sales tax all go towards maintaining a standard of living in your municipality. 

So unless I'm renting an apartment, without a job, and not buying anything, I'd expect road maintenance to be covered in the taxes  paid.  Just like if I'm walking on the sidewalk or cycling in a park, the cost of maintaining that isn't free either.

The point is, since it's paid for by taxes, its subsidized.  Basically the general tax base (everybody) pays for those who drive.  Why not make those who drive pay.  Single occupant vehicle travel is an inherently inefficient method of travel, so why shouldn't it cost more.  It also results in substantial social and environmental costs, so why should we subsidize it so much?  Yes, there are some external benefits that apply to everybody (economic activity) but the majority of the costs are not incurred supporting goods movement, but instead supporting single occupant vehicle commuting.  So everybody, whether you drive or not, pay a whole lot of money so that those who wish to drive by themselves can continue to do so cheaply, despite the social and environmental costs.  It's terrible government policy.

[notmyfriends]

I know of only one in our market- Desjardins- that has an OBD interface that collects data to gauge driving style. Their program offers discounts only, not penalties, and is very limited (the discounts are capped at a low level). It's a pilot.

But that is exactly what I mean- giving insurers more data and allowing them to charge according to the risks the data suggest would penalize the driving habits you described above. But right now, in Ontario, giving insurers those ability would be met with an outcry.

I like this in theory, my biggest problem is that I don't trust insurers.  Everybody makes mistakes, and I worry insurance companies will abuse the data in ways that we don't necessarily anticipate for their own benefit.  Although I'm sure there are safeguards that could be in put in place.

This quote from your linked article kind of tickled me:

"To further ease fears of government surveillance, driving data will be collected by a private company and then reported to the state DoT." 


I don't love the government surveillance part of the VMT tax, but I find it amusing that I'm suppose to feel comforted by random profit-maximizing private company having the data instead.

You'd shudder at what life insurers are looking into for the next few years.  Though that's only if you avoid google facebook et al in a very directed manner already.

[ijmorlan]

The point is, since it's paid for by taxes, its subsidized.  Basically the general tax base (everybody) pays for those who drive.  Why not make those who drive pay.  Single occupant vehicle travel is an inherently inefficient method of travel, so why shouldn't it cost more.  It also results in substantial social and environmental costs, so why should we subsidize it so much?  Yes, there are some external benefits that apply to everybody (economic activity) but the majority of the costs are not incurred supporting goods movement, but instead supporting single occupant vehicle commuting.  So everybody, whether you drive or not, pay a whole lot of money so that those who wish to drive by themselves can continue to do so cheaply, despite the social and environmental costs.  It's terrible government policy.

I consider that a two-lane (single lane each direction) network of roads should be provided free, on the theory that some vehicle access is needed “everywhere”. Anything past that should be provided on an engineering basis based on demand, or on a user-pay basis — so if an LRT is the efficient way to move the people, that is what should be built, no matter how much people dislike that solution. If a multi-lane road is what is needed, that’s fine, but it will be a toll road and all costs associated with building and operating it must be recovered from the tolls. Note in particular that this implies that all expressways would be tolled and would no longer be a budget item. This also avoids the costs and complexities of tolling neighbourhood streets. I think some sort of arrangement consistent with this would do much to reveal just how much people really value the ability to drive places, and if combined with congestion pricing would also do a lot to reveal just how much people really care exactly when they are able to do things.

[NotStan]

I got lost in the last couple pages in this thread about taxes and tolls and what-not with roads and provincial highways.  If you buy a new vehicle, you pay a tax.  Same with a used vehicle.  Fill up your gas tank you're taxed, whether it's a miser or a guzzler (more gas consumed = more tax paid).  Need to repair a part?  You pay tax on the part and most times the labor (unless you DIY, ).  Income tax, property tax, sales tax all go towards maintaining a standard of living in your municipality. 

So unless I'm renting an apartment, without a job, and not buying anything, I'd expect road maintenance to be covered in the taxes  paid.  Just like if I'm walking on the sidewalk or cycling in a park, the cost of maintaining that isn't free either.

The point is, since it's paid for by taxes, its subsidized.  Basically the general tax base (everybody) pays for those who drive.  Why not make those who drive pay.  Single occupant vehicle travel is an inherently inefficient method of travel, so why shouldn't it cost more.  It also results in substantial social and environmental costs, so why should we subsidize it so much?  Yes, there are some external benefits that apply to everybody (economic activity) but the majority of the costs are not incurred supporting goods movement, but instead supporting single occupant vehicle commuting.  So everybody, whether you drive or not, pay a whole lot of money so that those who wish to drive by themselves can continue to do so cheaply, despite the social and environmental costs.  It's terrible government policy.

I'm not sure its fair to say that there is just "some external benefits" that apply to everyone.  You could make everyone who drives pay but even people who don't drive benefit by having roads for ambulance, police, fire, utility and other services.   And even if you're not a driver, you will likely use commercial services requiring roads - to have large items like furniture delivered, etc.  The drivers of those vehicles could pay fees.   And out of fairness, if you are going to charge fees to drivers to cover the costs of roads then you should also charge users for the costs of sidewalks, trails, etc.    Given all this, I think its fair that the cost of roads come out of taxes, including gas taxes.

[danbrotherston]

I'm not sure its fair to say that there is just "some external benefits" that apply to everyone.  You could make everyone who drives pay but even people who don't drive benefit by having roads for ambulance, police, fire, utility and other services.   And even if you're not a driver, you will likely use commercial services requiring roads - to have large items like furniture delivered, etc.  The drivers of those vehicles could pay fees.   And out of fairness, if you are going to charge fees to drivers to cover the costs of roads then you should also charge users for the costs of sidewalks, trails, etc.    Given all this, I think its fair that the cost of roads come out of taxes, including gas taxes.

You didn't really understand what I said, imjorlan made it more explicit. Yes, there are benefits, and we all reap those benefits, but to get those benefits we only need a road to exist, a narrow two lane road would be just fine, an ambulance, fire truck, even shipping doesn't require four lane, six lane, even ten lane wide roads. Those roads are only required when huge volumes of car traffic (mostly single occupant commuters) arrive. And those roads are the enormously expensive ones to build, and the ones that incur the larges social and environmental costs. But the benefits of those roads go exclusively to car drivers (commuters mostly) who choose to get around in the most inefficient way possible, and who we subsidize doing so.

I'm not sure I would go so far as to argue for imjorlan's solution, but the vast majority of the costs (financial, economic, and social) are incurred to benefit *only* single occupant vehicle commuters.

[embe]

lol, why all the car hate?  Sure walking and biking is great but can't ignore that vehicle sales, gas tax, infrastructure maintenance all drive the economy and provides the standard of living that we all enjoy.

[tomh009]

I don't think it's car hate. But it's a reasonable discussion about how we should structure the taxes/fees to pay for the infrastructure we do need. In a sense, it's similar to the question of transit funding: should the costs be paid based on usage (fares) or by general tax revenues (income, sales or property taxes)? If part of transit cost is usage-based, should the roads be the same? Is the gas tax a sufficient proxy for this?

Full disclosure: We have two cars. And I do love driving my car, but in 2016 I have driven only about 9000 km. Some day in the not too distant future, we'll have just one.

[panamaniac]

I don't think it's car hate.  But it's a reasonable discussion about how we should structure the taxes/fees to pay for the infrastructure we do need.  In a sense, it's similar to the question of transit funding: should the costs be paid based on usage (fares) or by general tax revenues (income, sales or property taxes)?  If part of transit cost is usage-based, should the roads be the same?  Is the gas tax a sufficient proxy for this?  

Full disclosure: We have two cars.  And I do love driving my car, but in 2016 I have driven only about 9000 km.  Some day in the not too distant future, we'll have just one.

I should have thought that it could be, if political will were to exist.  I have been at a loss to understand why governments did not take advantage of the drop in gas prices in recent years to increase taxes on gasoline.  Very short-sighted of them, imo, not only in terms of revenue foregone but in terms of the drift toward less fuel efficient vehicles than what assumes would be the case if fuel prices were higher.

[danbrotherston]

lol, why all the car hate?  Sure walking and biking is great but can't ignore that vehicle sales, gas tax, infrastructure maintenance all drive the economy and provides the standard of living that we all enjoy.

"Car hate"...where is the car hate?  This is a discussion of policies, and of economics.  It's not "hate" to point out that mass car commuting is the least efficient form of travel and has enormous social, economic, and environmental costs.  It isn't "hate" to suggest that using economics, by pricing road travel directly, you can reverse the perverse societal incentives towards this inefficient form of transportation.  These are just facts and policy ideas.

In fact, I don't hate driving one bit, I love driving.  I do however, hate traffic, and congestion, and unpleasant urban experiences.

Also, I don't think it's correct to suggest that these things are the same as single occupant vehicle commuting, or a car oriented society, nor are those things required to maintain our standard of living.  Countries with far lower rates of single occupancy vehicle commuting, including places which are a mecca of biking like the Netherlands, have both, equally high rates of household car ownership, and also higher quality of life metrics.