General Road and Highway Discussion

[ijmorlan]

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.

I’m not sure I would go so far as to argue for my solution

Except for the highway tolling part. I’m definite on having controlled-access roads pay for themselves in full, with additional charges at busy times sufficient to eliminate routine congestion.

[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.

OK, I apologize if my previous point ruffled some feathers.  But I think if you look at it from outside the box (or bubble, or whatever) that it's still a valid point:  People that drive cars subsidize roads etc already.  A "single occupant vehicle commuting is going to spend more on things such as: vehicle ownership, gas tax (did you know it's already ~33% of what you pay at the pump) and wear/tear which keeps your local mechanics and parts places in business.  Like it or not, them's the economics.  The benefits are already realized. 

"perverse societal incentives", "Netherlands" eh...Sure they ride a lot of bikes but look what their largest export is  - petroleum 

Is a single occupant vehicle commuting efficient? Not as much as it could be. Healthy discussion.

[tomh009]

Current gas taxes add up to 24.7 cents/litre (10 cents federal and 14.7 provincial) in Ontario, excluding HST (which applies to almost everything anyway).

Most of Europe is 50-75 cents/litre. Japan is about 50 cents/litre but highways are very frequently tolled.

Personally I would be happy to pay an extra 25 cents/litre if that got us better road infrastructure. Current levels amount to roughly $13B/year; another 25 cents would nearly double that (assuming some reduction in driving due to higher prices). Consistently spending an additional $10B/year on our roads and bridges alone would surely be a good start in catching up our transportation infrastructure deficit.

[darts]

Current gas taxes add up to 24.7 cents/litre (10 cents federal and 14.7 provincial) in Ontario, excluding HST (which applies to almost everything anyway).  

Most of Europe is 50-75 cents/litre.  Japan is about 50 cents/litre but highways are very frequently tolled.

Personally I would be happy to pay an extra 25 cents/litre if that got us better road infrastructure.  Current levels amount to roughly $13B/year; another 25 cents would nearly double that (assuming some reduction in driving due to higher prices).  Consistently spending an additional $10B/year on our roads and bridges alone would surely be a good start in catching up our transportation infrastructure deficit.

How much disposable income do you have to be happy to pay more in taxes? I know I'm not getting a raise in 2017 : /

[tomh009]

How much disposable income do you have to be happy to pay more in taxes? I know I'm not getting a raise in 2017 : /

Seriously, if there is value for those taxes, then it's fundamentally no different than spending money on a movie or a new car.  (Except for the fact that you have no choice about it, of course.)  Paying more taxes but getting nothing in return, that would be a whole different thing.

[Canard]

I've always kinda felt like if I could focus or choose where my money for taxes was going, I'd happily pay a lot more.

If I could pitch in an extra couple grand toward ion Phase 2, the Highway 7 interchange, Transit Hub or cycle trail upgrades - I would!

[rangersfan]

A revamped plan for the Columbia St widening has been proposed to help get the project on budget.


http://m.therecord.com/news-story/702375...treet-plan

[danbrotherston]

Nobody has said anything about no cars. In fact every respondent has acknowledged repeatedly what benefits roads and vehicles do bring. Putting words in peoples mouths does not advance the conversation.

[SammyOES2]

"Yes, there are areas of the province which don't support mass transit, I'm not talking about those areas, obviously."

To be clear, I mean areas like Waterloo Region. Almost all of it.

Like, let's do a thought experiment. If Waterloo Region, or even just the cities themselves banned single occupant travel, what do you think would happen?

If it's really as economically and socially expensive as you keep claiming then we should be better off.

I think you miss the vast benefits that our current transportation system provides. It gives more freedom to employees to choose where they work. It gives more freedom to families where two people want to work in different areas. It means faster average travel times, which gives people more leisure time. Etc. Etc.

I'm generally a data person. So I'd love to see numbers on this economic and social cost you keep talking about. Like I said it's an enormously complex system and it's really hard to measure impacts of single variables but it seems to me like you're very much overstating the costs and understating the benefits. I could be wrong though.

[SammyOES2]

Ijmorlan, just because you see people driving by themselves on a section where public transportation would work, doesn't mean public transportation would work for them. It has to make sense and be practical from doorstep to doorstep.

And your last comment is why many of us get frustrated with these discussions. Because it's obviously what you feel but it's just factually untrue. It's the same way talking with anti-lrt people goes.

[SammyOES2]

Darts, every year you should be paying more to receive the same services. That's just how our economy works. To expect otherwise isn't realistic.

[MidTowner]

Darts, every year you should be paying more to receive the same services.  That's just how our economy works.  To expect otherwise isn't realistic.

Do you mean paying more in real terms? Darts is referring to the fact that his inflation-adjusted (or maybe even nominal) wages are not increasing, but the cost of services seems to be. That's certainly not impossible, but not sustainable over the long term.

[danbrotherston]

"Yes, there are areas of the province which don't support mass transit, I'm not talking about those areas, obviously."

To be clear, I mean areas like Waterloo Region.  Almost all of it.

Like, let's do a thought experiment.  If Waterloo Region, or even just the cities themselves banned single occupant travel, what do you think would happen?

If it's really as economically and socially expensive as you keep claiming then we should be better off.

I think you miss the vast benefits that our current transportation system provides. It gives more freedom to employees to choose where they work. It gives more freedom to families where two people want to work in different areas.  It means faster average travel times, which gives people more leisure time.  Etc. Etc.

I'm generally a data person. So I'd love to see numbers on this economic and social cost you keep talking about.  Like I said it's an enormously complex system and it's really hard to measure impacts of single variables but it seems to me like you're very much overstating the costs and understating the benefits. I could be wrong though.

The cities all have the density and size to support transit.  And none of the things you list are benefits of transit over single occupant vehicles.  They are advantages in our cities, ONLY because we've decided to build for cars.  Because we've compromised the option of providing an efficient transit system, it now functions very poorly.  This is a function of the road design, the built environment.  It's a choice we've made, but it was still a choice.  I'm not saying we can change it with the flip of a coin, but its something we could change gradually, and are doing so, with the LRT, improved train service, etc.

It is important to realize that the design of our roads and our buildings plays an enormous role in how our transportation system works.

[SammyOES2]

Darts, every year you should be paying more to receive the same services.  That's just how our economy works.  To expect otherwise isn't realistic.

Do you mean paying more in real terms? Darts is referring to the fact that his inflation-adjusted (or maybe even nominal) wages are not increasing, but the cost of services seems to be. That's certainly not impossible, but not sustainable over the long term.

I mean paying more in absolute terms and not in terms of percentage of his own income.  Its not realistic to expect individual incomes to change at the same rate as other costs.

[SammyOES2]

Dan, the cities have the density and size to support transit IN SOME AREAS only. And, as I mentioned before, in order to eliminate personal use you need to be able to meet a wide range of use cases - most importantly getting from living place to work place in a practical way. That requires efficient transit options along the whole route.

As for the rest, I mean yes, I'm talking about the real world that we live in now. If you want to argue that your system would work in some hypothetical world, then, sure, probably? But its hard enough to know how things work in our current world where we can actually measure stuff. I don't know how we figure out what works in hypothetical world that Dan is thinking about.