Ontario Drivers Pay Bulk of Road Costs

[GameBoy27]

This is what I've always thought, drivers are paying their fair share. Now there's a study to confirms it.

It's the government that's not using what it collects to properly fund transportation infrastructure. So what's Wynne's solution, tax drivers even more.

A new study says Ontario drivers are paying the bulk of road infrastructure costs, to the tune of more than $7.5 billion a year.

And those in the Toronto-Hamilton area are paying about $1 billion more in fees and taxes than the annual cost of construction, maintenance and policing.

The Conference Board of Canada says Ontario road users driving cars, minivans, SUVs and light pickup trucks are paying 70 to 90 per cent of the costs of the road through fuel taxes, vehicle registration fees and tolls.

The report notes that municipalities that own and maintain a large part of the infrastructure collect a relatively small portion of the revenues.

A new study says Ontario drivers are paying the bulk of road infrastructure costs. (Aaron Harris/Canadian Press)

It says the findings shed new light on the discussion about congestion, which tends to presume that road users are heavily subsidized by taxpayers.

Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne has said that the province will have to charge new fees to bring in the $2 billion a year that's needed to upgrade public transit in the Toronto-Hamilton area.

The report, which was initiated and paid for by the Canadian Automobile Association, looked at figures from 2008 to 2010 – the most recent year for which data was available, the Conference Board said.

"Motorists in Ontario meet at least a large portion of the costs that they impose on the road infrastructure – and in major urban areas probably much more than those costs," the report said. "If we look at the total cost of driving, including vehicle costs, cost recovery will tend to be closer to 100 per cent."

One of the major challenges in addressing congestion is determining who should pay the costs of more road infrastructure, Conference Board director Vijay Gill said in a release.

The findings of the report don't remove policy options like congestion charges, but it does challenge conventional thinking about who pays for road infrastructure, he said.

The recommendations from Metrolinx, the transit planning agency, include a hike in the harmonized sales tax, a five-cent-a-litre regional gas tax, a $350-million-a-year business parking levy and $100 million a year in development charges.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-drivers-pay-bulk-of-road-costs-study-says-1.2100717

 

[elmo]

I wonder how this compares to the percentage transit riders pay for public transit?

 

[oldjones]

I wonder how this compares to the percentage transit riders pay for public transit?

I believe the theory is that moving a hundred people in a vehicle that takes the space of a half-dozen cars moving only six is a public good. Since that makes a net-beneifit of 94 cars worth of freed up road-space over using 100 cars, I think the idea is that car-users are supposed to realize that's a cheaper way to keep traffic moving than to pay TD to bulldoze the plaza in front of the TD Centre to build new road space. I cannot speak for the intelligence of building another underused subway where a few streetcars could do the job better and cheaper.

Given that the two biggest tax-collectors are both running big deficits and can't keep essentials like hospitals and army trucks running, all this really proves is that we've got a revenue problem. But as a driver and car owner, I am proud that we are so actively helping out. As a CAA member, I think buying this study from the Conference Board was entirely proper, but as a citizen, i am well aware that it comes from an interest group with a car agenda.

 

[Ridgeman08]

I believe the theory is that moving a hundred people in a vehicle that takes the space of a half-dozen cars moving only six is a public good. Since that makes a net-beneifit of 94 cars worth of freed up road-space over using 100 cars, I think the idea is that car-users are supposed to realize that's a cheaper way to keep traffic moving than to pay TD to bulldoze the plaza in front of the TD Centre to build new road space. I cannot speak for the intelligence of building another underused subway where a few streetcars could do the job better and cheaper.

Given that the two biggest tax-collectors are both running big deficits and can't keep essentials like hospitals and army trucks running, all this really proves is that we've got a revenue problem. But as a driver and car owner, I am proud that we are so actively helping out.

This may be true for rush hour... but, SO OFTEN, I see buses/ street cars/ subway cars with just a couple passengers! How fiscally responsible is it then? The thing about cars is that they are only being used when they are needed, where as buses, subways and streetcars have to run regardless if some one is on them or not.

 

[elmo]

I believe the theory is that moving a hundred people in a vehicle that takes the space of a half-dozen cars moving only six is a public good. Since that makes a net-beneifit of 94 cars worth of freed up road-space over using 100 cars, I think the idea is that car-users are supposed to realize that's a cheaper way to keep traffic moving than to pay TD to bulldoze the plaza in front of the TD Centre to build new road space. I cannot speak for the intelligence of building another underused subway where a few streetcars could do the job better and cheaper.

Given that the two biggest tax-collectors are both running big deficits and can't keep essentials like hospitals and army trucks running, all this really proves is that we've got a revenue problem. But as a driver and car owner, I am proud that we are so actively helping out. As a CAA member, I think buying this study from the Conference Board was entirely proper, but as a citizen, i am well aware that it comes from an interest group with a car agenda.

I think that theory only works when public transit is full. When there are fewer passengers I can't see the financial logic, although i do think we still need to run the routes. Although i agree that there is a revenue problem, there is also a massive wasteful spending problem to counter it, provincial Libs are proof enough of that. There needs to be balance. Your comment still does not answer the question of what percentage of public transit is paid by riders.

 

[Keebler Elf]

... all this really proves is that we've got a revenue problem.

OMG!!! Blasphemy!!! Don't say it, don't say it!!!

You mean we actually need to raise taxes??? Sorry, that's just plain not allowed.

 

[oldjones]

This may be true for rush hour... but, SO OFTEN, I see buses/ street cars/ subway cars with just a couple passengers! How fiscally responsible is it then? The thing about cars is that they are only being used when they are needed, where as buses, subways and streetcars have to run regardless if some one is on them or not.

So howcum the sides of our scarce and crowded roads and streets are full of unused cars all the time? To say nothing of the paved over acres of good farmland accommodating thousands of other unused cars, just so that there will be a place to stash the damn things at each end of their individual trips. When a single transit vehicle could have picked up and dropped off all the people involved then gone off for more, needing no parking at all.

You're making an utterly fallacious and untrue argument about car usage. Try riding our urban subways at almost any hour, and you'll find more passengers than seats. Same along King, Queen and Dundas. What you're seeing when the bus is almost vacant is still more efficient than dropping it off to be parked, and switching the driver to a smaller vehicle to be unparked and put on the road. To make cars as efficiently used, they'd all have to be run on a shared basis like ZipCars, AutoShare or Cars2Go, and they'd have to be so efficient that all of them were always on the road, except the one car needed by the next client.

And my bet is that one passenger on the streetcar at that quiet lonely hour is still not occupying as much road as the one guy—let's hope he wasn't drinking—in the one car in that half block. By the time the rush is over everyone spreads out. Cars too.

 

[AdamH]

Didn't the study indicate that only 90% of the roads are paid for by drivers? I figure drivers should pay 100% of the roads and then extra to help improve infrastructure (that will eventually lead to them having an easier time on the roads).

 

[oldjones]

I think that theory only works when public transit is full. When there are fewer passengers I can't see the financial logic, although i do think we still need to run the routes. Although i agree that there is a revenue problem, there is also a massive wasteful spending problem to counter it, provincial Libs are proof enough of that. There needs to be balance. Your comment still does not answer the question of what percentage of public transit is paid by riders.

I kinda thought getting an answer to that would be as tricky as getting the answer the CAA bought. And as often done before as their study has been, never mind I can't afford the Conference Board like they can. So I wrongly assumed you were only asking rhetorically. Here's the info you want.

You are right about "when there are fewer passengers", but that's also true for when there are fewer people in cars. What makes running Cities hard is that difference between meeting the maximum demand and the ordinary one. When there are enough roads and transit vehicles to meet the maximum demand, and less than maximum minimum usage, there is no gridlock, and no problem to complain of. But you may well look at the unused road space or streetcar seats and say "Inefficient". Efficiency would be time and density-varied road tolls as well as transit fares.

When I have to stand all the way across town on the subway tonight after La Boheme it'll be Rob and his neanderthal Car Warriors I'll be blaming for that inefficiency. How much of their subway cost are Scarburrowers expected to pay again?

 

[Ridgeman08]

So howcum the sides of our scarce and crowded roads and streets are full of unused cars all the time? To say nothing of the paved over acres of good farmland accommodating thousands of other unused cars, just so that there will be a place to stash the damn things at each end of their individual trips. When a single transit vehicle could have picked up and dropped off all the people involved then gone off for more, needing no parking at all.

You're making an utterly fallacious and untrue argument about car usage. Try riding our urban subways at almost any hour, and you'll find more passengers than seats. Same along King, Queen and Dundas. What you're seeing when the bus is almost vacant is still more efficient than dropping it off to be parked, and switching the driver to a smaller vehicle to be unparked and put on the road. To make cars as efficiently used, they'd all have to be run on a shared basis like ZipCars, AutoShare or Cars2Go, and they'd have to be so efficient that all of them were always on the road, except the one car needed by the next client.

And my bet is that one passenger on the streetcar at that quiet lonely hour is still not occupying as much road as the one guy—let's hope he wasn't drinking—in the one car in that half block. By the time the rush is over everyone spreads out. Cars too.

You like debating with me don't you?

That same rationale can be used for all the buses when they aren't being used... they are just on paved lots, not on the streets. (I hate cars parked on streets BTW...)

The other reason mass transit is not more popular is the huge inconvenience factor. If I wanted to take transit to work everyday, technically I could, but... I'd have to leave much earlier and get home much later due to the scheduling. The parking issue doesn't apply to me since I have my own driveway, and the company I work with has free parking for associates in my position. So much easier/ cheaper to take my car.

Having said that, back in the day, before I had my own car, I DID use the bus/ LRT/ subway, and I hafta say, during peek times, there often were more passengers than seats, and I often stood most of the way, as I would always offer my seat to a lady or small child or the elderly. During off peek hours however, I was often one of two or three people on the bus, or LRT train car, and always lots of seats on the subway train... granted that was the late 80's/ early 90's and I'm sure ridership has risen since then. (And I still see lots of half empty or worse, buses in my travels...)

 

[elmo]

I kinda thought getting an answer to that would be as tricky as getting the answer the CAA bought. And as often done before as their study has been, never mind I can't afford the Conference Board like they can. So I wrongly assumed you were only asking rhetorically. Here's the info you want.

You are right about "when there are fewer passengers", but that's also true for when there are fewer people in cars. What makes running Cities hard is that difference between meeting the maximum demand and the ordinary one. When there are enough roads and transit vehicles to meet the maximum demand, and less than maximum minimum usage, there is no gridlock, and no problem to complain of. But you may well look at the unused road space or streetcar seats and say "Inefficient". Efficiency would be time and density-varied road tolls as well as transit fares.

When I have to stand all the way across town on the subway tonight after La Boheme it'll be Rob and his neanderthal Car Warriors I'll be blaming for that inefficiency. How much of their subway cost are Scarburrowers expected to pay again?

Apparently transit fares make up 70% of the budget for the TTC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_Transit_Commission. I assume from this that taxes make up the difference. People have a choice between cars and transit, however roads are shared by businesses and freight as well, not just cars. Seems to me the transit riders should make up the difference between the budget and the fares. If a ride costs $1 then the fare should be $1, not $.70

 

[GameBoy27]

Didn't the study indicate that only 90% of the roads are paid for by drivers? I figure drivers should pay 100% of the roads and then extra to help improve infrastructure (that will eventually lead to them having an easier time on the roads).

Did you miss this part?

And those in the Toronto-Hamilton area are paying about $1 billion more in fees and taxes than the annual cost of construction, maintenance and policing.

 

[james t kirk]

This may be true for rush hour... but, SO OFTEN, I see buses/ street cars/ subway cars with just a couple passengers! How fiscally responsible is it then? The thing about cars is that they are only being used when they are needed, where as buses, subways and streetcars have to run regardless if some one is on them or not.

Are you for real?

Do you even live in the 416?

The TTC moves 1.7 million individual fares EVERY DAY ON AVERAGE. 2.6 million if you consider transfers.

Imagine the chaos if cars were needed 2.6 million more times every day.

 

[james t kirk]

Talking about the cost of roads, the one industry that makes off like bandits in all of this is the trucking industry.

A fully laden highway truck does as much damage to the road surface in one pass as 10,000 car passes.

So really, your gas taxes are being used to pay for roads not for automobiles, but for trucks.

 

[Butler1000]

Can everyone point this thread out to fuji. I seem to remember him stating the opposite of the study as the absolute truth in his zeal to keep the city Vehicle tax.

I'm actually shocked he hasn't come in to claim the CAA as kooky!

 

[groggy]

Are you for real?

Do you even live in the 416?

The TTC moves 1.7 million individual fares EVERY DAY ON AVERAGE. 2.6 million if you consider transfers.

Imagine the chaos if cars were needed 2.6 million more times every day.

I think, as a hardcore Fordophile, that he must just live out in the burbs and never come downtown.
He does help make the case against the Scarborough subway, though.

 

[userz]

Apparently transit fares make up 70% of the budget for the TTC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_Transit_Commission. I assume from this that taxes make up the difference. People have a choice between cars and transit, however roads are shared by businesses and freight as well, not just cars. Seems to me the transit riders should make up the difference between the budget and the fares. If a ride costs $1 then the fare should be $1, not $.70

The TTC doesn't get a dime from the Ontario government for it's operating budget. Every single inch of the provincial highway network (that which hasn't been downloaded to lower tiers of government or practically given away in the case of the 407) is maintained and paid for by the provincial treasury to which non-drivers contribute. I heard that Highway 11 and Highway 17 through the Canadian shield in the disparate Ontario hinterlands are by far the most expensive roadways ever built (adjusted for inflation) because of the topography which posed huge engineering challenges. I doubt drivers alone can pay for the maintenance of these roads without massive government subsidies.

 

[slowandeasy]

I believe the theory is that moving a hundred people in a vehicle that takes the space of a half-dozen cars moving only six is a public good. Since that makes a net-beneifit of 94 cars worth of freed up road-space over using 100 cars, I think the idea is that car-users are supposed to realize that's a cheaper way to keep traffic moving than to pay TD to bulldoze the plaza in front of the TD Centre to build new road space. I cannot speak for the intelligence of building another underused subway where a few streetcars could do the job better and cheaper.

Given that the two biggest tax-collectors are both running big deficits and can't keep essentials like hospitals and army trucks running, all this really proves is that we've got a revenue problem. But as a driver and car owner, I am proud that we are so actively helping out. As a CAA member, I think buying this study from the Conference Board was entirely proper, but as a citizen, i am well aware that it comes from an interest group with a car agenda.

I beg to disagree. I believe that we have a spending problem not a revenue problem.

 

[fuji]

The study, sponsored by the CAA (no bias there) looked at only part of the costs of roads, "construction, maintenance and policing."

Significantly missing from that is real estate costs, and also environmental impacts. The estate costs are actually the largest cost.

 

[pointz]

Has anyone noticed that the pavement quality has gone down substantially in the recent years? Most annoying are those bus tracks in the rightmost lane.