War on Public Transit

[fuji]

Your 30c has to cover the costs for about 12km of road, by volume of traffic, meaning that even your local residential street has to be very highly utilized (about 1000 cars per day per km) before you're coming even close to paying for your costs.

And you haven't even begun to talk about the roughly $1 billion per kilometer that it cost to build the 407 (the government spent $100 billion acquiring the land, and $1.6 billion on construction, for a 108 kilometer highway).

The tolls on that fucking road are only valued at about 1/10th of its cost, and the gas tax--nowhere near paying for it. Guess whose pockets the rest of the $100 billion came from....

 

[FOOTSNIFFER]

Not really.

Toronto offers everything under the sun. The burbs? They offer dust and wind and bullshit.

You can go on Expedia and get a room at the Westin Harbourfront Castle for $103 per night. You'll pay more than that to stay in Godforesaken land by the aiport.

Toronto offers nothing. It's s dingy, ugly, poorly planned and run dump.

 

[FatOne]

Toronto offers nothing. It's s dingy, ugly, poorly planned and run dump.

Whores? I ever hear there is an internet forum where people discuss Toronto prostitites.

 

[OddSox]

The fact that you're uneducated on the facts shouldn't be my problem.

Let's start with the supposition that every road-lane-kilometre costs about $5000 annually to maintain (a figure that's likely low by half, but we'll start there). Now let's talk about that 30 cents you pay (again, ballpark) per litre of gasoline. Taxes which have to cover a whole lot more than just the road maintenance: the taxes also have to pay for the fire services to clean up after accidents (where the driver at fault cannot be billed), for police and ambulance response, for the traffic cameras and monitoring station infrastructure and salaries to keep the roads moving at peak efficiency, and so much more. Your 30c has to cover the costs for about 12km of road, by volume of traffic, meaning that even your local residential street has to be very highly utilized (about 1000 cars per day per km) before you're coming even close to paying for your costs.

I don't think you're anywhere near that. So either learn what the costs are, or stop complaining.

So you think that if personal cars were banned, we wouldn't have to build any roads? You might save a freeway lane here and there, but that's about it. There are delivery vehicles, taxes, emergency vehicles, trucks ...

 

[oldjones]

So you think that if personal cars were banned, we wouldn't have to build any roads? You might save a freeway lane here and there, but that's about it. There are delivery vehicles, taxes, emergency vehicles, trucks ...

Once we got the private cars off the road we could move on to the ridiculous waste of every boxcar with it's own little diesel locomotive clogging up the roads. Get them back on the rails where they belong and let a single diesel pull a mile or so of them.

Without them and the private cars we'd be a darn sight closer to what roads wre built for in the first place: so people could get around. And since suburban streets wouldn't have to be built to highway standards as they are now, there'd be a good many that could be built over to densify the burbs to sustainable levels.

If we didn't find we needed to farm them that is.

 

[The Options Menu]

So you think that if personal cars were banned, we wouldn't have to build any roads? You might save a freeway lane here and there, but that's about it. There are delivery vehicles, taxes, emergency vehicles, trucks ...

Actually you're empirically wrong. Several European cities banned cars in their downtown cores, while allowing service vehicles, and they were able to do large scale conversions to pedestrian and bike spaces, and were able to plant trees and gardens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_car-free_places

And I don't think the person you quoted (or pretty much anybody) as suggesting banning personal cars on any sort of broad level-- I think most of the pro transit people here would argue Transit / Light Rail / Heavy Rail (where and when they make sense) have far more utility as public good when compared to another km of paved road, and that keeping non-resident and non-service vehicles out of the downtown core (one way or another) can be a desirable thing depending on the implementation.

 

[james t kirk]

Toronto offers nothing. It's s dingy, ugly, poorly planned and run dump.

And that's why we love it so.

 

[SloCumHeat]

Since you asked.

Quebec — Montreal

The province dedicates a surcharge of 1.5¢/litre of fuel sold within the territory and $30/vehicle registered to a provincial authority, the Agence métropolitaine des transports (AMT), to fund regional transit agencies. AMT also has authority to levy a surcharge on parking but has not yet done so.

Quebec — 6 other cities

The province transfers revenues from a $30/vehicle surcharge in each city's region for transit use.

The figure may be actually higher today. I cannot find a date on this report.

Thx for info jim. Appears that most others on this thread do not seem concerned about real public transit issues.

Toronto's TTC budget for 2011, I think, was in excess of 1B (one billion) dollars a year. How does that compare to Montreal? Again, Montreal has a $60/month pass, and seems to have equally good service given the percentage of population and area covered. Does the provincial/city taxes of Quebec/Montreal cover most of Montreal's costs? Why can't Ontario/Toronto do the same, or at least try to do so?

 

[fuji]

I'm sure the TTC has several problems, but one problem with building ANY sort of transit infrastructure in or around Toronto is the land cost. Quite simply put, it costs a hell of a lot more money to buy a corridor of land in Toronto than it does in Montreal or Vancouver. This is true not just of subways but also of roadways.

Again, I bring up the example of the 407 -- total cost to taxpayers was in excess of $100 billion when you include the land purchases. Considering that it will NEVER be anything but a highway that is not land that can be resold later, unless inconceivably someone rips up the highway and builds housing on it. Not going to happen--so it was a straight cost of $100 billion.

Those who say the gas taxes pay for the roads like to pick the spending figures from years in which there were no major land purchases. When you look at the total cost of building a road, including the cost of purchasing the land it's on, it's fucking huge.

Subways are a little less expensive because they can tunnel under, but generally there's still a lot of land purchasing involved, and if you put the subway through an area where it's really needed--meaning a built up and dense area--it's fucking expensive.

What these other cities did better than Toronto was to purchase the transit land once upon a time when it was less developed and cheap.

Toronto pushed off building transit for decades, failed to buy the required land when it was affordable, and the result now is that we can barely afford to build a single station a year, due to the costs.

 

[Hard Idle]

Highways are primarily paid for out of income tax, GST, etc.,

...Drivers don't pay their fair share to begin with. Taxpayers in general heavily subsidize car drivers.

Drivers appear to believe that they are entitled to free roads paid for by people who don't drive.

So in these statements you seem to insinuate that "Drivers" and "Taxpayers" are to separate groups of people? Is it your contention that "Drivers" are NOT taxpayers? They are all status Indians or what?

Some time back there was a stat that the number of private vehicles registered in Toronto was greater than it's total adult population. I haven't looked it up lateley but it's a safe bet that the overwhelming majority of households are represented by a registered car or truck - in other words, for the most part "drivers" and "taxpayers" are one and the same. They are not a drop in the bucket, it is the other way around.

What do you think the cost of a TTC fare would be if public money was withdrawn from that? How much transit service do you think the combined contributions of "people who don't drive." would buy if it was the sole form of financing?

 

[The Options Menu]

So in these statements you seem to insinuate that "Drivers" and "Taxpayers" are to separate groups of people? Is it your contention that "Drivers" are NOT taxpayers? They are all status Indians or what?

It's not that drivers aren't taxpayers, it's that given the nature of scarcity different public goods have different merits depending on the situation. That's why the vitriol around the "War on the car" is so harmful. It leads to bad and expensive public policy.

 

[Hard Idle]

But cars aren't. They're a preference.

EVERYTHING is a preference. Nothing is absolutely necessary from an objective point of view, the Universe will go on no matter what.

Originally Posted by oldjones
Everything old will be new again; there's nothing smart about a highway full of moving warehouses called trucks, and 'just in time' is an expensive fad

Originally Posted by oldjones
But private cars are a fad too. And it'll end when drivers actually have to pay their real costs.

Sad but true. Say goodbye to many suburbs and the mall culture as well. Thankfully, we are starting to see it happen.

No, in reality YOU are the fads - historically a recurring fad, but ultimately insignificant.

Humans NEVER give up on their wants, never accept going back to the way things were (at least not for very long - at worst a period like the Dark Ages but even that is a relative hicup in history). Recent milenia are a history of building roads, building up, building out, transporting and delivering goods in contempt of ever reater distances. Once people have their malls, their vehicles, their just in time delivery, their personal space, they will find a way to perpetuate their chosen lifestyle as they allways have ...and will eventually topple any authority that tries to restrict them by force.

Yes in every era there are those who wring their hands in some irrational, self imposed agony of guilt over human's insistence on their indulgences - some passively while others go all the way to join some cult or monestary and they are free to do so but for every one of those there will be hundreds who go the other direction.

 

[oldjones]

Thx for info jim. Appears that most others on this thread do not seem concerned about real public transit issues.

Toronto's TTC budget for 2011, I think, was in excess of 1B (one billion) dollars a year. How does that compare to Montreal? Again, Montreal has a $60/month pass, and seems to have equally good service given the percentage of population and area covered. Does the provincial/city taxes of Quebec/Montreal cover most of Montreal's costs? Why can't Ontario/Toronto do the same, or at least try to do so?

While Montreal was digging subways with the help of René Levesque's socialist PQ government, Toronto was filling in what it dug under orders from Mike Harris.

 

[oldjones]

EVERYTHING is a preference. Nothing is absolutely necessary from an objective point of view, the Universe will go on no matter what.
…edit…
Humans NEVER give up on their wants, never accept going back to the way things were (at least not for very long - at worst a period like the Dark Ages but even that is a relative hicup in history). Recent milenia are a history of building roads, building up, building out, transporting and delivering goods in contempt of ever reater distances. Once people have their malls, their vehicles, their just in time delivery, their personal space, they will find a way to perpetuate their chosen lifestyle as they allways have ...and will eventually topple any authority that tries to restrict them by force.

Yes in every era there are those who wring their hands in some irrational, self imposed agony of guilt over human's insistence on their indulgences - some passively while others go all the way to join some cult or monestary and they are free to do so but for every one of those there will be hundreds who go the other direction.

Brilliant and right on! Now just imagine you're talking to a bunch of ancient Roman pooners, living in the lap of luxury; you know banquets of stuffed larks, wine-fountains and dancing-girl orgies. They built highways all the way from Rome to Scotland. So they could eat ice cream made with snow from the Alps and export their manufactured goods across Europe and to Asia and Africa. But they couldn't figure out how to make their empire and their way of life sustainable.

The Dark Ages followed, and it took centuries before we—us unstoppable Europeans—got back to anything like what they had. And it was the guys in those monasteries you mention—they and the Muslims—who were largely responsible for seeing we didn't lose more of what the Romans knew. Chinese history has a similar lesson, for those smart enough to read it.

It's only children that NEVER give up on their wants. Sadly many children survive into middle and old age and die, without ever becoming adults. They, the ones who don't learn to modify and make their wants realistic and sustainable, and even to give some of them up will be the death of us.

Progress is what we make together. Locked up alone in little steel boxes, no matter how fast we drive, we get nowhere.

 

[The Options Menu]

While Montreal was digging subways with the help of René Levesque's socialist PQ government, Toronto was filling in what it dug under orders from Mike Harris.

This is well illustrated by the magical mathematics of fractions:

Toronto Metro Population: 5,113,149
Toronto Subway Stops: 69
Montreal Metro Population: 3,635,571
Montreal Subway Stops: 68

Means that Toronto should probably have 95 - 96 subway stops, everything else being equal. (Which is probably not a line to Scarberia only.) I've spent some time in Montreal recently, and I found it impressive that you could get from the far side of the river to Crescent Street via bike, and that they have this lovely doughnut of 4 subway lines that get out to the burbs. Given that there's an island involved that's doubly impressive. It's a great city if you don't have, or want to rent, a car.

AT this point Toronto is literally 30 years behind on transit, and while our current Mayor's position on Transit has shifted for the better (slightly), the 'War on the car' rhetoric did a lot of damage.

 

[fuji]

Is it your contention that "Drivers" are NOT taxpayers?

It's my contention that not all taxpayers are drivers, that only some taxpayers are also drivers. It's my further contention that there are some people who drive only a little, while some others drive quite a lot. For example, I don't own a car, but I rent one from time to time. I would classify myself as someone who drives--but only a little.

Currently those who drive only a little and those who don't drive are subsidizing those who drive a lot. This distorts prices for goods and services related to driving, and that at least theoretically, and probably realistically, creates inefficiencies in the economy. Free markets work best and if driving cost what it should then the market would tend towards the optimal level of driving.

An example of an inefficiency--subsidized driving encourages people to live in far flung sprawling suburbs, since the cost of their commute to work is subsidized by people who chose to work nearer their workplace. Were people forced to pay the full true cost of their commute to work at least some of those people would have chosen a smaller home nearer their work. That's an economic inefficiency.

Is your view somehow different?

 

[jiiimmm]

Thx for info jim. Appears that most others on this thread do not seem concerned about real public transit issues.

Toronto's TTC budget for 2011, I think, was in excess of 1B (one billion) dollars a year. How does that compare to Montreal? Again, Montreal has a $60/month pass, and seems to have equally good service given the percentage of population and area covered. Does the provincial/city taxes of Quebec/Montreal cover most of Montreal's costs? Why can't Ontario/Toronto do the same, or at least try to do so?

We can have a better system, its just a matter of how much we want to subsidize the system. And it must be subsidized through various means of taxation. Now I do agree the sytem is top heavy with management and I do feel that some parts of it should be privatized but then that alarms a lot of people. But at the end of the day...people love their cars...and I am one that loves the freedom of getting in my car and going where ever and when ever I want to.

 

[fuji]

What do you think the cost of a TTC fare would be if public money was withdrawn from that?

Governments are forced to subsidize public transit to compensate for a horrible pricing inefficiency with respect to environmental costs.

Specifically, drivers currently do not pay for the cost of the pollution they produce, both in terms of exhaust fumes, and in terms of scrap metal and other byproducts of car manufacturing. Those costs are subsidized by general taxpayers.

The CORRECT thing to do would be to make everybody pay the full rate of the goods and services they consume. This would mean slapping environmental costs on drivers. At that point driving would be much more expensive than public transit, and public transit solutions would naturally pick up market share by competing aggressively on price.

The somewhat broken way this is handled now is to NOT charge drivers the full rate of the pollution they produce, but to compensate for that by subsidizing public transit, which has lower pollution costs to the government and society at large.

It would indeed be much better to remove the subsidy on public transit, but ONLY if the other forms of transportation were made to pay their full costs. At that point the cost difference between public transit and driving would probably still be about what it is today--but the prices of both would go up, and taxpayers at large would get an income tax cut and a GST cut. This outcome would lead to the most optimal, efficient economic organization as everybody would make decisions about transportation based on paying the actual market rates for it.

 

[FatOne]

While Montreal was digging subways with the help of René Levesque's socialist PQ government, Toronto was filling in what it dug under orders from Mike Harris.

Rene died in 1987, Mike Harris didn't become chief untill 1995.
Quebec might have a pretty fucked up political culture, but I am pretty sure they didn't elect a zombie to lead their government in the late 90's.

 

[oldjones]

Rene died in 1987, Mike Harris didn't become chief untill 1995.
Quebec might have a pretty fucked up political culture, but I am pretty sure they didn't elect a zombie to lead their government in the late 90's.

Thanks. Take out the while and tweak the tenses; still true.
Montreal dug it's subways with the help of the socialist PQ governments—Levesque's among them. Toronto had to fill in what it dug, under orders of Mike Harris.
Better? Does a brain-dead idea like filling in a subway count towards being a zombie?