British Road Tax Scheme

[Wilber]

Your example is my argument in one narrow instance.

You see it as paying for use of a specific road (built to be a toll road). I wonder why the same practice is not extended to all roads.

It is one example where making a system more efficient really does conserve energy and reduce emissions, not some PC feel good tax that does nothing but take more money out of people's pockets.

If all roads were strictly user pay, how many towns or regions in this country would be inaccessible by road because there were not enough users to pay for them? Parts of the Trans Canada Highway would not be viable, certainly through the Rockies and coast mountains. Among many other things, without government involvement there would be no Confederation Bridge or ferry service to Newfoundland or Vancouver Island that anyone could afford.

The only reason this country exists in its present state was on the promise of building a railroad, which would never have happened without government involvement.

[Charles Anthony]

Wilber,

The point of this thread is not arguing against government construction of roads. The point is to examine how the roads are managed and accessed AFTER they are constructed. Why not deal with the roads we have right now in a better fashion?

Put aside the benefits of government subsidized transportation to depressed or inefficient parts of the country -- for now.

[Wilber]

Wilber,

The point of this thread is not arguing against government construction of roads. The point is to examine how the roads are managed and accessed AFTER they are constructed. Why not deal with the roads we have right now in a better fashion?

Put aside the benefits of government subsidized transportation to depressed or inefficient parts of the country -- for now.

You and August have two different things going. He seems to think everything should be user pay. That was what I was addressing. People and goods have to be moved. Taxing people for a necessity without providing alternatives or without using that revenue to make movement more efficient will not reduce emissions. If efficient public transportation is not available, people will continue to use their vehicles. People are not going to spend 4 hours commuting back and forth to work every day if they can do it in 2 or less with a car, regardless of what it costs.

[Charles Anthony]

You and August have two different things going. He seems to think everything should be user pay.

Correct. My true beliefs are a little less palatable in our current State of affairs.

That was what I was addressing.

No, you were not. You were categorically making the following association:

any type of user pay = absolutely no government roads, not now, not ever

That is wrong. Governments can build roads and charge people to use them.

Anyway, roads are already constructed. Nobody is advocating demolishing roads.

People and goods have to be moved. Taxing people for a necessity without providing alternatives or without using that revenue to make movement more efficient will not reduce emissions.

If it does not make them reduce their emissions, at the very least it will make them pay for their emissions.

[Wilber]

If it does not make them reduce their emissions, at the very least it will make them pay for their emissions.

For most people vehicles are a necessity in this country, not an option like booze or smokes. You speak as though another "sin tax" will solve our problems. If you really want to reduce emissions you have to provide transportation systems that are more energy efficient. I could see congestion taxes if there were enough viable alternatives to vehicle use but until that happens, it is just a money grab.

When I go into Vancouver, unless there are a bunch of us I try and park on the outskirts and take Skytrain into the city because I don't really like driving downtown. Trouble is you can't find a parking spot in the park and rides on a weekday. The last time I went, I ended up finding a spot on the street over a half mile from the station. It was a nice day and I wasn't in a rush so I didn't mind the walk. Otherwise, forget it.

If I want to go all the way on transit, the West Coast Express commuter train from here only runs during the morning and evening rush on weekdays. It is also very expensive if there is more than one person. Other than that, the only option is a car and a tax won't make any difference.

[mikedavid00]

We should all know better. There is no chance they will remove the gas taxes and all that in order to put in this congestion taxes. Just taking more and more of our money isn't the solution to any problem, let alone traffic congestion.

They are looking at doing the same in Toronto.

The UK can swallow the cost of this I believe and have the transit system to back it up.

I don't think many Canadian cities can do the same thing.

I have a solution. Let's lower gas taxes and build more road and subways to relieve traffic.

And of course, there's one other MAJOR thing that we can do to reduce traffic... hmmm I wonder what that is..

[August1991]

It's good to know that others agree and are promoting this. The trick is to make it politically palatable, as noted below. Unfortunately, most of our politicians have such low credibility now that no one believes them on fiscal issues.

It will take a mayor with some foresight and force of character to do this.

Urban planners should consider the merits of toll roads and fees for driving in congested city centres if they want to thin out traffic and reduce the soaring but hidden costs of gridlock, a University of Alberta economics professor says.

Robin Lindsey's study was released today by the Toronto-based C.D. Howe Institute.

...

In his study, Lindsey looked at urban areas and highways that now charge user fees. In central Canada, the best-known example is Highway 407, a 108-km stretch of toll road that allows traffic to bypass Toronto while avoiding Highway 401, an often-congested multi-lane route.

"To travel its full length during the peak period, a motorist now pays $18.87," Lindsey wrote. "Off-peak rates are only slightly lower."

But many people consider it worth the price. It saves times - sometimes hours of being tied up in traffic jams. Highway 407 also allows commercial transportation companies to deliver goods on time.

A tougher sell would be fees for driving in congested city centres. London and Singapore already have such fees. In the case of Singapore, the accounting is done by on-board electronic devices that record when a vehicle enters certain zones of the city or drives along certain expressways and arterial roads. Charges are altered every five to 30 minutes and charge levels are reviewed quarterly to ensure enough drivers are discouraged from travelling in certain areas at peak times. London England uses a similar fee system but uses an automated licence plate recognition system to keep track of cars and bill their owners rather than an on-board electronic device.

When London began using its toll system in 2003 many drivers were enraged. The system has since found wide acceptance, thanks in part to the breaks some drivers receive.

"A number of vehicle categories are exempt and residents of the charge area receive a 90 per cent discount," Lindsey wrote.

Edmonton Journal

This is a marketing job and prices should reflect congestion with sales and free travel after midnight, on certain holidays or depending on direction of travel.

These are the principal conclusions of the original report:

• Congestion is a serious and growing problem in major Canadian cities as measured by the costs of travel delay, additional fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Canada’s nine largest urban areas, by one estimate, face annual costs of $3 billion.

• Neither fuel taxes nor parking fees are effective in dealing with traffic congestion. Appropriately designed road-pricing schemes are the best instrument. Road-pricing’s usefulness in charging for road damage, insurance, and so on are a bonus.

• Net revenues from road charges, after deducting operating costs, can be used for various purposes: to pay for road construction and maintenance, to support other modes of transport, or to reduce other distorting taxes; they can also enhance the public’s acceptance of road pricing by compensating potential losers.

• Claims that road pricing hurts the poor are exaggerated. Poorer people travel less than richer people. They rely more on urban public transport, which would speed up if there were fewer cars on the road, and they would benefit if road-pricing revenues were used to enhance public transport service. Also, policymakers may choose to address equity concerns by offering discounts or exemptions.

CD Howe

There is no doubt in my mind that pricing of congestion in road use will become pervasive in the next 50 years and will probably replace property taxes as a primary source of municipal revenue.

----

For most people vehicles are a necessity in this country, not an option like booze or smokes. You speak as though another "sin tax" will solve our problems.

Necessity? Everything is an option, even death. The question really is the price, or how much you'd be willing to give up to get the so-called necessity.

But what strikes me as more relevant is the notion that society should assume a cost of $10 when the benefit obtained is only $8. We can quibble over the calculation of cost and benefit but the principle is sound.

When you drive on a city road, your car takes up space and prevents other cars behind you from moving. The cost you impose may seem trivial to you but the collective cost of all the cars result is not. Moreover, your car also pollutes the atmosphere with fumes and noise.

My point here is that you don't see these costs and they may well be greater than the benefit you obtain from driving on the road. IOW, driving is not a necessity. When faced with the complete cost, you may choose some alternative.

[Wilber]

Necessity? Everything is an option, even death. The question really is the price, or how much you'd be willing to give up to get the so-called necessity.

Tell that to the commuters of Vancouver who watch bus after bus go by full to the gunnel's or can't get on Skytrain during rush hour for the same reason. You have to provide alternatives and if governments insist on siphoning off the great majority of fuel and other transportation taxes into general revenue instead of providing those alternatives, it ain't going to happen. It's just another tax grab. It guess it depends on whether your real objective is to reduce congestion and polution or just stick it to people who are forced to do something you don't consider to be PC.

[Wilber]

From the report

• Neither fuel taxes nor parking fees are effective in dealing with traffic congestion. Appropriately designed road-pricing schemes are the best instrument. Road-pricing’s usefulness in charging for road damage, insurance, and so on are a bonus.

If higher fuel taxes and parking fees aren't effective why would they expect a road tax to work? Why would they believe that the taxes collected would be used for road maintenance and insurance when none of the other vehicle related taxes already collected are directed toward that purpose? There has to be efficient alternatives to using cars or it is just another tax grab.

[fellowtraveller]

We should all know better. There is no chance they will remove the gas taxes and all that in order to put in this congestion taxes. Just taking more and more of our money isn't the solution to any problem, let alone traffic congestion.

They are looking at doing the same in Toronto.

The UK can swallow the cost of this I believe and have the transit system to back it up.

I don't think many Canadian cities can do the same thing.

I have a solution. Let's lower gas taxes and build more road and subways to relieve traffic.

And of course, there's one other MAJOR thing that we can do to reduce traffic... hmmm I wonder what that is..

The UK can swallow what cost?

And their much vaunted transit system is as much myth as reality. It is expensive by any standard, some sectors like inter city train travle are grotesquely expensive. A weekly tube pass in London for a visitor runs around $100. The same pass in Montreal is about $20. Wages are not much different.

[Wilber]

The UK can swallow what cost?

And their much vaunted transit system is as much myth as reality. It is expensive by any standard, some sectors like inter city train travle are grotesquely expensive. A weekly tube pass in London for a visitor runs around $100. The same pass in Montreal is about $20. Wages are not much different.

No myth but it is expensive for tourists. What do passes cost locals in London? I don't know. Tourists don't present a congestion problem, it is daily use by locals. The system is there, and I have found it to be fast, efficient and convenient. The same cannot be said for most North American cities where large numbers of people commuting into and around them have no real alternative to a car. People are going to pay a lot before they will be willing to take 4 hours daily to commute via transit (if they even have that option) or do it in two hours with a private vehicle. City centers as places of business will die and urban sprawl will increase if you can't get people in and out of them efficiently and economically.

[August1991]

It's just another tax grab.

I'm going to focus on this one sentence, Wilbur.

First, would you agree to road tolls if they were revenue neutral; that is, if all the money raised from tolls meant a dollar-for-dollar reduction in other taxes (for example property taxes)?

Second, your idea of a tax grab flies in the face of all economic theory and every credible theory of human behaviour or even animal or plant behaviour I know. People tend to seek the easiest way to get something. If there's a tax, people try to avoid paying it. It may take time for people to figure out a way around the obstacle but they'll figure out a way.

IOW, Wilbur, I'm saying that people are not static. They change. To say that a road toll is just "a tax grab", you are in effect saying that people don't change. I disagree.

As Adam Smith observed, the price mechanism takes this natural desire to find an easier, even lazy, way to get something and turns this desire into a force of benefit to the community. Prices make greedy people cooperative. Road tolls would be just another example of Adam Smith's observation.

----

Incidentally, Montreal's mayor announced today his desire to install road usage fees. Montreal is ideally suited because it is an island but modern technology makes road fees practical almost anywhere now.

The City of Montreal has released its ambitious $8 billion public transit plan to overhaul the island’s metro train and bus network over the next two decades which includes streetcar routes and possible bridge and highway tolls.

....

Traffic congestion alone "causes economic losses of $800,000 to one million dollars a year" said André Lavallée, Montreal’s executive committee member responsible for public transit and urban development.

CBC

[i think someone missed at least three zeroes there. The losses are well over $1 billion.]

[geoffrey]

[i think someone missed at least three zeroes there. The losses are well over $1 billion.]

I lost about 3 hours so far this week to higher than average congestion. Assuming I and everyone in Calgary make the average Canadian wage, and half commute, that leaves us with an economic loss of around 22.5 million dollars per week. And we're much smaller than Montreal.

[Riverwind]

I lost about 3 hours so far this week to higher than average congestion. Assuming I and everyone in Calgary make the average Canadian wage, and half commute, that leaves us with an economic loss of around 22.5 million dollars per week. And we're much smaller than Montreal.

You are, of course, assuming that 'solving' the congestion problem by increasing costs would still allow the same level of economic activity to take place.

Punative taxes designed to reduce car use in cities with no useful transit system will simply reduce economic activity. I live in a suburb of Vancouver where the transit service is actually better than average. However, it still takes 1 1/2 to get downtown on a bus when the same trip in a car on congested roads is less than 1 hour. The bus takes longer because it is necessary to change buses.

It used to be possible to get downtown from most places in Richmond in 45 minutes on the bus because the buses went directly downtown. However, the transit mandarins cancelled those buses and now require that everyone wait for an 'express bus' at the city center that goes downtown. This 'express bus' will be replaced by a train in the next 2 years but the train will not do anything about the delays caused by waiting for bus transfers. In fact, these delays will likely get longer because the train is a huge money pit that starves the rest of the transit system.

[geoffrey]

Punative taxes designed to reduce car use in cities with no useful transit system will simply reduce economic activity. I live in a suburb of Vancouver where the transit service is actually better than average. However, it still takes 1 1/2 to get downtown on a bus when the same trip in a car on congested roads is less than 1 hour. The bus takes longer because it is necessary to change buses.

I drove into Vancouver two weekends ago at rush hour from the TransCanada... wow, that was traffic beyond anything I had seen in Calgary.

I heard the transit in Vancouver was pretty much the closest thing to terrible (though Calgary could give you a run for your money), fortunately I stayed right downtown so everything was walkable.

1 1/2 is pretty brutal... so, what do we do?

Do we build more roads? Build more transit? How do we pay for it all?

It used to be possible to get downtown from most places in Richmond in 45 minutes on the bus because the buses went directly downtown. However, the transit mandarins cancelled those buses and now require that everyone wait for an 'express bus' at the city center that goes downtown. This 'express bus' will be replaced by a train in the next 2 years but the train will not do anything about the delays caused by waiting for bus transfers. In fact, these delays will likely get longer because the train is a huge money pit that starves the rest of the transit system.

Ah, much like the C-train.

I think the one thing Calgary needs to learn from Vancouver is about building up (I'm impressed with how you guys build all those towers on such hilly land, I'm no engineer but it must be ridiculously expensive). Unfortunately, there is unobstructed land in all four directions here (spare a massive Indian reserve) so people have decided it's better to build out than up. Hopefully this will change. Not only is rent in Calgary at a premium, but downtown rent especially. I want a downtown place, but there just isn't that option (and I make pretty solid cash for a student) for someone at my income level.

So it's almost like we are forced into the commute which turns into a big catch 22.

[August1991]

You are, of course, assuming that 'solving' the congestion problem by increasing costs would still allow the same level of economic activity to take place.

Punative taxes designed to reduce car use in cities with no useful transit system will simply reduce economic activity.

The greatest waste of resources is standing in a queue or a line. And that's what people in cities across Canada do every day - sitting in their car.

The Soviet Union is proof that queues are a waste of resources. Mikhail Gorbachev is proof that eliminating queues is not easy. Traffic in Canada's cities is Soviet.

Life is too short to waste time standing in a queue - or sitting in a traffic jam.

[geoffrey]

Completely unassuming question...

What about the social consequences? Does this drive a huge stake between rich and poor? "Oh... your dad has to take the train to work?" You know what I mean. I never thought I'd be asking the question, but whenever we are artifically playing with things, I've got to ask.

What's the social engineering outcome of your taxation scheme?

[Riverwind]

The greatest waste of resources is standing in a queue or a line. And that's what people in cities across Canada do every day - sitting in their car.

Waiting 60 minutes for a connecting bus is a much bigger waste of resources. People need to move around efficiently. If they cannot move efficiently then the economy suffers. Your entire op presumes that traffic congestion is the only thing that inhibits motion. I am arguing that the existing transit systems are a _less_ efficient way to move people around if you want to measure efficiency as the time individuals spend commuting. Furthermore, reducing congestion on roads does not automatically reduce commuting times by public transit (as my example of Richmond illustrates). This means your proposed solution of taxing road use heavily would not actually solve the problem you seek to solve unless much more money is spent subsidizing the public transit systems.

[August1991]

Waiting 60 minutes for a connecting bus is a much bigger waste of resources.

Waiting for whatever reason is, as they say, a misallocation of resources. Life is too short to waste it waiting. When the wait is caused because bureaucrats are incompetent, it is particularly sinful.

Markets generally work well but markets don't always work. We can buy the car we want at a price we accept but we can't always drive the car on the roads we like. When I waste time sitting in a traffic jam, I think about the utter incompetence of government.

We give government these problems of traffic and it gets these problems all wrong, it can't solve them and instead it tries to solve other problems that don't exist. The ambitious bureaucrats and politicians are confused.

Furthermore, reducing congestion on roads does not automatically reduce commuting times by public transit (as my example of Richmond illustrates). This means your proposed solution of taxing road use heavily would not actually solve the problem you seek to solve unless much more money is spent subsidizing the public transit systems.

I disagree. People get the cars, trucks or SUVs that they are prepared to pay for. They do not get the roads or decongestion that they are prepared to pay for.

The free market works for ownership of a vehicle. It does not work for the use of the vehicle.

What about the social consequences? Does this drive a huge stake between rich and poor?

Somebody has to pay rent. Or would you prefer a society where rent (mortgage payments) were zero for all? A society of squatters.

Let's be honest. Anyone driving a vehicle on a road is a squatter. They may pay their taxes, just like squatters pay sales taxes or VAT, but the drivers are not paying for the specific use of that specific road space at that specific time. The drivers are like squatters. They're taking something for free, despite how much they argue that they've paid for it.

[jester]

Seems the price for a road pricing scheme in the UK has soared to £62 billion, building an entirely new road network twice the size of the present one would cost £60 billion saving £2 billion.

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=37714

UK road pricing 'to cost £62 billion'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...19/nroads19.xml

Drivers face £600 bill for an in-car road pricing black box | Uk News | News | Telegraph

Road pricing only sets up a rich drive---poor walk system, really annoying as the poor will end up paying for the system after all.....

[Riverwind]

Markets generally work well but markets don't always work. We can buy the car we want at a price we accept but we can't always drive the car on the roads we like. When I waste time sitting in a traffic jam, I think about the utter incompetence of government.

You sound a lot like a spoiled rich kid who is upset that the unwashed masses are allowed to block your way.

The unwashed masses need to get around too whether you like it or not. In fact, you likely depend on the fact that low paid workers are able to get to their jobs. A system that made it prohibitively expensive for these workers would create unemployment because the price of labour would go up. Many businesses would likely close because they would not be able to attract enough workers.

A road tax scheme might work if it was combined with large transit and/or housing subsidies. However, subsidies are not a free market approach. They are simply an exercise social engineering designed provide the well off with more comfort at the expense of the less well off.

That is why your analogy to expensive cars does not make sense. Someone who buys an expensive car does not take anything away from someone who can only afford a junker. OTH, it is impossible to allow the rich to 'purchase' less congested roads without imposing greater burdens on those that cannot afford it.

[Wilber]

First, would you agree to road tolls if they were revenue neutral; that is, if all the money raised from tolls meant a dollar-for-dollar reduction in other taxes (for example property taxes)?

No I wouldn't agree. The reason for congestion is that people have to be mobile. Just changing the tax structure will do nothing to solve the mobility problem. If you want to reduce congestion, pollution and the other problems resulting from vehicles you will have to provide viable alternatives. That will involve a huge capital investment. That may require increased taxes on motorists to pay for part of it but just increasing their tax burden without using that money to solve the problem is just a tax grab.

[August1991]

Riverwind and Wilbur,

I am honestly astonished by your opposition to this idea. We use prices to allocate everything from milk to housing yet you object to using prices to allocate road space.

Your opposition to road use fees is nothing short of Soviet.

Wilbur offers the argument that people won't change their behaviour if faced with a road fee. That's contrary to common sense. People are already changing their driving habits because gasoline is over $1.10/litre. As a minimum, you must admit that people in the long run will buy homes closer to where they work.

I can understand in part why as a society, we might not want to use prices to allocate health care. (Catastrophic illness means that poor people would not have access although even in this case there are better solutions than what we have now.) But road space is nothing like health care.

The reason for congestion is that people have to be mobile.

No, the reason for congestion is that two drivers try to be in the same place at the same time. At the moment, there is no way for one driver to pay the other driver to get out of the way. Instead, the two drivers wastefully compete for road space.

[Riverwind]

But road space is nothing like health care.

We no longer have an economy where people can live within walking distance of their workspace. We have an economy where people are often forced to change jobs or have two parents working. We also have an economy where the cost of housing in many cities is beyond the means of most people working in service sector jobs. This all means that people don't have the luxery of choosing a work place close to where they live.

IOW access to the transportation infrastructure is an essential part of our economy. Denying people access to this infrastructure is the same as denying the opportunity to work. IMO, that is as bad as denying people healthcare.

Road space is not like other scare commodities because it cannot be created in places where it is needed. This means that free market cannot respond to a demand by increasing supply or providing alternatives. The 'market' can only be used to determine who should get the supply available. That is why a road tax has nothing to do with the free market. It is simply an exercise in social engineering.

That said, I don't reject the notion of fees designed to encourage transit use in places where transit is a practical alternative. However, such fees would be just another form of taxation and not some 'free market' mechanism.

[Wilber]

No, the reason for congestion is that two drivers try to be in the same place at the same time. At the moment, there is no way for one driver to pay the other driver to get out of the way. Instead, the two drivers wastefully compete for road space.

If there is no alternative to cars, those drivers need to be in the same place at the same time. When are you going to figure that out? Is it wasteful? Yes. Is it necessary if there are no efficient alternate ways of getting there? Yes.

I'm not arguing that people won't want to change their behaviour if presented a road fee, I'm arguing that something will have to be provided for them to change to.

At present, road space is a lot like health care. It is a part of the infrastructure which makes our society work just as much as power and gas lines. Without it our society can't function and without a functioning society there will be no health care.