[OnTheIce]

Lemmy Lemmy:

andyt andyt:

Great. Institute per mile charges for drivers then. Roads are paid for out of general revenue, and the subsidy for drivers is much larger than for transit users.

Excise taxes on gasoline, andy, are one of the most effective user-pays systems we have.

And yet, it goes into GR and doesn't even cover the costs of the items it's intended to cover. Is that you idea of a effective user-pay system?

[BartSimpson]

andyt andyt:

They go into general revenue and from what I understand don't come close to paying for roads.

See my edit above. You're wrong. By a lot.

[QBall]

Get rid of all day kindergarten. That's half the money you need right there. Next increase fares and make those who use the system pay to improve their system. Problem solved, and the government's hand stays out of my pocket.

[andyt]

$1:

Transit’s Not Bleeding the Taxpayer Dry — Roads Are

“Taxpayers cover costs that should be borne by road users,” asserts the State Smart Transportation Initiative at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “Road subsidies push up tax rates, squeeze government services, and skew the market for transportation.”

SSTI, along with the smart growth group 1,000 Friends of Wisconsin, published a study in October showing that “between 41 and 55 percent of [Wisconsin’s] road money comes from non-users” [PDF].

Between 2004 and 2008, roads in the state cost an average of $4.24 billion annually. Of this, $1.74 billion came from revenue sources unrelated to road use—primarily property and sales taxes—while another $600 million was borrowed…

The fact is, roads constitute one of the biggest tax burdens we face.

Non-users fork over $779 per household for roads — as opposed to $50 for transit. But most drivers still believe that transit eats a huge chunk of transportation funding while roads are self-supporting. SSTI wanted to dispel that notion, said study author Bill Holloway.

“So much of the time, when you get into a conversation about transportation, people talk about the subsidy we provide to transit riders,” Holloway said. “Transit is a ‘subsidy’; highways and roads are ‘investments.’ But look at the tiny diversion from highway and road user fees that go to transit – it’s a drop in the bucket – and then realize that a huge portion of everything everyone buys goes to roads [through sales taxes].”

It’s not just Wisconsin – Policy Matters Ohio recently published its own version of the Wisconsin study [PDF], showing that in that state, drivers pay 60 percent of the cost for roads, with government subsidies picking up the tab for the remaining 40 percent. Still think transit is the big money suck?

http://dc.streetsblog.org/2011/12/12/tr ... roads-are/

$1:

Bikes vs. cars: Who pays their fair share?

Bike riders or car drivers? Who are the free riders who fail to pay their fair share of the cost of building and maintaining the city's roadways?

In Vancouver's raging bike-car debate, where most people stand tends to depend on where they sit -- whether perched on a saddle or ensconced in a car.

But, while you can make a case that neither group pays its freight in a direct way, the facts are clear: People who don't drive much -- including most true bike zealots -- significantly subsidize those who drive a lot. And in any kilometre-by-kilometre comparison of city residents who travel exclusively by one mode or the other, drivers tend to pay less than their real costs, while riders pay more.

Given how drivers are incessantly dinged for things like licences, parking and fuel tax -- and how cyclists aren't -- you may wonder how can this be.

Well, the first point is that car-related government revenue in general doesn't cover the costs car use imposes on the Canadian public. The second is that if you look at just municipal balance sheets -- who is paying whose costs in Vancouver or other cities -- the subsidy for cars is far, far higher than the Canada-wide average.

A fair analysis of car-related costs and revenues should not include general sales taxes. These apply to almost everything you spend money on, so there's no reason for the revenue senior governments get when you buy a car to be treated differently than if you bought a boat, or granite counter tops, or a diamond tiara.

And a fair analysis of the municipal equation should exclude not only sales taxes like PST or GST, which city councils get no share of, but also licence fees and most of the fuel taxes.

What's left for cities to fund their extensive road networks?

"The short answer is: They're paid for by property taxes," says Jerry Dobrovolny, Vancouver's director of transportation.

A longer answer qualifies this slightly. TransLink's 15-cent-a-litre gas tax goes to transit, not roads, although the regional transportation agency does contribute to a small portion of Vancouver's road-building.

Also, the province or the feds kick in on a few specific city road projects. But provincial per-capita road expenditures in Greater Vancouver average only half of what's spent elsewhere in B.C., so only a tiny percentage of its road-related tax revenue winds up being spent here. And federal grants are few and far between.

That leaves just the net revenue from on-street parking -- what's left over from permit fees and parking meter receipts after paying for things like line-painting, enforcement and even the meters themselves. (Note that I didn't include the value of land occupied by on-street parkers. Yet it could presumably be used for other things -- wider sidewalks, street cafes or even, dare I say it, bike lanes.)

The point is that most of the burden, as Dobrovolny says, falls to property taxpayers -- whether they drive a lot, a little, or not at all.

posting.php?mode=reply&f=59&t=105262

[Lemmy]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

And yet, it goes into GR and doesn't even cover the costs of the items it's intended to cover. Is that you idea of a effective user-pay system?

It's not perfect, but at least the principle of having the user pay the most is met. It would be better if the revenue was dedicated, like fishing licenses are. We should also expand our use of road tolls. But that's a separate issue from funding municipal transit, isn't it?

[BartSimpson]

Andy, you've never met a tax you didn't like. End of discussion.

[andyt]

$1:

Time to end driver subsidies

According to recent analysis, in order to accurately reflect the cost of driving an automobile in Canada, gasoline prices would need to increase by about 50 cents a litre.

The gap between the actual cost of building and maintaining roads and what we pay at the pump is filled through general tax revenues through all levels of government.

With the average Canadian driver using about 2,000 litres of fuel each year, that means all Canadians, whether they drive or not, are subsidizing every automobile on the road by about $1,000 a year.

For the folks who insist on driving, I welcome them to pay an extra $1,000 a year for fuel so I can stop subsidizing their transportation habits.

http://www.kamloopsthisweek.com/opinion ... 14835.html

[raydan]

Thing is, even if you don't drive, you're still using the roads.

[andyt]

raydan raydan:

Thing is, even if you don't drive, you're still using the roads.

Cities don't have room to build more roads. Transit takes vehicles off roads, so if you drive, you'll drive a lot slower if there were no transit. Transit also saves on pollution and medical costs from accidents. And, in Vancouver at least, it allows downtown employers to pay many people shit wages. Those people couldn't afford to live in Vancouver in their dreams, commute long distances by transit, so transit is a subsidy to those businesses.

[BeaverFever]

$1:

I prefer user fees. If the TTC needs expansion, it should be TTC users and their employers that pay for it, not me.

Why not apply the same logic to fire or police then? At what point do you say that it's important for there to be an efficient and affordable service available to all? Also, to the extent that improved transit relieves congestion on roadways (not to mention improved emissions and air quality), you are proposing the drivers benefit at transit rider's expense.

[commanderkai]

If fuel taxes actually went to maintaining the road and highway infrastructure, like what many drivers assume is already happening, and going from the Ontario budget devoted for highway and other transportation infrastructure is $2.9 billion. Basically, gas taxes don't cover about $600 million of the Ontario budget devoted to road infrastructure.

I might be overlooking things, and considering how I didn't sleep last night, it's certainly possible, but drivers already should be paying for a huge portion of the province and the country's road infrastructure, except governments would rather dump fuel tax revenue into the trough that the government can munch on whenever it is needed.

This, of course, doesn't factor in how critical highways are to our daily lives, even if you don't drive personally.

[andyt]

$1:

Many people believe that non-motorized modes (walking, cycling, and their variants)
have less right to use public roads than motorists, based on assumptions that motor
vehicle travel is more important than non-motorized travel and motor vehicle user fees
finance roads. This report investigates these assumptions. It finds that non-motorized
modes have clear legal rights to use public roads, that non-motorized travel is important
for an efficient transport system and provides significant benefits to users and society,
that less than half of roadway expenses are financed by motor vehicle user fees, and
pedestrians and cyclists pay more than their share of roadway costs. Most funding for
local roads (the roads pedestrians and cyclists use most) is from general taxes, which
people pay regardless of how they travel. Since bicycling and walking impose lower
roadway costs than motorized modes, people who rely on non-motorized modes tend to
overpay their fair share of roadway costs and subsidize motorists.

http://www.vtpi.org/whoserd.pdf

[peck420]

Andyt,

How come every report you post is based on US user fee setups?

That is not exactly honest reporting from your sources. It's almost like those reports were generated to drive an agenda as opposed to report facts....

[raydan]

andyt andyt:

raydan raydan:

Thing is, even if you don't drive, you're still using the roads.

Cities don't have room to build more roads. Transit takes vehicles off roads, so if you drive, you'll drive a lot slower if there were no transit. Transit also saves on pollution and medical costs from accidents. And, in Vancouver at least, it allows downtown employers to pay many people shit wages. Those people couldn't afford to live in Vancouver in their dreams, commute long distances by transit, so transit is a subsidy to those businesses.

Ambulance and police use the roads... and how do you think the stuff you buy gets to where you buy them. Raise taxes on gas to reflect the real price of roads and see how much the price of everything else you buy goes up.

[andyt]

@ Peck; The post right above you came from the Victoria Transit Policy Institute. My post right above that talks about the Vancouver situation, tho I screwed up the link. So you're not being honest in your critique or just stopped reading as soon as you saw my first post.

It's hard find a good report on this for Canada. If you have something solid that rebuts what I said, feel free to post that. Otherwise you're just being a weasel to criticize what I posted with no backing for yourself. Easier to do that tho.

And, it was Bart that challenged my contention, so US figures seem appropriate for him. What is true in the US is that gas taxes fund highways, not city roads. Pretty well the same here.

In fact, looking back i only posted one US source, so who's being dishonest here?