Funding roads (taxes, user fees etc)

[tomh009]

Somehow I think people might have a bit of an issue with mandatory GPS trackers in all cars 

That's why I suggested offering the option to pay on total annual mileage, no need for a tracker.

[MacBerry]

Even simpler. Choose GPS-based tracking (only counts distance in-province), or if you never leave the province (or don't want the GPS) pay based on total mileage.

Even if the payment is once per year, it should not be a surprise as your odometer will tell you how much you are driving.

1984 is alive?

"Big Brother" is already watching!

[jeffster]

I wonder how quickly Ontario become a 3rd world like state if something like this was ever implemented. Roads have to exist whether or not people drive on them. Transit still uses it. Same with fire/police/ambulance services, and well a road crews, as snow clearing is still done, and roads still get chewed up because of the freeze/thaw cycle that we enjoy during the winter months.

Just how many rich nations do we see that track milage on all vehicles? I don't think there are any.

And it certainly doesn't help anyone with a middling or less income. Unlikely that we'd save taxes in other ways to make up for it.

Also, if things need to be that way, then fine, then make transit riders pay the true costs of that so-called luxury of getting onto a bus or rail.

Things aren't perfect, but no sense of screwing around with things. I have no issue subsidizing transit riders. I have no issue subsidizing the roads and highways (I don't do a lot of driving, so even if I was tolled for every KM, it wouldn't be much).

[danbrotherston]

...
Things aren't perfect, but no sense of screwing around with things.
...

Whatever issues I have with the rest of the comment, this one sticks out.  The idea that things just stay the same if we do nothing is so pervasive and yet, so false.

The fuel tax has devalued substantially given improving fuel economy in vehicles.  It will eventually (and not that far out) go to zero once electric vehicles become more common.  The fact it, in the do nothing scenario, drivers are paying less and less of the costs of driving (however little they have ever been directly paying), while incurring greater and greater costs against the rest of the public.

Our world is always changing so to take no action *is* a change, but it's one with very little thought put into the effects.

[SammyOES]

The main consolation I have when reading the small group of people here that just constantly play victim is that your opinion is so out of the mainstream and irrational that you're never going to convince enough people to do what you want.

Even The Wired article was pretty silly. You can make anything sound bad if you compare only the direct money put into the system (ignoring indirect money put into the system) against all of the direct and indirect costs created by the system and then ignore all of the "indirect benefits" as well.

"So even if you spend the next year on your couch, exploring every inch of PlayStation 4’s Shadow of the Colossus rerelease, some portion of the taxes you paid for the console and game will go toward improving those real life roads you never use." That sounds really unfair!!! Until you think about it for 5 seconds and realize this person is still getting all sorts of benefits for the road network and its actually pretty damn reasonable that some of their tax dollars go to support it.

[danbrotherston]

The main consolation I have when reading the small group of people here that just constantly play victim is that your opinion is so out of the mainstream and irrational that you're never going to convince enough people to do what you want.

Even The Wired article was pretty silly.  You can make anything sound bad if you compare only the direct money put into the system (ignoring indirect money put into the system) against all of the direct and indirect costs created by the system and then ignore all of the "indirect benefits" as well.

"So even if you spend the next year on your couch, exploring every inch of PlayStation 4’s Shadow of the Colossus rerelease, some portion of the taxes you paid for the console and game will go toward improving those real life roads you never use."  That sounds really unfair!!! Until you think about it for 5 seconds and realize this person is still getting all sorts of benefits for the road network and its actually pretty damn reasonable that some of their tax dollars go to support it.

Is there a reason you've decided to just accuse everyone here of "playing victim"...

We're having an economic discussion about incenti.....You know what, never mind.  Blocked.

[ijmorlan]

The main consolation I have when reading the small group of people here that just constantly play victim is that your opinion is so out of the mainstream and irrational that you're never going to convince enough people to do what you want.

Even The Wired article was pretty silly.  You can make anything sound bad if you compare only the direct money put into the system (ignoring indirect money put into the system) against all of the direct and indirect costs created by the system and then ignore all of the "indirect benefits" as well.

"So even if you spend the next year on your couch, exploring every inch of PlayStation 4’s Shadow of the Colossus rerelease, some portion of the taxes you paid for the console and game will go toward improving those real life roads you never use."  That sounds really unfair!!! Until you think about it for 5 seconds and realize this person is still getting all sorts of benefits for the road network and its actually pretty damn reasonable that some of their tax dollars go to support it.

Is there a reason you've decided to just accuse everyone here of "playing victim"...

We're having an economic discussion about incenti.....You know what, never mind.  Blocked.

Hey, at least you’re just a professional victim. I’m a big fat liar, in thrall to the lizard people!

OK, I made up the bit about the lizard people. But what do you expect? I’m just a Trump-scale pants on fire.

[MacBerry]

Is there a reason you've decided to just accuse everyone here of "playing victim"...

We're having an economic discussion about incenti.....You know what, never mind.  Blocked.

Hey, at least you’re just a professional victim. I’m a big fat liar, in thrall to the lizard people!

OK, I made up the bit about the lizard people. But what do you expect? I’m just a Trump-scale pants on fire.

What is wrong with all of you? ... looking from afar

[jeffster]

Wired published an article this week about highway funding in the U.S.A. I generally trust their journalism (and also find them hilarious), and I found it interesting how they talked about not only how the funding for highways is not being covered by drivers, but also the many externalities of driving.

...
Things aren't perfect, but no sense of screwing around with things.
...

Whatever issues I have with the rest of the comment, this one sticks out.  The idea that things just stay the same if we do nothing is so pervasive and yet, so false.

The fuel tax has devalued substantially given improving fuel economy in vehicles.  It will eventually (and not that far out) go to zero once electric vehicles become more common.  The fact it, in the do nothing scenario, drivers are paying less and less of the costs of driving (however little they have ever been directly paying), while incurring greater and greater costs against the rest of the public.

Our world is always changing so to take no action *is* a change, but it's one with very little thought put into the effects.

I'll mention again, though, then, who's responsibility is it to keep the roads in good shape? Just the general public who drive around with personal ICE's?

Whether one drives or not, or if we were to ban personal ICE's and EV's all together (since any milage an EV puts on doesn't contribute money to the roads), roads still have to exist, and still need to be paid for. So we increase fares for public transit, not only to reflect true costs of running said system, but additionally for upkeep of the road. Busses are heavy and damage roads way too quickly. Also tax the fire department, police department, and ambulance services as they use all the same roads too. Same applies to garbage pick-up and recycling, they would be charged even more because their vehicles are extremely heavy. Same applies to transport trucks that delivery good, we can charge the crap out of them because they use our highways the most. Naturally, more and more of these vehicles might be EV's, so charging a toll is the only option, no tax on ICE's.

We have a system in place that can work well enough. Mess with it too much, unless it's some sort of universal system (as in, it's adopted world-wide), and you'll find yourself left behind. Just look at the mess with Ontario's electrical system.

You want to fund roads differently, fine, toll them Toll cost is more dependant on weight of vehicle than anything else, but also passenger count. For example, a bus with driver and 3 passengers would be charged more per user than a full bus, in fact, fare would be milage based. Not fair for a user who uses a bus when it's busy (and has to stand) and travels 5 km the same as a user that rides a near empty bus for 15 km.

drivers are paying less and less of the costs of driving, while incurring greater and greater costs

What does that even mean?

I'll agree to the second part. My insurance is up 16% year over year, and gas is up about 10% year over year. So yeah, drivers are incurring greater and greater costs. Unsure who is paying less to drive.

[tomh009]

I'll mention again, though, then, who's responsibility is it to keep the roads in good shape? Just the general public who drive around with personal ICE's?

Whether one drives or not, or if we were to ban personal ICE's and EV's all together (since any milage an EV puts on doesn't contribute money to the roads), roads still have to exist, and still need to be paid for.(...)

I don't know how you got to the topic of banning ICE vehicles. As Dan said, the world is changing, and taxing gasoline will be increasingly ineffective as more and more people drive EVs.

Taxation based on actual distance driven (and whatever multiplier we want use, based on the vehicle type) is a reasonably good proxy for the current gasoline tax, which could then be eliminated. And you would pay the same tax whether you are driving an EV or an ICE vehicle.

Currently I am only aware of such a mileage-based fee in NZ, but I have absolute confidence that it will become common as EVs displace ICE vehicles over the coming years: there is no better alternative that I'm aware of.

[jeffster]

I'll mention again, though, then, who's responsibility is it to keep the roads in good shape? Just the general public who drive around with personal ICE's?

Whether one drives or not, or if we were to ban personal ICE's and EV's all together (since any milage an EV puts on doesn't contribute money to the roads), roads still have to exist, and still need to be paid for.(...)

I don't know how you got to the topic of banning ICE vehicles. As Dan said, the world is changing, and taxing gasoline will be increasingly ineffective as more and more people drive EVs.

Taxation based on actual distance driven (and whatever multiplier we want use, based on the vehicle type) is a reasonably good proxy for the current gasoline tax, which could then be eliminated. And you would pay the same tax whether you are driving an EV or an ICE vehicle.

Currently I am only aware of such a mileage-based fee in NZ, but I have absolute confidence that it will become common as EVs displace ICE vehicles over the coming years: there is no better alternative that I'm aware of.

As I said, not problem if it become a universal thing. However, all users, whether public, private, emergency, or whatever, have to pay as well. My point was that even if one were to get rid of ICE and EV's, you still have roads to maintain. Nothing changes. It's a shared responsibility, not one just thrown on the back of personal vehicles, what some seem to suggest.

[tomh009]

Indeed. Today everyone (driving an ICE vehicle) has to pay gasoline taxes -- and pay the annual licence renewal fee. I would expect that the fee/tax could be scaled to the level of wear and tear on the roads, based on mileage, weight and possibly other factors.

[jeffster]

Indeed. Today everyone (driving an ICE vehicle) has to pay gasoline taxes -- and pay the annual licence renewal fee. I would expect that the fee/tax could be scaled to the level of wear and tear on the roads, based on mileage, weight and possibly other factors.

My one issue, though, is that people will find a way.

Take for example water: We were told to conserve. We were given rebates on toilets, etc. End result? People did exactly as asked, not enough money was coming in to take care of infrastructure, and now we have this infrastructure deficits for our pipes. Now our rates are triple of what they were.

Take electricity: We were told to conserve, given money to update appliances, ToU, etc. End result, we're paying jurisdictions money to take our electricity and have some of the highest rates in North America. Now are rates are triple of what they were.

I see the same issues with pay to drive. More car pooling, more walking, more e-bikes, more transit riders (these are good things), families visiting each other less, small towns losing tourism, stores further away from main street losing business. Same costs to keep roads in order, but funding no longer there.

There are always consequences. Some good, some bad. For me personally, a pay as your drive model, I am not going to the beach and driving through small town anymore. I am not going to St. Jacobs anymore. I'll give more business to businesses closer to my house. I'll keep my costs static. I used to drive 60-70K per year. Last year was 14K. I am sure I can get 'er done to 10K.

People talk with their wallet. You try to take it from them, they'll find a way to keep it.

[tomh009]

Indeed. Today everyone (driving an ICE vehicle) has to pay gasoline taxes -- and pay the annual licence renewal fee. I would expect that the fee/tax could be scaled to the level of wear and tear on the roads, based on mileage, weight and possibly other factors.

My one issue, though, is that people will find a way.

(...) There are always consequences. Some good, some bad. For me personally, a pay as your drive model, I am not going to the beach and driving through small town anymore. I am not going to St. Jacobs anymore. I'll give more business to businesses closer to my house. I'll keep my costs static. I used to drive 60-70K per year. Last year was 14K. I am sure I can get 'er done to 10K. 

Except that what we have today (gasoline taxes) are already a pay-as-you-drive model.

For future funding of roads, there are not many options.

• Do nothing: continue to fund from gasoline taxes (and increase those to compensate for EV adoption)
  
• Charge based on usage (both ICE vehicles and EVs)
  
• Fund from general revenues (eliminate gasoline tax and increase income tax or HST)
  

There is no free lunch, whether people drive more or less ...

[danbrotherston]

Indeed. Today everyone (driving an ICE vehicle) has to pay gasoline taxes -- and pay the annual licence renewal fee. I would expect that the fee/tax could be scaled to the level of wear and tear on the roads, based on mileage, weight and possibly other factors.

My one issue, though, is that people will find a way.

Take for example water: We were told to conserve. We were given rebates on toilets, etc.  End result? People did exactly as asked, not enough money was coming in to take care of infrastructure, and now we have this infrastructure deficits for our pipes. Now our rates are triple of what they were.

Take electricity: We were told to conserve, given money to update appliances, ToU, etc. End result, we're paying jurisdictions money to take our electricity and have some of the highest rates in North America. Now are rates are triple of what they were.

The problem, both with these examples, and applying to driving too, is that they're an over simplification, that misses a very key detail. Costs do not scale linearly.

Take water, we were told to conserve, so that we don't have to build a pipeline to the lake.  Yes, because conservation efforts have worked very well, water utility revenue has decreased and thus rates have risen, because the rate breakdown did not accurately reflect fixed costs vs. variable costs.  BUT we still saved money.  Whether or not rates have risen, costs have risen far less, because we didn't have to build a pipeline to the lake.  This would have costs a billion or so...that would have been enormously expensive, and because we conserve we didn't have to do it.  

Same with garbage, although we don't pay fees directly, the region is going to save tons of money, by not having to open a new garbage dump, because we reduced our production of garbage, even though yes, our per ton costs could rise, because we're throwing out less.

And also the same with roads.  Yes, we will always need roads.  But we don't always need, four, six, eight lane highways.  And building wider roads is more than just twice, or four times as expensive, wider roads to carry the enormous number of single occupant vehicles we have are orders of magnitude more expensive than just building a road network.  So if we get fewer people to drive (and again, nobody is talking about banning, please stop accusing us of that), yes, we must still pay to keep a road network operational, but that doesn't mean that we won't still save money, because the costs will also be lower.