The case against GTA road tolls
Re The right way to ease gridlock, Editorial Nov. 7 Roads are built using taxpayers’ money. Drivers contribute part of their taxes (municipal and provincial) toward road maintenance. Thus, they are using the roads because they paid to have them built and continue to pay for using it.
Congestion is a result of people travelling to and from their place of work. To change that pattern is unrealistic because the normal working day for most is between 9 a.m and 5 p.m.
Toronto’s congestion problem evolved from three agendas followed by city hall planners for the last 40-plus years: the lack of foresight as to the population growth that was predictable; the excessive studies related to subway expansion but never acted upon; and the blatant “anti-car” agenda that resulted in caving to residential pressure such as the Allen Road fiasco, which created more congestion than there was before.
It’s amazing that the Ecofiscal Commission’s solution is “toll roads,” which is blatantly blind to reality and underwrites their obvious support of the anticar agenda, rather than suggesting real no-cost solutions, such as making major arteries, especially north and south ones, one way to speed up the flow of traffic where it would be most effective.
The greatest disappointment is that the Star’s editors bought it. Les Klein, Toronto “The main purpose of road tolls isn’t to raise money — it’s to change behaviour.” Have there ever been more chilling words printed in a Star editorial?
So it has come to this: that the role of government is not to serve the public interest but for the public to serve the whims and fancies of blinkered ideo- logues in government. Is that not the very essence of totalitarianism?
So now commuters are supposed to be fined for daring to drive to their jobs to start work at shift times set solely by their employers, not them, rather than at 3 o’clock in the morning when most businesses are sensibly closed.
Were I a business owner, my first inclination would be to “change behaviour” and relocate to a place where the lunatics have not yet taken over the asylum.
In the meantime, I wish the Star’s economic know-nothings, hell-bent to increase the cost of downtown employment to prohibitive levels, all the success in world, so that Toronto’s downtown core may one day be as hollowed out as Detroit’s. Congestion problem solved. Edward Ozog, Brantford, Ont. By virtue of their sheer size, transport trucks are without a doubt, the single largest contributor to congestion on the 401. If these trucks are tolled (and so far, the government has not indicated if they will or not) and if the tolls are at least as high as those on the 407, then maybe the 401will see a lot less truck traffic and, finally, commuter traffic will move at a rate similar to the 407. But I wouldn’t put my money on it. Syd Howes, Brooklin Pardon my egalitarian tendencies but just when Canada voted for new ways of solving its economic problems, the Star advocates a regression to the old ways by monetizing road usage, which favours those with disposable income. Tony D’Andrea, Toronto It is no doubt true that people do not change their behaviour without some real incentive. In the case of congestion, road tolls will be needed to achieve significant change.
Several cities around the world have done so successfully already, and you mention Stockholm as an example. It implemented a congestion fee for downtown Stockholm some years ago and have truly had good results. However, you fail to tell the whole story.
Stockholm and region around it have an integrated expanded public transit system that has been continually added to over the last 50 years. Construction is still ongoing today with future plans already in place. Not only was it easy to use when the congestion fee was introduced, they also had the capacity to absorb the increased traffic. There was already a very good alternative to the car.
Until Toronto creates a similar solution we shouldn’t put the cart before the horse by introducing toll roads. Lars Nordgren, Scarborough Your editorial forgets two important considerations.
First, those who already have modified their commuting behaviour to a large extent (either working from home or taking the GO) but drive into Toronto occasionally might be required to pay a “congestion” toll, essentially another tax. Why? They have already made their contribution to reducing congestion.
If there is to be a toll, presumably using ETR technology, it must be based on usage so that those who drive the tolls roads say less than 10 times a month (five trips both ways) would pay nothing.
Second, the proposal ignores the fact that Ontarians already pay hefty taxes for roads through gasoline taxes, which by the way exceed the budget for transportation with the excess going into the general purse. So if there is to be a toll (tax), then gasoline taxes should, in justice, be reduced accordingly, otherwise this is just another tax grab rationalized by congestion issues.
The question is, if there is a surplus of gas tax revenue then why is the premier selling off Hydro One when the surplus really should be allocated to the transportation infrastructure instead of the general purse? Peter Swirzon, Oakville Premier Kathleen Wynne is investing the equivalent of eight years of lost Hydro One revenue into transit. So she claims. If she cared about investing in transit, tolling the 400-series highways a minimal amount would cover it.
To most, this sell-off appears nothing more than a kickback to her friends. Something that even Mike (the Knife) Harris shied away from doing so openly. Ted Archbold, Toronto