@Mezzanine #98,

Not really disagreeing, but we may be talking at cross purposes, possibly in part because I am picking up on a point raised by someone else (Brilliant).

I think his point was that public transit systems do not pay for themselves and require subsidy. Part of that subsidy comes from gas taxes. Hence, a reduction in that source of income would make it more difficult to pay for public transit.

Your point as to the reason subsidies are necessary – public transit’s obligation to provide services even where the routes are unprofitable – would seem to support his point, at least in part. However, neither of those issues really relates, at least in my mind, to your point about paying for the “externality” of driving.

As to that point re externality, it’s an interesting one and one which might bear some discussion, not just with respect to cars, but with respect to any number of activities which might be said to have a negative externality, such as smoking, drinking, drug use etc.

Another bike-related post surpasses 100 replies FTW!

@ IanS and brilliant:

This statement from mezzanine elegantly sums up my point:

But I don’t think we should be worried about funding problems for transit if revenue from fuel tax is lessened. To me that’s like worrying about lower tax revenue from smoking if smoking rates drop.

@ brilliant, #92: I like debating but we have to do it properly. I referred to the fact that some routes within systems are profitable, not that the entire system is profitable. I’ll engage you more readily in debate if you stay away from informal fallacies like the straw man argument.

And, FWIW, I think that circumstance distinguishes it from the analogy you raise (and which Augustin thinks is applicable, ie. “To me that’s like worrying about lower tax revenue from smoking if smoking rates drop. ”

In that case, the drop in revenue would (one would assume) be matched by a drop in health care costs.

@ IanS,

In that case, the drop in revenue would (one would assume) be matched by a drop in health care costs.

Right. I think that if there were a severe drop in car use, we would also experience drops in health care costs as well as road maintenance and capital projects. (I know they are all financed through different mechanisms but at the end of the day the question is about where the money will come from, and I believe there will be less need for money overall.)

In other words, I am saying that car use does not subsidize the system; it merely pays for some of the costs it causes society to incur.

@Augustin #109,

“In other words, I am saying that car use does not subsidize the system; it merely pays for some of the costs it causes society to incur.”

I can’t say you’re wrong, as you’ve roped together so many types of expenditures involving (as you concede) many different funding sources, I can’t begin to unravel how one cost would be offset by another.

Intuitively, I don’t think you can reduce all of that to a single pot of money and do the math as if it is, though. But who knows? Maybe it would balance out over the long run.

I would agree with agustin and IanS that large swings to the price of gas and resulting demand for driving and fuel tax revenue versus transit would make planning policy diffiucult.

FWIW, I talked about trying to get private motortists to pay for more of the external costs of driving. this is a research paper that came up on the first page of a google search. The came up with 5 external costs not borne by US drivers: 1) global warming costs, 2) health costs from emmissions 3) health costs from crashes 4) congestion costs and 5) land consumption costs.

In BC, the carbon tax helps to pay for some of these external costs.

Not surprisingly, external costs were greater in a congested urban area with high land costs and less in rural areas. Larger vehicles had larger external costs than smaller ones.

http://www.ce.utexas.edu/prof/kockelman/public_html/trb08vehicleexternalities.pdf

To those of you theorizing that a decrease in driving might result in a decrease in revenue for transit, I think you’ve got things inside out.

It was already mentioned, further up the thread, that certain popular transit routes pay for themselves. I think that this becomes somewhat *more* likely in the event that large numbers of people stop driving. I think it’s entirely likely that transit revenue would increase in such a situation (provided that the former drivers use transit all or much of the time).

Consider: the tax per litre that goes to Translink is $0.15 [1]. Assuming an average full tank to be around 60 litres, that’s $9 per tank, not all of which goes towards transit–some of it is used for other transportation initiatives such as bridges and whatnot.

But even assuming all $9 per tank of gas is used by translink to provide bus, seabus and Skytrain services, that’s the equivalent of less than two two-zone round trips on transit (each one-way trip is $3.75) [2]. For an individual’s gas taxes to provide more revenue to Translink than a two-zone monthly pass ($110), you’d have to buy something like TWELVE 60 litre tanks of gas per month. Even assuming a person makes only ten round trips per month by transit–fewer than half of all the working days–the revenue to the transit system is still $75. This is still the more than all the taxes collected for Translink from eight tanks of gas.

Obviously this is not the whole story since, for example, a person abandoning a private vehicle might decide to make all or most of his or her trips via bicycle or by walking, and providing transit services to a new user costs the transit system *something*. But the claim that transit revenue automatically declines with declining use of private motor-vehicles doesn’t seem especially believable.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_fuel_taxes_in_Canada
[2] http://www.translink.ca/en/Fares-and-Passes/Single-Fares.aspx
[3] http://www.translink.ca/en/Fares-and-Passes/Monthly-Pass.aspx

— ct

Now let’s have a rant about motorists going more than a block on residential streets. And let’s get pedestrians to walk a couple of blocks to an intersection with a traffic-control device. Clearly, what we really need is a licensing system where mommy can approve each trip.

Like everybody else, bicyclists choose a route based upon their start and end points. Have you noticed that destinations tend to be concentrated on arterials? That observation should help us understand why we might find some bicyclists riding there.

“Shouldn’t smokers, drinkers and other drug addicts be paying a greater share of health care costs?”

My understanding is that those kinds of behaviours shorten life expectancy. In the long run people with those kinds of addictions are pretty cost efficient w/r/t healthcare, esp. if they die quickly.

Regardless, the idea of barring people from public space because they lack an expensive technology shouldn’t even come up for discussion in a free country. It should be a non-starter without significant life and safety benefits to be gained. Shaving two minutes off a half-hour commute isn’t reason enough to ban people from using a road IMO.

@ IanS,

But, of course, why stop there? If we accept the principle, why not apply it to other activities? Shouldn’t smokers, drinkers and other drug addicts be paying a greater share of health care costs? Or perhaps the Occupiers should be shouldering some of the additional policing and clean up costs associated with the recent occupation.

Smokers and drinkers do pay a “sin tax” which contributes to the province’s coffers. I don’t know if it fully accounts for the additional health care costs borne by the system as a result of the drinking and smoking, but it does exist.

Drug addicts are a different beast. There are a few considerations: one is that adding cost to the drugs will not curb consumption and may lead to increased desperate and harmful acts as addicts try to get more drugs. Another is that drugs are largely illegal, which makes their taxation rather difficult to implement. (In fact this is an argument in favour of legalizing some drugs such as marijuana. A second argument in favour of legalizing marijuana is that doing so would decrease enforcement and incarceration costs.)

The Occupy movement presents yet other subtleties. One effect of levying fines or taxes on protesters is that it discourages protest. I believe that as a society we value the ability to protest very highly, and therefore it is worth paying the cost of policing and clean-up.

(On a somewhat related note, Gordon Price had some interesting thoughts about passing on the cost of policing the riots to the Canucks.)

@Chris Keam #120,

As I said, you may be right about that.

Or you may not.

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:GfzUMd1KgksJ:www.lung.ca/_resources/Backgrounder_smoking.doc+cost+of+smoking+to+health+care+canada&hl=en&gl=ca&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjpwwzkiTW7AdsU2kHnX6F-bAhfItyoOV976Q1qx93h4baxUdeZ3AJrKUvrs2d6AWFFaAZ7Li0F4zh8j5pmXIWuDlFVXYuI2qXVPwQmxWySjPh7Llv62BALB1Ouye9DhicAZ36T&sig=AHIEtbQ1yA-QNIJHZiH7Pd9SEgRWsW9tkg

Regardless, I still think the principle is sound.

@Augustin #121:

You write: “Smokers and drinkers do pay a “sin tax” which contributes to the province’s coffers. I don’t know if it fully accounts for the additional health care costs borne by the system as a result of the drinking and smoking, but it does exist.”

Yes. And drivers pay taxes on fuel, including carbon taxes. IMO, this supports my musings regarding the application of the approach proposed by Mezzanine.

You write: “Another is that drugs are largely illegal, which makes their taxation rather difficult to implement.”

Well, I’m in favour of legalizing all drugs and taxing them, but that’s not my point here. I was referring to additional health care costs.

You write: “The Occupy movement presents yet other subtleties. One effect of levying fines or taxes on protesters is that it discourages protest. ”

I’m not suggesting levying fines or taxes on protest. Rather, having the “protestors” bear at least some of the costs associated with activities which breach bylaws. Surely, no one could argue that they should not be responsible for the costs associated with cleaning up the Occupy site?

Please bear in mind that I’m not necessarily suggesting that these kind of fees or charges be imposed across the board. My point was this: if we accept Mezzanine’s proposal to have drivers bear the cost of the negative externalities (something I’m not necessarily against), it stands to reason we should apply that same approach to those who create other negative externalities.

@Chris Keam #124,

Here’s the full paragraph.

“In health care, tobacco use costs Canada billions of dollars each year. Despite the
reduced rate of smoking, health care costs have increased steadily since 1966.9 In
2002, tobacco use accounted for $4.4 billion in direct health care costs and an additional
$12.5 billion in indirect costs such as lost productivity, longer-term disability and
premature death.”

I think I disagree with your interpretation.

@Chris Keam #128,

This is silly, but I’ll follow you there if you like:

I’m saying my link does support my contention, and doesn’t seem to support yours.

I’m not suggesting levying fines or taxes on protest.

By what mechanism would Occupiers shoulder the policing and clean-up costs, then?

Rather, having the “protestors” bear at least some of the costs associated with activities which breach bylaws. Surely, no one could argue that they should not be responsible for the costs associated with cleaning up the Occupy site?

I would argue that. If it’s against by-laws, charge them with breaking by-laws. But to ask them to pay for the clean-up is not a good idea.

I think your argument might be coloured by the fact that you don’t have empathy for the Occupiers.

Not that long ago (at least in the US) it was illegal for black people to go to certain places. Massive protests were organized. I’m sure there was clean-up required, and certainly police spent money trying to stop the protests. Should the protesters have been asked to pay for those clean-up and policing costs? It just doesn’t add up.

My point was this: if we accept Mezzanine’s proposal to have drivers bear the cost of the negative externalities (something I’m not necessarily against), it stands to reason we should apply that same approach to those who create other negative externalities.

Yes, and my point is that negative externalities are only one part of the picture. They have to be weighed against the positive externalities as well as the side effects of internalizing the negative ones.

In the case of driving, the contention is that the negative externalities (health impacts, environmental impacts, etc.) outweigh the positive ones (some convenience, some speed, etc.), and the side effects of internalizing the negative ones are desirable (more funds available for public transit, etc.).

@IanS 118

I’m not opposed to any of this on principle, as long as the externalities are properly quantified and the funds raised are used to ameliorate the negative externality.

We both agree there are negative external costs to persoanl driving. But getting an exact figure to charge and applying the funds to the negative external costs would require +++ regulation and may be unworkable.

I would aim for something simple. BC’s carbon tax was a good start -simple, clear and easy to administer. a vehicle levy with increasing rates for less effecient cars is another transparent and easy-to-implement method. Increasing parking rates (like with TL’s parking tax) and decreasing mandated parking requirements are also simple ways. Tolling is more complex, but is the next step in this process.

All of these methods are relativly easy to impelement (compare with a cap and trade) and clear to the user on how to avoid paying more – drive less and use less fuel.

“If, as you suggest, there are no properly quantified negative externalities to smoking”

I didn’t suggest that. I maintain, and there’s plenty of data to support this belief, that smokers cost society less in the long run than a wheatgrass-drinking, regularly exercising fitness freak who lives to be 99 years old. Which makes the idea of taxing people for bad habits unfair.

@chris keam #135

“tends to achieve little beyond creating a black market for those goods and services burdened by sin taxes. You’d like more taxes on cigs, I’d like more taxes on non-essential air travel. At the end of the day, any sin tax is a mostly moral decision bound by one’s prejudices. That’s why they should be minimized as much as possible.”

As it happens, I agree with that almost entirely.

My proposition is that, IF we are going to charge one group for negative externalities associated with a particular activity, we should charge other groups.

The qualification I suggested is that the negative externality be properly quantified and that the charge go towards amelioration. Personally, I thought of it more as a user fee than a sin tax.

If we are talking a general “sin tax”, then I think we are on the same page.

@ IanS

Unless the fee is tied to some specific, costed negative externality, it amounts to little more than taxing people for a bad habit. Perhaps not such a good idea?

I would respectfully disagree. I think this is where the analogy between cigarette smoking, sin taxes and paying for external costs for personal driving falls apart. You can go to blaine to get cheaper gas, but the example falls apart if you do things like supplying less parking in a neighborhood to supply a transit/bus lane.

and if you did want to keep regulation to a minimum to the economy and maximize choice for individuals, I would avoid insisting on trying to pay for the negative externalities. the regulation would be cumbersome and promote unintended consequences. As market behaviour reduces driving from your intervention, your external costs of course would drop.

Tha’ts the nice thiing about introducing market-based charges for personal driving. Adam Smith’s invisible hand will start to correct for those external costs without further regulation. 🙂

@ brilliant, 140:

@CT 115- Your hypothesis is unsound. That is proven by the fact virtually no transit system in the world covers all its cost, even in cities with far higher populations, density and ridership than Vancouver.

A better test of the hypothesis would be whether systems with higher ridership have lower transit subsidy requirements, not whether those transit subsidy requirements are zero.

An even better test would be to examine subsidy requirements for overall systems (including all modes of transportation) as the transit ridership varies.

@mezzanine #139,

“I would respectfully disagree. I think this is where the analogy between cigarette smoking, sin taxes and paying for external costs for personal driving falls apart.”

well, IMO, it depends on how you characterize the charge. If it’s a “sin tax”, then I think Chris raises some valid points. If, OTOH, it’s more of a user fee, then maybe it’s different. Just talking off the top of my hear, I think the distinction relates to the quantification and identification of the externality, which is one of the points I raised initially. If, OTOH, it’s just a matter of “activity X is bad, therefore we will tax it”, the justification seems weaker.

“the regulation would be cumbersome and promote unintended consequences”

That might be the case, which is an argument in favour of not embarking on such a course of action.

“Tha’ts the nice thiing about introducing market-based charges for personal driving. ”

If they’re truly market based. If they’re just judgment based sin taxes, I tend to agree more with Chris.

The limited resource, of course, being road space and parking wrt to driving.

@Cris Keam 146-What about all-electric cars?

Stuffy in here, like in a Boys changing room, bikers, middle age men in Lycra suits, strap-jacks … Brent Toderian is laughing his ass out after reading your advise, he has his own ideas, you know! Ha, ha, ha…