How about making the Toronto Parking Authority part of the TTC in order for parking revenues to directly fund transit (plus a slow jacking up of the parking rates.) Also, raising the property tax rate for commercial parking lots to make then less viable and removing the requirement for parking spaces on all new developments that are transit and pedestrian accessible would be less controversial ways of dealing with the issue. I would even go as far as having a payment to the TTC capital budget in lieu of providing parking in new residential developments, say $20,000 a space.

I support a London-style congestion tax, but I haven't seen anything that indicates a "public consensus moving towards an acceptance of road tolls". Other than in the blog-o-bubble.

Tolls remain a political non-starter 'round here.

Any parking tax should deter use, not possession - higher fuel tax, parking taxes (including in commercial highrise) or road pricing. An extra tax on licencing cars hits those who use transit harder than those who always use their cars.

I think there needs to be improvements to the transit system BEFORE implementing a commuter tax. I know that they intend to use the money to improve the system, but how about in the meantime? I would gladly take transit if it was readily accessible to me out in the suburbs (and would also, albiet grudgingly, pay an extra zone fare if necessary). That's one of the main differences between London and Toronto. They have a system with enough lines and transfer points that makes it easy to quickly get from a house out in the burbs, for example, to a downtown office.

As it stands now, if they were to put in a congestion tax, I'd either take like, 4 hours to get from my house in the 'burbs to my office downtown by a combination of sporadically running busses (I'm talking maybe once every hour) and subway. Or, I'd have to fork out the $20 a day to get to my job, where that's probably my budget on lunch money for the day.

It's not really fair - Toronto benefits from me coming into work in the city, it shouldn't be trying to deter me through further taxation with less benefits.

I think road tolls are a better option than congestion charge. It just forces cars out of one area and into another.

A simple small toll to start with would be great for our highways.

Let's do the math: according to the city, about 200,000 trips are made on the Gardiner each day. If the city charged 50 cents to get on and drive unlimited on the highway you could raise $100,000 a day. I'd say most drivers would pay the 50 cents. That alone is $36.5 million a year, and that's just the Gardiner. The same amount of traffic is on the DVP. An influx of $70 million a year into the transit system to build capacity (more buses, streetcars, etc).

Now, if we charged charged drivers the same amount to use a highway as it costs to ride the TTC ($2.75 x 400,000 trips a day x 365 a year= $400 million a year) we would start to realize the impact driving has on our economy.

hey matt,good ideas on the tolls

rp: Good on you for living close to where you work; you definitely chose the more sustainable option.

The reality however is that not many people in the GTA either (1) are as environmentally minded, or (2) are in a financial position to choose exactly where they would like.

Also, applying a congestion charge within Toronto will further make the city less competitive economically. Businesses already choose to relocate in areas such as Beaver Creek in York Region because it's just cheaper to operate there. Implementing a congestion charge will continue to force business out of the city and into the suburbs.

I am a big transit supporter, but it is important to look at all aspects that relate to transit and transportation for it to succeed.

I'm in favour of a congestion tax *IF* the revenue goes to fund better transit. Unfortunately, we can be fairly certain that this won't be the case.

Gasoline taxes, plate fees, licence fees, municipal parking revenue and a dozen other drains on drivers' pocketbooks were all supposed to fund better transit. That hasn't happened.

If even a fraction of that enormous amount of money had gone into GTA transit development, we'd have a subway system rivaling London's.

But it's more likely that the collectors of the proposed congestion tax will grow to like their new revenue stream so much that they'll prefer to keep cars on the road and paying for the privilege.

That's the way it's always worked before...

From out here in the UK (but originally from Toronto), I think this dicussion about congesstion charging is a very productive one to have. However, before I burst I have to get this off my chest...

Although the main distinction everyone seems to be making between London and Toronto is the existence of a adequate transit network (a fair point) no one seems to recognize the spatial differences in the two cities, in terms of daily travel. In particular, people are assuming that what has been done in *central* London - where their was a particularly problematic congestion problem, and area that is the main destination for work commuting and well served by transit - could be transferred to Toronto. But in Toronto can we assume that creating such a zone will solve *our* problem? I don't know, but as bad a congestion is in the centre of Toronto it seems as bad or worse in the suburban areas where a lot of other work commuting takes place.

Even if people are not making the assumption I accuse them of, it is perhaps not so useful to take Ted Tyndorf's too much out of their context. He is talking about the specific nature of London, and making an assessment of the appropriateness of their model in this context. He is not, I don't think at least, rejecting the principle of some form of charging per se.

If there is to be a real debate, it should *not* be conducted in the (unfortunately all-too-typcial) Toronto-mode of 'this world city has it, so should we'. What should be considered instead are the particular circumstances in Toronto and the Toronto region. Point to London's charge on the basis of its principles, not as an out-of-context-specific solution.

p.s. Manchester has recently been investigating its own road charging scheme, and has rejected a London-style central area congestion charge, since that would only deal with about 10% of the problem in Greater Manchester.

matt lee.
i agree about the competitiveness point,but lets say we let them go to other areas and spread the wealth.also i had the option of working at toyota a few years back for about 4 times what i currently make,i declined because money is not as important for me as environment i live in.i like toronto for the various things going on,i like guelph as well but the thought of driving everyday and contributing to the problem is to much to handle.until we as a society realize that money is not as important as environment we live in and family and connections with others were screwed,some people will never realize this thats why i favor some kind of legislated law to outlaw the polluting vehicle in certain situations.i think we can agree that when you step outside the immediate smell of gas and pollution isnt good,something has to be done for the sake of our kids and the legacy of our generations.peace.

Katie - what exactly are you calling the 'burbs? I can't think of any suburban spot in Toronto that is 4 hours away even by bus. I live in the Beach and take transit to my surgeon's office by Humber College at Kipling and it only takes 2 hours max. That is all the way across the city. Also, rp is right, how does the city benefit from you going to work? If you didn't do the job someone else here would. You coming into Toronto from wherever costs us more because you pay your taxes to another muncipality (if you live 4 hours away from the core).
Matt Lee - The reason businesses are relocating to the 905 is property taxes, they don't give a rat's ass is their workers hav to pay more or less to get to work. The reason the taxes are lower in the 905 are because we have to finance all the inbound 905ers who don't pay taxes to the city they spend most of their time working in. The outlying cities are also not as advanced in age or as well-used as Toronto. They have newer infrastructure and that requires less maintenance, especially when it isn't being used 24-7 by millions of people.
The truth is if more people used ransit it WOULD get better because they would have an increased revenue stream. The sad fact is that the stigma of public transit is that it is for low income people and as a last option. Just ask your friends, they may say they would take the transit but the convenient excuse of poor service is tossed out. The reality is these people will never use mass transit. Just try picking up a girl and then tell her you use the bus to get around. Think she will date you? According to polls I have seen, only 12% would.
The culture worships the car and it will destroy us physically, mentally and environmentally. A car contributes to environmental destruction far beyond it's emissions. One only has to look at the giant piles of used tires in some dumps to come to the sad realization that these mementos will be with us far past your great great grandchildren's deaths.
Car culture caters to those who can afford the increasingly rising costs and who can ignore the environmenal peril. The poor get left behind.As former Bogota mayor Enrique Penalosa said, "cars are symbols of inequality".

As for a consumption tax, why?

There is ethanol out there and its proven to work! So why should I pay when then goverment allows massive amount of ordinary gasoline to be sold here without any options!!! Why isn't ethanol not sold in every gas station?

Why hasn't the car companies made their cars 100% compatible?

Solve those and our demand for crude drops!