Only Pricing Congestion Can Stop Congestion

[andrewpmk]

Yes....if we depopulated the GTA by about 5 million people, we would probably lick the congestion issue quite nicely. I just don't know if that is a very practical solution.




A: Toronto does not have a "lousy" transit system. Toronto has good ridership per capita as well as a high rate of "choice" riders. Especially in the core. We also have high density TOD development....and not just in the core.
B: Toronto certainly does not have a relative lack of roads....anywhere.

And those unbuilt expressways would not have solved any problems...they would have made the current problem worse. The 407 was a smart move....build another cross-town expressway far enough from the core....and toll it. That expressway works quite nicely and doesn't cause city streets to be clogged.

My point is that the best cities have both good transit and good roads. Toronto's transit system is lousy (compared to say Madrid) but you also notice how Toronto has a much lower density of expressways compared to Madrid and so how Madrid has noticeably better traffic (except the inner ring road M30 and the core area which has quite severe congestion, but traffic in the suburbs is much better, even though the majority of Madrid highways are not toll). Instead Toronto decided to build one very wide road (the 401) which is horribly congested with no alternatives except a very expensive toll road (the 407).

I think that Toronto does have a lack of expressways in the old city and Scarborough which have a fairly low number of expressways per capita. Mississauga on the other hand has a lot of expressways per capita, and the 401/403/410 interchange hellhole suffers from horrible traffic largely due to an utter lack of decent transit in the nearby employment areas but elsewhere traffic is generally better than Toronto. There is no way to build more expressways in Toronto however due to high land costs and the very high costs of tunneling, so this is a non starter.

In a big city it is pretty much impossible to expand roads alone to eliminate traffic congestion because it is prohibitively expensive to make roads wide enough. However Madrid shows that good roads+good transit can greatly reduce traffic congestion, while London shows that lousy roads+good transit results in horrible traffic congestion.

 

[Chuck]

Toronto has a very efficient and very complete grid of arterial roads that run throughout the entire city. In a way, we don't need as many highways simply because the local roads are so effective. Having said that, I believe that there is one (and only one) very critical missing link in Toronto's highway network, and that would be a highway linking the 401 to the Gardiner/QEW somewhere between Bathurst and Jane.

Building another highway is not feasible, so I do think that there are a few instances where we need to make better use of arterial roads. The one that comes to mind is streamlining the local roads in order to provide a more direct, higher capacity option heading southbound on Black Creek Drive past Eglinton.

Regardless of the car situation, our transit system is pathetically lacking. Logical expansion of the subway (DRL instead of Sheppard for now), and all day GO service fully integrated with the TTC are needed 10 times more than any expansion of roads and highways.

 

[freshcutgrass]

Instead Toronto decided to build one very wide road (the 401)

"Toronto" did not build the 401.

And that pretty much sums up the difference between Toronto and Madrid. Madrid had Toronto's population 50 years ago. Madrid is also the capital city and a major european hub. Not only was madrid able to build a whole lot of transit infrastructure quickly because it could do so much cheaper than Toronto can...there was political will to do so.

Madrid received lots of sustained funding. Madrid was able to get things done without years of studies and political games. They aren't bogged down with environmental assessments....because they don't do any. They don't spend years thinking about it and then have another level of government come into power to throw it all down the drain. All levels of government in Spain actually wanted to get it done....and they did.

Toronto has been screwed because Queen's Park is loathe to spend a damned penny on our transit infrastructure. And when they do get out their wallets, they pander to suburban voters by putting subway money where it's least needed, leaving obvious inner-city Toronto routes to flap in the wind. Ottawa historically never spent a penny on public transit....not its job. Only recently have they been in the transit business, and are even more allergic to being perceived as giving Toronto a penny than Ontario is.

It's amazing the City of Toronto has what it does have. Now that even our mayor is anti-transit (he only likes subways for their perceived non-interference with cars), Toronto's political situation is even worse. Transit City was no great hell, but at least it was a step ahead...it was studied, fully funded and started. And then it was pissed away for....looks like basically nothing.

So we know Ottawa would sooner eat glass than give Toronto money, and Queen's Park will only throw us a few shekels in an absolute emergency...and now even Torontonians can't seem to get behind transit.

We are so politically screwed. And that's the worse way to be screwed.

 

[Solid Snake]

I would give drivers going downtown Toronto 3 Choices

1-Like in London, we put cameras downton or the Gardiner and DVP and send you a bill ( I woulb be willing to exempt Toronto citizens)
2-You pay higher driver's licence and licence plates fee

Can't have your cake and eat it too

 

[ssiguy2]

Congestion charges NEVER be allowed and if Ford fights them it would be the first thing the man does that I would agree with.
They are counter productive and unfair on the most basic of levels. If I was the mayor banning congestion charges would be the first piece of legislation I would bring forward.
Why the hell should someone drining from Oshawa to Milton everday be able to do so free of charge while someone who needs their car for work and goes from Etobiko to downtown have to pay dearly? If the region wants to densify it's employment and residential development it should be the other way around.
Congestion charges encourage suburban sprawl as being and emploers will seek out development where their employees and shipping do not have the pay the tools.
Charges to NEW infrastructure such as a new major bridge could be tolled but that is not relevant in a Toronto context. I don't even believe in vehicle licensing fees as they hit all income earners at the same tax level with no alternatives.
I have always believed that there is only one option............gas taxes.
First, gas taxes are fair. It's simple math, the more you drive the more you pay. Those that have smaller, fuel efficient cars who travel little pay little. Conversely, those that commute far with gas guzzling vehicles pay more. It doesn't get any fairer than that. It doesn't penalize business and people who locate downtown. Healthy, vibrant, downtown business, residential, and commercial areas are something that should be encouraged not penalized. Gas taxes also have the benefit or not only discouraging driving but are also an incentive to carpool and reduce smog as people are much more likely to purchase smaller more fuel efficient, and hence low polluting, vehicles, Gas taxes encourage people to work near where they live, commute less in smaller less polluting vehicles, encourage downtown economic health, inhibit suburban sprawl, are fair, and are very cheap to administer.
Second, they should NOT be collected by the municple government. When governments get their hands on more funding there is no control as to where the money is spent. The new gas taxes could end up going to a new playground in North York, and water fountain downtown, or new garbage cans in Brampton. People don't like paying gas taxes but tolerate them when they know that atleast the money is being spent on where it is suppose to be spent on not just another tax grab. A classic example, which all cities in Canada, and rightfully so, complain about is the federal government. Federal gas taxes bring in billions a year to Ottawa but just make their way into general revenue so precious little actually gets spent on transportation.
Contrary tyo what many believe they should also NEVER be collected by the local transit system ie TTC. Why? If, for example, the TTC raises an extra $100 million per year from the gas tax there is nothing stopping the local government from simply deducting that amount from their budget to divert funds elesewhere. In other words it would just another tax.
Vancouver has done it right............they must be levelled regionally and by a transportation authority which in Vancouver's case is Translink and in Toronto's Metrolinx.
When the funds go to Metrolinx there is no threat of them being used for some other reason or being clawed back by the City. Translink gets gobs of money from it's gas taxes which are set to go up again. Everyone hates the idea of more gas taxes but people also know that atleast the money is going towards improved transportation. Translink is a regional transportation authority which can only spend it's revnue on transportation iniatives suchas transit, local road improvememnts, sidewalks and bikeways. Not only does this result in tangible results that people can actually see but also results in effective coordination of all those transportation methods............something that Toronto can't seem to understand. A city must have a good transportation system and transit should be the priority but it is part of a whole plan and connot work at it's most efficient without coordination with all other options. An example id the new Canada Line, whos bridge over the Fraser is a transit only bridge but has bike and walk lanes under the train tracks............it's a two level bridge. The GTA must begin to think regionally instaed of like a bunch of disconnected fiefdoms.
Only a regional gas tax can do all these things.

 

[mpd618]

I have always believed that there is only one option............gas taxes.
First, gas taxes are fair. It's simple math, the more you drive the more you pay. Those that have smaller, fuel efficient cars who travel little pay little. Conversely, those that commute far with gas guzzling vehicles pay more. It doesn't get any fairer than that. It doesn't penalize business and people who locate downtown. Healthy, vibrant, downtown business, residential, and commercial areas are something that should be encouraged not penalized. Gas taxes also have the benefit or not only discouraging driving but are also an incentive to carpool and reduce smog as people are much more likely to purchase smaller more fuel efficient, and hence low polluting, vehicles, Gas taxes encourage people to work near where they live, commute less in smaller less polluting vehicles, encourage downtown economic health, inhibit suburban sprawl, are fair, and are very cheap to administer.

I have no issue with gas taxes, and carbon taxes in general. Those who use fuel should pay to compensate for the high cost of negative externalities generated by their fuel use - which should provide appropriate incentives to use less fuel.

However, gas taxes do not solve congestion. Only pricing congestion can do that. On a congested road, there is more demand for free road space than there is supply. People queue up -- they pay in time in order to get their chance for that space on the road. Some people don't find it worth their time to get through. While increasing gas taxes will decrease driving in general and on uncongested roads, on congested roads it will just change some of the characteristics of the drivers. Higher gas taxes would result in a change in the types of vehicle used, and would result in some people not making the drive -- which would free up space for new people who are perfectly willing to brave the gas expense.

The problem of congestion is not one of fuel or even air pollution. It's a problem of wasted resources - time that people waste stuck in traffic, and a paralysis of the transportation network.

 

[Long Island Mike]

Congestion Pricing for Toronto: A comparison with London...and NYC...

I would give drivers going downtown Toronto 3 Choices

1-Like in London, we put cameras downton or the Gardiner and DVP and send you a bill ( I woulb be willing to exempt Toronto citizens)
2-You pay higher driver's licence and licence plates fee

Can't have your cake and eat it too

SS: After reading your thought and this topic I will add the web page for
London's Congestion Pricing policy at: www.cclondon.com

This reminds me somewhat of thoughts concerning congestion pricing in NYC-
All of Manhattan's CBD S of 96th Street...

There has been a push at times to implement Congestion Pricing there along with
tolling the 4 East River bridges (Queensboro,Williamsburgh,Manhattan and Brooklyn
Bridges) that are now toll-free...and this plan has its supporters and its foes...

It will be interesting to see what kind of policy Toronto implements to alleviate
traffic at peak times in central and Downtown Toronto...

LI MIKE

 

[gweed123]

I had an idea last night. The problem with imposing road tolls is that the pricing may be seen as 'unfair' by the drivers. I think I've come up with a system that makes it seem 'fair', although is does rely on implementing a distance-based fare system for transit.

The basic idea is that for both highways (during peak hours) and transit, there would be a base fare (say $2.00), and then a per km charge (say $0.13/km) of the 'as the crow flies' distance between the start point and end point of the trip. The base fare would be the same for both highway driving and transit, as would the per km.

This means that a trip from STC to Union would be $4.25, or from Brampton to Union would be $6.08.

That way, driving from Point A to Point B during rush hour would cost you the exact same in tolls as it would in transit fare. No one is paying more than the other mode, they're both putting the same amount into the pot.

The mentality that I would see behind this is "well, if I'm already paying the same amount I would be paying for transit, and I'm paying for gas and parking on top of that, why don't I just take transit?"

Just a thought.

 

[sixrings]

why not just charge 3$ then each time you get on the highway instead of a pricing by distance?

 

[gweed123]

why not just charge 3$ then each time you get on the highway instead of a pricing by distance?

Because I'm trying to find a fare-by-distance system that works for the entire region, not just individual transit agencies.

 

[sixrings]

why not just charge a toll at any entrance point into the city. 401/410/403 interchange, 427,QEW interchange 400Steeles, 404Steeles, 401,port union and charge on top a 3$ toll for driving on the toronto highways.

 

[sixrings]

the easiest solution will be when all cars have GPS and as soon as you leave the driveway you are charged 25cents a KM.

 

[gweed123]

why not just charge a toll at any entrance point into the city. 401/410/403 interchange, 427,QEW interchange 400Steeles, 404Steeles, 401,port union and charge on top a 3$ toll for driving on the toronto highways.

Because flat fees don't take distance into account, and if you do it region-wide, it's captures suburb to suburb commutes as well. The fare calculation would be relatively easy, set up the same type of monitors as there are on the 407. Keep track of the entrance point and the exit point, and calculate the fare from that.

I'm not really a big fan of flat charges.

 

[mpd618]

I had an idea last night. The problem with imposing road tolls is that the pricing may be seen as 'unfair' by the drivers. I think I've come up with a system that makes it seem 'fair', although is does rely on implementing a distance-based fare system for transit.

This isn't really fair to transit. Given that the point is to alleviate congestion, a bunch of people all travelling in one vehicle contribute much less to that congestion. How about this: buses could get charged the same fee as cars, and fares could be increased by the small amount needed to compensate.

 

[gweed123]

This isn't really fair to transit. Given that the point is to alleviate congestion, a bunch of people all travelling in one vehicle contribute much less to that congestion. How about this: buses could get charged the same fee as cars, and fares could be increased by the small amount needed to compensate.

Ok, so I've read through this 5 times and I still don't understand what you're trying to get at...