Only Pricing Congestion Can Stop Congestion

[mpd618]

Is HOT lanes are better alternative to congestion charge?

HOT lanes are worse, because they set up a situation that can easily lead to their own demise. People in the non-HOT lanes will fight tooth and nail both to prevent any more lanes being used more efficiently, and to claw back the HOT lane. Same thing with bus lanes. With a congestion charge, the only people using the road have a positive, congestion- and envy-free experience.

 

[sjc]

One solution to the congestion in downtown Toronto would be to increase business taxes on office space in the downtown core significantly. This should cause a number of firms that don't really need to be downtown to relocate to less expensive premises outside of the core.

As the number of businesses downtown decreases, this should result in a corresponding decrease in the number of people commuting to work in the core. It would also reduce the related congestion from office deliveries and reduced number of service industries (for example, there would be a reduced need for restaurants during the day -- with reduced congestion from fewer people coming to restaurant jobs, fewer food deliveries, etc.).

Similarly, any new sports facilities or convention facilities should be built away from the downtown core. A large number of people heading to downtown each day are going to the Dome (whatever its called these days) or the Convention Centre.

Business and Recreation are the primary causes of congestion in the core. If you get rid of those, congestion should ease significantly.

EDIT: If now unused office buildings were converted to apartments, this would increase the availability of rental and condo units, bringing down the cost of living downtown and allowing more people to live there affordably. Decreased demand (from fewer jobs downtown) should help lower the price as well, helping achieve local affordable housing goals.

 

[nfitz]

One solution to the congestion in downtown Toronto would be to increase business taxes on office space in the downtown core significantly. This should cause a number of firms that don't really need to be downtown to relocate to less expensive premises outside of the core.

Wouldn't this only serve to push more businesses to the outer 416 and 905 where the modal split for transit is much lower, and increase the number of those who need to drive each day??

Since I started working downtown, I've noticed that the roads in that area are much less crowded than they are in outer 416 and 905 during rush hour.

 

[sjc]

The modal split for transit would likely change. If there was significant business move to the outer regions, GO Transit could, for example, increase its inter-urban service. It is also easier to expand and build new highways and other car services in the suburban areas (although they are getting filled in very quickly).

On the other hand, as businesses move further out, it makes living in places farther from town more attractive. If I am driving in from Orangeville, I'd much sooner drive to Mississauga than to downtown. I'm driving less and therefore creating less congestion.

There is still quite a bit of room for the GTA area to grow, especially if businesses moved away from the core and closer to the suburban areas where their workers are. Not that this hasn't been happening for a number of years.

 

[nfitz]

On the other hand, as businesses move further out, it makes living in places farther from town more attractive. If I am driving in from Orangeville, I'd much sooner drive to Mississauga than to downtown. I'm driving less and therefore creating less congestion.

If one was driving almost 60 km from Orangeville to Mississauga however, is one really going to worry about the only 20 km from Mississauga to downtown? Besides, traffic in Mississauga is already dreadful in rush-hour, particularly east of the Credit - even with increased GO service, the modal split will go mostly to cars. It would only making commuting worse.

I hate to shoot down people's idea ... but this one is exceptionally bad. One might as well simply set off a small nuclear device in downtown.

 

[sixrings]

One might as well simply set off a small nuclear device in downtown.

Don't give the car determined suburbinites any wild ideas!

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

We've tried this proposal already, most US cities have experienced this type of plan. See Detroit as a perfect example of what happens when we allow a city's central core to be hollowed out.

 

[kkgg7]

One solution to the congestion in downtown Toronto would be to increase business taxes on office space in the downtown core significantly. This should cause a number of firms that don't really need to be downtown to relocate to less expensive premises outside of the core.

As the number of businesses downtown decreases, this should result in a corresponding decrease in the number of people commuting to work in the core. It would also reduce the related congestion from office deliveries and reduced number of service industries (for example, there would be a reduced need for restaurants during the day -- with reduced congestion from fewer people coming to restaurant jobs, fewer food deliveries, etc.).

Similarly, any new sports facilities or convention facilities should be built away from the downtown core. A large number of people heading to downtown each day are going to the Dome (whatever its called these days) or the Convention Centre.

Business and Recreation are the primary causes of congestion in the core. If you get rid of those, congestion should ease significantly.

EDIT: If now unused office buildings were converted to apartments, this would increase the availability of rental and condo units, bringing down the cost of living downtown and allowing more people to live there affordably. Decreased demand (from fewer jobs downtown) should help lower the price as well, helping achieve local affordable housing goals.

You have to be kidding. downtown is downtown because there are jobs. When downtown has no jobs and just apartments, that's called the suburbs. People want to live downtown because it is close to work, and when you take work away, why do so many people want to live downtown anyway? and then what's the point of increasing affordability?

Toronto is not Paris. Paris can have its CBD in the near suburbs because central Paris is magical. People will go there for other things than jobs. But if you hollow out downtown Toronto, people (I for one) will move away, as the advantage of live close to work ceases to exist. When people move away, all those recreational stuff will be gone in no time. Do you really want such a "downtown"?

The correct way is to increase the density as well as attractiveness of downtown, both for living and working. Then policies should be formulated to encourage people to live in the inner 416 area and discourage suburban living. Affordability in midtown and surrounding areas need be increased by bigger supply (dense high rises). Whoever loves big Victorian houses and hate condos can move to the suburbs, at the expense of fewer amenities and longer commuter, plus high gas price.

following your approach, Toronto will become another Los Angeles or Houston in 20 years with an empty downtown no one wants to go ever and lots of sparsely populated suburbs in the outer area.

 

[Admiral Beez]

In London, UK there are now as many cars in the city as there were before the congestion tax was implemented. Granted the number of cars declined quickly at the beginning, but it slowly crept back up. Once people get used to the tax they'll be back, and don't forget that anyone running a private business can claim the tax against their CRA Return.

If I live in Cabbagetown and work in Markham, would I have to pay a Toronto congestion tax just to drive down my street to the DVP?

 

[Admiral Beez]

You have to be kidding. downtown is downtown because there are jobs. When downtown has no jobs and just apartments, that's called the suburbs. People want to live downtown because it is close to work, and when you take work away, why do so many people want to live downtown anyway? and then what's the point of increasing affordability?

Unless you're in finance, law, government or post secondary education there are few jobs downtown. I'm in consumer products marketing, and would love to find a job within cycling distance of my place in Cabbagetown, but instead my jobs have been in Vaughan, Markham and Kitchener - the last one was a drive, and short-lived.

 

[rbt]

In London, UK there are now as many cars in the city as there were before the congestion tax was implemented. Granted the number of cars declined quickly at the beginning, but it slowly crept back up.

Yup. One important change though, there are far more people being moved on the same street now as a large number did move permanently over to the bus system and the city grew to fill in the vacancies.

Where tax base is a function of economic activity; this was a good move for the city.

 

[ItsTehBean]

My only problem with congestion pricing (and whole tole for that matter), is that it won't work in Toronto under the current political situations. You got Ferd and his crony administration bickering whether to toll the Gardiner or not, and then the Province will intervene if the people don't like the idea of tolls along Toronto expressways!

 

[valkoholic]

It can't be a fun time to work at Metrolinx. They're supposed to be developing an investment strategy now to pay for the Big Move. Basically any transportation professional will say tolls are a big part of the answer because of their dual role of raising money and discouraging peak period car commuting. Metrolinx staff know this, but I'm sure they're being told by cabinet not to raise the issue.

I've always thought metrolinx didn't have the tools they need to make a difference due to their lack of influence over the province's growth plans. If metorlinx comes out with an investment strategy that doesn't recommend tolls it will show they've never been given a true mandate to start solving transportation problems in the GTA.

 

[nfitz]

It can't be a fun time to work at Metrolinx. They're supposed to be developing an investment strategy now to pay for the Big Move. Basically any transportation professional will say tolls are a big part of the answer because of their dual role of raising money and discouraging peak period car commuting. Metrolinx staff know this, but I'm sure they're being told by cabinet not to raise the issue.

There are other tools than tolls. Look at Vancouver, where Translink just increased the 15 ¢/Litre to 17 ¢/Litre. This is in addition to the approximately 20 ¢/Litre provincial tax (Ontario's rate is 14.7¢/Litre, with about another 9¢ of provincial HST).

The 14.7 ¢/Litre raised about $2.4 billion province-wide. The Golden Horseshore is about 62% of the Ontario population. So a 17 ¢/Litre Metrolinx gas tax here would raise about $1.7 billion a year, or $43 billion over the 25-year Big Move timeframe. If you look in the draft Big Move funding plan, they are only looking for $50 billion over 25 years.

The Big Move funding can easily be provided, simply using the same tools that have already been applied in Vancouver (if I got the math right!). A place that seems a lot more tax adverse than Ontario is.

 

[gweed123]

In London, UK there are now as many cars in the city as there were before the congestion tax was implemented. Granted the number of cars declined quickly at the beginning, but it slowly crept back up. Once people get used to the tax they'll be back, and don't forget that anyone running a private business can claim the tax against their CRA Return.

I'm fine with people "getting used to" the tax. As long as the revenue from it is coming in and is going to transit improvements, I'm happy. My goal is to make transit more attractive and more convenient, by making it more widespread and more reliable. If the byproduct of that is fewer people on the roads, great. If people still choose to drive, at least they're now paying their fair share.

To be blunt, if there's a viable alternative (and I stress viable, because for a lot of people transit currently isn't a viable alternative, it's just AN alternative), and people still choose to drive, they can sit in traffic for all I care.

There are other tools than tolls. Look at Vancouver, where Translink just increased the 15 ¢/Litre to 17 ¢/Litre. This is in addition to the approximately 20 ¢/Litre provincial tax (Ontario's rate is 14.7¢/Litre, with about another 9¢ of provincial HST).

The 14.7 ¢/Litre raised about $2.4 billion province-wide. The Golden Horseshore is about 62% of the Ontario population. So a 17 ¢/Litre Metrolinx gas tax here would raise about $1.7 billion a year, or $43 billion over the 25-year Big Move timeframe. If you look in the draft Big Move funding plan, they are only looking for $50 billion over 25 years.

The Big Move funding can easily be provided, simply using the same tools that have already been applied in Vancouver (if I got the math right!). A place that seems a lot more tax adverse than Ontario is.

It all comes down to who do we want the additional funding burden to fall onto. A gas tax is a great way of making a blanket tax. Problem is, it's not likely to reduce congestion. Increased gas prices have very little effect on the amount people drive on a day to day basis.

Personally, I think the funding burden should fall on the shoulders of those people who choose to use the road network at times when it is most stressed: rush hour. It's the time when the most amount of cars are on the road, and it's also the best opportunity to switch people onto transit or telecommuting. Whether it's through peak-period congestion charges in downtown, flat rate peak hour tolls, or per km peak hour tolls, I think these options have a greater possibility of actually changing behaviour.

With a gas tax, people will bitch and moan about the price of gas, but I would venture to say that relatively few would actually change their commuting mode. I don't think the same can be said for tolling options. Not only can the revenues be equal (it all depends on how you price each option), but I think tolling has a greater potential to get people out of their cars. Using the funds generated to build better transit will only accelerate that change.