News   Jul 25, 2024
 446     0 
News   Jul 25, 2024
 422     0 
News   Jul 25, 2024
 517     0 

Only Pricing Congestion Can Stop Congestion

M II A II R II K

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
3,944
Reaction score
1,061
The Only Hope for Reducing Traffic


October 19th, 2011

By Eric Jaffe

logo.gif


Read More: http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2011/10/only-hope-reducing-traffic/315/


In 1962, transportation researcher Anthony Downs suggested that U.S. cities suffered from a fundamental law of highway congestion: "This Law states that on urban commuter expressways, peak-hour traffic congestion rises to meet maximum capacity." What was the case half a century ago remains true today. Except worse. In a research paper published in this month's American Economic Review, a pair of economists from the University of Toronto confirm the fundamental law of highway congestion, but argue it doesn't go far enough. By analyzing traffic data and road capacity in U.S. cities from 1983 to 2003, they also provide evidence for a fundamental law of road congestion — one that extends beyond interstate highways to include a "broad class of major urban roads."

- Despite the claims of highway advocates like the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, urban congestion can't be addressed by increasing road capacity. That's always been a tough fact for people to accept; as Lewis Mumford wrote back in the New Yorker back 1955: “People, it seems, find it hard to believe that the cure for congestion is not more facilities for congestion."

- The next logical solution is to increase public transportation capacity, but the Toronto researchers found "no evidence" that this impacts road congestion either. There is such an enormous latent demand for road space, they believe, that whenever a driver shifts onto public transportation, another one quickly grabs the open lane. That leaves just one solution to the traffic problem plaguing American cities: congestion pricing. "We cannot think of any other solution," says Gilles Duranton, the paper's co-author. "As soon as you manage to create space on the road, by whatever means, people are going to use that space. Except when people have to pay for it, of course."

- London's pricing program has created a number of benefits: car use is down, carbon emissions are down, delays are down, even taxi fares are down because the roads move more swiftly. Meanwhile the bus system has grown at exceptional rates, with its expansion largely paid for by the congestion pricing revenue. The more recent program in Stockholm has been an equal or even greater success. After a six-month trial period in 2006 [PDF], the city government made the program permanent the following year. Since then transit ridership is up, traffic is down some 18 percent, and in some cases rush-hour delays have been cut in half. During the trial period alone there was a huge drop in delays during evening peak traffic hours.

- Cities can try what Duranton calls quantitative restrictions. These can take the form of wholesale bans of vehicles from certain areas of the city. Some cities have tried a modified approach: in Bogota and Mexico City, for instance, cars are limited from driving on certain days based on their license plate numbers. But this strategy creates problems of its own. Bogota's Pico y Placa program restricts drivers with license plates ending in four numbers from taking to the road on any given day; but in response, says Duranton, some people simply purchase additional cars, accruing a variety of license plates to get around the system. A recent report from the Journal of Political Economy [PDF] suggests that's the case in Mexico City as well: that program led to "an increase in the total number of vehicles in circulation," writes the author. As a result, air quality in the city failed to improve.

.....




Stockholm

stockholm-delay_thumb.jpg
 
This is not the solution to stop congestion. Congestion is an indicator, not the root cause of the problem. Congestion is a result of many different causes, not just people grabbing a lane when a lane is free.

To name a few causes of congestion on our highways in the Toronto area:
1. Weaving areas with insufficient design (i.e. 401/Hurontario area)
2. Slow vehicles causing unnecessary queuing (i.e. slow truck traffic v.s. faster passenger traffic)
3. Vehicle incidents (i.e. breakdown, collision)
4. Highway maintenance
5. Social behaviour causing demand (i.e. the 9 to 5 work week)
6. Population growth is greater than highway expansion.
7. Centralization of urban centers

Solutions:
1. Design better weaving areas.
Implement basket weaves or prohibit too many lanes interchanging in a short distance.
Example 1: Prohibit 401 westbound express traffic to exit to Hurontario and Mavis, allowing only Collector traffic OR build a basket weave to allow express and collector traffic to cross efficiently. MTO chose the basket weave option.
Example 2: Westbound 401 collectors before 400 is for northbound 400 traffic only. Remove continuity of the 401 westbound collector under the 400 bridge. This will allow an uninterrupted merge on to the 401 from the 400 south. OR re-design the interchange with a wider curve and additional exclusive lanes to merge on the 401 westbound collectors.
2. Segregate slower moving vehicles from faster moving vehicles.
I bet everyone has seen a truck on the 401 traveling 60/80km/hr when the rest of traffic is at 100km/hr+ ahead of the slower vehicle. Behind the slower vehicle queuing is occurring and congestion starts. The solution is for truck traffic to have their own lanes separated from passenger vehicle traffic OR more enforcement of posted speed limits on our highways; enforcing the speed limits both ways (impeding traffic and going too fast.)
3. Quickly move vehicles in minor collisions. Build in additional capacity to compensate for lane restrictions. Develop an aesthetically pleasing wall between highway segments to limit rubberneckers looking at traffic accidents.
4. Build in additional capacity to compensate for ongoing highway maintenance.
5. We need to shift our work hours. Do we really need to work from 9 to 5 or even travel to the office to be productive? Do we need truck traffic during peak commuting times? Does it have to go as far as the government legislating telecommuting practices? I for one would take advantage of telecommuting 2 out 5 days a week if I could. That's 4 vehicle trips per week less. Trucks should perform their deliveries and freight movements during the noon, late evening, overnight hours. This would be great for business because it would use less fuel and lower electricity costs for facilities because they could operate during non-peak electricity times (except noon).
6. The population of the GTHA is growing meanwhile there are the same number of lanes for years (perhaps decades) after population expansion. Municipalities expand their road system to meet population growth within a reasonable period of time however the province does not. Plans for highway expansion should be included in the municipal transportation planning and plans followed as new housing and business areas are built.
7. There has been a lot of focus on Toronto being the urban center of the GTHA however with more recent provincial planning policies, there has been a shift to create decentralized urban centers. The transportation pattern is no longer Brampton to downtown Toronto, Oshawa to downtown Toronto. It's Brampton to Oshawa, Mississauga to Richmond Hill, Oakville to Brampton. Public transportation is very limited between these areas and the common freeway system is the 401 which connect these urban centers. We need alternate freeway paths so we don't congest the main artery.

I've given 7 example issues and 7 solutions. None of which involve artificial economics. They focus on proper planning and following through with those plans within a reasonable period of time. The 401 does not need to be expanded to a thousand lanes. The highways need to be distributed, to be designed properly, and our social behaviour to change.
 
This is not the solution to stop congestion. Congestion is an indicator, not the root cause of the problem. Congestion is a result of many different causes, not just people grabbing a lane when a lane is free.

To name a few causes of congestion on our highways in the Toronto area:
1. Weaving areas with insufficient design (i.e. 401/Hurontario area)
2. Slow vehicles causing unnecessary queuing (i.e. slow truck traffic v.s. faster passenger traffic)
3. Vehicle incidents (i.e. breakdown, collision)
4. Highway maintenance
5. Social behaviour causing demand (i.e. the 9 to 5 work week)
6. Population growth is greater than highway expansion.
7. Centralization of urban centers

You have lots of details here and some of it makes great sense, however, your proposed solutions all simply ignore the "fundamental law" as described in the original article. For decades researchers have consistently determined that increasing highway capacity simply delays congestion problems temporarily by encouraging more people to drive. If you feel those findings are all wrong, I think you'll need to explain why you feel that way rather than simply ignore it. Do you have evidence that those findings are all incorrect or flawed?

I also disagree with your assertion that "congestion is just an indicator". I believe the exact opposite is true. It is congested roads which make routine unavoidable events such as breakdowns and slow moving vehicles into a major problem. On an empty road these things do not cause congestion: they only become critical when a road is already filled to capacity.

From what I see, your proposed solutions to your issues 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 all simply describe different types of road and infrastructure improvements, some of them very extreme. These would cost billions and billions in taxpayer money to improve highway capacity and flow for only a few years at best before the population growth you describe in issue 6 caused roads to reach capacity again and the severe congestion to return. Then what?

Your solution for your issue 5, on the other hand, hits the nail on the head. We need to encourage people to change their driving patterns, drive less, telecommute, etc. Absolutely. But people don't just change their behaviours because someone tells them to: they need incentives to do so. Which is precisely the point of tolls and congestion charges! When you charge people more to drive on the busiest highways at the busiest times, they are given a strong incentive to change their behaviour, hence solving the problem.

Also, I'm am puzzled that you seem fine with the idea of spending billions and billions of taxpayer money on highway infrastructure improvements, but you reject the idea of tolls and congestion charges. The same people are paying either way, whether directly or indirectly. I say we invest our money directly in the solution that countless studies show actually works, rather than waste it on what history repeatedly shows does not work.
 
Congestion Pricing in Downtown Toronto right now is the only system that would work because it is the only area that is served well by transit and is central to all area's around it.

Bathurst to DVP
Lake Ontario to Bloor

Exception would be Gardiner expressway. This means, if a commuter is travelling on the gardiner and bypassing downtown they won't be charged. If you take any of the offramps into downtown then you are charged.

This is the only way this can start, then once we make dramatic increases in public transit other area's could be considered for tolling/congestion charges.

Also a whole new super frequent bus service would need to be implemented along Bay St or Jarvis to shuttle passengers down from Bloor because the Yonge subway will be jam packed then it already is....until the DRL is built of course.
 
Question:

Wouldn't higher parking rates and larger parking fines do pretty much the same thing as a congestion charge?
 
Question:

Wouldn't higher parking rates and larger parking fines do pretty much the same thing as a congestion charge?

I doubt it. I lived in downtown Calgary this summer (may-aug) and i can assure you that despite having the highest parking rates in Canada and the 2nd highest in north america, it still has more than enough traffic in downtown....

And that is with its car oriented efficient one-way system on 9th/6th & 5th/4th

Keep parking rates unchanged, put in a congestion charge because that is the only way any noticable impact will be made.
 
Why not raise parking rates and put in a congestion charge? The city could use the revenue and Ford could use another job.
 
Why not raise parking rates and put in a congestion charge? The city could use the revenue and Ford could use another job.

Street parking should definitely be raised to meet market rates. And of course congestion charges and road tolls are the only way to control the level of congestion.

The problem is, we just don't have any politicians with the balls to implement it. And as long as the average citizen remains delusional enough to believe stories by dunces like Rob Ford that things like getting rid of streetcars, or spending billions on non cost efficient subways will reduce congestion (absurd), we are screwed.
 
Pardon my skepticism, but I am wary of absolute statements. I agree that congestion charges; in particular, the flexible-based-on-conditions kind can do a lot to help reduce that congestion, and if reducing congestion is your only goal, then it is a good way to do it. However, unless that revenue stream is pumped directly back into alternatives such as transit, then there is no point. People will continue to drive.

Increasing parking rates can have a similar effect in my view, and although there is no reason to choose one over the other, I would think that increasing the base parking rate and tax would be a more cost-effective means of reducing congestion and increasing revenue than putting up cameras and monitors around the downtown core which has no natural boundary and setting up a completely new billing system.
 
The problem is, we just don't have any politicians with the balls to implement it. And as long as the average citizen remains delusional enough to believe stories by dunces like Rob Ford that things like getting rid of streetcars, or spending billions on non cost efficient subways will reduce congestion (absurd), we are screwed.

sarah thomson had the balls. i was prepared to vote for her.
 
Pardon my skepticism, but I am wary of absolute statements.

What's there to be skeptical about? It's as no-brainer as it could get. We have road congestion because the cost of using the road is too low. Since there is no user fee for using this infrastructure, cost does not even factor in.

If you want to control the level of congestion, you simply pick whatever acceptable level of congestion you want, and dial in a user fee until you reach the desired level.

Those 6 month street parking permits are also ridiculously low. At $13.39/month, this works out to a paltry 44 cents a day (full 24 hours). Can you imagine renting a parking space in the private sector for that much? Why should we allow people to park their private vehicle on public property for such a ridiculously low amount?

Why we keep subsidizing people's private car usage is beyond me.
 
sarah thomson had the balls. i was prepared to vote for her.

Ha. She wanted to use road tolls to partially pay for her cockamamy public/private 58km subway expansion (replacing Transit City). Her $6.6 billion price tag was also pure fantasy.

Thomson was nothing more than a slightly better looking female version of Rob Ford.
 
The way I hope congestion charges will roll out is like this:

1) The first wave of public transit infrastructure being built will use the current crop of funding from the Provincial government.
2) Once these projects are underway, begin implementing peak period congestion charges on the DVP and Gardiner.
3) The funds generated from these would go to funding (or helping to fund) subsequent transit expansion.

Just for some rough numbers: Tolling the DVP and Gardiner 6hrs a day (3 in the AM, 3 in the PM), with a $3 toll one-way would generate aroun $49 million/year in revenue, and that's just tolling the inbound in the AM and outbound in the PM. That's almost 1km of LRT every year (or 3km of BRT), just from that.

Toll the 401 during those same periods and you would generate around $1.6 BILLION a year in revenue. If you implemented that starting in 2012, you would have the electrification of the entire GO network paid for before the damn thing even opened!

PS: I believe that any new tolls implemented should be peak-period only tolls. Outside of peak periods, by and large our road system works pretty well. By only charging during peak periods, you encourage flex hours, and you encourage more transit use.
 
Last edited:
i agree with th3e tolls but i would toll between 7am to 7pm. as much as i have faith in your go expansion we will also need toronto expansion. we need tk be able to build multiple lines without fear of money shortage.
 
What's there to be skeptical about? It's as no-brainer as it could get. We have road congestion because the cost of using the road is too low. Since there is no user fee for using this infrastructure, cost does not even factor in.

If you want to control the level of congestion, you simply pick whatever acceptable level of congestion you want, and dial in a user fee until you reach the desired level.

Those 6 month street parking permits are also ridiculously low. At $13.39/month, this works out to a paltry 44 cents a day (full 24 hours). Can you imagine renting a parking space in the private sector for that much? Why should we allow people to park their private vehicle on public property for such a ridiculously low amount?

Why we keep subsidizing people's private car usage is beyond me.

I'm not saying that road tolls wont be beneficial, I'm saying that charging the market rate for public parking has not been tried yet and should be tried first before congestion charges come into play since it requires very little in the way of new infrastructure.
 

Back
Top