Road Tolls

[nfitz]

Sorry, I meant to say this earlier. To me there is a difference between the type of congestion charge London brought in and road tolls that are suggested for Toronto/GTA.

London was dealing with a congested core so they essentially drew a line and said "bring your car in here and you pay a fee. We don't care if you drove 10km or 100km you pay the same fee". This is appropriate for cities with very congested cores. That, I believe was the case in London. Not so much Toronto.

Tolls that charge by distance levy larger fees on you the further away you live. So someone from Oshawa ( ) will pay more to get to King and Bay than someone from Whitby. This is more appropriate for cities with congestion leading to the core. I think this is more descriptive of the Toronto situation.

All true. But both reduce congestion, either in the designated area, or on the tolled road, if you set the $ high enough.

It was only an example where congestion has been reduced. I'm not personally familiar with other examples where tolling has been added retroactively, to have been able to observe the effects.

 

[TOareaFan]

All true. But both reduce congestion, either in the designated area, or on the tolled road, if you set the $ high enough.

It was only an example where congestion has been reduced. I'm not personally familiar with other examples where tolling has been added retroactively, to have been able to observe the effects.

Yep. A congestion charge targets congestion in a pacific zone and has a side effect of reducing road congestion while tolls target sprawl/road congestion and have the side effect of potentially reducing core congestion.

 

[BurlOak]

I think if we only see tolls on the DVP and the gardner then it should go to a full west and east DRL up unto eglingon since these are the routes the drivers could most likely divert to... If we toll the 401 then the tolls should go to a sheppard expansion and more Go options... if we toll the 404 that should go to the yonge line...

I think we probably will see tolls on DVP and the Gardiner. The Province will not do anything on the 400 series highways since the 407 (the sale, the increaed tolls, the reminder to the motorist of this tax everytime they drive) is probably the biggest reason why the Conservatives lost in 2003 and have not returned to power. The first coulple of hundred million raised will go towards the technology to implement the tolls and not to transit. More people will drive on city streets to avoid the tolls, but this will only be discovered later. The tolling will then be cancelled a few years later and the net result will be that no money will have been raised.

I say just slap a symbolic 0.5 cent (or less) tax on gas. The small amount that is raised could (eventually) go towards one of the LRT lines at a time (maybe with some other budget money). If the Province/Metrolinx gets involved, the gas tax could be increased to a couple of cents, but is should gradually decrease so there is not big jump across municipal boundaries. I do not think Toronto should go it alone for a Regional Sales Tax, but if the Province gets involved in this, it should also gradually decrease the farther one gets from Toronto.

 

[Electrify]

I don't really see a lot of benefit in that. It's only 3.5 kms long, and 2 lanes in each direction. Assuming that the tolling system will be a per km basis, and the relatively low volume of traffic, it'll just piss off a lot of people for not a lot of revenue in the grand scheme of things. Just doing the math on peak hour, it would only generate 70¢ per car assuming 20¢/km toll rate. Even if the Allen is packed both ways, that's still only $4200 per hour during peak hour.

I'm thinking as a measure to help control traffic. It is a VERY congested intersection and is also well served by transit.

 

[Eug]

I'll predict:

No gas surtax.
No toll roads.

 

[ticky]

Growing up and living in and near Sydney, Australia, I have always had toll roads in my driving career, with around eight (if my memory serves me correctly) different tolls around various parts of the city, so I could easily be inclined to vote yes to road tolls.

But then I thought about taxing gas. Though I read somewhere that most of the money made from the current tax on gas, which was originally designated to improve roads, etc, is now just put into the 'general expenses' fund. While a tax on gas seems the most fair option, who is to say this doesn't happen again?

Any sort of general sales tax I would be against as 1) it's already high enough, and 2) why should chumps who don't drive have to pay for the city's shortcomings?

I rarely drive now in Toronto except for the occasional trip across the border, so I have no real vested interest in either tolls or gas tax.

 

[rbt]

But then I thought about taxing gas. Though I read somewhere that most of the money made from the current tax on gas, which was originally designated to improve roads, etc, is now just put into the 'general expenses' fund.

It should be noted that road repairs and construction is a general expense and generally larger than the revenue taken in by the fuel tax (don't know about HST component).

 

[Dan416]

In the PM isn't a lot of that SB congestion just spill-over from the WB 401? We'll see how much of a difference it'll make once the 401 E/C system is open further west of there.

I'm not quite sure what you mean. I take the 410 SB to 401 WB and both are busy.

How much the Express/Collector system helps remains to be seen. Although I'm skeptical it will help much because it doesn't open any time soon and it only goes just beyond Hurontario; it doesn't even reach Mavis, which is where I get off.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Caution, Road Trolls

 

[gweed123]

I'm not quite sure what you mean. I take the 410 SB to 401 WB and both are busy.

How much the Express/Collector system helps remains to be seen. Although I'm skeptical it will help much because it doesn't open any time soon and it only goes just beyond Hurontario; it doesn't even reach Mavis, which is where I get off.

What I mean is that in some cases the congestion on a road is not in fact caused by that road itself, but by insufficient capacity on Road B that is causing traffic to back up onto Road A.

Another example is the 400 SB to the 401 WB. The issue isn't that the 400 isn't wide enough, the issue is that the 401 WB does not have sufficient capacity to absorb all of the extra vehicles from the 400 SB that are being dumped onto it. As a result, the 400 SB backs up often to about Finch. However, you could widen the 400 SB to 10 lanes from Finch to the 401 and it wouldn't make any difference at all, because that's not where the actual choke point is.

It's the same thing with the 410 SB to the 401 WB. The problem isn't the 410, it's the 401 not being able to absorb all of the people that the 410 is dumping onto it. This problem is compounded because the 401 itself has a reduction in capacity at the 410/403 interchange. Even without that interchange there, the 401 would still back up there, just because of the reduction in lanes (just look at Brock Rd and Salem Rd in the east end). The 410 and 403 being there only compound the problem.

The E/C will help because it will shift the lane reduction further west, so that the lane reduction AND the 410 dumping people on won't occur at the same spot. There will still be a slow down, but it will certainly be less of a clusterf**k than it is now.

 

[TOareaFan]

What I mean is that in some cases the congestion on a road is not in fact caused by that road itself, but by insufficient capacity on Road B that is causing traffic to back up onto Road A.

Another example is the 400 SB to the 401 WB. The issue isn't that the 400 isn't wide enough, the issue is that the 401 WB does not have sufficient capacity to absorb all of the extra vehicles from the 400 SB that are being dumped onto it. As a result, the 400 SB backs up often to about Finch. However, you could widen the 400 SB to 10 lanes from Finch to the 401 and it wouldn't make any difference at all, because that's not where the actual choke point is.

It's the same thing with the 410 SB to the 401 WB. The problem isn't the 410, it's the 401 not being able to absorb all of the people that the 410 is dumping onto it. This problem is compounded because the 401 itself has a reduction in capacity at the 410/403 interchange. Even without that interchange there, the 401 would still back up there, just because of the reduction in lanes (just look at Brock Rd and Salem Rd in the east end). The 410 and 403 being there only compound the problem.

The E/C will help because it will shift the lane reduction further west, so that the lane reduction AND the 410 dumping people on won't occur at the same spot. There will still be a slow down, but it will certainly be less of a clusterf**k than it is now.

Your theory may make sense in general terms but in the specific case to suggest that the problem is not the 410 itself is very far from the case. The 410 is, fundamentally, a lesson in arithmetic......500,000 (people) does not go into 3 (lanes) very well

 

[gweed123]

Your theory may make sense in general terms but in the specific case to suggest that the problem is not the 410 itself is very far from the case. The 410 is, fundamentally, a lesson in arithmetic......500,000 (people) does not go into 3 (lanes) very well

Oh I know that the 410 is undersized for the volume of traffic that it's carrying, I'm just saying that a lot of the problem is the inability of the 401 to effectively absorb all of the people that the 410 is dumping onto it.

Widening the 410 may do well up until a point, but eventually the spill-over from the 401 is going to be like a brick wall between Courtneypark and the 401.

I will agree though that the more that I think about it, the more putting a tolled express and free collector on the 410 from the 407 to the 401 makes sense, because it will allow people to bypass that inevitable brick wall.

 

[TOareaFan]

Oh I know that the 410 is undersized for the volume of traffic that it's carrying, I'm just saying that a lot of the problem is the inability of the 401 to effectively absorb all of the people that the 410 is dumping onto it.

Widening the 410 may do well up until a point, but eventually the spill-over from the 401 is going to be like a brick wall between Courtneypark and the 401.

I will agree though that the more that I think about it, the more putting a tolled express and free collector on the 410 from the 407 to the 401 makes sense, because it will allow people to bypass that inevitable brick wall.

The 410 does not need widening it needs relief....another N/S highway in and out of Brampton (widening it will create exactly what you describe...a 401 bottleneck). Going south in the morning traffic actually starts to move freely after Courtnepark so the 401 is not currently the issue.

To be honest, I was being a bit cheeky when I suggested tolling the 410. It would, however, be a pretty steady revenue stream.

 

[gweed123]

The 410 does not need widening it needs relief....another N/S highway in and out of Brampton (widening it will create exactly what you describe...a 401 bottleneck). Going south in the morning traffic actually starts to move freely after Courtnepark so the 401 is not currently the issue.

To be honest, I was being a bit cheeky when I suggested tolling the 410. It would, however, be a pretty steady revenue stream.

Wasn't there talk of a new N-S highway going up from in and around the 401-407 interchange area? That would be a huge backtrack for a lot of people in Brampton, but I think that's the only 'relief' you're going to get.

And I think that if this system is implemented, from that point on, if any highway is going to be widened by more than one lane, it might as well be redone into a tolled express/free collector system, so at least the money poured into widening will generate some revenue.

I suppose theoretically you could even do a 2+2 or a 2+3 configuration for the E/C if you really wanted to. I just always assumed that 3+3 would be the optimal configuration for that.

 

[Ed Drass]

Excuse my drive-by posting, but has everyone read Andrew Coyne's consummate case for road pricing? http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/01/11/stuck-in-traffic/

NB: It's magazine-story length, but very thorough. (I reckon many of the commenters on the Maclean's site did not make it all the way through.)

Excerpts:
' But wait a minute, you say: I paid for those roads already, via the gas tax. Isn’t that a kind of user fee? Not so fast. You may have paid for the roads. What you haven’t paid for is you. Every time you use the road, you take up space that might be occupied by another car. And so far as you do, you impede the driver of that car from getting where he wants to go, and doing what he would rather be doing there. Since time is money, you impose a cost on him—as does he on you." '

<snip>
' To the second, that tolls would become a cash cow for governments, the simple answer is that any revenues from tolls can and should be used to lower taxes: perhaps even the gas tax. To be persuasive, the offset would have to be guaranteed, immediate, and 100 per cent: voters are rightly skeptical of any such promised trade-offs. '

<snip>
' Which means discarding one of the most common arguments made for tolls: that the revenues could be used to finance public transit. For starters, this is unnecessary: the very act of tolling roads would, by itself, make public transit more competitive, since the per-person cost of the toll would be much less for buses than for cars (and none at all for subways and surface rail). Moreover, as the economist Robin Lindsey explains in a study for the C. D. Howe Institute, “transit vehicles speed up when tolls are imposed, because there are fewer cars on the road. This attracts more travellers to transit. In response, transit operators improve service by adding routes and increasing frequency. Due to economies of scale in transit operations, the cost per passenger falls, perhaps allowing the operator to lower fares. Ridership increases further, and so on.” '

Cheers, Ed