Tolls, Road Pricing and Congestion Pricing

[ssiguy2]

Except for new pieces of infrastructure, such as the 407, I have never agreed with tolls and I never will because they basically pick winners & losers and it's always the lower income people who end up paying the most. This is especially true in expensive cities like Toronto where people live where they are forced to due to high housing costs even though it maybe further from their work. Some one in Rosedale going downtown shouldn't be able to do so free and gratis while someone travelling the same distance using the DVP or 401 has to pay thru the teeth all because they are not wealthy enough to live downtown.

A better system is a flat yearly tax on all vehicles which allows a certain amount of free travel ie 10,000 km/year. Above that people would have to pay a certain amount per km {ie $100/ per 10,000 km} so that nobody can avoid the tax regardless of where they live or what roads they take. Added onto this equation should be a formula of the amount you drive in conjunction with your vehicles registered emissions. This way a polluting 2015 Dodge Ram owner is paying more than a 2021 Chevy Spark one because they are higher emitting vehicles. Such calculations should NOT be just based upon whether you have an electric car or not because, as it stands now, most electric cars are still a luxury of the well off.

Such a formula would not only ensure that everyone pays their fair share and reduce emissions but would be more socially equitable by not punishing people who can't afford to live near where they work and can't afford an electric vehicle.

 

[sixrings]

Except for new pieces of infrastructure, such as the 407, I have never agreed with tolls and I never will because they basically pick winners & losers and it's always the lower income people who end up paying the most. This is especially true in expensive cities like Toronto where people live where they are forced to due to high housing costs even though it maybe further from their work. Some one in Rosedale going downtown shouldn't be able to do so free and gratis while someone travelling the same distance using the DVP or 401 has to pay thru the teeth all because they are not wealthy enough to live downtown.

A better system is a flat yearly tax on all vehicles which allows a certain amount of free travel ie 10,000 km/year. Above that people would have to pay a certain amount per km {ie $100/ per 10,000 km} so that nobody can avoid the tax regardless of where they live or what roads they take. Added onto this equation should be a formula of the amount you drive in conjunction with your vehicles registered emissions. This way a polluting 2015 Dodge Ram owner is paying more than a 2021 Chevy Spark one because they are higher emitting vehicles. Such calculations should NOT be just based upon whether you have an electric car or not because, as it stands now, most electric cars are still a luxury of the well off.

Such a formula would not only ensure that everyone pays their fair share and reduce emissions but would be more socially equitable by not punishing people who can't afford to live near where they work and can't afford an electric vehicle.

Still the person who lives downtown is going to pay less because they likely walk more often or take transit. There’s no real way to make things fair.

Also i hate the suburban people can’t afford to live downtown argument. Where my in laws live in the suburbs every house is 1.3 million. These people can afford to live downtown in condos but they prefer their 2500+ sq ft homes with two car garages. If anything the person living downtown is helping our city be sustainable and they should be rewarded. Instead we word it in a way that those who live downtown are greedy and evil while the people in the suburbs are the working poor. Maybe some suburbs. Not all suburbs. Just like everyone who lives downtown isn’t Uber rich.

 

[afransen]

A better system is a flat yearly tax on all vehicles which allows a certain amount of free travel ie 10,000 km/year. Above that people would have to pay a certain amount per km {ie $100/ per 10,000 km} so that nobody can avoid the tax regardless of where they live or what roads they take. Added onto this equation should be a formula of the amount you drive in conjunction with your vehicles registered emissions. This way a polluting 2015 Dodge Ram owner is paying more than a 2021 Chevy Spark one because they are higher emitting vehicles. Such calculations should NOT be just based upon whether you have an electric car or not because, as it stands now, most electric cars are still a luxury of the well off.

Such a formula would not only ensure that everyone pays their fair share and reduce emissions but would be more socially equitable by not punishing people who can't afford to live near where they work and can't afford an electric vehicle.

I think we'll go this way in part to replace gas tax. I think current gas tax works out around 3 cents/km for a typical passenger vehicle. 24.7 cents per liter plus HST at 10L/100km I don't think emissions should have anything to do with it--that's what the carbon tax is for. It might consider size/weight of the vehicle given that drives wear on roads.

I think we're looking at 3 prongs:

1. ~3 cents/km vehicle registration tax (paid on annual odometer reading)
2. Congestion charge to enter central area around downtown (to catch ssi's Rosedale bogeyman), or other central city areas in the province (Ottawa, Hamilton, etc.) that we would want to make low car zones.
3. Road tolls on major highways that kick in during periods of congestion, set to ensure a minimum level of service

A GPS based system that could help with dynamically pricing congestion on all streets/arterials would be a nice goal, but likely hard to achieve both technically and politically given privacy concerns.

Let's face it: the poor don't drive, especially downtown. They usually don't even own cars.

 

[jys]

Scrolling through the past several pages, many posters have identified concerns around road tolls, particularly:
1) it costs people a significant amount of money;
2) it is unfair to people who make less.

These concerns are valid and the posters were right to point them out. What I think is missing from the discussion so far is an evaluation of the "business as usual" option according to these 2 criteria.

1) Tolls cost money, and so does congestion. The time that people spend sitting in traffic is time during which they could otherwise be making money, spending money and/or doing tasks that would improve their quality of life and contribute to the economy. Likewise, the time that goods spend sitting in traffic also has an adverse effect on businesses and the economy, not to mention the significantly higher fuel costs of start-stop traffic. Therefore, I think there's a need to recognize that while tolls are expensive, "not charging road tolls" (and the resulting congestion) is also expensive (perhaps more so) in terms of the loss of productivity.

2) Communism (Marxism) is fair in the sense that everyone is poor. Likewise, "not charging tolls" is fair in the sense that it creates a bad outcome for all users (getting stuck in traffic). There can be no doubt that road tolls benefit those who can afford it. However, if we really cared about those "poor suburbanites who can't afford to live in the city", then we perhaps should advocate for a portion of the toll revenue to be directed towards affordable housing projects? This way, said people can live closer to the CBD and/or have better access to alternatives (e.g. public transit).

Going forward, if we could debate the merits of road tolls based on the costs of charging tolls vs. the costs of not doing so, as opposed to rejecting tolls because "they cost money", it would significantly increase the level of discourse in this thread.

 

[jys]

People say that tolling is a benefit to those who drive because it means less people on the road, but when a proper alternative isn't there, where do those people that are suddenly not on the road go? Citizens aren't sims that can just spawn and despawn whenever the world feels like it,

Let's be careful about falling into the "expand highways to solve congestion" mentality. You seem to be well read on topics of urban planning, so I do believe that you would be familiar with the logic there. I would be happy to have a discussion about it if you like.

if you introduce tolls and less people are on a highway, ask yourself where those people that would be on the highway went to. Are they now flooding the nearby local streets to save money in which case all you did was move the problem elsewhere. Are they now spending an extra hour a day on their commute because they cannot afford to pay the new tolls

In most cases people would be able to make changes that do not involve extreme adversity. I sometimes have to remind myself to think about the issue at a population, rather than individual level, as well.

 

[ARG1]

Let's be careful about falling into the "expand highways to solve congestion" mentality. You seem to be well read on topics of urban planning, so I do believe that you would be familiar with the logic there. I would be happy to have a discussion about it if you like.

In most cases people would be able to make changes that do not involve extreme adversity. I sometimes have to remind myself to think about the issue at a population, rather than individual level, as well.

Its not my goal to push for highway expansion. My point is that most of the users of highways don't have a proper alternative to using their cars that doesn't result in a ton of compromises on their behalf. Our focus should be to build alternatives like GO RER first, and then implement stuff like tolling once that alternative is in place.

 

[afransen]

Its not my goal to push for highway expansion. My point is that most of the users of highways don't have a proper alternative to using their cars that doesn't result in a ton of compromises on their behalf. Our focus should be to build alternatives like GO RER first, and then implement stuff like tolling once that alternative is in place.

I think we're just disagreeing about what % of users need to have alternatives to driving at peak times in single occupancy vehicles. I would say even if we can only persuade 5-10% of people to shift their behaviour through tolls, it is a success and will meaningfully improve highway level of service and help the economy. You think we should accept status quo gridlock until what... 80% of people have alternatives? And even then just on the secondary highways-- DVP/Gardiner are just for feeding downtown you want 401/427/403/410/400/404 to remain gridlocked & free? I'm not sure we will ever reach that mark. In the mean time, the AEV apocalypse is going to wash over the city and average driving speeds will march ever lower. Tragedy of the commons is the only 'fair' outcome in your books.

 

[jys]

Its not my goal to push for highway expansion. My point is that most of the users of highways don't have a proper alternative to using their cars that doesn't result in a ton of compromises on their behalf. Our focus should be to build alternatives like GO RER first, and then implement stuff like tolling once that alternative is in place.

Oh for sure. We could certainly use some more capacity on the GO lines and I very much look forward to GO RER. And it was not my intention to suggest that you support highway expansion. Rather, I wished to caution against the thinking that road tolls (or any other measures that decrease capacity) would cause traffic mayhem in the region.

 

[afransen]

Oh for sure. We could certainly use some more capacity on the GO lines and I very much look forward to GO RER. And it was not my intention to suggest that you support highway expansion. Rather, I wished to caution against the thinking that road tolls (or any other measures that decrease capacity) would cause traffic mayhem in the region.

Tolls do not decrease capacity. They manage demand. Properly functioning highways have higher capacity than those operating at low level of service.

 

[jys]

Tolls do not decrease capacity. They manage demand. Properly functioning highways have higher capacity than those operating at low level of service.

You're right I should have said "displace trips". The point you make is very interesting and I was wondering about it as well. Do you have a study/article you could link me to? I tried to find something but failed.

 

[ARG1]

I think we're just disagreeing about what % of users need to have alternatives to driving at peak times in single occupancy vehicles. I would say even if we can only persuade 5-10% of people to shift their behaviour through tolls, it is a success and will meaningfully improve highway level of service and help the economy. You think we should accept status quo gridlock until what... 80% of people have alternatives? And even then just on the secondary highways-- DVP/Gardiner are just for feeding downtown you want 401/427/403/410/400/404 to remain gridlocked & free? I'm not sure we will ever reach that mark. In the mean time, the AEV apocalypse is going to wash over the city and average driving speeds will march ever lower. Tragedy of the commons is the only 'fair' outcome in your books.

The only real question mark for me is the 401 as that might have reason to be tolled. As for the rest of them, those are gridlocked mostly because they feed into the 401 or DVP. When downtown Gardiner is congested, that feeds into the DVP, which feeds to the 404, and it continuously backs up. It also doesn't help that there are some major bottlenecks in our roadnetwork such as how the DVP has to service traffic coming from the 404 - a 5 lane per direction highway, 401 east and west, a 2 thoroughfare highway, down to just 3 lanes. If we toll downtown DVP and Gardiner, that would be enough to discourage many downtown car commuters and move them to other modes (when they get built), which proportionally affects other parts of the Highway Network where they're coming from. This includes many of those on the 401, 404, 400, etc.

Oh for sure. We could certainly use some more capacity on the GO lines and I very much look forward to GO RER. And it was not my intention to suggest that you support highway expansion. Rather, I wished to caution against the thinking that road tolls (or any other measures that decrease capacity) would cause traffic mayhem in the region.

Unfortunately I speak from my own eyes. I drive on the 407 quite often, I genuinely don't mind paying for it and if I was looking through the eyes of only what benefits me, I would have no problem tolling every highway. I have the means to pay for them if it does come to that. However its a common story where I'm in the car with some friends in the evening around 7, the highway is absolutely empty, then we look to the right and see this massive lineup of cars turning off of Highway 7 trying to get to Bathurst. Same thing happens midday near VMC. You drive on 407 with absolutely nobody on it, then you turn off at Jane and you see Highway 7 absolutely congested as far as Weston. Now afransen is arguing that if its not as expensive as the 407 then this wouldn't be a problem, and for all I know he might be right on that front. I just personally cannot see a proper balance between reducing congestion on a highway but not shoving it onto nearby streets, and if it does happen then its due to very serious fine tuning of the numbers.

 

[jys]

Unfortunately I speak from my own eyes. I drive on the 407 quite often, I genuinely don't mind paying for it and if I was looking through the eyes of only what benefits me, I would have no problem tolling every highway. I have the means to pay for them if it does come to that. However its a common story where I'm in the car with some friends in the evening around 7, the highway is absolutely empty, then we look to the right and see this massive lineup of cars turning off of Highway 7 trying to get to Bathurst. Same thing happens midday near VMC. You drive on 407 with absolutely nobody on it, then you turn off at Jane and you see Highway 7 absolutely congested as far as Weston. Now afransen is arguing that if its not as expensive as the 407 then this wouldn't be a problem, and for all I know he might be right on that front. I just personally cannot see a proper balance between reducing congestion on a highway but not shoving it onto nearby streets, and if it does happen then its due to very serious fine tuning of the numbers.

I see, in that case would a congestion charge be better in your opinion?

 

[gibsonm]

The problem is that even when you toll essential highways, including increasing tolls at peak periods, in an area with insufficient highways and transit, the likeliest outcome is that most of those drivers who have little choice but to drive will simply continue to use those highways. Traffic levels may drop a modest amount, but all that's really happened is that you've raised the cost of living substantially for a large segment of the population. If tolls replace other taxes like the gas tax, at least that's not double dipping drivers, but it still places most of the road infrastructure capital and maintenance burden on the backs of one segment of transportation users. It's unfair if most of these drives aren't discretionary choices.

What's also interesting from a city-building perspective is that such tolls, and certainly congestion charges, deter city visits that are discretionary, such as to go shopping or visit a cultural venue. I think people will pay the freight anyway to visit London. England or pay $30 to cross a bridge into Manhattan, but Toronto isn't there yet. Certainly imposing such charges in a city like Hamilton would hamper the revitalization of that city as people move there for cheaper housing and living costs. Attracting new residents is key to growing the tax base so we can build urban amenities there like an LRT.

What's fascinating also is that there are ingredients that help cities grow in certain ways. The model for me is always the diverse Jane Jacobs' mix of uses, income levels, cultures, and architecture. When we seek to turn everything into Yorkville we push out the poor and the up and coming artists. We sanitize and create monocultures.

If you want to add tolls to highways to pay for them and transit yet retain existing gas taxes, you're essentially driving up costs for people. It's fine for new highways we're not already paying for, and maybe an underground toll highway or two could relieve some auto congestion, but ultimately you're not going to encourage people to switch from driving to using transit fairly unless you first provide enough viable transit options across the region and in the big city. The demand is already there.

 

[afransen]

Unfortunately I speak from my own eyes. I drive on the 407 quite often, I genuinely don't mind paying for it and if I was looking through the eyes of only what benefits me, I would have no problem tolling every highway. I have the means to pay for them if it does come to that. However its a common story where I'm in the car with some friends in the evening around 7, the highway is absolutely empty, then we look to the right and see this massive lineup of cars turning off of Highway 7 trying to get to Bathurst. Same thing happens midday near VMC. You drive on 407 with absolutely nobody on it, then you turn off at Jane and you see Highway 7 absolutely congested as far as Weston. Now afransen is arguing that if its not as expensive as the 407 then this wouldn't be a problem, and for all I know he might be right on that front. I just personally cannot see a proper balance between reducing congestion on a highway but not shoving it onto nearby streets, and if it does happen then its due to very serious fine tuning of the numbers.

The 407 is kind of irrelevant. It is managed to maximize revenues and profits for shareholders. I want highways to be tolled to manage level of service. If the 407 were managed this way, the tolls off peak would be much lower, like, <5 cents/km in the late evening (and only that if you are a private company wanting to cover wear and tear on the highway you pay to maintain). I think a lot of people avoid the 407 because of fixed charges like transponder, camera and trip charges. If all highways required a transponder, it removes that barrier. There is new technology that makes for very inexpensive transponders (small transparent stickers) that can be given away with your vehicle registration. I don't really see the point in a trip charge. Maybe it makes sense on-peak if you want to discourage people hopping on and off the highway for short trips.

If people want to drive slowly and inexpensively across town, you might as well use arterials. We should be maximizing the utility of our world-class limited access highways by keeping them operating at a high level of service, moving as many vehicles as possible at a high rate of speed. Highways are utterly pointless if they are operating at 30 kph.

 

[afransen]

The problem is that even when you toll essential highways, including increasing tolls at peak periods, in an area with insufficient highways and transit, the likeliest outcome is that most of those drivers who have little choice but to drive will simply continue to use those highways. Traffic levels may drop a modest amount, but all that's really happened is that you've raised the cost of living substantially for a large segment of the population. If tolls replace other taxes like the gas tax, at least that's not double dipping drivers, but it still places most of the road infrastructure capital and maintenance burden on the backs of one segment of transportation users. It's unfair if most of these drives aren't discretionary choices.

Frankly, you're wrong. I know people who carpool and take the 407 across town to work at my office to justify the expense. Would they have bothered to carpool without that incentive? Maybe. But they likely couldn't have even taken the job because 4 hours a day of commuting is a recipe for divorce (literally, there are academic studies on this topic).

If all of our highways were tolled to produce a reasonable level of service, then at least some of those people could choose to make small sacrifices in convenience, like carpooling, but get more tolerable commutes overall. As it is, the city is strangled by traffic to the extend that we are losing the benefits of the overall economic vitality of the region. You are denying people economic opportunity by making it impossible for them to get across town in a reasonable amount of time.