Tolls, Road Pricing and Congestion Pricing

[afransen]

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.

You're wrong. People pay to park downtown.

And it doesn't make sense. How could it not be worth going downtown for any pittance $5, $10, or $30, but still have no impact on congestion? Both can't be true! This is Yogi Berra-esque "Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded".

I'd prefer such a charge to be dynamic. It shouldn't be expensive to drive downtown when there isn't congestion. At 9 am? Yeah.

 

[gibsonm]

You're wrong. People pay to park downtown.

And it doesn't make sense. How could it not be worth going downtown for any pittance $5, $10, or $30, but still have no impact on congestion? Both can't be true! This is Yogi Berra-esque "Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded".

I'd prefer such a charge to be dynamic. It shouldn't be expensive to drive downtown when there isn't congestion. At 9 am? Yeah.

You want workers to pay all of these extra fees in tolls, congestion charges, and parking, jacking up the expense at the start and finish of their work days when they have to commute in order to implement your promise of a more vital city with better transit and amenities. You fail to factor in the amenity of affordability, or you think that loan shark fees will force people into a transit utopia that doesn't exist. How about this, find better ways to use the high taxes people pay to improve the transportation mix across the region and promote investment in transit, and if necessary, ask taxpayers to pay higher taxes/fees to fund specific new projects? You quickly realize how serious people are about wanting something when they have to pay for it. We have major transit infrastructure planned and funded coming on stream in the coming decades if the public holds politicians' feet to the fire to build it. The design and fast implementation of those plans are worth fighting for. If you have specific additional projects in mind, share them, explain how they should be funded, and see if you can win public support. It's mostly about the how. We know we need more transit.

 

[afransen]

You want workers to pay all of these extra fees in tolls, congestion charges, and parking, jacking up the expense at the start and finish of their work days when they have to commute in order to implement your promise of a more vital city with better transit and amenities. You fail to factor in the amenity of affordability, or you think that loan shark fees will force people into a transit utopia that doesn't exist. How about this, find better ways to use the high taxes people pay to improve the transportation mix across the region and promote investment in transit, and if necessary, ask taxpayers to pay higher taxes/fees to fund specific new projects? You quickly realize how serious people are about wanting something when they have to pay for it. We have major transit infrastructure planned and funded coming on stream in the coming decades if the public holds politicians' feet to the fire to build it. The design and fast implementation of those plans are worth fighting for. If you have specific additional projects in mind, share them, explain how they should be funded, and see if you can win public support. It's mostly about the how. We know we need more transit.

We do not need tolls because we need to fund transit. We would need them even if we had an unlimited line of funding for transit alternatives. We need them because roads are a critical piece of economic infrastructure, and the city's economy is being hampered to the tune of billions of dollars per year in wasted time, equipment, fuel, delays and disruption by congestion--congestion that in most places can only be managed by addressing demand at peak times.

If you want to start engaging in hyperbole ('loan shark', etc.) we can leave the discussion there. I get it--you want driving to be cheap but unpleasant. You may get your wish--with 4M people on the way, Toronto will truly be world class in at least one regard: highway congestion.

 

[gibsonm]

We do not need tolls because we need to fund transit. We would need them even if we had an unlimited line of funding for transit alternatives. We need them because roads are a critical piece of economic infrastructure, and the city's economy is being hampered to the tune of billions of dollars per year in wasted time, equipment, fuel, delays and disruption by congestion--congestion that in most places can only be managed by addressing demand at peak times.

If you want to start engaging in hyperbole ('loan shark', etc.) we can leave the discussion there. I get it--you want driving to be cheap but unpleasant. You may get your wish--with 4M people on the way, Toronto will truly be world class in at least one regard: highway congestion.

If we had unlimited transit funds we'd built unlimited high speed, high frequency, convenient transit and more people would use it. Funds are limited and choices must be made. We do need more transit. I actually think we probably also need a few more carefully designed roads, and they can be tolled. Perhaps some additional taxes can be raised for specific transit projects if people support them. I don't think throwing a lot of additional fees at one segment of the population for no clear and assured benefit is the answer. Come back with congestion charges and tolls when Toronto has another million or more people and more to offer. It doesn't yet warrant big entry fees. Don't kill the goose that lays the golden egg.

 

[afransen]

If we had unlimited transit funds we'd built unlimited high speed, high frequency, convenient transit and more people would use it. Funds are limited and choices must be made. We do need more transit. I actually think we probably also need a few more carefully designed roads, and they can be tolled. Perhaps some additional taxes can be raised for specific transit projects if people support them. I don't think throwing a lot of additional fees at one segment of the population for no clear and assured benefit is the answer. Come back with congestion charges and tolls when Toronto has another million or more people and more to offer. It doesn't yet warrant big entry fees. Don't kill the goose that lays the golden egg.

You're just repeating yourself now. It already costs (quite a bit of) money to drive downtown if you want to park. By your logic, because Toronto is nothing special that people would be willing to pay to drive to, we must see a veritable dearth of vehicles driving into downtown each day. That's a testable hypothesis. I think you already know whether the data supports that hypothesis.

 

[jys]

You want workers to pay all of these extra fees in tolls, congestion charges, and parking, jacking up the expense at the start and finish of their work days when they have to commute ... You fail to factor in the amenity of affordability ...

In case you missed it, I refer you to my post earlier.

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.

If you choose to ignore it then good day to you.

 

[gibsonm]

In case you missed it, I refer you to my post earlier.

If you choose to ignore it then good day to you.

I'll make you a deal: You and afransen use the 407 and I'll stick to the 401 and QEW when we leave the city. You'll love the 407, so much quieter than the other highways and only costs $30.00 to take end to end one way. Just know that you're contributing to reducing congestion on GTA highways, which I fully support. Hell, take it to and from work each day and really save yourself some time. What would that be, like $1200.00 a month? Chump change. It's just a bit more than a Ferrari car lease. I mean it's less than my mortgage. Okay there's also the gas, licensing, parking, and insurance. Well, you could live in your car and shower at the Y.

 

[afransen]

That doesn't solve any problems. You're casting the desire to have a functional city highway system as a matter of personal selfishness. It's not--I avoid using highways at peaks. I structure my life in a way that it isn't necessary, despite driving to work. I just know that others don't, and congested highways are slowing draining the life out of the city and killing its competitiveness. You seem to suggest you only care about your own pocketbook, and the city can rot, as long as it doesn't cost you another penny. It's an attitude that will leave us all, you included, poorer.

 

[jys]

I'll make you a deal: You and afransen use the 407 and I'll stick to the 401 and QEW when we leave the city. You'll love the 407, so much quieter than the other highways and only costs $30.00 to take end to end one way. Just know that you're contributing to reducing congestion on GTA highways, which I fully support. Hell, take it to and from work each day and really save yourself some time. What would that be, like $1200.00 a month? Chump change. It's just a bit more than a Ferrari car lease. I mean it's less than my mortgage. Okay there's also the gas, licensing, parking, and insurance. Well, you could live in your car and shower at the Y.

I propose a counter-offer. You and I, We're going to make parking DT free. What a load of rubbish, $3,000 a year in parking fees for the executive who commutes from Oshawa? No way.

The problem is that when you charge for parking, including increasing the fees at peak periods, in an area with insufficient bike lanes and transit, the likeliest outcome is that most of those drivers who have little choice but to drive will simply park everywhere.

Come back with parking fees and tolls when Toronto has another million or more people and more to offer. It doesn't yet warrant big entry fees. Don't kill the goose that lays the golden egg.

[by the way it's not meant as a serious response to your argument, so please don't feel a need to defend your position; I think all of us have clearly laid out the arguments of the two sides, cheers]

 

[gibsonm]

That doesn't solve any problems. You're casting the desire to have a functional city highway system as a matter of personal selfishness. It's not--I avoid using highways at peaks. I structure my life in a way that it isn't necessary, despite driving to work. I just know that others don't, and congested highways are slowing draining the life out of the city and killing its competitiveness. You seem to suggest you only care about your own pocketbook, and the city can rot, as long as it doesn't cost you another penny. It's an attitude that will leave us all, you included, poorer.

No my point is that it's too expensive for everyone and many of the people whom peak period tolls and congestion charges would impact are people who don't have much choice but to drive to work. We don't have the transit system of London, England, nor its cultural amenities, much as I think Toronto is a great city that will get better and better. It's like trying to put the word craft or bespoke in front of the title of your lemonade stand so you can charge $5.00 for your lemonade when it's just a pretty good glass of lemonade that's worth a buck or two at most. What's more, all the other lemonade stands are cheaper. So, build better transit options and give the city time to justify more charges before you slap lots of additional fees on people. I mean you can try to convince the public to pay more, even add to drivers' costs alone, but I think you'd have to explain what they're getting in return and make it compelling to get buy in. Tory couldn't do it with tolling the DVP and Gardiner, so Wynn pulled the plug on the idea. Maybe down the road...

 

[kamira51]

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.

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.

Absolutely agree with these statements. I fully advocate for new rail corridors across southern Ontario, from Ottawa to London owned and operated by Metrolinx fully electrified. Until that happens, the number of cars will only increase because it's the ONLY option for people that dont work downtown or the GTA.

 

[sixrings]

You would think this is an auto forum versus a urban forum based on the love of cars and suburban living.

 

[afransen]

Absolutely agree with these statements. I fully advocate for new rail corridors across southern Ontario, from Ottawa to London owned and operated by Metrolinx fully electrified. Until that happens, the number of cars will only increase because it's the ONLY option for people that dont work downtown or the GTA.

There is no binary switch that is going to get flipped from "inadequate transit alternatives" to "adequate transit alternatives" because commuters aren't a monolith. There are already people today who commute by highway on peak that have alternatives (and transit isn't the only alternative, as I have discussed at length). This "waiting for alternatives" argument is exactly the same kind of disingenuous approach as the "science isn't settled" for climate change, or before that smoking causing cancer. You know that there will never be alternatives for every trip, and are really arguing for never having tolls. Highways should be permanently congested. Don't even think about living in Scarborough and working in Mississauga unless you want to drive the 401 at walking speed. But it's free!

Absolute madness.

 

[kamira51]

There is no binary switch that is going to get flipped from "inadequate transit alternatives" to "adequate transit alternatives" because commuters aren't a monolith. There are already people today who commute by highway on peak that have alternatives (and transit isn't the only alternative, as I have discussed at length). This "waiting for alternatives" argument is exactly the same kind of disingenuous approach as the "science isn't settled" for climate change, or before that smoking causing cancer. You know that there will never be alternatives for every trip, and are really arguing for never having tolls. Highways should be permanently congested. Don't even think about living in Scarborough and working in Mississauga unless you want to drive the 401 at walking speed. But it's free!

Absolute madness.

I forgot to mention that I fully support the tolling of highways considering how much we spend on it, repairs, new bridges etc.

 

[crs1026]

No my point is that it's too expensive for everyone and many of the people whom peak period tolls and congestion charges would impact are people who don't have much choice but to drive to work.

I am not as draconian or as hard-hearted as this may come across, but I react poorly to this kind of rhetoric. Reminds me of what teenagers say when Daddy won't take them to the mall to be with their friends. And frankly, all political stripes use this argument so I'm not being partisan by calling it out. Politicians are too ready to say that people "must have" something as if there is no choice. There is always choice.

There are people who can't afford the loss of disposable income as a matter of survival and there are people who can't afford the loss of disposable income because it affects issues that are very dear to them but that are fundamentally above the threshold of survival.

When we talk about "can't afford tolls", we are largely talking about a suburban population living autocentric lifestyles, for whom tolling would not cost them their homes, or their livelihoods - but might affect their ability to buy a new vehicle, their ability to fund support activities for their children or seniors, perhaps their choice of home (and quite likely pushing them further out into the suburbs to find cheaper real estate, thereby adding to their commute), whether they can take any vacation at all, or how often, very likely causing them to carry more debt and carry it longer, take more time to pay off their mortgage, etc. They will no doubt say this is harsh.

Sorry, none of this is "survival". The people who are at risk are moatly already within the City of Toronto, in low rent housing, and taking transit as their only option.
.
I am sure tolls would also push some people in the burbs below the "survival" level.... but only after they removed many non-survivial items from their budget, and only as collateral damage to a change in auto usage and demand that is transformational for our society and unquestionably in the right direction economically.

Like I said, I'm opening myself to blowback by saying this ... but my point is, making this kind of "can't" argument is extreme and more rhetorical than factual. It's certainly not evidence based. I'm not saying I dispute the impact, or that I don't have sympathy.

- Paul