Lots of breaking stories concerning tolls and TransLink’s tribulations – but a little hard for me to keep up from my seat here in the Auckland Airport, waiting for a flight to Aus.
Nonetheless, did get in an interview with Chris Reynolds from The Sun, who I think is new to the transport beat – but did a good job in catching my thoughts:
Price cites several reasons to keep, and even increase, the minimal bridge toll: “Got to have it …. One, TransLink needs money if we want the kind of transportation system that actually works for the region. We’re in quite a tragic situation at the moment. “You’ve got to move forward on transportation funding.”
He says unequal taxing of certain drivers in the form of bridge tolls is just one reason to eventually do away with the plan in favour of more comprehensive, high-tech solutions.
“What’s the point of just tolling bridges. Take me, I live and work downtown. Why should I be exempt?” he said. “I get all the benefits of a regional transportation system. But if it were just a matter of tolling on bridges, I’d be toll-free.”
Price points to Oregon, where drivers are experimenting with a user-pay system where in-vehicle software tracks how far, when and where a person drives. This allows pricing based on distance, time and location, with potentially higher rates at more congested hours and areas.
“That’s probably the most direct and efficient mechanism of road pricing,” Price says, acknowledging it could raise personal privacy concerns.
We certainly need more road pricing if we are going to raise enough funds for mass transit, account for the negative externalities of driving (especially commuting alone) and keep the streets clear for goods movement. There are lots of road pricing techniques – high parking rates, charges for entering the downtown core, bridge and highway tolls, mileage tracking, single-occupancy vehicle charges, etc. Glad to hear this conversation being brought up after the short-sighted toll reduction!