Road pricing is the flavour of the month – the idea that drivers would pay a charge based on distance driven, possibly time of day, possibly on degree of congestion on the chosen route, based on data collected either by external monitors or internal software.
But this is an idea not ready for prime time since neither the technology nor public acceptance has been tested and vetted.
So we’re left with tolls, particularly tolls on bridges – and, by provincial policy, only on new infrastructure, so long as there is a free alternative. The result, however, has been that the only bridges built and tolled have led to South of the Fraser. And with the prospect of two more bridges – the Pattullo and Massey – coming on stream, the unfairness of such an outcome targeting only South of the Fraser is obvious and unacceptable.
Surrey’s mayor and others have suggested that the time is right for a revision of the policy, particularly in the context of the upcoming referendum. Reduce existing tolls, she says, but apply a much lower amount to all the major bridges in the region.
That would mean at minimum that the Lions Gate and Second Narrows bridges would see, for the second time in their histories, a toll charge for residents of the North Shore. And one can see right away a ‘counter-fairness’ issue.
Thanks to the work of Chad Skelton at The Sun – their resident number-cruncher – we can see at a glance the percentages of commuters who have to cross bridges. (All of Metro commuting patterns are graphed in The Data Trail.)
Here for instance is Surrey:
Less than a third of commuters have to cross a bridge to get to work.
But in West Vancouver?
Almost double. Only two bridges and no free alternative.
.
So would residents of some of Canada’s richest municipalities be willing to cough up, say, a Loonie every time they cross Lions Gate or Second Narrows in the name of fairness, regional equity and investment in better transportation. Or is that too much to ask, particularly of the Liberal government who would bear the brunt of any voter backlash? And as a consequence, take any proposal for practical road pricing off the table?
Let’s ask. Here’s a totally unscientific poll to gauge your opinion on the likelihood of such a proposition.
Why are only bridges on the table?
What else are you going to toll? The 1400 block of Bellevue where Crema is located?
Highways. What’s so special about going over water?
Tolls are expensive to collect. Minimizing the number of tolling points to constricted parts of the road network will minimize the cost of collecting tolls.
Roads leading up to bridges are usually the most congested parts of the road network. Reducing demand for bridge crossings will speed up the remaining trips over the bridge.
Lions Gate was built as a toll bridge, as a private project, so obviously people had no issue paying them for some 25 years. The tolls were dropped only when the province purchased it. Actually, 25c in 1939 terms wasn’t cheap, when you think about it…
I think you’d need a pretty hefty toll on ALL the bridges, to make any significant contribution the $ needed to build a proper transportation system. Let alone to pay for the tolling infrastructure itself. And tolls, if they shift people out of cars, will diminish, so you can’t base your operating expenses on this revenue stream (as with the gas tax). I think this is a non-starter.
Here’s a good analysis:
http://nwimby.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-1-toll.html
The summary is that a $1 toll on the 8 most significant crossings in the region would bring in combined revenue of $236m annually, less than annual expenses of $250m on just the Port Mann Bridge, before accounting for reduced demand resulting from higher tolls and not accounting for increased cost of collecting tolls from tolling more bridges.
Bridges likely won’t pay for themselves at any toll level, so we shouldn’t expect them to pay for transit.
While West Vancouver (and parts of North Vancouver) are some of the wealthiest areas in the province, it is important to remember that North Vancouver City has a median income similar to that of New Westminster.
Also, this analysis is assuming that most people commuting to Vancouver are driving over the bridges, but a very large number of the Vancouver bound commuters use transit (due to the ease of access to the SeaBus and queue-jumper transit lanes on the bridges). Thus, it isn’t completely unbelievable to think that since many of the cross-bridge commuters are transit users (and thus won’t be tolled) and most remaining commuters stay on the North Shore (and won’t be tolled) this idea could work. Those most likely to be upset by this idea are those commuting from the North Shore to parts of the region other than downtown as they are crossing a bridge, and are much less likely to be using transit..
We already pay for infrastructure through our taxes; tolling citizens is, in essence, double charging for the same product. Regardless of location, then, charging anyone excessively is unacceptable, and citizens should protest. We do not demonstrate enough against unfair government policies; we have a moral responsibility to keep our elected leaders honest. If our taxes are not generating enough revenue to pay for bridges, increasing taxes across the board is the only equitable means of making sure that everyone pays. However, tolling only users of particular bridges does allow for citizens to democratically opt out of using the bridges or their cars, and I like having my freedom to choose. For the reasons mentioned above, I would opt out of driving across a bridge that charges a toll. I believe many others would do the same. Thus, tolling does have the, perhaps, desired effect of discouraging people from using their cars (the current world trend and vision for the future), but tolling is then defeatist because decreasing car use will reduce toll intake.
Decreasing car use will also reduce costs. The trick is to capture those externalities.
Property taxes are regressive. I would be in favour of an increased carbon/gas tax, though.
Ultimately the real solution is to stop building those monstrous highways and extra-extra-extra wide bridges and direct money towards transit, cycling, and walking infrastructure. We have enough infrastructrure for motor vehicles to make it a viable option. We need to stop building it out any further.
If we stop building out the infrastructure then congestion is the result because the region growing. The damaging poisonous result is a quantum jump in emissions from vehicles that operate at vastly different optimum rate than idling. Many of these vehicles are commercial and transit is useless for the people in them.
How do you propose to capture this externality so that the whole region doesn’t have to suffer from fumes?
Increased trip times and increased emissions are both externalities of congestion. A toll amounts to a Pigovian tax (sort of) that will reduce congestion by reducing demand.
I’m not sure that a fee for a service provided by the state counts as a Pigovian tax. Price might be a more correct word.
One of the reasons road pricing may not be ready for prime time is simply collection costs. It costs about the same to collect a $3 toll as a $1 toll. But if, for example, it costs $0.25 to collect that would be a reasonable 8.3% of the $3 toll and a much less reasonable 25% of a $1 toll. Now extrapolate that out to whole network tolling where the toll on a road segment is $0.45 and the collection costs could be a completely unacceptable 55%. . .
I don’t have hard numbers of real world toll collection costs, but understand they have come down since the very expensive London congestion charging system was installed. Anyone have the current figures for the Port Mann and Golden Ears?
I’m really not sure that road pricing isn’t ready for prime time. Collection costs might be high for single projects, but if tags and road loops were part of the everyday infrastructure, then the cost per transaction would fall dramatically. RFID tags are not expensive, and there will be a day when they will be included within the physical license plate as a matter of course. (Cheap RFIDs are only pennies a piece, and very high quality ones that can be reprogrammed are less than $50 each.)
But even if we restrict the discussion to bridges, I doubt it is correct to say that residents will not tolerate tolls on bridges that have become toll-free. We do tax ourselves to a very great extent, and that taxation is voluntary. A political party could promise to eliminate all provincial income and sales taxes by scrapping public funding for healthcare, education and social services (the remaining functions could be supported by natural resource revenues, fees and BC Lotto). Yet no such political party has come to pass. People complain no end about taxes, but I think we confuse kvetching with conviction.
And just like there are reasons why we agree to pay income tax, there are reasons why folks on the North Shore would be willing to accept tolls. The transport situation on the North Shore isn’t spectacular. The two harbour bridges have slow periods every day, Marine Drive has slow periods every day, and transit frequency isn’t what it could be. A third crossing to the North Shore and improved transit frequency might be very appealing to residents contemplating the continuation of the current situation into the future.
The only sensible third crossing would be an extension of either the Canada or Expo lines under the harbour; however, a third road crossing or replacing the Lions Gate or the Iron Workers with larger structures should also be presented. With the necessity of at least partially tunneling expanded bridge access roads, the cost of the road structures would surely dwarf the cost of the transit tunnel. (The cost of a transit tunnel shouldn’t be as forbidding as it might seem. A tunnel under the harbour and then Lonsdale to 29th Ave would only be about 6.5km long with only four stations. The bored section of the Canada Line is around 2.5km also with four stations. Since the whole of the Canada Line only cost a bit over $2b for 19km of tunnel and elevated structure, a bridge and a maintenance centre, I would certainly expect a harbour tunnel to cost less than that.)
Like any self-respecting Vancouverite, I like the Seabus and would feel terrible about throwing it under the train, but a transit tunnel would be a huge improvement. Frequency would go from 15 minutes to 3 minutes, travel time would see an almost equivalent improvement. The bus network on the North Shore could be rationalized to intersect with the transit line at 3rd and 13th or 15th, 23rd and 29th. Even with equivalent operating expenditures, the rationalized bus system would be able to improve service. And the improved service and travel times would also increase ridership which would bring in additional revenue which would allow for further improved service. I really wouldn’t be so convinced that North Shore residents wouldn’t want this.