Who would have guessed there would be this much support for the Mayor’s Council investment strategy from the right side of the spectrum?
From Andrew Coyne: “If the mayors can pull this off it will make Vancouver a model for the rest of the world. Yes, it’s that big.”
The plan? The mayors refer to it as “comprehensive mobility pricing.” It’s never quite spelled out what this means, but it’s clear this would go far beyond putting tolls on the odd bridge or highway, of a kind the region’s inhabitants have grown used to — a piecemeal approach that has simply shifted the burden of congestion, rather than reduced it.
Instead, the mayors appear to favour a system that would see drivers pay to use the entire road network, much as they now pay to use their cellphones, with different charges applying on different roads at different times. …
What’s needed, rather, is a means of managing the demand for road space, system-wide — comprehensively, continuously and dynamically. For this, the mayors note, “there is only one tool that has a proven track record. It’s the tool that we use to allocate scarce resources everywhere else in the economy: pricing.” By charging a lower price to use less-congested routes and at off-peak times, drivers who have some flexibility are encouraged to “free up valuable space for those who have no option but to travel at that time or on that route.” (The report recommends pricing transit in the same way.)
A qualification: “Provided they get the political go-ahead — the province would have to approve, and then only after a region-wide referendum, likely next spring — the plan could be up and running in five to eight years.”
It’s typically the poorer drivers who have the least flexibility as to when they travel and which routes to take. How is this going to be made to be reasonable?
Roads today are socialized, like healthcare & education: the charge is free. As we know from healthcare and education, that system is unaffordable as it gets abused and much of it is privatized (far too little I would argue). It is not working, too, for roads.
As such, what the mayors propose makes absolute sense.
Like education, where basic education like K-12 is free, but university or after school prep schools or private schools are not, or like healthcare, where basic healthcare is free, but glasses, medicine, teeth, hearing aids, physios or psychologists are not, the proposal makes sense: some roads are free, some of the time, say 6 pm to 6 am, but from 6 am to 9 am some roads cost $10 for a few km, then $5, then $2, then $10 again to 6 pm, then free.
This is indeed the way to go. Gasoline surcharges and general taxes used to pay for (free) roads but with fuel efficient cars, e-cars or LNG cars/trucks a new model has to be found, and it cannot be that all roads are always free to all users.
“As we know from healthcare and education, that system is unaffordable as it gets abused and much of it is privatized (far too little I would argue). It is not working, too, for roads.”
Thomas I would argue that all the stuff you claim is unaffordable, and that you would like to privatizes was, once, eminently affordable until we got mixed up with our dear neighbours ineptly managed wars.
You seem to have a certainty about your various deliveries that makes you very vulnerable to contradiction: perhaps you would be more convincing it you would let up on the ideology and try being more thoughtful.
huh ?
More thoughtful on allowing more private healthcare ? Not having private healthcare clinics, say for knee surgery or an eye operation, is unconstitutional in my opinion and the subject of a major constitutional challenge this fall (see here: http://www.charterhealth.ca/case/) whose win will have major major ramifications across Canada for private healthcare. Private healthcare exists today, but politicians are too timid to acknowledge it.
I can, I must in fact, get my teeth fixed by paying for it privately, yet I cannot even use my own money for my ears, eyes or knees. Isn’t that weird ?
Too many cars on the roads, too, as its use is free, as in schools: too many kids from grade 10-12 that ought not to be there, but say in trades.
I find this kind of thinking very thoughtful. The mayors are on the right path making road users pay for it !
bar foo – How do you figure that poorer drivers have less flexibility? Lower income workers are more likely to be employed in shift work, and thus be working early mornings, evenings, or overnight. Traffic demand is lower at these times compared to “rush hour”, so such drivers would pay much lower charges under the proposed mobility pricing program. This actually makes the program more affordable for them.
Of course, I would like to see an improved public transit network which allows people to make trips reliably at any time of the day, which would also ensure that lower income workers are not forced to rely on private automobiles simply to access work.
Socialism is always better for the poor: free education, free healthcare, free child care, free medicine, free roads etc.
Since we do not have a socialist society, but rather a market oriented economy with some socialism i.e. government directed healthcare, roads, education etc. the question, muck like in education or healthcare is: what degree of government intervention do we want in roads: all free ? some free ? some free at some times ? first class lanes for $5 ? What the mayors propose is essentially an extension of what is already in place as some bridges are already tolled, some highway lanes are restricted to HOV etc.
Much like the train or plane system where you can get better service if you pay more that same thought has to be introduced into transportation, i.e. roads, too !
So, if you are in a hurry and the second lane over Lionsgate bridge costs $10 but the other one is free, would you not pay it, sometimes or always ? ditto in tunnels, on bridges, on busy roads like Granville, Hwy 1, Commercial Drive or Broadway ?
@maximumheadway – Exactly, poorer workers have less flexibility because they work fixed shifts. Let’s say peak times are introduced with max pricing between 6am and 9am. The worker who’s shift starts at 6:30am-7am gets to pay the max price, and they have no say. People like me could shift their start time to say 9:20am, and avoid the peak altogether.
Similarly, poorer drivers work in places like Richmond or Burnaby or Surrey (where the industrial areas are concentrated – thanks Vancouver for driving all industry out of the city). Try commuting by transit from say Surrey to Richmond. Or Burnaby – New West. Or to the large industrial parks in south Burnaby. And there’s nothing in the mayor’s plan to improve transit in those areas. Everything’s focussed on moving people into the downtown core or along Broadway in Vancouver. Ironically both the richest areas of the region, and the areas already best served by transit.
This is what’s frustrating to me as someone who takes in interest in having a livable, walkable, sustainable region for me and my kids. The powers that be seem to think that metro Vancouver consists of the area north of King Ed and west of Main, and anyone outside of that area is only interested in commuting into it.
1/ Is starting a job a 7am such a odd shift?
2/ transit offers is much better at 7am than at 9:30am:
http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/5862/vehicles.png
(but may be the shift worker has no appetite to loose 5mn of precious sleep because his 49 bus go thru an useless detour)
3/What makes bar foo thinking that the max price will be at 6:30am and not 9am:
experience of other city suggest a very different story:
the congestion tax is free before 6:30 am in Stockholm (and max at 9am), free before 7am in London (and max at 9am),…
All facts seem to contradict the bar foo thesis…
Ok Voony, if you’re trying to prove that you’re smarter and more socially responsible, I’ll just step back and agree. Go for it.
That being said, my argument is that workers have less flexibility, and so will be impacted the most by differential pricing, because they can’t shift their behaviours to compensate. Unlike higher paid people who have more flexibility. Since I work in a hi-tech company that also manufactures locally, I think I have direct experience with that.
Given that you’re much smarter than me, I couldn’t possibly say that I know what time the max price will be at – only you can do that. I was using the times as an example.
I do know that shift workers most certainly don’t lose 5 min sleep because of the 49 bus route – in fact they gain 10 mins or more by not having to change unnecessarily.
But then, I’m just one of those riff-raff East Van types that make your nice downtown/west-side untidy. And I work in Richmond for a company that, horrors, makes actual stuff that has to be physically shipped around the world. Using trucks. On big, wide roads. Not only that, I drive my car to work every day, despite the rich cycling and transit facilities on the Knight street bridge.
Of course, it’s so much better to belittle and show disdain for people like me than to actually try come up with a solution that works outside of the downtown core.
I have just provided fact bar foo.
regarding Knight bridge and East Richmond access from East Van/Burnaby by Transit: I certainly agree it is basically unusable and the mayors’ plan provides no relief to that (we will agree that the “transformation” of the 430, into a B-line is from no help. I think better option are possible, see link below)
From Champlain Height, the bike ride to East Richmond can be faster than a drive according to the time of the day (it is all down hill), but I understand it can be intimidating as I have already stated in my blog
See http://voony.wordpress.com/tag/knight-bridge/
No, Voony, you condescended. Way to gather support for your transit plans.
Let’s take this slowly. When peak pricing is introduced, the load will fall most heavily on those who have no choice but to drive at the time where the peak falls. Those tend to be lower-paid workers who have fixed schedules and less flexibility in their travel times. The people with the most capacity to pay are also the people with the most flexible work hours, so they’ll just shift their hours to avoid paying.
Many people will look at this, realize it’s just going to cost them more to get to work every day, and become opponents of the plan. Good luck winning a referendum when you alienate the very people you need to get it passed.
And we haven’t even got to the part where people will start to drive through the quiet neighbourhood roads to avoid paying the charge on the expensive main route. Thus alienating even those who would otherwise support the transit plan.
There are things that look good on paper, but not so good in the real world. This is one of them.
By replacing gas tax revenue with congestion pricing, the plan shifts transit funding away from the less-dense suburbs towards the denser city centers. This looks to me like a brilliant scheme to balance the interests of the suburbs and city centers. People who live in the suburbs (often because they can afford the real estate) resent paying for transit for which they see no benefit. They drive farther, so will benefit the most from the lower gas tax. Only those who use congested corridors (where adequate funding should ensure the provision of transit alternatives) will pay.
Two groups lose: those who choose to drive when they could take transit, and those who cannot make that choice because they need their vehicles or tools with them. This last effect is unfortunate. But I think maximumheadway has hit on the key point: providing transit alternatives does the most to benefit the poor. I have friends who rely on transit: they work in the city but have difficulty with city rents and cannot afford cars. Waiting at a bus stop in the middle of the night is a fact of life. Gas taxes are irrelevant to them. Transit means mobility.
The Mayor’s plan is quite clear and is well worth reading. Massive expansion of transportation choices, so that all people at all income levels can find more than one way to get where they are going. Much better than current paradigm that private auto dominates all transportation thinking, planning and funding.
According to the mayors; “there is only one tool that has a proven track record. It’s the tool that we use to allocate scarce resources everywhere else in the economy: pricing.”
Roads are not scarce resources! They are everywhere and they have already been built and paid for by your tax dollars. Why should the wealthy get uncongested travel on these roads at the expense of the poor who cannot afford tolls? Pricing is a deeply flawed and unfair idea.
Yes, capacity is scarce in some places at some times but congestion is a self regulating phenomena.
In the world according to J Olson,
the poor driving a gaz guzzler (because it can’t afford more when he can afford a car) is paying gas tax…while the rich ride his Tesla… shouldn’t have to pay because the poor can’t afford to pay…
The mayor plan suggests to reduce by 6c the gas tax, and to replace by road pricing…
Typically the poor has odd hours job (if he has any and otherwise take transit), so drive when the road is congestion free (road price is then low if not free)…and so could pay less than now…but may be J Olson could have to pay more?
By the Way, since we have already paid for the dam and the hydro lines, in the world of J Olson, electricity should be free too, and capacity issue addresed by rolling cut…
The world of J Olson seems almost has marvelous as the one of Thomas Beyer, isn’it?
Roads, like healthcare and education are currently socialized, i.e. free or heavily subsidized. That has to change in all three categories: healthcare, education and roads !
Education is already not free after grade 12.
Healthcare is not free for glasses, teeth, medicine, hearing aids, physios, psychologists ..
Roads ought to also be priced as gasoline by itself is not good enough a tool. Why should a rich Tesla driver use the roads for free ?
Anything free in life is generally overused or abused. Only a price regulates supply and demand.
Why not offer fast lanes at a fee, say on Hwy 1, Granville or Commercial Drive. Right line is free and center lane is $10.
J Olson, roads CAN be scarce commodities at certain times of day, when they are oversubscribed.
The same way that cel phone capacity, trains, and commercial airlines are oversubscribed at high demand times. they all use pricing to encourage consumers to shift from busy times to not so busy times.
Why should roads and transit not work the same way?
Because people have been accustomed to too much free stuff for too long. That is why most western democracies have such high debts. Now the free spending party is coming, ever so gradually, to an end and all sorts of new ways to deliver pensions, healthcare, education, public transit or roads have to be organized, priced and re-distributed. See also BC’s teachers strike. Same issue: limited $s clash with class room sizes and teachers’s expectations for higher wages. Expect more over the next decades as the public service retreats from “all free” to “all people” to a more market oriented price based services delivery model where only “some is free” to “some people” and the debate who is deserving of what free services and how to price services will continue in the media, by the unions, NDP/Liberals vs. Conservatives, …
The concrete part of the mayors’ plan is about using carbon tax revenue to fund transit, which I fully support. The collection costs are close to zero, and it directly links carbon tax revenue to reducing GHG pollution. The road pricing stuff later is subject to study and consultation – and I am less convinced. Road pricing has high overheads, and the collection costs go up as the system becomes more universal. Maybe the Zurich example of high taxes on high carbon fuels combined with near universal transit priority deserves a second look?
Coyne has said that he considers the political labels “left” and “right” to be “tribes” of “self-quarantine.”
He’s coming at the issue from the perspective of someone with a masters degree in economics. He is speaking econ language here. Demand, marginal cost, etc. And he’s right. Insofar as transit succeeds to reduce congestion, it just makes driving more desirable! Because the scarce resource that is road time is allocated not with a price, but with willingness to wait in traffic. So good transit will not solve the congestion problem because it effectively makes driving cheaper!
The solution is to allocate the resource to those with the highest willingness to pay first! Then the scarce resource is allocated in the most efficient way, to those who want it most, rather than simply to those who value their time least. A market-based price-mechanism can be a wonderful thing for economic efficiency. Rather than a centrally planned, line-waiting based approach to allocating a resource.
THIS is the solution to congestion. Transit is important, but unless there is a cost to a beneficial resource, people will consume INFINITE units of it. Right now that cost is time. We should make the cost a price.
Currently our road system has only one form of currency: time.
In the work world we’ve established a clear value for people’s time. Regardless of whether you’re paid $350/hr to sign documents or $11/hr to clean floors, there’s a clear price for your time. Outside work hours the price for an hour of your time isn’t as clearly defined, but the concept that time has value remains.
Some people aren’t willing to pay much for an additional few minutes each morning, but others would likely value that time similarly to how they value their working hours.
Even if you value your time at only $4 hour then it wouldn’t take much added traffic congestion and transit cuts for the price of your lost time to exceed the price of the mayor’s proposal.
Perhaps that approach, making it look like anyone voting “No” values their time at less than $2/hour, would make people realize that “Yes” is the only option.
I’m not sure it’s fair to call Coyne “the right side of the spectrum.” He’s one of a very small number of opinion writers that back up their columns with data and research, and it results in a perspective that’s usually quite interesting, balanced, and perhaps just as importantly: not hypocritical.
Besides the difficulty of assigning Coyne a side of the spectrum, support for road pricing should be a solid right wing policy, but for some reason, when a government service is regularly used by right-wingers, most of them turn around and want it given away for free.
road toll is another way of taxation. No politician is eager to say “vote for me, as taxes will go up”. Hence: we need tax relief elsewhere, for example income taxes or gasoline taxes as both are too high if effective road tolls are implemented (which they should).
Ditto with healthcare and education: the socialist system of “free and for all” is falling apart !
Andrew Coyne is on the economist side of the spectrum. That generally puts him on the right side as standard economics ignores the value of many left-wing ideals. However, evidence based policy seems to have left the right-wing of our political spectrum as of late.
“However, evidence based policy seems to have left the right-wing of our political spectrum as of late” .. examples such as ?
Not much right-wing policies in Canada these days .. even the so called “conservatives” can hardly be described as right wing anymore. Perhaps in Alberta with the Wild Rose party …
Well, Thomas, I was with you, until I read: “as in schools: too many kids from grade 10-12 that ought not to be there, but say in trades.” Sounds elitist to me. I believe that there is quite a strong agreement in Canadian society that subsidization of the education system is a good thing, because it benefits society as a whole to provide a (free) education to those who cannot afford to pay for one.
Not so sure that this line of thinking carries over to transportation. DOES Canadian society agree that subsidization of the transportation system is a good thing, because it benefits society as a whole to provide a (free) transportation to those who cannot afford to pay for it?
in a trade oriented school. Many folks, especially those with BAs are overeducated, and that too can be said for folks that have either no aptitude nor attitude past age 16/grade 10 yet we force them to finish high school. Not a good use of tax payer money ! Other options ought to be explored, for example a career in plumbing, electrician, hairdresser, driver, framer, pipefitter, cribber etc .. with some education but focus on technical skills in high demand in the market place !
I certainly believe that subsidization of transportation access is very important. However, subsidization of capacity results in huge waste. Windy rural two-lane highways are good to subsidize, inter-city four lane highways should receive less subsidy, commuter roads should receive next to no subsidy.
Being able to get somewhere is a benefit to everyone. Being able to get somewhere quickly is only to one’s own benefit.
“not a good use of taxpayer money!” Well Thomas you sure look out for the little guy: thanqxz!
But really why shouldn’t the green chain sing . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUZEtVbJT5c
. . . Handel’s “Hallelujah Chorus” as they pull the snags?
But then, I guess, you expect us of the second tier to shut up and listen . . .
. . . to Chris Rea’s Road to Hell“.
Or, would you allow the tug boat skipper to listen . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aeq0r9KuVhM
. . . to “Lilly Bolero as he guides his cumbersome boom thru Dodds (ahem!).
Who’s paying you to pull all this aggressive bull shit man? Are the wife and kids are giving you a bad time?
I’m still pondering your glib solution to our high priced leaky (yes, Thomas they are still leaking) condos: why it’s easier, to just tax the hell out of the bulltie-billionairs! NOT!
That is until the worm turns. And Thomas the worm always turns . . .
Is it good use of tax payer money to subsidize an unmotivated teenager in high school, rather than have him/her learn a trade, and subsidize that training for the employer ?
Tax ’em! Let millionaires and billionaires, the most accomplished tax dodgers in the world, run rampant thru our real estate:
You thinq they will prop up our little town?
Thomas take your meds . . .
While I agree with you that foreign investment into Canadian real estate, specifically Toronto’s and Vancouver’s, could be monetized better, for example through higher land transfer taxes, I also think that the forced K-12 school system ought to be improved. Too many folks that don’t care or have very low marks are on school after age 16 / grade 10 that could be streamed into other, more trade oriented schools coupled with matching employers. A win/win/win for tax payers, employers and kids as they would have a marketable skill at age 18-19 and could make 40-100,000/year depending on the trade !
Thomas just a reminder . . .
. . . that not all us hoi polloi grease monkeys and dumpster divers watch reruns of I Love Lucie.
Some of us can actually spell our name!
http://wakeupfromyourslumber.com/blog/tom-sullivan/buying-planet-out-control-central-banks-corporate-buying-spree
So ? What is the impact on Vancouver’s transportation woes or road pricing (which is the subject of this blog) ?
http://www.blacklistednews.com/The_Global_Corporatocracy_Is_Nearing_Completion/36101/0/38/38/Y/M.html
Take your meds Thomas!
I did but you ? Please do not insult posters who don’t agree with your worldview !
“The mayors refer to it as “comprehensive mobility pricing.” It’s never quite spelled out what this means……………………” Coyne
What it means is that GPS technology can be deployed to track your every movement in real time and with that realization comes the idea of extortion, money for this please, a little more for that, oh you can’t go there, but you can go here, and so forth, but don’t cry, it’s for a good cause, it’s all about saving you from your bad mobility decisions.
The future appears to be a new economy, an enormous bureaucracy dedicated to the analysis of your every move in order to extract as much money as possible from you in order to……… well pay for the bureaucracy to track you, hound you, and extract money in one way or another from you, or failing that prevent you in some way from going some places where you ought not to go unless you hand over the dough. Oh and if there is anything left over after all this effort it will be used to pay for infrastructure you don’t normally use.
I can see it all now the big fat Buicks with four doors and a suit behind the wheel, life in the fast lane straight to the corner office downtown. While the rest of us make our way by cars, trucks, trailers, buses, scooters, motorcycles, bicycles, skateboards, roller blades, donkey carts, and baby carriages hanging on as best we can to our GPS.
Just because words roll easily off the tongue like “comprehensive mobility pricing” does not mean they signify good ideas.
Late to the party here, but i have to laugh at all the people who don’t think this will affect them. Nearly everything, including food, will become more expensive. So, you are throwing your support behind canadas most expensive city becoming more expensive for everyone. Thomas is all over it, obviously, he can’t wait to expedite anyone who isn’t wealthy, along with killing aspirations for lower income teens, but the rest of you? Next we’ll start charging to use a public park, let’s monetize everything! That means more for a select group and less for everyone else, a bc lieberal move if I have ever seen one.