Last month, the (Mobility Pricing Independent) Commission released a report that outlined two possible policy approaches: congestion point charges — which involve charging someone a toll when they pass a certain congested point or location — and charging drivers for each kilometre they drive (varied by time and/or location). …
Price Tags will print all of them throughout the day.
All maps are available here.
MAP 2: Congestion Point – Metro Vancouver Crossings
Why did we choose this example?
• Metro Vancouver crossings were identified as congestion hot spots
• Bridges and tunnels make good natural boundaries which help to reduce the risk of traffic diversion into neighborhoods
• Stakeholders suggested charging small amounts for crossing bridges
Who would pay?
People who drive past the congestion point charges would pay. However, this charge could be higher in very specific congested hotspots, and lower in less congested areas and/or with less access to transit. As social equity is a key consideration, we are still exploring discounts and exemptions for certain individuals.
Where and how would congestion improve?
If possible, some vehicle users may wish to avoid the charge by not driving. This would reduce congestion on highways, bridges, hot-spots and connecting roads leading to and from bridges.
How much would I pay?
This charge may be just enough to prompt behaviour changes from some vehicle users with access to alternative modes of transportation. As affordability is a key consideration, we are still exploring what a price structure, discounts, and maximum charges (caps) could look like.
What are related considerations we heard in Phase 1?
• Consider the availability and improvement of transit and transportation modes to provide accessible and attractive choices for vehicle users
• Consider impacts on businesses downtown, particularly small businesses
• Consider equity implications, including discounts or exemptions for those who have fewer choices or lower income
• Consider impacts from traffic diversion
What about Bowen Island?
We know that Bowen Island residents already pay to ride the ferry. The project team will conduct further research for Bowen Island residents.
So the people who pay the most in transit taxes-in some cases-and have some of the worst transit services in the lower mainland get to pay again for a 1938 bridge, and a 1960’s bridge with heavy but necessary traffic as no one can afford now to live on the North Shore, but have to drive to and from work from suburbs. Yet the city gets the best and most expensive bus and rail system-incredibly expensive subways to build, maintain and yet gets double transit service with bus service above as not enough stations served underground but does not adequately contribute to the extent of services it gets. Why not let the developers also pay for the incredible profits that they make off a friendly developer friendly council or councils? Hong Kong and other cities do. Why are taxpayers subsidizing developers? What is Oakridge paying for its massive development towards an increase in transit use? Is it going to pay for the necessary increase of the length of the too short Canada Line platforms? Was this ever considered? Apparently, the rest of the world is out of step as Vancouver does not want grade separated LRT on Broadway at least half the cost and it would go all the way to UBC. So lets charge the suburbs to pay for it.
Oakridge is planning to help fund a major upgrade to that station. But why should developers be held to paying specifically for transit if they are not held to pay specifically for roads?
A 50% increase in Seabus service is in the plan which comes with a 50% increase in the major bus routes in North Vancouver as they sync to the Seabus. The bridges are in good shape. Congestion pricing might help reduce the crowding. Many people causing the congestion do not need to move themselves in two ton private vehicles.
Furthermore, congestion pricing will have long term benefits as people re-think where they will live. The immediate question of whether a trip is really necessary or could be done on transit or bike may be smaller than the influence on location of everything. Downtown Vancouver dramatically increased its population and jobs while reducing MV traffic. This can be achieved throughout the region.
sometimes a bit of context is welcomed:
Oakridge mall developer will contribute $600,000 to a “major station upgrade”…
A typical aerial station upgrade on the Expo line such at Joyce costed ~$25 millions
Otherwise, Oakridge will pay $150Million in CAC, $45Million in DCC…
25% of the DCC, that is ~$11M, are usually earnmarked for roads (and no: no CAC, neither DCC goes to Translink)
what are you talking about, Ron?
Well, it’s true, I didn’t know so much DCC was directed toward roads. On the other hand, “usually earmarked” is quite different than specifically funded. It still begs the question why DCCs go to roads and not transit. Adding another layer of transit tax to development could push development away from transit.
“A typical aerial station upgrade on the Expo line such at Joyce costed ~$25 millions”
One of the reasons we should look more often to LRT etc. $5 million buys a brand new station.
Ron “It still begs the question why DCCs go to roads and not transit”.
Yes,
take an example, a city has the choice to convert a parking lane into a bus lane:
In metro-Vancouver, all the street parking revenue go into the city coffers (exempt of translink tax by the way, at the difference of off street pay parking!), all the transit operation cost are burdened onto Translink (=we can spread to the region our fiscally irresponsible choice…what has exactly happened at Robson square)
If you agree that transit reduces the need for road (paid by property taxes), then property taxes (that includes DCC and CAC) should finance translink too.
and when I meant property tax, I meant coming directly from the city coffers in proportion of the subsidies needed to run transit into the said city (not an additional Translink levy added on the top of it, the cities don’t take responsibility for):
Financing transit by municipal revenue sources is also of nature to encourage municipalities to adopt development pattern enabling efficient transit, to effectively reduce road needs to maximize revenue sources room for other municipal services.
(more on that here)
Link to all maps here is broken
Author
Corrected now.