Before we get into a more detailed analysis of the report from the Mobility Pricing Independent Commission, let’s summarize the problem.
The mandate of the commission was a mistake to begin with:
Note that the Commission was not mandated how to achieve those outcomes but was specifically asked, “to look at how paying for road use could play a role in such a strategy.”
In the current political environment — with a governing party that won because it removed point charges from bridges, and with civic elections within spitting distance — any recommendation for a new ‘road tax’ was always going to be doomed.
Regardless, the Commission went on to develop scenarios that put dollar figures on two chosen options: point-based and distance charging. Likely understanding the futility of the mandate, it did not recommend which one to choose, instead proposing “a set of principles to guide the design of a mobility pricing policy.” In other words, back to where we started.
Arguably, when the commission was established, there was more of a sense of urgency. The Mayor’s 10-Year Plan lacked sufficient funding and successive provincial governments had ruled out the previous pricing mechanisms at the region’s disposal. At that time, ‘mobility pricing’ seemed attractive because no one really understood what it was. But the funding problem ended when the various parties came to an agreement within existing tax mechanisms.
Now, no urgency, no action.
The danger is that the report will be shelved, and, without an incentive, there will be little to no desire to further explore the real challenges that face us, not with respect to pricing but mobility itself. And we’re talking more than just congestion on roads and bridges, or even any particular mode of transport; we’re talking the entire transportation system – all modes and infrastructure requirements, impacted and disrupted by the new technologies, new players, new relationships and new politics that are coming thick and fast.
For that we need not a Mobility Pricing Commission, but a Mobility Commission that will be, as the report headlines, “farsighted.” To wrap up the commission now without a new political mandate will only mean falling behind, ultimately stuck in a different kind of congestion of our own creation.
In other words, drop the “Pricing” from the title and go with a “Mobility Independent Commission.”
More to come.
“For that we need not a Mobility Pricing Commission, but a Mobility Commission . . . drop the “Pricing” from the title and go with a “Mobility Independent Commission.”
You’ve got me nodding along.
We can’t build our way out of the situation with roads, but generations of motordom have left us collectively bereft of ideas – we can’t imagine doing anything else. Changing hearts and minds is a long-term project, but it is the surest path to successful, deep-rooted change.
For those who think they have the solutions (which I think for the most part they do), it may be tempting to simply impose them, in the belief that a recalcitrant public would then learn to appreciate their wisdom. I don’t think taking the role of Cassandra is a good plan. Top-down decision making has its place (e.g. funding the 10-year plan rather than holding a divisive referendum), but I don’t think that it is a) ethical or b) feasible to simply impose massive change from above.
Which is just a long-winded way of saying I agree.
Better idea. Shelve the whole thing and start taking climate action in the transportation sector seriously.
I agree, Gord. Fortunately, the region needs to update its 30-Year Regional Transportation Strategy – a process that will be launched in June – and it is going to have to grapple with all of those issues. The changes coming – and some already here – will not allow a steady-state evolution to our long-range transportation plans. This time around, we will need to be ready to think more deeply about the potential futures awaiting us, then make the decisions today so we end up in a place we want to be.