Metro Vancouver drivers will likely face some form of mobility pricing, such as tolls on every bridge, within five years as regional mayors look to generate $50 million annually to expand the beleaguered transportation system.
Mobility pricing — a concept defined as charging a cost to use the road to reduce traffic congestion — is a key driver in funding the mayors’ 10-year, $7.5-billion transportation plan, following a failed plebiscite last year.
The specific type of pricing has yet to be determined, but options range from tolling every bridge and tunnel in Metro Vancouver — similar to what’s done in Sweden — to charging drivers a fee-per-kilometre driven, which is in place in Oregon.
Mayors say such a move is feasible but will take time to come up with the right approach and convince the public to buy into the plan. They have asked the B.C. government to appoint a third-party commissioner to help define the appropriate tolls, road pricing and distance-based options for this region while they investigate what’s happening in other cities.
Oregon, for instance, spent seven years consulting with the public before going ahead with its pilot project, which began with 5,000 drivers agreeing to pay 1.5 cents per mile in exchange for a fuel tax credit. The program, operational in 2015, uses a “mileage reporting device” that plugs into the vehicle and calculates the miles travelled without disclosing specific routes. Drivers can choose from three different agencies, including the Oregon Department of Transportation, which tracks and charges them for the miles driven.
“We want to see a very clear step to ensure we’re on track to implementing mobility pricing,” said Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson, chairman of the mayors’ council. “There’s a lot of ideas but we need a blue-ribbon panel to do the analysis. We’ll need that source of revenue in five years so we have to get cracking on it.”
Mayors have been considering mobility pricing for years as an alternative way to generate funding for transportation while seeing a decline in revenues from fuel taxes — one of the region’s main sources of transportation funding. The concept is already used in various ways around the world: San Diego, for instance, has a highway tolling scheme enabling drivers to avoid gridlock by paying a few extra bucks to travel in a fast lane, while cities such as London, U.K., Singapore and Stockholm charge drivers area-based tolls to enter cordoned-off downtown business areas.
Sienna, Italy, meanwhile, charges “zonal fees” that allow drivers to travel freely in their home communities but pay a fee to cross into neighbouring areas. A Surrey driver, for instance, wouldn’t pay anything to travel around that city but would be charged to go into New Westminster, just as drivers from North Vancouver would pay to go into downtown Vancouver.
Port Coquitlam Mayor Greg Moore said the mayors are still investigating the best option that would work here but they would like to see something in place by 2022 to capture traffic on the new George Massey and Pattullo bridges. If road pricing goes ahead, the mayors would consider reducing fees, such as gas taxes.
“There are so many options to mobility pricing, it’s going to take years,” said Moore. “If you’re going to bring on two new bridges, it would be an ideal time to switch up the tolling policy.”
A study by Canada’s Ecofiscal Commission, released last November, suggests Metro, which has 21 bridges and one tunnel, should consider tolling all those crossings based on a time-of-day basis — say, a higher fee for the morning and evening rush hours and lower fees during the rest of the day — noting the water crossings would intercept a large portion of traffic.
Robin Lindsey, an economics professor at UBC’s Sauder School of Business, said the move would be somewhat similar to what’s done in Stockholm, which has 18 access points into the city and charges the same toll — although a higher amount during peak hours — for all entrances.
He noted Metro would require cameras and decals to count traffic but the system could be rolled into existing infrastructure on the Port Mann and Golden Ears bridges, while unlike Stockholm, Metro could have varying tolls depending on where the highest congestion occurs.
The Port Mann Bridge, for instance, has a lot of capacity so there could be higher tolls on other bridges that are more heavily congested.
“The bridges tend to be the pinch point so that’s where congestion is worse,” Lindsey said. “The danger is if you impose a higher toll on one link, you get traffic diversion.”
Lindsey maintains it doesn’t make sense, nor would it be fair, to cordon off and toll downtown Vancouver, but agreed with the Ecofiscal study that Metro could look at distance-based pricing, which is seen as the most equitable form of mobility pricing because each driver pays for the time and use on the roads no matter where they live. He estimates this would cost upwards of $1 billion to put into place and would take time to get the public to accept it.
“There’s going to be public opposition to that. We’ve seen it over the decades,” Lindsey said. “But where it’s been implemented, people’s attitudes change.”
The Ecofiscal report agreed such a move would require a “higher level of coercion” because each vehicle would need to be fitted with GPS technology that would track its time and distance.
TransLink CEO Kevin Desmond said last month that Metro would have to ensure there are strong privacy protections in place if they went ahead with distance-based pricing, although Moore noted within five years there could be autonomous vehicles on the road, which would negate the issue.
Still, Desmond said something has to be done, because right now all bridges south of the Fraser are tolled, putting undue hardship on those residents.
“Mobility pricing is critical to deal equitably with transit,” he said. “It has the power to shift behaviour. But for that to happen we need to ensure the pricing of our roadways is fair and equitable, not only for residents but also to businesses in the region.”
Surrey Mayor Linda Hepner suggested Metro has an advantage in mobility pricing by having single insurance agency, which could ask people to sign up for a pilot project to collect travel data.
Similar measures are already in place in the U.S. and Europe, where some cities offer pay-as-you-drive insurance. This means the more people drive, the more they pay, while those who don’t use their cars as much will get a break. Lindsey maintains this could work in Metro, noting the more people drive, the more congestion they create, but noted any kind of tolling policy could present hardship to some residents, particularly those on low incomes.
“The disadvantage is it does cost something to set up and operate,” he said. “Inevitably there will be somebody who loses out.”
TransLink Minister Peter Fassbender said the province is prepared to discuss a potential mobility pricing strategy for Metro, but would not say whether it would have to go to referendum.
“We are prepared to sit down with the mayors and look at what they mean by mobility pricing,” he said. “It’s not as simple as saying we’re going to put tolls on everything.”
murd0c
06-02-2016 09:44 AM
Hopefully that means they are going to be lowering the bridge tolls now
Liquid_o2
06-02-2016 09:45 AM
Good. Wish this could be implemented right away, but will take 5-10 years to actually come to fruition. Which means it will be a long time before we actually see the dollars roll in for funding transit and road projects.
smoothie.
06-02-2016 09:48 AM
so price out people from being close to work, then charge them for driving long distances to work.
:facepalm:
320icar
06-02-2016 09:49 AM
Quote:
If road pricing goes ahead, the mayors would consider reducing fees, such as gas taxes.
I call bullshit right here. Not a chance they'd lower any existing revenue
pastarocket
06-02-2016 09:54 AM
If more people decide to pack up and move to other provinces like Ontario with more affordable housing, how are these government officials gonna get the funding that they need for transit and other infrastructure projects?
:facepalm:
I know at least two friends who accepted jobs in Ontario and are moving east soon.
6o4__boi
06-02-2016 10:01 AM
my wife and I were actually talking about a plan to roll out east if/when things start to get ridiculous here.
at some point, it just doesn't make sense to stay here when we can move somewhere and maximize our earnings (read buy an actual fucking house) instead of worrying when the high cost of living will catch up to us.
originalhypa
06-02-2016 10:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 6o4__boi
(Post 8760452)
my wife and I were actually talking about a plan to roll out east if/when things start to get ridiculous here.
Starting to get ridiculous?
So Vancouver tear downs for $3 million, Langley subdivision homes on city lots for $1.1 million, and 550 sq/ft condos for $750k isn't ridiculous yet? Porsche GT3 for $400k, a used 10 year old STI for $30k and gas prices hovering around $1.25/L on the cheap side isn't ridiculous yet?
damn man, your definition of ridiculous is a lot different than mine.
EleGiggle
Great68
06-02-2016 10:19 AM
Mandating something like GPS trackers would be an extreme privacy issue. Not to mention it sounds like it would be easy to disable.
GLOW
06-02-2016 10:24 AM
So how will you tax bikes since they use the road and have their own personal bike lanes.
Oh ya ... vancouver ...
MarkyMark
06-02-2016 10:45 AM
So people who already make enough money to live close to their job get rewarded and the rest of us who had to move further away due to financial constraints get taxed more, sounds solid.
Inb4 someone says "work harder or get a job closer to where you live".
CorneringArtist
06-02-2016 10:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 320icar
(Post 8760448)
I call bullshit right here. Not a chance they'd lower any existing revenue
LOLOLOLOL, right? They'd only end up raising the gas tax above the premium we pay more in than GST/PST combined.
Straight bullshit this is. People say no, yet they still go ahead with some attempt to fund a company that can't even get its own affairs in order when it comes to spending. How about Translink figures out their shit before crying for more money?
Tapioca
06-02-2016 11:34 AM
So, I guess this is the last straw that breaks the camel's back? Is there going to be a mass exodu of RS users to Campbell River, Creston, Williams Lake, or Fort St. John?
underscore
06-02-2016 11:54 AM
All of these ideas are terrible, and just because some other place uses it doesn't mean it's a good idea. Charging "peak" pricing is even stupider, nobody is driving at those times because they want to, people are driving at those times because they have to.
To loosely quote James May: "The government seems to think we're all driving at the same time just to be really annoying"
vitaminG
06-02-2016 12:53 PM
^ the idea being that people who dont have to commute during those times might be less likely to because of the increased cost, thus reducing congestion. sometimes all it takes is a marginal increase in cost to change peoples behavior and have a noticeable difference
Gucci Mane
06-02-2016 12:56 PM
I've thought about moving out east as well, been looking into it a lot lately but there's only one thing stopping me from going,
<------ this handsome boy is banned there because of a province wide BSL. Fucking Ontario.
bcrdukes
06-02-2016 01:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GLOW
(Post 8760467)
So how will you tax bikes since they use the road and have their own personal bike lanes.
Oh ya ... vancouver ...
:accepted:
underscore
06-02-2016 01:25 PM
You guys do realize there's more to Canada than the GVRD and Toronto right? Just move to another part of BC or move to the Maritime provinces, there's no way I'd go back to Ontario willingly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vitaminG
(Post 8760515)
^ the idea being that people who dont have to commute during those times might be less likely to because of the increased cost, thus reducing congestion. sometimes all it takes is a marginal increase in cost to change peoples behavior and have a noticeable difference
Just how many people do you think are willingly in rush hour traffic and don't need to be?
carisear
06-02-2016 01:26 PM
Sheesh, as if Vancouver/Richmond weren't elitist/cliquish enough -- this will just make the gaps even wider.
as vitaminG said, even a modest charge will make people stay in their own cities now -- I know I won't cross the bridge anymore. i'll just idle in bumper to bumper traffic instead. Hooray for the environment!
6o4__boi
06-02-2016 01:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by underscore
(Post 8760526)
Just how many people do you think are willingly in rush hour traffic and don't need to be?
lol i was thinking the exact same thing...i'd have to be paid to drive during rush hour when i don't have to
Translink fucked with us for years, we voted to prove a point and we still get fucked? Welcome to the 21 century everybody!
Fuck the GVRD. Pandering to the rich does not equal 'world class'. Without the heart and soul of its core citizens, you just have a gold turd.
Kamloops is tempting to take up residence. Too bad my line of work doesn't exist up here...
:QQ:
highfive
06-02-2016 03:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothie.
(Post 8760447)
so price out people from being close to work, then charge them for driving long distances to work.
:facepalm:
Actually, not only they are doing that but I feel they are forcing people's jobs further away from the city. Look at Vancouver and how many commercial / industrial zone properties has been knocked down for condos. Where will those jobs go? In the long run, this is going to be an bigger issue for Greater Vancouver.
They keep talking about housing affordability but they don't bother talking about where to make the money to afford it in the first place.
Basically our municipal governments are puppets for developers. They are able to build on land and they don't pay any extra fees for putting additional strains on government services in the area they are building. Look at Cambie St and how many low rises are being built. Who's going to pay for the extra VPD/VFD/Ambulance services, schools, roads, etc. I know developers pay a development cost levy but fuck, it's only what? $4/sf? When you're selling the condo for $700-1000 / sf.
originalhypa
06-02-2016 03:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GS8
(Post 8760540)
Kamloops is tempting to take up residence. Too bad my line of work doesn't exist up here...
:QQ:
The Loops is nice. I had a friend transfer up there for work three years ago, and he loves it. He met a girl up there and hit it off. He also bought a house with a pool for less than the price of a Vancouverr condo. The climate is dry, summers are hot, and there is a ton of mountain biking that you can do.
There are a lot of nice places in BC to move to. But really, should we have to?
:okay:
Tapioca
06-02-2016 03:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by highfive
(Post 8760558)
Actually, not only they are doing that but I feel they are forcing people's jobs further away from the city. Look at Vancouver and how many commercial / industrial zone properties has been knocked down for condos. Where will those jobs go? In the long run, this is going to be an bigger issue for Greater Vancouver.
They keep talking about housing affordability but they don't bother talking about where to make the money to afford it in the first place.
Basically our municipal governments are puppets for developers. They are able to build on land and they don't pay any extra fees for putting additional strains on government services in the area they are building. Look at Cambie St and how many low rises are being built. Who's going to pay for the extra VPD/VFD/Ambulance services, schools, roads, etc. I know developers pay a development cost levy but fuck, it's only what? $4/sf? When you're selling the condo for $700-1000 / sf.
Well, the town centre model for development in the GVRD has been a matter of public record since the 1970s. Now that Skytrain is finally mature, we're only seeing the results of that model now. Having commercial hubs in various parts of the region has always been a part of the long-term strategy. However, lots of office space in the suburbs continues to remain vacant because companies want to be in downtown Vancouver.
Companies will pay salaries based on what the market will bear. Until skilled workers leave the region in droves (like we're talking hundreds of thousands of people), salaries here will remain lower than the average. Is it the responsibility of governments to meddle in how companies and organizations run their businesses?
It's easy to say that municipal governments are puppets for developers, but since the government is no longer in the business of building social housing (when was the last time a new co-op was built?), houses are not going to be built on their own. Plus, people in detached homes want to keep property taxes low, so the only way to do that is to upzone/rezone land to increase the property tax base. People who own detached homes tend to vote in greater numbers than condo owners.
