Mobility Pricing

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by cabotp

Most people work for someone (ie a boss, company, manager, etc..) Now their boss determines when that employee works (ie what days and what times). The employee has no control as to when they commute, other than leaving early to maybe beat the the rush. Introducing mobility pricing or any kind won't change when that employee has to be at work.

Bosses have to compete for workers, too. If they can make their company more attractive by offering workers a flex time option then that (a) gives them a leg up in the job market, and (b) makes their workers happier, more productive, and more likely to stay.

It's not so easy to do with public-facing jobs, but there are an awful lot of jobs that don't need public interaction that can be done just as well with the work shifted a hour or more in either direction. Again, it doesn't take a huge number of employers and employees to shift in order to make a difference. And you can bet that if mobility pricing makes it cheaper to start earlier or later that employees will be petitioning their bosses for that kind of flexibility.

Back when I was working my employer offered us the option of starting our 8-hour shift any time from 6:00 AM to 10:00 AM. I started at 6:30 and I found those early morning hours before many of my colleagues arrives to be my most productive. And I always had a seat on the Skytrain.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Bosses have to compete for workers, too. If they can make their company more attractive by offering workers a flex time option then that (a) gives them a leg up in the job market, and (b) makes their workers happier, more productive, and more likely to stay.

It's not so easy to do with public-facing jobs, but there are an awful lot of jobs that don't need public interaction that can be done just as well with the work shifted a hour or more in either direction. Again, it doesn't take a huge number of employers and employees to shift in order to make a difference. And you can bet that if mobility pricing makes it cheaper to start earlier or later that employees will be petitioning their bosses for that kind of flexibility.

Back when I was working my employer offered us the option of starting our 8-hour shift any time from 6:00 AM to 10:00 AM. I started at 6:30 and I found those early morning hours before many of my colleagues arrives to be my most productive. And I always had a seat on the Skytrain.

Yes an employee can talk to their employer about getting a better work schedule, but that is still under the discretion of the employer not the employee.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by cabotp

I think you miss understood me, but that is ok.

Most people work for someone (ie a boss, company, manager, etc..) Now their boss determines when that employee works (ie what days and what times). The employee has no control as to when they commute, other than leaving early to maybe beat the the rush. Introducing mobility pricing or any kind won't change when that employee has to be at work.

However if someone is self employed or on contractor what have you. Then they would have control as to when they need to commute.

But yes I already understand that taking a small amount of vehicles off the road will make a big difference.

No, I completely understood you and we're agreeing with each other. You don't need to change when most people work, you can ignore them entirely. It's the people that have the flexibility to change that you need to worry about. Give them an incentive to change and they will. Currently that incentive is "less traffic" and "less time in cars", but people are irrational in that they don't see that as a benefit. If you give them some financial incentive to change they'll be more likely to do so, and that's what time-dependent mobility pricing can do.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Perhaps the real question we should be asking is "how many people have the flexibility to change?" IMO, most Vancouverites with the ability to find alternate commutes have already done so.

[Trainguy]

Road pricing could cost families up to $8 per day

We’re getting a better idea of how much road pricing could cost you.

The Mobility Pricing Independent Commission has outlined costs for two different models.

It suggests “regional congestion point” charges would cost the average paying household $5 to $8 per day and reduce congestion by up to 25% and raise about $1.5 million per year.

Using the $8 figure, calculating with five days per week and 48 working weeks per year, it works out to an annual cost of $1,920.

Another model, which charges based on distance, would cost $3 to $5 per day and have the similar effects on congestion and revenue.

No particular model has been recommended.

“We’re concerned about fairness, affordability is a big part of that fairness and so there are some additional things that need to be considered,” says Commission Chair Allan Seckel. “Such as whether there should be caps on daily charges, weekly caps, other changes that might ameliorate the impact that it has.”

He adds Metro Vancouver is still likely years away from mobility pricing, and recommends more public consultation and studies.

“In other regions where congestion charges has been implemented, support for mobility pricing has been lower before it’s been implemented, but higher after it’s been implemented and the public can start to see the benefits of what it brings.” Seckel says. “People need to see the benefits of reduced congestion and improvements to infrastructure to support something of this nature.”

Seckel says congestion point charges would be easier and quicker to bring in, but adds the distance-based model also has its upsides.

New Westminster Mayor Jonathan Cote says there are still questions around how mobility pricing could help raise revenue for transportation infrastructure. He also says it will take time to build public trust for mobility pricing.

He believes one potential solution is eliminating the gas tax to offset some of the cost.

“The commission’s suggestion is that this really does need to come in combination of the removal of a lot of other, what they term ‘inefficient and disconnected’ taxes related to transportation,” Cote says.

“There’s a lot of skepticism and concern about the idea of mobility pricing,” he adds. “But when you start to add into the conversation about eliminating the gas tax or eliminating or reducing property tax or the hydro levy that goes to transportation, you start to see a lot more acceptance in the public.”

Any prices would have to be approved by the province, and are likely still years away.

The report says more study is needed but some are calling this a strong road map for the future of transportation in the region, and a way to pay for car and transit infrastructure.



Never going to happen IMHO. This is political suicide.

[MIPS]

Given where the NDP is going, they know their days are numbered. They could push it through and ride off into the sunset with their fingers in the air.

In honesty I am looking at the cost of a two or three zone SkyTrain fare. Eight dollars is really not that much more once you add the fact that being able to drive a car in Vancouver is already a high-cost premium. I think the idea here is to spook people out of their cars for trips where driving a car makes it uneconomical.

[s211]

Originally Posted by MIPS

In honesty I am looking at the cost of a two or three zone SkyTrain fare. Eight dollars is really not that much more once you add the fact that being able to drive a car in Vancouver is already a high-cost premium. I think the idea here is to spook people out of their cars for trips where driving a car makes it uneconomical.

The economics aren't that easy, nor is it all about economics. For many, public transit is not a viable solution. For virtually anyone with a family, relying solely on public transit is just not workable, except for zealot urbanistas.

You couldn't pay me enough to endure the stench and overall unpleasantness of public transit. It's an absolutely miserable experience.

[Aroundtheworld]

As someone who has done a lot of research on this issue, the tolls strike me as somewhat higher than what might actually be needed to pay for infrastructure/reduce congestion. For the distance-based tolling, I estimate the tolls to be about 1/3 or 1/2 of the $3-$5 per day they estimate.
(See slide 36)
There are a few reasons I think why this might be the case:

• I did not factor in the operating and capital costs of tolling
• Their cost per GPS unit is very high (at over $200 per unit) and is out of date (2006 estimate)
• I assume property taxes will be reduced. They do not.
• They do not assume different charges for different classes of vehicles. Your typical passenger vehicle would pay much less than a freight truck

I'm still poring over the document. I'll share more insights as I get them.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by s211

You couldn't pay me enough to endure the stench and overall unpleasantness of public transit. It's an absolutely miserable experience.

This is exactly why Trump was elected - an awful lot of people are just fed up with this kind of holier-than-thou attitude.

[WarrenC12]

They certainly are over-complicating the issue. Taking the tolls off was a dumb idea. The tolling should have been expanded to all major bridges, and reduced.

There is a note on the presentation that says something to the effect of a $1 toll on every bridge brinding in $350M and costing about half that in operational expenses. I'd love to see the detail on that costing, but even so, who cares!

It would be fair, easily understandable by people, yet nearly impossible to avoid if they want to make those types of trips. And guess what, if congestion remains a problem during certain hours, it's easy to modify the rates, have time sensitive pricing, or better yet, direct that revenue into the biggest problem areas in the form of more transit, lanes, what have you.

This pricing scheme is a giant, complex solution in search of a problem.

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

They certainly are over-complicating the issue. Taking the tolls off was a dumb idea. The tolling should have been expanded to all major bridges, and reduced.

There is a note on the presentation that says something to the effect of a $1 toll on every bridge brinding in $350M and costing about half that in operational expenses. I'd love to see the detail on that costing, but even so, who cares!

It would be fair, easily understandable by people, yet nearly impossible to avoid if they want to make those types of trips. And guess what, if congestion remains a problem during certain hours, it's easy to modify the rates, have time sensitive pricing, or better yet, direct that revenue into the biggest problem areas in the form of more transit, lanes, what have you.

This pricing scheme is a giant, complex solution in search of a problem.

The study does look at modifying the rates. It looks at both point tolls at bridges and important access points as well as distance-based charging. I'll admit the report is a lot to go through, but if you go to the appendices you can see the variable rates, and they do vary by quite a bit.

[Gordon]

Slightly off topic

The NDP when in opposition were in favor of using Carbon Tax revenue to pay for transportation, this has disapopeared since they became government.

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

They certainly are over-complicating the issue. Taking the tolls off was a dumb idea. The tolling should have been expanded to all major bridges, and reduced.

There is a note on the presentation that says something to the effect of a $1 toll on every bridge brinding in $350M and costing about half that in operational expenses. I'd love to see the detail on that costing, but even so, who cares!

It would be fair, easily understandable by people, yet nearly impossible to avoid if they want to make those types of trips. And guess what, if congestion remains a problem during certain hours, it's easy to modify the rates, have time sensitive pricing, or better yet, direct that revenue into the biggest problem areas in the form of more transit, lanes, what have you.

This pricing scheme is a giant, complex solution in search of a problem.

It has to be kept simple. Tolling all bridges would be the easiest to manage. However, bridge users everywhere would cry a river.

Trying to clock everyone's km's and then billing them would be an impossible nightmare. There will be no consensus on any of this.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

It has to be kept simple. Tolling all bridges would be the easiest to manage. However, bridge users everywhere would cry a river.

Trying to clock everyone's km's and then billing them would be an impossible nightmare. There will be no consensus on any of this.

I think even the slowest of people have started to comprehend how tolling infrastructure can help lead to better traffic after the PMB debacle.

And they could announce it in conjunction with other things, like putting real dates on a new GMT, paid for with these funds, for example.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

It has to be kept simple. Tolling all bridges would be the easiest to manage. However, bridge users everywhere would cry a river.

Trying to clock everyone's km's and then billing them would be an impossible nightmare. There will be no consensus on any of this.

No kidding. What a mess trying to read kilometres from all the cars. Just toll all the bridges that are part of the MRN.

Otherwise, you have to do something like the congestion charge in London... and that would be a MESS to implement. Bridges and tunnels are natural bottlenecks and people inevitably will have to cross one. They're also expensive to build.

I would limit it to bridges that cross municipal boundaries, though. And before someone states the obvious... that it would mean that Granville, Cambie, and Burrard wouldn't be tolled, people in high-density areas already pay another form of mobility pricing... pay parking.

Another way to word it would be any bridge or tunnel that crosses a municipal boundary or spans an obstacle wider than 250m ( or 300m or something ). The Alex Fraser would get a toll, but the Queensborough would not ( municipal bridge, and under 300m ). This would mean Sea Island would not incur a toll as well. Arthur Lang would likely be up to the airport authority... but I imagine they'd be fine with a toll on the Arthur Lang if the Oak street bridge gets a toll.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Otherwise, you have to do something like the congestion charge in London... and that would be a MESS to implement.

Why would it be an mess to implement?

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

No kidding. What a mess trying to read kilometres from all the cars. Just toll all the bridges that are part of the MRN.

Otherwise, you have to do something like the congestion charge in London... and that would be a MESS to implement. Bridges and tunnels are natural bottlenecks and people inevitably will have to cross one. They're also expensive to build.

I would limit it to bridges that cross municipal boundaries, though. And before someone states the obvious... that it would mean that Granville, Cambie, and Burrard wouldn't be tolled, people in high-density areas already pay another form of mobility pricing... pay parking.

Another way to word it would be any bridge or tunnel that crosses a municipal boundary or spans an obstacle wider than 250m ( or 300m or something ). The Alex Fraser would get a toll, but the Queensborough would not ( municipal bridge, and under 300m ). This would mean Sea Island would not incur a toll as well. Arthur Lang would likely be up to the airport authority... but I imagine they'd be fine with a toll on the Arthur Lang if the Oak street bridge gets a toll.

Of course reading the kilometers from all vehicles would not be easy and would be a mess. But it also would be the fairest form of all the tolling options. In that anyone who drives would pay whether you drive in Vancouver or Langley. Of course in Langely you could get a discount due to being in langely.

One option would be to install toll cameras on on the traffic lights or toll gantries at different areas in the metro area. So you leave your home and you pass 1 toll camera, then 2, then 3 etc. Based on how many cameras you pass that will determine your relative distance. You could divide the metro area into zones. You stay in 1 zone you don't pay. You pass into different zones you pay more.

The other option would be have everyone install a gps on their vehicle. They could offer a discount on insurance for those who do install the gps or you get charged a flat rate per month whether you drive your car or not.

Of course there is no perfect solution.

[Trainguy]

Has anyone heard any new rumblings on this file? It seems to be a forgotten item, especially since a lot of new mayors are now a part of that group. Mobility pricing is not a topic that will get a lot of support.

[ClaytonA]

Good layperson's presentation for congestion pricing:

https://metro.legistar1.com/metro/attachments/7870b601-d7c9-4814-b4e5-e58a6940c4e3.pdf

[waves]

.