Mobility Pricing

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by MIPS

$20 says 30% of annual toll income will vanish into non-transportation pet projects, the extension to UBC will still not get any more city-incentive funding and they'll still tear the viaducts down because "not enough money lol."

Correct and also to just manage the system. It still blows my mind that Port Mann Bridge was gathering several hundred million dollars in annual tolls but a significant portion of that was eaten by the cost running the system. This would be exactly the same.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by urbanflight

Great news!!

It will translate in crucial funding for rapid transit projects, fewer cars, less pollution, more space for public transit riders, pedestrians and cyclists.

Your optimism is enviable. Me, I'd've wanted TransLink to get the money, because I'm pretty sure that right now most of it'll go into City Hall's general revenue stream.

[p78hub]

Originally Posted by Klazu

What a stupid thing for them to say. It's not like you are only one of those things and nothing else. Most people drive, take transit AND cycle from time to time. I do all four regularly and don't think any of these methods should be compromised for the benefit of another method. They all serve me differently depending on where I am going or what I am doing

Why some people deal only in black and white absolutes is beyond me. The ideological hate for cars is ridiculous especially as most cars will be low or no-omission by 2025.

It also ignores literally everyone outside the City of Vancouver that drive in to do business or shop or visit people. Like, it would almost be more palatable if they just said outright that outsiders aren't welcome anymore.

[s211]

Originally Posted by MIPS

Aaaaaaand permission to look into planning (actual investment into the project) has been approved.

This is so slimy. Just the idea of pushing ahead even if they have to play loophole acrobatics to get it built.

State of the nation for our socialist paradise.

[Henbo]

Originally Posted by s211

State of the nation for our socialist paradise.

We'll be just like that socialist paradise Singapore or even worse, Dubai!

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by s211

State of the nation for our socialist paradise.

Like London, where well known leftie Boris Johnson is in a battle with the mayor, insisting the congestion charge must be extended over a larger area?

[Metro-One]

Once again Vancouver putting the horse before the cart.

They fail to realize that all these cities with congestion charges already have extensive layered rail systems in place, and most (if not all) had adequate ring roads / highway systems for through traffic to avoid the congestion core.

So, when Skytrain is completed to UBC and Langley, a new Line is built to the North Shore, the WCE is upgraded, the Arbutus LRT is built, and highway route 99 is redirected along a new free flow corridor with a new third crossing along the eastern edge of the congestion charge zone, then Vancouver can implement this idea.

[scottN]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Once again Vancouver putting the horse before the cart.

They fail to realize that all these cities with congestion charges already have extensive layered rail systems in place, and most (if not all) had adequate ring roads / highway systems for through traffic to avoid the congestion core.

So, when Skytrain is completed to UBC and Langley, a new Line is built to the North Shore, the WCE is upgraded, the Arbutus LRT is built, and highway route 99 is redirected along a new free flow corridor with a new third crossing along the eastern edge of the congestion charge zone, then Vancouver can implement this idea.

Your argument supposes that all these trips to and through the downtown core need to happen, and the only alternative to driving is taking transit or driving the long way around.

Another possible alternative is that people don't make the trip at all. In fact this is the alternative that decreases congestion the most. In the short term, this could mean more telecommuting and in the long term it means redistributing some of the jobs and services out from the downtown core to other regional centres.

Driving and transit are both heavily subsidized at the municipal / regional level. These subsidies encourage overconsumption - travelling more than would be economically optimal and hence the proliferation of big box stores and highway oriented retail over local shops. If we reduce the subsidy, by charging user fees like the congestion charge, then we tilt the scaled in favour of local shopping local jobs, and shorter trips.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by scottN

Another possible alternative is that people don't make the trip at all. In fact this is the alternative that decreases congestion the most. In the short term, this could mean more telecommuting and in the long term it means redistributing some of the jobs and services out from the downtown core to other regional centres.

Driving and transit are both heavily subsidized at the municipal / regional level. These subsidies encourage overconsumption - travelling more than would be economically optimal and hence the proliferation of big box stores and highway oriented retail over local shops. If we reduce the subsidy, by charging user fees like the congestion charge, then we tilt the scaled in favour of local shopping local jobs, and shorter trips.

Thing is, we're talking about downtown here - the businesses and streetscape kind of depend on people making the trip from all over the city. Robson/Granville/Yaletown/etc with just local traffic would be boring as all hell.

And if people should just do everything inside their neighbourhood and only step out once or twice a week, why have a metropolitan area? Condonomics forgets that it's one big city, not a series of hamlets.

[scottN]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Thing is, we're talking about downtown here - the businesses and streetscape kind of depend on people making the trip from all over the city. Robson/Granville/Yaletown/etc with just local traffic would be boring as all hell.

And if people should just do everything inside their neighbourhood and only step out once or twice a week, why have a metropolitan area? Condonomics forgets that it's one big city, not a series of hamlets.

Indeed downtown will continue to offer "big city" destinations like major sporting events, large scale theatre productions and concerts which justify travel. People are naturally attracted to go downtown, because downtown has the most stores and the biggest choice of restaurants and this concentration of services justifies the travel. If you live in Surrey, going downtown has a higher transportation cost (in $ and time) than going to surrey centre. What we are doing today is heavily subsidizing that transportation (whether it is by transit or by automobile), which makes downtown more competitive for businesses and surrey centre less competitive. Overall, this leads to lower economic efficiency, an unnatural concentration of business activity in the downtown.

I suspect that despite the transportation subsidy, it's actually the suburban residents who end up bearing the brunt of the economic losses due to time lost to congestion and the loss of local opportunities for shopping and dining. However I have no idea how this can be quantified. The only case study that is easy to analyze is the downtown resident who walks everywhere, because transportation subsidies and traffic congestion have little to no effect on their behavior, and they would benefit from the increased business activity downtown that the transportation subsidies bring in. So if the downtown residents and businesses are the ones who are benefitting from the subsidies, it seems logical that it is the suburban residents and businesses that are paying the economic price.

[Jimbo604]

Vancouver's war on cars now laid bare for all to see.

Vancouver is now half-way through this mayor and council's mandate. Will this becomes a wedge issue in the next election, October 2022?

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Like London, where well known leftie Boris Johnson is in a battle with the mayor, insisting the congestion charge must be extended over a larger area?

Comparisons with London are spurious. Anyone who has driven into Central London knows it's tangle of streets is not made for car traffic and a congestion tax makes sense. Vancouver not so much. Also, based on the increase of traffic at the borders of a congestion tax zone, if you own a home along 16th, I'd sell it now.

[WarrenC12]

They only approved a city staff report on how to implement, which is due after the next election. Classic kicking the can down the road.

If there's one thing this council is good at, it's doing absolutely noting.

[CivicBlues]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

If there's one thing this council is good at, it's doing absolutely noting.

2nd only to wasting taxpayer money

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

They only approved a city staff report on how to implement, which is due after the next election. Classic kicking the can down the road.

If there's one thing this council is good at, it's doing absolutely noting.

How would council vote to approve something today that doesn't exist yet?

It's practically 2021 for Staff so about 1 year to conduct a thorough potential strategy doesn't seem far fetched.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

How would council vote to approve something today that doesn't exist yet?

It's practically 2021 for Staff so about 1 year to conduct a thorough potential strategy doesn't seem far fetched.

Well, ask the people setting their hair on fire about it already.

I don't think the timeline includes a vote in 2021 at this point.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by scottN

Indeed downtown will continue to offer "big city" destinations like major sporting events, large scale theatre productions and concerts which justify travel. People are naturally attracted to go downtown, because downtown has the most stores and the biggest choice of restaurants and this concentration of services justifies the travel. If you live in Surrey, going downtown has a higher transportation cost (in $ and time) than going to surrey centre. What we are doing today is heavily subsidizing that transportation (whether it is by transit or by automobile), which makes downtown more competitive for businesses and surrey centre less competitive. Overall, this leads to lower economic efficiency, an unnatural concentration of business activity in the downtown.

I suspect that despite the transportation subsidy, it's actually the suburban residents who end up bearing the brunt of the economic losses due to time lost to congestion and the loss of local opportunities for shopping and dining. However I have no idea how this can be quantified. The only case study that is easy to analyze is the downtown resident who walks everywhere, because transportation subsidies and traffic congestion have little to no effect on their behavior, and they would benefit from the increased business activity downtown that the transportation subsidies bring in. So if the downtown residents and businesses are the ones who are benefitting from the subsidies, it seems logical that it is the suburban residents and businesses that are paying the economic price.

Sure, but as with the SkyTrain/light rail argument in Surrey, marooning residents in place with surcharges and/or sub-par transit is a dumb idea. The suburbs (in this example, Surrey Central) and their failure to be attractive to their own residents is more of a zoning/development problem instead of a commuting one.

Also remember that reverse flow (downtown -> suburb, or suburb -> suburb) is a thing and can greatly boost suburban businesses and amenities too. Encouraging a homebody lifestyle makes everybody lose out.

[s211]

Originally Posted by Jimbo604

Vancouver's war on cars now laid bare for all to see.

Vancouver is now half-way through this mayor and council's mandate. Will this becomes a wedge issue in the next election, October 2022?

The City's had no shortage of snake oil to sell the populace for decades now, and the townsfolk seem fine sending a bunch of naïve ideologues into power, over and over and over. Never should have let all those draft-dodger boomers come up here in the 60s, who have since doubled down by siring a brood even more fantasy-blinded than the hippies.

Ugh. This city is wearing me out.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by scottN

Indeed downtown will continue to offer "big city" destinations like major sporting events, large scale theatre productions and concerts which justify travel. People are naturally attracted to go downtown, because downtown has the most stores and the biggest choice of restaurants and this concentration of services justifies the travel. If you live in Surrey, going downtown has a higher transportation cost (in $ and time) than going to surrey centre. What we are doing today is heavily subsidizing that transportation (whether it is by transit or by automobile), which makes downtown more competitive for businesses and surrey centre less competitive. Overall, this leads to lower economic efficiency, an unnatural concentration of business activity in the downtown.

I suspect that despite the transportation subsidy, it's actually the suburban residents who end up bearing the brunt of the economic losses due to time lost to congestion and the loss of local opportunities for shopping and dining. However I have no idea how this can be quantified. The only case study that is easy to analyze is the downtown resident who walks everywhere, because transportation subsidies and traffic congestion have little to no effect on their behavior, and they would benefit from the increased business activity downtown that the transportation subsidies bring in. So if the downtown residents and businesses are the ones who are benefitting from the subsidies, it seems logical that it is the suburban residents and businesses that are paying the economic price.

LOL, newsflash an "unnatural concentration of business activity in the downtown" is what makes a downtown, sparky. Be that as it may, should this ill-advised bit of social engineering go ahead, I expect those sport organizations and businesses to take a long hard look at where their customers are coming from and move if it makes sense.

[Feathered Friend]

Question #6: Part of the city’s response to the climate crisis and included in the city’s response to Metro Vancouver’s Climate 2050 strategy is congestion charging. Have you considered the pros and cons of a congestion charge, for example on cars entering the CBD, on jobs and the economy downtown?

Staff Response:

• Staff have considered congestion pricing impacts on jobs and the economy at a highlevel, prompted by the Region’s Mobility Pricing Independent Commission’s work which included a downtown cordon scenario.
• The Greater Vancouver Board of Trade, and the BC Chamber of Commerce both support and advocate for mobility pricing.
• Findings from other cities generally show an improvement to the number of jobs and economic growth since the introduction of congestion charging:

1. Singapore, which has had road pricing for nearly 45 years, is currently considered the world’s most competitive economy, and the third most innovative economy.
2. London's congestion charge facilitated an overall increase of 23% more people travelling into the CBD, while significantly reducing vehicle trips.
3. Research has found that road pricing impacts to the local economy are only negative in heavily car-oriented areas where there are limited mobility options.

However, even Gothenburg, Sweden, a mid-sized city that is more car-oriented than other larger centres with congestion pricing, saw a net economic improvement and is considered one of Europe’s best performing cities.

• Considerable further study and engagement would be required to determine the scale and scope of economic, environmental, and societal benefits of a downtown-oriented transport pricing strategy for Vancouver. It is expected that given the many mobility options in Vancouver's CBD, and continued improvements for walking, cycling and transit, a downtown-oriented transport pricing strategy would create similar economic outcomes to those in peer cities.
• Other social economic benefits, such as improved health, reduced GHGs, lower local air pollutants, and fewer collisions are expected to improve social well-being and achieve more equitable outcomes. These are often not directly monetized but contribute to job and economic growth.
• As per Councils request at the recent Transportation 2050 briefing, staff are scheduling another Council briefing on Transportation/Mobility Pricing.

City Manager’s emails and memos to Mayor and Council (January 2020)
https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/2020-01-2...ions-employment-lands-economy-review.pdf