Vancouver Considers Doing What No NA City Has Done So Far, Congestion Pricing

[M II A II R II K]

Vancouver Considers Doing What No North American City Has Done So Far — Charging Vehicles To Use The Road


August 16th 2021

By Rachel Jansen

Read More: https://www.nationalobserver.com/202...icles-use-road

.....

By 2040, a whopping one million more people are projected to move to Metro Vancouver, with an expected increase of 600,000 vehicles on the roads. There is more than just stress associated with congestion: as Canada's National Observer has reported, air pollution from fossil fuels is linked to one in five deaths worldwide. Given these health statistics and our growing awareness of the need to cut carbon emissions, is it possible the concept of mobility pricing may finally gain traction?

- Given its traffic woes, Vancouver might well be a prime candidate for mobility pricing. An annual traffic study in 2020 ranked Vancouver the worst city in Canada when it comes to congestion, and of the 416 urban areas researched globally, Vancouver placed 40th. Driving down emissions from transportation, which comprise more than a third of the province’s total, is a crucial plank in B.C.’s overall climate targets. — Much of the focus of efforts to decrease transportation sector emissions will be based on upping electric vehicle numbers. The province is requiring auto manufacturers to gradually increase the percentage of new light-duty zero-emission vehicle sales and leases, until it reaches 100 per cent by 2040. Electric vehicles can help solve emission problems, but they don't do a thing to reduce congestion. Yet the idea of charging private vehicles for road usage has been anathema to North Americans; to date, no urban centre has actually pulled the trigger on anything more extensive than bridge and road tolls.

- Mobility pricing is politically unpopular and difficult to impose. But as new information surfaced, the need to reduce congestion became more urgent. Allan Seckel, then chairman of TransLink’s independent commission, says: “I think the City of Vancouver is considering issues that we didn’t consider; climate change wasn’t as central a factor in our consideration as other issues were.” The UN’s Special Report on Global Warming, which formed the basis of Vancouver’s climate plan, was released in August 2018, two months after the TransLink study wrapped up. — Paradoxically, it’s the shift towards electric albeit private vehicles that perhaps exerts the greatest pressure on politicians to pass mobility-pricing policies in the near future. Fuel tax funds a large portion of public transit, and as an increasing number of citizens switch their combustion cars to electric, that revenue starts to dwindle. Mobility pricing could provide an alternate revenue stream. — “At some point, there may be an intersection between the reasonable need to fund transit overall, including roadways, and reduce congestion in the area,” says Seckel.

.....

[electricron]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

Vancouver Considers Doing What No North American City Has Done So Far — Charging Vehicles To Use The Road

Another example where not building a freeway did not reduce the increase in traffic density. Vancouver decided to build it's Skytrain metro lines instead, and while it has great ridership relative to other west coast cities, it decided not to build as many freeways. But the traffic congestion still increased.

What is needed is a balance of transportation options, going all in one solution vs the other never works.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by electricron

Another example where not building a freeway did not reduce the increase in traffic density. Vancouver decided to build it's Skytrain metro lines instead, and while it has great ridership relative to other west coast cities, it decided not to build as many freeways. But the traffic congestion still increased.

What is needed is a balance of transportation options, going all in one solution vs the other never works.

That is the wrong takeaway. The correct lesson is that all sufficiently large cities without congestion pricing have traffic congestion whether or not they build freeways and that building freeways does not solve or improve the problem. Neither does public transit because that is not its purpose. It's not there to reduce or eliminate congestion but to allow people to move around despite the congestion and to do so more efficiently and cost effectively. Vancouver does have a balance of transportation options as it does have many roads capable of carrying road traffic including some fairly wide ones. It isn't some European city with narrow medieval roads and ultra low car ownership.

Fact is, when road use is free (or an insignificantly low cost), demand in any major city is so large it's basically impossible to satisfy. Every major city without congestion pricing, whether it be one with the biggest and more impressive road infrastructure like LA or the most robust public transportation like Tokyo or NYC, are congestion restrained and have latent demand. The number of people using the road with motor vehicles is either based on the amount that people are willing to pay in fees (determined by the laws of supply and demand) or on the amount of congestion people are willing to tolerate which is what currently happens in most major cities. Since it's impractical to expand a road network enough to keep it moving smoothly given the huge peak demand levels, everyone using the road (including businesses and people of all income levels) have their time and money wasted by congestion. In other words, there is already a congestion price because congestion is very expensive. The difference is that congestion pricing is a way to limit road use in a managed way by directing that cost into something productive rather than having it wasted in terms of productive time and fuel being basically evaporated.

The takeaway is that if road usage is free there will always be congestion regardless of the type of transportation infrastructure so you build the infrastructure that can move people the most efficiently and cost effectively and if you want to eliminate congestion, you institute congestion pricing.

[Doady]

Investing in public transit is about more sustainable and more efficient use of resources, including more efficient use of land allowing for a denser and more walkable urban environment. It has nothing to do with reducing traffic congestion, and it gave residents of Vancouver more options, not less. Look the percentages of people driving, taking transit, walking, and cycling to work, Vancouver's numbers are more balanced than any other urban area in Canada, and certainly more balanced than any urban area in the US. You want a "balance of transportation options"? Then Vancouver is THE model you should follow.

[kingkirbythe....]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

That is the wrong takeaway. The correct lesson is that all sufficiently large cities without congestion pricing have traffic congestion whether or not they build freeways and that building freeways does not solve or improve the problem. Neither does public transit because that is not its purpose. It's not there to reduce or eliminate congestion but to allow people to move around despite the congestion and to do so more efficiently and cost effectively. Vancouver does have a balance of transportation options as it does have many roads capable of carrying road traffic including some fairly wide ones. It isn't some European city with narrow medieval roads and ultra low car ownership.

Fact is, when road use is free (or an insignificantly low cost), demand in any major city is so large it's basically impossible to satisfy. Every major city without congestion pricing, whether it be one with the biggest and more impressive road infrastructure like LA or the most robust public transportation like Tokyo or NYC, are congestion restrained and have latent demand. The number of people using the road with motor vehicles is either based on the amount that people are willing to pay in fees (determined by the laws of supply and demand) or on the amount of congestion people are willing to tolerate which is what currently happens in most major cities. Since it's impractical to expand a road network enough to keep it moving smoothly given the huge peak demand levels, everyone using the road (including businesses and people of all income levels) have their time and money wasted by congestion. In other words, there is already a congestion price because congestion is very expensive. The difference is that congestion pricing is a way to limit road use in a managed way by directing that cost into something productive rather than having it wasted in terms of productive time and fuel being basically evaporated.

The takeaway is that if road usage is free there will always be congestion regardless of the type of transportation infrastructure so you build the infrastructure that can move people the most efficiently and cost effectively and if you want to eliminate congestion, you institute congestion pricing.

Excellent comment. I’m going to save it for use in the future.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

That is the wrong takeaway.
The takeaway is that if road usage is free there will always be congestion regardless of the type of transportation infrastructure so you build the infrastructure that can move people the most efficiently and cost effectively and if you want to eliminate congestion, you institute congestion pricing.

When you start taxing movement of goods and personnel, that's when corporations start looking at moving away from central business districts.
What you get instead is gigantic office parks on the outskirts of a city, away from central business districts with congestion taxes, less density, and more suburban sprawl.
The fastest growing cities in the Vancouver metro area is not Vancouver anymore.
https://www.newwestrecord.ca/local-n...is-why-3540377

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by electricron

When you start taxing movement of goods and personnel, that's when corporations start looking at moving away from central business districts.
What you get instead is gigantic office parks on the outskirts of a city, away from central business districts with congestion taxes, less density, and more suburban sprawl.
The fastest growing cities in the Vancouver metro area is not Vancouver anymore.
https://www.newwestrecord.ca/local-n...is-why-3540377

Totally and completely untrue. You either have a set, predictable cost that allows the movement of people and goods to move reliably and quickly without being encumbered by congestion, or a cost in terms of a sporadic, frustrating loss of productivity and energy through congestion. And of course if you pursue the futility of trying to build yourself out of it using roads you'll have the enormous government tax burden and congestion, whereas if you build transit infrastructure you strengthen the city centre since it tends to be an area that people can access easily despite road congestion.

New Westminster is not suburban sprawl but rather a fairly urban city that was actually the provinces's major city prior to Vancouver becoming dominant. The article directly opposes your claim about the popularity of sprawl and "office parks at the edge of the city" by stating, "New West is a great city to live in because it’s so walkable, it has great restaurants, great parks, is right on the water and has amazing annual events like Pride when there isn’t a global pandemic. There's also a thriving arts community."

The city of Vancouver is the third densest large municipality in North America after NYC and SF and therefore has more constrained supply than the surrounding regions and less room for growth. The main reason New Westminster in particular would be outgrowing Vancouver (despite also being fully built-out) would be because it's less expensive, but still fairly urban while being located on the region's oldest and busiest Skytrain line giving it direct access to downtown.

[Nouvellecosse]

Interestingly enough, the municipality of New Westminster is slightly denser than the city limits of Philadelphia at 4,543/km2 vs 4,300/km2 and similar to Chicago's municipal density of 4,574/km2. Man, what a sprawling mess!

[Doady]

It's sad Vancouver is such a sprawling mess. If only it had invested in building freeways instead of public transit, it would have avoided such outward growth and becoming so incredibly low density and suburban. Freeways are the key to higher densities and urbanity, when will Canadian cities start realizing this? Maybe they already finally realise this but it is too late because they have already lost so much of their economic and political power to the suburbs, they can no longer do anything about it. Canadian cities like Vancouver could have easily avoided such stark inequities if they had been more pro-freeways and pro-cars like US cities, but instead they chose a different path. Canadian cities have become so disconnected and divided from within due to lack of freeways, the divisions in Canadian society have become so deep and entrenched, they are probably not something that are ever to be fixed. As Canada continues down this dark path, the wounds are only going to continue to grow instead of heal, and it's just to sad to think about, especially because it could have easily been avoided.

[llamaorama]

Originally Posted by electricron

When you start taxing movement of goods and personnel, that's when corporations start looking at moving away from central business districts.
What you get instead is gigantic office parks on the outskirts of a city, away from central business districts with congestion taxes, less density, and more suburban sprawl.
The fastest growing cities in the Vancouver metro area is not Vancouver anymore.
https://www.newwestrecord.ca/local-n...is-why-3540377

Normally I'd agree, but even though I've never been there I just get the feeling that Vancouver has for many decades now been established as a expensive destination of the privileged that's all about the scenery and lifestyle and that aside from local universities and the port there's nothing there that isn't just a branch location of something from somewhere else. I'm willing to bet that if you vacated and imploded every single major office building and factory and relocated the port operations to Prince Rupert that the city would be just fine because there's a neverending supply of rich people around the world who want a condo with a view of mountains, the ability to ski and go to the beach in the same week, etc.