While the conversation in Toronto is bubbling over with talk about cutting pay raises and closing subway lines, the real solution to the city's budget problems is barely getting mentioned: congestion charging. What Toronto needs is an expansive and intelligent road pricing system that would charge motorists an appropriate amount every day for the luxury of driving in our city. The charge could be different depending on the time of day, the day of the week and the part of the city.
The problem with our current tax system is that it is based on the assumption that everyone will use a car to get around, so everyone will pay somewhat evenly for the road system through property tax. This system doesn't work in an age when reducing car use is critical to our future. (Consider global warming and high oil costs predicted by the IEA in 2012).
On a provincial level, the budget for transportation is similar to the gas tax, about $3 billion (although there is no direct connection). However, the majority of the roads covering our cities are funded by municipal budgets, which get most of their income through property tax, something we all pay, renters and owners, whether we drive a 1 ton vehicle every day or not. The system practically begs people to drive so they get their money's worth. If you want to see more numbers that show how this system is unfair and regressive, read this study from the Victoria Transport Policy Institute.
The key feature of a congestion charge is that it encourages every car owner to consider whether or not to use a car every morning. If a car gets used, the owner pays the 2 or 5 or 10 dollars. If the car stays parked at home, the owner can spend the money on a TTC token or maybe a bike. This is where the $60 annual tax on car registration was weak. Once the registration fee is paid, it won't do anything to encourage people to leave their cars at home. With a congestion charge, the motorist directly associates car use with the cost of the limited road space.
Other cities around the world have already demonstrated how to do this. In London and Stockholm, and now New York, people have the same complaints about not having an adequate transit system. Mayor Bloomberg addressed this. Toronto is not the first. If we wanted to do this, we could quickly implement express bus routes covering the city, and even dedicate portions of our roads to the bus and bike.
A congestion charge makes so much sense on so many levels, it's painful to see it ignored.
Comments
Darren_S
Ha! Ha!
Fri, 07/20/2007 - 20:26I peed my pants...er cycling shorts... reading this! Congestion charge. Funny! If the Mayor cannot organize council to get their picture taken what makes you think he can get a congestion charge through. That piddly $60. charge you point to was too much for him to handle and now you want a congestion charge?! The mayor talked a good line, I voted for him but he has mostly been a disappointment.
Right now the mayor is doing a great job of running the re-election campaign for the right-wing wing nuts.
Anonymous (not verified)
A new tax?
Fri, 07/20/2007 - 21:27If Miller couldn't get a "normal" tax passed, there is no way a congestion tax will be implemented. I don't agree with the tax either; it's focusing on the already relatively low proportion of people who are driving into downtown. Although this may be unfair to people without decent transit/cycling routes, the tolls should be implemented GTA-wide, on all major highways. This way ALL drivers are charged (those who use freeways, at least) for using a car, no matter where they buy a house and where they work. A congestion charge would only encourage downtown residents and businesses to move to the suburbs, where you/your customers/your employees don't have to pay $5 or so to drive. Downtown Toronto doesn't nearly have the same "symbolism" that London or even NYC has that is a big factor in keeping people downtown.
Todd Tyrtle (not verified)
congestion charges and traffic
Sat, 07/21/2007 - 20:18I agree that a congestion charge may backfire resulting in more people using the arterial roads . What I'd like to see is a healthy surcharge added to parking. That way, nearly everyone who brings a car within the downtown core, no matter how they get there, pays the price. Couple that with incentives for not taking your car downtown and improvements to the cycling infrastructure and we might start getting somewhere.
I've only been in the city for a few years now and so I haven't quite figured out the sociopolitical environment here. Is this past week's failure to pass the new taxes an issue with Miller or is it an issue that we have regions of the city with widely differing opinions represented by widely different councilors? Could any mayor get this council to pass more progressive legislation or is the answer more of a grassroots campaign to educate the voters and change from there instead of expecting the current council to bring the changes we want to see?
darren
Lucky
Sat, 07/21/2007 - 00:16Good thing cycling shorts have that absorbent pad.
I am wondering too about Miller's skills after the way this has been handled. Threatening to close a subway line is going to have a bad effect even if it doesn't get closed.
Obviously a congestion charge would require a sales effort like we've never seen. But the fact that this would actually benefit everyone, unlike the $60 charge, should help. Ask someone in a car if they'd pay two dollars for the traffic jam ahead of them to disappear. Traffic jams are all over the city.
The problem with tolls only on the highways is it would encourage people to take the arterial roads, jamming up buses. It's questionable if this is good or bad for cyclists, but I would lean towards bad. Some roads can be particularly bad for squeezing down the right side.
-dj
Darren_S
Congested
Sun, 07/22/2007 - 09:02DJ, I support congestion charges, though starting on the arterial roads first. This would prevent residential areas being overrun with traffic jams.
Let's be honest though, do you see any political leadership at City Hall that could make that happen?
darren
no highway tolls
Sun, 07/22/2007 - 19:15Yes, one of the points I was trying to make is that highway tolls would be a bad thing. I don't want them. I'd much rather have zones set up, using cameras on the arterials, or a similar system. A high parking charge could work too.
There would be a major uproar against it, but it should be sold to the conservative councillors in terms their conservative constituents should appreciate: We have a limited resource that has an inherent value, whether it be our road space during rush hour or our clean air. Right now we pay for it with our time (in traffic jams) and through illness (from smog). Put a price on it, and let people choose how much of this resource they need to use each day. The market is very powerful.
Todd, I think there are people all over the city (and the 905) who want to make a difference, but the taxes that were proposed were not going to make that difference, except to help out the budget. It's tough to get people writing to their councillors to passionately support a new tax, but easy to find people who will complain about a few extra bucks they pay. Things will change when our leaders start to give people good alternatives, like fast transit and safe bike routes, which can all be part of a congestion charge system.
In Stockholm, congestion charging was initially not popular, so the mayor did a trial run. After the trial ended, people voted to keep the system.
-dj
Tone (not verified)
Driving charges
Mon, 07/23/2007 - 10:53My sense is that Toronto is fearful that implementing a congestion charge for downtown will drive companies out of the core and into the 905 area, reducing the tax base.
Ironically, that would be a wonderful thing for the environment -- and all those commuters who have to suffer on the QEW/Gartner/Don Valley to get to work everyday. It would be much more efficient and sustainable if their work was closer to where they could afford to live.
I've been living in Toronto for about 10 years and commuting mostly by bike. But, as my family grows, finding affordable housing anywhere in this city (unless somebody starts paying me a lot more money!) is becoming difficult. I'm starting to understand that many move to 905 to find affordable housing and deal with the commute -- most of them aren't moving back into the city unless it becomes more affordable, so getting their employers closer to them is probably a more viable option.
Unless you are the mayor of Toronto, of course.
Anonymous (not verified)
Sprawl?
Mon, 07/23/2007 - 12:33Decentralizing businesses would actually be much worse for the environment; Businesses in the downtown area are well served by transit (i.e. GO), whereas it is much harder to serve spread-out suburban facilities. Also, by "affordable housing", you mean sprawl, the very thing the greenbelt is trying to combat. So, soon enough, affordable housing will be out the window (unless the greenbelt collapses, of course), and all the suburban businesses will be surrounded by expensive houses where everybody drives.
vic
Sprawl
Mon, 07/23/2007 - 14:12Decentralizing business doesn't necessarily have to be bad for the environment.
The GTA is HUGE. If we can provide places to work, shop, relax, etc. close to where people will live, then they don't have to travel as far. If we just have one central "downtown" area, then you end up with commuting hell.
Smaller "downtowns" are starting to intensify all over the place. This is a good thing.
There are ideas to intensify around GO Transit rail stations. New "downtown" centres in places like Etobicoke (Six Points), etc.
Some parts of the 'burbs are starting to get better transit too, though it will be a long time before it's anything like downtown Toronto. Once certain places get more intensified, it's easier to justify the cost of public transit.
Fill in the sprawl that we've already created, and you won't have to keep expanding outward so much.
[/random comments]
herb
transit-centric communities
Mon, 07/23/2007 - 20:14Planners have been working this idea for some time: transit centric communities that are in themselves places to work, shop, live. They are a version of the old "garden city" movement which advocated decentralized compact communities placed in the midst of greenery.
Can't say they've had a huge amount of success in North America but things seem to be turning slowly.
Ben
It should be a pay per km system
Tue, 07/24/2007 - 12:24I am not sure how it would be done cost effectively, but there should be a per km charge for driving downtown.
I don't like the idea of someone coming into a zone and then driving around all day to get their money's worth.
I suggest $1 / km for fuel efficient cars and $3 /km for others.
herb
technical, market approaches not necessary
Tue, 07/24/2007 - 12:54It is apparent from London's congestion charge system that the technological, privacy-intruding, "market-based" approach can have results. But this approach is not the only one. Countries like Denmark and The Netherlands have managed to build cycling-, pedestrian-, transit-friendly cities without resorting to these complicated schemes.
These "market-based" approaches are all the rage now. I'm all for getting drivers to pay their fair share but I think we need a little bit of a reality pill if we think that we are somehow simulating a market. It's no market when there is only one seller - the government - and many buyers. You can impose user fees but there won't be any way of knowing for sure that the price is set at the market price.
I had a bit of a revelation that we should emphasize that most drivers are in a privileged position. If we impose user fees it's not just because we think every public service should be funded only through user fees. If we took that approach it would mean private health care, private libraries... private everything. Rather we impose user fees because drivers have it good and we want to shift society away from being car-based to being based around active and public transportation.
And this is where left-leaning countries in Europe have had a head-start on us.
tone (not verified)
I think you need both the
Tue, 07/24/2007 - 14:51I think you need both the carrot and the stick. Sure, you can add sin taxes to driving to encourage other behaviours. But, unlike drinking or smoking, people who derive no pleasure from driving often end up commuting by car because of the lack of other viable choices.
Many people are getting priced right out of the Toronto real estate market. The average price of a house in Toronto is nearly $400,000. In my experience, given the age of the Toronto housing stock, that house may require additional work (roofs, furnaces, etc), which means more cost.
Condos may be more accessible for singles and families with no children, but as Adam Vaughn points out, the majority are not being built with families in mind.
So, people leave the city for the suburbs -- where they can afford a newer home, still have access to employment opportunities and have the room needed for their families. Which turns them into commuters.
Go Transit in many areas is running near capacity at rush hour and GO has limited ability to run more trains due to both funding and the lack of access to rail right of ways in the GTA.
Even my experience within Toronto seems to indicate that the TTC is running near or above capacity at rush hour.
So, if people who are to stop driving en mass -- which is clearly needed from both an environmental and congestion perspective -- how exactly are they supposed to get around?
I believe this has been Miller's point all along. And the trouble is that Toronto and the surrounding area cannot seem to find enough tax reveune to support existing transit/transportation, never mind the sort of infrastructure that needs to be created to keep people moving in a sustainable way.
Darren_S
$400 000 house
Tue, 07/24/2007 - 17:21What is cheaper? The $400 000 house in Toronto or the $250 000 house in Guelph that StatsCan says you will pay $150 000 over five years to commute back and forth to from Toronto.
I do not think that congestion charges or tolls qualify as "market approaches". A market approach would allow the market to determine who drives downtown, simply driving costs up to the point that people would seek alternatives. Assigning tolls seems to be a "command approach".
Two problems with the current approach. You can run the price of gas really high and it will do little to change demand. While drivers receive a lot of welfare from the state to drive those drivers operate on the same roads as mass transit and commerce, how do they fit into the final equation?
A true market approach of making all of the road users pay for the costs of roads would probably be the best approach. Take all of the costs needed to build roads and maintain them and divvy them up amongst the users. Business could pass their higher costs to consumers and transit would see higher fares. Driving private vehicles downtown would be priced out of the market. The taxpayer who does not use a vehicle would see a tax reduction.
herb
what is this market approach, Darren S?
Tue, 07/24/2007 - 23:57I don't know what you mean, Darren. How do you "allow the market to determine who drives downtown" in your conception without using taxes or tolls?
Darren_S
Market approach
Wed, 07/25/2007 - 06:37What ends up having is the person who can afford it ends up being the one driving. So typically only the rich (same percentage who would drive not matter what the conditions) and those who really have to end up driving. The others find alternatives. The current system is poor at providing alternatives no one really tries to leave car ownership. Another element is that the market (consumer base) would have to agree that there are ills in driving, an example society shunning fast fat food . Cannot really offer up any real world examples because each state typically contributes to road infrastructure. Though if you were able to separate the need for infrastructure for commerce, mass transit, I bet a lot of Latin American countires do little to subsidize the car.
herb
still don't understand what you mean
Wed, 07/25/2007 - 13:29From what I understand, a market is composed of many buyers and many sellers. What in your explanation fits this definition?
Darren_S
Market
Wed, 07/25/2007 - 19:36I am suggesting a pure market approach to the transportation system, zero government influence whatsoever. Compared to the mixed market, heavily welfared, approach that we have now.
The total cost of the transportation system/infrastructure(oil refinery, paving, cleaning, health,etc) borne by those using the system. The consumer would then be faced with the exact costs of their decisions when they use the system. They would have the choice of paying $4 litre for gas or taking mass transit. Consumers who chose not to use the system would not pay, though they would have to cover the costs of products they use that have been shipped by truck. Yet overall their costs would be a lot lower. A problem would be entitlement, drivers could deservedly say that cyclists should stay off the roads cause they are not contributing to their upkeep or conversely ask that cyclists pay to use them.
While the chance of a pure market approach are pretty slim, we can still transfer more of the costs of the transportation system to the user. Either through a command (taxes, tolls) or through a market approach (price). Once consumers see the true price of their actions they will take the appropriate restraint according to market theory.
herb
still not a market
Thu, 07/26/2007 - 02:23I'm sure most people would be perfectly happy with your answer, but I just took too many political economy courses to just let this go.
What you describe need not be a market. You don't say whether the provision of all these services will still be done by government or whether they will be done by private sellers. What you describe is creating a fee structure where people are charged directly for using a service rather than just pay for the services in general taxes. But there is still just one seller: the government.
Take public libraries as an example. We could take the fee-per-service approach where libraries make up all their revenue through charging users for each book they take out, or alternatively, we could have libraries get all their revenue through government "subsidies" funded by general taxes.
We like "subsidize" libraries because the end is good and because user feeds penalize lower-income people. We (the enlightened ones) don't like to "subsidize" roads and cars because there is a big negative impact, because higher income people benefit disproportionately, and because there are cheaper ways to move people around.
But this doesn't mean that these user fees equal a "market" in the strict sense.
Perhaps I'm just quibbling but it does bug me when people say things like: "the market is powerful" like it's some talisman. Really there are no markets out there; we live in a society dominated by large multinational corporations who make up over half in just about every sector of the economy. They have real power to influence the production process; they aren't relegating to being just "price takers". They "make" prices.
Darren_S
Market 2
Thu, 07/26/2007 - 06:31It would be whoever paid for the system managing the system. The government should be out of it.
Unfortunately the market approach, like any approach is subject to human frailty, corruption and politics. I pointed to a somewhat softer approach, moving more of the costs directly to the user. If the user saw a direct correlation between driving and the harm it did they may be more inclined to find a less harmful alternative.
herb
a co-operative then
Thu, 07/26/2007 - 10:01I think what you are describing is a co-op - the services being directly owned and managed by the people who use them. That's not a market, it's a co-op.
Darren_S
No co-op
Thu, 07/26/2007 - 15:06No, a cooperative is a group of consumers/producers that get together to share costs or increase their volume buying power.
What I have suggested is a pure market approach. Producers supply roads, gas, alternatives to the car (ie mass transit, trains, etc) and consumers chose who they buy from. While the government supplies no tax money to support any of this. Consumers will have the choice of how they travel, including the right to opt out entirely. Producers would be free to produce how they much they like according to demand. No tax money would go to support building roads or to the military to secure oil fields in foreign countries.
This is not realistic in its purest form but there is still a lot of room to transfer costs more directly to producer and consumers.
As an example, if John Smith goes to the gas station to fill up for $1 litre he has no appreciation that it took $3-$4 per litre of tax money to get the gas into his car. He will then have the choice of using an expensive car, cheaper transit, or the relatively free walk/bike option.
herb
not co-op nor market
Thu, 07/26/2007 - 16:28I know what a co-op is, Darren. That is why I suggested it. It doesn't help to be patronizing when you are the one not being clear. When you say - those who pay for the system manage the system - suggests to me: consumers pay for the service, so if they manage it that must mean they are in a consumer co-op.
I still wonder what is this fabled "pure market approach" when it comes to our roads? How in God's name do we even imagine to have a pure market of roads?! Roads are the one thing that even ardent small-government conservatives say are the legitimate domain of government. That and the military.
The closest we - in North America - ever got to a "pure market" for roads was the railway boom of the 1800s in the US. Actually even this was dominated by a few big companies and was a huge, exciting, chaotic mess. Just read the Robber Barons for a fascinating history. This "pure market" resulted in competing railway companies building competing lines next to each other fighting for the same traffic. It could hardly be said to be better than a monopoly when these companies would actually conduct physical battles to win exclusive control over cities and states.
Even if we managed to keep violence out of it, I can't see how this would end up being an equitable, sustainable solution.
Or perhaps you have some more sophisticated idea for our roads?
Darren_S
Sorry Herb
Thu, 07/26/2007 - 22:06Sorry Herb, in no way was I attempting to patronize you or anybody else with the co-op comment. I have re-read it and still cannot see how it was patronizing. As far as I am concerned it was a rebuttal, plain and simple, in what appeared to be a civil debate. I am truly sorry if you took it mean anything else.
In order that I do not ruffle any more feathers I will leave this alone.
herb
it's okay
Fri, 07/27/2007 - 01:52I'm sorry too. I wasn't sure if you were trying to be patronizing but that's what it felt like. But I can get over it and I know now you didn't mean it. :)
I do find it interesting though, this discussion, and I just want to clarify all the positions so as to pull apart ideology from real alternatives. To me saying pure market is just giving in to neo-classical economic solutions, which I think should not be seen as the only solution.
I was thinking on my bike ride from work, if we give up on using the government tools of subsidies and taxes in favour of trying to find a "natural" price (which is always just an approximation since it doesn't actually exist and we can never get rid of all the market "distortions") then we have given up some tools that could be used for good just as well as they have been used for bad.
What if we find out that the "natural price" for roads or gas is just too low for our social well-being? To be consistent to a market approach the government could do nothing. But a government that wanted to encourage even more people to abandon their cars they could tax gas more and give subsidies to transit and bikes. It all sounds ridiculous to think this price would be too low, but who knows, it could happen.
It would be interesting to compare the ways that Copenhagen, Amsterdam and London evolve to become friendlier to active transportation. Copenhagen and Amsterdam used government tools like planning, taxes and subsidies, to make things better, but London is also using government tools of user fees. The London approach just happens to fit more comfortably in the free-marketers worldview. It just seems to them that putting a price on everything will do a better job of making our cities better. Perhaps... but we might also be losing something worthwhile in our toolbox.
All I'm saying, let's just hold on a bit and think this through a bit better. (At least that's all I'm saying for tonight.)
Tone (not verified)
What I wish is that a
Thu, 07/26/2007 - 11:26What I wish is that a fee-based approach would open up more options ... I'd gladly, for example, pay more than $2.75 on the TTC for more frequent, less crowded service. Or the opportunity to take my bike on transit any time during the day. But, those are not options on the table right now nor anytime in the forseeable future.
Similarly, toll roads or congestion fees might not -- as I've been arguing in earlier posts -- stop people from living outside of Toronto. But, it would create a pool of money to fund transportation infrastructure (assuming it didn't get swallowed up in general tax revenues). That could fund much better regional transit, "smart highways" (to make better use of the highways we've already built) to help people get where they need to go quickly and efficiently.
And, it might encourage employers to move their operations closer to employees. That might not make Toronto happy, but it would serve to move employment closer to employees, which has (I think) the greatest potential to reduce congestion and pollution from cars.
Tone (not verified)
Statscan figures $150,000 to
Wed, 07/25/2007 - 10:20Statscan figures $150,000 to commute by car for five years?! That seems high, unless you are commuting in a Ferarri.
Again, I'm just relating my own experience as someone who bike commutes in Toronto, has a child with another on the way and will need a larger-than the two bedroom bungalow in the west end we live in now. My own experience is that having access to work near where you live is key to bike commuting and that commuting is probably the most easily replacable car trip there is because once you get yourself set up (route, clothes, bike locking, shower/changing) it's pretty hassle-free.
I won't qualify for a mortgage on a $400,000 house, so even if it makes better long-term financial sense, that's not really an option. And, that average price usually still means living outside of the core of Toronto (like I do now), with less-than-optimal transit options for when I don't ride. Right now, I live near Jane and Dundas and the 7 mile trip to work takes about 45 minutes on TTC; on a bad day with delays it can creep to closer to an hour. The same trip is about 35 minutes by bike (plus changing!).
For years, I couldn't understand why people would move to the 'burbs. I grew up there and found them very, very unapealling. But, now I gety it. If you want a house that you can afford, with enough room for a family, room for the kids to play, etc, your choices in transit-friendly areas of Toronto are very, very expensive. That's why lots of people leave.
A congestion charge alone won't really change that equation -- in fact lots of commuters are already paying a premium to use the 407 to avoid traffic. So, you either have to develop radically better transit (which will take years) or you need to start encouraging communities outside Toronto to become more like small cities, with more viable employment within their borders so that people can live and work in the same communities.
Having lived in the 'burbs (Burlington) I'd say that many of them are still compact enough to make bike commuting quite viable. Plus they are new enough to have wide curb lanes and little on-street parking. But, there are very few employers to commute to, so many of the folks that live there either end up on GO or the QEW.
As for me, I suspect that I'm priced right out of Toronto. I'm hoping to find work outside of the city and move out. In the ideal world, I'll still be able to bike commute, but we'll see. The next best option would be impoved GO service and support for multi-modal commuting (taking the bike on the train). If Ontairo could make that happen, my bike commuting options (and places to affordably live) would widen considerably!!
vic
Affordable in Toronto
Wed, 07/25/2007 - 11:31Tone,
Take a look at MLS zone W1, W2, and W3. Basically the area bordered by the Humber, Eglinton, Dufferin, and the lake. We managed to find an affordable place that is easily walkable to two subway stations, several bus and streetcar routes, and various other amenities. Of course, very bikeable too.
We were surprised....we thought we'd only afford something much further away from downtown.
-Vic
herb
citation?
Wed, 07/25/2007 - 14:15It would be good to get that citation, Darren S, from Statscan. Last year the Center for Housing Policy in the US produced the report, A Heavy Load (pdf), which measured the percentage of income that working families spend on housing and transportation.
Working families are defined as those with an income between $20,000 and $50,000 USD.
Working families spend a disproportionate amount of their income on housing and transportation. For those who attempt to reduce their spending by moving to the suburbs find that their transportation costs rise by quite a bit. One also sees that their combined transportation/housing costs rise as their commuting distance rises - from about 55% if the commute is under 10 miles and to about 70% if over 30 miles.
Families in lower incomes tend to be in areas that mean higher portion of their income goes to housing and transportation. They are pushed to less than ideal living and commuting locations.
Darren_S
Citation - here
Wed, 07/25/2007 - 15:30http://www.guelphmercury.com/boomtown/boomtown_041123123021.html
Sorry I mixed up another StatsCan survey on travel times with this one.
Anonymous (not verified)
Changing attitudes
Wed, 07/25/2007 - 09:53I had the pleasure of spending a month cycling through the Netherlands a fews years back. One thing I noticed while there was an absence of advertisements selling cars.
I'm not sure whether the absence of car advertising is a result of the fact that the Dutch are not a car buying culture so the companies don't bother wasting their advertising money, or whether the the Dutch don't buy/drive cars because they aren't constantly bombarded with car advertising telling them their life (or penis, or sex appeal or whatever) is incomplete without one. But I'm willing to experiment to find out.
How about a ban on car advertising similar to the ban on cigarettes?
anthony
Ban Car adverts
Wed, 07/25/2007 - 10:40Anonymous, any chance you're related to this guy: http://allderdice.ca/?
Yeah, I'd go for reducing car adverts, or even an outright ban. And how about warning labels on cars reminding drivers and passengers how dangerous they are, like the warnings on cig packages? I could just imagine them now... :-)
But what I'd really like to see the $billons$ spent on car adverts redirected into public transit, cycling, and improved pedestrian facilities.
And as longs as I'm dreaming, how about a Technicolor pony, or a 'horse of a different colour' to ride on, or better yet -- to draw my carriage...
Anonymous (not verified)
No relation
Wed, 07/25/2007 - 14:04Nope. No relation.
veronica
Tone (not verified)
The where is more important than the how
Fri, 07/27/2007 - 11:40Which tools are best is a great topic for debate, but we'll only know what truly works by trying. Perhaps the London or Amsterdam approach will work well in Ontario, perhaps not.
But, the first step is agreeing on what it is we are aiming for. Seems to me there are several issues that need to be addressed:
1) For metro Toronto, the key issue is congestion. The city cannot effectively deal with more car traffic, and is struggling with peak transit (Go and TTC) traffic on key routes. The ability to shuttle the vast number of people who need to get to work from within and outside of the city is becoming a real challenge.
2) A related issue -- it is too difficult for people to find affordable, suitable housing close to employment. It seems this is evolving on its own -- employment growth outside of Toronto is growing faster than inside of Toronto. Making it possible for people to live near employment opportunties could vastly cut down on the peak demand for car/transit travel we see today.
3) All of this motorized travel adds considerably to pollution and global warming with very little "pay-off" to society. We are spending considerable money and resources to move people to exactly the same place five days a week, fifty or so weeks per year. Unlike shopping or recreational trips, which are less predictable, commuting is such a regular trip that it should be much easier to plan to avoid this sort of pattern. Obviously easier said than done!
If we agree these are the key issues, then the next step is to be bold and pilot various solutions -- to Metro Toronto congestion, the lack of employment land uses outside of Toronto (and even within pockets of Toronto) and the need to reduce pollution/CO2 emission -- to be adapted at a wider scale.
Success would mean saving time, energy, overall cost and improve people's quality of life, so getting buy-in should be a no brainer. The trick, I think, is selling the whole strategy and not the individual elements of it (like congestion fees). And, to work, there needs to be a wider strategy beyond congestion fees or we're likely to simply end up enshrining a new "tax" that won't go to improving transit.
Getting back to the reason for this site, all of these moves would tend to make cycling a lot more viable for more people -- they'd live closer to work and wouldn't need to travel traffic-clogged roads full of stressed people! :-)
herb
the carrot for cities
Fri, 07/27/2007 - 14:56This is how the UK is leading their cities into implementing congestion charges: the Transport Innovation Fund. Manchester recently bid on £3 billion in funding to go to transportation improvements - a £1.2bn grant and £1.8bn borrowed against tolls that drivers will pay over a 30-year period. In return the ministers are making various demands on Manchester:
In order to get the entire funding Manchester needs to implement the congestion charge. Now that's a nice carrot.
Joe LaFortune (not verified)
Congestion Fee
Wed, 08/01/2007 - 11:01I have been loudly touting the same response for more than a year now and have repeatedly expressed my views to the Mayors Office, Councillors Giambrone and Heaps. It astounds me that Miller is not in favour of the charge. After all, it targets 905 commuters---and they don't vote in our Mayor---not his supporters. Instead, Miller threatens TTC cuts that affect the elderly, students, low-income earners and those who have made a conscious effort to reduce or eliminate their car-use. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. He hasn't even released the report from the Councillors who visited London earlier this year. It makes me wonder just how serious he, how competent he is and how intelligent he is. I doubt my vote will be going to him in the next election.