In my recently released Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Progress Report, I highlighted my concerns about traffic congestion in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA). It’s far more than just an inconvenience; it imposes huge costs on the economy, the environment and public health. Fully one-third of Ontario’s GHGs originate from the transportation sector, with the bulk of these emissions coming from gasoline consumption for personal vehicle use. A recent study by the C.D. Howe Institute called Congestion Relief: Assessing the Case for Road Tolls in Canada reported that congestion in the U.S. in 2005 resulted in just under 4 billion hours of travel delay and nearly 9.5 billion litres of wasted fuel that costs the U.S. economy $63 billion!
The OECD has noted that the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) suffers from the worst traffic congestion in North America, with an average commute of 80 minutes – worse than Los Angeles – while costing the Ontario economy $3.3 billion each year in lost productivity. The Pembina Institute reports that growth in the GTHA is occurring twice as fast as the supply of roads and 2.5 times faster than transit capacity. The Ontario Ministry of Finance expects the GTHA to grow by an additional 2.5 million people by 2031, bringing an additional 1.4 million vehicles with them.
These facts lead to one unalterable conclusion: Traffic gridlock in our cities is only going to get worse if we stick to the current way of moving people and goods around. Based on these facts, we have basically two choices: 1) accept more traffic and greater gridlock as inevitable; or, 2) DO something about it by pricing the commodity. We will have no choice but to price this limited resource (our road capacity) and the downtown parking that supports (encourages?) its overuse.
Road pricing need not be – in fact, it shouldn’t be – a cash grab … it’s about reducing unsustainable gridlock. Highway 407 just north of Toronto is a strong demonstration that the costs of congestion can be reduced while speeding up the flow of traffic. Road pricing has been shown to work in London, Stockholm and Singapore where average speeds almost doubled. And, local businesses are on side too. A global survey by the New York City Small Business Council called Congestion Pricing and Its Effect on Small Business reported that businesses within the City of London England’s congestion charge zone outperformed those outside, in terms of profitability, productivity and job creation once the congestion charges were introduced.
As was noted recently, paying by time and place of use rather than with fuel or property taxes sets up price signals that are more transparent while reducing congestion. I believe that a reliance on fuel taxes will continue to fail us. If you drive an internal combustion engine, for how long are you going to put up with subsidizing those who will be driving electric vehicles in the coming years?
A properly constituted “Special Purpose Fund”, with citizen oversight, can ensure that funds raised through any road pricing initiatives (gas tax, road tolls, congestion charges and/or parking fees) go to fund more transit (and, possibly, to maintaining the existing road network but, not to building new roads). When the Toronto Board of Trade suggests that we need to at least look at road pricing in their thoughtful The Move Ahead: Funding “The Big Move” that says a lot!
Email This Post
Price on Roads will make things worse. Most of the drivers, including those who drive for living, have to drive. If you charge on driving on 401, drivers either have to pay or take an alternative route. First, this will not reduce the number of drivers. Second, it makes the other roads driving condition worse. In addition, toll collection companies have to send mails to collect money or use devices, all of which are not environmentally friendly. Drivers have to mail cheques or drive to bank to pay the charge, which is not environmentally friendly either.
Just my personal thought.
Mike
[Reply]
Currently Roads use up 52% of Ontario’s aggregates. With increasing traffic and increased encroachment of roads onto our remaining green spaces, taxpayers can expect to see more and more externalized costs by way of the illness costs of smog, road salt damages to waterways and related water treatment costs, increased taxes for road maintenance etc. At what point is enough enough? What is the Ontario threshold for impervious surfaces and road salts? How much gravel can be safely extracted before we see major water budget losses in municipal water supplies? The truth is, aggregates = water supplies. Aggregates in place control flow, flow rates, water quality and water temperature. If we pave it over or dig up our gravel constantly, we’ll have to pay the price to maintain the natural function of these aggregates down the road or suffer floods, droughts etc. Right now all those costs are externalized on all taxpayers. It’s time to give the bill to the folks who are actually driving or to the developers who are building the projects that require more roads.
[Reply]
[...] “Traffic gridlock in our cities is only going to get worse if we stick to the current way of moving people and goods around. Based on these facts, we have basically two choices: 1) accept more traffic and greater gridlock as inevitable; or, 2) DO something about it by pricing the commodity. We will have no choice but to price this limited resource (our road capacity) and the downtown parking that supports (encourages?) its overuse. Click to read more …“ [...]
It’s a bizarre thing when the cost of downtown parking is a factor of the problem. The problem is the whole ‘live far from work’ thing. We’ve segregated employment and residences far too much. We need to spread out the employment throughout the GTA and make it transit-friendly. Put building entrances where buses can get to them. The whole airport area is a disaster from a transit point of view and it is a major employment center. Other places like Victoria Park and Sheppard. Scarborough Town Centre area. There need to be more residences within walking or cycling distance of these centres. Address these and other areas of inefficiency systematically and I’m sure we’ll see improvement.
[Reply]
Road pricing will fail to reduce congestion and reduce emissions, just like fuel taxes and other schemes for a simple reason: there is currently no viable alternative to driving a car for most Canadians. If you want to charge fees for driving alone in a vehicle and your intention is change the behaviour, you must provide an alternative. Have you ever tried to take public transit from let’s say Brampton to Burlington, or Oakville to Malton? Carpooling is also not an option for many people, as it is not always that simple to find another person with similar driving patterns and schedule. Unfortunately, public transportation infrastructure lacks way behind other developed, and even many developing countries. Moving closer to the place of work is usually only a temporary fix, as we and our spouses tend to change jobs and careers more frequently. The single-occupancy vehicle charge than becomes just another money grab impacting mostly middle class families again. Why not provide incentives for companies for providing employment mostly in areas easily accessible by public transit and discourage those who are moving to cheap lands in industrial areas, e.g. moving from downtown core with easy access by GO Transit and TTC and setting up new offices in the middle of nowhere, unloading costs to employees who now need additional cars, driven mostly single-handedly. Additionally, there is major difference in carbon emissions between driving alone in a SmartCar and commuting in a pick up truck or seven-passenger van. How about incentives for buyers and manufacturers of environmentally friendlier cars? It seems we always pick the simplest option – charge middle class families yet another fee!
[Reply]