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!
As the election date of Oct. 6th approaches the Ontario Secondary School Teachers Federation has released a deck of playing cards with the suits based on the four leading political parties in Ontario (the three in the House plus the Greens).  As one might expect, the Ace of each suit is the leader of the respective party, and the King through Jack some of the more prominent party members. The surprise for me as Environmental Commissioner is that the two Jokers in the deck are my colleague the Ombudsman, Andre Marin and myself.  To be honest I’m not quite sure what to make of that honour but I take it in good humour.