Mobility Pricing

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by mezzanine

You also forgot to mention the cost over-runs, the ~ 5 year construction delay, construction problems and the multiple lawsuits regarding the construction. How much can 43 billion CZC buy you? it looks like a canada line and $300 mill CAD in change.

That's about C$2.5b, so it'd get you about 2/3rds of a Massey Tunnel replacement.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by WBC

I would be very, very surprised if that happens. In all likelihood all this is going to amount to is some sort of additional charge or levy on existing infrastructure. Then come next provincial election the opposition (whoever that is) will promise to free us from evil road pricing charges and out of control mayors - see photo radar...see tolling on Port Man...Then they will win the said election...rinse and repeat...

Nah, Photo Radar is not coming back. Ever. It was a cash grab, and just made people who saw pulled-over vans cause accidents and distracted driving from rubbernecking.

Cash grabs always promise something on safety merits, and then someone decides to turn it into a business by raising the threshold until people start protesting.

That's the potential problem with mobility pricing. Since your commute is no longer a guaranteed a fixed cost, people will be wishing for tolls.

As for how to implement it. Tell ICBC to have mandatory canbus insurance tools plugged into the car that track GPS, heading, speed at the minimum, reduced insurance rates for those who get the full dashcam-integration.

For people who live outside Metro Vancouver, and outside of BC, use Plate scanning at the borders of Metro Vancouver to track when vehicles enter and leave, if a vehicle leaves the Fraser Valley via Hope, track it as "Exited East" or "Entered West" and stop/start the clock on Mobility pricing. If they cross the border southbound, enter northbound, same thing.

Then allow the WA DMV to collect on those Mobility costs should they decide to roll out their own system.

I would not be surprised if high end vehicles start coming with the mobility pricing data blackbox as part of the entertainment system. They like to show you how much fuel you are using, it wouldn't be a stretch to show you the mobility costs either.

[GlassCity]

I have a hard time accepting any funding proposals that seek to change when or where you travel, whether that be auto mobility pricing or transit fares. Having to be constantly conscious of these things is such a psychological drag and a huge barrier to true travel freedom. Making people plan their days out based on how much they'll have to pay to go to different places at different times is downright oppressive. I don't mind additional driving taxes, but as per the car2go example, it's exhausting to watch that meter tick away. I wonder if a vehicle levy would be sufficient?

Sigh, that stupid referendum. The sales tax was perfect.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I have a hard time accepting any funding proposals that seek to change when or where you travel, whether that be auto mobility pricing or transit fares. Having to be constantly conscious of these things is such a psychological drag and a huge barrier to true travel freedom. Making people plan their days out based on how much they'll have to pay to go to different places at different times is downright oppressive. I don't mind additional driving taxes, but as per the car2go example, it's exhausting to watch that meter tick away.

As the person who posted the Car2Go example, I hear you loud and clear. But the primary objective of mobility pricing isn't to raise money, it's to cause the kinds of behavioural changes that will reduce congestion. And of course you can't do that without at least some psychological pain. If the goal is achieved then the benefit will be to lessen the psychological pain of having to sit and fume in traffic jams so often. You win some and you lose some.

I'm sure that's not the best tradeoff for some people. Unfortunately our beautiful city is attracting so many people that there are simply no great options that will please everyone.

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I have a hard time accepting any funding proposals that seek to change when or where you travel, whether that be auto mobility pricing or transit fares. Having to be constantly conscious of these things is such a psychological drag and a huge barrier to true travel freedom. Making people plan their days out based on how much they'll have to pay to go to different places at different times is downright oppressive. I don't mind additional driving taxes, but as per the car2go example, it's exhausting to watch that meter tick away. I wonder if a vehicle levy would be sufficient?

Sigh, that stupid referendum. The sales tax was perfect.

I can understand where you're coming from and I think it's important that any pricing system try to make it clear that it's about having people pay the true cost of what they are using instead of trying to play favourites.

Currently, private vehicles do not pay at a level that is proportional to the damage they do to our roads and environment. The case is even stronger for freight vehicles. (One could also make the case that transit is greatly subsidized, however, one could conversely argue there is a significant 'social good' component to it as well.)

The pricing should be done in a way that reflects these costs so that people can then choose freely how to behave. In the status quo, I would argue that the current incentives bias people towards driving. A good mobility pricing system can correct this bias.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by mezzanine

Not sure if this is a valid comparison to vancouver as it seems like the main purpose of building the blanka tunnel complex was to divert thru traffic away from the historic city centre.

You also forgot to mention the cost over-runs, the ~ 5 year construction delay, construction problems and the multiple lawsuits regarding the construction. How much can 43 billion CZC buy you? it looks like a canada line and $300 mill CAD in change.

Doesn't seem to be tolled, not yet anyway. Drive it while you can, but make sure you get your road-pricing vignette for the other czech highways...

The same year 2015 a 4 station metro extension was completely in the same part of the city for 20 billion CZK. Cost overruns happen with large projects and same woth lawsuits. The project is a success and within the next decade another 15km or so of tunnels will be built on the east side to complete the inner ring road. The next metro extension which starts construction in 2019 is 10k for 50 billion CZK for 10 stations.

Infrustructure continues to be built of all kinds and people are given options unlike the cluster fuck they are creating in Vancouver, a increasingly unlovable region that is grinding to halt because of shitty planners special interest groups who think they know better then individuals. It's like communism all over again. A disaster.

As for vingets they are cheap for the state highways and their main purpose is to capture revenue from cross eu traffic. The cost of them is insignificant and is not mobility pricing.

And of course mobility pricing schemes are out of the question, their idiotic inefficient and attack privacy rights, something people there take very seriously.

Yes you can build your self out of congestion, and yes you need to build all infrusturure and give people options. It's too bad their destroying Vancouver and making a once fantastic part of the world anything but and now they want to discuss mobility pricing to tax people even more for the pleasure to try and survive in the gridlocked cluster fuck they created and continue to make worse?

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

Currently, private vehicles do not pay at a level that is proportional to the damage they do to our roads and environment. The case is even stronger for freight vehicles. (One could also make the case that transit is greatly subsidized, however, one could conversely argue there is a significant 'social good' component to it as well.)

Hawaii has an annual weight tax. Each county is free to add their own weight tax as well. That's a good one for "punishing" heavier vehicles that cause more damage to roads, but doesn't differentiate between an electric vehicle, a hybrid, or a regular ICE car.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

As the person who posted the Car2Go example, I hear you loud and clear. But the primary objective of mobility pricing isn't to raise money, it's to cause the kinds of behavioural changes that will reduce congestion. And of course you can't do that without at least some psychological pain. If the goal is achieved then the benefit will be to lessen the psychological pain of having to sit and fume in traffic jams so often. You win some and you lose some.

I'm sure that's not the best tradeoff for some people. Unfortunately our beautiful city is attracting so many people that there are simply no great options that will please everyone.

AKA social engineering.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by whatnext

AKA social engineering.

Yep, exactly the same as so much of the income tax code.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Sure, you just build your way out of congestion. That'll work.

It does if you don't JUST build roads. We've been talking about a subway down broadway for a decade, and I doubt any transit in Surrey will start construction until the 2020s. We talk for decades when we should just be building.

And when we do plan on building people flip. Look at the George massey Bridge which is likely dead with the new government coming into place. People on this forums were all crazy about it being 10 lanes. It is in effect 3 lanes every rush hour and the traffic backs up 5+km in either direction. So then people are like "8 lanes is enough".

That's 1 extra lane in a bridge that is supposed to survive 30+ years on a crossing already at maximum capacity. That's our issue.

HWY1 should have been widened by 3 lanes. There should be dedicated lanes between interchanges so that there is no forced merge. Broadway subway should already be 50% complete and under construction. Surrey/Langley should have SkyTrain piles being driven into the ground along Fraser Hwy. The new B-Lines should already be in place. The 6 lane Patullo (not 4) should be starting construction already. List goes on.

The problem is Metro Vancouver has the infrastructure to support 1.5 million people yet we have 2.5 million. Everything on the books for the next decade will just allow us to meet the capacity for 2-2.5 million people but in 10 years we'll be 2.7-2.8 million and already be over capacity.

And now we have an NDP/Green government which is going to put us behind again as they "re-evaluate everything and anything the Liberals planned even if it makes 100% sense and they agree with it."

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

I can understand where you're coming from and I think it's important that any pricing system try to make it clear that it's about having people pay the true cost of what they are using instead of trying to play favourites.

Currently, private vehicles do not pay at a level that is proportional to the damage they do to our roads and environment. The case is even stronger for freight vehicles. (One could also make the case that transit is greatly subsidized, however, one could conversely argue there is a significant 'social good' component to it as well.)

The pricing should be done in a way that reflects these costs so that people can then choose freely how to behave. In the status quo, I would argue that the current incentives bias people towards driving. A good mobility pricing system can correct this bias.

Since you did your thesis on this you're obviously in the know. Can you explain (unless you already have then point to the page) how mobility pricing if it is aimed at shifting commutes rather than making money, can hope to actually combat congestion long-term (talking 10-20 years) in a region that is rapidly growing both up and out?

I've always wondered about these ideas about reducing congestion with little to no net fund increases given it is just simple math and physics that if population increases so needs infrastructure to and given the large length of time it takes to build major infrastructure, if you wait for the people to come you're always behind the 8 ball.

Aka how Metro-Vancouver is today where we're trying to catch up and never will since they aren't building roads or transit to even meet today's population demands.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by jhausner

The problem is Metro Vancouver has the infrastructure to support 1.5 million people yet we have 2.5 million.

This isn't a problem unique to Vancouver - it's pretty much universal. It's politically unwise for governments to spend money on things that people don't think are needed - so the situation always ends up getting pretty obviously bad before the purse strings are loosened.

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Since you did your thesis on this you're obviously in the know. Can you explain (unless you already have then point to the page) how mobility pricing if it is aimed at shifting commutes rather than making money, can hope to actually combat congestion long-term (talking 10-20 years) in a region that is rapidly growing both up and out?

I've always wondered about these ideas about reducing congestion with little to no net fund increases given it is just simple math and physics that if population increases so needs infrastructure to and given the large length of time it takes to build major infrastructure, if you wait for the people to come you're always behind the 8 ball.

Aka how Metro-Vancouver is today where we're trying to catch up and never will since they aren't building roads or transit to even meet today's population demands.

Good question. The big problem with congestion is not a lack of infrastructure, it's that you have too many people trying to use the same infrastructure at the same time. The same roads that are crowded during rush hour are often far below capacity during the middle of the day or in the evenings.

In fact, it doesn't take much of reduction in demand to turn a gridlocked street into a free-flowing one. In Stockholm, when they implemented their congestion pricing scheme which varies charges throughout the day (more expensive during rush hour), they found you only had to remove 20% of trips during rush hour to go from clogged streets to free-flowing.

In my research, what I also found fascinating was where that 20% went. 50% of this 20% went to public transit. Traffic didn't increase on other routes around the congestion charge and cycling and walking trips remained the same. So where did this other 50% go? In turns out that 50% just disappeared. Those trips were consolidated. For example, people who would drive and shop 4x a week would now do it twice a week.

What I learned from this is that vehicle traffic is incredible elastic - it can adjust in many ways, be it different routes, different modes, different times or different frequencies. This is why I think mobility pricing, especially one based on GPS, will be a great complement to the public transit improvements that are planned.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

What I learned from this is that vehicle traffic is incredible elastic - it can adjust in many ways, be it different routes, different modes, different times or different frequencies.

It's also why the threat of "carmaggedon" when roads are closed (permanently, or for construction) never really materializes - after an initial few days of learning, traffic adjusts it's way through the new road network.

The same happened with Vancouver's 2-month-long bus strike in 2002 - chaos was predicted, but people found ways to deal with it. I went from commuting via transit to carpooling with three other fellow transit riders.

The opposite is true too - when more capacity opens up people "come out of the woodwork" to use it. This is exactly why it's so difficult to "build your way out of congestion".

[Geof]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Can you explain . . . how mobility pricing if it is aimed at shifting commutes rather than making money, can hope to actually combat congestion long-term (talking 10-20 years) in a region that is rapidly growing both up and out?

I think this is asking the wrong question. What really matters is maximizing mobility. If more people can get where they want to go, then that is an economic and social benefit regardless of whether or not congestion improves or worsens.

I doubt there is anything we could do that would significantly reduce congestion in the long run. Correction: there are measures we could take that would certainly work, but that we would never take. If we limited the number of vehicles licensed in the province, for instance, I'm sure we could cut congestion. We don't: because those congested trips are valuable. Mobility is what matters. If road pricing distributes demand over the course of the day, congestion might well eventually worsen: yet it would still be a good thing if more people got where they needed to go.

That is not entirely a transportation issue. For me, the best, least congested trip is the trip I don't need to take. If I take fewer trips (e.g. because my destinations are close enough to walk), then overall traffic and congestion can get much worse: yet I spend less time in it, and my personal mobility improves. Brentwood's mixed development is, I hope, my personal solution to congestion.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

Good question. The big problem with congestion is not a lack of infrastructure, it's that you have too many people trying to use the same infrastructure at the same time. The same roads that are crowded during rush hour are often far below capacity during the middle of the day or in the evenings.

In fact, it doesn't take much of reduction in demand to turn a gridlocked street into a free-flowing one. In Stockholm, when they implemented their congestion pricing scheme which varies charges throughout the day (more expensive during rush hour), they found you only had to remove 20% of trips during rush hour to go from clogged streets to free-flowing.

In my research, what I also found fascinating was where that 20% went. 50% of this 20% went to public transit. Traffic didn't increase on other routes around the congestion charge and cycling and walking trips remained the same. So where did this other 50% go? In turns out that 50% just disappeared. Those trips were consolidated. For example, people who would drive and shop 4x a week would now do it twice a week.

What I learned from this is that vehicle traffic is incredible elastic - it can adjust in many ways, be it different routes, different modes, different times or different frequencies. This is why I think mobility pricing, especially one based on GPS, will be a great complement to the public transit improvements that are planned.

The congestion tax in Stockholm is only a charge to enter the central area, it is not mobility pricing. It also is only applied to a part of the 35 square km central area of Stockholm (not all of it). Also the infrastructure in the center is exceptional and people have options. Lastly Stockholm is one of the last cities to follow in today's world, it has its own issues. Regardless I don't see how this has anything to do with so called mobility pricing.

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

It's also why the threat of "carmaggedon" when roads are closed (permanently, or for construction) never really materializes - after an initial few days of learning, traffic adjusts it's way through the new road network.

The same happened with Vancouver's 2-month-long bus strike in 2002 - chaos was predicted, but people found ways to deal with it. I went from commuting via transit to carpooling with three other fellow transit riders.

The opposite is true too - when more capacity opens up people "come out of the woodwork" to use it. This is exactly why it's so difficult to "build your way out of congestion".

So you think the region is increasingly congested and getting un livable for what reason? And this trend is only just getting started. Things will get lot worse in our region, and it will get worse at a increasing rate. People find ways to deal with problems in order to survive. People find ways to deal with living in Mumbai too.

Again mobility pricing infringes on privacy rights. It is a tax on the working class. It is a tax that encourages individuals to make inefficient choices about their mobility. It is a ridiculous idea and people will revolt against it. Any referendum on this will fail and those who bring it forward will be punished. Regardless it is too late for Vancouver. Major infrastructure projects take a decade to go from a idea to reality. There is nothing even planned to improve the situation in Vancouver, and the city is so behind that in reality it would not be able to catch up this half of the century anyways. And we continue to voluntarily pump people in to the city.

Mobility pricing schemes and ideas are dead in the water as they should be.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by cornholio

...mobility pricing ... is a tax that encourages individuals to make inefficient choices about their mobility...

How is it inefficient, for example, to decide to combine several trips into one in order to reduce the cost of your trips? I would argue that by giving people an incentive to make their decisions based on the cost of travel, they would become more efficient, especially when a by-product is reduced congestion.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by cornholio

It is a tax on the working class.

That's a bit disingenuous - Vancouver's still got plenty of snooty upper class types who believe transit is for poor people and/or wouldn't dream of ditching their cars for anything.

It's a tax on everybody, like the gas tax or parking meters, and something like that beats the crap out of selective bridge tolls.

Originally Posted by cornholio

Any referendum on this will fail and those who bring it forward will be punished.

Yeah, every referendum in BC fails.

Originally Posted by cornholio

And we continue to voluntarily pump people in to the city.

Cities grow... that's not an opinion, that's a fact. We can either build a wall and make the Chinese pay for it, or we can accept that our roads will only fit so many people and plan accordingly.

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by cornholio

The congestion tax in Stockholm is only a charge to enter the central area, it is not mobility pricing. It also is only applied to a part of the 35 square km central area of Stockholm (not all of it). Also the infrastructure in the center is exceptional and people have options. Lastly Stockholm is one of the last cities to follow in today's world, it has its own issues. Regardless I don't see how this has anything to do with so called mobility pricing.



So you think the region is increasingly congested and getting un livable for what reason? And this trend is only just getting started. Things will get lot worse in our region, and it will get worse at a increasing rate. People find ways to deal with problems in order to survive. People find ways to deal with living in Mumbai too.

Again mobility pricing infringes on privacy rights. It is a tax on the working class. It is a tax that encourages individuals to make inefficient choices about their mobility. It is a ridiculous idea and people will revolt against it. Any referendum on this will fail and those who bring it forward will be punished. Regardless it is too late for Vancouver. Major infrastructure projects take a decade to go from a idea to reality. There is nothing even planned to improve the situation in Vancouver, and the city is so behind that in reality it would not be able to catch up this half of the century anyways. And we continue to voluntarily pump people in to the city.

Mobility pricing schemes and ideas are dead in the water as they should be.

I find it a bit of an oxymoron calling it mobility pricing. Major infrastructure projects like GEB, PMB, SFPR etc are built to improve mobility so trucks and people can get to where they need to go quicker. Now we want to charge people more when they choose to be mobile. I would prefer to call it a congestion tax or reduced mobility pricing. If the sole purpose is to reduce congestion, then those who can afford it will have more mobility options than whose who can't. Anytime you base mobility on $$$, then it becomes a form of class system, which we have always had in some form or another.

I do agree with encouraging people to combine trips and errands together but don't most people do this anyway considering the high cost of fuel?

The old PMB was a parking lot but now it is a god-send. Yeah the tolls are expensive but I just take it from money used for movies and restaurants but I am fine with those choices. Grid-lock is a huge pet peeve of mine and I am sure most everyone else.

[s211]

Originally Posted by cornholio

Mobility pricing schemes and ideas are dead in the water as they should be.

And yet I despair at Vision's spearheading of this initiative. Their bloody-mindedness alone on the issue confounds me just as much as their viaduct-hate.