Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainguy
Avoiding the toll actually costs more in gas and time than paying the toll. Stop and go traffic/idling with traffic lights easily can burn through $3.15. I tried it and went back to the PMB quickly. I just wasted time and spent more in gas than the toll.
|
Agree on avoiding PMB toll costs more in gasoline usage as well time esp. when, on top of that, the driver costs associated with the old PMB. Again with the GEB, which replaced the old Barnston Isle Ferry. Both highly superior replacements.
Tolling was an effective capital cost-recovery tool to accelerate $mega bridge infrastructure projects. Tolling also is effective in terms of TDM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainguy
I don't think that many people were stupid enough to think they were saving money by avoiding the toll. I don't see much change once the toll is removed.
|
Disagree here. When the PMB first opened circa 2013, they utilized an introductory toll rate of $1.50 before they upped same to $3.00. The difference, year over year, in terms of traffic volume drops:
Comparative PMB 2014 monthly traffic volume v. 2013, for example:
Jan. -3,000
Feb. -6,600
Mar. -5,800
Apr. -5,000
Quite obvious that traffic diverted from the PMB with the toll rate increase from $1.50 to $3 each way. Also well known that considerable vehicle/commercial traffic has diverted to the Pattullo Bridge and, perhaps to a lesser extent, the AFB as a result of the now $3.15 PMB toll.
In that vein, Van Sun's Vaughn Palmer wrote a great article back in October on this specific topic:
Quote:
After two years of studying the options for tolling the new tunnel under Seattle, an advisory committee has reached a conclusion of more than passing interest to folks paying $3 tolls in Metro Vancouver.
The $3 rate is self-defeating, the committee concluded, because it prompts too many drivers to choose other routes, increasing congestion and reducing the number of paying customers.
Instead, the committee has pretty much settled on a discount price range of $1 (most times within a 24-hour period) to $1.25 (peak travel times only) as “the best balance between revenue generation and minimizing diversion.”
“Optimizing toll rates resulted in minimizing diversion or keeping more cars in the tunnel,” the committee stated in a presentation delivered late last month. “Tolling more time periods resulted in additional revenue.”
Though not the final recommendation — that will be determined next month — the low-budget scenario was the most promising of seven tolling regimes explored by the committee since it was appointed to study tolling on the Alaskan Way Replacement Project in the fall of 2011.
The process took two years because in appointing the committee, the city of Seattle and the state Department of Transportation assigned the 15 members to strike a genuine balancing act.
They were required to set the tolls at a level that would help pay a designated share of the project costs, plus for interest, maintenance, operations and the cost of collecting the tolls.
But they were also required to tackle the problem of traffic diversion. The city did not went toll-dodgers moving onto already congested streets, further snarling traffic and delaying transit services.
Not long into the process, committee members began to discover that the initial tolling scenarios were far too optimistic. The state at one point thought it could raise as much $400 million through tolls, which would have necessitated a levy in the $5 to $6 range, triggering massive diversions onto city streets.
Soon the revenue target was scaled down and the committee began to experiment with less ambitious scenarios, looking at staggered rates throughout the day, premiums at rush hour and a sliding scale for weekends.
The run-throughs by committee staff indicated that some drivers would divert even if the tolls were cut to 50 cents. But eventually the committee came up with the aforementioned scenario, with a flat $1 rate round the clock and a 25-per-cent premium (25 cents) during the morning and evening rush hours.
Some drivers would still escape to city streets. But the diversions were nothing like the 40 per cent of traffic that emerged from the $3 tolling scenario. And the impact could be mitigated with traffic control measures, improved passage for transit and the like.
The financing worked better too, as Mike Lindblom, transportation reporter for the Seattle Times, reported recently. After paying off the overhead, maintenance and operating costs, there would still be enough left over from the tolls to cover a $200-million contribution to the $3.3-billion project.
By comparison, the B.C. Liberals set the $3 toll on the Port Mann crossing years before the project’s completion, via a public consultation that was dubious at best.
Moreover, neither the province nor TransLink, which imposed the $3 toll on the Golden Ears Bridge, would appear to have given much thought to the problem that the Washington state committee wrestled with for two years — namely, those self-defeating traffic diversions onto side streets and alternative crossings.
|
http://www.vancouversun.com/opinion/...794/story.html
Traffic volumes (AWDT) for the PMB for the month of July, 2017 was 130,000 up from 111,800 back in July, 2015 - 2 years ago. I expect AWDT to substantially increase, year over year, for the month of September, 2017 and increase thereafter at a faster growing rate.
Look. I have always advocated on this site that the $3.15 rate was way too much - the original $1.50 toll should have stood - better yet $1.50 for designated rush hour times and perhaps $1 - $1.25 outside peak hours.
The TIC model was to be self-supporting but obviously was too ambitious - a hybrid partial cost-recovery toll + partial gov't debt servicing cost model would have been more apropos IMHO.
During the 2017 BC election, the BC Libs proposed a $500 annual tolling cap compared to the average $1,500 per annum cost for regular users - would equate to about $1 per crossing. Later that afternoon BC NDP strategists were so worried about the electoral impact of same in Tri-City/Surrey marginal ridings that they one-upped the Libs and promised "no tolls".
That was the likely tipping point that won the BC NDP the 2017 election in those ridings- even Global BC's Keith Baldrey suggests same. It was all about "politics" - not public policy, financial sustainability, future bridge/highway combo development, etc.
This situation has now dug Translink into an even deeper financial hole as well - $50 million in annual revenue from the GEB - gone. Proposed Translink toll funding model for new Pattullo Bridge - gone.
And frankly, as a result of the negative political implications of PMB/GEB toll removal, moving forward, all future tolling or even road pricing proposals will be a non-starter - will be political suicide for anyone advocating same. I even suspect that the majority of Metro Vancouverites would take their proverbial flaming torches & pitchforks to any politician advocating road pricing in light of the foregoing - esp. when they understand same/personal implications. BTW, Metro Van residents already pay the 2nd highest gasoline taxes in North America - ~50 cents/litre.
Prev
Linear Mode
