Mobility Pricing

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by libtard

Washington State (and probably many other states) has pay per mile insurance. How is this not on the table to be implemented in conjunction with mobility pricing?? Just absolutely ridiculous

Do you have a link to how that works in WA State? That's the first I've heard of it.

[libtard]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Do you have a link to how that works in WA State? That's the first I've heard of it.

It's called metromile

[GlassCity]

Another round of online engagement has been released:

https://its-time-en-2.ethelo.net/pro...ser/background

[ClaytonA]

From the Regional Transportation Strategy

https://www.translink.ca/en/site-info/document-library-result.aspx?id={C7D3E7FF-F0A6-40A8-8D88-18352F40B479}&ref={B1582E71-6741-49C4-A90D-322F4EC23B29}

...
Objective setting

•Road pricing needs to be based on clear objectives

•Monitoring and scheme adjustments are required to ensure ongoing success

Governance and legal powers

•A political champion is necessary to support a successful scheme

•A united voice amongst politicians and public figures is required

•Legal powers are required to establish a road pricing scheme and to support the daily implementation of a scheme

Public acceptability

•Engage the public throughout the planning and implementations process

•Trial periods are key for public support, feasibility and successful long term implementation

•Value must be evident to customers

•Introduce the schemes at the same time as wider transport improvements

Planning and project design

•Schemes need to be integrated with wider transport planning initiatives, and
transport alternatives must be available

•Conduct research into the local context in order to identify the most appropriate scheme for the city

•Project design considerations include: location of charging zone, approach to charging, pricing for vehicle types, social considerations, revenues, and phasing the implementation.

Technology

•There are several key types of technology, these vary across the different forms of road pricing scheme. The current technology available includes: automated number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras, dedicated short range communication (DSRC) and distant technology such as GPS

•Technology needs to be appropriate to the type of scheme and the context

•The cost effectiveness of these technologies varies

Payment, compliance and privacy

•Flexibility of payment options is needed

•Penalty measures are required to ensure public compliance
...

[libtard]

So mobility pricing is meant to curtail people's driving but they'll still be paying for car insurance that covers them to-and-from work? How is that even remotely fair??

[Spork]

Insurance pays for insurance. Mobility pricing pays for the roads.

[libtard]

Originally Posted by Spork

Insurance pays for insurance. Mobility pricing pays for the roads.

You're paying for unecessary coverage on a car that hypothetically you won't be driving during peak times aka to and from work because mobility pricing's purpose is to discourage people from driving. If you're going to implement distance based road pricing, implement distance based insurance

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by libtard

You're paying for unecessary coverage on a car that hypothetically you won't be driving during peak times aka to and from work because mobility pricing's purpose is to discourage people from driving. If you're going to implement distance based road pricing, implement distance based insurance

Geez, if mobility pricing causes you to stop driving to work, then change your coverage to "pleasure use only", duh!

Although I agree that distance based insurance is far more sensible than what we have now. Right now a single person with 2 cars pays twice as much insurance even though he can only drive one of them at a time.

[s211]

Originally Posted by ClaytonA

From the Regional Transportation Strategy

https://www.translink.ca/en/site-info/document-library-result.aspx?id={C7D3E7FF-F0A6-40A8-8D88-18352F40B479}&ref={B1582E71-6741-49C4-A90D-322F4EC23B29}

My Gawd. If there was any more pie in that sky, it would block out the sun.

"Political champion"?

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

at least they have the terms right. "schemes" because the word scheme is generally seen as having a negative connotation in modern usage. so that i agree with; the road pricing scheme is at the same level as a pyramid scheme.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by libtard

You're paying for unecessary coverage on a car that hypothetically you won't be driving during peak times aka to and from work because mobility pricing's purpose is to discourage people from driving. If you're going to implement distance based road pricing, implement distance based insurance

There is no difference on your insurrance whether you use it during peak or off peak. Someone going to work at 4am pays the same as someone going to work at 4pm.

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by cabotp

There is no difference on your insurrance whether you use it during peak or off peak. Someone going to work at 4am pays the same as someone going to work at 4pm.

Areas that are constantly congested should have toll cameras at the entrances and exits in the congested area. That way those that use the congested areas have an incentive to use alternate routes. The congestion would be reduced and those that can afford to pay, do. Just transfer all those PMB/GEB cameras to other areas. Works for me

[libtard]

Originally Posted by cabotp

There is no difference on your insurrance whether you use it during peak or off peak. Someone going to work at 4am pays the same as someone going to work at 4pm.

You're missing the point. Mobility pricing is used to discourage people from driving during peak times aka rush hour. If someone finds an alternative way of getting to work (majority of people that's 8-4 min-fri) on SOME days instead of driving, they are still paying for car insurance that covers them to/from work which is a waste of money

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by libtard

You're missing the point. Mobility pricing is used to discourage people from driving during peak times aka rush hour. If someone finds an alternative way of getting to work (majority of people that's 8-4 min-fri) on SOME days instead of driving, they are still paying for car insurance that covers them to/from work which is a waste of money

Yes, the way insurance is priced is only very, very loosely related to how much driving you do and in what kind of traffic it takes place. But that's an insurance issue, it has nothing to do with mobility pricing.

If anything, depending on how its implemented and what kind of data is collected, mobility pricing has the potential to rationalize insurance pricing to better align it with actual risk.

[libtard]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Yes, the way insurance is priced is only very, very loosely related to how much driving you do and in what kind of traffic it takes place. But that's an insurance issue, it has nothing to do with mobility pricing.

If anything, depending on how its implemented and what kind of data is collected, mobility pricing has the potential to rationalize insurance pricing to better align it with actual risk.

Yes it is an insurance issue, not a mobility pricing issue. That's a good excuse for why it shouldn't be implemented. Even though insurance is a government corporation and so is MoT. At the end of the day the publics needs are not being met. Mobility pricing is the perfect chance to implement distance based insurance and we already know it works if we just look to our neighbors south of us. Not sure why there's so much push back on this issue, are you against saving money and being more forward thinking?

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by libtard

Yes it is an insurance issue, not a mobility pricing issue. That's a good excuse for why it shouldn't be implemented. Even though insurance is a government corporation and so is MoT. At the end of the day the publics needs are not being met. Mobility pricing is the perfect chance to implement distance based insurance and we already know it works if we just look to our neighbors south of us. Not sure why there's so much push back on this issue, are you against saving money and being more forward thinking?

I think you're conflating two issues that should remain separate. Mobility pricing may enable distance-based insurance and it may not. Distance-based insurance can (and should) come about as a completely separate system. Mobility pricing need not be based solely on distance travelled, and trying to tie mobility pricing to distance-based insurance not only increases the complexity but also slows down implementation as we try to find a perfect solution that covers everything. Let's focus on mobility pricing here and not get distracted by distance-based insurance.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

Areas that are constantly congested should have toll cameras at the entrances and exits in the congested area. That way those that use the congested areas have an incentive to use alternate routes. The congestion would be reduced and those that can afford to pay, do. Just transfer all those PMB/GEB cameras to other areas. Works for me

I was talking about insurance. Not a toll camera on a congested area. I even said insurance in the sentence you quoted.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by libtard

You're missing the point. Mobility pricing is used to discourage people from driving during peak times aka rush hour. If someone finds an alternative way of getting to work (majority of people that's 8-4 min-fri) on SOME days instead of driving, they are still paying for car insurance that covers them to/from work which is a waste of money

I get what you are saying. I'm just saying that even right now without mobility pricing someone is wasting money on insurance.

Bringing in mobility pricing won't make people change when they work. Because most people have no control over that. But what it can do is change how someone does commute or what route they commute over. So they would still be commuting during peak.

But yes at the end the day the system right now is not fair and the system that is thought up will not be fair, because nothing is fair.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by cabotp

Bringing in mobility pricing won't make people change when they work. Because most people have no control over that. But what it can do is change how someone does commute or what route they commute over. So they would still be commuting during peak.

It doesn't have to make most people change when they work, only a small fraction of them. There've been studies out of Boston that show that it only takes 5-10% of drivers to shift their commute by an hour either way to make a huge difference to peak congestion. That shift by a small number of people helps a huge number of people (themselves included, because the congestion is lower off-peak so they'd be on the road less, spending less time in their car, and probably using less gas).

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

It doesn't have to make most people change when they work, only a small fraction of them. There've been studies out of Boston that show that it only takes 5-10% of drivers to shift their commute by an hour either way to make a huge difference to peak congestion. That shift by a small number of people helps a huge number of people (themselves included, because the congestion is lower off-peak so they'd be on the road less, spending less time in their car, and probably using less gas).

I think you miss understood me, but that is ok.

Most people work for someone (ie a boss, company, manager, etc..) Now their boss determines when that employee works (ie what days and what times). The employee has no control as to when they commute, other than leaving early to maybe beat the the rush. Introducing mobility pricing or any kind won't change when that employee has to be at work.

However if someone is self employed or on contractor what have you. Then they would have control as to when they need to commute.

But yes I already understand that taking a small amount of vehicles off the road will make a big difference.