TransLink Proposes Tolls on All Metro bridges & New Vehicle Levy

[Vonny]

purpose of tolling bridge like Knight bridge should not be for financing it, but to put in place a sound economic principle of management of limited resource management (road space) which is known as demand management:

this sound practice is what allow you to travel for $200 to Europe in the middle of October, when it will cost you $1500 on Christmas break.
This sound practice is what allow you to call for free GrandMa on night or WE while it cost you an arm and a leg during business day...

everyone is paying to cross a Vancouver bridge in peak hour, if not by money directly, it is by time (like now),...and time is money...

even if I don't use the bridge, I am waiting the delivery truck. (or bus)..stuck in congestion: it cost me half day of work, (or a missing connection for the bus) to wait for him, someone has to pay the driver stuck in the traffic...
(in the case of translink driver, it is the taxpayer, because it doesn't want toll the bridge!)
we pay all this in poor economic productivity, and tax your hydro bill will not improve it,
what will improve it is to get rid of the non economically contributive traffic=the one not willing to pay the toll.

you still believe, you can build (with taxpayer money?) your way out of congestion = look at Los Angeles

Which country is the most competitive nowadays= Switzerland

[deasine]

Originally Posted by Vonny

purpose of tolling bridge like Knight bridge should not be for financing it, but to put in place a sound economic principle of management of limited resource management (road space) which is known as demand management:

this sound practice is what allow you to travel for $200 to Europe in the middle of October, when it will cost you $1500 on Christmas break.
This sound practice is what allow you to call for free GrandMa on night or WE while it cost you an arm and a leg during business day...

everyone is paying to cross a Vancouver bridge in peak hour, if not by money directly, it is by time (like now),...and time is money...

even if I don't use the bridge, I am waiting the delivery truck. (or bus)..stuck in congestion: it cost me half day of work, (or a missing connection for the bus) to wait for him, someone has to pay the driver stuck in the traffic...
(in the case of translink driver, it is the taxpayer, because it doesn't want toll the bridge!)
we pay all this in poor economic productivity, and tax your hydro bill will not improve it,
what will improve it is to get rid of the non economically contributive traffic=the one not willing to pay the toll.

you still believe, you can build (with taxpayer money?) your way out of congestion = look at Los Angeles

Which country is the most competitive nowadays= Switzerland

That's not the main reason why we are tolling right now: we are tolling because TransLink doesn't have enough money to stay afloat.

[Vonny]

Originally Posted by deasine

That's not the main reason why we are tolling right now: we are tolling because TransLink doesn't have enough money to stay afloat.

...and one of the reason (if not the main) is lost of productivity due to congestion

but less bus on the road means less alternative for people so more congestion...
more expensive fare to make the shortfall, means less attractive transit...so more congestion.


so at some point a certain level of service and fare affordability need to be granted to keep congestion in control... (which serve the motorists)


...and this require public money, so question is which source of public money is the best candidate able also to minimize the problem (congestion):
levy on hydro, toll, other taxes?

my point is that congestion take a toll on productivity, and someone has to feet the bill one way or another (see http://voony.wordpress.com/ ). which way is the most efficient and the fairer for tax payer?

[deasine]

Originally Posted by Vonny

...and one of the reason (if not the main) is lost of productivity due to congestion

but less bus on the road means less alternative for people so more congestion...
more expensive fare to make the shortfall, means less attractive transit...so more congestion.


so at some point a certain level of service and fare affordability need to be granted to keep congestion in control... (which serve the motorists)


...and this require public money, so question is which source of public money is the best candidate able also to minimize the problem (congestion):
levy on hydro, toll, other taxes?

my point is that congestion take a toll on productivity, and someone has to feet the bill one way or another (see http://voony.wordpress.com/ ). which way is the most efficient and the fairer for tax payer?

Tolling doesn't reduce the number of vehicles on the road: if we go back onto your London Congestion Charge on your wordpress post, they wanted to reduce congestion on the roads by placing the tolls, but the cars still come back.

Congestion on the Knight Street bridge is resulted by the poor interchanges throughout the entire corridor. Yes, there a lot of cars, but the merging lanes are quite short as well. Going southbound at peak hours, vehicles slow down at Bridgeport, but then speed up once past the last merging lane on the bridge deck.

Like I said, I'm fine with tolls but there has to be enough transit and cycling infrastructure.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by deasine

Like I said, I'm fine with tolls but there has to be enough transit and cycling infrastructure.

Which creates the chicken and egg scenerio

I'll pay for tolls or higher property tax or gas tax or levy etc. if there is enough transit.

But we can't get better transit until we have more revenue.
And on and on and on it goes.

Tolls by themselves don't reduce congestion they never have and never will. But they do provide a steady stream of revenue. They can depending on the circumstance make someone think twice before crossing that tolled bridge. Do they really need to go over to some other city to go shopping etc.

[Spork]

So we essentially need to create a scenario that transit is subsidized to a point that it can build access and ridership, while simultaneously increasing available funds for self-sufficient expansion. Unfortunately, due to the vast suburban nature of the majority of the Lower Mainland, I don't think that we will ever reach such a point. Overall, I think that the ultimate solution is vastly superior regional planning that takes into account municipalities that are now within commuting distance to the Lower Mainland (e.g. Abbotsford, Chilliwack, Mission).

[Vonny]

Originally Posted by deasine

Tolling doesn't reduce the number of vehicles on the road: if we go back onto your London Congestion Charge on your wordpress post, they wanted to reduce congestion on the roads by placing the tolls, but the cars still come back.
...

... Is it disinformation or misinformation?

May you back this assertion?

My humble observation of London traffic from before and after the charge rejoins a vast amount of study like
http://www.jstor.org/pss/30033688 or http://pwm.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/9/2/164 for disagreeing with you

and should I note it has been so successfull that the toll revenue was well below expectation?

Like I said, I'm fine with tolls but there has to be enough transit and cycling infrastructure.

agree with the other poster: it is a chicken and egg problem
and honestly the transit offer is now pretty good to cross the Fraser since September 7th...little thing could be improved in the short term, unless demand is there.

[Vonny]

Originally Posted by cabotp

Which creates the chicken and egg scenerio

I'll pay for tolls or higher property tax or gas tax or levy etc. if there is enough transit.

But we can't get better transit until we have more revenue.
And on and on and on it goes.

agree

Tolls by themselves don't reduce congestion they never have and never will. But they do provide a steady stream of revenue. They can depending on the circumstance make someone think twice before crossing that tolled bridge. Do they really need to go over to some other city to go shopping etc.

I source again like
http://www.jstor.org/pss/30033688 or http://pwm.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/9/2/164 to ground disagreement with it. sure it is all a question of toll level...

sometimes, like in the case of the 407 ETR in Toronto, it can be pretty high, to grant congestion free travelling.

sure at some point, if revenue stream become high, it becomes a pretty good investment opportunity for private sector to invest in additional transportation link (without taxpayer money), and that is eventually the goal.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by Vonny

... Is it disinformation or misinformation?

Rush-hour is slower than before C-charge

Pippa Crerar, Political Correspondent
06.11.07

Traffic in the morning rush hour is now slower than before Ken Livingstone brought in the congestion charge.

Transport for London figures also show that journey times during the day and evening peak in central London have increased, after initially falling.
Motorists across the capital will be concerned by the revelation, as the Mayor pledged that congestion charging would increase traffic speeds.
Until now, Mr Livingstone has been able to claim that the £8 levy had cut the jams and made journeys quicker.

But the latest figures show the average speed for driving to work in 2006-7 was 9.3mph, down from 9.9mph before the scheme began in 2003.
A dedicated TfL vehicle, fitted with equipment to measure distances and journey times, travelled along 7,000 routes in Greater London to work out the average speed at different times of day, including the morning rush hour. The slowdown is thought to be caused in part by extra traffic entering the central zone since the west London extension in February. More drivers are now entitled to claim the 90 per cent residents' discount to drive inside the zone and many are making the most of the 80p rate.

Meanwhile, new bus lanes and schemes such as pavement widening have squeezed available road space and there has been a rise in the number of green vehicles exempt from the charge. Motoring experts have warned that the congestion could worsen if Mr Livingstone brings in exemptions for band A and B vehicles including Ford Fiestas, Nissan Micras and Volkswagen Polos.
A spokesman for London First, which represents big business in the capital, said: "The original congestion charge was a bold move by the Mayor. Although it was never universally popular, the Mayor could always point to its main achievement - it reduced congestion and increased traffic speeds.
"These latest figures show that TfL's failure to co-ordinate roadworks and the negative impact of the western extension 'buy-one-zone-get-one-free' incentives have set speeds back to 2002 levels."

TfL claimed that congestion charging had reduced traffic in the original charging zone by 21 per cent - some 70,000 cars every day - but did not deny the average traffic speed figures, blaming the fall on roadworks. " Without the congestion charge, London would have ground to a halt by now," a spokesman said.

"However, last year we saw a near doubling of streetworks taking up the road space. Much of this work is urgently required - such as replacing leaking, Victorian water pipes. Transport for London has very limited powers to ensure that roadworks are co-ordinated so as to minimise their impact on traffic flow.

"Other major world cities invested heavily in public transport for decades, while London was starved. That is why strong measures such as congestion charging have been necessary. There are no short cuts as massive investment is required, but we have made real progress, and the benefits of congestion charging in London remain clear."

Geoff Pope, Lib-Dem transport spokesman on the London Assembly, said: "Congestion charging is a clunky system based on old technology. What we need is a modern solution using tag and beacon technology, which can vary the charge to reduce congestion at peak times.

"Local action on traffic hot spots is the way forward, not hiking up the charge, which will only hit public sector workers and small businesses."

Source: London Evening Standard

The road improvements weren't the main deter really... because they were minor projects (mainly to improve roads for buses). Yes, there's a drop of cars initially, but slowly grows back.

I would like to remind you that London actually has decent transportation entering/exiting and within the congestion charge zone. It's not fair to toll people when the other options aren't up to par. When the London Congestion Charge was implemented, there was a further improvement to other alternatives to driving to be able to take people onto those systems.

To me, Oak Street bridge could be a bridge to toll because the Canada Line is essentially serving for that purpose. Am I against of a toll into downtown? Depending on how its implemented because our city centre transit is excellent (though it can be better). Am I against of tolling a new bridge? No, because it's new infrastructure.

[Vonny]

Originally Posted by deasine

Source: London Evening Standard

The road improvements weren't the main deter really... because they were minor projects (mainly to improve roads for buses). Yes, there's a drop of cars initially, but slowly grows back.

I would like to remind you that London actually has decent transportation entering/exiting and within the congestion charge zone. It's not fair to toll people when the other options aren't up to par. When the London Congestion Charge was implemented, there was a further improvement to other alternatives to driving to be able to take people onto those systems.

To me, Oak Street bridge could be a bridge to toll because the Canada Line is essentially serving for that purpose. Am I against of a toll into downtown? Depending on how its implemented because our city centre transit is excellent (though it can be better). Am I against of tolling a new bridge? No, because it's new infrastructure.

Thanks for the link:

juste a couple of note:

when road system is near capacity, even minor roadwork can have significant effect on congestion: today on Main at kingsway it was minor someroad work still generating some relatively considerable traffic jams along Main up to 16th, and we were on saturday...

Also:
just from http://www.jstor.org/pss/30033688 I quote an average speed of 8.6mph in central London in 2002. the newspaper talk about average speed to go to work of 9.9mph before 2003. Not sure what it's means...


to be sure, the various non-capped exemption and lack of flexibility in pricing of the toll, end fatally to meet some congestion at some point, but bottom line they have to go back 7 years ago to meet figure like it:

in 7 years, prices have increased by 50%, but congestion charge has stay at the same level I think, so become relatively cheaper.

regarding quality of transit infrastructure, everything is relative:
London could be depicted as offering very poor public transit and insanely expensive (in addition to offering the most dangerous rail system of Europe if not western world) by most continental European...

Vancouver transit system let most of the american cities in the dust when come public transit (New York and Chicago are possibly the only exceptions).

[deasine]

Originally Posted by Vonny

regarding quality of transit infrastructure, everything is relative:
London could be depicted as offering very poor public transit and insanely expensive (in addition to offering the most dangerous rail system of Europe if not western world) by most continental European...

"Price" is debatable because of the fare structure, but yes, I agree that London, generally, is more expensive. But they are paying for decent transit. And since everything is relative, driving in London is also more expensive than driving in Vancouver. So transit isn't really that expensive after you consider all your options.