Congestion Pricing in Ottawa

[zzptichka]

There was a motion in council a few months ago to look at different options for congestion pricing in the city. So this report just came out and it's pretty interesting.

The Potential for Congestion Pricing Tools in the City of Ottawa

Summary:

The key objective of this report is to identify specific road pricing tools
that would help reduce traffic congestion and increase transit/LRT
ridership in Ottawa.

Four scenarios with congestion pricing or broader road pricing tools were
modelled for their impacts on peak hour travel demand: a toll on
Highways 417 and 174, a cordon charge to enter the central part of
Ottawa, a parking levy and an increase in the gas tax.

We find that the cordon charge would likely be most effective in
encouraging mode shift to transit (13% increase in transit ridership),
followed by the parking levy (8.5% increase) and then the toll (7%
increase).

The cordon charge would also likely be most effective in reducing peak
hour auto VKT, but would be costly to implement. A parking levy would
achieve some of the outcomes expected from a cordon charge, but would
be much less costly to implement. Therefore, a parking tax or levy is likely
to be the most appropriate congestion pricing tool for Ottawa when giving
primary consideration to reducing auto VKT and encouraging mode shift
from auto to transit.

[Acajack]

My initial reactions are the following:

- vehicular congestion in central Ottawa is not that serious a problem IMO; problems are more serious on cross-town routes and routes to and from suburban areas

- peak period transit modal share is already excellent for trips to and from the CBD

- that said, the city-wide transit offering is not yet awesome to the point that this charge will lead to a significant, natural modal shift

- high parking fees (at least for a city of Ottawa's size) already help dissuade people from driving into the core on workdays

- central Ottawa is attractive, but it does not have as much of an innate, "must-go" attractiveness that other cities with congestion charges usually have

- the interprovincial nature of the metro, and the fact that multiple direct entrance points to central Ottawa are right up against the border with the other province, will make this extremely complex to manage politically

[1overcosc]

I like these ideas but I think we're not quite at the point where we want to charge people driving downtown for leisure trips. For commuter trips, though, yes, throw on all the fees.

For a parking fee this is easy enough to do:
-For monthly parking fees, apply the tax
-For daily parking fees, apply the tax on weekdays, exempt it on weekends
-Evening flat rates exempt
-For hourly parking fees, apply the tax only from 6am to 6pm Monday to Friday, and waive the tax on stays that total less than 3 hours

For a cordon charge around the city centre, have the system keep track of both entry and exit from the tolled area, and if a vehicle enters but then exits within 3 hours, no toll is charged. In addition to avoiding impact on leisure trips, this also prevents people from being charged for just passing through, avoiding interprovincial issues that Acajack alluded to.

Yes, downtown streets flow well enough even at peak. However, with reduced commuter demand from these fees we could further narrow streets to achieve other urban objectives. Streets like Metcalfe, Kent, etc. could get bikeways like O'Connor did, more roads could have lanes taken out for expanded sidewalks (like we're planning on Elgin), and other goodies.

As for use of the revenues, the ideal option is to use them to pay for these road narrowing projects, or for increased transit subsidies, but the best way to sell it to the public would be use the revenue to reduce the property tax increase in the same year it comes into effect.

[lrt's friend]

Without a place to park on the LRT line away from downtown, all this does is discourage people from going downtown.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Without a place to park on the LRT line away from downtown, all this does is discourage people from going downtown.

I don't really see a lack of park and ride capacity along the LRT being an issue, more the poor quality of bus connections in much of the city being the issue.

In any case, that's why I proposed special rules to ensure congestion pricing systems are targeted to hit only commuters.

[Aylmer]

I think that we would do well to implement something like this. As some have pointed out, traffic is not horrible in Ottawa yet, but once we put the infrastructure for a cordon in place, we will have a powerful tool to ensure that we keep it from getting horrible. Göteborg, with a population similar to Ottawa's, put such a system in place in 2013 and has helped the city smooth out congestion peaks, improve air quality and raise some $150M of yearly revenue for road, transit and cycling projects.

The infrastructure itself was only about $25M, which was more that recovered within the first year of operation. The pay stations themselves are not that intrusive either (although the faster the road, the bigger it has to be).



Off-peak (midday and after 6pm as well as weekends), the charge falls to $0, meaning that it doesn't impact people heading downtown for shopping or activities (unless you're heading to H&M at 7h30 on a Monday ).

For drivers at the peak hour, it's only about $3.25, which is not much more than a bus ticket. But in exchange, they get faster and more reliable commutes, better roads and better alternatives.


If we look at it another way, is it worth a slower commute, poorer transit service and bad air quality to save $3-4?

[Aylmer]

A few years back, I doodled what a cordon might look like in Ottawa.
I had the line follow natural boundaries with limited crossings (rivers, highways and railways), which would limit the number of pay stations which would have to be installed and would avoid cutting neighbourhoods up.

I could imagine there being some exceptions or discounts:
- People heading in the counter-peak direction (ex: Downtown-Kanata)
- People transiting through without stopping downtown (ex: Queensway, A50-Queensway, etc.)

I think that this could reasonably be done here.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

A few years back, I doodled what a cordon might look like in Ottawa.

I like your map. It could be a challenge getting Gatineau on board, for a unified cordon. If so, the Ottawa River would be a natural boundary to the north, as there are only 4 bridges within the central zone.

I could imagine there being some exceptions or discounts:
- People heading in the counter-peak direction (ex: Downtown-Kanata)
- People transiting through without stopping downtown (ex: Queensway, A50-Queensway, etc.)

Why have exemptions for them? They are still contributing to the congestion in the central region (especially those travelling through without stopping as they are yet another car going into the city). Ottawa has decent contra-flow bus service to the main suburban employment regions. We also want to encourage people to live near where they work.

[Kitchissippi]

We should have just stopped widening the Queensway 30 years ago, voilà, billions saved up for a metro system The resulting time wasted in traffic would be the equivalent congestion charge which doesn't need an expensive system to collect.

[Aylmer]

I know you're being facetious, but it is worth pointing out that congestion pricing isn't a zero sum. When drivers pay $150M/y in tolls, we all get more than $150M in faster commutes, better transit, cleaner air and less economic waste.

Here's my back-of-the-napkin calculation for the direct cost of congestion (exl. things like health, pollution, macroeconomic effects, etc.).

[Average income in Ottawa]/[Average hours worked per year in Canada]*[Average hours spent in congestion in Ottawa per year]/[days worked in a year] = Direct cost of congestion drivers in Ottawa already pay

50k/1700h*80h/220 = $11 per day

Of course, this number is not very scientific. But it's meant to illustrate that we indeed already paying a 'congestion charge' of sorts. But not only is it more expensive, but the only thing we get for it is poor transit service, road congestion and bad air quality. But if we can take that hidden cost and make it more visible, people can (1) make smarter choices about how and when they get around, minimizing congestion and (2) we can better fund alternatives so that everyone gets around faster.

It's a market-based approach to congestion. And it's tremendously effective.

[zzptichka]

Pretty obvious that politicians will go for the option that causes the least backlash on their re-election campaign, and in this regard, parking levy knocks everything else out of the park.

If a suburban councilor comes out supporting a cordon charge or a road toll, that will probably put an end to their political career in this city.

Too bad, because cordon charge and road tolls are far more effective IMO in discouraging people to drive. If my parking spot or gas becomes a bit more expensive I'll probably just suck it up and get used to it eventually, while having to pay road toll every day is a constant reminder that there are other options.

[Aylmer]

One of the problems with a parking levy is that it's quite blunt and doesn't differentiate between someone who drives downtown at 7h30 when congestion is at its peak, and someone who drives at 10h when conditions are smooth. So although it does incentivize a modal shift away from the car, it doesn't really help to smooth out congestion peaks.

With a congestion charge, you know that if it's 7h30 and you wait a half hour, you'll save a dollar or two. And if you wait an hour, you'll save even more. It nudges people towards driving at less congested times, reducing that congestion as a consequence.

[AndyMEng]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I like your map. It could be a challenge getting Gatineau on board, for a unified cordon. If so, the Ottawa River would be a natural boundary to the north, as there are only 4 bridges within the central zone.



Why have exemptions for them? They are still contributing to the congestion in the central region (especially those travelling through without stopping as they are yet another car going into the city). Ottawa has decent contra-flow bus service to the main suburban employment regions. We also want to encourage people to live near where they work.

lol, the congestion occurs on the 417 in the middle-suburbs (Bayshore to Carling, Nicholas to the Split), not immediately downtown. Also, the congestion occurs on Hunt Club, Prince of Wales, Innes, Carling, Bank South, and ALL the bridges to Quebec.

The sheer number of Quebec licence plates travelling to the Train Yards, to Kanata, to Barrhaven, and to Orleans... some days it is only Quebec licence plates surrounding me while I'm driving.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by AndyMEng

lol, the congestion occurs on the 417 in the middle-suburbs (Bayshore to Carling, Nicholas to the Split), not immediately downtown. Also, the congestion occurs on Hunt Club, Prince of Wales, Innes, Carling, Bank South, and ALL the bridges to Quebec.

.

Even the bridges themselves are not inordinately congested (for commuter bridges in a metro area of this size, anyway). That's probably why Gatineau politicians aren't really screaming for new bridge capacity.

Where the real congestion is, is on the approach roads and highways to the bridges, on either side of the river.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

I know you're being facetious, but it is worth pointing out that congestion pricing isn't a zero sum. When drivers pay $150M/y in tolls, we all get more than $150M in faster commutes, better transit, cleaner air and less economic waste.

Here's my back-of-the-napkin calculation for the direct cost of congestion (exl. things like health, pollution, macroeconomic effects, etc.).

[Average income in Ottawa]/[Average hours worked per year in Canada]*[Average hours spent in congestion in Ottawa per year]/[days worked in a year] = Direct cost of congestion drivers in Ottawa already pay

50k/1700h*80h/220 = $11 per day

Of course, this number is not very scientific. But it's meant to illustrate that we indeed already paying a 'congestion charge' of sorts. But not only is it more expensive, but the only thing we get for it is poor transit service, road congestion and bad air quality. But if we can take that hidden cost and make it more visible, people can (1) make smarter choices about how and when they get around, minimizing congestion and (2) we can better fund alternatives so that everyone gets around faster.

It's a market-based approach to congestion. And it's tremendously effective.

If the charge is high enough to actually change behaviour (which would be necessary to get any of the benefits you're talking about), then it would put downtown employers at a massive disadvantage and strongly discourage them from locating (or staying) downtown. You certainly wouldn't get the Shopifys of the world wanting to expand downtown.

Gothenburg is hardly comparable to Ottawa. It has a population density of 2,000 people per square kilometre (compared to 316 in Ottawa) and a tram network that covers almost the entire city. All of these were in place before a congestion charge was implemented.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by zzptichka

Pretty obvious that politicians will go for the option that causes the least backlash on their re-election campaign, and in this regard, parking levy knocks everything else out of the park.

If a suburban councilor comes out supporting a cordon charge or a road toll, that will probably put an end to their political career in this city.

Too bad, because cordon charge and road tolls are far more effective IMO in discouraging people to drive. If my parking spot or gas becomes a bit more expensive I'll probably just suck it up and get used to it eventually, while having to pay road toll every day is a constant reminder that there are other options.

And this is probably one of the cases where the merger of Ottawa with its suburbs is a detriment to the city core (and its desires).

The smaller old Ottawa would have been able to implement this type of cordon much more easily on a political level.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Gothenburg is hardly comparable to Ottawa. It has a population density of 2,000 people per square kilometre (compared to 316 in Ottawa)

What happens to the Ottawa density figure when you compare apples to apples and drop the rural areas that are politically part of the City of Ottawa, but not really part of the built-up area?

This is an ongoing problem in comparing Ottawa to Other Places.


ETA:

Dropping the four geographically-large, relatively sparsely-populated mostly-rural wards (5, 19-21), the urban and suburban Ottawa has a population density a little under 1400 people / km^2.

The inside-the-Brownbelt wards? 2,074.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by acottawa

If the charge is high enough to actually change behaviour (which would be necessary to get any of the benefits you're talking about), then it would put downtown employers at a massive disadvantage and strongly discourage them from locating (or staying) downtown. You certainly wouldn't get the Shopifys of the world wanting to expand downtown.

This is not even remotely true. Downtown is already way more expensive and inconvenient for peak-period commuters yet many companies already choose there, because of the central location, availability of talent, and synergies. A tech company that wants a bright young workforce has to be downtown or at least in a "cool" place to attract talent, and that target workforce doesn't drive anyway. Companies that want cheap/free parking and easy car access are already located elsewhere.

Downtown companies like Shopify and Klipfolio already have a huge percentage of their workforce not driving; at Klipfolio I actually know the percentage that drives to work as of last fall: it's only 35%.

Downtowns in cities like Calgary and Toronto have even more congestion and even more expensive parking yet downtown employers are still expanding. In Toronto in particular, downtown employment is massively gaining market share; millions of square feet of office towers downtown are being built and absorbed into the market almost immediately while many office parks in Scarborough are half-empty.

TL;DR - auto access is already irrelevant to downtown employers.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

What happens to the Ottawa density figure when you compare apples to apples and drop the rural areas that are politically part of the City of Ottawa, but not really part of the built-up area?

This is an ongoing problem in comparing Ottawa to Other Places.


ETA:

Dropping the four geographically-large, relatively sparsely-populated mostly-rural wards (5, 19-21), the urban and suburban Ottawa has a population density a little under 1400 people / km^2.

The inside-the-Brownbelt wards? 2,074.

Ok, but you just dropped 118,000 people who live in those 4 wards.

That's more people than live in the 3 highest density wards (Somerset, Rideau-Vanier, Capital) who would presumably be the beneficiaries of this congestion charge proposal.

[J.OT13]

The whole idea is asinine. We're a mid-sized city with few congestion problems and a transit system that only serves the suburbs (on the Ottawa side). This is nothing more than a way to make money.

After the RER is built, Montreal will be the only Canadian City with a good enough mass transit system to justify a congestion fee.