Congestion Pricing in Ottawa

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

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.

If auto access was irrelevant to downtown employers then almost every downtown building wouldn't have large parking garages underneath them and there wouldn't be waiting lists to get parking spots downtown. For that matter there wouldn't be a need for a congestion charge at all.

If 1/3 of Klipfolio's workforce is going to have to start paying an extra $10-$20 dollars a day in congestion fees (which is what other cities charge) then it is going to be harder to recruit. And for larger companies (which require more categories of employees) it will be even more of a challenge.

And a congestion charge would not just hit employees, but clients, customers, visitors, etc. making it hard for lots of different types of downtown employers to be viable.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by acottawa

If 1/3 of Klipfolio's workforce is going to have to start paying an extra $10-$20 dollars a day in congestion fees (which is what other cities charge) then it is going to be harder to recruit. And for larger companies (which require more categories of employees) it will be even more of a challenge.

Yes.. but if Klipfolio was based in Kanata, it would be way harder for them to have recruited the other two-thirds. Their CEO has stated numerous times that being downtown has been key to his company's success and availability to attract talent, especially from outside the city and among new grads. In fact, many of the people they hire have actually been so excited at the idea of being able to work downtown rather than being stuck going to Kanata that they accepted the job for a submarket salary.

Overall, being downtown is a win for them even if a third of their staff now have to pay more. The benefit of attracting non-drivers as talent outweighs the drawbacks of being less attractive to drivers. And that would basically be true of any SaaS company in the city, and SaaS is the hottest growth area in the local IT sector and has one of the biggest growth potentials worldwide of all subsectors.

Basically.. companies like Klipfolio are winning by being downtown and a congestion charge isn't going to make them move.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

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

And also political suicide.

[Uhuniau]

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.

And *with* places to park on the LRT line, you undermine much of its purpose: to stimulate truly transit-oriented development.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Yes.. but if Klipfolio was based in Kanata, it would be way harder for them to have recruited the other two-thirds. Their CEO has stated numerous times that being downtown has been key to his company's success and availability to attract talent, especially from outside the city and among new grads. In fact, many of the people they hire have actually been so excited at the idea of being able to work downtown rather than being stuck going to Kanata that they accepted the job for a submarket salary.

They get those benefits now. If a congestion charge were to be introduced they would have the added challenge that a third of their staff have to pay thousands of dollars in congestion charges and their recruitment would be further restricted among those who want to drive to work and create a hassle for customers and potential customers.

Also it is interesting if their corporate culture is so anti-car that they are moving to the most car-oriented building downtown.

[HighwayStar]

Originally Posted by 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.

This. Full stop.

[Richard Eade]

Four City Councilors commissioned a report on Congestion Pricing for Ottawa. It was released yesterday and is available here:
http://capitalward.ca/PDFs/CPCS_Cong...nal_Report.pdf

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by acottawa

They get those benefits now. If a congestion charge were to be introduced they would have the added challenge that a third of their staff have to pay thousands of dollars in congestion charges and their recruitment would be further restricted among those who want to drive to work and create a hassle for customers and potential customers.

Also it is interesting if their corporate culture is so anti-car that they are moving to the most car-oriented building downtown.

This isn't an anti-car measure. In fact, it is the only possible way of reducing congestion in a city (unless you're Detroit).

Right now, if you need to get downtown quickly at rush hour by car, there is simply no possible way. But with a congestion charge, a customer or a worker in a hurry can pay $3-4 and know that they will be able to get into town reliably. Increased congestion and unreliability undermine a downtown's competitiveness more than $3 at peak hours, accompanied by lower commute times and increased transportation options.

This is backed up by real-world examples like London, where they found that “...overall, five years after the event there is no general evidence of any measurable differential impact from the central London congestion charging scheme on business and economic activity, at the aggregate level, based on analysis and surveys conducted by TfL.”.

Or Stockholm where "but studies of the retail markets were not able to show any effects of the congestion charges. [The survey of] shopping centres, malls and department stores during the Stockholm [congestion charge] trial period showed that these developed at the same rate as the rest of the country. The same held of other retail sectors."

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

And *with* places to park on the LRT line, you undermine much of its purpose: to stimulate truly transit-oriented development.

The LRT is an overbuilt commuter rail system designed to get suburbanites downtown. Its success depends greatly on multiple, vast park-and-rides.

Originally Posted by Aylmer

This isn't an anti-car measure. In fact, it is the only possible way of reducing congestion in a city (unless you're Detroit).

Right now, if you need to get downtown quickly at rush hour by car, there is simply no possible way. But with a congestion charge, a customer or a worker in a hurry can pay $3-4 and know that they will be able to get into town reliably. Increased congestion and unreliability undermine a downtown's competitiveness more than $3 at peak hours, accompanied by lower commute times and increased transportation options.

This is backed up by real-world examples like London, where they found that “...overall, five years after the event there is no general evidence of any measurable differential impact from the central London congestion charging scheme on business and economic activity, at the aggregate level, based on analysis and surveys conducted by TfL.”.

Or Stockholm where "but studies of the retail markets were not able to show any effects of the congestion charges. [The survey of] shopping centres, malls and department stores during the Stockholm [congestion charge] trial period showed that these developed at the same rate as the rest of the country. The same held of other retail sectors."

We can't compare Ottawa to London. London one of the world's most powerful economic cities and a massive tourist trap of 14 million people and nearly 1000 km of rail (between the Underground, Overground, Docklands...) Central London is just too big to fail.

Although Stockholm is a little closer, we're still talking bout a metropolitan area of nearly twice our size (2.25 million) with a metro of over 100 kilometers criss-crossing the city (as opposed to end-to-end proposed in Ottawa), 211 kilometers of commuter rail and around 40 kilometers of trams.

When we catch up to these cities, with a complete public transport system, then I will be on board with a congestion charge.

[zzptichka]

Originally Posted by 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.

So what is wrong with that? Why does road building, rebuilding and maintenance (slow and underfunded) have to be paid for so overwhelmingly from property taxes? Why do people who don't even own a car have to pay almost the same share as people who commute an hour each way by car?

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

We can't compare Ottawa to London. London one of the world's most powerful economic cities and a massive tourist trap of 14 million people and nearly 1000 km of rail (between the Underground, Overground, Docklands...) Central London is just too big to fail.

Although Stockholm is a little closer, we're still talking bout a metropolitan area of nearly twice our size (2.25 million) with a metro of over 100 kilometers criss-crossing the city (as opposed to end-to-end proposed in Ottawa), 211 kilometers of commuter rail and around 40 kilometers of trams.

When we catch up to these cities, with a complete public transport system, then I will be on board with a congestion charge.

That's valid. I put those examples because they were the two which had the most comprehensive retail studies. Gothenburg, on the other hand, is much more comparable to Ottawa, with a metropolitan population of just under 1M and a morning peak car use of 60% (pre congestion charage) to Ottawa's 65%.

And even then, a survey of businesses indicated that there were no statistical changes to retail performance in the city centre compared with the rest of the country. In fact, retail growth outperformed the rest of the city following the implementation of the congestion charge.


Look, there are definitely arguments against the congestion charge. But scaring away business or customers simply isn't one of them. The times when people shop - midday, evenings, weekends - wouldn't be affected by the charge because they're not congested times of the day.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

That's valid. I put those examples because they were the two which had the most comprehensive retail studies. Gothenburg, on the other hand, is much more comparable to Ottawa, with a metropolitan population of just under 1M and a morning peak car use of 60% (pre congestion charage) to Ottawa's 65%.

And even then, a survey of businesses indicated that there were no statistical changes to retail performance in the city centre compared with the rest of the country. In fact, retail growth outperformed the rest of the city following the implementation of the congestion charge.


Look, there are definitely arguments against the congestion charge. But scaring away business or customers simply isn't one of them. The times when people shop - midday, evenings, weekends - wouldn't be affected by the charge because they're not congested times of the day.

The examples you are providing are not comparable to Ottawa. These are high-density cities where transit (and walking) already had high modal shares well before congestion charges were implemented.

https://www.lta.gov.sg/ltaacademy/do...ModeShares.pdf

Ottawa has a much lower density, much less extensive mass transit system and a much stronger car culture.

And downtown itself is not particularly congested, so if you wanted to give people a congestion-free route downtown then congestion charges would have to be put on roads in the suburbs as well.

Also $3-4 will not do anything: to actually impact habits congestion charges would have to be set at punitive levels ($10-$20 a day).

If drivers aren't important for downtown businesses, why are they maintaining extensive parking infrastructure? And why is the city maintaining extensive parking infrastructure?

[ars]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

The LRT is an overbuilt commuter rail system designed to get suburbanites downtown. Its success depends greatly on multiple, vast park-and-rides.



We can't compare Ottawa to London. London one of the world's most powerful economic cities and a massive tourist trap of 14 million people and nearly 1000 km of rail (between the Underground, Overground, Docklands...) Central London is just too big to fail.

Although Stockholm is a little closer, we're still talking bout a metropolitan area of nearly twice our size (2.25 million) with a metro of over 100 kilometers criss-crossing the city (as opposed to end-to-end proposed in Ottawa), 211 kilometers of commuter rail and around 40 kilometers of trams.

When we catch up to these cities, with a complete public transport system, then I will be on board with a congestion charge.

I completely agree.

A congestion charge for a city of Ottawa's size with the public transit infrastructure we have is an asinine idea.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by acottawa

The examples you are providing are not comparable to Ottawa. These are high-density cities where transit (and walking) already had high modal shares well before congestion charges were implemented.

https://www.lta.gov.sg/ltaacademy/do...ModeShares.pdf

Ottawa has a much lower density, much less extensive mass transit system and a much stronger car culture.

And downtown itself is not particularly congested, so if you wanted to give people a congestion-free route downtown then congestion charges would have to be put on roads in the suburbs as well.

Also $3-4 will not do anything: to actually impact habits congestion charges would have to be set at punitive levels ($10-$20 a day).

If drivers aren't important for downtown businesses, why are they maintaining extensive parking infrastructure? And why is the city maintaining extensive parking infrastructure?

I agree with your first points and there are far too many rural and suburban wards to ever get this passed but $3-4 could have an effect. Parking is around $10 a day and is a big reason many take the bus to Centretown destinations and leave their cars in their driveway. $4 a day adds $80+ a month to the commute of someone working in the market or U of O, or DFAIT (all locations where I assume parking is cheaper than centretown) and maybe they decide to bus instead. It doesn't take a huge behaviour change to reduce congestion and the revenues could be a key source of transit funding.

[Aylmer]

And remember, it's not meant to charge so much that no one drives at rush hour. It's meant to be just enough to displace some of the less necessary trips. If 10% of people can be convinced to displace a trip by a few minutes or take the bus instead, then that's a big improvement in downtown congestion.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

I agree with your first points and there are far too many rural and suburban wards to ever get this passed but $3-4 could have an effect. Parking is around $10 a day and is a big reason many take the bus to Centretown destinations and leave their cars in their driveway. $4 a day adds $80+ a month to the commute of someone working in the market or U of O, or DFAIT (all locations where I assume parking is cheaper than centretown) and maybe they decide to bus instead. It doesn't take a huge behaviour change to reduce congestion and the revenues could be a key source of transit funding.

You would be pretty pressed to find parking for $10 a day (north end of the byward market area, some of the lots at the south end of centretown).

I think that's my point. If someone is willing to drop $200-300 a month on parking (plus gas, plus higher insurance premiums) then they're probably pretty motivated to drive and it is hard to see another $80 (in practice probably less because of vacations, holidays, etc.) demotivating them. Same thing with people coming downtown for non-commuting reasons and pay $5/hr to park. And for people who don't pay for parking, $4 is less than bus fare so a $4 congestion charge would not discourage them.

[danishh]

Originally Posted by zzptichka

So what is wrong with that? Why does road building, rebuilding and maintenance (slow and underfunded) have to be paid for so overwhelmingly from property taxes? Why do people who don't even own a car have to pay almost the same share as people who commute an hour each way by car?

yeah, this is my problem too.

add 15c to the gas tax, drop property taxes by the same amount, and let the market decide.

we would need provincial approval though, and Tory/Toronto would likely want in as well.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by zzptichka

So what is wrong with that? Why does road building, rebuilding and maintenance (slow and underfunded) have to be paid for so overwhelmingly from property taxes? Why do people who don't even own a car have to pay almost the same share as people who commute an hour each way by car?

Same reason why people who don't use transit have to pay for transit, people who don't use libraries have to pay for libraries, people without kids have to pay for schools, people who are not sick have to pay for health care, etc. We live in a society and not some weird Tea Party commune.

Also, even if you don't commute, you probably benefit from the fact that the roads are there. You probably get deliveries that arrive by road, shop at stores that receive good by road, take buses that use roads, expect to be able to call 911 and have emergency vehicles arrive by road.

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by acottawa

You would be pretty pressed to find parking for $10 a day (north end of the byward market area, some of the lots at the south end of centretown).

I think that's my point. If someone is willing to drop $200-300 a month on parking (plus gas, plus higher insurance premiums) then they're probably pretty motivated to drive and it is hard to see another $80 (in practice probably less because of vacations, holidays, etc.) demotivating them. Same thing with people coming downtown for non-commuting reasons and pay $5/hr to park. And for people who don't pay for parking, $4 is less than bus fare so a $4 congestion charge would not discourage them.

Again, a congestion charge doesn't go after the drivers who are absolutely, definitely going to drive in for 8h30 every morning, but it does nudge someone who might have a bit more flexibility. If could just as easily leave work at 18h instead of 17h30 and it saves you some money, why not? The reality is that not everyone on the road has the same level of need. You've got people who could very well have left a half hour later or taken the bus waiting in the same traffic as people who absolutely have to get downtown by car at that time. But by putting a price on driving there at that time, when you need to drive, there is enough space and capacity for you to do so quickly and easily.

But beyond all the hypotheticals, the reality remains that everywhere it has been tried, congestion charging has been tremendously effective at reducing car volume peaks. Putting a higher price on rarer goods is not revolutionary or new - it's the reason why caviar costs more than rice, and a BMW costs more than a Tercel. And it's also why road space at 7h30 should cost more than road space at 02h.

[acottawa]

I think you're using "tremendous" in the Trump sense.

The $20+ congestion charge in London reduced traffic entering the congestion zone by 16%. Streets in central London are still packed and administrative costs eat up 1/3 of the revenue from the charges. In London (again, a completely different city from Ottawa) it is still probably a net gain; it is hard to see how it could be in Ottawa.