Mobility Pricing

[sburnaby33]

Originally Posted by waves

How exactly will mobility pricing be different from a gas tax and insurance?

• Those who drive more in Metro Van pay more and use more gas
  
• Those who drive more efficient cars pay less because they consume less gas
  
• Insurance charges you less if you drive your vehicle only recreationally than for work and less depending on your region.

For mobility pricing to be implemented, it would need to do all of these three things:
(1) increase/decrease the cost of driving on an hour by hour basis.
(2) increase/decrease the cost from micro location to micro location basis.
(3) charge visiting vehicles and old vehicles.

It would be a waste otherwise because you can just use other methods, such as a gas tax, insurance charges or bridge tolls.

A list of proposed systems:

• Odometer: No(1) No(2) Yes(3). Can't tell when and where you are. Could charge a flat rate per km driven for those crossing the border by road.
• GPS Tracking: Yes(1) Yes(2) No(3). Unless it is hardwired into the car someone could just turn it off. You can't hardwire it to every car because of existing vehicles and out of town vehicles. Also a privacy issue. Very expensive to implement continually.
• RFID micro zones: Yes(1) Yes(2) No(3). High initial capital cost with RFID sensors on all borders to micro zones. Low operational cost. Entry points into Metro Vancouver would need toll booth's to ensure all visitors have an RFID registered or a Metro Van Pass (similar to a National Park Pass?). Very disruptive to inter-regional traffic (Hwy 1, Sea to Sky Hwy, Ferry Highways).
• All Bridge Tolling: Yes(1) No(2) Yes(3). Zones aren't evenly distributed in size.
• Specify your work place on your Insurance: No(1) NotReally(2) No(3). People use their cars for much much more than just going to work.
• Gas Tax: No(1) Kinda(2) Yes(3). People don't fill up frequent enough that the price of gas can be changed to discourage travel during certain hours.
  

The only solution I think remotely worth considering would by RFID Microzones, but would be a very expensive endeavour. They should scrap this idea of Mobility Pricing and just increase the Gas Tax as a more fair and simple way of collecting revenue. People will avoid peak hours from congestion by their own accord, which increases the likelihood they will consider transit and if they do need to drive, influence what time they do drive at.

People had enough trouble with Compass and that wasn't really revolutionary technology.

Agreed. Aren't we already paying for mobility pricing in other ways? If you drive more, you use more gas, and then will be paying more gas taxes as a result. Insurance rates are also higher for those living 15km or more away from work. We already have the highest surcharges on gas in the entire country. Like, living in Vancouver is not already expensive as it is. Lets add another bill to pay.

Mobility pricing, to be effective, needs to be done in such a way that measures accurately the amount of driving someone does. It cant be a simple formula that charges you based on X. The X in this case is driving to Vancouver, even thought you may drive elsewhere for work or pleasure. I would prefer have an RFID system or tolling all bridges at 50 cents a trip, not the current $6.30 which is excessive when you think about it.

Lastly, many people were forced to live further away not because of choice, but because they were forced to by our current speculative housing marking. Since they had to buy a home in Port Coquitlam or Langley why should they be doubly punished for living further away from the core?

To be sensible, there needs to be an economic threshold put in place. For example, if you make below 50,000 you will only pay 80%, below 75,000 you will pay 60%, etc. Otherwise, it will be another regressive tax that hurts those least able to pay.

We would not be in this position Liberals were not in power for 16 years. Cutting income taxes to the rich and having the lowest corporate taxes has not helped the public. The $3 billion income tax cut put in place after Gordon Campbell came into power meant that we lost roughly $48 billion that could have been spent on infrastructure, schools, and hospitals. The tax burden has shifted to the middle class where we are being nickle and dimed to financial death, and has further exacerbated inequality.

[idunno]

Remember that gas taxes are not to be pursued as a long term funding source, due to the incoming swath of electric cars, not to mention increased fuel efficiency of conventional cars. This is a critical reason why an alternative funding source like mobility pricing must be explored!

[Trainguy]

Part of the problem with transportation funding is that all taxes just go into general revenue and then it becomes a muddled mess. Gas taxes are not targeted funding. If the point of mobility pricing is to change behavior, people will change only according to their ability to pay. If you removes the tolls from the bridges, watch them fill up with new cars quickly. A vehicle levy won't change behavior because it is a flat rate everyone pays. Monitoring how far people drive sounds like an expensive proposition that infringes on privacy issues.

I guess you could put cameras and digital readers on all major access points like they do with the PMB and charge people that way but then people would avoid those cameras and cause congestion elsewhere. Raising the price of the gas tax just raises the price of everything else and people avoid filling up in Metro Van. I fill up in Bellingham as often as possible.

I love the discussion going on but that is just talk. When the government starts throwing money at the problem, then things get serious.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by waves

How exactly will mobility pricing be different from a gas tax and insurance?

There's a huge psychological difference between an indirect cost like gas and insurance and a direct cost such as a toll or a per-km fee. You don't really link the cost of each individual trip you take to the cost of a fill-up or to the annual insurance fee, but when you're forced to pony up for a particular trip it makes a big difference.

When my vehicle was unavailable to me for a stretch of time I joined Car2Go, and while the cars themselves suited my needs just fine I was always acutely aware of the per-minute charge ticking away. It made a big difference to my driving habits.

And that's the point of mobility pricing. It's not to make paying for the roads "fairer", it's to force people to think about the cost of each trip they take. That's what's needed in order to get people to change how they decide to make trips and ease congestion.

[WBC]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

There's a huge psychological difference between an indirect cost like gas and insurance and a direct cost such as a toll or a per-km fee. You don't really link the cost of each individual trip you take to the cost of a fill-up or to the annual insurance fee, but when you're forced to pony up for a particular trip it makes a big difference.

When my vehicle was unavailable to me for a stretch of time I joined Car2Go, and while the cars themselves suited my needs just fine I was always acutely aware of the per-minute charge ticking away. It made a big difference to my driving habits.

And that's the point of mobility pricing. It's not to make paying for the roads "fairer", it's to force people to think about the cost of each trip they take. That's what's needed in order to get people to change how they decide to make trips and ease congestion.

Completely agree here. Even if we shave-off a few percentage points of car use it may have a big impact on congestion.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Sure, you just build your way out of congestion. That'll work.

It absolutely would work if population was constant. I'm not sure why people are surprised if the government imports population growth that traffic congestion ensues. Crowding on transit ensues as well.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

There's a huge psychological difference between an indirect cost like gas and insurance and a direct cost such as a toll or a per-km fee. You don't really link the cost of each individual trip you take to the cost of a fill-up or to the annual insurance fee, but when you're forced to pony up for a particular trip it makes a big difference.

When my vehicle was unavailable to me for a stretch of time I joined Car2Go, and while the cars themselves suited my needs just fine I was always acutely aware of the per-minute charge ticking away. It made a big difference to my driving habits.

And that's the point of mobility pricing. It's not to make paying for the roads "fairer", it's to force people to think about the cost of each trip they take. That's what's needed in order to get people to change how they decide to make trips and ease congestion.

Hardly, its a way for governments to keep their hands in motorists pockets, even if they operate an electric vehicle.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by whatnext

It absolutely would work if population was constant.

This is kind of like saying that if we build a big enough stadium, we can accommodate everyone who wants to see the Stanley Cup playoffs for free. While I suppose it's technically feasible, it's completely impracticable.

When you don't have to explicitly pay to use the roads, they're treated as a free resource - so even in a constant population there's a lot of latent demand. In other words, there are lots of people who don't drive right now exactly because it's too congested. Building more roads will bring those people out of the woodwork - traffic will rise until the point at which the resulting congestion dissuades people from driving.

Hence, the comparison with free hockey games. If it's free, everyone will want to take advantage of it. That's the crux of the problem.

I suppose if you pave everything over you could accommodate everyone, but it's a lot cheaper and ultimately better for society if you just put an explicit price on road use. That forces people to consider the necessity of their trips.

Of course if you're going to do this you also have to provide people with reasonable alternatives. That's why transit funding is so important.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by WBC

Completely agree here. Even if we shave-off a few percentage points of car use it may have a big impact on congestion.

There was a study done in Boston that showed that if some small fraction of cars from the suburbs started their commute an hour earlier or later than normal, congestion was reduced tremendously. The fraction was really small, something like 1-5%. Mobility pricing that varies depending on the time of day can help shift drivers towards other habits that drastically reduce congestion. And that's another reason why mobility pricing is so much better than gas taxes or tolls on bridges.

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

There's a huge psychological difference between an indirect cost like gas and insurance and a direct cost such as a toll or a per-km fee. You don't really link the cost of each individual trip you take to the cost of a fill-up or to the annual insurance fee, but when you're forced to pony up for a particular trip it makes a big difference.

When my vehicle was unavailable to me for a stretch of time I joined Car2Go, and while the cars themselves suited my needs just fine I was always acutely aware of the per-minute charge ticking away. It made a big difference to my driving habits.

And that's the point of mobility pricing. It's not to make paying for the roads "fairer", it's to force people to think about the cost of each trip they take. That's what's needed in order to get people to change how they decide to make trips and ease congestion.

Ok.. very valid points!!! It would be helpful to know the main reasons why people are on the road driving. I would guess the main reason is for commuting to and from work. Logic suggests that most then don't live near their places of employment to walk to and need to commute in some way. For self employed people who don't stay in one place all day, they have no choice but to drive on the roads. Other trips are either shopping trips or pleasure trips.

Since people must get to work the only other options than driving are: transit, car pooling, cycling, or walking. Some can work from home but that is a limited pool of people. To reduce congestion, enough drivers need to switch from driving their own cars to something else. So far, whatever the government has done to promote that hasn't worked on a large enough scale.

I get to work in 10 mins by car. Taking transit takes 1 hour from the time I leave home to walk to the bus stop and until I arrive at work. 20 mins vs 2 hours. In my case, it is a no-brainer which I would choose. Since I am paying car insurance whether I use it or not, my time is worth a lot.

[s211]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

I get to work in 10 mins by car. Taking transit takes 1 hour from the time I walk to the bus stop until I arrive at work. 20 mins vs 2 hours. In my case, it is a no-brainer.

And you don't have to bear the foul stench of public transit either.

Seriously, was the phrase "the great unwashed" created with public transit in mind, because it's entirely appropriate. The Canada Line was unbearable a few days ago.

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by waves

How exactly will mobility pricing be different from a gas tax and insurance?

• Those who drive more in Metro Van pay more and use more gas
• Those who drive more efficient cars pay less because they consume less gas
• Insurance charges you less if you drive your vehicle only recreationally than for work and less depending on your region.

For mobility pricing to be implemented, it would need to do all of these three things:
(1) increase/decrease the cost of driving on an hour by hour basis.
(2) increase/decrease the cost from micro location to micro location basis.
(3) charge visiting vehicles and old vehicles.

It would be a waste otherwise because you can just use other methods, such as a gas tax, insurance charges or bridge tolls.

A list of proposed systems:

• GPS Tracking: Yes(1) Yes(2) No(3). Unless it is hardwired into the car someone could just turn it off. You can't hardwire it to every car because of existing vehicles and out of town vehicles. Also a privacy issue. Very expensive to implement continually.

Compared to the congestion reduction benefits and flexibility of pricing schemes, the cost of GPS would not be that high. The cost of the unit was $50 8 years ago and has probably gone down since. The data costs would be small. I worked for a company that developed technology for this and I can you tell you it does not need to be hardwired, it just needs to be securely installed on the dashboard. It has to be fixed in place and there would be a sensor if someone chooses to tamper with it.

There are also many ways to protect privacy, some of which I have mentioned earlier.

Finally, for visiting vehicles you would need them to purchase a driving pass where they would be permitted to drive an unlimited amount for a certain time at a certain price. It would obviously be priced so that residents would be encouraged to use the GPS, however, residents would also be free to purchase a driving pass if they are concerned about things like privacy.

[Aroundtheworld]

Would any of you be interested in me doing a presentation on my road pricing thesis work? It could be in-person or virtual. Might be a good meetup opportunity.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

This is kind of like saying that if we build a big enough stadium, we can accommodate everyone who wants to see the Stanley Cup playoffs for free. While I suppose it's technically feasible, it's completely impracticable.

When you don't have to explicitly pay to use the roads, they're treated as a free resource - so even in a constant population there's a lot of latent demand. In other words, there are lots of people who don't drive right now exactly because it's too congested. Building more roads will bring those people out of the woodwork - traffic will rise until the point at which the resulting congestion dissuades people from driving.

Hence, the comparison with free hockey games. If it's free, everyone will want to take advantage of it. That's the crux of the problem.

I suppose if you pave everything over you could accommodate everyone, but it's a lot cheaper and ultimately better for society if you just put an explicit price on road use. That forces people to consider the necessity of their trips.

Of course if you're going to do this you also have to provide people with reasonable alternatives. That's why transit funding is so important.

Car-hating "urbanists" use the argument about new roads leading to more congestions all the time, which is a false conclusion. People don't buy cars because there are more roads, there are more cars because there are more people.

Regardless, I hope Gregor does a full court press for mobility pricing because it will virtually ensure his defeat in the next election. One need only look at Vancouver results for the HST and Translink referendum to see how popular new taxes are.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by whatnext

People don't buy cars because there are more roads, there are more cars because there are more people.

Some people do buy new cars, and some people who weren't driving theirs decide to do so. Induced demand is a very well documented phenomenon.

[Pinion]

In Vancouver using a car is more of a financial thing. Most people would if they could. And the goal should be to accommodate increasing population with adequate infrastructure and entice - not force - people onto public transit with better service instead of making driving miserable and expecting people to be ok with twice as long commutes on stinky, overcrowded buses that show up sporadically.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Sure, you just build your way out of congestion. That'll work.

You can 100% build your self out of congestion. The government should do one thing, build infrastructure and give people options.

They just built this in Prague for example, and yes it significantly reduced congestion in the city and is a huge success. A identically sized city to Vancouver with better infrastructure at all levels building its self out of congestion. Who would have thought.
• Video Link top is the new tunnel complex built that reduced congestion within the city and is yet another piece of infrastructure that gives people options.

[waves]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

Compared to the congestion reduction benefits and flexibility of pricing schemes, the cost of GPS would not be that high. The cost of the unit was $50 8 years ago and has probably gone down since. The data costs would be small. I worked for a company that developed technology for this and I can you tell you it does not need to be hardwired, it just needs to be securely installed on the dashboard. It has to be fixed in place and there would be a sensor if someone chooses to tamper with it.

There are also many ways to protect privacy, some of which I have mentioned earlier.

Finally, for visiting vehicles you would need them to purchase a driving pass where they would be permitted to drive an unlimited amount for a certain time at a certain price. It would obviously be priced so that residents would be encouraged to use the GPS, however, residents would also be free to purchase a driving pass if they are concerned about things like privacy.

$50 would be a fairly low end GPS receiver. Low end GPS devices have more errors, blackouts, and inaccuracy. I would expect each device to cost at least $100. But then again with economies of scale, maybe it can be produced for $50.

Do you have any of your research that we can read?

[mezzanine]

Originally Posted by cornholio

They just built this in Prague for example, and yes it significantly reduced congestion in the city and is a huge success. A identically sized city to Vancouver with better infrastructure at all levels building its self out of congestion. Who would have thought.

Not sure if this is a valid comparison to vancouver as it seems like the main purpose of building the blanka tunnel complex was to divert thru traffic away from the historic city centre.

You also forgot to mention the cost over-runs, the ~ 5 year construction delay, construction problems and the multiple lawsuits regarding the construction. How much can 43 billion CZC buy you? it looks like a canada line and $300 mill CAD in change.

Doesn't seem to be tolled, not yet anyway. Drive it while you can, but make sure you get your road-pricing vignette for the other czech highways...

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by waves

$50 would be a fairly low end GPS receiver. Low end GPS devices have more errors, blackouts, and inaccuracy. I would expect each device to cost at least $100. But then again with economies of scale, maybe it can be produced for $50.

Do you have any of your research that we can read?

The $50 number is one that the company I worked for had at mass production. I know the initial prototype cost was over $100. Keep in mind that this has a bunch things that your commercial navigation receiver does not have. It's much more reliable and precise because it has to be. I'll do some digging to find some papers to back these assertions.

That was also almost a decade ago. Since then, a new constellation of GPS satellites has been added making it even more accurate. Also, looking on Amazon, it seems like there are out of the box GPS receivers you can get for less than $20. It's missing a lot of things that you would need to do tolling, but in mind it shows that the unit will not cost hundreds of dollars, rather tens of dollars.