Mobility Pricing

[Aroundtheworld]

I'm just going to share this:

A Look At Applying Comprehensive Road Pricing in Metro Vancouver

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

I'm just going to share this:

A Look At Applying Comprehensive Road Pricing in Metro Vancouver

Thanks for sharing. note slide 14 says revenue expected to start at $110M and rise to $390M per year.

Also notes that it will reduce the fuel tax by 6c/L. However the current fuel tax (just for Translink) is 17c/L. That's hardly a "replacement".

If you look at Translink's 2016 finances (latest year available), the fuel tax brought in $395M per year.

Ideally a system would charge per km, with different rates for different zones, and fluctuate dynamically with congestion. But such a system would be prohibitively expensive and difficult to administer.

[Trainguy]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Thanks for sharing. note slide 14 says revenue expected to start at $110M and rise to $390M per year.

Also notes that it will reduce the fuel tax by 6c/L. However the current fuel tax (just for Translink) is 17c/L. That's hardly a "replacement".

If you look at Translink's 2016 finances (latest year available), the fuel tax brought in $395M per year.

Ideally a system would charge per km, with different rates for different zones, and fluctuate dynamically with congestion. But such a system would be prohibitively expensive and difficult to administer.

Charging people at congestion points will just move people from those areas to less congested areas and in the end just transfer the congestion point. Relatively quiet areas suddenly become busy with traffic.

Just how are they going to measure how far I have driven? This seems like an expensive way to manage congestion making their profit minimal.

The province has the final say and Horgan won't sign off on it... political suicide. As he has stated... "This is not an NDP idea... it's the mayor's council"

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Thanks for sharing. note slide 14 says revenue expected to start at $110M and rise to $390M per year.

Also notes that it will reduce the fuel tax by 6c/L. However the current fuel tax (just for Translink) is 17c/L. That's hardly a "replacement".

If you look at Translink's 2016 finances (latest year available), the fuel tax brought in $395M per year.

Ideally a system would charge per km, with different rates for different zones, and fluctuate dynamically with congestion. But such a system would be prohibitively expensive and difficult to administer.

Right, I was incorrect in calling it a "replacement", which implies that the gas tax would go away entirely. It's a partial replacement where gas taxes go down by a third. However nobody ever even mentions this, which would make congestion charges slightly more palatable.

[WarrenC12]

I still think the most practical way of controlling congestion is tolls on all Fraser River and Burrard Inlet bridges. Keep them small, maybe $1 for an "old" bridge and $2 for each new one built, something like that. We have the technology in place.

False Creek bridges are too easy to get around.

I think this would encourage more transit usage, less long distance driving, more local shopping, etc.

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Thanks for sharing. note slide 14 says revenue expected to start at $110M and rise to $390M per year.

Also notes that it will reduce the fuel tax by 6c/L. However the current fuel tax (just for Translink) is 17c/L. That's hardly a "replacement".

If you look at Translink's 2016 finances (latest year available), the fuel tax brought in $395M per year.

Ideally a system would charge per km, with different rates for different zones, and fluctuate dynamically with congestion. But such a system would be prohibitively expensive and difficult to administer.

The system I explore involves replacing the gas tax entirely. There would be challenges, but it would be feasible and politically I believe it would be necessary.

I don't think a dynamic system would be expensive to administer. Once the hardware is installed, all you have are enforcement (which can be passive) and data transmission costs. Having worked in the industry I know there are technical solutions to these problems.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

The system I explore involves replacing the gas tax entirely. There would be challenges, but it would be feasible and politically I believe it would be necessary.

I don't think a dynamic system would be expensive to administer. Once the hardware is installed, all you have are enforcement (which can be passive) and data transmission costs. Having worked in the industry I know there are technical solutions to these problems.

Yes most modern car shares have this built into their fleets. However "the government" having this type of access into private vehicles, combined with their organizational and managerial record, I don't see it being feasible.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I still think the most practical way of controlling congestion is tolls on all Fraser River and Burrard Inlet bridges. Keep them small, maybe $1 for an "old" bridge and $2 for each new one built, something like that. We have the technology in place.

False Creek bridges are too easy to get around.

I think this would encourage more transit usage, less long distance driving, more local shopping, etc.

That not only barely covers the costs of collecting tolls, it's also politically unacceptable. The provincial government will in no way institute tolls that require someone from Surrey to pay to drive to Vancouver while someone from Port Coquitlam pays nothing. The whole point behind removing tolls on the two bridges was that it was unfair to people living south of the Fraser.

[jollyburger]

Isn't just pricing people out of driving going to be how you solve congestion? Or convert everyone to self driving cars.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

That not only barely covers the costs of collecting tolls, it's also politically unacceptable. The provincial government will in no way institute tolls that require someone from Surrey to pay to drive to Vancouver while someone from Port Coquitlam pays nothing. The whole point behind removing tolls on the two bridges was that it was unfair to people living south of the Fraser.

Do you have numbers on the cost of collecting tolls? Surely the operational costs of a tolling gantry isn't equal to $1 per car that passes underneath.

Any cost will be "politically unacceptable". There's no way people across Metro Vancouver will accept some type of government black box in their car. The alternative is a massive system of cameras, gantries, etc, if you want a London-style system. Way too expensive.

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

Charging people at congestion points will just move people from those areas to less congested areas and in the end just transfer the congestion point. Relatively quiet areas suddenly become busy with traffic.

Yep, exactly one of the reasons why I don't like it at all. It also creates the unfair situation where motorists might be paying for congestion that they themselves didn't cause. Examples will be on Surrey LRT corridors (especially on 104 Avenue, where road capacity is being taken away outright) and in downtown Vancouver after the removal of the viaducts and on the Cambie Bridge (if they go ahead with that controversial bike lane). Having to suddenly deal with congestion caused by the decisions of your leaders, and then having to pay tolls because of it, is a double-whammy for commuters. Also, how long until cities start trying to subvertly create more congestion points within their cities as a means of extracting more toll revenue?

The only place I see this being a fair proposition is on our bridges (and it has to be only a proportion of the full revenue so as to not too harshly punish those crossing the river, i.e. make it in combination with other pricing forms such as distance-based).

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Yes most modern car shares have this built into their fleets. However "the government" having this type of access into private vehicles, combined with their organizational and managerial record, I don't see it being feasible.

Perhaps. I do know that they are implementing a similar system to what I propose in Singapore. You would need a GPS transponder in every vehicle, though the installation would not have to be expensive or intrusive. There are also many ways to protect the privacy of drivers which I can go into greater detail if you like.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld

Perhaps. I do know that they are implementing a similar system to what I propose in Singapore. You would need a GPS transponder in every vehicle, though the installation would not have to be expensive or intrusive. There are also many ways to protect the privacy of drivers which I can go into greater detail if you like.

Difference there is that the LTA's Electronic Road Pricing doesn't use a GPS, it uses a stored value card like Compass: you cross a gantry, the card deducts a fare. I suspect Singaporeans would riot if the built-in trackers suggested in 2006 came back.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Do you have numbers on the cost of collecting tolls? Surely the operational costs of a tolling gantry isn't equal to $1 per car that passes underneath.

From the 2016/2017 Transportation Investment Corporation annual report their tolling operations cost about $16m/yr between 2013 and 2017. Between that time there were an average of 39.13m crossings per year, which means that at a dollar per crossing TICorp would have made a profit of $23m per year.

So yes, you're right, the operational costs of collecting tolls looks to be about 40 cents per vehicle, so I was incorrect in stating that the $1/crossing toll wouldn't cover the operational costs.

Don't forget, however, that there are also setup costs, as the tolling system isn't in place for all of the bridges (and have they removed the infrastructure from the Golden Ears and Port Mann?).

How about instead of a "black box" in your car, you give your car's odometer reading to ICBC when you renew your insurance and then pay based on the mileage you drove in the year? Obviously this punishes people who drive outside of Metro Vancouver, but if you offered a GPS unit that only counted kilometers while you were within Metro Vancouver, then there might be better uptake if people were given the option.

[jlousa]

Or you could leave the system in place that we have now. The gas tax works, you drive more you pay more, you drive a heavier vehicle you use more gas you pay more, you drive in heavy congestion you use more gas you pay more. No new technology needed, no intrusions.
Heck if this is about revenues falling due to the rise of electric vehicles, they implement an odometer tax just on those models. They are new, limited and would be far easier to implement.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Or you could leave the system in place that we have now. The gas tax works, you drive more you pay more, you drive a heavier vehicle you use more gas you pay more, you drive in heavy congestion you use more gas you pay more. No new technology needed, no intrusions.
Heck if this is about revenues falling due to the rise of electric vehicles, they implement an odometer tax just on those models. They are new, limited and would be far easier to implement.

This is covered in a lot of the material supplied by the It's Time MV group, including the Phase 1 Full Report:

Metro Vancouver’s regional fuel tax – set at $0.17/L of fuel consumed – has historically performed well as a secure form of revenue for transit and transportation investment, where it currently generates about $340 million per year. However, with recent improvements in the fuel efficiency of newer vehicles, as well as the penetration of electric vehicles into the market, there is a growing concern that this revenue source is no longer as stable as it once was. Put simply, if all the vehicles registered or passing through Metro Vancouver changed to electric vehicles, revenue from the fuel tax would be $0. Therefore, all other things being equal, a higher proportion of fuel efficient and electric vehicles amongst the fleet leads to lower revenue from the fuel tax.

Recent evidence from Metro Vancouver (King and Fox, 2015) reveals a decoupling between the usage of roads (measured by vehicle kilometres travelled, VKT) and the revenues from the fuel tax over recent years. This is illustrated in Figure 5.1. This concern has also been identified by our neighbours in the US, where currently up to 14 States from the west are researching, testing, and implementing different forms of a road usage charge (RUC) which would replace the existing gas tax.

Further, a gas tax isn't as targeted as mobility pricing would be, as it does nothing to change where or when vehicles travel on roads. For example, if you had dynamic mobility pricing where you might pay 50 cents more between 7 and 9 am, you could shift some of the traffic to outside of that timeframe. Your total VKT would stay the same, yet rush hour wouldn't be as bad because some of the vehicles have shifted earlier or later. You can't do that sort of thing with a gas tax.

Edit: I'd like to note that that RUC West group linked to in the quote has this to say:

For nearly two decades, gas tax revenues have declined significantly as a result of less driving, increasing fuel efficiency and decreasing purchasing power for construction-related materials. Many states cannot keep pace with the costs of operating, maintaining, and improving their vital transportation system. Most states are exploring additional funding sources, including Road Usage Charging (RUC), a pay-by-mile system that would replace the gas tax.

While some express concern about privacy, the majority of participants in state pilots chose GPS-enabled options. Individual states also allow options for odometer-only options, and in some cases manual reporting as well.

I think that shows that it's important to give participants the option of how their mileage is tracked instead of forcing everybody to one solution.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Yes most modern car shares have this built into their fleets. However "the government" having this type of access into private vehicles, combined with their organizational and managerial record, I don't see it being feasible.

If the pricing structure is such that an average driver will pay something like $500 a year for monitored trips and drivers who refuse monitoring pay $2000 per year, then:

(a) there's an alternative for people who refuse monitoring, and
(b) you'd be surprised at how many privacy advocates fold and accept monitoring, and
(c) the government will make plenty enough money even from those who don't.

[Pinion]

This image was on the NS News version of the "two options" story:

[Aroundtheworld]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Difference there is that the LTA's Electronic Road Pricing doesn't use a GPS, it uses a stored value card like Compass: you cross a gantry, the card deducts a fare. I suspect Singaporeans would riot if the built-in trackers suggested in 2006 came back.

That is correct, but they are moving towards a GPS system in the next few years.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

If the pricing structure is such that an average driver will pay something like $500 a year for monitored trips and drivers who refuse monitoring pay $2000 per year, then:

that's ridiculous. that is NOT a choice. that is corocing by making 1 choice 4x worse.

a choice would be if the average person pays $500 and they drive, as an example, 20,000km/yr. then the people would choose between paying $500 for no monitoring, or they pay exactly what they use.

you cant charge someone 4x over the average and say it is still a choice. that is just punishing people for not wanting to be tracked wherever they go.

not everyone wants the government and corporations to know everything about them.