Justin Peters March 11, 2008 at 11:15 a.m.

Great article Phillip, except for one line that I feel unfairly spins almost the entire story. We had such a great discussion about the whole issue and the politics of it that I was surprised when I read the article.

A throwaway line like "would result in the wholesale defeat of any politician who had a hand in it" can have extremely negative consequences to the whole debate and seems to me to be made without any empirical evidence, opinion polls or any other support to make such a pronouncement. All of the politicians who have supported road pricing in any configuration around the world have been successful in being re-elected - in Ken Livingstone's case, with a higher margin. Please also note Michael Bloomberg's popularity jumped after he proposed Congestion Pricing in Manhattan.

The argument that Pizza delivery, picking up the kids from school or grocery runs would become more costly is flawed. Presumably all of those things could be done more quickly when they are of the most importance to us - so there is a time savings that has a value. The Pizza delivery is a wash since the deliverer could make more deliveries in the same amount of time - as important to congestion statistics is Travel Time Index - the relative time of a trip at rush hour compared to when free-flow conditions exist. By reducing TTI, we all benefit and the price of goods/services would stabilize if not, like decontrolled rents, decrease over time. The Pizza deliverer would also presumably save money by wasting less gas.

Secondly, if we're not going to all save that $2.2Billion annually then why would we implement tolls in the first place? Road User Charging internalizes savings rather than allocating the savings to society from our better (more efficient) travel choices. Don't forget too that direct user charging for all roads could be 'infinitely tweakable' meaning we could discount local road use and only charge for longer trips that could be made for transit, or for major arterial roads, or only during peak hours. And the system could provide rebates where you can prove you had to attend a doctor's appointment across town.

Lastly, how could reforming an antiquated and regressive tax system like the Gas Tax, into a system where user fees are allocated directly back to the system from the bottom, rather than trickled-down from Ottawa and Queen's Park, be unpopular. Then City Hall could allocate funding to transit and roads in a manner that was clear and transparent to motorists and to voters in general.

One of my favourite Einstein-isms is about not trying to solve problems with the thinking that created them; We need to collectively re-think mobility and how we pay for it. Only a system like Skymeter's enables that (and yes, I am biased.) I believe that making Toronto a more walkable, bike-friendly, livable and vibrant place could only be popular and that a Mayor who solved Toronto's gridlock could be rewarded with a higher share of the votes.

Conor Bill March 11, 2008 at 11:38 a.m.

Road tolls are simply one of many ways we can discourage cars in the city. Your arguments about the city core not being on a par with those of New York or London may be correct in the larger sense of "downtown", but is 100% wrong for the narrower "financial district", where a visit any day at 5:00 will show you that the congestion is at its worst. The first step toward improving the situation should be a city tax on office building parking spaces: if you can afford to pay $400+ for monthly unreserved parking (and - judging by the fact that most if not all of the major downtown office buildings are only taking names for waiting lists for parking - lots of people can) then you can afford to pay a tax to reflect your environmental / lifestyle choice in driving to work. I've been working downtown in these buildings for years and estimate that at least 60% of the people who drive to work each day could take transit with minimal inconvenience, yet they elect to drive. Perhaps a tax on the parking spots would encourage them to take transit and, if not, it would at least provide some much needed funds to help fund transit. Road tolls and congestion charges are large scale and costly / difficult to implement but a parking space tax is simple and easily implemented.

Dave March 11, 2008 at 2:24 p.m.

"60% of the people who drive to work each day could take transit with minimal inconvenience, yet they elect to drive."

Sadly, taking transit these days is hardly a "minimal inconvenience". Overcrowded streetcars/subways, unexplained delays and surly staff are not a great way to start your day. Since my wife stopped taking transit she gets to work 20 min earlier and a whole lot less stressed.

I still take transit most days, but the last thing I want is for more people to use it - putting even 10% more people into the system would make it unbearable during rush hour.

Edward Keenan March 11, 2008 at 3:01 p.m.

One line that struck me as a flat note: "Admittedly the collectors would become more congested, but that would merely encourage more people to car pool, turning them into de facto HOV lanes."

I'm not sure I understand how that would work — individual psychology seems unlikely to lead people to think car pooling would be a solution to the congestion for them. Once they car pooled, they'd still be in traffic to essentially the same extent, just now in a crowded car where they have to share control of the radio.

It's obvious to everyone that mass carpooling would help eliminate congestion, but I think there's a bit of a tragedy-of-the-commons situation for individuals in that they see no immediate personal benefit to carpooling on congested roads unless everyone else is doing it. Which is why I think it's unlikely we'd see "de facto HOV lanes". If we want HOV lanes, we'd need to enforce real ones.

Of course, people might carpool to drive in the toll lanes so they could skip the traffic and save a bit of money by sharing the costs -- which would make the congested collectors de facto LOV lanes. This could perhaps even be encouraged by giving toll discounts to high occupancy vehicles (though I'm not sure how that would work on the whole transponder-based system you outline).

In any event, just one small observation that may be slightly besides the point.

Justin March 12, 2008 at noon

In answer to some of the other comments posted:

Transit is insufficient in Toronto for a 10 percent increase in ridership! However, with Road Pricing, new Municipal Bonds would not kill Toronto's credit rating and new buses could be purchased to provide capacity on surface routes (which would work quickly.) London England did this and was incredibly successful in addressing new Transit demand. The reason the congestion has crept back up in London is more due to a wealth of road repair and reconstruction (with money from the tolls) and from things such as new bike lanes and reduced capacity for cars.

Also...Don't confuse HOV and HOT - HOV is free for carpoolers. HOT means IF you carpool you go for free but if you don't, you can pay and use the express lanes. I don't agree with this approach since increasing Highway capacity will only lead to further urban sprawl. Pricing all roads is the answer so that all system users pay a portion instead of those users who have little alternative being forced to pay on routes like the Gardiner or QEW.

As for system cost, the Canadian-invented (again, I am biased) Skymeter system is about 3times less expensive than the London option even if users don't get to enjoy the convenience of hands-free, ticketless parking.

I am glad to see that the debate here is rational and lacks the personal attacks that plague so many US sites dealing with this subject! But then we are Toronto the Good!

Transparency Trooper March 12, 2008 at 3:03 p.m.

Not that there's anything wrong with it but for transparency's sake readers ought to know Justin Peters works for a company trying to sell Toronto on a road pricing scheme.

Charles March 14, 2008 at 6:20 p.m.

London's road tolls cost a fortune (up to $50/Cdn per trip for certain vehicles) because they cost a fortune to administer and collect. They had to create a massive new bureaucracy to run it. Even our own Hwy 407 only recently started turning a profit for its' foreign owners.
Can you imagine the mess this would create in our own incompetent city bureaucracy?

Road tolls are no more than a ticket to ride for the rich. It seems most of the proponents are either very wealthy (L. Tanenbaum et al) or don't own cars at all. The concept is totally wrong for a new world city like Toronto, with it's efficient grid system of streets and relatively wide roadways.

Justin Peters March 18, 2008 at 8:15 p.m.

I do indeed work for Skymeter. I am also a resident, a property, a driver and a TTC rider. In my former life, I was an Executive Assistant to two separate City Councillors of the middle persuasion including a former Chair of Works Committee.

Contrary to Charles' opinion, Tolls are not a ticket to ride for the rich. In fact, with improved transit, they are a ticket to ride for the poor and lower income segments of our City, particularly those who only have transit to rely on. Imagine living in a part of the City that only has bus routes that intermingle with cars that are paying nothing at that moment to be there.

London's system is pricey for sure. That's why our Canadian invention is that much better than the one they've implemented. But credit is due to them for being leaders, both in the introduction of market forces to the mobility marketplace and for massive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions - which also benefit pedestrians, cyclists and those who dwell in lower income neighbourhoods.

Rather than fighting reform of our antiquated gas tax/property tax/line-up system of road funding and allocation, motorists ought to rise up and demand that pricing be introduced to more fairly allocate limited capacity.

Conor Bill March 20, 2008 at 11:26 a.m.

Assuming the city were to implement a road toll system, one of the contentious questions to be addressed would be what happens to the tolls collected? Would they be added to the city's general funds for use as it sees fit or would they be somehow "earmarked" for uses such as (the most likely one to be advocated for) road improvements or transit subsidies? Therein lies a piece of complex political calculus, but I suspect that the most popular answer among downtown voters would be transit subsidies, particularly if the objectives of such tolls include being more "green". Certainly the "stick" of tolls combined with a "carrot" (I'm thinking dramatically reduced transit fares here) would prove politically popular in the downtown wards that form the backbone of the David Miller's support. Of course, a revenue neutral plan like the one I'm discussing wouldn't help Miller with his budget problems, but it would make it seem less like the cash grab it so clearly is and could be used over time to gradually reduce the city's TTC subsidy, effectively freeeing up revenues.