Chris Hagerbaumer is the deputy director of the Oregon Environmental Council. She recently delivered the below testimony on “variable traffic-based tolls”, a form of road pricing. This is something we have talked a lot about here on the blog.
Oregon is currently looking at implementing this on two freeways in Portland, which is why Chris delivered this testimony. And as many of you know, I am very much in support of this demand management approach. So here you are: why congestion pricing makes sense for Portland (taken from City Observatory).
——————————————————–
The question in front of you is: how do we actually solve congestion, solve it in a way that is the least cost to the taxpayer, and in a way that doesn’t result in more pollution. When we add more supply (in other words, build more roads) we end up exactly where we started when it comes to congestion (due to induced demand), we spend billions of taxpayer dollars (much of which comes from drivers who aren’t the ones demanding more road space), we harm surrounding communities as highways encroach into neighborhoods, and we pollute the air and heat up the planet.
Chris Hagerbaumer is the deputy director of the Oregon Environmental Council. She recently delivered the below testimony on “variable traffic-based tolls”, a form of road pricing. This is something we have talked a lot about here on the blog.
Oregon is currently looking at implementing this on two freeways in Portland, which is why Chris delivered this testimony. And as many of you know, I am very much in support of this demand management approach. So here you are: why congestion pricing makes sense for Portland (taken from City Observatory).
——————————————————–
The question in front of you is: how do we actually solve congestion, solve it in a way that is the least cost to the taxpayer, and in a way that doesn’t result in more pollution. When we add more supply (in other words, build more roads) we end up exactly where we started when it comes to congestion (due to induced demand), we spend billions of taxpayer dollars (much of which comes from drivers who aren’t the ones demanding more road space), we harm surrounding communities as highways encroach into neighborhoods, and we pollute the air and heat up the planet.
Induced demand is the fact that when you add freeway capacity it induces longer trips, more sprawl and more driving. Traffic is like a gas, expanding to fit whatever space there is. In one infamous example, Texas spent nearly $2.8 billion expanding Katy Freeway to 26 lanes and congestion has actually worsened.
Building new roads is a supply-side solution that simply doesn’t work.
An effective, least-cost, environmentally sound way to address congestion is the proposal before you: congestion pricing to manage demand. Drivers pay an automated fee to enter highly congested roads at peak hours; in return, they travel smoothly and reliably, getting where they need to go on time. Prices are set at the lowest possible level to free up just enough road space to eliminate bottlenecks.
When you eliminate bottlenecks and get traffic flowing freely, you have—in essence—added capacity. You no longer need to add new lanes, you save taxpayers a bundle, and you reduce dangerous auto and truck exhaust.
Congestion pricing is a demand management solution that’s proven to work and does so in cities around the world. Drivers opposed congestion pricing at first: no one wants to pay more. But that opposition of 60% or more turned into support of 60% or more after congestion pricing was implemented. People’s opposition turned to support because they now get that it works—they experience the value.
Equitable application of congestion pricing absolutely requires mitigating diversion to local streets. But note that congestion pricing actually pulls many drivers who were already cutting through local roads back to the highway because those drivers who were stuck in traffic now have an option to get where they need to go, on time, for a small price.
Equitable application of congestion pricing also requires significantly increasing transit service and other travel options in the corridor and considering other means to make the system work for low-income commuters who must drive during peak hours, such as targeted discounts or exemptions.
We think of highways as free and we think of driving as freedom, but by investing almost solely in infrastructure for cars over most of the 20th century and into the 21st century, we created a transportation system that is costly not only for our pocketbooks, but for our very health and wellbeing and our region’s economic prosperity, a transportation system that contributes to the existential risk of runaway climate change.
You have an opportunity to make a decision that will lead to less time stuck in traffic, healthier air, and more economic prosperity for the region and state. We hope you embrace that opportunity.
Today, more Torontonians die from being hit by cars than from being killed by guns. In 2016, nearly 2,000 pedestrians and 1,000 cyclists in the city were hit by cars. Of these, 43 resulted in fatalities. On average, a pedestrian in Toronto is hit every four or five hours, and a cyclist every eight or nine. This means that Toronto’s rate of pedestrian deaths was 1.6 per 100,000 people in 2016 — worse than in Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco, Boston, Washington, D.C., Portland, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and Buffalo. It has risen to 1.7 deaths per 100,000 people in 2017 and is on track to rise still further to 1.8 deaths per 100,000 this year. And, children and the elderly face the greatest risk of being struck and killed by a car. The problem is only getting worse. Across Canada, pedestrian fatalities increased by more than 10 percent between 2010 and 2016; at time when they decreased by more than 25 percent in European countries like Norway, Switzerland, and the Netherlands.
The broader issue is what he refers to as Toronto’s “car-dependent spatial structure.” And it is detrimental to not only our public safety, as we saw this week, but also to our ability to grow as a global city. The Greater Toronto Area is projected to reach 10 million people by 2041. I agree with Florida that, for a number of important reasons, we are going to need to commit ourselves to a new model for growth.
About a year ago, Portland enacted “Inclusionary Housing” policy requiring new apartment buildings of 20 units or more to offer up a portion of the units at below market rents.
Developers are able to select from a few different options and the rents are calculated according to a percentage of the city’s median family income (30-80%). I’m not sure how this policy would apply to new condo buildings.
This is an interesting account by The Portland Mercury of what this policy may be doing to the housing market. I say may because it’s only been a year and there could be other factors at play.
Between 2013 and 2017, Portland typically built between 3,000 and 6,000 new units per year. Since the IH policy went into effect on February 1, 2017, 682 new units have applied for permit.
About half are coming from one developer who appears to be building the requisite affordable units in exchange for no parking minimums. They are now proposing buildings with zero parking.
Again, in all fairness, it’s only been a year. But already Mayor Ted Wheeler is looking at other incentives to encourage more new construction in the central city. The biggest levers: height and density.
Induced demand is the fact that when you add freeway capacity it induces longer trips, more sprawl and more driving. Traffic is like a gas, expanding to fit whatever space there is. In one infamous example, Texas spent nearly $2.8 billion expanding Katy Freeway to 26 lanes and congestion has actually worsened.
Building new roads is a supply-side solution that simply doesn’t work.
An effective, least-cost, environmentally sound way to address congestion is the proposal before you: congestion pricing to manage demand. Drivers pay an automated fee to enter highly congested roads at peak hours; in return, they travel smoothly and reliably, getting where they need to go on time. Prices are set at the lowest possible level to free up just enough road space to eliminate bottlenecks.
When you eliminate bottlenecks and get traffic flowing freely, you have—in essence—added capacity. You no longer need to add new lanes, you save taxpayers a bundle, and you reduce dangerous auto and truck exhaust.
Congestion pricing is a demand management solution that’s proven to work and does so in cities around the world. Drivers opposed congestion pricing at first: no one wants to pay more. But that opposition of 60% or more turned into support of 60% or more after congestion pricing was implemented. People’s opposition turned to support because they now get that it works—they experience the value.
Equitable application of congestion pricing absolutely requires mitigating diversion to local streets. But note that congestion pricing actually pulls many drivers who were already cutting through local roads back to the highway because those drivers who were stuck in traffic now have an option to get where they need to go, on time, for a small price.
Equitable application of congestion pricing also requires significantly increasing transit service and other travel options in the corridor and considering other means to make the system work for low-income commuters who must drive during peak hours, such as targeted discounts or exemptions.
We think of highways as free and we think of driving as freedom, but by investing almost solely in infrastructure for cars over most of the 20th century and into the 21st century, we created a transportation system that is costly not only for our pocketbooks, but for our very health and wellbeing and our region’s economic prosperity, a transportation system that contributes to the existential risk of runaway climate change.
You have an opportunity to make a decision that will lead to less time stuck in traffic, healthier air, and more economic prosperity for the region and state. We hope you embrace that opportunity.
Today, more Torontonians die from being hit by cars than from being killed by guns. In 2016, nearly 2,000 pedestrians and 1,000 cyclists in the city were hit by cars. Of these, 43 resulted in fatalities. On average, a pedestrian in Toronto is hit every four or five hours, and a cyclist every eight or nine. This means that Toronto’s rate of pedestrian deaths was 1.6 per 100,000 people in 2016 — worse than in Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco, Boston, Washington, D.C., Portland, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and Buffalo. It has risen to 1.7 deaths per 100,000 people in 2017 and is on track to rise still further to 1.8 deaths per 100,000 this year. And, children and the elderly face the greatest risk of being struck and killed by a car. The problem is only getting worse. Across Canada, pedestrian fatalities increased by more than 10 percent between 2010 and 2016; at time when they decreased by more than 25 percent in European countries like Norway, Switzerland, and the Netherlands.
The broader issue is what he refers to as Toronto’s “car-dependent spatial structure.” And it is detrimental to not only our public safety, as we saw this week, but also to our ability to grow as a global city. The Greater Toronto Area is projected to reach 10 million people by 2041. I agree with Florida that, for a number of important reasons, we are going to need to commit ourselves to a new model for growth.
About a year ago, Portland enacted “Inclusionary Housing” policy requiring new apartment buildings of 20 units or more to offer up a portion of the units at below market rents.
Developers are able to select from a few different options and the rents are calculated according to a percentage of the city’s median family income (30-80%). I’m not sure how this policy would apply to new condo buildings.
This is an interesting account by The Portland Mercury of what this policy may be doing to the housing market. I say may because it’s only been a year and there could be other factors at play.
Between 2013 and 2017, Portland typically built between 3,000 and 6,000 new units per year. Since the IH policy went into effect on February 1, 2017, 682 new units have applied for permit.
About half are coming from one developer who appears to be building the requisite affordable units in exchange for no parking minimums. They are now proposing buildings with zero parking.
Again, in all fairness, it’s only been a year. But already Mayor Ted Wheeler is looking at other incentives to encourage more new construction in the central city. The biggest levers: height and density.
