There is a simple tool to combat traffic congestion that has been proven to be effective. There are real-world examples of where it has been deployed to great and long-lasting success. It’s called road pricing. And we seem to be deathly afraid of it.
This is even if the benefits are real and measurable:
Jonas Eliasson, director of travel accessibility at the Swedish Transport Administration, has first-hand experience with the effects of the congestion charge implemented in Stockholm in 2006. Public polling showed two-thirds of voters were against the road-pricing plan before it was introduced in a pilot program. A local politician called it the “most expensive way ever devised to commit political suicide.” But after it began, Stockholm traffic levels dropped by 25 per cent, more than double initial estimates. In a subsequent referendum, Stockholm residents voted to adopt the congestion charge permanently.
There is a simple tool to combat traffic congestion that has been proven to be effective. There are real-world examples of where it has been deployed to great and long-lasting success. It’s called road pricing. And we seem to be deathly afraid of it.
This is even if the benefits are real and measurable:
Jonas Eliasson, director of travel accessibility at the Swedish Transport Administration, has first-hand experience with the effects of the congestion charge implemented in Stockholm in 2006. Public polling showed two-thirds of voters were against the road-pricing plan before it was introduced in a pilot program. A local politician called it the “most expensive way ever devised to commit political suicide.” But after it began, Stockholm traffic levels dropped by 25 per cent, more than double initial estimates. In a subsequent referendum, Stockholm residents voted to adopt the congestion charge permanently.
There are lots of reasons why road pricing is commonly opposed, but at the end of the day, it works, and we know all too well -- especially here in Toronto -- that the status quo sucks:
“Over the years, transportation economists and planners have pointed out that there really is no other solution to traffic congestion than more efficient pricing,” he said in an interview. “So every time somebody said ‘No, I don’t want road pricing or congestion pricing,’ they’re actually saying, ‘I want traffic congestion.’”
I've been writing about this topic for almost as long as I've been writing this blog. So at this point, I think we just need to run a pilot. No more studies and reports. No more protracted debates.
Let's try it out and see how many people prefer (1) less traffic congestion and (2) more money for alternative modes of transport.
We evolved to be wary of change. Our attention is limited, new things can be a threat and the status quo feels comfortable.
As a result, we spend a lot of time and energy being afraid (and arguing about) the upcoming changes in our lives, but almost no time at all thinking about the things we’re used to.
As an example of this tension, check out this "exit interview" with Toronto's former chief city planner, Gregg Lintern. The underlying theme is change and why it's desperately needed.
But of course, that's not easy.
The interviewer, Victoria Gibson, mentions this survey stat: nearly half (47%) of all Torontonians think the city is building too little housing, and yet only about a quarter (27%) think their area could handle more.
We need this, but not here. Probably because we're used to the way things are.
But if you read the interview, you'll see that the answer, or at least one answer, is to make the conversation personal, and ultimately think critically about, you know, the things we're used to.
Change starts with not giving the benefit of the doubt to the status quo.
There are lots of reasons why road pricing is commonly opposed, but at the end of the day, it works, and we know all too well -- especially here in Toronto -- that the status quo sucks:
“Over the years, transportation economists and planners have pointed out that there really is no other solution to traffic congestion than more efficient pricing,” he said in an interview. “So every time somebody said ‘No, I don’t want road pricing or congestion pricing,’ they’re actually saying, ‘I want traffic congestion.’”
I've been writing about this topic for almost as long as I've been writing this blog. So at this point, I think we just need to run a pilot. No more studies and reports. No more protracted debates.
Let's try it out and see how many people prefer (1) less traffic congestion and (2) more money for alternative modes of transport.
We evolved to be wary of change. Our attention is limited, new things can be a threat and the status quo feels comfortable.
As a result, we spend a lot of time and energy being afraid (and arguing about) the upcoming changes in our lives, but almost no time at all thinking about the things we’re used to.
As an example of this tension, check out this "exit interview" with Toronto's former chief city planner, Gregg Lintern. The underlying theme is change and why it's desperately needed.
But of course, that's not easy.
The interviewer, Victoria Gibson, mentions this survey stat: nearly half (47%) of all Torontonians think the city is building too little housing, and yet only about a quarter (27%) think their area could handle more.
We need this, but not here. Probably because we're used to the way things are.
But if you read the interview, you'll see that the answer, or at least one answer, is to make the conversation personal, and ultimately think critically about, you know, the things we're used to.
Change starts with not giving the benefit of the doubt to the status quo.
On the exact same day last week, the Toronto Star published two articles about housing. The first one, this one here, is about how "Toronto has protected huge parts of the city from anything denser than detached or semi-detached houses" and how this has resulted in an "uneven city." The second article, this opinion piece, is about the "many repercussions to replacing little bungalows." And one of the implied repercussions is that 3-storey sun blockers that invade privacy might actually kill people. Hmm.
In effect, these are the two sides of this debate. If you zoom out and look at Toronto, you will largely see a contrasting and uneven city of tall buildings and low-rise housing. Instead of building like Paris, which is consistently mid-rise -- but also far denser on average than Toronto -- we have chosen peaks and large plains to constrain new housing. And if you zoom in across those plains, you'll find many areas without sidewalks, along with people, such as the author of the second article above, who believe that nothing more than a single storey is appropriate for human health.
All of this has persisted because it has been politically popular. But time continues to show us that it actually runs counter to our goals of building an inclusive and globally competitive city region. Thankfully, it feels like we are finally reaching a tipping point.
On the exact same day last week, the Toronto Star published two articles about housing. The first one, this one here, is about how "Toronto has protected huge parts of the city from anything denser than detached or semi-detached houses" and how this has resulted in an "uneven city." The second article, this opinion piece, is about the "many repercussions to replacing little bungalows." And one of the implied repercussions is that 3-storey sun blockers that invade privacy might actually kill people. Hmm.
In effect, these are the two sides of this debate. If you zoom out and look at Toronto, you will largely see a contrasting and uneven city of tall buildings and low-rise housing. Instead of building like Paris, which is consistently mid-rise -- but also far denser on average than Toronto -- we have chosen peaks and large plains to constrain new housing. And if you zoom in across those plains, you'll find many areas without sidewalks, along with people, such as the author of the second article above, who believe that nothing more than a single storey is appropriate for human health.
All of this has persisted because it has been politically popular. But time continues to show us that it actually runs counter to our goals of building an inclusive and globally competitive city region. Thankfully, it feels like we are finally reaching a tipping point.
