Brandon Donnelly

Daily insights for city builders, delivered every morning at 6 AM ET. I’m Brandon Donnelly — a Toronto-based real estate developer and founder of Globizen. I’ve been writing here since 2013.

Subscribe

Tag: road pricing

  • Toronto’s congestion crisis needs solutions, not politics

    People in Toronto are deeply and rightly frustrated about our traffic. We have truly world-class congestion. But here’s the thing, the way we’re going about solving this problem is all wrong.

    Transportation staff seem to believe that congestion charges would not reduce or deter traffic from coming into Toronto. Never mind all the global precedents, never mind that we have the tolled 407 highway to look to, and never mind that economics tells us that when the price of something increases, the quantity demanded decreases.

    Instead, we seem to think that we can solve this problem with fewer bike lanes, improved traffic management, and better policing, including higher fines for disobedience. (Interestingly enough, higher fines are supposed to deter people, but congestion charges won’t do the same. I’m confused.)

    None of this will fix the mess we’re in.

    This is a case of politics over data and experience. Identify something that people are pissed off about, and then create the illusion that you’re doing something to fix it. Good politics. But the reality is that this problem is much trickier to solve. It will require vision and meaningful change. That’s a much tougher sell.

    Think of this way. Can you identity a large car-oriented global city with millions of people that doesn’t have a traffic congestion problem? Even the Katy Freeway in Houston, which counts as many as 26 total lanes, has a congestion problem. And the last time I checked, it didn’t have any bike lanes.

    https://twitter.com/joshuahind/status/1837347617304424620

    Now let’s look at the largest city region in the world — Tokyo. The city proper has about 14 million people and the broader region has about 41 million. This is the entire population of Canada in one city region, and yet it’s generally viewed as being one of the most well-run and efficient cities in the world. How do they do it?

    Here are the modal splits within Tokyo’s 23 wards (2018 data):

    • 36% public transport (rail and bus)
    • 27% passenger cars
    • 23% walking
    • 14% bicycles and motorcycles

    Now compare this to the splits in Toronto’s census metropolitan area (2021 census data):

    • 76% passenger cars
    • 16% public transport
    • 5% walking
    • 1% bicycles
    • 2% other

    Of course, if we were to look at the modal splits within the core of the city they would look quite different and much closer to Tokyo’s numbers. This is why it can be so hard to achieve consensus on many city building issues — we are quite literally a divided and different kind of city.

    In the end, this is the root cause of our traffic problem. The vast majority of people in this city region drive. And they are not to be blamed. It’s because we’ve designed this to be the only practical option.

    But if we’re serious about solving congestion, it’s going to require some bold changes. It’s going to require reducing this 76% figure. We can fool ourselves into thinking that better construction coordination, fewer bike lanes, and higher fines will somehow solve this enormous and deep-rooted problem, but the inconvenient truth is that they won’t.

    What we need are real solutions. Is anyone going to take the lead?

  • Why do we choose traffic?

    Scott Stinson gets a lot right in this recent Toronto Star article about road pricing:

    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.

  • NYC’s congestion relief zone is now on indefinite pause

    Boy, congestion charges are a pain to implement. Back in 2018, I wrote that New York City was considering a congestion charge for drivers entering Manhattan below 60th Street. Then in 2019, about a year later, I followed up with this post saying that the plan could be adopted as early as April of that year!

    That didn’t exactly happen. But I followed up again with a post in 2022 saying that New York City was still considering a congestion charge. And ultimately, it did finally get approved, even if it did take much longer than expected. It was rebranded a congestion relief zone (“relief” sounds a lot less offensive than “pricing”), and it was set to come into effect on June 30, 2024.

    This remained the situation until the first week of this month, which is when NY Governor Kathy Hochul held a surprise press conference and announced that the congestion relief zone would be placed on “indefinite pause.” I think that means cancelled. And it happened less than a month before the state was finally set to start collecting money.

    There is a legal question around whether she actually had the authority to intervene in this way, but let’s put that aside for now. Irrespective of that, this is a disappointing outcome precisely because we know that road pricing works. If you have a traffic congestion problem, price it, and then you will have less of it.

    What’s even more disappointing about this particular instance, though, is that many of us were looking to New York City to show us the way. We were looking for the most walkable and transit-rich city in the US to show people that, hey, road pricing works, and it won’t decimate your CBD.

    It is shocking to me that traffic congestion is allowed persist in the way that it does in our cities, and that there remains zero political will to actually address it. Instead of action, we like to preoccupy ourselves with red herrings. If only we didn’t have streetcars, Ubers, and so many bike lanes, then there wouldn’t be congestion.

    So what hope do we have now that even New York won’t do what is bold and right? Lots, as always. Cities, now is your chance to do what New York was too scared to do. Who will lead?

  • Why we shouldn’t blame Uber for traffic congestion

    It has become fairly common to blame Uber (and ridesharing in general) for increased traffic congestion. I hear it all the time: “If only there weren’t so many Ubers on the road, traffic would flow more freely.” While there are studies suggesting that “deadheading” miles do have a negative impact and that Uber can draw people away from public transit (that’s bad), I think it’s important to consider the bigger picture here. So let’s try and do that today.

    Firstly, let’s think about who traffic congestion directly impacts (indirectly it’s everyone). If you’re a pedestrian, you don’t care about traffic congestion. In fact, maybe you gain satisfaction from seeing other people stuck in it. (There’s even a German word for this feeling.) Similarly, if you’re riding the subway, taking any form of transit on its own right-of-way, or riding a bike, you likely also don’t care about traffic congestion. It doesn’t directly impact you.

    Where you do care about congestion is if you’re in something like a bus that is stuck in traffic or if you’re driving. In the former case, you’re probably thinking, “hey why can’t these people take the bus like me. Then we’d have less traffic!” And in the latter case you’re probably thinking, “if only there weren’t so many Ubers and bike lanes, then I wouldn’t be stuck in traffic!” Ironically, this is arguably the biggest segment of people who feel they are being impacted by Ubers.

    Secondly, let’s think about how Uber vs. driving might impact traffic congestion differently. In both cases, I would think that the majority of use cases involve one person (excluding drivers in the case of Uber) going to their desired destination. So from a raw space per person perspective, they both take up a similar amount of urban space.

    The differences are that the Uber likely had some amount of deadhead miles. In other words, it spent time driving around looking for its next passenger. And it likely targeted already busy areas because that’s where it was more likely to find someone. Individual drivers don’t do this. They go from point A to point B.

    However — and this is a big however — drivers do require parking once they get to where they’re going. Ubers don’t. This both takes up more space and oftentimes requires some amount of circling around. This is a significant difference and it begs the question: which is worse? Deadhead miles or all of the parking that cars generally require? I would argue the latter.

    Where I’m going with all of this is that I think the criticism of Uber is misdirected. It doesn’t get at the real underlying problem. If traffic congestion exists, it is because they are too many cars for a finite amount of road space. This includes the people who choose to drive themselves around. In fact, you could argue that they’re the most impactful to cities. The way you solve this is simple: you price congestion and you encourage alternative forms of mobility.

    Everything else is just a distraction.

  • Dynamic transit pricing

    Over the years on this blog, we’ve spoken a lot about dynamic pricing when it comes to roads and traffic congestion. And in this instance, the principal intents are to price congestion, improve traffic flows, and encourage other modes of transport. It follows the logic that if you’re going to tax things, tax the things you want less of.

    But what about using dynamic pricing for the opposite purpose — to induce demand?

    Diana Lind recently wrote about this here and talked about how London is exploring using dynamic pricing on its transit system. But rather than increasing prices during periods of high demand, I would imagine that the idea is to reduce prices when demand is lower. Already, it is piloting reduced fares on Fridays when its ridership drops by about 10%.

    It’s an interesting idea because, if done correctly, it should get more bums into seats on transit. And maybe it’s actually a more equitable pricing model.

  • Don’t screw it up, New York

    New York City is set to become the first in the US to implement a congestion charge (a form of road pricing). I first wrote about this back in 2018, and then again in 2019, but now it is looking more and more like it may actually happen sometime next year.

    I think all urbanists agree that this is an important step in the right direction. But some are now worried that New York isn’t going about it in the right way. Here is an excerpt from a recent Vice article by Aaron Gordon:

    With all these plans, you could be excused for thinking New York is doing congestion pricing—a potentially transformative policy that would be a first in the nation—right by not only charging drivers to access some of the densest, most valuable land in the world, but also giving them alternatives. Unfortunately, New York isn’t doing that, and in fact looks set to completely screw up congestion pricing so badly it may discredit the policy in a way that makes it harder for other cities to adopt it. Rather than approaching it as a lynchpin to a wide-ranging effort to reshape Manhattan’s relationship to the private car, congestion pricing has become solely about money—specifically, paying off enough of the credit-card bill New York has run up with a variety of ill-conceived and poorly-executed projects that it can get more credit cards.

    You can rightly say that this is decades in the making. Mayor Bloomberg first proposed the idea back in 2007, and I’m sure there were others before him with a similar idea.

    So Gordon raises a valid point: It’s important that NYC gets this right. Otherwise, it’s going to be that much more difficult for other North American cities to even think about implementing road pricing.

    For the full Vice article, click here.

  • Venice announces new “entrance fee”

    Over the weekend, we spoke about using road pricing as a way to correct supply and demand imbalances on city roads and highways. Because it turns out that when roads, or anything else for that matter, are free, people tend to use them a lot more. It’s why when you suddenly submeter utilities in an apartment building, consumption tends to drop off significantly. Now it’s no longer “free”.

    It’s for this exact reason that Venice — a city that has been complaining about too many tourists for many years — has decided to implement a new entrance fee. Starting spring 2024, day trippers will have to pay €5 to enter the “old city” of Venice.

    If you own a home there, you’re exempt because presumably you’re already paying property taxes. And if you’re staying overnight, you’re also exempt, because presumably you’re going to be paying whatever hotel taxes the city levies. But if you’re just coming in for the day, you’re going to need to pay.

    Now, I don’t know if €5, structured in this way, is going to fully address the city’s overtourism concerns. Maybe it needs to be a lot more. But it is a step in the right direction. If you have too much demand for a certain amount of supply, you can generally lower demand by increasing the price. Perhaps the only exception is a Birkin bag. Apparently you can charge any price for these.

    Photo by Martin Katler on Unsplash

  • Toronto needs money

    For next year’s budget (2024), the City of Toronto is projecting a $1.5 – $1.7 billion budget shortfall. And over the next 10 years, this shortfall is expected to grow to nearly $47 billion if changes aren’t made. This is according to a recent report prepared by Ernst & Young and Strategy Corp. So right now, all of this is being looked at and debated by Council.

    Where are we going to get this money?

    One persistent debate is whether the city actually has a revenue problem, or whether it’s simply an expense/spending problem. I can’t say that I’ve scrutinized the city’s expenses at any length, so I’m not going to get into that level of detail today. For this post, I’d like to focus on two specific things. The first is property taxes.

    Here is a figure, from the report, showing residential property tax rates across southern Ontario:

    What you will see is that Toronto has the lowest rate of the 35 municipalities that they looked at. Now obviously there are some nuances to consider. The average home price in Toronto is higher than it is in, say, Sault St. Marie. Toronto also has a large commercial property tax base. But even still, historically speaking, Toronto has tended to increase its residential property taxes at or below the rate of inflation.

    This is a problem. And it is the exact same problem that we have talked about on this blog in regards to residential rent controls. If you own an apartment building where the rents are capped and your expenses are, therefore, growing faster than your revenue, you are (1) highly incentivized not to invest in the apartment (you can’t afford to) and (2) eventually going to hit a financial wall.

    Sound familiar? As far as I can tell, that is, at least partially, what is happening here.

    Secondly, one of the first things that I did when I opened the report was run a search for “road tolls” and “congestion charges”. Regular readers of this blog will know that this is something I feel strongly about. Here’s what I found:

    In 2017, when the City considered implementation of tolls for the Gardiner and the DVP, staff estimated that a $2-per-trip toll would generate $5.6 billion in 10 years. The province has refused several requests to consider these options, with the Minister of Transportation rejecting any discussion of uploading or tolling as recently as December 2022.

    This is also a problem. One of the general rules with taxes is that you should ideally tax the things you want less of. Hmm. So why not tax traffic congestion? There is no question that it works. There’s lots of evidence from all around the world. We just lack the political will to actually do it. Instead, we pay lip service with solutions that don’t work.

    At the same time, if we were to actually implement road pricing, I don’t believe that a flat toll is the way to go. $2 also seems low. The best practice is dynamic road pricing that fluctuates based on actual congestion levels. Meaning, if you’re driving at 5am, expect a low rate. And if you’re driving at 5pm, expect a high rate.

    Virtually overnight, we know this would do at least three things: (1) it would reduce/eliminate traffic congestion (congestion levels would become a function of pricing); (2) it would reduce overall carbon emissions in the city; and (3) it would take a meaningful chunk out of this $47 billion budget shortfall.

  • Why so few people drive in Tokyo

    Daniel Knowles, who is a correspondent for the Economist, recently authored a book called Carmageddon: How Cars Make Life Worse and What to Do About It. I haven’t read it, yet, but I did just read this excerpt about Tokyo, and it was jam-packed with interesting stats.

    Here are some of them:

    • Among developed cities, Tokyo has the lowest car use in the world. About 12% of trips are completed with a car, whereas 17% of trips are done with a bicycle. Most people walk and/or take transit. Tokyo has the most-used public transit system in the world — about 30 million people each day.
    • Car ownership across Japan is about 590 vehicles per 1,000 people. This is comparable to many European countries. In the US, it’s about 800 vehicles per 1,000. However, this figure drops in Tokyo. Here, the average is about 0.32 cars per household, which was interesting to see because most new housing projects in downtown Toronto have parking ratios that are much lower than even this figure.
    • The average size of a home in Tokyo is 65.9 square meters of usable area. By comparison, the average size of a home in London is 80 square meters. But given that according to Knowles, the average household size in London is 2.7 people, whereas it’s 1.95 in Tokyo. So per capita, Tokyoites actually have more space than Londoners.
    • 35% of streets in Japan are not wide enough to fit a car. If you add in streets that are wide enough to fit a car but not wide enough that a car could stop and not entirely block traffic, this figure jumps to 86%. This to me is a massively significant statistic, because if you want people to walk places you need small streets.
    • 95% of streets in Japan do not allow any sort of street parking — day or night.
    • The average Japanese car owner drives around 6,000 kilometers per year. This is about a third of what the average American does. In my case, it looks like I have averaged about 8,868 kilometers per year over the last 5 years. Though a big chunk of my kilometers would be from longer one-off snowboarding trips. In other words, I don’t drive all that often in the city.
    • Japan has some of the most expensive road tolls/prices in the world. Meaning, Japan does not actively subsidize driving and instead just charges drivers accordingly. Apparently the average is about 3,000 yen per 100 kilometers, which is about CA$30 per 100 kilometers.
    • In addition to not subsidizing cars, Tokyo is also one of the few cities in the world where their public transit does not need to be subsidized. A big part of this has to do with high ridership, but the other important part is that its transit authorities also develop real estate. Shockingly, this means that it tends not to build standalone and single-storey transit stations (ahem, I’m looking at you Crosstown LRT). Instead, they build lots of density where it always belongs: on top of transit.

    I may just have to read Knowles’ book.

  • New York City is piloting about a dozen motion sensor cameras

    This won’t come as a surprise to many of you. But I recently attended a community meeting where someone was advocating for adding new lanes to a particular road. Their argument was that traffic congestion is forcing too many cars to sit needlessly idle and that that is bad for the environment. The proposed solution of adding new lanes would get traffic moving, reduce idling pollution, and therefore be overall better for the environment.

    I disagree entirely.

    But transportation planning seems to be one of those things that many people feel is intuitive. It’s one of those things where people feel confident saying, “I know how to fix this. We just need to do this.” But the reality is that cities are incredibly complex organisms and it’s not always obvious what should be done. So I think that a big part of making our cities better comes down to having much better data. And that’s why I’m very intrigued by the work that startup Viva, and others, are doing.

    Viva uses small street-light mounted cameras and machine learning to track urban mobility (see image above). Currently they track 9 different modes: pedestrian, bicycle, e-scooter, motorcycle, car, van, light truck, semi-truck, and bus. And after they collect this data, the relevant information is extracted and then everything else is deleted for privacy reasons. There are also plans to make this data openly available to the public so that people can use it and/or build on top of it.

    Obviously this is still going to raise privacy concerns and that is something that will need to be carefully addressed. But I do think that the data from a platform like this is going to be invaluable for cities. Among many other things, it will help us to better allocate space among the various modes and design much safer streets. Hopefully it can also help to take some of the politics out of these sorts of decisions: “Here’s the data. Take a look.”

    Viva currently has 1,000 sensors already installed in London (where they are being used to evaluate the impacts of congestion pricing), and about half a dozen in New York. So it’ll be interesting to see what this leads to. And who knows, maybe it will actually turn us all into amateur transportation planners. We’ll certainly have access to a lot more data.

    For more information on Viva, here’s their website.

    Image: Viva