Although the Ontario Ministry of Transportation’s Transit Supportive Guidelines (TSG) has added several progressive strategies since the original guidelines were published by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs in 1992 (e.g. parking and other basic TDM measures), there remains an elephant in the road: road pricing. If the province is serious about making transit (and other sustainable modes) competitive with single occupant vehicles (SOVs), this oversight is unacceptable – especially given that transit capital and operating costs are growing faster than inflation (10% in real dollars since 2000) and transit fares are increasing more rapidly (+25%) than auto costs (-33%). This imbalance, combined with a general reluctance of motorists to switch modes, will make it difficult to shift demand to transit (Casello, 2010). Further, studies by Duranton (2009), Eliason (2005) and Bedsworth (2011) all validate that the current “build transit and they will come” attitude displayed by MTO and Metrolinx is not enough to shift demand from the dominant SOV mode. The study authors have found that auto travel must be priced according to the marginal costs incurred if (1) congestion is to be decreased and (2) transit and other sustainable modes are to become a viable option for choice as well as captive riders.

Road pricing adheres to the basic economic principle that consumers should pay directly for the costs they impose as an incentive to use resources efficiently. As a result, developed and developing countries from the US to Chile and Sweden to China are using or considering different road pricing systems to modify driver behaviour and raise much needed revenue for transportation infrastructure. The systems, which price congested urban areas, specific facilities or entire road networks, have come a long way from the days of throwing a coin (a flat fee) in a basket at a toll plaza. Now, cameras and transponders using Automatic Number Plate Recognition, Dedicated Short Range Communication and Global Navigation Satellite Systems are slowly doing away with manual payment so traffic flow is maintained and dynamic pricing (payment based on distance travelled, time of day, road classification, and vehicle type) can be instituted. Stockholm, London, Minneapolis, San Diego and Seattle have used road pricing as an integral component of their land use and transportation planning initiatives – making sure that transit is improved (Transport Futures, 2008) in tandem with more efficient development patterns (Anas, 2010; Gou, 2011). This is how MTO and its municipal partners can truly support transit.

And Ontario may not be that far behind. For the first time in history, the construction of a publicly owned toll road (the easterly extension of Highway 407) is being used as a way to corral votes from an electorate that supposedly is against tolling (Benzie, 2011). In early 2010, Minister Kathleen Wynne said that “the GTA must have a ‘conversation’ about toll roads, congestion fees and other possible sources of revenue to fund needed infrastructure improvements” (Toronto Sun, 2010) at the same time as asking Metrolinx to come forward with its Investment Strategy in 2012 — rather than the legislated date of June 2013. Speaking of legislation, municipalities already have the authority to construct toll roads (Government of Ontario, 2001) — but they will not take the lead without the province (or Metrolinx in the GTHA) as a full financial, technical and political partner.

Taken together, this political and legislative recognition of road pricing should be translating into recognition within the TSG document. If we are to make transit truly competitive with projected SOV use and ownership while reducing crashes, emissions and urban sprawl, road pricing should be added as an integral component of the MTO’s Transit-Supportive Guidelines.

Sincerely,
Martin Collier, MES (Pl.)
Founder, Transport Futures
Director, Healthy Transport Consulting

REFERENCES

Anas, Alex (2010). Congestion, Road Pricing and Urban Sprawl. Presentation to
Transport Futures Smart Growth & Road Pricing Forum. Retrieved from
www.transportfutures.ca/smartgrowth

Bedsworth, L., Hanak, E., Kolko, J. (2011, February). Driving Change: Reducing
Vehicle Miles Traveled in California. Page 1. Retrieved from
www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_211LBR.pdf

Benzie, Robert (2011, March 10). Liberals to extend 407. The Toronto Star.
Retrieved from
http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/951648–liberals-to-extend-h…
407

Casello, Jeff (2011, February 3). Transit Fares for Multi-modal Transportation
Systems. Presentation to Transport Futures Mobility Pricing Conference. Slide
11. Retrieved from www.transportfutures.ca/mobility

Duranton, G. and Turner, M., (2009). The Fundamental Law of Road Congestion:
Evidence from US cities. Retrieved from
http://repec.economics.utoronto.ca/files/tecipa-370.pdf

Eliason, J. et al (2005). The Stockholm congestion charging trial – what
happened? Page 23. Retrieved from
www.stockholmsforsoket.se/upload/Rapporter/Expert_group_summary_060621.pdf

Guo, Zhan et al (2011). The Intersection of Urban Form and Mileage Fees:
Findings from the Oregon Road User Fee Pilot. Minetta Transportation
Institute. Retrieved from
http://transweb.sjsu.edu/PDFs/research/2909_rsch_brief.pdf

Government of Ontario (2001). Ontario Municipal Act, RSO, 2001, c. 25, s. 40
(2). Retrieved from
www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_01m25_e.htm#BK53

Toronto Sun, (2010, May 25). Time to chat about road tolls: transport
minister. Retrieved from
http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2010/05/25/14086711.html (link no longer available)

Transport Futures (2008). Transport Futures Road Pricing Forum – Technical
Systems. November 13, 2008. Retrieved from
www.transportfutures.ca/forum-2008