PHASE 1 PROJECT UPDATE FULL REPORT. Phase 1 research and engagement for the It s Time project

Transcription

1 PHASE 1 PROJECT UPDATE FULL REPORT Phase 1 research and engagement for the It s Time project JANUARY 2018

2 CONTENTS OF THIS REPORT INTRODUCTION....1 PHASE 1 RECAP Phase 1 Activities: did Research Results: learned Engagement Results: heard from stakeholders Engagement Results: heard from the public Next Steps: will study...28 STAY TUNED APPENDIX A: Full Research Report: Moving around Metro Vancouver APPENDIX B: Decongestion charging policy and global lessons learned report APPENDIX C. Coarse-level evaluation: Mobility pricing policy instruments for motor vehicles APPENDIX D: Phase 1 Engagement Report

3 INTRODUCTION On October 25, 2017, the Mobility Pricing Independent Commission (the Commission) launched the It s Time project. This report outlines the research and engagement completed through Phase 1. About the project It s Time is a multi-phased research and public engagement project exploring how decongestion charging could work in Metro Vancouver. Upcoming phases will include further research, analysis, and engagement with stakeholders, advisory groups, and the public on potential approaches to decongestion charging in the region. As directed by the Terms of Reference, the Commission s work is focusing on these three objectives: Reduce traffic congestion on roads and bridges across the Metro Vancouver region so people and goods can keep moving, and businesses can thrive Promote fairness to address concerns around the previous approach to tolling some roads and bridges but not others, as well as providing affordable transportation choices Support transportation investment to improve the current transportation system in Metro Vancouver for all users The Commission is tasked with making recommendations about decongestion charging and mobility pricing in Metro Vancouver to the Mayors Council on Regional Transportation and the TransLink Board of Directors in spring If a decision is made to pursue decongestion charging, the next steps in the process will need to involve further research and public engagement to design and implement a system. The It s Time project was initiated in support of the goals outlined in the Regional Transportation Strategy (2013) and the Mayors Council 10-Year Vision for Metro Vancouver Transit and Transportation (2014). SUCCESS IDEA STRATEGY 1

4 About the Commission The Commission is a group of 14 representatives from across Metro Vancouver appointed through an application and recruitment process to guide and deliver a transparent and independent research and engagement process. Since its formation in summer 2017 the Commission has held three formal meetings: Meeting #1 July 28, The Commission reviewed the Terms of Reference, which define the background and aims of the project, and agreed to a high-level work plan for research and engagement activities. The Commission also explored some of the objectives and values of the project process. Meeting #2 September 6, The Commission reviewed more detailed plans related to the research and engagement processes. They were introduced to a structured evaluation process that will be used later in the project to help explore the trade-offs between different approaches to decongestion charging. Commission members were also asked to provide input on what information they will need in order to make their final recommendations in spring Meeting #3 November 28, The Commission reviewed evidence emerging from the first phase of research on congestion, and information regarding the funding of the 10-Year Vision for Metro Vancouver Transit and Transportation. The Commission decided which possible policy approaches will be taken forward for further analysis in the next project phase. They also reviewed a draft of the evaluation framework, which will provide the necessary information for them to make their final recommendations in spring Preliminary results from the first phase of stakeholder and public engagement were also presented and discussed. 2

5 DID LEARNED HEARD WILL STUDY PHASE 1 RECAP The Phase 1 communications and engagement stream of the It s Time project introduced mobility pricing and decongestion charging to Metro Vancouver residents and stakeholders, and established parameters for the project by exploring objectives and principles. The Phase 1 research and analysis stream laid the groundwork for upcoming phases by establishing a baseline of current conditions and expected future trends in Metro Vancouver, studying other cities experiences with decongestion charging, and identifying possible approaches to decongestion charging in the region for further analysis. 1. Phase 1 Activities: did This section outlines the research, engagement, and communication activities completed in Phase 1, including key research and analysis, a series of stakeholder workshops, and an online public engagement program to garner broad regional feedback. Starting on the right foot Research activities In Phase 1, the project team s research and analysis efforts aimed to answer these four questions:? asked Question 1: What does congestion look like in Metro Vancouver now, and what will it look like in the future? did Research on transportation in the region With the launch of the It s Time project, the team developed a research report called Moving in Metro Vancouver: An exploration of the regional baseline, and implications for mobility pricing. This report established a baseline for congestion issues and challenges in Metro Vancouver. The report identified population projections, traffic data, and overall research background that will be used for the It s Time project moving forward The report offered analysis of issues and opportunities for each of the Commission s three objectives: reducing congestion, promoting fairness, and supporting transportation investment in Metro Vancouver From traffic modelling and analysis, the report also presented a list of eight congestion hot spots in the region, which were brought to the public and stakeholders for feedback The full research report can be found in Appendix A. 3

6 DID? asked LEARNED Question 2: What can we learn from others experience with decongestion charging? HEARD did WILL STUDY Analysis of decongestion charging policy and lessons learned The project team collaborated with experts to: Better understand decongestion charging and how it works Explore considerations for equity and fairness through an analysis of the theory behind basic traits of fairness as they apply to decongestion charging Study how public acceptance of decongestion charging has developed around the world Gather lessons from international experiences of implementing decongestion charging From this research the project team gained a deeper understanding of decongestion charging as a policy tool and of some key considerations for implementation. The decongestion charging policy and global lessons learned report can be found in Appendix B. WHAT ARE POLICY TOOLS? Policy tools are a general method or way of achieving a desired societal goal and do not go into detail about where, when, or how to use or implement that method. In this case, a policy tool is a possible decongestion charging approach that is being considered to reduce congestion in Metro Vancouver.? asked Question 3: What are suitable approaches that could reduce congestion in Metro Vancouver? did Evaluation of policy tools for Metro Vancouver Building upon the baseline research and policy analysis, the project team identified 10 decongestion charging policy tools that could be applied in different ways in Metro Vancouver. The project team only examined policy tools related to charging for road usage (as opposed to any and all tools that could be used to reduce congestion). The focus on road usage was mandated by the Commission s Terms of Reference. 4

7 DID LEARNED HEARD WILL STUDY The project team conducted a broad assessment called a coarse-level evaluation, analyzing each of the 10 policy tools identified using the following criteria and questions: What are the strengths and weaknesses of the tool? Could the tool be applied in a way that could meet the Commission s three objectives: reduce congestion, promote fairness, and support transportation investment? How complex would it be to implement and administer the tool? Through this evaluation, the project team narrowed the list of policy tools from 10 to four. These four tools will be subject to further analysis to understand how they could be implemented in the Metro Vancouver context. The coarse-level evaluation report can be found in Appendix C outlining the list of policy tools considered, the evaluation process, and the results.? asked Question 4: How can we identify and assess the right approaches for Metro Vancouver? did Development of decongestion charging approaches The project team is now developing models to explore how the four decongestion charging policy tools could be applied in Metro Vancouver s unique context and geography. This exercise will apply the four policy tools to different congestion hot spots, times of day, and days of the week. The result of this exercise will be the development of decongestion charging approaches. Development of an evaluation framework The project team is also working on an evaluation framework to outline the methods and criteria that will be used to assess each of the decongestion charging approaches for use in Metro Vancouver. The criteria will include issues of policy design (i.e. affordability and fairness) and implementation (i.e. cost, simplicity, privacy, and accountability). The evaluation framework will assess how each of the decongestion charging approaches could function in the region. Public and stakeholder input will inform the criteria. 5

8 DID LEARNED Having a dialogue Engagement activities In Phase 1, the project team s engagement efforts aimed to hear from the public and stakeholders to help unpack and define the It s Time project objectives and principles. WHAT ARE OBJECTIVES AND PRINCIPLES, AND WHY ARE THEY IMPORTANT? HEARD WILL STUDY Objectives are the goals set by the Commission s Terms of Reference. The three objectives set are: reduce congestion, promote fairness, and support transportation investment in the region. These objectives guide all research activities and will guide the development of the Commission s recommendations. Principles are values that will guide the Commission s final recommendations on how decongestion charging could be designed and implemented in Metro Vancouver s unique context. These include basic principles such as privacy, and guiding principles such as affordability considerations. The objectives and principles form the backbone for evaluating suitable decongestion charging approaches in Metro Vancouver. HOW WE IDENTIFIED STAKEHOLDERS The first step was to establish advisory groups for the It s Time project, by reaching out and inviting appropriate stakeholders and organizations. The project advisory bodies will be involved from the start to the finish of the project, and include local stakeholders, regional stakeholders, the User Advisory Panel, and the Peer Advisory Panel. Stakeholders Regional and local stakeholders consisted of representatives from organizations across advocacy, social service, health, transportation, industry, business, environment, academic, and labour sectors. They are vested in and/or facing potential impacts from changes to transportation and decongestion charging. There was particular outreach to organizations supporting cultural, senior, and low-income communities. Individuals were also gathered through a nomination process identifying persons with community and/ or committee involvement in relevant areas including transportation, urban design, and planning. Citizens A User Advisory Panel was established as a representative group of citizens who will provide ongoing guidance and advice to the Commission. A third-party recruiting firm enlisted members to ensure the group is representative of Metro Vancouver s diverse population. Representation considered age, ethnicity, gender, income, geography, and mode of transportation. Peer experts The project team also engaged a Peer Advisory Panel to seek independent perspectives and knowledge regarding key theoretical and practical considerations of examining decongestion charging in Metro Vancouver. Members of the Peer Advisory Panel will provide a peer review of the project research. The Peer Advisory Panel consists of three groups of experts: 1. People who have been involved in implementing decongestion charging in other cities around the globe, such as senior policy makers from London and Singapore 2. People who have studied decongestion charging in North American cities and states, for example in San Francisco, Washington and Oregon 3. Academics who have studied decongestion charging in a Canadian context 6

9 DID LEARNED HEARD WILL STUDY HOW WE ENGAGED STAKEHOLDERS Planners and technical experts Phase 1 stakeholder engagement launched in mid-october with an interactive Open Space Technology workshop inviting municipal and regional planners, students, and technical experts from across Metro Vancouver. Participants raised 13 topics of interest related to the Commission s objectives as a starting point for discussion, and hosted interactive conversations to narrow the topics of conversation to those that were most important. Stakeholders To support the evaluation of suitable policy tools in Metro Vancouver, the project team sought input from a variety of stakeholders to explore and define the project s objectives and principles through the following questions:? asked What do the three project objectives mean to you, in considering decongestion charging in the region? Are there any other objectives we need to consider? In addition to fair and equitable, what are other important principles when considering decongestion charging? did The project team gathered input through interactive, facilitated exercises at the following workshops held in late October and November: Organizational stakeholders through one regional and six local stakeholder workshops Municipal elected officials through two workshops Provincial elected officials through three workshops The User Advisory Panel through one workshop The project team also hosted at-request meetings with a number of organizations, including the Greater Vancouver Urban Freight Council and the BC Trucking Association. Government In November and December, the Commission Chair, Vice-Chair, and members of the project team met with elected and administrative officials and policy experts across all levels of government. The Commission also met with the Union of BC Indian Chiefs, and sought guidance on engagement with each of Metro Vancouver s First Nations. Based upon these initial conversations, an in-person workshop will be held with Metro Vancouver-based First Nations later in the It s Time project. Meetings with representatives of government and First Nations allowed the project team to share information, obtain insights from officials as representatives of their communities, and support the Commission s research and analysis objectives. The project team also hosted at-request meetings to share information on the It s Time project with various municipal councils, including the District of North Vancouver, the City of Coquitlam, and the City of Vancouver. 7

10 DID LEARNED HOW WE ENGAGED THE PUBLIC Public opinion polling Before launching the It s Time project, public opinion polling helped the project team ground its work in the views of residents. Polling pointed to serious challenges with congestion in the region: HEARD!!!!! 89% are frustrated with traffic delays caused by high volumes. 81% say transportation delays cause them lost time every week. WILL STUDY? 80% are frustrated with the unpredictability of travel times. 62% think it s a good idea to study ways to change mobility pricing in this region. The public opinion polling results summary can be found in Appendix D-1: Engagement Summaries. Public online engagement The It s Time project team conducted its first round of public engagement online from November 6 to 26. Accessible from the It s Time website, the online platform invited input from residents and stakeholders on the Commission s three objectives: Where and when does congestion affect you? Have we missed any congestion hot spots that are affecting you? What does fairness mean to you? Have we missed any important ideas related to fairness? What are your priorities for transportation investment? Have we missed other ways we could spend money raised from decongestion charging? How important are each of the Commission s objectives to you? The project team used an online tool with built-in analytics that provided a real-time tally of voting results. These results reflected the percentage of all online participants who voted Agree or Totally Agree for a question, demonstrating the most agreed upon congestion hot spots, fairness statements, and priorities for transportation investment. Participants could also elect to provide personal and user data through the online platform to inform the project team of the range of perspectives represented in the results. Accessibility Participants were able to select their preferred language to participate on the online engagement platform: English, Traditional Chinese, Simplified Chinese, and Punjabi. The languages included on the online platform were selected based on the demographics of Metro Vancouver s largest cultural communities. The project team reached out to organizations across Metro Vancouver that support senior, cultural, and low-income communities, notifying them of the It s Time project, and offering support to encourage participation within their communities. To minimize barriers to online participation, the project team created paper surveys mirroring the online engagement questions. Through outreach efforts, 400 paper surveys and translated materials were sent to 15 participating organizations. 8

11 DID Who did we engage in Phase 1? LEARNED ENGAGING METRO VANCOUVER RESIDENTS: English platform 5,704 participants HEARD Punjabi platform 11 participants Simplified Chinese platform 44 participants WILL STUDY Traditional Chinese platform 55 participants Paper surveys 264 participants (out of 400 paper surveys distributed at 15 locations) ENGAGING STAKEHOLDERS: 1 Open Space Technology workshop 23 participants 1 Regional Stakeholder workshop 22 participants 6 Local Stakeholder workshops 68 participants held at locations in Surrey, Richmond, Vancouver, North Vancouver, Coquitlam, and Maple Ridge 1 User Advisory Panel workshop 15 participants ENGAGING GOVERNMENT: 1 meeting with the Union of BC Indian Chiefs 2 workshops with Municipal Elected Officials 23 participants 3 workshops with Provincial Elected Officials BC NDP (7 MLAs), BC Liberals (17 MLAs), and BC Green Party (2 MLAs) 1 meeting with the Metro Vancouver Council of Councils Information about the It s Time project was shared with Members of Parliament representing Metro Vancouver communities, with meetings to be scheduled in the next phase of engagement 9

12 DID LEARNED HEARD WILL STUDY Driving the conversation Communication activities The It s Time project focused its Phase 1 outreach efforts on developing public awareness about the Commission, the objectives of the It s Time project, and the concept of decongestion charging. Launching communication platforms A project website was launched on October 25, The website featured key project information, including clarification on decongestion charging, an explanation of the Commission and the project process, and published reports. The website also hosted links to the online engagement platforms, infographics and frequently asked questions, all available in English, Simplified Chinese, Traditional Chinese, and Punjabi. To stay informed, residents were able to sign up on the website for project updates. The It s Time Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Medium accounts provided interactive platforms to engage the public. These platforms were used to share an introductory video and project information, to promote online engagement, and to spur dialogue on key considerations related to decongestion charging and moving around Metro Vancouver. Through these accounts, 16,162,212 media impressions were achieved. 30,176 page views of the website were reached. Promoting It s Time online engagement Digital and print ads were circulated in key media outlets to raise awareness of the It s Time project and to drive participation in the online public engagement. Print outlets varied from large distribution (including Vancouver Sun and The Globe and Mail) to local distribution newspapers (including 24 Hours, Metro News, and Megaphone Magazine). Translated print and digital ads were published in nondominant language newspapers (including Sing Tao, Punjab Guardian, Ming Sheng Bao, Canada Punjab Times) and on social platforms. A reach of 5,346,668 was achieved through print outlets. An infographic describing the overall reach from our communications efforts can be found in the Phase 1 Engagement Report in Appendix D. 10

13 DID LEARNED 2. Research Results: learned This section outlines the output and findings emerging from the project team s empirical research and analysis activities, establishing an evidence-based foundation for further study of decongestion charging in Metro Vancouver. HEARD WILL STUDY RESEARCH ON TRANSPORTATION IN METRO VANCOUVER The initial research conducted and released at the launch of It s Time established a baseline on congestion in Metro Vancouver for the project team to shape and inform engagement with the public and stakeholders. The following key findings on traffic and population trends, as well as considerations for transportation planning have been excerpted from the full research report. TRAFFIC TRENDS When does congestion occur and how long does it last? It s Time research shows that congestion hot spots are spread across the region and traffic tends to be worse in the afternoon rush compared to the morning rush. On average, vehicle speeds are lower during the evening rush hour than the morning rush hour, and the duration of these lower speeds is more prolonged in the evening. Traffic hot spots are occurring throughout the region. The following list shows some of the region s worst congestion problems in no particular order. It s also important to keep in mind that people are likely experiencing other congestion issues that are not included in this list. 11

14 DID LEARNED HEARD WILL STUDY 1 Bridges and tunnels crossing the Fraser River 2 Bridges between Richmond, Vancouver International Airport and Vancouver 3 Major arterials in Vancouver and western parts of Burnaby 4 Urban centres for example New Westminster, Metrotown, Surrey City Centre and Richmond City Centre 5 Various points across the North Shore 6 The northeast part of the region for example Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam and Port Moody 7 Regional highways for example Highway 1 and Highway 91 8 Metropolitan core of downtown Vancouver OUR REGION Metro Vancouver s population has grown rapidly, and is set to keep growing. In 2016 there were approximately 2.5 million people living in Metro Vancouver. That s an increase of around half a million people since Forecasts for Metro Vancouver estimate the region s population will grow by more than 1 million new residents over the next 30 years. That s the equivalent of the population of the City of Calgary or to put it another way, one packed city bus every day from now until Multiple urban centres are shaping the region. There is a continuing emergence of strong urban centres within Metro Vancouver. Although the City of Vancouver continues to grow in terms of population and employment, other areas such as Surrey, Burnaby and Richmond are absorbing more growth, creating multiple regional centres and a need for efficient linkages between them. 12

15 DID Growth will be accommodated by increasing density. These charts show how the growth in population and employment density is expected to be distributed throughout the region by 2045: LEARNED HEARD Change in Population Density (2016 to 2045) N Lions Bay Electoral Area A WILL STUDY West Vancouver Bowen Island North Vancouver District Belcarra UEL UBC North Vancouver City Anmore Coquitlam Port Moody Vancouver Port Coquitlam Burnaby Pitt Meadows Maple Ridge New Westminster LEGEND Municipal Boundary Urban Containment Boundary Richmond Urban Centre Surrey Change in Population per Sq.Km. Langley City Delta ,500 Tsawwassen Langley Township 2,501-5,000 White Rock 5, Source: TransLink TAZ Data Change in Employment Density (2016 to 2045) N Lions Bay Electoral Area A West Vancouver Bowen Island North Vancouver District Belcarra UEL UBC 20 Kilometre North Vancouver City Coquitlam Port Moody Vancouver Port Coquitlam Burnaby Pitt Meadows Maple Ridge New Westminster LEGEND Municipal Boundary Urban Containment Boundary Anmore Richmond Urban Centre Surrey Change in Employment per Sq.Km. Delta -1+ Langley City 0 1-1,000 Tsawwassen Langley Township 1,001-2,500 2,501+ Source: TransLink TAZ Data 13 White Rock Kilometre

16 DID LEARNED Density brings benefits and challenges. Increasing density enables people to live closer to jobs, schools and services. It also facilitates the exchange of ideas, goods and culture. But density also brings challenges, such as congestion and crowding on transportation systems due to high demand at certain times. Here s how employment, the number of vehicles, vehicle trips, and vehicle kilometres traveled (VKT) are expected to grow alongside our population: HEARD 1.50 WILL STUDY Indexed growth (Base year = 2016) Population Employment Vehicles Vehicle Trips VKT Source: Regional Transportation Model PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE Even with significant transportation investments, congestion is set to get worse over the next 30 years. Metro Vancouver is expected to welcome a million more people and more than 400,000 new jobs over the next 30 years. Most of this will be in dense mixed-use areas with good access to frequent transit. Significant investments are planned in new transit including the Broadway extension of the Millennium Line, new light rail transit (LRT) in Surrey, new B-line bus services across the region, a new SeaBus, and new SkyTrain cars, as well as ongoing reviews of transit services in response to demand. Reinvestments are also planned in the major road network, as well as ongoing revisions of traffic management and signals to improve traffic on municipal roads, and improvements for bus priority, walking and cycling. All of these changes will have an impact on congestion. But while new transit and road improvements could contribute to reduced congestion in some locations and at certain times, an increasing population could lead to worsening congestion at other locations and times. 14

17 DID LEARNED HEARD WILL STUDY We are in a period of rapid technological change. While population growth can be forecasted, developments in mobility could make it challenging to predict and plan for the future. Here are some of the key technology trends to consider: Purchase prices for electric vehicles are dropping, making them more widespread Autonomous and semi-autonomous driving capabilities could have the potential to reduce collisions and congestion, as well as enable new infrastructure and on-demand mobility without the need for car ownership. They could equally have rebound effects such as increased vehicle dependency and competition for public transit The sharing economy, as well as taxi services and public transit, open up the possibility of mobility as a service reducing private vehicle ownership and use Data analysis capabilities are delivering new possibilities for parking management and urban congestion relief, as well as enhanced traveller information and incentives New technologies, like mobile apps, drones and even 3D printing, can affect freight and goods movement The full research report can be found in the Appendix A. The research summary report can be found on the It s Time website. ANALYSIS ON DECONGESTION CHARGING POLICY AND PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE AROUND THE WORLD The project team engaged external experts at WSP in Sweden, with many years experience in implementing and assessing decongestion charging, to summarize the available evidence on the following: how decongestion charging works how equity and fairness may be considered how decongestion charging has been received publicly when implemented in other parts of the world The following section includes summarized excerpts of their key findings and lessons from other jurisdictions. UNDERSTANDING DECONGESTION CHARGING In severe congestion, the capacity of a road can drop well below its design capacity. This means that as more vehicles are trying to move past a given point, fewer vehicles are actually getting through. In this way, accepting congestion means accepting a lower level of performance of the road network. Decongestion charging aims to address this by charging more for road travel at times of day and in locations where the efficiency of the road network is affected by congestion. When people make individual decisions about how and when to travel they take into account their own costs in the form of transit fares, fuel, and parking costs, as well as the time it will take, but not the costs imposed on other people. For travel by car these shared costs can be large and include things like congestion, emissions, safety, and wear and tear on roads and streets. Because the direct cost people pay to drive does not include all these so-called external costs, it is possible to say that individuals are not paying the full costs of driving. 15

18 DID LEARNED HEARD WILL STUDY Decongestion charging is a way of including some of the external costs of driving especially those relating to congestion into the direct cost that people pay. This leads to behavioural responses from some travellers, including changing modes and travel departure times. However, most car drivers tend to stay and pay. Because the relationship between travel demand and travel time is non-linear, not many people need to change their behavior in order to achieve substantial improvements in travel times. As the behaviour of some travellers shifts, demand for travel alternatives will increase and facilitating this may require investment in other modes of transportation such as transit and cycling infrastructure. EQUITY AND FAIRNESS Equity and fairness considerations in decongestion charging can be assessed by how the costs and benefits of the charge are distributed over the population. Typically, the benefits of decongestion charging are not spread evenly over the population, as some people experience large improvements while others only see marginal or unappreciable gains, and some even worse-off than before the introduction of the charge. Needless to say, different individuals perceive fairness differently and rarely does everyone agree on which aspects or properties of a policy (like decongestion charging) make it fair or unfair. Philosopher John Rawls s theory for the basic traits of fairness has been tested in previous research and found to be relevant to the public perception of fairness of different decongestion charging schemes. Based on his book A Theory of Justice (1971), Rawls theory is based on three principles: Principle 1: A set of basic rights for everyone; Principle 2: Equal opportunities to change and adapt; and Principle 3: Inequalities should work in favour of the less advantaged Rawls s first principle discusses the minimum rights of an individual for example, the notion that everyone should be allowed the basic right to mobility. The affordability of decongestion charging is a fairness concern that reflects Rawls s first principle. In other words, it poses the question of whether or how the affordability of decongestion charging affects access to the basic right to mobility. Rawls s second principle can be related to the need for everyone to be provided a reasonable opportunity to adapt to the circumstances surrounding decongestion charging. For instance, the sudden and unexpected implementation of a charging policy could be experienced as being more unfair than a longer-term phased approach giving people time to adapt. Rawls s third principle suggests a policy will be regarded as unfair if it redistributes resources from the poor to the rich. In other words, how funds from decongestion charging are gathered and used will matter with respect to fairness. 16

19 DID LEARNED HEARD WILL STUDY WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE FROM AROUND THE WORLD Drawing from experience from cities where decongestion charging has been introduced, research shows that public acceptance is usually low before implementation and increases once charging is in place. Early in the process, when discussion is general and the effects of charging are described as abstract concepts, there typically isn t much formalized opposition from the public. However, as decongestion charging concepts become more concrete the public may begin to worry about the negative personal consequences associated with them. This tends to lead to lower acceptance levels as implementation nears close. After implementation public acceptance typically increases, which can be attributed to a number of factors, including: Travel times improve more than motorists expected Negative consequences (charges paid, mode shift) prove less problematic than anticipated People adapt and accept a new status quo, no longer evaluating it as a change LESSONS FROM INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE Three main lessons emerge from examining international examples of decongestion charging: 1. All decongestion charging schemes implemented to date have been with the intention to reduce congestion and/or emissions 2. Most decongestion charging has also provided a positive revenue stream which is typically used to fund additional transportation options and services 3. No jurisdiction has implemented a version of decongestion charging that uses distance-based charging assessed for time of day and geography this type of system has been evaluated as complex and costly given the technology available at the time of implementation. The full decongestion charging policy and global lessons learned report can be found in the Appendix B. A NOTE ABOUT TERMINOLOGY In the report found in Appendix B, the external consultants use the term congestion charging for consistency with existing research and internationally-used terminology. Congestion charging means the same as decongestion charging, the term we are using for the It s Time project. 17

20 DID LEARNED HEARD 3. Engagement Results: heard from stakeholders Through engagement efforts, the project team heard from 6,078 Metro Vancouver residents and stakeholders through the online engagement, and 177 stakeholder and User Advisory Panel members. Please refer to Appendix D for the complete Phase 1 Engagement Report, which includes the stakeholder engagement findings, the participation breakdown, and summaries from in-person workshops. This section summarizes the recurring themes gathered through in-person workshops with stakeholders, elected officials, and the User Advisory Panel. WILL STUDY heard about REDUCING CONGESTION STAKEHOLDER THEMES: What does reducing congestion mean to you? From the workshops held with stakeholders, elected officials, and the User Advisory Panel, the following are highlights from participant input in exploring and defining the objective to reduce congestion: More mode options for those with fewer transportation services to incentivize and help reduce single occupancy vehicle use Increased consistency, reliability, and predictability in journey times Faster journey times Congestion reduction across all modes of transportation, not just cars Consideration for the unintended consequences of shifting behaviour and diverting traffic flows Promoting safety to reduce crashes and enhance the safety of travellers who are walking or cycling Considering shifting routes and schedules for trucks on major corridors and construction Exploring flexible work schedules (when possible) to alleviate congested periods STAKEHOLDER THEMES: Where does congestion affect you? Stakeholders, elected officials, and the User Advisory Panel were all asked about congestion hot spots affecting them, and the project team received 1,173 public comments to the online question: "Have we missed any congestion hot spots that are affecting you?" The resulting range of responses from all sources fell within the eight broad hot spots identified in the initial research report, with frequently specified areas including the Massey Tunnel (included in crossing the Fraser River), major arteries in the Coquitlam and New Westminster area and the Brunette Highway 1 interchange, and North Shore bridges. 18

21 DID LEARNED HEARD WILL STUDY heard about PROMOTING FAIRNESS STAKEHOLDER THEMES: What does promoting fairness mean to you? Given the subjective nature of the term fairness, and given that one of the project objectives is promoting fairness, the project team sought input from stakeholders, elected officials, and the User Advisory Panel on what fairness means. Additionally, the public online participants were asked: "Have we missed any important ideas related to fairness?" prompting 1,250 on the online platform on fairness. Emerging themes included: Not burdening those with fewer transportation choices based on where they live and work Increasing transit service levels and scheduling options before implementing decongestion charging Acknowledging that fair decongestion charging will be interpreted differently by everyone Considering affordability and social equity impacts for different marginalized groups Considering using the revenues from decongestion charging to replace existing taxes and fees Using revenues from decongestion charging to improve the region s transportation system STAKEHOLDER RESULTS: What does fairness mean to you? At the various workshops held with 90 regional and local stakeholders, the project team conducted a benchmarking exercise to gain input on how much stakeholders agreed with six statements describing different decongestion charging approaches based on their own interpretation of fairness. These statements were also posed to the public through the online engagement platform these results are displayed in the following section. Similar to the public engagement results, the statement "I think it should cost less to drive in areas that have fewer transit options" received the highest level of agreement out of all fairness statements from stakeholders Similar to the public engagement results, the statement "I think people should pay based on how many kilometres they drive" received the lowest level of agreement out of all fairness statements from stakeholders, with concerns and economic considerations expressed for professionals who drive for work purposes (i.e. contractors, emergency vehicles, trucks) HOW DID WE COME UP WITH OUR STAKEHOLDER RESULTS? The level of agreement is where each rating is assigned a percentage (Totally Disagree = 0, Disagree = 25, Don t Know = 50, Agree = 75, Totally Agree = 100) and the average is taken. Note: These results are representative of the stakeholders in attendance at the in-person workshops. 19

22 DID LEARNED These results are displayed in the following table: Fairness Statement Stakeholder Level of Agreement I think it should cost less to drive in areas that have fewer transit options. Medium high 74% HEARD I think people with lower income should pay less. Medium high 69% I think people should pay more to drive in and out of downtown areas. Medium high 63% WILL STUDY I think people should pay more to drive in congested areas. Medium high 71% I think people should pay more to drive at busy times of day. Medium high 66% I think people should pay based on how many kilometres they drive. Medium high 60% ELECTED OFFICIAL THEMES: What does fairness mean to you? The project team gathered input from municipal and provincial elected officials on the Commission s objective of promoting fairness and the different ways in which decongestion charging could be applied. From these facilitated conversations, a number of recurring themes emerged: Improving access, service levels, affordability, frequency, and capacity of transit options Ensuring openness and transparency in how revenues from decongestion charging are used and the resulting benefits Suggesting different pricing models based on type or size of vehicle, based on user-pay distance charging, and progressive pricing based on ability to pay Understanding the trade-offs people make between housing costs and transportation costs Not burdening those with fewer transportation choices based on where they live and work Considering affordability and social equity impacts, especially for those groups that cannot afford to live close to where they work Reviewing all decongestion charging options as sources of funding, and ensuring people understand the options and their implications Understanding the regional distribution in how constituents pay and receive benefits Using revenues from decongestion charging to improve the region s transportation system Considering the impacts of ride-sharing and car-sharing At the two municipal workshops, there was general support for decongestion charging applications based on distance or geography, charging less for people with lower income and with fewer transit options, and adopting a consistent way to pay (i.e. tolling all bridges rather than some). At the three provincial workshops, there was general support for decongestion charging applications for travelling in and out of downtown areas, and charging less for people with fewer transit options. There was less agreement for decongestion charging applications based on distance and charging less for people with lower income. 20

23 DID LEARNED USER ADVISORY PANEL THEMES: What does fairness mean to you? The project team held facilitated conversations with the 15 members of the User Advisory Panel and heard a number of recurring themes about promoting fairness, including: Improving access to transit across all municipalities in Metro Vancouver Considering affordability concerns and the fees that people already pay Considering different pricing based on level of income, vehicle type, and for tourists and visitors HEARD WILL STUDY Considering pricing mechanisms including monthly passes (including an employer pass), and caps on costs Providing adequate information and multiple avenues to communicate with the public to inform and build understanding about decongestion charging Implementing a consistent pricing approach, such as tolling all bridges rather than a few There was general support for decongestion charging applications based on geography (hot spot charging), and charging less for people with lower income and fewer transit options. heard about SUPPORTING TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT STAKEHOLDER THEMES: What does supporting transportation investment mean to you? At the workshops held with stakeholders, municipal elected officials, and the User Advisory Panel, the project team heard some recurring themes when asked to explore and define the Commission s third objective, including: Improving public transit and other modes, offering more transportation options and shifting behaviour to reduce single occupancy vehicles Integrating land use planning with transportation to connect affordable housing with town centres and employment zones Taking a strategic approach to building transportation infrastructure Supporting transportation-related technology and innovation, including ride sharing and parking apps, electrification of the vehicle fleet, and autonomous vehicles Dedicating and using revenue from decongestion charging into transportation, with priority investments directed to mode options Demonstrating tangible benefits from investments in transportation Ensuring TransLink s accountability and transparency in using potential decongestion charging revenues 21

24 DID LEARNED HEARD WILL STUDY heard about the It s Time project STAKEHOLDER THEMES: Are there any other objectives we need to consider? From our conversations with stakeholders a number of emerging objectives were suggested for the Commission s consideration, including: Adopting an integrated approach that considers future land use planning, regional demographic shifts, and transportation-related technology Promoting environmental sustainability by reducing GHG emissions and the overall carbon footprint from regional transportation Ensuring economic viability by assessing potential impacts to business profitability, transport time and logistics, and staffing, and by maintaining Metro Vancouver as an economic trade gateway STAKEHOLDER THEMES: What are important principles when considering decongestion charging? The project team asked stakeholders, elected officials, and the User Advisory Panel about important principles they thought the It s Time project should consider, in addition to fairness and equity. Emerging suggestions included: Accessibility: minimizing physical and financial barriers to travel, as well as increasing choice, incentives, and availability of transportation options (particularly for marginalized communities and those living in areas far from urban centres) Integrated planning: considering a range of factors including the economy, social impacts, technology advancements (i.e. autonomous vehicles), political objectives and policies, and the need to minimize unintended consequences related to decongestion charging Transparency and accountability: in managing revenues collected from a decongestion charging system Simplicity and efficiency: in designing, implementing, and administering decongestion charging, including suggestions to integrate charges with existing fee collection processes Adaptability and scalability: in adjusting or transferring a decongestion charge to match with shifts in congestion, and to remain useful in combating congestion in the region or province Public awareness: to ensure everyone can participate and stay informed about the It s Time project, and understand the time and financial costs and benefits of choosing different ways to travel Privacy and security: in the protection of data 22

25 DID LEARNED HEARD WILL STUDY 4. Engagement Results: heard from the public This section summarizes the recurring themes heard from the public through the online engagement platform. Please refer to Appendix D for the complete Phase 1 Engagement Report, which includes the public online findings, the participation breakdown, and public opinion polling results. PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT RESULTS: How important are each of the Commission s objectives to you? To support the team s evaluation of suitable policy tools in Metro Vancouver, the project team wanted to understand how the public perceived the importance of the three objectives. Through the online platform, the project team asked the public to assess the three objectives by rating them between 1 and 100 in terms of importance, where 100 was most important. From this, we heard reducing congestion had the highest level of importance (78/100), closely followed by supporting transportation investment (76/100), and then promoting fairness (65/100). 23

26 DID HOW DID WE COME UP WITH OUR OVERALL PARTICIPANT RESULTS? LEARNED The online engagement platform asked the public to rate their level of agreement with a series of statements related to reducing congestion, promoting fairness, and supporting transportation investment. Participants responded to questions by selecting between: Totally Disagree Disagree Don t Know Agree Totally Agree HEARD WILL STUDY The project team wanted to explore the participants' level of agreement and consensus. While taking the average level of agreement is a useful starting point, it does not accurately reflect the range of views provided by participants. In other words, it doesn t reflect the level of consensus (or disagreement) expressed by over 6,000 respondents. Introducing the Overall Participant Result indicator. The Overall Participant Result provides a more accurate representation of participant opinion as it combines the level of agreement and the level of consensus: Level of agreement is calculated as an average of all participant votes, where each vote was assigned a numerical value between 1 and 100 (Totally Disagree = 0, Disagree = 25, Don t Know = 50, Agree = 75, Totally Agree =100). Level of consensus is calculated as a spread in the level of agreement between all respondents. In other words, it reflects the level of consensus (or polarity) among respondents. A useful visual of how consensus spreads out when multiple individuals respond to the same question is included here: The Overall Participant Results are ranked from a High to a Low score: Legend Result Description High 75% to 100% Strong support: Medium high 55% to 75% Strong agreement and strong consensus Medium 45% to 55% Medium low 20% to 45% More contentious: Low 0% to 20% Low agreement and low consensus Note: The Overall Participant Result is not fully representative of Metro Vancouver. It represents those members of the public who elected to participate and self-identify in the online engagement, with results skewed towards a Vancouver-based, higher income, and male perspective. 24

27 DID LEARNED HEARD heard about REDUCING CONGESTION PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT RESULTS: Where and when does congestion affect you? The public were asked to validate the eight congestion hot spots emerging from the research. Through the online platform, participants rated their level of agreement with how bad they considered congestion to be in each of the hot spots. There was general support for and validation of the hot spots identified, demonstrated by the Overall Participant Results found in the table below: WILL STUDY Where and when does congestion affect you? Overall Participant Result I think congestion is bad when travelling on regional highways during rush hour (like Highway 1 and Highway 91). I think congestion is bad when travelling to, from, and around Downtown Vancouver. I think congestion is bad when travelling to, from, and around the North Shore. High (83%) High (80%) High (80%) I think congestion is bad on and around bridges crossing the Fraser River. High (76%) I think congestion is bad on and around bridges between Richmond, the airport, and Vancouver. Medium High (73%) I think congestion is bad on major bus routes in Vancouver and Burnaby. Medium High (72%) I think congestion is bad when travelling to, from, and around urban centres (except Vancouver). I think congestion is bad travelling to and from Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, and Port Moody. Medium high (71%) Medium high (64%) In response to the online question: Have we missed any congestion hot spots that are affecting you?" the project team received 1,173 responses falling within the eight broad hot spots identified in the initial research report, with frequently specified areas including the Massey Tunnel (included in crossing the Fraser River), major arteries in the Coquitlam and New Westminster area and the Brunette Highway 1 interchange, and the North Shore bridges. There were also a number of general online comments regarding reducing congestion, including divergent views on using the road more efficiently (including support and opposition for bike lanes versus vehicle use), support for improvements to all transportation mode options, suggestions to improve traffic light timing and directions, and general discontent with the idea of implementing an additional cost on top of current vehicle use charges. 25

28 DID LEARNED HEARD heard about PROMOTING FAIRNESS PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT RESULTS: What does fairness mean to you? Through the online platform, the project team posed a variety of statements describing different decongestion charging approaches, and asked the participants to rate their level of agreement based on their own interpretation of fairness. The following table summarizes the Overall Participant Results: WILL STUDY What does fairness mean to you? I think it should cost less to drive in areas that have fewer transit options. Overall Participant Result Medium High 58% I think people with lower income should pay less. Medium Low 40% I think people should pay more to drive in and out of downtown areas. Medium Low 35% I think people should pay more to drive in congested areas. Medium Low 35% I think people should pay more to drive at busy times of day. Medium Low 34% I think people should pay based on how many kilometres they drive. Medium Low 32% The statement "I think it should cost less to drive in areas that have fewer transit options" received the highest Overall Participant Result out of all fairness statements from online engagement participants. This statement was worded in a slightly different way than the others, possibly contributing to it being interpreted differently The statement "I think people should pay based on how many kilometres they drive" received the lowest Overall Participant Result out of all fairness statements from online participants 26

29 DID LEARNED HEARD heard about SUPPORTING TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT RESULTS: How could we use money generated from decongestion charging? As decongestion charging could generate revenues, the project team presented six transportation areas through the online platform to seek public input on where the region could allocate and invest funds. The Overall Participant Results can be found in the table below: WILL STUDY What are your priorities for transportation investment? Improvements to transit should be a priority. High 85% Overall Participant Result Affordable transit fares should be a priority. Medium High 71% Improvements to roads and bridges should be a priority. Medium High 68% Addressing transportation pollution should be a priority. Medium High 56% Reducing driving costs (i.e. insurance, parking fees, fuel taxes) should be a priority. Medium Low 44% Better walking and cycling options should be a priority. Medium Low 44% The statement "Improvements to transit should be a priority" received the strongest Overall Participant Result out of all online engagement questions. This is a common theme from Phase 1 engagement The statements "Better walking and cycling options should be a priority" and "Reducing driving costs (i.e. insurance, parking fees, fuel taxes) should be a priority" were the most contentious (i.e. had the lowest levels of consensus) based on participant votes, and therefore had the lowest Overall Participant Results PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT RESULTS: Have we missed other ways we could spend money from decongestion charging? In addition to voting on the priority areas listed above, the project team asked the public for other suggested transportation priorities. A number of key themes emerged based on 821 participant comments gathered on the online platform, including: Improving public transit and other transportation modes: Reinforcing the participant votes displayed in the table above, almost 25% of all comments concerned transit, walking, and cycling improvements Improving the existing road network: Participant comments emphasized the need to support those residents who cannot or do not use transit and rely on private vehicle use Dedicating and using revenue from decongestion charging into transportation Divergent views on improving cycling infrastructure Expanding parking options by transit stations and hubs 27

30 DID LEARNED HEARD WILL STUDY 5. Next Steps: will study As a research project, the It s Time team started off by reviewing and analyzing suitable decongestion charging policy tools for Metro Vancouver. By studying what we are already paying in Metro Vancouver, and tools that have been implemented or studied in other parts of the world, the project team came up with a list of ten possible policy tools that could meet the Commission s objectives: reduce congestion, promote fairness, and support transportation investment. The full list of policy tools is described in Appendix C. The next phase of the team s research will focus on studying implementation, where the project team will work to better understand what might happen if we were to use these different policy tools in different ways in Metro Vancouver. This involves creating approaches to where, when, and how the policy tools could be used. To understand the various impacts of applying the policy tools in different ways, the project team will be using the Regional Transportation Model (a computer model of Metro Vancouver s transportation system) and a range of other analysis methods. It takes considerable time and effort to develop and analyze these models and methods, and to make the adjustments needed to test these different approaches. For this reason, it was necessary to narrow down the number of possible policy tools that will be the most feasible and illuminating to study for Metro Vancouver. To do this, the project team conducted an initial evaluation to narrow down to a smaller set of policy tools for further study. This section describes the results of this coarse-level evaluation. The full coarse-level evaluation report can be found in Appendix C. REFRESHER: WHAT ARE POLICY TOOLS? Policy tools are a general method or a way of achieving a desired societal goal, and do not go into the detail about where, when, or how to use or implement that method. In this report found in Appendix C, the term policy instrument is used, which has the same meaning as the term policy tool. Possible policy approaches for Metro Vancouver The evaluation identified the following list of policy tools that have the potential to be comprehensive long-term congestion management solutions for Metro Vancouver. The application of these tools to the Metro Vancouver context will be the focus of further analysis and upcoming engagement with stakeholders and the public: Congestion point charges, which is an umbrella term including system of point charges (which involves charging vehicles when passing a defined point or location, like a busy section of road, a bridge, or tunnel), and cordon charges (which involves charging vehicles when passing through entries and/or exits to and from a defined area Distance-based charges varying by time and location (i.e. some locations and times could have a higher $/km charge at busy times of day) In addition, changes to the fuel tax, as well as the pricing of private paid parking (through the parking sales tax) and public parking will be studied as potential complementary tools to the above approaches. Parking pricing is a distinct but less comprehensive solution to reducing congestion, and it is expected to perform differently in terms of fairness and implementation ease. As the region has decades of experience with pricing private paid parking and public parking, as existing policy tools, the study will focus on other approaches that have greater potential for reducing congestion. 28

31 DID As a variation of cordon charges, area licensing could be explored. Area licensing involves charging a fee for using all roads within a given area, not just when passing a cordon. LEARNED HEARD WILL STUDY HOW DO THESE TOOLS SUPPORT THE COMMISSION S OBJECTIVES? The project will be studying these different approaches to reducing congestion and comparing their performance against each other and against baseline scenarios where decongestion charging is not implemented. The actual potential for these policy tools to reduce congestion, promote fairness, and support transportation investment in the Metro Vancouver context will need to be better understood through analysis and modelling. To support this, further engagement with the public and stakeholders will help the project team better understand impacts and considerations in moving forward with any of these approaches. The evaluation also identified the following list of policy tools that could make sense as part of a portfolio and/or pathway to a long-term congestion management solution and could be considered at later stages in the project: Corridor charges (mandatory), which involves charging vehicles on a specific road to use any lane Distance-based charge (i.e. flat fee on the number of kilometres traveled) Vehicle Levy, also known as vehicle registration fees, would involve an annual flat fee on all vehicles registered in Metro Vancouver Mandatory corridor charges have high potential to address congestion at a single location, but need to be a component of a comprehensive congestion management system to avoid traffic diversion. Distance-based charges and vehicle levies are less effective at reducing congestion than the other tools identified above, but they still have some congestion benefits and could be effective ways of raising revenue to support the regional transportation system. Other policy tools The evaluation also resulted in a list of policy tools to set aside as they are less effective at reducing congestion a primary objective of the It s Time project: Isolated point charges, which involves charging vehicles when passing selected locations (i.e. a bridge toll) Corridor charges (voluntary), which provides vehicle users a choice to pay to use an identified express lane on a specific road (i.e. HOT lanes) Distance-based vehicle insurance, which involves converting car insurance charging from a flat annual basis to a per-kilometre basis (though it could form an initial platform upon which to implement distance-based charging varying by time and location) Parking levies, which involves charging a fee on all private non-residential units with parking facilities (e.g. parking fees applied on office buildings and/or retail store parking lots) The full coarse-level evaluation report can be found in Appendix C. 29

32 STAY TUNED This first phase of research and engagement laid a strong foundation for exploring decongestion charging in Metro Vancouver. We will come back with more information and engagement opportunities in the near future. Here s how to stay engaged: Learn more on our website: itstimemv.ca Follow us on Join the conversation on Facebook: It s Time, Metro Vancouver ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT Reporting back on what we did and what we heard from the first phase of the It s Time project This document summarizes the research, engagement, and communications activities conducted in Fall 2017 as part of the first phase of the It s Time project, including the resulting findings and emerging themes. This information will be used to continue studying how decongestion charging could help relieve congestion in Metro Vancouver. To read the Phase 1 project update summary, please visit the About page at itstimemv.ca. About the Mobility Pricing Independent Commission The Commission is an initiative of the Mayors Council on Regional Transportation and TransLink s Board of Directors. Comprised of 14 independent community leaders from across Metro Vancouver, the Commission has a mandate to engage with the diverse users of Metro Vancouver s road system in a fair, unbiased and transparent process, and provide recommendations on how to improve the way the region prices transportation including roads and bridges to reduce congestion for everyone. 30

33 APPENDIX A: Full Research Report: Moving Around Metro Vancouver 31

34 Moving around Metro Vancouver: EXPLORING NEW APPROACHES TO REDUCING CONGESTION An exploration of the regional baseline, and implications for mobility pricing OCTOBER 2017

35 TABLE OF CONTENT 1. INTRODUCTION...1 The Mobility Pricing Independent Commission The purpose and content of this report REGIONAL CONTEXT...3 The population of Metro Vancouver will continue to grow rapidly Growth will be accommodated by increasing density Increasing density enables people to live closer to jobs, schools and services Generally, people living in dense, mixed-use neighbourhoods don t need to travel as far in their daily lives Density brings many advantages, but also some challenges Considerations for the Mobility Pricing Independent Commission CONGESTION...8 We know it when we see it, but congestion is hard to define... 8 Reliable travel times can be more important than congestion delays When does congestion occur and how long does it last?... 9 Where does congestion occur in Metro Vancouver today? How unreliable are travel times? Typical congestion issues facing the region today Even with significant transportation investments, congestion could get worse over the next 30 years Mobility innovations could make future predictions more challenging What do Metro Vancouverites think about congestion in the region? Considerations for the Mobility Pricing Independent Commission FAIRNESS Fairness means different things to different people Mobility as a basic right Fuel tax costs are not being borne equally by all drivers...21 People living in households with low incomes are least likely to drive and less likely to travel in the congested peak periods The proportion of income spent on transportation can vary considerably but what is causing that difference is not immediately clear There are variations in transit accessibility across the region but new investments are planned that will make a difference What do Metro Vancouverites think about fairness in their transportation system? Considerations for the Mobility Pricing Independent Commission INVESTMENT Some big investments in transit and transportation are planned New regional sources of revenue are required to help fund these plans...27 Fuel tax revenues are in decline and today they account for around a quarter of regional revenues What do Metro Vancouverites think about supporting investment in the transportation system?...29 Considerations for the Mobility Pricing Independent Commission NEXT STEPS It s Time for a region-wide conversation about decongestion charging Tell us what you think REFERENCES APPENDIX... 32

36 1. INTRODUCTION The Mobility Pricing Independent Commission The Mobility Pricing Independent Commission is an initiative of the Mayors Council on Regional Transportation and the TransLink Board of Directors. Comprised of 14 community leaders from across Metro Vancouver, the Commission will engage with the diverse users of Metro Vancouver s road system in a fair and transparent process. The Commission is leading It s Time, a public engagement and research project designed to provide recommendations on how to reduce congestion and improve the way transportation is priced in Metro Vancouver. It is the first step in creating a made-in-metro-vancouver approach that fits the unique needs of the region. This work will explore decongestion charging, where users pay for the road services they use, and how different scenarios might impact existing forms of mobility pricing. The Commission s recommendations are being guided by three key objectives: Reduce traffic congestion on roads and bridges across the region, so people and goods can keep moving and businesses can thrive and be competitive Promote fairness to address concerns around the previous approach to tolling some roads and bridges but not others, as well as providing affordable transportation choices Support transportation investment to improve the current transportation system in Metro Vancouver for all users Metro Vancouver residents are already paying for mobility in different ways, such as transit fares, gas taxes, parking charges, and taxi fares. The current approach to pricing, however, is not helping to reduce traffic congestion, and previous approaches to road-use charging where some bridges were tolled and not others may have created an unfair burden on residents in certain areas of the region. Furthermore, with declining revenues from the gas tax, and the removal of tolls, the region needs other sources of revenue to ensure there is adequate funding to build and maintain transportation infrastructure. It s time for a new approach to mobility pricing. Mobility pricing, and decongestion charging more specifically, is already in place in major cities around the world, including London, Stockholm, Singapore and Milan. It is also being explored by cities across North America. The Commission will explore these international best practices, and will utilise local research and analysis and public feedback. It will also consider regional planning and policy objectives, as well as the provincial government s role in funding and managing aspects of the regional road network. These sources will form the basis of recommendations presented to the Mayors Council and TransLink Board of Directors. 1

37 The Commission will summarize its work and recommendations in a final report at the end of April 2018, which will include: Recommendations on a number of detailed community-based principles for designing a decongestion charging policy, including: policy design, privacy and affordability considerations, the need for transportation alternatives, and next steps in the process. Illustrative scenarios of mobility pricing for Metro Vancouver describing how key principles and objectives might be achieved. The purpose and content of this report This report examines information on congestion, fairness and supporting investment to provide a baseline for the first phase of the Commission s engagement in the fall of It is not a comprehensive study of these complex and multi-dimensional issues; rather, the intention is to provide a starting point for public discussion with Metro Vancouver residents, business and stakeholders. The outcome of that engagement will be a more comprehensive understanding of these and other issues, which will form part of the assessment of possible future scenarios in early This report has been prepared by Commission secretariat staff with research and other contributions from expert consultants engaged in the It s Time project. The next section explores the regional context in terms of recent and forecasted growth, and some of the transportation and mobility-related challenges that are anticipated with this growth. This is followed by an examination and discussion of existing and future congestion, fairness, and the need for transportation investment and revenue available to support that investment. Each section concludes by outlining the implications for the work of the Commission. For ease of viewing and interpretation, data in the maps in figures 2.1, 2.2, 2.4 and 4.3 is only shown for areas within the Urban Containment Boundary. The full versions of these figures are included in the appendix. 2

38 2. REGIONAL CONTEXT The population of Metro Vancouver will continue to grow rapidly In 2016 there were approximately 2.5 million people living in Metro Vancouver (Statistics Canada, 2017), which is an increase of around half a million people since Forecasts indicate the region s population will increase by more than 40 percent by 2045, meaning that Metro Vancouver will welcome more than 1 million new residents. That s the equivalent of the population of the City of Edmonton, or to put it another way one packed city bus every day from now until More people means more economic activity and thus more jobs. Employment in the region will also continue to grow, with another 400,000 jobs expected to be added by 2045, which is an increase of about 30 percent 1. Growth will be accommodated by increasing density The Regional Growth Strategy (Metro Vancouver, 2017) describes how growth will be accommodated in the region over a 30-year period. The strategy continues to support an urban structure with many thriving city and town centres, which has been guiding regional growth since the Livable Region Plan was first adopted in the 1970s (GVRD, 1972). Approximately twothirds of new housing needed and more than three quarters of new jobs will be located in urban centres like Surrey City Centre, Metrotown and Richmond, as well as the metropolitan core around Downtown Vancouver and other locations close to the frequent transit network (FTN). Figures 2.1 and 2.2 reveal how the growth in population and employment density will be distributed throughout the region. Figure 2.1: Forecasted growth in population density: Change in Population Density (2016 to 2045) N Lions Bay Electoral Area A Bowen Island West Vancouver North Vancouver District UEL UBC North Vancouver City Vancouver Belcarra Burnaby Anmore Port Moody Coquitlam Port Coquitlam Pitt Meadows Maple Ridge LEGEND Municipal Boundary New Westminster Urban Containment Boundary Richmond Urban Centre Change in Population per Sq.Km. -1+ Delta Surrey Langley City ,500 Tsawwassen Langley Township 2,501-5,000 White Rock 5, Kilometre Source: TransLink TAZ Data 1 These estimates were compiled by Metro Vancouver using baseline data from the 2016 Census and the Regional Transportation Model.

39 Figure 2.2: Forecasted growth in employment density: Change in Employment Density (2016 to 2045) N Lions Bay Electoral Area A Bowen Island West Vancouver North Vancouver District UEL UBC North Vancouver City Vancouver Belcarra Burnaby Anmore Port Moody Coquitlam Port Coquitlam Pitt Meadows Maple Ridge LEGEND Municipal Boundary New Westminster Urban Containment Boundary Richmond Urban Centre Change in Employment per Sq.Km. -1+ Delta Surrey Langley City 0 1-1,000 1,001-2,500 Tsawwassen Langley Township 2,501+ Source: TransLink TAZ Data White Rock Kilometre Increasing density enables people to live closer to jobs, schools and services Cities are founded, grow and develop by providing accessibility, or closeness. The more people that are concentrated in a small area, and are therefore able to meet each other quickly and at little cost, the greater the opportunities for exchanging ideas, goods, services, and culture. Increasing our access to other people either by increasing the number of people close by, or by decreasing the costs in time and money of getting to other people can bring benefits to us as individuals, and to society as a whole. For example, the more job opportunities a person has access to, the greater the chance they have of finding employment that matches their skills. That both increases their earning potential and thus their contribution to the economy and gives employers a greater pool from which to find the skills they need. Increased opportunities for exchange can also improve everyone s quality of life by giving greater access to cultural and other leisure activities and to other people who share our interests. 4

40 Generally, people living in dense, mixed-use neighbourhoods don t need to travel as far in their daily lives The majority of trips are usually not made for their own sake; they are made with an objective in mind, such as getting to work, going shopping, delivering goods, or visiting friends and relatives. Whether or not a person decides to make a trip, as well as how and when they choose to make it, is largely a function of two things: 1. Where things are located in relation to one another where do people live, work, shop, spend leisure time; and 2. The relative costs in money and time of accessing these things using different modes how long does it take to walk or drive, what is the cost of transit, fuel, parking, etc. People who live in dense, mixed-use neighbourhoods, where more of the things they need on a daily basis shops, schools, healthcare are close by, maybe within walking distance, won t need to travel as much, on average, as people who live in a less dense neighbourhood where facilities are further away. For longer trips, for example to and from work, dense neighbourhoods are generally better served by frequent, high capacity transit, making that a good alternative for many people. In neighbourhoods with less frequent transit, driving may be the only alternative available for many trips. This is revealed by data from the 2011 Metro Vancouver Regional Trip Diary (TransLink, 2013) presented in Figure 2.3, which displays transportation mode share by subregion. People living in more densely populated communities like in Vancouver, Burnaby and New Westminster typically make a smaller share of their trips by car than people living in less densely populated communities such as Langley. Figure 2.3: 2011 Mode Share by Sub-Region Auto Driver Auto Passenger Transit Walk Bike 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 1.0% 10% 11% 17% 61% 4.5% 18% 22% 13% 43% 0.7% 0.8% 1.3% 0.7% 0.6% 0.5% 1.8% 9% 7% 9% 8% 7% 6% 3% 11% 6% 11% 10% 12% 21% 19% 14% 19% 18% 18% 17% 16% 15% 70% 68% 64% 61% 64% 54% 57% 10% 0% North Shore Vancouver/ University Endowment Lands Burnaby/ New West Northeast Sector Richmond/S. Delta Surrey/ N. Delta/ White Rock Langleys Pitt Meadows/ Maple Ridge Metro Vancouver Weekday Mode Share 5

41 How much Metro Vancouverites travel and how often they choose to drive, use transit, walk or cycle is a function of where within the region they live geographically, and perhaps more significantly, whether they live in a dense urban core or a less dense area of primarily singlefamily housing. The average daily vehicle kilometres travelled (VKT) per household by Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) 2 is displayed in Figure 2.4. It shows that the distance travelled by car decreases along with the increasing density of the locality, i.e. more densely populated neighbourhoods are associated with lower VKT, and vice versa. Figure 2.4: Average daily Vehicle Kilometres Travelled per Household by TAZ: 2016 Density brings many advantages, but also some challenges Closeness is the reason we live in cities and it brings many advantages, but it also brings challenges. Among those challenges is congestion and crowding on transit and other transportation systems due to high demand at certain times. Although there are economies of scale, more people living and working in a region generally means more vehicles, which make more trips (including more goods being delivered), impacting the total distance driven on the roads. The forecasted indexed growth of these factors is displayed in Figure 2.5 from 2016 to 2045, using 2016 as a baseline. The next section explores what this growth means for congestion in Metro Vancouver both today and in the future. 6 2 A Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) is the unit of geography most commonly used in conventional transportation planning models. The size of a zone varies throughout the region. The Regional Transportation Model (RTM) contains approximately 1,700 TAZs for the region of Metro Vancouver..

42 Figure 2.5: Indexed growth of population, employment, vehicles, vehicle trips, and Vehicle Kilometres Travelled (VKT): Indexed growth (Base year = 2016) Population Employment Vehicles Vehicle Trips VKT Considerations for the Mobility Pricing Independent Commission Growth of population and employment in Metro Vancouver looks set to continue Growth will put increasing pressure on the regional transportation system, creating a need to use transportation resources more efficiently and economically. Population growth is strong all over the region, but is concentrated in and around the urban centres and other locations where transit is already good or is expected to improve Population densities are increasing in many parts of the region, but the increase is especially strong in urban centres outside downtown Vancouver. This is creating multiple regional centres and a need for efficient linkages between them. Employment growth is strong all over the region, including within the urban centres, but the pattern is less distinct than for population Employment densities are increasing in all areas, even in locations without good access to transit. Some population growth is also occurring in areas where people may have to travel further People living outside city centres travel more per day compared to people in more urbanized areas. Population and employment growth will generate more travel by all modes Despite a projected decline in per capita vehicle ownership, trips, and vehicle kilometres, Metro Vancouver s anticipated growth in population and employment will still lead to more transit trips and more cars, with the risk of more congestion. 7

43 3. CONGESTION We know it when we see it, but congestion is hard to define In simple terms, congestion on the road network occurs when the volume of traffic exceeds the capacity of a road, causing traffic speeds to drop. The capacity of road space is fixed in the short term there are only so many kilometres of road space or traffic lanes upon which vehicles can travel. However, traffic volume can vary significantly throughout the day, week, and year. It is this fluctuation in traffic volumes that results in congestion on the road network. This is most visible to road users during the AM and PM peak periods on weekdays, when many people are travelling to and from work leading to a situation where demand exceeds supply on the road network. During these times, the number of cars on the road network exceeds the road s capacity, resulting in delayed and unreliable travel times, which impact the efficient movement of people and goods throughout the region. In reality, congestion is rarely a function of capacity on a given road link, rather it is the result of known bottlenecks, or pinch points in the road network, often at busy, complex junctions, bridges and tunnels or around other geographical features like lakes and mountains. These cause what can be called recurring congestion delays that occur in the same place and at the same time on given days. Others non-recurring congestion are caused by temporary reductions in capacity on the road network. These can either be planned occurrences, like road works or events, or unplanned, like crashes and breakdowns, or impacts from weather-related issues. The effects of non-recurring congestion are much harder to identify and quantify. The relationship between traffic volume and congestion is complex and non-linear. If a road is operating close to its capacity, every extra vehicle that is added will have an impact on every other vehicle s travel speed. So while a ten percent increase in the number of vehicles on an empty road will have negligible effects on congestion, the same is not true if the same number of vehicles is added to a road that is already congested. The converse is also true: it is not necessary to reduce the number of vehicles on a congested road by half in order to reduce congestion by half. Reliable travel times can be more important than congestion delays Urban areas will always experience a certain degree of congestion. That the demand for transportation exceeds capacity and delays occur is part of life in a major city, and must be accepted to a certain degree. However, there comes a point at which the length and in particular the unreliability of travel times becomes a major burden to individuals and businesses. Many people may accept a certain level of delay as long as they know how long the delay is likely to be. The problem occurs when the actual delay is longer than our expectations, and when journey times vary so much that we are unable to reliably predict when we will arrive. Given this situation, individuals tend to remember the worst delays, and often adjust their travel times to account for them. This leads to loss in other productive time, family time, or recreation time because they are accounting for variances which only occur sporadically. Therefore, reducing the variance of travel times can have the effect of improving average journey times, with only small reductions in total journey times. Figure 3.1 illustrates how this works. 8

44 Figure 3.1: Impacts of improvements in travel time reliability Source: U.S. Federal Highway Administration When does congestion occur and how long does it last? There are many different aspects to congestion, such as the time of day that it occurs, the locations and road types at which it occurs, and the intensity and variability of the delays that are experienced by road users. It should be no surprise that some of the worst traffic congestion coincides with the times that most people want to travel during the AM and PM peak periods from Monday to Friday. Figure 3.2, shows the average driving speed by time of day from mid- September to mid-october in 2017 for Metro Vancouver. Average speeds decrease during the AM peak on weekdays, increasing during the middle of the day, and decreasing again during the PM peak. Speeds are typically lower during the PM peak than for the AM peak, and the duration of these lower speeds is more prolonged than during the AM peak. The time at which most people need to arrive at their destination in the morning typically work or school is often inflexible. Whereas the time we leave work or school is much more variable and flexible. Also, morning trips tend to be directly from home to work or school, maybe stopping to drop someone off along the way. Evening trip patterns are often more complex, including stops for shopping, visiting relatives or beginning evening activities. Trips on weekends often start later but can still result in a drop in average speeds. There can be significant congestion delays at certain times and locations on weekends. Congestion on Mondays as well as Friday mornings is typically less intense than on other weekdays, as a small number of people choose to extend their weekend taking some or all of the day off. This is a good illustration of how a relatively small change in the number of vehicles on the road can have a surprisingly large impact on vehicle speeds. 9

45 Figure 3.2: Network-wide average speeds: mid-september to mid-october, AM Peak PM Peak Average speed (kph) Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Hour of Day Source: TransLink analysis of Google Maps API data (Fall, 2017) Where does congestion occur in Metro Vancouver today? While Figure 3.2 sheds some light on the speed profile throughout the day for the entire network, sometimes these morning and afternoon peaks can be experienced at different times for different parts of the region. This means that the illustration of the congestion problems on a static map for Metro Vancouver is no trivial task. Identifying or defining the AM peak alone is a perfect example of this challenge where, the morning peak time will usually start at different times for different parts of the region, where areas that are further away from a city centre will typically have an earlier AM peak than areas that lie closer to a city centre. In addition, there are also many ways in which congestion can be defined or measured. Figure 3.3 illustrates this, where the Travel Time Speed (TTI) 3 is displayed across the region for two different times in the AM peak (7:00am 8:00am and 8:00am 9:00am), and two different times in the PM peak (4:00pm 5:00pm and 5:00pm 6:00pm) 4. 3 The TTI in this case compares the actual travel speed to the speed that can be achieved during optimal efficient conditions. That s something slightly lower than a free-flow speed, which is unrealistic in many urban environments, and does not represent the most efficient use of the road network in terms of the number of people who can be transported This data was generated using Google Maps API for a typical weekday in the fall of 2017 (October 11th, 2017).

46 Figure 3.3: AM and PM network speeds 7:00am 8:00am 8:00am 9:00am 4:00pm 5:00pm 5:00pm 6:00pm 11

47 While these images help to reveal where and when congestion is experienced throughout the region, they do not reveal the variability in congestion from day to day, where, as described above it is often the worst day of the month that many people remember, and which informs their perception of congestion. How unreliable are travel times? Figures 3.4 and 3.5 illustrate travel times between a number of locations around the region, during the AM and PM peaks in the fall of 2017, respectively 5. The bars indicate the difference between free-flow travel times (what you might expect to experience in the middle of the night), travel times in normal conditions (during the off-peak periods), and during the AM or PM peaks. They also reveal what some of the longest travel times can be as a result of the unpredictability of congestion. The upper point in the figures represents the worst travel time that a person commuting daily could expect to experience once every two weeks, which relates to the variance or reliability of travel times previously discussed (and similar to that shown in Figure 3.1). Figure 3.4: Travel times between key regional origins and destinations during the AM peak Travel time (mins) AM Peak conditions Normal conditions Free-flow conditions km 14km 15km 18km 18km 19km 35km 37km 46km 46km Worst Congestion Source: TransLink analysis of Google Maps API data (Fall, 2017) 5 For simplicity and consistency across the origins and destinations, we have defined the AM Peak here as 7: :30am, while the PM Peak is defined from 4:40-5:30pm.

48 Figure 3.5: Travel times between key regional origins and destinations during the PM peak Travel time (mins) km 14km 15km 18km 18km 19km 35km 37km 46km 46km PM Peak conditions Normal conditions Free-flow conditions Worst Congestion Source: TransLink analysis of Google Maps API data (Fall, 2017) Typical congestion issues facing the region today Through an analysis of available data 6 and from modelling the region s traffic system, Figure 3.6 identifies some of the worst congestion hot spots in and around Metro Vancouver. This is neither a definitive nor an exhaustive list there may be many congestion issues faced by people on their daily trips around the region that do not appear here, and those should not be considered any less important. This list is provided as a starting point for a discussion with the public, businesses and stakeholders around the region about what they consider to be the most urgent congestion issues. Furthermore, to help quantify some of these issues, it is estimated from the RTM that while only about 5-6% of the total road network is congested during the morning and afternoon peaks, this results in over 30% of total travel time being congested during these times Source: TransLink analysis of Google Maps API data (Fall, 2017)

49 Figure 3.6: Some of the worst congestion hot spots in Metro Vancouver today The traffic hot spots presented in Figure 3.6 are described below in no particular order. 1. On and around bridges and tunnels crossing the Fraser River especially northbound in the morning and southbound in the evening. This includes the Golden Ears Bridge, the Port Mann Bridge, the Pattullo Bridge, the Alex Fraser-Queensborough bridge corridor and the Massey Tunnel. Often traffic can flow well once it is on the bridge or in the tunnel, but traffic on roads and streets leading to the approaches to the bridge or tunnel experience delays. 2. On and around bridges between Richmond, the airport and Vancouver bidirectional in the morning and evening. While issues described on and around the bridges above tend to have a directional flow dependent on time of day, the issues on bridges between Richmond, the airport and Vancouver tend to be in both directions in the morning and evening, due to significant commuter flows between the two cities, and to and from the airport from all parts of the region. 3. Major arterials in Vancouver and western parts of Burnaby having a particular impact on busy bus corridors. Some congestion is to be expected on busy city streets, with many traffic signals controlling the points where two major roads meet. Many of these streets are also places with significant commercial activity, with lots of people walking and cycling, as well as using on-street parking, and are a positive sign of vibrant city life. However, this can also cause extra friction for traffic, which significantly impacts the reliability of buses on some of the region s busiest bus routes. 4. Travel to, from and around urban centres for example New Westminster, Metrotown, Surrey City Centre, and Richmond City Centre. As the region s urban centres continue to grow, congestion to, from and within these areas is causing problems for drivers and bus passengers. 5. Travel to, from and around the North Shore in every direction. Geographical features like water and mountains impose constraints on all parts of our region, but especially on the North Shore. Constrained capacity on the two bridges linking to the rest of the region, and a limited number of opportunities for east-west travel is a problem. 14

50 6. Travel to and from the northeast part of the region Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, and Port Moody. Some of the geographical constraints in the region are immediately apparent, like the Fraser River and Burrard Inlet. Others are less obvious, like the constraints caused by the terrain, parks and smaller rivers that limit the number of roads between the northeast part of the region and the Highway 1 corridor. 7. Travel on regional highways during peak periods for example Highway 1 and Highway 91. Vancouver has fewer highways than many other cities in North America. That has helped to preserve some of Metro Vancouverites favourite neighbourhoods. However, the highways we do have are carrying a large amount of the region s traffic, including truck traffic to and from the ports and airport. Congestion on the highways can spread quickly to city streets. 8. Travel to, from and around the Metropolitan Core of Downtown Vancouver. Metro Vancouver is an increasingly polycentric region (with many town and city centres), but 20 percent of all employment in the region, as well regional cultural and sporting arenas, are located in the metropolitan core (the Downtown peninsula, plus areas to the south of False Creek around Broadway). Many journeys to and from the North Shore also need to pass through downtown. Even with significant transportation investments, congestion could get worse over the next 30 years As discussed above, the region is expected to welcome a million more people and over 400,000 new jobs over the next 30 years. Most of this will be in dense, mixed-use areas with good access to frequent transit. Significant investments are planned in new transit, including the Broadway extension of the Millennium Line, new light rail transit (LRT) in Surrey and Langley, new B-line bus services across the region, a new SeaBus and new SkyTrain cars, as well as ongoing reviews of transit services in response to demand. Reinvestments are also planned in the major road network, as well as ongoing revisions of traffic management and signals to improve traffic on municipal roads, and improvements for bus priority, walking and cycling. All of these changes will have an impact on congestion. New transit and road improvements could lead to decongestion in some locations and at certain times, while increasing population could lead to worsening congestion at other locations and times. With the help of traffic models, we can try to understand how the relationships between planned changes in land-use and transportation infrastructure, and other factors we can t control like inflation, the cost of fuel, wages, etc. might change patterns of travel and congestion. Making projections about the future is not an exact science; it builds on assumptions regarding which trends will continue and which will change, and how. The Regional Transportation Model 7 has proved to be a reliable tool to understand these trends, and in particular to compare the relative impacts of the different courses of action. Given the growth in population and employment, as well as the developments in transportation infrastructure and behavioural patterns, the model has been used to estimate what the future may hold for congestion across Metro Vancouver by compared to Table 3.1 reveals the proportion of congested lane kilometres, and journey time that is congested, for the AM and PM peaks for 2016 and The Regional Transportation Model (RTM) is a four-step travel demand forecasting tool developed and maintained by TransLink. The RTM produces estimates from numerous data sources including TransLink s regional trip diary and the regional screenline survey. The RTM produces regional travel demand estimates from demographic inputs (population and employment) developed from the Canadian census and refined by Metro Vancouver, and transportation network data developed by TransLink and external consultants. 8 Note that the 2045 scenarios include the decision made by the previous provincial government to replace the 15 Massey tunnel with a bridge.

51 Table 3.1: AM and PM peak congested lanes and journey time: 2016 and AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak Total lane kilometres Congested lane kilometres % Congested lane kilometres 13,034km 13,034km 13,349km 13,349km 653km 806km 1,116km 1,497km 5% 6% 8% 11% Total Journey time 115,596 hours 132,730 hours 157,985 hours 190,223 hours Congested Journey time % journey time that is congested 37,105 hours 44,968 hours 64,331 hours 87,147 hours 32% 34% 41% 46% The key takeaway from this table is that while only 5-6% of the entire road network is congested during peak times in 2016 (which is expected to rise to 8-11% by 2045), over 30% of our travel time during peak hours is spent in congestion today, and this is set to increase to over 40% by Mobility innovations could make future predictions more challenging The transportation sector is, like many others, in a period of rapid change as a result of the electrification and anticipated automation of the vehicle fleet. In addition, the application of digital services is allowing new types of shared mobility and data analysis. These changes are still in development and there is continuing uncertainty about the longer-term impacts: Purchase prices for electric vehicles are dropping and the operating costs are low compared to gasoline or diesel. Electric vehicles can have significant environmental benefits, but low operating costs could lead to more travel and increasing congestion. Autonomous and semi-autonomous driving capabilities could reduce collisions and congestion as well as enabling new infrastructure and on-demand mobility without the need for ownership. They could equally have rebound effects such as increased vehicle dependency, competition for public transit, and increased privatization. Emerging technology-enabled models as well as the sharing economy and shared-use mobility (e.g. ride-hailing and car-sharing services), taxi services, and public transit open the possibility of Mobility as a Service, reducing car ownership and use. Data and analysis capabilities are delivering new possibilities for parking management and urban congestion relief as well as enhanced traveler information and incentives (use of interactive maps like Waze as well as incentives such as insurance reduction). Technology affecting freight and urban goods movement including the impacts of mobile apps and new service models and even things like drones and 3D printing. 16

52 What do Metro Vancouverites think about congestion in the region? The Mobility Pricing Independent Commission conducted an opinion poll to understand what Metro Vancouverites think about various aspects of the project. One thousand people across the region were polled by Ipsos from September 12 19, Metro Vancouver residents rate all three of the Commission's objectives as important ('very' or 'somewhat'). Nearly nine-in-ten (86%) say it is important to them to 'relieve congestion on roads and bridges across the region, so people and goods can keep moving and business can thrive and be competitive.' Asked to select the single most important objective, 44% of respondents (the largest number) chose relieving congestion. Figure 3.7: Most important Commission objective Relieve congestion on roads and bridges across the region, so people and goods can keep moving and business can thrive and be competitive. 44% Promote fairness to address concerns around tolling and to support accessibility and choice in transportation for Metro Vancouver residents. 29% Support investment to improve the current transportation system in Metro Vancouver for all users. 17% Don't know 9% Congestion and unpredictability are the two biggest frustrations of moving around in Metro Vancouver. Nine-in-ten residents (89%) say delays caused by high traffic volumes make them feel a great deal or some frustration. Eight-in-ten (80%) are frustrated by unpredictability of travel times. Other higher rated frustrations include crowding on transit (73%), transportation costs/affordability (70%) and delays caused by accidents (70%). Figure 3.8: Frustrations moving around Metro Vancouver A great deal Some Delays caused by high traffic volumes 53% 89% Unpredictability of travel times 32% 80% Crowding on transit 33% 73% Transportation costs/ affordability (e.g. transit fares) 30% 70% Delays caused by accidents 27% 70% Frequency of transit service 26% 65% Condition of roads 21% 65% Bike path network and safety 20% 47% Lack of pedestrian-friendly areas 14% 47% 17

53 Almost half of residents (46%) say that their transportation frustrations have either a 'major' (10%) or 'moderate' (36%) negative impact on their 'own quality of life'. Residents are more likely to say the transportation frustrations have a negative impact (major or moderate) on broader concerns such as 'the overall quality of life for Metro Vancouverites' (61% negative), 'the local environment' (57% negative) and 'the region's economy' (52% negative). Figure 3.9: Negative impacts associated with transportation frustrations Major negative impact Moderate negative impact The overall quality of life for Metro Vancouverites 17% 61% The local environment (e.g. pollution) 19% 57% The region's economy 13% 52% Your own quality of life 10% 46% Younger residents (55%) and North Shore residents (52%) are the most likely to say their transportation frustrations have a negative impact on their 'own quality of life'. South of Fraser residents (57%) are the most likely to say their transportation frustrations have a negative impact on 'the region's economy'. Older residents (62%) are the most likely to say their transportation frustrations have a negative impact on 'the local environment'. Survey respondents were asked to agree or disagree with several statements about mobility pricing. 43% agree that 'I would be willing to pay some amount of money to have less road congestion' (30% disagree, 28% neutral/no opinion). Agreement is higher among North Shore residents (51%) and younger residents (48%). Figure 3.10: Agreement with mobility pricing statements Agree total Neither Disagree total No opinion Mobility pricing could be more fair by paying for what I use 53% 23% 19% 5% Mobility pricing could make getting around more affordable for me, in that I'll pay for what I use 47% 23% 25% 6% Mobility pricing supports investment in our future transportation and transit 46% 28% 17% 9% I would be willing to pay some amount of money to have less road congestion 43% 23% 30% 5% 18

54 Considerations for the Mobility Pricing Independent Commission Defining congestion is important Congestion should be considered as incremental travel time increases relative to an efficient use of roadway capacity as opposed to free-flow travel time. We also need to take into account the way congestion shifts in geography and in time. Reliability of travel times also need to be considered. There are peak congestion times Congestion is a particular issue during the AM and PM peaks, but reasonable during the midday. There may be other locations and times, for example on weekends, where congestion is an issue. Congestion is widespread throughout the region Congestion is having an impact on accessibility for businesses and residents across many parts of the region, primarily during the morning and evening peaks. Transit is impacted by traffic congestion Congestion on roads impacts the efficient movement of transit, such as buses, which many people use and rely upon. The delay of one bus alone could impact more than 100 people travelling on the larger buses operating in the region. Metro Vancouverites think congestion is a problem A clear majority of people in the region experience road congestion to be a problem with implications for quality of life and the regional economy. There is particular concern around travel time delays and unpredictability. Autonomous vehicles are a wild card for congestion and mobility pricing The implications of autonomous vehicles on congestion are not fully understood, but consideration should be made to provide mobility pricing which is flexible enough to adapt to autonomous vehicles. Shared use mobility is changing expectations and attitudes towards mobility pricing Shifting the economy towards shared-use mobility (e.g. taxis and other ride-hailing services, Car2Go, Evo, etc.) may impact the consideration of pricing options. Shared services are creating new expectations around the price of mobility. 19

55 4. FAIRNESS Fairness means different things to different people There are many aspects to fairness relating to the transportation system, and to mobility pricing specifically, and these aspects will have a different level of importance for different people and in different circumstances. Because of this, it is not possible to define what fairness means or what is fair. We can only seek to understand what information people need in order to make their own judgement about the relative fairness of different options or ways forward. The Commission will be engaging with Metro Vancouver residents and stakeholders to understand what information will be important to determining whether different mobility pricing scenarios including the status quo are considered fair. An analysis of congestion pricing systems in California, Norway and France (Raux and Souche, 2004) identifies the following examples of considerations in understanding the equity of implementing decongestion charging: Whether charging is perceived to deny individuals basic rights such as freedom of movement. If it takes more from people on lower incomes than people on higher incomes (in proportion to income) i.e. is it a progressive or regressive redistribution? The extent to which different groups have different opportunities to adapt that might, for example, include geographical differences, access to services, availability of transit, other travel choices, etc. Mobility as a basic right It could be argued that mobility is a basic right, and that charging to use the roads is an infringement of this basic right. This needs to be considered in the context of the other significant barriers that already exist to using a motor vehicle on the road, including: the cost and complication of obtaining a driver s licence the cost of owning and maintaining a vehicle the cost of vehicle insurance the cost of fuel including taxes the cost of parking We can also compare to the barriers of using other forms of mobility in particular public transit, where there are no basic rights of having free access to transit, and the costs of using transit impose a certain barrier on some individuals. Another aspect of basic rights that will need to be considered in the context of mobility pricing is privacy. The Mobility Pricing Independent Commission will not be making detailed recommendations as to technology choices or other aspects of implementation with an impact on privacy. It may wish, however, to establish some basic principles as to how privacy would need to be handled if a new form of mobility pricing, such as decongestion charging, were to be implemented. 20

56 Fuel tax costs are not being borne equally by all drivers One of the ways car drivers are already paying to get around is through the fuel tax. How much fuel tax you pay is a product of two things how much you drive and the fuel efficiency of the vehicle you drive. Larger vehicles and older vehicles will tend to be less fuel efficient than smaller and newer vehicles. Electric vehicles do not pay any fuel tax. This could be considered reasonable if the purpose of the tax were to encourage people to choose more efficient vehicles, which is the purpose of the carbon tax, for example. But the $0.17 per litre tax on fuel purchased in Metro Vancouver is used to finance transportation operations and investment. The fuel tax accounts for around a quarter of TransLink s budget. So how big is the difference in fuel tax contributions across vehicle types? Consider this example with four vehicle types a vehicle with low fuel efficiency, a vehicle with average fuel efficiency, a vehicle with high fuel efficiency and an electric vehicle. Table 4.1 outlines the contributions that these vehicles make to the fuel tax under different driving scenarios. The owner of a vehicle with low fuel efficiency more likely to be either a larger vehicle or an older vehicle would in these theoretical examples contribute three times as much in fuel tax as the owner of a smaller or newer fuel efficient vehicle. Table 4.1: Fuel tax contributions from four vehicle types Low fuel efficient vehicle Medium fuel efficient vehicle High fuel efficient vehicle Electric vehicle Example year, make and model 2010 Ford F Honda Odyssey 2010 Toyota Prius 2017 Tesla Model X Fuel efficiency 15L/100km 11L/100km 5L/100km 0L/100km Current fuel tax ($0.17c/L) paid per km Current fuel tax ($0.17c/L) paid per 100km $0.03 $0.02 $0.01 $0 $2.55 $1.87 $0.85 $0 Trip type Return trip to Whistler Low annual mileage Medium annual mileage High annual mileage KM 250km $6.38 $4.68 $2.13 $0 10,000km $255 $187 $85 $0 20,000km $510 $374 $170 $0 25,000km $638 $468 $213 $0 With approximately 1.5 million vehicles registered throughout Metro Vancouver, it is likely that they range in age and size hence in fuel efficiencies. Further work will explore these trends, and particularly how these fuel efficiencies are distributed throughout the region. It will be important to understand how contributions to fuel taxes are made throughout the region. 21

57 People living in households with low incomes are least likely to drive and less likely to travel in the congested peak periods Results from the 2011 Trip Diary 9 suggest that there is a relationship between household income and the share of trips made by car. This reflects both the already significant costs of driving but may also reflect lower car use in single-person households. This is shown in Figure 4.1. Figure 4.1: 2011 Primary trip mode by household income level 100% Percentage of Trips Made by Income Group 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Less than $25,000 $25,000 to less than $50,000 $50,000 to less than $75,000 $75,000 to less $100,000 to less than $100,000 than $150,000 $150,000 or more Household Income Level Auto Driver Auto Passenger Transit Walk Bike Other There are also some interesting differences around when trips are made by income level, as shown in Figure 4.2. People living in households with higher incomes (with the exception of the highest income category) are making a larger proportion of their trips in the congested peak period compared to the off peak. People living in lower income households are still making many of their trips in the peak, but the spread across the day is generally more even. Households with the very lowest incomes make many fewer trips, and spread them more evenly across the day Source: TransLink (2013) 2011 Metro Vancouver Regional Trip Diary Survey: Analysis Report, February 2013

58 Figure 4.2: 2011 Distribution of trips across time of day by household income groups :00 AM 1:00 AM 2:00 AM 3:00 AM 4:00 AM 5:00 AM 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM 11:00 PM 12:00 AM 1:00 AM Number of Trips Time of Trip Start Less than $25,000 $25,000 to less than $50,000 $50,000 to less than $75,000 $75,000 to less than $100,000 $100,000 to less than $150,000 $150,000 or more The proportion of income spent on transportation can vary considerably but what is causing that difference is not immediately clear Every household is spending a proportion of its income on transportation: the two most significant elements being transit fares and the cost of owning, maintaining and operating a vehicle or vehicles. Data from the Regional Transportation Model can tell us what the distribution of these costs looks like across the region. It generally shows that out of pocket costs are lower in denser urban centres and greater in more rural areas. As discussed earlier, people living in denser urban areas generally travel less, so it is logical that their costs of travel should also be less. Understanding what this means is more relevant if we compare it to average incomes. Figure 4.3 shows the distribution of annual transportation costs as a percentage of average household incomes obtained from census data 10. Areas showing the highest proportional expenditure could therefore represent both areas with the lowest incomes but a normal expenditure in absolute terms, but also areas with the highest expenditure, but a close to median household income. Conversely, those with the lowest proportion of expenditure on transport represent both areas with high incomes, and areas with closer to median incomes but low transportation costs. It is also important to note that this data does not include the costs of purchasing the vehicle(s) which can be a significant proportion of household incomes. It is difficult to discern any clear pattern from this data related to spatial distribution there does not appear to be either one part of the region, or one type of urban form (dense, mixed use areas, less dense single-family housing or rural) that is paying a disproportionate share of income on transportation. This data will require further analysis to determine what patterns may be present. It would also be useful to add the costs of time and unreliability of transportation, to the out of pocket costs displayed in this example Note that the transportation costs presented here do not include the costs of purchasing a vehicle.

59 Figure 4.3: Total annual transportation costs as a proportion of average household income Annual Household Transportation Costs / Median Household Income (2016) N Lions Bay Electoral Area A Bowen Island West Vancouver North Vancouver District UEL UBC North Vancouver City Vancouver Belcarra Burnaby Anmore Port Moody Coquitlam Port Coquitlam Pitt Meadows Maple Ridge LEGEND New Westminster Municipal Boundary Richmond Urban Containment Boundary Urban Centre % Costs / Income Delta Surrey Langley City Tsawwassen Langley Township 7+ Source: TransLink TAZ Data, Statistics Canada 2016 Census White Rock Kilometre There are variations in transit accessibility across the region but new investments are planned that will make a difference We know that there are some big variations in transit accessibility between different parts of the region, and, therefore, the ability to choose transit for a variety of trips. Transit accessibility is a complex thing to measure and present. It is not enough to understand whether or not there is high frequency and capacity transit available for a certain location; we need to understand how easy it is to use transit to get from one part of the region to every other part of the region. Figure 4.4 has been produced as part of a research project (Spatial Network Analysis for Multimodal Urban Transport Systems, or SNAMUTS at Curtin University in Perth, Western Australia. SNAMUTS looks at a variety of indicators, including the frequency and capacity of the transit service, how long it takes to travel between transport nodes (including the need to change and average wait times), how many people and how many jobs are within walking distance of transit stops, and whether there are likely to be severe crowding issues on vehicles and stations. The map below is a composite of all these measures which is a close approximation of how easy is it to travel from one part of the region to all the others on transit. 24

60 Figure 4.4: SNAMUTS transit accessibility map It is important to note that this work is now several years old and does not, for example, include the Millennium Line Evergreen extension to Coquitlam, which opened in December This is likely to have made a considerable difference in accessibility for people in that part of the region, but also serves to lift scores generally by making the northeast sector of the region more accessible from everywhere else. Likewise, the planned investments in transit, including the Broadway Millennium Line extension to Arbutus, the Surrey LRT and new B-lines will lead to significant improvements in the areas directly affected, as well as lifting scores generally all around the region. What do Metro Vancouverites think about fairness in their transportation system? In the Ipsos survey of Metro Vancouver residents, conducted in September 2017, eight-in-ten respondents say it is important to 'promote fairness to address concerns around tolling and to support accessibility and choice in transportation for Metro Vancouver residents' (80%). Fairness was the second most important objective of the Mobility Pricing Independent Commission, identified by 30 percent of respondents, after addressing congestion. Four-in-ten residents (40%) think our current system for paying for our road and transit system through fuel taxes, hydro fees, transit fares, parking taxes, and property taxes is fair. A similar proportion (36%) says it is unfair and one-quarter are undecided (24%). Perceived fairness is higher among Vancouver residents (46%) and younger residents (45%). 25 A slim majority of residents (53%) agree that 'mobility pricing could be more fair by paying for what I use' (19% disagree, 28% neutral/no opinion). Nearly half of residents (47%) agree that 'mobility pricing could make getting around more affordable for me, in that I ll pay for what I use' (25% disagree, 29% neutral/no opinion). Agreement is higher among Vancouver residents (53%) and younger residents (52%).

61 Figure 4.5: Agreement with mobility pricing statements Agree total Neither Disagree total No opinion Mobility pricing could be more fair by paying for what I use 53% 23% 19% 5% Mobility pricing could make getting around more affordable for me, in that I'll pay for what I use 47% 23% 25% 6% Mobility pricing supports investment in our future transportation and transit 46% 28% 17% 9% I would be willing to pay some amount of money to have less road congestion 43% 23% 30% 5% Considerations for the Mobility Pricing Independent Commission Fairness has many dimensions, and will mean different things to different people Depending on where an individual lives in the region, whether they have children or not, whether they have access to local amenities and affordable transportation choices, will all contribute to their perception of what is fair. Basic liberties related to privacy will need to be considered The Commission won t be making recommendations on technology choices or administrative processes, but may wish to consider establishing principles around privacy. There are some questions about the fairness of the current system of fuel taxes People with older and/or larger vehicles are paying more than people with smaller and/ or newer vehicles. More analysis is needed in order to understand how these vehicles are distributed throughout the region. People living in households with the lowest incomes drive less than other groups and are less likely to be travelling in the peak But households at or just below the median income for the region drive just as much as those with higher incomes. Out-of-pocket travel costs are lower in more urbanized areas The real out-of-pocket costs of using auto and transit are lower in city centres in comparison to less urbanized areas. But as a proportion of household incomes the picture is much less clear, and further analysis will be required to understand this. Access to affordable transportation choices is an important aspect of fairness We need a clearer understanding of the quality and availability of transportation choices in different parts of the region. The benefits of decongestion charging need to be clearly communicated Many people do not know of, or do not see any perceived benefits of, decongestion charging. 26

62 5. INVESTMENT Some big investments in transit and transportation are planned In 2014, the Mayors Council on Regional Transportation adopted a 10-Year Vision for Metro Vancouver Transit and Transportation. The 10-Year Vision 11 was developed to reduce congestion, and stimulate movement in the region after years of under-investment in the local transportation network. The Vision is the blueprint for the future of Metro Vancouver s transportation system and a comprehensive plan for urgently-needed investments. Investments are sequenced across the region in three phases, and deliver a wide range of improvements, including: New rapid rail transit in Vancouver, Surrey, and Langley 25% increase in bus service, including new B-Lines and new service areas Replacement of the aging Pattullo Bridge Upgrades and more service to the existing Expo, Millennium, and Canada Lines, and the West Coast Express 30% increase in HandyDART service New SeaBus, with service every 10 minutes $200 million for walking and cycling, with 2,700 kilometres of new bike lanes $330 million for road upgrades and seismic investments The Phase One Plan of the 10-Year Vision was launched in January 2017, including improvements to Bus, SkyTrain, SeaBus, and West Coast Express service. The Phase Two Plan is set to launch in early 2018, with the Phase Three Plan starting in New regional sources of revenue are required to help fund these plans The Phase One Plan has been fully funded through partnerships with all three levels of government Federal ($370 million), Provincial ($246 million), and Regional ($1.5 billion). Regional revenue sources for the Phase One Plan are being generated from increased transit fares, an adjustment to the property tax, a proposed new region-wide development fee for transit and transportation, and the use of TransLink s existing resources, including the sale of surplus property. With Phase One of the 10-Year Vision now underway, the planning process for Phase Two has been launched. In March 2017, the Federal Government committed approximately $2.2 billion for Phase Two of the 10-Year Vision. However, implementation of this Plan will require further funding from the Provincial Government, as well as additional regional revenue sources. The Mayors Council is presently seeking confirmation of a 40% capital funding contribution from the Provincial Government. If secured, this will amount to more than $2.5 billion for Phase Two from the Province. This regional funding gap for Phase Two is estimated at $60 to $80 million annually. To help address this gap, the Mayors Council is recommending that the Province dedicate a fair share of incremental carbon tax revenues (generated by proposed carbon tax increases over the next four years from the transportation sector within Metro Vancouver) as the region s funding contribution to Phase Two investments. This would close the regional funding gap for Phase Two, and pave the way for improvements to proceed as scheduled. 27 Phase Three of the Vision is also not yet funded. While Federal and Provincial funding sources are anticipated, further regional funding will be required once more to help fill the gap. As outlined within the 10-Year Vision, the expectation is that remaining regional revenue sources would be generated from mobility pricing. 11 More details on the 10-Year Vision, including the phased approach, can be found at: tenyearvision.translink.ca

63 Fuel tax revenues are in decline and today they account for around a quarter of regional revenues Metro Vancouver s regional fuel tax set at $0.17/L of fuel consumed has historically performed well as a secure form of revenue for transit and transportation investment, where it currently generates about $340 million per year. However, with recent improvements in the fuel efficiency of newer vehicles, as well as the penetration of electric vehicles into the market, there is a growing concern that this revenue source is no longer as stable as it once was. Put simply, if all the vehicles registered or passing through Metro Vancouver changed to electric vehicles, revenue from the fuel tax would be $0. Therefore, all other things being equal, a higher proportion of fuel efficient and electric vehicles amongst the fleet leads to lower revenue from the fuel tax. Recent evidence from Metro Vancouver (King and Fox, 2015) reveals a decoupling between the usage of roads (measured by vehicle kilometres travelled, VKT) and the revenues from the fuel tax over recent years. This is illustrated in Figure 5.1. This concern has also been identified by our neighbours in the US, where currently up to 14 States from the west are researching, testing, and implementing different forms of a road usage charge (RUC) which would replace the existing gas tax 12. Figure 5.1: Recent trends in VKT and Fuel Consumption in Metro Vancouver Total VKT (Billions km) Total Fuel Consumption (Billions) Total VKT Total Fuel Consumption Source: King and Fox (2015) More information can be found at:

64 What do Metro Vancouverites think about supporting investment in the transportation system? Nearly eight out of ten (78%) respondents to the Ipsos survey agree that it is important to support investment to improve the current transportation system in Metro Vancouver for all users'. When asked to select a single most important of the three objectives only 17% selected supporting investment. Nearly half (46%) of residents agree that 'mobility pricing supports investment in our future transportation and transit' (17% disagree, 37% neutral/no opinion). Agreement is higher among younger residents (53%) and residents of Vancouver (52%) and Burnaby/New Westminster (51%). Agreement is lower among Northeast region residents (40%). Figure 5.2: Agreement with mobility pricing statements Agree total Neither Disagree total No opinion Mobility pricing could be more fair by paying for what I use 53% 23% 19% 5% Mobility pricing could make getting around more affordable for me, in that I'll pay for what I use 47% 23% 25% 6% Mobility pricing supports investment in our future transportation and transit 46% 28% 17% 9% I would be willing to pay some amount of money to have less road congestion 43% 23% 30% 5% Considerations for the Mobility Pricing Independent Commission Revenue from new sources is needed to fund the 10-Year Vision Without investment, the quality of service of all parts of the transportation system could decline. Revenue from the fuel tax is set to decline further With increasing fuel efficiencies and electrification of the vehicle fleet, the fuel tax is no longer a sustainable source of revenue. 29

65 6. NEXT STEPS It s Time for a region-wide conversation about decongestion charging This report is not intended to be a comprehensive assessment of the issues of congestion, fairness and the need to support investment in the regional transportation system. This is just the starting point for a conversation which begins in the fall of 2017, with an engagement around these three issues to understand whether we have identified the right issues, whether we have understood what the real issues are, and to hear what important pieces of the picture we are still missing. Research on these and other questions will continue during the latter part of 2017 in order to provide more information for further rounds of engagement in early With the help of the public, businesses and stakeholders, the Mobility Pricing Independent Commission will be developing principles to be adhered to in designing a mobility pricing policy, and developing some illustrative scenarios to help us all understand what the implications of a different kind of mobility pricing might mean for Metro Vancouver. Tell us what you think This is an exciting time for Metro Vancouverites to join the discussion and be part of a plan that could change how transportation is used and paid for around the region for generations. Here s how to get involved: Learn more on our website: itstimemv.ca Follow us on Join the conversation on Facebook: It s Time, Metro Vancouver 30

66 REFERENCES GVRD (1972) Greater Vancouver: A livable region, Greater Vancouver Regional District King, F. and Fox, J. (2015) Revenue and policy implications from emerging fuel sale trends in Metro Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. In: Transportation Research Record, Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2530, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2015, pp Mayors Council on Regional Transportation (2014) Regional Transportation Investments: A Vision for Metro Vancouver Metro Vancouver (2017) Regional Growth Strategy, Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping Our Future, Updated to July 28, 2017 (retrieved online on October 16th, 2017) Raux, C. and Souche, S. (2004) The acceptability of urban road pricing: A theoretical analysis applied to experience in Lyon, Journal of Transport Economics and Policy (JTEP), Vol. 38, (2), pp Statistics Canada (2017) 2016 Census of Population Greater Vancouver, Regional district, British Columbia, Government of Canada (retrieved online on October 16th, 2017) TransLink (2013) 2011 Metro Vancouver Regional Trip Diary Survey: Analysis Report, February

67 APPENDIX B: Decongestion charging policy and global lessons learned report 65

68 Decongestion Charging: Policy and Global Lessons Learned December 2017

69 Decongestion Charging: Policy and Global Lessons Learned Prepared for the Metro Vancouver Mobility Pricing Independent Commission Authors Dirk van Amelsfort, WSP Sweden - dirk.van.amelsfort@wsp.com Karin Brundell-Freij, WSP Sweden - karin.brundell-freij@wsp.com Contributors Michael Forss, WSP Sweden - michael.forss@wsp.com Adrian Lightstone, WSP Canada - adrian.lightstone@wsp.com Preeya Shah, WSP Canada - preeya.shah@wsp.com Daniel Haufschild, WSP Canada - daniel.haufschild@wsp.com

70 Decongestion Charging Policy and Global Lessons Learned Contents Executive Summary...i 3 Understanding Congestion Charging... i Equity and Fairness... i Know About Public Acceptance from Around the World... ii Lessons from International Experience... ii 1. Introduction Defining Pricing in Transport Report Structure Understanding Congestion Charging Congestion Theories Bottleneck Travel Time Capacity Drop Congestion Charging Theory Marginal Cost Pricing - Economic Theory Behavioral Change Mechanisms Equity and Fairness The Basic Concepts Rawls Theory of Justice Know About Public Acceptance from Around the World Know About Political Acceptance from Around the World Balance Between Effectiveness and Concerns Congestion Charging International Examples International Examples Singapore Electronic Road Pricing Central London Congestion Charging Stockholm Congestion Charging Milan Congestion Charging Gothenburg Congestion Charging Congestion Charging Key Characteristics References... 26

71 Decongestion Charging Policy and Global Lessons Learned 4

72 Decongestion Charging Policy and Global Lessons Learned Executive Summary Understanding Congestion Charging The relationship between travel demand and travel time is non-linear which means it does not require large reductions in travel demand (traffic volumes) to achieve substantial improvements in travel times. In severe congestion, the capacity of road can drop below its design capacity. By leaving demand unmanaged (no decongestion charging) we accept a lower level of infrastructure performance. When making travel choices, people take into account their own direct cost of travelling, but not the cost imposed on society. Private car use is underpriced in economic terms. People are not paying the full costs that private car use puts on society (such as emissions, safety, noise, wear and tear, and congestion). Congestion charging is an effective instrument to capture societal costs in travel decisions and make the transport system more efficient. Congestion charging leads to behavioural responses from the traveler, including switching modes and travel departure times. However, most car drivers tend to stay and pay. The congestion reduction effects and societal benefits of congestion charging depend on individual behavioural responses to price changes. Demand for travel alternatives will increase and facilitating this may require investment in other modes of transportation, for example transit and cycling infrastructure. Equity and Fairness With respect to congestion charging, equity refers to how the costs and benefits resulting from a charge are distributed over the population. Benefits of a congestion charge will not be evenly distributed over the population: some people will experience large improvements, whereas others may end up with no appreciable improvements or even worse-off than before the introduction of a congestion charge. Perceptions of fairness are individual, and not everyone agrees on which properties of a policy make it fair (or unfair). Philosopher John Rawls developed a theory for the basic traits of fairness, which can be applied to congestion charging, based on the following three principles: Principle 1: A set of basic rights for everyone; Principle 2: Equal opportunities to change and adapt; Principle 3: Inequalities should work in favour of the less advantaged. Rawls s first principle discusses the absolute minimum level of rights for a given individual for example, the notion that everyone should be allowed the basic right to mobility. With regards to congestion charging, overall affordability of charges may be a fairness concern that reflects Rawls s first principle. i

73 Decongestion Charging Policy and Global Lessons Learned The user-pay principle (people should pay in proportion to how much they use the transport system) and the polluter-pay principle (people should pay in proportion to the problems they impose on others) can be relevant to a non-equitable distribution of the impacts of congestion charging related to Rawls s second principle. The sudden and unexpected implementation of a charging policy can be perceived by the public as being unfair. This phenomenon can be understood as a reflection of Rawls s second principle: that everyone should be allowed a reasonable opportunity to adapt to new circumstances. Rawls s third principle suggests a policy will be regarded as unfair if it implies a redistribution of resources from the poor to the rich. How the funds from the charging policy are used and the distributional profile of those expenditures will matter. Know About Public Acceptance from Around the World Public acceptance is likely to be low before introduction but could be expected to typically increase after introduction. Early in the process, when the discussion is general and the effects of charging are discussed as abstract concepts, there is typically not much formalized opposition from the public. As congestion charging concepts progress towards implementation the scheme designs are developed and presented to the public. The increased definition around congestion charging may make people worried about negative personal consequences, leading to lower acceptance levels. The lack of acceptance before introduction of a charge may be explained by status quo bias which is overcome by greater public acceptance if the implemented system is well-designed and well-functioning. After implementation, acceptance will typically increase, which can be attributed to a number of factors: Travel times improve more than motorists expected; Negative consequences (charges paid, mode shift) prove less problematic than was anticipated; People adapt and accept a new status quo, no longer evaluating it as a change. Lessons from International Experience All congestion charging schemes that have been implemented have had the intention of generating positive effects on congestion and/or emissions. Most congestion charging schemes provide a positive revenue stream, which is typically used to fund additional transportation options. Even if conceptually attractive, no implemented schemes use time and place differentiated distance based charging due to system complexity and costs at the time of implementation. ii

74 Introduction Understanding Congestion Charging Equity and Fairness Congestion Charging International Examples References Decongestion Charging Policy and Global Lessons Learned 1. Introduction This report seeks to provide insights regarding the use of congestion charging as a policy for regulating traffic demand and reducing congestion. Congestion charging has been researched for almost 100 years and the empirical evidence of its application and effectiveness are convincing. However, as an implemented policy, congestion charging is underutilized. This report identifies the primary reasons for this: a lack of understanding and confidence in the effectiveness of congestion charging, and concerns regarding public acceptance and fairness. This report was prepared for the Metro Vancouver Mobility Pricing Independent Commission. Throughout this report we refer to congestion charging as synonym for decongestion charging. The term congestion charging is most commonly used in research and international practice, whereas decongestion charging is a Metro Vancouver specific term relevant to the local context. This report is structured as a neutral summary of fact and research from around the world. The report does not reference any regional Metro Vancouver issues or applications, but rather focusses on theory and international examples of application. 1.1 Defining Pricing in Transport There are many options and typologies for pricing transport, each with its own policy purpose. The typologies range from fuel taxes to parking charges to vehicle registration fees to dynamic road pricing, and many others. Different cities and regions use various naming conventions, such as road user charging, mobility pricing, road tolls, Electronic Road Pricing (ERP), and others. This document discusses congestion charging, meaning pricing the use of roads with the objective of reducing the negative impacts car use has on society, including congestion, emissions, traffic safety issues, etc. Although congestion charging typically generates a positive revenue stream which can be used for various investments, it is not usually a primary objective. 1.2 Report Structure This document starts with an explanation of congestion theory, congestion charging theory, and the behavioural responses of users. Section 2 covers the economic theory and traffic engineering perspective of congestion charging. Section 3 presents fairness, equity, and public acceptance issues associated with congestion charging. A selection of international case studies is presented in Section 4, which provides empirical evidence on the effectiveness of congestion charging. 1

75 Decongestion Charging Policy and Global Lessons Learned Introduction Understanding Congestion Charging Equity and Fairness Congestion Charging International Examples References 2. Understanding Congestion Charging The term congestion charging is not limited to dealing solely with congestion; it is a policy measure which can be introduced with the goal of reducing various types of negative impacts from vehicular traffic. However, given that a desire to address congestion is often the primary motive for examining congestion charging, this chapter provides an overview of traffic congestion. Specifically, this chapter discusses congestion from the traffic perspective: what causes congestion and how does it manifest on the streets? This is followed by a discussion regarding congestion from the perspective of economic theory, to understand the link between pricing and reduced congestion. 2.1 Congestion Theories Bottleneck There is a variety of reasons why congestion occurs on our roads. One of the core concepts associated with congestion is the concept of a bottleneck, where the demand for road space is higher than the available capacity of the road. In a bottleneck, the number of vehicles trying to pass a given point is higher than what the road can accommodate, and as a result, vehicles are left idling in a queue formation. Queues increase in length as long as demand remains greater than capacity and may impact traffic on adjacent roads which were not the cause of the bottleneck. Consider an example of a 2-lane road with a capacity of 4,000 vehicles per hour where one lane drops off, leaving a bottleneck with a capacity of 2,000 vehicles per hour. The demand for a given peak hour is 3,000 vehicles per hour, which is no problem for the segment before the bottleneck, but too much for the one-lane segment. During the peak hour, a queue will build, adding vehicles at a rate of 1,000 vehicles per hour. If demand drops to zero following the peak hour, it would take 30 minutes (1,000 veh /2,000 veh/hour = 0.5 hours) for the queue to dissipate. The number of vehicles in a queue in this bottleneck example changes proportionally to the gap between demand (inflow to the bottleneck) and capacity (outflow of the bottleneck). 2

76 Introduction Understanding Congestion Charging Equity and Fairness Congestion Charging International Examples References Decongestion Charging Policy and Global Lessons Learned Travel Time The detrimental effect of congestion is not the queue length but rather the increase in travel time it causes. Travel times are defined by a non-linear relationship between the volumetric flow and travel time on a specific road segment. This means that small changes in demand can lead to significant changes in average travel time. This is shown in Figure 2.1 where the horizontal axis represents the traffic flow (veh/hour passing a given location on the segment) and the vertical axis represents the travel time (hours). Up to a point, an increase in the volume of traffic on a given segment can be largely accommodated by increased traffic flow, and will therefore impose only marginal increases on the average travel time. However, when congestion begins the point at which demand exceeds capacity further increases to demand have large impacts on travel time. Demand, or traffic density (in vehicles per kilometre), can be best understood as the number of vehicles waiting to pass a given location on a road segment. Since speeds reduce dramatically during congestion, the traffic flow decreases accordingly. Figure 2.1: Non-Linear Relationship Between Traffic Flow and Travel Time Congestion Max Speed Travel Time Max Flow Traffic Flow 3

77 Decongestion Charging Policy and Global Lessons Learned Introduction Understanding Congestion Charging Equity and Fairness Congestion Charging International Examples References Capacity Drop Aside from the non-linear relationship between demand and travel time, another critical aspect of road congestion is the drop in road capacity that occurs when congestion builds. A drop in road capacity refers to a situation where the outflow from a bottleneck decreases as traffic enters a congested state (i.e., begins to queue). This can be seen in Figure 2.2, where the horizontal axis represents the number of cars per lane per kilometer, or density, while the vertical axis represents the flow in vehicles per hour. As more vehicles enter the road, the flow increases initially as vehicles continue to travel at high speeds. Once the number of vehicles on the road becomes too high i.e., once demand exceeds capacity congestion will occur, and flows will decrease. The result is a compounding effect in which a road s capacity continues to decrease as demand continues to exceed road capacity. Figure 2.2: Capacity Drop Relationship Between Traffic Density and Traffic Flow Traffic Flow Max Flow Max Flow Uncongested Capacity Capacity Drop Congested Capacity Uncongested Congested Traffic Density There are various causes for capacity drops, but there is a significant relationship between the speeds of traffic when arriving at the bottleneck and the size of the drop. The lower the arrival speeds, the larger the capacity drop. This implies that the infrastructure, when its capacity is most needed, is underperforming because demand is unmanaged. Road capacity can drop anywhere from 10% to 30% under congested conditions. As capacity drop has a large impact on queues and congestion, many traffic management strategies focus trying to preemptively avoid congestion from occurring. In the next section, the concepts of congestion will be linked to congestion charging, where congestion charging has the potential to affect congestion levels in at least three ways: 1) It will reduce demand, making bottleneck delays shorter; 2) When demand (inflow) toward bottlenecks are reduced, queues become shorter, and this reduces the risk of causing collateral congestion on other roads and in other directions; 3) If demand is reduced such that a capacity drop does not occur, queues and delays will be reduced. 4

78 Introduction Understanding Congestion Charging Equity and Fairness Congestion Charging International Examples References Decongestion Charging Policy and Global Lessons Learned 2.2 Congestion Charging Theory Marginal Cost Pricing - Economic Theory When making travel choices, people take into account their own direct cost of travelling, but often not the cost imposed on society. Travelers generally take into account the experienced congestion, fuel costs, insurance, taxes for road construction and maintenance, but not the societal costs (externalities) of congestion, which include reduced air quality, output generally of emissions (contributing to climate change), traffic collisions, road wear and tear, as well as noise and vibrations. From an economics viewpoint, failing to account for the full cost of a good or service leads to overconsumption. In 1920, economist Arthur Pigou proposed a tax to correct the price for products in markets where the costs imposed on society are not included in the consumer prices. This concept, called marginal social cost pricing, is the key rationale for congestion charging, and will be discussed in further detail in this section. Individuals choose to travel via a given mode based on a set of modal characteristics and travel options. Based on theoretical and empirical evidence, two general behaviours are observable. The first behaviour relates to demand for car use with respect to the cost of travel. If the costs of travel increase, car demand will normally decrease, similar to the price-demand relationship for many non-luxury products. The second behaviour concerns price with respect to traffic flow. As discussed above, travel costs (including travel time) increase as congestion increases with higher levels of demand, in a non-linear fashion. Figure 2.3 shows these relationships graphically. The horizontal axis represents the demand for car travel and the vertical axis represents the travel costs. The demand curve is assumed to be linear in this example, but in reality it may not be. As seen in Figure 2.3, demand increases as travel costs decrease. The Marginal Private Cost curve represents the cost each incremental traveler experiences without consideration of the congestion cost they impose on other drivers and the external costs they impose on society. This relationship is non-linear. Where the demand curve and the marginal private cost curve intersect an equilibrium situation exists. Figure 2.3: Principle of Marginal Social Cost Pricing Trip Cost ($) Charge Revenue Optimal Charged Equalibrium Marginal Social Cost Demand Marginal Private Cost Congestion Charge Congestion Uncharged Equilibrium Traffic Volume (vehicles/hour) 5

79 Decongestion Charging Policy and Global Lessons Learned Introduction Understanding Congestion Charging Equity and Fairness Congestion Charging International Examples References However, the costs individuals experience are not equal to the total costs of travel for society and therefore a third curve is introduced. This Marginal Social Cost curve shows how the costs to society increase with higher demand for car travel. Since the societal costs are always greater than the private costs, the marginal social cost curve is always above the marginal private cost curve. The marginal social cost curve intersects with the demand curve at a different point where demand is lower and the price is higher. The difference in trip costs between the higher marginal social cost equilibrium and the lower marginal private cost equilibrium determines the economically optimal congestion charging level, assuming the goal of the charge is to recover no more and no less than the sum of all externalities associated with driving. Charging exactly that amount implies the costs individuals pay are equal to the costs their choices impose on society. The revenues generated by the congestion charging policy can be calculated by multiplying the congestion charge by the demand level at the marginal social optimum equilibrium. 2.3 Behavioral Change Mechanisms The congestion reduction effects and societal benefits of congestion charging depend on individual behavioural responses to price changes. It is thus important to understand the behavioural changes people can and will make. In some cases, individuals may not change their travel behaviour and simply adapt to paying the charge. They will therefore pay the marginal social cost of their travel, and the revenues can be used to mitigate the negative societal impacts. For those travelers who do change their travel behavior, their changes in behavior may vary and could include changes in travel activities, such as combining several activities (trip chaining), virtual meetings, changes in destinations, home location, mode of travel, or time of travel, or by changing their route. Not all of these adaptation strategies are equally likely to occur, nor will they occur on the same time frame, nor will they all have the same effect on congestion. It is important to note that short-term behavioural responses after the introduction of charging will differ from long-term behavioural responses. As a city grows and people move in, out, and around the city, people will decide where to live based on a new status quo with a congestion charging policy in place. Of course, in changing observed behaviour, people are not changing their nature but instead choosing a behaviour that fits the new status quo. Adaptation strategies will vary depending on transport system characteristics, design, and type of congestion charging system. Strategies vary between motorists, between trips for the same driver, and between days for the same trip. Therefore, transportation planners cannot provide a single best adaptation strategy that will suit everyone. However, several alternatives are available, including: Making other travel mode alternatives attractive; Offering good route choice alternatives around the charges (NB: only if those routes do not run an immediate risk of becoming overly congested); Allowing for adaptations to departure times by offering uncharged travel during time periods which are less congested. Long-term adaptation strategies may, potentially, include change of workplace or residence. These location adaptations can be further supported by land use and urban planning policies. As people have more degrees of freedom to adapt, respond, and anticipate congestion charging, the long-term ability to change demand will be greater than the short-term ability to change demand. 6

80 Introduction Understanding Congestion Charging Equity and Fairness Congestion Charging International Examples References Decongestion Charging Policy and Global Lessons Learned The empirical evidence on congestion charging is that once introduced, the most common behavioural adaptation is no reaction at all. The vast majority of trips are carried out with the same mode, destination, route, and departure time as before. Most drivers stay in their car and pay the charge. However, improvements are typically observed when examined at the system level. For those trips that do change to avoid charging, the most common reaction is mode shift, primarily to public transport. Figure 2.4 shows the results from a study of how travellers in Stockholm adjusted their travel behaviours as a result of implementing congestion charges. The numbers in the figure represent the number of trips (in thousands) that changed per day. As can be seen, change of mode was the most common reaction (compensation strategy) overall, though change of mode was used almost exclusively for commuting trips, which account for less than half of total daily trips. For other types of trips, re-scheduling, re-routing, and re-structuring of trip chains seem to have been more prominent strategies. In the survey data, these changes were not observable individually and are considered under the disappeared category. The changes in travellers behaviour tended to be seen as minor from an individual perspective, and therefore people in Stockholm underestimated their behavioural change when they were asked in a survey compared to measured changes in traffic conditions. The trips that switched to public transport represented a nonnegligible extra pressure on public transport capacity. The main lesson learned from the Stockholm case is congestion charging allows travelers to be creative and come up with alternative solutions that neither they, nor traffic planners, may have considered before. Figure 2.4 Behavioural Changes to Congestion Charging in Stockholm, Thousand of Trips (Borjesson et al. 2012) Discretionary - to Essingeleden; 1 Work trips - to Essingeleden; 2 Discretionary - disappeared, 22 Work - to transit; 36 Discretionary - remaining; 82 Work - remaining; 119 Professional traffic - disappeared ; 20 Work - change departure. time; 2 Professional traffic - remaining; 115 7

81 Decongestion Charging Policy and Global Lessons Learned Introduction Understanding Congestion Charging Equity and Fairness Congestion Charging International Examples References 3. Equity and Fairness 3.1 The Basic Concepts The previous sections discussed how congestion charging can be used to reduce congestion. We have shown that a charging scheme has the potential, if properly designed, to generate net benefits to society at the aggregate level. However, these benefits will not be evenly distributed over the population: some people will experience large improvements, whereas others may end up with no appreciable improvements or even worse-off than before the introduction of a congestion charge. Equity is a common term for the fair and impartial distribution of taxation burden across different groups in society. With respect to congestion charging, equity refers to how the costs and benefits resulting from a charge are distributed over the population. This distribution can be assessed with respect to different categorizations: economic status, demographic status, neighbourhood, or mode of transportation. We make the following distinctions between vertical and horizontal equity, respectively: Vertical equity deals with the distribution of impacts by income (and other indicators of privilege). Horizontal equity deals with the allocation between individuals and groups that are (before the policy is introduced) comparable in status and need. As humans, residents, and voters, we tend to care about equity and link it to moral and political judgement. We regard some patterns of (re)distribution to be fair, and others to be unfair. Thus, the concept of fairness represents a normative view on equity issues. 3.2 Rawls Theory of Justice Perceptions of fairness are individual, and not everyone agrees on which properties of a policy make it fair (or unfair). The American philosopher John Rawls developed a normative theory for the basic traits of fairness: Justice as fairness (Rawls 1971). Rawls s theory is based on a thought experiment in which people agree about the state of the world, without knowing their own social position. Rawls suggests that under this veil of ignorance, the following three principles are likely to be agreed on: A set of basic rights for everyone; Equal opportunities to change and adapt; Inequalities should work in favour of the less advantaged. In congestion charging research, Rawls s framework has been tested and found relevant to understand the public perception regarding the (lack of) fairness of different schemes (Raux and Souche, 2004). Rawls s first principle discusses the absolute minimum level of rights for a given individual for example, the notion that everyone should be allowed the basic right to mobility. With regards to congestion charging, overall affordability of charges may be a fairness concern that reflects Rawls s first principle. 8

82 Introduction Understanding Congestion Charging Equity and Fairness Congestion Charging International Examples References Decongestion Charging Policy and Global Lessons Learned In most cases, when concern about the fairness of congestion charging is raised, it relates to how the impacts of the scheme will be distributed over the population in other words, equity. Rawls s second and third principles both relate to equity. If a policy treats peer groups inconsistently, without any understandable or acceptable motivation for the differences between them, the policy is likely to be regarded as unfair. Opposition on this ground can be regarded as a reflection of Rawls s second principle: everyone should be given the same opportunity to use his or her capabilities. According to Rawls, this principle sets a generic common ground for judgements about fairness: peer groups should not be treated differently for arbitrary reasons. However, individuals may differ in the arguments they will consider to be an acceptable/understandable motivation for treating peer groups differently. Arguably, both the user-pay principle (people should pay in proportion to how much they use the transport system) and the polluter-pay principle (people should pay in proportion to the problems they impose on others) can be relevant as motivation for a non-equitable distribution of the impacts between groups. Not everyone will, however, accept either principle as a motivation for treating peer groups differently. In the discussion of whether a scheme can be regarded as fair, one should bear in mind, of course, the current state of the transport system does not necessarily have to be fair to begin with. If, for example, people living in a specific area can be identified as losing out when a policy is introduced that does not necessarily mean the policy treats them unfairly: it could be that they had unfair advantages to begin with, and an advantageously unfair baseline situation will be mitigated by the policy. However, sudden and unexpected implementation of a charging policy can be perceived by the public as being unfair, even when it implies improved fairness in the long-run. This phenomenon can also be understood as a reflection of Rawls s second principle: that everyone should be allowed a reasonable opportunity to adapt to new circumstances. People make assumptions about the future conditions of the transport system, based on what they know about the current system characteristics. The assumptions about the transportation system often underpin decisions behind very long-term economic and social commitments (where to live and work, and vehicle ownership, for example). Based on these circumstances, it may be perceived as unfair if the rules of the game are subject to large and rapid changes. Rawls s third principle suggests a policy will be regarded as unfair if it implies a redistribution of resources from the poor to the rich. In some cases it is more relevant to look at the relative (rather than the absolute) effect for different income groups. A tax, for example, is called progressive if higher income groups pay a larger proportion of their income, and regressive if it does the opposite make lower income groups pay the larger proportion. Progressive taxes are generally seen as more fair than regressive taxes. Eliasson (2016) shows that if congestion charges are regarded as a general contribution to public finances, then the Stockholm congestion charges are a regressive tax (on average, high income earners pay less in proportion to income than people with low income). Looking at absolute payments, however, higher income earners pay higher charges. A study from Tonne et al (2008) on the air quality effects of the London congestion charges also show that London congestion charges were environmentally progressive with larger environmental benefits for the less affluent groups in London. How the net impact of a charging scheme will differ for different groups cannot be determined based on their payments alone. How the funds from the charging policy are used and the distributional profile of those expenditures will matter. Eliasson and Mattsson (2006) investigated the effects of the congestion charging 9

83 Decongestion Charging Policy and Global Lessons Learned Introduction Understanding Congestion Charging Equity and Fairness Congestion Charging International Examples References scheme on equity in Stockholm. In Stockholm, it was identified that males with high-incomes were the group who paid the most charges. If the funds were used to develop public transport, which in Stockholm is used more by women and lower income groups, then congestion charging will, in a life-cycle perspective, imply a redistribution of welfare from those who are better off to lower income groups. Thus, the direction and size of net equity effects from the introduction of charges depends not only on the design of the scheme itself, but also on how revenue is used. These factors can be adjusted to achieve a system that is not only efficient, but also acceptably fair. 3.3 Know About Public Acceptance from Around the World Most congestion charging schemes, if not all, have had to stand at least some public critique. Public opposition is not the same everywhere and the level of opposition typically varies over time. The same distinct dynamic pattern of how acceptance develops has been observed in implementation processes in a number of cities. Early in the process, when the discussion is general and the effects of charging are discussed as abstract concepts, there is typically not much formalized opposition from the public. As congestion charging concepts progress towards implementation, more concrete definitions around the scheme design are developed and presented to the public. This may include definition around the geographical area of charging, toll rates, variance by vehicle type or time of day, etc. The increased definition around congestion charging will typically make many members of the public worried about negative personal consequences, and evoke a vivid public debate. The level of public acceptance will decrease during this phase. However, after implementation, acceptance will typically increase again. This increase in acceptance can be attributed to a number of factors: Travel times improve more than motorists expected; Negative consequences (charges paid, mode shift) prove less problematic than what was anticipated; People adapt and accept a new status quo, no longer evaluating it as a change. This pattern of public acceptance over time, as it relates to congestion charging, is shown in the following figure. 10

84 Introduction Understanding Congestion Charging Equity and Fairness Congestion Charging International Examples References Decongestion Charging Policy and Global Lessons Learned Figure 3.1: Typical Dynamic Pattern of Acceptance. Adapted from (Goodwin 2006) and (Schade, Seidel and Schlag 2004) Acceptance level Introduction of concept System Details known Opening day Time The same basic acceptance pattern is also revealed in the following table, which provides some numbers for acceptance before and after implementation, respectively, from charging schemes in different European cities. The table clearly shows a consistent increase in the level of acceptance over time in all cities, although the absolute level of acceptance varies substantially between cities before as well as after implementation. Table 3.1: Acceptance of Charging Before and After Implementation in Five European Cities City Before After Stockholm 21% 67% Bergen 19% 58% Oslo 30% 41% Trondheim 9% 47% London 39% 54% Source: CURACAO Deliverable D3: Case Study Results Report, 2009 The average level of acceptance, as discussed above, conceals a substantial difference between population segments. As anticipated and perceived, self-interest has been shown to have substantial impact on attitudes towards congestion charging. In general, people support congestion charges if they perceive the charges have been, or expect they will be, beneficial for themselves. 11

85 Decongestion Charging Policy and Global Lessons Learned Introduction Understanding Congestion Charging Equity and Fairness Congestion Charging International Examples References Figure 3.2 and Figure 3.3 illustrate this pattern for Stockholm, where congestion charging was implemented on a trial basis in 2006, and permanently in It was only after the scheme was implemented that the overall public acceptance rate increased to a point where a majority supported the scheme. Figure 3.2 relates the level of acceptance at different points in time to whether respondents expected (perceived) that congestion charging would be (had been) beneficial. The figure shows: All groups, irrespective of whether they thought the scheme was effective, increased their level of acceptance after implementation; and, Those who believed the system to be effective were more positive towards charging. Figure 3.2: Public Acceptance for Congestion Charging Over Time (Stockholm) Based on Perceived Benefits. Source (Eliasson 2014) 100% 90% 80% Acceptance level 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Large benefits Some benefits No effect 12

86 Introduction Understanding Congestion Charging Equity and Fairness Congestion Charging International Examples References Decongestion Charging Policy and Global Lessons Learned Figure 3.3 shows the same pattern relative to auto usage. The figure shows car drivers who (would) pay the most are the least supportive of charging throughout the implementation process, while non-car owners are the most supportive of charging. Figure 3.3: Level of Acceptance in Different Groups Over Time (Stockholm), Based on Current Travel Behaviour. Source (Eliasson 2014) 90% 80% Acceptance level 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Have no car Car owner, pays never/seldom Car owner, pays sometimes Car owner, pays often 13

87 Decongestion Charging Policy and Global Lessons Learned Introduction Understanding Congestion Charging Equity and Fairness Congestion Charging International Examples References Apart from the effect of pure self-interest, the extent to which people approve of charges is also effected by socio-demographic characteristics such as income, gender, and education as well as by their general attitudes and personal values. For example, personal traits which contribute to increased support include: the extent to which individuals trust the intentions and abilities of political authorities and their awareness and concern for environmental issues. The higher a charge is set, the lower the public acceptance level. Additionally, travelers with a higher valueof-time perception have a higher acceptance for congestion charging Hamilton (2011a). Basic political beliefs are also of importance in acceptability for the policy. The policy is not only closely associated with taxes and government intervention but also with positive environmental action. Depending on individual political beliefs, acceptance may either increase or decrease. Hamilton (2011) summarises the five most important factors affecting public acceptance; they are as follows: Factors Affecting Acceptance Impacted Group Effect on Acceptance Experience Attitude to government intervention Concern for environmental issues Value of time Frequency of car usage People with hands-on experience with congestion charges People with political views that government should intervene as little as possible People with (political) views that environmental problems are severe and need to be addressed People with higher value of time perceive larger benefits when congestion is reduced People who use their cars frequently expect to pay more Factors such as car ownership, car use and political values will, in turn, vary between socio-demographic groups such as: type of neighbourhood, income, gender, and education. Therefore, acceptance for congestion charges varies accordingly. 3.4 Know About Political Acceptance from Around the World Congestion charging is often regarded as politically difficult to introduce. The initial level of public acceptance is often low, and a number of congestion charge schemes investigated around the world have failed to be implemented because of public opposition. From one side of the political spectrum, opposition often comes from the feeling of being over-taxed (and that taxes, generally, have negative impact on the economy). On the other side of the spectrum, opposition is more based on equity concerns and fairness. The fear of initial public opposition is another major reason for lack of political support. From other perspectives, congestion charging serves as a political opportunity. One reason is the transport sector is often stuck between large investment needs and tight budgets. There is often limited support both for the increase of taxes and for the reallocation of funds from other public sectors, such as healthcare, education, defence, etc. But with a congestion charging policy in place, the transport sector could get an 14

88 Introduction Understanding Congestion Charging Equity and Fairness Congestion Charging International Examples References Decongestion Charging Policy and Global Lessons Learned earmarked stream of revenue which could be used to increase the level of investment in the sector. Congestion charging is also associated with benefits for two sides in a central conflict in the urban development debate. Congestion charging has something to offer (environmental) interests that would like to see stricter car policies to improve urban quality of life and for (economic) interests that would like to see shorter travel times and more fluid vehicle traffic to improve accessibility. Thus, congestion relief is an objective that can be shared by many. New York City Congestion Charging Failure In 2006, New York City developed a 25-year plan for the city called PlaNYC. The plan aimed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent and reduce the nearly $13 billion costs of road congestion. A key component of PlaNYC was a congestion charging initiative. The intent was to use the congestion charge net proceeds for transportation improvements, such as better train and bus systems. A Commission was created after the proposal was introduced to the New York State Legislature to examine different approaches to implementing a congestion charge. The 17-member Commission studied the issues and reported back to the Legislature. The Commission held months of meetings and considered a variety of ideas like raising parking rates, creating taxi stands, as well as imposing tolls on East River bridges and less conventional ideas like license plate rationing, under which cars would be prohibited from the area below 86th Street on certain days, depending on their license plate. Ultimately, the Commission recommended an $8 flat rate daily fee for cars travelling to Manhattan between 6 AM and 6 PM on weekdays. The proposal stated that proceeds from the charge would be used for improving mobility infrastructure. The congestion charging plan gained support through a strategy developed by the mayor, key constituents, elected officials and advocacy groups. There was extensive public outreach and involvement to connect the benefits of congestion charging to improving transportation options and achieving sustainability goals. Federal funding was made available to support the initiative, pending State approval. To implement the charge, New York City required approval from three legislative bodies: the New York City Council, both houses of the New York State Legislature (Senate and Assembly) and the Governor of New York. While the City Council supported the congestion charging plan, the Assembly was not supportive. The lack of support from the Assembly led to a loss in committed federal funding and as a result the congestion charging plan and bill were unsuccessful. The opposition in the Assembly came from members who represented the outer boroughs of the city, primarily Queens and Brooklyn. These members viewed the proposed congestion charge as unfair on the basis of it being perceived as a regressive tax. They argued the financial impact on people in their boroughs would be too significant on their incomes leading to vertical equity concerns. The opposition based on vertical equity concerns is related to Rawls s third principle. The other main arguments against the charging scheme made by the Assembly focused around the feasibility of using public transit as an efficient alternative to car, whether the travel time savings were worth the cost of paying the charge, and whether the charge would even be effective as a means to decrease congestion in New York City. 15

89 Decongestion Charging Policy and Global Lessons Learned Introduction Understanding Congestion Charging Equity and Fairness Congestion Charging International Examples References 3.5 Balance Between Effectiveness and Concerns Which effects of congestion charges are important for the overall assessment of the attractiveness of a charging scheme will vary between user groups. For people who are frequent car-drivers, the desire for shorter travel times and less congestion will be balanced against a fear of increased driving costs and also a perception amongst certain groups that urban car-drivers are a persecuted group. For the environmentally conscious, the desire for reduced car traffic and improved urban quality may balance against a concern for adverse effects on vertical equity. For people with libertarian values, the attractiveness of the market mechanism stands against the fact that revenue streams will contribute to larger public funds, and therefore more ambitious political decision-making. As a result, implementation of congestion charging will, for most groups, be connected to both positive expectations of improvements and, on the other, concern for potentially adverse impacts. The balance between these two forces will determine whether the individual will accept or oppose the policy. From experience, we know that before introduction, this balance will typically lean to the negative side for the majority of individuals. It should be possible to at least reduce the problem of public opposition, through cautious designs which are as effective as possible in generating benefits, while at the same time, limiting the negative impacts to the extent possible. Examples for how this can be achieved include: A targeted scheme design which reduces congestion hot spots, local environmental problems and keeps system costs down; A responsible use of revenue, including: Compensating groups which are adversely affected by charging; Investing in beneficial public infrastructure, such as improved levels of public transit; Consider the reduction of other sources of public taxes (revenue neutrality). Equity and Revenue use for Stockholm The equity effects of congestion charging have been evaluated in a number of studies for Stockholm. In general, congestion charging is normally regressive as the amount spent on the charges represents a higher proportion of income for lower income households than it does for high income households. In Stockholm, congestion charges impact lower income groups more in relative terms, despite higher income groups paying more congestion charges. Recent research Kristoffersson et al. (2017) suggests the inequalities arising from congestion charges in Stockholm mainly result from the geographical distribution of where people from different income groups live and work compared to the charging locations. Other underlying factors may be involved as well, for example access to alternative modes of transportation. Kristoffersson et al. (2017) not only considered the effect of the current congestion charging scheme on different income groups, but also researched the effect of alternative congestion charging policies and the use of revenues to compensate for negative equity effects. This work found that policy measures with higher aggregate welfare gains were also those with higher income inequalities. It also found that from the four alternative revenue distributions they investigated, reduced transit 16

90 Introduction Understanding Congestion Charging Equity and Fairness Congestion Charging International Examples References Decongestion Charging Policy and Global Lessons Learned fares were the best and tax rebates were the worst. Figure 3.4 shows the four revenue redistribution options with three income groups on the horizontal axis and gain per year in Euro on the vertical axis. Figure 3.4: Revenue Distribution Across Income Groups by Type The research did not attempt to find the optimal redistribution of revenues to mitigate negative equity effects and the figures below are in absolute numbers. Relatively speaking, using revenues to reduce the cost of public transportation will lead to larger gains for lower income groups than for higher income groups. EUR per person in group per year Lump sum Low Mid High EUR per person in group per year Reduced costs for car trips Low Mid High (Income) (Income) EUR per person in group per year Reduced costs for public transport Low Mid High EUR per person in group per year Tax cut Low Mid High (Income) (Income) Simple cordon Differentiated cordon Four courdons 17

91 Decongestion Charging Policy and Global Lessons Learned Introduction Understanding Congestion Charging Equity and Fairness Congestion Charging International Examples References 4. Congestion Charging International Examples Congestion charging is a well-researched policy, but part of the proof and confidence lies in the empirical evidence of how congestion charging works in practice. Practice is different from theory, primarily because the theoretical optimal pricing scheme cannot practically be implemented. The geographical conditions, legal frameworks and political constraints in cities and regions put limits on the degrees of freedom in system design. It is therefore of interest to understand how policies in practice are implemented from the theoretical start point. This chapter presents an overview on implementable pricing typologies as well as summaries of the congestion charging policies implemented in Singapore, London, Stockholm, Milan, and Gothenburg. There are several design principles for congestion charging. A summary of principles are presented in Figure 4.1 and below: Point Charges: where vehicles are charged when passing a specific location or using a facility such as a bridge or tunnel; Corridor Charges: charging for the use of a specific section of road or link in a road network; Cordon Pricing (Toll Rings): charge points established at entries/exits to an area; Area Licensing: charging a fee for using all roads within a specific area. Fees can be charged daily or on a longer basis and may be stricter by only allowing residents vehicles or vehicles with a given environmental performance. Network Charging Systems: charging vehicles for using roads within a specific area. The charge can be based on distance travelled, time of the trip, or duration of the trip. Parking charges can also be used as a policy instrument that may give effects similar to Area Licensing. In some cases, parking charges can be less challenging to introduce compared to a congestion charging scheme. Many cities already have a legislative framework which allows for local decision making regarding zones, charges and exemptions relating to parking charges. Whereas the introduction and design of a congestion charging scheme would often require new legislation, and the involvement of national authorities. Secondly, most cities already have institutions, technology and infrastructure in place for payment as well as for enforcement of parking charges. In the case of a new congestion charging scheme these would require new investment and additional costs for operation. However, not all objectives are as easily achieved with parking charges as with a congestion charging scheme. For example, many car drivers may have access to free parking on private grounds (which they own themselves or where parking is provided by employers or shop owners). It may be difficult to target privately held parking with stricter parking policies. Furthermore, it is difficult to formulate a time-differentiated parking charging scheme which targets congestion reduction appropriately. This is because charging for congestion is based on charging the movement of a vehicle during congested periods, not the stationary position of a vehicle. 18

92 Introduction Understanding Congestion Charging Equity and Fairness Congestion Charging International Examples References Decongestion Charging Policy and Global Lessons Learned Figure 4.1: Functional Types of Congestion Charging The diagrams illustrate different pricing concepts for the same generic urban area including: Point Charges Corridor Charges Cordon Pricing (or Toll Rings ) Area Licensing Scheme (ALS) Network Charging System The locations where a charge is made is shown in red. Point Charges The congestion charging schemes presented below are all part of a wider package of transport policies, i.e. like improving public transport. A wider package of transport policies is an important reason for their success. A lesson for other cities around the world considering the possibility of introducing congestion charging, is that any such scheme ought to be accompanied by complementary measures that will provide some drivers with an alternative to the car. Corridor Charges Area Licensing Scheme Cordon Pricing or Toll Ring Network Charging System The five cases also have unique political issues and targets. Different geographical contexts mean the starting point for the scheme designs vary. The local transportation policy also had an impact on designing the schemes. Three of the five schemes are using the same technology, camera-based Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR). The Singapore scheme is using Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) and the Milan scheme is using Dedicated Short Range Communication (DSRC) as a complement to ALPR. Local conditions, policies, use of revenue, technology makes a difference when studying the characteristics of the schemes. 19

93 Decongestion Charging Policy and Global Lessons Learned Introduction Understanding Congestion Charging Equity and Fairness Congestion Charging International Examples References 4.1 International Examples Singapore Electronic Road Pricing Background: The world s first implemented congestion charging scheme was in the Central Business District of Singapore in 1975 in the form of an Area License Scheme. The scheme was a paper-based policy and the charge was fixed for the period of the license. In 1998, Singapore shifted to an electronic scheme, called Electronic Road Pricing, using Radio Frequency Identification (RFID), which made it possible to vary the charge over the course of the day. The purpose of varying the charge is to maintain speeds of 45 to 65 km/h for expressways and 20 to 30 km/h on other roads. In the first years of the evolved scheme, the charge changed at half-hour intervals, but since 2003 the charge had the ability to change in five-minute intervals. When first implemented, the effects of the charge was thoroughly documented and there was a 44% decrease in the traffic volume. Goals and Objectives: The objective of introducing the scheme was to ease congestion, which at the time was significant in the central business district. As the charges change periodically, taking into account the current travel times, the effects have persisted since the implementation. User Fees: As of November 2017, the charges in the Central Business District vary from $0 to $2.80 CAD for passing a charging point. Three complementary transport policies were initiated with the launch of the scheme. These included doubling of downtown parking rates, introduction of a Park-and-Ride scheme and improvement of the commuter bus service. However, the Park-and-Ride scheme was shut down within the first few months of operation due to low usage. Singapore also employs a number of other policies to restrict car ownership, including substantial vehicle levies. Outcome: When the evolved (i.e., electronic) scheme was introduced, the level of traffic decreased by an additional 10% to 15%; this could be explained by fewer repeated trips as every entry had a cost compared with fixed cost of the Area License Scheme. 20

94 Introduction Understanding Congestion Charging Equity and Fairness Congestion Charging International Examples References Decongestion Charging Policy and Global Lessons Learned Central London Congestion Charging Background: London has limited road capacity but a high demand for travel. Congestion charging was introduced in London in February 2003 following discussions for several decades. The implemented scheme was similar to the original scheme in Singapore, i.e. a daily license, but electronic from the start using Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR) cameras for enforcement. The congestion charging zone consists of an area of approximately 22km 2. In 2007, the charging zone area almost doubled when the Western Extension was added. However, after just four years, the Western Extension was removed due to public opposition. Goals and Objectives: The aim of the scheme was to reduce traffic congestion. By law, all money raised through congestion charging must be invested in improving transportation in London. User Fees: The original charge was $8.40 CAD for travel within the charging zone between 7:00 AM and 6:30 PM on weekdays. Currently, the daily charge is $19.20 CAD between 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM on weekdays. Complementary transport policies have been introduced to improve air quality in central London like the low emission zone charge (for heavy diesel vehicles) from 2008 in order to encourage a switch to cleaner vehicles as well as a measure called the T-charge from 2017 of $16.70 CAD (for older vehicles which do not meet minimum Euro emission standards). Outcome: Traffic volumes have decreased by 16% for all vehicles entering the zone and by 30% for all chargeable vehicles. Additionally, journey speeds and reliability for buses, taxis and bicycles have improved. 21

95 Decongestion Charging Policy and Global Lessons Learned Introduction Understanding Congestion Charging Equity and Fairness Congestion Charging International Examples References Stockholm Congestion Charging Background: The Stockholm congestion tax was introduced on a permanent basis in 2007 after being discussed since the 1990s. The introduction process began with a trial during the first six months of 2006, which was then followed by a referendum in September. The congestion tax trial included improved bus services, extra rail capacity, and park-and-ride. 53% voted in favour of the policy and it was permanently introduced in January The charge area covers the inner city of Stockholm, larger than just the CBD it covers around 36 square kilometres and is home to 340,000 people. The technology being used included ALPR cameras to monitor and charge the tax. The ALPR charging points also have Dedicated Short Range Communication (DSRC) installed for future usage of transponders. In 2016, the scheme was extended to also include the western ring road of Stockholm (Essingeleden), which meant that the scheme had a central city and ring road component. Goals and Objectives: The aim of the tax is to reduce traffic on the most overloaded roads, increase the average speed, and reduce emissions of health-endangering pollutants and carbon dioxide. User Fees: The charging points form a zone where eligible vehicles pay the tax for every entry and exit during weekdays between 6:30 AM and 6:29 PM. The tax is varied according to time in prefixed periods of the day. The tax for the central city is $1.70, $2.30, $3.80, and $5.30 CAD depending on the time of day. For the ring road the tax is $1.70, $2.30, $3.30, and $4.50 CAD. The highest amount is paid during the morning and afternoon rush hours. The maximum amount per day and vehicle is $15.90 CAD (which includes tax paid in the city center and the ring road). Outcome: The initial general decrease of traffic flow by 20% has persisted since the scheme was implemented. 22

96 Introduction Understanding Congestion Charging Equity and Fairness Congestion Charging International Examples References Decongestion Charging Policy and Global Lessons Learned Milan Congestion Charging Background: Similar to many other Italian cities, the City of Milan has a small historical city centre. Between 2002 and 2011, Milan exceeded the European standards for particle exhaust, PM10 (Danielis et al. 2011). In 2008, a scheme to control the access of vehicles to the city centre was introduced. The scheme was similar to Singapore s Area License Scheme in that there was a daily charge to enter the historical city center. The scheme was called ECOPASS and used ALPR cameras for enforcement. The aim of ECOPASS was to reduce the number of high-polluting vehicles. Unfortunately the scheme did not succeed in reducing the number of polluting vehicles as too many vehicles had exemptions from the charge. Therefore, the scheme was renamed and changed in The new scheme, called Area C, has more focus on combatting congestion (Lehe 2016). The ALPR cameras were then also complemented with DSRC to automate the payment process. Goals and Objectives: The goal of ECOPASS was to reduce the number of high-polluting vehicles on the road, but was not successful. The new Area C scheme is aimed at combatting congestion. User Fees: The charge to enter the historical center on Monday to Wednesday and Friday between 7:30 AM to 7:30 PM and Thursday between 7:30 AM and 6:00 PM is $7.40 CAD. If registered, residents have a reduced rate and there are also special rates for service cars. Outcome: Improved bus services in the city center were part of introducing the scheme. The impact of the scheme shows a general decrease of traffic flow of 34% (all vehicles) and a decrease of 49% for the worst polluters. 23

97 Decongestion Charging Policy and Global Lessons Learned Introduction Understanding Congestion Charging Equity and Fairness Congestion Charging International Examples References Gothenburg Congestion Charging Background: The Gothenburg congestion tax was introduced in January The City of Gothenburg has significantly different geography from Stockholm, making the pricing scheme design non-transferrable. However, the pricing structure, design, and technology show similarities between the cities. The Gothenburg scheme was introduced in conjunction with the improvement of several bus service lines. Initiated by citizens, a local non-binding referendum about the tax was held in September The referendum was an add-on to the standard national election and 57% of the voters objected to the tax. However, decision makers decided to keep the policy despite the result of the referendum. Goals and Objectives: The Gothenburg scheme has an aim to reduce congestion, finance infrastructure investments in the region, and reduce environmental impacts of road transport. User Fees: The tax scheme consists of charging points forming a cordon zone where eligible vehicles pays the tax for every entry and exit during weekdays between 6:00 AM and 6:29 PM. The tax is varied according to time in prefixed periods of the day. The tax is $1.40, $2.40 or $3.30 CAD depending on the time of day. The highest amount is paid during the morning and afternoon rush hours. The maximum tax amount per day is $9.10 CAD. Outcomes: The effects of the tax show that the traffic volume in general have decreased by 10% across the cordon and by 2.5% vehicle-km in the Gothenburg region. 24

98 Introduction Understanding Congestion Charging Equity and Fairness Congestion Charging International Examples References Decongestion Charging Policy and Global Lessons Learned 4.2 Congestion Charging Key Characteristics Location Implementation Year Pricing framework Typical charge for cars Traffic Volumes Singapore Travel times Environmental effects Operating cost London Gross Revenue Cost-Benefit Analysis Technology 1975 (technology change in 1998) Charge per day, varied by time and location 2003 Charge per day, additional charge for worst polluters 1.9 CAD per passage 19.2 CAD per day -44% (1975) and additional -10 to -15% when technology changed -16% all vehicles entering the zone, -30% chargeable vehicles, +25% busses, +13% taxis, +49% bicycles Dynamic rates n.a. to maintain speeds between km/h (Expressways) km/h (other roads) -30% delays CO2-16,4%, NOx -13,4 %, PM % within the zone 16 million CAD/year 170 million CAD/year 200 million CAD/year 440 million CAD/year 63 million CAD/year million CAD /year Paper license (1975) replaced by RFID in 1998 ALPR Stockholm Milan Gothenburg 2007 Charge per entry and exit, varied by time of day 2012 (replacing ECOPASS from 2008) Charge per entry 2013 Charge per entry and exit, varied by time of day 5.3 CAD per passage, but max 15.9 CAD per day -20 % across the cordon 7.4 CAD -34% all vehicles (-49% of worst polluters) 3.3 CAD per passage, but max 9.1 CAD per day -10% across cordon, -2,5% vehiclekm in Gothenburg region -33% delays CO2-13%, NOx -8 %, PM10-13% within the zone -30% delays CO2-22%, NOx -10 %, PM2.5-40%, PM % -10% to -20% travel time reduction in corridors CO2-2,5% within the region of Gothenburg 25 million CAD/year 34 million CAD/year 30 million CAD/year 150 million CAD/year 35 million CAD/year 125 million CAD/year 100 million CAD/year 20 million CAD/year 2 million CAD/year ALPR ALPR, DSRC ALPR Sources: Singapore Land Authority, Transport for London, Royal Institute of Technology, Swedish Transport Agency, Agenzia Mobilità Ambiente e Territorio, Comune di Milano, City of Gothenburg, CURACAO reports 25

99 Decongestion Charging Policy and Global Lessons Learned Introduction Understanding Congestion Charging Equity and Fairness Congestion Charging International Examples References 5. References Chicago Policy Review Failure to Launch: New York City and Congestion Pricing. Published May 18, Danielis, R., Rotaris, L., Marcucci, E., and Massiani, J An Economic, Environmental and Transport Evaluation of the ECOPASS Scheme in Milan: Three Years Later. Eliasson, Jonas. and Mattsson, L.-G Equity Effects of Congestion Pricing. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 40(7), Pages Eliasson, Jonas The Role of Attitude Structures, Direct Experience and Reframing for the Success of Congestion Pricing. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Volume 67, 2014, Pages Eliasson, Jonas The Stockholm Congestion Charges. An Overview. KTH Royal Institute of Technology CTS Working Paper. Eliasson, Jonas Is Congestion Pricing Fair? Consumer and Citizen Perspectives on Equity Effects. Transport Policy, Volume 52, 2016, Pages Goodwin, P The Gestation Process for Road Pricing Schemes. Local Transportation Today. Page 444. Hamilton, C.J Popular Acceptance of Congestion Charging. Hamilton, C.J. 2011a. Revisiting the Cost of the Stockholm Congestion Charging System. Transport Policy, 18(6). Pages Kristoffersson, I., Engelson, L., Börjesson, M Efficiency vs. Equity: Conflicting Objectives of Congestion Charges. Transport Policy, Volume 60, 2017, Pages Lehe. L Aspatial Models of Zone Pricing and Parking. University of California, Berkeley. National Library Board Singapore Area Licensing Scheme. Accessed December 5, eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/sip_777_ html New York Times, City Room Congestion Pricing Plan Dies in Albany. Published April 7, Raux, C., and Souche, S The Acceptability of Urban Road Pricing: A Theoretical Analysis Applied to Experience in Lyon. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 38(2), Pages Rawls, John A Theory of Justice. Belknap. Schade, J., Seidel. T., Schlag, B Cross-Site-Evaluation of Acceptability Indicators. Working Paper. EU-Project CUPID Funded by the European Commission under the 5th Framework Programme. Dresden. 26

100 Introduction Understanding Congestion Charging Equity and Fairness Congestion Charging International Examples References Decongestion Charging Policy and Global Lessons Learned Tonne, C. et al Air Pollution and Mortality Benefits of the London Congestion Charge: Spatial and Socioeconomic Inequalities. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 65(9), Pages Van Amelsfort, Dirk Congestion Charging, Policy Guide. GIZ China Transport Demand Management. World Resources Institute, The City Fix Toward Car-Free Cities: Why Congestion Charging Failed in New York. Published May 15,

101

102 APPENDIX C: Coarse-level evaluation: Mobility pricing policy instruments for motor vehicles 100

103 1. Purpose and Background The primary focus of the Mobility Pricing Independent Commission (the Commission), as defined in its Terms of Reference, is to undertake an evaluation of the viability and acceptability of potential regional road usage charging alternatives for motor vehicles in Metro Vancouver. Based on this evaluation, the Commission will make recommendations on how the region should proceed with developing and implementing a coordinated regional mobility pricing policy and system. Any and all existing or potential charges associated with road usage by motor vehicles can be considered. To achieve this mandate, a range of possible approaches is being developed. These approaches will be designed to illustrate the application of one or more mobility pricing policy instruments for motor vehicles to specific congestion problems and locations in Metro Vancouver. A policy instrument is defined here as a type of policy tool, such as a cordon charge or vehicle levy, that can be used to achieve policy objectives, such as reduce congestion and raise revenue. Since there are many candidate instruments, the coarse-level evaluation provides a method for efficiently considering the full range of instruments and transparently demonstrating why some instruments are recommended for inclusion in the development of preliminary scenarios and others are not at this time. The coarse-level evaluation characterizes, using expert judgment, the potential of each instrument to address the Commission s core objectives of managing congestion, promoting fairness, and supporting investment in transportation. It also describes some key implementation considerations. Given that there are many ways an instrument could be designed and implemented that would influence these outcomes, the evaluation focuses on the potential of the instrument, assuming the most effective design; in other words, it characterizes strengths and limitations inherent to the instrument. Actual performance will depend on the detailed design of the instrument. Based on the evaluation results, some instruments have been recommended for the development of preliminary approaches. These scenarios will be evaluated in detail, using regional transportation modeling and other analysis, and will be the focal-point for engagement with the public and stakeholders in early Both the coarse-level evaluation of policy instruments and the detailed evaluation of approaches will inform the Commission s recommendations in April Instruments that are not recommended for the development of preliminary approaches are not precluded from further consideration and analysis in the future; portfolios or combinations of instruments may be explored in later iterations of approaches. Section 2 of this document identifies the instruments considered. Section 3 describes the evaluation methods. Evaluation results are detailed in Section 4. Key findings and conclusions are summarized in Section

104 2. Mobility Pricing Policy Instruments for Motor Vehicles Table 1 identifies the full suite of policy instruments that were evaluated. These instruments were identified by the Commission's Research and Analysis Working Group as being representative of the range of instruments that have either been contemplated in this region as mobility pricing policies or are commonly considered by other jurisdictions. Appendix 1 provides a summary of the definition of these instruments for the purposes of this coarse-level evaluation. Table 1 Mobility Pricing Policy Instruments for Motor Vehicles Fuel Charging 1. Fuel Tax / Energy Tax Road Charging 2. Point charges a. Isolated b. System 3. Corridor Charges a. Mandatory b. Voluntary, existing capacity i.e. managed lanes or HOT lanes 4. Cordon Charges/Area Licensing 5. Road User Charges a. Distance-only b. Distance, time, location Vehicle Charging 6. Vehicle Levy Vehicle Insurance 7. Distance-based Vehicle Insurance Parking Charging 8. Parking Levy 9. Parking Sales Tax 10. Public Parking Pricing (time, location) 3. Scoring Method Instruments were evaluated against the following four criteria: (1) congestion, (2) fairness, (3) investment, and (4) implementation ease. Evaluation questions and the key components of each criteria that were considered are outlined below. 1. Congestion: What is the instrument s potential to manage congestion at (a) specific congestion hot-spots (i.e. potential to reduce travel time delays at one or more specific locations) and (b) the region-wide scale (i.e. potential to reduce average region-wide travel time delays)? There are three primary levers for influencing congestion: Location: Manage road travel at busy locations Time: Manage road travel at busy times of day Distance: Manage/reduce total vehicle kilometres traveled The coarse-level evaluation scores an instrument s potential to manage congestion based on the instrument s ability to affect one or more of these primary levers. 102

105 2. Fairness: What is this instrument s potential to promote multiple dimensions of fairness important to residents, businesses, and users of the transportation system? Dimensions of fairness that have been identified in the Commission s Terms of Reference are: Treating all users consistently (e.g. avoiding unreasonable imbalance in charges for people living or working in particular parts of the region); Charging users for what they use (i.e., user pay principle); Charging users for the costs they impose on others (i.e., user cost principle); Maintaining affordable access and mobility for all residents of the region regardless of where they live, work, or travel; and Having a network of transportation choices For some dimensions of fairness (e.g. affordability, transportation choices), an instrument will not be inherently strong or weak on that dimension because it will depend on the specifics of how that instrument is applied to the Metro Vancouver context. For example, if a policy decision is made to reduce existing charges with the introduction of a new decongestion charge, the costs to some users may remain unchanged (depending on their driving behaviour). For this coarselevel evaluation, the focus is on scoring an instrument s potential to consider and balance the various dimensions of fairness, with emphasis on the first three dimensions in the list above. Dimensions of fairness that are primarily influenced by the rate design of an instrument (i.e. the charge rate and any discounts or exemptions for different user groups) are not considered by the coarse-level evaluation. This includes issues related to varying rates by vehicle type (e.g. higher or lower fuel efficiency vehicles), income, or any other factors. Different people have different perspectives on what it means to be aligned with the user pay principle. In the context of mobility pricing, the user pay principle is primarily associated with users paying in proportion to how much they use the road network, in terms of kilometres traveled. In other contexts, the user pay principle can and has been linked with users paying the cost of new infrastructure in proportion to their use of the new infrastructure (this was the principle guiding the use of bridge tolls on the new Port Mann and Golden Ears bridges). However, for this evaluation, the scoring of policy instruments focuses on alignment with the user pay principle in terms of vehicle kilometres traveled. Different perspectives also exist on what should be included or emphasized in applying the user cost principle. In the context of congestion pricing, the user cost principle primarily means capturing the congestion costs (e.g. travel time delays) that users impose on each other when travelling in busy locations at busy times of day. However, some people will also think it valid to include the extent to which a policy instrument could capture a broader range of externality costs associated with the overall total number of vehicle kilometres traveled (as opposed to costs associated only with driving at a particular place and time) such as vehicle emissions, noise, road safety, and road maintenance. The scoring of policy instruments focuses on alignment with the user cost principle in terms of capturing congestion costs and notes considerations for other external costs where applicable. 3. Investment: What is this instrument s potential to generate revenue? Key elements of a good revenue generating instrument include: Ability to generate a meaningful source of revenue to support transportation investment Ability to collect revenue in an efficient and cost-effective manner Stability of revenue stream over time Ability to scale-up over time either through increasing charges over time or extending the instrument to other parts of the transportation system 103

106 4. Ease of Implementation: What is this instrument s potential to be implemented easily and efficiently? Key elements associated with ease of implementation include: The administrative ease of implementation Technical challenges and risks associated with implementation User experience (understandability and convenience for users) For the purposes of the coarse-level evaluation, the assessment of implementation ease did not consider political support or general public acceptability of an instrument based on previous experience in British Columbia or other jurisdictions. These non-technical factors are not amenable to evaluation by technical experts. Instead, the engagement process is designed to help clarify public acceptability, and the Commission itself is well-placed to bring a political lens to the evaluation of these policy instruments. The coarse-level evaluation also did not consider the necessity of regulatory or legislative change in evaluating implementation ease. The implementation of almost all of these instruments would require legislative change, the difficulty of which is often co-related with political support. Each instrument is scored using the following generic scale. Negligible or very low potential. The instrument has little or no ability to influence any of the elements associated with this criterion. Low potential. The instrument can influence some or all of the elements associated with this criterion but only at a small relative magnitude to the other instruments. Moderate potential. On balance the instrument has moderate potential to influence this criterion. High potential. On balance, the instrument has high potential to meaningfully influence this criterion. Scores were assigned by project team experts, which include mobility pricing experts from Canada, Sweden and the United States. Differences of opinion naturally existed; those that persisted after discussion among experts have been noted. Further analysis and research could be conducted to resolve these differences. However, at this time, further resolution is not expected to change the overall recommendations for which instruments to use in developing preliminary scenarios. 4. Coarse-level Evaluation Results The evaluation results are not intended to be comprehensive. Rather, they are intended to provide a coarse illustration of the strengths and weaknesses and comparative differences across instruments, with emphasis on potential for effective application in the Metro Vancouver transportation system. The following sections provide transparent rationales for the scoring and should promote and inform discussion about any different or more nuanced perspectives on the performance of an instrument. 1. Fuel Tax / Energy Tax A fuel tax involves charging drivers at the point of re-fueling a fee per litre of motor vehicle fuel. Fuel taxes can be used to support the transportation system by earmarking all or a portion of the tax to be invested in transportation facilities and services. For the purposes of this evaluation, this instrument involves increasing the fuel tax and possibly re-configuring this tax as an Energy tax that could be levied on the use of energy by all vehicles (including electric vehicles) and could have an indexed rate that would prevent declining revenues as vehicles become more energy efficient. 104

107 In Metro Vancouver, TransLink currently receives a 17 per litre tax on motor vehicle fuel sold in Metro Vancouver to support the transportation system. Other provincial and federal taxes are also charged on motor vehicle fuel sold in Metro Vancouver. In 2016, the fuel tax dedicated to TransLink raised $395 million or 18% of their total revenue. Fuel taxes are commonly used in other jurisdictions around the world. In recent years, California has been impacted by a decline in fuel tax revenue due to the rise of fuel-efficient vehicles. In that state in 2016, 4.7% and 1.9% of the 2 million cars sold were hybrid and electric, respectively. The state has proposed a new registration fee on electric cars to generate $200 million over the next decade for infrastructure investments. infrastructure investments. Coarse-level Evaluation Results: Fuel Tax What is the potential to manage congestion, promote fairness, support investment and be implemented easily? ê (hot-spot) ê/ êê (region-wide) Congestion. Fuel taxes have low potential to manage congestion at hot spots given that the tax does not influence when or where people drive. As long as fuel-powered vehicles remain predominant, the tax does increase the cost of driving on a per kilometre basis, which reduces total vehicle kilometres traveled relative to a scenario with no fuel tax, and could therefore have a modest indirect effect on congestion. However, the effect of the fuel tax on the cost of driving varies greatly depending on the fuel efficiency of the vehicle driven. At a high enough rate, the fuel tax could decrease vehicle kilometres traveled sufficiently to reduce average region-wide travel time delays relative to a scenario with no fuel tax. However, the upper limit of a fuel tax in this region is constrained because increasing rates create incentives for drivers to re-fuel outside of regional borders to avoid the tax. Indexing the rate to prevent declining revenues would maintain the instrument s influence on vehicle kilometres traveled even as people shift to more fuel-efficient vehicles. êê Fairness. Fuel taxes are a broad-based user fee whereby users pay in proportion to how much they use the road network. While fuel taxes do not price users for the congestion costs they pose on one another, they do capture other external costs (e.g. larger vehicles impact on road). As the vehicle fleet grows more varied in terms of fuel efficiency (e.g. with growing numbers of hybrids, plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles), some see fairness challenges with the fuel tax as more and more users with fuel-efficient and electric vehicles will contribute less to maintaining the transportation system than others. A re-configuration of this tax as an Energy tax levied on all energy sources used by vehicles could address the lack of fuel tax contributions by electric vehicles, but this would have some implementation challenges to overcome. êêê Investment. With such a broad base for collecting revenue, the fuel tax has high potential to support transportation investment, especially if it is indexed to maintain revenue over time. êêê Implementation Ease. Out of all the instruments evaluated, increasing the existing fuel tax would be among the easiest to do. It simply involves a rate change at the pump. All technical and administrative systems are in place. Indexing is also easy to implement as many government fees are indexed. Re-configuring the tax as an energy tax and expanding it to all vehicles, including electric vehicles, would be more challenging. The most difficult technical and/or policy challenge to overcome would be figuring how to charge electric vehicles when they fuel up at home; to date there is no precedent for this in other jurisdictions. 105

108 2. Point Charges Point charges involve charging vehicles when passing a defined location or using a transportation facility such as a bridge or tunnel. The coarse-level evaluation looked at two variations of point charges: (a) isolated point charges used at a few select locations across a region for the purposes of financing new infrastructure or to manage congestion at a single location, and (b) a system of point charges used to manage congestion across a region. Point charges were levied on the Golden Ears Bridge and Port Mann Bridge in Metro Vancouver prior to September, Cameras on these bridges took pictures of vehicle license plates as they crossed. Monthly invoices were then sent to the registered owner of the vehicle (accounts were also available). The primary objective of the tolls was to recoup the costs of building and operating the bridges. The toll was $3.15, $6.30, and $9.45 per crossing for small, medium-sized, and large vehicles, respectively. The toll price did not vary by time of day, creating little incentive for drivers to shift the timing of their trips. The Port Authority of NY and NJ have point charges through the tolling of its tunnels, bridges, and crossings. The toll rates vary by vehicle type, peak versus off-peak hours on both weekdays and weekends, as well as a reduced rate for trucks travelling overnight on weekdays. Additionally, discount plans are available through enrollment for carpoolers, low-emission class vehicles, as well as a bridge plan. plan. Coarse-level Evaluation Results: Point Charges What is the potential to manage congestion, promote fairness, support investment and be implemented easily? Point Charge (isolated) Point Charge (system) êêê (hotspot) ê (regionwide) Congestion. Isolated point charges have high potential to address congestion at a specific location or time. On their own however, they have limited ability to manage congestion at the regional scale because some routes would remain unpriced, resulting in traffic redistribution and diversionary congestion. êêê (hot-spot) êê (regionwide) Congestion. A system of point charges could be used to address hot-spots in a comprehensive manner across the region. The potential for traffic diversion could be anticipated and mitigated with additional point charges. ê Fairness. Isolated point charges are often perceived as unfair, particularly geographically as some regions incur a cost and others do not. This instrument is not aligned with the user pay principle in terms of paying per kilometres traveled, but is aligned from the perspective of having users pay for the cost of new infrastructure that they are using. To be aligned with the user cost principle, the charge would need to vary with higher charge rates for busier times. ê Investment. By definition, isolated point charges have more limited potential to generate revenue. êêê Implementation Ease. The technical and administrative systems were recently in place. Precedent exists in the region, making this instrument understandable to users. êê Fairness. A system of point charges could be placed anywhere with high congestion, meaning they would be more distributed across the region than isolated point charges. Rate design could easily be aligned with the user cost principle by varying rates by time and location according to the level of congestion. This instrument does not align with the user pay principle in terms of having people pay in proportion to the kilometres traveled. êê Investment. A system of point charges could generate a moderate and stable revenue stream. êê Implementation Ease. Similar to isolated point charges in terms of technical and administrative systems. More communication would be needed with users upfront than isolated point charges for them to understand the system of charges as a congestion management tool. 106

109 3. Corridor Charges Corridor charges involve charging for the use of a defined section of a road or a specific link in a road network. They are often implemented on highways. The charge could be a flat fee to enter the corridor or could vary by the distance traveled on the corridor or time of day. For the purposes of this coarse-level evaluation, two versions of corridor charges were evaluated: (a) corridor charges (mandatory), where to use any lane in a specific road link a charge would have to be paid, and (b) corridor charges (voluntary), also referred to as managed lanes or HOT lanes, where drivers have the option of paying a fee to access a higher quality road (e.g. less congested road). For the purposes of this evaluation, the higher quality road is provided by limiting access to a lane on an existing highway to paying users, which would then reduce capacity for non-paying users. This lane is also assumed to be a regular lane and not a high-occupancy vehicle lane. Managed lanes could be implemented by adding road capacity, however instruments that add road capacity are beyond the scope of this coarse-level evaluation. Most examples of corridor charges in other jurisdictions are implemented by adding road capacity and tolling access to this additional capacity. In Ontario for example, drivers have the choice of using the Highway 407 Express Toll Route (ETR) or other means of travelling east-west such as Highway 401 or arterial roads such as Highway 7. Coarse-level Evaluation Results: Corridor Charges What is the potential to manage congestion, promote fairness, support investment and be implemented easily? Corridor Charges (mandatory) Corridor Charges (voluntary) / Managed Lanes êêê (hot-spot) Congestion. Mandatory corridor charges have high potential to address congestion at a specific point or time. However, it would be challenging to avoid traffic diversion to arterials, which would be expected to cause increased traffic volumes and potentially travel time delays in these areas. ê (regionwide) X (hotspot) X (regionwide) Congestion. When implemented through re-allocating existing road capacity, managed lanes offer negligible congestion relief benefits. They offer travel time benefits to individual users with the ability to pay, while non-paying users experience increased congestion. êê Fairness. As users throughout the region use highways, this has the potential to distribute costs more consistently across sub-regions than isolated point charges. Rate design could easily be aligned with user pay principle and user cost principles. ê Investment. Has the ability to generate a stable source of moderate net revenue. Revenue scalability would be limited by the narrow base of revenue on a small set of facilities. If traffic diversion is an issue, increasing the charge would exacerbate the problem. êêimplementation Ease. Could be implemented with similar technical and administrative systems as were in place for bridge tolls. Ease of understandability for users is moderate it would be a new type of road charge for this region but does have precedent in many other jurisdictions. ê Fairness. Managed lanes align with the pricing principle of beneficiary pay. It is not well-aligned with user pay or user cost principles. Because it involves a re-allocation of existing capacity, this instrument will likely be perceived as unfair due to making things worse relative to the status quo for non-paying users. X Investment. Have very limited revenue potential and scalability due to the small revenue base. May have higher enforcement or infrastructure costs than mandatory corridor charges. êê Implementation Ease. Similar to mandatory corridor charges in terms of administrative and technical systems. May be easier for users to understand than mandatory corridor charges as it is similar in concept to high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, which already exist in the region on some highways. 107

110 4. Cordon Charges / Area Licensing A cordon charge involves setting charging points at all entries and/or exits to and from a given area. It s often applied to a city centre, but it could be a larger area. The charge could be a flat fee to enter and/or exit the cordon or could vary by time of day. Charges are not levied on the basis of distance traveled within the cordon. Multiple cordons can theoretically be set up in a city, however no other jurisdictions have done this. Area licensing is similar to a cordon, but involves additionally charging a fee for using all roads within a given area, not just when passing a cordon. For the purposes of this evaluation, area licensing fees are assumed to be charged in their simplest way - on a daily basis (as with the London Congestion Charge) without varying for distance traveled over the course of a day or time of travel. London has had an area licensing charge for its central business district since It is a flat daily charge to drive within the area between 7am and 6pm on weekdays, with discounts and/or exemptions for certain users (buses, taxis, people with disabilities, residents within the license area, environmentally friendly vehicles). Stockholm introduced a cordon charge to enter and exit its city centre in The fee is higher at peak times than off-peak times. Coarse-level Evaluation Results: Cordon Charges / Area Licensing What is the potential to manage congestion, promote fairness, support investment and be implemented easily? Cordon Charges Area Licensing êêê Congestion. Cordons can be highly (hot-spot) effective at managing congestion within and around a zone. Actual effects depend on the zone size, rate design êêê and volume of internal traffic. Regionwide congestion could be reduced with (regionwide) multiple cordons. It s possible that cordons could cause diversionary congestion, however it is expected that careful design can avoid most adverse effects. êêê (hotspot) êêê (regionwide) Congestion. Similar effects to cordon except on account of daily pricing will often have less potential to manage congestion due to having less influence (or lower marginal pricing) on total vehicle kilometres traveled (vkt). For instance, holding the size of an area constant, an area charge will affect a smaller proportion of vkt within the zone (the proportion of vkt that is related to first trip per day ) than the proportion that is affected by a cordon charge. Despite the limitation of daily pricing, this instrument still has high potential to manage congestion compared to other instruments evaluated. êê Fairness. Rate design for cordons could be aligned with the user cost principle by varying rates by time and entry-point (this wouldn t be the case for area licensing). These instruments are less aligned with the user pay principle (relative to a fuel tax or a distance-based road user charge) since they are not correlated with distance traveled. Because of their focus on specific areas, both cordons and area licensing may result in regional imbalances in terms of the distribution of user costs. Actual distribution would depend on placement and size of cordon(s)/area(s). A cordon around the central business district (CBD) for example, has lower potential for these regional imbalances as users from across the region travel to the CBD. A larger cordon may result in more regional imbalances as there would be many people that can travel exclusively within the cordon and not be charged. Area licensing would mitigate this imbalance for larger cordons by charging people for travel both to and within the area. êêinvestment. Has the ability to generate a stable source of net revenue. Actual net revenue would depend on the rates and the amount of traffic volumes travelling into cordon and into/within area. Area licensing would likely have higher enforcement costs than a cordon charge. êê Implementation Ease. May require new types of technical and administrative systems compared to what was implemented for bridge tolls. Area licensing would likely require more technical infrastructure than cordon charges to enforce charges within the area. At the beginning, understandability among users is expected to be low to moderate as there is no previous user experience in the region and only a few examples in other jurisdictions. Understandability and ease of use for users would be inversely proportional to the number of cordons/areas in place. 108

111 5. Road User Charge This involves charging travelers directly for the use of all or part of the road network. For the purposes of this evaluation, two variations of a road user charge (RUC) are defined: (a) RUC (distance-only) would involve a fee per kilometres traveled, which could be a flat fee or could increase or decrease with increasing kilometres; and, (b) RUC (distance, time, location) would involve varying the fee by distance, time and location traveled. For instance, some locations and times could have a very low or zero $/km traveled charge, and other busy times and locations could have a higher $/km traveled charge for the purposes of managing congestion and reducing travel time delays. For the purposes of this evaluation, both variations of road user charges are assumed to require some kind of vehicle on-board unit. Technologies that enable full distance, time, and location based road user charging, have not been deployed for that purpose on a wide scale. Theoretically, a distance-only RUC could be implemented in a low-cost manner through annual odometer readings, but this is likely problematic because there is not a simple way to avoid capturing kilometres driven outside of Metro Vancouver. There are no other jurisdictions with a mandatory network-wide road user charge for personal vehicles. Oregon has a voluntary distance-only RUC. Network-wide heavy vehicle distance-only RUCs have been implemented in New Zealand, Oregon, New York, New Mexico, and Kentucky. Distance, time, and location-based RUC has also been trialed at the metro level for passenger vehicles in Portland OR and Seattle WA. Singapore s Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) system is the closest example to a distance, time and location-based road user charge. There, charges apply on the strategic road network approaching the central business district and in specific congested areas or streets inside the CBD. Rates vary by road and time periods depending on local traffic conditions, with higher rates for congested routes and lower rates for underused routes. rates for underused routes. Coarse-level Evaluation Results: Road User Charge What is the potential to manage congestion, promote fairness, support investment and be implemented easily? Road User Charge (distance-only) Road User Charge (distance, time, location) ê (hot-spot) êê (regionwide) Congestion. Low potential to manage congestion at busy times and locations since charge is a flat fee per km. Moderate potential to manage congestion at region-scale due to influence on total vehicle kilometres traveled in the region. êê Fairness. Moderate-high potential to balance fairness considerations. A distance-only RUC would be well aligned with the user pay principle and would have a good balance in pricing across users in all areas in direct proportion to their use of the system. Rate design could not align with user cost principle in terms of varying for busier times and locations. êêê (hot-congestionspot) on baseline regional vehicle High potential impact êêê kilometres traveled and high (regionwide) targeted impact at busy times and locations. êêê Fairness. This instrument has the highest potential to achieving consistent treatment across users across the entire region and in alignment with the user pay and user cost principles. êêê Investment. These instruments are scored as having high potential to generate substantial net revenue in the long-term on account of broad revenue base. Upfront costs would be high in both cases and would be higher in the RUC (distance, time, location) as it would require more sophisticated on-board units and larger back office systems to process time and location specific data. This score assumes that technology costs will decline in the future to make the upfront costs more viable for application at the region-wide scale. ê/x Implementation Ease. A network-wide road user charge is a significant departure from how people currently pay for mobility and few precedents exist in other jurisdictions. It would likely be the most challenging to implement out of the set of instruments evaluated. Although a regionally-scaled RUC for passenger vehicles remains more costly than other alternatives, technologies and commercial models have emerged in recent years that promise low-cost deployment configurations in the near future. 109

112 6. Vehicle Levy / Vehicle Registration Fees Vehicle levies are typically implemented as fixed charges on vehicle ownership that do not vary with usage (i.e. annual registration fees). For the purposes of this evaluation, a vehicle levy is defined as an annual flat fee on all vehicles registered in Metro Vancouver to raise revenue for the regional transportation system. TransLink has the authority to assess a charge on vehicles under their current legislation. A proposal to establish a vehicle registration fee was approved in 1999 by both TransLink and Metro Vancouver Boards, but was never implemented. TransLink requires provincial support to implement an efficient and effective collection mechanism for such a fee. In 2010, TransLink tried again with a proposed Transportation Improvement Fee on vehicles to fund local transportation investments. The proposed fee would vary with vehicle fuel efficiency. The proposal has not gone forward. In the United States, every state has an annual vehicle registration fee. The fees range from $5/ year to $300/year. Montreal residents pay $75 annually to register their vehicle, with $45 of this being directed to public transit. The City of Toronto implemented a $60/year Personal Vehicle Tax in 2008, but this was repealed in 2011 and the revenue was not dedicated to transportation. repealed in 2011 and the revenue was not dedicated to transportation. Coarse-level Evaluation Results: Vehicle Levy What is the potential to manage congestion, promote fairness, support investment and be implemented easily? X X (hotspot) (regionwide) Congestion. Very low potential to manage congestion on account of having no influence on when and where people drive and very little influence on vehicle kilometres traveled (vkt). Even at the higher end of charge considered for a vehicle levy in the past (e.g. $100/vehicle), this instrument is expected to have very low influence on auto ownership and negligible influence on total vkt driven in the region. For example, an analysis of vehicle ownership rates against fee rates across US states reveals that there is no discernable relationship between auto ownership rates and registration fee rates. êê Fairness. Vehicle levies can be perceived by some as a fair way to raise money for the transportation system in that it is a broad-based charge that reaches all users of the regional road network. Vehicle levies do not align with the user pay principle in terms of having users pay in proportion to kilometres driven someone who only drives occasionally pays the same as someone who drives long distances on a regular basis. Vehicle levies are also not aligned with the user cost principle in terms of varying for busier times and locations. They could however be aligned with the user cost principle with respect to externalities associated with fuel use/emissions through having a rate structure that varies by vehicle emissions standards. They could also align with the user cost principle with respect to road space use by having a rate structure that varies by vehicle size and/or weight. êêê Investment. Vehicle levies have high potential to generate a stable net revenue stream. They are a low-cost way of collecting revenue for the transportation system and are also highly scalable on account of having a broad revenue base. êêê Implementation Ease. Vehicle levies are among the most administratively simple instruments to implement. There is good understandability of vehicle levies among users on account of vehicle registration fees being levied in most jurisdictions. As an annual levy that would likely be paid in conjunction with other fees (e.g. insurance), this would be a very simple and easy way for users to pay for the transportation system. 110

113 7. Distance-based Vehicle Insurance Distance-based Vehicle Insurance (DBVI) involves converting the assessment of car insurance from a fixed annual basis to a per-km basis. This measure involves strictly converting a portion of existing insurance premiums to per km charging, and does not raise additional revenue. Distance-based pricing makes vehicle insurance more actuarially accurate (premiums better reflect the insurance costs of each vehicle) and gives drivers an opportunity to save money by driving less. Multiple factors are considered in assessing insurance premiums for vehicles, this instrument involves only modifying the portion of risk assessed that can be related to distance traveled. Distance-based vehicle insurance has been piloted by several private insurance providers in the US, Japan, Australia, and the European Union. Metromile, for example, is a usage-based insurer in the US that offers a driving app and a pay-per-mile insurance product using a device to connect to the OBD-II port for all automobiles. The pricing structure is based on a fixed monthly rate plus a per-mile-rate ranging from $0.02 to $0.11 per mile to take insurance risk factors into account. Metromile operates in seven states. Coarse-level Evaluation Results: Distance-based Vehicle Insurance What is the potential to manage congestion, promote fairness, support investment and be implemented easily? X / ê (hot-spot) ê /êê (regionwide) Congestion. There were mixed opinions among project team experts on how much distance-based vehicle insurance could influence vehicle kilometres traveled (vkt). Some experts focused on the instrument s potential to daylight the marginal cost of driving and thus encourage shorter trips or mode shifting. Others pointed out that switching to distance-based insurance, if the risk is properly calculated, can actually result in lower premiums and thus would likely not have a strong enough price signal to have a substantive impact on total vkt. Either way, all experts agree that this instrument does not influence where and when people drive and so has negligible or low potential to manage congestion at hot-spots and low to moderate potential to improve congestion at the regional scale. êê Fairness. On balance, this instrument was scored as having high potential to promote fairness. Like a distance-based RUC, a DBVI would be well aligned with the user pay principle and would have a good balance in pricing across users in all areas in direct proportion to their use of the system. Rate design could not align with user cost principle in terms of varying for busier times and locations. One additional factor considered by experts is the argument that under our current vehicle insurance system, people that drive less and have lower risk are paying the same as people that drive more and have higher risk. As a result, low-risk drivers are subsidizing the insurance costs of higher-risk drivers. DBVI would help to correct this current inequity, although it is not clear what weight this should be given in an initiative intended to manage congestion; DBVI has therefore been scored the same for promoting fairness as a distance-only RUC. DBVI could also be seen as making transportation more affordable by giving people an opportunity to save money on their insurance by driving less. X Investment. By definition, DBVI is not a revenue generating tool for the transportation system. Insurance premiums are dedicated to covering the costs of insurance claims. êêê Implementation Ease. Implementing DBVI would be a significant change to current business practices. It requires the development of new systems for insurance assessment and tracking. Once the upfront transition is completed though, DBVI would be fairly simple to administer. The main difference is that it would require some way for drivers to report on their annual driving distance, such as through annual odometer readings. From a user perspective, DBVI would likely be easy to understand and simple to use. Note: Any introduction of distance-based vehicle insurance could provide an initial platform upon which other tools, such as a road user charge (RUC) could be based. 111

114 8. Parking Levy A parking levy involves levying a fee on all private non-residential units with parking facilities, even those offered to users for free. For example, the tax would apply to an office building s parking areas and retail store parking lots. The levy could be set as a flat rate on each individual parking stall or calculated according to land area dedicated to parking. The levy could also vary by location. The fee may be paid by the owner of the lot or passed on to the user. There is currently no uniform levy assessed across all private parking supplies in Metro Vancouver to support transportation. In 2006, a non-residential surface parking site tax was introduced to fund transportation in Metro Vancouver, called the Parking Site Tax. The tax was opposed by small businesses and removed by the BC government in To replace lost revenue, a Replacement Tax equaling $18 million per year was added to property tax assessments. Montreal introduced a tax on downtown parking spaces. The taxation applies in two zones parking lots in central neighbourhoods are taxed at a lower rate and parking lots in the central business district taxed at a higher rate. Charges range from $4.95 to $19.80 per square metre. Coarse-level Evaluation Results: Parking Levy What is the potential to manage congestion, promote fairness, support investment and be implemented easily? X (short-term) ê/êê (long-term) Congestion. While the parking levy can increase the cost of driving to busier locations (if the levy cost is passed on to users and is higher for busier locations), the parking levy is limited in that it does not increase the cost of driving at busier times of day and does not price through-traffic. In addition, as providing access to free parking can be a competitive advantage for some businesses, there would likely be a good portion of businesses that do not pass the cost of the parking levy onto users, which would reduce the influence this instrument has on driving behaviour. On balance, this instrument was scored as having very low potential to manage congestion in the short-term. Over time, the instrument would have more influence on the supply of parking as owners of parking lots would be incentivized to reduce the number of parking stalls to reduce overall costs. In the long-run, a region-wide parking levy could have considerable influence on the number of parking stalls provided (depending on the charge level). When parking becomes less available, people are incentivized to use other modes of transportation and consequently total vehicle kilometres are reduced. However, if car sharing expands throughout the region in the long-term, lowering the number of parking stalls has less influence on driving behaviour. Depending on views of long-term trends for carsharing and expectations around parking lot owner behaviour, experts differed in their opinion about the potential for a parking levy to manage congestion in the long-term. ê/êê Fairness. This instrument is one of the more complex instruments to score in terms of fairness. It has good alignment with the user cost principle if it results in users paying more to travel to high congestion areas. Like other parking charging instruments, a parking levy does not align with the user pay principle in terms of pricing in proportion to distance traveled. From a regional perspective, a region-wide parking levy is generally fair as there would be consistent treatment of people and businesses across the region. From other perspectives, however, a regional parking levy may have fairness challenges. If the cost is borne by parking lot owners and increases the cost of goods, it is paid by all people, whether they travel by vehicle, transit or other mode. From a business perspective, businesses who developed business models around untaxed space may perceive it as unfair as they have a high sunk cost in providing free parking and limited ability to adjust. ê Investment. Has ability to generate relatively stable net revenue, although the revenue base would decline slowly over time as parking supply decreases. In 2013, TransLink made a preliminary estimate that a $65 per stall annual parking levy would generate approximately $50 million in revenue per year. êê Implementation Ease. Parking assessment roll and administrative systems for the previous implementation of a parking levy would need to be re-started and updated. Upfront coordination with other parking-related funding policies would be needed. Highly understandable to users who would likely not perceive immediate differences from the status quo. Users would experience an increase over time in paid parking lots and a decrease over time in parking supply. 112

115 9. Parking Sales Tax A parking sales tax is a percentage fee on paid parking sales revenues. This evaluation considers the incremental impact of making a substantive increase in the rate of the current parking sales tax across the region. The parking sales tax for Metro Vancouver was historically collected by the Province; however, since July 2010 the sales tax has been administered directly by TransLink. When the tax was transferred to TransLink s responsibility, it was also increased from 7% to the current 21%. This tax is called the Parking Rights Tax and it is used by TransLink to fund regional road and transit operations. In 2016, the tax raised $67 million for regional transportation, or 3% of TransLink s total annual revenue. The parking sales tax rate for TransLink is currently at the maximum permitted under TransLink s legislation; therefore further increases to the parking sales tax would require legislative change. Washington, DC is an example of a jurisdiction that has applied a parking sales tax since Parking taxes range from 12-18% and apply to hourly metered parking (either on government or private property) and to monthly parking where the vehicle does not have a designated space. In 2013, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority collected $57.2 million in parking sales tax revenue. Seattle has a combination parking sales tax and parking levy they apply a 12.5% tax to parking sales revenue and in cases where commercial parking is offered to employees for free or for subsidized rates, the tax is applied to the fair market value of the parking stall. Coarse-level Evaluation Results: Parking Sales Tax What is the potential to manage congestion, promote fairness, support investment and be implemented easily? êê (hot-spot) ê (regionwide) Congestion. The availability of free or subsidized parking at destinations is a significant factor in the choice of transport mode. Private paid parking (i.e. parkades, priced parking lots) predominantly exists in higher density areas of the region (e.g. city centres) where parking demand is higher than the availability of on-street parking. For this reason, a parking sales tax, which increases the price of paid parking, can have considerable influence in reducing vehicle travel to these high density areas, but will have no influence on driving behaviour outside of these areas. Some experts see a parking sales tax as a proxy for a cordon around city centres as it increases the price of travelling to the city centre. However, a parking sales tax has less influence than a cordon as it does not price people travelling through the city centre and does not price private non-paid parking supplies (e.g. in office buildings). êê Fairness. Parking pricing instruments in general do not align with the user pay principle in terms of pricing in proportion to distance traveled. It does align with the user cost principle as it often affects driving to busier locations and could encourage people to drive at less busier times if the tax rate is variable by time of day. As people from throughout the region travel to city centres there will likely not be a significant regional imbalance in terms of which areas would contribute through this pricing mechanism. It would predominantly affect those users travelling to city centres. However, as areas with paid parking tend to have better transit options, these users would likely have better ability to adjust to higher parking prices. ê Investment. An increase to the parking sales tax would generate additional net revenue with no additional administration costs, however revenue scalability is limited by a narrow revenue base and an upper limit on the acceptable rate. Revenue gains associated with any increases in the parking tax rate are tempered by lowering the demand for paid parking. êêê Implementation Ease. Out of all instruments evaluated, this is among the easiest to implement. Like an increase to the fuel tax, this would simply involve a rate change. As this is an existing mechanism, understandability and ease of use among users is high. 113

116 10. Public Parking Pricing (time, location) Public parking pricing refers to the pricing of parking supplies controlled by municipalities. Most of this parking supply is in the form of on-street (curb-side) parking. Some supply is also in the form of parking lots on municipally owned land. Some municipalities already price public parking supplies higher in busier (higher demand) locations, and some time of day pricing is in place. There is potential however, to more optimally use this pricing signal to manage congestion. For the purposes of this evaluation, this instrument is envisioned as a more coordinated approach across the region to public parking pricing for congestion management purposes. Specifically, the pricing of public parking supplies would vary by location and by time of day; this would likely involve turning free time-limited on-street parking (e.g., 2-hour free parking) into metered parking. Variable metered parking is common in many jurisdictions during peak traffic hours. New York City introduced variable metered parking rates in parts of Manhattan and Brooklyn. This policy is aimed at particular congested corridors in order to reduce the number of vehicles on the road as well as to open up parking spaces for vehicles that continue to park to reduce cruise time while looking for spaces. Coarse-level Evaluation Results: Public Parking Pricing (time, location) What is the potential to manage congestion, promote fairness, support investment and be implemented easily? êê (hot-spot) êê (regionwide) Congestion. Time and location-based public parking pricing has potential to manage congestion at busy locations (hot-spots) and region-wide through two main ways: (1) if prices generally increase in a particular area, the effect is similar to that of cordon charging: the number of people driving into areas with scarce parking will decrease; (2) by harmonizing parking pricing of on-street vs. off-street parking the volume of people circulating streets looking for cheap on-street parking instead of going straight to a garage can be reduced. This instrument would have influence over more drivers than the parking sales tax as public parking supplies are larger than private paid parking supplies. êê Fairness. Parking pricing instruments in general do not align with the user pay principle in terms of pricing in proportion to distance traveled. A time and location-based public parking pricing system does align with the user cost principle as it includes variable pricing for busier locations and busier times of day. Businesses whose customers use free or low-cost public parking supplies may see this pricing approach as unfairly affecting their businesses. ê/êê Investment. The revenue potential of this instrument depends on the additional parking supply that could be priced. More analysis is needed to quantify this supply but for the purposes of this evaluation, the potential is scored as low to moderate. Revenue from pricing public parking is collected by municipalities. A policy decision would be needed to direct any additional revenue collected through such a parking pricing approach toward the regional transportation system. ê Implementation Ease. Setting the challenges of local parking politics aside, implementing a time and locationbased public parking pricing system could be an easy system to implement, at least in those municipalities that already have priced on-street parking. For those municipalities that do not, new regulations, processes and operations would need to be created, which could be significant. Understandability and ease of use among users would be high. This is an existing pricing mechanism for certain municipalities and users would experience a gradual increase to the amount of paid on-street parking and more variable time of day pricing. 114

117 5. Key Findings and Conclusions Summary results of the evaluation are provided in Table 2. Some key observations in comparing the instruments across the criteria include: A fuel or energy tax has lower potential to influence congestion than many other instruments but produces revenues to support investment, and is readily implementable. While fuel use is expected to decline over time, revenue stability could be enhanced with indexing the fuel tax rate Isolated point charges have limited potential benefits for the Commission s core objectives, but a coordinated system of point charges has potential to address all core objectives Mandatory corridor charges have high potential to address congestion at a single location, but without a more comprehensive congestion management system, mandatory corridor charges will likely pose challenges by promoting traffic diversion to arterials and creating diversionary congestion Voluntary corridor charges (managed lanes) using existing capacity have little potential to produce congestion benefits Cordon charges and area licensing perform similarly, but area licensing would likely require more technical infrastructure and have less influence on time of day travel A system of point charges, cordon charges, and area licensing, all perform the same or better than distance-only road user charges in terms of potential for congestion management, fairness, and implementation ease. However, distance-only road user charges have higher potential than these instruments to support investment over the long-term on account of having a larger revenue base and good revenue scalability Distance, time and location-based road user charges outperform all other instruments on the Commission s core objectives. It is not currently cost-effective to deploy, but technologies and commercial models have emerged in recent years that promise low-cost deployment configurations in the near future. If this instrument is preferred, it could be part of a package that sees it phased in over time, while other instruments (e.g., fuel tax) phase out over time. A distance-only road user charge could be well-suited as a stepping stone to implementing time and location-based road user charges in the future Vehicle levies have little potential to produce congestion benefits. They do however have high potential to support investment in the transportation system and be implemented with ease Distance-based vehicle insurance will not produce revenue for transportation infrastructure. There are mixed opinions on the benefits of distance-based vehicle insurance as a tool for congestion management. It has potential to improve the fairness of the vehicle insurance system, but it is not obvious whether or how that should be considered in congestion pricing Parking charges (levies, sales tax, public parking pricing) have potential to produce modest results for congestion and fairness and could, in some cases, be easily implemented (not considering local parking politics). There is, however, some recent local experience with some kinds of parking charges that suggest they should be treated with caution. They could thus potentially form part of a package of measures 115

118 Table 2: Coarse-level Evaluation Results INSTRUMENTS TO BE TAKEN FORWARD FOR PRELIMINARY APPROACH DEVELOPMENT Based on the coarse-level evaluation results, it was decided at a meeting of the Mobility Pricing Independent Commission on 27 November 2017 to take forward four policy instruments for further study. Fuel tax (base case scenario) A scenario based on the fuel tax will enable comparison between an existing policy instrument and the possible new instruments. As such, it is not intended that this scenario is pursued in detail, but rather it is treated as the base case or status quo, which others can be compared against. System of point charges Cordon charges/area Licensing (similar to a system of point charges, but forms a cordon boundary) Distance, time and location based road user charges A system of point charges, cordon charges and distance, time, and location-based road user charges all have high potential to manage congestion at specific hot-spots and at the regionalscale. These are the instruments that offer the most potential for a comprehensive long-term solution to congestion. Actual effects and potential for congestion management will need to be better understood through analysis and modeling. These instruments also have potential to be implemented in a way that promotes fairness and supports investment in the transportation system. As a variation of cordon charges, area licensing could be explored in subsequent iterations if the cordon charge scenario performs well. 116

119 It is also intended that some more limited further work be carried out on: Pricing parking on private paid parking supplies (i.e. parking sales tax) and public parking supplies Pricing of private paid parking (through the parking sales tax) and public parking is recommended for some limited further study as this will be a distinctly different approach for managing congestion than the road charging instruments. While parking pricing is not expected to perform as well at managing congestion as the road charging instruments, there is widespread precedent in this region for parking pricing, and a scenario based on parking pricing is expected to perform differently in terms of fairness and implementation ease compared to scenarios based on road charging type instruments. Policy instruments with some more limited strengths that could make sense as part of a pathway to a long-term congestion management solution and may be considered in later stages include: Corridor charges (mandatory) Distance-only Road User Charges Vehicle Levy Instruments that we think could permanently be set aside for the purposes of consideration within this initiative include: Isolated point charges. This variation of point charges has low potential for region-wide congestion benefits and low potential to be implemented in a way that promotes fairness and supports investment. A coordinated system of point charges has higher potential than isolated point charges to perform on every measure except implementation ease, and that variation is being taken forward for further study Corridor charges (voluntary). While this can be a viable option in other cities, Metro Vancouver s land use and highway patterns do not allow for implementing this action through increased road capacity and using existing capacity would put undue stress on the un-tolled lanes Distance-based vehicle insurance. While there are merits to this instrument, it has lower potential for congestion benefits compared to other instruments and would not generate revenue for the transportation system. For these reasons, we propose that it is not further considered within this project and would be better considered in another forum that could more comprehensively evaluate considerations related to the insurance sector Parking levies. This has lower congestion management potential than most other instruments and little value in a transition to a long-term congestion management solution 6. Next Steps This coarse-level evaluation of policy instruments is an early step in the Commission evaluation process of decongestion charging policy approaches. Work is ongoing to design and model approaches using the recommended policy instruments. Other policy instruments that are consistently raised through public and stakeholder engagement may also be evaluated using this coarse-level evaluation method and the results will be periodically updated. 117

120 APPENDIX C-1: POLICY INSTRUMENT DEFINITION TABLE Appendix C-1: Policy Instrument Definition Table Category Mobility Pricing Policy Instruments for Motor Vehicles: Definitions Key objectives Fuel Charging Instruments that levy charges at the point of refueling. Road Charging Instruments that charge for driving in a defined location. The charging scheme for any of these instruments could vary based on vehicle or user type. Fuel tax. Involves a fee per litre of motor vehicle fuel (diesel and gas) sold within Metro Vancouver. Currently, TransLink receives 17 per litre tax on motor vehicle fuel sold in Metro Vancouver to support the transportation system. For the purposes of this evaluation, this instrument involves increasing the fuel tax and possibly re-configuring this tax as an Energy tax that could be levied on the use of energy by all vehicles (including electric vehicles) and could have an indexed rate that would prevent declining revenues as vehicles become more energy efficient. Point charges. Vehicles are charged when passing a defined location or using a facility such as a bridge or tunnel. For the purposes of this evaluation, this instrument is defined at two scales: (a) isolated point charges used at a few select locations; and (b) a system of point charges at congestion hot spots throughout the region. Corridor Charges / Highway Charges. Involves charging for the use of a defined section of a road or a specific link in a road network. Often is implemented on highways. The charge could be a flat fee to enter the corridor or could vary by the distance traveled on the corridor or time of day. Managed Lanes. Involves offering travelers the option of paying a fee to access a higher quality road (e.g. less congested road). For the purposes of this evaluation, the higher quality road is defined as being provided by limiting access to an existing road to paying users. Managed lanes can also be implemented by adding road capacity, but the coarse-level evaluation is not scoped to evaluate instruments that would add road capacity. Cordon Charge. Involves setting charging points at all entries and/or exits to and from a given area (often a city centre, but could be a larger area). The charge could be a flat fee to enter the cordon or could vary by time of day. Charges are not levied on the basis of distance traveled within the cordon. To raise revenue for the transportation system from transportation users in proportion to their use of the system. (a) To finance new infrastructure or to manage congestion at single location (b) To manage congestion at specific locations across wide area To manage congestion along busy corridors (often highways). Along a given corridor, to provide people with an option to either travel on a less congested lane (for a fee) or choose an unpriced lane. To manage congestion caused by travel to and from a discrete geographical area. 118

121 Appendix C-1: Policy Instrument Definition Table Category Mobility Pricing Policy Instruments for Motor Vehicles: Definitions Area Licensing. Similar to a cordon, but involves charging a fee for using all roads within a given area, not just when passing a cordon. Fees are often charged on a daily basis (as with the London Congestion Charge) or longer basis. Charges are not levied on the basis of distance traveled within the area. Network-wide Road User Charge. Involves charging travelers for the use of the entire network. For the purposes of this evaluation, two variations of this instrument are defined: (a) Road User Charge (distance-only) would involve a fee per kilometre traveled, which could be a flat fee or could increase or decrease with increasing kilometres; and, (b) Road User Charge (distance, time, location) would involve varying the fee by distance, time and location traveled. For instance, some locations and times could have a very low or zero $/km traveled charge, and other busy times and locations could have a higher $/km traveled charge for the purposes of managing congestion and reducing travel time delays. Key objectives To manage congestion caused by travel to, from and within a discrete geographical area. (a) To reduce total vehicle kilometres traveled in a region and/or to raise revenue for the transportation system from a userbased source in proportion to use of the system. (b) To manage congestion at a region-wide scale. Vehicle Charging Instruments that levy charges based on ownership of a vehicle. Vehicle Levy (also called vehicle registration fee). Involves levying an annual fee on motor vehicles. This fee could be a flat fee across all vehicle and user types or could vary based on vehicle characteristics (e.g. fuel economy, weight) or user type (e.g. personal, commercial). To raise revenue for the transportation system from a user-based source Vehicle Insurance Distance-based Vehicle Insurance. Involves converting assessment of car insurance from a fixed annual basis to a perkm basis. This measure involves strictly converting a portion of existing insurance premiums to per km charging, and does not raise additional revenue. Multiple factors are considered in assessing insurance premiums for vehicles, this instrument involves only modifying the portion of risk assessed that can be related to distance traveled. To make insurance more actuarially accurate and to provide an incentive to reduce vehicle kilometres traveled. 119

122 Appendix C-1: Policy Instrument Definition Table Category Mobility Pricing Policy Instruments for Motor Vehicles: Definitions Key objectives Parking Charging Instruments that only apply to stationary vehicles. Others Parking Levy. Involves levying a fee on all private non-residential units with parking facilities, even those offered to users for free. The levy could be set as a flat rate on each individual parking stall or calculated according to land area dedicated to parking. The levy could also vary by location. The fee may be paid by the owner of the lot or passed on to the user. Parking Sales Tax. Involves a fee on all paid parking in the region. This instrument is currently applied in Metro Vancouver at a rate of 21% sales tax on paid parking. For the purposes of this evaluation, this instrument involves increasing the parking sales tax. Public Parking Pricing (time, location). Involves implementing a coordinated approach to pricing public parking across the region to manage congestion at busy times and busy locations. It would involve the implementation of more on-street metered parking at busy locations with a charge that varies by time of day. Municipalities would need to cooperate to implement this approach. To be added based on input from public and stakeholder engagement. To raise revenue for the transportation system from a user-based source and to indirectly reduce car use for commuting and shopping trips through a reduction of the supply of parking facilities. To raise revenue for the transportation system from a user-based source. To manage congestion at region-wide scale. 120

123 APPENDIX D: Phase 1 Engagement Report 121

124 PHASE 1 ENGAGEMENT REPORT Following the close of the Phase 1 engagement period, all input gathered from the public participants, stakeholders, and elected officials has been consolidated and analyzed. This section outlines the engagement findings, the engagement participation, and the communications reach. The stakeholder workshop summary reports can be found in Appendix D Engagement findings Metro Vancouverites are ready for this conversation Before launching the It s Time project, public opinion polling helped the project team to ground its work in the views of residents. Polling pointed to serious challenges with the region s congestion:!!!!! 89% are frustrated with traffic delays caused by high volumes. 81% say transportation delays cause them lost time every week.? 80% are frustrated with the unpredictability of travel times. 62% think it s a good idea to study ways to change mobility pricing in this region. The public opinion polling results summary can be found in Appendix D-1. About the Commission s objectives The Commission s Terms of Reference established three overall project objectives: reduce congestion, promote fairness and support transportation investment in the region. Through the engagement efforts, the project team explored these objectives with the public and stakeholders. PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT RESULTS: How important are each of the Commission s objectives to you? Through an online platform, participants were asked to assess the three objectives by rating them between 1 and 100 in terms of importance, where 100 was most important. Reducing congestion had the highest level of importance (78/100), closely followed by supporting transportation investment (76/100), and then promoting fairness (65/100) Engagement 2. Engagement 3. Communications D-1: Engagement Findings Participation Reach Summaries

125 STAKEHOLDER THEMES: Are there any other objectives we need to consider? In conversations with stakeholders, a number of emerging objectives were suggested for the Commission s consideration: Adopt an integrated approach that considers future land use planning, regional demographic shifts, and transportation-related technology Promote environmental sustainability by reducing GHG emissions and the overall carbon footprint from regional transportation Ensure economic viability by assessing potential impacts to business profitability, transport time and logistics, and staffing, and by maintaining Metro Vancouver as an economic trade gateway COMMON THEMES: What are important principles when considering decongestion charging? The project team asked stakeholders, elected officials, and the User Advisory Panel about important principles they thought the It s Time project should consider, in addition to fairness and equity. Emerging suggestions included: Accessibility: minimizing physical and financial barriers to travel, as well as increasing choice, incentives, and availability of transportation options (particularly for marginalized communities and those living in low-density areas far from urban centres) Integrated planning: considering a range of factors including the economy, social impacts, technology advancements (i.e. autonomous vehicles), political objectives and policies, and the need to minimize unintended consequences related to decongestion charging Transparency and accountability: in managing revenues collected from a decongestion charging system Simplicity and efficiency: in designing, implementing, and administering decongestion charging, including suggestions to integrate charges with existing fee collection processes Adaptability and scalability: in adjusting or transferring a decongestion charge to match with shifts in congestion, and to remain useful in combating congestion in the region or province Public awareness: to ensure everyone can participate and stay informed about the It s Time project, and understand the time and financial costs and benefits of choosing different ways to travel Privacy and security: in the protection of data Engagement Findings 2. Engagement Participation 3. Communications Reach D-1: Engagement Summaries

126 HOW DID WE COME UP WITH OUR OVERALL PARTICIPANT RESULTS? The online engagement platform asked the public to rate their level of agreement with a series of statements related to reducing congestion, promoting fairness, and supporting transportation investment. Participants responded to questions by selecting between: Totally Disagree Disagree Don t Know Agree Totally Agree The project team wanted to explore the participants' level of agreement and consensus. While taking the average level of agreement is a useful starting point, it does not accurately reflect the range of views provided by participants. In other words, it doesn t reflect the level of consensus (or disagreement) expressed by over 6,000 respondents. Introducing the Overall Participant Result indicator. The Overall Participant Result provides a more accurate representation of participant opinion as it combines the level of agreement and the level of consensus: Level of agreement is calculated as an average of all participant votes, where each vote was assigned a numerical value between 1 and 100 (Totally Disagree = 0, Disagree = 25, Don t Know = 50, Agree = 75, Totally Agree =100). Level of consensus is calculated as a spread in the level of agreement between all respondents. In other words, it reflects the level of consensus (or polarity) among respondents. A useful visual of how consensus spreads out when multiple individuals respond to the same question is included here: The Overall Participant Results are ranked from a High to a Low score: Legend Result Description High 75% to 100% Strong support: Medium high 55% to 75% Strong agreement and strong consensus Medium 45% to 55% Medium low 20% to 45% More contentious: Low 0% to 20% Low agreement and low consensus Note: The Overall Participant Result is not fully representative of Metro Vancouver. It represents those members of the public who elected to participate and self-identify in the online engagement, with results skewed towards a Vancouver-based, higher income, and male perspective Engagement Findings 2. Engagement Participation 3. Communications Reach D-1: Engagement Summaries

127 heard about REDUCING CONGESTION To better understand this objective, the project team explored a number of congestion challenges in Metro Vancouver with the public and stakeholders. The questions are listed below, with the corresponding results. PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT RESULTS: Where and when does congestion affect you? The public were asked to validate the eight congestion hot spots that emerged from the research. Through the online platform, participants rated their level of agreement with how bad they considered congestion to be in each of the eight hot spots. There was general support for and validation of the hot spots identified, demonstrated by the Overall Participant Results found in the table below: Note: The Overall Participant Result is not fully representative of Metro Vancouver. It represents those members of the public who elected to participate and self-identify in the online engagement, with results skewed towards a Vancouver-based, higher income, and male perspective. Where and when does congestion affect you? Level of Agreement Level of Consensus Overall Participant Result I think congestion is bad when travelling on regional highways during rush hour (like Highway 1 and Highway 91). High (81%) Medium High 55% High (83%) I think congestion is bad when travelling to, from, and around Downtown Vancouver. High (78%) Medium 50% High (80%) I think congestion is bad when travelling to, from, and around the North Shore. High (78%) Medium 52% High (80%) I think congestion is bad on and around bridges crossing the Fraser River. Medium High (74%) Medium 49% High (76%) I think congestion is bad on and around bridges between Richmond, the airport, and Vancouver. Medium High (71%) Medium 51% Medium High (73%) I think congestion is bad on major bus routes in Vancouver and Burnaby. Medium High (69%) Medium 51% Medium High (72%) I think congestion is bad when travelling to, from, and around urban centres (except Vancouver). Medium High (69%) Medium 50% Medium High (71%) I think congestion is bad travelling to and from Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, and Port Moody. Medium High (60%) Medium 52% Medium High (64%) Engagement Findings 2. Engagement Participation 3. Communications Reach D-1: Engagement Summaries

128 COMMON THEMES: Have we missed any congestion hot spots affecting you? Stakeholders, elected officials, and the User Advisory Panel were all asked about congestion hot spots affecting them, and the project team received 1,173 public comments to the online question: Have we missed any congestion hot spots that are affecting you? The range of responses fell within the eight broad hot spots identified in the initial research report, with frequently specified areas including the Massey Tunnel (within the hot spot bridges crossing the Fraser River), and major arteries in the Coquitlam and New Westminster area such as Brunette Ave, Columbia Street, North Road, United Blvd, the Brunette Highway 1 interchange, and the North Shore bridges. A number of general online comments were also submitted, including these emerging themes: Divergent views on using the road more efficiently, including supporting and opposing views to dedicating road space for bike lanes, road or housing construction activities, semitruck use and scheduling, vehicle use, parking spaces, and dedicated lanes for transit Support for improvements to transit and active modes to provide attractive travel choices Suggestions to improve traffic light timing and directions, including left-turn signals and timing with pedestrian crossings General discontent with the idea of implementing an additional cost or tax, on top of current vehicle use charges COMMON THEMES: What does reducing congestion mean to you? From the workshops held with stakeholders, elected officials, and the User Advisory Panel, the following are highlights from participant input in exploring and defining the objective to reduce congestion: More mode options for those with fewer transportation services to incentivize and help reduce single occupancy vehicle use Increased consistency, reliability, and predictability in journey times Faster journey times Congestion reductions across all modes of transportation, not just cars Consideration for the unintended consequences of shifting behaviour and diverting traffic flows Promoting safety to reduce crashes and enhance the safety of travellers who are walking or cycling Considering different factors of congestion including trucks on major corridors and construction Exploring flexible work schedules (when possible) to alleviate congested periods Engagement Findings 2. Engagement Participation 3. Communications Reach D-1: Engagement Summaries

129 heard about PROMOTING FAIRNESS Given the subjective nature of the term fairness, and given that one of the project objectives is promoting fairness, the project team dedicated a portion of all engagement activities to unpacking and defining this important term. COMMON THEMES: What does promoting fairness mean to you? At each workshop conducted with stakeholders, the User Advisory Panel, and elected officials, the project team asked participants What does fairness mean to you? Additionally, the public online participants were asked: Have we missed any important ideas related to fairness? prompting 1,250 online comments on fairness. From all of this input, a number of common themes emerged about exploring decongestion charging as it relates to fairness. These themes included: Not burdening those with fewer choices based on where they live and where they work. Distance-based and/or time-based charging might be problematic in terms of fairness, with frequent comments from the public and stakeholders regarding: o Housing unaffordability has driven people to live in areas further from town centres and employment zones, and with fewer transportation options o Some people rely on driving to get around due to the nature of their jobs, and/or due to frequency or availability of transit and other mode options in their area o Some people wouldn t be able to adjust their schedules for reasons such as work, childcare, or appointments Increasing transit and scheduling options before implementing decongestion charging. Providing user-friendly, safe, accessible, and affordable transit services needs to be a focus. Service levels, routes, and journey times are major concerns with existing transit options. Suggestions included expanding options in the way we work, incentivizing employers and businesses to offer satellite offices, flexible schedules, and the ability to work from home Hearing strong and divided individual preferences regarding conceptually different ways in which decongestion charging could be applied, including: o Supportive and opposing opinions for user-pay approaches based on factors including distance, and/or the size of vehicle, and for progressive approaches where you pay based on income level o Supportive and opposing opinions for paying less in areas with fewer transit options, with some comments expressing reluctance in subsidizing transportation modes for people choosing to live in lower density areas in order to save money on housing o General comments supporting more efficient road use, with divergent opinions on whether bike lanes or vehicle usage is more efficient road use Considering affordability and social equity impacts for different marginalized groups (i.e. low-income, seniors, students) and the working poor who have less choice in where they live and their working hours. Considerations include offering exemptions, discounts, or tiered pricing for different marginalized groups and public services such as emergency vehicles Considering using the revenues from decongestion charging to replace existing taxes and fees, rather than introducing a new fee. This includes transparency in identifying revenues raised from decongestion charging, any impacts on current taxes, and the resulting impacts or benefits to road and transit users. While this theme of revenue neutrality clearly emerged from public comments, an emerging theme from stakeholder conversations perceived roads as a public good with social benefits, justifying additional fees Engagement 2. Engagement 3. Communications D-1: Engagement Findings Participation Reach Summaries

130 Using revenues from decongestion charging to improve the region s transportation system, not just in Vancouver and particularly low-density areas where people rely more on private vehicles to get around PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT RESULTS: What does fairness mean to you? Through the online public engagement, the project team posed a variety of statements describing some conceptually different ways in which decongestion charging could be applied. Participants rated their level of agreement with these statements based on their own interpretation of fairness. The following table summarizes the results from the public input received on the six statements, based on these three indicators: Level of agreement: This is an average of all participant votes, where each rating is assigned a percentage (Totally Disagree = 0, Disagree = 25, Don t Know = 50, Agree = 75, Totally Agree = 100) Level of consensus: This shows the polarity and spread within the level of agreement among all participant votes Overall Participant Result combines the level of agreement and level of consensus, and captures the range of feedback and participant sentiment of support or nonsupport. A high score indicates compelling levels of support and cohesion Note: The Overall Participant Result is not fully representative of Metro Vancouver. It represents those members of the public who elected to participate and self-identify in the online engagement, with results skewed towards a Vancouver-based, higher income, and male perspective. What does fairness mean to you? Level of Agreement Level of Consensus Overall Participant Result I think it should cost less to drive in areas that have fewer transit options. Medium High 66% Medium Low 32% Medium High 58% I think people with lower income should pay less. Medium 49% Medium Low 26% Medium Low 40% I think people should pay more to drive in and out of downtown areas. Medium Low 43% Medium Low 27% Medium Low 35% I think people should pay more to drive in congested areas. Medium Low 44% Medium Low 25% Medium Low 35% I think people should pay more to drive at busy times of day. Medium Low 42% Medium Low 25% Medium Low 34% I think people should pay based on how many kilometres they drive. Medium Low 41% Medium Low 25% Medium Low 32% Engagement Findings 2. Engagement Participation 3. Communications Reach D-1: Engagement Summaries

131 The statement "I think it should cost less to drive in areas that have fewer transit options" received the highest level of agreement out of all fairness statements from online engagement participants. This statement was worded in a slightly different way than the others, possibly contributing to it being interpreted differently The statement "I think people should pay based on how many kilometres they drive" received the lowest level of agreement out of all fairness statements from online participants STAKEHOLDER RESULTS: What does fairness mean to you? The fairness statements were also brought to the stakeholder workshops as a benchmarking exercise to gain input on how much stakeholders agreed with each statement. Stakeholder results include six stakeholder workshops that took place in Burnaby (October 26), North Vancouver (November 8), Coquitlam (November 9), Surrey (November 6), Richmond (November 7), and Vancouver (November 7). The benchmarking exercise was not conducted in the Maple Ridge workshop (November 9) due to low attendance. Votes were gathered through remote clicker technology where participants had 10 seconds to vote for each statement. These results are displayed in the following table: HOW DID WE COME UP WITH OUR STAKEHOLDER RESULTS? The level of agreement is where each rating is assigned a percentage (Totally Disagree = 0, Disagree = 25, Don t Know = 50, Agree = 75, Totally Agree = 100) and the average is taken. Note: These results are representative of the stakeholders in attendance at the in-person workshops. Statement I think it should cost less to drive in areas that have fewer transit options. Stakeholder Level of Agreement Medium high 74% I think people should pay more to drive in congested areas. Medium high 71% I think people with lower income should pay less. Medium high 69% I think people should pay more to drive at busy times of day. Medium high 66% I think people should pay more to drive in and out of downtown areas. I think people should pay based on how many kilometres they drive. Medium high 63% Medium high 60% Engagement Findings 2. Engagement Participation 3. Communications Reach D-1: Engagement Summaries

132 Similar to the public engagement results, the statement "I think it should cost less to drive in areas that have fewer transit options" received the highest level of agreement out all fairness statements from stakeholders Similar to the public engagement results, the statement "I think people should pay based on how many kilometres they drive" received the lowest level of agreement out of all fairness statements from stakeholders, with concerns and economic considerations expressed for professionals who drive for work purposes (i.e. contractors, emergency vehicles, trucks) The statement "I think people with lower income should pay less" received the second highest level of agreement, reflective of stakeholder concerns about impacts on the working poor and marginalized groups. Reasons for disagreement included the need to offer less expensive transit options, and the need for simplicity by avoiding a tiered pricing system ELECTED OFFICIAL THEMES: What does fairness mean to you? The project team gathered input from municipal and provincial elected officials on the Commission s objective of promoting fairness and the different ways in which decongestion charging could be applied. From these facilitated conversations, a number of recurring themes emerged: Improving access, service levels, affordability, frequency, and capacity of transit options Ensuring openness and transparency in how revenues from decongestion charging are used and the resulting benefits Suggesting different pricing models based on type or size of vehicle, based on user-pay distance charging, and progressive pricing based on ability to pay Understanding the trade-offs people make between housing costs and transportation costs Not burdening those with fewer transportation choices based on where they live and work Reviewing all decongestion charging options as sources of funding, and ensuring people understand the options and their implications Understanding the regional distribution in how constituents pay and receive benefits Considering affordability and social equity impacts, especially for those groups that cannot afford to live close to where they work Using revenues from decongestion charging to improve the region s transportation system Considering the impacts of ride-sharing and car-sharing At the two municipal workshops, there was general support for decongestion charging applications based on distance or geography, charging less for people with lower income and with fewer transit options, and adopting a consistent way to pay (i.e. tolling all bridges rather than some). At the three provincial workshops, there was general support for decongestion charging applications for travelling in and out of downtown areas, and charging less for people with fewer transit options. There was less agreement for decongestion charging applications based on distance and charging less for people with lower income Engagement Findings 2. Engagement Participation 3. Communications Reach D-1: Engagement Summaries

133 USER ADVISORY PANEL THEMES: What does fairness mean to you? The project team met with the 15 members of the User Advisory Panel, and through facilitated conversations, heard a number of recurring themes about promoting fairness, including: Improving access to transit across all municipalities in Metro Vancouver Considering affordability concerns and the fees that people already pay Considering different pricing based on level of income, vehicle type, and for tourists and visitors Considering pricing mechanisms including monthly passes (including an employer pass), and caps on costs Providing adequate information and multiple avenues to communicate with the public to inform and build understanding about decongestion charging Implementing a consistent pricing approach, such as tolling all bridges rather than a few There was general support for decongestion charging applications based on geography (hot spots), and charging less for people with lower income and fewer transit options. heard about SUPPORTING TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT RESULTS: How could we use money generated from decongestion charging? As decongestion charging could generate revenues, the project team presented six transportation areas through the online platform to seek public input on where the region could allocate and invest funds. The public were asked to rate their level of agreement with a series of transportation investment priorities in Metro Vancouver. The results can be found in the table below: The following table summarizes the results from the public input received on the six funding areas, based on these three indicators: Level of agreement: This is an average of all participant votes, where each rating is assigned a percentage (Totally Disagree = 0, Disagree = 25, Don t Know = 50, Agree = 75, Totally Agree = 100) Level of consensus: This shows the polarity and spread within the level of agreement among all participant votes Overall Participant result combines the level of agreement and level of consensus, and captures the range of feedback and public sentiment of support or non-support. A high score indicates compelling levels of support and cohesion Note: The Overall Participant Result is not fully representative of Metro Vancouver. It represents those members of the public who elected to participate and self-identify in the online engagement, with results skewed towards a Vancouver-based, higher income, and male perspective Engagement Findings 2. Engagement Participation 3. Communications Reach D-1: Engagement Summaries

134 What are your priorities for transportation investment? Level of Agreement Level of Consensus Overall Participant Result Improvements to transit should be a priority. High 83% Medium 52% High 85% Affordable transit fares should be a priority. Medium High 73% Medium Low 40% Medium High 71% Improvements to roads and bridges should be a priority. Medium High 69% Medium Low 42% Medium High 68% Addressing transportation pollution should be a priority. Medium High 60% Medium Low 37% Medium High 56% Reducing driving costs (i.e. insurance, parking fees, fuel taxes) should be a priority. Medium High 57% Medium Low 24% Medium Low 44% Better walking and cycling options should be a priority. Medium 53% Medium Low 27% Medium Low 44% The statement "Improvements to transit should be a priority" received the strongest level of public agreement and consensus out of all online engagement questions. This is a common theme from Phase 1 engagement "Affordable transit fares should be a priority" received the second strongest Overall Participant Result The statements "Better walking and cycling options should be a priority "and "Reducing driving costs (i.e. insurance, parking fees, fuel taxes) should be a priority" were the most contentious based on participant votes, with a low level of consensus and a large spread between votes PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT RESULTS: Have we missed other ways we could spend money from decongestion charging? In addition to voting on the priority areas listed above, the project team asked the public for other suggested transportation priorities. A number of themes emerged based on 821 participants comments gathered on the online platform, including: Improving public transit and other transportation modes: Reinforcing the participant votes displayed in the table above, almost 25% of all comments concerned mode improvements, including: 1) Expanding the SkyTrain network; 2) Promoting and facilitating flexible carpooling and ride-sharing (i.e. Uber); and 3) Planning for the long-term when improving or building new transit to accommodate population growth Improving the existing road network: Comments emphasized the need to support those residents who cannot or do not use transit, and rely on private vehicle use. This includes road and/or scheduling improvements to better manage truck movements Engagement Findings 2. Engagement Participation 3. Communications Reach D-1: Engagement Summaries

135 Dedicating and reinvesting revenue from decongestion charging into transportation, including new bridges, investments in transit systems, and reducing costs for drivers. Suggestions included re-allocating carbon tax revenues from general revenue to improving transportation modes (including transit) Divergent views on improving cycling infrastructure, including frequent supportive comments expressing the need for more dedicated bike lanes, the opposing view against more bike lanes, a wish to license bicycles, and impose fees on cyclists as road users Expanding parking options, including increasing availability at parking facilities and expanding free parking at Park and Ride locations near transit stations COMMON THEMES: What does supporting transportation investment mean to you? At the workshops held with stakeholders, elected officials, and the User Advisory Panel, participants raised the following recurring themes when asked to explore and define the Commission s third objective, including: Improving public transit and other modes, offering more transportation options and shifting behaviour to reduce single occupancy vehicles (i.e. offering Park and Ride at transit stations, creating dedicated bus lanes, incentivizing high-occupancy vehicles) Integrating land use planning with transportation to connect affordable housing with town centres and employment zones Taking a strategic approach to building transportation infrastructure as part of a network, not waiting until it s too late, and considering its broader value to society and the environment Supporting transportation-related technology and innovation, including ride-sharing and parking apps, electrification of the vehicle fleet, and autonomous vehicles Dedicating and using revenue from decongestion charging into transportation, with priority investments directed to mode options Demonstrating tangible benefits from investments in transportation Ensuring TransLink's accountability and transparency in using potential decongestion charging revenues Engagement Findings 2. Engagement Participation 3. Communications Reach D-1: Engagement Summaries

136 2. Engagement participation Public online participation The following figures show the breakdown of participant demographics from user data gathered through multiple choice questions on the online engagement platform. Figures marked with an asterisk* reflect questions that allowed users to select multiple responses by Selecting all that apply. Figures without an asterisk directed users to respond by Selecting one response. Participation Breakdown: Where in Metro Vancouver do you live? Anmore, 0% Vancouver, 32% White Rock, 2% West Vancouver, 3% Belcarra, 0% Bowen Island, 1% Burnaby, 6% Coquitlam, 5% Delta (including Ladner/Tsawwassen), 6% Electoral Area A, 0% Langley City, 1% Langley Township, 3% Lions Bay, 0% Maple Ridge, 4% New Westminster, 4% Tsawwassen First Nation, 0% Surrey, 10% Richmond, 4% Other, 10% None of the above - but I often travel through Metro Vancouver, 3% North Vancouver City, 3% North Vancouver District, 7% Port Moody, 3% Port Coquitlam (POCO), 2% Pitt Meadows, 1% Engagement Findings 2. Engagement Participation 3. Communications Reach D-1: Engagement Summaries

137 Participant Breakdown: How old are you? Participant Breakdown: What is your gender identity?* years old 20% Over 70 years old 5% Under 18 years old 0% years old 28% Transgender, 1% Prefer not to answer, 8% I identify as none of the above, 1% Other, 1% Female, 34% Male, 56% years old 47% Participant Breakdown: Do you have any children under 18 years old in your household? Participant Breakdown: What mode(s) of transportation do you use the most during the week?* Prefer not to answer 6% Motorcycle or scooter 2% Other 1% Prefer not to answer 1% Yes 31% Bicycle 11% Walk 18% No 63% Car or Truck 45% Transit 22% Engagement Findings 2. Engagement Participation 3. Communications Reach D-1: Engagement Summaries

138 Participant Breakdown: When do you experience the worst congestion?* 74% 72% 64% 28% 14% 7AM - 9AM 4PM - 6PM All the time outside of rush hour Weekends Participant Breakdown: What is your total household income before taxes? Prefer not to answer 22% taxes? Under $30,000 6% $30,000 to $50,000 9% $50,000 to $60,000 6% $60,000 to $75,000 9% $100,000 or more, 35% $75,000 to $100,000 14% Participant Breakdown: What is your cultural identity or background?* Indigenous 2% Eastern European 3% African 1% Western European 15% American 2% Latin American 1% Arabic / Middle Eastern 1% Persian 1% Canadian 54% Russian 0% Caribbean 1% South Asian 2% Chinese 9% South East Asian 1% East Asian 3% Other 9% East Indian 1% Prefer not to answer 18% Engagement Findings 2. Engagement Participation 3. Communications Reach D-1: Engagement Summaries

139 Stakeholder participation All of the following stakeholders were invited to attend one of the seven in-person workshops those who attended are listed in blue. The project team cannot list individual names due to privacy considerations. individual names due to priv Regional Urban Freight City of New Westminster United Way Council South Vancouver UBC Student Alma Mater Vancouver City Planning Neighbourhood House Society Commission Lionsview Seniors Planning Urban Development Downtown Vancouver BIA Society Institute Best Environmentally Sound Paul Davis Greater UPS Transportation Vancouver Tourism Vancouver City of Surrey NVC - ITC University of British Fraser Surrey Docks LP Pacific Northwest LNG Columbia City of Coquitlam Stile Brands UFCW Tri-Cities Chamber of City of Burnaby Unifor Commerce Boston Consulting ACORN BC Chamber of Commerce Douglas Student Union Affiliation of Multicultural BC Civil Liberties Association City of Maple Ridge Burnaby Neighbourhood New Car Dealers Association Societies and Service Agencies In BC House of BC Amyotrophic Lateral Voiced of Burnaby Advocate Amalgamated Transit Union Sclerosis (ALS) Society Of BC Maple Ridge Active Automobile Retailers Association of Community Transportation Advisory Association and Motorcycles Organization for Reform Committee BC Taxpayers Federation Now Langley Chamber of BCCPD Association of Commerce Canadian Union of Public Neighbourhood Houses BC BC Trucking Association Employees BC Automotive Dealers Kwantlen Student Canadian Centre for Policy Association Association Alternatives BC Business Council City of Vancouver Citizens for Accessible (Business Council of BC) Board of Trade Neighbourhoods BC Centre for Ability Boothroyd Communications Community Options BC Hydro BC Federation of Labour COPE (MoveUP) BC Coalition of People with Bowen Island Municipality Council of Senior Citizens Disabilities Community Poverty Organizations of BC BC Council for Families Reduction Initiative Greater Vancouver Gateway BC Council of Film Unions Greater Vancouver Board of Council BC Federation of Labour Trade Handydart Riders Alliance BC Ferries Westbank Corp HUB BCIT Urban Arts Architecture BC Cycling Coalition BC Gateway Council MODO Dutil Engagement Findings 2. Engagement Participation 3. Communications Reach D-1: Engagement Summaries

140 BC Poverty Reduction Coalition BC Rail BC Taxi Association BC Teachers Federation BCAA Better Environmentally Sound Transportation (BEST) Black Top Cabs BNSF Railway Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) Canada Post Family Gathering Place Gordon Neighbourhood House Canadian Federation of Students Canadian International Freight Forwarders Association (CIFFA) Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters Association (CME) Canadian Union of Public Employees Capilano University Chamber of Shipping (COS) of British Columbia Chinese Benevolent Association Chinese Cultural Centre of Greater Vancouver City of Vancouver Persons with Disabilities Accessibility Advisory Committee CME CMHC CN Rail Coast Mental Health Columbia College Community Living Society Council of Tourism Associations CP Rail David Suzuki Foundation Family Services of Greater Vancouver Fedex Fraser Basin Council Fraser Health Authority Generation Squeeze Global Container Terminals Canada Greater Vancouver Community Services Society Green Peace Health Employers Association Of BC HEU Inclusion BC International Council of Shopping Centres India Mahila Association Kwantlen University College Langara College Little Mountain Neighbourhood House Lower Mainland Transportation Table MacLure's Cab Mainstream Association for Proactive Community Living Metro Vancouver Alliance New Roots/West End ADC Society MVT Canadian Bus Inc National Association of Industrial and Officer Properties (NAIOP) North Shore Taxi Partnerships BC Planned Lifetime Advocacy Network (PLAN) Port Metro Vancouver Progressive Intercultural Community Services Society Providence Health Care Purolator Richmond Poverty Response Committee - Transportation Task Force SFU Sierra Club of BC Simon Fraser University - Surrey Sn Transport Ltd. Social Planning and Research Council Surrey Poverty Reduction Coalition Senior Chinese Society of Vancouver Seniors Community Planning Table South Vancouver Seniors HUB Council St. Paul's Hospital Strathcona Community Centre Vancouver Multicultural Society of BC West End Senior Advisory Committee West End Seniors' Network Society Residences for Independent Living BACI Advocacy Committee Car2Go Vancouver Police Evo Little Mountain Neighbourhood House Cambie Village Vancouver Chinatown BIA Commercial Drive BIA Dunbar Village BIA Gastown BIA Engagement Findings 2. Engagement Participation 3. Communications Reach D-1: Engagement Summaries

141 Hastings Crossing BIA Kitsilano BIA Mount Pleasant BIA Point Grey Village BIA Robson Street BIA South Granville BIA Strathcona BIA Victoria Drive BIA West Broadway BIA West End BIA Yaletown BIA Persons with Disabilities Advisory Committee - City of Vancouver Council Zip Car City of Vancouver Seniors' Advisory Committee Vancouver and North Shore Community Dialysis North Shore Disability Resource Centre Bowen Island Health Resource Centre District of North Vancouver Transportation Planning Advisory Committee Village of Lions Bay Public Works Department City of North Vancouver Integrated Transportation Committee District of West Vancouver Design Review Committee Seniors in The Communities Committee - North Shore Cascadia Society for Social Working North Shore Connexions Society North Shore Disability Resource Centre North Shore Multicultural Society District of West Vancouver Silver Harbour Seniors' Activity Centre Lions bay Fire Rescue North Vancouver Police North Vancouver Fire West Vancouver Fire Department North Shore Disability Resource Centre ISS of BC Metro Vancouver Cross- Cultural Seniors Network 411 Seniors Centre Society Business Council Of BC Affiliation of Multicultural Societies and Service Agencies of BC (AMSSA) Collingwood Hastings North BIA Delta Chamber of Commerce Richmond Society for Community Living Richmond/East Vancouver Community Dialysis Units Delta Community Living Society Delta Seniors Advisory Committee Delta Seniors Community Planning Table Kinsmen Retirement Centre, KinVillage KinVillage Mckee Seniors Recreation Centre The Corporation of Delta Community Planning Advisory Committee City of Richmond Public Works and Transportation Committee City Centre Community Policing Centre City of Richmond Community Services Advisory Committee City of Richmond Seniors Advisory Committee Developmental Disabilities Association India Cultural Centre of Canada Richmond Chinese Community Society (R.C.C.S) Richmond Multicultural Concerns Society Richmond Seniors Network Richmond Society for Community Living Delta Chamber of Commerce Richmond Chamber of Commerce Marpole BIA Tsawwassen BIA Richmond Kinsmen Adult Day Centre Delta View Crossroads Habilitation Centre SUCCESS Multi Level Care Society Heart and Stroke Foundation (BC Chapter) Kidney Foundation of Canada Alzheimer Society Of BC BC Blind Sports BC Epilepsy Bridges to The Future and MuscleFacts Youth Program Canadian National Institute for The Blind Filipino Association in BC (FABC) Philippine Women Centre of BC Engagement Findings 2. Engagement Participation 3. Communications Reach D-1: Engagement Summaries

142 The Cerebral Palsy Association of BC BC Cancer BC Lung Alzheimer Society of BC Spinal Cord Injury Association (BCPA) Burnaby Board of Trade Spectrum Society for Community Living Sunset Community Centre Kerrisdale BIA Families of Mentally Handicapped Adults Society Fraser Street BIA Pacific Developmental Pathways Cloverdale Chamber of Commerce Kennedy Seniors Recreation Centre Success Indo-Canadian Cultural Association Learning Disabilities Association Of BC Life Skills Centre Milieu Family Services Newton Community Renal Unit Seniors Services Society Panorama Community Dialysis Centre PICS Adult Day Program Progressive Indo-Canadian Community Services Semiahmoo Peninsula Seniors Community Planning Table Surrey Association for Community Living Surrey Memorial Hospital Surrey Seniors Community Planning Table White Rock Seniors Come Share Society Surrey Board of Trade Downtown Surrey Business Improvement Association Surrey RCMP Downtown Surrey BIA White Rock BIA Surrey Access for All Committee Surrey Association for Community Living Surrey Board of Trade Surrey Planning Table Sources - Disability Advocacy Program Fraser River Industrial Association Burnaby Seniors Planning Table Indo-Canadian Friendship Society of B.C. South Burnaby Neighbourhood House MOSAIC Milieu Family Services Vancouver Coastal Health Authority Vancouver Community College Vancouver Foundation Vancouver Taxi Vancouver Transportation Club Vancouver Yellow Cab WESTAC YVR - Greater Vancouver Airport Authority New Westminster Advisory Planning Commission City of Port Coquitlam Transportation Solutions and Public Works Committee City of Port Moody Community Planning and Advisory Committee Deafblind Services Society Simon Fraser Society for Community Living Canadian Deafblind Association (BC Chapter) City of New Westminster Seniors Advisory Committee New Westminster Multicultural Society Community Integration Services Society Hawthorne Tower City of Port Moody Community Care Committee Community Living BC - Burnaby/Port Moody New Westminster Chamber of Commerce Coquitlam RCMP Coquitlam Fire department New Westminster Police Port Coquitlam Fire Port Coquitlam Police Port Moody Police Fraserside Community Services Society New Westminster BIA Royal Columbian Hospital Wilson Centre Seniors' Advisory Association Burnaby Association for Community Inclusion Burnaby Board of Trade Collingwood Community Policing Centre L'Chaim Adult Day Centre PosAbilities Engagement Findings 2. Engagement Participation 3. Communications Reach D-1: Engagement Summaries

143 Burnaby School District SD41 Electoral A Regional Planning Committee Burnaby Association for Community Inclusion Burnaby Fire Department Burnaby North Road IBA UniverCity Trust Multiple Sclerosis Society Of BC Burnaby Association of Community Inclusion Burnaby Community Services Burnaby Family Life Burnaby Multicultural Society Ridge Meadows Chamber Katzie Seniors Network Ridge Meadows Association for Community Living Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows Municipal Advisory Committee on Accessibility Issues Township of Langley Planning and Development Department City of Pitt Meadows Engineering and Operations Department Maple Ridge Pitt Meadows Chamber of Commerce Ridge Meadows Police Langley Adult Day Program Langley Association for Community Living Langley Pos-Abilities Society Langley Seniors Community Action Table Langley Seniors Resource Society City of Langley Engineering Operations Department Langley RCMP Langley BIA Engagement Findings 2. Engagement Participation 3. Communications Reach D-1: Engagement Summaries

144 3. Communications reach The following infographic describes how many people we reached through our communications efforts, from our launch on October 25 to the close of Phase 1 Online Engagement on November 26: ONLINE: Public opinion polling reach: 1,002 Metro Vancouver residents Digital platform ads: 1,271,667 impressions Digital advertising reach: 500,000 impressions Website reach: Social media reach*: Social media impressions*: 15,558 sessions (distinct visits of the site) 12,827 users (distinct people who visited the site) 30,176 pageviews 118,817 1,021 4,925,024 11,116, ,116,091 Most popular social media post: Engagement Findings 2. Engagement Participation 3. Communications Reach D-1: Engagement Summaries