Read on Twitter
Mobility pricing is back on the radar thanks to the City of Vancouver's climate emergency plan. Here's a thread based on research I did a couple years ago looking at pricing and equity issues for Metro Vancouver. https://www.policynote.ca/mobility-pricing-an-idea-whose-time-has-come/
Declining technology costs, and widely cited case studies of London, Stockholm and Singapore, have prompted interest from cities around the world to change the way drivers are charged in order to contain congestion, reduce pollution and raise revenues. https://www.policynote.ca/mobility-pricing-in-practice-a-look-at-london-stockholm-and-singapore/
The final report of the Mobility Pricing Independent Commission (MPIC) was delivered to the Mayors’ Council and TransLink Board in May 2018. Here's a summary of what they came up with. https://www.policynote.ca/mobility-pricing-what-happened-whats-next/
My 2018 report, Getting Around Vancouver: A Closer Look at Mobility Pricing and Fairness, digs into the equity issues and trade-offs, and a review of how we currently pay for mobility (cars and transit) https://www.policyalternatives.ca/getting-around-vancouver
Mobility pricing is based on the principle that users pay for what they use, taking away the illusion of free roads. This is envisioned as both a LT replacement for fuel tax revenues, which will decline with electric vehicles, and a source of revenue to support transit
In Metro Vancouver we pay for mobility through a mix of user fees (transit fares, fuel taxes, and until recently, tolls on two bridges) and public subsidies (property taxes, BC Hydro levy, transfers from other levels of government).
Public transit use is already mobility pricing through fares. But also is subsidized. Fare revenue covers just over half (52 per cent) of the operating cost of providing transit service, reflecting a public subsidy that keeps ridership levels higher and roads less congested.
The perception that drivers fully pay for their rides is false. The costs of driving are private costs: buying a vehicle, maintaining it, insurance and gas. Once these costs have been paid, every trip on the road is free. Only fuel and parking taxes support the transp'n network.
Yet, there are substantial public costs for infrastructure and services for cars: roads and bridges, policing and other services, subsidies to fuel prod'n, parking spaces. Also external costs: carbon emissions, air pollution, sprawl, noise.
Fairness is in the eye of the beholder. Ability to pay is a core fairness principle, in particular with regard to low-income households. Fairness for other disadvantaged populations (including those precluded from driving due to age or disability) must also be considered.
Mobility pricing will create winners and losers. Equity outcomes depend on how pricing is done (who pays) as well has how revenues are used (funding transit and any compensating mechanisms).
Three central fairness or equity issues include:
• Impacts on low-income households.
• Impacts on households in different parts of the region.
• Fairness in comparison to public transit, car-sharing and ride-hailing.
• Impacts on low-income households.
• Impacts on households in different parts of the region.
• Fairness in comparison to public transit, car-sharing and ride-hailing.
A key equity concern is that low-income households who have no other options are either financially harmed or get priced out, while affluent drivers get faster car speeds without noticing much of an impact on their budget.
Income equity issues in Metro Vancouver are also related to the high cost of housing. Low-income households may be forced to move further away from the central city to find affordable housing. These households already pay in the form of increased time spent travelling
