TOLLS OFTEN CREATE MORE PROBLEMS THAN THEY SOLVE
Mayor’s proposal will end up costing Toronto money and alienating neighbours
It’s not often I get to disagree with National Post’s esteemed Andrew Coyne, mainly because a) he is, more often than not, on the side of the angels on any discussion he jumps into and b) the worlds of cars and politics, especially local, don’t usually intersect broadly enough for both of us to wade into the same argument.
Nonetheless, I find myself in the position of not only disagreeing with the premise of Andrew’s recent column (Toll Roads Make Sense) but also many of the talking points (that surcharges won’t be “out of reach of the poor” and that lamenting the loss of free access to downtown Toronto is “reptile brained”).
For one thing, I suspect that the toll roads, both as currently devised and as they are sure to morph in the future, are being sold under at least partially false premises. Although the proposed toll roads are billed as revenue generators — Mayor John Tory promises $200 million annually — you can bet your sweet patooties that the real joy in city hall is not simply the promise of filthy lucre (Lord knows, balancing the city’s budget has seldom been a priority before) but also the prospect of restricting automotive access.
And that, at least at the times of the most congested of jams, is simply a non-starter. While the authors of Fare Driving: Exploring the Benefits of Traffic Pricing in Toronto and the GTA, Lorie Srivastava and Cherise Burda, believe even these “modest” prices will reduce peak period traffic by as much as 16 per cent, does any sentient being really think that a $2.13 surcharge — their projection of a one-way trip down the Don Valley Parkway — is going to stop anyone from Pickering, Markham or Aurora driving to their metro Toronto job on a Monday morning? Or perhaps the environmentally deluded think that suburbanites will actually rejig their entire careers so they no longer need to commute downtown?
Even the most isolationist of 416ers — you know who you are, Neil Vorano — can’t believe this is going to significantly alter driving habits.
So, you’re thinking, if people aren’t going to give up their horrible habit, we’ll at least get the revenue. Um, yes, but maybe not as much net profit as Tory thinks. While it is doubtful that rush-hour commuters will lessen motoring, it could easily happen with more voluntary incursions.
Whether metro residents like it or not, suburbanites play a huge part in the financial well-being of Toronto’s city core. What happens if the toll does work, but only on more optional commutes — to dine out, attend the theatre, etc.? I, for one, am probably not going to stop driving downtown for my favourite sushi on account of a two-dollar toll (oops, four bucks cause I have to get back), but politicians have a nasty way of rapidly increasing sin taxes. And let’s not fool ourselves, Toronto’s politicians have long seen the act of operating a private motor vehicle as a sin.
That Fare Driving study I mentioned earlier already proposes that a round trip on the DVP and Gardiner increase to $8.87 and $11.58 respectively by 2025. That extra ten or 12 bucks just might indeed curb my desire for tuna tartare at Asuka’s on Yorkville, as yummy as it may be.
It’s also worth pointing out, as Andrew himself has on numerous occasions when he has railed against certain policies, that a fixed-rate toll, no matter how small, is a regressive tax, affecting the janitor travelling to his minimum wage job much more than the hedge fund manager.
In almost all applications I’ve seen, a toll road has been supplementary to a main, existing artery. The 407, for instance, is an option to those travelling east/west across the Toronto core. Those preferring to avoid traffic can pay their fee. Those choosing to avoid the surcharge — and judging by the congestion on the 401 compared with the sparse traffic on the 407, they are the majority — brave the traditional route.
Yes, you can make the argument that toll bridges are sole choices, but the surcharges have always been justified by construction costs. Besides, as the constructors of the new Champlain Bridge in Montreal recently discovered, if there is a choice, commuters will take their business — er, driving — elsewhere. A recent study by Transport Quebec suggests that the proposed $3 toll on the new bridge will increase traffic on the nearby (and free!) Victoria Bridge by some 25 per cent.
In traffic-clogged Vancouver, the numbers are even worse. According to CTV News, the Golden Ears Bridge, with less than half the traffic officials expected, is only collecting half of the anticipated $80 million a year, while the Port Mann Bridge, which was expanded in anticipation of increased traffic, is losing $80 million a year because drivers are choosing the (again, free, for now at least) Pattullo Bridge.
What if 905ers decide to do the same. With no highways other than the Gardiner Expressway and Don Valley Parkway offering access, their only alternative route would be Toronto’s city streets. Our main thoroughfares are already clogged, our infrastructure crumbling and bus/bike lanes challenged. Do we really need more arterial traffic?
And, to end on a high note, if commuters eventually do eschew the Gardiner and DVP for side streets, besides their more time-consuming commutes, there will be more time spent idling internal combustion engines at traffic lights and stop signs. Beware the unintended consequence, environmentally conscious 416ers; you may end up getting more greenhouse gases.
The one thing I suspect this toll will accomplish is further exacerbating the 416/905 divide. Tory seems to have forgotten that one Ford was elected largely because suburbanites rebelled at the previous administration’s anti-car leanings. Do I really need to remind Tory — and Coyne — that another Ford is just waiting in the wings, almost certainly salivating at the prospect of elitists deaf to the plight of 905ers?
In the end, I think I’ll give Andrew the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he didn’t really mean to say that “toll roads make sense,” but rather that they are well intentioned. I might not disagree so vehemently with that.