MOBILITY PRICING IS A TAX GRAB
Most everyone can agree that traffic congestion is a problem in Metro Vancouver. There is also a broad consensus that more public transit is desirable. Approaches to address these issues, however, could not be more contentious.
The report from the Mobility Pricing Independent Commission released this week has proposed two options: congestion point tolls and charges based on kilometres driven. The first would charge drivers at busy locations and choke points like bridges and tunnels. The second would charge for each kilometre driven, but the amount would vary with time of day and direction.
While the purpose of this initiative is advertised as a way to reduce congestion on Lower Mainland roads, it is in effect a revamped version of the tax grab that voters soundly defeated in a referendum two years ago. The regional government needs the additional tax revenue to pay for its share of the mayors’ council’s $2-billion, 10-year transportation plan.
The need for more money probably makes any offset of mobility taxes, such as eliminating the gas tax, a non-starter. One has to wonder how serious municipal politicians take congestion when Vancouver city council this week approved installation of a bike lane on the Cambie Bridge, thereby ensuring that this bridge will be as congested as any other in the city.
Based on what Stockholm and London charge drivers entering the city, a five-day commuter to Vancouver could be looking at an additional $80 to $100 a week in mobility taxes to drive to work.
The reason so many people commute to work from outlying communities, of course, is that Vancouver is unaffordable. To tax those who cannot afford to live in Vancouver, and who have no option besides driving given poor public transit service, seems manifestly unfair.
Premier John Horgan appears to recognize that fairness and affordability are important considerations in any mobility pricing plan — after all, he eliminated bridge tolls imposed by the previous government — and has warned that his government will not simply rubberstamp decongestion charges.
It’s not what any politician wants to hear, but to get public buy-in for mobility pricing, a big tax hike by another name, those affected need to be asked. Maybe they’ll get to yes this time.