(Not to exempt our local politicians from blame. The horrible Front Street Extension is still alive because Councillor Joe Pantalone likes construction jobs, and because the mayor and some other councillors indulge him in this.)

1. Mark, my remark about socialists was not intended to refer to the congestion charge, but to the “I’ll tell you what’s best for you” attitude that is unfortunately found among many transit activists and is inherent in socialism. Sorry for the confusion.

2. Kieran mentions the huge costs required to have a car. But lots of people want to have a car if only for schlepping groceries etc. (and not everyone lives near an AutoShare or ZipCar location!), and are open to transit for getting to and from work. For them, insurance is a sunk cost and we have to compare the incremental costs of driving/parking vs. “transitting” to work. Transit usually still wins, but not by as much. I do agree with Kieran’s point that “cost is not the deciding factor”, but wanted to mention this to help complete the picture.

3. Further to Kieran’s point about “spacial priority” for transit, I heard my friend Jaime Watt point out to Mayor David Miller that one huge difference between a streetcar line that has its own right of way and one that doesn’t is that the former is so much more predictable because it’s not affected by the level of other traffic. In fact, it can be more predictable than driving. Jaime is much more likely to take a streetcar like the Spadina one because of, to use his phrase that the mayor liked, “certainty of journey time”. Without that, anyone who wants to be somewhere at a certain time, and doesn’t have oodles of spare time, is likely to avoid transit if possible.

My point is: user experience and transit priority COSTS MONEY!

As I describe above, the charge is part of an answer that includes LARGE investments into that transit capacity and user experience. See the London example. A congestion charge should not go into general revenues, it should finance that capital program.

In Toronto, the gap is much greater, so we need lots more capital investment to make up for the years of neglect.

Congestion charging may not be the first step, but it is an inevitable step in my opinion.

As Ryan pointed out earlier, people don’t drive because it’s less expensive, they drive because the user experience is better. In order to move to a more transit-based society, we have to improve the transit user experience to beyond that of driving, which in ideal circumstances would be a difficult task. Let’s face it: driving is nice.

As many of us are starting to witness, driving in Toronto (especially at rush hour) is becoming more frustrating and expensive. Yet many people still prefer it to transit because they don’t see enough gain in switching. The cost / benefit ratio simply isn’t big enough.

Increasing costs seems to have little effect on conversion from driving to transit – costs have been steadily rising for years, but the vast majority of those who can still afford to drive (no matter how barely) continue to do so. Besides, the cost of operating a vehicle is already vastly more than unlimited transit. The cost of insurance alone for most adults is comparable to a metropass! Clearly, cost is not the deciding factor.

So what’s my alternative? Prioritize transit. Not just signal priority, but also spacial priority. Build light rail in central corridors (like Spadina) and give it signal priority to other traffic. What we should be aiming for is a system that reflects the interests of the population – if 1/3 of commuters in the city are using transit, let’s try to give them 1/3 of our limited roadway.

I think it’s important to introduce as few artificial incentives as possible. If there’s enough transit and it’s a good enough user experience it will slowly win over many existing drivers.

But I’m an optimist…

Sustainability thinking, however, would argue that the externalities of the marketplace (costs born by third-parties) can be re-internalized, preferably through some market-based mechanism.

In the millions upon millions of transactions between all of us who drive cars and the auto and oil industries, what costs are third parties bearing? I can only begin to ponder the scale of such a number.

So, how about a flexible system of hour-by-hour tarif pricing that is tied to real-time or near real-time user demands on the system? Surely somewhere in this city we have the wherewithall to come up with a pricing model for road useage that is based on strong transportation economics?

As in London, Toronto could make a very large anticipatory investment in public transit capacity (and user experience!) to ease the transition. Such a large capital investment can be readily financed by revenues from the congestion charge.

Currently, taxpayer dollars almost completely subsidize public streets and highways that are seen as a god-given right for every individual. Meanwhile, transit is seen as somehow as exotic, European and socialist.

If we remain stuck in a false left-right dichotomy on this issue, I fear that recent progress on the transit file will be a short-term blip of optimism during a generation-long period of decline, neglect and stalemate.

I am saddened by Tree’s comment, about what it says about our city that the transit system is seen as potentially dangerous by pregnant mothers. Of course, some people will always err on the side of caution and make the choice, if they can afford it, to go to the perceived safety of driving a car on congested Toronto streets rather than use transit. I think her story makes all too clear why the neglect of the past 20 years or more is unacceptable.

Great cities require great transit, which requires serious long-term and stable investment. I would ask those that are against a congestion charge to come up with a politically and financially viable alternative.

Instead of eco-fascism, let’s have transportation priced according to its full costs. Vehicles should be charged for road usage (with heavy vehicles charged much more because of the consequent road damage), emissions, etc. Technology such as the above-mentioned Skymeter can make such things practical. Then people can make intelligent decisions on their mode of transport according to their personal situations, and not according to what some holier-than-thou socialist says.