On Thursday, the Eno Transportation Centre presented another of their webinars, this one with an irresistible title:
The webinar hosts three authors from the UCLA Luskin Centre for History and Policy who summarize the results of a just-released study:
We examined a century of programs to reduce congestion and found that several strategies were pursued over and over again in different eras. Los Angeles repeatedly built new street, highway, and transit capacity, regulated drivers and vehicle traffic flows, increased the use of information about traffic conditions, and controlled land use to influence traffic.
So what were the consequences? No surprise, but here’s the spoiler anyway:
Congestion has been addressed in every era and in numerous ways, but always has returned.
The report gives the details decade by decade – every possibility from expanded road capacity to land use. Except one:
Congestion pricing … based on proven theory of human economic behavior promoted for a century, proven in application to sectors of the economy other than transportation, and enabled by recent advances in telecommunications technology. It has a proven track record …
Big picture conclusion: except for a handful of cities in the world, congestion (or mobility) pricing is a policy intervention that has often been proposed but never adopted. Despite the fact it works. And may be the only thing that does.
TransLink, the Province, Metro Vancouver – they’ve all studied the issue, most recently in 2018 with the Mobility Pricing Independent Commission. The conclusion was the same: some form of road pricing makes sense. And then saw the concept under whatever name rejected by most political leaders literally within a day of its release.
Within a few hours of the Eno webinar, there was another Zoomy opportunity to get a local perspective. A coalition of transportation interests – Moving in a Livable Region – held an all-candidates forum online with representatives from each party:
Read more »