Over the past 40 years, London, like every other city in Canada, has been on a road-building spree: Virtually every major artery has been significantly expanded, yet the traffic congestion is worse than ever. What can be done?

It's evident simply building and expanding more streets will not solve the problem. Experience from around the world suggests no amount of road construction can keep pace with the rapidly increasing numbers of cars in countries that are blessed with sustained economic growth.

Some environmentalists contend a hefty increase in gasoline taxes would eliminate traffic congestion, although there is no evidence to support this contention. Throughout Western Europe, many cities are plagued with massive traffic jams, despite modern roads and gasoline taxes that are more than two or three times higher than in Canada.

Many cities in Europe and North America have found that a combination of reduced fares and better service for mass transit can persuade some commuters to abandon their cars, but not nearly enough to end traffic jams. It's a safe bet that even if mass transit were free, a large proportion of urban commuters would still prefer to travel by car.

Commuters are all the more likely to travel by automobile when it's the entire community that has to pay much of the costs for traffic congestion in the form of higher greenhouse gas emissions as well as expensive delays in moving people and merchandise. These costs are not at all trivial. Transport Canada recently estimated traffic delays cost nine large urban areas more than $3 billion annually.

What, then, can be done? Robert Lindsey, a professor of economics at the University of Alberta, commends the solution advanced by Ken Livingston, the socialist mayor of London, England, who is popularly known as "Red Ken." In an illuminating commentary for the C. D. Howe Institute entitled Congestion Relief: Assessing the Case for Road Tolls in Canada, Lindsey notes Livingston first invested in additional transit buses during his inaugural term in office and then, in February 2003, levied a new system of road tolls called a congestion charge on those driving into a 21-square kilometre area in the centre of the city between 7 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on weekdays.

Vehicles entering this core area are identified by cameras like those used on Highway 407 that automatically photographs the licence plates of passing vehicles. This efficient system is a considerable money maker. Under terms of the Greater London Authority Act, all of the revenues generated by the London Congestion Charge must be used to improve the city's network of roads, streets and facilities for mass transit.

So far, Livingstone's initiative has proven to be hugely successful. Both traffic congestion and automobile pollution have been considerably reduced. And virtually everyone in the city has benefited: Everyone who still drives into the city encounters fewer traffic jams, while all others enjoy the advantages of improved mass transit, including faster bus service on congestion-free streets.

A system that works for a vast metropolis like London, England, might not be suitable for many smaller cities. However, Lindsey points out that over the past 20 years, the Norwegian cities of Bergen and Trondheim -- both less than half the size of London, Ont. -- have come up with systems for charging motorists entering into their downtown areas that have been successful in reducing congestion, cutting pollution and raising considerable revenues for improving urban transportation and financing environmental projects.

Lindsey makes a compelling case for having Canada's largest cities -- Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver -- experiment with road tolls. Politicians and city engineers in smaller cities like London, Ont., should also give this serious consideration.

Make the polluter pay is a sound principle.
Write Rory at The London Free Press, P.O. Box 2280, London, Ont. N6A 4G1 or fax 519-667-4528 or E-mail rleishman@sympatico.ca
Home Page