Article: Congestion tax urged to tame road chaos

[ozbob]

From the Herald Sun click here!

Congestion tax urged to tame road chaos

Congestion tax urged to tame road chaos

    * Phillip Hudson
    * From: Herald Sun
    * December 17, 2010 12:00AM

THE Gillard Government has been urged to consider a congestion tax to deal with growing traffic chaos.

It is one of dozens of ideas floated for debate in three discussion papers released yesterday by Environment and Population Minister Tony Burke.

After Prime Minister Julia Gillard promised during the election campaign not to "hurtle towards a Big Australia", Mr Burke said he would announce a population strategy in April, but confirmed it would not include a population target.

It is the second time in less than a year the Federal Government has faced calls to introduce road user taxes.

The idea was also recommended by Ken Henry's tax review, but shelved.

It was given another push yesterday by Henry review member Heather Ridout, who heads up the Australian Industry Group and was chair of one of the reports looking at productivity.

In a section dealing with traffic, it suggested a congestion tax on people using roads at peak times, staggering working hours and more investment in clean, efficient and reliable public transport.

Mr Burke dodged questions about the congestion tax, saying tax was a matter for Treasurer Wayne Swan.

But he did say he was concerned about people who got home 30 minutes later than they used to because commuting was taking longer.

"It is the time you don't spend at home," he said.

Ms Ridout said the Government would have to make tough decisions.

"I think a growing population, well managed, is really the source of all good things. It will enable renewal, enable a more diverse and dynamic economy," she said.

Ms Ridout warned against slashing immigration, saying China and India were growing and Australia needed to be an open country.

But another report, chaired by former NSW premier Bob Carr, warned that excessive population growth would cost more than it could benefit the country.

Mr Carr's report "challenges the myth that rapid rates of population growth, based on high rates of immigration, are necessary to support high rates of economic growth and Australians being better off".

The reports are available at www.environment.gov.au

[#Metro]

Long post warning

Not for or against thisb, but I'm feeling skeptical about this idea.

People value their trip to work very highly. And it is no mystery why this is- they are not in peak hour
because they enjoy the experience of large traffic queues but because they need to get to work.
Peak hour just happens to be the most convenient time for everyone to start work. And this makes sense.

So you can tax it, but the tax would have to be very high for any significant reduction in traffic volumes
because IMHO demand for travel at peak hour is so inelastic. On the other hand, because of this, quite a
lot of revenue could be generated. However, where those revenues go is not guaranteed. If "Brisbane Tolls
and Tunnels Pty Ltd." had its way, it would just go into more peak hour road capacity expansion- which
really is not solving the problem or changing the philosophy about how things are run, it is just trying to alleviate the symptoms.

There are also equity problems, because the best/highest paying jobs are in the CBD.
If you live in low density fringe areas and are already having problems paying for your car
and driving long distances, this is going to be a problem for you.

Simply put, growing congestion (and it seems to be growing only very slowly though) really
is a sign that the current model is not working. Simply trying to push the current model harder
isn't going to do much. The roads already have fancy technology to squeeze every last second
of green out of a traffic light. What more is there, short of building freeways everywhere?

Staggering working hours is not going to do squat, and is a completely useless "feelgood" solution.
Things like travelsmart and behaviour change programs, long-term are also in this basket I fear.
If you free up a spot on a road, someone else is going to find that spot and use it, because
demand is far in excess of capacity at peak times.

Utility maximisation, planning and public transport upgrades are the way to go IMHO.
How these will be funded is the eternal problem, but as traffic increases, it should be
easier to give an edge to PT and make money from it. The best public transport systems
in the world also have the best farebox ratios.

More BUZ services along the roads. Light rail on the heavily used routes. More frequent all day
trains with upgraded signalling. Better designed network. Bus priority on the roads. It doesn't have to be expensive.

Traffic congestion will never ever be 'solved'. It is a fact of life and it is here to stay. "solving congestion"
is merely part of the philosophy that says that the car must have primacy and anything that slows it down
or inconveniences it must be removed or engineered away. Unfortunately, we cannot remove every traffic
light or grade separate every intersection across the city. So congestion is here to stay.

[Golliwog]

TT, the point of the congestion charge is to increase the overall cost (time+money) of driving your own car to work in the CBD. From my point of view, there are a lot of people who could use public transport to get to work but don't because they can't be bothered to use the service because it doesn't always leave "right now" and takes slightly longer to get there as you have to stop at stations etc along the way.

What the tax is spent on isn't really all that important, and I highly doubt that it would be spent on new roads. The whole reason this type of tax is even considered is because the government is realising that the car is not the way to go when you have large numbers of people trying to get to the same place. And even if it isn't spent on PT, you would still get a lot more revenue from PT due to higher patronage.

[ozbob]

Herald Sun --> No traffic congestion tax for Melbourne

[#Metro]

This is a political hot potato. I think that there really should be some thought to alternatives to a congestion tax, because it might turn out that politics is the thing that will block its introduction.

There seems to be a lot of traffic that goes around the CBD, at least for Brisbane. I'm not sure about the Melbourne situation. I've never been able to understand how most of the jobs are in the CBD and yet during morning peak hour, most of the traffic is going around the CBD (e.g. on Gateway/Coro and ICB). How does that make sense?

Levying a toll to enter the CBD is possible, but its places like Coronation Drive, places on the Northside and roads leading into the CBD that are congested, not CBD streets themselves. And you can see this in time surveys from the RACQ.

And also, Melbourne's network DOES have capacity for increased services during peak hour, at least if you listen to Dr Mees. So that argument might as well be a smokescreen. http://www.reportage-enviro.com/2010/08/how-can-we-solve-the-congestion-crisis/

"Congestion charging is yet another fundamentalist economic dogma," says Dr Paul Mees, a transport expert from RMIT and long time advocate of improving Melbourne's public transport system. "What congestion charging does do is it rations road space to the wealthy."

Dr Mees does not believe that revenue from a congestion charge is required in order to fix Melbourne's ailing train network. He says that it is "currently running at half its designed capacity in the busiest part of peak hour and that the inefficiency is due to "a whole series of stupendously incompetent things that grew up over the years when patronage was so low that they didn't have to use their capacity efficiently."

"These things are now being used as excuses for not fixing, not changing the status quo," says Dr Mees. "These things" mainly relate to timetabling and other logistics such as the functioning of the City Loop. Compounding Melbourne's train problems, trams are being slowed as congestion levels rise and the outer suburbs are still inadequately serviced by buses – the main, if not only, public mode in outer suburbs.

Congestion cannot be solved IMHO. The price would have to be extremely high to get any useful result IMHO. Melbourne's ring road is useful, but it has huge levels of traffic on it, which is surprising when you consider that it was only built in the mid 1990s.

Here is a question: what price would the congestion charge be at am peak hour? Would people be happy to be charged between $7 and $28 in the morning and again in the afternoon, which is not an unreasonable estimate of the value of time for 15 minutes and 60 minutes of time...

[#Metro]

Some charges from around the world, converted to $ AUD

20 SEK = $2.95 (X rate 1 AUD = 6.7 SEK) Stockholm
2 euro - 10.00 = $ 2.66 - $13.34  (X rate 1 AUD - 0.7 EUR) Milan

IMHO I don't have a set position on this.

It will depend on the details really and how the effects of things will be managed. Stockholm for example, exempts one area because their only road into the CBD is via the toll zone. Milan takes into account the air pollution produced in the toll pricing. The london congestion charge AIUI was spent on buses but this had the side effect of pulling some people out of the tube system.

There are many types of road congestion/road pricing etc systems and many possible combinations of schemes. Equally, the money goes to different places in different cities- sometimes it is roads and more road building, sometimes PT, sometimes a bit of both.

It is too general a question IMHO. If there was a specific proposal, there could be some meaningful discussion about it.

What price would the tolls be
How will it be charged (by km/cordon toll) and what will affect the pricing (will air pollution caused by my car take effect)
What will the money be spent on
Where will it go (just around the CBD or on arterials and freeways leading into the CBD)

etc.

[Gazza]

I don't see the point of congestion taxes TBH, the roads will still be full, except they will just be people that were happy to pay.
Plus, I don't think a congestion tax would really see a major PT funding boost. Clem7 has sort of shown that motorists aren't the best money spinners after all, so how much could you conceivably raise by a congestion tax?...Certainly not enough to suddenly shift from having "bad/average PT" to "PT too good to not use"

I think a carrot rather than a stick approach is better....Provide decent enough PT network so that everywhere has a high "baseline" service standard, and ensure that roads have appropriate bus/tram priority measures so those services can move unimpeded by congestion.If I, and most others,  can get around without a car then the job is done as far as I'm concerned.

But if a certain set of people still won't use PT and choose to ignore the high quality service offered, well then I don't see the point of forcing them onto it. Just make sure the roads don't have any further money spent on capacity increases to accommodate them.

Sort of see where I'm coming from here? Think of places like Tokyo or Paris...Amazing PT, but still  very congested. But if you can live without a car there, then who really cares if the roads are congested, since it's not affecting you greatly.

[Fares_Fair]

A congestion tax is extremely unfair IMHO.

In it's simplest terms, it means that transport into the city can be undertaken by the rich at the expense of the poor.
Those who can least afford the imposition of a new tax will be denied access to the city roads.

Is that what we are all about in Australia, increasing the divide bewteen the rich and the poor?

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[somebody]

I don't see the point of congestion taxes TBH, the roads will still be full, except they will just be people that were happy to pay.

That certainly wasn't the London experience.  Revenue fell short of expectations because it deterred so many car trips.

A congestion tax is extremely unfair IMHO.

I'm afraid capitalism is like that.  Those who can pay get more, others make do with less.  It's better than socialism.

[ozbob]

Congestion tolling is inevitable.  Treasury departments are already having kittens.  The problem is as petrol is replaced in personal transport vehicles that tax take falls as well.  Some bright minds are behind the congestion tolling thing.  What will happen I expect is that there will be a distance based toll done electronically on all vehicles be they compressed air, hydrogen, electric, and variations there of.  The cost though will be higher than the present petrol based personal transport contraptions and tax takes.  There will be a real need for good public transport systems for the masses.  It is highly likely that public transport at that time may actually be a revenue generator because of the efficiencies of scale and sheer scope of the networks.

I think Gazza has made some excellent points.

eg.

I think a carrot rather than a stick approach is better....Provide decent enough PT network so that everywhere has a high "baseline" service standard, and ensure that roads have appropriate bus/tram priority measures so those services can move unimpeded by congestion.If I, and most others,  can get around without a car then the job is done as far as I'm concerned.

[#Metro]

PT is never going to be profitable without a decent product and level of service.
Nobody will buy rotten apples, no matter if they are discounted or free.

At least with good quality, you can charge for it.
Equity concerns can be met with discounts, in the same way that movie theatres allow discounts to seniors and children and students.

[ozbob]

e² Transport — London: The Price Of Traffic (Podcast)

=================

Use electric rail as a (the) driver and promotor for renewable electricity production ..