Congestion charging, articles and discussion

[ozbob]

From the Brisbanetimes click here!

Congestion charging: 'Time for Brisbane to have the debate'

Congestion charging: 'Time for Brisbane to have the debate'
Tony Moore
April 30, 2011

A congestion charge for Brisbane's CBD could cut traffic in the city up to 20 per cent and raise $250 million each year, new research has revealed.

Queensland University of Technology PhD student Jake Whitehead conducted the study and said the money could be used to improve public transport projects, such as the proposed Cross River Rail.

Main Roads Minister Craig Wallace ruled out the introduction of any such charge on Queensland roads.

But the RACQ has welcomed the research findings, saying they should provide a "starting point" for debate on congestion in Brisbane.

The peak motoring body said tolls would have to be removed from the Clem7 tunnel, the Go Between Bridge and possibly the Airport Link project for a congestion tax to work.

$250 million in annual revenue

Mr Whitehead used the latest Main Roads and Brisbane City Council traffic modelling systems in his research.

The study claimed a cordon price of $3 per vehicle would raise $100 million a year.

"Modelling has shown a 15 per cent to 20 per cent drop in traffic volumes minimum, and the result would be between $70 million to $100 million per annum," Mr Whitehead said.

"The $250 million raised refers to the second stage of the scheme, when the cordon was widened to include the southern part of the inner-city."

Mr Whitehead has spent time at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden, investigating road-tolling schemes in Europe.

He said Mr Wallace's dismissal of the idea was a "simplistic" and political answer.

"Unfortunately they are taking the stance that it is going to scare away voters," he said.

"I would like to see a politician that was able to promote the benefits of it and actually win votes on it.

"In London, Ken Livingstone was actually voted into government on the platform of introducing a congestion tax."

London introduced the scheme in 2003, while Stockholm in Sweden has had one since 2006.

Congestion charging to fund public transport

Mr Whitehead said a congestion pricing scheme could generate money for Cross River Rail, now stalled after funding was diverted to flood recovery.

"I am a firm believer that regardless of how many roads we build, there is a finite capacity of roads," he said.

"The most efficient cities around the world ... have great public transport systems.

"On the world scale, Brisbane isn't so bad, but one area that we are really lacking in an underground rail network."

Mr Whitehead said overseas commercial drivers who entered the inner-city multiple times received tax deductions.

"In the case study of Sweden, they do that to reimburse the commercial operators," he said.

Mr Whitehead said he believed most people driving to the inner city were public servants, or business operators who could claim the charge as a deduction.

Last November, Mr Whitehead suggested his cordon price scheme would run in two phases.

The first one covering Brisbane's CBD and Spring Hill from 2011, then widening it to cover South Bank, Woolloongabba and West End from 2026.

Motorists would pay a $3 charge to enter the CBD between 6.30am and 6.30pm between Monday and Friday.

What does the Clem7 tunnel experience show?

The failings of the Clem7 tunnel highlighted how public transport thinking in southeast Queensland was "misdirected", Mr Whitehead said.

He believed the toll for the infrastructure was simply too high.

"It defeats the purpose of the tunnel," he said.

"Our logic is wrong in that we build them so people have an alternative, but then we charge them, so people don't use them.

"We should charge motorists to use the congested areas and then encourage them to go on these new routes, to divert around the city.

"The best way to do that is to make it free."

Time for the debate, says RACQ

Paul Turner, the RACQ's general manager of external affairs, said it was time for a genuine debate on the merits of a congestion tax.

He said the motoring body would not support a congestion tax unless tolls were removed from other tunnels and bridges.

"We think that any talk of a congestion tax for Brisbane would have to be conditional on removal of unfair costs on motorists," Mr Turner said.

"We don't see that inner-city tolls work that well, excluding the Gateway and the Logan Motorway where there are some obvious benefits for motorists."

The RACQ believes tolls would have to be removed from the Clem7 tunnel, the Go Between Bridge and possibly the Airport Link project for a congestion tax to work.

"It would have to be a replacement for some of the existing tolls and a funding mechanism to projects to get people out of the inner-city who don't want to be there," he said.

Mr Turner said the RACQ understood the political difficulties of introducing a new tax.

"I don't think politically, or as a constituent base Brisbane people are ready for a congestion tax yet," he said.

"But it is something we really need to consider, because the fundamental ways of funding road and rail infrastructure are diminishing."

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/congestion-charging-time-for-brisbane-to-have-the-debate-20110429-1e04s.html#ixzz1KwaucnJ8

... He said Mr Wallace's dismissal of the idea was a "simplistic" and political answer. ...

Indeed, they are caught in a failing paradigm ...  well done Jake!

[Jonno]

The RACQ's assumption that congestion is only CBD issue shows how little they understand the trips being made around the CBD. Congestion charges should be applied to any road where there is too much traffic not just the CBD. Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast, Ipswich....

[Stillwater]

While the prediction is that a congestion toll would cut traffic in the city by 15 per cent, the matter is left hanging unless the reporting of the research paper did not go into the detail.  Is it the case that the drivers of those 15 per cent of vehicles can satisfy their desire for travelling to the city by driving somewhere else outside the city cordon?  In which case, where else are they likely to go and what other part of the city will have to endure increased traffic volumes?  If the 15-20 per cent drop is achieved by people chosing not to use their cars, but are still required to travel to the city for work or other purposes, then the assumption is they will use public transport to get there.  Perhaps another PhD student should look at that scenario.

[#Metro]

Ugh, It is not congestion charging, is is DE-congestion charging. You are paying to GET OUT of congestion, not paying to sit in it.
And for heaven's sake it is not a TAX! When you go buy something at a fast food restaurant, do you call that a "burger tax"?

And what is with the obsession with London-style cordon tolling. There are many other ways to charge for congestion and road usage.
What is this scheme going to do about congestion on Moggill Road and Coronation Drive and Logan Road, all which fall outside the cordon boundaries?

http://www.humantransit.org/2011/03/watching-our-words-congestion-charge-or-price-or-shudder-tax.html

[Golliwog]

And what is with the obsession with London-style cordon tolling. There are many other ways to charge for congestion and road usage.
What is this scheme going to do about congestion on Moggill Road and Coronation Drive and Logan Road, all which fall outside the cordon boundaries?

It would probably do a bit for those, as a large portion of that traffic is most likely heading to the CBD. Besides, you won't ever get a single solution that solves all the traffic problems. I would go for congestion tax in the CBD, bus lanes for the corridors.

[Gazza]

To me, the problem in Brisbane is not people driving into the CBD itself (Since the Brisbane CBD doesn't have that much parking anyway, certainly nothing in the league of sheer number of multidecks in the Adelaide CBD)
The problem is people driving into the employment areas like Milton, South Brisbane etc,
I work in Milton and see the standstill of traffic every day.
My dad works in South Brisbane and we picked him up one day (Normally he takes the train, but there was something we were heading to) To get out of there was a nightmare too.

This is why I see Transapex as such a faliure, yes it's supposed to bypass the CBD and congestion that way, but bondaries of the worst congestion itself is  beyond the entry/exit points to this infrastructure, so its reduant already....You cant get to the Go Between Bridge without first enduring Coro Drive or the ICB....You cant get to Clem 7 without crawling up the Pacific Highway....You wont be able to get to Northern Link without going through the congested bits of the Western Freeway in Kenmore and Indooroopilly.

So translating this to a congestion charge, for it to be effective, you would have to be covering a land area far greater than what is seen in London etc...Literally beyond say the TL Zone 2/3 boundary to have any effect.

[#Metro]

This is why I think the "cordon tolling" version of DEcongestion pricing is probably worthless in Brisbane. Brisbane seems to have this envy complex where if we just copy Paris and copy London then everything will fix itself. The only thing we don't seem to copy is useful frequencies! Even if the solution is totally mismatched to what the city needs...

[johnnigh]

Cordon tolling is a cheap and simple form for an anti-congestion charge. For Brisbane it is not so appropriate as Brisbane doesn't have a congested centre (like London) but congested arteries. Congestion isn't a 24 hr phenonenon either, but has its peak minutes on various roads that vary from day to day depending on circumstances and situations. The solution is a GPS based system that charges cars for being in congested locations. This isn't so difficult, technically. It has some privacy concerns, but what-the-hell, we live in a big brother environment already.  :conf