Article: User-pays CBD

[ozbob]

From the Brisbane mX 13th August 2009 page 1

User-pays CBD

[Derwan]

 

[mch]

We paid our taxes to build them, we pay the tolls to drive on them and now we pay more to sit in our cars in the choked city traffic.
When will it stop? 
What do we pay our politicians and government planning people for?  They certainly have let us down.  If they were paid according to how well they have performed, many of them should be paying us.
Re the article: For my money, they should pay $20 or even $50 per trip in peak hour and this money to go into  more rail infrastructure.
Beattie ruled it out, but for Bligh it seems to be on the agenda.  Instead of planning the tolling options, they should be planning the alternative public transport options to encourage the change in attitude and not build more and more roads that will just end becoming clogged.

[#Metro]

I support tolling. You need both sticks and carrots to get people to change their behaviour.

HOT lanes could also be used- people can choose to pay and get to the CBD faster, or people can choose to not pay and simply pay by waiting in the traffic jam they themselves and their counterparts have caused.

[XIII-Train]

Instead of planning the tolling options, they should be planning the alternative public transport options to encourage the change in attitude and not build more and more roads that will just end becoming clogged.

What I would love to see happen is that if this does go ahead, the funding is used to support more public transport options.

Many planners used to think the solution to congestion is to build more roads or widen existing ones. The emerging trend is that this is no longer a viable approach and yes, like what you say, more should be done to encourage the change in attitude.

At a conference I attended a few month ago, many planners did face the trouble of finding fundings for PT projects because of several factors:

• Cost-benefits of transport projects

We know that in reality, the cost-benefits for public transport should be higher than that of roads. However, it's very hard to capture most of these benefits, as they're external benefits (e.g. opportunities for area redevelopment towards TOD style, support for higher population, etc.)

• Public transport projects are long term

Government of any levels wants to just be perceived to do something. Putting in transport projects (rail, light rail, etc.) takes a lot of time to put to ground. Most likely, they're no longer in the office by that time for some other issues people disagree with!

• Road projects supports the "perception" of doing something

Road projects are quicker to get to ground and supports the above! However, one more thing to note is that many bureaucrats do view road projects as "good for the community" and hence do not often get scrutinised over the cost-benefits ratio.

Infrastructure Australia has done wonders in getting some investment into public transport for some states who've yet to do anything in the recent years!

[ozbob]

Welcome XIII-Train! Thanks for your comments, hopefully we are on threshold of some very significant transport changes!

[stephenk]

If the Government want to introduce what is essentially a congestion charge, then they need to create an attractive public transport alternative to using the car. At the moment Brisbane's public transport is far from being an attractive alternative to car use.

[#Metro]

Hi XIII-Train,

A lot of benifits are external, and are difficult to capture, however the government should not have a problem capturing these benefits because they own the land adjacent to rail, bus etc and can use their powers of eminent domain to resume land. They also (theoretically) should spend less on road projects if PT is good at easing congestion.
I think MRT in Hong Kong captures benefits by allowing developers to build TODs and shopping centres atop their stations.

Often governments do have short terms, but it is rare to have a one term government. The last federal government lasted 11 years, and the current state government for QLD has been around since 1998. I think bureaucracy, NIMBY action and lengthy consultations are more of the reason why projects take so long. We are currently seeing this with the Gold Coast Rapid Transit project, the new bus depot proposed for Sherwood and, historically, with the Green Bridge at Dutton Pk (people were against a bus bridge, some people protested at potential encroachment onto buried bodies in the adjacent cemetery).

Road projects do look like "something" is happening. It's the placebo effect in my opinion. Though I think brand new busways and ferries also have a similar effect though. There is certainly more of a need to disclose key information like the cost benefit ratio, net present value and have side by side comparisons with car projects. The BCC Mass Transit Investigation did this, but other projects simply tell us how much was spent without telling us what the corresponding social benefit was in $. How much /kilometre does it cost to run a bus, train, metro, ferry as opposed to a car in Brisbane? or build a busway/rail line etc? Basic stats like this simply aren't released or are "commercial in confidence". Even a ballpark figure would help.

As for tolling, the RACQ along with PT groups want a tolling system. BCC is against a tolling system; I guess it is not hard to see why- put a toll on the CBD and all the councillors in the wards will get roasted in the polls from disgruntled motorists.

[O_128]

Beleive me whent he richlands spur opens there will be a hell of a lot of publicicty. eg ,cut travel times,integrateed transport.of course they will fail to mention that the line was supposed to be finished years ago