Article: Toll wars: peak hour hikes not on Brisbane's agenda

[ozbob]

From Brisbanetimes click here!

Toll wars: peak hour hikes not on Brisbane's agenda

Toll wars: peak hour hikes not on Brisbane's agenda
TONY MOORE
September 4, 2009 - 5:47AM

Higher tolls in peak hours are not on Brisbane's transport agenda despite figures revealed this week that show its positive impact on road congestion.

New South Wales government statistics show motorists using Sydney's tunnels and bridges have been persuaded to travel outside peak hours as a result of the introduction of higher tolls at those times.

Brisbane's Lord Mayor Campbell Newman said the concept was considerd here in 2005-6 when the Clem7 tunnel and Hale Street Link bridge contracts were first considered.

However, the idea is unlikely to be pursued in the immediate future.

The concept of higher tolls in peak hour and cheaper tolls outside peak hour is also highlighted in Infrastructure Partnerships Australia's August 2009 report: Planning for Growth in South East Queensland.

The report argues that such tolls should be used in Brisbane to get the best use of transport infrastructure.

It says: "To date, tolling in South East Queensland has been used as a mechanism to finance new road developments, not as a mechanism to influence wider travel demand and use of the transport network.

"Transport planners and policymakers should consider how demand management solutions, such as pricing, could be introduced in the future ... an inconsistent tolling regime can result in sub-optimal use of the transport network."

In Sydney, "time of day" tolling began on January 1 on the Sydney Harbour Bridge, the Sydney Harbour Tunnel, and the Gladesville and Ryde bridges.

Under the scheme tolls have been increased from $3 to $4 in the peak hours between 6.30am to 9.30am, while before 6.30am they cost $2.50. Between 9.30am and the afternoon peak hours they cost $3.

In the afternoon peak period the toll also costs $4.

In the first six months of the scheme, the average results across the three bridges and tunnel show that:
- before the 6.30am peak , the traffic has increased by an average of 13 per cent;
- between 6.30am and 9.30am peak there has been a two per cent drop in traffic while;
- the number of vehicles using the bridges and tunnel have grown by 1.9 per cent.

Brisbane will introduce its first two new cross-river transport routes next year - the Clem7 tunnel from Bowen Hills to Woolloongabba and the Hale Street Bridge from Milton to South Brisbane.

Cr Newman said while time of day tolling was previously considered the decision was made to introduce flat toll prices to allow commuters to get used to the Clem7 tunnel and bridge.

He said Sydneysiders had used tunnels for 10 years and on and off peak tolling was used to share the load on the busy infrastructure.

"I guess they have a problem with capacity and there are so many people using the tunnels or the piece of infrastructure that is tolled. They are trying to spread it out a bit now," he said.

"It is not out of the question for here but it is not on the agenda for these things."

Changes to the tolls for the Clem7 tunnel and the Hale Street Link would need State Government approval as they had been set at flat rates, Cr Newman said.

"The only way that can be changed is if the State Government ultimately reviewed that and committed to it," he said.
"But it isn't allowed - so to speak - at this time."

The Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW said it was too early to say if the time of day tolling had generated any extra income.

When it was announced the RTA said it would raise $12m a year which could be used to buy 300 buses to boost public transport.

[ozbob]

From the Sunday Mail click here!

Angry commuters to drive revolt over $4.20 Clem7 toll

Angry commuters to drive revolt over $4.20 Clem7 toll
Article from: The Sunday Mail (Qld)

Daryl Passmore

September 27, 2009 12:00am

BRISBANE'S soon-to-be-completed road tunnel under the river is shaping up as a $3 billion white elephant, with motorists declaring they won't use the tollway.

Three-quarters of respondents to The Sunday Mail's Queensland Speaks survey said they would refuse to pay the $4.20 toll to use the Clem7 when it opens early next year.

The 6.8km link between Bowen Hills and Woolloongaba is expected to shave a third of the time off cross-city travel but only 16 per cent of people said they would use it.

The Clem7 toll ? $4.20 for cars and up to $11.12 for heavy vehicles ? is set to trigger a commuter revolt.

This would be a major blow to Lord Mayor Campbell Newman, who has built his political career on the TransApex strategy of new roads and tunnels to solve Brisbane's escalating traffic congestion. The Clem7 tunnel is the first link in the chain ? and one of the most expensive.

"Frankly, if 16 per cent of people do use the Clem7 tunnel, we'd be exceeding our projections," Cr Newman said.

Council has estimated that 74,000 vehicles a day would use the tunnel ? 2 per cent of trips in the council area.

Kallangur truck driver Peter Venn, 42, said he would avoid the toll tunnel and stick to congested arterial roads to save money.

"I personally wouldn't use (the Clem7)."

Mr Venn said he had sworn off toll roads after spending $68 a week on tolls travelling from Kallangur to Wacol each day in his previous job

A reluctance by motorists to use the Clem7 would also hurt the 10,000 investors in ASX-listed RiverCity Motorway Group, which is building the tunnel in a public-private partnership with the city council and will operate the tollway once it's complete. A company spokesman said the group was confident sufficient volumes of traffic would be attracted.

RACQ general manager Gary Fites said the survey results were further evidence of motorists' resistance to tolls.

He warned the BCC against any attempt to force drivers to use the new tunnel by closing nearby roads, as happened in Sydney when motorists gave the new Cross City Tunnel a big swerve.

The Lord Mayor said that would not happen.

The four-lane Clem7 has been designed to cut out up to 24 sets of traffic lights, clipping 15 minutes from the cross-city journey.

Company projections estimate that 60,000 vehicles a day will use the tunnel when it opens between February and April 2010, rising to around 100,000 over 18 months. The BCC expects the tunnel will take 23,500 cars off the Story Bridge by 2016, 15,000 from the Riverside Expressway and 7900 off Ipswich Rd.

Under an agreement with council, RiverCity will waive the toll for three days for every month they finish ahead of the contract completion date in October.

A study by national transport analyst Ausroads in May showed morning peak-hour congestion in Brisbane was the worst in the country.

Mr Newman agreed traffic woes had worsened in the past year but said completion of Clem7 ? along with the Hale Street Link and the State Government's Gateway Bridge duplication ? would make an enormous difference over the coming year, adding 14 traffic lanes across the river.

The survey results show that two-thirds of respondents are opposed to the idea of a "congestion tax" on traffic entering Brisbane's inner city, while 24 per cent approve.

Just over a quarter (26 per cent) said they had used public transport in the previous week. But 61 per cent said they would use it if better services were available and 37 per cent said cheaper fares would encourage them.

Transport Minister Rachel Nolan said the State Government was spending $17 billion on transport infrastructure to help cope with rapid population growth. She released figures showing morning peak travel times on five major arterial routes in to the city had been reduced between 2006 and 2008.

Yet gridlock in the state's metro areas is so bad it's driving people to pack up and leave.

One in six people who completed the survey said they would consider moving from the southeast because of congestion.

Matt Mercer and his wife, Mel, shifted three hours north to Maryborough ? driven to distraction by traffic woes on Brisbane's southside.

Mr Mercer, a real estate agent, said: "

Now it takes me one minute and 30 seconds from getting in the car and closing the garage door to getting out at the office. I can pop home for lunch and go back to work and still have time to burn."

[ozbob]

The survey results show that two-thirds of respondents are opposed to the idea of a "congestion tax" on traffic entering Brisbane's inner city, while 24 per cent approve.

Just over a quarter (26 per cent) said they had used public transport in the previous week. But 61 per cent said they would use it if better services were available and 37 per cent said cheaper fares would encourage them.

Some interesting figures there ...  the main PT drivers are frequency and accessibility.  Fares are important but not the most critical factor.  Having frequent services that you can actually use/board is the key.  Then the savings in reduced congestion  and environmental impacts and less health costs far outweighs the cost of public transport.

[haakon]

That article is pretty much a repeat of what is said before every other toll road in Australia (and probably the world) opened.

[#Metro]

Toll price complaints expected.
There is a thing called "stated preference" and "revealed preference".
Of course people aren't going to say 'yes' to being taxed more. People want everything for nothing.
Car drivers are making excuses. The Gateway imposes tolls, and it is so full it needs duplication;
This proves that you can charge people if you give them a quick trip. The Gateway doesn't even go to the CBD.

To find out what people really prefer, the best, least ambiguous way would be to run an experiment.
We had a natural experiment when the Riverside Expressway was shut down(1).

? Overall public transport patronage increased by about 8.5 per cent during the closures.
?  Many people surveyed after the incident said they intended to continue their new travel behaviour in
the long term. [Stated Preference]

BUT

? Travel patterns virtually revert to prior levels when network links are reopened. [Revealed Preference]

Better to focus on quality and efficiency, rather than cheap/free fares.
The BUZ services demonstrate that PT frequency and predictability are important, and there is latent demand for high frequency buses. This could also be true for trains. (Perhaps they should 'sectorise' the ferries too).

Providing free transport, and increasing service connectivity and frequency, are competing goals.
You lose the farebox revenue, and then you are faced with so much demand that you have to somehow buy heaps of buses/trains/rails/busways/drivers. I would be willing to pay a bit more for a bit more service back. I would value a quality transport system, over a "cheap but nasty" one. (2) The Gateway, and other toll ways in Queensland demonstrate that this is also true for roads.

From (2):

The cases studied here demonstrate that for many persons the
overall quality of public transport remains low compared with that of other modes, so
that they will not shift transport mode even when public transport would become free.

The moral? You have to pay for quality.

References:
(1) "Riverside Expressway Transport Network Investgation and Network Analysis in
www.bfa.asn.au/cms/uploads/resources/oil_shocks_salomon.pdf  (I couldn't find the original QT report)
(2) http://www.istiee.org/te/papers/N32/02%20van%20goeverden%20_5-25_.pdf.

[haakon]

Nice post Tramtrain

[Jon Bryant]

Agree.  Nice post Tramtram.  I also agree that a quality transport system is the end goal not a "cheap but nasty" one and that free public transport encourages travel for the sake of travel.   Having said that a "low fare public transport system" need not immediately translate into a "cheap but nasty" system.

I would argue that losing some of the farebox revenue "so that you are faced with so much demand that that you have to somehow buy heaps of buses/trains/rails/busways/drivers" is in fact a great outcome.  I know that that is far easier said than done and all the investment needs to be made up front.  However, with such a large modal shift the lost revenue would be easily catered for through reduced spending on roads, reduced health costs from less air pollution, road carnage and a healthier society, reduced finiacial burden from car ownership on lower socio-economic families, greater access to jobs/employment and finally reduced congestion cost on the economy.

[somebody]

Agree.  Nice post Tramtram.  I also agree that a quality transport system is the end goal not a "cheap but nasty" one and that free public transport encourages travel for the sake of travel.   Having said that a "low fare public transport system" need not immediately translate into a "cheap but nasty" system.

I would argue that losing some of the farebox revenue "so that you are faced with so much demand that that you have to somehow buy heaps of buses/trains/rails/busways/drivers" is in fact a great outcome.  I know that that is far easier said than done and all the investment needs to be made up front.  However, with such a large modal shift the lost revenue would be easily catered for through reduced spending on roads, reduced health costs from less air pollution, road carnage and a healthier society, reduced finiacial burden from car ownership on lower socio-economic families, greater access to jobs/employment and finally reduced congestion cost on the economy.

But wasn't tramtrain's point that free transport and high ridership is an unlikely outcome?  The funding has to come from somewhere, and giving pollies too much incentive to cut funding can often bite you in the bum.  Ozbob also said "Fares are important but not the most critical factor".

[Jon Bryant]

If we are to truely develop a sustainable transport system in SEQ we need to have public and active transport handling over 60% of all trips. We are around 20% at the moment.  To achieve these levels there has to be a massive change in our travel habits. Certainly frequency, reach, speed and quality of service are the most critical factors. No point having a cheap service that does not go where you need it when you need it.

I was just pointing out that every additional person who takes public or active transport (or does not need to travel) saves us all in the long run.  Our Government's should not look at public transport as a money making venture rather they need to see it as a cost avoidance venture.

Thus low cost transport and high ridership could be a likely outcome.

[#Metro]

Nice to see lots of discussion.

I would argue that losing some of the farebox revenue "so that you are faced with so much demand that that you have to somehow buy heaps of buses/trains/rails/busways/drivers" is in fact a great outcome.

I think that it is not so great; Translink gets put in a bind where everything is overcrowding but it has no funds to put on new services.
So service level, by definition, drops. And this is exactly the situation we have at the moment. People at Normanby (was it?) have 333's and other buses whizz by full, and Translink seems unable to find the cash put on the new services for them.

Thus low cost transport and high ridership could be a likely outcome.

There is an alternative though, and this is possible, with efficiencies.
Bogota's Transmilenio system is the perfect example. It actually makes money, a trip is unbelievably cheap at just 0.64 US cents (75 cents Australian), and it carries 1.4 million people daily.

*No buying tickets on the bus
*Busway stations have fare gates
*Free feeder buses
*Large buses on exclusive busway.

In Brisbane, people buy tickets on the bus which holds it up (ruins GoCard efficiency),
There are no fare gates or ticket machines at most railway and busway stations
so people don't pay, or they ask questions to the driver when they could simply have an interactive
person on a screen (or iPhone) talk to them (it's not hard, Skype exists). You have to drive and find
a parking space etc etc...

The same idea might be applied to rail with free feeder buses, fare gates or bikeways.
The problem with Brisbane is that it is low low density. This skews options towards roads.

Translink should run a trial, just like Melbourne is happy to do trials of different ideas.
Trial a 66 + 109, even if it is just a single bus during peak hour. Trial a different fare structure on a small group volunteers (compensate them when the trial is done),Trial free pensioner transport on Sunday, Trial free feeder buses.

Trials are worthwhile things less risky than making a multi-billion dollar commitment upfront when the results are uncertain. Trials have already led to better transport at cultural centre (painting bus bays, making the station pre-pay during the peak).

[#Metro]

http://www.trb.org/PublicTransportation/Public/Blurbs/Transit_IDEA_Project_Proposal_Solicitation_162281.aspx

[Jon Bryant]

We are of the same thinking indeed and all the ideas you put forward should be implemented immediately. The one difference is around your quote

I think that it is not so great; Translink gets put in a bind where everything is overcrowding but it has no funds to put on new services.
So service level, by definition, drops. And this is exactly the situation we have at the moment. People at Normanby (was it?) have 333's and other buses whizz by full, and Translink seems unable to find the cash put on the new services for them.

I may be a dreamer but Translink (who I support) should not be put in a bind due to a lack of fund.  All levels io Government are spending billions building more and more roads which as we all know just encourages the traffic to fill them. It is this message that we must champion until it gets through to our politians.  This money should be redirected to public transport immediately and thus available to Translink or PT in general.


Every dollar spent on PT saves you 1000's on roads.

[somebody]

I may be a dreamer but Translink (who I support) should not be put in a bind due to a lack of fund.  All levels io Government are spending billions building more and more roads which as we all know just encourages the traffic to fill them. It is this message that we must champion until it gets through to our politians.  This money should be redirected to public transport immediately and thus available to Translink or PT in general.


Every dollar spent on PT saves you 1000's on roads.

You may be, but one place I agree with you 100% is the Airport Link.  Building this link while running the airport line crappily?  Who taught them economics.

[mufreight]

Translink is too busy trying to build an empire to provide service.
The purpose of the creation of Translink was to provide co-ordination of public transport in SEQ not for Translink to be a service provider attempting to micro manage public transport.
The recent mates style appointment of Mr Branagan on a salary of $350.000 to Translink as a rail services administrator is an blatant example of Translink wasting our money to build an increasingly disfunctional empire that seems more intent on disuading commuters from the use of services rather than providing more and better standards of service to encourage patronage.