Congestion tax - articles discussion

[ozbob]

From the Courier Mail click here!

Driving in peak hour or on busy roads to cost more

Driving in peak hour or on busy roads to cost more
Article from: The Courier-Mail

Stefanie Balogh and Bruce McMahon

October 15, 2009 11:00pm

QUEENSLAND motorists will be forced to pay to drive on congested roads under a controversial proposal by Australia's Treasury boss, Ken Henry.

The man in charge of reforming the nation's tax system, Mr Henry, yesterday raised the prospect of congestion pricing to stop $9 billion being chewed up in peak-hour traffic snarls.

"Why have we stuck to the traditional fuel tax and rego model for roads, when sensible pricing seems to offer such large benefits?" he said.

Queensland drivers pay the nation's highest road-user costs.

Public transport costs in the southeast are set to soar after the Bligh Government unveiled a five-year pricing overhaul. Annual fares will jump 15 per cent from 2011 to 2014 but commuters will receive millions of dollars in giveaways and discounts to lure them to the new Go Card.

Brisbane residents pay the most expensive capital city petrol prices after the 8.3?- a-litre fuel subsidy was scrapped three months ago. Parking costs are also skyrocketing.

An RACQ survey of 2000 members found more than half of Brisbane's drivers would accept a $5 congestion tax if it meant less peak-hour traffic snarls on inner-city roads.

Dr Henry flagged the overhaul of road-user charges in his last public speech before he delivers his landmark review of Australia's tax and transfer system to the Rudd Government in December.

The Treasury boss said meaningful tax reform would mean prices changed so that people had more incentives to improve their lives.

But he warned reforms could also carry costs. The case for "tax reform must be so strong, so compelling, that it outweighs probable compensation costs".

He said the way compensation was provided could determine the success or failure of reforms.

Dr Henry said road-pricing reforms would be difficult, but overseas examples had shown it was possible.

The Australian Automobile Association last year suggested motorists be instantly billed for driving on congested roads during peak hours by automatic car identification systems similar to those used to electronically monitor cars on toll roads.

RACQ general manager for external relations Gary Fites said 50 per cent of the Brisbane drivers they surveyed regularly drove on congested roads and 93 per cent expected it to worsen over the next five years.

Mr Fites said those members willing to pay a small charge suggested it apply from 6.30am to 6.30pm or during morning and afternoon peak hours only.

The RACQ estimates that traffic congestion in Brisbane costs $1.59 billion a year and will top $3 billion by 2020.

[KS]

I can understand his point, most people own a car, even those who rarely use it.

They still have to pay the same rego as everyone else.

If rego and other charges were reduced then i think it would be a great idea.

so people who use public transport will pay less for their car (offsetting fare increases)

[ozbob]

I have noticed some advertising for motor vehicle insurance based on the distance the vehicle travels in a year.  Makes sense to me!  Do away with registration and just pay a fee based on the distance?

[Jon Bryant]

We have such a larger mode switch to achieve a truely sustainable transport system and we have spent the last 40 years building far too much road capacity that the introduction of a congestion charge is required.

I also support this not being a CBD only charge as 80% of our trips are around the CBD anyway.  It must also not be included as part of car packages and the tax benefits that currently encourage car usage.

The key is to provide a fast, frequent and comprehensive (i.e. you can get around the whole city easily and quickly) altenative public and active transport network across our cities.  At the current point in time we are in a Catch 22 though.  Out public transport is not currently frequent or comprehensive enough and the introduction of a congestion charge would disadvantage poeple who live in the outlying areas that currently have poor service (i.e. forced to drive as there is no real alternative).  They caould alsways drive to the nearest railway station that does not trigger a charge.

I do wonder if we would see a dramatic drop in road use similar to the school holidays thus making the buses more efficient.  London saw a 18% drop now stable around 21%.  Importantly the reduction in cars/minivans was around 37%. They had a significant underground and bus system to start with though.  Thier reports to seem to indicate that the biggest change was to bus patronage but they may be due to (1) added capacity just prior and (2) little increase in service on an overloaded tube system.

Annual London Review if you are interest - http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/congestioncharging/6722.aspx#2

Interested in others thoughts!!

[#Metro]

I am a bit skeptical when people say "80% of trips are around the CBD". (Though I agree with what Jon B says).

The first question I ask is "where is the congestion",
the second question I ask is "is it desirable to remove it/lessen it at that location?". Most cases that would be yes.

The Brisbane CBD is encircled by a ring of congested roads. At what locations would the congestion charges apply?
Are the ICB, R.Expressway, Milton Rd, Gympie Road, roads to the Airport, Pacific Motorway exempt from the CBD definition?

It is a bit paradoxical that someone can say "80% of trips are around the CBD" (i.e. not in or through it) but then match that with the fact that most people work in the CBD. So what are people doing? Driving from Carindale and Parking at Toowong and then walking/bus/train into the CBD? Something doesn't make sense.

[Jon Bryant]

I will find the background to the 80% to check that it is correct.  This will include a whole lot of trips that are not communte related as well.

[ozbob]

From the Brisbanetimes click here!

Congestion tax 'not viable' in Brisbane

Congestion tax 'not viable' in Brisbane
TONY MOORE
October 16, 2009 - 4:24PM

A congestion tax for motorists driving through Brisbane's CBD will not be viable for at least 20 years, when new road projects will offer free alternative routes around the city.

Lord Mayor Campbell Newman said 40 per cent of Brisbane traffic currently travelled through the city's heart, making a congestion tax far too expensive.

Congestion was costing Brisbane $3 billion annually, and until future road projects to draw traffic away form the CBD were built, a congestion charge was not the answer, he said.

"I can see that in 20 years time, when the various projects that are on the drawing board are implemented, something like that, at that stage might be worthy of investigation," Cr Newman said.

"But today we've not got the roads and we have a proposal for a new tax to drive people out of their cars," he said.

Almost all new cross-city transport infrastructure projects  including the Brisbane's Clem 7 tunnel (early 2010), Hale Street Link  (mid 2010), the second Gateway Bridge (2011), the Airport Link (2012) and Northern Link (2014)  will be tolled.

Cr Newman said the projects were tolled because both the state and federal governments had neglected Brisbane's road system.
A congestion tax scheme forces motorists to pay more if they want to travel either into the central city or through certain city zones and is designed to discourage city driving.

The $18 dollar congestion charge introduced for  central London drivers in 2003 has taken 70,000 cars  - equivalent to 20 per cent of the city's traffic - off London's city roads and has cut carbon emissions by 16 per cent, the head of the UK scheme says.

But Cr Newman said Brisbane did not have the public transport network, or the ring road network to make it work.

"London, for a start has a much better public transport network and it also has the M25 ring road around London," he said.

"My point is that there is a viable bypass infrastructure and we don't have that here."

Australia's Treasury boss Ken Henry, reviewing Australia's tax system, yesterday suggested Australian states reconsider the idea of a local congestion tax to  break the shackles of congestion costs.

Cr Newman today invited Mr Henry to Brisbane to examine  ways of reducing Brisbane's annual $3 billion congestion bill.

He again raised the issue of the Federal Government spending a greater share of the $14 billion revenue it received from oil and petrol sales on roads.

While the RACQ supports a congestion tax scheme, Queensland's Department of Main Roads officially opposes it.
However Main Roads Minister Craig Wallace told a Budget Estimates Hearings in July that an effective congestion-busting model twas being sought out.

"It would be highly irresponsible for my department not to examine all of those options," Mr Wallace said.

"In this regard the department continues to explore world's best practice in tolling and innovative tolling strategies involving distance, time and travel, vehicle occupancy and carbon emissions."

[#Metro]

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/congestion-tax-not-viable-in-brisbane-20091016-h0uw.html

Mr Newman say that a congestion tax is not viable, as only 40% of people go via the city?
Where is everyone going? Don't people work in the CBD anymore? Something is wrong here.

The other thing is of course, he wants people to use his toll way so that it pays for itself.

[#Metro]

Trial trial trial 

I have started a thread on this. Do an experiment and get your answer.

[david]

I'm a bit puzzled by Campbell Newman's response. In my opinion, there should be a CBD congestion tax, but to compensate, all tolls should be removed from the Gateway, Clem7, Logan, Hale St Link, Airport Link, Northern Link, etc. Only then will people have the incentive to bypass the city (if only 40% of trips really go through the CBD). I bet he's looking out for his political career...

[ozbob]

From the Courier Mail click here!

Brisbane traffic congestion tax slammed by Campbell Newman

Brisbane traffic congestion tax slammed by Campbell Newman
Article from: The Courier-Mail

Ursula Heger and Stefanie Balogh

October 16, 2009 11:00pm

A CONGESTION tax which would force motorists to pay to drive in Brisbane's CBD or on major arterials was yesterday opposed by Lord Mayor Campbell Newman.

The Lord Mayor said he was "deeply concerned" by the prospect of a congestion charge, saying the problem could be solved by better public transport and roads funding.

The federal Opposition has also questioned the move.

Earlier this week Australia's Treasury secretary Ken Henry raised the prospect of congestion tolling in capital cities to prevent the $9 billion lost annually to traffic jams.

But Cr Newman said taxes were already being pulled from motorists through the fuel excise, and should be returned to Brisbane City Council to improve the roads and public transport networks.

"The Federal Government collects $14 billion a year in fuel excise," Cr Newman said.

"That money doesn't come back to the city of Brisbane, certainly the fuel excise is not coming to BCC, who is responsible for parts of the public transport system and the operation and maintenance of 6000km of road.

"I don't want tolls on the Clem7 tunnel, the Go-Between Bridge or the Airport Link that the state is building, and if that fuel money came back to Brisbane you wouldn't need tolls."

Cr Newman said he would only consider a congestion tax once a ring-road network was complete.

"We don't have a problem of congestion with people travelling to the CBD, we have a problem with people going about their business, but having to use CBD streets," he said.

"I can see in 20 years time, when the various plans that are on the board are implemented, something like (a congestion tax) might be worthy of investigation, but today we have not got the roads and we have a proposal for a new tax to drive people out of their cars."

In Brisbane, the annual cost of congestion has reached $1.59 billion annually, and is expected to increase to more than $3 billion by 2020.

The state's peak motoring body RACQ said yesterday if a congestion charge was introduced, a model could be implemented to make toll roads free for those paying the charge.

"In New York they had (a proposal) similar to what we could have here in Brisbane," spokesman Gary Fites said.

"There they were going to effectively credit the toll rather than paying twice. You pay the congestion charge but you would have the toll for using the arterials effectively credited to their account.

"It puts the charge on those who are coming into the city, not those travelling around it."

Meanwhile, federal Coalition Treasury spokesman Joe Hockey said any move toward a congestion tax would hurt small business.

"The question for the Government is ? do you support this proposal?

"Or are you happy for the Secretary of Treasury to run around the country raising the prospect of new taxes that are going to hit small businesses, in particular, between the eyes," Mr Hockey said yesterday.

[#Metro]

Cr Newman said he would only consider a congestion tax once a ring-road network was complete.

I love the way politicians make their concessions conditional on something subjective and, well, impossible.
Who decides when the "network is complete"?

The truth is that there is no escape from paying.
A person who pays $1 toll saves $x of time.
A person who chooses to wait is also paying because time has a value. And sitting in traffic hurts businesses too.
If you're a freight company or a truckie, the road might be free to drive on, but if it is blocked then that is not much use to you is it now?
And it will cost your business to be stuck in congestion. And unlike ordinary commuters, the walk, bus, bicycle, train, and ferry options are not available to you.

Of course they could provide a sliding scale or treat different groups differently- like the london congestion charge or like the gateway (where it is cheaper to ride a motorbike than take, say a truck over the bridge). And if there are equity concerns, give people the choice between waiting and paying with a HOT lane.

Do politicians think we're stupid or what? Even the RACQ (of all organisations- the road lobby!) wants a congestion charge.

[stephenk]

I've said this before, and I'll say it again. If there is to be a congestion charge, then public transport needs to be a credible alternative. At the moment this is not the case, and a lot of investment is required in public transport before a congestion charge should be introduced.

[david]

I've said this before, and I'll say it again. If there is to be a congestion charge, then public transport needs to be a credible alternative. At the moment this is not the case, and a lot of investment is required in public transport before a congestion charge should be introduced.

I believe that public transport should be FREE if there is to be any congestion tax. It's simply not fair to have a charge on all means of getting into the city. The tax should be high enough to cover the current subsidy. An alternative would be to charge people using PT so little, that it would almost be free anyway.

Just a thought - Isn't it a bit silly to put tolls on our roads which bypass the city (i.e. Gateway, Logan, Clem7). Does that really solve our congestion issues in the CBD? People who can't afford to pay tolls/couldn't be bothered to will continue to use the roads leading into the CBD for a free trip. Wouldn't it be more productive to remove the tolls from the Gateway, Logan and Clem7 and implement a CBD tax???

[Derwan]

I believe that public transport should be FREE if there is to be any congestion tax. It's simply not fair to have a charge on all means of getting into the city. The tax should be high enough to cover the current subsidy. An alternative would be to charge people using PT so little, that it would almost be free anyway.

Unless you walk or ride a push bike, it is not free to get into the city.  You still pay for fuel in your car.  A congestion tax would increase the cost of taking your car - making PT more attractive.  There is already a cost either way.

Just a thought - Isn't it a bit silly to put tolls on our roads which bypass the city (i.e. Gateway, Logan, Clem7). Does that really solve our congestion issues in the CBD? People who can't afford to pay tolls/couldn't be bothered to will continue to use the roads leading into the CBD for a free trip. Wouldn't it be more productive to remove the tolls from the Gateway, Logan and Clem7 and implement a CBD tax???

This has been my point for a while - and I even wrote an article about it just over 2 years ago. In it I even mention the idea of daily caps.

[Jon Bryant]

Just a thought - Isn't it a bit silly to put tolls on our roads which bypass the city (i.e. Gateway, Logan, Clem7). Does that really solve our congestion issues in the CBD? People who can't afford to pay tolls/couldn't be bothered to will continue to use the roads leading into the CBD for a free trip. Wouldn't it be more productive to remove the tolls from the Gateway, Logan and Clem7 and implement a CBD tax???

The issue is not just congestion it is unsustainable travel habits and starting to protect us from the impacts of Peak Oil.  In addition. the routes you mention for not tolling are congested as well.  It is also predicted that Clem 7 will be congested from day one.

The idea of a congestion toll is to change people's travel habits.  Currently we have 80% of trips going around the City and all by motor vehicle. This is not sustainable. The congestion charge should be on all major roads not just the CBD.  If we could have traffic volumes drop for cars similar to London (37%) then we would be well on the way to a sustainable transport network.

If Campbell Newman and the RACQ are allowed to keep building more and more roads then this city will reach gridlock in 5-10 years, our air will be toxic and out economy in rapid decline as Peak Oil hits.

The congestion charge needs to be instigated to get people to chnage their habits.  It is not acceptable for people to live in Caboolture and work in Logan or Live on the Gold Coast and work in Chermside.  It is just not sustainable on so many levels.  My children are paying for it with the health as they breath in the toxic fumes from what these people see as their "right" to drive these distances daily on uncongested roads.  Well where are my childrens right to live a clean and healthy life.  Stomped on in the name of $$#@@ progress.

[#Metro]

I think it is a bit of a bind, in so many different ways.

For example, should you supply PT services to far places?

If you do then:
- this is going to cost more to run the PT system
           *leading to an undersupply/misallocation of PT (Why am I missing out?)
           *higher ticket prices (The gov is ripping me off!)
           *budget black hole (The gov is being run by economic mismanagers!)
- encourage even more people to live in urban sprawl in far off places
           (The gov is destroying our environment!)

If you don't then:
- some people who live out there will be disadvantaged. E.g. can't afford/don't want to live in Brisbane;
          (The gov does not care for the disadvantaged or poor!)
- Not giving people (or developers) what they want, so they are more likely to vote you out
           (The gov taxes me and does not support my business! The gov is keeping cheap housing away from first homeowners!)
- Encourage these people to use cars
           (The gov is encouraging people to use cars!)

If you tax people, they will feel ripped off (It was free, and now the gov is ripping me off!)
If you don't tax people, they will complain about congestion (I pay my taxes, what are they doing!)
If you ban people from living away from the CBD, then they will feel controlled and vote you out. (The gov is being draconian! I want my freedom!)

Difficult isn't it?

[Jon Bryant]

Tramtram. This is where we need to bring urban planning, neighbourhood design and housing design in to play. 

Firstly, we should develop a compact city that allows for public and active transport to cater for the 60% + trips.  This does not mean those on the lower end of the socio-econmic scale need to be disadvantaged.  I do think though that if people want to live on rural property then they do pay for it in time.  Why should they live a long way from their jobs and expect to drive uncongested to work.  There has to be a trade off.  We also need to keep our rual lands in production as semi-rural properties in Australia are some of the most degraded lands plus we need the food.

To keep the cost of hosing down in a compact city we need to have much greater diversity in housing in every suburb (duplexes, granny flats, aparts above the garage), apartments above the corner store/local shops (2-3 storey), mixed use commerical centre (5-7 storeys), TODs (10-12) and dispersed regional mixed use town centres (CBD heights). We also need to allow much gerater flexibility in land uses and focus on urban form first (i.e. you can build a 3 storey house next door to a 3 storey set of apartments that fit together design wise).  The effect is to create much greater diversity and lcoation of housing that we have today.  The changes over the last 10 years have only scratched the surface of density and mix. 

Further a compact city that is well serviced by public/active transport is going to be cheaper to build than the current urban form of endless freeways and a smaller burden on our taxes (e.g health, etc). It also allows greater access to jobs for lower socio-economic households and the financial burden of a second or even first car can be avoided.

I also beleive there are a number of studies form the 1990's that showed the additinal costs of commuitung from outer susburbs far outways the additional cost of closer housing.  The problem one is operating (ongoing) costs and the other is capital (upfront) costs.

I also think there needs to be a physcial maximum that a city can grow to that is sustainable (socially, environmentally and economically)and at the peak of economy of scale.  When a city reaches that level the next city becomes the growth focus rather than putting more and more people into the same city. I am not saying that we cap it at a level that allows unsustable development but keeps it to a minimum (aka Sunshine Coast).  I am saying we develop the most sustainable cities possible but they have am upper limit. 

[#Metro]

Firstly, we should develop a compact city that allows for public and active transport to cater for the 60% + trips.  This does not mean those on the lower end of the socio-econmic scale need to be disadvantaged.  I do think though that if people want to live on rural property then they do pay for it in time.  Why should they live a long way from their jobs and expect to drive uncongested to work.  There has to be a trade off.  We also need to keep our rual lands in production as semi-rural properties in Australia are some of the most degraded lands plus we need the food.

I think most trips in New York are by PT. PT can also be cheap, if things are run efficiently.
Bogota is an example, lots of people who cannot afford a car. And Bogota's PT receives ZERO subsidy.
It may also come down to planning. It has always puzzled me how people can argue endlessly over a single, simple number- "what height should a building be?".

Increasing density (i.e. by raising building heights) can be a problem. Moves to build new residences in West End, Long Pocket and Yeronga (mostly on government land or in industrial estates where nobody lives!) have had stiff opposition.

[#Metro]

Jon B, as you seem to be interested in modal split, here is Bogota's for 1995 (haven't found a recent one):
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTURBANTRANSPORT/Resources/Factsheet-TransMilenio.pdf

Modal split in 1995
o Bus:55.7%
o Car:14.9%
o Taxi:4.0%
o Truck:2.5%
o Motorcycle: 0.4%
o Walking:
22.5%
? In 1995 the total number of bus trips/day was 8.3 million. In early 2004,
TransMilenio carried about 0.9 million passengers/day.

This video shows the system. Notice how some stations are enclosed at the platform with glass sliding doors, and also multi-door boarding. (Making everyone use go card will allow multi-door boarding).