Poll - Do you support a road congestion tax for Brisbane?

[ozbob]

Is it time for a road congestion tax in Brisbane?

Background:

Do you support the view of the International Association of Public Transport and others that a congestion tax (toll) is both desirable and inevitable?

RAIL Back On Track in commentary has suggested a number of times that such a tax is highly likely but also contingent on much improved public transport frequency and accessibility.  

From the Brisbanetimes click here!

Commuters should pay for traffic gridlocks: experts
March 6, 2010 - 5:34AM

Commuters should be slugged with congestion taxes to ease gridlock that's costing the nation billions of dollars, public transport experts said in Brisbane yesterday.

A federal government report - the State of Australian Cities - revealed yesterday that road congestion cost the economy an estimated $9.4 billion in 2005, with the figure expected to balloon to $20 billion by 2020.

The International Public Transport Association said that unless immediate and decisive action was taken by all governments, cities were in danger of grinding to a halt.

"Imagine every city in Australia ... in gridlock during peak times and suffering the environmental, social and economic costs of urban congestion," executive director Peter Moore said in a statement.

"We need to stop this nightmare from becoming a reality."

The State of Australian Cities report forecasts Australia's population will grow to 36 million by 2050 and transport-related emissions to grow by more than 20 per cent between 2007 and 2020.

Professor John Stanley from the University of Sydney's Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies said congestion charging should feature prominently as part of an overhaul of Australia's road pricing and taxation system.

"We need a more accurate road pricing system which reflects the real costs of road travel, including congestion, health costs, air and noise pollution," Professor Stanley said in a statement.

"It is now time for a full investigation into how we can most effectively bring in congestion charging in our cities."

AAP

[Jon Bryant]

London's congestion charges has been a masive success on all levels...for the people, for business and for the environment...and the politicians.  Implement it NOW!!!!

[stephenk]

London's congestion tax worked well. It reduced traffic in central London, and considerably improved bus services. London already had good public transport which provided an alternative to using cars. The congestion charge was so successful in reducing traffic, that it made less money than was forecast.

I could only support a congestion charge in Brisbane if that money went directly to public transport spending. Even then, Brisbane is so far behind in having a good public transport alternative (there are still public transport black holes in suburbs), that we would need considerable investment in public transport before any congestion charge should be introduced. To introduce a congestion charge now when so many people do not have access to decent public transport would be a disgrace.

[#Metro]

There are good and bad points about this

If people are traveling to work, then they will make 2 trips per day into the CBD. This would be very hard to change without major CBD-like development around the outer areas (Chermside/Garden City) as there are poor levels of employment in the suburbs surrounding Brisbane. So the planning has to change.

So 1. There is likely to be a large number of people going to work in the CBD in the future, as is the case now.

IMHO The main thing is the alternative. If you charge people you must give them an alternative. Would we be able to fit them onto the QR Citytrain network? or Buses? I really doubt it. Thus the need for the ICRCS and a Metro system, all before 2026.

[#Metro]

2. Can our public transport system cope? Can we double its capacity across all modes?

Public Transport Mode Share during peak hour is something like 40% PT : 60 % Car trips or thereabouts.
If 80% PT : 20% Car peak hour split were to be achieved, this would suggest a doubling of all services (and this is assuming constant population, which is not true).

Presumably, 2x as many buses, 2x as many trains and 2x as many CityCat ferries are needed to achieve this, during peak hour. It seems that an ICRCS tunnel will simply be not enough for an 80% split.


Our networks during peak hour are already full.
If you charge people a toll, you must be able to make sure that an alternative exists and is ready and has the capacity to take them. Any toll would have to be low to start with and then increase at PT increases.

I think that Metro will be needed well before 2026. The SE Busway will be overcapacity by then even under superbus or Light Rail scenarios. Queen St, King George Square will probably be overcapacity as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mode_share

Interestingly Zurich is not the city in Europe with the highest mode share. The closest to the 80% target isn't Zurich, but Bratislava (Slovakia) with 70%. (Population 428, 791). Pity that other parts of the world weren't audited (Hong Kong etc).

[Peter]

Congestion is caused by too many people trying to get to the same place at the same time.  The answer is to stabilise the population and the levels of activity in certain places.  We do have a CHOICE.  The country does not have to grow to 36 million.  With people come cars; everyone needs a car.  You might disagree with that but that is a fact.  Managed growth is good.  Rapid growth will simply destroy the reasonably functioning Australian cities today.  Why can't we simply say Brisbane is at capacity.  No more offices in the CBD will mean stabilising that issue.  Then governments can say you can build the office blocks (and houses) elsewhere - this may mean a new city or cities somewhere.  Now that is a good idea.

[#Metro]

Brisbane was the city to go to as Melbourne and Sydney were 'getting big'.
Now look what has happened.

On a world scale, Australian Cities have very low population.
Its how the form cities have taken which facilitates congestion.

I think the government saying "don't build here" is problematic.
If every city in Australia did that, we would be back to square one.
It is also very heavy handed and upset many people I think.

A quick look at Vienna, Bratislava and Zurich on Google Maps shows:
1. The cities are compact and small
2. The surrounding suburbs are all appear to be high density units
3. There doesn't appear to be many 'satellite cities' at all.

Google Maps (scale bar is in the bottom left corner for comparison)
Vienna
Zurich
Bratislava

and for comparison
Brisbane
Melbourne
Sydney

Even Hong Kong is tiny when compared to say, Melbourne or Sydney.
And at how much green space Hong Kong has!

In short, one possible idea might be to compress Brisbane.
This can be done by declaring an urban growth boundary and permitting higher density within the boundary.

[paulg]

Yes I support a congestion charge, but the scheme could be a lot smarter than the London example.

Stockholm has implemented a scheme with charges varying according to the time of day:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_congestion_tax

The next logical improvement is to base the charge on real time traffic data. The charge would be zero for most of the day (when congestion is low) but would increase steeply as network capacity is reached. I imagine a cordon something like this could be set up:


The charge would only be imposed for entering the area (not on exit). Note that the Clem7 could be used to bypass the congestion charging zone. The Go Between Bridge toll would need to be changed to one-way only (this is no problem since the Council owns the bridge and controls the tolling rights).

Now that electronic tags have been widely adopted, the cost of collecting the charge should be small.

Cheers, Paul

[Derwan]

I am also in support of a congestion tax (or CityToll as I call it) provided public transport is improved first.  I wrote an article about it two and a half years ago here.

My proposal was for a smaller area than paulg's, which would still allow north/south travel without charging the congestion tax.  In my opinion, it is unfair to charge someone going from one side of Brisbane to the other simply because there are no alternatives that aren't tolled.  If the toll on the Clem7 was removed, I think paulg's area would be a better option.

This was my proposal:

[somebody]

I think the time has not yet come.  First we need to improve PT with the 2016 rail tunnel, a few more BUZ routes (I'm thinking 180, 35x region, 100) and 15 minute off peak rail frequency.

[Jon Bryant]

The toll needs to be on all major roads across the region not just the inner CBD.  Remember 80% of our trips are not to the CBD.  Not sure I agree wit bit being different for different times as this will only change time of driving not mode shift.  We need to change people travel choice not they travel time.

[#Metro]

Its easy to see who is causing the congestion.
Red- areas where people voted against the Stockholmn congestion charge.
Green- areas where people voted for the congestion charge.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/85/Stockholm_congestion_tax_referendum_map.svg

[paulg]

If the toll on the Clem7 was removed, I think paulg's area would be a better option.

This would depend on how the revenue from the congestion charge was spent. Potentially, part of the congestion charge revenue could be used to fund a buyback of the Clem7 from the Rivercity consortium, enabling toll-free operation. Some could also be put towards the Northern Link tunnel, or the proposed tunnel from Toowong to Everton Park (http://tinyurl.com/bristunnel) which is part of a western bypass (North-South Motorway).

Cheers, Paul

[stephenk]

I think that Metro will be needed well before 2026. The SE Busway will be overcapacity by then even under superbus or Light Rail scenarios. Queen St, King George Square will probably be overcapacity as well.

Metro will not be needed before 2026 despite however much you keep convincing yourself of it's need. This has been stated in a BCC report. If the two cross river rail lines are built then peak hour rail capacity into the city will be increased by approx 100%, and Brisbane's then 3 cross-city rail lines will have an off-peak metro like service through the inner-city.

My proposal was for a smaller area than paulg's, which would still allow north/south travel without charging the congestion tax.  In my opinion, it is unfair to charge someone going from one side of Brisbane to the other simply because there are no alternatives that aren't tolled.

I agree, in London there are major road around the edge of the congestion charge zone. Thus it is possible to drive around the congestion charge zone and not get charged. Charging everyone who passes along the Riverside Expressway would be a bit silly as they have no other alternative, but if they turned off into the CBD then they would be charged.

By the way, is Brisbane's CBD really congested? Or is it the arterial feeder roads outside of the CBD (such as Coronation Drive) that get congested?

[stephenk]

With people come cars; everyone needs a car.  You might disagree with that but that is a fact. 

I didn't need a car in London, but London has excellent public transport.

I would be interested to know the car-less household figures for Brisbane compared to other cities (including London and NYC).

[somebody]

I would be one car-less household, although I do on occasion rent a car such as when travelling to the Sunshine Coast.  Gold coast is a line ball call.

[#Metro]

Metro will not be needed before 2026 despite however much you keep convincing yourself of it's need. This has been stated in a BCC report. If the two cross river rail lines are built then peak hour rail capacity into the city will be increased by approx 100%, and Brisbane's then 3 cross-city rail lines will have an off-peak metro like service through the inner-city.

I think my positions for both the metro and ICRCS are well known. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
The metro has to be open and functioning by then.
The serious planning for it should be beginning now.
Especially if the ETS or congestion charge is to shift more people to PT.

[Emmie]

Like others in this discussion, I would only accept a congestion tax if there was an adequate alternative in the way of public transport available.  Otherwise NO.

I'm particularly concerned about the references to the Clem7 tunnel - e.g.

Note that the Clem7 could be used to bypass the congestion charging zone.

This sounds awfully close to funnelling of cars into a tollway, which caused such political outrage in Sydney.  We were promised this would not happen in Brisbane - and nor should it.  Besides, since a trip back and forth through Clem7 will cost c. $9 (for tolls - petrol and other car costs in addition) this would mean the congestion tax would have to be significantly higher.

[#Metro]

More cross town non-CBD buses might be part of a bigger solution.
After all, a lot of the traffic seems to come from the SE Freeway, over the Riverside Expressway and then go towards Toowong. I'm sure there are other examples, I'll leave that for others to suggest.

It is difficult to imagine that there would be no demand for a bus along these same routes.

Route 77 is a gamble, but it would be good to see what the result of that would be.
If it works, some new routes to consider: a bus from 8 Mile Plains to Toowong

Route 44 8 Mile Plains to Toowong
- using the busway
- bypassing the CBD and Cultural centre
- and using the new Hale St Bridge tollway should be considered.

Route 33 from Chermside to Toowong
- using the busway
- bypassing the CBD/Roma St

could also be considered.

[frereOP]

With people come cars; everyone needs a car.  You might disagree with that but that is a fact. 

I didn't need a car in London, but London has excellent public transport.

True, but it is also HORRENDOUSLY expensive.  About the equivalent of A$25 for a return trip from Watford (north west near Wembley) to London (Overground to Euston then the tube) which is about the equivalent of Ipswich to Brisbane.  This was off peak (after 9:45am), and you lose your ticket when you get back so its not a daily either.   Mind you, the Oyster card was topped if you had one.

[O_128]

With people come cars; everyone needs a car.  You might disagree with that but that is a fact. 

I didn't need a car in London, but London has excellent public transport.

True, but it is also HORRENDOUSLY expensive.  About the equivalent of A$25 for a return trip from Watford (north west near Wembley) to London (Overground to Euston then the tube) which is about the equivalent of Ipswich to Brisbane.  This was off peak (after 9:45am), and you lose your ticket when you get back so its not a daily either.   Mind you, the Oyster card was topped if you had one.

Arent oyster cards about 50% cheaper anyway.

[frereOP]

There was a discount but it wasn't 50%.  It might have been 20 or 25% discount but whatever it was, it was capped at the maximum fare for the appropriate sectors, unlike the magnetic stripe day ticket cards so if you needed to go back to London, Oyster was better.  Mind you the magnetic card works like a day ticket until you get back to your starting point than the machine eats the ticket.

[#Metro]

Mind you the magnetic card works like a day ticket until you get back to your starting point than the machine eats the ticket.

Ooh nasty!
And $25.00, what are they trying to do? make everyone walk and ride a bicycle rather than catch the bus?

[somebody]

This sounds awfully close to funnelling of cars into a tollway, which caused such political outrage in Sydney. 

They did it a few times though.  First one (IIRC) was trimming a couple of lanes off Parramatta Rd with the openning of the last bit of the M4.  Then they did something with the Cross City Tunnel, although I'm not completely sure of the details of that one.  Later, with the Lane Cove Tunnel they put bus lanes on Epping Rd.

They never backed down as I recall.  The M4 one was pretty outrageous.

[stephenk]

With people come cars; everyone needs a car.  You might disagree with that but that is a fact. 

I didn't need a car in London, but London has excellent public transport.

True, but it is also HORRENDOUSLY expensive.  About the equivalent of A$25 for a return trip from Watford (north west near Wembley) to London (Overground to Euston then the tube) which is about the equivalent of Ipswich to Brisbane.  This was off peak (after 9:45am), and you lose your ticket when you get back so its not a daily either.   Mind you, the Oyster card was topped if you had one.

...and cars aren't horrendously expensive too?

The price depends on where you live in London, and whether you live near TfL tubes and buses, or non-TfL National Rail (which currently has limited Oyster coverage). I lived in Zone 2, near to 2 tube lines. At 2010 prices it is 25.80GBP for a 7-day Z1-2 travelcard on Oyster.  This is approx. 33% more than what I'm paying for in Brisbane - but to get to nearly everywhere where I would have needed to go with a train every 2-4mins, and buses every 5-12mins, it's well worth it! Buses are flat fare 1.20GBP, which is cheaper than a Brisbane Z1 bus journey!

[johnnigh]

I'm certainly a fully accredited supporter of congestion charging, indeed, full road user pricing so that road users are on a level playing field with rail users. I am an economist, after all  .

But... it's certainly the case that all non-private motor vehicle transport has to be available :bi  and infrastructure at an advanced stage, not the current situation.

Much more public debt has to be accepted on the basis that the interest burden will be well and truly covered by reduced real social costs (ie, costs paid by all of us, business costs, non-monetary costs as well as monetary, costs to households and individuals, etc).

I am not a supporter of a cordon-price system. This is a crude and discriminatory tool, a quick and dirty temporary fix. For a city like London it is reasonably workable. For Brisbane it isn't, nor is it for most Australian cities. Our problems are not a central area that is continuously congested. It is a problem of peak congestion on arterial roads. A cordon toll does nothing for this problem.

Development of GPS based systems that charge for road use, on the basis of how much road a user uses and when they use it, is allowing efficient road pricing to be implemented well before the necessary investment in public and active transport, in decentralisation and transport-oriented development, has been undertaken. There are privacy issues, but these can be overcome.

Such a system would allow petrol tax and other mickey-mouse work-around taxes on road users to be abolished. Oh, will anyone be using petrol in 15 years time? An electricity tax???

So we have to hold our breath and hope our descendents will enjoy a more rational and workable system than the one we have.

Oh, and, by the way, toll roads are not consistent with congestion charging. They discourage users from taking the most efficient roads and routes (tolling-off). Existing toll roads should be de-tolled immediately and the private owners paid off with a 'shadow toll' payment from govts that were stupid enough to create the private monopoly on each toll road. The NSW govt does this on at least one of their privately funded roads, not for the right reasons of course, just for a few marginal seats.

[#Metro]

I am an economist, after all

Oh excellent!

It is a problem of peak congestion on arterial roads. A cordon toll does nothing for this problem.

There are a lot of arterial roads which have no service on them. Route 77 hopefully signals a shift from that...

[Jon Bryant]

All arterial roads should have a bus route ad a minimum.

[somebody]

Route 44 8 Mile Plains to Toowong
- using the busway
- bypassing the CBD and Cultural centre
- and using the new Hale St Bridge tollway should be considered.

Route 33 from Chermside to Toowong
- using the busway
- bypassing the CBD/Roma St

Re: Route 44:
If the Toowong/Indooroopilly routes run via the Go Between Bridge, this would be an easy transfer at the Cultural Centre.  It's not too tough, even now.

Re: Route 33:
Currently the 598/599 do provide a route near to that, although it doesn't go via the busway.  But really, it's an easy change at Roma St or the Cultural Centre heading northbound.  Heading south you need to check your watch to know whether to change for a 444 at Roma St or stay on the bus until the Cultural Centre and pick up an express.

I'm not sure what these routes would achieve but a hole in the bank balance and robbing better routes from frequency.

[johnnigh]

Amazing how easily a thread can be sidetracked  . Try discussing bus routes on a bus route thread so we can get back to congestion charging . Now, where was I... We economists are such pains in the backside  .

[cartel_brisbane]

No.  I believe its the most naked cash grab in the history of nudie cash grabs. 

If one is going to force people out of their cars, then there must be suitable alternatives in place to suppliment demand.  At the moment, I don't think we are quite there yet.

[#Metro]

Sorry, I was making an attempt at proposing "the alternatives"
The reason why I proposed them was because they mirror the traffic flow from Chermside-ICB-Toowong
and also from SE Freeway-Riverside Expressway-Toowong.

We have 77 coming, it seems natural to propose like routes.

[ozbob]

Stand by ...

From the Courier Mail click here!

Gateway motorists face bridge toll rise to sweeten Anna Bligh's privatisation deal

Gateway motorists face bridge toll rise to sweeten Anna Bligh's privatisation deal

    * by Steven Wardill
    * From: The Courier-Mail
    * March 17, 2010 9:07PM

TOLLS on Brisbane's Gateway Bridge are set to skyrocket ahead of the Bligh Government's controversial sale of Queensland Motorways.

The Courier-Mail

has learnt Treasury is putting the finishing touches on a massive hike in tolls that will drive up the value of the motorway franchise for prospective buyers.

Commercial vehicle owners will be hardest hit by the new tolling regime due to be announced by the Government on Saturday.

However, it is understood the toll for private cars on the Gateway will jump by almost $1 from July 1 – driving up the current price from $2.95 to $3.85.

The massive jump is a combination of previously announced toll increases caused by the introduction of electronic tolling, inflation "catch-ups", and new charges.

Commercial vehicles will be hit with different tolls for the first time on the Gateway, mirroring the regime in place on the Clem7, as well as Airport Link from 2012.

It is believed the Government will promise additional upgrades to complete the northern section of the Gateway Motorway as a sweetener to motorists.

However, paying additional tolls to fund more infrastructure is unlikely to impress motorists, given they have been hit with higher registration costs, and pay more for petrol as a result of the demise of the fuel subsidy.

    * More details in Thursday's Courier-Mail print edition.

[curator49]

This is the first of many annual increases. There will also be increases on the Logan Motorway tolls.

I think it will make some people seek alternate routes so that they do not have to pay a toll - for example instead of the Logan Motorway from the Ipswich Motorway to Beaudesert Road they will choose to use either Granard Road at Rocklea (also suitable for going through to Logan Road and beyond) or Progress Road, Wacol through Inala and onto Learoyd Road.

This diversion onto other arterial roads will cause more congestion and will inevitably lead to a congestion tax sooner rather than later. It will be interesting to see what happens when the Clem7 toll kicks in a few weeks.

I wonder how they are doing in collecting their tolls now with the Go-Via system where you must have an electronic tag or phone up and pay (by credit card) within 3 days of passing an electronic toll point. We haven't heard anything on this since soon after this system started a year ago when the newspaper claimed the number of defaulters was quite high.

[curator49]

I should have added that I don't (at this stage) support a road congestion tax.

Our public transport system needs significant increases  in infrastructure (particularly with respect to road and light rail) and more services (increased services and availability over a greater time frame). If and when this is done, then we should have a congestion tax.

I currently take my son into the city at 5:00 am and then drive to Ipswich. Why? Because there are no public transport options available at that time of day. My son catches the train home in the afternoon but the train services that are available still do not really suit and he has to either leave work early (just at start of afternoon peak when the schools get out or later when he gets the office-worker rush. Even though he gets on at Central it is already usually standing room only. When he is "on call" (a requirement for his job - occurs every few weeks) he would need a car to drive to work but instead I drive him in and then have to pick him up from a Gold Coast train at Coopers Plains (which means I have to leave work early) as he cannot possibly do his standard day's work (at work) and be able to leave home and get home again for his overnight "on call" duties (he works from home during the night). His employer needs to be more flexible with their requirements to ensure that he still gets a full day's pay even if he leaves work early (to get home in time to take up his "on call" duties).

I drive home because I have had to drive to work as there are absolutely no transport options to travel direct from the south-side to Ipswich.

[Jon Bryant]

This further highlights that our public transport system remains overly CBD centric when our transport trips are around the city.  Time for greater orbital train line plans as well as more CBD capacity.

[Derwan]

I think the general consensus is that people would support a congestion tax if public transport was improved?

Some may have voted "Yes", and added that they would only support it if PT was improved. Some people may have voted "No" because they wouldn't support it with the way PT is at the moment.

Would this be a fair assumption?

[ozbob]

I think that sums it up well Derwan.  In time as public transport IS improved, toll charges could be replaced by a general congestion tax and distance based registration fees.  This is done in some places already.

[somebody]

This further highlights that our public transport system remains overly CBD centric when our transport trips are around the city.  Time for greater orbital train line plans as well as more CBD capacity.

Here's the problem with that, Jonno.  Look at the patronage of the Great Circle line, it's not particularly good is it?  While frequency is a problem, that applies to runs such as the 180 which gets a lot of patronage, I'm told.

[#Metro]

Ms Bligh is in the newspaper.
She apparently intends to up the toll on the gateway.

People are crying blue murder.
Then there is the PT levy which councils don't like.

I think it underscores our dislike of charges, fees, tolls and taxes.
Things need to be kept modest and affordable or it won't receive popular support...