Congestion tolling etc.

[#Metro]

I think a charge for driving WILL happen. You could do it at the same time you bring in electric vehicles, it would be like a mobile phone, top up your car with power and credit and then drive. GPS and computing technology is there already - Uber already uses maps and tracking to work out costs, so I can't see why it can't be applied to self-driving cars, technically speaking.

On the other hand I am skeptical of the whole "congestion will explode" line.

Statistics worldwide show that driving is flatlining. (peak car)

Congestion is self-limiting. How much of this fantastic increase in costs is simply due to rising wages and thus a rising value of time? If sitting for 30 minutes in traffic today costs X and sitting in traffic for 30 minutes in 2020 costs Y, the value of the time 'wasted' has certainly increased, but the total hours have not.

And another thing. The article mentions that the average commute length is 15 km. A good rule of thumb is to just double this number to get the time of the journey. That would be about 30 minutes journey, or an average speed of 30 km/hour, which is entirely consistent with Peter Newman's much referenced Marchetti Constant which suggests that people have a fixed travel time budget.

"Marchetti's constant is a term for the average amount of time spent commuting each day, which is approximately one hour."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marchetti%27s_constant

So I strongly doubt this is going to be the catastrophe-around-the-next-corner angle that is being promoted here. We've had congestion in the past, we have it now and we will have it in the future.

[#Metro]

Here is an older BITRE report https://bitre.gov.au/publications/2012/files/report_127.pdf

I have to say the modelling done by BITRE is a bit crude. It takes historical data points and then shoves a non-linear line through the data points to predict future values (Fig 1.4). Now, I think the trend will be that it does not get worse because as fewer younger people get licences, they won't be driving cars - at all.

In addition to that, you can only fit so many cars on a road network, at some point you reach physical and cost constraints, and space is always limiting in peak hour in any large city like Brisbane.

In any case the trend in Fig 1.3 shows VKT flatlining and then dipping. I think this will continue to be steady or fall.

[ozbob]

The actual report by BITRE is crystal clear.  There is a massive issue compounding.

Time to address it seriously now.  Congestion tolling is one tool, sorting out our public transport is another.

Simply building more and more roads is not going to work.

[#Metro]

I don't quite agree with the disaster scenario that is being painted by the article.

A future projection is neither true nor false, only more or less likely. For instance, "Figure 26: Sensitivity scenario for self-driving vehicles" shows that self-driving cars would effectively U-turn the problem. It is not possible to rule this out as true or false because it is not a fact - it hasn't happened yet, and people are terrible at predicting the future.

There would probably be a blurring between what is private or public transport as multiple passengers could share the same car, which would have no driver.

A key deficiency in the report (at least info I did not find) is that little is said about the avoidable time lost or avoidable time lost per person. The numbers look big in aggregate and expensive when expressed in $ , but individually if, for example, my 60 minute commute becomes 65 minutes, maybe not the end of the world.

[ozbob]

I think ' driverless boats ' might be needed in the end...

Autonomous vehicles are not going to change things in the end.  Still occupy space.  Lots of critical literature points all this out.

Autonomous public transport vehicles will be the next real big thing.  Driverless trains and buses already operate, these can be realatively easily controlled in their own ROW largely.

There are enormous infrastructure hurdles to overcome in terms of communications networks, computer systems and the like for free ranging vehicles.

All is not what it seems.

The facts are simple LD. Congestion is a cost.  It is not going to be turned around ever by a roads only approach.

Other strategies such as decentralisation, peak hour shifting, changing work and social practises all have a role to play.

Time losses etc. are mentioned in a number of locations in the report.  Search ' time ' in the report.

[ozbob]

Sydney Morning Herald --> A congestion charge will help unclog Sydney's roads and save drivers money

The accident on the Harbour Bridge on Wednesday, which led to chaos on many roads well beyond the harbour crossing, highlights once again that traffic congestion whatever its cause – typically accidents or breakdowns and not just the volume of traffic – is a curse on our society.

It reflects in large measure the growing evidence that we have failed to tame the growth in traffic. Simply building more roads under the existing pricing regime is no panacea to improve the road journey.

We know that if we build more roads and improve travel times that we will simply attract more cars using the roads. We will be accommodating, if we are lucky, a containment of a few years of traffic growth at slightly improved travel times, and then we will be back where we started in terms of traffic congestion ...

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/a-congestion-charge-will-help-unclog-sydneys-roads-and-save-drivers-money-20160310-gnfksg

[ozbob]

Sydney Morning Herald --> Road pricing study to look at solutions for Sydney's chronic traffic

[Stillwater]

What's missing from the Queensland State Infrastructure Plan is 'Section C - Funding'.  At some stage, Queensland is going to have to realise that the plan for a fleet of security trucks to drive from the Treasury in Canberra to George Street with billions of dollars on board is not a sound one.  It is the same thinking as the primitive cargo cult tribes of the South Pacific, except it being done by people with their clothes on, and wearing lipstick.

Congestion tax, state land tax, value capture, betterment tax etc must be on the agenda, but governments don't want to talk about tax, even when it is a good idea to do so.

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> Playing games on public transport

Individual users and their behaviours are critical to how transport systems work. How can we better incentivise their behaviour to achieve policy goals such as shifting transport modes and reducing road trauma and traffic congestion?

Peak-hour congestion and peak loading, for example, are the twin most pressing issues for public transport agencies around the world. The search for low-cost "solutions" to such problems is a continuing challenge. By 2031, public transport patronage in many cities is expected have doubled or even tripled in 25 years ...

[ozbob]

News.com.au --> Traffic congestion may cost $50bn by 2031

TRAFFIC congestion in Australia's major cities is set to worsen and could cost the nation more than $50 billion in lost productivity by 2031 unless addressed, says the Committee for Economic Development of Australia (CEDA).

CEDA says that Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth — which generate 80 per cent of Australia's GDP — will need to accommodate 5.9 million more people by 2031.

Given the low population density in the metropolitan areas, those living further out have to drive further to get to their jobs and generally make longer road trips.

At the same time, says CEDA, there has been chronic underfunding of infrastructure in Australia's capital cities.

"Without action the cost of congestion could rise to more than $50 billion annually by 2031, with the demand for key urban rail and road corridors projected to exceed current capacity by 2031," CEDA said in a report on Australia's agenda for economic growth. CEDA said public investment in infrastructure had been restrained by perceived budget constraints.

Also, allocating the available budget had shown insufficient regard to maximising the overall social benefit, and the politics involved had been less transparent than desirable.

The potential for the private sector to contribute more to infrastructure had been under-utilised partly because of unclear and unstable long-term planning by public authorities.

"For the prosperity of the entire country, it is increasingly important that the nation's major cities work efficiently," CEDA said.

"For this reason, it is important that governments put in place mechanisms for the establishment of published long-term plans for infrastructure development."

[#Metro]

Australian cities are some of the lowest density there are.
Cities should allow more homes within 30 - 45 minutes of the CBD. This means approving things like Cedar Woods etc.

It also means that Regional Rapid Rail is viable. Large distances can be covered quickly by higher speed trains, and linked in with buses, as Perth has done. In the SEQ context, this means separating Gold Coast trains from Beenleigh trains and placing that in a new M1 like alignment.

You can see the five Australian cities are all at the bottom, most UK cities are in the bottom third, and the four large Spanish cities are within the top seven.

Sydney is not far below Glasgow and Helsinki. Adelaide, Perth and Brisbane are nothing like the European cities when it comes to (average) population-weighted density.

https://chartingtransport.com/2015/11/26/comparing-the-densities-of-australian-and-european-cities/

[ozbob]

Melbourne Age --> Motorists could pay more to travel during peak times

Motorists could be forced to pay more to use the roads during peak times in a bid to reduce traffic congestion, under a contentious proposal being examined by the state government's chief infrastructure adviser.

With figures showing that congestion costs about $4.6 billion in Melbourne each year, Infrastructure Victoria is pushing for a rethink in the way transport is priced, arguing that a new structure is needed to encourage more people to shift to public transport, car pool, or travel when it's less busy.

The idea for a transport network pricing review is one of dozens of options outlined in a 433-page report that will form the basis of a 30-year strategy to be handed to Premier Daniel Andrews at the end of the year ...

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/motorists-could-pay-more-to-travel-during-peak-times-20160708-gq1op5.html

[ozbob]

The Conversation via Grattan Institute --> How to make cities work better – here's what the government needs to do

How to make cities work better – here's what the government needs to do

by Marion Terrill

Published at The Conversation,  Thursday 14 July.

Every decade or two, Australia focuses on cities. Leading into the election, the government talked of smart cities, innovative cities, productive cities. But somehow there's been no trade-off of costs and benefits – just more expensive infrastructure promised in the cities and in the regions too.

What's missing is an explanation of how to support productivity in cities – to help regional people as much as city dwellers themselves. Will it be different this time?

Australia's prosperity depends on managing cities well. Contrary to our myths about rugged outback pioneers, Australia is highly urbanised, with the biggest share of population in its two largest cities, Sydney and Melbourne, of any developed nation.

This is a good thing for our prosperity. Cities have more productivity growth than towns, and bigger cities more than smaller ones. When a city doubles in size, wages, output and innovation per capita more than double. All the benefits of human interaction play out in a more productive and dynamic economy.

But as cities grow, the negative impacts of interaction grow too. These include more pollution and more congestion per person. Governments need to make sure the positive impacts of cities outweigh the negatives.

Well-connected cities work best

Cities work best when they actually operate as cities – with all the choice of jobs and employers and goods and services that are available as long as the city is not simply a series of disconnected villages.

The trend to greater urbanisation is set to continue. Even during the mining boom, most economic activity occurred in Australian capital cities, as the chart below shows.



Not only are most existing jobs in the cities, so too are most new jobs. More than one-quarter of all jobs are located within five kilometres of the CBDs of the major capital cities. Around 40% are within ten kilometres.

At the same time, people who live in growing cities face real pressures. While job growth is strongest in the CBD, most housing growth occurs on the outer fringes.

This mismatch between where the people are and where the jobs are makes us all less prosperous if people decide it's too hard to commute to work, or commute to a job that best suits their skills, and instead settle for something that they're less suited to, or work less, or don't work at all.

Better use of the infrastructure dollar

Governments try periodically to make cities easier to get around, generally by announcing major new transport infrastructure. The growth in the big capital cities has led many people to feel that the transport infrastructure we have is no longer up to the job, and will only struggle more over time.

So the government made plenty of transport infrastructure promises in the election campaign – A$5.4 billion worth.

Yet, of this, only $800 million was for projects that Infrastructure Australia had fully assessed as nationally significant and worth doing. One-quarter was for projects that sit nowhere on Infrastructure Australia's list – because they're not nationally significant, because they're not worth doing, or because nobody has even asked Infrastructure Australia whether they justify public money.

With the federal budget under pressure, a more disciplined approach to investment is vital. The Commonwealth should defer funding for any project until Infrastructure Australia has assessed it as nationally significant and worth doing.

In other words, a large number of campaign promises to fund specific projects should be deferred. If these promises are allowed to override disciplined project assessment – as they have over the last decade – then vested local interests override the public interest.

To institutionalise this approach, the National Land Transport Act and the Federal Financial Relations Act should be amended so that the minister may commit public money only after an independent evaluation of the project and the business case (by Infrastructure Australia, for example) has been tabled in parliament.

A cost-effective alternative to building roads

Before building more roads, which will only fill up soon with more cars, there is unexplored potential to improve the use of what already exists.

The existing road network could work much harder for us. Within cities, every driver who sets out onto a congested road imposes costs on all the other drivers through his or her contribution to overall congestion.

Over and above the financial costs of buying a car and filling up with fuel, congestion represents a further cost to our time and convenience. This cost is real, and it's larger than it needs to be.

Governments could consider changing this from a time cost to a money cost. In other words, instead of sitting in traffic jams, people could pay to drive on freer-flowing roads. The choices we would face would be: pay to use key roads at peak hour; take our trip at another time; take a different route; or avoid the trip altogether. Some people will take one option; others will take another.

A small change in the number of cars on a stretch of road can make a big change to congestion on that road. The NRMA estimates that when traffic volume drops by 5%, speeds increase by 50%.

The federal government could encourage states to take two small preliminary steps. First, it could require states to include an in-principle application of road pricing on any new urban transport proposal seeking Commonwealth funding. Second, it could provide policy support and funding to any state willing to trial congestion pricing in its capital cities.

With these small and reversible steps, city dwellers and governments could start to find out whether the benefits of congestion charging are worth it. We may find, as the designer of the highly successful Stockholm congestion charge said:

If you do it right, people will actually embrace the change, and if you do it right, people will actually even like it.

[ozbob]

This is an illusion of sorts.  Don't forget there is also massive subsidies to keep the most inefficient form of transport choking roads ..

Couriermail --> The staggering costs to own and operate a car in Australia — every capital city compared in landmark study

.. The rising household cost of running cars:

Sydney $419 per week, $21,788 per year

Brisbane $375 per week, $19,500 per year

Melbourne $348 per week, $18,096 per year

Perth $300 per week, $15,600 per year

Canberra $299 per week, $15,548 per year

Darwin $286 per week, $14,872 per year

Adelaide $285 per week, $14,820 per year

Hobart $271 per week, $14,092 per year

Source: Australian Automobile Association, March to June 2016

[ozbob]

^

AAA --> New data shows true cost of transport

... Brisbane has the highest cost of public transport incurred by the hypothetical family analysed in the Index, followed by Perth and Sydney. ...

[ozbob]

^ I was interviewed by ABC Current Affairs re Brisbane having the most expensive PT fares according to AAA.

Basically said essentially true and why,  and indicated some relief with the new fare structure due January 2017.

[ozbob]

Just blogged by The Urbanist - Is transport too expensive? https://t.co/jNVVNMPitB

— Alan Davies (@MelbUrbanist) August 22, 2016

[ozbob]

#FactCheck: does the average Australian family spend up to $22,000 every year on transport? https://t.co/dEijrIeQRe #auspol

— The Conversation (@ConversationEDU) August 25, 2016

[ozbob]

Melbourne Age --> Transurban pushes for user pays road funding model

Motorists should be slugged to drive on our roads on a user-pays basis, Australia's largest tolling company Transurban says.

The company has renewed its push for a revamp of road infrastructure funding, insisting the current funding model for road infrastructure will soon become unsustainable. ...

[ozbob]

The Conversation --> Road user charging belongs on the political agenda as the best answer for congestion management

Road user charging is probably the best idea we have to reduce congestion and to enable better decisions on road investment. Average travel speeds in our cities are decreasing, and congestion is only likely to worsen as our population continues to grow.

Urban Infrastructure Minister Paul Fletcher recently gave an important speech, albeit largely unnoticed, in which he made the case for a universal road user charging scheme. Charging people to drive has previously been the dream of transport and economic policy wonks – serving politicians tend to see the idea as political poison.

Fletcher trod gently, cautioning his Sydney Institute audience that "there is a lot of work to do" and that any move in this direction would be "a ten to 15-year journey". It is still remarkable that a federal minister even took these first steps.

Fletcher warned of the potential impact of electric vehicles on fuel excise revenue, but automated vehicles represent an even bigger change.

The future of road use is made unclear by the looming arrival of these vehicles. Despite predictions that these could be the answer to traffic congestion, complications include the interaction of autonomous and traditional vehicles and the complexities of human behaviour.

Autonomous vehicles could even lead to greater congestion. The ease of travel in these vehicles might encourage travellers to take more trips as they reduce the time cost of being stuck in traffic by being able to read emails and stay connected while the car drives itself. Empty vehicles travelling to pick up goods and passengers could further clog roads.

Thus it is prudent to target road congestion now, especially when current strategies aren't helping much. Building more road capacity or even improving public transport can't solve congestion.

The best strategy is management of demand via a pricing mechanism that reflects the cost of the congestion caused by one more vehicle on the road. With prices that vary by location, time of day and distance travelled, such a scheme would encourage people to take non-essential trips at a different time, or not at all.

The charge could be efficient, as the trips that are discouraged are those for which the congestion caused outweighs the benefit derived. And it would be fair: drivers adding to the delay faced by others pay more, while those who drive in non-congested areas or at non-peak times pay less.

The ability to observe road users' willingness to pay for road space will also give a better signal to planners of where additional road capacity will be of value to the community. ...

More > https://theconversation.com/road-user-charging-belongs-on-the-political-agenda-as-the-best-answer-for-congestion-management-65027

[ozbob]

Sydney Morning Herald --> The new Keating: Minister Paul Fletcher's brave new road-user charge

If you're searching for a politician with courage, smarts and foresight, meet Paul Fletcher, Malcolm Turnbull's Urban Infrastructure Minister. He's so unlike your typical gutless pollie he reminds me of Paul Keating.

Fletcher gave a speech last month in which he raised issues from which most politicians would run a kilometre. He thinks heavy vehicles – trucks weighing more than 4.5 tonnes – should pay road-use charges that more accurately reflect the huge damage they do to our roads. That's brave.

But he thinks ordinary drivers should also be paying a road-user charge. That's not brave, it's outrageous.

Fletcher, however, has his own arguments to persuade us it's really quite sensible.

He says he's worried about how the federal government will be able to maintain its contribution to building and maintaining the nation's roads when the move to more efficient cars causes its revenue from fuel excise to fall away.

He reminds us that, whatever the price of petrol, it's almost 40¢ a litre higher than it needs to be, thanks to the federal government's fuel excise. ...

[ozbob]

The Guardian --> Our roads are choked. We're on the verge of carmageddon

[ozbob]

Alan Davies  Crikey--> Is it time to get serious about road pricing?

[ozbob]

http://podcast.londonreconnections.com/new-york-special-sam-schwartz

New York Special: Sam Schwartz
Nov 10, 2016

In this, the second episode of our New York mini series, Nicole talks to Sam Schwartz about the efforts to introduce road and congestion pricing in New York.

Sam Schwartz served as New York City's Traffic Commissioner and the New York City Department of Transportation's Chief Engineer.  He now runs his own transport consultancy, Sam Schwartz Engineering, and is a columnist under the moniker Gridlock Sam. Sam also spearheads the Move NY campaign, which has put forward the case for a new approach to managing and financially supporting transport in New York. The proposal includes rationalising the bridge tolls, introducing congestion charging in the city centre and importantly also investing in public transport.

A native New Yorker Sam joined the city's transport department, which is responsible for street space not public transport, neither surface transport nor subways or commuter rail, as a graduate in the early 1970s.

In the podcast, Sam outlines current efforts with the Move NY campaign to manage congestion, traffic levels and transport demand in New York. He also reflects on the various attempts in the last few decades to introduce road pricing or congestion charging and meet the public transport funding gap in New York – and his part in them.

>> http://podcast.londonreconnections.com/new-york-special-sam-schwartz

[ozbob]

Perth Now --> Perth traffic: Experts tell WA Government to introduce pay-as-you-drive plan to ease congestion

[ozbob]

Driver tax might be about to change > https://t.co/IdJB7B0qPh #auspol #qldpol

— Robert Dow (@Robert_Dow) November 24, 2016

[ozbob]

ABC Radio National --> Overhaul of road user charges could see drivers paying per kilometre

Australian motorists could be charged for each and every kilometre they drive under a new 15-year infrastructure plan which aims to overhaul the nation's road, rail and ports system.

The Turnbull government will today announce a top level review of road user charges, which will look at a controversial proposal to replace fuel excise with a new tax that motorists would pay depending on the distance they travel.

Minister for Major Projects, Paul Fletcher, says the review is about making sure road user charges are fair.

'One of the issues is as vehicles become more fuel efficient, if you're driving a 10-year-old Commodore, you're paying through the fuel excise system the equivalent of about four-and-a-half cents a kilometre', he says.

'If you're driving a Prius it's about one-and-a-half cents a kilometre ... so one of the issues is fairness, and one of the aims of this study will be to have a thorough look at our current system'.

[ozbob]

Today we've released our first paper in a series on transport network pricing. Read about the road ahead here https://t.co/vboBy5sktG pic.twitter.com/xmuIpYElBC

— Infrastructure Vic (@infravic) November 24, 2016

[ozbob]

"We think the case for a road pricing regime is compelling." @infravic @PaulFletcherMP https://t.co/Dqfpt4UeW4

— Aus Automobile Assoc (@AAAcomms) November 29, 2016

[ozbob]

Road user charging is probably the best idea to reduce congestion + to enable better decisions on road investment.https://t.co/rdhL8tokVw

— The Conversation (@ConversationEDU) May 17, 2017

[ozbob]

Couriermail --> Congestion charge, tolls axed in Queensland road infrastructure plan

A CONGESTION charge would replace toll fees under a bold plan to beat gridlock and pay for new roads.

Ahead of a federal review of future transport funding, the Queeensland Government has been urged to embrace courageous new ways to build and repair the state's road network as traditional funding sources dry up.

The Infrastructure Association of Queensland wants an audit of Brisbane's busiest roads to determine a CBD boundary in which to charge motorists via electronic tracking of their cars.

But people would enjoy free travel on the underused Clem7, Airport Link and Legacy Way as a trade-off to encourage them to bypass busier arterials.

The call comes as the State Government reviews a scathing Queensland Audit Office report that found a $9 billion underfunding of roads and public transport upgrades needed in the next decade.

IAQ chief executive Steve Abson said Brisbane was perfectly set up for congestion charging in the next decade, with the Riverside Expressway and other city ramps possible toll points.

Express lanes on busy routes could also be available for those willing to pay to glide past traffic, themselves contributing more to roadworks, he said.

Mr Abson said it was incumbent on Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk – with the Government being the state's chief road builder – to take a brave stance as electric cars carved out petrol excise and registration payments are tipped to fall as more people rent their rides.

While road user charging didn't "ring with resounding appeal" to the public, people had to understand that without replacement taxes, sufficient roads would not exist, he said.

"To the public, it's a conversation about queuing for the bus, getting stuck for an hour in traffic, and new ways of travel and not macroeconomics," he said.

The RACQ backed calls for Ms Palaszczuk to take a lead role in the debate, although it is pushing for per kilometre charging, rather than a congestion tax.

Cars would be electronically tracked and motorists pay for how far they drove and when and where they drove, with peak hour and inner-city driving costing more than night and regional travel.

Spokesman Paul Turner said Ms Palaszczuk had a chance to explore new ideas rather than "stick our heads in the sand" and allow drivers to mistakenly feel it wasn't their problem.

"They generally believe they pay enough tax to drive down a road for free," he said.

"We're getting to a point where we're going to have to look for new ways of funding those roads or we just won't have them in the future."

[ozbob]

Couriermail --> Calls for car registration to be scrapped in favour of user-pays system

WITHIN 10 years, motorists should be slugged charges based on when, where, how far they drive and even their car's impact on the environment, but petrol excise and car rego should be scrapped, according to a landmark report.

The suggestions are part of an Infrastructure Australia report to be released today looking into growth issues that will hit Australia's capital cities over the next 30 years unless proper planning is undertaken.

It calls for massive overhauls to planning and road use and major investment in public transport to prevent the nation's biggest cities losing their livability and turning into urban sprawl choked with congestion.

One of its key recommendation is a user-pays system to fund building new and maintaining new roads.

This would include charging motorists for when and where they drive and the distance they travel and basing it on their car's impact on the environment.

States would have to dump car registration and the Federal Government drop its petrol excise, while all cash raised would be quarantined only for use on road networks.

People would be encouraged to travel at off-peak times by being charged more during peak hours.

The changes could turn the daily commute to work into an expensive exercise, but could see petrol prices drop 40¢ a litre and save $360 to $700 on registration costs.

Infrastructure Australia chief executive Philip Davies said the means to charge based on time of day, location and distance existed, but the issue was determining the best way for it to be done.

"The technology already exists, it's not a challenge," he said.

"The challenge is how to make it fair, efficient and sustainable.

"The starting point is understanding the problem we're trying to solve ... how do we pay for roads going forward?

"Until that's done it's too early to say what the next step might be."

Mr Davies said the Federal Government should initiate an inquiry in the near future to look at how roads would be funded into the future.

He said this separate report should consider the details and the specifics around how road users should be charged on a pay-per-use method.

The report said any funds collected through this method should be quarantined and used only for upgrading and maintaining the road networks.

The changes could also be used to manage driver attitudes and congestion.

"Demand could be managed through changes to pricing, such as incentivising off-peak use or charging a premium to use congested roads during peak periods," the report said.

[verbatim9]

^^Yes! All vehicles should be charged distance based. It will help eliminate unnecessary trips by personal vehicles. It will also help people to move.across to mass transit where available. Public Transport users are charged distance based why not drivers of private vehicles?

[SurfRail]

Driving in urbanised areas should be priced at a premium of course.  There isn't much in the way of urban congestion out at Muckadilla and not many alternatives for locals, so the same considerations do not apply.

[techblitz]

This would include charging motorists for when and where they drive and the distance they travel and basing it on their car's impact on the environment.

yes plz.....its a no-brainer.......all can easily be hooked into an oncar chip...all gps/network based...as soon as the car starts that's when tolling begins.......
So for example if you are living in an apartment at Coorparoo where the glider starts.....and you decide to drive your car into the city at 7am then you are tolled at the highest amount.......whereas if your driving along beaudesert rd on the outbound at the same time in Algester then you are tolled at the absolute minimal rate.

This would need massive data processing power to keep track of every vehicle but it def could be done.....

[verbatim9]

This would need massive data processing power to keep track of every vehicle but it def could be done.....

Upcoming 5 G networks can help take care of that.

[techblitz]

basically the government can run its own UBER style app 
When you jump in the car you are asked to enter your destination....
you then get a tolling charge thrown at you and asked if you accept the price.....

[ozbob]

Couriermail --> Infrastructure Australia makes new push for congestion tax

MORE needs to be done to push a "user pays" congestion tax on roads, a top government body says.

The plan would see motorists slugged for when and where they drive on the roads, instead of facing petrol excise and car registration fees.

Infrastructure Australia's report, out today, criticises the Federal Government for not having acted on its recommendations on this made two years ago despite initially signalling support.

"Our roads are facing a funding shortfall as technological change reduces the amount of revenue raised by fuel excise ... Infrastructure Australia strongly encourages the government to move forward," the reported stated.

IA boss Philip Davies said an increased use of electric cards meant the reforms were vital.

"We will be collecting less from users, using roads more, and limiting our ability to collect the revenue required to build and maintain our roads," he said.

In a separate report released earlier this year, IA recommended charging motorists for when and where they drive and the distance they travel, based on their car's impact on the environment.

States would have to dump car registration fees and the Federal Government drop its petrol excise, while all cash raised would be quarantined exclusively for use on roads.

People would be encouraged to travel at off-peak times by being charged more during peak hours.

[ozbob]

Brisbanetimes --> Renewed calls for government to charge motorists for how far they travel

Infrastructure Australia has renewed its calls for Australia's governments to seriously consider charging motorists based on how far they travel.

Infrastructure Australia published its Australian Infrastructure Plan in February 2016, which put forward 78 recommendations, as part of its plan on how to address the nation's infrastructure gaps and challenges.

On Monday, Infrastructure Australia released its Prioritising Reform report which assessed how the 2016 recommended reforms progressed in the past two years.

The 2016 report said the current approach to charging for road use and investing in road infrastructure was "unfair, unsustainable and inefficient".

"The system is unfair because the link between usage and charging is weak. The system sees taxpayers subsidise all users, while those who use the network less are in effect paying a subsidy to support those who use it most," the Australian Infrastructure Plan said.

"The system is also unsustainable because fuel excise revenue will continue to decline in real terms as fuel efficiency continues to rise and the uptake of alternatively fuelled vehicles gathers pace.

"The system is inefficient because road users do not receive signals to use the network in the most cost-effective way.

"Australia needs a road market that reflects the true costs of providing, maintaining and using the network. Pricing our roads to reflect these costs is not just about creating a system of sustainable funding."

Monday's Prioritising Reform report revealed there had been improvements across the infrastructure sector, but said there was still a lot to do.

Infrastructure Australia chief executive Philip Davies said it had been pleasing to see progress in heavy vehicle road charging, business case development, integration of land-use and transport planning and corridor protection.

"However, our progress report Prioritising Reform finds there are also clear instances where more action is needed," he said.

The report recommended the Australian government initiate an inquiry into the potential benefits and impacts of road market reform, with a view to transition to user-pays approach.

The Australian government showed support for this after it was first proposed in 2016, but no inquiry has occurred.

Mr Davies said road market reform has the potential to deliver significant improvements in network performance and address fairness issues, while also establishing a secure and sustainable source of funding for roads.

"Given the significance of this change and the scale of community consultation and consensus-building involved, it's vital that governments move forward on this important opportunity for reform," he said.

The report said road market reform has progressed slowly.

"Currently, user funding for the construction and maintenance of our roads is sourced from a mix of fuel excise and vehicle registration charges," the report said.

"However, Australian taxpayers incur a significant ongoing cost burden to maintain and develop our road system, regardless of whether they own or drive a car.

"Given the significance of the reform and the scale of the work involved, Infrastructure Australia strongly encourages the governments to move forward."

Mr Davis said Australia never lacked vision, but needed to keep up the momentum on reform if it was to meet the upcoming infrastructure challenges.

The next Australian Infrastructure Plan will be released in 2021.

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/Robert_Dow/status/1023963527617306624