tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-79406404589729585932024-03-17T23:47:17.154+13:00Road PricingNews and commentary about road pricing across the globe. Tolls, congestion charging, distance based charging, road user charging. Public policy, economics, technology and more. If Google brought you here, look down the right sidebar for references.Scott Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00834128869502195521noreply@blogger.comBlogger595125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7940640458972958593.post-21980607138196412162024-02-16T14:09:00.001+13:002024-02-16T14:09:02.953+13:00Crucial next steps for Auckland congestion pricing<p> I wrote on my Rational Transport policy blog on this topic, largely because it was around transport governance issues. The article is <a href="https://rationaltransport.blogspot.com/2024/02/crucial-next-steps-for-auckland.html" target="_blank">here</a>.</p>Scott Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00834128869502195521noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7940640458972958593.post-46695730134847976902024-01-31T12:00:00.004+13:002024-02-15T11:04:04.759+13:00Don't make road pricing a tool in a "war on cars"<p style="text-align: justify;">The BBC website, under its “Future Planet” science-based section, published an article on 23 January 2024 called “<a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/future/article/20240122-from-london-to-new-york-can-quitting-cars-be-popular" target="_blank">From London to New York: Can quitting cars be popular?</a>” It has received quite a bit of acclaim, but although the article does make a case for the benefits of reducing car traffic in major cities, it is largely one-sided in a way that, largely, “preaches to the choir” about a wide range of policy measures with the objective of making driving less attractive in cities.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Road pricing is a powerful policy tool that can significantly improve the efficiency and the environmental impact of a road network, as well as providing an efficient way to fairly recover the costs of capital and maintenance of the network and ensure demand does not overwhelm supply. It can also generate net revenues for improvements, or simply net revenues as a return on the capital tied up in the network, for complementary purposes, such as improving infrastructure for alternatives.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">However, undoubtedly the biggest barrier to implementation of road pricing is concern that it is a tool to penalise and punish, or to tax, rather than a tool to deliver better outcomes for those who choose to pay, as well as those who benefit from less congestion and well-maintained roads. This includes those riding buses on them, walking, cycling and those who live, work or own businesses, or community facilities adjacent to roads. It is extraordinarily difficult to convince the public and as a result, many politicians, that any form of road pricing should be introduced, because many don’t believe there are benefits to them from pricing roads. It is difficult enough to convince people that electric cars should pay a distance-based road user charge, because they are not subject to fuel tax, let alone convince people to pay governments to use roads directly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This article doesn’t help in changing that perception.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">There are real perceptions about a war on cars, the article cites someone who produces a podcast called “War on Cars”, so it isn’t entirely a conspiracy theory. There have long been policies to discourage car use in cities, whether it is removal or caps on parking, slower speed limits, traffic light phasing or reducing road capacity. Road pricing can have a range of objectives, but to treat it only as a tool to reduce driving, rather than also a tool to improve the conditions for those who remain on the road, is a mistake.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">There are precious few congestion pricing systems in operation around the world. In Europe there remain only five cities of scale with congestion pricing: London, Stockholm, Gothenburg, Milan and Olso although plenty more have investigated it (and a few Norwegian cities with toll rings that exist primarily to raise revenue). Abu Dhabi, Doha and Dubai all have pricing systems, and further east is Singapore. New York will be the first in the US, but Lower Manhattan is very different from pretty much any other urban area in the US.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The reason for this is public opposition. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">It’s absolutely true that after pricing is introduced it generally gains better acceptance, as sceptical drivers notice that the impacts are not bad, and in some cases improve conditions. This is certainly the experience in London and Stockholm, although it was not the experience in Gothenburg, because Gothenburg’s congestion tax was applied far too broadly, in geographic and temporal terms (to locations at times where/when there was no congestion). Opposition after it was introduced persisted for some years. A referendum held a year after it was introduced in 2013 saw 57% oppose it, but it was ignored as local politicians had committed to spending the revenue on large projects (and there was no other means to pay for them). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The article quotes Leo Murray, director of innovation at climate charity “Possible” saying “<i>We can't find a single example of a traffic-reduction measure that's been in place for more than two years that's then gone on to be removed because of a lack of public support</i>”.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Well, I can. It’s the <a href="https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2010/october/mayor-confirms-removal-of-congestion-charge-western-extension-zone-by-christmas-and-introduction-of-cc-auto-pay-in-new-year" target="_blank">Western Extension of the London Congestion Charge</a>. It was introduced in 2007 and removed at the end of 2010. It was removed because it was poorly designed (it granted residents in one of the wealthiest parts of London a 90% discount for driving into the central zone), poorly focused and implemented for partisan political reasons (the Mayor of London wanted to target a wealthy area, but perversely gave them discounts to drive to the centre of London that poorer area residents did not have). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">So, in short, you can’t just introduce road pricing and assume the public will accept it. Note the Stockholm congestion tax referendum is cited as giving its scheme approval, but in fact the referendum was held across many municipalities across metro Stockholm, where a majority voted against the congestion tax, and it was only by ignoring those other municipalities that it was said that the majority voted for the congestion tax. Stockholm Municipality voted for it, but only consists of 38% of the population of metro Stockholm. Had the votes in all Stockholm municipalities been taken into account, it would have been a vote of 52.5% against road pricing.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Again, the article seems to be dismissive of how hard road pricing is to introduce.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The article returns to London with the correct point that the congestion charge was more popular after it was introduced, but with the closure of the Western Extension, the congestion charge in London has the same geographic scope as it had when it was introduced in 2003, which is roughly 1% of the area of metropolitan London. It hasn’t expanded because there isn’t the political will or public support, in no small part because congestion in central London has essentially returned to pre-congestion charge levels. It is difficult to convince the public that expanding the congestion charge will reduce congestion, when the existing charge has not kept up with demand, and when significant amounts of road capacity is reallocated from general traffic to cycling and walking capacity. London was a success, but why has no other UK city (Durham doesn’t count in this context) have a congestion charge? It’s fairly basic – too many of those advocating for it, don’t want to deliver any benefits to those who would pay it. Furthermore, it’s simply wrong to cite the ULEZ expansion and ignore the significant opposition to it. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">New York’s implementation of the <a href="https://new.mta.info/project/CBDTP" target="_blank">Central Business District Tolling Program</a> is cited as a key example, and questions whether New York has learned from elsewhere, although it is a stretch to call it congestion pricing. The article says “The scheme will also operate a fluctuating charge system, with smaller fees during off-peak hours, providing flexibility”. The charges don’t “fluctuate” unless it is meant that they have just two time zones over a 24 hour period (which are different during weekend. Off-peak is… 2100-0500 weekdays. Unless you are currently driving around 2000 or 0530, you probably don’t think this is “flexible”. The London Congestion Charge has shorter operating hours, and although it is a flat fee, 0700-1800 weekdays provides a bit more flexibility to avoid it. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Its program is designed primarily to raise revenue for the ailing subway network, which is desperately in need of capital renewal. Reducing congestion and emissions matter, but it has been designed, in terms of hours of operation and scope, to raise money. This is all very well, but lower Manhattan is hardly translatable to most other cities in the USA. I’m sceptical as to whether it will generate more than some more studies in the next five years, just because of the tendency of many engineering consultancies to simply look to “copy and paste” what is done in another city onto whatever city they are commissioned to study. That would be a mistake and would take road pricing backwards in any city that simply commissions a quick study from people with no experience on the topic, to just “do a New York”. This is what happened in the UK for a few years after London (although Manchester had quite a different scheme design), and nothing came of it.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The BBC article goes off-topic when it claims Oregon is “considering following suit”, by saying it is testing a “more extensive system” based on vehicle-miles travelled. No it is not. This is the OReGO program, which is testing road usage charging (RUC) as a way of charging electric and other ultra-fuel efficient motor vehicles to use all public roads in Oregon, as a replacement of state fuel taxes. It is absolutely not planned to reduce car traffic, and is not focused on cities. It is about sustainable and fair charging of light vehicles to pay to maintain the road network, and it is really important to keep these objectives distinct and different. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">I hope New York can spur wider interest in the US for congestion pricing, and not on the basis of overly simplistic drawing a cordon around a downtown area. There are a range of different solutions, depending on the definition of the problem, but regardless of what is considered, it is extraordinarily difficult to get social licence, so to speak, for congestion pricing when a key objective is not to reduce congestion and improve travel times for those that are expected to pay.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In that context the global examples worth citing as success stories are <a href="https://www.mot.gov.sg/what-we-do/motoring-road-network-and-infrastructure/Electronic-Road-Pricing" target="_blank">Singapore</a>, <a href="https://www.transportstyrelsen.se/en/road/road-tolls/Congestion-taxes-in-Stockholm-and-Goteborg/congestion-tax-in-stockholm/hours-and-amounts-in-stockholm/#:~:text=Congestion%20tax%20is%20charged%20during,maximum%20amount%20is%20105%20SEK)." target="_blank">Stockholm</a> and the evolution of the <a href="https://www.visitoslo.com/en/transport/by-car/toll-ring/" target="_blank">Oslo toll ring</a> to a congestion charge. London as a success story lasted around five or so years. The world is littered with studies that went nowhere. Hong Kong has been studying congestion pricing for nearly 40 years, Copenhagen, Helsinki and the Netherlands more generally have tried and failed due to public opposition. Consider that many would perceive those cities (and country) to have enviable standards of public transport, and levels of cycling, and it is still difficult.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Congestion pricing can deliver so many potential benefits for cities, firstly by freeing up sclerotic networks that drag productivity and efficiency down, by adding to the cost of freight and the cost of services needed to make cities function. So much is invisible, because it is not delivered by government, but electricians, plumbers, builders, painters, tilers etc, all can do less at higher cost, because of congestion, and almost none of them have any modal choice. Road freight supplies the food, the clothing, the consumables (toilet paper!), the appliances and building materials that keep people alive and keep infrastructure maintained. Then there are people who need cars for specific trips, either because of where they are going or what they are carrying, or more generally there is urgency in a trip, such as for medical purposes or an urgent appointment, or a flight. Big cities work well with all modes well catered for, and operating efficiently, but buses can't always have their own lanes, and get caught up in traffic. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Roads that enable traffic to flow efficiently help all of this, they also help contain emissions by not wasting fuel on either idling or erratic stop/start movements (this includes EVs), and improve access, as gridlocked streets hinder everyone (let alone emergency services from time to time). It is entirely understandable and logical to seek to reduce car traffic on some city streets, because of how space inefficient they are, but cars have their place. In central London many users of the congestion charge are occasional drivers, on one-off trips for any variety of reasons (e.g., medical appointment, collecting a purchase) and the use of taxis and rideshare services reflects demand that is met by more car use elsewhere. Road pricing can deliver significant modal shift and can reduce travel demand, but in doing so it shouldn't be seen as a tool to punish drivers, but just the application of a concept (price) to an underpriced and scarce resource - road space.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">While I always encourage those seeking to promote road pricing, the record of the past 25-30 years (since technology has made electronic pricing feasible) is that it is very difficult to implement because of public acceptability. Seeing it or promoting it as a tool to wage “the war on cars” just makes that even more difficult. </p>Scott Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00834128869502195521noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7940640458972958593.post-16210222196666182452024-01-24T08:00:00.046+13:002024-01-24T08:00:00.131+13:00Iceland and New Zealand: The first two countries to mandate road user charging for EVs<p style="text-align: justify;">After many many years of others talking about it, one country has done it and another will soon follow. On 1 January 2024, Iceland introduced mandated road user charging (RUC) for electric vehicles (EVs), Plug-In Hybrids (PHEVs) and Hydrogen powered vehicles, and from 1 April New Zealand will also do so for EVs and PHEVs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>Iceland</i></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Iceland has launched EV RUC with a website called "<a href="https://vegirokkarallra.is/en" target="_blank">Our Roads to the Future"</a>. No later than 20 January 2024, eligible vehicles are required to have had their odometers read and recorded and transmitted to a government website or via a specific app. Those unable to use websites can go to an authorised service centre for an official reading.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The website indicates that the average petrol powered car pays ISK178,000 a year to use the roads (~US$1305) so the rate for EVs and hydrogen powered vehicles will be ISK6/km (US$0.044/km or US$0.07/mile), and for PHEVs at ISK2/km (US$0.015/km or US$0.024/mile). The lower fee for PHEVs reflect that they are still paying fuel excise for the use of petrol. Iceland presumably calculating that around two-thirds of kms driven by PHEVs is powered by petrol.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Iceland has indicated that this is a first step towards phasing out fuel taxes as a means of charging for road use, with the intention that RUC apply to all vehicles from 2025 (a distance-based tax already applies to some heavy vehicles). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The reason given is the growing proportion of EVs and PHEVs in the vehicle fleet as illustrated by the graph below:</p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEghOdrMpXThgTh_fGqexM-AIXICiGYw9NW_faoYS5HkmaBDknzIlkL7s44sOLkF9OtyiGLz-T1_ll5zr_CtT8vSswYqsdrmoyT4cnkhBaRXQChaFeuKN-RrzyRXdD7zkhKHTB4vRdLpcuiumgTqhoqwGiZJmWbqacyobV1PetHXjb8zH7ju056QDFm6No9q/s2686/Screenshot%202024-01-23%20at%2015.20.02.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1374" data-original-width="2686" height="328" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEghOdrMpXThgTh_fGqexM-AIXICiGYw9NW_faoYS5HkmaBDknzIlkL7s44sOLkF9OtyiGLz-T1_ll5zr_CtT8vSswYqsdrmoyT4cnkhBaRXQChaFeuKN-RrzyRXdD7zkhKHTB4vRdLpcuiumgTqhoqwGiZJmWbqacyobV1PetHXjb8zH7ju056QDFm6No9q/w640-h328/Screenshot%202024-01-23%20at%2015.20.02.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Proportion of private car fleet in Iceland with EVs or PHEVs</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><p style="text-align: justify;">Furthermore, Iceland reports a 50% increase in distance travelled on its roads between 2012 and 2022, including a 36% increase in the number of registered cars. On average vehicles are paying 30% less per vehicle in 2022 compared to 2012, because of the rise of EVs and PHEVs, as well as the emergence of more fuel efficient vehicles generally. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">In Iceland each vehicle owner will be invoiced monthly for distance travelled, which will be estimated based on the national average, until another odometer reading is reported after one year. After that point motorists will be expected to supply more regular odometer readings.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Of interest is that the Icelandic Government has estimated that even after introduction of RUC, it will still be around ISK160,000 (US$1173) less per annum to drive an EV compared to an ICE vehicle, so that the impact of RUC on purchases of such vehicles is expected to be minimal. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Some interesting stats from Iceland include:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"></p><ul><li>75% of owners of EVs and PHEVs are located in Reykjavik compared to 64% of the population</li><li>64% of EV and 61% of PHEV owners are in the top three income deciles</li><li>The highest distances travelled by residents are in those located in municipalities immediately surrounding the Reykjavik metro area, lowest by those in more rural areas. This contradicts some concerns that distance-based charges would unfairly penalise those in rural areas.</li></ul><div>Iceland has a population of 373,000 but has one of the highest car ownership rates per capita in the world, with a road network of 12,898km. Iceland is moderately larger than South Korea and Hungary, and smaller than Bulgaria.</div><div><br /></div><div><i>New Zealand</i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div>NZ has long had a RUC system that applies to heavy vehicles and light diesel vehicles (since 1978), but an exemption for EVs was introduced in 2009 and it was done on the basis that it would be lifted once EVs reached 2% of the light vehicle fleet (which has occurred). Following the recent change of government in New Zealand from the centre-left Labour majority government to a centre-right National led coalition government, the newly appointed Minister of Transport, <a href="https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/electric-vehicles-pay-road-user-charges" target="_blank">Hon. Simeon Brown had announced that RUC will apply</a> to both EVs and PHEVs from 1 April. </div><div><br /></div><div>Owners of both types of vehicles will get a two-month grace period to buy a RUC licence, which are available prepaid in blocks of 1,000 of kilometres (e.g. a motorist might buy 1,000 or could buy 100,000 kms, although there is a time limit on RUC expiry in the event of a price increase). The RUC rate for EVs will be the same as light diesel vehicle at NZ$0.076/km (US$0.046/km or US$0.074/mile), but the rate for PHEVs is NZ$0.053/km (US$0.032/km or US$0.052/mile). This reflects a calculation that the majority of PHEV distance travelled in NZ is undertaken using electricity (with the difference made up from fuel excise duty paid through petrol).</div><div><br /></div><div>Owners of both types of vehicles will need to take odometer readings after 1 April and will have subsequent odometer readings verified through annual Warrant of Fitness (WOF) (vehicle safety) checks.</div><div><br /></div><div>At the end of 2023, there were around 73,000 EVs registered in NZ, and around 30,000 PHEVs. RUC in NZ is <a href="https://www.nzta.govt.nz/vehicles/road-user-charges/ruc-for-electric-vehicles/" target="_blank">administered by the NZ Transport Agency</a>, which receives all RUC revenue to distribute to road controlling authorities and regional councils (and itself for maintenance and development of the state highway network) through the National Land Transport Programme (NLTP).</div><div><br /></div><div>New Zealand has a population of around 5.3 million, with one of the highest car ownership rates in the world. Its road network is around 97,000km long. New Zealand is larger than the UK and moderately smaller than Italy.</div><div><br /></div><div>Similar to Iceland, New Zealand's government has also announced intention to phase out fuel tax as a means of charging for road use, although there is no timetable for that to be implemented. It is likely that following the EV and PHEV RUC introduction, that other ICE powered hybrids would be next to be transitioned to RUC. That's because petrol hybrids will soon be paying the least of any cars on NZ roads, because their average fuel consumption is around half of the petrol vehicle average.</div><div><br /></div><div>In NZ a cost-allocation model is used to inform the setting of RUC rates, based on forecasting revenues needs for the forward-looking expenditure in the NLTP, and allocating that based on various vehicle characteristics includes axle load, weight, road space occupancy, vehicle specific factors and on a flat per km basis (depending on the type of spending). This informs setting of the entire schedule of RUC rates distinguished by weight band and axle configuration. The light RUC rate is converted into the fuel excise duty rate for petrol, by basing it on the total vehicle kilometres travelled of petrol vehicles divided by the average fuel economy of all light petrol vehicles. Fuel tax for petrol is then, on average, the same as RUC for light vehicles. </div><div><br /></div><div>As petrol hybrid vehicles generally have half the fuel consumption of the fleet average, they pay half as much as petrol vehicles per km, on average, and after 1 April 2024, they will be charged half as much as pure EVs and PHEVs. It will be important for NZ to shift such vehicles onto RUC within the next few years. </div><p></p>Scott Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00834128869502195521noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7940640458972958593.post-31268041639343590332024-01-23T15:03:00.000+13:002024-01-23T15:03:20.561+13:00Does London's ULEZ expansion help or hinder better road pricing in the UK?<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnZUiFjOZY981t9MIxh2XsGQbQUTMGUGevPBRTCz7Mr3KB550sNYW8l_AyOsQioMx1CwRxDmwD80pA3a_xGjMBbiLkNgGTcV8n_FO2heX9rBPzPKnkxXGqyWs6mEasoHchgxlDeI_1eJsZ25uiUbKVYHgIchvAu1-l46MwD8-bY1yz2AJZwMGe_xLY1FDK/s1392/Screenshot%202023-11-08%20at%2012.30.42.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1278" data-original-width="1392" height="368" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnZUiFjOZY981t9MIxh2XsGQbQUTMGUGevPBRTCz7Mr3KB550sNYW8l_AyOsQioMx1CwRxDmwD80pA3a_xGjMBbiLkNgGTcV8n_FO2heX9rBPzPKnkxXGqyWs6mEasoHchgxlDeI_1eJsZ25uiUbKVYHgIchvAu1-l46MwD8-bY1yz2AJZwMGe_xLY1FDK/w400-h368/Screenshot%202023-11-08%20at%2012.30.42.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Greater London Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) coverage area</td></tr></tbody></table><p style="text-align: justify;">To say that the Mayor of London's expansion of the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) to all of the territory of greater London under his authority has been controversial is an understatement. For some it is a necessary response to climate change and the effects of local air pollution on public health, for others it is an impost on those who cannot afford a newer vehicles with benefits that are questionable, given that most vehicles comply with it already (hence it cannot have much of an impact). Even Leader of the Opposition, Labour Leader Sir Keir Starmer has <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-67020060" target="_blank">refused to back it</a>.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The ULEZ started by being parallel to the London Congestion Charge in inner London, was expanded to the A406/A205 North and South Circular Roads. Its coverage of all of London includes rural areas and rural roads, as well as outer suburbs.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">For a start it is important to be clear that the ULEZ is <i>not</i> road pricing. It is fundamentally a regulatory instrument that requires permits for vehicles that do not comply with the zone, in order to enter or drive within it. There is no relationship between the ULEZ and either the costs of providing road infrastructure or demand for it. The fee is set at a level to dissuade use and generate revenue, and it is blunt. It doesn't matter if you drive a EURO 0 diesel van in crawling traffic beside a school or a EURO 3 petrol car at 3am on the motorway like A12 East Cross Route, you pay the same, even though objectively the local air quality impact is vastly different. Although a vehicle scrappage scheme has been set up in parallel, owners of vehicles outside London are not eligible even though many cross into the zone. Some categories of vehicles have exemptions, such as historic vehicles (e.g., vehicles built before 1973) vehicles registered to carry disabled people (until 24 October 2027), wheelchair accessible vehicles, drivers on specific disability benefits. Those travelling to hospital appointments deemed unfit to use public transport can also apply for a refund. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>Vehicle scrappage scheme</i></p><p style="text-align: justify;">All London residents can apply for up to £2,000 for scrapping a car or up to £1,000 for scrapping a motorcycle. For wheelchair accessible vehicles there is a payment of £10,000 to scrap or £6,000 to retrofit to the ULEZ standards. The scrappage scheme has been claimed by over 37,200 individuals or entities, which has cost £120m. The total budget for the scheme is £160m. The biggest criticism of it, is that £2,000 will not come remotely close to buying a new vehicle, although it might come close to buying one that barely crosses the ULEZ standard. However, it is unclear if the ULEZ standard advances (so EURO 4 petrol cars are no longer compliant), if people who took the £2,000 for scrapping a non-compliant vehicle, can claim it again if their latest vehicle is also non-compliant. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>ULEZ impacts</i></p><p style="text-align: justify;">There are a range of claims about the impacts of the ULEZ. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Compliance rates for the ULEZ are <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-67266241" target="_blank">reportedly 95%</a> meaning the proportion of vehicles that meet the ULEZ standard. Of note, Heathrow Airport claims 7% of its employees drive non-compliant vehicles (and Heathrow is located just within the boundary of the ULEZ</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The BBC claims this indicates revenue of around £23.6m per month. This is not inconsiderable, and certainly backs some claims that ULEZ is about revenue more than it is about environmental outcomes. Van compliance is much lower than the average, with around 86.2% compliance. However, City Hall claims it will generate no net revenue by 2026-2027, presumably as the costs of operating it are not exceeded by the fine and fee revenue generated (as it is expected few non-compliant vehicles will enter the zone). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">One claim is that ULEZ will <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-66853628" target="_blank">reduce the number of cars on London roads by 44,000.</a> Fewer cars means some people won't own a car anymore, which reduces their mobility. For some, London's ample public transport network and expansion of cycleways provide alternatives that may be reasonable for most trips, with carshare schemes plugging the gap. If people choose to give up owning a car because the cost isn't worth the benefit, and alternatives meet their needs, that's all very well, but if they are choosing to give it up because of the cost of ULEZ makes it unaffordable, it is clearly a policy measure that is pricing poorer households out of car ownership (because wealthier ones can afford a car that meets the standard). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Mayor of London has published <a href="https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-strategies/environment-and-climate-change/environment-and-climate-change-publications/london-wide-ultra-low-emission-zone-first-month-report" target="_blank">a report on the first month after the introduction of the wider ULEZ.</a> Its findings include:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"></p><ul><li>77,000 fewer non-ULEZ compliant vehicles per month identified than before its expansion (a 45% reduction), with a reduction of 48,000 unique vehicles identified overall (which may indicate non-compliant vehicles not being used, but compliant vehicles may be used more in some cases).</li><li>96% of vehicles driving in Outer London meet the ULEZ standard (86% of vans).</li><li>On an average day only 2.9% of vehicles driving in the ULEZ pay the charge, 1.7% are registered for a discount or exemption and 0.2% are issued a Penalty Charge Notice.</li></ul><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;">What isn't clear is the impacts on air quality.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>What about road pricing?</i></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Beyond extending the operating hours of the central London congestion charge, there has been no changes to policy on road pricing in London since 2011 when the Western Extension was scrapped. Mayor Sadiq Khan has claimed there are plans to introduce distance-based road pricing in London, <a href="https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/pay-per-mile-road-charging-london-sadiq-khan-ulez-b1103443.html" target="_blank">according to the Evening Standard</a>. Expanding road pricing in London has been discussed for some time, but it hasn't been advanced largely because:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"></p><ul><li>Nobody (since Ken Livingstone) has been willing to spend political capital on making a cogent and consistent argument for wider road pricing across London;</li><li>The objectives of such a scheme have not been well defined. Mayor Khan's primary transport policy objective has been around local air quality, not congestion;</li><li>The options for road pricing across London have a significant upfront cost (in roadside infrastructure and potentially in-vehicle technology);</li><li>Central government has been keen to leave it as primarily a local matter, and for the Mayor of London and Greater London Authority to take the risk in advancing road pricing, rather than lead from Westminster.</li></ul><div>London's geography lends itself to two broad options for more road pricing:</div><div><ul><li>Zonal based boundaries, pricing for driving across parts of London (but not within zones). This would have the advantage of being relatively simple to understand, but would significantly disadvantage people and businesses needing to drive across multiple boundaries. In particular, businesses located adjacent to a boundary may feel aggrieved if part of their customers face a charge, which their rivals on the other side of the boundary do not.</li><li>Distance, time, location based pricing. This is considered by some to be the best option because it offers unparalleled flexibility, and can address issues such as "rat-running" and can be set up to encourage more use of arterial routes over local roads.</li></ul></div><div>Zonal boundaries can be implemented with Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras, as has been done for the ULEZ, but depending on the number of zones (there aren't obvious boundaries in some parts of London, and borough boundaries often make little sense from a road network perspective), it would involve a lot of images and a lot of processing, to distinguish between vehicles crossing different boundaries at different times and directions.</div><div><br /></div><div>Distance/time and location based charging (once called TDP (Time Distance Place) pricing) would require some form of telematics. Traditionally the thought has been that devices would need to be installed in vehicles to enable this, but the options of Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) telematics are beginning to emerge, along with self-installed GNSS dongles that plug into EOBD (OBDII in Europe) ports in newer vehicles or even mobile phones with apps. The latter options would still require location of some ANPR cameras to ensure vehicles drove with such systems operating.</div><div><br /></div><div>However, the key question still to be answered is why do it?</div><div><br /></div><div><i>Congestion, revenue and the environment</i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div>There is little doubt that road pricing on a wide scale in London could be transformative for the city's transport networks, productivity and environmental impact. It could significantly reduce traffic congestion by spreading demand by time of day, route and mode, and in doing so would increase the capacity of existing bus services, and increase fare revenue across public transport. However, to improve congestion would require taking a <i>different </i>approach than what happened with the central London scheme. In central London much road space was reallocated to other modes, which improved access by those modes, but rendered delays for much traffic to be little better than before, after the reallocation of road space. It is understandable in the context of reducing car traffic, but for freight traffic (which mostly has little chance for modal substitution), it means they are paying to use road space with little improvement in the level of service provided.</div><div><br /></div><div>Wide scale road pricing should change that. If there is plenty of excess capacity that might be well used for cycleways or footpaths, then reallocation of road space could be considered (bus lanes are less important if road pricing is introduced, unless there is desire to implement bus rapid transit). </div><div><br /></div><div>Most of all, to improve congestion there should be targets set for improved travel times, and for a change in approach and policy regarding congestion. For decades congestion has been seen both as a problem, but also a tool to constrain traffic growth. However, congestion is a reflection of inefficiency and a very poor use of precious space. Having consistently flowing traffic mean there is more usable capacity, and so those that pay get a better level of service as a result. This has rarely been part of the narrative discussed around road pricing in London.</div><div><br /></div><div>Revenue is important, and almost always the key focus, and plenty will be generated, but it will be key to consider carefully what to do with it. It seems unlikely that Londoners will back road pricing as "just another revenue source", without it making a difference for those who pay it. Whether it be fixing the continuing backlog of road maintenance, or fixing intersections or corridors that have historic bottlenecks or poor design affecting congestion and safety, road pricing needs a commitment that at least some of the money will be used to ensure London's roads are fit for purpose. It could support undergrounding the Hammersmith Flyover addressing resilience and revitalising public space and land for other purposes, for example.</div><div><br /></div><div>The environment would win out of road pricing regardless, as less congestion and less motor traffic, with more use of public transport and active modes all improving local air quality and reducing CO<span style="font-size: xx-small;">2 </span>emissions. So there will be overall benefits environmentally, and the social benefits should come from improving mobility of bus services and accessibility more generally, as long as pricing matches demand and capacity, and is not punitive. </div><div><br /></div><div><i>What hope is there for such pricing?</i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div>Given the backlash on ULEZ, regardless of merit, it seems likely that the political appetite to introduce wide scale road pricing in London is likely to be low, certainly before the 2024 general election. After that, the next Government may have more appetite to advance it, knowing that unless it is advanced in London, it seems unlikely to get public support to be advanced in cities or regions which have inferior public transport options.</div><div><br /></div><div>There remains a revenue issue from electric and hybrid vehicles which isn't going away, which might be solved in the short term by imposing higher Vehicle Excise Duty on such vehicles, but it is clear the appropriate medium term answer is some form of road user charging (RUC). </div><div><br /></div><div>However, whether it be revenue replacement with RUC or reducing congestion with congestion pricing (and generating revenue), the fundamental problem with road pricing in the UK remains the toxicity of the politics around an issue that for too many looks like a way to extract money from road users, with little to no talk about improving <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/england-local-government-association-wales-budget-government-b2304747.html" target="_blank">either the infrastructure </a> (which outside the national network is in woeful condition) or improving travel times from less congestion.</div><div><br /></div><div>Until a political leader can communicate clearly about this, and ignore Treasury resistance to hypothecation of road pricing revenues and ignore political calls to treat pricing as a tool to make driving simply more expensive and less convenient, then it will continue to languish.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><p></p>Scott Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00834128869502195521noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7940640458972958593.post-83990890640602872902023-11-21T00:53:00.005+13:002023-11-21T12:47:38.145+13:00Auckland's Mayor and Council vote overwhelmingly for congestion charging, but there are some issues<p style="text-align: justify;">The big road pricing news in New Zealand in the past week was the Mayor of Auckland, Wayne Brown, calling for congestion charging and appearing on media declaring how critical it was for the city. This was not in terms of raising revenue, but in addressing congestion. <a href="https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/502453/auckland-congestion-charge-proposal-encouragement-to-behave-differently-wayne-brown" target="_blank">On Radio NZ he said</a> Auckland could not afford another motorway, and that the charge would be avoidable by driving outside of peak times.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>“I am of the view that this should be on our motorways in the central areas of Auckland, which are the most congested, and this is also where public transport works best, which gives some people an option rather than paying the charge”</i></p><p style="text-align: justify;">He ridiculed concerns about equity around trade businesses, saying that to pay $5 to save 20 minutes was a small fraction of the price the tradespeople charge their customers in an hour. He also said that schoolchildren “don’t’ have a right to be taken to school in a BMW” and more should walk, bike or use public transport. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Mayor was elected in 2022 and has a three year term, but his support for the concept was only solidified when Auckland Council voted 18-2 in <a href="https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/502586/congestion-charges-coming-to-auckland-in-the-next-two-years" target="_blank">favour of setting up a team to oversee implementation of congestion charging.</a></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Despite that report, Auckland is <i>not</i> going to get congestion pricing in two years. Legislation will take around a year to introduce and pass at best, and it will take around 18 months to procure and install a system at best. However, you have to admire the ambition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The astonishing level of local political support for the concept is <u>unheard of in any other city</u> where the private car is by far the dominant transport mode. In 2018 (<a href="https://at.govt.nz/about-us/reports-publications/2018-census" target="_blank">according to the Census</a>), around two-thirds of Aucklanders commuted by car (whether as driver or passenger), 11% by bus, 9% walked and 8% worked from home, 3% by train and just over 1% by bicycle. It seems likely that the proportion working from home, cycling and using public transport has increased since then. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Let's be clear to those unfamiliar with Auckland. The Mayor is ostensibly "centre-right" and got elected opposing the "war on cars". The Council as well is fairly balanced between left and right wing members.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Unlike New York and almost all other US cities that have been investigating congestion pricing, Auckland is regarding the net revenues as secondary (although the Mayor is interested in revenue, as the incoming government has pledged to abolish the regional fuel tax of NZ$0.10 per litre that raises revenue for transport projects in the city). The primary focus is reducing congestion and encouraging behavioural change. However, it would clearly generate net revenue and would also have positive environmental benefits.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>Why does this matter?</i></p><p style="text-align: justify;">All of the cities that have introduced congestion pricing around the world so far have been quite different from Auckland, and indeed all of the predominantly car-oriented low density cities that are seen in New World cities in New Zealand, Australia and North America. Singapore, Oslo, London, Stockholm and Milan all have significant mode shares for public transport. However, Dubai and Abu Dhabi (and soon Doha) are car dependent cities, even moreso than Auckland, whereas Gothenburg in Sweden is much closer to the mode shares seen in New World cities. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Although New York will be the first US city to introduce some form of congestion charging, it is being implemented in lower Manhattan, which is much more like central London than most US cities, and it is being introduced 24/7 (with peak charges) primarily to raise revenue. New York is not a model for other North American cities.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Auckland on the other hand, has around 87% of its employment outside the central city, it has around a 50% mode share for public transport and active modes for trips to the central city at peak times, but a much lower mode share for trips to other parts of Auckland at peak times. In short, congestion in Auckland is primarily about trips across the city, not to the downtown. Pricing in Auckland will work only in part by encouraging modal shift, but will in a large part be about encouraging a small proportion of trips to shift time of day or frequency of driving. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Furthermore, unlike many other developed cities, Auckland has had over 20 years of billions of dollars in continuous major capital spending on its transport networks. During that time, the road network has been significantly upgraded, with additional lanes on motorways and a ring route around the west bypassing the congested central motorway junction. The commuter rail network was extended to the downtown, electrified with new trains, adding new lines, and is now being expanded with an inner city loop. Bus services have been expanded, with busways and new buses, routes and expanded frequencies. In short, Auckland has seen extensive capital spending on its transport infrastructure and it has been unable to keep up with demand, and congestion has not been resolved. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Supply of transport infrastructure does not sustainably reduce traffic congestion. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">If Auckland successfully implements congestion pricing, it will be a world leader in implementing road pricing in a city with automobile dominance.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>What has been proposed?</i></p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Mayor has specifically proposed a charge on two segments of motorway of NZ$3.50 - $5 per trip. It would operate in the AM and PM peaks only on the North Western Motorway (SH16) between Lincoln Road and Te Atatu Road, and on the Southern Motorway (SH1) between Penrose and Greenlane. These are two of the most congested parts of Auckland’s motorway network. The map below depicts the short section of North Western Motorway, the segment of Southern Motorway and the earlier proposed downtown cordon (which is bypassed by the motorway network which goes from south to the Auckland Harbour Bridge and from the west to the Ports of Auckland).</p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5TyywjkARyeov-zXjA3HWJXwG9jtjxLpMVF832TE0ew-mqzGSg4nUoyCDVf_JSGQq4j1-cgj5Xx_Btmm7ao7p5KE15_RBxknCSwJf8F0anO1MOqj3VwTnfyA5vNKw70JE3q_RvKKXtvMIAKzeorOIUNOPpM8Q4cNKYAWR_VPc1M3l6S9Nvsbbzsmyqhf9/s2256/Screenshot%202023-11-20%20at%2022.29.49.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1944" data-original-width="2256" height="552" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5TyywjkARyeov-zXjA3HWJXwG9jtjxLpMVF832TE0ew-mqzGSg4nUoyCDVf_JSGQq4j1-cgj5Xx_Btmm7ao7p5KE15_RBxknCSwJf8F0anO1MOqj3VwTnfyA5vNKw70JE3q_RvKKXtvMIAKzeorOIUNOPpM8Q4cNKYAWR_VPc1M3l6S9Nvsbbzsmyqhf9/w640-h552/Screenshot%202023-11-20%20at%2022.29.49.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Auckland congestion pricing concepts.</td></tr></tbody></table><p style="text-align: justify;">Undoubtedly the motorway proposals would have a positive impact. While the North Western motorway at this location has no reasonable alternative route, the Southern motorway does have a wide at-grade arterial road, albeit with multiple sets of traffic signals and a much lower speed limit. Some measures would need to be taken to minimise diversion onto the parallel routes. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">It's worth noting that a major study into congestion pricing in Auckland, called <a href="https://www.transport.govt.nz/area-of-interest/auckland/the-congestion-question/" target="_blank">The Congestion Question</a>, was carried out from 2016-2020, and recommended that a downtown cordon be introduced, followed by corridor charges on major routes in the isthmus and beyond. The Mayor is proposing the second stage, but that is good as the downtown cordon concept was likely to have a less dramatic impact than the proposed corridor charges.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The proposed technology would be automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>What needs to happen?</i></p><div><div style="text-align: justify;">Congestion pricing is currently illegal in New Zealand. The outgoing Labour Government had draft legislation prepared to implement it, but this will be revised with the incoming National led Government. National included congestion pricing in its transport policy, so there is little chance of the policy being rejected by the new government. Until legislation is introduced and passed, congestion pricing cannot be implemented, but in the meantime, it is possible for Auckland Council and Auckland Transport (a separate entity under the auspices of Auckland Council) to plan and prepare for road pricing. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The motorways in Auckland are not under the control of Auckland Transport, as they are State Highways. They are Crown owned (and fully funded by) and managed by the New Zealand Transport Agency/Waka Kotahi. It seems unlikely that central government would devolve power to impose pricing on motorways it owns and manages to local government. However, it seems much more likely that a joint entity, between central and local government could be set up to manage pricing across roads in Auckland. </div></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>What are some of the big issues?</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i><br /></i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><u>Oversight</u></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><u><br /></u></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;">A key issue is how much control central government, in particular the forthcoming Minister of Transport and/or Cabinet, wish to have in approving and later amending congestion pricing schemes. At present the Minister approves tolling schemes, which are only for new roads. At present there are only three toll roads in New Zealand (one in outer Auckland). It seems unlikely that government will want to give road controlling authorities free rein to implement congestion pricing, but it would also be unwise to require changes in pricing to go through a political process. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">A middle approach would be to require Ministerial approval for a road pricing proposal (by a road controlling authority on specific roads within certain time periods) concept but grant powers to road controlling authorities to adjust pricing and business rules within set parameters, with oversight by an economic regulator (such as the Commerce Commission or a more specialised highway economic regulator). The oversight would be to ensure prices were not set to be higher than necessary to relieve congestion, or to be unduly burdensome on different types of road users, and to monitor use of net revenues (which is another issues). Ultimately the need for political approval could be reduced, if the economic regulator has sufficient powers to protect consumers.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><u>Governance</u></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The other governance issue is what entity should be responsible for pricing? It could be left to the relevant road controlling authority, but for Auckland it would make sense to have a joint-governance entity for both Auckland Transport and NZTA roads, with sufficient delegated authority to manage pricing within set parameters. A joint entity would mean that there could be a single road pricing account, and that enforcement, communications and information could be unified. It would also provide a structure for managing net revenues, contracting for equipment and services.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><u>Use of Net Revenues</u></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><u><br /></u></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><div>The Mayor would like pricing to replace the regional fuel tax in Auckland, which raises around $150m per annum. However, this is likely to be controversial. There are clearly a range of options available such as:</div><div>•<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Capital funding for public transport and active transport projects</div><div>•<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Capital funding for road improvements</div><div>•<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Offsetting ratepayer funding for road maintenance and improvements (reduces rates)</div><div>•<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Offsetting ratepayer funding for public transport subsidies (reducing rates)</div><div>•<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Dividend to ratepayers, households or residents</div><div><br /></div><div>Internationally, the most popular options have been to use the net revenues to support some mix of road and public transport projects. If that option is selected, the projects ought to be high-quality (i.e. net economic benefits) and ideally be related to the locations subject to pricing (i.e. new transport capacity). However, it is likely to be tempting to simply replace the regional fuel tax as a revenue source (as removing that tax will benefit all Auckland motorists). It may also be tempting to use it to offset ratepayer funding on transport capital projects in any case, but if done on the scale proposed by the Mayor, it seems unlikely to gain much support if revenue from specific locations is used to benefit transport users not using those corridors. If motorways are going to be priced, it seems unlikely that central government will want to pass on control of use those revenues to local government. However, if a joint pricing entity is established, it may be reasonable to get agreement across both levels of government as to the use of net revenues for several years in advance. </div><div style="text-decoration: underline;"><br /></div><div style="text-decoration: underline;">Prices, products, discounts and exemptions</div><div style="text-decoration: underline;"><br /></div><div><div>Rates should be set at levels that will achieve enough behavioural change to relieve traffic, they should only be applied at peak times, and have a shoulder rate either side (for say half an hour) to avoid rushes to avoid the peak. Rates should only apply in the peak direction (which may be both ways). Exemptions and discounts should be minimised, and focused on local buses, emergency services, drivers with mobility disabilities and motorcycles, and there is a case for higher charges for heavy trucks and coaches (due to the amount of road space they occupy). A daily caps on charges might be considered, but if pricing is implemented on the scale proposed by the Mayor it seems likely to be unnecessary.</div><div><br /></div><div>Motorists could be billed directly through direct debit, or have prepaid accounts able to be topped up through internet banking, phone banking or manually using cash at selected retail outlets. Visitors could be offered “daypasses” for unlimited driving of congestion priced routes, but if only operating at peak times, it seems easier to simply send an invoice to a registered vehicle owner through post/email. </div><div style="text-decoration: underline;"><br /></div></div><div><i>Is it a good idea?</i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><div>The biggest strategic decision is whether the Mayor’s idea of pricing a couple of sections of motorway should be the first step or if the downtown cordon concept should be. There are advantages and disadvantages of each option.</div><div><br /></div><div>Undoubtedly the pricing of two sections of motorway would have a more direct and obvious impact to motorists and could be seen as demonstrating more clearly how pricing could work, and be implemented incrementally around Auckland. It is likely to be higher risk than implementing a downtown cordon because of that impact, but will be more effective. Given that, it makes sense to seriously consider the Mayor’s proposal.</div><div><br /></div><div>On the other hand, the downtown cordon would be an effective pilot. It is clear that almost all drivers into downtown Auckland have modal alternatives, and with the opening of CRL (City Rail Link) which provides an underground rail loop around downtown Auckland, that case is strengthened. Such a cordon would improve congestion on a range of routes approaching the city centre, including three motorways, but the effects of that reduction would drop significantly a good kilometre or two away, as so much traffic in Auckland is not focused on trips to downtown. </div><div><br /></div><div>If it were up to me, I’d say it would be preferable to implement the Mayor’s proposal of pricing on two stretches of motorway as a first step, rather than the downtown cordon. The downtown cordon should be implemented, but in and of itself it doesn’t demonstrate to Aucklanders the effectiveness of pricing a corridor, which is as much about shifting time of demand as it is about shifting mode. The downtown cordon should be timed to be implemented shortly after CRL opens (CRL needs to work seamlessly first). </div><div><br /></div><div>The North Western Motorway corridor ideally wouldn’t have pricing until the North Western Busway is built, but the existing bus lanes could provide sufficiently additional services to make pricing worth implementing there. The Southern Motorway corridor parallels a railway line, and some bus services, so that shouldn’t be a problem in terms of alternatives.</div><div><br /></div><div>If rat running is an issue (which it may be for the Southern Motorway) then technology can be used to deter it, by identifying vehicles leaving the motorway early to avoid a charging point and returning to it after. Pricing could be set at levels to make diverting not worth the time penalty.</div><div><br /></div><div><div><i>What do stakeholders think?</i></div><div><br /></div><div>The Employers and Manufacturer’s Association (EMA) head of advocacy and strategy Allan McDonald was supportive <a href="https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/502539/businesses-back-congestion-charges-to-ease-auckland-traffic-woes" target="_blank">according to RNZ</a> saying “Y<i>ou come back to getting the most out of the system you can and finding different ways to help those who may be disadvantaged by the cost but there are significant benefits too</i>”. He noted Auckland needed better public transport, but the road network needed to work better too. </div><div><br /></div><div>Automobile Association Auckland issues spokesperson Martin Glynn <a href="https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/502518/auckland-councillor-residents-industry-groups-against-congestion-charge" target="_blank">said there were benefits, </a>but he was concerned about the impacts on low-income drivers with few alternatives. </div><div><br /></div><div>Public Transport Users Association chairperson Niall Robertson was concerned that there needed to be better public transport alternatives. </div><div><br /></div><div><div><i>What next?</i></div><div><br /></div><div>First and foremost, a new Government needs to be formed, and the incoming Minister needs to make it clear the parameters within which congestion pricing will be authorised. </div><div><br /></div><div>Secondly, the policy and the messaging around congestion pricing needs to be clear, to address fears and concerns, and to avoid the public guessing, wrongly, about what may be implemented, why and how. It needs to be clear it is about reducing congestion and pricing should be based on meeting performance standards. It also needs to be clear that pricing does not need public transport alternatives for all drivers, to be implemented, but that the choices drivers have range from changing time of travel, mode of travel, route of travel or to drive less frequently. </div><div><br /></div><div>Thirdly, legislation needs to be drafted and introduced to implement the intended policy.</div><div><br /></div><div>Fourthly, Auckland Council, Auckland Transport and NZTA need to work together on a detailed design and implementation of a phased plan for congestion pricing in Auckland. Starting with either two corridors or a downtown cordon. </div><div><br /></div><div>Fifthly, NZTA and Wellington and Tauranga local authorities also need to work together to undertake more detailed studies for both cities, consistent with legislation and central government policy.</div></div><div><br /></div><div><i>What NOT to do?</i></div><div><ol><li><u>Don't see London as an example to cop</u>y. London is an <u>area</u> charge, it has a <u>flat</u> all day rate and has not enabled traffic to flow relatively efficiently for over 10 years because it is too blunt. London may be seen as culturally closest to Auckland, but it is vastly different. Better examples are in Singapore and Stockholm.</li><li><u>Don't make this project about raising revenue</u>. When the focus becomes revenue raising, the design will change and it becomes a lot more difficult to get the public on-board, because you are designing a tax, rather than a traffic management and pricing scheme.</li><li><u>Don't make this about reallocating road space</u>. While there will be localised cases where there is merit in doing this (specifically for cycling safety or bus priority at intersections), a successful congestion pricing system should enable all traffic to flow efficiently, including buses, and will improve conditions for all modes on the roads. Some advocates for congestion pricing see it as a tool to penalise driving and to make it more difficult for motorists to drive. If this is the policy adopted, it will be rejected by the public (as it has been in many many cities), as pricing need not be a tool of penalty, but a tool to make existing networks work better. </li><li><u>Don't play with technology yet</u>. There would be nothing wrong in eventually linking the current eRUC telematics systems to congestion pricing so their users (almost all commercial vehicles) pay charges automatically, alongside RUC. However, ANPR is just fine for now.</li><li><u>Don't make any announcements on details until you have decided on most of them,</u> and have responses as to why you made certain decisions. Don't let the media and public discourse determine policy. Design a good system with defensible policies, and then present it to the media and public, so you can make clear what might be negotiable and what is not. A litany of failures elsewhere are due to letting policy debates get out of control, raising fears and uncertainty, and consigning the concept to the "too hard" basket.</li></ol></div><div><br /></div><div><i>(Disclaimer: I worked on The Congestion Question project from 2016 to 2019) </i></div><div><br /></div></div></div></div></div><div><br /></div>Scott Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00834128869502195521noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7940640458972958593.post-90325611523038413692023-10-30T18:00:00.001+13:002023-10-30T18:00:02.200+13:00Iceland likely to be first European country to introduce RUC for light vehicles<p style="text-align: justify;">Few remember Iceland when discussing experience in road user charging (RUC) in Europe, perhaps because it is an island (and so has virtually no foreign vehicles visiting), and it is also not a member of the European Union (but then neither are Switzerland or Norway). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Iceland has had for many years a RUC for heavy vehicles, in the form of a fairly simple weight-distance charge on vehicles with a maximum allowable mass of ten tons or greater. In 2008, it raised IKK1.083b (US$7.8m). </p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>RUC for EVs and plug-in hybrid vehicles</i></p><p style="text-align: justify;">However, Iceland is about to leap ahead of all other European countries in being the first to implement a nationwide distance-based RUC for electric, plug-in hybrid and hydrogen vehicles from 1 January 2024. <a href="https://samradsgatt.island.is/oll-mal/$Cases/Details/?id=3555" target="_blank">Consultation on a draft Bill </a>(Icelandic only) to implement this charge has recently closed. <a href="https://icelandmonitor.mbl.is/news/news/2023/10/04/new_fee_based_on_per_kilometre_usage_issued_earlier/" target="_blank">Iceland Monitor reports</a> that the fee will be ISK6 per km for electric and hydrogen powered vehicles (US$0.043 per km or US$0.069 per mile), but hybrids will be charged only ISK2 per km (US$0.014 per km or US$0.022 per mile), to reflect that they continue to pay fuel taxes. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Iceland has had a significant growth in electric and hybrid vehicles, with 85% of new light vehicles sold in Iceland in 2022 being electric or plug-in hybrids. This reflects a VAT exemption for such vehicles, and other very low taxes. <a href="https://www.government.is/topics/business-and-industry/energy/" target="_blank">73% of Iceland's electricity comes from hydro-power</a> and almost 27% from geothermal energy, so electricity prices in Iceland are immune from international commodity prices. Nearly 20% of all cars in Iceland are either electric or hybrid of some form, so the impacts on fuel tax revenues have been considerable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">So Iceland will have surpassed the rest of Europe as no European country has so far mandated or even agreed to introduce some form of distance-based RUC for any light vehicles at all. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>RUC for all vehicles</i></p><p style="text-align: justify;">This isn't the end, as the Icelandic budget indicated that the introduction of the new fee will be monitored in 2024 with an eye to applying it to ALL vehicles under ten tons, and to review the future of taxation of petrol and diesel. This had led to speculation that Iceland could put all vehicles on RUC and reduce or abolish fuel taxes used to fund the transport system. If it does so, then it will be a world-leader in transitioning from fuel taxes towards RUC, and so shifting from taxing energy to taxing road use.</p>Scott Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00834128869502195521noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7940640458972958593.post-20505937502050457402023-10-26T13:43:00.002+13:002023-10-26T13:43:40.358+13:00Reactions in Singapore to ERP 2.0<p>Following the announcement of the roll-out of ERP 2.0 in Singapore (using GNSS-based On Board Units for congestion pricing), there has been some comment in the media in Singapore about the new system and policy around it. Some of this is likely to be relevant to other jurisdictions considering mandating such technology into motor vehicles.</p><p><i>What do motorists and car dealers think?</i></p><p>The Straits Times<a href="https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/next-gen-erp-on-board-units-what-car-dealers-and-motorists-say" target="_blank"> published an article on 25 October</a> by Lee Nian Tjoe on what motorists and car dealers think.</p><p>Dealerships generally said that they were ready for the rollout, as some had been establishing how to conceal wiring and have the equipment installed in their vehicles, but some still were awaiting information...</p><p><i>Ms Tracy Teo, marketing director of Komoco Motors, which represents Hyundai, Jeep, Ferrari, Maserati and Alfa Romeo in Singapore, said the company is awaiting information and instruction from LTA on the next steps.</i></p><p>One of the key issues is that getting such equipment installed in a wide variety of makes and models may present challenges for some varieties of vehicles. </p><p>Comments from members of the public approached by the journalist were largely questioning with some concerns, such as the location of the OBU on the side of the passenger footwell. One objected to the system having capability to have stored value cards inserted given how technology had moved beyond that. </p><p>The article describes how a fleet operator was used to test installation of 500 devices in a pilot.</p><p><i>Should it have been rolled out in the first place?</i></p><p>A second <a href="https://www.techgoondu.com/2023/10/25/years-late-and-outdated-erp-2-0-is-the-type-of-costly-technology-project-singapore-should-avoid/" target="_blank">article from the website Techgoondu </a>is critical of the new system.</p><p>Author Alfred Siew describes it as:</p><p><i>the unwanted rollout of a costly project that has taken nearly 20 years to complete, if you count its early efforts. It is clearly outdated and inconvenient for users. Many questions have already been raised about this “next-gen” ERP 2.0 unit when it was unveiled two years ago. Most damning was why it was even necessary.</i></p><p>Part of this is unfair, as it is not a 20 year long project, but it is certainly was being thought about 10 years ago. Singapore needed a new system because "ERP 1.0" was creaky and obsolete, and needed replacement. It would have been cheaper to go all ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) based, but certain features would not have been available, and it could have simply been an update of the current technology. However, Siew notes correctly that the "next-generation" features around traffic information are largely available through apps such as Waze. Smartphones are able to be used as the in-vehicle display is optional, so the question becomes what it would have taken to make smartphones work? The key issues around reliability and linking it to the vehicle remain, but this is being trialled in Brussels now.</p><p>Siew describes the system as old technology, with the stored-value cards which are increasingly obsolete and an in-vehicle display reminiscent of pre-smartphone navigation systems. Of course many cars have automaker installed telematics with some key elements of the ERP 2.0 system included, although not available for congestion pricing applications. Making Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) telematics systems available and suitable for road pricing is perhaps the "rosetta stone" for ubiquitous road pricing in the future. Unfortunately efforts to do this so far have been very limited across the globe.</p><p>Siew finally criticises it for being a system with the capability to introduce distance based charging, but that capability is not to be used as of yet. That doesn't mean that it <i>won't </i> be and it is entirely understandable that a policy decision to do that would not be announced until the entire system is installed and proven, but unless it is used, it seems like an expensive solution to what is just an effort to replace an old system with one with less intrusive roadside infrastructure.</p><p>Of course LTA had signed the contract for the ERP 2.0 system some years ago and became committed to the project, so it had to be rolled out. Hopefully it will all prove to be worthwhile and operate successfully for many years to come.</p><p><i>Distance-based pricing is unlikely anytime soon</i></p><p>Newspaper <a href="https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/explainer-why-distance-based-road-pricing-unlikely-anytime-soon-2289551" target="_blank">Today online published an article by Loraine Lee on 25 October</a> saying that it was unlikely LTA would implement distance based pricing soon.</p><p>Key issues identified were:</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>How to apply it equitably, including the future of fuel taxes and vehicle registration/ownership taxes, so that those that travel the most are not paying disproportionately compared to what they do now. </li><li>Questions over the location accuracy of the technology in parts of Singapore with tall building, and with tunnels (the latter is not a real issue, as systems elsewhere can clearly note when vehicles travelling on a road disappear and reappear at another location, that they must have been in the tunnel on that route). </li><li>Need to consider the wider impacts of a shift towards distance-based charging on some road users.</li></ul><div>The accuracy issues can certainly be addressed, as they have been in other GNSS-based road user charging systems in Europe, the United States and New Zealand, but the policy issues about Singapore's mix of taxes require some further work to disaggregate. Clearly fuel taxation will be eroding due to the emergence of electric and hybrid vehicles, and a shift from ownership based taxes to usage based taxes is likely to increase car ownership, but reduce distance travelled by car and congestion, so some modelling will be needed to forecast the impacts on Singapore's traffic (and vehicle fleet size). </div><div><br /></div><div>The key point is the new system will provide options, and it would be a poor use of the technology to not have some form of distance based charging or at the very least use it to implement more 'virtual gantries' for pricing. </div><div><br /></div><div>Time will tell whether other cities will copy Singapore technologically (they should copy parts of it in terms of pricing policy), my suspicion is that the inclusion of a slot for stored-payment cards is unlikely to be replicated, nor is a in-vehicle display, but the core of the technology still has merits. The options for using GNSS-technology for congestion pricing are:</div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Purpose built OBUs for professional installation in vehicles</li><li>Scaled down "self-installed" OBUs</li><li>OEM telematics </li><li>Smartphones</li></ul><div>Singapore has chosen the first, we will see if the next GNSS-based congestion pricing system selects an alternative.</div></div><p></p>Scott Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00834128869502195521noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7940640458972958593.post-7323872359263122262023-10-25T15:18:00.001+13:002023-10-25T15:18:51.257+13:00Singapore launches ERP 2.0... finally<p style="text-align: justify;"><a href="https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-next-generation-erp-system-and-new-on-board-unit" target="_blank">The Straits Times reports</a> that Singapore has, finally, announced to roll out of its ERP 2.0 On Board Units (OBUs) over then next two years. Starting in November 2023, fleet operators will get OBUs installed in their vehicles, and from no later than April 2024, new vehicles will have the new OBUs installed. Remaining vehicles in Singapore will be required to have the OBU installed based on date of registration over the subsequent two years. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Installation is estimated to take three hours for a car. All motor vehicles in Singapore will be required to have the new OBUs, including motorcycles (which have a smaller single unit OBU). Installation will be free of charge if done within a two month window specified by the Land Transport Authority (LTA) (notified to the registered vehicle owner in advance). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Payment options will remain the same including direct debit of credit or debit cards, or use of prepaid stored value cards (which can be inserted into the base unit of the OBU).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The car unit is in three components:</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li style="text-align: justify;">Processing Unit</li><li style="text-align: justify;">Antenna Unit</li><li style="text-align: justify;">Touchscreen Display</li></ul><div style="text-align: justify;">The image below is the official depiction of the ERP 2.0 installation.</div><div><br /></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibgoeShhsQD9cG5XKjYQPVSrqJk5-CZdW_CUTFbrigMPd3m4f1t-xj2TsgTV_3GiBrQSN0h___UziL0qWsMtkKh4nKLREkRJytwPLWk6XI8tnIJRkMq8K8lEQ4vj0NjeSNtIzaOzWpjZPelksw89JYRZ3oro_QKUpi09bezzGSm-50miskWN1RKgbN8i96/s1110/Screenshot%202023-10-25%20at%2015.02.46.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1110" data-original-width="918" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibgoeShhsQD9cG5XKjYQPVSrqJk5-CZdW_CUTFbrigMPd3m4f1t-xj2TsgTV_3GiBrQSN0h___UziL0qWsMtkKh4nKLREkRJytwPLWk6XI8tnIJRkMq8K8lEQ4vj0NjeSNtIzaOzWpjZPelksw89JYRZ3oro_QKUpi09bezzGSm-50miskWN1RKgbN8i96/w530-h640/Screenshot%202023-10-25%20at%2015.02.46.png" width="530" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Singapore ERP 2.0 OBU for cars</td></tr></tbody></table><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The touchscreen display is optional, as motorists can choose to use their smartphone which will deliver road pricing and traffic data through a choice of three apps. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The report notes why the LTA did <i>not</i> choose smartphones as the processing devices:</div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li style="text-align: justify;">Security for real-time charging transactions from prepaid stored value cards</li><li style="text-align: justify;">Reliability, given the range of smartphone models and operating systems available (including older models)</li><li style="text-align: justify;">Concern over ensuring whether an app is functioning, the smartphone is sufficiently charged and is connected to the mobile network.</li></ul><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Singapore's highly intrusive ERP gantries will not be removed until the installation is completed, after which they will be progressively removed and replaced with signage, and in some cases Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras for spot enforcement (and to ensure ERP 2.0 devices are not malfunctioning). </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Importantly, Singapore has no plans to change its <i>policy</i> on road pricing, and plans to keep charging at specific points on the network as it does now.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">More details are <a href="https://www.lta.gov.sg/content/ltagov/en/newsroom/2023/10/news-releases/erp-2-0-on-board-unit-installation-starting-in-november-with-fle.html" target="_blank">available here on the LTA website.</a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The installation of ERP 2.0 is three years later than originally planned by the Singaporean Government. It had been delayed by a combination of the effects of the Covid 19 pandemic, and subsequent chip supply shortages hindering the production of the new system. <a href="https://roadpricing.blogspot.com/2016/03/singapore-will-have-worlds-first-gnss.html" target="_blank">In 2016 I wrote </a>that Singapore was planning to have the new system up and running by 2020. It is unclear if the budget for the system S$556m has been exceeded as a result.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">What it does mean is that Singapore can be declared as having the world's first GNSS-based congestion pricing system. It has the flexibility to charge by distance, but also the flexibility to introduce "virtual gantries" anywhere in the network, and with the installation of OBU 2.0 as compulsory, it means there needs to be only small-scale enforcement of whether the devices are installed and functioning, unlike cities with many vehicles visiting from other jurisdictions. <a href="https://onemotoring.lta.gov.sg/content/onemotoring/home/driving/entering_and_exiting_singapore/vep.html" target="_blank">Foreign vehicles in Singapore without an OBU are charged on a per day basis for the time spent in Singapore</a>, at a rate of S$5 per day, regardless of the extent of use of ERP charged roads. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Singapore's OBU 2.0 may provide a benchmark for other cities, although the need for three hours of installation time, and at least two components, is likely to be seen as expensive and intrusive for many other cities. Nevertheless, Singapore still remains the gold standard of congestion pricing systems internationally, and it remains notable that in a city-state that has relatively low levels of evasion and little difficulty in enforcing traffic offences, that it continues to be sceptical of the reliability and security of using smartphones for road pricing. This might reflect the commitment it had already sunk into the new OBUs, but it has accepted the use of smartphones as a customer interface and information system.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">This video has been published by Channel News Asia (of Singapore) about the new OBU:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/sQSrh9r00nQ" width="320" youtube-src-id="sQSrh9r00nQ"></iframe></div><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><p></p>Scott Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00834128869502195521noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7940640458972958593.post-35892904945485508572023-10-20T15:00:00.008+13:002023-10-20T15:00:00.147+13:00Victoria (Australia’s) electric vehicle road user charge ruled unconstitutional<p>In a landmark court decision, the High Court of Australia ruled (in a narrow 4-3 ruling) in the case of <a href="https://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/showCase/2023/HCA/30" target="_blank">Vanderstock & Anor v State of Victoria</a>, that the Zero and Low Emission Vehicle Distance-based Charge Act 2021 is invalid under Section 90 of the Constitution as it imposes a duty of excise. The charge was known as the ZEV in Victoria.</p><p>This effectively means Victoria’s distance-based road user charge (RUC) for battery-electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles is illegal. The basis for the decision is interesting, as it appears to be that:</p><p>The charge was deemed by the court to be “a tax on goods because there is a close relation between the tax and the use of ZLEVs, and the tax affects ZLEVs as articles of commerce, including because of its tendency to affect demand for ZLEVs”. </p><p>If I put my legal hat on (I am a lawyer), this is quite an interpretation, as it seems to regard the charge as being an excise because it affects demand for zero and low emission vehicles. This blog is not the place to debate the legal arguments, indeed the dissenting judgments amply raise the key issues.</p><p>The obvious <i>policy </i>question is if a charge of A$0.028 per km on the use of zero emission vehicles is an excise because of its "tendency to affect demand for ZLEVs”, and if the tax (it was critical that it be deemed a tax, and not a fee for services) is a tax on goods, is not the annual registration fee (which is A$876.90 (US$553) for a car in a metro area of Victoria) similar? It is effectively a tax on being able to use the car.</p><p>However, the court has ruled, and it does beg a wide range of questions both at the strategic policy level around charging road vehicles to use roads in Australia, and the effect the decision has on the options to do this. At a basic level there are two points:</p><p>1.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span><u>The Victorian ZLEV tax as it was designed is unconstitutional</u>: This was a mandatory charge, that had no option (as applies in some states in the US) to pay a flat annual fee instead, which only applies to a small proportion of light vehicles. Would a tax that had another option be legal? Would a tax that applied to all light vehicles be legal, including one that might largely replace registration fees (so may have a neutral effect on demand for light vehicles as a “good”)? Would it have been legal had the Department levied it as a <i>fee</i> based on <i>costs of providing a service</i>, rather than as a tax? </p><p>2.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span><u>The Commonwealth can levy a tax charge such as the ZLEV, but only across all of Australia</u>: If it were policy, the Commonwealth could pass legislation requiring all electric vehicles in Australia to pay a per km RUC. Similarly, could it apply it to all light duty vehicles? Arguably fuel excise duty does that now, but fuel excise duty strictly speaking affects demand for the fuels that are taxed, if you consider the definition applied by the High Court.</p><p>What happens next is obviously going to be a matter for the Victorian Government to consider, and indeed given both New South Wales and Western Australia have legislated for their own RUC systems to apply to electric vehicles from 2027, they will have an interest (along with all other States and Territories). Is it possible for them to design a road user fee, based on provision of a service (roads as a service) and the costs of providing it? If so, how could that be legally drafted without simply empowering a road manager to implement such a fee? Could it be applied across all road managers in Victoria? There are 79 local road managers and at least 1 state road manager in Victoria.</p><p>Victorian Premier Tim Pallas argued that it was about “fairness” and noted that electric vehicles were heavier and contributed more to “road degradation”. That latter point is highly questionable, but also not really relevant. The difference in weight between types of light vehicles makes very little impact on road wear, as most road wear and tear arises from the effects of weather and temperature, and the passage of heavy vehicles, not vehicles weighing < 4.5 tonnes.</p><p>The Commonwealth Government might be expected to have a view on the future of charging electric and other light vehicles for road use, as it was supportive of the plaintiffs. It would be reasonable to expect a policy position to be expressed in the coming months either to advance investigations in how RUC might be implemented for electric vehicles across Australia or to defer considering it until they are a larger proportion of the fleet. Ultimately it cannot be avoided, and it is in Australia’s interests to have a single coherent strategy to charging vehicles for using the roads, as it affects the sustainability and future of fuel excise duty. I hope that decisions are made in coming months for the Commonwealth to investigate pathways towards transitioning how light vehicles pay to use the roads, and alongside that, how revenue collected from them can be managed and efficiently distributed.</p><p>It's important to note that the Commonwealth already has a clear role regarding how heavy vehicles are charged for road use. Part of fuel excise duty is legally called a Road User Charge, which is what heavy vehicle pay to use the roads. Owners of such vehicles are entitled to refunds of the remainder of fuel excise duty when being driven on public roads (and to receive a full refund when driven off public roads). The Commonwealth has already been piloting options for a long-term transition from fuel excise duty and (State and Territory collected) registration fees towards paying by distance and weight. There is already some knowledge and understanding of the relevant issues within the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Culture, and the Arts (DITRDCA).</p><p><i>Could States and Territories design a RUC that is not illegal?</i></p><p>It might be theoretically possible to design a light-vehicle RUC at the State and Territory level that does not come within the definition of excise, as indicated in Vanderstock & Anor v State of Victoria. Some of the characteristics of such a fee could include:</p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>It is a fee based on consumption of a service, not a tax. This affects how it is collected and how it is enforced.</li><li>A fee that replaces another charge (aiming to be revenue neutral), such as replacement of registration fees. Arguably this would not affect demand for the “good” if it replaces a different type of tax. </li><li>A fee that applies to all types of (light) vehicles, which is also a replacement of registration fees, so it does not affect demand for one type of vehicle.</li><li>A fee that does not apply to consumption out-of-state. Victoria's tax applied to distance travelled anywhere on public roads, making it more difficult to claim that it was about consumption.</li></ul><p></p><p>I suspect States and Territories might investigate such options, if they are determined to implement a form of RUC, but there may be a preference to simply leave it to the Commonwealth. Motorists are likely to prefer this, but the political will to do it will depend on one government taking a chance (and needing to work with the State and Territory Governments, all of which control motor vehicle registers essential to making it work), rather than eight separate entities doing so. </p><p><i>What does the Commonwealth need to consider?</i></p><p>Clearly the basis for having the Commonwealth proceed is that it is Commonwealth revenue being eroded by changes in vehicle technology. Given work already underway investigating RUC for heavy vehicles, it would make some sense to have a unified approach, which co-ordinates with States and Territories.</p><p>A wide range of issues would need to be considered including:</p><p>•<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>What types of vehicles should first be moved onto RUC? Just those that pay nothing now (EVs), those that pay significantly less fuel tax (PHEVs and BEVs) or allow <i>any</i> light vehicles to opt into RUC?</p><p>•<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>What would be the best basis for rate-setting? Should it be based on cost-allocation on a forward-looking cost base as has been proposed for heavy vehicles?</p><p>•<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Would it (and if so when would it) apply to vehicles currently paying fuel-excise and if so, how would fuel-excise be treated (i.e., refunded, credited to a RUC account)?</p><p>•<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>What technical solutions would be suitable? Automated options require equipment to be installed or existing telematics to be used, manual options require verification.</p><p>•<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Will technical solutions be piloted with a section of the public (as is being done for heavy vehicles)? What would be the purpose of piloting RUC?</p><p>•<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Will revenues be hypothecated into a roads fund? If so, how would revenues be distributed among States and Territories compared to existing Commonwealth funding for roads?</p><p>•<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Would a Commonwealth RUC be applied at a single rate regardless of State or Territory, or have rates set that vary by location? A location based RUC would limit the technical options that would be feasible.</p><p>•<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>What entities would be responsible for operation and enforcement of a Commonwealth RUC? How would a high standard of customer service be ensured?</p><p>•<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>What roles would States and Territories have with a Commonwealth RUC?</p><p><i>What now?</i></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Regardless of what happens, there would need to be a significant Commonwealth role in any case. It would be costly and complicated to have potentially eight different RUC systems, all of which are focused on collecting data and money from vehicle owners in their own borders, and to enforce RUC across them. It may have been less problematic for some (Tasmania, Western Australia and the Northern Territory all have low levels of cross border traffic), but much more complex along the eastern states and territory. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Given States and Territories have generally made EVs exempt from registration fees and are unlikely to want to apply RUC more generally across all light vehicles, it seems likely they will now turn to the Commonwealth to get some direction around how it wants to approach RUC for EVs and RUC more generally. This is an opportunity to consider the wider road charging and funding framework across Australia, including the role of fuel excise and registration fees. RUC is inevitable for highly fuel-efficient vehicles, the question is not if, but when, but it should be considered within the wider context of the questions outlined above. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">With three US states having implemented RUC for parts of their light-vehicle fleets already (Oregon, Utah, and Virginia) and a fourth having mandated it (Hawaii), and multiple others piloting and investigating it (including the Federal Government), there is extensive experience in addressing many of these issues. New Zealand’s long standing RUC system will soon be extended to electric vehicles (it already covers all heavy vehicles, and all light diesel vehicles) also provides some useful lessons. There are also several pilots that have been undertaken in Europe.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Commonwealth Government may not decide to do anything in the meantime, but that is a policy choice, and it could be undertaken with the clear message that it is intended to encourage growth in EVs and PHEVs. However, the easiest time to introduce a RUC is when the vehicles it is meant to apply to are few, and technical and policy options to do so can be easy to test. Australia has time to develop a strategy for road charging that might place both heavy and light vehicles within a single framework. It would be wise to do so over the next few years, and take the chance to bring States, Territories, stakeholders and most importantly, the public with it. </p><div><br /></div>Scott Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00834128869502195521noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7940640458972958593.post-48856316500284505122023-09-11T15:45:00.002+12:002023-09-11T15:45:21.733+12:00Cambridge cancels congestion charging and it isn't a surprise<p style="text-align: justify;"><a href="https://roadpricing.blogspot.com/2023/03/cambridge-uk-announced-plans-for.html" target="_blank">I wrote in March 2023 about Cambridge's ambitious proposal</a> for what it was calling a "Sustainable Travel Zone", but which was actually a congestion charge, and how it was not going well.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Well the <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-66731659#" target="_blank">BBC has reported that it has been cancelled,</a> less than two weeks after revised plans were suggested that ought to have been the <i>original</i> plans in the first place.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">I criticised the original proposal because its scale and scope were too ambitious, and because it offered little for those who would pay, as it was primarily designed as a <i>revenue raising</i> scheme, which had its scope defined by the amount of money local politicians wanted to raise to uplift the quality of its bus service. £50 million was to be spent enhancing services.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">As a revenue raising scheme that was also described as being intended to "reduce traffic" it is hardly surprising that those who faced paying didn't see what they would benefit from, especially as few could envisage how the proposed improvements to bus services were "better" than their own cars, and there was next to no effort made to sell the proposal on the basis that it might improve travel times for those who still drive.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">From that objective came a scheme design that was blunt and ill-focused. Why?</p><p style="text-align: justify;"></p><ol><li>It was designed as an area charge, like central London's congestion charge, so there could only be a single charge per day regardless of how much driving was undertaken. Those who undertook a single trip would pay the same as those driving commercially throughout the day. </li><li>The area charge encompassed ALL of Cambridge. It effectively made the entire city into a congestion charge zone, regardless of how busy any streets were at any time, it priced the city for access, so those who drove towards the central city (who likely had other transport options for their trip) paid the same as those crossing from one side to the other (which would typically involve a less direct public transport trip).</li><li>The charge would apply all day, from 0700-1900. So there was no effort to focus on peak charging at all, or focus on congestion. Although it would initially only apply in the AM peak in 2025 to commercial vehicles it would expand to all day operation from 2027 for all vehicles that would not be exempt.</li><li>HGVs would pay exponentially more than cars, at £50 per day (perhaps £25 if zero emission) compared to £5 for cars. It's unclear how Cambridge expected to function effectively by treating HGVs as if they take up 10x the road space of cars (and have no modal substitute) when they actually take up 2.5-3x the road space of cars.</li></ol><div>There was a proposal for a low-income discount for some drivers, along with exemptions for those attending medical appointments and a range of other categories. However, much of this did not seem to help much with the public perception.</div><div><br /></div><div>The public response to the proposals was highly negative, with<a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-64783066" target="_blank"> protests</a>, a petition and debates, plus the local election in 2023 seeing the Conservatives (who oppose the proposal, as it has been advanced by the Labour led Council) <a href="https://www.cambridgeindependent.co.uk/news/conservatives-win-first-seat-on-cambridge-city-council-with-9320080/" target="_blank">win a seat on the Council.</a></div><div><br /></div><div>I suggested the proposal be scaled down, to peak only charges (with a half-price shoulder period), cordons rather than area charges (and two cordons, one around the city centre and one around the city edge) and a lower multiplier for heavy vehicles. </div><div><br /></div><div><i>Revised plans</i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div>At least one of those ideas was taken on board, with <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-66618238" target="_blank">plans announced in August 2023</a> for peak-only charges (0700-1000, 1500-1800) and 50 "free days" for residents to be able to drive without charges, every year. A 50% discount would also apply to locally owned businesses using HGVs and vans, and a 50% discount for people on low incomes.</div><div><br /></div><div>The revenue to be collected would only be £26 million per annum, but would be enough to implement significant bus improvements. Perhaps had the scheme been scoped like that from the first place, it might have had a chance of being implemented. </div><div><br /></div><div>However, it has since been abandoned altogether, not least because the Liberal Democrats have withdrawn support. The Liberal Democrats govern the neighbouring South Cambridgeshire District Council (which surrounds the city of Cambridge) and lead the Cambridgeshire County Council. As the proposed congestion charge has to be agreed by the Greater Cambridge Partnership Assembly (which includes representatives from multiple local authorities), it would be difficult to see it proceed without their united support. The Liberal Democrats asked for a "pause" to investigate other sources of funding to upgrade the bus system. </div><div><br /></div><div>It appears this reflects increased national antagonism at measures which appear designed to penalise driving, and concern about the political fallout of supporting such measures at this time.</div><div><br /></div><div><i> Collapse and what now?</i></div><div><br /></div><div>The final collapse of the concept came when the Labour group on Cambridge City Council withdrew support, out of concern for impacts on low income families. This is clearly not assuaged by the proposed 50% discount for low income households or the proposed 50 "free" trips permitted per annum for residents. What this all appears to be is a political reaction to a response to proposals that did not convince the public.</div><div><br /></div><div>The Councils all still wish to upgrade bus services, and are not opposed to the fundamental objectives, but it is not clear how they proceed, short of recasting the whole scheme to include <i>something </i> for those who drive.</div><div><br /></div><div>I'm not surprised it has all faltered, in part because notwithstanding much of the public's stated interest in addressing environmental issues including climate change, there is much less enthusiasm in paying more in what are seen as taxes to pay for services that they do not see as benefiting them.</div><div><br /></div><div>Assuming Cambridge still wants to proceed it needs to re-evaluating its policy around road charging to think more about one question - What will road charging do for those who pay?</div><div><br /></div><div>There are two clear answers to this which it should consider:</div><div><ol><li>What travel time savings and improvements in trip reliability will the system be designed to achieve?</li><li>Can <i>some</i> of the revenue be used to improve the road network, whether by addressing deferred maintenance or improving some bottlenecks or safety issues in the network?</li></ol><div><br /></div></div><div><i>Could Cambridge get a road pricing scheme it could accept?</i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div>This requires a very different mindset from that which treats pricing existing road users as a useful tax to pay for alternatives only. It doesn't mean that revenue cannot be used to support improving public transport and cycling, but it does mean that first and foremost pricing be used to improve the level of service of those who pay.</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiYdK63jlDp-nvlrgMItcHO4sS7zpm2w1UGl-86YpbiyB0aYq9i1kUdQGd_4zfQgJoefYUIyPR_D0JbmOhD5ZrM8gzROJuslX7I6Tz7x4GDKCpouYIAXkYK_5u6VFbsO2LhGMXlaPGSSYyFDI01aH1LEMnbHHbjCIR7l9wJxLMASVKXGj33xftiLtaLFH3Q/s1850/Screenshot%202023-09-11%20at%2015.34.43.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1630" data-original-width="1850" height="353" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiYdK63jlDp-nvlrgMItcHO4sS7zpm2w1UGl-86YpbiyB0aYq9i1kUdQGd_4zfQgJoefYUIyPR_D0JbmOhD5ZrM8gzROJuslX7I6Tz7x4GDKCpouYIAXkYK_5u6VFbsO2LhGMXlaPGSSYyFDI01aH1LEMnbHHbjCIR7l9wJxLMASVKXGj33xftiLtaLFH3Q/w400-h353/Screenshot%202023-09-11%20at%2015.34.43.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Cambridge</td></tr></tbody></table><div><br /></div><div>If the scheme were redrawn to be cordon based, or even zonal based, at peak periods only (and only in respective directions of travel) there would be a chance it could be focused on congestion and improving travel time reliability. Cambridge has an awful road network for motorists seeking to avoid driving towards the centre to travel from one side to the other, (for example consider driving from the northwest to the southeast without following the city centre ring route) no doubt because local politicians didn't think that was important. It might help to think about the extent to which pricing should be focused on congested routes, particularly those with viable (or soon to be viable) competing public transport options.</div><div><br /></div><div>A city centre cordon would be a reasonably elegant start, followed by a peripheral one that enabled vehicles exiting the M11 or A14 highways to avoid Cambridge altogether, or a few strategic charging points on bridges over the River Cam. Pricing ought to reflect road space occupancy, so none of the 10x multiplier for HGVs, just make it 3x, with 2x for smaller trucks. If pricing only operates at peak times there is less need for discounts and exemptions as well.</div><div><br /></div><div>The use of revenue is important as well. Whilst Cambridge won't want to be seen to be replacing spending on maintenance with revenue from a congestion charge, it could consider whether deferred maintenance could be addressed or better yet, some small scale highly efficient road improvements that may make intersections work more effectively or address other localised bottlenecks or safety issues. Using road pricing revenue for economically efficient road improvements is a net positive for the community, and with pricing there should be no concern about inducing demand, but rather improving the efficiency of the travel of those needing to use the roads. This means buses too, as well as light commercial vehicles, freight delivery and the like.</div><div><br /></div><div>However, I fear that the ambition and the failure to recognise the need for road pricing to give something to those who pay has "poisoned the well" politically around the very philosophy of congestion pricing. This is hardly surprising, as far too many of the advocates for pricing do so from an antipathy to private motoring, rather than seeing it as a tool to make roads operate more efficiently, and so be an opportunity to improve <i>all travel</i>. It should not be a surprise to find that people who drive don't like paying more for what appears to be no benefit to them at all. I would have thought the lessons of the failure to proceed with congestion charging in Edinburgh and Manchester 20 and 15 years ago respectively (and indeed the failure to even expand London's congestion charging scheme) should have been learned.</div><p></p>Scott Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00834128869502195521noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7940640458972958593.post-73488777578799447922023-07-12T20:00:00.001+12:002023-07-12T20:00:00.138+12:00Hawaii becomes latest US state to legislate for road user charging<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgBffBDPcZ8am7MTijIeRolRMpG0ANR_o3OdWs6p8S3AeB8kn72T2UiD77S1baAZOPgL9bQqZnw9BuXYPm3JQaSyulGx3BNeog8Ptc8H7AjuEaDkY1Eo9oit0W1SMQ61xqZUOp8ZwdRjALY0PY03G8uOpBXurxK463FT-3bI3uFuRNjW_ZzdnlEgjuePsOR/s870/Screenshot%202023-07-12%20at%2018.01.35.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="240" data-original-width="870" height="176" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgBffBDPcZ8am7MTijIeRolRMpG0ANR_o3OdWs6p8S3AeB8kn72T2UiD77S1baAZOPgL9bQqZnw9BuXYPm3JQaSyulGx3BNeog8Ptc8H7AjuEaDkY1Eo9oit0W1SMQ61xqZUOp8ZwdRjALY0PY03G8uOpBXurxK463FT-3bI3uFuRNjW_ZzdnlEgjuePsOR/w640-h176/Screenshot%202023-07-12%20at%2018.01.35.png" width="640" /></a></div><p>Following on from Oregon, Utah and Virginia, Hawaii is the latest US state to introduce road user charging (RUC) (called road usage charging in the US) as a revenue raising measure. </p><p><a href="https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=1534&year=2023" target="_blank">Senate Bill 1534</a> has been signed into legislation by Governor Josh Green and is now Act 222, following two sets of pilots into distance based road charging in the State.</p><p>The Act does the following in respect of RUC:</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Eliminates the US$50 state annual registration surcharge from 1 July 2025. </li><li>Until 30 June 2028, requires EV owners to choose either to pay a $50 per annum fee or a per mile rate of US$0.008 (0.8c per mile) to be reported annually at vehicle safety checks. </li><li>From 30 June 2028, RUC will be mandatory for all EVs. </li><li>A plan is to be developed to implement RUC for all cars and light-duty trucks by 2033 and report to the Legislature about that plan. </li></ul><div>This is more advanced than RUC in any other US state, as <a href="https://www.myorego.org" target="_blank">Oregon</a>, <a href="https://roadusagecharge.utah.gov" target="_blank">Utah </a>and <a href="https://www.dmv.virginia.gov/general/#va_mileage_choice.asp" target="_blank">Virginia </a>all provide the option of paying an annual flat fee and can then drive as many miles as the vehicle owner wishes. Hawaii will enable that option only until 2028, after that date, RUC will be mandatory. This is much closer to RUC in Victoria, Australia and in New Zealand.</div><div><br /></div><div>More importantly, the legislation lays the path towards moving ALL light vehicles onto RUC, and therefore away from fuel tax, which is much more forward thinking than other jurisdictions (including Victoria and New Zealand).</div><div><br /></div><div>RUC in Hawaii will effectively be reported using odometers, inspected at the state's mandatory annual vehicle safety inspections. </div><div><br /></div><div>Important to remember Hawaii not only has state gas tax that this is intended to progressively replace, but county based fuel taxes, and this program will aim to try to replace them as well (although not the Federal tax on fuel, which pays into the Federal Highway Trust Fund).</div><div><br /></div><div>This followed an extensive pilot program to test RUC with the public in Hawaii, seen in the HiRUC <a href="https://hiruc.org/final-report/" target="_blank">final report</a> here. <a href="https://hiruc.org" target="_blank">This website</a> has a good description of that program. This followed the previous <a href="https://hidot.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Hawaii-DOT-Mileage-Based-User-Fee-Final-Report-May-29-2016.pdf">Hawaii Road Usage Charge Demonstration Program</a> (PDF). </div><div><br /></div><div>Disclaimer: Throughout the Hawaii Road Usage Charge Demonstration and the HiRUC project, Milestone Solutions (now part of CDM Smith, and previously called D'Artagnan Consulting) was the lead contractor responsible for delivering Hawaii’s research and demonstration program including public and stakeholder outreach, policy and financial analysis, technical and system design, implementation, and evaluation of results. I worked on several elements of the HiRUC project.</div><div><br /></div><p></p><p><br /></p>Scott Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00834128869502195521noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7940640458972958593.post-23277632712499864652023-07-10T16:58:00.004+12:002023-07-10T17:06:03.420+12:00Will New York congestion pricing encourage more US cities to follow?<p><a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us/new-york-city-congestion-pricing-plan-clears-hurdle-2023-05-05/" target="_blank">The recent news </a>that the New York lower Manhattan congestion pricing proposal has received Federal endorsement (which was needed as some of the roads to be charged are Federally funded) seems likely to be the last major barrier before the proposal can be actually implemented. It has taken some time, not least because the Trump Administration neither progressed nor rejected the proposal.</p><p>The proposal is basically an area charge around lower Manhattan, which is called the <a href="https://new.mta.info/project/CBDTP" target="_blank">New York City Central Business District Tolling Program.</a> This is a fair title as it probably isn't sophisticated enough to really justify the term "congestion pricing" although it should reduce congestion, it is essentially designed to raise revenue. </p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiB7hI4sJH1WdjyCUGnsH4akVajUy5Eb-FiJZES23UVzfiQypTDm_vN057DfRTvx63_MZT-o_8qth51IH5KY4cgqiqRyFkBeIa3gyWqF3l6Y2YefEbGHgUnpnnR4PhUEzTFXcq2v6K1ltQhka1ic16zgiEyTtoYHdee7KcaicOQDxx24v1KRAuWkRT2sA/s2012/Screenshot%202023-06-02%20at%2015.56.47.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2012" data-original-width="1794" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiB7hI4sJH1WdjyCUGnsH4akVajUy5Eb-FiJZES23UVzfiQypTDm_vN057DfRTvx63_MZT-o_8qth51IH5KY4cgqiqRyFkBeIa3gyWqF3l6Y2YefEbGHgUnpnnR4PhUEzTFXcq2v6K1ltQhka1ic16zgiEyTtoYHdee7KcaicOQDxx24v1KRAuWkRT2sA/w356-h400/Screenshot%202023-06-02%20at%2015.56.47.png" width="356" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">New York congestion pricing concept map</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><p>There are some oddities about the proposal, notably that the road around the periphery of lower Manhattan is exempt from the charge, when for almost all trips is only worth driving on to access the zone within it. It is notably also an area charge, which is a concept only implemented elsewhere in London (and then it was only because the Automatic Number Plate Recognition technology in 2003 had such a poor read reliability rate that the target was to get each vehicle to pass around three sets of cameras to be sure it would be identified). So it will charge vehicles entering AND vehicles <i>remaining </i>within the area during operating hours.</p><p><i>Key characteristics</i></p><p>Vehicles will only be charged ONCE per day, so it won't penalise frequent movements (this will appeal to commercial traffic, but should dissuade some occasional traffic and regular commuters).</p><p>Residents earning less than US$60,000 a year will get a tax credit for tolls paid, essentially a low income exemption for residents of the zone. It is currently proposed that a 25% discount would apply for low-income frequent drivers on the full CBD E-ZPass toll rate after the first 10 trips in each calendar month (excluding the overnight period)</p><p>Emergency vehicles and vehicles used to transport people with disabilities will be exempt (the latter category could be quite extensive!).</p><p>A new entity called the Traffic Mobility Review Board would recommend the rates table, with prices to vary by time-of-day with a mandate to consider how traffic might move, effects on air quality, costs, effects on the public and safety. Indications are that prices could be between US$9 and US$23 depending on time of day, with overnight charges of US$5.</p><p>Rates from midnight till 0400 must be no more than 50% of that of peak charges (<i>you may question why there is a fee at all at that time, but this is because the main objective is revenue). </i></p><p>Drivers paying existing river crossing tolls (not all river crossings have tolls) will get those tolls credited to paying the Lower Manhattan charge.</p><p>Charges will be levied by detecting <a href="https://www.e-zpassiag.com" target="_blank">E-ZPass toll tags</a>. Vehicles without toll tags will be charged through Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras which will be used to identify the vehicle's owner through Departments of Motor Vehicles, and be mailed to the owner. </p><p>$US$207.5million is committed over five years to mitigate negative impacts including the low-income discount, monitoring of traffic, air quality and transit stations, </p><p><i>Objectives and expected results</i></p><p>Officially the goals are:</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Reduce daily vehicle-miles traveled within the Manhattan CBD by at least 5 percent.</li><li>Reduce the number of vehicles entering the Manhattan CBD daily by at least 10 percent.</li><li>Create a funding source for capital improvements and generate sufficient annual net revenues to fund $15 billion for capital projects for the MTA Capital Program</li><li>Establish a tolling program consistent with the purposes underlying the New York State legislation entitled the MTA Reform and Traffic Mobility Act.</li></ul><p></p><p>1. Net revenues! 80% of net revenues will be used to improve and modernise New York City Transit (subway and buses), 10% to Long Island Rail Road, 10% to Metro-North Railroad. Zero revenue will be used to support even maintenance of the roads being charged let alone improvements to them. In effect, it is a transfer from motor vehicle operators to transit providers and their customers. Around US$1 billion in net revenues is expected.</p><p>2. Reducing congestion (although no formal targets have been set). From the <a href="https://new.mta.info/document/114186" target="_blank">document filed with FHWA</a>, It is expected that there would be a 15-20% reduction in daily vehicles entering the charged area. Commuter car trips are expected to drop by 5-11%. Notably <i>through trips by trucks</i> are estimated to drop by between 21 and 81% (these are trucks with no origin or destination in the zone). Public transport trips are estimated to increase by 1-3% in the area. The net effect outside the charged area is expected to be a reduction of 0-1% in overall traffic volumes. Effects on active travel are expected to be small. Taxi trips are estimated to change ranging from a 1.5% increase to a 16.8% decrease in trips.</p><p>There are also intended to be modest improvements in air quality, but this is largely not being highlighted.</p><p><i>New York is fairly special</i></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Lower Manhattan is unlike much of New York, let alone other US cities. It has much more of the characteristics of central London, than indeed most US downtown areas, and it has a density of public transport availability that is unmatched in any other US city. This ought to make it the easiest location to implement congestion pricing, (even though it is pricing road use 24/7). 617,000 people live in the Manhattan CBD, but 80% do not own or have ready access to a car, this compares to 9% across the USA. That is primarily by choice, because of the walkability of so much of this relatively densely developed area, the availability of public transport options, and the lack of parking for residents' vehicles. </p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgO9cBeWm-CnHKB14MuS_dY1T-Dgsmi_rQJ4OlzIa_ns8BnBpA97TZ5k3hW5jQfJECBeeJEfGna2_Kb1VGKehIp0cP0k3g6gjsoRJPp10zNfvCYusQlLcCOz8yZ1ULtyHfzylx9XFdYdYSzKBOLEAY7F2imc5db25J5EhanjvVMmkr7HK8x8FfuQsCFjwCm/s1288/Screenshot%202023-07-10%20at%2015.13.27.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="822" data-original-width="1288" height="255" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgO9cBeWm-CnHKB14MuS_dY1T-Dgsmi_rQJ4OlzIa_ns8BnBpA97TZ5k3hW5jQfJECBeeJEfGna2_Kb1VGKehIp0cP0k3g6gjsoRJPp10zNfvCYusQlLcCOz8yZ1ULtyHfzylx9XFdYdYSzKBOLEAY7F2imc5db25J5EhanjvVMmkr7HK8x8FfuQsCFjwCm/w400-h255/Screenshot%202023-07-10%20at%2015.13.27.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Manhattan car ownership compared to the US</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><p style="text-align: justify;">Approximately 1.5 million are employed in the Manhattan CBD, of which 84% typically commute from outside the CBD (pre-Covid). 65% commute from other suburbs of NYC, 18% from New Jersey, 8% from Long Island, and 7% from other New York counties. 85% commute using public transport, 11% by car and the remainder by active modes, taxi/rideshare vehicle. Again this is completely unlike commuter patterns elsewhere in the United States.</p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirQlEmP5GJlY-Ovhy_YbP5gbCPjJtuoOogjUAD4uBYoVhGmoH4iXmSXxjhzKR0duI0Dh7ngz-U8_mHAYiLYXOEqdsCVPpLLhZZGfVtX2un1hHbIml1im03grZ9R6sMFt8mKnciIWeVLJ_LTD_3F6EIGvWeW33igw-b43iBR7FIyiaqjGpopP2Feaa9wU-8/s1134/Screenshot%202023-07-10%20at%2015.17.19.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="766" data-original-width="1134" height="270" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirQlEmP5GJlY-Ovhy_YbP5gbCPjJtuoOogjUAD4uBYoVhGmoH4iXmSXxjhzKR0duI0Dh7ngz-U8_mHAYiLYXOEqdsCVPpLLhZZGfVtX2un1hHbIml1im03grZ9R6sMFt8mKnciIWeVLJ_LTD_3F6EIGvWeW33igw-b43iBR7FIyiaqjGpopP2Feaa9wU-8/w400-h270/Screenshot%202023-07-10%20at%2015.17.19.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Manhattan commuter mode shares</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><p style="text-align: justify;">The value of time of congestion lost in New York is estimated to be US$1,595 per driver per year in the NYC region, equal to 102 hours of lost time. On one measure bus speeds have dropped 28% in the Manhattan CBD since 2010.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">However it is far from being all about commuters, the data also indicates that 7.7 million people enter and exit the Manhattan CBD on an average weekday, 75% by public transport, but 24% by car, taxi, ride share vehicle or truck, indicating that there is a far more significant problem of <i>all day travel</i> in Manhattan than commuter peaks. This has parallels with other large dense cities such as London, whereby the motor vehicle traffic is largely not AM/PM peak commuter driven <i>in the city centre</i>. The numbers of vehicles entering Manhattan CBD each weekday is equal to the entire population of Phoenix, AZ. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The profile of this motor vehicle traffic is astounding. </p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQsdtdD4CoZZwHJtdbdrnBXRPzNnCTYPuPPmI0QZ9cFDMXcDelaFjgJzeOUnZ6gwkdyLl-N5tVMouIGDFBwKn1uymUsfK-cDkQjuTvT2fPO2dLFlMsV7KOY_Yg8UpQhiFi5QaOj527yyWvvPMbhaKlaIiEG0mBYq1VM4GHCl_pLD29MIpKtf4VrF3Lo6kK/s1492/Screenshot%202023-07-10%20at%2015.25.19.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1492" data-original-width="1396" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQsdtdD4CoZZwHJtdbdrnBXRPzNnCTYPuPPmI0QZ9cFDMXcDelaFjgJzeOUnZ6gwkdyLl-N5tVMouIGDFBwKn1uymUsfK-cDkQjuTvT2fPO2dLFlMsV7KOY_Yg8UpQhiFi5QaOj527yyWvvPMbhaKlaIiEG0mBYq1VM4GHCl_pLD29MIpKtf4VrF3Lo6kK/w374-h400/Screenshot%202023-07-10%20at%2015.25.19.png" width="374" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Profile of Manhattan CBD vehicle entry/exit</td></tr></tbody></table><br /><p style="text-align: justify;">Volumes do peak inbound in the AM, but largely stay steady from noon until 2200 and outbound trip peak at 0700 and grow slowly until 1600 and then only drop off significantly after 2200.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This explains the desire to have charging across the day (although 2300-0500 seems excessive). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">This also explains why New York is special, as most other US cities do not have a CBD anywhere near as dominant or dense as New York. While most have a central business district of some importance (see Chicago, Washington DC, San Francisco), and could implement some sort of cordon or area charge in such locations, the scale and density of traffic in those locations does not match that of lower Manhattan. Furthermore, it is critical to understand that any schemes would be unlikely to have a significant affect on traffic more widely across those cities. That's because most traffic movement in US cities does not starting or terminating in the downtown, but rather criss-crossing smaller commercial centres and locations of employment, as people live and work in a vast array of different places. US cities in most cases are highly dispersed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Even the New York scheme is not expected to have a significant impact on traffic beyond Manhattan, with an estimated reduction of 1% across New York City more widely. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">So if congestion pricing is to be implemented primarily to resolve <i>congestion, </i>unless the focus is the downtown area and roads approaching it, a downtown cordon is unlikely to achieve much from a network point of view. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">This is not to say there is not merit in targeting car trips to downtown areas at peak times to reduce congestion in those areas and encourage modal and time of day shift (and as a result free up some road space on corridors approaching those areas). There certainly is, but congestion pricing has proven <i>extremely difficult</i> to implement in the US because there is excessive focus on revenue raising to support public transport, rather than improving the level of service for those paying to use the roads.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In US cities it is much more likely that significant improvements to congestion will be achieved not by pricing access to downtown areas, but by pricing corridors (and ultimately pricing whole networks). Corridor pricing, as seen in Singapore, is much more likely to encourage the behaviour shift needed to optimise throughput on congested roads. However to understand that, city planners and politicians have to broaden understanding of congestion pricing being just about encouraging modal shift, for it is <i>just as much</i> about changing time of travel and frequency of travel. Indeed in US cities it is likely to be <i>moreso</i>. In Stockholm, the data on behaviour change for that relatively large inner city cordon, indicates that only <u>40%</u> of the reduction in car trips during charged periods was attributable to modal shift. That is certainly important, but the remainder is a whole set of other behaviours including:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"></p><ul><li>Shifting driving time from the peak period to the off-peak period (with lower charges) or uncharged period either in one direction or both directions of travel.</li><li>Reducing frequency of driving, by consolidating appointments and activities into fewer trips. This means the same productive activities were able to be carried out with less frequent driving. </li></ul><div style="text-align: justify;">To date the main policy focus from cities in the US wanting congestion pricing has been an eye on revenue, which is understandable, as there is a lot of potential to raise money. However, public acceptability is rarely built upon what is seen as a new tax. Lower Manhattan is special because most people who live there don't have a car, and most people who commute or travel into it, don't do so by car, but although none of the net revenues will be used to directly benefit those paying, there <i>IS </i>a focus on achieving results in terms of reduced congestion. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The Traffic Mobility Review Board is a good measure to ensure that the policy and rate setting around the scheme will deliver net benefits, although the membership of the Board is required to have one member recommended by the Mayor of the City of New York, one member reside in the Metro-North Railroad region, and one member in the Long Island Rail Road region. The board composition is <a href="https://new.mta.info/press-release/mta-announces-major-progress-congestion-pricing-traffic-mobility-review-board" target="_blank">available here</a>.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">My expectation is that there will be more studies on congestion pricing/charging, but getting public acceptability for it will continue to prove difficult. That is because far too many developing such programs are focused on raising revenue, without thinking about how pricing can improve conditions for those who still drive (New York has not ignored this). Some ignore the enormous benefits pricing can deliver to improving bus capacity and reliability, just because of reductions in congestion. Finally, far too many look at a program like New York (or London) and just try to copy it, rather than thinking more broadly about the ways congestion pricing can be implemented on a road network. There are far better examples than London, and more sophisticated systems and policies in place in cities such as Stockholm and Singapore, but it is entirely possible to do something quite different, and be effective.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Congestion pricing needs to be led by policy objectives and be tailored carefully to local conditions. A key reason it failed to expand in the UK beyond London is that too many advocates did not seek to design to target congestion, but to target potential revenue, and far too many wanted to communicate to those who they wanted to spend net revenues on, not those who would pay.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">After all, congestion pricing that doesn't reduce congestion is just another tax.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>What next?</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The scheme can be implemented around early to mid 2024, after contractors, design, build, install and test equipment to be installed at the roadside. Meanwhile the Traffic Mobility Review Board will develop recommendations for a rate schedule, which will need to be approved by the MTA Board for public consultation and hearings, before final decisions are made. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">It can only be hoped that its implementation is a great success, that it meaningfully reduces congestion in lower Manhattan (and the routes approaching it), that this improves air quality and improves mobility overall, and helps to catalyse thinking across the United States about the merits of congestion pricing.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">However, most of all I hope it catalyses thinking about how congestion pricing needs to be tailored for each city, to meet its needs, its objectives and to develop the public acceptability needed to avoid it being a major controversy.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">London, after all, became the first and to date the ONLY large city in the UK to implement congestion charging, and it remains <a href="https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/congestion-charge?intcmp=2053" target="_blank">only applied to the centre of London</a> (hopefully more journalists will not think the <a href="https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/low-emission-zone" target="_blank">Low Emission Zone</a> and <a href="https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone" target="_blank">Ultra Low Emission Zones</a> in London are congestion charging zones, they absolutely are not). </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p>Scott Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00834128869502195521noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7940640458972958593.post-8960745935220755032023-05-29T16:50:00.000+12:002023-05-29T16:50:48.646+12:00Consultation on Cambridge's Sustainable Travel Zone reveals widespread opposition<p style="text-align: justify;"><a href="https://roadpricing.blogspot.com/2023/03/cambridge-uk-announced-plans-for.html" target="_blank">I wrote a couple of months ago</a> about how poorly plans for a blunt congestion charge for Cambridge (UK) were going, in terms of public response, and this seems to be continuing following publication of the results of formal public consultation into what is being called a "Sustainable Travel Zone".</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Sustainable Travel Zone would be a single area charge (£5 for cars but much more for trucks) across virtually all of metropolitan Cambridge, which would operate 12 hours a day weekdays only. It would legally be a congestion charge, and would effectively emulate London, except for its scale of operation. Whilst the London congestion charge only affects a tiny proportion of greater London (separate from the Ultra Low Emission Zone), the Cambridge Sustainable Travel Zone would affect all of Cambridge. Why? It would appear to be to ensure that it would raise enough money to pay for the significant increase in bus services.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Rarely have congestion pricing schemes ever been publicly accepted if sold on the basis that it is about raising money (effectively a sophisticated form of tax) rather than reducing congestion. The record in the UK is that several cities have attempted to progress congestion charging on the basis that it would raise a lot of money for public transport (see Manchester and Edinburgh), and been rejected by the public.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">By contrast, congestion pricing has been successfully advanced in Stockholm because it was about reducing congestion, whereas it saw considerable opposition in Gothenburg because that is about raising revenue. It is difficult, although not impossible to get support for such a scheme as a revenue raising instrument, but it would appear to be that people in Cambridge are not warm to the idea.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><a href="https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/cambridge-congestion-charge-consultation-results-26989391" target="_blank">Cambridge News reports</a> that although 70% of the population supported the transport improvements, 58% opposed the Sustainable Travel Zone/congestion charge. Only 34% supported the Sustainable Travel Zone as proposed. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"><a href="https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/more-half-oppose-cambridge-congestion-26992484" target="_blank">Another report breaks down the results</a> in more detail:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">61% of those aged 16-24 who responded to the consultation were in favour of the charge</p><p style="text-align: justify;">64% of those aged 55-64 opposed the charge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Of those living within the proposed zone boundary, 49% were opposed and 46% in favour.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Those living outside the boundary were 60% opposed, 32% in favour.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Key concerns expressed were those wanting more exemptions, thinking the £5 charge was too high and thinking residents should have an exemption. Many wanted Addenbrooke Hospital excluded from the zone. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">So what now?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">29 June is the date when the Greater Cambridge Partnership meets to consider what to do next. It could just plough on, but it may be better to think about some of the ideas I wrote about before on how to phase in charging.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"></p><ol><li><b>Just introduce it in the AM peak only at first</b>, in part to demonstrate the effects, but also to encourage some time-of-day shift in travel (which many would rather do compared to shifting mode). It would also give some idea of the elasticity of demand in the AM peak for driving to better inform forecasts for revenue. Sure it won't be enough revenue longer term, but then the improved public transport package can be focused on the peaks instead. <b>Expand it to the PM peak later</b>, as that would capture more traffic likely to mode-shift, rather than inter-peak traffic. </li><li><b>Replace the blunt area charge with two cordons</b>. One in the city centre (whether it is a tight city centre or one bounded by the effective ring roads of the A1303, A1334, A603), one at the proposed outer boundary. This means people won't be charged for simply moving their cars short distances, and will focus attention on entering Cambridge and then central Cambridge. </li><li><b>Have a shoulder charge (at half price) for the first and last half hour</b> to encourage time of day shift and provide more options for motorists.</li><li><b>Dedicate some of the net revenues to some improve road infrastructure</b> this means fixing substandard intersections, and although there will be resistance to using the money for maintenance (as it would reduce funding from other sources), some of what motorists pay should benefit them.</li></ol><div>It is plausible that the full Cambridge scheme could be introduced over time, but any combination of the above ideas can provide a pathway of phasing it in. Say an inner cordon could operate 0700-1900 (with a half hour shoulder fee), but the outer cordon only 0700-1000 and 1600-1900. </div><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p> </p>Scott Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00834128869502195521noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7940640458972958593.post-13131026218817825672023-05-25T15:07:00.002+12:002023-05-25T15:10:30.930+12:00Denmark implementing heavy vehicle RUC from 2025 - but not without protest<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrgvjee4Jdv4wupouSyRn9P4O7qX26nS2AlGO9PnkQGLu0n7paXqulFq1Xtp2baEHtmBPMgS4nUGvKWny-Zoq-hASKtiI3HwPT8LKBknB84mYBn9EZX6-Gv7Op3Q2HntIEmRyOLKRq3MRlx4odYqrEzRKuW-kxUSLWOxAVVi-Q1sFFhhyQTclii7xxvg/s1416/Screenshot%202023-05-25%20at%2013.35.18.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1038" data-original-width="1416" height="294" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrgvjee4Jdv4wupouSyRn9P4O7qX26nS2AlGO9PnkQGLu0n7paXqulFq1Xtp2baEHtmBPMgS4nUGvKWny-Zoq-hASKtiI3HwPT8LKBknB84mYBn9EZX6-Gv7Op3Q2HntIEmRyOLKRq3MRlx4odYqrEzRKuW-kxUSLWOxAVVi-Q1sFFhhyQTclii7xxvg/w400-h294/Screenshot%202023-05-25%20at%2013.35.18.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Initial Danish heavy vehicle charge network</td></tr></tbody></table><p style="text-align: justify;">From 2025 Denmark will be the 12th jurisdiction in Europe to have some form of distance-based road user charging (RUC) (or tolls) for heavy vehicles. Some may argue about the definition (as two of these are essentially network tolls using tolling technology) but the others are Iceland, Switzerland, Germany, Austria, Czechia, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary, Belgium, Bulgaria and Russia.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Key elements of the new scheme, called the "Kilometer-based toll":</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li style="text-align: justify;">On 1 January 2025 all heavy vehicles with a Gross Vehicle Weight of 12 tonnes or above will have to pay per-kilometre road user charges based on the vehicle's weight and emissions rating. This will apply on the national road network and other main roads, including public roads in "environmental zones". This is a network of around 7,300 km (around 9.7% of public roads, but the roads that carry most of the freight traffic).</li><li style="text-align: justify;">On 1 January 2027 the charge will be extended to all heavy vehicles of 3.5-12 tonnes Gross Vehicle Weight as well.</li><li style="text-align: justify;">On 1 January 2028 the charge will apply to all public roads in Denmark (a network of around 75,000km).</li><li style="text-align: justify;">On 1 January 2025 Denmark will withdraw from the <a href="https://www.ages.de/en/eurovignette.html" target="_blank">Eurovignette scheme,</a> which applies to trucks 12 tonnes and above, and requires trucks to prepay a set number of days they are driving on the national road network (trucks can buy an annual Eurovignette).</li></ul><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Average charges will be DKK1.2 per km in 2030 (US$0.17 per km). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The policy focus is on reducing CO<span style="font-size: xx-small;">2</span> emissions. It will apply to all trucks with a gross vehicle weight of 12 tonnes or more. It will be expanded to heavy vehicles of 3.5 tonnes and above from 1 January 2027.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is being introduced alongside multiple complementary measures:</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li style="text-align: justify;">Rules on weights and dimensions for trucks on Danish roads are to be eased, enabling larger and heavier trucks to operate</li><li style="text-align: justify;">Improvements to rail freight in Denmark including a loans scheme for rail freight operators.</li></ul><div style="text-align: justify;">There will be a single rate geographically across all major roads in Denmark (it will not apply to local roads), with a higher rate for cities with low emission zones. The charge will automatically collect higher fees for the low emission zones. There will be no VAT as it is legally a tax.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>Exemptions</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Only the following heavy vehicles will be exempt:</div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li style="text-align: justify;">National armed forces and emergency services vehicles;</li><li style="text-align: justify;">Vehicles adapted and used exclusively for fire and rescue;</li><li style="text-align: justify;">Police vehicles; and</li><li style="text-align: justify;">Vehicles belonging to the "road services" (believed to be maintenance/operations)</li></ul></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>Implementation</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Unlike almost all other implementation of heavy vehicle RUC anywhere, Denmark is taking a technology neutral approach to how data is measured and collected from heavy vehicles to enable collection of the charge. Given the number of similar schemes in Europe, it called for accreditation to be a certified service provider, meaning that as long as a private commercial toll/RUC service provider could meet the performance requirements specified, it could be certified to collect the charge. Denmark has received six application to do so after the deadline of 30 April (to enable initial operation) from the following firms:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li style="text-align: justify;">Brobizz (Denmark)</li><li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: white; caret-color: rgb(45, 45, 45); color: #2d2d2d; font-family: Campton;">SkyttelPASS A/S (Norway)</span></li><li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: white; caret-color: rgb(45, 45, 45); color: #2d2d2d; font-family: Campton;">Telepass S.p.A. (Italy)</span></li><li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: white; caret-color: rgb(45, 45, 45); color: #2d2d2d; font-family: Campton;">tolltickets GmbH (Germany)</span></li><li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: white; caret-color: rgb(45, 45, 45); color: #2d2d2d; font-family: Campton;">Toll4Europe GmbH (Germany)</span></li><li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: white; caret-color: rgb(45, 45, 45); color: #2d2d2d; font-family: Campton;">ØresundPAY (Sweden)</span></li></ul><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #2d2d2d; font-family: Campton;">This does not necessarily mean all or any of these operators will be certified, but indicates Denmark has taken an open system approach in encouraging competition in delivering RUC services to heavy vehicles in the country. </span></div></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #2d2d2d; font-family: Campton;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #2d2d2d; font-family: Campton;">The project is being led by the Danish Road Directorate, but the contract for establishing it was granted to </span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><a href="https://sundogbaelt.dk/en/about-us/about-us/" target="_blank">Sund & Bælt</a>, a Danish government enterprise responsible for some major infrastructure projects such as the Øresund Crossing between Denmark and Sweden. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The remuneration of EETS providers will be done under two categories:</div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li style="text-align: justify;">A fixed percentage of the revenue collected (1.5% for the calendar year 2025 and 2% for the subsequent year)</li><li style="text-align: justify;">A fee based on the number of active OBEs (On Board Equipment). An active OBE is an OBE that has been provided by the EETS Provider and installed in a vehicle registered with the EETS Provider, and for which circulation on the tolled road network has been detected at least once for the respective calendar month. (DKK60 per month (US$8.66) for the calendar year 2025, down to DKK15 per month the following year (US$2.17). </li></ul><div style="text-align: justify;">Consider if a Class 5 above 32 tonne truck travelled 100,000km in a year (outside LEZs), it would generate DKK20,000 (US$2885) in gross revenue, so the EETS provider in the first year would obtain DKK300+DKK720=DKK1020 (US$147). So volumes of business matter (and it also encourages EETS providers to target the higher emitting vehicles that generate them more revenue).</div></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>Number of vehicles and kilometres driven</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1EyGO4bAIM5UpJzJzg-wEBzmbyfcF-dCup7TKjQFzum0oLQy4eRxYPbJTQ0jMA0Szt7MPRajOyv6pUBlhwKrLXExG_eaW48aa3NYv3Q-gObq4U79BQvzPC22iBIOm0oTOwO_3_HcWDCcPIWIvpTxxDElFSfu_RiUlbI6NMR_RcQ3xk9-QKPSSsn9p8w/s1714/Screenshot%202023-05-25%20at%2014.11.40.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="494" data-original-width="1714" height="115" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1EyGO4bAIM5UpJzJzg-wEBzmbyfcF-dCup7TKjQFzum0oLQy4eRxYPbJTQ0jMA0Szt7MPRajOyv6pUBlhwKrLXExG_eaW48aa3NYv3Q-gObq4U79BQvzPC22iBIOm0oTOwO_3_HcWDCcPIWIvpTxxDElFSfu_RiUlbI6NMR_RcQ3xk9-QKPSSsn9p8w/w400-h115/Screenshot%202023-05-25%20at%2014.11.40.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Number of trucks registered in Denmark in 2021</td></tr></tbody></table><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Initial installation will be for 35,500 locally registered vehicles, but the foreign vehicles are not included in this. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFAvi6T8PTVHamDqpFfqYlsdC-PBFwm3w4a0fpnIyYERKCk6lzMng_4zxhp64DEDBwVgFVVx9iw54qiYRFBTj6kpmTSctrYmaqMrn1hWF1NONsT3uuBB3mEYO_38TBj3wxZU87Ne7JN2ubJeUiphaZLm0Vpjey2yQN_4irkiFqjY6sQZz2ocDdEk-WvA/s1696/Screenshot%202023-05-25%20at%2014.15.50.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="862" data-original-width="1696" height="204" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFAvi6T8PTVHamDqpFfqYlsdC-PBFwm3w4a0fpnIyYERKCk6lzMng_4zxhp64DEDBwVgFVVx9iw54qiYRFBTj6kpmTSctrYmaqMrn1hWF1NONsT3uuBB3mEYO_38TBj3wxZU87Ne7JN2ubJeUiphaZLm0Vpjey2yQN_4irkiFqjY6sQZz2ocDdEk-WvA/w400-h204/Screenshot%202023-05-25%20at%2014.15.50.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Distance driven on Danish roads by heavy vehicles</td></tr></tbody></table><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The total distance to be driven by vehicles subject to the RUC is depicted above.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>User experience</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">It is expected that regular users of the Danish road network will have a contract with an EETS provider (European Electronic Tolling Service) which will supply or use telematics installed in the vehicle. The vehicle owner will pay the EETS provider, which will then pay the charges to the government. Denmark is neutral about whether the EETS provider uses On Board Units already installed on trucks, new ones or uses the telematics system already built into some trucks.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Occasional users of the network (visiting trucks from foreign countries that infrequently enter Denmark will be able to buy a single trip ticket for a specific journey online, through the website of the "toll charger" (which is Sund & Bælt). </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>Charges</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The rates table applying from 1 January 2025 is seen below, it differentiates between three weight categories and five emissions categories with higher rates in low emission zones.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZuuQGyly1oh8b-nlOf7Jke7Abck8YlVuL1dTS1jOOysdAQR-yybUHH-TJ20RoMhbDGrkDpnbm9Jz5K5TT8Td7te-H2latyyjBDZ6FHr3dUz88At_89HAB4JDtdeH9-DOyVtJmoCfBmhJdPApTV34c9fnkYFFKxPrSwaMoOMSNRi3lXPYCciRWVx6A3Q/s2408/Screenshot%202023-05-25%20at%2012.59.32.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="780" data-original-width="2408" height="130" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZuuQGyly1oh8b-nlOf7Jke7Abck8YlVuL1dTS1jOOysdAQR-yybUHH-TJ20RoMhbDGrkDpnbm9Jz5K5TT8Td7te-H2latyyjBDZ6FHr3dUz88At_89HAB4JDtdeH9-DOyVtJmoCfBmhJdPApTV34c9fnkYFFKxPrSwaMoOMSNRi3lXPYCciRWVx6A3Q/w400-h130/Screenshot%202023-05-25%20at%2012.59.32.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Denmark heavy vehicle RUC charge table</td></tr></tbody></table><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">As can be seen rates range from DKK0.20 to DKK2.03 per kilometre (US$0.03 and US$0.29 per kilometre or US$0.048-US$0.47 per mile). Note this replaces a rate structure of the Eurovignette below:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZcVd__xKCvwozP1Nn3BVrtc0C7lcHcW7z0ELx8ByzfmvStShl8kGPmn3u-U1biTokOydXKwn-L67Dmm48yXxUvG8lNK4i6zuXZhyCuemsNEs4QhbqOLkzz7xaHC8bPeHXiJT7wpoPFRJ7xhz6MIqq0TUliavSVhVKLiGp7HYRfv5Vm5w2Tw-7u9AbsA/s2040/Screenshot%202023-05-25%20at%2013.05.13.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="2040" height="156" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZcVd__xKCvwozP1Nn3BVrtc0C7lcHcW7z0ELx8ByzfmvStShl8kGPmn3u-U1biTokOydXKwn-L67Dmm48yXxUvG8lNK4i6zuXZhyCuemsNEs4QhbqOLkzz7xaHC8bPeHXiJT7wpoPFRJ7xhz6MIqq0TUliavSVhVKLiGp7HYRfv5Vm5w2Tw-7u9AbsA/w400-h156/Screenshot%202023-05-25%20at%2013.05.13.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Eurovignette in DKK</td></tr></tbody></table><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">This starts at DKK89 for one day on the network (US$12.85) to up to DK1755 for one year (US$2534), which depending on how much distance a truck travels on the network will determine if it is going to be paying more or less with the new kilometre-based RUC.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>Impacts</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The burden on Danish business is estimated to be DKK2.5b (US$370 million) offset by DKK1b (US$140m) due to the measures to enable larger trucks on the roads, so the net impact will be US$230m per annum by 2030.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">It is estimated to reduce emissions by 0.4 million tonnes by 2030, but with 0.3 million tonnes coming from the road user charge and 0.1 million tonnes by allowing larger trucks on the network.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Summary leaflet <a href="https://sundogbaelt.dk/media/ctdlqot3/faktaark-uk.pdf" target="_blank">here</a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>Opposition</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;">An organised opposition group "the Road Tax Committee" has been set up to oppose the proposal and it has been <a href="https://trans.info/blockades-denmark-341563" target="_blank">engaging in protests by blockading roads.</a> Some of the <a href="https://trans.info/c02-tax-plans-denmark-343002" target="_blank">trucking industry is calling for a delay to implementation until 2030</a>, largely so there are more lower and zero emission trucks available to purchase, so they would not face the highest charges. The "Road Tax Committee" has since dissolved, but protests and opposition continue.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">All of this indicates how important it is to get some support from the trucking industry before introducing charge that are, by and large, likely to charge many of them much more than they do now.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">It seems challenging to introduce any form of road user charging without intending to ensure that net revenues will be used to, at least, ensure the road network is well maintained and managed, but there is little expression of this. The messaging is focused on fighting climate change, and nowhere else has this been seen by the trucking industry as a policy it can support. France tried this previously with the abortive Ecotaxe proposal (which <a href="https://roadpricing.blogspot.com/2014/11/frances-nationwide-truck-toll-on-hold.html" target="_blank">I wrote about extensively </a>over nine years ago).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">In every other European jurisdiction that has managed to <i>implement</i> heavy vehicle RUC, the objective has been clear - the need to raise revenue from the vehicles that generate the most damage to the road network, including those from foreign jurisdictions. A secondary objective with some has been to encourage more environmentally friendly vehicles, but that is reflected in preferential rates for low emitting vehicles, it is not the primary objective. I would not be surprised if protests continue in Denmark until there is some recalibration of the objectives and policy. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Hopefully Denmark can reach a point where it finds compromises that brings the trucking industry with it, whether it be about timing, the rate structure, the use of net revenues or any combination of the above (or even consolidating other taxes), so that it too can join the list of jurisdictions with RUC. Bear in mind that it will need to progress it to replace fuel tax revenue in the medium to long term as well.</div><p></p>Scott Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00834128869502195521noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7940640458972958593.post-89476505599960519432023-04-04T17:04:00.003+12:002023-04-04T17:24:01.448+12:00Australia quietly runs the National Heavy Vehicle Charging Pilot - manual option<p style="text-align: justify;">The Australian Commonwealth Government has been undertaking a programme of trialling distance and weight based road user charging (RUC) for heavy vehicles. It ran a small-scale trial in 2019-2020 using existing telematics equipment, which was <a href="https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/small_scale_on_road_trial_evaluation_report_1.pdf" target="_blank">evaluated here</a>. Now the large-scale trial, manual technology component, was launched quietly by the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts (DITRDCA) in July 2022 and will run until the middle of the year. It uses hubodometers, installed on powered units and trailers, with prepaid permits. It has parallels to New Zealand's long established Road User Charge system that has applied to heavy vehicles (over 3.5 tonnes) and light diesel vehicles. since 1978. The graphic below depicts how the manual pilot works.</p><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhCoRY7yuf979CndjmtricFyvG2qda8dZmEhAhLdLAytOroQWoNg_3SOzYMA0tzdKkc-X1JLlASSTEwtKbOlu97x_GK6wv3PeZntqlX1KeNZE-ITbWKBNsZQLrEyo4-1uV88A9d4ukKdh8e3JbsifeG9kMQqkgwomtQ3v2Da9he-JZ4AbpVV3t8rSA0KQ/s2678/Screenshot%202023-04-04%20at%2016.23.34.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1892" data-original-width="2678" height="283" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhCoRY7yuf979CndjmtricFyvG2qda8dZmEhAhLdLAytOroQWoNg_3SOzYMA0tzdKkc-X1JLlASSTEwtKbOlu97x_GK6wv3PeZntqlX1KeNZE-ITbWKBNsZQLrEyo4-1uV88A9d4ukKdh8e3JbsifeG9kMQqkgwomtQ3v2Da9he-JZ4AbpVV3t8rSA0KQ/w400-h283/Screenshot%202023-04-04%20at%2016.23.34.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Australia's National Heavy Vehicle RUC pilot manual permit based system</td></tr></tbody></table><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><p style="text-align: justify;">Participants "buy" a permit (no real money is exchanged) for distance travelled, enabling participants to compare what they pay to stay up to date with distance permits, compared to what they pay in fuel tax and registration fees under the current system.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The video below includes segments from some of the trial participants.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/pe3tyDdsQ4k" width="320" youtube-src-id="pe3tyDdsQ4k"></iframe></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><p style="text-align: justify;">This is not the only part of the trial, as a telematics based trial is due to start later this year, using a mix of new and existing on-board telematics systems on a range of trucks and buses.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The purpose of the trial is to gather data about various types of operators, obtain feedback on their experiences of the technological option and what operators think of paying by distance rather than tax on fuel and the high Australian registration fees for heavy vehicles.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The findings will be interesting and should inform decisions about whether to proceed with reforms to replace the fuel tax and registration based system (known as PAYGO or fuel based RUC), with a distance, weight and configuration based road user charge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>Disclosure: Milestone Pacific Pty Ltd (a subsidiary of CDM Smith) has been a technical advisor to DITRDCA on the National Heavy Vehicle Charging Pilot since 2019. I have been leading that advice.</i></p>Scott Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00834128869502195521noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7940640458972958593.post-47133384462386701422023-03-09T18:11:00.002+13:002023-03-09T18:11:36.745+13:00Cambridge (UK) announced plans for a congestion charge - and it is not going well<p style="text-align: justify;">The <a href="https://www.greatercambridge.org.uk" target="_blank">Greater Cambridge Partnership</a> has announced plans to introduce a congestion charge for the city of Cambridge. This has been mulled for some years, and of course the record of UK cities introducing congestion pricing, beyond London and Durham has been a failure - primarily because the public has been opposed, so it will be interesting to see how and whether this actually gets implemented.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Greater Cambridge Partnership is a public sector body set up between five local authorities and the UK Government to implement a City Deal - which is a partnership for funding infrastructure and development for the city using a mix of local and central government tax income.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It would be fair to say that the proposal has been highly controversial, and with good reason. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The congestion charge zone has been labelled the Sustainable Travel Zone. I'd question whether rebranding something achieves much, as the public's scepticism can only be enhanced when a euphemism is used to describe what it actually is - it's an area which will have road pricing. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>What's the objective?</i></p><p style="text-align: justify;">The objective expressed first in <a href="https://consultcambs.uk.engagementhq.com/making-connections-2022" target="_blank">the consultation document </a>is to raise money to spend on subsidising a significant improvement in bus services. The second objective is to lower the level of traffic. The implication is that there would be reductions in congestion, but it would be wrong to infer this is about improving travel times for those who drive.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>Where's the money going?</i></p><p style="text-align: justify;">The proposed improvement in bus services includes simpler fares, more routes and more services, with 10 minute headways, more evening services and more services to rural areas. It certainly looks like a huge uplift in service, but of course someone has to pay, and the Greater Cambridge Partnership wants motorists to. £50 million a year is proposed to be spent, and the congestion charge is not to be introduced until most of the bus service improvement have been implemented. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">A big uplift in cycling infrastructure and improvements to encourage more walking, including secure cycle parking.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>What are the details?</i></p><p><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: justify;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoeXQ12tQHqxgz_hhs7_fRFjPFioD74IpXRI3m-uowur7jh_VQXXWTsLc5pRGX69-2ipafb5i4bWBGp1T2jFpiMtwxTWEULh0OAyN6T_rLO4F4N_8f20MiUkql5b9O3YRy05-nUAWOlJgWIWzQp7dWvUClAKNMJ7cc8owwPS7YHgoIcXVApWMzE6esZA/s1320/Screenshot%202023-03-09%20at%2015.23.27.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1216" data-original-width="1320" height="369" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhoeXQ12tQHqxgz_hhs7_fRFjPFioD74IpXRI3m-uowur7jh_VQXXWTsLc5pRGX69-2ipafb5i4bWBGp1T2jFpiMtwxTWEULh0OAyN6T_rLO4F4N_8f20MiUkql5b9O3YRy05-nUAWOlJgWIWzQp7dWvUClAKNMJ7cc8owwPS7YHgoIcXVApWMzE6esZA/w400-h369/Screenshot%202023-03-09%20at%2015.23.27.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: justify;">Proposed Cambridge congestion charging zone</td></tr></tbody></table></p><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><p></p><span></span><span><a name='more'></a></span><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is an <u>area</u> charge, like London, except it covers almost ALL of metropolitan Cambridge (unlike London!), effectively putting a price on driving into Cambridge. Why not the centre? Because this is about raising money.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It would operate 0700-1900 weekdays (it is NOT operating in the peaks only, because of the revenue raising objective.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Private cars would be charged £5 to drive into or within the area.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Avoiding the area will largely be about driving on the M11 motorway to the west and the A14 highway along the north, but it will be quite a journey to avoid it driving from southeast to northeast.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>When would it be introduced?</i></p><p style="text-align: justify;">The proposal is that from 2025, at the AM peak only, commercial vehicles (trucks and delivery vans) and coaches, would be charged. Why? Well presumably to earn money, because they will hardly benefit at all from any travel time savings.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In 2026 this would be extended to private cars in the AM peak, and in 2027 to the whole of the day.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>How would it work?</i></p><div style="text-align: justify;">"The charge would apply to vehicles, unless they are exempt, that move into, out of or within the Zone, not just those crossing the boundary. This is because 53% of journeys in the morning peak start within the Zone; over a third of these journeys are wholly within the Zone which are shorter and so are easier to make by foot, bike and bus, than those coming from further away. A network of automatic number plate recognition cameras would be placed across the Zone to capture images of a vehicle’s registration plate. Registration plate images would then be processed to work out if a charge applies. In line with existing charging schemes such as the Dartford bridge, payment could be made in advance or later via an account, online or over the telephone. As per usual traffic enforcement practices, penalty charge notices would be issued"</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">In short, it looks a lot like the London congestion charge, except it is the first congestion charge across an entire city. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>Will different vehicles pay differently?</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i><br /></i></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Yes. London has a single charge, whereas at the other end of the spectrum Singapore charges vehicles based on road-space occupancy (motorcycles half that of cars, trucks two to three times as much as cars). Cambridge has decided to ignore either approach and go for a bizarre array of variable rates.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Motorcycles and moped pay... the same as cars because "they raise potential risks in terms of safety, noise and conflicts with cyclists". So is this a safety and noise charge now? They emit less pollution, take up less road space, but...</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Light goods vehicles (delivery vans and small trucks) and minibuses (not scheduled bus services) will be charged double what cars and motorcycles are, at £10. Why? Who knows? They take up roughly the same road space as a car, they are much less likely to mode shift (LGVs not at all).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Coaches and heavy goods vehicles (large trucks) will be charged a massive £50. Why? After all you'd think coaches replace cars in some cases, and what are large trucks going to do otherwise? The only guess it is all about money. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">It is floated that there might be a 50% discount for zero-emission commercial vehicles, but why is £25 for a coach or large truck justifiable from a public policy point of view?</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Taxis will get a 100% discount if they are zero emissions from 2028, which may be because they are treated as public transport, but they are effectively cars hauling people for profit. To be fair most private hire vehicles (minicabs) will not be wheelchair accessible, and will be charged like cars, but a single £5 a day for doing business in Cambridge will (as it did in London) make little difference to traffic volumes.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhYT4WKmTesz6CwfO59wWgp_zJOCDMGBWSfmDkZ6FKtaeoDBppoCwikY27LqqD2kSy38Wfqs8hJoE5rt5Dde_f__yZ_OkW1Utg49CsyJ6vAcOwm5u7kBvtQ_OhsK5vIFh3ewH6OUrjcRfmxG3zzRNdgyIS9r7Iozg0AOa7OEnpfNUpyQ9e22qebd6HSg/s1456/Screenshot%202023-03-09%20at%2015.41.44.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="906" data-original-width="1456" height="249" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhYT4WKmTesz6CwfO59wWgp_zJOCDMGBWSfmDkZ6FKtaeoDBppoCwikY27LqqD2kSy38Wfqs8hJoE5rt5Dde_f__yZ_OkW1Utg49CsyJ6vAcOwm5u7kBvtQ_OhsK5vIFh3ewH6OUrjcRfmxG3zzRNdgyIS9r7Iozg0AOa7OEnpfNUpyQ9e22qebd6HSg/w400-h249/Screenshot%202023-03-09%20at%2015.41.44.png" width="400" /></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>Discounts and exemptions?</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Clearly scheduled bus services get a 100% discount, whereas emergency, breakdown, dial-a-ride and local authority "operational vehicles" will be exempt. Disabled and blue badge holders are to be exempt or have a 100% discount (blue badges are the often abused scheme in the UK to grant free parking to drivers with disability or those who drive people with disability). Car club vehicles will get a 100% discount, to encourage people to stop owning a car and instead pay a business to hire one. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">People on "low incomes" will get discounts of between 25-100%, which begs the question about what that will mean. Will a student from a wealthy family get a discount? Will a partner of someone with a high income, who happens to work part time, get a discount for a low income? The potential for abuse is considerable.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">A whole host of specified categories will also see trips reimbursed, from medical appointments for those deemed too ill to use public transport, to social care workers and minibuses used by charities. </div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>Expected outcomes?</i></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i><br /></i></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Besides the money, the consultation document makes a number of claims:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><ul><li>A 50% reduction in traffic (which seems very high), but also a claim of a 15% reduction in traffic compared to 2011. The latter seems more likely. </li><li>A 40% increase in public transport use</li><li>Allow 60000 more walking and cycling trips per day</li></ul><div>Meeting carbon reduction targets is presumably achieved by reducing traffic (some material suggests it would achieve a 5% reduction in emissions), but some other claims are largely subjective. Most of this is about the improvements to the bus service such as "tackling transport-related social inclusion" and "breaking the cycle of car dependency".</div></div><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>Public response</i></p><p style="text-align: justify;">This has not been good, and honestly I am not surprised. It is as if nobody has bothered to look at experience elsewhere and tried to establish why other cities in the UK did not advance congestion charging beyond London (Durham barely counts given the scale). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">There have been <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-64783066" target="_blank">protests.</a> A <a href="https://www.change.org/p/opposition-to-the-cambridge-congestion-charge" target="_blank">petition has achieved over 28,000 signatures against it</a>. Residents, businesses, unions are all among the people who have opposed it.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Public opposition is due to fear of the effect on the cost of living, and of a scheme that bluntly means most people in Cambridge, with a car, won't be able to drive it <i>anywhere</i> during a weekday without being charged. For example, a trip from a Cambridge suburb to a country village outside Cambridge in the middle of the day will cost £5 as would driving into the centre at 0800. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">It has even had a <a href="https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/how-would-cambridges-congestion-charge-26086754" target="_blank">televised debate</a>. The local MP, Daniel Zeichner (Labour) supports the proposals, whereas the neighbouring MP, Lucy Frazer (Conservative) opposes the congestion charge (although apparently not the improvements to bus services).</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>What's right about the proposal</i></p><p style="text-align: justify;">It's fairly simple to understand and apply, so it should raise a good deal of money. It is "low risk" operationally. It will also reduce traffic, albeit bluntly, so it would almost certainly achieve many of the cited objectives... if it can get past public opinion.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>What's wrong about the proposal</i></p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is blunt, inflexible and does not deliver much for those who would pay, in terms of reduced travel times and ease of travel. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">A car that makes half a dozen trips a day for business, contributing to congestion and emissions will be charged as much as a single vehicle exiting Cambridge to undertake a trip not able to be replicated by bus. Trucks, coaches and light commercial vehicles are to be penalised unduly. Why a truck should be charged 10x as much as a car is difficult to understand, except that they have little elasticity of demand, so it is simply a tax on delivering goods in Cambridge during the day. Coaches even more bizarrely, as they effectively compete with cars (and trains). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">As an area charge it can't have different pricing by time of day, and it can't distinguish between people entering Cambridge or driving within it, nor differentiate between driving into Cambridge in the AM peak and those leaving it. It can't be adjusted according to traffic levels, because area charges are inflexible.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">See Stockholm, Gothenburg and Singapore for schemes that DO target peak travel. Cambridge doesn't, and surely it is not just because someone decided to cut and paste the London scheme onto Cambridge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Cambridge will still have peak congestion, because the price will be too low at peaks, and the price doesn't reward driving one direction in the peak and the other off-peak. It will encourage more taxi/minicab use because they will be exempt or be able to spread the cost of the fee across many trips, so expect a transfer from cars to... cars.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">There are two fundamental reasons why congestion charges have NOT expanded outside London and Durham in the UK and Cambridge is seeking to replicate them, and both are related to not offering anything for those who will pay:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"></p><ol><li>There is little said about travel time savings or improved trip time reliability for those who WILL pay the charge. For commercial vehicles that will have to pay more than cars, what will they save per day? Essentially there is little effort made to sell the idea that those paying will benefit. </li><li>All of the net revenues will be put into improving bus services, and improving alternatives to driving, none of it will be used to even improve road maintenance and ensure the charged road network works more effectively for those who pay. Indeed, the money spent will be used to take more road space away from those who will pay. </li></ol><div>In short, there is almost nothing for those who pay. There is a lot for those who don't drive. It is seeking to <i>reduce</i> car ownership, and transform how people travel, but the transformation sought is at the price of making it more expensive to drive, just about anywhere in Cambridge, for most of the week.</div><div><br /></div><div><i>What should Cambridge do?</i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div>Like Gothenburg, Cambridge has got itself into this position by wanting to spend a large amount of money, but not willing to use conventional taxes to pay for them. However, there are obvious merits in having some form of road pricing. So here's some options:</div><div><br /></div><div>1. Just introduce AM peak charging. 0700-1000. That focuses charging on commuters, encourages a spread of demand, and should help to justify more bus services at peak times. </div><div><br /></div><div>2.<span> Give up the area charge and consider two cordons. A city centre one and one at the urban periphery, charge a different price for each, run the city centre one all day long, and the periphery one at the peaks only (and only in one direction, inbound AM, outbound PM). That means people aren't priced for just driving anywhere, and it gives people options during the day to shift time of travel. </span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span>3. Half price motorcycles and scooters, double price commercial vehicles only. There is just no need to penalise freight or to charge motorcycles more than the road space they occupy. This isn't a noise and safety charge, stop trying to mix objectives.</span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span>4.<span> Have shoulder pricing, so that half an hour either side of the peak, pricing is half the peak price, to avoid a rush before or after the peak.</span></span></div><div><span><span><br /></span></span></div><div><span><span>5.<span> </span>Commit to a high standard of road maintenance and using net revenues to contribute towards that. </span></span></div><div><span><span><br /></span></span></div><div><span><span>Finally, more than anything else, communicate to motorists what they will gain from the proposal. If you can't do that, then don't be surprised if a lot of them simply say no.</span></span></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><p></p></div>Scott Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00834128869502195521noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7940640458972958593.post-65062642632500029582022-11-11T18:58:00.005+13:002022-11-11T19:12:09.537+13:00Congestion pricing doesn't require public transport to be an alternative for most trips - the Mayor of Auckland makes a common mistake<p style="text-align: justify;">Does congestion pricing need all motorists to have a "reasonable alternative", by mode of transport?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">No.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The alternatives to congestion pricing include:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"></p><ul><li>Modal choices (public transport and cycling/walking for shorter trips)</li><li>Time of day choice (driving outside charging periods)</li><li>Route choice (avoiding driving on priced roads if possible)</li><li>Trip frequency choice (driving less frequency if a trip is regular)</li></ul><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;">The single biggest reason cars have become ubiquitous in cities is because they enable trips to be undertaken between origins and destinations that are not, and are likely to <i>never</i> be efficient to take by other modes. For trips to city centres, public transport can be an option for many, at peak times and indeed for trips between locations on public transport corridors, they obviously can be undertaken instead of driving, but for many cities, especially lower density cities like Auckland, characterised by houses on blocks of land in outer suburbs. It is not ever going to be efficient to have bus services that are always walkable to all of those suburban outlying areas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">So those that claim public transport alternatives need to exist for everyone are mistaken or actually just opposed to congestion pricing. I hope the Mayor of Auckland is simply mistaken.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>Background</i></p><p style="text-align: justify;">I've written before about Auckland, New Zealand's, experience in investigating congestion pricing. A major report was released just before the pandemic (see<a href="https://www.transport.govt.nz/area-of-interest/auckland/the-congestion-question/" target="_blank"> here</a>) and I wrote about it <a href="http://roadpricing.blogspot.com/2020/11/auckland-congestion-charging-reports.html" target="_blank">here</a>.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In short it was recommended that Auckland implement congestion pricing, starting with a small inner city cordon (effectively as a pilot, but consistent with Auckland Council's objectives to reduce car use in the inner city and provide more space for pedestrians, cyclists and buses) followed by corridor based charging, in some ways resembling how <a href="https://onemotoring.lta.gov.sg/content/onemotoring/home/driving/ERP/ERP.html" target="_blank">Singapore's excellent ERP system</a> was rolled out. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The pandemic stopped further progress, but in the meantime the Government of the day was re-elected, with a majority for the ruling Labour Party, and it followed up with a <a href="http://roadpricing.blogspot.com/2021/06/new-zealand-parliament-holds-inquiry.html" target="_blank">Parliamentary Inquiry into congestion pricing in Auckland.</a> which recommended that congestion pricing proceed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It's worth noting that congestion pricing is not controversial at the level of <i>national</i> politics, although there is debate about how to use the money, and the priority of objectives. The Green Party supports it, so do the Opposition centre-right National and free-market liberal ACT parties. However, it would be fair to say that progress in advancing congestion pricing in Auckland has been glacial over the past year.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">To enable congestion pricing, the Government needs to introduce legislation to permit it to be introduced and this has not yet occurred. However, in the meantime there were local elections in New Zealand. Auckland's Mayor had retired, and he has been replaced by the centre-right candidate Wayne Brown, who has <a href="https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2022/11/auckland-mayor-wayne-brown-describes-congestion-charging-as-distraction-transport-minister-michael-wood-agrees-there-are-other-issues.html" target="_blank">reportedly now said</a> that congestion charging is a "distraction" and </p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>"Congestion charging could only make sense once every Aucklander has the option of catching a bus or a train that they know will show up on time, every time – and we are two years away from that, at the very least"</i></p><p style="text-align: justify;">There are two big mistakes with this:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"></p><ol><li>If it were decided to introduce congestion pricing, it would take at least two-three years before it could be ready in any case. Indeed, the argument has been made that the right time to introduce it is when Auckland's <a href="https://www.cityraillink.co.nz" target="_blank">underground city rail loop </a>is completed in 2025 or so.</li><li>There is no reason for EVERY person to have a public transport option to substitute every possible car trip, indeed it is neither possible nor rational nor necessary. This is because many trips will simply change time or frequency of travel, especially more discretionary trips.</li></ol><div><i>What does congestion pricing do?</i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div>Fundamentally, congestion pricing is applying a time and location sensitive price to road use directly, with the intention that it shall alter behaviour of marginal users of the road network (those sensitive to price relative to the value of the trip by road at that time and location), so that they do not use congested roads at specific times, reducing congestion to more economically efficient levels.</div><div><br /></div><div>In most cases congestion pricing has not been mostly about people shifting modes of travel, although modal shift is very important, it is a common mistake to think that if, say, 5000 car trips are priced off the road at 0800 that the occupants of those 5000 cars (which will be more than one per car on average) all catch a train or bus.</div><div><br /></div><div>In Stockholm congestion pricing reduced trips over the cordon by 25% (Source: Centre for Transport Studies, Stockholm, CTS Working Paper 2014:7), but of that 25% the percentage breakdown of behaviour change varied:</div><div><ul><li>around 10% points were commuters that shifted mode (so only around 40% of car occupants went to other modes)</li><li>around 6% points were discretionary trips (likely social, recreational, retail) that changed either the destination of travel at charging times or travelled less frequently. So they still drove, just fewer times per week (consolidating trips) or to another destination not subject to pricing.</li><li>around 5% of trips were commercial trips (deliveries, tradespeople, taxis) that disappeared, again likely due to consolidation of trips (deliveries being managed more efficiently, tradespeople booking work for a single trip across the cordon rather than multiple ones during a day)</li><li><2% changed route (using the bypass motorway to avoid the charged cordon).</li><li><1% changed time of travel, noting the Stockholm scheme operates all day, but has lower prices between the peaks. </li></ul><div>The key conclusion being that a great deal of behaviour change is having fewer discretionary trips and more efficient management of trips.</div></div><div><br /></div><div>In London most shifted mode it is believed, to buses, but it is difficult to be sure because there was a significant uplift in the level of bus service, which is believed to have resulted in more trips in any case.</div><div><br /></div><div>For Auckland it is proposed to only have charging during the peaks, so the potential for changing time of driving is significant, much more like Singapore, which only applies charges at times when demand slows traffic below stated performance levels (very few routes have charges outside peaks, especially post-Covid).</div><div><br /></div><div><i>What would happen in Auckland?</i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div>If the first stage of congestion pricing were introduced, it is likely a significant proportion of motorists would shift mode of travel, assuming bus service reliability were back to pre-pandemic levels, and the City Rail Link is opened. However, the majority would still drive. Of those that wouldn't, many would drive off-peak instead, some discretionary trips might go elsewhere at the peak, and some would not travel at all. </div><div><br /></div><div>It's worth noting that the highest peak charge was assumed to be NZ$3.50 (US$2.10). Over a work week this would be NZ$17.50, this is less than the <a href="https://at.govt.nz/bus-train-ferry/fares-discounts/bus-train-fares/" target="_blank">normal public transport fares</a> (there is currently a 50% discount applied by the Government to address the cost of living temporarily) and of course for many they also pay for parking. </div><div><br /></div><div>The inner city cordon is estimated to reduce car trips across Auckland by only 0.4%, and even if the FULL corridor scheme were eventually introduced, there would be a 1.3% reduction in trips. This is <i>enough</i> to make a significant impact on travel times and trip reliability for the vehicles that ARE paying, plus of course buses.</div><div><br /></div><div>It's also worth remembering that freight/logistics trips mostly cannot shift modes, and in many cases can't shift time of travel, but that isn't a reason not to price those vehicles using a scarce resource (road space) when they will benefit from it operating more efficiently.</div><div><br /></div><div><i>Bus services can be improved significantly because of the effects of pricing</i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div>This is the almost instant "win" of congestion pricing, ignoring any money that might be raised and diverted into public transport. Reducing traffic congestion improves travel times for buses, improves trip reliability for buses, and enables more services to be operated with the same number of buses and drivers. <a href="https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop09015/cp_prim7_04.htm" target="_blank">FHWA (US)</a> noted that in London:</div><div><br /></div><div><i> “Excess wait time” at bus stops fell by 24 percent across Greater London during the first full year of charging, with a 30-percent decrease within the zone itself.</i></div><div><br /></div><div>Stockholm also saw such an improvement in trip times, that bus services that had been enhanced were cut back somewhat because too many services were operating with too few passengers. </div><div><br /></div><div><i>Congestion pricing CAN be designed to make life better for those driving</i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div>Many who support congestion pricing do so because they want fewer car trips, as an objective, but it is worth remembering that the goal of the original Congestion Question study was to improve network performance. Less congestion benefits those who pay to use the roads at peak time, because they have more reliable travel times, shorter travel times and also save on vehicle fuel/energy costs. Moreover, the use of net revenues can be applied to reducing or abolishing other motoring taxes, such as the NZ$0.125/l Auckland regional fuel tax (including GST), which apply to ALL road users, regardless of where and when they drive. </div><div><br /></div><div>Mayor Wayne Brown expressed concern that transport policy in Auckland under the previous Mayor was increasingly antagonistic towards drivers, but he could embrace road pricing as enabling better conditions for drivers and public transport users, and as a tool to reduce the burden on motorists outside peak times. </div><div><br /></div><div><i>What SHOULD happen?</i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div>The New Zealand Government should announce it is going to introduce legislation enabling congestion pricing under certain conditions. This won't force the Mayor of Auckland and Auckland Council to proceed with pricing, but will raise the question more explicitly, and it will enable Wellington (and other cities) to progress it, if they so wish. </div><div><br /></div><div>Given 2023 is election year in New Zealand (and polls indicate there is a reasonable likelihood the governing Labour Party would be voted out of office), it might be too much to expect this level of courage, but this IS a government that has set a target of reducing total kilometres driven by light vehicles, across the country, by 30% to meet climate change targets. To implement that requires measures much more intrusive than a congestion charge for central Auckland.</div><div><br /></div><div>Congestion pricing in Auckland should not be delayed because the Mayor doesn't fully understand the impacts it will have. Government should enable it to happen, and progress detailed design for the preferred scheme options, with the intention of being able to implement it by 2026 at the latest (and if the Government changes after the election, it might help replace the Auckland regional fuel tax, which was implemented by the current government. </div><div><br /></div><div>A focus on making Auckland public transport more reliable and frequent is fine, but road pricing can help with that, and it would be wrong to lose momentum on Auckland road pricing because of concerns that can be easily addressed in the detailed design phase.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><i><br /></i></div><p></p>Scott Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00834128869502195521noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7940640458972958593.post-6319744651113799472022-10-17T17:55:00.001+13:002022-10-17T17:55:14.842+13:00Hong Kong to introduce congestion pricing on Cross-Harbour Tunnels<p style="text-align: justify;">Hong Kong has been investigating congestion pricing since 1984, but <a href="http://roadpricing.blogspot.com/2016/04/hong-kong-congestion-charge-looking.html" target="_blank">in recent years seemed like it was likely to progress some sort of cordon for the Central-Wan Chai area.</a> The Transport Department Hong Kong website appears to have frozen at 2020, which is not surprising, as this coincides both with the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, but also the period of protests and unrest arising from opposition to the increasing mainland takeover of the Special Administrative Region.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Meanwhile Hong Kong has made a more obvious step announcing it will introduce congestion pricing applying to the three Cross Harbour Tunnels.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYKspIkXqdNrwtQkC18dl5J1040SL1quHl4RcXtJxKopzET1YmW1TTgS7SoQFI4XDUQxy0EqRX_qFBAXGUCv93PL10PUdvSNHPAeSHmYredbHl3Zau-wA-CG76pp6Q8V4TvyoGjQWqk8KeFSXM7a0JMCDPleqYTRjq8G8UH3k4731p7vUgl83cm-5eCQ/s908/Screenshot%202022-10-17%20at%2017.35.57.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="490" data-original-width="908" height="173" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYKspIkXqdNrwtQkC18dl5J1040SL1quHl4RcXtJxKopzET1YmW1TTgS7SoQFI4XDUQxy0EqRX_qFBAXGUCv93PL10PUdvSNHPAeSHmYredbHl3Zau-wA-CG76pp6Q8V4TvyoGjQWqk8KeFSXM7a0JMCDPleqYTRjq8G8UH3k4731p7vUgl83cm-5eCQ/s320/Screenshot%202022-10-17%20at%2017.35.57.png" width="320" /></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><p style="text-align: justify;"><a href="https://www.thestandard.com.hk/breaking-news/section/4/195501/Tolls-of-three-cross-harbor-tunnels-to-rise-with-new-govt-standards:-source" target="_blank">The Standard (Hong Kong) reports </a>that between 0700-1000, 1700-2000 the Cross Harbour Tunnel (the central and most congested one) and the Eastern Harbour Crossing (on the right) tolls will increase by HK$20 (US$2.55) per crossing. It won't apply to the much less congested Western Harbour Tunnel, which will have a discount applied (HK$5-HK$10) once the franchise for that tunnel expires (putting it in public ownership) later this year. Buses will also have a cap introduced (which had not previously applied, noting most Hong Kong bus services are commercial albeit regulated services). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">It's worth noting the Cross Harbour Tunnel is priced currently at HK$20 per car (US$2.55), the Eastern Harbour Crossing at HK$25 (US$3.18) but the Western Harbour Crossing is HK$75 (US$9.55) because the latter toll is recovering the capital costs of building it through a private concession (the other two tunnels were built as private concessions but returned to public ownership some years ago). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">It's reported around 60% of vehicles using the tunnels are private cars.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Full details of CURRENT tunnel rates are<a href="https://www.td.gov.hk/en/transport_in_hong_kong/tunnels_and_bridges_n/toll_matters/toll_rates_of_road_tunnels_and_lantau_link/index.html" target="_blank"> here</a>. The rates apply to buses and trucks, all largely proportionate to road space occupancy.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This looks like a positive move, of course it won't replace what is needed in Central/Wan-Chai, but it is clear that the Cross Harbour Tunnel in particular is a major bottleneck, and this should help to encourage both modal and time shift, but also attract more demand to the Western Harbour Tunnel, which generally operates free flowing most of the day.</p>Scott Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00834128869502195521noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7940640458972958593.post-85899436933676575832022-05-12T06:57:00.000+12:002022-05-12T06:57:00.341+12:00Western Australia to implement RUC for EVs, Auckland congestion charging to be announced, Virginia launches RUC in July 2022<p>I've been very busy, but there are some announcements worth noting as follows</p><p><b>Western Australia announces it will introduce distance-based RUC on EVs in 2017</b></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><a href="https://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/Pages/McGowan/2022/05/WAs-climate-action-efforts-accelerate-with-60-million-dollar-EV-package.aspx" target="_blank">As part of an package of measures to incentivise increased sales of electric vehicles</a>, the Western Australian Premier has announced that the state government will introduce </p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i> introduce a distance-based road user charge for zero and low emission light vehicles commencing from July 1, 2027 to ensure all motorists pay their fair share towards the maintenance and construction of WA roads.</i></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>A base rate of 2.5 cents per kilometre for electric and hydrogen vehicles and two cents per kilometre for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles will apply, with both rates indexed to the Consumer Price Index.</i></p><p style="text-align: justify;">This parallels what has already been announced in New South Wales, what has been introduced in Victoria in 2021 and what was also announced for South Australia (but for which the recently elected Labor Government has vowed to repeal).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Western Australia has some history in looking at heavy vehicle RUC, but it will be interesting to see how this may be implemented, as it could be a simple odometer reporting based system given there is little interstate light vehicle traffic. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"><b>New Zealand Government to make announcement on progressing congestion pricing in Auckland next week</b></p><p style="text-align: justify;">It has been studied and investigated for some time, but <a href="https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/466823/government-expected-to-give-green-light-for-congestion-charges-in-auckland" target="_blank">Radio New Zealand is reporting</a> (alongside other media outlets) that when the New Zealand Government Emissions Reduction Plan is released on Monday 16 May, it will also announce it will implement congestion pricing for Auckland. It is likely to be focused on a downtown inner city cordon-style scheme at peak times only, but with the potential to expand into corridor charging beyond that. It also appears that the net revenue may be used to offset a cut and eventual abolition of the Auckland Regional Fuel Tax established only in 2018 to help fund transport projects in the city. That tax is currently at NZ$0.125 per litre including Goods and Service Tax.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Virginia to launch RUC for EVs on 1 July 2022</b></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Virginia will be the third US state to implement distance-based RUC for light vehicles on 1 July according to<a href="https://www.nbc12.com/2022/04/25/dmvs-new-mileage-choice-program-set-begin-july-1/" target="_blank"> NBC12.</a> Branded "<a href="https://www.dmv.virginia.gov/general/#va_mileage_choice.asp" target="_blank">Mileage Choice</a>" it will offer EV, hybrid or other ultra fuel efficient vehicle owners the choice of paying by mile instead of paying a <a href="https://www.dmv.virginia.gov/vehicles/#highwayuse_fee.asp" target="_blank">flat annual fee for registration</a> (currently US$109 per annum). Distance will be measuredly a plug-in device supplied by Emovis, with an initial odometer reading captured by smartphone imaging to register. </p>Scott Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00834128869502195521noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7940640458972958593.post-11964367546279510172022-03-08T20:53:00.002+13:002022-03-08T20:53:33.145+13:00Will Denmark be the next European country to develop light-vehicle RUC?<p style="text-align: justify;"><a href="https://www.trm.dk/nyheder/2022/forsoeg-med-vejafgifter-for-personbiler-kan-saettes-i-gang" target="_blank">According to the Ministry of Transport website of Denmark</a> (in Danish), the Danish Government has agreed to a pilot of road user charging (RUC). The Technical University of Denmark with state-owned infrastructure company <a href="https://sundogbaelt.dk/en/" target="_blank">Sund & Baelt </a> is to undertake a study as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>DTU's development experiments with road pricing are carried out with a randomly selected representative group of citizens. DTU's primary focus is to investigate the effects of introducing tolls on the roads that are challenged by congestion and thereby collect experiences of behavioral changes among motorists. The experiences from the experiment can form the basis for a possible further work with tolls for passenger cars.</i></p><p style="text-align: justify;">So the idea appears to be to test RUC on congested roads, with a subset of users, to understand behaviour change to inform further work on road pricing. Sund & Baelt already operates the tolling systems on Denmark's tolled crossings - the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Belt_Fixed_Link" target="_blank">Great Belt Fixed Link</a> between the islands of Funen and Zealand, connecting the main islands of Denmark with the European continent, and the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%98resund_Bridge" target="_blank">Øresund Bridge</a> between Denmark and Sweden. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2,000 citizens will be subject to the pilot which will take a total of three years, with tariffs that will vary by location based on congestion. It is clear it will only be for light vehicles (those under 3.5 metric tons Gross Vehicle Weight). The pilot budget is DKK20 million (~US$2.9m).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Meanwhile, <a href="https://www.thelocal.dk/20220221/thousands-of-danes-support-bid-to-make-great-belt-bridge-toll-free/" target="_blank">a petition signed by 50,000 citizens is requesting that the Great Belt Fixed Link toll be removed.</a> The toll is DKK250 (US$37) per car, which is high, but the cost of the bridge and tunnel link was DKK21.4b in 1988 (US$3.1b), so it is reasonable to recover those capital costs from the users (particularly for a Government committed to encouraging greater use of public transport). The Local reports that the debt for the bridge won't be fully repaid under 2032. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"><i>Comment</i> </p><p style="text-align: justify;">It's clear that revenue from fuel tax is putting pressure on lots of jurisdictions, but it is curious that Denmark appears to be focusing on reducing congestion, which is a difficult objective to achieve unless <i>all</i> light vehicles are put onto a RUC system. I'll look forward to more information in due course. </p>Scott Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00834128869502195521noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7940640458972958593.post-86075425303453223122022-02-21T08:00:00.001+13:002022-02-21T08:00:00.206+13:00Does road user charging harm electric vehicle sales?<p style="text-align: justify;">RUC makes little difference to EV sales.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Under a year ago I wrote this piece <a href="http://roadpricing.blogspot.com/2021/05/would-ruc-for-evs-harm-sales.html" target="_blank">Would RUC for EVs harm sales?</a> largely in reference to concerns in Australia from the Electric Vehicle sales lobby that Australian states investigating road user charging (RUC) based on distance, for light vehicles; would significantly reduce consumers' propensity to buy such vehicles. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Dr Jake Whitehead from the University of Queensland apparently conducted a study which was cited in <a href="https://thedriven.io/2020/11/26/ev-tax-will-smash-electric-vehicle-sales-and-lift-emissions-uq-study-finds/" target="_blank">an article in Driven</a> that claimed it would hurt sales by 25%, claiming that it would be perceived by drivers as adding $4,000 on the cost of owning and operating an electric vehicle. I demonstrated in my previous article that this was highly questionable, because <u>no</u> purchasers of petrol powered cars estimate the<u> fuel tax</u> they would pay on top of the cost of owning and operating the car. If they did, it might be around A$367 a year for a new petrol Hyundai Kona driving the average annual 13,838km of a car in Victoria. This compared to around A$346 for an equivalent EV paying the Victoria state RUC. Sure I understand Whitehead's estimate, but it simply isn't a valid comparison to think anyone buys a car thinking about the lifecycle costs of charges associated with using the road (although buyers of many commercial vehicles do make such estimates). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">However, there is now some actual evidence, with the latest sales data on electric vehicles in Australia. You see <a href="https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/registration/registration-fees/zlev-road-user-charge" target="_blank">Victoria introduced RUC</a> (known as the ZLEV road-user charge) at A$0.025 per km for battery-electric EVs (BEVs) and A$0.02 per km for plug-in hybrid vehicles (PHEVs). Both also obtain a registration fee discount of A$100 a year. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The <a href="https://thedriven.io/2022/01/31/tesla-beats-toyota-as-complete-2021-ev-sales-figures-revealed/" target="_blank">data for 2021 indicates</a> that 6,396 EVs were sold in Victoria, with 7,430 sold in NSW and 5,342 in Queensland. Given RUC was introduced in July 2021 if Dr. Whitehead's assessment were valid you would expect a significant decline in EV sales relative to other states, but that isn't what happened.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">You see the 7,430 sold in NSW compared to the total passenger vehicle fleet in NSW is around 0.17% of all vehicles. Whereas the 6,396 sold in Victoria, compared to the total passenger vehicle fleet in Victoria is around 0.16% of all vehicles. If it made a difference it was barely discernible, and undoubtedly less relevant than other factors.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In the ACT, the number of EVs sold comprised 0.37% of all passenger vehicles registered in the territory, the highest of any state and territory, but that's not so surprising. The ACT has relatively high affluence, motor vehicle registration is free for two years for EVs, with a 20% ongoing reduction. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Queensland has a slightly higher number of EVs as a proportion of all passenger vehicles at 0.18%, but that's close enough to NSW and Victoria to suggest that there isn't a significant difference in policy impacts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Western Australia, Tasmania, South Australia and Northern Territory all have much lower sales, as a proportion of the total passenger vehicle fleet, than the other states, ranging from 0.1% to 0.05%. In shortsthere is a great deal of reluctance to buy EVs in Australia, but the wealthiest eastern states/territory have better sales. Note that both NSW and South Australia announced they would introduce RUC from 2027.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">So from that I conclude that <b>RUC in Victoria has made virtually <u>zero</u> difference to EV sales in the state. </b></p><p style="text-align: justify;">That's with a RUC rate of A$0.025 which is equivalent to US$0.029 per mile or £0.02 per mile or €0.016 per kilometre. That is higher than some US states have implemented or are proposing, but much lower than would be a replacement rate for fuel taxes in any European countries.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">A higher rate might make a difference to sales. Certainly New Zealand has maintained an exemption from its RUC system for EVs, which would have resulted in them being charged NZ$0.076 per km (A$0.071 per km, €0.045 per km, US$0.08 per mile or £0.06 per mile). Exemption EVs from RUC has undoubtedly contributed to greater sales per capita than in Australia, but I suspect other factors, including price of electricity and the network of charging points matter as well (plus less range anxiety in a smaller jurisdiction).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">What it means is that RUC, as a policy tool, needs to be considered within the context of a wide range of pull and push factors for jurisdictions that want to encourage sales of EVs. </p>Scott Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00834128869502195521noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7940640458972958593.post-24161728212036634242022-02-17T17:38:00.003+13:002022-02-17T21:35:15.637+13:00UK House of Commons Transport Committee Road Pricing report released - so here's my review of it<p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Nothing new in the UK investigating road pricing</b></p><p style="text-align: justify;">The UK's journey towards national road pricing has been long and arduous. It once started with the Lorry Road User Charging programme in 2002, essentially a more ambitious version of the highway heavy vehicle RUC systems in continental Europe, but that was abandoned because the business case didn't stand up at the time, given the costs. It was replaced in 2004 with National Road Pricing, which was to pioneer TDP (Time Distance Place) based road pricing, to better manage congestion. However, that collapsed due to public opposition, primarily out of concern about how much motorists would have to pay, and a lack of trust that fuel duty and vehicle excise duty would be cut at the same time.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">That was 2007.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">One of my big questions is whether UK politicians and policy makers have learned from that failure, and maybe learned from the successes of jurisdictions elsewhere that have <i>partially </i>implemented forms of RUC, such as in continental Europe, the United States and New Zealand. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"><b>House of Commons Transport Committee report</b></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Last year, the Transport Committee of the House of Commons (UK) held an inquiry into road pricing (and also electrification of the road vehicle fleet in the UK). It released the findings of its work on 2 February 2022 with a <a href="https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/8754/documents/88692/default/" target="_blank">full copy of the report available here </a>(PDF).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Committee notes in its report that it "<i>launched an inquiry in December 2020 called Zero emission vehicles and road pricing. We chose to split the inquiry into two parts. We reported our findings on Zero emission vehicles in July 2021. That Report addressed the opportunities and challenges presented by the advancement of the ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel vehicles to 2030. This Report on Road pricing covers the second part of our inquiry. It examines the consequences of the shift to electric vehicles, including tackling the decline in fuel duty and vehicle excise duty</i>."</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Before I review the report's key findings, it is important for those unfamiliar with the UK to recognise that the report is influential but not <i>binding</i> on the UK Government. It is a matter for Cabinet and ultimately Parliament to make decisions on implementing any form of road pricing or road user charging (RUC) for the UK. </p><p style="text-align: justify;"><b>What is behind the inquiry?</b></p><p style="text-align: justify;"></p><ul><li style="text-align: justify;">Revenue</li><li style="text-align: justify;">Demand impacts of no charges on electric vehicles</li></ul><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;">It's fairly simple, because it follows on from the primary reason RUC is being implemented in US and now Australian states. Revenue from fuel taxes is threatened by the shift away from fossil fuel use by road vehicles. £28 billion is the annual revenue from both fuel duty and with the UK looking to prohibit sales of petrol and diesel vehicles from 2030, it will drastically erode revenues from motor vehicles. Add the £7 billion raised from vehicle excise duty (an annual registration fee for motor vehicles) that is hypothecated to the National Roads Fund (which fully funds National Highways and contributes towards spending on local roads) and the total revenue is equivalent to 4% of all tax revenue, and this is more than just a problem for spending on roads, let alone transport. That revenue is five times what is spent on roads, so it is a general source of revenue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In other words, unlike the US or Australia where motoring taxation barely or doesn't at all cover the cost of paying for roads, in the UK it does so and so much more. Setting aside externalities (and given no other sector pays for externalities either), the roads make a significant fiscal surplus.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">However, it's not all just about money, it is also about the demand impacts. Electric vehicles pay nothing to use the roads, which means that driving is substantially cheaper for those vehicle owners than others. This is a matter of both equity, but also overall impacts on the network. If a third of vehicles are paying nothing in say ten years' time, the effects on congestion are likely to be considerable. I recall a study around twenty years ago that estimated the demand impacts of fuel duty on driving in the UK was around 10%, in other words, 10% fewer miles were driven in the UK because of the effect of fuel duty. As fuel duty has not increased in 11 years, that impact is likely to have weakened somewhat, but it still exists. So for the UK, RUC is also about sending a price signal to drivers to think about whether to drive or choose another option.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><b>Key conclusions</b></p><p style="text-align: justify;"></p><ul><li style="text-align: justify;">It is difficult to predict the timescale of the impact on revenues. In 2021, 11.6% of new cars were battery electric and it is estimated by 2026, only 4% of all registered cars will be electric. (<u><i>comment</i>:</u> Indeed, but hybrids and more fuel efficient vehicles are eroding revenues easily as much as electric. It would be wrong to focus solely on pure electric vehicles<i>)</i> </li><li style="text-align: justify;">However, it gets much harder to introduce RUC when there are many electric vehicles compared to when there are few, so the message needs to be sent that electric vehicles will have to pay to use the roads. <i>(<u>comment</u>: </i>agree<i>)</i></li><li style="text-align: justify;">A shift to electric vehicles could increase "traffic levels" by 51% by 2050 according to the Department for Transport (DfT), with the average driver spending an additional nine hours a year in traffic by 2040. (<i><u>comment</u>: "</i>on average" hides some disparities, but the aggregate impact is likely to be true. Cheaper driving will mean more drivin<i>g).</i></li><li style="text-align: justify;">"<i>Any alternative road pricing mechanism must be revenue neutral to the Government rather than causing drivers, as a whole, to pay more than they do currently. Such a mechanism should be phased in before fuel duty and vehicle excise duty decline to zero. The situation is urgent; work must begin without delay</i>" (<i><u>comment</u>: </i>YES absolutely<i>)</i></li><li style="text-align: justify;">Technology already built into vehicles (in-vehicle telematics) has potential to collect and deliver the data necessary for a road pricing system (<i><u>comment</u>: </i>Yes, and this happens already today on a small scale in Utah<i>)</i>.</li><li style="text-align: justify;">"<i>The Government must assess the potential effect of a road pricing mechanism based on telematic technology on high-mileage drivers, such as road hauliers and those in rural communities, and on those least able to adapt to increased motoring costs</i>." (<i><u>comment</u>: </i>Yes there should be modelling and even piloting of road pricing to assess those impacts. Noting that road hauliers should see the HGV Levy replaced by RUC, but rate setting needs some serious policy analysis. A cost allocation study should be carried out<i>).</i></li><li style="text-align: justify;"><i>"The successful implementation of a national, technology-based road pricing scheme is contingent on the Government explaining how data capture will work in practice, ensuring that data management is subject to rigorous governance and oversight and reassuring the public that their privacy will be protected" (<u>comment</u>: </i>Data privacy is critical, but there needs to be acknowledgement of some obvious ways to ensure this, such as not having a government owned RUC system collecting trip data, specifying the level of location disaggregation needed, consider having a non-location aware option (at least for a transition period))</li><li style="text-align: justify;">The DfT and Treasury should set up an arms-length body to investigate and evaluate options to replace fuel duty and vehicle excise duty (<u>comment</u>: This seems reasonable, but there isn't an actual need to replace vehicle excise duty. Vehicle excise duty is only an issue because electric vehicles are exempt, but that exemption need not be maintained. However, there are merits in shifting from ownership based to usage based charging of motor vehicles).</li></ul><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>Conclusions that are questionable</b></div><div><ul><li style="text-align: justify;">(para. 25) A claim that the UK can be a "world leader" in road pricing, is bold but also maybe fanciful, especially given how little progress has been made in the UK compared with other jurisdictions. The report doesn't note that there are three and soon to be four jurisdictions charging light vehicles (in all cases but one, electric vehicles) by distance instead of fuel duty. There are two jurisdictions that charge heavy vehicles by distance, weight and configuration <i>instead</i> of fuel duty. There are twelve jurisdictions that charge heavy vehicle by distance and weight as well as fuel duty, using GNSS technologies. However there is very little citing of relevant international experience. Is that because most of those who gave evidence have no such experience> There are multiple companies in Europe, the US and New Zealand that run RUC account management operations, including supplying technology for vehicles (heavy and light). If the UK WAS able to implement a national road pricing scheme that included congestion pricing based on distance it might be world leading (although I suspect Singapore might beat it), but it has so far proven that it cannot even roll out a basic cordon or area based congestion charge beyond London and Durham after 21 years. </li></ul><div><ul><li style="text-align: justify;">(para. 28) The claim is that "<span><i style="font-family: MinionPro; font-size: 12pt;">The devolution of road pricing could lead to the introduction of clunky, unconnected schemes that charge users the same price for driving one mile into the zone as those who drive across it for hours in a day. The more regional schemes that are created, the harder it will eventually be for the Government to implement a functional national system</i><span style="font-family: MinionPro; font-size: small;">". This is simply nonsense, not only because it is based </span><span style="font-family: MinionPro;">on the idea that there is only ONE type of congestion pricing scheme (cordon or area charges) and only one way to implement it (assuming there is a flat all day charge). Why can local schemes not work</span></span><span style="font-family: MinionPro;"> with a national system? The US looks like it may have multiple state RUC systems and ultimately federal system, which may all be interoperable and function seamlessly. Several European countries have toll schemes plus heavy vehicle RUC systems operating in parallel (see Belgium which has a national heavy vehicle RUC scheme, with Brussels developing a local congestion based scheme for light vehicles). New Zealand has a national RUC </span><span style="font-family: MinionPro;">system and is investigating a local congestion pricing scheme for Auckland. There MIGHT be a problem if systems require multiple accounts, or multiple pieces of on-board equipment, but this is unnecessary and avoidable. It is likely to be lower risk for congestion pricing to be locally defined and implemented, even if nationally regulated. It seems to be an excessively engineering rather than policy and business based perspective.</span></li></ul></div><ul><li style="text-align: justify;">(para. 32) The report cites John Siraut from Jacobs who says:</li></ul></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>"He stated that a system where charges vary dynamically based on the road being used and the time of travel are “certainly perfectly feasible to do”, even though they do not exist at the moment"</i></div></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i><br /></i></div><div style="text-align: justify;">This is simply wrong. There IS a system that varies by location, time of day and charges by distance, in the <a href="https://mytocz.eu/en" target="_blank">Czech heavy vehicle RUC system</a>. For heavy vehicles, the charges vary based on the type of road (motorway vs. 1st class highways) and the time of day. Arguably, Singapore also has a system that varies by road being used and time of travel since.. 1997 (albeit not charging by distance), but certainly the can rates vary across 78 charging points by small increments of time of day. Strange in particular when he is previously cited as saying "Singapore comes closest" to the model discussed, which suggests he may have been misquoted at least once. . (<i>Disclaimer: I used to work for a wholly owned subsidiary of Jacobs, in the UK from 2012-2015)</i>.</div></blockquote><p></p><div><ul><li><div class="page" title="Page 13"><div class="layoutArea"><div class="column"><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: MinionPro; font-size: 12pt;">(para. 34) The report says "<i>The Government must assess the potential effect of telematic technology on changing drivers’ behaviour and delivering its wider policies on air quality, congestion, public transport and public health.</i>". No, the <u>effects of telematics technology</u> on drivers' behaviour should be minimal. It is about the policy that is implemented, not the technology (although technology is the enabler). Furthermore, if you think introducing road pricing should also address a whole host of externalities, then you'll spend another five to ten years investigating it. This seems like an unwelcome and unnecessary distraction. The effect on environmental and transport policy outcomes will depend on the policy selected. </span></p></div></div></div></li></ul></div><p style="text-align: justify;"></p><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>Where to from here?</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: justify;">There is one thing missing from the report, which is a thoughtful and considered view on why road pricing failed last time it was tried in the UK. Perhaps it is because most of the politicians were not in Parliament at the time, perhaps it is because the public servants don't want to look into what were largely mistakes by public servants and politicians. However, it is important to remember how sensitive the issue is.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The number one reason road pricing failed before was that the policy was not designed to benefit those who would pay, and there was no leading of the narrative to address the two biggest concerns:</div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li style="text-align: justify;">Road pricing means paying a lot more to drive</li><li style="text-align: justify;">Road pricing means tracking everywhere that you drive</li></ul><div style="text-align: justify;">It cannot be repeated too much that road pricing needs to be introduced in a way that generates the same net revenue as fuel duty and vehicle excise duty. It has to be done in stages and steps that are achievable, but it is almost <u>impossible</u> to introduce any form of congestion pricing until <u>all vehicles are on a road pricing system that measures location and time of day.</u></div></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><u><br /></u></div><div style="text-align: justify;">So congestion management should be very much a secondary concern, it should be about replacing the current system. There are various pathways for doing this, ranging from starting with electric vehicles, starting with newly registered vehicles or with heavy vehicles. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">There should NOT be pursuit of a central government owned and managed system that is procured centrally with a single provider of technology and account management. This is NOT a model that any jurisdiction has pursued for network wide RUC for twenty years (see Switzerland). There should ALSO not be pursuit of a PPP with a single integrated supplier of a system to collect revenue, that is ALSO not a model any jurisdiction has pursued for sixteen years (see Germany). It should be an open market of certified service providers, supported by a government managed enforcement system. Revenue should be collected by competing service providers, with multiple technical platforms (such as in-vehicle telematics or plug-in devices), but enforcement managed by government. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Consideration needs to be given as to how to refund/credit fuel duty paid when vehicles that pay fuel duty transition to RUC.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">NONE of this matters unless policy is designed correctly. That means:</div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li style="text-align: justify;">RUC rates that are based on a rational economic assessment of what different types of vehicles should pay.</li><li style="text-align: justify;">Charges that don't vary by time of day until a vast majority of vehicle are on a system</li><li style="text-align: justify;">Charges that vary by road type and location for traffic management purposes, but not to such an extent as to encourage use of vehicles that do not pay RUC</li><li style="text-align: justify;">Hypothecation of some revenue for roads, to go beyond what the National Roads Fund does now</li><li style="text-align: justify;">Care being taken as to how to treat the surplus of revenue beyond what is needed for roads.</li><li style="text-align: justify;">A feasible staged transition path.</li></ul><div style="text-align: justify;">It doesn't require investment in alternatives to motoring.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">This requires a level of engagement with the public and business that did not happen with National Road Pricing, but is exactly what has been going on in some US States in recent years. </div></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">It would be extremely helpful if the UK looked beyond itself to see that things are moving fast elsewhere. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Take for example Victoria, Australia. In a short period of time it went from studying to implementing a basic distance based RUC system for electric vehicles, based on odometer reporting. Is it the long term scheme? No. Does it work? Yes. Is it a start beyond which more can be learned and it can be built on? Yes.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">I lived in the UK for fourteen years, I worked on Manchester's congestion charging scheme that faltered because of a lack of public support (in part because there was poor communications with those who would pay as to what it would mean for them). I observed the National Road Pricing project going wrong because politicians and civil servants didn't think they needed to seriously and convincingly address concerns of the general public about paying twice, or being tracked. If they still think that, then road pricing isn't going to happen easily.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">It's my hope that both DfT and The Treasury can reflect carefully on lessons learned from the past, in the UK and elsewhere, and recognise that for road pricing to be advanced in the UK it might need to think of doing it in incremental steps, that means not all objectives are met at first, and that it doesn't need to re-invent the wheel.</div><p></p>Scott Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00834128869502195521noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7940640458972958593.post-82616610219848318422022-02-09T15:09:00.002+13:002022-02-09T15:14:32.577+13:00Can 2022 see congestion pricing moving faster than a glacier?<p style="text-align: justify;">For all of the fanfare and success of the late 1990s and early 2000s in congestion pricing being launched, it is 2022 and it is still possible for experts in the field to be able to name every single city in the world that has some form of congestion pricing on existing roads. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">However, let me first DEFINE what I mean by congestion pricing.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><u>I do NOT mean the use of time-of-day tolling on toll roads</u> (because toll roads already have pricing applied, it is simply the application of a demand-based rate not a flat rate), nor the introduction of toll or High-Occupancy-Toll (HOT) lanes, which are in most cases the provision of premium priced lanes to bypass congestion on other lanes, not the application of pricing on all capacity in a corridor. As desirable as time of day tolling can be to manage demand, and as desirable </p><p style="text-align: justify;">It hasn't been because of technology either, it's not technically difficult or expensive to introduce a financial charge on a single or multiple sets of points on a road network. Nor is it because of doubts about its effectiveness, because pricing is <i>proven</i> to influence demand away from roads at times they are well priced. See Singapore, Stockholm and London (at least in the first few years), followed by Milan and Gothenburg.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Furthermore, when considering the range of issues around urban mobility, congestion pricing is not only proven to be able to relieve congestion, but it also reduces noxious emissions and consequentially CO2 emissions. At a time when so many cities are proclaiming a commitment to addressing climate change, it seems strange indeed that so few bother with a proven policy that enables better use of roads and encouraging modal shift, time of day shifts of travel, and which is more potent that probably any other single intervention to change travel behaviour in cities.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This is not to say there aren't many cities with two other non-pricing interventions:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"></p><ul><li>Low emission zones</li><li>Access control regulations</li></ul><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Many cities in Europe implement these (<a href="https://urbanaccessregulations.eu/" target="_blank">this excellent website</a> identifies them by country). However, this isn't pricing. Low emission zones tend to operate 24/7 and are a policy to <i>change</i> the engine type of the vehicles operating within the zone, and access controls are effectively bans or restrictions. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">So which cities have congestion pricing? First let me somewhat discount the ones that exist largely to protect historic centres. Durham in the UK and Palermo in Italy, and arguably Valletta in Malta (albeit it is more sophisticated than London or Milan, as Valletta charges by the hour). There aren't many of them, but the characteristics of their local street network are such that it is easier to justify charges that seek to rather bluntly reduce the amount of visitor traffic. An oddity is coastal holiday town Jurmala in Latvia (near Riga), which has a charge imposed during the spring/summer season, largely to control tourist vehicle numbers. It isn't based on time of day, so is similar to the vignette schemes operated in some European countries.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Norway deserves a special mention, because it has seven cities with urban toll rings, not all of which have peak charges. In all cases, they exist primarily to raise money with only Oslo, Bergen, Kristiansand and Trondheim having peak charges to help manage congestion. Norway has a long history of successfully using tolls to pay not just for new highways and bridges, but also major urban road improvements, by instituting cordons. So I'd argue that in the cases of those four cities, Norway has congestion pricing as part of the urban toll ring, because it charges ALL trips passing the cordons at peak times. They are unlike toll roads that are only on a single facility.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Beyond that, the list remains small:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"></p><ul><li><u>Singapore</u>: Remaining the "gold standard", it is on a slower path to transition its technology, but is still the only two cordon plus corridor charging scheme anywhere in the world that prices incrementally purely to achieve an optimum level of service for its road network. For Singapore, reducing congestion is the goal, because with that comes changes in modal demand that helps sustain more public transport services, reductions in emissions and overall net benefits for the city state in having a more efficient transport network. </li><li><u>London</u>: Despite over 20 years of there being legislation enabling local authorities in the UK to introduce congestion pricing, it is only London (and Durham) that have done so (noting London's powers are under different legislation) in the UK. It remains the only area charge in the world, although Valletta's scheme effectively functions as a more sophisticated one. Its hours are longer, but it is largely the same as it was when it was introduced. Unfortunately, because its gains were not sustained, its example has seemed to inhibit further congestion pricing across the UK.</li><li><u>Stockholm and Gothenburg</u>: These two Swedish cities remain the only two in Sweden to have the "congestion tax", and have managed to evolve their schemes over time. Stockholm's is more about congestion that Gothenburg, which largely introduced the scheme to pay for some large scale transport infrastructure improvements, most of which are not yet complete. Gothenburg's has been far from popular, although resistance has waned in recent years and it has been tweaked to reduce some of the key complaints.</li><li><u>Milan</u>: Many Italian cities have permit schemes to access their central cities, but Milan has a congestion charge, which started as a low emission zone. Milan has a complex charging schedule based on vehicle emissions, but is otherwise it is a cordon scheme with a flat charge.</li><li><u>Dubai</u>: The Salik scheme in Dubai is one of the few corridor schemes, and in most cases has a flat rate apply on all charging points. It was introduced to manage congestion even though there is no variation of charges by time of day.</li><li><u>Abu Dhabi:</u> The newest operational scheme, called <a href="https://itc.gov.ae/en/Car-Owners-and-Drivers/Darb-Toll-Gate-System" target="_blank">Darb</a>, has parallels to Dubai's, but is superior because it is a cordon that does not require tags AND only operates at peak times 0700-0900 and 1700-1900 Saturday to Thursday. It is still the newest congestion pricing scheme anywhere in the world. </li><li><u>Tehran</u>: Tehran's cordon scheme gives all vehicles 80 days a year of uncharged travel, but beyond that a fee is charged which is dependent on time of day, and a measurement of the duration spent in the charged zone.</li></ul><p></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Yes New York is under development, and over this year there will further detailed design and consultation undertaken, before a decision likely at the end of the year, but it is still not operational. There are numerous studies underway in cities ranging from San Francisco to Los Angeles and Chicago in the US, and Auckland, New Zealand may yet get approval to proceed this year. Hong Kong is on hold because of the limitations on travel due to Covid 19. Meanwhile, Doha may yet follow the two cities of the UAE in introducing congestion pricing in future years.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">So what is it going to take? Is congestion pricing doomed to be the idea that emerges in one city every few years or so? Has Covid 19 changed travel patterns in ways that make congestion pricing <i>less</i> or<i> more</i> urgent? </p><p style="text-align: justify;">There are a number of factors that affect it. Firstly, the motivations for considering pricing are usually mixed. Many politicians like the idea of revenue that can be used to fund whatever it is that interests them, but the public is understandably reluctant to support any proposals that simply look like a new tax. Few politicians are interested in congestion pricing as a tool to improve conditions for those who drive, to ease congestion and even fewer want it to replace existing taxes. This makes it difficult to get the public on side.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">However, there are grounds for some optimism. New York seems likely to proceed, and that will be seen as a demonstrator project for the United States, and may rekindle interest in congestion pricing elsewhere. Yes, the conditions seen in lower Manhattan aren't replicated elsewhere in North America, and in Europe there is always some scepticism about concepts implemented in the US (although it already exists in the UK, Sweden and Italy), but New York will be a step forward in demonstrating how pricing can positively improve traffic and the local environment. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Hong Kong is unlikely to proceed until Covid19 is behind the region. Auckland has a reasonable chance of proceeding to become the first city with a population over 1 million that is <i>predominantly car dependent</i> to have congestion pricing, but there probably won't be news on that for a few months.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Can we hope that maybe ANOTHER European city might advance congestion pricing? Maybe Copenhagen (again), maybe Dublin, <a href="http://roadpricing.blogspot.com/2021/12/brussels-city-region-congestionroad.html" target="_blank">maybe Brussels</a> (already looking to replace registration fees with a time and distance based RUC)? It seems utterly extraordinary that Gothenburg is the last so far in Europe.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In the US, it seems unlikely any more will progress seriously until after New York has implemented its scheme, but with <a href="https://www.sfcta.org/downtown" target="_blank">San Francisco advancing a cordon</a> (with charges in some cases based on driver income) maybe it can get further, but the real reward in the US will be for something beyond cordons, towards corridor based charging.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In Asia, with Hong Kong on hold, Jakarta is constantly in the "nearly implementing" phase, but has major structural issues holding it back (particularly enforcement of number plates). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Is there anywhere else looking promising?</p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><br /></p>Scott Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00834128869502195521noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7940640458972958593.post-2343385999809238412021-12-22T18:00:00.001+13:002021-12-22T18:00:00.192+13:00Will the Mayor of London introduce road pricing on a wide scale?<p style="text-align: justify;">Transport for London (TfL) has a serious financial crisis due to ongoing declines in patronage of London Underground, Overground and bus services because of the Covid 19 pandemic. Patronage has never recovered to pre-pandemic levels, and now the Omicron variant has scared off many more passengers, with London Underground peak time patronage now at half of pre-pandemic levels. Given London Underground usually generates a net surplus of fare revenue over operating costs, this has had a severe impact on TfL’s finances.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The tools available to the Mayor of London are Council Tax (a tax on residents of London), fares and congestion charges, or to cut spending. So far the UK Government has provided £4 (US$5.3) billion in assistance since the start of the pandemic, with another £1 billion in capital spending from the Spending Review (in part paying for the, still under construction, Elizabeth Line - formerly known as Crossrail). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">However, this is not enough. TfL is seeking £500 (US$0.66) m for the remainder of the 2021/2022 financial year, £1.1 (US$1.46)b for 2022/2023 and up to £500m for each of the following two years, plus guarantees of long-term capital funding. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">So there is pressure to save and raise more money, and the Mayor must come up with ideas, to get a longer term rescue settlement plan from the UK Government. Part of this is politics, with the Mayor claiming he will have to scrap 100 bus routes, reduce frequencies on 200 others and possibly close one Underground line (which seems highly unlikely). He is currently proposing to increase Council Tax by £20( US$26.50) a year, phase out free bus travel for people aged 60-65 and to keep congestion charges at the recently increased level of £15(US$19.90) a day. I’ll focus on the road user charging based ideas. It's worth remembering though that the London congestion charge is only imposed on a comparatively small part of London (see below)</p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjCprQ98Fips6RuckpMWR82p-pGLd_vxELevqJWbmVxDULlSz8tqud9U4Mk9ekrn0y3hBCDLTa_Ar6pjV7kM0NRQMOlG6V1qBwdwU2eXaIiCflvlxMVV92wuyVpPhVVv18g5sE7xVm5izfqVAlMLrsw4eFOLDDsW41BdeKf-3lqv5yjj-tZRKBSZ6RIhg=s1116" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="659" data-original-width="1116" height="189" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjCprQ98Fips6RuckpMWR82p-pGLd_vxELevqJWbmVxDULlSz8tqud9U4Mk9ekrn0y3hBCDLTa_Ar6pjV7kM0NRQMOlG6V1qBwdwU2eXaIiCflvlxMVV92wuyVpPhVVv18g5sE7xVm5izfqVAlMLrsw4eFOLDDsW41BdeKf-3lqv5yjj-tZRKBSZ6RIhg=s320" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">London congestion charge zone as a part of greater London</td></tr></tbody></table><div><br /></div><b>London boundary charge</b><br /><p style="text-align: justify;">The Mayor has made various proposals, including a cordon charge for vehicles entering Greater London of £3.50 a day. That idea is particularly troublesome because the boundary of Greater London is not, as many think, the M25 motorway, but actually an administrative line that most Londoners would not know exists. It would slice through Buckhurst Hill, part of Dartford, cut off Chigwell and Grange Hill from London, separate Borehamwood and Elstree from Barnett and Edgware, and Watford would be outside London. Moor Park would be divided from Northwood, Sunbury and Walton-on-Thames are on the wrong side of such a cordon and Long Ditton the wrong side from Surbiton. Chessington would be inside, but Epsom outside. As can be seen in the map below, the boundaries are not well known and in only a few cases does the M25 actually represent the edge of London (e.g. adjacent to Heathrow). In short, it would mean a lot of communities, with relatively poor access options to neighbouring communities, would face a congestion charge, although it would effectively be just a toll – because it isn’t about congestion. If it were, it might apply at peak times, but this is a money making proposal, albeit it would not be introduced until October 2023 (so it is not going to make much difference in the short term).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Ministers are not supportive of the idea and there is <a href="https://www.onlondon.co.uk/is-a-greater-london-boundary-charge-for-entering-the-capital-likely-to-be-introduced/" target="_blank">some uncertainty over</a> whether the Mayor has the full legal powers to implement such a scheme.</p><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiqz-xdCjmI02b4ROoKx4DodtXkLovgmnhszKgGsI6-wsjicbcIV7y8DEbAYmwR5qHsHH73aR6oa5B0g8dECiB-s4u7q5yUal_ELNc6boowQ7DDwYGg-4LXs6yePEbZUJcwo1iS7GO4RkZsV-B6yAThOKgFr7MHoHeEJSAyKDhppSWHPsB14CxuyESBKg=s2560" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2048" data-original-width="2560" height="256" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiqz-xdCjmI02b4ROoKx4DodtXkLovgmnhszKgGsI6-wsjicbcIV7y8DEbAYmwR5qHsHH73aR6oa5B0g8dECiB-s4u7q5yUal_ELNc6boowQ7DDwYGg-4LXs6yePEbZUJcwo1iS7GO4RkZsV-B6yAThOKgFr7MHoHeEJSAyKDhppSWHPsB14CxuyESBKg=s320" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Map depicting Greater London boundaries from Wikimedia <span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>(Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right, CC BY-SA 3.0)</i></span></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><div><div><b>London's "share" of Vehicle Tax</b></div><div><br /></div><div>The idea with more merit is for Transport for London to receive some of the money raised by Vehicle Tax (what are effectively vehicle registration fees), which is currently almost entirely hypothecated for National Highways. The Mayor’s estimate is that this is worth around £500m a year, although it is far from clear how much is spent on motorways in London in a year, it is likely to be much less than that. </div><div><br /></div><div>Of course this wouldn't mean the Mayor doing ANYTHING new, it's just a claim on an existing tax collected by the UK Government, which would then need to find the same money from elsewhere to pay for National Highways.</div><div><br /></div><div>The argument of the Mayor is that London vehicle owners pay Vehicle Tax, but there are few motorways in London itself. This is true, but then I have long argued that there is a stronger case for Vehicle Tax to be hypothecated to pay for local roads not the strategic road network, because as a fixed charge, it makes more sense to pay for the roads that are used for access, not roads primarily used as arterials (which would be paid for by usage-based charges). However, without changing the policy around use of Vehicle Tax more generally on those grounds (after all, why should London get such funding but not other municipalities), it seems unlikely that much of a case can be made for Transport for London to get such money for its roads. </div><div><br /></div><div>So that idea isn’t going anywhere either.</div></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="text-align: justify;">There is also a proposal to tax online deliveries (in London), which seems difficult to administer and enforce (as there would be a need to identify all those undertaking delivery activities, which can include anyone with a car contracted to deliver anything from a retailer). </span></div><p style="text-align: justify;"><b>More road pricing?</b></p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Government has been encouraging the Mayor to be more ambitious and implement a wider road pricing scheme to manage congestion and as a corollary, generate the revenue needed. It appears the Mayor is not interested, having already implemented an Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) across a wide area (within the North and South Circular Roads) with some controversy, although it doesn’t raise much revenue. However, what could the Mayor do?</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Mayor has considerable powers to implement road pricing, with the purpose of managing congestion, not raise revenue, so could consider a number of options. Here are some of them:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span><u>Multiple zone charges</u>: Whether area charges as at present (capturing all vehicle movement within an area) or more simple cordons, London could become a patchwork of congestion charging zones at peak periods. Crossing between zones could be subject to a charge, a little like underground fare zones. The main difficulty with this idea is that it would seem inherently unfair for those living or with businesses located adjacent to a boundary to have to pay to travel in one direction, or to have a cost in the way of customers from that direction. Unlike tube boundaries, it isn’t easy to soften that. In any case, it could be an option, and it is not any less blunt than a greater London boundary charge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span><u>Strategic corridor charges</u>: Congestion charges could be applied on some congested corridors, this could include some Thames Crossings (Blackwall Tunnels will have a toll introduced when the Silvertown Tunnel opens), parts of the North Circular Road, A40, A4, A13, A10 etc. These would need to be carefully designed to minimise diversion of traffic, but could be implemented at specific times to lower congestion on those routes (and would generate revenue). They could even be designed to exempt shorter trips by requiring vehicles to cross two or more points to be fully charged. Key would be to only apply charges at times of peak demand, not all day like the current congestion charge.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span><u>Distance based charge with a high flat fixed fee:</u> The theoretical best solution would be to enable road pricing by distance, time and location, so those that drive the most miles, at certain times at certain locations, pay more. Such a system could be trialled, using telematics systems already built into some cars and trucks, and new systems that could be installed in suitable vehicles. Users could choose to pay by mile, or pay a high flat fee instead, at least during times of peak travel (such a system could be zero rated during off peak hours or weekends). It could be limited to travel within the North and South Circular Roads, with those roads not charged, and could have charge rates that vary by route/road type (higher on B and unclassified roads, lower on A roads to discourage rat-running). The big issue with this option is it needs time and needs vehicles to be suitably equipped with the technology to make it work (the idea in Brussels of using mobile phones for this is not without merit, but has bigger challenges around enforcement). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Key to making any wider congestion pricing scheme be acceptable is that it needs to deliver a significant improvement in the level of service for those paying. That means it should ease congestion, considerably. Net revenues should also ensure that road maintenance is at a suitably high standard because it would be inefficient and unfair to be paying by mile and have potholed roads. It also means there should be some capital works to address bottlenecks, such as fixing Hammersmith Bridge, but also intersections that are poorly designed, and even plugging the grossly inadequate sections of the North Circular.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It seems unlikely such a radical step would happen, but if it did it would go a long way towards encouraging the sort of modal shift the Mayor says he wants, as well as reducing emissions and significantly improving the productivity of London – as cargo, commercial vehicle users and buses could all operate much more efficiently than at present. Given around half of all London households don’t have a car, it seems likely that if presented as a package to avoid Council tax increases, improve congestion, improve road maintenance, make bus services more reliable and lower emissions, it might get support. </p><b>Meanwhile... tinkering</b><br /><br />Meanwhile, the Mayor has announced that he is cutting back the congestion charge operating hours from 0700-2200 to 0700-1800 (as it was before), which will cut revenue by about £60m a year, although it will still operate between 1200 and 1800 on Saturdays and Sundays. Discounts for fleets paying automatically or anyone paying automatically are to be abolished as well, effectively increasing charges for light commercial vehicles. This is, of course, just tinkering.<br /><br /> <br />Scott Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00834128869502195521noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7940640458972958593.post-92051634689220211302021-12-20T11:59:00.003+13:002021-12-20T11:59:59.403+13:00Jakarta includes congestion pricing in its Transportation Master Plan<p style="text-align: justify;"><a href="https://en.tempo.co/read/1539988/electronic-road-pricing-scheme-to-be-applied-on-18-jakarta-streets" target="_blank">According to Tempo</a>, 18 Jakarta roads are to progressively have congestion pricing introduced, cover 174 kms of road. Jakarta has been discussing congestion pricing for over eight years, and has trialled it with some success, but has not been able to develop sufficient support to introduce it in full. Jakarta maintains its "odd-even" policy for number plate access into the central part of the city in the meantime.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Meanwhile, Jakarta has made tremendous efforts to improve the quality of alternatives to the private car in recent years, spending a great deal on footpaths adjacent to key corridors and installing cycle lanes (63km by 2020) and major new public transport networks. This includes lanes for bus rapid transit, expansion of the city's metro and major upgrades of its long neglected commuter passenger rail network. It also integrated fares for most public transport including a flat fare for travel between modes.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This saw Jakarta <a href="https://www.staward.org/past-winners/njn8kpcckm7tdulhfuregut19pv2tg" target="_blank">win a sustainable transport award at the end of 2020</a>. This matters because for congestion pricing in Jakarta to be a success, it needed capacity for alternative options and the city was particularly poor for active travel, but with Covid, there has been a significant increase in cycling and walking. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">There remain challenges for congestion pricing, including enforcement based on number plate recognition, but if implemented well, it could see a significant transformation for a city plagued by congestion, pollution and previously with very poor alternatives to driving.</p>Scott Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00834128869502195521noreply@blogger.com0