No Dartford Crossing hypothecation, so what should be done?

A curious article has appeared on the BBC News website reporting that UK Transport Minister, Mike Penning, has contradicted an earlier statement that all money from planned increases in the Dartford Crossing tolls would be hypothecated for expansion of the crossing.   This has upset users of the route who feel ripped off by tolls on a route that has been fully paid for (and which generates a substantial surplus after operating costs and costs to maintain the crossing).   What the Minister actually is meaning is that far more than the money from hypothecation will be spent on the road, although I would argue that over time that probably is not true, as the money from tolls should be able to sustainably finance yet another crossing.

Southern side of Dartford Crossings (courtesy Evening Standard)

The Dartford Crossing is the only tolled portion of London's motorway ring road, which is (except for the crossing) known as the M25 (Dartford Crossing is not a motorway because the tunnels have restrictions on certain dangerous goods).  Dartford Crossing consists of two 2-lane tunnels and a 4-lane bridge, providing 4 lanes in each direction.  The first tunnel opened in 1963 with tolls, followed by the second tunnel in 1980 and the bridge in 1991, as traffic grew rapidly.   It is the most easterly road crossing of the Thames and some distance from the nearest road crossing, the severely congested Blackwall Tunnels.  As a result, it carries very high volumes of traffic, with around 150,000 vehicles a day.

The tolls have over time fully paid the capital (including debt) costs for the two tunnels and bridge, so that by 2002 all were deemed to have been fully paid.  As a result, many locals have campaigned for an end to the tolls, which are primarily manually collected (although there is an electronic tag system that operates some barrier lanes).

The problem is that withdrawal of the toll is likely to result in increased demand, so the toll was legally changed from being a toll to what is effectively a congestion charge.  Around £40 million (US$61.7 million) a year is generated in surplus from the tolls.

So a toll is operated, in both directions, on one of the UK's most heavily congested stretches of highway.  The toll annoys the motorists because they know the tolls are far more than what is needed to maintain the route, the toll delays traffic and overall they feel they are paying more to use a road that offers shockingly poor standards of service.   Of course, they are right.

The new Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition government has made its highest priority to eliminate the UK's budget deficit by the next election, so is hardly going to give up a lucrative source of revenue.  However, its approach does appear to have the elements of a solution that could satisfy motorists if done in the right order.

The government announced earlier this year that:

- Tolls would go up 33% in 2011 and another 25% on top of that in 2012 (£1.50 today for cars rising to £2.50);

- Manual tolls would be replaced by fully electronic free flow tolling;

- Another crossing would be built.

However, as can be expected the only one of those announcements that seems obvious is the increase.  The increase in itself will reduce delays by reducing demand, but it will be seen as not delivering improved service as long as nothing is done about replacing manual tolls and expanding capacity.   

One way of delivering value would be to introduce electronic free flow tolls as a transition, with half of the existing toll booths converted to fully free flow lanes.  Existing DartTag users (which have a non-EU standard DSRC system) should be transitioned to free flow accounts using the EU 5.8 GHz standard, with Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) for enforcement.   DartTag users already have a 33% discount over cash.   A discount should be maintained with electronic free flow, as it not only incentivises a shift to freeflow accounts, but increases acceptability if there remains an option to pay less.  

It shouldn't be difficult to introduce partial free flow lanes and demonstrate how easy it is to avoid the queues at the toll booths.   Enforcement procedures would need to be developed and applied so that penalties are strictly applied to those using such lanes without paying, but revenue from fines should make this easily self-funding.

Lessons from Dublin's M50 toll transition to free flow should be applied for the final shift to fully electronic free flow tolls, particularly provision of information, call centre capacity and means to pay in advance (and after the event).  Bearing in mind that removing the toll booth queues is critical to delivering value to users of the route in the next few years.

Beyond that is the question of what to do with the revenue, and although it wont be officially hypothecated, there is no reason why it can't be unofficially hypothecated for both maintenance and expansion of the route. 

Three options for increased capacity are already under investigation.  A parallel crossing, a new local crossing that will link the A2 highway to the docks at Tilbury (relieving the existing route of much local traffic and port traffic), or a third bypass far to the east.  Details are here.  Whatever is selected (my bet is that a new local connection or a major bypass to the east would deliver considerable traffic benefits, but I'll let objective appraisal determine that) should proceed, and motorists on the existing crossing should be told clearly that tolls are not simply to be treated as profit.

The three options for new capacity at Dartford

Tolling gets a bad reputation when those who impose it don't treat those who pay as customers, entitled to a high standard of service.  It already generates a cynical reputation in the UK as a way for government to rip off consumers.   If done properly, the Dartford toll can be reformed to remove one of the key sources of congestion and to be used to deliver long term value by enabling the financing of extra capacity.

If what motorists (and voters) see first are increased tolls, no progress on new capacity and no implementation of free flow tolling  (which most commentators don't seem to understand even exists), then British politicians wont be surprised that they aren't trusted on this issue.

FT reviews road charging and makes some useful points

An article in the UK Financial Times (registration required at no charge) reviews road charging, in light of the abolition of the Western extension of London's congestion charging zone this weekend.

It draws a few conclusions that I don't think can be supported by the evidence:

The end of charging in west-central London is one of many signs that sentiment across the industrialised world has turned against efforts to substitute, or supplement, traditional fuel-based taxes on motoring with direct charges.

Is it?  The London case is rather localised.  Mayor Boris Johnson campaigned against it, and is keen to be seen to be consistent with his word.  Previous Mayor Ken Livingstone introduced it more for political than for transport reasons.  Bear in mind this was not to raise revenue, but to manage congestion.   It is worth noting that Boris Johnson's draft Transport Strategy is open about the future of congestion charging, meaning it could go further in due course.

As recently as 2006, many policymakers across Europe and North America were looking closely at systems that charged for driving into the busiest areas or according to the distance driven. Those that tracked cars using satellite, microwave or number plate-recognising cameras..

The only people talking about tracking cars via satellite are technologically inept journalists.  GPS satellites track nothing, as they are broadcast satellites that allow devices to calculate location of the device.  Whether anyone tracks that requires a communication interface, which GPS certainly is not.   Indeed designers of these systems have been making every effort to avoid tracking, although this doesn't make good copy for sensation seeking journalists.

The article quotes Professor David Begg, a key UK advocate of road pricing, who points out that the recent emphasis on using road charging for environmental objectives (which is a European focus, not one seen in other parts of the world), can exacerbate congestion by providing advantages to low emission cars.  He is quite right.  A key issue for anyone contemplating road pricing is to be objective driven.   

A useful dimension far too often ignored is how, in some cases, rural motorists would be better off if there was economically efficient road pricing:

Charlene Rohr of the European arm of the Rand Corporation, the US think-tank, says a system of variable direct charges would cut costs for many drivers – and improve driving conditions for all. “Farmers in rural England would be better off,” Ms Rohr says.

The big push in the US today is to replace fuel tax with distance based charging.  It is proving politically impossible to raise fuel taxes to keep abreast of increasing fuel economy, so several states are considering road pricing to provide a sustainable source of revenue.  Take the example of Oregon:

The government of Oregon, one of many to fund its highway budget almost wholly from fuel tax, says in 1970 it received the equivalent in 2010 terms of 3.28 cents in fuel tax per mile driven in the state. Today it receives only 1.13 cents.  The result is weaker bridges and potholed rural roads. James Whitty, who manages the part of Oregon’s transport department responsible for finding fresh funding mechanisms, says the state’s highway budget will become “unsustainable” without a new means of charging for road use.

I've discussed this with Jim Whitty, and he understands the difficulties of getting confidence of motorists around issues of price and privacy.   The only way other jurisdictions are avoiding this is by ever increasing fuel tax, which cannot be a long term solution if vehicle fleets exit petroleum-based fuels over time.

I am impressed that the FT talked to noted economist Gabriel Roth, who rightly points out that politicians need to make the case more convincingly. Singapore, despite having a rather authoritarian democracy, actually has one of the most transparent and honest systems:

“The Singaporean government seems to be interested in making everybody richer and more efficient,” he says. “It’s just different attitudes with different governments.”

What I find notable about Singapore is that the revenue is not important, the prices are altered in order to ensure traffic flows freely.  Charging points are established and priced to manage traffic flows, with different charging periods in different directions.  It remains the most sophisticated congestion charging scheme, even though it is the oldest. 

The article points out that toll based financing of major roads is growing, as the numerous articles on this blog testify to.  From Australia to India to Indonesia to Russia to Turkey, tolling is becoming increasingly common as a means to enable major new routes to be built.

Heavy vehicle charging is also spreading across Europe:

The road haulage lobbies of countries with high fuel taxes – such as the UK – support direct charging because foreign trucks can avoid the levies by filling up where fuel is cheaper. France and even the UK’s coalition government – which has entirely rejected a general national charging scheme – are considering systems for trucks.

France is already committed to a charging scheme.  The UK is investigating it.  Heavy vehicle charging exists nationally in Switzerland, Austria, Germany, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and New Zealand, and is also being developed for Poland and Sweden.   Oregon has its scheme as well.  

The FT article seems pessimistic, but in the end argues itself away from such pessimism.  Tolling is widespread across the world, and still has more promise as electronic free flow technology avoids the costs of land for toll booths, and congestion caused by manual tolls.  Congestion charging is more readily implemented in cities during economic boom times when congestion is severe (and other alternatives simply don't seem feasible).  Heavy vehicle charging seems easiest to implement when it is about charging transit traffic, but a full transition to road pricing still seems elusive.   Yet all will ultimately converge, the question is not if, but when and where!

Malaysian toll road company, Plus Expressways, to be "privatised"

PLUS Expressways is Malaysia's biggest concessionaire toll road company, and one of the largest toll road companies in Southeast Asia.  It is part of the UEM Group, which itself is a wholly owned subsidiary of Malaysian government investment company Khazanah Nasional.   So PLUS is a government owned company.

It owns subsidiaries in Malaysia, India and Indonesia.  973km of tolled expressways in Malaysia are under the responsibility of PLUS.  PLUS is an acronym for its first concession company formed in 1986 - Projek Lebuhraya Utara Selatan -which itself is responsible for the North-South Expressway from the Thai border to Kuala Lumpur and south to Johor Bahru (border with Singapore), otherwise known as Routes E1 and E2.

PLUS subsidiaries are:

- ELITE (responsible for the E6 North-South Expressway Central Link, effectively a Kuala Lumpur bypass).

- LINKEDUA (Malaysia-Singapore Second Link and associated expressway);

- KLBK (E15 Butterworth-Kulim Expressway);

- PHS (Helicopter charter company);

- TERAS (E-commerce and online facilities management);

- PLUS BKSP (India responsible for the 21.6-km Bhiwandi-Kalyan-Shil Phata Highway in the state of Maharashtra);

- LMS (Indonesia responsible for the 116-km Cikampek-Palimanan toll highway); and

- CCTW (Indonesia responsible for the as yet incomplete 25.4-kilometre Package 4 Cimanggis-Cibitung Toll Road).

Maps are on the PLUS website, showing how it is responsible for most of the major routes in Malaysia.  It is proud of its rest areas, laybys, viewpoints and even roadside motels and restaurants.  Given it competes not only with free existing roads, but also the railway and airline services, it clearly seeks to attract motorists.  Tolls are manual with barrier based ETC, but a transition has already started to create fully electronic free flow toll points such as on the Malaysia-Singapore Second Link.   It is government policy to move all toll roads to multi-lane electronic free flow tolling to reduce congestion.

It even has its own highway patrol unit.  Another feature of PLUS is a loyalty programme, whereby motorists earn the equivalent of frequent "drivers' points", based on distance travelled.

PLUS was listed on the Malaysian stock exchange in 2002.   45% of the company is not held by the Malaysian government, but divided between a pension fund and a wide range of small shareholders.  

However, the privatisation being touted in Malaysian media actually does not necessarily mean the private sector buying out the state shareholders, but may include the state shareholders buying out the private shareholders as well  - privatisation meaning removing it from being publicly listed.

The reason for the state shareholders to seek to buy out the private sector is because government recently announced tolls would be frozen for the next four years, making it a less attractive investment in some eyes.

Still, once again it shows how highways can be managed, by and large, commercially and operate effectively and efficiently.  It's a model virtually unknown in North America.

Does Beijing need congestion pricing?

An article published by the official Chinese government owned Xinhua News Agency claims to have been written by "lead infrastructure specialist of the World Bank Office, Beijing", and that congestion can only be resolved by introducing forms of demand management for road transport.

It gives an excellent summary of how rapid growth in car ownership and traffic in Seoul, Republic of Korea, caused similar pressures and that simply building subway capacity was inadequate.   Measures were increasingly taken to reallocate road space for buses,  changing planners laws that had required minimum numbers of parking spaces in new properties, raising parking charges and raising tolls.  Measures to enhance the attractiveness of walking and cycling have also been part of Seoul's formula.

The World Bank has suggested a series of measures to manage congestion, but warned that supply side solutions have never sustainably resolved traffic congestion in any major city in the world.   The solutions promoted have been a mix of :

-  Additional road infrastructure where it is economic (and particularly to facilitate bypass movements);

- Reallocation of road space for buses and cycling;

- Controls on vehicle ownership;

- Taxes and charges on vehicle usage.

The article makes it clear that demand management measures are needed in Beijing, and it is right.

I'd also add, in the Beijing context, that it should include significant enhancements to the attractiveness of walking and safety for pedestrians and cyclists.  I've been to Beijing twice, and one of the key features is how motorists get away with running red lights, ignoring pedestrian cross signals and cutting off pedestrians and cyclists.   Enforcement of traffic laws is extremely lax, and given the high proportion of residents who walk and cycle, maintaining this is critical.

For Beijing, public transport also faces overcrowding, so ensuring short trips are more economically and easily undertaken on foot or cycle is rather important, as is pricing public transport so it is financially operationally self sustaining.   This will allow it to grow and develop beyond the vagaries of public funding, but also importantly avoid public transport taking people from the active modes of cycling and walking.  Public transport should never be allowed to be neglected for lack of funds, but be able to respond to what demand management on roads (and economic growth) should present.

However, the road side is more critical.  A crackdown on driver licencing requirements, vehicle safety enforcement and driver behaviour would buy some time, save lives, reduce accidents (which themselves generate congestion) and enable the more complex measures to be introduced.   Market based parking, which sees planning rules on minimum parking requirements scrapped and for government owned parking to be priced to make a profit, would make a considerable difference.  However, beyond that the bigger question is congestion pricing.

China has used tolls to finance many of its major road building projects, particularly intercity motorways.  However, it has no standard system to raise revenue to pay for the ongoing maintenance and enhancement of the existing network (since government has been sufficiently flush with cash).  What it needs to consider is how road pricing might be introduced to raise revenue and manage congestion.

Beijing already has several ring roads orbiting the city, all of which could be thresholds for some form of congestion pricing.   Each could theoretically form a kind of cordon, with pricing imposed for crossing it in each direction, with pricing different at each offramp or crossing over the ring road.   In other words, a sophisticated form of Singapore's existing Electronic Road Pricing system, which allows prices to vary by road and time.  Such cordons would maintain free travel within individual zones, which could be divided by the ring roads and key radial highways.   Key to this is having good quality number plate databases and setting up accounts for motorists to pay.  The money collected could ensure maintenance and enhancement of the existing road network, and facilities for cyclists and pedestrians.  Technology need not be complicated, although I might suggest that given China's ambitions, the new US 5.9 GHz standard for Dedicated Short Range Communications (DSRC) has enormous potential to not only charge, but implement a wide range of safety and information based ITS applications.

The step beyond that would be distance charging, but Beijing's geography is such that the sort of system I have briefly outlined could deliver significant demand management benefits and have a high degree of disaggregation by time and location already.   It has the advantage of indirectly creating a distance charge by ensuring those who cross multiple cordons pay the most.

Unlike Tokyo, Seoul and Bangkok, China's cities now have the chance to introduce sophisticated forms of congestion pricing to ensure roads remain functional and mobile, as well as also providing significant environmental benefits.   China is not absent political barriers, despite the obvious reputation for being authoritarian, but it would appear that what is needed is to rebalance the enthusiasm for allowing people to become car owners, to implementing market reforms on parking and roads.

Russia embarking on major toll funded motorway construction programme

Russian newspaper Vedomosti has reported that the Russian Government intends to build 3000km of tolled highways.  This includes the already announced Moscow-St. Petersburg motorway, and also:

- Moscow Central Ring Road;

- Kaliningrad central route;

- Moscow-Kazan highway; and

- St. Petersburg- Kazakhstan highway among others.

Tolls are reportedly to be introduced on some existing routes to help funding widening and realignment, although every tolled route is meant to have a free alternative.   The Russian Government is apparently concerned at the apparent poor state of its highway infrastructure with average speeds on major highways of only 40-60 km/h, and an appalling accident rate (with almost all major routes being single carriageway/2 lane only).  Russia is notable for having a poorly developed highway infrastructure, with most emphasis on transport being on railways and air transport.

Toll roads are the responsibility of state-owned enterprise Avtodor which is seeking private investment in concessions, but also receives taxpayer funding.

One article (Russian only) has scientific director of the Institute of Transport and Roads, Mikhail Blinkin, suggesting toll roads are the wrong way forward, but rather hypothecated fuel taxes.  Given how the US and others are keen on moving towards tolls for user pays funding, he is looking at a trend in the wrong direction.   Certainly there is a longer term issue of sustainable funding of existing routes, but for the new network if tolls can facilitate the development of a modern highway network for Russia, then all well and good.  What would be particularly advantageous is for such routes to remain unsubsidised, for electronic free flow tolling to be facilitated and for the ongoing commercial management of new highways.   This would help ensure the long run maintenance of such routes, the development of new capacity as it is economically efficient to do so, and would also mean that fair competition can be maintained between road and rail transport.

London congestion charge changes in January 2011

On 4 December 2010 I posted about one of the major changes to the London Congestion Charging scheme that will come into effect on 4 January 2011 - the introduction of detection based accounts.

However, there are a wider range of changes which affect the geography, pricing and the discounts/exemptions to the scheme as well.  These are:

- Removal of the western extension of the original congestion charge zone (and removal of eligibility of residents in the zone for the residents' discount);

- Increase in the basic charge price from £8 (US$12.41) to £10 (US$15.51);

- Introduction of a 100% Greener Vehicle Discount which will apply to vehicles that emit less than 100g/CO2 per 100 km and meet at least the Euro 5 standard (for a £10 annual fee) to replace the Alternative Fuel Discount which is currently in place for vehicles powered by electricity;

- Extending the 100% Electric Vehicle Discount to plug-in hybrid vehicles;

- Introducing a £10 registration charge for the 9+ seat 100% discount.

Of these, the first two (and detection based accounts) will have the biggest impact.  The abolition of the Western extension was an election promise of London Mayor Boris Johnson, as it is widely believed the extension was imposed by the previous Mayor Ken Livingstone because it targeted a part of London that is particularly wealthy (and not particularly supportive of Livingstone) rather than targeting congestion.

The new map of the charging zone is here (PDF), but is essentially identical to the original charging zone.   The impact is expected (according to a firm which is my namesake) to be an increase in traffic of between 6% and 12% in the zone (15% to 21% increase in congestion), and  and a loss of £55 million in net revenue.   However, the overall London impact is expected to be only a 0.5% increase in traffic (up to 4% increase in delays).   Why?  Because there will be a reduction in congestion in the central congestion charge zone.

The reason is because the residents of the Western charging zone will no longer be eligible for the residents' discount of 90%, which has applied to them for all driving within the London congestion charging scheme.  As most of the Western charging zone is residential, the effect is modelled to be a 1-2% decrease in traffic in the central zone and a 2-3% decrease in delays in the central zone.   So the impact will be very mixed.

Of course this will be moreso, as the price is increased:

- £10 for travel paid in advance or on the day of travel (currently £8);

- £12 if paid up till midnight the following day (currently £10);

- £9 if detection based account automatically paid;

- 90p for those eligible for residents' discount if detection based (currently 80p if pre-registered);

- No more new monthly or annual prepaid discounts.  Regular users are encouraged to register for detection based accounts;

- £9 daily for Fleet autopay (currently £7).

The net effect of all of these will be to increase revenue and have a modest effect on demand.   Note that the original effect of the central charging scheme has been severely diluted according to Transport for London because:

- Widespread roadworks due to water and gas pipe replacement has reduced network capacity; and

- Measures to reallocate road capacity to pedestrians, cyclists and buses have effectively reduced network capacity.

It will be interesting to see what happens in the current Western zone once the congestion charge is gone, as to whether congestion increases significantly, and whether the countervailing increases in charges will mitigate this (bear in mind that demand for the central zone affects demand along the corridors through the Western zone).

It would appear unlikely that any future extension of congestion charging in London will be as blunt as creating new area charges (London is not a cordon charge scheme, as it charges movements within as well as across zone boundaries).  

However, in the current economic climate there is little likelihood of much political appetite to do this, even though congestion on London's ancient road network remains severe and chronic throughout the metropolis.

Swiss launch 2nd generation heavy vehicle OBU

Switzerland has the world's oldest electronic based distance road user charging scheme.  The LSVA (Leistungsabhängige Schwerverkehrsabgabe) was launched in 2001, and has the following essential features:

- All goods vehicles over 3.5 tonnes operating on Swiss roads must pay the LSVA distance charge (with few exemptions);

- Vehicles must pay for distance travelled on all public roads, not just motorways;

- The charge is based on gross laden weight, Euro engine (environmental) rating and distance travelled.

Distance is measured with an on board unit (OBU) connected to the vehicle's tachograph.  To avoid fraud (which can easily be undertaken by interfering with the tachograph signal) this is correlated with a GPS unit, which also helps to control the unit when vehicles enter and exit Switzerland.  Foreign vehicles without such units get their odometers measured at entrance and exit and are charged accordingly with a surcharge.

The distance measurement on the OBU is currently transmitted through a smart card which is removed from the OBU and either posted to the Swiss Federal Customs Administration or taken into offices where distance records are checked and payment is taken.

The 2nd generation OBU - Emotach - is to be available from 1 January 2011 with the intention that existing units are all replaced by the end of 2012.  According to Ertico the system supplier is Siemens Solutions and Services AG in Zurich, with sub-supplier Continental in Villingen/Schwenningen for the on-board unit. The new units have the following advantages:

- Greater security for units and smartcards;

- Multiple smartcards can be used so trailers can be more easily interchangeable;

- Bluetooth communication of data to cellphones or terminals, avoiding need to send or insert smartcards;

- Declaration available online;

- Data able to be produced in Microsoft Excel format.

Emotach Swiss distance charging OBU

In addition, it appears the units will be able to be used for the Austrian DSRC based ASFINAG heavy vehicle toll.

Information in more detail is on the Swiss Federal Customs Administration in German, French and Italian.

For heavy vehicle owners, the good news is that the cost of the unit replacement is being fully met by the system operator.   

The Swiss system deserves more attention, because it works well, applies across ALL roads and shows that it isn't bleeding edge technology that is needed.   Although the other side of all of this is that the system was expensive to set up, and that the main benefits for Switzerland have been revenue collected from foreign vehicles (and maintenance savings from reducing the use of its network).  Bear in mind that one of the key reasons the Swiss introduced the LSVA was to capture vehicles that used its roads to bypass French toll roads.

So whilst many consider how to introduce distance charging schemes, the Swiss quietly run one that works rather well.

London Mayor's Air Quality Strategy includes more road charging

London Mayor Boris Johnson has released his Air Quality Strategy (full version here, executive summary here), and it includes a wide range of policy measures for transport and other sectors.  However, for this blog the key interest is in the references to road pricing.   

These are:

- Maintenance of the Low Emission Zone (LEZ) (which imposes a requirement that all vehicles within Greater London over 3.5 tonnes  must be Euro 3 standard or above, or face a £200 a day charge), with it being extended to larger vans, minibuses and motor caravans over 1.2 tonnes from January 2012;

- Continuation of the central London Congestion Charging zone;

- More road charging as a last resort "the Mayor may consider road user charging schemes if other measures at his disposal are deemed insufficient to meet his overall transport goals and where there is a reasonable balance between the objectives of any scheme and its costs and other impacts."

- Tightening the Low Emission Zone to a Euro 4 standard for PM for vehicles over 3.5 tonnes by 2012 (and consider one for NOx from 2015);

- Consider a Low Emission Zone for central London, contiguous with the congestion charge zone with even tougher standards.

In short, existing measures are being maintained and the key change will be tightening of the LEZ, with a potential very high standard central LEZ.   Beyond the existing congestion charge, little more is being said other than the options remain open to undertake more road charging if other measures are inadequate.   What this really means is that the political environment to expand congestion charging simply does not exist in London at the moment, but there is official recognition of the potential for it to do more.

Indonesia aiming for more electronic toll takeup

The Jakarta Post reports that Indonesian toll road company, PT Jasa Marga Tbk, is aiming for a major increase in electronic tolling takeup in the next two years.  Current takeup is only 6%, with the goal being to increase this to 30% by 2012.   This will partly be achieved by installing electronic tolling equipment at all toll gates.

The toll prices at present are complex, partly because Jasa Marga is responsible for 13 individual toll roads, with the Jakarta Outer Ring Road (only partly Jasa Marga responsible) already having 83 toll gates.

Prices range from 2500 Rupiah (US$0.28) to 5000 Rupiah (US$0.56) for cars, with prices ranging up to 4000 Rupiah (US$0.44) to 14000 Rupiah (US$1.55) for the heaviest vehicles.   The high number of tolling points means the tolls are more closely aligned to a form of blunt distance charging, a little like the nationwide DSRC based toll system on motorways in Austria. 

However, it does not appear that Jasa Marga is incentivising electronic tolling for anything other than user convenience and reduced congestion at busy toll booths.   Given the saving in labour, it would be appropriate to have a distinction between electronic accounts and manual tolls.   

More importantly, if I was thinking about reducing congestion in Jakarta, incentivising fully electronic free flow traffic on toll roads would be a higher priority than congestion charging.

No congestion charge for Melbourne says new Deputy Premier

The recent State election in Victoria, Australia saw the Labour Party ousted for the centre-right Liberal/National coalition.  Melbourne has a well developed public transport system (focused on the central business district of course), and for some years there have been discussions about whether a congestion charge (focused on the rather easily defined central city) could help ease traffic congestion and fit in with the city's transport strategy.

The new state government seems to have made its views known through new Deputy Premier Peter Ryan who is reported by AAP as opposing a congestion charge for Melbourne.  

Unfortunately, he is making the common mistake around congestion charging in thinking that such charges automatically mean people need a public transport alternative.   The experience elsewhere is that a significant proportion of motorists do not change modes, but change travel times, consolidate trips or do not undertake trips at all.   Public transport providers should anticipate increased demand, but the real point is that public transport at peak times is also underpriced, so congestion charging is an opportunity for further reforms. 

Another option is not to introduce a new charge, but to rebalance existing charges so that it may cost less at other times.   This would make it advantageous to those driving off peak and would increase overall economic efficiency, and may be designed to be net revenue neutral.

Still, there remains some obvious attraction in introducing a congestion charge for downtown Melbourne predominantly because the city's rail, tram and bus network provides good standards of service into the city from the rest of the metropolis.   However, when most discuss such charges they think of cordon/area charges ala London, Stockholm, rather than considering more disaggregated charges that may vary by time and location.   Congestion charging for Melbourne cannot be blunt, cannot be all day and should not have the same charge on all roads approaching the central city.   Equally important is to consider whether congestion charging is better considered as a form of distance charging rather than single events (e.g. crossing a set point).