News briefs - Australia, Belarus, Israel

Australia - Queensland Government to privatise motorway company

Queensland Motorways is a company owned by the Queensland Investment Corporation, the Queensland State Government's holding company for commercial state owned enterprises.  It owns three key toll roads in Queensland, but also acquired from Brisbane City Council the Go Between Bridge, which I profiled over two years ago as being an unprofitable disaster.

Queensland Motorways have paid the Council A$112 (US$98) million for the 50 year tolling rights to the bridge.

Previously it acquired the disastrous Clem 7 toll tunnel motorway, which is subject to a lawsuit over demand and revenue forecasts.  It paid A$618 million (US$538 million) for the road, not bad given it cost A$3 billion to build.

So now the Queensland Government thinks it is a good time to divest itself of this investment.  The Australian reports it is worth about A$4 billion (US$3.5 billion)

The report says:

Groups likely to be interested in Queensland Motorways include superannuation heavyweight Industry Funds Management, Abertis/Hastings and groups out of Canada including the Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board or the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan.

Of the listed groups, Transurban could purchase the asset with partners, a source said.


Belarus - tolling of existing highways to be expanded

ITS International reports that the Belarus electronic toll system has been expanded to a network of 118km of highways as of January 2014.  This expands the extent of the network to 933km, with the whole system installed and operated by well-known Austrian toll systems provider, Kapsch.   The expanded network will include eleven new gantries for charging and enforcement. The report claims that customers are registered from Belarus, Ukraine, Russia, Poland and Lithuania.

The system uses DSRC, not GNSS technology, paralleling that which has long been in place in Austria, and similar systems on networks in the Czech Republic and Poland.

I wrote about the Belarus system a couple of years ago.   It is branded BelTol  and charges cars €0.04 (US$0.06)  and up to €0.12 (US$0.17)  per km for trucks. Both rates seem rather cheap.  Germany charges between €0.14 and €0.29 per km for trucks, Slovakia €0.08-€0.24 and Austria €0.16-€0.44 per km.   No toll system in Western Europe charges cars by distance across a network electronically.


Israel - New HOT lane being studied

According to Israeli business news website, GLOBES, Ayalon Highways Ltd (a central government owned company responsible for managing Israel's Highway 20) is investigating the value of introducing a HOT Lane on the highway between Roads 1 and 5.  

However, the report is contradictory, which some claiming that a lane will be taken from the existing road, and the Ministry of Transport claiming that discussions are about a new (additional lane).  

The road will connect with the privately owned H-1 HOT lane that was opened in 2011 between Ben Gurion Airport and Highway 20, which I noted at the time,  and is driven entirely by heavy congestion on the existing lanes.  

The proposed lane would offer toll free access for buses, but the "high occupancy" requirement would be 4 car passengers, suggesting that there is a real interest in ensuring the lane maintains a good level of service, although it is far too early to consider what the potential toll levels would be.

Proposed new HOT lane in blue, existing H1 lane in yellow

Intelligent parking in London and San Francisco, a future for market priced parking?

London smart parking

The City of Westminster, one of London's inner city boroughs (encompassing the West End and many of the locations in central London tourists are familiar with), is launching intelligent parking and Atlantic Cities has a good article about the upcoming system.

3000 sensors are being placed in parking bays (there are 10,000 in Westminster, which is rather low given the density of streets, reflecting the long standing policy to eliminate on street parking from many major roads and dedicate road space to bus and cycle lanes and expand footpaths. 

The report says the 3000 sensors are being installed at a cost of £650,000 (US$1.07 million).

It enables motorists to use mobile apps to check parking availability, including crucially disabled parking bays (often ignored in discussions about reducing motoring).  

Further details are on the Westminster City Council website here.  

Map of Westminster relative to the rest of London here.

USA- California - San Francisco intelligent parking

I reported over two years ago on San Francisco's intelligent parking trial.  According to SF Park the trial has come to a close, with the parking sensor devices having been switched off at the end of 2013.   SF Park says:

This means that the real-time information on parking space occupancy will not be available for mobile apps and similar uses. The SFpark data feed and app will continue to show meter parking rates, as well as real-time space availability and rates at parking garages. The SFMTA will continue to conduct demand-responsive rate changes to find the lowest rates possible to help ensure there is a minimum number of open parking spaces on each block to reduce circling and double-parking.

In other words, the system will no longer be useful for identifying occupancy on the kerbside, but it will be for parking garages.  Meanwhile, pricing at parking garages will appear to be variable, and there appears to be a continuation of some form of variable pricing for kerbside parks.

The results of the trial will be interesting, as dynamically priced kerbside parking has great potential to save time, fuel, reduce congestion and stress for those seeking to park, as well as pricing parking efficiently so that some may decide to drive at different times, use other modes of transport or (inevitably) go elsewhere (which is good for areas that have surplus capacity).

My opinion

San Francisco's innovative variable parking pricing scheme

It isn’t strictly road pricing in the usual sense of the word, but as it is pricing usage of the roads in one sense – parking – I thought I would write about it, particularly since the system in place in San Francisco is so revolutionary.

SFPark intelligent meter

It is called SFPark, and according to the New York Times it is intended to reduce congestion by managing parking (and information about parking) through varying pricing. It is a trial, but what it offers is the opportunity to transform how parking is managed in central cities.

Its website is comprehensive, with lots of useful information, and says:

SFpark is testing its new parking management system at 7,000 of San Francisco’s 28,800 metered spaces and 12,250 spaces in 15 of 20 City-owned parking garages. The pilot phase of SFpark will run until summer 2012. Federal funding through the Department of Transportation’s Urban Partnership Program pays for 80 percent of the SFpark project.

The NYT says:

The approach is twofold: to change the price of a parking space according to demand and thereby keep spaces open on every block, and to lead drivers to open spaces using an array of sensors, eliminating congestion caused by circling drivers

Prices are able to be varied from US$0.25 to US$6 an hour, with typical prices being between US$2 and US$3.50. The obvious implication is that when times are quiet, parking is cheap which may encourage people to enter the city by car. When busy, the price will be high, dissuading driving, but still managing congestion by ensuring there is always a space free.

The technology involved is for sensors at the car parks that detect when they are occupied. Motorists can use the website or the iPhone app to find parks and their prices. They pay using coins, credit or debit cards.

Prices are only to change once a month, by small increments, so it is not as if it is real time – although it could be. I’d suggest it may make a lot of sense to vary pricing on a daily basis, with algorithms developed to match days of the week, public holidays and special events.

If successful, it is possible to see this sort of trial being rolled out elsewhere.

Clearly it has the great benefit of actively managing the parking stock and optimising revenue by matching prices to usage. It also reduces congestion in two ways. Firstly, by matching pricing to demand, it means that demand to use the adjacent roads will be (in part, because private parking and use of roads as through routes is not affected) influenced by the pricing of the parking. Secondly, by guaranteeing a minimum level of availability, cars will not need to drive around searching for parks. If motorists are willing to pay the demand based priced, they will get parks and can go to them directly, saving them time and reducing usage of the roads.

It is not a substitute for full road pricing, because clearly this solution is only going to be effective in busy commercial districts, and it will not relieve busy highways or arterials of traffic in itself. However, it does have the potential to make a real difference. It has the added value of not penalising the businesses located in the area, because pricing matches demand. Presumably, if parking is expensive, there are lots of people seeking to go the commercial district, likewise if there are not, it will be cheap, making it more attractive.

Could this be an easier first step for many cities rather than congestion charging, in order to simply get better use and revenue out of their parking stock, as well as having positive effects on congestion?

Golden Gate Bridge to go fully electronic free flow in 2012

According to SF Gate, in a significant move to reduce congestion, the Golden Gate District Board of Directors voted in January to eliminate toll booths and manual toll collection on the Golden Gate Bridge by September 2012. 

The move is expected to save US$19.2 million over 10 years, as manual toll collection has become increasingly more expensive than electronic collection through the local "Fastrak" DSRC system.  Two-thirds of users already use the Fastrak system.  There is also already a discount for Fastrak of U$1 for cars

It was delayed by concerns about the employment of the 34 people employed as toll collectors and how cash payers would be accommodated.  Indeed, the article above has multiple quotes from people who actually LIKED the human contact with toll collectors, and trade unions who shudder at the idea that an entire category of employment can disappear in the name of - "efficiency".   Presumably, stagecoach drivers, telex operators and cockpit engineers should never have gone, and machinery should all be assembled by hand in a North Korean style approach to employment.

A more critical issue is to cover those who are cash dependent, with the article claiming around 15% of Bay Area residents are.  They will need to have options to go into stores and pay for access passes in advance (having post payment bills effectively means issuing credit that has a high risk of being unpaid).   Prepaid options are a low cost solution to addressing

Presumably the main step forward in the next year should be an active campaign to encourage as many users as possible to have Fastrak tags, but also to communicate how the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system will work for payment and enforcement.  US experience in electronic free flow tolling is not extensive, with the long standing experience coming from Canada (Toronto 407), Australia (tolling in Melbourne and Sydney), Singapore (Electronic road pricing) and London (congestion charge).  San Francisco would do well to spend time developing the business rules and processes necessary to covered those without tags, those without bank accounts and free flow enforcement.   It is worth noting that highway engineers are typically not expert in developing systems or business rules for handling customers.  

Bay Bridge congestion pricing is working

According to Ami Cholia at Alttransport, the peak charges implemented on the Bay Bridge at San Francisco from July 2010 are working. This was reported previously in the context of San Francisco seriously considering a downtown cordon based congestion charge.

The Bay Bridge toll (full schedule here) is usually US$4, but from 0500-1000 and 1500-1900 weekdays it has been increased to US$6. Interestingly it is US$5 all weekend, implying that weekend volumes are a bigger issue than the inter-peak. High occupancy vehicles (defined as 3+) are eligible for a discount rate of US$2.50 only if they have a “Fastrak” DSRC tag account. Previously HOVs had free access (vehicles with three or more axles pay significantly more).

San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge

Apparently, this single move has reduced travel time by 4 minutes westbound (citybound) in the AM peak. It was also reported that patronage on the BART rapid rail transit line that parallels the bridge route increased by 4,000 at that time. Interestingly, HOV vehicle usage dropped by 29%, which indicates time shift and mode shift in travel by groups in cars.

Introducing variable peak charges on already tolled bridges is proving to be increasingly popular. One can only hope that this relatively simple step (which could be paralleled with lower charges during low periods of use if there were concerns about revenue maximisation) can be observed more widely and more seriously considered elsewhere.

San Francisco's other congestion pricing plan

The proposals for a cordon pricing scheme for San Francisco have now been widely distributed and are under consultation.  It has been reported on this blog here.  Yet, in parallel to this has been progress to reform the tolls on the Bay Area bridges in several ways that effectively also reduce congestion.  None of this is a co-ordinated plan, but the impact will be complementary.

Bay Bridge congestion pricing

The San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge has a toll collected westbound only which is used to pay for maintenance of the bridge, the major seismic upgrade work now underway and to subsidise public transit services parallel to the bridge.  The tolls are collected with manual toll booths and Fastrak tag and beacon activated toll booths.   With tight budgets, it was decided that more revenue was needed to support the seismic retrofit project.    It was decided that for the Bay Bridge, this would mean the introduction of congestion pricing from July 2010.   A US$2 higher toll is charged between 5am and 10am and from 3pm to 7pm on weekdays (it is US$4 other times on weekdays, yet US$5 on weekends).  Rates are higher for trucks, and high occupancy (3+) vehicles have a 50% discount.  The results of this have been positive, with a reported 15% reduction in delays, although another report compares the intended reduction in traffic (which is not the same thing) of at least 20% with an actual 11% reduction.  It is important to note that it is quite plausible to have an 11% traffic reduction reducing delays by a far higher margin.

Still, it appears to have been a success.

Golden Gate Bridge to go all electronic

It isn't purely a price related change, but the announcement that the Golden Gate Bridge is to be converted to full electronic tolling in 2012 is partly about reducing congestion and partly about reducing operating costs.  Hopefully it means fully electronic free flow tolling ala Route 407 Toronto, Citylink Melbourne, so that traffic need not slow down, although TollRoadsNews reports " it will remain for the time being a lane-based - rather than an open road (ORT) - toll system. Being lane-based and with the heritage of old islands and booths remaining, travel through the toll point will probably be signed for 15mph."  This would be very disappointing.  There is no need for such a dated approach to electronic tolling in 2011.  Nevertheless, it will be positive and hopefully a prelude to considering congestion pricing on this bridge as well, which has been mooted for some years.

San Mateo and Dumbarton Bridges

The San Mateo County Times is reporting that there is now a push to introduce congestion pricing on the San Mateo and Dumbarton Bridges in San Mateo County, south of San Francisco city.  It is only being floated by officials, notably Rich Napier, executive director of the county's congestion management agency.   Congestion is not so severe on either of these crossings, but as you can see from the map to the right, it would be a logical step in managing congestion on key routes in the county.

Conclusion

The cordon proposal for San Francisco may or may not proceed, but in the meantime a combination of more efficient pricing and fully electronic free flow tolls will show how modern toll technology and targeted pricing can enhance the value of the roads tolled.   Congestion pricing will come one way or another, and it is economically rational and beneficial (and environmentally beneficial) to price the crossings to optimise utilisation, and to abolish manual toll collection.

San Francisco congestion pricing goes forward to next phase

Mercurynews reports that the San Francisco Board of Supervisors has voted to support further studies into a downtown San Francisco cordon based congestion charge, but rejected the San Francisco-San Mateo county boundary congestion charge option.   Both were described in my earlier post here.

It voted 9-2 to dump the San Mateo proposal (which performed poorly compared to the downtown option, and which had serious boundary effect issues).   However, it voted to study the San Francisco downtown charge option based on a US$3 charge in both directions in morning and evening peaks, with an option for a US$6 evening only peak charge.  If studies are encouraging, it could be implemented, following approval by state legislators, by 2015.

This is the right decision.  

Congestion pricing systems should not be based on administrative boundaries, but on roads that are congested.   It should be based to the extent practicable on charges that reflect capacity and demand based on time and location.  Whilst the downtown option has limitations, and potentially negative boundary effects, it is more sophisticated than London's system.  Peak only charges are appropriate, although charges in both directions should differ if congestion differs by direction.  Ideally consideration might be given to charge differentially on certain roads, but this is a first step.

SFCTA now needs to do the detailed work on this proposal.  That means looking at boundary effects, bypass and ring routes, the products that motorists should have available, the discounts and exemptions (which include the ludicrous low income discount), the costs, the governance of the project and its operation and finally, what to do with the revenue.   Motorists need to get value and that means making sure the design and pricing noticeably reduces congestion.  It means the roads that are charged and the roads approaching them are well signposted, but also well maintained.  It also means thinking how public transport can be made more responsive to users and not simply think this is a new cash cow to persist with existing practices and inefficiencies.

San Francisco may be the first city to introduce congestion charging in the USA in the form of cordon pricing, as I have said before.   This is not the ideal form of congestion charging, and there are reasons to criticise the proposal, but yet it is a significant step forward in linking the basic economic principles of demand and supply with price in rationing road space.   It will not solve congestion in San Francisco, it is no silver bullet, it wont provide a pot of cash for a wishlist of expensive transport projects, but it should deliver faster speeds on the roads that are charged.  It should allow buses to flow more freely and efficiently.  It should improve the experience for cyclists and pedestrians.  It should improve the financial viability of public transport.  It should reduce air pollution, and ensure the charged roads can be properly maintained and enhanced.  If done properly it can enhance the economic, social and environmental condition of downtown San Francisco, and be a platform for more sophisticated charging.

However, I would plead that San Francisco look more at Singapore than London for its example of best practice.   For one of the big errors in quoting London is to claim that the London scheme cut congestion in London by 30% or traffic by 30%.  It didn't.  It reduced car traffic volumes by 30% within the charged zone (in the first year, eroding year by year), but around half of all traffic in the charged area was not subject to the charge and did not reduce.   The London charging zone is a tiny fraction of the area of metropolitan London, and congestion reduced only modestly because road space was reallocated to bus lanes, cycle lanes and wider footpaths (which was the goal of the then Mayor).   London has had success, but it is quite wrong to use statistics so grossly out of context and to claim it has freed traffic flow in London - the overall effect has been positive, but much beyond the charging area the effect has been minor.   San Francisco will need to ensure motorists see value for money.

14 December day of decision on San Francisco congestion pricing

San Francisco Business Times notes that the San Francisco County Transportation Authority board will decide 14 December whether to commission further studies for a congestion pricing pilot.  The pilot is  expected to last up to 12 months, but not start till 2015.

San Francisco congestion pricing debate heats up

As reported on 17 November, one of the most significant road pricing proposals in the USA today are the two options presented by the San Francisco County Transportation Authority to introduce cordon pricing.  

One is the central city cordon (right), which would see an AM peak (0600-0900) charge of US$3 with a PM peak (1500-1900) charge of US$3.  The charge would be capped at US$6 and those who pay tolls on the Bay and Golden Gate Bridges would get a US$1 discount.   Residents, the disabled and "low income" drivers would get 50% discounts.  For what it is worth, it is my preference although I'd want to be sure that roads to bypass this cordon were clearly marked and capable of handling through traffic.  Indeed the appraisal done of this option indicates it is better, although I am not fully convinced of those results.

The second option is the southern cordon (right) which imposes charges at the Golden Gate and Bay Bridges, and more controversially one at the administrative boundary of San Francisco County at the southern end.  The charges would be the same.  

Now I have a few problems with the concepts, in particular I don't think you win motorists over by spending the majority of the money raised on modes other than roads (public transit needs serious structural and governance reform in San Francisco so I would prefer it was reformed before it got more subsidies), but in principle this is a significant leap forward.

San Francisco Streetsblog outlines some of the more irrational arguments, but also the media coverage that evades the facts around the proposals.   

One that I wanted to highlight is that by Adrienne Tissler who bizarrely argued that the proposals would increase congestion because of peak spreading (she didn't call it that because she doesn't actually understand it).  She made this astonishing contradictory assertion:

Drivers who can will adjust their drive times to avoid the toll hours, creating congestion during nontoll hours. This just means bad traffic all day, at all hours.

So she figures, correctly, that some drivers will change drive times, but she claims there will be "bad traffic all day at all hours".  However, what does she think happens when people change driving times?  There is less traffic at the most congested times.   Presumably the charging hours have been set because at other times there is capacity in the road network that can be used without creating significant delays.   Otherwise, Adrienne Tissler, 2010 vice chair of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, doesn't understand basic economics because she thinks increasing the price of a basic commodity INCREASES demand.

In NO case where congestion charging has been introduced has congestion suddenly worsened at other times or on bypass routes (that will be the next argument - the quaint notion that when faced with a charge, motorists will avoid the place they were intending to go to in the first place, clogging up other roads).

As I mentioned before, if you want all of the publicly available information about the San Francisco congestion charging proposals it is here.

I firmly believe that the county line proposal is not worth pursuing, but it will be the one argued by most opponents because it doesn't really match where congestion is, rather it is simply an administrative boundary.   If it gets dropped then the San Mateo County opposition may be diluted as one report indicated there wont be opposition to a central city focused charge.

However, the conventional arguments will come out.  The fear it will damage retail (when the charge doesn't cover the daytime interpeak).  The fear it will hurt the poor (some of whom don't drive, and it ignores the proposed discounts for residents and the low income).  The fear it is just another tax (which it arguably is, but for which the revenue will be put into a cash starved transport system). 

Yes a lot of detail needs to be ironed out, including how and whether all the discounts can be affordably introduced (I have designed a low income discount scheme for road pricing and it is far from cheap if it isn't to become an easy source of fraud), and how the roads adjacent to a cordon (and through it) will be managed.  However, San Francisco has an opportunity to show the rest of the USA how basic fundamental free market principles of pricing can be used for the greater economic and environmental good of a city, when applied to roads.

San Francisco may be the USA's first real congestion charging scheme

Tollroadsnews reports that the San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA) is proposing two options for introducing congestion pricing into San Francisco, both of which would represent the first genuine cordon based congestion charging scheme for the USA.

The SFCTA presentation as part of its public outreach strategy explains the options in moderate detail.  If it comes to pass, it would be a revolutionary step forward in the implementation of more sophisticated road pricing in the United States.   

Road pricing in the USA to date has been most commonly seen in traditional toll roads, almost all with a mix of manual toll booths and electronically controlled toll booths with barriers.   More recently, some toll roads have moved to electronic free flow.  However the shift to pricing roads to manage congestion has to date only really been seen in either toll lanes/HOT lanes (where the user can choose to use untolled parallel lanes) or the implementation of peak time charges on existing tolled crossings (e.g. Golden Gate Bridge).   No US city to date has dared put a cordon around the CBD to force charges for all vehicle entry beyond that point at fixed times.  

What are the proposals?

Peak time charges of US$3 between 0600 and 0900, and 1500-1900 across the proposed cordon options, although it is unclear whether the charges apply in one direction only (reversing AM/PM) or both directions at both times.

A tight Northeast cordon around downtown San Francisco would allegedly result in 12% less car trips and annual net revenue of US$60-US$80 million p.a.  A far larger "southern gateway" at the county's southern border would reduce trips by 5%, and generate net revenue of US$60 million p.a.

Now there are a few issues with all of this.  Firstly, SFCTA has no legislative authority to impose any charges anywhere, so would need a mandate to do so, but secondly, there will be a real need to do some due diligence on the financial assessment.

Why?

Having had some experience in these matters, I'd question the costs (not just lost revenue) for the long list of discounted and exempt vehicles.  While taxis, buses and emergency vehicles are not difficult to exempt, discounts for "low income" drivers will be fraught with administrative costs because of the potential for fraud.  "Disabled drivers" have a similar, though smaller scale issue.   There are also no costs for changes to the road network which are necessary when a cordon is placed, and motorists will approach it and want to divert around it.   This is a risky business, and it is important to get the costings right, particularly in the set up phase, because costs will decline significantly after a few years.  An interesting dimension completely ignored is revenue from enforcement, because it would be politically unpalatable to suggest that maybe 1 in 20 users will be fined.   The claim that collisions will drop tends to ignore that higher speed collisions usually cost more in terms of injuries and deaths, a key error in some very basic evaluations of road pricing.

Another point is whether any free through-routes are needed, given the proposal includes the Bay Bridge and presumably through traffic using the Bay Bridge and associated freeways to bypass downtown San Francisco.   A case could be argued either way about that.

Still, notwithstanding these and some other issues (the claim the London Congestion Charge has reduced congestion in London by 33% is a wild misuse of a statistic.  The actual statistic is that it reduced car traffic in the charged area by 33% when it opened, which does not correspond to a reduction in congestion across London, as the charged area is small), the proposals are radical for the US.  

If I was to choose one of them, I'd pick the Northeast one, if only because cordons are very blunt tools and really only suitable for CBDs where the public transport (and active mode) options are realistic for most of the users.   A county boundary charge with a residents' discount would nullify the impacts and impose a far more artificial boundary than one which largely corresponds to central San Francisco commercial activity.  Consideration should also be made about the charging periods and perhaps shoulder periods to avoid pre/post peak rushes.

However, a key element to any success will be how the revenue is used, and how the implementation is managed.  No US city has implemented anything remotely like this, so experience from outside the US will be essential.   Also, whilst the temptation will be to use the money mostly for public transport, it is critically important for motorists to see that they get something in return - which in this case ought to be, at least, far better maintained road surfaces, signage and improvements in traffic signal phasing.   Motorists ought to see some of the financial benefit from the charge, which can also include small scale works on improving intersections and improving pedestrian facilities downtown (which motorists also use).

Good luck to San Francisco.   A lot of detailed work will be needed to determine exact system design, product design, procurement approach, governance (who sets and reviews charges, on what basis, how is the revenue managed), enforcement, test phasing and the communications strategy for implementation.   Where New York once thought it might pioneer, San Francisco may actually get there if it does the work thoroughly, (peer reviewed) and gets buy in from motorists and businesses. 

There are probably few US cities that could implement such a cordon and have a significant positive impact on traffic and mode shift, without also encouraging businesses to relocate outside the cordon.   It is, after all, a fairly blunt implementation of congestion pricing.   However, the potential is there to have more disaggregated pricing at different times and directions.   

Then it can be said that the first real congestion pricing scheme (not just lane pricing) in the US will have been implemented in San Francisco, and other cities and states will be watching carefully.   If it succeeds, it wont fix congestion throughout the Bay Area, it isn't a magic bullet, but it should make a worthwhile difference.