There was once the fundamental argument that toll roads were private ventures to provide those with means the ability to avoid congested public roads. The public road alternative stayed available when the private road was built. Therefore the benefit of providing a product to the public was realised through the toll and shareholders theoretically made a motza. The public policy supported them because it took traffic from public roads, increasing flow on them. And for this benefit the concessionaires extracted a great deal of benefit from the State in negotiations. But when toll roads failed financially there was no loss to the State. They were simply sold on, as private businesses. The old wisdom is you make more money buying a toll road than building one, though Transurban has often proved otherwise. This public/private road policy is now a little skewed because of NorthConnex and the legal requirement for heavy goods vehicles to use the tunnel, banning them from the public road network which sits atop the tunnel (with real public benefit). But it largely holds true in policy. However, the reliance on private roads to enable freer flow on public roads has created a public perception that they are a part of the general road network, and thus political liability (as always) has failed to be contracted out. As to the most recent motorways, a certain retired Roads Minister insisted they be built way beyond required capacity "for the future", and thus the tolls reflect the higher price of the bloated infrastructure. Clearly nobody anticipated a pandemic that would fundamentally alter demand, but the Minister might have done well to realise that his own Government's investment in high quality public transport would also greatly reduce demand, along with the lack of capacity in the city to absorb more vehicles. Hubris over evidence, so a bad public policy outcome. But for Transurban I suspect it can carry the debt and the induced demand will come back over a longer pay-back period. Temporary cost of living crises pass, roads congest and private roads fill up. The real question is with the amount of concessions that the State provided, how much traffic could have been displaced to public transport with land-use/transport integrated government investment of those monies?
One reason why we have a problem convincing policy makers about congestion pricing is that the economists from Walters on have got details of the theory wrong. In particular Walters did not realise the distinction between demand and flow. Getting the theory right, together with modern technology, opens up the opportunity to implement an effective pricing system that addresses many of the concerns expressed in the article. See https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3093395
David Lupton got here first. I owe it to him, that I understand the distinction between demand and flow. Flow collapsed to 800 vehicles per lane per hour, is a travesty when 1500 to 2000 is possible. The most truly intelligent road pricing system would not price people "off", it would price around 100% MORE people "on" during the peak period. People adjusting their departure time by a few minutes could arrive EARLIER than had they left earlier and contributed to breakdown of flow.
Even if there isn't, the problem is far more complex than creating a "tollway" would address. If there is, that is part of the problem that a sophisticated enough solution, would also address. There are several Tech giants already offering "quickest route" guidance via Apps. Imagine if something like these Apps provided every driver with an optimum time of departure, with the intended trip being logged somewhat ahead of time. Because the collapse of "flow" has such severe consequences under the status quo, it would be win/win/win and no-one need consider themself "priced off" or forced to change their plans to benefit "rich pricks in their BMW's". It would be completely possible for the great mass of drivers currently departing at a time like 7.30am for a 9.00am arrival every day, to instead be allocated a 7.55 departure or 8.10 or 8.22 - still arriving at 9.00am. All that is necessary is to avert the small-time-frame overload that creates a flow breakdown that then lasts 2 hours or more.
I believe we have the technology now but almost no-one understands the possibilities because almost no-one understands the relationship between demand and flow. Even the point you raise, about local choke points, needs to be part OF the overall problem framed and approached.
Some kind of "pricing" could be part of the system, but even those choosing the "No charge" option would get a quicker trip than the status quo, not a slower, "priced off" one. The steepest "prices" would apply to drivers (number plate based perhaps) who are scoffing at the system and just travelling without a log-in.
It is also a no-brainer to reward people providing private para-transit or carpooling. We have the technology for this too. If we paid providers of private para-transit half the subsidy we paid for a rider on a train or bus, it would potentially make their daily commute a source of income as opposed to a cost.
The "App" that people could log in to, could offer the option of "provide a ride" or of "ride free with someone else going your way".
But that would render mass public transport extinct, as opposed to obsolete but on life support as it has been for decades; which would upset a lot of the wrong people.
Private para-transit was evolving right back in the era of the Model T Ford but it got banned either explicitly or via peripheral regulations such as insurance and Taxi licensing. Even back then it was potentially a game changer; with the technology we have to optimize it now, it is a travesty that it is not the top solution to "the mobility problem" and "the sustainability problem".
Reading further, you say the current tollway charging system is suppressing overall travel, since motorists are avoiding the toll roads. I’d say that is a net positive? We need to reduce VKT. Hyper-mobility isnt a good in itself, chanelling John Whitelegg.
There was once the fundamental argument that toll roads were private ventures to provide those with means the ability to avoid congested public roads. The public road alternative stayed available when the private road was built. Therefore the benefit of providing a product to the public was realised through the toll and shareholders theoretically made a motza. The public policy supported them because it took traffic from public roads, increasing flow on them. And for this benefit the concessionaires extracted a great deal of benefit from the State in negotiations. But when toll roads failed financially there was no loss to the State. They were simply sold on, as private businesses. The old wisdom is you make more money buying a toll road than building one, though Transurban has often proved otherwise. This public/private road policy is now a little skewed because of NorthConnex and the legal requirement for heavy goods vehicles to use the tunnel, banning them from the public road network which sits atop the tunnel (with real public benefit). But it largely holds true in policy. However, the reliance on private roads to enable freer flow on public roads has created a public perception that they are a part of the general road network, and thus political liability (as always) has failed to be contracted out. As to the most recent motorways, a certain retired Roads Minister insisted they be built way beyond required capacity "for the future", and thus the tolls reflect the higher price of the bloated infrastructure. Clearly nobody anticipated a pandemic that would fundamentally alter demand, but the Minister might have done well to realise that his own Government's investment in high quality public transport would also greatly reduce demand, along with the lack of capacity in the city to absorb more vehicles. Hubris over evidence, so a bad public policy outcome. But for Transurban I suspect it can carry the debt and the induced demand will come back over a longer pay-back period. Temporary cost of living crises pass, roads congest and private roads fill up. The real question is with the amount of concessions that the State provided, how much traffic could have been displaced to public transport with land-use/transport integrated government investment of those monies?
One reason why we have a problem convincing policy makers about congestion pricing is that the economists from Walters on have got details of the theory wrong. In particular Walters did not realise the distinction between demand and flow. Getting the theory right, together with modern technology, opens up the opportunity to implement an effective pricing system that addresses many of the concerns expressed in the article. See https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3093395
David Lupton got here first. I owe it to him, that I understand the distinction between demand and flow. Flow collapsed to 800 vehicles per lane per hour, is a travesty when 1500 to 2000 is possible. The most truly intelligent road pricing system would not price people "off", it would price around 100% MORE people "on" during the peak period. People adjusting their departure time by a few minutes could arrive EARLIER than had they left earlier and contributed to breakdown of flow.
That assumes there is no local congestion at tollway entrances and exits.
Even if there isn't, the problem is far more complex than creating a "tollway" would address. If there is, that is part of the problem that a sophisticated enough solution, would also address. There are several Tech giants already offering "quickest route" guidance via Apps. Imagine if something like these Apps provided every driver with an optimum time of departure, with the intended trip being logged somewhat ahead of time. Because the collapse of "flow" has such severe consequences under the status quo, it would be win/win/win and no-one need consider themself "priced off" or forced to change their plans to benefit "rich pricks in their BMW's". It would be completely possible for the great mass of drivers currently departing at a time like 7.30am for a 9.00am arrival every day, to instead be allocated a 7.55 departure or 8.10 or 8.22 - still arriving at 9.00am. All that is necessary is to avert the small-time-frame overload that creates a flow breakdown that then lasts 2 hours or more.
I believe we have the technology now but almost no-one understands the possibilities because almost no-one understands the relationship between demand and flow. Even the point you raise, about local choke points, needs to be part OF the overall problem framed and approached.
Some kind of "pricing" could be part of the system, but even those choosing the "No charge" option would get a quicker trip than the status quo, not a slower, "priced off" one. The steepest "prices" would apply to drivers (number plate based perhaps) who are scoffing at the system and just travelling without a log-in.
It is also a no-brainer to reward people providing private para-transit or carpooling. We have the technology for this too. If we paid providers of private para-transit half the subsidy we paid for a rider on a train or bus, it would potentially make their daily commute a source of income as opposed to a cost.
The "App" that people could log in to, could offer the option of "provide a ride" or of "ride free with someone else going your way".
But that would render mass public transport extinct, as opposed to obsolete but on life support as it has been for decades; which would upset a lot of the wrong people.
Private para-transit was evolving right back in the era of the Model T Ford but it got banned either explicitly or via peripheral regulations such as insurance and Taxi licensing. Even back then it was potentially a game changer; with the technology we have to optimize it now, it is a travesty that it is not the top solution to "the mobility problem" and "the sustainability problem".
But they overconsume local roads, which is worse.
That footnote 6 is a beauty!
Reading further, you say the current tollway charging system is suppressing overall travel, since motorists are avoiding the toll roads. I’d say that is a net positive? We need to reduce VKT. Hyper-mobility isnt a good in itself, chanelling John Whitelegg.