thesis for linkedin

Is it feasible to implement a congestion charge in Brisbane, and if so, what public transport infrastructure would be required to support it?

T h e U n i v e r s i t y o f Q u e e n s l a n d– S c h o o l o f G e o g r a p h y ,

P l a n n i n g a n d E n v i r o n m e n t a lM a n a g e m e n t

1 0 / 2 9 / 2 0 1 5

Michael Conroy The objective of this thesis is to evaluate the feasibility of implementing a congestion charge in Brisbane and to evaluate the potential infrastructure which would need to be constructed in order to support it

Michael Conroy 42943040

1

Preface

For the past two years, I have driven myself and my partner to work, driving along some of the most congested corridors in the country. I’ve had a lot of time to reflect on these journeys, on what we could do fix this, and alleviate traffic congestion. The commencement of this thesis has given me the opportunity to pursue this interest, and look at international best practice case studies into the reduction of congestion on our roads. I don’t believe in this thesis, that I have provided a definitive answer to the research question, however, I hope to of made a positive contribution to potential solutions for the alleviation of traffic congestion in South East Queensland.


2

Contents Chapter 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 3

Health Effects ...................................................................................................................................... 4

Proposed solutions ............................................................................................................................. 4

Chapter 2 Literature Review ................................................................................................................... 5

Case Study: Congestion Charge .......................................................................................................... 5

Has the Congestion Charge Program in London been a Success? ...................................................... 6

Other Congestion Charges around the world ..................................................................................... 6

Case Study: Curitiba Bus Rapid Transit ............................................................................................... 8

Chapter Three: Critical Evaluation of Government Legislation ............................................................ 11

South East Queensland Regional Plan .............................................................................................. 11

Connecting SEQ 2031 ........................................................................................................................ 12

Brisbane Active Transport Strategy 2012-2026 ................................................................................ 13

Review of Current Queensland ‘Political Climate’ ................................................................................ 14

Chapter 4 Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 15

Congestion Charge Methodology ..................................................................................................... 15

Chapter 5 Results .................................................................................................................................. 17

Travel to Work Statistics ................................................................................................................... 17

Congestion Charge ........................................................................................................................ 19

Chapter 6 Discussion ............................................................................................................................. 23

Opportunities of a Congestion Charge ............................................................................................. 23

Threats to a Congestion Charge in Brisbane ..................................................................................... 24

Recommendations: Congestion Charge ................................................................................................ 25

Peak Time only Congestion Charging ................................................................................................ 25

Rollout ............................................................................................................................................... 26

Profit Recycling ................................................................................................................................. 26

Supporting Public Transport Infrastructure ...................................................................................... 27

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 28

Bibliography .......................................................................................................................................... 29


3

Chapter 1 IntroductionTraffic congestion in Brisbane and the South East Queensland motorway corridors is at an endemic level. Traffic congestion occurs when travel demand for a road is far greater than the carrying capacity of said road. Over the next decade, Brisbane is projected to have the highest growth rate in congestion of any capital city in the country (RACQ, 2009). There are various reasons to explain the immense growth of congestion in Queensland, the most prominent of which, is population growth. In 2006, the population of the combined Local Government Areas which make up South East Queensland was 2,827,566. This figure is expected to exponentially increase to 3,890,939 people by 2021 (Queensland Treasury – Office of Economics and Statistical Research, 2011). It is a reasonable assumption, that in today’s society, people value convenience, with which a private motor vehicle provides; it gives a person the freedom to travel where they want, when they want. The Royal Automobile Association of Queensland (RACQ) describes this function of convenience perfectly:

“Congestion can be viewed as a function of economic development and prosperity. Since the 1950s, cars have become more affordable and the number of cars per household has increased. At the same time, cities have expanded and people have placed a high value on the safety and convenience of car travel, leading to a sizeable increase in the number of cars on our roads” – Royal Automobile Association of Queensland, 2010

Given the function of convenience is such a governing factor of private vehicle travel, the question must be raised as to why there is a need to fix road congestion in South East Queensland. In a study conducted by the RACQ, it was estimated that in Brisbane alone, each year there is approximately $1.5 Billion in avoidable costs due to congestion (RACQ, 2010). This figure is expected to escalate to at least $3 billion by the end of the decade. These economic costs are described in Figure 1, which describes not only the economic costs, but also the economic and environmental costs.

Figure 1: Social and Economic costs of Congestion Source: RACQ, 2010


4

Health Effects Urban traffic congestion has more of an effect on society than just economic and environmental costs. Literature sources have concluded that travelling through traffic congestion on a daily basis can have adverse effects on a person’s health. This includes physical effects of exhaust gas emissions containing high levels of Carbon Dioxide and Carbon Monoxide, as well as psychological effects. Studies conducted have indicated that travelling through traffic congestion on a daily bases causes a large amount of stress, anxiety and even depression, which leads to reduced performance and efficiency at work, as well as stressors placed on family life (Lee Hotz, R, 2011).

Proposed solutions Throughout this report, analysis will be undertaken for the feasibility of the implementation of a congestion charge for Brisbane, similar to that seen in various cities across the world, however focussing on London and Stockholm. A literature review will focus on these aforementioned case studies, and also on the public transport network of Curitiba in Brazil. A critical evaluation of government legislation will be undertaken in order to analyse the current efforts being made by governments at both a state and local level in reducing traffic congestion. Furthering this, a review of the current political climate in Queensland, and how it will affect Brisbane and South East Queensland going forward.


5

Chapter 2 Literature Review Currently there is no academic literature available in relation to the possibility of the implementation of a congestion charge in Brisbane. Therefore, a literature review will be undertaken by using international best practice examples of congestion charging. Furthering that, a review of the Curitiba Bus Rapid transit system which has also been deemed to be a best practice solution to congestion and vehicle dependence.

Case Study: Congestion Charge During the 1990’s and early 2000’s, London was considered as the most congested city in the world. In fact, by 2002, the average speed at which vehicles travelled through the city at any point during the day averaged just 8.2 Miles per hour (Leape, J, 2006). In the early 1990’s a London Congestion Charging Research Program (LCCRP) was launched to conduct economic and traffic modelling for the introduction of a Congestion Charging Program (Leape, J, 2006). In 1995, they released a report stating that optimally a £4.00 toll would provide economic benefits to the government, as well as reduce congestion by considerable amounts (Leape, J, 2006). The toll works by charging any vehicle which enters the congestion zone in London a daily fee. In February 2003, the charge was introduced at a rate of £5.00 daily for commuters entering the congestion zone (Refer to figure 2). As of the time of writing this (October 2015), the congestion charge stands at £11.50 per day or £10.00 per day if the vehicle is registered with the auto pay system. Various exemptions and discounts apply which include: A 90% discount for residents living within the congestion zone, and exemptions if the vehicle is any of the following: One with more than nine seats, a motor tricycle, a motorbike, and of course emergency response vehicles (Transport for London, 2015). Below is a map displaying the current congestion charging zone for London. Notably, it covers a quite significant proportion of the city.

Figure 2: London Congestion Zone Charge area Source: Transport for London, 2015


6

Has the Congestion Charge Program in London been a Success? The number of vehicles, including cars, trucks and vans coming into central London dropped 27% almost immediately after the introduction of the congestion charge (Leape,J, 2006). This transferred to a daily reduction inbound traffic during the morning peak of approximately 65000-70000 vehicles. Furthermore, average vehicle travel speeds increased from 8.9mph to 10.4mph, a rise of 17% (Leape,J, 2006). Public transport was also highly impacted by the congestion charge, with an increase of bus passengers in the morning peak period of 29000 alone, a 38% increase (Leape, J, 2006). This was a significant problem and led to massive overcrowding issues, due to original projections only predicting a 3-4% increase in daily public transport ridership and thus not adequately preparing for the surge with increased transport infrastructure.

Economically, the London congestion charge has been a great success for the government, with annual revenue of approximately £270 Million pounds. It is estimated that the operating costs are between £30 and 50 Million pounds (Leape,J, 2006).

Other Congestion Charges around the world London has very different characteristics to Brisbane, in both population and geographic size. This means going off a case study of a very large primate world city may not apply to a city as small as Brisbane. It is arguable that due to this scale, it would not even be foreseeable to conduct feasibility analyses for a congestion charge. However, various other cities around the world have implemented congestion charges, each which has been considered a success. Perhaps the most interesting case study, is of Stockholm in Sweden, whereby a congestion charge was trialled in the city for a period of 7 months between January and July, in 2006 (Eliasson, J, et al, 2009). Stockholm in terms of geographic size and population is far more comparable to Brisbane as it has a population of approximately 912,000, whereas London has a massive population of 8.6 Million (Statistics Sweden, 2014)(BBC, 2015).

Interestingly, before the trail had commenced, the general public opinion about the congestion charge was negative with approximately 55% of residents in the metropolitan area stating that is was a bad decision to conduct a trial. After the toll was introduced however, the majority shifted; with 53% of residents claiming that is was a good decision (Eliasson, J, et al, 2009). At the end of the trial, a referendum took place in Sweden which would decide the fate of whether the congestion charge would be imposed permanently (Eliasson, J, et al, 2009). The referendum had defined geographic boundaries which included the municipality of Stockholm city and about half of the neighbouring municipalities.

The results of the referendum were quite difficult to interpret due to the different municipalities holding their own referenda rather than one centralised referendum. In the city of Stockholm itself, the referendum results were: 53% in favour of the congestion charge and 47% not in favour. However, the results of the municipalities surrounding Stockholm were quite different with 60% not in favour and 40% in favour (Eliasson, J, et al, 2009). The referendum came at the same time as an election, whereby a party shift occurred from the social democratic party who proposed the idea, to the liberal conservative party who were originally opposed to the idea (Eliasson, J, et al, 2009). After the referendum results were tallied, the new liberal conservative government made the decision that the charge was to be implemented in 2007.


7

The charge was implemented similarly to that of the London charge; however the fee charged was varied depending on the time of the day. The fees imposed were SEK 10, 15, or 20 (AUD$1.62, $2.44, $3.25) dependant on the time of day. In terms of logistics, charges were imposed on vehicles which passed a ‘cordon’ around the inner city of Stockholm, which can be seen in figure 3(Eliasson, J, et al, 2009). The dotted line is the cordon, and the red dots indicate entry points where the charge is administered.

Figure 3: Stockholm Congestion Charge Zone Source: Eliasson, J, et al, 2009

Whilst statistically it is reassuring that the public were overall in favour of the congestion charge, whether it was successful or not is another question. Based on traffic modelling completed a year before the trial was implemented, a reduction of 10-15% in private vehicle use was seen in the city of Stockholm (Eliasson, J, et al, 2009). Like London, the forecasts were extremely conservative; Stockholm saw between a 20-25% decrease in traffic volume over the period of the 7 month trial (refer to figure 4). This equated to a 22% average reduction in traffic across the trial period (Eliasson, J, et al, 2009). Furthermore, there was a unanimous large scale decrease in trip times across the city, with traffic times on inbound arterial roads decreased by 32% (Eliasson, J, et al, 2009). One statistic, which does not correlate to the reaction of the congestion charge in London, is a mere 6% increase in public transport ridership across the city.


8

Figure 4: Stockholm Traffic Reduction Source: Eliasson, J, et al, 2009

In order to determine environmental factors associated with the introduction of a congestion charge, the Stockholm Trial included air quality and emissions testing to evaluate whether or not there was a noticeable decrease in emissions and increase in air quality. Within the congestion charge zone, it was estimated that there was approximately a 16% reduction in Carbon Dioxide particles, and a total reduction of air borne pollutants of 10-14% (Eliasson, J, et al, 2009)(Johansson, C, et al, 2008). The biggest health benefit this provides at a human level is a decrease in cardiovascular diseases and lung cancer (Eliasson, J, et al, 2009).

In summary, both of these congestion charge case studies present a strong case for the implementation of a feasibility study into a congestion charge in Brisbane. However, as can be seen in the London case study, there is the possibility of a sudden dramatic rise in public transport patronage. The next case study will be based upon the Curitiba bus rapid transit system, and explain why this could be used to compliment a congestion charge in Brisbane.

Case Study: Curitiba Bus Rapid Transit In 1943, comprehensive town planning legislation was made for the city of Curitiba in Brazil, it focussed on exponential growth of population and hence the government decided that automobile traffic would also feature high growth rates. For this reason, the government decided to create a comprehensive road network featuring wide boulevards, multi lane highways and other features one would expect to see in a private vehicle dependant city. Fast forward almost thirty years to 1972, and a new mayor came into town, a man by the name of Jamie Lerner; Lerner was an architect, engineer, and urban planner who had excellent lateral thinking skills and could see the demise of the city through high levels of urban congestion and sought to make a solution (Goodman, J, et al, 2006)(Lindau, L, et al, 2010). He instituted new planning legislation which would include many stages in order to masterplan the city.

The first stage was to close large proportions of the city off to private transportation and create several pedestrian friendly walkways, to ensure the city had a high walkability factor for the


9

future(Lindau, Hidalgo et al. 2010). The second stage, and perhaps the reason why Curitiba has become a global example for best practice planning, was the implementation of a Bus Rapid Transit system, that would utilise the large arterial roads originally designed for heavy vehicle traffic, and convert them into bus only roads.

The bus system in Curitiba is comprised of a hierarchy of different services. Smaller, mini buses traverse low density neighbourhood areas, and collect passengers which then travel to a conventional bus which operates on a circumferential route in the central city, or inner city districts (Goodman, J, et al, 2006). The Bus Rapid Transit system itself comprises of 5 main arterial roads leading into the city. Buses which travel along the arterial roads stop at cylindrical ‘pod’ style stations which are slightly elevated above ground to provide easy and quick access for passengers (See figure 5). In order to increase efficiency, passengers purchase their tickets at the stations rather than on the bus. The buses themselves are an important aspect of the system, as they are comprised of bi articulated, fully air conditioned vehicles with a very large seating capacity (see figure 6). The success of the Bus Rapid Transit program in Curitiba speaks for itself, with extremely impressive modal split statistics for public transport: approximately 70% of all trips in Curitiba are taken via public transportation (Mercier, J, et al, 2014).

Figure 5: Curitiba Bus Stop Source: Hirsch, O, 2010


10

Figure 6: Curitiba Bi-Articulated Bus Source: Hirsch, O, 2010

Brisbane has a similar Bus Rapid Transit system that comprises of 3 segregated bus only roads that enter the city from the South and the North. There is also an eastern busway which connects to the southern busway. The success of Curitiba’s bus system should be examined in order to attempt to make amendments to the current bus rapid transit system implemented in Brisbane. This becomes particularly relevant if additional loading is placed on the public transport system through the implementation of a congestion charge.


11

Chapter Three: Critical Evaluation of Government Legislation State and local government legislation and framework will be critically analysed, particularly in relation to future public transportation infrastructure. As part of the legislative analysis, a brief review of the current ‘political climate’ in Queensland, and how it will have adverse effects on Brisbane and South East Queensland. Reviewing these pieces of legislation is an important step in analysing the feasibility of a congestion charge, as it gives an idea as to what the government’s current plans are for South East Queensland. This in turn, allows analysis of whether or not the congestion charge is actually needed, or whether the government’s current plans for a reducing congestion are adequate.

South East Queensland Regional Plan The South East Queensland Regional Plan (SEQRP) is the key piece of legislation managing the sustainable growth and change of the South East Queensland Region. It encompasses a large region from the Gold Coast to the South, the Sunshine Coast to the North, and Toowoomba to the West. Within this area includes 11 city and regional councils. The Queensland government recognised significant growth was to occur in the SEQ region, and hence the SEQRP was developed in order to ensure growth within the region was ecologically sustainable.

The SEQRP promotes sustainable growth through the implementation of compact urban form in self-contained centres, along transport corridors (Department of Infrastructure and Planning, 2009). Furthermore, the plan promotes infill development in order to generate an overall increase of urban density, particularly in Brisbane and surrounding suburbs. However, this is the limit to which the SEQRP attempts to alleviate congestion in and around Brisbane. Whilst this is a positive way for growth to occur, and prevent urban sprawl, it only slows the progression of increasing congestion, and doesn’t present a solution to reduce congestion. If a new and innovative approach is not taken to attempt to alleviate congestion, it will continue to increase until a point which it is at crisis level. Legislation such as this should present innovative ideas for an overall reduction in congestion rather than just encourage sustainable growth.

The plan references how it plans to create a public transport network which has excellent accessibility and efficiency for all to use (Department of Infrastructure and Planning, 2009). Accessibility can be broken down into two different factors: Physical distance to a service from any set location, and also the quality and price of the service (Litman, T, 2015). The latter may be referred to as social accessibility as it refers to the level at which people of different socioeconomic classes may have access to public transportation.

In Queensland, public transport prices are always vacillating, due to the current political status. Queensland politics mainly resolves around the Liberal and Labor party, each of which has different methods of generating revenue for the state. The Labor party particularly, have a track record for increasing public transport prices well above inflation rates (O’Chee, B, 2015). The biggest rise came between 2008 and 2012, when the Bligh Labor government was in power, public transport prices raised by 54% (O’Chee, B, 2015). This means, that a paper ticket which cost $3.40 in 2008, cost $6.20 by 2012 (O’Chee, B, 2015). This price increase is completely contradictory to the transport policy outlined by the SEQRP. This is due to the fact, that people, who rely on public transport prices being lower, are those who are earning smaller incomes, and hence live in cheaper areas on the outskirts of Brisbane. Figure 7 displayed below shows the number of minutes which a person earning


12

minimum wage must work in order to be able to afford an average distance public transport trip. This shows that Brisbane is among the most expensive cities in the world to catch public transport, relative to wages (Ting, I, 2015).

Figure 7: Minutes worked at minimum wage to afford public transport Source: Ting, I, 2015

Connecting SEQ 2031 The figure below shows the targets for mode share for SEQ in 2031. This indicates a 7% rise in public transport ridership and a 17% decrease in car use. However, when the actual numbers are analysed, in 2006, 83% of 9.2 Million trips equals 7.6 Million trips per day by car, and 66% of 15 Million trips per day equals 9.9 Million trips per day by car. This indicates a 2.3 Million increase in private vehicle trips on the SEQ road network each day by 2031 (Department of Transport and Main Roads, 2011). Considering the current level of congestion in South East Queensland’s major arterial roads and corridors currently, another 2.3 Million trips per day could further severely deteriorate trip times into Brisbane. In the methodology chapter, figure 9 shows the stagnated growth in public transit trips in SEQ, indicating that .28% increase in ridership per year required for the 7% rise in public transport ridership is not occurring.


13

Figure 8: Connecting SEQ 2031 Mode Share Targets Source: Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads, 2011

Connecting SEQ 2031 does present significant investment models to support growth into public transport infrastructure (Department of Transport and Main Roads, 2015). The major projects included in the Connecting SEQ 2031 infrastructure plan for rail include: Cross River Rail, a Brisbane Subway System and a North-Western rail line which would connect with the Cross rive rail line (Department of Transport and Main Roads, 2015). Furthermore, priority bus infrastructure includes the Eastern busway (Coorparoo to Capalaba) and Northern Busway (to Chermside) projects.

Brisbane Active Transport Strategy 2012-2026 Currently, Brisbane has relatively low levels of active transportation participation, with only 14.3% of total journeys taken being through an active transport method such as walking or cycling (Brisbane City Council, 2012). However, the Brisbane City Council has created a plan to attempt to generate far more interest in active transportation through large amounts of capital expenditure, mainly in relation to new infrastructure projects throughout the metropolitan area. The Brisbane Active Transport Strategy 2012-2016 creates a framework aiming to increase the percentage of total trips from 14.3% in 2011, to 20% in 2026 (Brisbane City Council, 2012). Much of the active transportation infrastructure expansion in Brisbane was completed before the plans inception, which has already shown good success with a 30% increase of walking and a 63% increase of cycling on weekdays between 2004 and 2010 (Brisbane City Council, 2012).

The plan is structured to include a number of priorities which the council plans on address throughout the lifecycle of the framework. These priorities are mainly directed at marketing towards both drivers and cyclist about their obligations on the road, as well as the development of an expansive active transport infrastructure web.


14

It is evident that sufficient thought and preparation has been undertaken in the generation of this plan. Furthermore, realistic goals have been set through a great amount of research and forecasting. If the target of 20% of all trips be undertaken by active transportation by 2026 is met through this plan, it will be a great accomplishment, and a testament to the councils efforts in reducing congestion through non-conventional areas. If 20% of all trips were taken through active transportation in Brisbane, it would be greater than the amount of trips proposed to be taken by Public transportation as stated in Connecting SEQ 2031.

Review of Current Queensland ‘Political Climate’Up until 2012, the Queensland Labor party was in office continuously from 1989, one of the longest unbroken terms in Australian History. Arguably, in the last two terms of the Bligh Labor Government, very little progress was made in regards to transport infrastructure funding in South East Queensland. Various plans were made, as seen in Connecting SEQ 2031, however, none of these projects have been commenced, or are anticipated to commence any time soon. In 2012, the Newman Government won the state election and formed a majority government, in what was one of the biggest landslide victories in recent history (ABC, 2015). Due to the party being in power for the first time in over two decades, they were not able to initiate any substantial accomplishments towards South East Queensland transport infrastructure, despite having various plans for large scale projects.

An empirical perspective; Queensland is in a turbulent time of state, and federal politics: social media has dictated the demise of many state and federal governments in recent years, and due to this, the entire political process has become cumbersome and more conservative (Hinchliffe, D, 2015). Major projects take a lot longer than 3 years (1 term of government) to plan for, provide community consultation, and start construction. An example of this is the Cross River Rail project which was proposed by the Labor Bligh government, which was then scrapped in favour of the Liberal Newman Government’s Bus and Train Tunnel, which would incorporate both buses and trains in an alignment which would serve major new developments such as Queens Wharf in Brisbane CBD. In early 2015, the Newman government was voted out in favour of the Palaszczuk Labor government who have since scrapped the project entirely (Moore, T, 2015). All of these plan discretions, adjustments, and cancellations just to serve as a political message to opposing parties, is creating inordinate amounts of disruption and postponing progress to an extent that, by the time the infrastructure is finally built, it will be too late. At the time of writing, the year is 2015, the only rail bridge connecting the south side of Brisbane to the CBD, the Merivale Bridge, is expected to reach capacity by 2020 (Howells, M, 2015).

The volatile state of Queensland politics is very relevant to the objective of this thesis: to explore the feasibility of a congestion charge in Brisbane. Political parties in the state of Queensland exist in a new political dimension, due to the modern advancement of social media and communications, one ‘snap poll’ could see any major party fall in popularity, and hence these projects which have faced resistance overseas, may not even be considered. Furthermore, bipartisan support for major infrastructure projects and items such as this potentially controversial charge is rare. The risk, which this introduces, is one political party implementing the charge during its term in power; spending a substantial amount of capital on the design, planning, and construction of electronic tolling points and then potentially being voted out during the next election, and the opposing party


15

scrapping the charge. This is in line with the aforementioned ideology that opposing political parties often scrap ideas, or infrastructure plans, to simply rebel against the opposing party, despite in many cases being completely acceptable plans.

Chapter 4 Methodology The methodology aims to present a logical rationale to support the feasibility of a congestion charge in Brisbane. Due to the fact that presently there is no available data specific to Brisbane relating to a congestion charge, a rationale had to be created in order to generate reasonably accurate projections of what would occur if a congestion charge was implemented. Furthermore, current data was analysed in order to examine the current trends of mode share in South East Queensland, and also the popular locations which people are commuting from in order to get to work in Brisbane.

In order to analyse whether their targets for an increase of 7% patronage by 2031 was progressing, data was taken from Translink (the Queensland Public Transport body) and evaluated as to whether growth has occurred in a three year period from 2012 to 2015.

To conduct analysis on the level of mode share in South East Queensland, the Table builder feature was used provided by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. This allows the user to generate data on multiple Local Government Areas, or Statistical Level Areas; and in this case, the entirety of South East Queensland was selected. This allowed data analysis for the journey to work statistics of the whole of South East Queensland, rather than just one area at a time. After this synthesis, the Brisbane Metropolitan areas were combined in order to analyse the mode share of transport from different areas of Brisbane.

The next method involved was attempting to analyse how many people were entering Brisbane from regional centres; mainly Ipswich, Logan, the Sunshine Coast, and the Gold Coast, as it gives a conceptual understanding as to how congested major arterial roads are, and also allows analysis of the number of private vehicles travelling from those destinations. There are three roads of major carrying capacity which enter Brisbane each day: The Ipswich Motorway, The Bruce Highway/ Gateway Motorway, and the Pacific Highway. Various other arterial roads connect with these roads; however, those are the roads that connect these regional centres with Brisbane CBD. The data is sourced from the ABS, and again the table builder functionality was used which allowed accumulation of multiple statistical areas.

Congestion Charge Methodology If a congestion charge were to be implemented similar to the one seen in London, this is the type of data that would be utilised in order to simulate accurate statistics for traffic reduction. In Chapter 2, a review of the London and Stockholm congestion charges was undertaken, and literature reviewed suggested a gross 27% reduction of total private vehicles entering London and a 22% reduction of total private vehicles in Stockholm. Using the ‘place of usual work’ data that has been displayed in Figures 12 and 13 (Inputting Brisbane SLA areas) combined with journey to work statistics, a rough approximation was generated of the number of vehicles that will be reduced through the introduction of a congestion charge. Currently there is no publically available data that gives an exact number of vehicles which enter different parts of Brisbane each day, which is why the Place


16

of usual work and Journey to Work statistics were used to make approximations, as this was the most accurate way to analyse the data.

Another aspect of feasibility of a congestion charge, is whether it will be economically viable and generate revenue for the government. As stated in Chapter 2, London had a dedicated team conducting traffic flow and economic analysis for 15 years before the charge was implemented. However, using the data which was already synthesised to generate an approximate figure for the potential reduction of daily vehicle traffic, an approximate economic forecast was generated for per day revenue possible from a congestion charge.


17

Chapter 5 Results Figure 9, displayed below shows the number of weekly trips taken of SEQ public transport each week starting from July 2012, through to July 2015. This includes all services of Bus, Train, and Citycat/Ferry services. The linear trend line shows stagnated growth, indicating very little change from a percentage perspective of users catching public transport. As Indicated in Chapter 2, the target mode share increase in public transport must result in a .28% increase in public transport ridership each year in order to generate a 7% increase in public transport ridership by 2028. If that rate rise were consistent over these three years of data, there would be approximately a 25000 increase in patronage each week. However, on the week of the 8/07/2012, the first recorded date for this data there were 3035219 passengers, and on the week of the 5/07/2015 there were approximately 291000 passengers, which equates to an approximate 4% decrease in patronage from the same period the year before

Figure 9: Stagnated Public Transport Trips Source: Translink, 2015

Travel to Work Statistics One interesting travel to work statistic examined was the extraordinarily high percentage of those who live in the inner city of Brisbane, yet still choose to drive to work. There are many ways to perceive this statistic; it may still be far more convenient for these people to drive to work, or perhaps it is a failure of the active transportation routes made available to those living close to the city. Part of utilising a compact urban form and increasing densification of urban settings requires implementation and improvement of active transportation methods made available. As seen below in figure 10, the journey to work statistics of those living in the Brisbane metropolitan area. Notably, the majority of the metropolitan area of Brisbane has higher than average car dependence (based on figure 11 statistics for SEQ), ranging between 76% and 84%, with the only exception being the Brisbane CBD.

0500000

10000001500000200000025000003000000350000040000004500000

Passenger trips

Passenger trips


18

Figure 10: Brisbane Journey to Work Statistics Data sourced from ABS

The statistics presented in figure 11 below demonstrate the extent to which South East Queensland is a car dependant region. Approximately 80% of citizens choose to drive their own car to their place of usual work, with a small proportion of 7% sharing transportation as the passenger. This is a reflection of quite a few factors related to the planning of the urban areas within SEQ and the planning of streets around private transport dependence.

Figure 11: South East Queensland Journey to work statistics Data Sourced from ABS

Figure 12 below shows the number of people travelling from their usual place of residence to their usual place of work on a daily basis. This is quite important statistical information, as when it is paired with journey to work statistics; we can accurately present and project how many people will be travelling on which mode of transport during the week. Brisbane South and Brisbane Inner City

0.00%10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00%80.00%90.00%

100.00%

Journey to Work Brisbane

Brisbane - North

Brisbane - East

Brisbane - South

Brisbane - West

Brisbane Inner City

0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%90.0%

Joruney to Work Statistics SEQ (Whole)

Percentage of eachmethod


19

were chosen to graphically demonstrate the data as they were the most statistically relevant locations.

Figure 12: Regional Place of Residence and place of work Data sourced from ABS

Figure 13 below represents the same data as the previous graph, however includes the other regions of the Brisbane Metropolitan area. The data is a slightly harder to interpret than the graph, however is necessary for inclusion due to the value of the statistics it provides.

Figure 13: Regional Place of Residence and Place of work 2 Data sourced by ABS

Congestion Charge The first line of data in figure 14 below displays the total number of people who claimed in the 2011 census, that they worked in one of these areas. Next, the average of 78% of private vehicle use in SEQ was added into the equation by reducing each number by 22%. After this, the London congestion charge average reduction of 27% is deducted, which gives the total number of cars which would be entering the different parts of Brisbane each day if the charge was implemented. The final line of data displays, the total daily reduction of cars that could be expected from the charge if it were implemented.

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000

Gold Coast

Ipswich

Logan - Beaudesert

Moreton Bay - North

Moreton Bay - South

Sunshine Coast

Toowoomba

No. Of people who work at Brisbane Inner City or Brisbane South

Plac

e of

Usu

al R

esid

ence

Regional Places of Residence to Place of Usual Work

Brisbane InnerCity

Brisbane -South


20

Figure 14: Potential Per day reduction of Cars per day in brisbane based on the London Congestion Charge Data Sourced From: ABS, 2011; Leape,J, 2006

The results indicate an approximate 60,000 per day car reduction in the Inner city of Brisbane alone, with close to a 30,000 per day car reduction in Brisbane South. It is very subjective to apply one case study of a city which almost has polar opposite traits in terms of geography and population to Brisbane, which is why the Stockholm Case study was also used. The same method was utilised to come to the results displayed, except a 22% reduction was used as indicated by the Stockholm case study. If the rate of 22% reduction is used for Brisbane, there would be an approximated 49000 car reduction per day in Brisbane Inner City, and a 23000 car per day reduction in Brisbane South SLA.

Figure 15: Potential Per day reduction of Cars per day in brisbane based on the Stockholm Congestion Charge Data sourced from: ABS, 2011; Eliasson, J, et al, 2009

Using two case studies only provides a very limited view of the level of congestion which can be expected to be alleviated. In order to gain a broader understanding of the potential impacts from different methods, prices and other factors, figure 16 shown below was generated. This graph shows the number of vehicles entering Brisbane each day based upon a variable effectiveness of the charge. It is reasonable to assume that there would be between a 10% and 30% reduction in traffic if a comprehensive congestion charge were implemented in Brisbane.


21

Figure 16: Number of cars entering Brisbane each day with a scaling reduction

In order to analyse the potential for making money out of a Brisbane congestion charge, a rough model was formed based upon a $3 Per Day charge. The reduction figures are the same as the figure above, with the scalable percentages. Figure 17 presents a strong economic case for a congestion charge, with a potential revenue figure of over $1 Million per day. There would obviously be various days throughout the year which the charge would not be in force, such as weekends and public holidays. For the purposes of this report, we will assume there are 300 charged days a year, giving the potential of $300 million a year in revenue to the state government which could be recycled back into public transport infrastructure. It should be noted that this figure may be optimistic, due to the assumption it would charge anyone in the metropolitan area, which is highly unlikely. In figure 18, Brisbane Inner City SLA workplace data is used to generate a rough revenue model, which shows a potential between $600,000 per day to $450,000 per day depending on the level of effectiveness of the congestion charge. Using the same assumptions as previously ($3/day, 300 days per year), the potential revenue is between $180 Million, and $135 Million per year.

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

Number of Cars Entering Brisbane Metropolitan Per Day

Number of CarsEntering Brisbane

$- $200,000.00 $400,000.00 $600,000.00 $800,000.00

$1,000,000.00 $1,200,000.00 $1,400,000.00 $1,600,000.00

Total Revenue Per Day Based on a $3/ Day Congestion Charge for Brisbane (Whole)

Revenue Raised Per Day


22

Figure 17: Potential revenue raised per day if the Brisbane Metropolitan area is charged

Figure 18: Potential revenue raised per day if Brisbane inner City is charged

$- $100,000.00 $200,000.00 $300,000.00 $400,000.00 $500,000.00 $600,000.00 $700,000.00

Total Revenue Per Day Based on a $3/ Day Congestion Charge (Brisbane Inner City Only)

Revenue Raised Per Day


23

Chapter 6 Discussion The literature and methodology have presented a strong case for a congestion charge based on traffic reduction, environmental factors, and revenue to the state. However, there are various other factors which may come into play if a congestion charge is implemented. The most effective way to brainstorm the idea based on empirical knowledge and knowledge gained through research and literature review is a SWOT Analysis. The main strengths and weaknesses of the congestion charge have already been discussed at length throughout this report; however, there has been little discussion of the opportunities for Brisbane, as well as potential threats. These factors will be discussed below.

Opportunities of a Congestion Charge The strengths section of the SWOT analysis shows proven results from international examples, and the results sections have confirmed what would potentially happen in Brisbane. However, opportunities focussed on Brisbane are difficult to comprehend based on international literature. To this extent, empirical thinking and observation are required. The rationale behind each of the opportunities will be discussed below:

The congestion charge encourages further compact urban form, particularly in areas which the charge is implemented. This is due to the discount residents who live in the charge area will receive. This will be later discussed in the recommendations.

The congestion charge revenue will provide an adequate amount of funding for many projects associated with both public, and active transport infrastructure in Brisbane. It has been shown in the results the potentially $185 Million could be raised each year to fund such types of infrastructure. This will be further elaborated on in the recommendations.

A reduction in vehicles, particularly in the CBD area, will make the city centre far more attractive, whilst making it safer for pedestrians. If the reduction in traffic is great enough, there is the potential for city streets to be closed off to cars, and a street culture, similar to that seen in Curitiba could be implemented.

Strengths - Reduced Congestion - Revenue - Higher public transport patronage - Air quality improvement

Opportunities - Encourages people to live in the CBD - Potential road infrastructure funding

model - Environmental consciousness - Make the city centre more attractive and

safe for pedestrians - Encourage active transport - Faster emergency services response

times in peak periods Weaknesses

- Public transport capacity - Investment in complementary public

transit will be a necessity

Threats - Slow political process - Current ‘volatile’ political climate - Public support - Implementation cost/Running Costs - Reduction in business for city retailers


24

The increase in cost associated with private vehicle transport, could encourage a shift to more people using active transportation, assisting in Brisbane City Councils plan for a 6% increase in mode share towards active transport, perhaps even greater.

Undoubtedly, emergency response vehicles would benefit from a congestion charge, as there is the potential for lives to be saved from a reduction in travel times. This will become particularly relevant by 2031, where there is projected to be an additional 2.3 million trips taken by private transport each day.

Threats to a Congestion Charge in Brisbane The current status of politics in Queensland has already been discussed in chapter three, however it should be highlighted, that the current turbulence in Queensland politics and social media progression serves a big threat to the implementation of a charge such as this.

One of the unforeseen threats to a congestion charge in Brisbane is the implementation and running costs. Discussed in the Literature review, London had significant implementation and running costs for their congestion charge, however, it is difficult to compare these to Brisbane due to different labour costs, manufacturing costs etc. In the event a congestion charge is considered by a governing body, it would be assumed that full costing of the planning and implementation stages would be completed.

Perhaps one threat which is unique to Brisbane is the potential loss of business for retail businesses in the Brisbane CBD. Brisbane has four main suburban shopping centres each in ideal locations for those in Northern, Southern, Eastern and Western suburbs of Brisbane (see figure 19). This creates a threat to CBD retailers, and hospitality industry, as if a congestion charge is implemented, people may see these shopping centres as far more convenient that shopping in the CBD. The recommendations section will expand on this, and how it is intended to become overcome.


25

Figure 19: Brisbane Suburban Shopping Centre Locations Source: Scribblemaps.com

Recommendations: Congestion Charge The Swot Analysis has presented a range of potential threats and weaknesses that be generated due to the implementation of a congestion charge. However, careful planning and project management could see the alleviation of particularly the threats associated with the charge. Furthermore, other recommendations have been made in order to attempt to make the implementation of a charge a more feasible and smooth process.

Peak Time only Congestion Charging As previously stated, the London congestion charge lasts for the entire day – this is proportionately appropriate for London due to all day congestion, not just peak times. It is recommended if Brisbane were to adopt a similar program, to only charge vehicles during the identified peak times of: 6:30am-10:00am in the morning, and from 2:30pm-6:30pm in the afternoon/ evening. It is also recommended the charge is not in force on weekends or public holidays, as there will be reduced traffic throughout the zone. This could also assist in the aforementioned threat of CBD retailers losing business to suburban shopping centres, as it will still allow people to enter the CBD uncharged throughout the majority of the day.


26

Rollout If the London example has proven anything, it’s that adequate provision must be undertaken to ensure the public transport system will be able to handle the strain of a potentialy25%+ increase in passengers. In order for this to not overload the public transport system, a staged rollout plan in recommended. Figure 20, shown below, is an example which the rollout could take place. Timing and geographic locality would be subject to copious amounts of economic and traffic modelling over time. The map was generated using empirical perspective gained from local knowledge of Brisbane; and is for example purposes only, however, gives a fairly good description of 3 key congested centres of Brisbane. Stage 1 would comprise the first stage of the rollout due to being the most congested zone. Stage 2 and 3 are both key growth areas in Brisbane and are rapidly becoming subsequent commercial centres for Brisbane, likely leading to increased congestion in years to come.

Figure 20: Staged rollout Source: Scribblemaps.com

Profit Recycling If a program is introduced in order to deter people from driving to the city each day, alternatives must be created in order to attract people to consider alternate travel methods. In order to achieve this, profit recycling is recommended. This is a process currently utilised by state governments where a state government will construct a toll road, maintain it for a number of years to generate accurate data of traffic flows, and then either sell or lease the asset to a private consortium who takes profits from the tolls. An example of this was the $7 Billion sale of the Queensland Motorways Corporation in 2014, which managed the south east Queensland toll road network. After the successful sale of the asset, money produced from the sale of the asset is essentially recycled back into new infrastructure projects (Moore,T, 2014).


27

Whilst privatisation of a congestion charge system is most likely unfeasible, a similar model for the way which the profits are ‘recycled’ could be adapted. As an example, profits could fund new public transport infrastructure, or to reduce fare prices. As discussed in Chapter 3, public transport prices have risen well above inflation in previous years, so perhaps a combination from funding towards fare prices and investment in public transport infrastructure would take place.

There are various political constraints in implementing a congestion charge in Brisbane. One of the main issues is that many roads leading into the city are council controlled, and others are state government controlled. Furthermore, all public transport infrastructure, such as the bus way’s, train lines etc are state funded assets. In order to overcome this hurdle, it is recommended that a bi-lateral agreement be put in place between the Brisbane City Council and Queensland state government, which would see the state government taking the all revenue from the profits of the congestion charge. However, the agreement would see that the state government would have to transparently recycle all surplus revenue from the congestion charge into public transport infrastructure projects in the Brisbane Metropolitan Area.

The cost of upgrading bus and train infrastructure is extremely expensive; as an example, recently completed busway projects in Brisbane include the Eastern Busway, which connects the University of Queensland to the Suburb of Buranda. This was a two staged project which included the construction of a dedicated bus passage, with various grade separations and tunnels. Across the two stages, a total of $866 Million was spent over more than 6 years (Department of Transport and Main Roads, 2015). Theoretically, based upon the data presented in the results section, a congestion charge could fund this entire project in as little as 4.8 Years.

Supporting Public Transport Infrastructure If there is one prevailing aspect of the literature review that will be vital if a congestion charge is implemented, is that substantial supporting public transport infrastructure must be constructed. The logistics are quite difficult, due to the fact that investment would likely need to be made before the implementation of the congestion charge. The public transport network would need to be at a point, where it could potentially see a patronage increase of 38% within a year of implementation. From a feasibility standpoint, this is difficult to execute due to the large amount of uncertainty that surrounds the economic benefits of a congestion charge. The research question asked what public transport will be required in order to support a congestion charge. It is difficult to provide a definitive answer to this question, however at the least, the infrastructure projects which are recommended to be completed before, or during the implementation of the congestion charge are: The Eastern Busway to Capalaba, The Northern Busway to Chermside, and some form of second rail crossing from the southern side of Brisbane. Furthermore, if a reduction in congestion proves to be significant, Bus only lanes are recommended to be implemented throughout the inner suburbs and arterial roads leading into Brisbane to dramatically increase the efficiency of public transport in the Brisbane metropolitan area.


28

Conclusion Whilst this thesis does not provide a definitive answer as to the feasibility of a congestion charge in Brisbane, it certainly opens the door to the possibility of future implementation. Perhaps the biggest hurdle which a congestion charge would have to pass, is attempting to gain bi-partisan political support, as well as the support of the public. The methodology and results provided a strong starting point for further research to be undertaken into the feasibility, in terms of economic value of the congestion charge. There is the distinct possibility that government departments in the state have access to information, not available to the public which could provide crystal clear economic and traffic reduction approximations. A congestion charge has a lot of strengths and opportunities in Brisbane, all of which can positively contribute to the sustainable growth of the region. The fact of the matter is, South East Queensland is in a state of rapid population growth, which translates to the growth of automobile ownership. If something drastic is not used as an intervention soon, Brisbane will succumb to extraordinarily high avoidable costs through traffic congestion. It is time for the state government to present a solution to this issue, and come together with bipartisan support and support from the public.


29

Bibliography Australian Government Department of Transport. 2013. Population Growth, Jobs Growth and

Commuting Flows for South East Queensland

Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2011, Census 2011

BEIRÃO, G. & SARSFIELD CABRAL, J. A. 2007. Understanding attitudes towards public transport and

private car: A qualitative study. Transport Policy, 14, 478-489.

British Broadcasting Corporation. 2015. London's population hits 8.6m record high [Online].

Available: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-31082941.

Brisbane City Council, 2012. Brisbane Active Transport Plan 2012-2026.

CURRIE, G. & DELBOSC, A. 2009. Exploring public transport usage trends in an ageing population.

Transportation, 37, 151-164.

ELIASSON, J., HULTKRANTZ, L., NERHAGEN, L. & ROSQVIST, L. S. 2009. The Stockholm congestion –

charging trial 2006: Overview of effects. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice,

43, 240-250.

ELIASSON, J. & JONSSON, L. 2011. The unexpected “yes”: Explanatory factors behind the positive

attitudes to congestion charges in Stockholm. Transport Policy, 18, 636-647.

HENRISCH, O. 2015. Oren's Transit Page [Online]. Available: http://orenstransitpage.com/.

HOTZ, R. L. 2011. The Hidden Toll of Traffic Jams: Scientists Increasingly Link Vehicle Exhaust With

Brain-Cell Damage, Higher Rates of Autism [Online]. The Wall Street Journal. Available:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203733504577024000381790904.

JOHANSSON, C., BURMAN, L. & FORSBERG, B. 2009. The effects of congestions tax on air quality and

health. Atmospheric Environment, 43, 4843-4854.

JOSEPH GOODMAN, M. L., JUDITH SCHWENK 2006. Curitiba's Bus System is Model for Rapid Transit.

race, poverty& the environment.

LEAPE, J. 2006. The London Congestion Charge Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20, 157-176.

LINDAU, L., HIDALGO, D. & FACCHINI, D. 2010. Bus Rapid Transit in Curitiba, Brazil. Transportation

Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2193, 17-27.

LITMAN, T. 2015. Evaluating Accessibility for Transportation Planning: Measuring People’s Ability to

Reach Desired Goods and Activities.

METZ, D. 2010. Transport policy for an ageing population. Transport Reviews, 23, 375-386.

MOORE, T. 2015. BaT Tunnel Scrapped as Government looks for different cross river line. Brisbane

Times.

O'CHEE, B. 2015. Public Transport Prices Anything But Fair. Brisbane Times.

Royal Automobile Club of Queensland, 2010. RACQ Road Congestion in SEQ Fact Sheet.

Queensland Treasury - Office of Economic and Statistical Research 2011. Queensland Population


30

Projections to 2031: Local Government Areas.

Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads, 2011. Connecting SEQ 2031.

Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads, 2015. Busways [Online]. Available:

http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/busways.aspx.

SU, F. & BELL, M. G. H. 2009. Transport for older people: Characteristics and solutions. Research in

Transportation Economics, 25, 46-55.

Statistics Sweden. 2014. Population in the country, counties and municipalities on 31/12/2014 and

Population Change in 2014 [Online]. Available: http://www.scb.se/en_/Finding-

statistics/Statistics-by-subject-area/Population/Population-composition/Population-

statistics/Aktuell-Pong/25795/Yearly-statistics--Municipalities-Counties-and-the-whole-

country/385423/.

Queensland Treasury, 2015. Population growth highlights and trends, Queensland regions.

TRUONG, L. T. & SOMENAHALLI, S. V. C. 2015. Exploring frequency of public transport use among

older adults: A study in Adelaide, Australia. Travel Behaviour and Society, 2, 148-155.

WILLETT, K. 2006. Stuck in Traffic and Stuck for Solutions: Brisbane’s Congestion Crisis.

thesis for linkedin

Documents