ITF Roundtable

Social Impact of Time andSpace-Based Road Pricing
30 November – 1December 2017 Auckland

NZ context andlessons from the literature

Acknowledgement:•NZ Transport Outlook team for graphs and statistics•

MR Cagney for literature review materials and draft framework/principles

What do kiwis like?
We love... to travel by car Light vehicles account for 75% of total distance travelled p.a.
... cars

In 2013, 54.5% of households own two or more vehicles
Australia = 50.3% (2011) UK = 30% (2015)

Less than 8% of households do not own any vehiclesAustralia = 8.4% (2011)... our old cars

Average age of the light vehicle fleet in 2016 was 14.3 years
USA = 11.6 years
Australia = 10.1 years

2

UK = 24% (2015)

Canada = 9.3 years
Europe = 7.4 years

Although PT use has increased, we are still using cars more
60%

50%

% of trip legs

40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Car driver

Car passenger

Pedestrian

1989/90
3Cyclist

Public transport

2010/14

Source: Ministry of Transport (New Zealand Household Travel Survey)

Motorcycling

National Land Transport Fund (NLTF) revenue
About $3.6 billion total revenue per year
Fuel excise duty (FED) (54%)► 59.524 cents per litre on every litre of petrol► Small amount of revenue from other fuels (LPG and CNG)
► $1.94 billion revenue per year
Road user charges (RUC) (distance-based) (40%)► Per km charge for vehicles that use fuels that don’t pay FED (diesel)► Diesel car = $62 per 1,000km, 44 tonne truck = $641 per 1,000km► $560 million from light vehicles, $880 million from heavy vehicles per year
Motor vehicle registration and licensing fees (6%)
► $43.50 from each licence goes to the NLTF (most of the rest to accident compensation)► $225 million revenue per year
4NLTF and NLTP
NLTP

RUC
$1.4 b
MVR$225mNational
Land
Transport
FundApprovedorganiations

FED$1.96bFinancial
Assistance Rate

Land Transport
revenue sources

NZ Transport Agency

NZ PoliceRoad
policing

users
contribution

Local
roads

Rates
PT fares

PT

Walking& cycling
State
Highways
Other

5RatesRates

Auckland and National perspective“Golden triangle” regions accountfor half of NZ’s population
Auckland alone ~ 40%
With changing trends, we need tochange our revenue mechanisms.

6

Source: New Zealand Transport Outlook Future statesRapid Transit Lanes and performance

Roads suffer from wide variability while the Northern Busway and rail lines – which haveaccounted for most of the PT growth to the city over the last 15 years – have fairly reliable times
7

Source: Greater Auckland website

Auckland’s proposed Rapid Transit Networkcurrent
8

Source: Auckland Transport website

2046

Road pricing
Past and current investigations• Auckland Road Pricing Evaluation Study (2006)• Auckland Road Pricing Study (2008)• Future Auckland Transport Funding (2014)• Auckland Smarter Transport Pricing project (current)

One of the critical success factors• Public acceptability (D’Artagnan Pacific, 2017)

Key issues:• Perceived potential adverse impacts• Lack of / insufficient consideration of social / distributional impacts
9Modelling of social and distributional impacts
Approach

Example of study

Key features

Bottleneck congestion model

Arnott et al (1994)

Compares outcomes for user groups withdifferent VOTs and costs of scheduled delay

Transport model (some withintegrated land use)

AFFORD (Fridstrom et al , 2000)
RFF (Safirova et al ,2006)

Disaggregated by zones to identify impacts
across zones

Simulation model

Bonsall and Kelly (2005)

Ability to identify impacts on various at-risk
groupsMicrodata modelling

Bureau and Glachant (2008)

Model accounts for variations between
individuals

Computable generalequilibrium model

De Palma and Lindsey (2004)

Model accounts for multiple modes, routes
and fiscal impacts for government

User preference modelling

Eliasson and Mattsson (2006)

Model accounts for differences in travel
behaviour, preferences and mode choices...and combinations of the above
10Source: MR Cagney (research in progress) and other individual references citedSocial impact assessment process
What are thepricing andequityobjectives?

Analysecontext oftheintervention

Who will bebetter off and
who will beworst off?

Identify
stakeholders
and performstakeholder
analysisWhy andHow aretheyaffected?

Identify
factors
affectingoutcomes

Assessment
framework
11

What arethe impacts?

Analysedata andassess
priorities
formitigation

Can effects bemitigated?

How? When?
Where? Who?

What are theactualimpacts?

Consult
stakeholders
and develop
mitigation
plan

Implement
mitigation
plan

Evaluateandmonitoroutcomes

Modelling tools

What are the equity objectives?
Equity objectives:• Market related – user/polluter pays (time of day and location are important)• Income related – Horizontal (within income group) and vertical (between income groups)• Territorial related – Spatial distribution of winners and losers• Temporal related – Time of day and intergenerational
Key dimensions:► Time of day – peaks and off-peaks, every hour, half-hour or minutes► Location– inside/outside charging zones, meshblocks or area units► Income– household vs individual, household type adjusted, DepIndex etc modelling implications
12

Who, why, how and whatWHO
Income groups

Household types

Ethnic groups

Travel origin

Othercircumstances

WHAT(eg disability)

Travel time

Traveldestination

Financial costs

WHY/HOW
Ability to pay
Ability toconsolidate trips

Needs to avoid
trips
Ability to switch
time, modes orroutes

Physicalconstraints (egdisability)
Ability to switch
locations

External impacts
Accessibility
impacts

Questions for discussion• Which equity objective(s) is/are the most relevant?
• What dimensions should the assessment framework covers?
• How best to identify those who are better off and those who areworst off?
• How do we best assess equity/distributional impacts?
How do we best accommodate data requirements?
• What should be the right tools/models to use?
•

• How do we best communicate the above to decision-makers?

15