Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

[Vic} What do people consider to be a "fair" toll?

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by TonyE, May 20, 2008.

  1. Nothing - I'll use another road if they toll bikes

  2. Half of a car rate sounds OK - we've only got half the wheels

    0 vote(s)
  3. A third of the car rate sounds fair all round.

    0 vote(s)
  4. If a quarter is traditional then why not pay that?

    0 vote(s)
  1. East link is due to open shortly and they have posted their list of tolls. Motorcycles are to be tolled at half car tolls using Rear number plate recognition and no excess charges for this (unlike cars).

    We will be meeting with them soon to discuss motorcycle issues and will be raising the issue of tolls, proper motorcycle breakdown recovery vehicles etc. MRA members voted a couple of years ago to oppose all tolls for motorcycles and we will be putting a case for this to them. We'll be basing this case on congestion, environmental factors and road usage. I don't know that we have a real chance but they are prepared to meet and discuss it.

    However I'm also interested in what people consider to be a "fair" toll. Traditionally on toll roads motorcycles were tolled at 1/4 the car rate. Some work done by MCCNSW considers 1/3 of the car rate may be fair.

    What do people think about this?
  2. I will not pay, i will just continue to split through traffic on other roads :) Might take me a couple of minutes long but but hey at least going through back roads, you get to ride through a few turns, roundabouts instead of long boring straight sections which are only 20km/hr safer (if you get to the posted speed limit) :roll:
  3. +1
    And generally without the presence of heavy vechicles changing lanes rather quickly!
  4. Here's the deal. I'll pay half the car toll on the condition I am allowed to filter in slow or stopped traffic. I'm not paying for the privilege of sitting still like an idiot in a cage. Either I pay to move freely or I go another way. That's it - take it or leave it.
    (Sorry Tony, I'll vote according to the options :wink: )
  5. How is a car toll determined?? In lieu of knowing that answer, I've concluded that NO TOLL is the right toll.

    Here's my simplified way of looking at it. The standard car toll factors all sorts of stuff into it: wear and tear, facilities, cameras, people etc etc.

    I'm guessing we're 3% of the traffic.

    We have two less wheels and weigh about 25% of a typical car... so we contribute no more than 25% of the damage/wear & tear a car causes... you could argue 12.5% (half of 25% since we have half the number of tyres), but say 25% wear contribution of a car for argument sake

    So we're 0.03 x 0.25 = 0.0075 or 0.75% of the impact of a car.

    So if a car is worth a $5 toll, that means about a 4cent toll would be the MC equivalent. As good as no toll.

    Charging motorcycles any toll would seem to be price gouging.

    Ok, so factoring in facilities and other calculation complications might bump that figure up a little... still, even at 20% of a car toll we're paying way more than our fair share.

    Also, since we can filter in peak bumper to bumper conditions and don't add to congestion... this means more motorcycles would make the links even more attractive for cagers to use... :-k ...so it's beneficial to camerataxlink to encourage MC use... :-k

    Zero TOLL.

    I would probably not baulk at 10% of a car toll though.
  6. Realistically, if I'm forced to pay any toll, I'll find an alternative route 99.9% of the time. In all the time that Citylink has been operating I've been on a tolled section in a car perhaps twice, and a moving van once. I've been on it on a motorbike many more times than that.

    As a motorcyclist given that we create significantly less wear and tear and any revenue generated from our use of the roads is going to be negligible given our numbers in comparison to other road users, I fail to see why we should be slugged half the amount of a car. That's just ridiculous. If they are hell bent on charging everyone then no more than 1/4 of the cost for a car would be acceptable. I don't see why they can't use the same model as Citylink however and let motorcyclists travel free...
  7. I'd be happy to pay 1/4 the car rate, I might stretch to 1/3 but 1/2 seems a bit rich - particularly when history tells me the toll road's unlikely to save much time or traffic.

    Good luck with this one Tony.
  8. I had a look at the toll calculator some time back, and just thought the tolls were unreasonably high. I just had a look again, and it is worse than I thought.

    For motorcycles, the minimum toll is 17 cents, but I couldn't find a trip that gave me that price. Tolls are capped at $2.49, but you hit that toll by travelling 9 of the 16 road sections (point 1 to 10). So the toll is heavily weighted to the beginning of the trip.

    For example, just travelling from the current end of the Eastern freeway (Springvale road) to the Ringwood bypass, which is one section, costs $1.14. This will probably be the most commonly made trip on Eastlink, as it links the Eastern freeway to all the far East suburbs, via the (free) Ringwood bypass.

    Interestingly, they can't do there maths either. Motorcycle tolls are supposed to be half the car tolls. Car tolls are capped at $4.96. Half that is $2.48, yet the capped motorcycle toll is $2.49. They are ripping us off 1 cent! Oh, yeah, they are ripping us off $$$s actually.

    Anyway, similar to Robsalvv's post, going by tyre contact area, I would think we should pay about one eighth of a car. By passenger capacity, about a quarter. Considering during congested times we often don't take up a full lane, because we are between lanes, I would say we should be paying less than 10%.

    I voted a quarter, because it was the lowest option without saying zero fees. I don't think they will agree to zero fees, but that is what I would prefer. But please do ask for more reasonable lower fees, perhaps 10% of the car fees. I probably wont use it very often if there are any fees for motorcycles.

    Oh, and please report back on their logic for fees, if they will share.
  9. I noticed that in the Westlink M7 trip calculator. To cover the 13km from the Hume Highway to Horsely Drive is $4.75 (for a car or bike); to cover the entire length of the M7 (40km) is only $6.39.


    (I shouldn't complain too much since I use the full length of the road when I do go on the M7... Still sucks paying full price for two wheels)
  10. I'd be hestitant on using tyre contact patch as a method to allocate pricing.

    Bike contact patches are tiny in comparison to most cars and their weight only around 1/4 of a small family hatch.

    There are two things to consider (if you accept tolls are ok at all).

    The operators largest single expense is servicing the debt associated with building the road. At over $1.5 billion, this would be quite a lot. From an operators perspective, they don't want (or need) too may bikes on their road. For all the talk of bikes aiding congestion, they only do that by virtue of them being less numerous than cars. Bikes take advantage of cars being stationary and that's the sole reason why you can get to your location quicker.

    If riders use 1 lane per bike and maintain a safe stopping distance, the rate of flow for a road use solely by bikes would be the same as for cars.

    So for an operator, bikes using their road are still required to pay an 'Access' fee.

    The next largest cost for the operator would be maintenance. Whilst bikes do cause less damage to the road than cars, by how much would be debatable.

    They have determined that bikes do not require to carry a tag. I have a 'tagless' account for my car with Shittylink and I pay an 'Imaging processing fee' for the privilege of doing so. I don't travel the road often so the small additional fee is offset by not having to maintain an account. At least Eastlink are waiving that fee for bikes.

    With all these things, I'd be ok to pay 1/3. Having said that, I expect that a lot of the surrounding roads will empty up with lots of people using the tollway.

    Rod, the reason for the large cost for the Eastern <--> Ringwood section is the tunnel. It's the greatest expense for them on a per km basis.

    All of this is galling though. The Eastern extension was just about to be started when Bracks 'The Tax' came to power, suspended the works and then initiated the Mother Of All Projects, which was then delayed sufficiently enough for budget 'Black Hole' to be found.
  11. Here is the first error in your calculations. The only factor that they take into account is how much pressure they believe the market will bare.
    They will have done some sort of study to assess what percentage of user drop off they will get at a given price point, and then done the maths for maximum profit.
    The actual running cost will only be used to identify the lowest acceptable turnover.
  12. I voted that I would use rat runs, but would be prepared to pay 1/2 the toll if push came to shove. If I had to pay half I wouldn't use it much though.
  13. Quite right. They seem to have allocated charges based on the cost of construction for the section, which I guess relates directly to the cost of finance for the section. As you say, the major cost.

    I did find the 17 cent sections when I looked again. In fact 2 to 3, and 13 to 14 are free, and all the individual sections from 3 to 7 are 17 cents each.

    I still vote for a quarter the car price, preferably 10%. [-(
  14. Well I'm still in for less than 10% what the car market will bear.

    Cejay's right, when we act as cars, we do take up space, IMO upwards from 1/2 a car (due to shorter wheel base) - so even though we might take up car like space, there's certainly not the same wear and tear on the road. It'd be an interesting justification for someone to say that bikes cause as much wear and tear as a car. I'd like to see that justification.

    Regarding the toll. I understand that the finance and marketing folk got together to set the tolls as high as they could and still spin justifiable value from a time saving and car wear and tear perspective... I'd do that too if it were my business. BUT, the camerataxlink time savings for a motorbike vs a car are VERY DIFFERENT. Even in peak hour, I get through highway and main road traffic faster on two wheels WITHOUT splitting, than compared to a car. Being on two wheels already affords me more mobility and the ability to overtake with smaller margins than a car requires, so the "savings" factor of cameraataxlink isn't as great. (A 250 might get more benefit since they can't punch into places as easily by virtue of less power.)

    So I'm still of the opinion that anything over 10% of a car toll is gouging.
  15. Anything is price gouging given that with the increase in petrol price, and subsequent massive increase in revenue from petrol tax, there should have been ample money available for the Government to have payed for the road themselves.
    Assuming of course they actually used the petrol tax for what it's supposed to be used for.
  16. I'm opposed to tolls on a philosophical basis. I'm of the view, rightly or wrongly, that public infrastructure needs to remain in public ownership and control. This includes energy, water and other essential resources, as well as transport.

    This government could have built the road toll free and the federal government had the dough sitting there ready to go.

    And it was to be called the "Scoresby Freeway", the signs of which were on the Mulgrave/South Eastern/Monash freeway near Police Road for twenty or so years.

    Someone said that the constructor needs to recoup its investment costs and to service debt. Fine, but no-one forced it to submit the tender to build it, same as no-one forced the government to turn a freeway into a tollway.

    So, based on that I'd vote "No tolls". But obviously that ain't gonna happen. Best to avoid using it I suppose.
  17. I would say a fair toll would be the tax we paid to build the bloody thing.
  18. The SE (Monash) was an existing road! the so called upgrades for the toll price can jump in the river near by!

    So far the has been a slow down and not an increase in traffic flow!

    crap road works that are never fixed!

    I've paid enough with the fuel levey introduced by the Kennet Gvmt.

    flipping pick pockets! F#$K em!
  19. I honestly don't know what route I'd take if they removed free tolls on citylink.

    The mere existance of tolls and all the administrative hassle with that is enough of a deterrent for me to avoid eastlink.
  20. citylink was tolled to recoup its building costs. They did that in the first 3 years of its usage. Everything from then on is profit.

    The same will happen to east link. I will most likely not use it, as I haven't had to venture too far into the eastern suburbs where it would be beneficial