Roads

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
The federal government announced a year ago that it would review the charges imposed on drivers for using our roads. That review hasn’t yet happened. They should get on with it, because reforming the way we charge road users will make our economy more productive and our cities more liveable. The longer we wait, the harder the path to those improvements becomes.
The problem with the present system is that there is only a weak link between what motorists pay and the costs they create when they use roads. The amount motorists pay for registration, for example, does not vary with the amount of time they spend on the road, let alone how long they’re stuck in traffic jams.
But before we get to the benefits of reforming how drivers pay for the costs of their road use, we need to debunk a big myth about road funding in Australia. It’s one that has become a major distraction in discussions about the need for change.
The myth of the fuel excise crisis
Vehicle technology is improving. Cars are becoming more fuel-efficient, and powering them with electricity is becoming more mainstream. At the same time, our commuting patterns are changing – over the past few years, the average distance Australians travel by car has fallen.
This is worrying the government, which collects fuel excise from us every time we fill the car with petrol. Urban Infrastructure Minister Paul Fletcher has specifically raised concerns that: "the revenue from fuel excise and car registration is unlikely to keep pace with the amount we spend as a nation on operating, maintaining and investing in roads."
The government’s key economic advisory body, the Productivity Commission, recently suggested reform of the fuel excise levy was “becoming more urgent”. But talk of a funding crisis is overblown.
First, the minister knows that the government doesn’t, and can’t, segregate revenue from road use to spend on roads. Federal spending on infrastructure is funded from general government revenue, the pool of funds received from the full range of federal taxes. As far as the government is concerned, road funding is just one of many expense programs claiming a piece of the budget pie.
As for revenue from the fuel excise, the decision in 2014 to reintroduce indexation will deliver much-needed relief for the government. The truth is, revenue did not fall much over the past decade and the levy now increases each year in line with inflation. The government may cry poor, but it can’t cry broke.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/196051/original/file-20171123-6013-158o9e3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
So, do we still need that long-promised review?
Fuel excise revenue is not the problem the government would have you think it is. But its promised review remains important because reforming road-user charges would bring big benefits for Australia.
The disconnect between what motorists pay and the costs of their road use matters because traffic congestion is the main cost that cars create when they use existing roads. The regular wear and tear of our roads is overwhelmingly caused by trucks and other heavy vehicles; cars do negligible damage to paved roads.
An existing mechanism ensures that trucks are charged for their wear and tear on roads. What’s needed is an equivalent mechanism to ensure that cars are charged for the costs they create by adding to congestion.
As we describe in our report Stuck in traffic? Road congestion in Sydney and Melbourne, such a mechanism would mean charging people who drive at peak times on congested roads a small fee.
People who pay the charge would get a quicker and more reliable trip, because there would be fewer cars on the road at peak times. People who can travel outside of the peaks would not have to pay, because there would be no congestion charge when the roads are not congested. Because traffic flows would be spread more evenly across all hours of the day, our economy would become more efficient and our cities more liveable.
Critics of these decongestion schemes argue that charging motorists in this way is unfair. Why should low-income earners or those living on the fringes of our major cities, they argue, be hit with a new charge for something they can’t avoid when they go to work?
It’s a valid concern, but our report suggests it is entirely feasible to redesign motor vehicle charges in ways that actually make them fairer.
A key element of fairness is that any new congestion charge should be offset by reducing or removing vehicle registration charges. The goal should be to change how we pay for roads, not how much we pay. Developing such options is precisely what the long-promised review should do.
This reform would allow us to get the greatest value from the road network we already have, before we ask taxpayers and motorists to pay for constructing big and expensive new roads.
Time to get the show on the road
If we don’t make changes, congestion and delays on the roads in our biggest cities will only get worse. The government should provide terms of reference for the review before Christmas. These terms should acknowledge the importance of developing options for charging motorists for the congestion they cause.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/87931/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">In doing so, it will be important to resolve how the range of state-levied taxes on motorists, including existing and prospective toll roads, might fit within new charging arrangements. Only then should the review turn to the question of how many expensive new roads the states should be building.
Marion Terrill, Transport Program Director, Grattan Institute and Hugh Batrouney, Senior Associate, Grattan Institute.
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/delay-in-changing-direction-on-how-we-tax-drivers-will-cost-us-all-87931" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Delay in changing direction on how we tax drivers will cost us all: Grattan Institute

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Road congestion in large Australian cities is estimated to cost more than A$16 billion a year. Economists have long argued the best way to improve traffic flow is to charge drivers for their contribution to road congestion. We have now analysed data collected from 1,400 drivers across Melbourne to see whether road user charging can change their behaviour in ways that ease congestion. And the answer is yes.
Because the obstacle to adopting this approach has been concern about its fairness, we also looked at driver incomes. Would congestion-based charges price the poor off the road for the benefit of those who can pay? We calculated how different systems of road use charges affected households on different incomes, and how driving patterns changed under different prices.
The evidence does not support other common policy responses to traffic congestion. Building new roads does little to relieve congestion. Placing tolls on roads can push traffic onto others.
However, even small reductions in congestion can produce large benefits. On congested roads, reducing traffic by 5% can increase traffic speeds by up to 50%.
The question is: what would the optimal charges be? Drivers often plan their travel ahead of time, so Uber-like surge pricing is not necessarily the best way to go. Could simpler fixed charges, based perhaps on time of day or location, be effective?
In 2015-2016, Transurban Group implemented the Melbourne Road Usage Study (MRUS) to answer these questions. More than 1,400 drivers across greater Melbourne installed GPS devices in their vehicles for eight to ten months. After a period to establish baseline use, a randomly selected subset faced a series of road use charges via a system of virtual accounts. Every month participants accumulated real money from reduced charges as a result of their decisions about driving.
Well-targeted charges ease congestion
The Melbourne Road Usage Study tested three simple charges:
<ul>
<li>a flat distance-based charge of 10 cents per kilometre</li>
<li>a time-of-day charge of 15 cents per kilometre at peak times and 8 cents at other times</li>
<li>a distance-plus-cordon charge where drivers were charged 8 cents per kilometre at all times plus A$8 if they entered the inner city.</li>
</ul>
Our working paper, Can Road Charges Alleviate Congestion?, evaluates the raw data.
Charges that vary by time of day were most effective at reducing driving at congested times. Drivers subjected to a higher cost of driving in the weekday peak hours of 7am to 9am and 3pm to 6pm reduced travel by 10% during these periods.
While a simple 10 cent charge on distance travelled did reduce driving, this was mainly outside the congested inner city and at off-peak times – mostly in the middle of the day and on weekday evenings. Most freeway congestion occurs around morning and late afternoon commutes.
London and Singapore have charges to enter the congested city centre. Further research is needed to assess the effects on inner-city traffic in Australian cities.
The evidence points towards most drivers who enter the CBD being willing to pay higher weekday charges. But few drivers entered the cordon zone during the study. Less than 5% of the drivers made over half of the trips into the area.
Access to reliable public transport matters
Public transit has a key role in getting cars off the road. Our data showed households located far from the CBD and from public transport drive more. Living 500 metres closer to a tram or train station has the same effect on kilometres driven each day as living 5km closer to the CBD.
Households within a 10-minute walk from public transport drive least. The largest reductions in driving from time-of-day and cordon charges come from households living 10 to 20 minutes’ walk away.
Road use charges could be fairer
Congestion-based charges can be a more progressive way to fund roads than the existing system of registration fees and fuel taxes.
The fuel excise makes up almost half of the average annual road bill in Australia. It’s essentially a distance-based fee, but more fuel-efficient vehicles pay less per kilometre travelled. Hybrid vehicle drivers, for example, contribute much less to fuel tax revenue.
Yet, although hybrids contribute less to air pollution, they increase congestion just as much as their petrol-guzzling counterparts. And congestion is a much greater shared economic cost than vehicle air pollution.
Annual vehicle registration fees make up most of the remaining road bill. These provide no incentive to reduce congestion.
Fuel taxes and registration fees put a disproportionate burden on low-income households in the outer suburbs. Our research shows these households would be better off if roads were funded more by congestion charges.
Field experiments help get the settings right
So what is the optimal congestion charge? Economic theory (Pigou 1920) tells us to price at the cost that each extra user imposes on the system.
With road use, though, the calculation is difficult. To fix rates in advance, we would need to know exactly how much longer everyone’s trip is when each extra driver joins each system. And we’d need to cost that slowdown for each individual on the road at that time (i.e. value their time and, potentially, the cost to them of being late). New research has been using clever experimental designs to identify these values.
That said, maybe it is not too important to get the price just right. For electricity, we are starting to see that households respond to there being a price, not its specific level.
Before widespread road use charges are implemented, we would like to see more field experiments like the MRUS to find answers to other questions. Would it be better to combine a time-of-day charge with targeted locations? How effective would it be to charge more for using highly congested arterial roads at peak times? Would this simply push congestion onto nearby local roads? How large a gap between peak and off-peak prices is needed to produce a strong response?
Another interesting option is the i10 model outside Los Angeles. Two lanes are for traffic willing to pay more to get to their destination faster.
Dynamic pricing ensures traffic in these lanes flows freely – if too many use these lanes and traffic slows, the price increases. Drivers can decide every few kilometres if they want to pay more to stay in the express lanes. Those who must get somewhere on time are able to, and the fee revenue can be used to reduce road costs for others.
The Melbourne Road Usage Study (MRUS) shows field experiments can help us design better road use charges. By all appearances, households took it seriously and were positive about their involvement.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/86324/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">The MRUS provides evidence that well-designed road use charges could help reduce congestion by encouraging people to drive at different times, take other routes or use other transport. This could lead to better use of existing infrastructure, thereby reducing costs, while generating revenue for infrastructure investments. Under such a system, drivers who contribute little to congestion could see substantial gains.
Leslie A. Martin, Lecturer (Assistant Professor) in Economics, University of Melbourne 
Sam Thornton, Master of Economics candidate, University of Melbourne
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/city-wide-trial-shows-how-road-use-charges-can-reduce-traffic-jams-86324" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Melbourne's city-wide trial shows how road use charges can reduce traffic jams

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Cities are complex systems. One visible artery of the city is traffic – the cluster of moving people and flowing goods – and mobility is critical for a city’s life.
We should be concerned about voices pointing to disrupting forces on mobility, such as a Global Summit on Disrupting Mobility recently hosted by Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
The challenges of mobility in the city are well known; roads at capacity, urban growth, peak oil, air quality and climate change are among the prominent ones.
These challenges are already on the verge of disruption if we simply prioritise roads and cars. Melbourne and Sydney roads are at capacity – or beyond – in commuting hours already. There is just no space to cater for the transport demands of population growth of the predicted 50-100%.
We need change, and we need it urgently. But twisting a complex system somewhere, even with the best intentions, may have unintended consequences elsewhere. An evolution might be a better approach than just allowing technology to disrupt.
<h2>Beyond the driverless car</h2>
Much of the hype on disrupting mobility is caused by the emergence of driverless vehicles. But these alone would not reduce the number of vehicles on the road – quite the contrary.
The core of the problem is private car ownership and its inefficient use. Cars are often empty and stationary, and underutilised even on the road. Disrupting mobility is not just about driverless cars, it is multi-faceted.
Alternative means and systems are required to enable choice and comfortable access. This would mean better integration of various means such as fast mass transport, last mile transport and active forms of transport.
The design and integration of these modes require proper designs, regulations and policies, automation and control for safety, smart use of land and space for urban planning, supporting infrastructure, energy-efficient technologies and connecting IT platforms.
One key to reducing private car ownership is a shared transport economy. Shared vehicles, shared trips and shared parking spaces will improve efficiency.
Added to this is the smart integration of different travel modes. This is being attempted with train and bus connections, including multi-modal ticketing. But it should go far beyond these limited efforts – the current exploration of a single smart card for all forms of mobility is an example of this.
Even after the advent of the driverless car, a critical part of the mix will be mass transit. Last mile transport may become a niche for the driverless car. This could take the form of on-demand shuttle buses in areas surrounding a station, and improved bicycle parking and access.
In the US, Lyft has found that transit access makes up a large number of user requests and has recently entered partnerships with transit companies. At this stage, the transit company trip planner includes a link to the Lyft website so that passengers can plan their entire journey.
<h2>The changing bus</h2>
In areas of low travel demand, demand-responsive services are replacing fixed bus services with low patronage. The route and/or time is not fixed and is determined by passengers’ needs. These provide a more affordable service for operators and, depending on the service, more flexibility for passengers.
The Telebus service, operating in Melbourne’s outer east, allows passengers to be picked up or dropped off from their homes, saving a walk to the bus stop.
Flexible commuter buses are also gaining traction in the US. Bridj, in Boston, uses traffic data and historical information about passengers to determine weekly routes and timetables. For some patrons, the service offers a more convenient and reliable trip than using public transport.
However, other entrants in this area, such as Melbourne’s SuitJet and San Francisco’s Leap bus, did not succeed.
<h2>Cities require connections</h2>
Another area of innovation is on-demand delivery of food and other goods. Australian company Swift is attracting attention in the US for its on-demand services, after starting out as a liquor delivery service. Food delivery services are also popular. These services could replace a car trip, which could involve cruising for a parking space, or a walking trip.
However, a vision of door-to-door vehicular travel will have effects on behaviour. Would anyone walk or cycle? Would these activities become simply exercise modes?
Cities are about people. Such a behavioural change would affect the atmosphere of the city by removing incentives for planning for walkability.
Effective transportation is about connecting people and places. Building a connected and integrated system of transportation modes – incorporating “traditional” and “disruptive” modes – is crucial for mobility and livability for future cities.
Stephan Winter is professor of Spatial Information, University of Melbourne, and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/stephan-winter-13767" target="_blank">here</a>.
Nicole Ronald is lecturer in Computer Science and Software Engineering, Swinburne University of Technology and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/nicole-ronald-206182" target="_blank">here.</a>
Ronny Kutadinata is Research Fellow, School of Engineering, University of Melbourne and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ronny-kutadinata-206188" target="_blank">here</a>. 
All are authors for The Conversation.
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

The challenges disrupting our old ways of getting around Australian cities

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Australians have very high expectations of their public transport systems. They consistently prefer investment in public transport over investment in roads. State elections have been lost when politicians don’t meet those expectations.
As a researcher in public transport, I am frustrated by a narrative I see time and again. It comes up in comments in focus groups and pops up at the bottom of news articles. It goes something like this:
"I’ve been to London / New York / Tokyo and their public transport system is better / cheaper / more reliable than ours! Why can’t our public transport be that good?"
Australia’s public transport systems seem shoddy compared to other countries for a number of reasons. These reasons make me question whether those comparisons are valid.
<h2>When on holiday, don’t do as commuters do</h2>
The first reason this comparison is flawed is because when we’re on holiday, we don’t use public transport the same way we do in our mundane commute back home.
When you’re on holiday your concept of time and money is different. A few extra dollars for a tourist pass, a few extra minutes on the platform, it all becomes part of the adventure of travel. A few extra dollars or minutes back home is another inconvenience in your daily grind.
Chances are when you visited London, Tokyo or New York you visited the exciting tourist centres of these cities – places where public transport is at its best.
You probably didn’t visit Woldingham, Tachikawa or Port Washington – outlying suburbs beyond the reach of metro systems. Places where the trains only run every 20 minutes or, heaven forbid, you may have to use a bus. Places a lot more like the suburbs back home.
<h2>Australia’s super cities</h2>
The other reason this comparison is flawed is due to the super-size of Australia’s cities. How that came about is an accident of history as much as anything. Many of the overseas cities Australians idolise did most of their growing before the private car became embedded into the transport system. This resulted in compact urban forms served by narrow, winding streets.
That urban form was designed to suit the needs of pedestrians, horse carts and trams. By the time the car came along it had to be retrofitted into the city.
In contrast, Australian cities – along with many American cities – did most of their growing in parallel with the explosion of motor vehicle ownership. Highways and cars facilitated the post-war suburban explosion, allowing millions to live the dream of quarter-acre blocks far from the city centre.
Because of this legacy, Australian cities are enormously far-reaching. In most capitals you can drive for 100km and still be within the same city limits.  Melbourne’s footprint is six times the size of London with half its population; Brisbane is 20 times the footprint of New York City with one-quarter of its population. 
<a href="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/89420/area14mp/image-20150723-22849-1ao8g4e.png"><img src="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/89420/width668/image-20150723-22849-1ao8g4e.png" alt=""></a>
London (1,572 sq km, 8.3 million people) vs Melbourne (9,990 sq km, 4.3 million). https://mapfrappe.com
<div class="enlarge_hint"> </div>
 
 
<a href="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/89421/area14mp/image-20150723-22816-afd8si.png"><img src="https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/89421/width668/image-20150723-22816-afd8si.png" alt=""></a>
New York City (790 sq km, 8.4 million people) vs Brisbane (15,826 sq km, 2.2 million). 
In Australia, public transport has to play catch-up constrained by an urban form designed by and for the car. This isn’t an impossible task, by any means, but it suggests that perhaps we’re comparing ourselves to the wrong cities.
What if we made more realistic comparisons? For example Portland, Oregon, is around the same size and has about the same population of Brisbane. It is held up as one of the “best transit cities” in the United States. Yet Brisbane has more public transport trips per capita – around 70 per year – than Portland, which has 58 per year.
If Australia’s cities were ranked alongside American cities in public transport trips per year, Sydney and Melbourne would both rank third behind New York and San Francisco, Perth would rank ninth (above Chicago) and Brisbane would rank tenth (above Philadelphia).
<h2>A call to (realistic) action</h2>
I am glad that Australians have high expectations of their public transport systems, and I will continue to advocate for improving public transport as an integral part of efficient, sustainable cities. But Sydney will never be Tokyo and Adelaide will never be London – nor should they be.
We already have strong, uniquely Australian legacies to build on. Adelaide and Brisbane were some of the first cities in the world to invest in bus rapid transit. Melbourne has the largest streetcar (tram) network in the world.
Rather than lamenting what we are not, let us focus on making Australian public transport systems the very best they can be.
Alexa Delbosc is lecturer in transport at Monash University and author for The Conversation. She can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/alexa-delbosc-147245" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Public transport is always greener on the other side

<html><body>
Since the last state election, Premier Daniel Andrews has been on a mission. While the previous state government managed to get itself stuck in a perpetual state of inertia very early on, the current Premier has been determined to be a man of action.

East West Link contracts torn up? Tick. Level Crossing removals out to to tender? Tick. Melbourne Metro funding bought forward? Another tick. But then he pulled a rabbit out of the hat that left even the most ardent of soothsayers flat footed: the <a href="http://consult.transurban.com/western-distributor-join-the-conversation">Western Distributor</a>. Essentially just a watered down version of the old Westlink proposal, is this the congestion messiah we have been waiting for?

The timing is extraordinary. Just weeks after coming to an agreement with the East West Link consortium to abandon an expensive road thought unnecessary, the Premier replaced it with a project to build an expensive road we don't need. It is a brave move. Crazy brave, as there are some startling comparisons to its defunct predecessor: no business case exists and it wasn't taken to an election, so technically there is no mandate.

The fact both major political parties have flipped from their previous positions (for the sake of political expediency) highlights one very unfortunate fact: the Western Distributor is a boondoggle.

There, I said it. Cue outrage from commuters stuck on the Westgate Bridge every day. Cue derision from motor interest groups like the Royal Automobile Club of Victoria (RACV), who have have been spewing forth their "We need a second river crossing to solve congestion on the Westgate" rhetoric with impunity for years, ignoring the inconvenient fact it will be neither the second crossing (we have six already), nor will it solve congestion.

Despite all this, Daniel Andrews has taken a punt on Western Distributor. Why?

Assessing East West Link, the project failed for a myriad of reasons, including trying to solve a problem that didn't exist. Only 5% of cars went from CityLink to the Eastern Freeway, hence there existed no real public appetite to build it. Add its exorbitant cost at $11 billion (the state would bear the brunt of, as well as all of the risk if it didn't perform financially) and it was no surprise to see East West Link disappear.

However, Daniel Andrews thinks he has mitigated those issues with the Western Distributor, and technically he has… in theory.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/057458-6c26a75a-fd19-11e4-abd8-e4ec9e966762.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="The political posturing continues. Image courtesy The Australian"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="327" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/057458-6c26a75a-fd19-11e4-abd8-e4ec9e966762.jpg?itok=InmNol5l" title="The political posturing continues. Image courtesy The Australian" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>The political posturing continues. Image courtesy The Australian</figcaption></figure>As mentioned before, there certainly is an appetite for it: if I had a dollar for every time someone told me "We need a second river crossing", I would be a very rich man. The reality is we already have six in the vicinity of the city: the Westgate itself, Footscray Road, Dynon Road, Smithfield Road, Fisher Parade and Maribyrnong/Raleigh Road.

There are two well known political idioms at work here: "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story", and the Tony Abbott special "If you say something often enough, it makes it true". The RACV have done a great job of tricking commuters in believing the second river crossing myth. Given we have six river crossings already, is a seventh one going to make a difference? It won't, hence why the RACV drumming on the notion we only have one.

The other argument Daniel Andrews has mitigated is the cost. That's the real jewel in the crown of the Western Distributor, it's free! The cost of this new piece of infrastructure will be covered by three sources:

<ol>
<li>Tolls on the distributor itself.</li>
	<li>A further concession on the tolls Transurban collects from CityLink.</li>
	<li>Federal Government funding originally set aside for East West Link.</li>
</ol>
None of these factors are problematic given it results in no cost to the state government. Furthermore, Transurban have allegedly agreed to take over the cost of building the original <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Gate_Distributor">West Gate Distributor</a> project too. As it has already been budgeted for by the state, this actually results in a $500 million net saving for the government. That's two new mega projects and money back.

All of this good news won't hide the very damning truth: it won't solve congestion on the Westgate!

The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand">widely accepted</a> science of Induced Traffic will ensure the distributor becomes yet another car park within five years, not to mention the extra traffic it will pump into the city at the end of Footscray Road, just like the East West Link would have done to Hoddle Street as predicted by the Linking Melbourne Authority's own modeling. Whether it results in no cost to the state government or not is essentially irrelevant.

It just serves to reinforce the myth that we can solve congestion by building more urban freeways. This just ingrains the car dependence culture, which inevitably results in more funding being pumped into freeways in the future. It is a vicious cycle.

We have all heard the argument we need 'balanced funding for road and rail', this is nothing more than a political mantra. Balance is such a nice word which implies everyone gets what they need, however funding between roads and public transport has been anything but balanced in the last 20 years, it has been heavily skewed towards roads.

Pumping the same amount of money into mega road projects and into public transport does not produce the same outcomes. While the Western Distributor will inevitably reach capacity within five years, we will still be reaping the benefits of the Melbourne Metro rail tunnel in half a century and beyond, albeit at twice the price.

Sadly wrapped up in this debate - but now pushed out of mind - is the issue the original West Gate Distributor was meant to tackle: taking trucks off local roads. It was never meant to ease commuter congestion on the Westgate Bridge, rather it was about taking trucks off roads in the West, such as Yarraville's Francis Street.

It would have made the inner west safer and less polluted for residents, whilst aalso facilitating faster and more efficient trucking routes to the port. This very focused objective would have resulted in a relatively small price tag by today's infrastructure standards: $500 million. While this problem is still being addressed, the argument has been hijacked by cars, and thus its price increased tenfold. An unfortunate outcome all around.

<figure><a class="colorbox colorbox-insert-image" href="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/freight_routes.jpg" rel="gallery-all" title="Existing and proposed freight routes for the West Gate Distributor. Image courtesy Maribyrnong Truck Action Group"><img alt="" class="image-article-full-width-580px" height="512" src="/sites/urban.melbourne/files/styles/article_full_width_580px/public/pictures/article-images/freight_routes.jpg?itok=5B5owKZq" title="Existing and proposed freight routes for the West Gate Distributor. Image courtesy Maribyrnong Truck Action Group" width="580"></a>

<figcaption>Existing and proposed freight routes for the West Gate Distributor. Image courtesy Maribyrnong Truck Action Group</figcaption></figure>I fear for the long term planning of this state. The more common prospect of one-term governments has scared them into throwing all long term planning out the window, pushing short-term projects where political expediency is the only driving factor. It's a sad state of affairs when projects are delivered to satisfy public perception, despite knowing they won't go close to solving the problems, and in turn perpetuating long held myths.

It takes a great amount of political courage to make the tough decisions: not building any more urban freeways, tackling traffic head-on via congestion charging, borrowing money to fund major public transport upgrades, and forcing people to change decades long travel habits. But it seems political courage continues to be in short supply, at least where public transport is concerned.

Mr Andrews, you're better than this. You should be applauded for removing level crossings, a project decades overdue. You should be applauded for getting on with the Melbourne Metro, a project which, to quote Robert Doyle's words, will save Melbourne from a "100 year catastrophe".

But the Western Distributor is a case of "two steps forward, three steps back". You have got this far by being a public transport champion; it is those guns you need to stick to, to ensure Victoria's future is the main game here, not the 2018 election.

For further insight on the topic, see the Public Transport Users Association's take on <a href="http://www.ptua.org.au/myths/congestion/">the myth that freeways relieve traffic congestion</a>.

Lead image courtesy Transurban.
</body></html>

TheHeadOnTheDoor

Distributing a myth: will a second river crossing solve congestion?

<html><body>
By <a href="http://theconversation.com/profiles/matthew-beck-90705">Matthew Beck</a> and <a href="http://theconversation.com/profiles/michiel-bliemer-14639">Michiel Bliemer</a> (<a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-sydney">University of Sydney)</a>.

Congestion is a major source of frustration for road users and has worsened over time in most cities. Different solutions have been proposed, such as introducing congestion charging (a favourite of transport economists) or investing in public transport. One solution that is most <a href="https://www.nsw.gov.au/media-releases-premier/busting-congestion-300-million-create-gateway-south">often</a> put forward is to <a href="http://www.danielandrews.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Victorian-Labors-Project-10000.pdf">build</a> more roads, but does this approach work?

A recent <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jimgorzelany/2014/03/04/the-most-traffic-jammed-cities-in-the-u-s/">study</a> in the United States identified Los Angeles, Honolulu and San Francisco as the top three most gridlocked cities in the United States. All of these cities use almost exclusively road-based solutions to transport citizens.

While China has increased its <a href="https://www.kpmg.com/cn/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Documents/Transport-Logistics-in-China-201112.pdf">expressway network</a> from 16,300 km in the year 2000 to around 70,000 km in 2010, the average commute time in <a href="http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2014-09/29/content_18679171.htm">Beijing</a> for 2013 was 1 hour and 55 minutes, up 25 minutes from just the year before.

Why, then, do residents of these cities with large amounts of road capacity, not live in a driving utopia?

<h2>Induced demand</h2>

The first concept you need to get your head around is called induced demand.

Think about the street on which you live. If a new road makes driving to work quicker, you may benefit from that, but this reduced travel time might be enough to encourage two other people in your street to start driving; and two more people in the next street; and two more people in the street after that; and so on. Very quickly the drive to work takes just as long as it ever did.

In transportation, this well-established response is known in various contexts as the Downs-Thomson Paradox, The Pigou-Knight-Downs Paradox or the Lewis-Mogridge Position: a new road may provide motorists with some level of respite from congestion in the short term but almost all of the benefit from the road will be lost in the longer term.

Further, while more roads may solve congestion locally, more traffic on the road network may result in more congestion elsewhere. In Sydney, for example, the <a href="http://www.westconnex.com.au/">WestConnex</a> may improve traffic conditions on Parramatta Road, but may worsen congestion in the city.

<h2>Weakest links</h2>

Congestion is determined by the weakest links in the road network. If road capacity expansion does not involve widening of these bottleneck links, congestion may simply move to another part of the network without solving the congestion problem. Moreover, it could potentially make congestion even worse.

The Braess Paradox is a famous example in which building new roads in the wrong location can lead to longer travel times for everyone, even without induced demand, because such new roads may lead more car drivers to the weakest links in the network. The reverse may also be true: removing roads may even improve traffic conditions.

This paradox occurs because each driver chooses the route that is quickest without considering the implications his or her choice has on other drivers. Car drivers only care about the number of vehicles in the queue in front of them and do not care about vehicles queueing behind them. This is a classic problem in game theory, very similar to the type for which <a href="http://www.nobelprize.org/mediaplayer/index.php?id=429">John Nash</a> was awarded a Nobel Prize.

<h2>What does the data say?</h2>

One US <a href="https://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.101.6.2616">study</a> has shown a strong relationship between the amount of new road length and the total amount of kilometres travelled in US cities, a finding the authors of that study termed “the fundamental law of road congestion”.

Similar findings are reported in <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856411001728">Spain</a> and in the <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00166218">United States</a>, where even major road capacity increases can actually lead to little or <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01621459.2014.956871#.VRpXEPmUePY">no reduction</a> in network traffic densities. It has also been found to exist in <a href="http://www.ejtir.tudelft.nl/issues/2012_03/pdf/2012_03_02.pdf">Europe</a>, where neglecting induced demand has led to biases in appraising of environmental impacts as well as the economic viability of proposed road projects.

In <a href="http://www.dtpli.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/230107/Zeibots-EWS.pdf">Sydney</a>, there is similar evidence from traffic volumes crossing the harbour. The Sydney Harbour Bridge was carrying a stable traffic volume of around 180,000 vehicles per day from 1986 to 1991. The Sydney Harbour Tunnel opened in 1992, and the total volume of traffic crossing the harbour increased in 1995 to almost 250,000 vehicles per day. This 38% increase in traffic can be attributed to induced demand and not to population growth (which was around <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/3105.0.65.0012014?OpenDocument">4% during this period</a>).

Empirical observations have also confirmed the existence of the <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01918335#page-1">Braess Paradox</a>. For example, in 1969 a new road was built in Stuttgart, Germany, which did not improve the traffic conditions. After closing the road again, congestion <a href="http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-642-95121-3">decreased</a>.

Similar observations in which road closure led to improved traffic conditions have been observed in <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2013.00662.x/pdf">New York City</a>, where upon closing 42nd street (a major crosstown street in Manhattan) it was observed that traffic was significantly less congested than average.

A <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10683-013-9378-4#page-1">recent</a> experimental study confirmed that this paradox still exists by showing that expanding road capacity can result in worse traffic conditions for everybody.

The theory of induced demand is accepted by a large majority, but not by everyone.

For example, authors of a 2001 <a href="https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/applec/v33y2001i12p1579-1585">paper</a> have argued that induced demand does not exist. However, UK researchers Goodwin and Noland have <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0003684032000089872#.VRzO5TuUf-U">criticised</a> this study.

In isolation, building more roads can certainly improve traffic conditions but these effects may only be local and only in the short run. Congestion may become worse in other parts of the network and experience shows that spare road capacity is quickly filled up with new cars.

Even without the extra road users that new roads create, if the new roads are built in the wrong locations congestion may actually become worse simply because of the way people behave. Roads alone do not solve congestion in the long term; they are only one (problematic) tool in a transport management toolkit.<img alt="The Conversation" height="1" src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/39508/count.gif" width="1">

This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="http://theconversation.com/do-more-roads-really-mean-less-congestion-for-commuters-39508">original article</a>.

Lead image credit: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Congestion_on_Eastern_Freeway,_Melbourne.JPG">Wikipedia</a>.
</body></html>

theconversation

Do more roads really mean less congestion for commuters?

<html><body>
<a href="http://theage.drive.com.au/roads-and-traffic/west-gate-stretched-to-the-limit-20130602-2nka7" target="_blank">This</a> report in today's Age makes no mention that come late 2015 / early 2016 at the completion of the Regional Rail Link project the Werribee line, servicing the growing Wyndham growth area, will be freed from the current metropolitan and regional service mixing constraints. The aim of the Regional Rail Link is to separate regional and metropolitan services inside Melbourne thus providing a capacity increase to both tiers of rail service.
It's quite extraordinary to omit this key piece of information.
As clearly stated on the <a href="http://www.regionalraillink.vic.gov.au/about/faqs/faq-project" target="_blank">Regional Rail Link</a>'s own website (2nd last FAQ), the project will allow a further 23 metropolitan and 10 new regional services to enter the city in morning and afternoon peaks.  It's safe to say that near 30-40% of the increase (7-9 new peak services) in capacity will be on the Werribee corridor encompassing the Werribee line itself plus the Altona Loop and Williamstown line which branches from the Werribee line at Newport.
If we're to have any 2nd (lower) Yarra crossing, it should be the <a href="http://ptv.vic.gov.au/about-ptv/ptv-data-and-reports/network-development-plan-metropolitan-rail/" target="_blank">PTV's planned Fisherman's Bend line</a> connecting with the existing network at Newport.  A single high-capacity train line would have a far more positive impact on traffic congestion compared to building a new road bridge or tunnel - and given the PTV plan is to make Fishermans Bend a new cross-town line from South West to North East, it will likewise provide even further incentive for people to get out of their cars by opening up new inner-city areas to high-capacity public transport.
Similarly the article made little mention of the types of jobs people moving to this area are employed in.  Is everyone moving to Wyndham, Melton, Hume working in the centre of the city?  Doubtful.  Many will work in the inner city, but not at all - and the Regional Rail Link + the <a href="http://www.thecourier.com.au/story/1424022/alstoms-176-million-order-for-eight-new-trains/" target="_blank">15 new X'trapolis trains</a> - to be used to increase capacity once regional services are off the existing tracks - will be in pole position to capture many of the new residents who will be traveling from Wyndham, Melton and Hume to the city for work.
Perspective needs to be maintained when we start screaming for more road capacity, as more often than not there will invariably be a public transport project more worthy of funding (or one underway that is not entirely understood by the community) which will have a greater impact on reducing congestion, reducing carbon emissions and boosting productivity in our knowledge and other service industry jobs that are located around central Melbourne.
<img alt="" class="image-article_full_width_702px" height="414" src="/sites/urbanmelbourne.info/files/styles/article_full_width_702px/public/pictures/article-images/Westgate_Bridge_wiki_commons.jpg?itok=73D-TNnf" title="West Gate Bridge - Image credit Simon Whitehead wikipedia: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Westgate_Bridge.jpg" width="702">
Image credit Simon Whitehead wikipedia: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Westgate_Bridge.jpg
</body></html>

Roads

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Roads

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News